The Politics of Personality

Ed Kilgore, reflecting on the lessons of John Edwards' campaign, makes an interesting observation:

While no one will ever know how Edwards would have fared had he won Iowa, his campaign ultimately appealed to the same kind of voters he won in 2004 with a very different message: moderate-to-conservative white men. His exceptional weakness among African-Americans, in 2008 as in 2004, provides a cautionary tale about the breadth of appeal of "populism."

But doesn't this seem like an unduly narrow reading of the point? Edwards adopted a very different political and policy approach in 2008 from what he did in 2004, but the results were very similar. The interesting fact here is that neither policy shifts nor messaging shifts trump the basic fact that the core constituency for a southern white dude is moderate-to-conservative white men. This is one of these things that everyone kinda sorta knows, but that often seems to drop out of the picture when it's being discussed.

Comments

This is really interesting, given that Edwards was the most radical of the candidates on pretty much all fronts.

If it is true that we can cloak a very progressive set of policies in a southern accent and get southern moderate and conservative white guys to vote for it, seems to me this would be winning ticket -- since obviously he'd also get all of the progressive vote as well.

BTW I do seem to remember Martin Luther King III endorsing Edwards, and he and other african americans pointing out that Edwards was the only candidate so focused on ending poverty.

Posted by U.G. | January 31, 2008 8:49 AM

I don't know, Matt. Was that Bill Clinton's core constituency? Southern white dude, last I checked, but I think he had a broader core, because there were more dimensions to him -- like the connection he *used* to have with African-Americans.

I like Edwards, but he's never projected the same multi-dimensionality.

I agree, however, that Kilgore's reading this as a limitation of "populism" qua populism seems tendentious. It really means that populism has to be cultural, and multi-dimensional, and can't just involve speeches about unions and people sleeping under bridges. Obama is doing a pretty good job with this, imho.

Posted by Ted | January 31, 2008 8:50 AM

I think Edwards winning conservative white dudes is caused largely by the same effect that has McCain and Hillary winning war opponents over Romney and Obama respectively. That is, with the incredible horse-race focus of the media, and the echo-chamber of the media narrative, its hard for Joe Voter to really learn what any candidate is saying. Ergo, people vote based on stereotypes - their own, and the media's.

Posted by DJAnyReason | January 31, 2008 8:57 AM

I think Edwards winning conservative white dudes is caused largely by the same effect that has McCain and Hillary winning war opponents over Romney and Obama respectively. That is, with the incredible horse-race focus of the media, and the echo-chamber of the media narrative, its hard for Joe Voter to really learn what any candidate is saying. Ergo, people vote based on stereotypes - their own, and the media's.

Posted by DJAnyReason | January 31, 2008 8:58 AM

Was that Bill Clinton's core constituency? Southern white dude, last I checked, but I think he had a broader core, because there were more dimensions to him -- like the connection he *used* to have with African-Americans.

Well, for one thing, Clinton was running against an old guy from Massachusetts and another old guy from California, no? How would he have fared running against two strong candidates, one of whom was a black man and another a white woman?

I know Elizabeth Edwards got a lotta heat for saying that they couldn't make John black or a woman, but really, doesn't this explain a lot of his problems with women and black voters? It's really no great secret that people like to vote for people who look like them.

I was going to vote for Edwards too because he had by far the best message. And he seemed to do extremely well among well-informed liberals. But these, of course, are a nearly negligible fraction of even democratic primary voters, and most of the rest of his support seems to have come from people who thought he was "one of them."

Posted by gustav | January 31, 2008 8:59 AM

NPR did a "what will white men do now that they have no Democratic candidate to vote for" story yesterday. It made me ill. But it also scared the blank out of me.

Posted by jay | January 31, 2008 9:00 AM

This is an interesting point. Edwards's message this time around could not have been more different than his message in 2004 (Hope, anyone?). He came in second in Iowa twice, I understand, but do we know for sure it was the same constituency?

Posted by evie | January 31, 2008 9:05 AM

Edwards won among African-Americans in South Carolina in 2004. So if he's exceptionally weak, Kerry was off the charts.

Oh, I understand now....

Posted by neil | January 31, 2008 9:05 AM

Obama had a less populist message, but to discern that one would need to read comments of Paul Krugman and agree that they point to something important etc. Otherwise, we have three sleek lawyers in the race, of whom Edwards was most sleek, most accomplished as a practicing lawyer -- and most progressive, of late. To me it was good enough, but obviously it was a minority opinion.

I would stress that on policies, the leading candidates exhibited wide consensus, especially if we compare with policy proposals 4 years ago. That can provide an excuse for the media. However, the policies proposed by GOP could well be from another continent, by comparison. THAT media could cover better.

Posted by piotr | January 31, 2008 9:07 AM

jay:
You mean Dick Morris was ripping off NPR? Or was NPR ripping off Dick Morris. Speaking of Morris, Olbermann had a great line about him last night. He said, and I paraphrase: "His name is Richard, but that's not why they call him Dick." I almost fell out of my chair laughing.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | January 31, 2008 9:09 AM

The interesting fact here is that neither policy shifts nor messaging shifts trump the basic fact that the core constituency for a southern white dude is moderate-to-conservative white men.

Not true according to me. Not everything should be viewed through the prism of race. Edwards never caught fire in 2004 because it was all about the war and Kerry was the war-hero. This time, Edwards just couldn't manage to position himself between the mighty Clinton and the charismatic Obama (as the Clinton-Obama fight became the center story). Call it bad luck. Edwards ended up being the "me too" candidate because his policy proposals were (in large parts) duplicated by Clinton and Obama. Also I think he seemed way too angry on the stump. It won him points in some circles, but a lot of mainstream Democracts were turned off by it.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | January 31, 2008 9:18 AM

Having called far too many voters before the caucuses, one thing I noticed in my precinct was that a lot of 2004 Edwards supporters were going for Obama, while many people who identified themselves as 2004 Dean supporters were now die-hard Edwards fans. Emotional temperature (a fighter v. a hoper) may be as relevant a factor as class or race in explaining who got what constituency.

I think if there was one strategic mistake one could point to in the Edwards Iowa campaign, it was the decision to stick only to the lists of previous caucus-goers. I'm not sure why the decision was made, but it left them sitting ducks for anyone who could significantly increase turnout. I'm aware that CW is that these are the most reliable voters, but at some point the campaign had to have seen that large turnout was at least a possibility. Maybe they just didn't have the manpower to try to find new voters of their own, but I wonder how difficult it would have been to target certain groups who might have resonated with Edwards' platform.

Just my .02. Otherwise, I thought the campaign was pretty gaffe-free, and certainly accomplished what it set out to do: win the previous caucus-goers.

Posted by Wandering About | January 31, 2008 9:37 AM

I didn't check every exit poll the primaries, but those I did check always had Edwards winning the vote of people who wanted to stay in Iraq for more than one year or longer, despite often getting anemic percentages of the total vote. I don't think this ever made up the bulk of his voters because it's a tiny chunk of the Dem primary electorate, but I thought it pretty telling that that's the least informed chunk of voters if they can't figure out that Edwards was running the furthest left on the war (although in practice there's probably little distinction between any of them on Iraq; further international engagement is another issue).

Posted by Zach | January 31, 2008 9:46 AM

To return to the issue of populism: the take-home message from the Kilgore piece (you can find it on Dem Strategist, if the link above isn't working) should really be: Democrats need a *cultural* populism. Voters are not economic utilitarians, they want to vote for someone who they feel shares their values.

Obama's message is not Joe Trippi's idea of populism, but if you listen to the way he delivers it, esp to the invocation of Christian metaphors ("heal our nation and repair our world"), he's not doing a bad job -- for a U. of Chicago prof. -- of striking a culturally populist note. Note that he's getting churchgoers to vote for him.

This is the kind of populism we need in a general election.

Posted by Ted | January 31, 2008 9:47 AM

How the hell were voters supposed to KNOW what John Edwards was proposing this year, when the MSM did their best to pretend that his campaign didn't exist?

Posted by Steve LaBonne | January 31, 2008 9:53 AM

How many voters ever heard about his road to Damascus conversion, and of those, how many believed a word of it? It's always difficult to overcome first impressions. In my opinion, that is at least half the story here.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 31, 2008 9:57 AM

His exceptional weakness among African-Americans, in 2008 as in 2004, provides a cautionary tale about the breadth of appeal of "populism."

I'm sure the fact that he is running against a black man and a woman had nothing to do with his weakness with minority voters. Not! Give me a break. The party is just hell-bent on making history this go round. I just have this major fear that it will blow up in our faces in the general election. I am going to be really, really sick if I have to watch us lose another one this November. No matter who gets the nod now, it is going to be a fight. As far as the generational thing goes, there are still a lot of really old people in this country... And they ALL vote. Even worse, a lot of them will not vote for Hillary or Obama. The old generation has not died off yet, and they have the money still.

One last note about the poor press coverage Edwards and his message received. On Yahoo news this morning, there was an article about Edwards and Giuliani dropping out. Who do you think was pictured? Obama. I rest my case.

Posted by JB | January 31, 2008 10:01 AM

If Bill Clinton isn't enough to wipe out that "core constituency" nonsense (and he should be) then consider the Great No Show: Al Gore.

But really, the idea's preposterous.

Posted by Cal | January 31, 2008 10:16 AM

I supported edwards in '04 and again this year. I did not see such a radical transformation. His basic message in '04 was economic unfairness and lobbyists "tugging on his sleeve" as he put it. In '08 it was the same message, just a little more pointed.

Posted by Stav | January 31, 2008 11:08 AM

Lmao, it's hilarious the way some people get so retarded over the notion of populism.

hint: It's not Edward's Ideology that did him in, but the fact that he's a white male running against a black male and a white female in a party where those are the two biggest Demographics. Ideology had nothing to do with that. People who pretend otherwise usually have an ideological or classist axe to grind.

Posted by Soullite | January 31, 2008 11:22 AM

There are people who still read Ed Kilgore?

Did he ever join the Bull Moose party? Is the DLC still viable?

Posted by gonzone | January 31, 2008 12:21 PM

Can someone show me the evidence that economic populism is workable? Has anyone gotten very far with it in living memory, even within the Democratic party?

Cultural populism can work, but it's very dangerous for Democrats. A lot of Democratic voters are with the party precisely because it's the party of elitist cultural values; the Republican party isn't the only one with voters who vote against their own economic interests.

Posted by AlanC9 | January 31, 2008 10:21 PM