Strategic Telemetry did an analysis of the voting patterns in Connecticut (.pdf). The results are fascinating. They actually track exactly with what I would expect, but I hate being right about these things.
Following are some of the characteristics that correlate with support for Lamont:
• Rural areas
• Areas with a high median household income
• Areas with a high housing value
• Areas with a higher percentage of voters with college degrees or graduate degrees
• Areas with a high percentage of owner-occupied housing
• Areas with a high percentage of married couples
• Areas with a high percentage of children in private schools
• Areas with low turnover in housing
• Areas with high percentage in white-collar occupations
• Areas where many voters have long commute times
• Areas with high concentrations of veteransCharacteristics that correlated with support for Lieberman were:
• Urban areas
• Areas with high numbers of single women
• Areas with high numbers of unmarried partners, including same-sex partners
• Areas with a high percentage of renter-occupied housing
• Areas with a high property tax burden
• Areas with a high percentage of voters working in blue-collar occupations
• Areas with a high percentage of voters working in service sector occupations
• Areas with a high concentration of people receiving social security
• Areas with high concentrations of individuals currently serving in the armed
forces
A while back I was chastised for suggesting that Hillary’s strongest support would be from the black community. But I said it for the same reasons that I would have predicted that Joe Lieberman’s strongest support would come from urban areas and blue collar workers.
Connecticut is the richest state in the country and you might expect all those rich people to be Republicans or centrist Lieberman-style Democrats.
On the other hand, you would not expect low income workers, minorities, and urbanites to support someone that favors privatizing Social Security and gutting affirmative action.
The rich vote for the liberal, the poor vote for the centrist. What’s it all about?
It’s about name recognition and low versus high information voters. It’s also about how voters get their news. In areas of low internet usage, Lamont faired poorly. He had a harder time getting his message out. This is all part of the digital divide. People with low access to alternate media outlets are more prone to swallow the corporate version of reality. They may have simply missed the roiling debate about Joe Lieberman that has been taking place on blogs and within elite and niche outlets like The Nation, The New Republic, and The Weekly Standard. Many went to the polls without any exposure to the Netroots message. For them, Joe Lieberman was still Al Gore’s good soldier…a friendly and familiar face, and a good progressive.
The shame of it is that the very people that should have been least inclined to vote for Lieberman were the one’s that turned out for him. They will turn out for Hillary, too, and for the same reasons, if we do not figure out how to build a bridge that crosses the digital divide. We simply have to bring our progressive message into the inner city and find a way to increase the amount of information that is reaching there.
As for Lamont’s voters, they were, roughly speaking, the very “Tax-Raising, Latte-drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, Body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, Left-wing Freak Shows’ that turned out for Howard Dean. White, highly educated, extremely affluent, and liberal. These voters were highly informed about the news and not nearly as susceptible to simplistic messaging and poll-driven spin. This base of voters has never been successful in Presidential primaries. It is simply too small of a base. They have backed Teddy Kennedy (1980), Gary Hart (1984 & 1988), Paul Tsongas (1992), Bill Bradley (2000), and Howard Dean (2004).
The latte-drinking crowd is eyeing Russ Feingold and John Edwards in 2008. But Feingold and Edwards will meet the same fate as their predecessors if they cannot reach into their natural base of voters. The voters that have the most to gain from progressive politics are the one’s least inclined to vote for progressive politicians in Presidential primaries. (Obviously, Jesse Jackson’s presidential runs in 1984 and 1988 throws a cog into this analysis).
Hillary Clinton will be our next nominee unless we can convince minorities, urbanites, and blue collar workers that their best interests lie elsewhere. The Lamont-Lieberman voting patterns should be an alarm bell.
I read a completely different take somewhere on this Boo…that said that the two poorest counties(in the whole country)voted for Lamont…offhand can’t remember where I read this. So maybe this isn’t as cut and dry as it sounds.
Compare the yellow to the red. And then look at the map of Connecticut. You will notice that the areas of deepest blue for Kerry are showing up Yellow for Lieberman. This corresponds to Hartford, New London, New Haven, etc.
Am I the only one who sees that the areas of deepest blue do NOT line up with the areas of Lieberman yellow?
Of the 20 deep blue counties, 4 are pale yellow, and 2 are deep yellow.
Of the 20 deep yellow counties, 3 are deep blue.
The conclusion does not seem to supported by the facts presented.
Here is some analysis:
link
link
Thanks for the charts Boo….I’m still trying to figure out where that article is that I read..somewhere like Huffington or American Politics? I read so many different sites like that before I come here to see how what I’ve read either squares with all the great diaries here or if the hot topics and info I’ve read has been picked up here also.
I do know that on election night people like Matthews were already posturing that it was the ‘elitists’ that voted for Lamont and that good old working people-backbone of the country were solidly behind Joemomentumless.
I agree. Those numbers don’t seem to square with me. I would have thought women would be more for Lamonnt and that Urban peopel would be more for LAmont than ther other way around.
:shrugs:
I’m really just showing my biase, I guess
I was in CT last weekend thru Tuesday. While phone Banking in Lamont’s W. Hartford office 2-3 hours per day, and driving around was this:
In Hartford proper, where tremendous road construction forced me through pretty bad Neighborhoods, Lieberman had “VOTE JOE” signs literally hanging from walls, covering grafetti, from wires etc. Picture heavy drug neighborhoods with those damn sneakers every 2-3 feet. That’s the way Lieberman’s signs were. I saw only one or two Lamont signs, politely placed and obviously with someones permission. Joe’s just looked like grafetti and slapped up and messy. Fit right into the environment.
What can be done? IMHO (and I am not a pro and have very little experience in working elections) Ned needs to spend more time with the suburbs of the major cities. I did meet the Treasurer of E. Hartford, where I was ferrying people from the assisted living apartments to the voting place. He said the campaign had no time before the primary to spend with the older folks, because they take too much time.
IF, and that’s a big IF, I can get someone to listen to me, I would suggest that Ned or some of his “star power” come to “pot luck” dinners at these apartments, which are plentiful. The format is simple. The residents bring a dish, dessert, napkins or etc. Ned or his surrogate comes to eat. Then either Ned or a surrogate speaks for 10 minutes and then takes questions until everyone is satisfied. After, Ned and his surrogate, put a movie in the communal VCR and then quietly leave. This way the oldsters get the “attention” they are craving, and feel special. They will vote with that feeling.
Okay you pro’s out there, are my perceptions and ideas anywhere in the ball park?
I think you have GREAT ideas. Hell, I am only 41 but I would enjoy having a potluck dinner, talk to Ned and then settle down for a movie. Your doing a great job and have terrific inside information. Your right. Lamont needs to find a way to get to the older demographic. He is one major step ahead now that he has the democratic party’s backing.
They didn’t really want to vote for Lieberman, but kept questioning “How do I know Lamont can do what he says he is going to do? How can he do it when they are all crooks anyway?”
Perception is 90% of reality. Lamont has to be willing and should have already [offered to] prove/proved to potential voters that he is different from Lieberman.
I had no answers on the information I was given, so I just listened.
If it were me, I would have immediately mentioned that to one of the higher ups and asked “How do I answer this type of question?” The fact that such an answer was not provided tells me something about whoever was supposedly “supervising” the phone bank volunteers. (And I have phone banked before.)
While calling in Bridgeport CT, people were complaining about the cost of drugs, but said Joe had made 2 “visits” to the city, and promised them more money from the government so they could pay for their medicines. I have no idea what that was about, and people were not sure if it was related to tax cuts.
I find it difficult to believe that the Lamont campaign has no one who is able to locate information that will answer the concerns of the voters. If that is the case, why should they expect anything different if he is elected? Just listened to my mother, a senior citizen–who just called–lives in another state (Thank God!) bitch and that was one of her complaints.
I did meet the Treasurer of E. Hartford, where I was ferrying people from the assisted living apartments to the voting place. He said the campaign had no time before the primary to spend with the older folks, because they take too much time.
That statement by the treasurer is completely ridiculous, and again, I find it difficult to believe that no one from the campaign called him on it! Senior citizens are one of the largest voting blocs, if not the largest, and a campaign has no time to spend with them????? Sheesh!!!!
Ned or some of his “star power” come to “pot luck” dinners at these apartments, which are plentiful. The format is simple. The residents bring a dish, dessert, napkins or etc. Ned or his surrogate comes to eat. Then either Ned or a surrogate speaks for 10 minutes and then takes questions until everyone is satisfied. After, Ned and his surrogate, put a movie in the communal VCR and then quietly leave. This way the oldsters get the “attention” they are craving, and feel special.
Nope!!! Ned comes himself and his surrogates make all of the arrangements for dinner. Many of the people in assisted living are also low income. (Today, it is necessary for someone low-income to cut corners wherever necessary. Some do skip meals in order to pay for prescriptions.)
On that note why the hell should they put themselves to the trouble of bringing something/making somthing for his dinner? Ned wants them to vote for him–his campaign makes all of the arrangements for–a catered dinner. (Which is not at all expensive for a campaign.)
Ned then answers each and every question that a resident may have, having familiarized himself w/the issues that seniors are most concerned about (in advance) so he can show that he is capable of solving the problems that are effecting the voters in that age group. If Ned is stumped by anything, he apologizes and says that he will find out, and that a staff member will get back to the person within roughly 24 hours with an answer to the question. And the staff does so! Another follow up is a Thanks for the evening note to everyone that includes the persons name and that he signs.
If the bit about watching a movie is done, Ned stays until it is over, bs’s w/everyone, admires pictures of grandkids and so on, then thanks everyone for the evening, and is the last person to leave. The reasoning is that he is acting as a semi-official host, and the one thing that senior citizens do recognize and is important to them is ettiquette. (Like I said, I just got off the phone with my mother–sheesh!)
<The shame of it is that the very people that should have been least inclined to vote for Lieberman were the one’s that turned out for him. They will turn out for Hillary, too, and for the same reasons, if we do not figure out how to build a bridge that crosses the digital divide. We simply have to bring our progressive message into the inner city and find a way to increase the amount of information that is reaching there. <p>
As for Lamont’s voters, they were, roughly speaking, the very “Tax-Raising, Latte-drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, Body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, Left-wing Freak Shows’ that turned out for Howard Dean. White, highly educated, extremely affluent, and liberal. These voters were highly informed about the news and not nearly as susceptible to simplistic messaging and poll-driven spin. This base of voters has never been successful in Presidential primaries. It is simply too small of a base. They have backed Teddy Kennedy (1980), Gary Hart (1984 & 1988), Paul Tsongas (1992), Bill Bradley (2000), and Howard Dean (2004).>
Brilliant Analysis as usual Boo.
Signed, a Honda drivin, green tea drinkin, NY Times reading, Booman Browsin, Bill Bradley worshipin left-wing freak show who volunteered on Gary Hart’s campaign in 1988, Jerry Brown’s in 1992 and Howard Dean’s in 2003 and 2004.
I think you’re missing one big factor in the primary that is not likely to be the same in the general: The influence of urban Democratic machines and big unions. Joe got most of their support and GOTV work, and the voters they delivered are exactly the ones who voted for Joe. Don’t expect that he will get the same help next time. Even if the political and union bosses would like to help Joe, they can’t do it overtly for fear of being Lamontized themselves and they can’t do it covertly and still be effective.
You mention that 1)older people take time. and 2) the Lamont volunteers were primarily younger persons who, I’m assuming, did not live in the areas that were yellow.
You really should find people in the yellow areas and recruit them to work for Lamont. Just this weekend I spoke with an older person in my neighborhood who heard me talk about my work with the Dean campaign in 2003-4. She said “I should have volunteered, but I didn’t think I could be useful.” Well. . . she certainly could have been very helpful. Credibility. Time (being retired). Knowledge (knowing the neighborhoods). And patience. Hillary Clinton’s much ridicules “listening” journey was actually very effective in changing attitudes toward her.
I’d try pairing walkers of neighborhoods: younger and older, minority with majority, male with female, etc. One door got opened to myself and my walking partner (who could not have been more different than me if we had planned it deliberately). The weekend before she had been visited by two young white males that she was certain were missionaries from the Mormon church, and she didn’t answer her doorbell. The guys weren’t who she thought: they were from a Democratic party GOTV effort.
Likewise, Lamont should be trying to talk with union leaders, ministerial organizations in the inner city, anyplace he can where he can talk so he is seen not as against working people, but out to help them.
The potluck idea is a pretty good one, actually, but you need good people locally to set it up and get the folks rounded up to come.
It needs to add on some different kinds of things beyond what was done in the primary, to keep the Lieberman campaign guessing as well as to move along & expand Lamont’s base.
Name recognition is crucial. I remember a discussion I had with my sister abut three years ago on the Democratic candidate. She was an old-line Democrat — no question of her voting Repblican, and progressive on issues about which she was informed — which unfortunately was not true of what she gleaned frm CNN. When I spoke about the different candidates, the only one she preferred was Lieberman, because she knew him from the previous election. The implicit hypothesis was that if he was good enough to be selected as a VP candidate, he must be good enough for President. Her natural candidate, on the other hand, was Edwards, who speaks for people just like her.
The thing is that name recognition can be overcome by TV appearances. We are not yet out of the Old Politics. TV costs money, and money will be required.