Somebody tell me: why are "white rural" voters in PA different from those in Iowa?

Obama did not get the racist vote in PA and yet he won Iowa. Why? Is it because the "angry black man" factor wasn't in place in Iowa? Or is it because Iowans are somehow different. They are predominantly white, and I assume rural, so what's different? Why did O' win IA and lose PA?

And I also think white voters in the upper Midwest (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa to a lesser extent) tend to be a little more progressive than in the Rust Belt.

candidates.

No black people in Iowa. Iowa is not subject to the kind of racial divisions that you see in other areas because there is no diversity. It's easy to not be racist when you have no contact with another race. By converse, we tend to see the most racial tension in areas that are diverse, and there has never been a better incubator of racism than the industrial cities.

But, the other thing is, Obama won Iowa with 38% of the vote in a multicandidate race. Assuming that there might be a few black people in Iowa, at best Obama got around 36% of the white vote in Iowa, which is not much better than South Carolina. He was just lucky enough in Iowa that, if there were any racist voters, there were multiple white candidates with which to spread it.


This is exactly the same mechanism that benefited Jesse Jackson in the Deep South primaries in the 80s. There was a white vote in 1988, but that white vote split because all sorts of white politicians and community leaders all wanted to be a delegate, and so you had the white vote split, and Jesse Jackson's ability to win 35% by getting every black vote was just enough to win in a multicandidate field.

Many of the urban areas have minority populations between 7-10 percent. The hispanic population is growing very quickly. However, most rural areas are almost exclusively white - unless there are meat processing plants where the minority population hovers around 40-50 percent. I think the trends are probably about the same as in Pennsylvania except their urban areas are closer to 50 percent minority.

To say that Iowans have no contact with other races is really inaccurate. The misconceptions of Iowa are often comical.

What confuses me is why more minorities do not come to Iowa. Iowa has always been a state at the forefront of civil rights. The first Iowa Supreme Court case was a case to make a black man free. Iowa schools were desegregated over 40 years prior to Brown v. Bd of Ed. Women were some of the states earliest lawyers. Business is booming here, the economy is great, the cost of living is lower, crime is less ... I wish more minorities who struggle in other cities would migrate here.

I was getting ready to do it, but I don't live there.

My husband's family is from Iowa, and we still own property there. My youngest went to school there. If she hadn't found a job in Chicago first, she would have been happy to stay in Iowa. She loved it there.

And they voted for Obama!

So they are SUPER, in my book!

(Clinton's demographic) second to FL. Also, there is a huge Democratic machine in place here - led by Ed Rendell. Ed Rendell backed Clinton. The mayors of Pgh.(very young - 27 or 28) and the mayor of Philly "fell in line" with Rendell.

In my rural corner of PA the Dem vote was evenly split! That was a surprise.

He improved his numbers over Iowa demographics, as well did better than expected in middle PA. Also greater % loss in PA over Rendell suppression and machine allocation in Philly.

Oops, meant Ohio.

so do rural areas.

The midwest and the rustbelt is not monolithic. One thing you notice if you study the maps county by county, Hillary does better the closer you get to Appalachia. My bias is that racism is probably stronger there, however I don't know for sure because I don't live there. It seems that even within Ohio, the further you get away from Applachia, the better Obama does in rural counties.

Another factor is that Iowa was before Bill and Clinton's surrogates engaged in concerted race baiting and successfully framing this as a "black vote vs. white vote" thing. Iowa was also antedated the Rev. 24/7 balls to the wall media orgasm.

So, I think it's party geographic, pocketed racism, dog whistle politics, Clinton triangulation/race baiting, and Rev. Wright.

Finally, there's a high senior white female Demographic in PA, so the state was built for her.

Another factor is that Iowans have seen many campaigns thru the years and are more immune to gimmicks. I never bookmarked it, but TwoSparkles was an Iowa caucs goer and she did an excellent analysis several months back on why Hillary flopped in Iowa and Obama won their hearts.

Also, Iowa may be rural, but it also has one of the highest literacy rates in the country. When I lived there back in the 70's, it not only had the highest rate of literacy in the nation, but we were actually proud of it. Those were the days before using one's brain was "elitist," of course.

who are racist.

If someone can pull it up for me, that would be appreciated, but the basic construct was this:

Obama does well in both lily-white states and states with a large AA population, but states that have an AA population between 7-17% (like Ohio) have higher racial tension.

caucuses have smaller turn out and a few extra people makes it look like more... you can drive them in and do whatever it takes.. and Iowa has a bandwagon affect with viability as a factor.. meaning it is not a pure representation of votes.. if you want Biden and he is not viable.. then you must switch your vote... if a big group forms.. many people run for the big group...

PA was a primary and people actually have to be registered voters who live in the state!

I was told people were sent to Iowa from Illinois to come to rallies and vote in the caucus.. in other words.. voter fraud!

Your "voter fraud" charge was discounted by an audit just last week of the caucus participants.

<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008804200328>

The Iowa caucuses were not invaded by large numbers of ineligible voters eager to risk fraud charges to support their presidential candidate, a Des Moines Register review of registration voter data shows. The findings may mute one criticism of Iowa's presidential nominating process as state leaders again face the task of defending the caucuses' first-in-the-nation status.

However, the lack of significant participation by unverified new voters can be used to counter the oft-stated criticism that the caucuses are ripe for infiltration by non-Iowans, including suspicion voiced by Democrat Hillary Clinton's campaign in the weeks leading up to the caucuses that Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois lined up participants from out of state.

attended by people who are more activist (and have more time and more outgoing personalities IMO). some of us just want to go into the voting booth, vote, and leave.

I think that Iowans, New Hampsherites, and people voting in other early primaries and caucuses had a chance to really get to know Obama. Those in the later primaries got to know Obama through the distorted lens of Faux News and the rest of the corporate-owned media. The racist attacks had the expected impact on racists.

I would add that Iowans have been largely anti-war.

before Super Tuesday. I really bore fruit before Pennsylvania.

Obama will be able to bring it back around once Dems stop buying into the perception just for the hoped for political gains they thought could be made.

There should never have BEEN a racial 'tactic' in a Democratic primary - ever.

:freak:

see a large number of pickups with rebel flags. I have heard a lot of racist talk - a lot. Most of it is from older people.

I mean Iowa is barely a word... :)

judging from the responses in this thread that's the conclusion. better not let that memo get out to the GE population, cuz people don't generally like being threatened with being called a racist if they don't vote for your candidate.

Nothing like common ground, eh?

they get this circus every 4 years and they take it very seriously and I mean very seriously like DU serious.

Not that I am saying all Pennsylvanians are racists, but I think Iowa has a very low percentage of racists.

All the areas where the Clintons are stoking poor and disenfranchised
white people are full of them because the factories shut down. They
are in manufacturing states that have failed, and they are unable to
switch gears because they are not equipped or educated in order to do so.
Most of the know better in 2008 to admit they are racist, so they needed
carefully prepared permission from the Clintons, Rush Limbaugh, and the
New York media to pick from a variety of cover stories and fear schemes.

People in Iowa do not have the black /white cultural boundaries with disenfranchised people to bait and monger towards.

How in the world an international corporate rain maker (Bill),
a corporate owned Senator (Hillary) and their hedge fund employed
daughter are selling their Joe Six Pack cartoon image to these people,
makes you wonder just how little real substance scared and lower class
white people need to hit the old race trigger and slam their minds shut.

If they win like this the Clintons will have to do everything in their
power to keep these people down, afraid, and disenfranchised, so they
can continue to use them. Joe and Jane Sixpack, and living vicariously
older women, are going to have to be maintained as the Clinton Power Base.

The steel industry left the United States, leaving Ohio and Pennsylvania high and dry. Conservatives have spent the last thirty years telling working class whites they would still be able to find good jobs if not for Affirmative Action.

The Iowa experience has been completely different. They probably have MORE industry in Iowa today than thirty years ago. No competition for jobs means no resentment against the group you told took your jobs (though I am sure resentment is building towards Latinos as we speak).

move on. Lots of buggy whip makers went out of business when the auto came around, but hey, people HAVE to change with the times.

Harsh, but true.

and white cultures in the rest of the country, but you could no more ascribe O's loss in PA to racism than you could Hill's loss in Iowa to sexism. maybe the folks in PA having 5 more months to take a look a the candidates had something to do with it.

Along with all the surrounding farm states. Hard to believe. They are also more anti-war and anti-racist, generally speaking. In the western Dakotas, it's more backward...

who don't vote for Obama are automatically "the racist vote".

I see. It is not at all possible that maybe some of them actually like Senator Clinton's POLICIES better.

And you know they are all racists how?

The same way you know all Clinton supporters at DU are racist?

That's an easy one. PA is going to be tough for him. If he loses there in the general, its all over and nothing else will save him.

It's not representative of a damned thing.

Best not to be crying racist every other word... It will not help your candidate win the ultimate goal of the presidency....

Iowa doesn't have the crime that PA has. The people in the rural areas of PA live in fear of the people from the cities and attribute color as to being from the cities.

e.g.: in KY polls, clinton loses to mccain by 2 points.
Obama loses to mccain by 34.
wonder why.

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/general-election/kentucky.html

That should tell you something.