Clinton takes the nation's littlest state. I'm a bit surprised by how narrow the margin was since my sense of Rhode Island is that it's like Massachusetts only with a somewhat less Obama-friendly demographic. Maybe "MA meets CT" would be more accurate, though, which would jibe with the results.
« Mac is Back | Main | Rhode Island for Clinton »
Rhode Island for Clinton
04 Mar 2008 09:22 pm
Comments (37)
"Maybe "MA meets CT" would be more accurate"
Yup.
I actually bet Obama to win RI, since I got 12 to 1 odds.
2 posts because RI counts double
Now that Clinton wins a contest, Yglesias' immediately starts to slander Rhode Island and by implication its voters as "little."
You have no shame after the relentless drubbing you gave the Clinton campaign for the same spin.
So it is your contention that Rhode Island ... is a big state?
Also LOL DOUBLE POST NOOB. FAIL.
RI is not really MA plus CT, demographically ... a more appropriate calculus would be MA minus VT.
"so RI doesn't count", compare Rhode Island's area to, say, any other state in the US.
"Now that Clinton wins a contest, Yglesias' immediately starts to slander Rhode Island and by implication its voters as "little"
It's a downscale state. Those voters don't count to Matthew, or to General Electric, or to Marty Peretz. They only like upscale voters.
I honestly cannot tell if that "RI doesn't count" guy is serious. MS, on the other hand, made me laugh out loud.
It's like deja vu all over again.
Not only does Rhode Island count, it counts double!
Figure it has schools like Brown, URI and RISD, which should skew Obama, but it's too small to have much of a rural hinterland like MA which would skew Clinton.
Matt, Sullivan, and kos weep tonight - fanatical hacks.
It's a downscale state. Those voters don't count to Matthew, or to General Electric, or to Marty Peretz. They only like upscale voters.
Rhode Island has the 15th highest median household income in the nation. Higher than Vermont and Wisconsin and a bunch of other states that don't count.
Obama does seem to have an MA problem (and, by extension, a RI problem). My understanding is that D. Patrick is not very popular, and -- rightly or wrongly -- they see Obama as the second coming of that. Still, they'll obviously come home for my man Barack in November.
Looks like you spoke too soon -- now it looks more like 60-40% for HRC.
I keep beating this drum, but the regionalism model predicted a Clinton win in Rhode Island (brief review: the regionalism model is focused less on demographics, and more on the recognized cultural regions which spill over into political regions).
"It's a downscale state. Those voters don't count to Matthew, or to General Electric, or to Marty Peretz. They only like upscale voters.
The iron triangle of American politics: Marty Paretz, General Electric, and Matthew Yglesias. Downscales states and the commenters that represent them never stood a chance against that kind of onslaught.
Massachusetts will vote Democrat even if the ticket is Gravel/bin Laden. (Slightly exaggerating.)
the regionalism model is focused less on demographics, and more on the recognized cultural regions which spill over into political regionsThen what explains Connecticut?
Is "jibe" a typo? I always thought it was "jive." But maybe I've been wrong my WHOLE LIFE?!?
Matt, Sullivan, and kos weep tonight - fanatical hacks.
Why, because Obama will take more delegates out of tonight, or because Clinton insists on continuing the bloodletting even though there's no way she can possibly win?
It's a downscale state, unlike economic powerhouses like South Carolina and Alabama.
That comment was sarcastic right? Is describing Rhode Island as "little" insensitive now that Clinton has won it?
"Then what explains Connecticut?"
CT is one of the richest, lowest unemployment, highest education states in the country. And it has several cities with a sizable black population.
That's my guess anyway.
It's looking tight in Texas, and in my gastrointestinal tract.
Matt, Sullivan, and kos weep tonight - fanatical hacks.
Where is Steve Gillard when you need him? I can hear his ghost laughing and chanting "Army Group Steiner! Army Group Steiner!"
Is describing Rhode Island as "little" insensitive now that Clinton has won it?
Seems more like reminding everyone gently what SHE would have done if she had LOST it.
I think one of the previous commenters is absolutely correct. I live in NH, and I have to tell you, Deval Patrick is EXTREMELY unpopular. Obama loses NH, MA, and RI now. Its a Deval problem. Barack is seens as the second coming of Deval and its scaring people away. In the general, this probably won't matter, because Rhode Island and Massachusetts are slighlty left of communist, but John McCain might be able to count NH in his corner. Blame Deval. I can't wait until he gets voted out.
Rhode island population is bigger than montana, delaware, SD, alaska, ND, Vermont, Washington DC and/or wyoming. And none of that stopped obama fanatics from bragging about those wins.
Obama won Connecticut, which is rich; and Maine, which is poor and (I think) the whitest state of the 50.
Not sure why Massachusetts and Rhode Island have been relative outliers in being solidly for Clinton, since I don't have a lot of familiarity with either place. But I don't think the machine pols you associate with that part of the country have a track record of love for African-Americans. Edward Brooke was Republican, remember.
Maine... (I think) the whitest state of the 50.
Yes. We beat out Montana for that dubious distinction after the 2000 census.
Maybe the land of Roger Williams objects to the Obama fellow's post-secular posturing.
Or maybe (and probably more likely) Rhode Islanders, like New Yorkers, Californians, and others simply dislike black people.
I feel confident though that the people of Iowa, Georgia, and elsewhere have nothing against women.
I don't see any point in devaluing Rhode Island versus any other state, and I don't think Obama's campaign will be denigrate a small state the way Clinton tends to do after a loss. He take the delegates he won and cash them in at the bank.
There is no doubt that CT is the best (arguably the only) example of demographics trumping regionalism. But I think it is worth noting that CT was extremely favorable for Obama demographically, and he still barely won.
Generally, the regionalism model doesn't deny that demographics plays a role. Rather, it just suggests that traditional demographic measures are missing a very important component of political affinity, namely the cultural attributes that are associated with regions and to some extent politics.
By the way, the primary evidence for the regionalism hypothesis is the results in the states from the Great Lakes through the Pacific Northwest, along with the results in rural NE, which do not track the predictions we would get from demographics alone. The problem with this evidence is that most of those states held caucuses, and people were at least arguing (albeit with little evidence) that somehow the caucuses were trumping demographics instead of regionalism. That is why Wisconsin was an important test of regionalism versus demographics, since they held a primary. And personally, I think the results from Wisconsin were much more definitive than, say, the results from CT.
"I think one of the previous commenters is absolutely correct. I live in NH, and I have to tell you, Deval Patrick is EXTREMELY unpopular. Obama loses NH, MA, and RI now. Its a Deval problem. Barack is seens as the second coming of Deval and its scaring people away. In the general, this probably won't matter, because Rhode Island and Massachusetts are slighlty left of communist, but John McCain might be able to count NH in his corner. Blame Deval. I can't wait until he gets voted out."
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=38b818ce-fafe-410b-b911-abe2679e04bf
Deval Patrick hasn't been very impressive so far, but he also certainly isn't extremely unpopular. That's a ridiculous claim to make (and obviously the results in Maine, Vermont, and Connecticut contradict the quoted argument).
Matt, dude, two identical posts is bad for my mental health. Here's a relevant factoid: Rhode Island is smaller, in terms of square miles (much smaller!), than the county where I grew up in in Washington the State.
Maine... (I think) the whitest state of the 50.
Yes. We beat out Montana for that dubious distinction after the 2000 census.
Posted by Davis X. Machina
Multi-culti leads many ignorant Lefties into self-loathing and reverse racism.
How many would characterize Haiti being the "blackest place in the Western Hemisphere" as a "dubious distinction".
Everybody who was anybody in the Democratic Party in Rhode Island backed Hillary. Its biggest city, Providence, has a near-twin in Worcester, MA, won handily by Hillary. Not a big black population in either one; in both cities the Hispanic population is far larger.
There's no place like Vermont or the Massachusetts Pioneer Valley in Rhode Island, full of small-to-medium towns full of "wine track" liberals. Its suburban areas generally aren't upscale in the same way that most of the Route 128 corridor towns in Massachusetts are, or the Metro-North commuter towns along I-95 in Connecticut are.
The first thing is Obama campaign and the party needs to figure out is whether its a simple matter of these voters liking Hillary better or following local machine pols, or whether there's something deeper going on here.
Obviously neither Rhode Island nor Massachusetts are swing states. Nonetheless, assuming he's the nominee, Barack needs to figure out how to appeal to these types of voters since they're going to be crucial to winning Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin in November.
I think this has less to do with Deval than anybody expects. Rhode Island is extremely insular. Most RI'ers don't know or care what's happening in MA or CT or VT, or for that matter what's happening outside of their neighborhoods.
The thing about RI that we're still very much a party state, one of the few, in fact, with the "straight ticket" still in effect. This works great for Democrats in the national elections, and leads people to believe RI is some liberal bastion, but the fact of the matter is that for progressives on the ground, many Democrats here are like Republicans everywhere else.
That said, the underlying thing about making the machine work is LOYALTY. And Clinton has been extremely loyal to the people and party in Rhode Island. She's made tons of trips here, and so has Bill. There are tons of Latinos in the state and when Hillary came to stump here, she paid them their due and had all the big name Latino pols -- Diaz, Pichardo, on the stage with her. Plus, in a state where you've got 32% of female headed households, 26% of African-American, and 29% of Hispanic households living below the poverty line, her visits, plus her message on healthcare and the economy make a potent combination. For a tiny state, there are lots of national guard reserves from RI -- and it's been a big news about the difficulties of getting them out of multiple tours of duty and getting them health care and services when they're back in state. Clinton seems to talk and think more about the veterans.
Moreover, both Hillary and Bill Clinton spent good time and money making sure that Sheldon Whitehouse got elected over that do-nothing Lincoln Chafee. Clinton and Reed went to Iraq together and seem to be close. And the Rhode Islanders do love their two senators. Factor in how racist this state is, very!, and voila, you have a landslide Clinton victory.
Comments closed March 18, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Massachusetts would not vote like Massachusetts did, if it revoted today.
Posted by phil | March 4, 2008 9:34 PM