I'm a bit surprised as to the source of Barack Obama's strength in rural states like North Dakota and Kansas. These would seem to be places where the demographics run heavily in Clinton's favor -- older, whiter, less educated populations. Obama should be counting on big cities with plenty of black people and young hipsters. North Dakota and Kansas are basically the reverse. Now, these are states the Clinton campaign didn't invest many resources in, but we know Obama did very well in the rural areas of Nevada as well. Since these are kinds of places where relatively few people, and especially few Democrats, live we don't hear much about them. As a result, we're left a bit in the dark. There's a clear pattern, but it doesn't fit with our larger pattern.
« Clinton Speech | Main | California Exits »
Rural Obama
05 Feb 2008 11:05 pm
Comments (51)
Rural democrats tend to be more independent types, I think, and less influenced by ties with the party establishment.
In mixed-race metropolitan areas, people feel pressure to affiliate with their race. In homogenous areas with less history of racial tension, white people are free to vote Obama.
what's the deal w/ mn? obama down by 7 last week, up by 40 today?
Exposure to red state voters = Obama voter
The pattern should be obvious: they are caucus states. Caucuses take more commitment, and Obama's supporters are much more committed and fired up than Hillary's. Obama is as much a movement as a politician.
Red states don't have Democratic machines. At least not good ones.
Obama is sweeping the caucus states, I assume due to more highly committed support. The Kansas and North Dakota results are not directly comparable to primary state results.
The attraction is real in a place like North Dakota. Obama was endorsed by Sen. Conrad and Rep. Pomeroy as well as the majority of the State Democratic House and Senate legislators--and former Senator Daschle from South Dakota was campaigning for him in the state. (As Matt has noted, Tim Johnson from South Dakota endorsed him as well.) Upper-Midwesterners, including those in Minnesota, like Obama.
Gabriel,
And that's why Missouri and Tennessee can remain in play for Democrats but Kentucky and Indiana are arguably two of the most Republican states.
The St. Louis and Kansas City machines are quite powerful - hell, KC's got Truman elected president. Memphis and Nashville have pretty good sized machines.
But you don't see that in Indiana or Kentucky.
What's happening is that, just as in Iowa, the Obama campaign is showing an amazing ability to turn people out in caucus states.
It seems like she wins the urban white working place, particularly white working class women--the core constituency of the democratic party, along with blacks. This might suggest that the racial politics John Judis has highlighted tonight is somewhat overblown.
Democrats in these states may be more familiar with anti-Hillary hysteria and therefore more down on her chances.
I think it's a function of his organizing skills. He goes into red states with small populations, few Democrats and historically low turnout and builds an operation there. It doesn't take a whole lot of new voters to get those states to go your way.
On the other hand, turning a state like CA involves going in and running a bunch of TV spots in order to turn large numbers of voters (including lots of Latinos) away from their default candidate. Much harder, and much less aligned with his skills.
Also, keep in mind that KS Gov. Sebelius endorsed Obama. Sebelius is popular among KS Democrats.
I think the caucus vs primary dynamic is a good theory, but I would guess that the Sebelius endorsement was a factor in that state.
Agree that Clinton appeals to-- or at least doesn't offend-- those who are used to arm-twisting machine politics, which helps her in a lot of urban areas.
Brian W.
I know lots of people in North Dakota and Minnesota, and you might just have to grapple with the fact that people in those states like Obama. He is a Midwestern Senator after all and an exciting candidate. Why shouldn't they like him?
It's not a perfect trend (CT? DE?) but until actual voting started, I hadn't realized that geography was still important in this race. Obama is tending to do better than Clinton in the upper midwest and upper west. I think if there were an actual campaign in Michigan, he'd have done well, and I expect him to do well in Wisconsin. He's even pulling close now in Missouri. (According to this new theory, Missouri really is a tossup since it borders both Arkansas and Illinois)
As for the endorsements (Sebelius, Conrad, etc), I think they are more the result of Obama'a appeal in those states than the cause of them. That is, those folks want to associate themselves with Obama but not with Clinton.
As for the actual source of that appeal: unity talk, patriotism (do they ever chant "USA! USA!" at Clinton rallies?-- that's an honest question, by the way), organization, midwestern base...
You need to go read Al Giordano at the Field at http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/. He's repeatedly predicted this rural support for Obama.
You need to go read Al Giordano at the Field at http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/. He's repeatedly predicted this rural support for Obama.
You need to go read Al Giordano at the Field at http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/. He's repeatedly predicted this rural support for Obama.
Its the urban machine politics. There isn't dem establishment with as much control in these red states.
You need to go read Al Giordano at the Field at http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/. He's repeatedly predicted this rural support for Obama.
Totally what I would expect. I remember taking a high school government class in Idaho. Leaders from the Idaho Democratic party came in and a guy in the class asked why his party had betrayed him by giving them Kerry, a Northeastern establishment Skull-and-Bones liberal, as the candidate. Rural states actively dislike the idea that politics is decided by rich political insiders, since there are 0 political insiders from rural states.
Also, in Idaho (and many of the Western states), the Democrats consistently lose, so moderate Democrats switch to being moderate Republicans so that their votes matter. Those who remain as Democrats are thus radicalized. 'Registered Democrats in Idaho' is a phrase bordering on self-contradiction. Suffice it to say that such individuals really care about the future of politics and liberalism.
There were all caucus states. He does well in caucus states, where people have to invest a lot of time to make their vote count.
Gotta Second (or Fifth) Coltrane. Al Giordano's been talking about this for weeks.
Um, did Matt somehow forget about Iowa?
And I keep trying to tell people like Matt: it is a fundamental mistake to try to peg Obama voters into narrow categories (like "black people" and "young hipsters"). The true "larger pattern" is Obama attracting new people to the Democratic Party (and to politics in general). So of course that works in rural "red states"--if anything, those places provide the greatest opportunity for a candidate like Obama, precisely because there is so little in the way of a previously built up Democratic Party.
Edwards supporters in these states went for Obama.
Oops...My bad...Sorry about the multiple posts...Page wasn't loading after posting.
If I may steal/synthesize the observations of rob and nerdbound:
In mixed-race metropolitan areas, many voters have a habit of distrusting the other race(s) they share the city with. Low-information white voters in Boston and NYC see Obama as a potential stalking horse for someone like Sharpton (I've talked to some who expressed exactly that fear). The same thing applies to white voters in the south generally.
In Kansas and Minnesota, frankly, there aren't a whole lot of black people to distrust. Low-information voters are more likely to distrust the East Coast establishment as a whole, and value Obama's credentials as an outsider and a midwesterner.
Also, the caucus effect is huge.
Clearly America hasn't moved beyond race. But -- on the up side -- at least the racial dimension of politics has gotten kind of weird and unpredictable! (See also the CA thread.)
I'm from Iowa, and you have to remember that in red rural states like Kansas and North Dakota the few democrats there are are going to be the highly educated professional types.
As in western Iowa (which is demographically much more like Kansas and the Dakota's then the much more populous and urban and educated eastern Iowa), the poor rural types tend to be Republicans, Huckabee types.
It's just really not that surprising, I would bet that Obama had huge margins created by hubs of the professional's like Fargo (ND) and Lawrence (KS).
I think its an appreciation by nominally Republican states that if the GOP nominee gets most of his support in nominal Democratic states (as McCain is showing tonight) that a core-Democratic state focus (Hillary) isn't well matched for that sort of race. McCain will (reluctantly) carry the Republican states and the swing states and Clinton will be left saying, "Well, at least I carried Massachusetts."
(And as President Kerry and President Gore demonstrated - you can get elected carrying only core-Democratic states. Heck, Gore didn't even carry his home state where he'd be elected multiple times, which cost him the election.)
An Obama vs. McCain race would be as close to a 50 state competition as anything seen in American politics.
I wonder how many of the 27,000 or so Democratic votes cast for Obama in Kansas represent "rural voters"? My guess is that Obama voters in Kansas live in Wichita or the Topeka, Lawrence, Kansas City I-70 corridor and fit the profile of Obama voters elsewhere. Rural Kansas voters, especially in the western two-thirds of the state, are predominantly Republican. Stevens County, a rural area in far southwestern, Kansas has 429 registered Democrats and 2,126 registered Republicans. Remember "What's the Matter with Kansas"? Kansas Republicans will vote February 9.
http://www.kssos.org/elections/06elec/20061001_Unofficial_Voter_Reg_NO_by_County.xls
"...I would bet that Obama had huge margins created by hubs of the professional's like Fargo (ND) and Lawrence (KS)."
I'm from Kansas and actually that's not quite true (at least in Kansas).
First, Kansas' caucuses by Congressional District. Lawrence is divided - as a GOP attempt to water down the Democratic vote - between the 2nd and the 3rd CD's. The 4th is basically Wichita. The 1st is basically the entire rural Western 2/3rds of the state (and typically votes heavily Republican).
In every CD, Obama's vote exceeds 70%. In the 2nd and the 1st CD the vote is LITERALLY identical: 71% Obama, 29% Clinton. In the 3rd, which does include the very 'professional' (Orange County, Calif.-like) KC suburbs but ALSO a significant black population, Obama's support soars ... by seven more points (to 78%). (The 4th, which is a heavy union vote, is also 71% Obama.)
So, no, 'professionals' do not create Obama's intriguing victory. Obama wins urban and rural, black and white, well-educated and less-educated, white collar and blue collar ... at least in Kansas.
"Low-information white voters"
I'll have to remember that one as a euphemism for "moron" for sensitive readers.
OK for Obama -
Obama received 2,404 votes in the 1st Congressional District, which is virtually all rural and, as you point out, has few registered Democratic voters (often both/or Catholic or Hispanic). (He did receive also about six thousand each in the 2nd and 4th, which do have substantial rural votes.)
Still, one point about Party registration in Kansas. Kansas basically has three political parties: Democrats, moderate Republicans, and conservative Republicans.
Democrats usually have to beg for candidates to run in many races and as such rarely have a primary fight. In contrast, the two Republican wings fights like cats-and-dogs. As such, a considerable number of Kansans retain a GOP registration so they can vote in the closed Republican primaries. In a general election, of course, voters can vote for anyone.
For what its worth (not much IMHO), what little polling has been done shows that in Kansas only McCain would top Obama while McCain or Huckabee would beat Clinton (Romney would loose to either Obama or Clinton). The best Obama could do in Kansas is be competitive, which Bill Clinton only came close to in '92 with Perot taking about 1/3rd of the vote.
I used to live in rural Kansas, and when I first heard Barack Obama talk, I thought he sounded like my Kansas friends. (Given his family, not a surprise.) There is a dryness, and a relaxation in the rhythm. You will never hear him rush, and there is a calm in that verbal personality that rural folks recognize and value.
These white-bread states like MN and ND have relatively high education levels. They also have very high newspaper and magazine readership. (I know this; it's my job.) And $25k a year in Kansas is not what it is in New York. It's not surprising at all that they'd go for Obama over Clinton --- although I'm still trying to figure out how the hell Huckabee won Iowa.
Just to throw this Obama-rural-support thing into relief, he seems to have largely lost the rural areas in my home state of Massachusetts. I don't know if that is a result of machine politics, or what.
Actually, Obama got two counties in Western Mass (in addition to Suffolk. Also, the only county he got in NY was upstate - Tompkins is basically Ithaca, but still.
Berger:
That's true, but,
He got valley towns in Western Mass. that are college-centric or otherwise arts-yuppie dominated; the rural hill towns went for Hillary strong, which I think is interesting.
Obama wins the rural vote, 'cause rural people like politicians with moral fiber and who admire self reliance. Really, that's it.
Also, local rural Dems know that having Hillary on the ticket would kill them when all the Republican loons come out to vote against her in the fall.
I think the caucus-vs-primary distinction is spot-on here. If I'm not mistaken, Obama's carried every caucus contest so far (waiting for NM to be included)--regardless of demographic breakdowns. I think that's most telling. It points to what's already been mentioned here: Obama has passionate grassroots support and Clinton tends to relish machine-driven politicking. If that's not a stark difference in management/leadership styles, I don't know what is.
I'm from the rural Midwest. Hillary is hated, hated there. I suspect Dems are thinking that Obama may have a chance of winning in a state like Nebraska or Kansas, and Hillary has no chance.
Brian W...you're basically right. Red state Democrats (I'm from Wyoming...by the by) have been hit over the head for years about the awful nature of the Clintons/Clinton brand. There's simply no way she carries those states, regardless of caucus vs. primary considerations or endorsements. She is not a palatable candidate for them, never will be. And this plays very significantly into the down ticket argument in favor of Obama.
I think David is right --- the midwesterners, just like southerners, prefer to vote for one of their own (i.e., Obama).
On another tangent, commenters have pointed out that Obama has won the caucus states, which requires a high degree of participation and strong party identification. What is the reaction to Obama in those states among people who weren't caucus participants ? Does he actually have cross-over appeal to put those states into play or will his campaign waste resources on those states in which Obama would never really be competitive in the general election ?
In defense of one particular "mixed race metropolitan area," the breakdown for the Kansas City (MO) election board was Obama 66% and Clinton 33%. As for the influence of our local machine, we had our African American Congressman (Cleaver) endorsing Clinton and our White Lady Senator (McCaskill) endorsing Obama.
Just as a preventative strike, do not include Utah in the discussion of Obama's rural success. It's really annoying when people describe Utah as a rural state, when in fact 80% of the population lives within 60 miles of Salt Lake City
Here's kind of my state-by-state take on the smaller ones that went for Obama.
1. Kansas -- It's much more suburban than people make it out to be. The largest population center in the state is suburban Kansas City. Additionally, Wichita, Topeka, Lawrence and Manhattan all have either a very suburban or college town feel to them, which still goes against the CW (Hillary tends to do well in the suburbs), but it wasn't as if Hillary had an utterly massive rural firewall to stop Obama with. In addition, Obama does have a lot of personal roots there via his mother.
2. North Dakota -- This one is very rural, very white and very old. However, it's dynamics are similar to other states that Obama did well in like Iowa and Minnesota. Quite frankly, in states like Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota race isn't that big of a deal because there isn't much of a history of racial tension (albeit, it's difficult to have much racial tension when everyone's white). Additionally, I think Obama has some subconscious level of appeal to upper Midwesterners that Hillary doesn't have (I used to live in ND and Wisconsin and can just see a grinning, friendly Dakotan or Wisconsinite nodding their head and saying "Yah..." when Obama speaks).
3. Idaho and Utah -- I know much less about the interior West than I do the Plains states. I don't know if Obama has some subconscious level appeal, if they find Hillary repellent or what. However, it wouldn't surprise me too much if there's a similar cultural dynamic where in areas where there's not been a lot of historical racial tension, they're much more enthusiastic for the post-racial politics that Obama offers.
"I'm a bit surprised as to the source of Barack Obama's strength in rural states like North Dakota and Kansas."
What's surprising? Whites who don't have to send their kids to school or live in neighborhoods with hostile blacks are more likely to vote for a black candidate. Enthusiasm for blacks is inversely proportionate to contact with average blacks. Just like Matt would be less liberal today if he went to an NYC public school rather than the fancy prep school he went to.
Comments closed February 19, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
it's the conservative obama these guys see. it's the unity obama that attracts republicans, rather than repel them like a clinton does.
on the coasts, he's the liberal hope. i don't get how they keep that distinction going, but it seems to work well.
Posted by yep | February 5, 2008 11:15 PM