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.
My colleague Noam Scheiber attributes Clinton’s success among these suburbanites to the influence of Governor Ed Rendell, who campaigned with Clinton, but I wonder whether Obama’s gaffes and his suspect associations--whether with Wright or former Weatherman Bill Ayers or real estate developer Tony Rezko--began to tarnish his image among these voters. If so, the electoral premise of Obama’s campaign--that he can attract middle class Republicans and Independents--is being undermined.
Indeed, if you look at Obama’s vote in Pennsylvania, you begin to see the outlines of the old George McGovern coalition that haunted the Democrats during the ’70s and ’80s, led by college students and minorities. In Pennsylvania, Obama did best in college towns (60 to 40 percent in Penn State’s Centre County) and in heavily black areas like Philadelphia.
Its ideology is very liberal. Whereas in the first primaries and caucuses, Obama benefited from being seen as middle-of-the-road or even conservative, he is now receiving his strongest support from voters who see themselves as “very liberal.” In Pennsylvania, he defeated Clinton among “very liberal” voters by 55 to 45 percent, but lost “somewhat conservative” voters by 53 to 47 percent and moderates by 60 to 40 percent. In Wisconsin and Virginia, by contrast, he had done best against Clinton among voters who saw themselves as moderate or somewhat conservative.
Obama even seems to be acquiring the religious profile of the old McGovern coalition. In the early primaries and caucuses, Obama did very well among the observant. In Maryland, he defeated Clinton among those who attended religious services weekly by 61 to 31 percent. By contrast, in Pennsylvania, he lost to Clinton among these voters by 58 to 42 percent and did best among voters who never attend religious services, winning them by 56 to 44 percent. There is nothing wrong with winning over voters who are very liberal and who never attend religious services; but if they begin to become Obama’s most fervent base of support, he will have trouble (to say the least) in November.
The primaries, unfortunately, are not going to get any easier for Obama. While he should win easily in North Carolina, where he benefits from a large African-American vote and support in the state’s college communities, he is going to have trouble in Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, where he will once again be faced by a large white working class vote. He can still win the nomination and lose these primaries. Pennsylvania was the last big delegate prize. But if Obama doesn’t find a way now to speak to these voters, he is going to have trouble winning that large swath of states from Pennsylvania through Missouri in which a Democrat must do well to gain the presidency. That remains Obama challenge in the month to come.
Read Jonathan Chait's response to Judis' argument here.
John B. Judis is a senior editor at The New Republic and a visiting fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (252)
I hate to say it, Mr. Judis, because I think some of your work is brilliant. But your election analysis has become some of the worst sophistry online. It's just gross intellectual dishonesty, truthiness at its best: "I visited Pennsylvania during this time, and could feel the growing disillusionment with Obama." You can just *feel* it, can't you? Therefore it's true!
A loss to Hillary = a loss to McCain in the general. This has been your favorite of Wolfson's various pieces of specious reasoning, regardless of the number of of times TNR's talkbackers remind you that it's D- reasoning at best.
It's also illogical to make inferences from PA to the rest of the country. Ohio and Pennsylvania are o ... view full comment
I hate to say it, Mr. Judis, because I think some of your work is brilliant. But your election analysis has become some of the worst sophistry online. It's just gross intellectual dishonesty, truthiness at its best: "I visited Pennsylvania during this time, and could feel the growing disillusionment with Obama." You can just *feel* it, can't you? Therefore it's true!
A loss to Hillary = a loss to McCain in the general. This has been your favorite of Wolfson's various pieces of specious reasoning, regardless of the number of of times TNR's talkbackers remind you that it's D- reasoning at best.
It's also illogical to make inferences from PA to the rest of the country. Ohio and Pennsylvania are one type of state. Washington and Oregon are another. It's no surprise that you refused to mention Oregon and Montana in your projections for the rest of the primary.
But you can *just feel* the disillusionment with Obama, so who cares about the facts.
Seriously, you and Cohn are writing analysis that is simply embarrassing.
Absolute demographic breakdowns of the voting do not provide a measure of the relative impact of the contestant campaigns. You need to look at relative demographics (i.e. the vote results yesterday vs. polling data from when they started campaigning in PA).
Absolute demographic breakdowns of the voting do not provide a measure of the relative impact of the contestant campaigns. You need to look at relative demographics (i.e. the vote results yesterday vs. polling data from when they started campaigning in PA).
http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/
9,177 out of 9,263 Districts (99.07%) reporting statewide --
Hillary Clinton 1,234,547 54.3%
Barack Obama 1,041,136 45.8%
Spread = 8.5% .... NOT 10%
http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/
9,177 out of 9,263 Districts (99.07%) reporting statewide --
Hillary Clinton 1,234,547 54.3%
Barack Obama 1,041,136 45.8%
Spread = 8.5% .... NOT 10%
There could not be a more delicious situation for the Republican party.
The Democrats are stuck with Obama. Even if the superdelegates conclude that he is unelectable, as long as he has won more delegates, they dare not cast him aside for fear of alienating the crucial and highly dependable black vote for a generation.
Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, and all the rest of the Obama baggage is not going away. Likely, new revelations are in store. But unless a felony conviction or pederasty is discovered, the Democrats will be forced to nominate him.
I will refrain from rubbing my hands together lest it generate bad luck.
There could not be a more delicious situation for the Republican party.
The Democrats are stuck with Obama. Even if the superdelegates conclude that he is unelectable, as long as he has won more delegates, they dare not cast him aside for fear of alienating the crucial and highly dependable black vote for a generation.
Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, and all the rest of the Obama baggage is not going away. Likely, new revelations are in store. But unless a felony conviction or pederasty is discovered, the Democrats will be forced to nominate him.
I will refrain from rubbing my hands together lest it generate bad luck.
ummm why does this say anything about obama's electability in a general election?
it just says that for right now, a lot of registered democrat morons would rather vote for the familiar clinton name or the woman.
seriously, i know a girl from pa who wrote in an email, "i am for hillary, obviously, since i am a woman." and she was serious.
in the general election, these dumbasses will buckle down and vote obama.
actually, it won't even require buckling-down, because their attention to politics is so thin they probably will have already forgotten the entire primary by election day.
ummm why does this say anything about obama's electability in a general election?
it just says that for right now, a lot of registered democrat morons would rather vote for the familiar clinton name or the woman.
seriously, i know a girl from pa who wrote in an email, "i am for hillary, obviously, since i am a woman." and she was serious.
in the general election, these dumbasses will buckle down and vote obama.
actually, it won't even require buckling-down, because their attention to politics is so thin they probably will have already forgotten the entire primary by election day.
As a disclaimer, I am a post-graduate educated African-American who has seen both sides of the fence. I was raised in inner-city Detroit, MI and educated at University of Virginia ("The Harvard of the South") and George Washington University Law School ("Isreal in the Nation's Capital"). But lets please call a spade a spade here. The reason Obama has problems with "working-class" white democrats is because he is a well-educated african-american who does not or cannot pander to the less educated of our society. There is a reason that poor people continue to be poor and the marginalized classes continue to be marginalized. It is because they are stupid, ignorant, etc, etc. The socio-econ ... view full comment
As a disclaimer, I am a post-graduate educated African-American who has seen both sides of the fence. I was raised in inner-city Detroit, MI and educated at University of Virginia ("The Harvard of the South") and George Washington University Law School ("Isreal in the Nation's Capital"). But lets please call a spade a spade here. The reason Obama has problems with "working-class" white democrats is because he is a well-educated african-american who does not or cannot pander to the less educated of our society. There is a reason that poor people continue to be poor and the marginalized classes continue to be marginalized. It is because they are stupid, ignorant, etc, etc. The socio-economic state of our country gets worse and worse and worse and worse by the election, and this is not a coincidence. Our country is on the undeniable decline and this can be attributed, to a large extent, to our populace. Poor, uneducated, xenophobic, uninformed, deer-hunting, lapel pin-wearing, bible beating masses continue to support policies, candidates, and ideologies that do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but make the rich richer and the poor poorer. To be quite frank, I have never had any sort of sympathy for Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. You know why? Because they are the arm-pit(s) of the United States. The citizens of states like these are the reason that our policies dont improve and the socio-economic positions of the vast majority of their constituents continue to be the worst of the worst. Think about it. What is a "Reagan Democrat"? In short, it is a less-educated, most like European-American who votes cultural issues over their pocket book. Why should we feel bad for Ohio losing thousands of jobs? The reason the state has lost thousands of jobs is because they insisted on voting for a candidate who pandered to their interests while implementing policies that siphon and suck their precious economic resources (i.e. George Bush). These people are idiots. Pennsylvania will suffer the same fate and I will laugh. To make matters worse, I am an educated "black boy" who is able to see through the charade but fortunate enough to not let the system exploit me, but instead exploit the system. There is a reason why poor white people in this country continue to be poor, and thats because they are ignorant, racist, prejudice, xenophobic morons who would rather risk losing children to war than entertain the idea of a non-white individual having better ideas than them. I wish these people nothing but the worst. To hell, or the the Catholic vernacular, "to pergatory" with all of them. Enjoy the continual rotting of our country, people.
It's hard to imagine Sam Nunn or David Boren endorsing George McGovern. Similarly, I don't think George McGovern would have advocated adding 65,000 ground troops to the Army and an additional 27,000 Marines.
Whoever is nominated by the Democrats will be tarred as coming from the "George McGovern wing" of the Democratic Party. That is simply standard operating procedure. It's brilliant because it's sends two messages: 1) the candidate is too liberal (ie, culturally out of touch and someone who will raise your taxes and) and 2) the candidate cannot win.
Yet for many of us, Obama is appealing precisely because he is NOT the "George McGovern candidate" - that is, he is not some counter-cul ... view full comment
It's hard to imagine Sam Nunn or David Boren endorsing George McGovern. Similarly, I don't think George McGovern would have advocated adding 65,000 ground troops to the Army and an additional 27,000 Marines.
Whoever is nominated by the Democrats will be tarred as coming from the "George McGovern wing" of the Democratic Party. That is simply standard operating procedure. It's brilliant because it's sends two messages: 1) the candidate is too liberal (ie, culturally out of touch and someone who will raise your taxes and) and 2) the candidate cannot win.
Yet for many of us, Obama is appealing precisely because he is NOT the "George McGovern candidate" - that is, he is not some counter-culture figure who would revisit the arguments of the 1960s or a peacenik lefitst who would renounce war as an instrument of policy (ala Dennis Kucinich).
I forget who said it. (A Clinton insider I think) but the difference between Clinton and Obama was characterized in this way: Obama seeks to transcend ideology while Hillary seeks to FULFILL it.
Obama as George McGovern? No, I don't think so. But you know how this game works: Perception is reality.
Judis is going to be called names for suggesting that Obama's PA loss is, in fact, a severe blow against Obama's electability arguments. However, after you are through dragging him through the mud for this act of lese-majeste, THINK: [a] Why would Obama, who TNR keeps telling us is "inevitable", lose to Hillary by 10 points this late in the game? Are Pennsylvania Democrats [this was closed primary] so "dumb" that they did not understand the simple fact that they had to tell Hillary that it was over? [b] Or could it be that what just happened in PA was a way for rank-and-file Dems to send the message that Obama just ain't The One? [c] How can Obama hope to prevail in the battleground states, ... view full comment
Judis is going to be called names for suggesting that Obama's PA loss is, in fact, a severe blow against Obama's electability arguments. However, after you are through dragging him through the mud for this act of lese-majeste, THINK: [a] Why would Obama, who TNR keeps telling us is "inevitable", lose to Hillary by 10 points this late in the game? Are Pennsylvania Democrats [this was closed primary] so "dumb" that they did not understand the simple fact that they had to tell Hillary that it was over? [b] Or could it be that what just happened in PA was a way for rank-and-file Dems to send the message that Obama just ain't The One? [c] How can Obama hope to prevail in the battleground states, when he's just been repudiated in just a state, at a time when everyone understands that his pledged delegate lead is "insurmountable"? Could this be a not-so-subtle message to the superdelegates that the blue-collar democrats want them to consider something else [e.g., "electability"] as the key metric in deciding who should be the Dem nominee? [e] Isn't the PA result reaffirming Obama's GE weakness by reminding us all that because no Democrat has a realistic chance of winning the states that he won, he is not, by a long shot, the Dems' favorite to win the nomination? John Judis is just too PC to state what he and a lot of Dems are thinking: there will be a strong resistance to the election of Obama as a POTUS because he is too inexperienced and black, and he is not the rank-and-file Dems' choice to be the nominee, so that he might face massive defection against someone like McCain who can easily appeal to those middle-of-the-roaders without whose support we'll lose PA, OH, and other purple states that no Dem candidate could be elected POTUS without winning. I suspect that if Obama is the Dem nominee, we'll see a very strong showing by the Dem congressional and senatorial candidates, as people [Joe "six-pack") who cannot bring themselves to vote for Obama would support Dems down the ticket to offset their "guilt" about not voting for Obama for POTUS. Watch for ticket-splitting as an indication of a reluctance to vote for Obama...
John - my heart goes out to you, having to live in the Peoples Republic of Montgomery County. That county and its disasterous socialist political class is the very reason why Obama will not win the general election.
John - my heart goes out to you, having to live in the Peoples Republic of Montgomery County. That county and its disasterous socialist political class is the very reason why Obama will not win the general election.
Joe Scarborough said it best this morning.
He said the NY Times editorial showed it's bias for Obama. He also said the attitude was one of anger that Hillary Clinton had the "nerve" to get up off the mat and win.
This is a shameful day for the NY Times.
Joe Scarborough said it best this morning.
He said the NY Times editorial showed it's bias for Obama. He also said the attitude was one of anger that Hillary Clinton had the "nerve" to get up off the mat and win.
This is a shameful day for the NY Times.
Obama is just upset that he cannot buy the election with George Soros' "moveon.org" European socialist money.
Once people REALLY grasp just how far out to the left Obama is, and where he's getting his financial support, they'll flee from him like the shyster he is. Someone is being hoodwinked and bamboozled. The thing is, it's Obama doing the hoodwinking.
Obama is just upset that he cannot buy the election with George Soros' "moveon.org" European socialist money.
Once people REALLY grasp just how far out to the left Obama is, and where he's getting his financial support, they'll flee from him like the shyster he is. Someone is being hoodwinked and bamboozled. The thing is, it's Obama doing the hoodwinking.
Again, Obama's so-called "gaffes" are not. Barack's protective and camouflaging shroud has slipped around his ankles and we are now seeing the reality. I have developed a begrudging respect for Hillary - she is obviously "tough as nails" and much better suited to lead the U.S. in a world that views "group hugs" as weakness. Barack? Well Barack has obviously been pandered to and spoiled his entire life (even when his mother could not afford it). He is the kid on the block we all knew - the one who seemed to have it all but who went home crying to momma whenever he was confronted or challenged. He is better suited to a protected university environment where doughy, wide-eyed students will prov ... view full comment
Again, Obama's so-called "gaffes" are not. Barack's protective and camouflaging shroud has slipped around his ankles and we are now seeing the reality. I have developed a begrudging respect for Hillary - she is obviously "tough as nails" and much better suited to lead the U.S. in a world that views "group hugs" as weakness. Barack? Well Barack has obviously been pandered to and spoiled his entire life (even when his mother could not afford it). He is the kid on the block we all knew - the one who seemed to have it all but who went home crying to momma whenever he was confronted or challenged. He is better suited to a protected university environment where doughy, wide-eyed students will provide the adoration he is convinced he deserves.
Wouldn't be too concerned for Obama; he has consistently shown that he does better in states when he campaigns in them, and he's already ahead in Indianna.
Wouldn't be too concerned for Obama; he has consistently shown that he does better in states when he campaigns in them, and he's already ahead in Indianna.
I live in Kentucky. Obama will have a very tough time here in Kentucky. The last poll had Clinton leading by 22 points.
His comments about guns and religion solidified a lot of people to Clinton. Kentuckians are a deeply religious people who love God.
As a Democrat, I am deeply concerned about Obamas prospects in the fall. I think they are not good. I do not want merely a nominee as we have had in the 70s, 80s and 2000s. I want a winner like we had in the 90s. Hillary Clinton has true grit and fight. She is a winner.
I live in Kentucky. Obama will have a very tough time here in Kentucky. The last poll had Clinton leading by 22 points.
His comments about guns and religion solidified a lot of people to Clinton. Kentuckians are a deeply religious people who love God.
As a Democrat, I am deeply concerned about Obamas prospects in the fall. I think they are not good. I do not want merely a nominee as we have had in the 70s, 80s and 2000s. I want a winner like we had in the 90s. Hillary Clinton has true grit and fight. She is a winner.
Judis,
Math isn't your friend. Like at the numbers, look at the national polls, like at reality. It's over. This just buys HRC another few weeks to indulge her ego and pray for a thuderbolt to kill your opponent. Good lord.
Judis,
Math isn't your friend. Like at the numbers, look at the national polls, like at reality. It's over. This just buys HRC another few weeks to indulge her ego and pray for a thuderbolt to kill your opponent. Good lord.
it is only going to get worse for Obama, Americans are not going to elect a flaming liberal, who is anti american, along with being a racist and bigot
it is only going to get worse for Obama, Americans are not going to elect a flaming liberal, who is anti american, along with being a racist and bigot
"Meanwhile, Obama's weaknesses as a general election candidate grow more apparent with each successive primary..."
Is it fair to categorize what happened in PA as a revelation of an inherent weakness in Mr. Obama, or is it the result of dirty politics?
Mr. Judis, if you do not account for all of the factors in your analysis, then it is by definition flawed.
"Meanwhile, Obama's weaknesses as a general election candidate grow more apparent with each successive primary..."
Is it fair to categorize what happened in PA as a revelation of an inherent weakness in Mr. Obama, or is it the result of dirty politics?
Mr. Judis, if you do not account for all of the factors in your analysis, then it is by definition flawed.
She already LEADS THE POPULAR VOTE. No matter how you count it, she has received more physical votes than Obama. MI and FL don't exist on some other plane, even it they don't "count" in the nominating process. Those people voted for her and that cannot be denied (except by Obama press).
She already LEADS THE POPULAR VOTE. No matter how you count it, she has received more physical votes than Obama. MI and FL don't exist on some other plane, even it they don't "count" in the nominating process. Those people voted for her and that cannot be denied (except by Obama press).
The primaries are being analyzed as though they are sporting events and that with a little extra effort, one candidate could knock out the other. No matter what Obama did, he was never going to win Pennsylvania, or even come all that close, because of demographics, even if he outspent her 100-1. Sorry, but in those blue collar states a significant part of the population will never vote for a black man. In November, they'll either vote McCain or not at all.
The primaries are being analyzed as though they are sporting events and that with a little extra effort, one candidate could knock out the other. No matter what Obama did, he was never going to win Pennsylvania, or even come all that close, because of demographics, even if he outspent her 100-1. Sorry, but in those blue collar states a significant part of the population will never vote for a black man. In November, they'll either vote McCain or not at all.
It's very sad, but its because he's black. Its that simple. He did do much better in PA than in OH. The margin is the same, but PA is a closed primary.
It's very sad, but its because he's black. Its that simple. He did do much better in PA than in OH. The margin is the same, but PA is a closed primary.
Interesting choice of words by the author:
"Meanwhile, Obama's weaknesses as a general election candidate grow more apparent with each successive primary..."
Is it fair to categorize what happened in PA as a revelation of an inherent weakness, or is it the result of dirty politics?
Mr. Judis, if you do not account for all factors in your analysis, then it is by definition flawed.
Interesting choice of words by the author:
"Meanwhile, Obama's weaknesses as a general election candidate grow more apparent with each successive primary..."
Is it fair to categorize what happened in PA as a revelation of an inherent weakness, or is it the result of dirty politics?
Mr. Judis, if you do not account for all factors in your analysis, then it is by definition flawed.
Interesting choice of words by the author:
"Meanwhile, Obama's weaknesses as a general election candidate grow more apparent with each successive primary..."
Is it fair to categorize what happened in PA as a revelation of an inherent weakness, or is it the result of dirty politics?
Mr. Judis, if you do not account for all factors in your analysis, then it is by definition flawed.
Interesting choice of words by the author:
"Meanwhile, Obama's weaknesses as a general election candidate grow more apparent with each successive primary..."
Is it fair to categorize what happened in PA as a revelation of an inherent weakness, or is it the result of dirty politics?
Mr. Judis, if you do not account for all factors in your analysis, then it is by definition flawed.
Obama has been revealed as a liberal black activist. Try winning with THAT image.
Obama has been revealed as a liberal black activist. Try winning with THAT image.
The reason Obama is looking more liberal is because Clinton has started running as a Republican. I don't know why everyone is saying that the Pennsylvania loss is so bad for Obama, when it's the most political-machine driven state in the country (and the oldest), and the whole establishment was behind Clinton. To go from 25% to 10% in a state where the demographics were overwhelmingly favorable to Clinton seems like a solid performance by Obama. Look at the exit polls; 75% of the 16% of people who said race was important voted for Clinton. What does that tell you?
The reason Obama is looking more liberal is because Clinton has started running as a Republican. I don't know why everyone is saying that the Pennsylvania loss is so bad for Obama, when it's the most political-machine driven state in the country (and the oldest), and the whole establishment was behind Clinton. To go from 25% to 10% in a state where the demographics were overwhelmingly favorable to Clinton seems like a solid performance by Obama. Look at the exit polls; 75% of the 16% of people who said race was important voted for Clinton. What does that tell you?
Despite continuing efforts by Obama surrogates to dismiss the potential impact of the senator's missteps, the fact remains that more Americans are distancing themselves from a candidate clearly out of step with traditional American values.
Despite continuing efforts by Obama surrogates to dismiss the potential impact of the senator's missteps, the fact remains that more Americans are distancing themselves from a candidate clearly out of step with traditional American values.
Classic static analysis. Is anything different today? Everything or just most things? Obama may seem like McGovern, but there's no incumbent Republican, and the only Nixon-type politician in the mix is Hillary. McCain as strong as Nixon? Is the wave that produced Nixon and Reagan a muscular group or just grumpy old men? The hard-hats of that era are all retired or nearly so. Far greater consensus that today's war was an blunder in the inception and is mismanaged, not undermined by hippie protesters. Half the voters wondering what is the statute of limitations on re-fighting the 60s and Vietnam. Here's your next story. Run with Obama is really Neville Chamberlain. That give you a ch ... view full comment
Classic static analysis. Is anything different today? Everything or just most things? Obama may seem like McGovern, but there's no incumbent Republican, and the only Nixon-type politician in the mix is Hillary. McCain as strong as Nixon? Is the wave that produced Nixon and Reagan a muscular group or just grumpy old men? The hard-hats of that era are all retired or nearly so. Far greater consensus that today's war was an blunder in the inception and is mismanaged, not undermined by hippie protesters. Half the voters wondering what is the statute of limitations on re-fighting the 60s and Vietnam. Here's your next story. Run with Obama is really Neville Chamberlain. That give you a chance to run Munich analogies -- never too tired! Iran's gross domestic product may be less than Germany's in 1938, but tell us how great Hillary is for threatening to obliterate Iran. Really all your story does is show us how Hillary is channeling her inner Republican and re-anchoring us in old tired issues. Neither you nor she has any imagination or spirit, but you can still spoil the party for others. Too bad.
Just wondering if race has anything to do with these numbers? Why is it that over and over Obama can't win working class white voters? If it is race, who is held accountable for this immovable block of voters? Is it Obama's shortcoming or our country's? According to MSMBC exit polling data, 13% of Penn. voters felt race was an issue - is it me or does that seem to be a high percentage in 2008? Of that 13%, 75% were HRC supporters/voters. I'm not sure how you break that down in to actual votes, but it's gotta be a point or two or three. And those are the voters who are willing to be honest about their views on race. In the end Obama couldn't break 40% of the white vote, giving credenc ... view full comment
Just wondering if race has anything to do with these numbers? Why is it that over and over Obama can't win working class white voters? If it is race, who is held accountable for this immovable block of voters? Is it Obama's shortcoming or our country's? According to MSMBC exit polling data, 13% of Penn. voters felt race was an issue - is it me or does that seem to be a high percentage in 2008? Of that 13%, 75% were HRC supporters/voters. I'm not sure how you break that down in to actual votes, but it's gotta be a point or two or three. And those are the voters who are willing to be honest about their views on race. In the end Obama couldn't break 40% of the white vote, giving credence to what Rendell said weeks ago about his electorate not being able to vote for a black candidate.
Which brings me to this question - who's problem is that? Should Obama be held accountable for a large block of voter's unwavering racial views? Should American hold those voters responsible for views that are a hinderance to American competitiveness in a global world that is passing us by?
John,
Your characterization of the Philadelphia suburbs is a bit incorrect. The "arty" communities in Bucks County represent a small portion of the population. In those areas like Solebury and New Hope, Obama did quite well. As he did in many of the upscale communities for instance almost any place with a Boro attached to his name. ( http://www.buckscountyelections.org/DistrictResults.aspx?on=005&dft=0&df... )The communities wh ... view full comment
John,
Your characterization of the Philadelphia suburbs is a bit incorrect. The "arty" communities in Bucks County represent a small portion of the population. In those areas like Solebury and New Hope, Obama did quite well. As he did in many of the upscale communities for instance almost any place with a Boro attached to his name. ( http://www.buckscountyelections.org/DistrictResults.aspx?on=005&dft=0&df... )The communities which he lost in Bucks (and Montgomery for that matter) are the older, white working class communities. In the communities that look like your Montgomery County Maryland, Obama did well. In the communities that look more like Youngstown or white Pittsburgh or Scranton or Wilkes-Boro he lost and by a healthy margin. The issue then is it the message? (Obama is not John Edwards, in many ways.) or the messenger? Is there any way that the older white working class precincts will vote for a progressive "black" candidate over a moderately liberal white one? The places that Obama ran poorly in Bucks County weren't that favorable to Hubert Humphrey either, or Dukakis.
I have a lot of respect for your analytic abilities, John, but you are vastly overblowing, making a mountain out of a molehill, over an INTRA-PARTY competition involving minor product differention. With very little at stake in policy terms, it is hardly surprising that older voters and women prefer HRC. Most of them will vote for the Democrat in the fall in any event -- and so will many, enough, working class men, when the alternatives are starkly different. The Democratic nomination race has been essentially over for a long time, and the only question is how long we will waste resources and allow modest internal differentiations to interact with the media and conservative attack machines, ... view full comment
I have a lot of respect for your analytic abilities, John, but you are vastly overblowing, making a mountain out of a molehill, over an INTRA-PARTY competition involving minor product differention. With very little at stake in policy terms, it is hardly surprising that older voters and women prefer HRC. Most of them will vote for the Democrat in the fall in any event -- and so will many, enough, working class men, when the alternatives are starkly different. The Democratic nomination race has been essentially over for a long time, and the only question is how long we will waste resources and allow modest internal differentiations to interact with the media and conservative attack machines, before we unite to take them on directly.
Classic static analysis. Is anything different today? Everything or just most things? Obama may seem like McGovern, but there's no incumbent Republican, and the only Nixon-type politician in the mix is Hillary. McCain as strong as Nixon? Is the wave that produced Nixon and Reagan a muscular group or just grumpy old men? The hard-hats of that era are all retired or nearly so. Far greater consensus that today's war was an blunder in the inception and is mismanaged, not undermined by hippie protesters. Half the voters wondering what is the statute of limitations on re-fighting the 60s and Vietnam. Here's your next story. Run with Obama is really Neville Chamberlain. That give you a ch ... view full comment
Classic static analysis. Is anything different today? Everything or just most things? Obama may seem like McGovern, but there's no incumbent Republican, and the only Nixon-type politician in the mix is Hillary. McCain as strong as Nixon? Is the wave that produced Nixon and Reagan a muscular group or just grumpy old men? The hard-hats of that era are all retired or nearly so. Far greater consensus that today's war was an blunder in the inception and is mismanaged, not undermined by hippie protesters. Half the voters wondering what is the statute of limitations on re-fighting the 60s and Vietnam. Here's your next story. Run with Obama is really Neville Chamberlain. That give you a chance to run Munich analogies -- never too tired! Iran's gross domestic product may be less than Germany's in 1938, but tell us how great Hillary is for threatening to obliterate Iran. Really all your story does is show us how Hillary is channeling her inner Republican and re-anchoring us in old tired issues. Neither you nor she has any imagination or spirit, but you can still spoil the party for others. Too bad.
Senator Obama spent $11 million in television ads to produce a 10 pt defeat. Despite a mainstream media that daily hammers voters with the message that Senator Obama is the nominee-apparent, they stubbornly chose the alternative in PA. Obama won only 5(!) of 67 PA counties...again, as in previous contests, blue-collar whites, Catholics of all ethnicities and Jews did not vote for him. Despite what the media would have us believe, Senator Obama clearly has not put Reverend Wright, or his comments about rural Democrats behind him. Senator Obama's inability to put away a crippled opponent must be deeply troubling to his devoted following. In the wake of yet another big blue-state defeat, rather ... view full comment
Senator Obama spent $11 million in television ads to produce a 10 pt defeat. Despite a mainstream media that daily hammers voters with the message that Senator Obama is the nominee-apparent, they stubbornly chose the alternative in PA. Obama won only 5(!) of 67 PA counties...again, as in previous contests, blue-collar whites, Catholics of all ethnicities and Jews did not vote for him. Despite what the media would have us believe, Senator Obama clearly has not put Reverend Wright, or his comments about rural Democrats behind him. Senator Obama's inability to put away a crippled opponent must be deeply troubling to his devoted following. In the wake of yet another big blue-state defeat, rather than launch their usual torrent of contemptuous ad-hominem attacks on Senator Clinton's supporters, Senator Obama's sycophants would do well to address, and perhaps rethink, the shortcomings of their own candidate.
Give me a break. You call yourself an analyst but you fail to understand a fundamental tenet of general election predicting: A primary coalition has almost NOTHING to do with the general election coaltion.
Meanwhile, you dismiss the countless states where Obama has convinced Republicans AND independents to WILLINGLY vote for him.
Finally, you ignore the fact that Hillary's electability argument requires her to GETTING THE NOMINATION BY TEARING THE PARTY APART. I know hypotheticals are hard for you (since you can't seem to separate the primary democraphic performance with general election performance), but think about a hypothetical where African Americans refuse to turn out and young people ei ... view full comment
Give me a break. You call yourself an analyst but you fail to understand a fundamental tenet of general election predicting: A primary coalition has almost NOTHING to do with the general election coaltion.
Meanwhile, you dismiss the countless states where Obama has convinced Republicans AND independents to WILLINGLY vote for him.
Finally, you ignore the fact that Hillary's electability argument requires her to GETTING THE NOMINATION BY TEARING THE PARTY APART. I know hypotheticals are hard for you (since you can't seem to separate the primary democraphic performance with general election performance), but think about a hypothetical where African Americans refuse to turn out and young people either don't show up or go for McCain. Do you really think Hillary will hold on to her rural/working class supporters in a general election environment?
Give me a break.
Thank you for being among the first to promote those electability questions. But what I find so fascinating about this argument is how no one-and I mean NO ONE-ever makes a comparable argument about Hillary and the constituencies that she is totally unable to attract. It may be easy to assume that at the end of the day the African American voters and all those "elites" will come back to the table with Hillary at the top of the ticket but I just don't see that. The reality is that the working class, uneducated white voter over the age of 50 is not a growing voter block and the desperate effort to appeal to them as the Holy Grail of voters is just stupid. If the Super delegates really buy in ... view full comment
Thank you for being among the first to promote those electability questions. But what I find so fascinating about this argument is how no one-and I mean NO ONE-ever makes a comparable argument about Hillary and the constituencies that she is totally unable to attract. It may be easy to assume that at the end of the day the African American voters and all those "elites" will come back to the table with Hillary at the top of the ticket but I just don't see that. The reality is that the working class, uneducated white voter over the age of 50 is not a growing voter block and the desperate effort to appeal to them as the Holy Grail of voters is just stupid. If the Super delegates really buy into this argument they will utterly blow up their party; The AA's will be gone for good-rightly so, because the nomination WILL be stolen from one of their own-and lets remember "elites don't need a President". The Democratic Party is experiencing real growing pains but at the end of the day I hope the powers that be can see where the party's real future lies. It is not in Central Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania just got duped. If you think Hillary Clinton cares one bit about your or your state, you aren’t just naïve, you’re stupid!
When Clinton came to Texas, she didn’t talk about NAFTA (too many Hispanics with ties to Mexico) nor did she talk about high gasoline prices (too many voters have ties to oil industry). But as soon as she hit the ground in Pennsylvania, she started talking up her opposition to NAFTA in the 1990s and started playing up gas prices. I ask you: just how effective is this woman going to be if she can’t even get her husband to listen to her about NAFTA? How is she going to change the minds in Congress?
Then she started in on her love of guns. Did you ... view full comment
Pennsylvania just got duped. If you think Hillary Clinton cares one bit about your or your state, you aren’t just naïve, you’re stupid!
When Clinton came to Texas, she didn’t talk about NAFTA (too many Hispanics with ties to Mexico) nor did she talk about high gasoline prices (too many voters have ties to oil industry). But as soon as she hit the ground in Pennsylvania, she started talking up her opposition to NAFTA in the 1990s and started playing up gas prices. I ask you: just how effective is this woman going to be if she can’t even get her husband to listen to her about NAFTA? How is she going to change the minds in Congress?
Then she started in on her love of guns. Did you ask her about her record on gun control legislation? Go to: http://www.sportsmenforclinton.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=vie... to see exactly where she stands. Here’s a glimpse: she sponsored 18 bills to restrict guns (none of these bills came to a vote) and she voted 16 times against gun owners. This is just one example of how Hillary Clinton will say or do anything to get elected. And just exactly where is Hillary Clinton’s flag pin?
Finally last week she played the gender card yet again, actually saying on network television that it is more difficult to be an educated white woman in America than it is to be a black man in America. You think she identifies with the working class? How stupid can Pennsylvania be?
Obama is far from a perfect candidate. For starters, he looked like a wimp in the last debate because he acts like he doesn’t know how to stand up for himself. He has a real problem with fighting back in a political setting. You can understand this because he has spent a lifetime building a consensus among different coalitions, and that is a great asset for a President. He looks like a wimp in the electoral process and he needs to learn how to fight back. But, I’d rather have a President who doesn’t know how to fight effectively in a political campaign (the true trademark of a career politician) than one who would say and do anything (and does say and do anything) to get elected.
Let’s just hope that Indiana and North Carolina have smarter voters than Pennsylvania.
I went up from DC to PA to help out as a Voter Protection Attorney in Lancaster County. All the Pennsylvanians I at the victory party for Hillary's workers gave a similar analysis of the results as they came in. Gore carried PA narrowly, and Dukakis and Kerry lost PA narrowly: the difference was Gore was more Centrist than the other two. That Obama is to the left of either Dukakis or Kerry bodes ill for Democrats. The Democratic Party should not be a suicide pact.
I went up from DC to PA to help out as a Voter Protection Attorney in Lancaster County. All the Pennsylvanians I at the victory party for Hillary's workers gave a similar analysis of the results as they came in. Gore carried PA narrowly, and Dukakis and Kerry lost PA narrowly: the difference was Gore was more Centrist than the other two. That Obama is to the left of either Dukakis or Kerry bodes ill for Democrats. The Democratic Party should not be a suicide pact.
OK, I'm going to make the obvious question: Why isn't the fact that Hillary is losing the popular vote, the delegate count, the total number of states, etc. used to point out her weakness as a general election candidate? Is it because the fact that the way Democrats vote in the primary, which has very little bearing on how they will vote in November, only applies to her? Yes, she has been having a lot easier time than Obama attracting the kind of people who we all like to lump into "working class," but they are not going to vote for McCain in November.
OK, I'm going to make the obvious question: Why isn't the fact that Hillary is losing the popular vote, the delegate count, the total number of states, etc. used to point out her weakness as a general election candidate? Is it because the fact that the way Democrats vote in the primary, which has very little bearing on how they will vote in November, only applies to her? Yes, she has been having a lot easier time than Obama attracting the kind of people who we all like to lump into "working class," but they are not going to vote for McCain in November.
It's getting clearer that democratic voters are spitting between left and moderate, reflecting a familiar ideological division in the party. Though both candidates are similar in their policies, the moderate-left differences are displayed in how they operate. Since the superdelegates appear to be the swing vote, it makes sense for the dems to continue to engage the voters in each of the remaining states and hear what they have to say, resolve the FL and MI problem, and see where we are in June. It looks to me the process sharpens both their games and makes us better prepared for November. John McCain's game will not be near as practiced.
It's getting clearer that democratic voters are spitting between left and moderate, reflecting a familiar ideological division in the party. Though both candidates are similar in their policies, the moderate-left differences are displayed in how they operate. Since the superdelegates appear to be the swing vote, it makes sense for the dems to continue to engage the voters in each of the remaining states and hear what they have to say, resolve the FL and MI problem, and see where we are in June. It looks to me the process sharpens both their games and makes us better prepared for November. John McCain's game will not be near as practiced.
I suspect that it was more than 13% of white voters in PA who aren't ready for a half-black president. I am retired, white, a gun-owner, against abortion, generally a Republican voter, was born in Pittsburgh, and sense the latent racism in the people in that part of the country. The result of the primary last night disgusts me and makes me fear that Wright was mostly right.
I suspect that it was more than 13% of white voters in PA who aren't ready for a half-black president. I am retired, white, a gun-owner, against abortion, generally a Republican voter, was born in Pittsburgh, and sense the latent racism in the people in that part of the country. The result of the primary last night disgusts me and makes me fear that Wright was mostly right.
I titled my post on yesterday's primary defeat "Obama Got Thrashed". I went through the county-by-county results. They tell quite the story. Here's the link to my post:
http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=2659
I titled my post on yesterday's primary defeat "Obama Got Thrashed". I went through the county-by-county results. They tell quite the story. Here's the link to my post:
http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=2659
This is sophistry. Working class Democratic preference for Clinton over Obama does not imply that they will prefer McCain over Obama. Applying your flawed reasoning to Clinton, you would have to conclude that she is unelecable because she is getting only 10% of the black vote, which is also necessary for a Dem victory in the fall. Is Clinton unelectable because she is losing massively to Obama with these voters in the primary? Of course not.
This is sophistry. Working class Democratic preference for Clinton over Obama does not imply that they will prefer McCain over Obama. Applying your flawed reasoning to Clinton, you would have to conclude that she is unelecable because she is getting only 10% of the black vote, which is also necessary for a Dem victory in the fall. Is Clinton unelectable because she is losing massively to Obama with these voters in the primary? Of course not.
You apparently didn't look at the exit polls which said that 38 percent would be happy with either while Clinton and Obama split the difference.
You apparently didn't look at the exit polls which said that 38 percent would be happy with either while Clinton and Obama split the difference.
That is a coalition a Clinton can be proud of - between racists and militant feminists, all willing to overlook the danger of putting a megalomaniac back into the White House.
That is a coalition a Clinton can be proud of - between racists and militant feminists, all willing to overlook the danger of putting a megalomaniac back into the White House.
Were the general election some sort of 'hot or not' referendum on a single candidate, there might be some merit to this whole concern whether 'working class whites' will ever come round to Obama. But of course the general election is no such thing!! It, like the PA primary, is a contest between TWO individuals! And in the general Obama will no longer be running against a former first lady who is for universal health care, ending the war in iraq, and can talk up her modest rural roots. To say that Obama is inherently weak amongst 'white working class' voters because he can't beat hillary is like saying that the national champion Kansas Jayhawks are lousy basketball players because they co ... view full comment
Were the general election some sort of 'hot or not' referendum on a single candidate, there might be some merit to this whole concern whether 'working class whites' will ever come round to Obama. But of course the general election is no such thing!! It, like the PA primary, is a contest between TWO individuals! And in the general Obama will no longer be running against a former first lady who is for universal health care, ending the war in iraq, and can talk up her modest rural roots. To say that Obama is inherently weak amongst 'white working class' voters because he can't beat hillary is like saying that the national champion Kansas Jayhawks are lousy basketball players because they couldn't beat the boston celtics. The vote in PA wasn't a questino of whether voters liked Obama or not. It was a question of whether they PREFERRED hillary! And they did. And while this might mean that hillary would have a better shot at winning PA in the general against McCain, it is completely ridiculous to suggest that PA exposes a partciluar weakness of Obama for the general. Electability must be measured in light of whom one is running AGAINST!!
I wonder if the allegations that are running amok in the internet about Mr. Obama and Mr. Sinclair are true, what would happen to Mr. Obama? According to the allegations, Mr. Obama is a liar, muslim, drug user and a homosexual, if that is true I would not want a guy like that to be my President.
Ralph
I wonder if the allegations that are running amok in the internet about Mr. Obama and Mr. Sinclair are true, what would happen to Mr. Obama? According to the allegations, Mr. Obama is a liar, muslim, drug user and a homosexual, if that is true I would not want a guy like that to be my President.
Ralph
Absolutely right, John: this is starting to smell like McGovern (even more than Adlai Stevenson, as jour colleague EJ it had in a recent column), and if Obama can't dispel this troubling whiff by November the dems are in doo-doo creek. Because all McCain would have to do to win with those supposedly uneducated, ethnocentric, elderly voters (as an Obama apologist put it, thus betraying her own disconnectedness, not to mention elitism) who've voted down the wonder boy in the big states is find the right key, be it liberalism out of whack or what have you centers of fear & loathing.
I can certainly see, even understand why the Obama camp dislikes Clinton but that's neither here nor there an ... view full comment
Absolutely right, John: this is starting to smell like McGovern (even more than Adlai Stevenson, as jour colleague EJ it had in a recent column), and if Obama can't dispel this troubling whiff by November the dems are in doo-doo creek. Because all McCain would have to do to win with those supposedly uneducated, ethnocentric, elderly voters (as an Obama apologist put it, thus betraying her own disconnectedness, not to mention elitism) who've voted down the wonder boy in the big states is find the right key, be it liberalism out of whack or what have you centers of fear & loathing.
I can certainly see, even understand why the Obama camp dislikes Clinton but that's neither here nor there any longer. Instead, they should be thankful that she's been revealing where his liabilities lie, so that he can start working on them NOW, not after the nomination battle is over. As an independent with sympathy for the dems, I dearly hope he gets to work on it soon.
It is funny how everyone knew Hillary was going to win PA, so why is it such a big deal. Now when Obama wins NC everyone says it is because there are a lot of black people who lives in NC. How Racist is our country. She did not make signicant gains last night and once Obama wins NC it will be the same numbers that excess before.
It is funny how everyone knew Hillary was going to win PA, so why is it such a big deal. Now when Obama wins NC everyone says it is because there are a lot of black people who lives in NC. How Racist is our country. She did not make signicant gains last night and once Obama wins NC it will be the same numbers that excess before.
Hillary is no fool. She knows she can't win... in 2008.
Is it possible she is trying to turn Obama into an unelectable McGovern so that she can make another run against McCain in 2012?
Hillary is no fool. She knows she can't win... in 2008.
Is it possible she is trying to turn Obama into an unelectable McGovern so that she can make another run against McCain in 2012?
Hillary is no fool. She knows she can't win... in 2008.
Is it possible she is trying to turn Obama into an unelectable McGovern so that she can make another run against McCain in 2012?
Hillary is no fool. She knows she can't win... in 2008.
Is it possible she is trying to turn Obama into an unelectable McGovern so that she can make another run against McCain in 2012?
What's lost amidst the clamoring of Obama supporters for Clinton to exit this race immediately (and we know that's just NOT going to happen), is that if she did so this morning, Senator Obama still has the same problems with the same voters. Senator Obama's 20 yr relationship with Wright/Trinity and what it implies, plus his condescending view of small-town America, are issues that don't go away even if Hillary does. The blue-collar working class white voters, the Catholic and Jewish vote all remain problems for Obama, particularly against a candidate like John McCain. I can't believe Obama supporters are so delusional that they aren't deeply troubled by Senator Obama's utter inability to co ... view full comment
What's lost amidst the clamoring of Obama supporters for Clinton to exit this race immediately (and we know that's just NOT going to happen), is that if she did so this morning, Senator Obama still has the same problems with the same voters. Senator Obama's 20 yr relationship with Wright/Trinity and what it implies, plus his condescending view of small-town America, are issues that don't go away even if Hillary does. The blue-collar working class white voters, the Catholic and Jewish vote all remain problems for Obama, particularly against a candidate like John McCain. I can't believe Obama supporters are so delusional that they aren't deeply troubled by Senator Obama's utter inability to connect with key voting elements of the Democratic Party. His present coalition of African-Americans, young people, and the affluent, simply is too narrow a slice of the electorate to prevail in November. The uncommitted superdelegates could end this right now, but they must be deeply conflicted, especially with Senator Obama's loss of yet another large blue state. Losing PA by 10 pts, where he had unlimited time, money, and the mainstream media in his back pocket, is a disaster for Obama. Sooner or later, one hopes Obama supporters will finally realize that Senator Obama's weaknesses are what's keeping Hillary Clinton's campaign alive...
I understand the Obama argument but Could someone please explain how Clinton could win Michigan, Maryland, Ohio or Pennsylvania sans the African American support she's gone out of her way to alienate?
I understand the Obama argument but Could someone please explain how Clinton could win Michigan, Maryland, Ohio or Pennsylvania sans the African American support she's gone out of her way to alienate?