Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
FUEL FOLLIES FALL FLAT?
In short, for Indiana, Clinton's projecting of a more GE favorable image (she's risen nationally in the polls in recent weeks) appears to have cost her among the liberal voters. This also explains why the polls were so wrong, especially SUSA. Clinton didn't gain the 21% of black voters that they polled, and they polled Clinton winning among liberals by a 53-44 margin, off by 23 percent. This is most likely due to the 'gas tax' issue. Though she had a 'divide and conquer' frame of the issue that work well for a GE against a Republican, in a Democratic primary, it allowed Obama to squeeze her from the liberal viewpoint.
- White Democrats moved from Clinton leading by 43% in OH, to Clinton leading by 28% in IN.
- Liberal voters moved from Clinton leading by 7% in OH to Obama leading by 14% in IN.
We can quibble about the effectiveness of the gas tax pander in the general election, but it surely seems correct that Clinton made a dreadful miscalculation about its impact on the Democratic primary. Whatever modest gains (and they appear quite modest) she may have made with blue collar voters, she lost and more among liberal voters who a) don't view taxes as evil, b) care about the environment, and c) aren't moved by stridently anti-intellectual appeals. The biggest problem, of course, is that the two groups aren't strictly separate; the white blue collar voters Clinton was trying to pander to also care about the environment, and can see through the anti-elitist rhetoric the campaign was trying to sell.
--Robert Farley
COMMENTS (12)
At what point do we stop acknowledging the Dick Morris of the netroots?
Jerome has long since morphed from analyst and activist into ODS patient zero.
Any nuggets of analytical wisdom he passes on are more by happy chance, and of the 1000 monkeys at a 1000 typewriters variety, typical of blogosphere than they are cogent insights.
Please do note... this isn't an "anti-Clinton" or "anti-Clinton supporter" comment. I actually have a large number of friends and professional acquaintances that back Clinton. I don't even have much dislike for Clinton. I'd (at least close to) happily back her were she the nominee and I likewise don't think her campaign has been especially underhanded or dirty.
My problem with Jerome is that he's not REALLY even a Clinton backer... partisan preferences can sometimes excuse nonsense.
Jerome isn't a Clinton partisan - he's just a blind, enraged hater of all things Obama, per the man himself
It's the classic strawman... I don't know a single Obama backer, even the most ardent in the Obamaiest of blogs, who honestly thinks the GE is going to be a cakewalk.
I have no problem with candidate partisans who just happen to back a different candidate than I. Reasonable progressives can disagree - even vociferously. Reasonable progressives can likewise come to different conclusions about evidence and data.
However, when Jerome turned MyDD into nothing but an outlet for his irrational hatred of Obama - and played organ grinder to some of the net's worst elements - he stopped being a progressive and Democratic advocate and became nothing more than a bitter, hollow man.
He either needs to step back from the brink - or - he needs to be treated at the Dick Morris in training wheels that he is.
Posted by: cerberus | May 7, 2008 11:13 AM
Gas tax?
Hah. The woman lost for her lack of penis, pure and simple.
Posted by: mara | May 7, 2008 11:20 AM
If Mara's comment were true, then clearly having a penis in the case of Biden, Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd, et al. (and I'm presuming here as I cannot claim the same level of intimacy with them that Mara seems to claim with Senator Clinton) would have had one of them knock Senator Clinton out of the race early on.
One thing that will help a woman get elected president is selecting the right woman for the job. I have never had an objection to a woman running the country. My objection to Senator Clinton was her sense of entitlement to the senate, when there was in fact, a much more suitable candidate when she ran.
Posted by: Randy Paul | May 7, 2008 12:52 PM
"Stridently anti-intellectual appeals." Ouch.
Posted by: John B. Chilton | May 7, 2008 2:24 PM
"If Mara's comment were true, then clearly having a penis in the case of Biden, Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd, et al. (and I'm presuming here as I cannot claim the same level of intimacy with them that Mara seems to claim with Senator Clinton) would have had one of them knock Senator Clinton out of the race early on."
Like the MSM was going to let any of those old coots stand in the way of the woman vs. AA narrative. You must be joking.
Posted by: mara | May 7, 2008 2:43 PM
Clinton was a crappy candidate who ran a crappy campaign and deserved to lose. If it makes you better to pretend that it's the patriarchy, go for it. I'm glad that the candidate who voted for the war lost. You apparently prefer to judge them solely on their gender. So be it.
Posted by: Marc | May 7, 2008 3:15 PM
Like the MSM was going to let any of those old coots stand in the way of the woman vs. AA narrative. You must be joking.
No, I'm just someone who doesn't form his opinions based on paranoid fantasies.
Posted by: Randy Paul | May 7, 2008 3:22 PM
If I am not mistaken it is still voters who decide, not the media. Voters are more than 50% female.
Unless the Clintons persuade enough super delegates to go against the wishes of the voters.
Posted by: John B. Chilton | May 7, 2008 3:26 PM
"I'm glad that the candidate who voted for the war lost."
But they all did. Or did you forget Obama's position really wasn't much diff. than Bush's...per Obama.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 4:01 PM
"Voters are more than 50% female."
All of them? LOL. The androgeny vote.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 4:02 PM
It's been interesting to watch the dynamics of identity politics ravage the Democratic party. Women want to vote for a woman and the vast majority of blacks trashed the Clintons for Obama. The Clintons have been good to them, but she isn't one of them. And that seems to be OK with everybody.
If, in November, whites wish to vote for whites (nd that may happen)....how would that be any different than any of these other identity politics?
OK for blacks but not OK for whites?
Posted by: El Viajero | May 7, 2008 4:55 PM
d) live in a city with good public transportation
e) don't need an extra $60
Posted by: longer list | May 7, 2008 9:40 PM