Obama’s Chances in South Carolina: Can a Wine-Tracker Win?

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Let’s do some thinking about the Democratic race in South Carolina (primary: Jan. 26; current polling here). Considering the Democratic electorate there is roughly 50% white and 50% black, Obama ought to have a huge advantage. But his main opposition is the wife of America’s first black president—the Clinton’s have very strong ties to many parts of the black community—and the polls show a close race.

The easiest observation is this: Edwards continued presence in the race divides the white vote, making things easier for Obama.

But here’s a more interesting hypothesis: South Carolina may prove Obama’s viability more generally. Here’s why. Obama is considered a “wine-track” candidate. He appeals to upper-class, well-educated voters. Professors love him. So do college kids on Facebook. He isn’t a “beer-track” candidate, someone who appeals to working- and middle-class voters. Usually, beer-trackers get the support of traditional Democratic constituencies like labor. Here’s a better explanation:

Since the 1960s, Democratic nominating contests regularly have come down to a struggle between a candidate who draws support primarily from upscale, economically comfortable voters liberal on social and foreign policy issues, and a rival who relies mostly on downscale, financially strained voters drawn to populist economics and somewhat more conservative views on cultural and national security issues.

It’s not much of an oversimplification to say that the blue-collar Democrats tend to see elections as an arena for defending their interests, and the upscale voters see them as an opportunity to affirm their values.

Thing is, wine-trackers don’t win. Adlai Stevenson, Eugene McCarthy, Gary Hart, Bill Bradley, John Kerry (Bradley and Kerry have endorsed Obama)… they’ve all lost in either the primary or the general.

But Obama might rewrite the equation. If you take the wine-track voters (who looove the fact that Obama has written books, for example), but you add an unprecendent number of young and independent voters, and you add a hefty share of black voters to that, now you’ve got a coalition that can beat the working class block that traditionally sides with the establishment candidate.

Two other notes, re: Kerry and Richardson, after the jump.

The Kerry endorsement, which was just announced, is a bit slap in the face to Edwards, who ran on a ticket with Kerry in 2004. But Edwards reacted graciously, saying, “Our country and our Party are stronger because of John’s service, and I respect his decision. When we were running against each other and on the same ticket, John and I agreed on many issues. I continue to believe that this election is about the future, not the past, and that the country needs a President who will fight aggressively to end the status quo.” Translation: I respect John Kerry, but he’s a figure of the past. And besides, he’s part of the Washington system that I’ve spent this campaign criticizing.

After struggling to catch fire for months, Bill Richardson is dropping out. I’ve been struggling for something to say about this, and I can’t find anything. Some of his supporters probably liked his experience and will drift toward Clinton. Some probably liked his opposition to the war and will drift to Edwards or Obama. Any Richardson supporters want to give their thoughts in the comments?


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend