Clinton--The Unlikely Economic Populist

by: Paul Rosenberg

Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 23:26


By the two most common measures--family income and education--Hillary Clinton appears to have eeked out her narrow victory in New Hampshire by taking a populist advantage, according to exit polls.  Although it certainly wasn't the overt  thrust of her campaign, it certainly was a distinct, if not overwhelming result, while Edwards, he did run an overtly populist campaign, showed no appreciable class difference, and Obama skewed wealthier and more educated:

Vote By Income
Family income: % TotalClintonEdwardsObama
$15-30,0009511430
$30-50,00018441632
$50-75,00023331940
$75-100,00016361842
$100-150,00017331744
$150-200,0006461534
$200,000 or More6371243

 
Vote By Income
Family income: % TotalClintonEdwardsObama
Less than $50,00033471532
$50,000 or more67351741

 
Vote By Education
Last grade of school completed% TotalClintonEdwardsObama
No High School361928
High school graduate17461731
Some college / associate degree27401640
College graduate29381837
Postgraduate study24311643

 
Vote By Education
Last grade of school completed% TotalClintonEdwardsObama
High school graduate or less19491630
More than high school grad81371740

As Chris noted:

Over the last twenty-four hours, there were media character assassination attempts against Clinton because she showed emotion, or something. That simply must have been what put Obama over the top. Seriously--nothing else really happened in the last twenty-four hours, so that must be the cause. Looks like that attempt to take Clinton down completely backfired.

These are the people who are most familiar with the unearned humiliation and contempt that was heaped on Clinton with such evident glee, and they are the ones who gave her the edge.  I am not a Clinton supporter, but I totally get the logic of their vote, and fully sympathize.  Maybe the best possible outcome of this election would be a series of different, unexpected blows against the Versailles punditalkcrazy and their "conventional wisdom."
Paul Rosenberg :: Clinton--The Unlikely Economic Populist

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Clinton--The Unlikely Economic Populist | 43 comments
As an Obama man, here's my take: (4.00 / 3)
The debate where they piled on Hillary and when Obama condescendingly said, "You're likeable enough, Hillary," and all the male commentators riping her up made women get pissed off.

Female voters came to her rescue. They got SICK of seeing a woman get mowed-down and destroyed in front of our very eyes on national television.

Ironically, if only Chris Matthews and the rest of the sexists just kept their mouths shut and stopped being so conspicuously gleeful about her losing, Hillary would have probably lost just like she was "supposed to." Instead, by running their mouths, they hastened the very comeback they didn't want to see.

Funny.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

and I am pissed at Matthews, et. al., for unwittingly allowing (0.00 / 0)
her victory.  I truly believe that but for the media pile-on led by that prickfuck Chris Matthews, Obama would have won and be on his way.

Now, we may just be stuck with Clinton.  Talk about hubris, huh?

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

[ Parent ]
The media should have taken Keith Olbermann's tack (0.00 / 0)
As he last night on Countdown and today on MSNBC's election covered talked about Hillary Clinton's "seemless segueway" from an apparently emotional moment to an attack on Barack Obama.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Campaigning (0.00 / 0)
Again, Clinton and every other candidate were campaigning (persuade others to vote for them over others).  Olbermann went crazy about the "attack."  Seriously!  Check the damn video.  His comment was projection.  She said she felt she was the most qualified candidate and why (She's ready).  Did Edwards "attack" Obama when he said, "You can't nice them to death?"  Did Obama "attack" Edwards when he said, "You don't need more anger, but more light?"  Come on!  Either apply these ridiculous standards to everyone or don't apply them at all.

This is why a lot of people--regardless of gender--are happy about this; people have gone batshit on Clinton.  Besides, this didn't take votes away from Obama and he didn't lose the women vote (I believe).

[ Parent ]
Correction (0.00 / 0)
She actually got the majority of the ladies in NH (but I still think socioeconomic factors were more critical).

I still say Obama will beat her in Nevada--and South Carolina.  He's a lock for the NV union endorsement and once he wins there he'll trounce Hillary with the black vote in SC, which is huge.

[ Parent ]
That's a good take (4.00 / 2)
I forgot about the "nice enough comment". But it dovetails with what I said below about Obama showing his arrogance in that debate.

He has always been arrogant and I can't understand how so many people either can't see that or look past it - or maybe they like arrogance.

[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
Age and gender both clearly played a role.  But so did class.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
Unfortunately (0.00 / 0)
the poor and uneducated voters ran towards Hillary against their better economic interests, like bugs zooming in on a Venus flytrap.

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...
[ Parent ]
hardly ... (0.00 / 0)
Being poor and uneducated doesn't necessarily mean you're stupid.  It appears to me that a lot of working-class and senior women saw Hillary as the candidate who best represented their interests.  Considering all of the candidates' messages, this seems to me quite a rational assessment. 

my web log.
[ Parent ]
Ah, yes, the rational assessment of the desperate (0.00 / 0)
Correct that poverty and lack of education don't necessarily indicate stupidity in an individual. But there certainly is a correlation there that comes into play when we consider millions of uneducated voters. That's how demagoguery works. Any student of Rome knows that popular ignorance was cynically exploited by every faction. And it's almost that bad now -- worse than it's ever been in this country -- because we've been deliberately mis-educated and distracted.

Sadly, many people are unable to understand that Hillary represents the very powerful interests she decries. They naively take her at her word when she criticizes the oil companies and the pharmaceutical companies.

The working class today is so beaten down and confused they can't even pick out the candidate who fights for their interests. They correctly oppose NAFTA, overwhelmingly, but they can't properly apply that to the ballot. I worry that neither William Jennings Bryan nor Huey Long would get any traction in a t.v. world like this.

That's a gloomy thought: we're not nearly as free or wise as those generations, nor do the elite have to fight us as hard as they did to destroy Bryan and Long. We're fish in a barrel.

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...

[ Parent ]
Bryan, the opponent of Darwinism? (0.00 / 0)
Or Long, who probably would have abolished American democracy?  Just because someone made an electoral appeal to the masses does not mean that that person is automatically a hero.
[ Parent ]
Christ (4.00 / 1)
Face facts: Huey Long and W.J. Bryan have been demonized because of their populist economic philosophies, which is where they really tried to kick the East Coast elite in the nuts. The other baggage is extraneous. It's unfortunate that Bryan made creationism his last crusade, but that's the world he came from. And the idea that Long was anti-democratic is ignorant of the man's life, as he was an ardent opponent of fascism. Whatever other problems you may have, let me just say that if Friedrich Nietzsche can be rehabilitated for a modern audience, then by god, so the fuck can William Jennings Bryan and Huey Long.

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...
[ Parent ]
but being uneducated (0.00 / 1)
is a pretty good predictor being stupid, wouldn't you agree?

Even the poor in IA get a decent education.

[ Parent ]
Class (4.00 / 5)
Obama took Hanover (Dartmouth College)by an amazing 1,500 votes (2700 votes to 1200).  That's a precinct that had it all from Obama's perspective with youth, education and wealth.  It's not just money either, it's upper crust money.  Meanwhile, at the more plebeian University of New Hampshire (Durham) precinct (s?), Obama managed per the Concord Monitor a mere 500 vote edge.

It's a clear example of progressive v. populist. 

[ Parent ]
Your analysis (0.00 / 0)
is totally leaving out her campaigning the last two days and what here message was. The shift was not all about sympathy. In fact in here sympathy moment her most powerful words were "some of us are ready and some of us are not". When people watched that video clip they were watching a human being not a candidate so much. And when she uttered those words quoted above they sunk deep into people psyche.

You are also discounting Obama's Macaca moment at the debate when he flat out lied. He took his supporters and the entire nation for suckers. The people of NH did not take that too well.

Also he screwed up in the last half of the last debate by letting Clinton and Edward dominate as he stood up there like he was on a throne taking notes and not fighting for talk time as if he had a three touchdown lead with two minutes to go. His arrogance showed bright for everyone to see. While Clinton was fighting for votes Obama was basking in his own glory. It took a few days but all of that finally sunk in which lead to tonight.

That Hardly Explains The Class/Education Skew, Though (0.00 / 0)
Does it?

If it does, I'd love to understand how.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Let me Splain Something To You Lucy (0.00 / 0)
You are grasping at sub-categories in order to soften your loss but a loss is still a loss.

Don't try to micro manage the results. Look at the bigger categories like leadership and electability and experience and who can bring more change - seeing how change is what everyone keeps saying this election is about. Clinton won all of those if you look at the exit polls.

In contrast to what you are trying to spin - no candidate is talking about the voters education. And even Edwards has quit talking about class.

Pay attention to what the candidates are talking about which is what the voters are voting on. If you do that you will be more in step with the actual election instead of spinning false victories.

[ Parent ]
Where Do You Get Your Drugs??? (4.00 / 1)
And even Edwards has quit talking about class

And what planet are you on???

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Ha ha (0.00 / 0)
All the other things I pointed out is to painful to try to comment on huh?

As for Edwards show me a recent speech where he has said the word "class'. What he talks about is having a government for the people not big corporations and lobbyists. But he sure isn't talking about class and Two Americas.

But what else to expect from you - you still are not paying attention. Just like you try to wiggle out of the results of  tonights primary with irrelevant stats, you try to wiggle out of my post with some irrelevant comment. You are piece of work.

Now go look at the exit polls - particularly the categories the candidates were talking about.

[ Parent ]
Uneducated people voted for Clinton (0.00 / 0)
It's very relevant that Clinton was floated by uneducated people. That means her candicacy wasn't thoroughly or intelligently considered.

And apparently you're incapable of grasping the very obvious class metaphor in Edwards' talk of Two Americas. Maybe the uneducated, low-information voters in New Hampshire didn't get that either.

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...

[ Parent ]
Uneducated? (0.00 / 0)
Do you know that most of the businesses in the US that employ college grads are owned by people that never went to college? That means that 70% of the GNP is produced by non-college educated entrepreneurs.

In NH Obama got 35% of the no-college degree vote. I guess according to you those votes were not thoroughly or intelligently considered.

[ Parent ]
Nope! (0.00 / 0)
All the other things I pointed out is to painful to try to comment on huh?

No.  Just too muddled.  Pointing to an obvious absurdity casts the rest of the muddle in its proper light.

Now go look at the exit polls - particularly the categories the candidates were talking about.

But my whole point was that maybe something was going on that people weren't paying attention to.  Something unexpected.  And no matter how you slice it, the fact that Edwards had no class skew in his support, while Clinton did, is something significant that's been ignored.

Thus, what you're saying, in effect is, "Stop thinking and shut up!"

No thanks!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
It could mean that (0.00 / 0)
Either Edwards' positions don't have a class skew in their appeal or that Edwards' appeal to voters has less to do with anti-corporate populism than his supporters believe.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
That's Going WAY Beyond The Data (0.00 / 0)
It could also mean that Clinton has a much deeper organization in NH, and that both Clinton and Obama vastly outspent him.

I'm trying to complicate the analysis here, not simplify it.  The fact that Clinton had a hidden class bias to her support--which directly contradicts some of what's still being said (I heard someone on radio this morning speculating that college-educated women were the key to Clinton's surprise victory)--in no way negates the reality of Edward's campaign.

You yourself have been much more on target in questioning the over-simplification of what populism means.  Now, you're inadvertantly doing the same thing yourself!

I take it that this was not really your intent, but that's how it comes across as a stand-alone comment.  And it's just this sort of de-contextualized comment that has a disproportionate impact on low-information voters.  That's what I think we're seeing at play here, and we should not confuse the cross-cutting impacts of different factors on high-vs-low information voters.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Maybe you are right (0.00 / 0)
maybe there is something significant going on.

Maybe the fact that Clinton got the serfs votes for her bodes well for her. Because there are certainly more of them than there are of the college educated. Ever think of that?

Is it bad that a candidate has the lowly class resonate with them? Is it bad that a candidate had union members vote for her - because the majority of unions are made up of what some here are calling uneducated. Way to go Rosenberg! Your Democratic credentials are shrinking rapidly.

What next? Are you going to try to belittle Clinon's win because the majority of the 47,000,000 medically uninsured voted for her?

[ Parent ]
Perhaps we misunderstand the appeal of economic populism (0.00 / 0)
Perhaps the poor and uneducated aren't always the most fertile ground for a populist message.  Perhaps economic populism needs to be coupled with some non-economic populism to have a significant effect.  Maybe populism doesn't really appeal to all that many people and is really most useful as a label to hang on a candidate in hindsight to explain a win or loss with little actual predictive value.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
If people are too stupid (0.00 / 0)
too connect "NAFTA has hurt me" with "I should vote for someone who opposes NAFTA" then there's not much hope for the lot of us.

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...
[ Parent ]
If progressives are too stupid (4.00 / 1)
To not realize that not everyone makes those sort of connections, then there's not much hope for progressivism.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Time to back off (0.00 / 0)
As you correctly note, assuming that everyone votes according to a nice rational paradigm simply does not work.  The assumption itself seems more based on faith than on reason.  I'd rather leave it at that than get into a match where a subatantial portion of voters -- including our voters -- are labeled "stupid."

We may have a number of factors operating here.  Lawrence Frank in "What's the Matter With Kansas" argues that many voters believe that neither party delivers on economic/class issues and that therefore it is reasonable to choose based on less important social or "values" issues.

Second, the 30 second ads and short news items rarely cover any topic in much depth making rational decision making based on policy difficult at best for all but the most politically information obsessed.

Third, progressivism or at the least, in Paul's sense populism needs to make the connections more explicitly and in more detail.  And we need to make these connections with a lot less fear.  Attacking Wal-Mart for their labor policies will not automatically lose us voters in poor neighborhoods.  Didn't voter in Compton, CA (not exactly a high rent district) specifically reject Wal-Mart.  I think the same is true in Burlington, VT (where Wal-Mart seems to advertise incessantly so maybe they finally won).

Fourth, I've known quite a few older people without a high school diploma who are pretty smart and would beat some of the college educated set in an IQ test.  Not many people got college degrees during the Depression and many dropped out of high school if they could land a job.  Education does a lot of powerful things.  It teaches people how to organize their thoughts and how to attack problems at work.  It may provide (no guarantee on this one) a base of knowledge.  If you match for age, education can be more of a measure of discipline than anything else.

Fifth, age seemed a powerful and direct way to interpret the results.  People who were adults during the whole of the Clinton years (age 20 and above in 1992) were likely to support Hillary Clinton in NH; people who came of age during the W years are more likely to support Obama in NH.  Maybe it is the voters' experience that mattered more than the candidates' experience. 

Still even though I have the bachelor's and master's degrees, I really don't like calling people without a master's degree stupid.  Not a good idea.  Harry Truman, without a college education, is far better than George W. Bush with his Ivy League degrees.  And Al Gore or FDR with their Harvard bachelor's degrees are just fine thank you.

[ Parent ]
Didn't mean to call anyone stupid (0.00 / 0)
I don't have a college degree myself. And I come from a working class poverty-line background. But am I really to believe that if we're talking about the least educated tenth or fifth of the electorate, that I should trust that they've thoughtfully evaluated the issues? Or are they to some degrees victims of demagoguery?

On the other hand, the affluent and educated classes fail in another annoying way: they don't tend to have a personal, life-and-death identification with raising the standard of living across the board. Often, it seems the best we can hope for out of the "limousine liberal" (or "Silicon Valley liberal"?) crowd is a strong sense of noblesse oblige. All too often they're content to go with a socially progressive/ economically regressive candidate like either of the Clintons.

I am down on the working class in times like this because nobody else is going to stand up for us, yet we seem to be agents of our own destruction for lack of understanding or leadership.

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...

[ Parent ]
We're Supposed To Be The Reality-Based Community (0.00 / 0)
And the fact that people don't reliably make such connections is part of reality that we have to learn to understand and deal with.

I'm not saying it's easy to deal with.  Only that it's necessary and inescapabe.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
She's still benefiting from Bill being.... (4.00 / 1)

...... a dumbass redneck from Arkansas. He was better than Obama can even dream of being at posing as a populist fellow while implementing the 'fair traders' dream agenda which would have gotten him strung up in pre-revolutionary Boston by the way.

People don't shed their long held opinions quickly, if ever, and the Clintons have been portrayed as populist-lite, at the least, since they arrived on the national scene.

Since Edwards cannot be heard over the roar of the money Obama and Clinton send flooding through every hamlet they visit the numbers you cite make perfect sense.

The biggest problem we in the 'sphere face is the fact we can't 'see' things the way the voters do. We, in fact, see far more than they and that makes it really hard to understand why they vote the way they do.

Their noosphere ain't oursphere.

Thus.....

Baaaa...............Baaaaaaaaaaaa..........Baaaa

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

Oh, Good Sheperd, (0.00 / 0)
Pray for me.

cos Is dont knows nuttin' tall.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
don't overemphasise media events (4.00 / 6)
One thing strikes me as all the pundits talk about what is quickly being called "the waitress vote"--younger, less affluent working single women. You can see from the exits she KILLED among the poorest sectors of NH, and obviously she picked up women.

Ask yourself: do you REALLY think these women are sitting around watching Tweety and Hillary's press events on YouTube or whether Obama called his manager a lobbyist? Odds are they spend most of their time awake picking up your plates or washing your toilet while you're at work watching Obama videos on your computer.

I have a hard time believing this legion of disconnected women took the time to absorb the debate, the tear and the lobbyist, and formed their opinion that way. Christ, one of the best rationales I've heard so far tonight is that NH is defense industry country, so they picked the two strongest defense candidates out of economic preservation.

I'm sure it's a combination of things, not least perhaps the itinerant nature of NHers, wanting to say "Eine kleine Minute, bitte!" before Barack Obama is fitted for his inauguration suit. But "she pissed off women who saw Hillary humiliated" sounds like a Beltway Boys reason, not a waitress's reason.



Help us Optimize McCain! Use these widgets to make it crazy-easy...

Damn True! (4.00 / 3)
As someone who saw my mother working three damn jobs just to keep a roof over our heads, I can tell you a lot of people on the outs don't give a shit about the glamor, rhetoric, or press coverage.  They just want someone who'll fix things.  And Obama, for the life of him, doesn't come across as someone who cares about class struggle (I don't know why, but I don't get that vibe from him--at all).

However, I expect everyone to be blasting those damn "Vaginal Americans," as if women can't vote for a candidate on merit alone and somehow only men are immune to any flimsy sentimental nonsense.

[ Parent ]
Replace "merit alone" with "merit" (0.00 / 0)
Obviously, we all vote for people more than just merit.  Or else Bush wouldn't be our bastard of a president now would he?
[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
most voters go by stereotypes and CW. The woman is empathetic, the white guy Edwards has a mansion so he doesn't care about poor people...

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
[ Parent ]
I agree, in that ... (4.00 / 1)
... I simply cannot believe there was a double-digit point swing in 24 hours.  The pollsters weren't counting working-class and senior women enough in their likely-voter models.  The "show of emotion" episode definitely helped HRC, but fundamentally, HRC had more support than what the polls were indicating.

my web log.
[ Parent ]
Undecided voters (0.00 / 0)
Apparently they made up about 15% of the voters and when you combine that with the press hysteria over both Obama (Amazing!) and Clinton (Dead!), I think people just glossed over that factor.

And on the choking up thing: more than anything, the press freaking out over nothing probably helped more than her just showing that she, too, can get frustrated and tired (The "calculating" caricature will never be penetrated no matter what she does; it's impossible to prove a false negative, let alone one that has been beaten into people's heads for 15+ years).

[ Parent ]
...Or why I wish we had a parliamentary system. (4.00 / 1)
I think the NH primary was entirely about identity politics.  First there is the backlash effect, where a lot of people were reacting to the negative media Hillary got over the last news cycle.  The other is that on economics Hillary is gets to ride on her husband's economic coattails. 

The class stuff seems to prop the second point up.  progressivesoul loves to tout how Clinton's policies seem to be preferred in the polls, but the questions are so generic we don't know how informed people are about the policies of the individual candidates.  I find it hard to believe that so many low-income people are voting for Hillary because her policies are that much better than Obama's or Edward's.  A lot of them remember Bill's presidency as time of economic prosperity and give Hillary a pass as the best to lead the economy, even though her polices aren't that favorable compared to the other candidates and her staff is filled with people who seem inclined to work directly against the prosperity of the average American.

Imagine if voters couldn't vote for a person, but had to vote on a list of their policy goals?  I think our country would be a much more progressive place if we had a parliamentary system. 

Absolutely! (4.00 / 1)
Imagine if voters couldn't vote for a person, but had to vote on a list of their policy goals?  I think our country would be a much more progressive place if we had a parliamentary system.

That's very clear from the data about conservative support for domestic social spending I've posted previously.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Not really (0.00 / 0)
I could actually make a case that religious conservatives would have more power in a parliamentary system.  They would probably get their way more than the ultra-orthodox do in Israel, I would guess.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
So make the case... (0.00 / 0)
I just don't see it.  I think a theocratic party would have a hard time getting much of what they wanted in a parliamentary system.  They might get an Alito, but they wouldn't also get aq Roberts.  They might get a late-term abortion ban, but that would quickly get voted out once their coalition lost power.  Sure the other conservative parties couldn't ignore them as fully as they do now, but I also think a conservative majority would be difficult to build and maintain. It is just hard to see a dominant conservative coalition maintaining power for the length of time that the GOP has held power (we would have had a majority in 2000, because the Greens wouldn't have cost us the PM, they would have been a partner not an adversary).  Poll after poll shows that the average American looks more like an old school Democrat on economics and foreign policy. 
[ Parent ]
Clinton--The Unlikely Economic Populist | 43 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox