However…
While I agree with Brad (and Lauren, as an aside) that the “everyhick” method of reporting on better-than-urban* America is complete bullshit, I think he’s wrong about one thing: The perception of Obama as Muslim is hurting him in West Virginia.
Maybe not as much as the Financial Times implies:
“I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife’s an atheist,” said Mr Simpson, drawing on a cigarette outside the fire station in Williamson, a coalmining town of 3,400 people surrounded by lush wooded hillsides.
Mr Simpson’s remarks help explain why Mr Obama is trailing Hillary Clinton, his Democratic rival, by 40 percentage points ahead of Tuesday’s primary election in the heavily white and rural state, according to recent opinion polls.
Brad replies:
Well no, dude, they really don’t.
Only 10% of voters think that Obama is a Muslim. And unless they all happen to be West Virginia Democratic primary voters, I don’t think that Mr. Simpson’s remarks explain anything other than his own psychosis.
Not quite.
First of all, the 10% statistic also holds true for Democrats (14% Republicans, 8% Independents),which means that potentially more than one quarter of Hillary’s lead is ignorant enough to be motivated by a misunderstanding of Obama’s religion (and bigotry, of course) - 1/6th her entire voting base. Other notable factors which contribute to a higher-than-10% likelihood of misidentification of Obama’s religion, all of which favor WV’s count:
HS or less 15
Cons/Mod Dem 13
South 13
Rural 19
Wh evangelical Prot 16
On quick-and-dirty weighted averaging, there’s a good chance that one quarter of Hillary’s West Virginia contingent is like Mr. Simpson. That’s not a small chunk. And no, the statistics (on this poll) don’t state that everyone who misunderstands Obama’s religion would use that as an excuse (or one among several) not to vote for him, but I feel pretty safe in saying it’s nearly everyone. Unscientifically but without much fear of contradiction, the kind of person aggressively uninformed enough to think that Obama is Muslim is not the kind of person who votes for Muslims.
I mean, hell:
Heard about Wright?
A lot 9
A little 11
The Venn diagram of “Dumb” and “bigoted” isn’t 100% overlap, but it’s close. And if you’re dumb enough to have heard “a lot” about Obama’s pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and his sermons at his Chicago-area church, and still believe Obama’s a Muslim, well…as much as I agree with Brad that “hick-baiting” is wrong, I can’t agree with him here:
And while I’m sure there will be a small, insignificant minority of Clinton supporters who won’t vote for Obama because he’s black
There’s nothing insignificant about 19% of rural voters. Which leads me to Oliver’s point:
I don’t think I’m crazy to think that a party absolves itself of morality by pandering to that kind of thing, always afraid of taking a step forward because it might offend some whose thinking is backwards (ie “That Martin King is kind of radical, shouldn’t we just bide our time rather than upsetting the apple cart? People in the deep south aren’t ready for big change just yet”).
I don’t believe in supporting candidates far outside of the mainstream of thought but at the same time that road goes both ways. I don’t believe in not supporting a candidate because of the opinion of a voting bloc outside of the realm of common sense.
I don’t believe Obama is “unelectable.” I think McCain is “unelectable”, not Obama (or Clinton.)
But let’s say he is, just for the sake of argument. After all, that’s what many Clinton supporters said after the “hard-working Americans, white Americans” controversy - “She’s just telling the truth! It doesn’t matter why he doesn’t get support from white people, just that he doesn’t!” An unelected candidate is just as unelected if ze’s** beaten in an egalitarian way than in a “southern strategy” way. But dammit, there does have to be a line somewhere. We’re already compromising by not voting Kucinich (or McKinney, or Nader for that matter). Do we really have to choose our candidate based on the kind of person who says “I want someone who is a full-blooded American as president“? Hell no we don’t.
And no, that’s not what Brad is arguing.
I think the vast majority of [Clinton supporters] will be receptive to him if he can make his case.
And some of those who won’t be receptive won’t be racist, either. But some will. And the last thing I want to see the eventual Democratic nominee do is give the latter a bunch of policy favors at the expense of progressivism***.
———
* I almost said “less-than-urban” but thought better of it.
** Seriously, how cool is it that we’re forced to use inclusive pronouns about a Presidential election? If nothing else, we have that.
*** Or at least whatever semblance of progressivism ze ends up promoting.
27 Responses to “Not saying small-town Oregon is any prize, either”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
When all of your daily news is boiled down into a few soundbite commercials or maybe the evening news, I’m not at all surprised with these numbers.
Talked politics with my dad a few months ago- 68 years old and still working the same delivery job he’s had for 40 years. He voted Republican every time until 2004 and I was curious what he thought.
He said that he wouldn’t vote for ANY woman or a black- plus, “Obama is Muslim, and you can’t trust them at all. And who ever heard of a president named Barack Obama???”.
So even though he knows it’s a McSame 3rd Bush term, he’s willing to vote for McCain. But that’s okay, “because McCain was at least a war vet”.
FSM help us all in November if this mentality is in its stride…
Louise- I totally hear you. After Hurricane Katrina (I’m from New Orleans and was living there at the time- I don’t anymore but my mother still does), my mother and I were talking about the problems in the immediate aftermath, and she said everything was horrible because the people in the governor’s office were all “women and blacks.” My progressive friends really don’t believe that there are that many people that really think like this- like they are fossils that we don’t have to worry about. Auguste, I think you hit the nail on the head- there are A LOT of people that are this batshit crazy. People like my mom who have been poor all zeir lives but “vote rich.” My mom isn’t even a religious nutjob- she is just one of those people who assumes the Christian religiousn is the truth about the world and of course there is God and Jesus and stuff and The Gay is gross, but she doesn’t attend church or any of that. What do we do about these people? If we wait until they all die off and can’t vote us into the ground anymore, there won’t be any country left!
“Rural” is good. I’m from rural oregon.
What to do about these people? Strike ‘em off e-Verify and watch ‘em squirm.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12mon1.html?ref=opinion
A bill by Heath Shuler, a North Carolina Democrat, and Tom Tancredo, the Republican anti-immigration extremist from Colorado, would require each of the 7.4 million employers in the United States to participate in E-Verify — and to fire anyone, citizen or otherwise, who cannot prove that he or she has the right to work.
(snark)
32% of these rural crackers down in Florida won’t vote for Obama, either.
whoops, wrong link. Here:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107059/Obama-Beats-McCain-Among-Jewish-Voters.aspx
You encourage the ones you know not to vote at all. I find playing to their mix of uninformed Libertarianism and racist/Xtianist nationalism works well: “Aw, they’re all crooks in the Republicrat party — all politicians are crooks and secretly hate ‘Murkin values. Why do we even bother to vote?”
The goal isn’t to get them to vote for Obama, because trying to change the basic worldview of anyone over 40 is a futile endeavour; the only thing that does that is a major trauma, and the more ignorant and stupid the person, the more earth-shaking that trauma must be.
The goal is to keep the low-information RWA voters you know personally (usually via family or work) from voting in November, because if they do they’ll more than likely vote for McCain than Obama. Another alternative is encouraging them to vote for a right-wing 3rd party candidate who’ll drain votes away from McCain. but it doesn’t look like Ron Paul will be running in 2008.
I am a Clinton supporter but if (though it’s looking a lot more like “when” at this point) Obama becomes the Dem nominee for 2008, I will campaign and vote my lil heart out for him. I honestly cannot understand why anyone who considers himself or herself a Democrat could contemplate for one single, solitary moment, voting for McCain.
Lisa KS: The ones I know won’t vote for McCain — they’ll vote for McKinney or Nader. It’s insanity, but there it is.
Quick question: Do we think that there’s anyone who believes that Obama is a muslim and is going to vote for him?
What gets me here is the constant spin that some of Obama’s supporters shouldn’t count because they’re young, or black, or new voters or whatever. But no one says that other candidates’ supporters shouldn’t count because they’re bugf*** stupid or bigots or living on another planet.
(And if I thought there were a fair way to impose a basic competency test for voting, per that child voting thread, I’d be there in a minute. Instead, we have the worst possible system except for all the others.)
We have inclusive pronouns in English and have had them for centuries: singular they/their.
“An unelected candidate is just as unelected if they’re beaten in an egalitarian way than in a “southern strategy” way.”
“Or at least whatever semblance of progressivism they ends up promoting.”
And before the grammar police start screaming, this is perfectly acceptable English, having been, as I said, in use for centuries (at least in writing from the 1300s). Opposition to it is just as stupid as that supposed rule against splitting infinitives (that doesn’t exist either: people trying to turn English into Latin grammar tried to force the language to conform to it).
It also has the advantage of not being a forced, made up word, which is rather important because I’ve seen several made up words to try to do the gender-neutral pronoun thing and they’ve all been promoted by their own set of followers and none of them have caught on or likely ever will.
If someone gets really insistent about it, Steven Pinker has suggested that they (heh heh) consider the third person plural they to be a homonym of the indefinite singular they. We don’t have trouble with the multiple definitions for set or lie, so this really shouldn’t blow one’s mind. hey look, there’s another one!
Quick question: Do we think that there’s anyone who believes that Obama is a muslim and is going to vote for him?
Not that I’ve ever heard of, though I suppose that, hypothetically, someone who disapproves of this type of bigotry could think that Obama is a muslim, but is forced to hide it so that he has a real chance at the presidency. Such a person would vote for him.
It’s a remote possibility, but it’s the only scenario I can think of that would make sense.
Whether he’s Muslim,, half Kenyan, urban, elitist, liberal, unpatriotic or whatev, he remains ‘The Scary Other’. On the other hand, a mean-ass lobbyist-lapping, bottle-blond heiress marrying, warmongering, non-economical, jobs-deporting guy is someone they can really relate to because everyone’s like that.
That he’s white and has his hands on a beer distributorship will have little to do with their voting decisions.
There’s rationalizers in every state. And the think they’re still a majority. Theyy also think pro wrestling’s real.
Another alternative is encouraging them to vote for a right-wing 3rd party candidate who’ll drain votes away from McCain. but it doesn’t look like Ron Paul will be running in 2008.
Yeah, best strategy after discouraging involvement from the Fox-misinformed relatives in rural Stupidia is buying them some Ron Paul signs for the yard.
I’m going to hell, if they’re right, but I’m pretty sure they’re wrong.
Bill Clinton (& Hillary) left a trail of bodies behind them on their way to the Whitehouse, and personally offed Vince Foster…
The Goverment burned down the Davidians and blew up the building in OK City as an excuse to get American’s guns…
Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, and was weeks away from deploying nukes against America…
All Muslims are dedicated to destroying Western Civilization, especially America…
The use of torture techniques on “detainees” has prevented many terrorist incidents on American soil…
Iran is behind the Iraqi resistance and is weeks away from deploying nukes against America…
***
If you’re the sort to believe that misc. pile of Reichwing talking points (and many more), believing that: Barack Obama is a secret Muslim infiltrator who seeks to destroy America from the inside with the help of his Black co-conspirators Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan - is no stretch.
And these things are just scratching the service. By the time we’re through, Obama will have been rumored to be responsible for (or connected with) everything that has “gone wrong” in America since his birth.
I am embarrassed to admit I am related to people who think just like this, and I know many others. Logic and facts are of no value when somebody thinks they have “the truth”.
Given that they will be voting against Obama, it’s obvious to me that Democratic GOTV ops are the only salvation…
James Thurber was right: You can fool too many of the people too much of the time.
“because McCain was at least a war vet”.
So I certainly hope he lined up to support Kerry over AWOL Champagne Brigade Bush!!
(Unless by “until 2004″ you mean “he didn’t vote for Bush in 2004,” can’t tell.)
I would love to see Robert Byrd toss in a last-minute endorsement for Obama…would be a fitting way of putting a final closure on his old ways before he dies.
Well, even though it didn’t do the trick for Babs’ mom, for at least some (former) republicans I know here in New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina was indeed a major enough trauma to shake their worldview. The complete ineptitude of FEMA b/c Bush put his horsey buddy in charge of the organization was so obvious that it becomes pretty hard to defend the way repubs work.
But I don’t know if watching it from afar had the same effect on any appreciable number of people. You hear people talk about how katrina showed up how inept our federal agencies have become, but I don’t know if anyone who wasn’t predisposed to see that actually got the message.
I’m just having fun watching the idiots on the news talk about “when Oregonians go to the polls”.
Um, dudes, voting at the polls is for procrastinators and people who lost their ballots before they could mail them in, at least if you ask my Dad. Different dynamics with that.
And correctly so. “Less-than-urban”, or “sub-urban”, is not the same as “rural”.
“The complete ineptitude of FEMA b/c Bush put his horsey buddy in charge of the organization was so obvious that it becomes pretty hard to defend the way repubs work.”
I don’t know, the far right ran to blame Blanco and the other state and local Dems pretty quickly.
Also, they blamed Dems for confirming his “horsey buddy” (whereas when Repubs voted for Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, there was not “blame” but rather “compliance” and “niceness.”)
Even then, it’s “voting at the post office volunteer with the orange traffic vest on at 11:55 pm.” I haven’t been inside an elementary school other than my son’s in many many years.
How much of the willingness to believe Obama is a Muzlim is actually based on racism? Like Auguste says, the overlap between stupid and bigot is awfully large, but it seems to me that this overlap is causal, not just coincidental. I tend to think that the OMGMuzlimimim reaction is a result of cognitive dissonance in many people. Even in WV and KY, there is some substantial social pressure against publicly declaring one’s overt racism, perhaps especially so if you are socialized as a Democrat. Thus, in order to still be a racist you have to justify it by believing something as profoundly stupid as the idea that Obama is a muslim with a Christian pastor.
We all believe something pretty stupid due to cognitive dissonance.
Sorry I wasn’t clearer, calvinhobbes- yeah, Dad voted Kerry in 2004.
You could have knocked me over.
But Mom voted for Bush, “because he’s so cute”.
I-need-to-disinfect-my-keyboard-now… ick.
It worked that way here in California, too. I had a Log Cabin Republican going off on rants on how horrible the response was to Katrina and how badly the Bushies had fucked it up. And he was a very loyal long-time Republican voter. There is definitely some of that at work.
Pardon my levity, MikeEss, but…
You see, this is a sign that they’re simply not trying hard enough. A GOOD right-wing smear job will have him connected/responsible for everything that’s “gone wrong” in ‘Merica since IT’S birth.
Damn straight, StarStorm.
After all, he currently represents Chicago, right? Mafia, Mrs O’Leary’s clumsy cow, the Cubbies, Obama- they’re all connected.
The truth will come out!!