In Terms of Geography, Obama Appeals to Academics and Clinton Appeals to Jacksonians

37th Congressional District

You analysis of the California election is a bit off.

I have lived in the 33rd, 35th, and 37th districts you say are predominantly black, but the 37th districtrepresnts is only 25% black, 50% are hispanic and 25% are white, asian adn native american. The 33rd district si also highly diverse, the 35th is 34% black and 47% hispanic, white and asian comprise abotu 15%, and the 33rd is 35% hispanic, 30% black and 32% white and asian.

These are multi-racial districts voting for a multi-racial candidate.

As a Jacksonian (I volunteered after September 11th and am an Iraq war veteran) with Academic sensibilities, I see what you're getting at. (For the people who haven't figured it out yet, Barone's not talking about literal "Jacksonians" and literal "Academics", he's talking about two disparate philosophies.) And, for what it's worth, I think that you're dead on.

Mark my words: If the Dems pick Obama, then he will look like a child next to McCain, and McCain will win in a landslide. If the Dems pick Clinton, the contest will be more sporting and the Dems have a chance of seizing the White House again. (However, to be fair, Clinton's negatives among Independents and Republicans are very high, from what I understand.)

GUNS

I had to scroll down after reading only about half the comments, but one reader above challenged Mr Barone to find a reason Jacksonians/Appalachians would have to dislike Mr Obama other than the color of his skin. Perhaps someone else mentioned it later, but I believe the gun issue is one that will carry even more weight. Al Gore would likely be sitting in the Oval Office now if the NRA had not plastered WV & similar states with billboards essentially claiming that Al was going to take away our guns. We all know he's not going to take away our guns, but like the abortion issue, activists hate the "slippery slope". Gun control has not been much of an issue in this election thus far, perhaps because Hillary & Barack are so similar. However, gut-feeling is that with her Arkansas background, she knows how to play this better than he. It will be an issue in the general election, especially with a Supreme Court case coming down sometime in the near future.

Democratic Indeed

I don't understand how one can support Clinton and state that if she doesn't win then they'll just not vote at all or vote for McCain. How deluded and foolish are you if you seriously think that's a better solution? The simple reality of this country is that half of it either hates or somewhat dislikes the Clintons for one reason or another and to say that she's more electable is just stupid. People hated her when she was just First Lady, now all of the sudden they'll elect her? Spare me. If Clinton wins nomination she will be absolutely trounced in the general.

Questions about Jacksonians

The Jacksonian vs. Academic/Public Servant binary is an interesting and overlooked one. Excellent Analysis. It is one of the few arguments that really explain how Kerry, a vietnam veteran, could lose to Bush, a guardsman. Kerry had the credentials, he had the service, but he didn't come off Jacksonian. Still some questions:

The army has routinely failed to meet its recruitment goals since the start of the Iraq War. If the Jacksonian wants a hero president who is a warrior that will fight for them then why are more Jacksonians not enlisting?

If Jacksonians tend so see their personal liberty as something they would "kill" over then why are they not distressed by the mandate in the Clinton health plan?

If Jacksonians support the warrior so much than why has John McCain, the true Jacksonian, not embraced the GI Bill?

Would Obama/Webb ticket help in the general?

I know that it is questioned; whether the vice presidential choice can help you in the general election. There is no doubt that a bad choice can hurt you. Could Senator Jim Webb help Obama in the general election? I am a Republican and the only chance I see for McCain to win is by picking up the Jacksonians. When you read Webbs' book on the Scotch-Irish; you see that he revels in that identity.

This is a great, thorough, well-supported, persuasive analysis. Most of the complaints of the self-proclaimed "academic" types almost painfully confirm Barone's description of them. As a couple of others have said, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia would be a shrewd pick by Obama to address his weaknesses.

academics and jacksonians

The "Educated Southerner in NC" who contributed "Your Analysis is Way Off" is way off, and typical of the confused p.c. thinking of Obama's stalwarts. By the label "academics" Barone did not literally mean people employed in academia, but those who belong to the cultural milieu associated with colleges, public employees, and the media, i.e., what are called Blue State people. Obviously Obama's appeal to white voters is most successful in academic and state capital enclaves. Barone said that the Obamaites tend to be younger and more upscale than the general population, and his choice of the label 'academics' implies they have more formal education, so one does not know why the Educated Southerner thinks Obama supporters have been mischaracterized. The ES himself commits considerable mischaracterization of Obama's opponents, whom he describes as ignorant racists. The military on the average are better educated than people in civilian life. The claim that anti-Obama people are racists is a canard for which the ES does not offer a scrap of evidence. The fact that most blacks (actually the overwhelming majority) support Obama is said to prove that people who don't support Obama are racists. Clearly logic did not form a significant part of the Educated Southerner's education. There are a thousand reasons why non-racists should not support Obama. If he is nominated he will be the most inexperienced and unqualified presidential candidte in American history. (Maybe Chester A. Arthur, a New York City machine politician whose only previous employment was as New York Collector of Customs, i.e. dispenser of graft, was as unqualified as Obama, but there is no real comparison, as the late 19th-century presidency was a relatively easy job.) Barone presented persuasive evidence that Appalachian people will vote for black candidates who share their values. Finally Barone is entirely correct to point out that liberals do not support the military. I do not know why the ES gets into a huff about this statement of obvious fact. Did he ever read the leftist blogs? I was myself a liberal Democrat and often a political activist for most of my life, until I became disgusted by the attitudes Barone describes. I never met a Democratic activist who did not assume unthinkingly that resources should be taken away from soldiers and given to people like themselves -- teachers, social workers,state employees, etc.

Anti-intellectual, shallow, and illogical post.

The association of anti-intellectualism with patriotism is insulting to everybody. You insult the patriotism of academics and intellectuals, and you insult the intelligence and critical depth of so-called Jacksonian patriots. Furthermore, your analysis lacks logic as you are forced to over-generalize about every single constituency in order to squeeze them into your narrow and shallow model. Moreover, you use stereotypes as the basis for your argument: wimpy academic traitors vs. tough but stupid Jacksonian patriots. Clinton supporters and Obama supporters are much more diverse and complex than you give them credit for being. I hope readers see through this shallow pseudo-analysis designed to simplify and stratify rather than promote understanding of an incredibly complex and exciting phenomenon. Shame on you. This article is too ridiculous to warrant publication.

Walter Russell Mead on the Jacksonian Tradition

http://www.electricminds.org/ussclueless/external/Mead01.html

Illuminating, and somewhat prescient!