The Economist reports on the Democratic divide:
A famous political distinction exists between “wine-track” and
“beer-track” Democrats … Obamaworld is a universe of liberal professionals and young
people—plus blacks from all economic segments. Hillaryland, by
contrast, is a place of working-class voters, particularly
working-class women, and the old. These are people who occupy not just
different economies but also different cultures …
These groups could hardly have a more different view of politics. Mr
Obama’s supporters are, mostly, the liberal version of “values voters”.
They are intensely worried about America’s past sins and its current
woeful image in the world. They regard Mr Obama as a “transformational”
leader—a man who can, with one sweep of his hand, wipe away the sins of
the Bush years and summon up the best in their country.Mrs Clinton’s supporters, by contrast, are kitchen-table voters.
They wear jackets emblazoned with the logos of their unions. They work
with their hands or stand on their feet all day. They have seen their
living standards stagnate for years, and they are worried about paying
their bills rather than saving their political souls.The battle for the Democratic Party is so bitter because it is a
battle over culture. Mrs Clinton’s supporters look at Mr Obama’s and
see latte-drinking elitists. Mr Obama’s supporters look at Mrs
Clinton’s and smell all sorts of ancestral sins, not least racism. The
two groups neither like nor respect each other.
I’ve been working the data and will have more to say soon.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
The U.S. is big and diverse, so of course in a 2-party system there are going to be different interests and factions. FDR brought together Southern rednecks, Northern Blacks, Blue collar workers and intellectuals. Reagan brought together Libertarian types, anti-taxers, working class cultural conservatives, Evangelicals and the racists and rednecks from the formerly Democratic South.
The issue isn’t there being different classes or cultures in the Democratic Party who will battle in the primary, but can they eventually unite around either Obama or Clinton? Will the nominee be able to duplicate Bill Clinton’s big tent or suffer the fate of George McGovern? My gut feeling is that on the merits either one could do it. The donkeys in the closet are still going to be race and sex.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
At the same time, I know LOTS of people who feel they’d be happy with either candidate. I took that internet test that asks your opinions on various issues and then matches you with your optimum candidate – and got IDENTICAL percentages of agreement for Obama and for Hillary. I think some of the polarization noted in the Economist article comes from the built-in antagonistic aspects of primary elections. It’s a little bit like the ‘cola wars’ – in the absence of an ad campaign, how much do you really care whether you get Pepsi or Coke, when the real decision is between cola and some other sort of beverage?
March 19th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Clinton seems to prefer the current political paradigm while Obama wants to turn the page and advance. Clinton and Obama offer very different futures for the U.S. It really will be a test for America – we will see which forces prevail.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Right on, Zoe. I’ve got a Hillary bumper sticker I got several months ago. I’m looking for an Obama one to put beside it. I’m a mostly self-employed consultant who’s also a union member, more beer drinking than wine, working class family but graduate degree, read a lot of non-fiction but also paperback mysteries. I’ll enthusiastically vote, donate and work for either one.