- Joined
- Jan 27, 1999
- Messages
- 11,819
- Reaction score
- 12,277
Offline
Very good commentary in today's New York Times by David Brooks on the Clinton-Obama campaign. Other than gender, a major fault line in the voting is class, or education and income. Those with a high school education favor Hillary. Those with college favor Obama. The downscale-upscale dichotomy we have been reading about.
Brooks goes a step further and talks about Hillary being a commodity provider--she's Wal-Mart, Ford, Holiday Inn. Her voters are looking for a product or tangible benefits: tax rebates, better health care, more scholarships. In other words, what can government do for me.
Obama is an experience provider--he's Whole Foods, BMW, W Hotel, His voters are looking for an uplifting experience. In other words, not so much what government can do for me (though looking at the tax rates paid by hedge fund managers, some very upscale voters are interested in tangible benefits from government), but how will I feel about about my government and being a citizen.
Interesting piece. Check it out on the paper's website www.nytimes.com, op-ed section.
Brooks articulates the downscale-upscale dichotomy well and gives Obama his campaign theme in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania: Hillary's approach of continued trench warfare between the parties is a throwback to the past, which will not produce the benefits you want. And the subtle message that the gaps between the classes really began to widen in the 1990's under Bill's watch (though this is heresy for a Democrat and globalization was the reason, Bill was mainly a bystander).
Brooks goes a step further and talks about Hillary being a commodity provider--she's Wal-Mart, Ford, Holiday Inn. Her voters are looking for a product or tangible benefits: tax rebates, better health care, more scholarships. In other words, what can government do for me.
Obama is an experience provider--he's Whole Foods, BMW, W Hotel, His voters are looking for an uplifting experience. In other words, not so much what government can do for me (though looking at the tax rates paid by hedge fund managers, some very upscale voters are interested in tangible benefits from government), but how will I feel about about my government and being a citizen.
Interesting piece. Check it out on the paper's website www.nytimes.com, op-ed section.
Brooks articulates the downscale-upscale dichotomy well and gives Obama his campaign theme in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania: Hillary's approach of continued trench warfare between the parties is a throwback to the past, which will not produce the benefits you want. And the subtle message that the gaps between the classes really began to widen in the 1990's under Bill's watch (though this is heresy for a Democrat and globalization was the reason, Bill was mainly a bystander).
Last edited: