rplat, OldEnglish: Perhaps my question was not tuned well enough, but I am currently studying for a BS degree in IE, already having a BA in Japanese. I plan on going onwards for an MS and Ph.D in IE. I am also about as conservative as one can be.

I think that many more people would self-identify as ‘upscale’ than would be found by an independent analysis based on objective performance measures.

My main purpose was to show that Obama appeals to self-identified ‘upscale’ voters on his ‘merits’. Palin does the same to ‘downscale’ voters.

Barone is quite fallacious in his thinking if ‘upscale’ is who needs to be targeted by conservative philosophy. Perhaps he wishes to see a ‘trickle-down’ effect, and there is some small argument to be made there. (E.g., switching one professor from liberal to conservative, assuming that the professor makes such feelings known in his classes, could influence far more people than someone not in such a position.) However, that professor has a single vote (just like everyone else), and there is an implication here that people want to be told how to think.

You can either influence people who can influence others, or you influence everyone directly. I was under the impression that conservatives preferred the latter approach. This is what Reagan did when he addressed the people directly to explain proposed legislation.

Obama cannot ever credibly claim that he ‘understands where the American people are coming from’ on almost any issue, because of his background. His background may work well from a foreign policy perspective, but I haven’t seen any sparkling gems from him so far on that. Also, Obama may forget that the American people elect their President, not the world.

There is something to be said for taking the fight to college campuses, which is the main breeding ground for liberal votes. (Consider that abortion is killing off the black vote, feminists and gays don’t generally reproduce, and that new (Hispanic) immigration, legal or not, is generally socially conservative.) However, taking a stand on ‘upscale’ vs. ‘downscale’ is exactly the kind of elitist statement that will haunt the Republicans for years if they want to represent conservative belief in this country.

Scott H on February 2, 2009 at 8:40 AM

Oh, and progressoverpeace: I certainly would agree with you on Obama overall. Perhaps you felt that I was not conservative in my statement?

Re: Obama’s intelligence, I think that he views himself as very intelligent. I certainly would call him cunning. However, since I consider that nearly everyone here shares your view of Obama, I’m not sure how that moves the discussion forward.

Perhaps a better way of stating my goal would be to say, “All else being equal, ‘upscale’ voters would vote for Obama, while ‘downscale’ voters would vote for Palin.” This of course assumes that everyone has no political beliefs. The overall utility of such discourse may be limited, but it should be noted that Democrat methods for winning elections (the legitimate methods, anyway) have always focused on winning over ‘downscale’ voters, because those are the voters that generally have the least in common with their candidates.

I feel that targeting ‘upscale’ voters would be a mistake for the Republican party, since those are fewer in number by almost every definition of the terms ‘upscale’ and ‘downscale’.

I also feel compelled to point out that I mean ‘winning over’ as ‘winning over to our philosophy’, not ‘pandering to the group’s agenda’.

Scott H on February 2, 2009 at 8:46 AM