Reply #29: thanks - good post

[Two Americas]

You claim that his qualities appeal to the activist community rather than to the general public - but one of the major complaints about Obama's campaign, from the opposing Dem camp, is that he has been bringing in people from outside the Democratic party to register and vote.

I can't speak to the issue of people complaining about bringing in people from outside the party - new voters - because I think that is a good thing and disagree with those who think it is not. The best thing about the Obama campaign is that he is bringing in new people.

The problem of the divergence between what appeals to the public and what appeals to the liberal activist community is not something unique to Obama, nor is it his fault. What appeals to the activist community reflects their bias and prejudices, and no candidate has ever fit the role for them better than Obama. We ran professor Gore, then professor Kerry, and now professor Obama. Brilliant and talented men, all, but in style and image, not good in the general election. We can't really complain about that, since I think that we (maybe not fully consciously) use the same criteria for selecting our nominee - style - that many in the general public use for rejecting our candidates.

In addition because his negatives are so low (compared to the other choice) surely he is more likely to retain these voters and pull in even more in the GE.

Maybe. I think he has have hit his high water mark. If the movement were going to grow, Clinton would not still be doing as well as she is. 50 million or so - half of the electorate - will vote Democratic no matter what. The general election will no doubt be close, and no doubt vulnerable to being stolen again.

I agree about activists from one parts of the community not being in contact with other parts of the community and that the less ... congenial ... areas rarely see these activists; it is a sickening truth about major political groups that they would rather stay in contact with "respectable" people than the huge mass of poor people they all pretend to want to help. Real activists, as you appear to be, find themselves trying to sell a "product" that is geared to the middle class in poor areas, I suspect strongly that this is one major reason behind falling voter rolls and lower turn out.

I agree with you. Well said. I am not exaggerating when I say that in traveling all over the country for decades I am often the only person ever speaking in the places I go - the only "liberal" activist (I am a socialist) people have ever seen or heard. The poor minority people are taken for granted, and the poor whites are ignored.

There most definitely is an upscale and suburban bias to modern liberalism. The only reason that there is so much violent opposition to that idea here at DU is because people don't like to have their own prejudices pointed out to them, and DU is highly upscale, professional, educated and suburban.

You may be right that the inherent conservatism (note the small "c", disruptors) of the poorer community will mitigate against Obama*, but he is also have a candidate who is seeking votes in these communities. He has been an activist at a low level more recently than Hillary (was McCain ever such an activist?) and, by all reports, his campaign pays more attention to the people on the ground. You might find it easier to "sell" Obama than you think.

Blue collar people are far to the left of Obama and 99% of the activist community on true political issues - on the issues of power and economics. They are "socially conservative," mostly in reaction to the threat they perceive from the liberal activist community.

The Democratic party has come to be dominated by "socially liberal, economically conservative" ideas, which basically means Republicanism with a "green" or "organic" or "I ride a bike" label slapped on it. The culture war issues are not real politics, and the whole context and definitions for those issues was created by the right wingers to distract people from economics - we are on their playing field and playing by their rules.

The sad thing is that within a context of a strong and coherent traditional left wing program, ala the New Deal, that focused on economics and the role of the government ot build and maintain public institutions and programs, we would rout the Republicans for a generation or more, and all of the4 social causes would also be effortlessly advanced. But within a context of the social issues, we lose on both fronts.

My experience of poor communities (in a very different environment) is that the poor tend to be more receptive to those who have come closer to their experience and this is a definite advantage to Obama.

Good point, and you could well be right. It will be an advantage or it won't. The proof will be in the pudding. Comparing Obama to Clinton or McCain, though...anyone would look good by comparison, don't you think?

Neither of the candidates is very electable, in my view. Which one is worse? I am not sure. I expect a repeat of what we have seen in the last two presidential elections. Both Kerry and Gore were much stronger than either of the two remaining candidates this cycle, and the opposition was much weaker and more vulnerable in those elections.