Religion and Guns in small-town America

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


And what I'm trying to tell you is that voters in small towns AREN'T all pro-life gun "fanatics".

There is a reason they called them Reagan DEMOCRATS.

And he wasn't talking about them, now was he?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
And he wasn't talking about them, now was he?

Religious Democrats and pro-gun Democrats weren't very pleased and felt that he may have been talking about them (read Dowd's editorial).

[Arrian]

Perhaps Mr. Frank’s book would benefit from a sequel. We could call it: “What’s the Matter With the Upper East Side?” or perhaps “What’s the Matter With Beverly Hills?” or “What’s the Matter With Martha’s Vineyard?” The answer is that there’s nothing wrong with these voters at all

Very, very true. I too vote against my economic interest. If economic interest is all that matters, I'd vote Republican with a big ****eating grin on my face.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Religious Democrats and pro-gun Democrats weren't very pleased and felt that he may have been talking about them (read Dowd's editorial).

The point that he seems "eggheady" is something else. But you can't tell me that a pro-gun voter is going to vote for Obama, and also, it's very clear that Obama was talking about fundamentalists, since he's also a christian.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The point that he seems "eggheady" is something else. But you can't tell me that a pro-gun voter is going to vote for Obama, and also, it's very clear that Obama was talking about fundamentalists, since he's also a christian.

A pro-gun voter may indeed have voted for Obama before this tirade. There are plenty of pro-gun Democrats. A lot of them exist in states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


A pro-gun voter may indeed have voted for Obama before this tirade. There are plenty of pro-gun Democrats. A lot of them exist in states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.

Pro-gun voters are likely pro-war and all kinds of things that would make them unlikely to vote for Obama. Also, I don't think that just someone is pro-gun that they would be offended by the remarks Obama made. I can see how people who would never have voted for him in the first place would have been offended though.

Also, the Reagan Democrats tend to be more anti-black (not necessarily prejudice). That's the true reason why he's not popular with them.

And did you ever stop to think that swing voters voted for Reagan because they liked him and they felt taht the nation needed to go into a new direction. I don't think it had to do with D values.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Pro-gun voters are likely pro-war and all kinds of things that would make them unlikely to vote for Obama. Also, I don't think that just someone is pro-gun that they would be offended by the remarks Obama made. I can see how people who would never have voted for him in the first place would have been offended though.

I'm guessing you've never heard of pro-gun Democrats, have you (there are even some in Congress! *gasp*)? And please, you don't think someone who is pro-gun may be a bit peeved that Obama just said they cling to guns because of economic bitterness and not because they believe in gun rights and like to hunt?

Now, probably, the folks that are pro-gun Dems are in the Hillary camp, as they fit her demographics better... but there is a general election and comments like that may make them drift over to McCain.

Also, the Reagan Democrats tend to be more anti-black (not necessarily prejudice). That's the true reason why he's not popular with them.

And did you ever stop to think that swing voters voted for Reagan because they liked him and they felt taht the nation needed to go into a new direction. I don't think it had to do with D values.

They did like the direction he wanted the country to go, but they also liked the values he was espousing. They liked most of the Democrat platform, but didn't like their growing opposition to gun rights and favoring abortion rights and switched in those elections on those issues. Now, there are pro-gun rights and pro-life Dems (Bob Casey is a great example), so to minimize them is not smart.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm guessing you've never heard of pro-gun Democrats, have you (there are even some in Congress! *gasp*)? And please, you don't think someone who is pro-gun may be a bit peeved that Obama just said they cling to guns because of economic bitterness and not because they believe in gun rights and like to hunt?

Now, probably, the folks that are pro-gun Dems are in the Hillary camp, as they fit her demographics better... but there is a general election and comments like that may make them drift over to McCain.

It's incredible that you think that Obama's comments were directed at those people or even that these people would think that those comments were directed at them.

Hell, I'll admit that some people will vote for McCain instead of Obama when they might have voted for Clinton. But did you know that there are people like me who will never vote for Hillary now. There was a small chance that I would have before, but there is none now. She has horrible character. At least McCains character is better.

I might not even vote for Obama, but the more people in the press and even his own party pull this kind of crap on him the more I want to vote for him. If he can maintain his character through this I just might vote for him.

They did like the direction he wanted the country to go, but they also liked the values he was espousing. They liked most of the Democrat platform, but didn't like their growing opposition to gun rights and favoring abortion rights and switched in those elections on those issues. Now, there are pro-gun rights and pro-life Dems (Bob Casey is a great example), so to minimize them is not smart.

I don't think they voted for Reagan on issues of gun rights and abortion. I think they voted for him because of taxes and affirmative action/welfare.

[Kidlicious]

Here's a little bit more reasonable opinion on the remarks and how they will affect Obama. Alter says that working class voters in the North tend to vote more with their pocket book than voters in the South. IMO, that's why they voted for Reagan, not for the social issues.

In Summary, the article says that Obama isn't vulnerable to being pin pointed as an elitest, but using words like "bitter" might damage his message of idealism and hope.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/132312/page/1

Obama’s Vulnerability
How 'Bittergate' could damage his chances.

Apr 16, 2008 | Updated: 9:39 a.m. ET Apr 16, 2008

For now Barack Obama is still on track. The early indication from the Gallup Poll daily numbers (confirmed by a couple of other polls) is that despite four days of punishing coverage, "Bittergate" has not derailed Obama's campaign. It may even have the perverse effect of lowering expectations so that a single-digit loss to Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania will look less bad than the same result without the gaffe. A week from now the conventional wisdom might be, "He only lost by seven! Not bad after all he's been through."

Don't get me wrong. I think Obama's comments at a San Francisco fund-raiser—where he said that "bitter" working-class voters "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them"—was a dumb choice of words and a damaging mistake. The polls could be wrong and the gaffe could end up harming him. Hillary, placing all of her chips on the incident, is already running ads in Pennsylvania telling voters that Obama looks down on them. Even if he does respectably there, Hillary will likely make this a big issue in the remaining primaries, almost all of which happen to be in largely rural, progun states such as Indiana, North Carolina, Kentucky and West Virginia.

And of course, if Obama's the nominee we'll hear about the San Francisco remarks from the Republicans all fall. The GOP is out of synch with the American public on most major issues, so it's inevitable that the party would run against Obama's character. Clinton and John McCain, the $100 million twins (the estimated net worth of each), will try to paint Obama as an elitist, and it could work.

But my gut tells me that most people won't judge Obama based on one comment, and the only way the charge will stick is if it reflects some core truth. So does it? Is Obama a snob?

We know that he grew up without a father or much money and only recently paid off his student loans. We know that he connects well with people from all walks of life on the trail without seeming condescending. We know there are no stories in his background of his acting in a high-handed or, as Hillary describes it, "patronizing" way toward other people. (The same cannot be said, alas, about some accounts from her own contemporaries, all the way up to her 1992 slight of women who "stay at home baking cookies.") In fact, conservatives on the Harvard Law Review recall with fondness how respectfully Obama treated them, in sharp contrast with other liberals at the law school.

But my take on this question isn't important. So I asked someone whose judgment on it is. Roy Romer is a former governor of Colorado and a former chairman of the Democratic Party. He is also an uncommitted superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention.

"Look at his life," Romer told me. "He graduated at the top from Harvard, then went to the South Side of Chicago to work with the poor. That's about as unelite as you can be."

"People will look at the totality of the candidate, and he'll do fine."

But how about all those gun owners and churchgoers who may now desert the Democrats, just as they, according to Hillary at last Sunday's Compassion Forum, deserted elitists Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004?

Well, it turns out that working-class Americans have not left the Democratic Party, except in the South, where practically everyone except the black community has turned Republican. In the north, as Princeton political scientist Larry M. Bartels establishes in an important new book, "Unequal Democracy," working-class voters have actually been trending Democratic in recent elections, which helps explain why longtime bellwether states like Illinois and Pennsylvania have been more reliably blue. According to Bartels, more affluent voters are the ones who have been swayed by social issues like abortion and guns. Working-class voters, he writes, are still motivated by economics.

By contrast, Obama was awkwardly echoing the analysis of Thomas Frank in his 2004 best seller "What's the Matter With Kansas?" Frank argued that working-class Kansans were essentially being fooled by conservative appeals on social issues into voting against their economic self-interest. If it turns out that Bartels is right and Frank is wrong, then Obama will have ironically been saved by the falsity of his own cultural argument.

It may help that he has spoken often in the past of his respect for the family tradition of hunting (which he compared to fathers playing baseball with their kids). And of course, Obama is a more convincing advocate of religious faith than McCain, who refused the invitation to the Compassion Forum and all other efforts to get him to discuss his relationship, if any, with God.

It may be that the impression of elitism was not actually the most damaging part of Obama's statement, and that the long-term problem is not so much the word "cling" (as in small-town folks clinging to guns and religion) as the word "bitter."

For Obama, the idea of a bitter American public is at odds with his message of hope. He can describe people as frustrated or angry, but if he stops tapping into the idealism and patriotism of his audiences (as when they memorably chanted "USA! USA!" at some rallies), he won't make it.

Have you ever noticed how on TV news, when, say, a family is killed by a gunman, the survivor goes before the cameras and says something to the effect of "I'm very sad but I'm not bitter"? Whatever their straits, Americans are conditioned to deny any bitterness. So when Obama on the first day the story broke doubled down by repeating that many Americans were bitter, he compounded his mistake.

Bill Clinton's political instincts have been a little rusty lately, to put it mildly, but he was on target on Sunday when he recounted how a man came up to him before an appearance in a small town and said, "We're not bitter here; we're proud."

Turning Obama into a snob will be tough for even the most skillful GOP attack dogs. But turning him into a candidate who doesn't appreciate the basic goodness and decency of the American people is doable. It's there that Obama must take care to connect to what the president he calls "my man" Lincoln referred to as "the better angels of our nature." A few more "USA! USA!" chants would help too.

© 2008

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Obama will be greatly affected in swing states of PA, Ohio, W VA, most likely Indiana and Michigan as well.

If you think this doesn't resonate in Pittsburgh you are sadly mistaken.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Obama will be greatly affected in swing states of PA, Ohio, W VA, most likely Indiana and Michigan as well.

If you think this doesn't resonate in Pittsburgh you are sadly mistaken.

Just because people there prefer Clinton to Obama doesn't mean they prefer McCain to Obama. After all McCain is basically running for Bush's third term and the economy will probably be doing progressively worse up until election day. Also, Iraq won't look any better.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

10,000 greet pope in DC

[Ramo]

Bittergate seems to have had a very limited effect (statistically insignificant changes among the relevant demographics).

[Imran Siddiqui]

You do realize, as you have pointed out, that there are a good number of Clinton supporters who have stated they'll go to McCain in the general if Obama wins the primary, right? I think that this will only accelerate that motion among pro-gun, religious small town Democrats.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You do realize, as you have pointed out, that there are a good number of Clinton supporters who have stated they'll go to McCain in the general if Obama wins the primary, right?

They might as well go McCain now, cause Clinton is out ot there.