Obama has put together an odd coalition of supporters

[Onlooker]

OBAMA

Black women and men
White men
Younger voters
Anti-war activists
Churchgoers
Educated
Wealthier
Liberals

CLINTON

Women (other than black)
Latinos
Older voters
Gays
Less educated
Union members
Poorer
Moderate Democrats

One point of this comparison is that it's easy to see why the Party is so divided, but these are artificial divisions that will be healed. The fact is, we are not divided because some people are pro-war and some are anti. We're divided over relative nuances, and even if the battle for the nomination is protracted, as long as the outcome appears reasonably fair and the candidates pledge unity, I think the Democratic Party will be fine.

Each candidate to a large degree will be beholden to his/her constituencies; in that way, those groups' interests will take precedence. Obama has pieced together an odd coalition, but it makes me think of the strange Republican coalition that includes ex-Marxist (neocons), capitalists, and religious fundamentalists. Let's face it, the traditional Democratic coalition hasn't been very effective in a long time, and the fact that Clinton is having great trouble even winning the Democratic nomination with that coalition attests to its weakness.

I got the info from various places, including this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/02/AR2008020202572_pf.html

Nonetheless, perhaps different polls show different things, so feel free to add or revise.

[existentialist]

1. While not necessarily agreeing on all your posited details,

I very much agree that the historical coalitions are shifting.

I further agree that, at least potentially the Democrats can heal their wounds and come out fine.

I think that, key to healing said wounds may be with the candidates themselves.


Sooner or later either Hilary or Obama must concede that (s)he will not be the Democratic nominee for President in 2008. If, at that point the losing candidate can be gracious, and encourage her (his) followers to work together in the spirit of better Democratic politics, then I think we will be just fine.


Meanwhile some of the flame bait posts in this forum have got my wife rising to the bait and making her a little bit difficult to live with.


Can anybody here rediscover a little civility?

[Dr Ron]

2. It is interesting

I don't agree with some of the ways in which you characterize Obama supporters but do agree that the shifting coalitions within the Democratic Party are interesting. In many ways Obama v. Clinton is a typical race between an insurgent (often backed by more educated and more affluent Democrats) v. the establishment candidate. In some ways this is Paul Tsongas v. Bill Clinton.

Generally the establishment candidate wins. The difference this year is that blacks and the usual supporters of the insurgent candidate are backing the same candidate.

The church going factor probably plays a lesser role but is also of interest. Obama has managed to pull off something remarkable. By both talking about religion, but accompanying it with a strong support for separation of church and state, he is able to receive the votes of two different extremes. Both the heavy church goers and the more secular voters support Obama over Clinton for different reasons.

Clinton had managed to do a better job of pulling in the downscale vote among people who falsely believe her economic positions will help them more than Obama's. In actuality, Obama's economic policies are much stronger. For example, the Washington Post gave Obama an A- for his economic stimulus package. Clinton received a C-, barely beating McCain who received a D+. I have more on the economic vote and links to these grades in a post here:

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2873