Friday, November 7, 2008
Presidential Politics / Silverman Tennessee Presidential Results: Is Black Plus Liberal a Deadly Combination?
Posted by Jack Silverman on Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 8:05 AM
Comments (14)
Showing 1-14 of 14
"Best we can tell, it's that he was black and liberal—a double-whammy that might have been too much to swallow for some folks. At least that's the only logical conclusion I can squeeze around those facts, so I'm sticking with it. "
Once again you refuse to take qualifications into account. Why is that?
like
dislike
I think it's hard to draw conclusions about the "folks" in a state where the Democratic Governor and Tennessee Democratic Party didn't lift a finger for the top of their own ticket. Virginia, North Carolina and Florida (not to mention Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana(!)) demonstrated there was a fight to be had for suburban and even rural votes. Not fighting for them made it look like the state Democratic Party was running away from the top of the ticket, and left the playing field wide open for the other side. Blame Democratic Party leaders in Tennessee for not putting up a fight, not the voters who voted on the information they had.
Emmett, I don't refuse that at all. I can understand the "Obama is unqualified" argument, though I disagree with it. But that doesn't really seem to apply here. I'm not comparing Obama to McCain, I'm comparing him to Kerry, and nationwide voters far preferred Obama to Kerry. But these Tennessee counties seemed to far prefer Kerry to Obama. That's what I find curious. Are you suggesting that Tennesseans are far more interested in qualifications than the rest of the country? I suppose that's a possibility, but I'm not buying it.
And George52, I think you're definitely on to something. There's no doubt that Tennessee Democrats really dropped the ball in a number of ways. That, combined with Obama's basic dismissal of our state, surely had an effect. I was about to to get around to that, but I was parked on that damn meter.
"Are you suggesting that Tennesseans are far more interested in qualifications than the rest of the country? I suppose that's a possibility, but I'm not buying it."
Not more than, but at least equal to. When you subtract the vast homogeneous voting bloc that supported Obama for only one reason, and don't even try to deny that fact, why is the consideration of qualifications so far fetched?
And, of course you aren't buying it. Your mind is made up and you aren't changing it. You in the MM (miniscule media) are as in the tank for Obama as the MSM.
Emmett, my mind is made up that Obama was the best candidate. And your mind is made up he isn't. Your mind is just as inflexible as mine.
But what is this "one reason" of which you speak? I voted for him for several reasons.
He must be referring to the fact that Obama is Hawaiian. There's a whole bunch of Tennesseans that are just huge pineapple lovers (little known fact).
He must be referring to the fact that Obama is Hawaiian. There's a whole bunch of Tennesseans that are huge pineapple lovers (little known fact).
My wife's family is from Overton County. There are no liberals up there. They're as socially conservative as the day is long, but they have always, always voted Democratic. They even voted for McGovern in '72 -- not because they agreed with his ideas but because of his party.
The GOP has been making inroads up there. In 2004, I mentioned to my wife's uncle that I had seen more Kerry signs than Bush signs, and he replied that a few years earlier, I wouldn't have seen any Republican signs at all. I haven't talked to him yet about 2008, but I was surprised to see that the area had gone for McCain. The history of the area punches a hole in Emmett's theory that people were looking primarily at individual qualifications -- something they've never particularly done before. There has been no infusion of suburban Republicans into the county. So what's the deal? Obama's race? Maybe. A widespread misperception that Obama is a Muslim? Interesting to see. Before you dismiss this last question, consider the poll results from Texas that showed 23% of the people there think Obama is Muslim.
"But what is this "one reason" of which you speak?"
As you a perfectly aware many voted for him for one reason...race. The unspeakable subject except by Obama. Polls estimated over 95% of blacks voted Obama. It was also posited that a very large number of those voters did so simply because he is of their race. But, these admissions were never labeled racist as the opposite response from a white person would have.
Emmett, please, if you're going to spout off ridiculous comments, at least read my post before you do.
The entire penultimate (that means "second-last" by the way) paragraph was about the fact that blacks may have voted more overwhelmingly for Obama because of race. I wasn't afraid to say it. I said it. But traditionally, blacks vote overwhelmingly democratic regardless. It's not a one-issue thing for most folks...oh, except for you. I think you doth project too much.
I've been considering this vis a vis the current agony over the state of the TN Dem Party and the NY Times' trend map showing how much better Obama did vs Kerry . . . except in a little red rectangle that is TN and down into MS and AL. At DN I cautioned against comparing Ford's near victory w/ the Obama candidacy for several reasons, like the number of people who turnout in off season elections. I don't think Jr would have been as successful had the election been held this year, nor would he have been as successful against Alexander.
It may be unpleasant to some that race may have been working against Obama in this state but you know the Klan was born here.
There is a strong party affiliation with Dems in the state no matter how leftward the party has swung in other states, and those who might be voting GOP in North Carolina are voting Dem in TN because of the lineage.
Generally the top of the Democratic ticket is considered a drag on local elections in TN districts outside the big cities. Despite what the local Netroots are saying, that's a fact (Jack). Even Gore. Even Clinton, just less so. I'll be posting to that effect this weekend if I have time.
NMays, good points. Take a look at the county by county results for Virginia - almost all red in the Presidential, almost all blue in the Senate race. Fact is, Obama's margins were smaller than statewide Dems in Virginia and North Carolina - he didn't have coattails there, it was arguably the other way around. I still think Tennessee could've performed better for the Democrats if they had run any kind of statewide campaign at all, which they did not. The lesson is, even if all you're trying to do is protect a few select down ballot seats, you still have to run statewide - that's what the Republicans do. You have to stand for something consistenly across the board - health care for working people, middle class tax relief, pre-K for all. If the Democrats had done that, they might've at least held on to the House and/or the Senate.
