Very "liberal"loses general-Obama Red states Dems very liberal, Caucuses favor wealthy or students

[papau]

Points made by CNN last night (which you will never hear on Obama pushing Fox or MSNBC - As paraphrased by DUer McCamy Taylor

1. Obama’s red state strength may be due to the fact that red states have very liberal Democratic voters, which means that he appeals to the most liberal Democratic voters and not to more middle of the road voters as some people have speculated.

2. Caucuses favor the participation of more affluent people who have the time to take off work or who do not work and who can spend hours participating in a lengthy voting process. Obama tends to attract a more affluent crowd. Hillary’s supporters are more likely to be working class and dependent upon their wages.

I would add the fact that the Obama campaign has pointed out to the black community that saying the change process includes grassroots pressure PLUS moving a legislature and a president to change a law (which I heard said by MLK himself - or at least think I remember him saying that) is a Clinton insult to the black community, a playing of the race card, and Obama has thus "solidified" the black vote - and that does help Obama in Dem primaries (not so much in caucuses because of the work thing - but in caucuses his getting the very liberal wealthy and those supported by others - students - who can take time off - gets Obama his wins).

So in the general will that coalition lead the working class/middle class away from a war hero "maverick" that opposed the Bush tax cuts, the resulting deficit, but claims the "low" taxes should continue. Polls this early never mean much re the general so the question needs to be answered by logic/opinion/bias (which I am sure will use whatever helps - including polls).

[TwilightGardener]

1. I am neither "very liberal" (I'm a conservative Dem), nor "affluent--

none of the people I caucused with yesterday looked like they had tons of leisure time, in either the Hillary or Obama camps. This meme is pure bullshit.

[TwilightGardener]

2. Oh, and by the way--there are next to NO "very liberal" Democrats in Nebraska--

there's a reason we have Ben Nelson. Stupid.

[eleny]

3. There were almost 400 people at my caucus location

The crowd looked like working class people - reflecting our neighborhood. It was held on a weekday night. The number was ten times what it was at the last caucus.

This year's attendees across the nation seem to be breaking all stereotypes of who usually attend caucuses. The system may favor the affluent but a cross section of Americans are participating this year. That's what makes it a phenomenon.

Many books will be written about 2008.

[paulk]

4. in my caucus (Denver) if you count the Latino vote as

"working class" Obama certainly didn't do well there, with only one Latino out of the 54 people who stood for him.

In a precinct where at least 50% of the residents are Hispanic, that's not much diversity, or a very accurate reflection of the neighborhood.

I would use "blue collar" rather than "working class" to describe that vote. Obama's supporters at my precinct were overwhelmingly white, mostly white collar, and overwhelmingly young, which is, once again not an accurate reflection of the neighborhood.

This is an aspect of the Obama campaign that is worrisome - you can win caucuses by appealing to a narrow range of the electorate and getting them to the caucus - you need a different strategy to win the general election.

Obama has run a very divisive campaign aimed solely at winning the nomination. He has pitted one wing of the party against the other. Will he be able to heal that wound and fight off the Republican attack machine well enough to win the GE in November?



ps - I've lived in my precinct for 16 years.