| Is the Obama appalachia strategy the right one?
After losing Indiana narrowly in an election that most admit was probably thrown to Hillary by Republican Operation Chaos crossover voters, Obama has decided to only do cursory campaigning the 2 remaining Appalacian states, WV and KY.Right strategy or wrong?I think part of this is Obama starting his general campaign without "officially" starting it. It sends a message that as Hillary cannot overcome his math, the race is over and he will act like it is over.I think that is a sound philosophy, but I'd still do a handful of high profile, large crowd speeches in large metro areas and on college campuses (there are a few.). Obama has said to the voters more or less I know I won't win, but I appreciate your support.IMO, at minimum, he needs to also really hit on the fact that his economic policy is going to benefit that region more than clinton's, so while he may accept that there isn't the time to change the minds of voters in the primary, he is not conceding those in the gen.I think his campaign was frankly worn out after campaigning their butts off in IND. It must be immensely tiring when you aren't just trying to sell a region's voters on the fact that your judgement at work and your platforms are better, you also have to first convince them that you aren't a radical black man. I think in economic terms this probably doesn't work out well for Obama ---i'll get back to this in a minute.He is essentially having to convince appalacia (which includes S. Indiana) as a whole to not be racist. (Not saying everyone in that region is racist, only that most white in the area have more baggage about considering a black candidate than any other states this side of the deep south.) That is a tall order.I think he realizes it is better for him long term to let Hillary characterize him as out of touch in that area than to contest the state, proving her wrong and forcing her to her default lower stance --- the race card.Out of touch, he can overcome later.It is about controlling which narrative the voters of appalacia get. Do they get bombarded with the fact that Obama is partially black in a contested fight or do they get the Obama is out of touch in a non-contested one?Lets talk vote count. Lets say the margin in WV will be 130K votes. If Obama campaigns in WV, the percentage he loses by might get down to 15-20%, but the total vote count is STILL going to be ~130K votes.What is the end result of that? Lets say if he doesn't campaign it goes 500K to 375K. If he does campaign it might be 825K to 700K. That means 825K people might have their view of Obama based forever on Hillary's racial strategy.By not contesting it, only a small portion of WV is actively voting against Obama because he is black. Most are instead voting against him because they think he is out of touch or whatever so they don't have to consider the fact that their motivation to actively vote against him in a decided race may really racially motivated.In time, that is a recoverable position for Obama.I think the real danger of Appalachia is that is could be a poisonous area. Appalachia runs close to or in states Obama actually does need like Michigan and PA and states he needs to contest like Missouri and Indiana.He can concede, but he cannot dismiss.He needs to stress above all else that he is not giving up on those voters in the general election and that his economic policies are the most likely to generate jobs in the region. He can lose, but he HAS to get those messages out, IMO.Over 4-6 months he can get a moderately racist white to vote for him if he can prove that his policies benefit them. He can't do it in a week and is right to see the downside of trying now.I don't think he can win either state in the general, but if he can get his numbers up to a 60-40 or so by then, they won't poisen his chances in neighboring states.
 | 
05-15-2008, 03:21 PM
Linear Mode
