Swing State
June 22, 2004 12:52 PM   Subscribe

In the swing states, it's not just the economy anymore, stupid. "The more you talk to West Virginians, the more you stop wondering how Democrats lost the state four years ago and start wondering how they ever won it."
posted by PrinceValium (23 comments total)
 
"On everything from the economy to taxes, the Administration's policies have hurt working West Virginia's families." Lots of details included.

If people really care more about stopping gay marriage or putting more Christianity in schools than getting food on the table, what are you gonna do? The Dems are doing for the poor what the Dems think the poor need rather than what many of the poor want. That's how they're losing them. The Dems need to change people's minds about the cultural issues or they won't be able to help them.
posted by callmejay at 1:11 PM on June 22, 2004


(Also Bush's promise to add 4800 WV jobs and lack of support for the environment, which helps the coal industry, helped him win the state. See link above to see what happened to that promise.)
posted by callmejay at 1:14 PM on June 22, 2004


Interesting piece. I especially loved that last paragraph:

West Virginia had voted Republican in only three of the last 18 presidential elections: 1956, 1972, and 1984. What did those elections have in common? They featured Republican incumbents.

THAT was a great find. I wish the author developed that point further, instead of making it into a one-liner: "West Virginians respect authority."

The Dems are doing for the poor what the Dems think the poor need rather than what many of the poor want.

Quite frankly, I don't think the Dems give a rat's ass about the poor. In fact, if there weren't so many "po' folk" voting Democrat, nationalized healthcare would be a joke told at cocktail parties instead of being part of a larger agenda. Part of their problem has been their inability to take control of the national debate. Instead of creating issues, they simply react to the Republican agenda (I admit that part of the problem is a Congress and Presidency being controlled by Repubs).

But many states are running deficits, the federal government is overspending, the trade deficit is enormous, bankrupcy is at an all time high, our education system is still among the worst in the developed world...yet here we are discussing "Under God" and gay marriage (I feel for gays; but they make up a tiny % of the population and are being treated more fairly now than ever before, yet they somehow dominate the national discussion being homos are icky). The Democrats need to find a way to use people's emotional IQ to focus on more important issues.
posted by BlueTrain at 1:25 PM on June 22, 2004


Oh yeah, because we all know a presidential candidate that doesn't win West Virginia never, ever, ever wins the overall election.
posted by fenriq at 1:31 PM on June 22, 2004


yet they somehow dominate the national discussion being homos are icky

yet they somehow dominate the national discussion because homos are icky
posted by BlueTrain at 1:39 PM on June 22, 2004


It's part of a series on the swing states.
posted by stbalbach at 1:40 PM on June 22, 2004


How the hell have the Republicans convinced poor working-class people like this that their economic interests are aligned? It's one of the greatest hoodwinks of modern times.
posted by gottabefunky at 1:46 PM on June 22, 2004


But many states are running deficits, the federal government is overspending, the trade deficit is enormous, bankrupcy is at an all time high, our education system is still among the worst in the developed world...yet here we are discussing "Under God" and gay marriage.

That's a really good point, BT. It's difficult because all of the "sexy" issues (abortion, guns, state-church, gays) tend to go the Republicans' way in places like West Virginia, while the Democrats are stuck talking about the top 1% this and 35% that and lockboxes and nuanced foreign policy points and intricate health insurance details. The Repubs can just say the Dems want to take away your guns and God and sanctity of marriage and not have to worry about nuance. Hopefully the Dems will at least be smart enough to keep screaming "JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS ECONOMY ECONOMY ECONOMY!" and not try to explain it on t.v.
posted by callmejay at 1:46 PM on June 22, 2004


How the hell have the Republicans convinced poor working-class people like this that their economic interests are aligned? It's one of the greatest hoodwinks of modern times.

Probably because 99.9 percent of the poor were poor under Clinton, are poor under Bush Jr., and will continue being poor under a Kerry administration.

Also, there are populations that have forever voted one party or the other without regard to reason or policy. The economically challenged are just one example.
posted by justgary at 3:19 PM on June 22, 2004


A wonderful disinformation campaign called AM radio and to a lesser degree most of the corporate media.

Just say 'vast right wing conspiracy'. It rolls of the tongue easier.
posted by justgary at 3:45 PM on June 22, 2004


I have a close family member who has been voting Republican for 20 years. Before that she was a serious Democrat -- she even volunteered for the McGovern and Carter campaigns. She is not exactly stupid. She knows that the Republicans, economically, stand for everything she hates. She wants a Canadian-style health care system, she's pro-union, she wants more money for education, etc. I had her take one of those online "which candidate represents your beliefs most closely" quizzes and the result was Kucinich, for God's sake.

But she's 99.9% sure she's going to vote for Bush anyway. Why? One issue. One issue only: Abortion. (Please don't start an abortion discussion in this thread; that's not the point.)

She, like many, believes it is murder... and that it is therefore unethical to vote for anyone who doesn't also believe that. It's black and white for her. She knows that nearly every other aspect of the Republican system is wrong (in her value system), but that one issue trumps everything else. There is no moral compromise.

There is nothing the Democrats can do to fight against that, is there?

So this kind of thing is what makes many people vote against their economic interests: the belief that their moral standing requires it, along with the assumption that the economic stuff won't make much of a difference. (Hey, they're probably poor either way, right?) To many people who were lifelong Democrats but think of themselves as moral religious people, the Republicans have been able to take over the moral ground for 25 years, and have thus managed to win their votes.
posted by litlnemo at 4:57 PM on June 22, 2004


There is nothing the Democrats can do to fight against that, is there?

Elect more pro-life Democrats? In fact, I can't think of any pro-life Democratic politician off of the top of my head, while I can think of many pro-choice Republicans.

On the otherhand, I know of people who are exactly the opposite of your relative, who vote for Democrats only because of their pro-choice stance but otherwise agree with Republicans on all the other issues, even though they would be helped more by Republican policies.
posted by gyc at 5:06 PM on June 22, 2004


There is nothing the Democrats can do to fight against that, is there?

I was alluding to something similar above. I said: The Democrats need to find a way to use people's emotional IQ to focus on more important issues.

The problem isn't so much that people feel strongly about certain issues. The problem is that politicians love creating issues that voters use to define themselves politically. Voters and the media, among others I'm probably forgetting to mention, love simple politics, much like their enjoyment of simplistic plot lines in movies and books that "you don't have to think about".

Voters make it easy to win elections.
posted by BlueTrain at 5:08 PM on June 22, 2004


If these people are so stupid, why do you want to help them? If they're such incredible morons, that they can't see the economic issues staring them in the face and blowing hot breath up their nostrils, who cares? On the other hand, maybe they're not stupid. Maybe they face the economic and job issues every day, and suffer more from them than you or, I, and still, using their judgement, and based on the data they acquire there on the front lines of working class life, they would prefer a republican president to a democratic president -- or at least George Bush to John Kerry. What about rich people who vote democratic? Don't they know that's against their best interests? Who brain-washed Barbra Streisand?
posted by Faze at 5:22 PM on June 22, 2004


Well, it may be that they don't believe it's against their best interests. They may believe that having a low tax rate in a country full of people starving is not as much in their interest as paying more taxes and living in what they consider to be a better society.

Of course, you could turn it around and say the same thing about the folks on the other side. They believe that having, say, a more religious society is more important than money.

It is hard to criticize people for having deeply-held beliefs, but it sure is frustrating because you can't argue with faith, either. (And that goes for both sides.)
posted by litlnemo at 5:46 PM on June 22, 2004


Pointing out that people are being used and manipulated by republicans to vote against their best interests doesn't sit well with said people, unfortunately. Coming up with a soundbite-sized way to encapsulate the idea that economic policies are more important to peoples' lives than what gay people in Massachussets are doing will be the key to a Kerry landslide.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:56 PM on June 22, 2004


I met an older gentleman in about 1992 that had an old, worn hat that said: "A poor man voting for Reagan is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders".

I offered him $50 for that hat and he refused. "I can't sell my hat" he said.

litlnemo and callmejay are all over this. I can't really add much more except my anecdote.

economic policies are more important than what gay people in Massachussets are doing

Seems like a perfectly good soundbite to me.
posted by Ynoxas at 7:08 PM on June 22, 2004


If everyone in WV is poor, then it is probably cheap to live in WV. They might not be as economically stressed even with poor paying jobs than people in other parts of the country.

Anyone else heard of superstar programmers moving to India for the cost of living?

Retirement communities in Mexico?

They've apparently been statistically poor in WV forever, and they know that it won't kill them. Granted, their children move away(which I guarantee you they hate), but they manage to soldier on.

Dems want WV? Subsidize environmental coal harvesting(cause we use an ass-load of coal anyway, subsidize every other form of energy, and need to have it done environmentally, because WV creeks are being filled in by mountain-topping slop jobs)), guns for hunting and home defense(shotguns, rifles and full barrel handguns) are off-limits, and remind everyone that prayer in school might mean having your kids say a prayer to Osama's God every other Thursday, just to be fair, and you got yourself a Dem state.

And then defend the unions in the coal mines(which I can't believe didn't come up in this story) from the LRB screwing them, and they're yours forever.

Give me the next state, and where's my damn consulting paycheck.
posted by dglynn at 11:54 PM on June 22, 2004


dglynn just nailed it. If the Dems want WV, and the other swing states, they need to get specific, and with plans, not platitudes. No more soundbytes, no partisan bickering, (especially) no more doomsaying about the State of Things. The people will respond to realistic, reasonable ideas that speak to their interests.

In fact, I can't think of any pro-life Democratic politician off of the top of my head, while I can think of many pro-choice Republicans.

They exist -- a lot of the Catholic Dems in the House of Representatives who don't have higher aspirations can maintain strong records of voting for pro-life measures. (My rep for instance, Mike Doyle D-PA-14, has a 94% favorable rating from pro-life PACs.) Whether it's the lack of higher aspirations which frees them to vote their consciences on this matter (in opposition to party leadership) or if voting their consciences on this matter nixes any higher aspirations they may have is a question for the ages.
posted by Dreama at 6:25 AM on June 23, 2004


Sure, some poorer people value their social issues more than their pocketbooks, but don't underestimate the extent to which many poor working people absolutely hate and despise taxes, which are material hardships to them, and regard welfare as nothing more than a subsidy to the slothful and promiscuous. These poorer voters reject Democrats because of, not despite, their redistributionist promises.
posted by MattD at 9:21 AM on June 23, 2004


"redistributionist", way to sneak in one of the keywords, there, MattD. Perhaps it's because these "poor working folk" have been told over and over again that it's the 'welfare queen' that is taking their tax money and not the government's proclivity for corporate welfare that is the cause of the undercurrent of what your poor working man "hates and despises" so much. If they actually saw what percentages of their tax money went where, hw much their payroll taxes are in proportion to the very rich, how many coroprations get away with paying no taxes at all (often by setting up a mailbox offshore to do it) and how much their health insurance costs if they have any at all vs. how profitible health insurance, prescription drug comapnies and hospital corporations are I think he'd rightfully "hate and despise" something other than Ronald Reagan's fantasy boogey-men.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:16 AM on June 23, 2004


Sure, some poorer people value their social issues more than their pocketbooks, but don't underestimate the extent to which many poor working people absolutely hate and despise taxes, which are material hardships to them, and regard welfare as nothing more than a subsidy to the slothful and promiscuous. These poorer voters reject Democrats because of, not despite, their redistributionist promises.

Hear, hear! As a Certified Poor Person taxes are a huge chunk of money for me, which I can't pay (literally I do not have the money, have never had the money, and am consequently hoping the IRS has bigger fish to fry, not having filed in several years). Frankly I don't give a damn if they go to buy welfare queens Cadillacs or Dubya a shiny new bomber or Jack Welch a bigger yacht or to save the fucking rain forest; they aren't going to me, which is where I would much prefer they stay in the first place.

On preview: Space Coyote, maybe if the poor understood that social programs are a small fraction of tax money they'd stop listening to the Republicans, but I doubt very much they'd be any more inclined to listen to the Democrats, who can fellate corporate America through subsidies with the best of them.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 10:41 AM on June 23, 2004


dglynn - My wallet is slim at the moment, but you have my best recommendation.

Shmokin'..........

Also ( "How did the Dems Lose WV ?" ) ummmmm.......try inattention, increased Dem affluence, and piles of GOP $ ?

You could throw in SATAN too, though I'm not sure on whose side. Both, probably.
posted by troutfishing at 7:51 PM on June 23, 2004


« Older I'll start with corky   |   Yahoo! Mail trashing Gmail invites Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments