Why rural voters broke for Obama

Tue, Jan 22, 2008

One intriguing outcome of Saturday’s Democratic caucus is that Barack Obama, a Chicago politician whose appeal nationwide is deep among affluent liberals and college students, broke through in Nevada’s mining and ranching counties.

Obama beat rival Hillary Clinton decisively in nine of 14 rural Republican-dominated counties. In Esmeralda, on the state’s western edge, he won 22 delegates to nine for the New York senator.

Obama’s strength in rural Nevada speaks to the breadth of his appeal and to his campaign’s organizing efforts in Republican strongholds that Nevada’s Democratic Party has traditionally written off. It also indicates a restlessness among voters in rural Nevada that Democrats will try to tap in future elections, including the November presidential contest.

“The Obama campaign sends a message, because even though he lost the state the rurals really made up so much ground for him,” said Cindy Trigg, a rural organizer for the state Democratic Party. “Now any campaign will know that if you court the rurals you can have a tip in your favor.”

more...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/22/why-rural-voters-broke-obama/#/Elko_Supporter/

I think Obama's comments about Reagan and Republicans won him votes in rural Nevada, but those same comments really disappointed me.

In area where one party tends to dominate, Moderates tend to join that party for they have a greater say in who gets elected for the minority party candidate is rarely competitive in the General election. Thus in areas where you have overwhelmingly Republicans, moderates tend to join the GOP. In areas that are overwhelmingly Democratic, Moderates join the Democratic Party. The minority party tends to become in such areas a very radical fringe element. In such areas, the radical elements of BOTH parities tend to dominate. For example in the Great Plains, where the Rural Areas are overwhelmingly GOP, the Democrats in those areas tend to be more left then the Party as a whole thus votes for Obama to show they are NOT anti-black. Heavily Democratic areas tend to have the same problems for Moderate Republicans (In my home area, the GOP through up the most right wing candidates it can against my Congressman, who then loses. the same with the City of Pittsburgh, the GOP throws up some radical, that no one in his right mind would vote for, leaving Seat in Democratic Hands).

Thus to see what will happen in the Fall, lets look at DEMOCRATIC areas to see who the party should support. Iowa and New Hampshire are overly Republican to be a good source for information on who the Democratic Candidate should be (you do have Democratic patches here and there in both states, but as a whole Solidly GOP). The South is weird right now, at the local level still Democratic, but on the National Level Solidly Republican. Thus in Presidential elections Republican states and thus NOT a good sign of how the Democratic party will do in the fall.

Just comments on the Primaries so far, till we get a state that has been solidly Democratic for the last several Presidential Elections we will NOT be able to see who the Party, as a whole, will support. I remember the 1976 primary election, it was up for grabs till Carter won solidly Democratic Northern States. Kerry did the same in 2004 (Through not as well, thus the poor results in the General Elections). Clinton has a similar fight for the nomination.

My point is until we have several DEMOCRATIC leaning states vote one way or another, WHO would be the best candidate will NOT be decided.