Paul Demko at the Minnesota Independent posted an excellent story about the challenges facing Barack Obama in Pine County. Pine County is considered “central Minnesota,” but is right on the border of Carlton County which is considered “northern Minnesota.” While always more conservative than Duluth and the Iron Range, it’s hard not to notice the parallels in the conversations Paul had with voters in Pine County.
Many older or traditional voters, especially those who have bought into the myths about Obama, don’t want to vote for McCain but still aren’t able to come around and vote for Obama because of the race and culture factor. Something big is going to happen with this demographic as we move into the campaign’s last stages. I wouldn’t rule out a collapse of the traditional Democratic coalition, nor would I rule out major strides in the acceptance of a multi-cultural world. I wouldn’t bet money on either, though. This will be a wild one. An Obama victory would resonate far and wide in places like this and across the globe. A McCain victory would be a collective “hhmmph” heard all over the world.
I wouldn’t rule out a collapse of the traditional Democratic coalition, nor would I rule out major strides in the acceptance of a multi-cultural world.
I think this misses the challenge Obama faces. He needs to convince traditional Democrats that he represents their interests. Can those Democrats who were satisfied that Clinton, Gore and Kerry would represent their interests, be equally secure that Obama will defend those traditional Democratic values.
Will he stand up for abortion rights, the environment, labor unions and economic equity. Will he defend public schools and social security and medicare? Is he going to press for the government spending required to build new infrastucture? Where is he on minimum wage increases? How about rural economic development?
You may know, or think you know, the answers to those questions. But the primaries did not highlight the answers to any of them.
So the problem for Obama is that he has to convince the democratic coalition that being a “new kind of politician” doesn’t mean he is abandoning the values that brought them into the democratic coalition in the first place. And, at the same time, he needs to reach out to swing voters.
Democrats stand for working for the common good, not enhancing the wealth of the already extremely rich. Democrats are for creating good government, keeping government and religion separate. So the previous poster saying “abortion” rights is using Republican words, the Democrats believe that a woman should decide with her family and her religion, the government should not decide for her. Democrats believe in the freedom, individual freedom like the right to speak, the right to do process of law – the constitution. It is the Republicans that are creating a president that is more like a king, who is acting immorally and unconstitutionally. So really the Democrats are for freedom, the Republicans use the word “freedom” in a marketing deceitful way to describe the freedom to follow some special Republican elite. That’s not my freedom!
the Democrats believe that a woman should decide with her family and her religion, the government should not decide for her.
That may be what some Democrats believe. But many of us also believe women should have access to safe, legal abortion. That without access to abortion, the “right to choose” is not very meaningful.
Its not enough to defend the “right to choose”, its time to defend the choice itself. The ability to decide when and whether to have children has transformed the role of women in our society. The availability of safe, legal abortion is critical to preserving those gains.
“Democrats believe in the freedom, individual freedom like the right to speak, the right to do process of law – the constitution.”
That is true of some, but I don’t think it is the reason many people in Pine County, the Range and elsewhere vote for Democrats. Nor will they vote for a candidate because they think his election will be a breakthrough in creating a more tolerant, multi-cultural country.
Obama has the votes of those of us who think those are extremely important, the question is how does he win the votes of people who don’t. He won’t do it if the media and some of his most rabid supporters continue to portray as a racist anyone who does not share the importance they place on Obama’s election as an “historic, cultural breakthrough”.
Its time to start reminding “traditional Democratic voters” of some of the traditional reasons they vote for Democrats, white or black. Obama’s got the multi-cultural vote.
Anon2: Yes, I agree. In a roundabout way I was trying to say that any voter not yet moved by the historic nature of Obama’s candidacy and the potential it brings for the country’s future probably won’t be – not until they see results delivered, anyway.
That means that the rest of the campaign in places like the Iron Range will be issue reinforcement. Who’s our person on jobs, schools, roads, labor, and health care? Explain and remind.
I’m not saying that everyone, or even a majority of people voting against Obama are racist. But you’d be a moron not to see the undercurrents in some circles. Sometimes its masked and sometimes not, but it’s there and it’s holding down Obama’s numbers by a couple of points. I linked to the MNIndy story because I’ve heard some of the same, albethey over the top, statements here on the Range.
Like I said, this is a challenge and an important one for the Democratic party. I think we can win over traditional voters described by Anon2 by doing what Anon2 says; issues reinforcement.
If people still won’t vote Democrat after that, I question whether they ever would have.
No offense, but those are the most absurd arguments in favor of abortion rights I have ever heard. Democrats are for keeping the government out of lives by keeping abortion legal? Then should abortion be legal after birth as well. Should the mother have the right to kill the child up until age two? Age eight? How about up until the child’s 18th birthday? After all, the government should stay out of the mother’s business and it’s not hurting anybody else, correct?
The question is at what point does life begin and the child have a right to live. If you want to argue that the child doesn’t have any rights until birth or until some other date during pregnancy, you can at least make that argument logically. But to put it as an issue of the gov’t staying out of one’s business is rediculous.
From a legality standpoint, I don’t feel very strongly either way. I can see the arguments both for and against legalized abortion. I have different feelings for those that would actually choose to have an abortion except under extremely unusual circumstances, but that’s another matter.