Does McCain have a rural problem?

[Nym90]

Interesting article by Jay Cost of RealClearPolitics. Helps explain Indiana a bit.

Does McCain Have a Rural Problem?

I have covered in some detail Barack Obama's "rural problem," which manifested itself in poor performances in primary battles east of the Mississippi. My sense - based on the poll data, press reports, and people with whom I speak in Western Pennsylvania - is that it is still present.

Does John McCain have a rural problem, too?

What tipped me off to the possibility is McCain's poll position in Indiana. In its most recent report, the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project showed that McCain is not spending money on television in the Hoosier State. But the polls have been tight - which has been contrary to my expectations. I figured that, with the conventions and the realization that this is a close race, the partisanship of Indiana would induce the state to swing McCain's way (an inverse of New Jersey's quadrennial flirtation with the GOP). According to recent polls, this has not happened. McCain retains a lead in the RCP average, but it is much less than what George W. Bush pulled in 2004. Why?

Pundits have often referenced Obama's proximity to the state. That's a positive reason to explain the tight race: Indiana likes Obama because he's the friendly neighbor. But what if part of the answer is negative: Indiana doesn't like McCain so much.

Why would Indiana not like John McCain? After all, he's a Republican who has stood up for party reform and good governance. For example, he has opposed government subsidies for ethanol, and the good Republican folk in Indiana should really respond to that, right?

Maybe not.

Indiana is a major producer of ethanol - number 5 in the nation, capable of producing 1.2 billion gallons of ethanol per year. Indiana also ranks number 5 in corn production, generating 760 million bushels per year. Corn producers love ethanol because it's another use for their crop, which means corn prices go up.

Could this be why McCain is doing poorly relative to George W. Bush's performance in 2004? It might be. Granted, only a small slice of Indiana's workforce is classified as agricultural. Like western Ohio, Indiana's workers are much more focused on manufacturing and tech than agriculture - despite the vast acres dedicated to farming. However, corn production is still a crucial aspect of the state's economy - especially in the productive farmland along Interstate 65 between Indianapolis and...Chicago!

I'd note that McCain is also doing poorly in Iowa, number one with a bullet in both corn and ethanol production. He's also had problems in Minnesota, number four in ethanol and corn.

This ethanol issue might explain this peculiar bit of news that crossed my sight line last week.

    OMAHA, Neb. - Reliably Republican, Nebraska has been giving the GOP all its electoral votes in every presidential election since 1964. Democratic candidate Barack Obama is trying to take just one of its five votes this year by focusing on Omaha, the state's biggest, most diverse city.

Why would Obama be angling for Nebraska? It could be in part that it's number 3 in corn and number 2 in ethanol. Of course, Omaha is a large city - not a farm. However, it is tied to the economy of the state, and therefore to corn and ethanol. Maybe the Obama campaign's theory is that disinclination to McCain among ethanol-friendly voters, plus the 10% African American population, plus the 6% Hispanic population, plus the tight geographical boundaries of the district (favorable for organizing) will enable him to eke out a win.

Meanwhile, Illinois ranks second in corn production and third in ethanol. If there is something going on here, it is unsurprising that a candidate like Obama - an urban politician who must appeal to a large rural electorate - would note it. If you want to win statewide in Illinois, you have to know a thing or two about the downstate economy. That might have tipped his team off to the potential of Iowa, Indiana, and even Nebraska.

There are two other states that Obama has angled for that might be explained by McCain's anti-pork stands: North Dakota and Alaska. Again, it is strange to expect to vote against the Republican nominee. But is it strange to expect them to vote against John McCain?

Again, maybe not.

John McCain has a reputation as a pork buster. This year Alaska received the most pork per capita - $555.54 per person. North Dakota ranks third - $207.72 per person. This might even explain why the Obama campaign recently tossed a few bucks in advertising at West Virginia, which received $179.80 per person this year.

Unfortunately, we don't have the kind of polling data that could push this analysis to the next level. We'd need to link individual attitudes about McCain to proximity to ethanol and/or pork barrel spending. We can't do that. All we can do is suggest that McCain might have a problem.

If he does, it would be a lesson in why Congress still rolls the log: it helps members win reelection. People might not like the profligacy of the process, but many of them like getting goodies from the government. Some people in some places more than like it - they actually need the assistance. If you stand in their way, then give them an opportunity to vote you down, they might just do that.

What's this mean electorally? McCain only needs Indiana to go for him by a single vote. He can sacrifice some votes there. More than some, actually. Bush won the state by 20 points in 2004. It's one thing to talk about Obama shaving that lead down. It's another thing entirely to talk about him taking the state. Ditto for Nebraska's second congressional district, which went for Bush by 22 points in 2004. I would be surprised if Obama took either. And recent reports indicate that Obama has bailed on North Dakota and Alaska.

So, outside Iowa, it's unlikely that any Electors are going to be moved. Nevertheless, based on the data available to us in the public, we'd have to peg the likelihood of Obama winning Indiana at some non-zero number. That's pretty unique for a year that probably won't be a Democratic blowout.

I don't know if the McCain campaign needs to do engage Obama in Indiana. After all, it has reams of data that those of us in the public simply do not possess. We have just a handful of public polls. It has so much more than that. Team McCain might be looking at that three-point lead in the Hoosier State and feel pretty good, given how much Obama has spent. We can't know.

Nevertheless, it is fair to suggest that it consider tightening it's message to farmers. A quick Google search betrays McCain's soft underbelly on this front.



Compare that to what we find searching "Farmers for Obama." This is not what John McCain should want an undecided Indiana farmer to see when trying to make a decision on whom to support.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think it basically comes down to that Bush was a very good candidate for most rural areas, and McCain isn't.

[Nym90]

Added the rest of the article that got chopped off the first time.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Most rural voters will vote for McCain. When asked why, the reasons will be moral values, Obama's background, and experience, in that order. You'll see.

That said, while McCain is obviously going to win the rural vote, I don't think he'll do as well as Bush did, and I don't think he connects with rural America as well as many of the Republicans here think he does. There's a reason he lost these voters so badly to Bush when he ran against him in the primary 8 years ago.

[Sam Spade]

So, why is McCain now gaining to reasonable levels vis-a-vis 2004 in ND and not in IN? 

Would seem to me that there's many more farmers per capita in ND than IN.  In fact, a movement in terms of farmers wouldn't bring anywhere close to 15 point movement, especially since I doubt the Appalachian part of IN (SE Indiana) is moving one bit.

[Torie]

The problem with this little thesis is that where McCain is under-performing is in  that "rural" county of Marion. Otherwise, his polling numbers are close to normal. He's even carrying northeast Indiana (race?). I heard on the radio that McCain is carrying rural voters by 10% in one poll, which was what Bush 2004's margin was in polling at this time in the campaign cycle. In the end, Bush fattened that up to a 20% margin.

As one sage once said someplace, "we shall see, be patient." 

[Nym90]

So, why is McCain now gaining to reasonable levels vis-a-vis 2004 in ND and not in IN? 

Would seem to me that there's many more farmers per capita in ND than IN.  In fact, a movement in terms of farmers wouldn't bring anywhere close to 15 point movement, especially since I doubt the Appalachian part of IN (SE Indiana) is moving one bit.

Yes, but North Dakota is wheat farmers, not corn farmers. Big difference on the ethanol issue.

But yeah, I don't really agree with everything he says by any means, but some good points were raised. Interesting food for thought at least.

[Torie]

So, why is McCain now gaining to reasonable levels vis-a-vis 2004 in ND and not in IN? 

Would seem to me that there's many more farmers per capita in ND than IN.  In fact, a movement in terms of farmers wouldn't bring anywhere close to 15 point movement, especially since I doubt the Appalachian part of IN (SE Indiana) is moving one bit.

Yes, but North Dakota is wheat farmers, not corn farmers. Big difference on the ethanol issue.

But yeah, I don't really agree with everything he says by any means, but some good points were raised. Interesting food for thought at least.

Indiana does not have many farmers. That is not what the rural vote means. What the rural vote means are folks who don't live in metro areas over 500,000 in population or something. Moreover, all  those medium sized towns in Indiana are largely into manufacturing, not tied to the agricultural industry,  rather than providing services to the area farmers. Southern Indiana's farmland is largely a piece of crap anyway.

[Sam Spade]

So, why is McCain now gaining to reasonable levels vis-a-vis 2004 in ND and not in IN? 

Would seem to me that there's many more farmers per capita in ND than IN.  In fact, a movement in terms of farmers wouldn't bring anywhere close to 15 point movement, especially since I doubt the Appalachian part of IN (SE Indiana) is moving one bit.

Yes, but North Dakota is wheat farmers, not corn farmers. Big difference on the ethanol issue.

But yeah, I don't really agree with everything he says by any means, but some good points were raised. Interesting food for thought at least.

Still, as Torie pointed out, the per capita number of farmers in Indiana is not high as compared to the total population.

[Lunar]

What matters is not the per capita number of farmers but the % of the population that identifies with their corn farmers or feels that they provide an integral part of the economy.  Most Iowans aren't farmers either.  Neither are most North Dakotans.

But no, I don't buy that McCain has a rural problems.  Looks like he has a Google problem about the issue more than anything else.

[Torie]

What matters is not the per capita number of farmers but the % of the population that identifies with their corn farmers or feels that they provide an integral part of the economy.  Most Iowans aren't farmers either.  Neither are most North Dakotans.

But no, I don't buy that McCain has a rural problems.  Looks like he has a Google problem about the issue more than anything else.

Ya, and my point is that most folks in Indiana do not identify with farmers and the farm economy unlike in Iowa. Heck in Iowa even the manufacturing is typically agriculture related - meat packing, John Deer tractors, etc. But then as I said, rural does not equal farming anyway in the nomenclature of polling. 

[cinyc]

But no, I don't buy that McCain has a rural problems.  Looks like he has a Google problem about the issue more than anything else.

What do you mean by a Google problem?  More Obama astroturfing?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Agricultural issues dominate rural areas in the corn belt despite a relatively low number of actual farmers.  Agriculture is still the dominant economic input in these areas even though many people are employed in secondary agricultural "manufacturing" such as farm equipment, food products, etc.

My district, MN-7, is largely dominated by farm issues despite where I live having almost no farming outside of cattle farmers because it's too cold and it's forested land here... yet these issues are a big deal even in local races.

McCains stance against earmarks, which have benefited rural areas more than others, and his stance against farm subsidies has hurt him a lot.

The last poll numbers I saw that were divided by region in Minnesota had Obama ahead with a comfortable lead in the traditional DFL mining areas of Northeastern Minnesota and in western Minnesota, which is primarily agriculture.  At the same time, McCain was winning the suburbs.  This is a far cry from '04, when Bush handily carried western Minnesota and did better than most Republicans in the region.

It doesn't matter how many farmers there actually are.  If you look around and see lots of corn fields, chances are, they come up a lot in conversation even among the waitresses down at the local cafe.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So, why is McCain now gaining to reasonable levels vis-a-vis 2004 in ND and not in IN? 

Would seem to me that there's many more farmers per capita in ND than IN.  In fact, a movement in terms of farmers wouldn't bring anywhere close to 15 point movement, especially since I doubt the Appalachian part of IN (SE Indiana) is moving one bit.

Officially there is no Appalachian part of Indiana:

[memphis]

So, why is McCain now gaining to reasonable levels vis-a-vis 2004 in ND and not in IN? 

Would seem to me that there's many more farmers per capita in ND than IN.  In fact, a movement in terms of farmers wouldn't bring anywhere close to 15 point movement, especially since I doubt the Appalachian part of IN (SE Indiana) is moving one bit.

Officially there is no Appalachian part of Indiana:

Despite what Congress says, there's no Appalachian part of Mississippi either.

[Torie]

It is odd Appalachia grabs the Southern tier of counties in NY. What is up with that?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It is odd Appalachia grabs the Southern tier of counties in NY. What is up with that?

That's generally a poor rural area that wants nothing to do with NYC. It does extend a bit too far east though I'd say. Lumping in almost everything north of Allentown and west of York in Pennsylvania is also going a bit too far I'd say. Might also go a bit too far south in Alabama (Birminigham?).

[Torie]

It is odd Appalachia grabs the Southern tier of counties in NY. What is up with that?

That's generally a poor rural area that wants nothing to do with NYC. It does extend a bit too far east though I'd say. Lumping in almost everything north of Allentown and west of York in Pennsylvania is also going a bit too far I'd say. Might also go a bit too far south in Alabama (Birminigham?).

Thompkins County is Appalachia (the home of Cornell University)? Binghamton Is too?  And Chautaqua County?  Who knew?