How To Stop The Emerging Democratic Majority
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | The McGovern Coalition Makes Its Comeback — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
John Judis is a big fan and booster of Democratic electoral prospects, which means that he likely reacts negatively in response to right-of-center talking points concerning whether certain Democratic candidates are ideologically beyond the pale.
Interestingly enough, however, it would seem that Judis has a lot of sympathy for right-of-center talking points concerning whether Barack Obama may be ideologically beyond the pale:
Hillary Clinton won a decisive ten-round decision over Barack Obama in Pennsylvania's Democratic primary, but she didn't score a knockout. The struggle continues. Clinton still has virtually no chance of overtaking Obama's delegate lead or his edge in the popular vote. And the superdelegates will be loath to ignore this advantage. Meanwhile, Obama's weaknesses as a general election candidate grow more apparent with each successive primary.
Clinton's best chance of winning the nomination was to win Pennsylvania so decisively that she would have set off a media firestorm about Obama's electability--one that would lead superdelegates to wonder whether she would not be a much, much stronger candidate in November. In the wake of revelations about Obama's relationship with Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Clinton was ahead by 15 percent or more in polls. I visited Pennsylvania during this time, and could feel the growing disillusionment with Obama.
Obama, of course, cut into Clinton's lead through outspending her two-to-one on advertisements, but Clinton seriously damaged her own cause by going negative on Obama during the April 16 debate--and probably, too, by her subsequent ads. ABC moderators George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson had already done sufficient damage without Clinton piling on. According to the exit polls, 68 percent of Pennsylvania Democrats thought Clinton attacked Obama unfairly, and they backed Obama by 55 to 45 percent. It's hard to know for sure, but these tactics probably cost her among white college-educated voters who don't like to think of elections as prize fights. (The editorial in this morning's New York Times, entitled "The Low Road to Victory," reflects this dissatisfaction with the way Clinton conducted herself.)
For his part, Obama cut into Clinton's advantage, but couldn't erase it. Even though he campaigned extensively among white working class Pennsylvanians, he still couldn't crack this constituency. He lost every white working class county in the state. He lost greater Pittsburgh area by 61 to 39 percent. He did poorly among Catholics--losing them 71 to 29 percent. A Democrat can't win Pennsylvania in the fall without these voters. And those who didn't vote in the primary but will vote in the general election are likely to be even less amenable to Obama.
But Obama also lost ground among the upscale white professionals that had helped him win states like Wisconsin, Maryland, and Virginia. For instance, Obama won my own Montgomery County, Maryland by 55 to 43 percent but he lost suburban Philadelphia's very similar Montgomery County by 51 to 49 percent to Clinton. He lost upscale arty Bucks County by 62 to 38 percent.
Judis's conclusion? That the juggernaut-like political coalition George McGovern put together is potentially coming back to "haunt" the Democrats. These very same talking points will likely be repeated to superdelegates by the Clinton campaign.
And who knows? At least a few of those superdelegates might listen. No wonder Hillary Clinton isn't leaving the race.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | He Really IS Dick Cheney's Cousin! — Comments (13) »
How To Stop The Emerging Democratic Majority 10 Comments (0 topical, 10 editorial, 1 hidden) Post a comment »
1). A rough 50% split of the remaining pledged delegates;
2). No movement either way from declared super-delegates;
and
3). No seating of FL or MI.
As it stands, the Obama people are right about one thing: this could be effectively ended today if the remaining undeclared super-delegates got up and moved to his side. That they're not is... amusingly entertaining.
Numbers drawn from here.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
& also great observation. Why are those undeclared delegates not rushing to finish this? We know they were put in place to keep another McGovern 49 state loser out, & Obama is (by the esitmates of many) shaping up to be such a candidate. I believe (no real rocket science here) that they are waiting to see what the Indiana results are.
Do you think we'll see a re-vamp of primary rules for the democrats after this is all over?
So call it: heads, or tails?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
... and being kissed up to is oh so irresistible.
The 68% think Clinton attacked unfairly is because 55% supported Obama, not the the other way around. Like their candidate, the supporters of Obama exist in an alternate reality where he can do no wrong, and therefore any attack on him must be unfair. The cause and effect order are more important than the raw numbers.
Oh, and I think you're wrong on the prize fight angle. Most of my white college educated friends (especially the ones from PA) think of governmental elections as dirty, down in the mud, street fights. They aren't fast, they aren't pretty, and you only get points for being the last man standing, rarely for style. Oh, and it's expected in such situations that IF a referee happens to show up on the field, he is likely to get hit by all combatants at once, therefore going down even more quickly than the actual combatants will.
The superdelegates were created to prevent just such a thing from happening that is happening today. Yet it seems they are going to be intimidated into going with the wrong candidate anyway. So much for this great Democratic plan.
BTW, Judis has been peddling this emerging majority stuff for about a decade now. He is off (although if he keeps predicting it for another decade, he may actually be right, since they tend to happen every thirty years). Our last universally recognized "realignment" occurred in the 1930's, but we have had one in the 1960's - when the GOP became the majority party for the Presidency while the Dems established an edge with the Congress - and in the 1990's - when both parties became essentially even. The thirty year cycle is because it takes that long for enough new voters to cycle into the picture in sufficient numbers for it to happen.
The superdelegates were created to prevent just such a thing from happening that is happening today. Yet it seems they are going to be intimidated into going with the wrong candidate anyway. So much for this great Democratic plan.
The "great Democratic plan" would be working fine, if the choice were between two white male candidates. Then the Democratic rank-and-file base of women and minorities wouldn't have this huge emotional identity-politics stake in the outcome, and the superdelegates could choose dispassionately which candidate to nominate.
But anyone old enough to remember the riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention knows what can go wrong when militants get slapped down. The superdelegates fear the reaction from African-Americans if they refuse to allow Obama to be the nominee.
That BHO probably can't win the general. But the entire reason for the Dhimmicrats coming up with the 'superdelegates' was to make sure the result of the convention was a candidate that COULD win. Now the Dhimmicrats find themselves in a Catch 22. There's a lot of evidence that Hilly has a better chance to carry the general election, especially in states that one has to carry to win the electoral votes. BHO isn't carrying the demographics that would allow him to carry those states. But if the Dhimmicrats use the superdelegates for their intended purpose, they'll likely alienate a HUGE portion of their base. So if the superdelegates put HRC in the position of the party nominee, they'll harm the party. If they put forth BHO, they'll likely lose the general. That's why a lot of them are using the Meatloaf line:
"Let me sleep on it. I'll give you an answer in the morning."
With Dean telling them:
"I gotta know right NOW"
I heard it on the X......
One theory that the Left is now circulating, is that McGovern was actually 30 years ahead of his time. That he had the right idea but the wrong century.
They claim that today, the demographics of America have shifted to the point that the McGovern coalition could win a national election. Organized labor and blue-collar workers are a shrinking percentage of the population; college students are a large and growing part of the population; and America is becoming more diverse to the point that white folks will be a minority in America some time in this century. Hence a coalition made up of the college educated and minorities would be much more potent in 2008 than in 1972.
All this is true except for one problem: The Obama coalition isn't even as big as the McGovern coalition. McGovern had women and Hispanics on his side. Obama does not. Those groups have broken for Hillary. McCain stands a good chance to pick up a lot of Hispanic votes--he is one of the very few Republicans who could.
And McGovern didn't have to contend with countervailing cohorts like Christian evangelicals, who were a relatively minor force in 1972 but a real big force in 2008.
The Obama coalition of blacks and the college educated is therefore actually smaller than the McGovern coalition. Unless Obama can win back all the women and Hispanics who are currently supporting Hillary.
she needs more than a few Super Delegates to listen.
She needs somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% of the remaining Super Delegates to back her.
Since around 50% of them are from states Obama has won by more than 20 pts, and when you add in the # of Super Delegates who have said they'll back the pledged delegate leader it's far more than 50+ of the remaining Supers, it's a very tall order.
Since Tuesday, 3 Supers have declared for Obama vs 1 for Clinton. That 25% rate just isn't going to cut it.