Whole Foods and other Democratic myths
We all know that Barack Obama is the Whole Foods candidate, right? It's been said enough times that, by McCains law, it must be true. Well, by my count, there are 61 Whole Foods locations in states Obama won. Eighteen of them are in Colorado. Fifteen in Illinois. Alaska, Deleware, Idaho, and North Dakota each have a grand total of zero. Most others have between one and three. California (indeed a much bigger state, but also one with all manner of other small high-end grocery chains), has 24 Whole Foodses. Massachusetts has 19. New York seven. In Clinton-won states with contested primaries, there are (by a quick tally) 75 Whole Foodses. If you count Michigan and Florida, there are 93.
Likewise, in California, Clinton won counties like San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, and San Mateo, where relatively speaking, they like their wine and their Macintoshes.
So can we give it a rest, yet?
Comments
I think there are only a few narratives that the media can really wrap their heads around; "everyman v. fancypants" seems to be the one that they are all cramming down our throats.
Let's see: wine voter v. beer voter, mac v, apple, whole foods v. safeway, Starbucks v Dunkin Donuts...
What more contrived cliches can the media come up with next?
Maserati liberal v. beat-up-truck-with-a-charmingly-faded-paint-job liberal?
Gold-flaked truffle chocolate liberal v. Three Musketeers liberal?
Rich Mahogany Armoire liberal v. Ikea balsa wood liberal?
Nesbit Q. Fancypants liberal v. Joe Six-pack liberal?
I saw David Brooks yakking on TV about the nature of the donations to the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Clinton has many maxed-out donors, $2,300, and Obama has many more donors who only gave 10 or 15 dollars. Now, the only logical conclusion here is that Clinton has many wealthy donors, whereas Obama has a wider base of people who are unable to spare two and a half grand.
Brooks naturally forces the evidence into his Kerry v. Bush framework, saying that this showed that Obama had amassed the wealthy crowd, who was willing to give, whereas Clinton's base, under $50K a year, was unable to give as much. (No mention of the huge donations that compose her campaign.)
All this shows is that the media is exceedingly lazy in giving meaningful analyses of the election; I'm not convinced that it was the Ivy-league-attending, latte-sipping Prius drivers that threw Alaska, Nebraska, Maine, and Iowa to Obama.
Maybe this has something to do with it:
Memes about people only need to SEEM plausible to gain widespread acceptance. Obama OUGHT to attract wine-drinking, arugula-eating folks, right? So, repeat, repeat, repeat, and soon it will be 'true'.
BTW, Obama's Iowa comment on Whole Foods and arugula was wrong on both counts, not just WF. Who eats arugula anywhere between LA/SF and NYC/DC?. But the comment didn't really make more than a blip, so a do-over is assured. Tomatos! $3.00 a pound! (for the crappy offerings). Milk over $3.00 a gallon!
But Iowas must be doing something right, right? Pork is still cheap for factory-farmed Soylent Orange. Soylent Green still is expensive as always, but ratcheted now to over $11.00/pd for ribeye steaks. Don't even mention seafood prices.
I'm beginning to hope/believe that the era of mindless meme era(with overtones of attack motivation, and finish that is smooth on the tongue) may be wanning. It sure looks like the conventional wisdom hasn't been bought wholesale by voters in those somewhat vacant places that are often red on the political maps. You know: blacks can't win a white-voter state, right?
Post A Comment