Ceiling?

Via Brendan Nyhan, some evidence that Barack Obama has a ceiling of around 35 percent of the white vote in any given primary.

To me, the "ceiling" metaphor seems misleading in this instance. It's plain from the polling on Obama's favorable/unfavorable ratings that way more than 35 percent of white Democrats are well-disposed toward Obama. Since the knock on Hillary Clinton has tended to be that she's "polarizing" people forget that that's a two-way street -- lots and lots of people really really like Hillary Clinton which makes her hard to beat in a primary.

Comments

Brendan's point and his title are wrong. The 35% is Barack Obama's floor, not the ceiling. We know for a fact that 35% of the voters in Democratic elections are willing to vote for Obama. The question is how many of the rest are willing as well. (His favorability rating among Democrats suggest it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 80-90% not 35%).

This argument is akin to Chris Matthews comment that 2/3rds of Democrats voted "against Hillary" in Iowa. And it's just as specious.

Posted by Jinchi | January 22, 2008 12:29 PM

Actually, that Nyhan's claim may be considerably under-stating the weakness of Obama's strategic position.

For example, this morning CA's leading Field Poll came out, and it showed Obama almost tied with Hillary among Anglos (32% to 34%), but losing among the very large Latino vote by a FORTY POINT (!!!) margin (19% to 59%). Since the bulk of CA's political leadership and unions are in Hillary's camp, I'll bet Obama doesn't reach 25% among Latinos on election day.

If these numbers are at all indicative of those in other big Southwestern states like TX, AZ, and CO, I think Obama's a goner.

Posted by RKU | January 22, 2008 12:37 PM

lots and lots of people really really like Hillary Clinton

lots and lots of Democratic party faithful in the early primary states like Hillary Clinton. that's all she needs. the rest of us just have to accept their decision.

Posted by cleek | January 22, 2008 12:45 PM

lots and lots of people really really like Hillary Clinton

Really? I think this is debatable. I think lots and lots of people recognize her last name.

Posted by Jake | January 22, 2008 12:45 PM

"lots and lots of people really really like Hillary Clinton which makes her hard to beat in a primary."

No. Lots and lots of people really really like the beer-track true-blue Democrat, a role which Obama voluntarily ceded long ago.

That means that as long as Edwards is marginalized, Clinton is not hard to beat, but impossible to beat in most primaries.

Posted by Petey | January 22, 2008 12:46 PM

Actually, that Nyhan's claim may be considerably under-stating the weakness of Obama's strategic position.

Brendan's post isn't about Obama's strength as a candidate. It's a suggestion that white Democrats are too racist to actually pull the lever for a black man.

The fact that he's done as well with white voters as John Edwards, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Ron Paul is completely ignored.

You can't make a judgement on a candidate's "ceiling of support" among white voters with this exit poll data.

Posted by Jinchi | January 22, 2008 12:50 PM

Ugh after her grating performance last night, one can only hope that the white men of the Democratic electorate will join in a biracial coalition with the black folk and get her out of there.

Nominating Hillary will be the biggest gift we could give to the Republican Congress of 2008.

Posted by wellbasically | January 22, 2008 12:58 PM

I am not a statistician and am not even really very good at math, so what am I missing here -- when I follow the links that go to the CNN exit polling, I get no racial breakdown on the Iowa polls. In NH, there is no statistical minority impact (leading to the interesting statistic that each of the major nonwhite ethnic groups has 1% of the voters, but after the votes split 0% of them voted for anyone), so the 36% Obama, 39% Clinton vote is true for both whites and the state as a whole. Nevada is the only state with an interesting racial split there in the voting. Whites went 34% for Obama and 52% for Clinton. That is interesting, but I'm at a loss as to how this makes a "trend" when put together with these other 2 states for which I can't see this split.

Posted by Jen | January 22, 2008 1:04 PM

As Matt notes, Hillary has a hard floor of supporters who are crazy about her. These are people who have been in love with the idea of Hillary since 1992. The difficulty for the democratic party is that these people have a much greater weight in the primary than they do in the general.

Posted by Helter | January 22, 2008 1:07 PM

How is a "ceiling" metaphor at all helpful to the analysis here? Is it meant as a prediction that Obama will never get more than 35% in the remaining primaries? That might be true (of course it depends on how long Edwards stays in the race and how strong he remains) but not because there is some sort of "ceiling" blocking him from winning more votes. The obstacle would be that more voters prefer Clinton.

Posted by blah | January 22, 2008 1:16 PM

Petey's use of the passive voice is classic. Edwards "is marginalized" because he didn't get many votes. HE was the party's last vice-presidential nominee, but somehow, Obama unfairly "marginalized" him (while not appealing to people who drink beer, yada, yada, white blue collar people are only real Americans, let's blow up somebody in the Third World so we can have socialized medicine).

Posted by Pithlord | January 22, 2008 1:18 PM

"Petey's use of the passive voice is classic."

It doesn't matter why Edwards is marginalized at the moment.

All I'm saying is that as long as Edwards continues to continue to be marginalized, it's going to be next to impossible for Clinton to lose most primaries.

And race is not the reason for that. Obama's voluntary concession of downscale Dems is the real reason.

Posted by Petey | January 22, 2008 1:22 PM

For example, this morning CA's leading Field Poll came out, and it showed Obama almost tied with Hillary among Anglos (32% to 34%), but losing among the very large Latino vote by a FORTY POINT (!!!) margin (19% to 59%).

This is the most surprising development of the race. Who knew that Latino voters would show such antipathy to a black candidate? In retrospect, Obama should have run on a Lou Dobbs 'build a wall and send them home' platform. He could hardly do worse with Latino voters and he would have picked up a ton of beer-track blue-collar support.

Of course, enforcing immigration law is so outside the mind frame of Washington elites (liberals for social reasons, conservatives for economic ones) its laughable to even imagine Obama campaigning on that position.

Incidentally, in this context "Latino" appears to mean Mexican-American. I doubt East Coast Hispanics--- Puerto Ricans and Cuban-Americans mainly, legal South American immigrants too-- would have the same problem with either a black candidate OR an immigration crackdown.

Posted by beowulf | January 22, 2008 1:27 PM

"This is the most surprising development of the race. Who knew that Latino voters would show such antipathy to a black candidate?"

Minority segments of the Democratic primary electorate are always resistant to wine-track candidates for the nomination. Always.

Obama manages to neutralize the problem among AA's by virtue of his own skin color, but I think everyone has always realized he'd have trouble with Latinos to go along with his trouble with downscale and older white Dems due to the "indie" nature of his message.

This is why he's never been a particularly serious candidate for the nomination. You win the Dem nomination by aligning yourself with the Party, not by standing apart from the Party. This is the first lesson of nomination politics.

Posted by Petey | January 22, 2008 1:34 PM

Petey:

A+

What has surprised me about this is that his wine-track-ness seems to obliterate his immigrant-son-ness. Yglesias used the words "exotic background" the other day and I thought that was a good choice of words.

He's really in a strange place. Makes me appreciate all the more how well Bill Clinton handled his ivy league education and wonkiness without ever losing the "just a bubba" thing.

Posted by artappraiser | January 22, 2008 1:44 PM

p.s. to last:
Latino sub-culture in particular has antipathy to upper-class-ness. They don't care what color it is, they've seen it in rulers of their own color in their home countries. More and more, I see Latino reaction to Obama as having to do with class, and not so much as having to do with race, the Latino-American vs. African-American thing going on in the "hoods." I can't believe that the gangs et. al. get that interested in the primary political race. Hillary doesn't get as much class antipathy because she is with Bill the bubba.

Posted by artappraiser | January 22, 2008 1:52 PM

Yes, I also think that Petey's analysis is very good.

I'd say that Obama would have had quite a lot of trouble with Latino voters in any event, because of ethnic-tension issues, but that could have been largely neutralized by a different political message.

For example, if two of Obama's biggest issues had been (1) a big rise in the minimum wage and (2) strengthening/rebuilding unions, not only would this have strongly appealed to very many grassroots Latinos in CA and elsewhere, but lots of prominent Latino leaders would then have been under a great deal of pressure to endorse him, Hillary's strength in the Establishment notwithstanding.

Another important point is that Latinos are (correctly) regarded as potential swing voters for November, unlike the blacks and upscale/wine-track Anglos that Obama's mostly drawing. A candidate who does extremely badly among the crucial blocs of November swing voters must make Democratic leaders very nervous.

Posted by RKU | January 22, 2008 1:58 PM

Petey, I think you're absolutely right. If you run against the party, you can't expect the party regulars to join your team. I'm afraid Obama is in the same place McCain was in the 2000 GOP race.

As for Obama and (Bill) Clinton, while neither man knew their fathers (Clinton was orphaned and Obama was abandoned), Clinton grew up as a bubba, Obama was raised as a prep school kid.

Its interesting to imagine how his life would have turned out if he'd gone back to Hawaii after school instead of moving to South Chicago without friends or money to make his mark on the world.

Posted by beowulf | January 22, 2008 2:17 PM

Artappraiser,

Interesting point about Latinos and class.

Have you read Amy Chua's World On Fire? Outstanding book, she talks about how in many countries, market dominant minorities are resented by the poor majority.

She talks about how in Latin America, the dynamic is the light skinned Europeans are the market dominant minority whose power is resented by the darker-skinned poor majority. This resentment is a big part of why Hugo Chavez is so popular in Venezuela.

I know of at least one conservative Mexican-American politician in Texas who ran as a Democrat and not a Republican because he felt Mexican immigrants associated the Republicans with the hated PRI (Partido Revolucionario Institucional), the establishment Mexican party that for decades ruled Mexico for the benefit of (European) elites.

As for Obama, I wonder whether Latino, or rather Mexican-American, aversion to Obama is because he's an Ivy League wine track candidate (that is they're hating up) or because (per Mexican-black tensions in LA) he's African-American and they look down on him?

Posted by beowulf | January 22, 2008 2:47 PM

One important factor to keep in mind is that something like 90% of American Latinos are either Mexican or (culturally/socioeconomically similar) Meso-Americans (Salvadoran, Guatemalan, Colombian, etc.). The Cubans and Puerto Ricans are complete outliers in many respects, but since they were the earliest Latinos to be encountered by the NYC/DC national elite, they're often (wrongly) perceived as somewhat representative.

It's very important to realize that in political matters, Latinos are almost totally "class-oriented" rather than "race/ethnicity-oriented", in complete contrast to blacks.

For example, Edwards might have had some difficulty with Latinos, but much less because he's such a WASP-looking Anglo than because he's a rich trial lawyer. But his working-class family background would have been a big plus.

In general, Latinos tend to be pretty suspicious of wealthy people---regardless of the particular shade of their skin---but especially suspicious of people who've gotten wealthy without actually "doing anything"...which pretty much covers ALL the Republican AND Democratic candidates, except maybe Huckabee and Ron Paul, since neither are wealthy.

Posted by RKU | January 22, 2008 3:12 PM

beowulf,

Have you read Amy Chua's World On Fire?

Thanks for the recommend. Like you, apparently, I am interested in the bigger topic of cultures and sub-cultures. I think I am actually interested in politics only because of that, because you can find clues about that in how people react politically.

the light skinned Europeans are the market dominant minority whose power is resented by the darker-skinned poor majority. This resentment is a big part of why Hugo Chavez is so popular in Venezuela

Absolutely, I myself have brought this point up before on another thread on the topic. And Obama is mixed, Kenyan father, Anglo mother, international "exotic" with the childhood in Indonesia etc. One could argue he more resembles the upper class in Latin America than he does an urban Afro-American.

What's interesting about this to me is that it makes me see the Latino v. Afro thing going on in urban U.S. as a specifically U.S. sub-culture phenomenon. Because as we have noted, the "racism" dynamic in Latin America itself is very different. I think it may have roots in Afro-Americans resenting incursion on neighborhood culture that they see as American, many generations, by an immigrant culture. I've seen evidence of a similar thing in the negative reaction by Afro-Americans of Harlem and other traditionally black nabes in NYC towards new African immigrants as well. So then there is the "racist" counter reaction of Latino-Americans. It's really more tribal/sub-cultural rather than what we traditionally think of as "racist." Obama addressed this in his MLK speech at Ebenezer, he said soemthing about resenting immigrants along with addressing homophobia in the Afro-American community.

As for Obama, I wonder whether Latino, or rather Mexican-American, aversion to Obama is because he's an Ivy League wine track candidate (that is they're hating up) or because (per Mexican-black tensions in LA) he's African-American and they look down on him?

As I said in my comment, I suspect so far it's more class because those that are likely voters would be less likely to be the simplistically racist ones. I've got to say it: there's a lot of just plain "buppie" (the black variant of yuppie) about Obama's image so far.

Posted by artappraiser | January 22, 2008 3:12 PM

"This is why he's never been a particularly serious candidate for the nomination. You win the Dem nomination by aligning yourself with the Party, not by standing apart from the Party. This is the first lesson of nomination politics."

Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but I for one am trying to win the presidency and I think this should be a factor to the Party.
When the Party nominates its favorite, a woman 45% of the country won't vote for under any circumstances, and loses the most winnable Dem election in many, many years, they *still* won't learn.

It's not as if I'm asking them to make some sort of huge compromise here by picking an electable but distateful candidate. Barack is huge.

In what way does he not represent the Democratic party? Which stance is out of line with the platform? The younger voters are going out of their minds for the chance to vote for him, and people are actually excited about him. The Republicans are afraid of him. They are not afraid of Hillary. When they talk about her, it's because she's red meat for the base, not because they think they'll lose to her.

Look, I like Edwards just fine, but at this point he is in this thing to try to keep Hillary from getting the nomination. He's too smart to think otherwise. If he'd stuck around my state a little bit longer and actually done some stuff, made a name for himself before jumping into the '04 race prematurely, he'd probably be in a different place right now.

Posted by Jen | January 22, 2008 3:19 PM

"The younger voters are going out of their minds for the chance to vote for him"

As the T-shirt says...

Posted by Petey | January 22, 2008 3:28 PM

Your rebuttal is a T-shirt that seems, if anything, to obliquely encourage young people to vote? That's kind of weird.

Posted by Jen | January 22, 2008 4:13 PM

If he'd stuck around my state a little bit longer and actually done some stuff, made a name for himself before jumping into the '04 race prematurely, he'd probably be in a different place right now.

Yeah, you're right. We need seasoned candidates who jump from the IL state senate to a pres. run in two years.

Posted by Shawn | January 22, 2008 4:50 PM

Okay, this wine-track/beer-track line is just pundit claptrap (and it's also a Republican talking point). Can any of you seriously picture Hillary Clinton kicking back in a bar in South Dakota having a Miller with the locals? None of the leading Democrats will ever be portrayed as a beer-track candidate when put up against a Republican opponent. They're all "tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freaks".

The only people who think in these terms are journalists, pollsters and political junkies who can't figure out the electorate without creating artificial distinctions like Soccer-Moms and Nascar-Dads.

Voters don't care about this nonsense.

Posted by Jinchi | January 22, 2008 5:03 PM

None of the leading Democrats will ever be portrayed as a beer-track candidate when put up against a Republican opponent.

I don't think anyone's saying that--this particular wine track/beer track phenomenon is purely intra-party. Unless someone wants to claim that downscale independents and Republicans would like Hillary more than...well, anyone.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 22, 2008 5:24 PM

For all his obvious skill/talent/appeal, Team Obama chose to position him outside of the party hoping his appeal to young voters, non-politicals and Indies/mod Rs would be enough for him to win the nomination. It was a high risk strategy that might have worked had he won New Hampshire and Clinton cracked.

Obama could have run a different campaign under the change rubric, highlighting his differences to Clinton not the Democratic Party, but his advisers must have believed this was not a winning strategy. Now he is stuck because Plan A didn't work and there doesn't appear to be a Plan B. If I was Team Obama, I would change it up after SC hoping that the youth contingent/affluents would stick even as he actively engages the downmarket Dems with specific appeals.

Posted by J J & M | January 22, 2008 5:33 PM

Obama could have run a different campaign under the change rubric, highlighting his differences to Clinton not the Democratic Party,

Clearly that's what he tried to do. All of the little Krugman/mandate/single payer/Reagan fiascos were clearly Obama trying to distance himself from DLC centrists.

He just tried to be too subtle and nice though. It took him too long to name names--and names are precisely the point. He's got to attack the Bill Clinton legacy from the left. I'm sure there are plenty of "End of Big Government" quotes he made in office and undelivered promises the duo made in '92, when he stuck up for Bush's judgment in invading Iraq--Obama needs to dig that crap up.

Or, alternatively, Edwards could do it. If it ever came down to (up to?) a Clinton v. Edwards race, he'd have to.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 22, 2008 5:58 PM

Can any of you seriously picture Hillary Clinton kicking back in a bar in South Dakota having a Miller with the locals?

No but I can see her getting a little verklempt over kaffeeklatsch with Juanita, or even Oprah. Matter of fact, I think I did see something like that recently somewhere.

It's not about feminism, either, it's about humanizing. Don't think beer. All you have to do is think of the lyrics to a Country & Western song, basically any Country & Western song.

Posted by artappraiser | January 22, 2008 7:28 PM

Look, this is all very easy. To many (if not most), Obama just doesn't look ready for the presidency and doesn't look like he has the necessary moxie to handle the GOP. Those feelings are sublimated for the following:

1) African Americans: can't blame them for wanting to exercise this voting opportunity;

2) Romantic Idealists: generally younger voters but found in all age groups

3) Those fearfully contemplating the backlash of Hillary haters: he's the most likely Anti-Hillary

I'd say the Obama edge among the more affluent and the most educated (and, the edge is not a big one) is that those groups may be represented a little more highly in the latter two categories.

Posted by lombard | January 22, 2008 7:35 PM

To many (if not most), Obama just doesn't look ready for the presidency and doesn't look like he has the necessary moxie to handle the GOP.

Please cite some proof. Preferably something that doesn't come straight from the Hillary2008 site.

You've forgotten that a major reason Obama is in this campaign is that he had pretty much the only victory on the Democratic side in the 2004 election. While Clinton and the other Democrats in Congress were applauding our victory in Iraq, trying to ban flag burning and generally rolling over for the unitary executive; Obama ran on a platform against the biggest foreign policy blunder in our time and as a liberal on civil rights, abortion rights, tax policy, gun control and the role of government in society.

And he won while many of those senior Democrats lost their own seats - (like the former majority leader, who campaigned with pictures of himself hugging president Bush).

And you've also forgotten:

4) People who don't think that 28 years as a wife and mother + 7 years as Senator = 35 years of experience in government.

Posted by Jinchi | January 22, 2008 8:30 PM

I agree, w/ Jinchi re the claptrap potential on this tread, unless someone can provide objective data to support these sterotypes. Not much of the other analysis makes much sense to me. To wit:

Petey, Beowulf, Artappraiser, RKU-- Could you please define “beer-track true-blue Democrat” and tell me about how many of them still exist,in the current US economy,and the Democratic Party their income class, education levels, etc.? You see, I’m a Caucasian, professional, six-figure income, one-beer-a-day, haven’t-voted-for-a-Republican-in-over-thirty-years guy, so do I qualify? Also, just when and how did Obama make the decision to “cede” that role? Did he cede it to Hilary Clinton? If so, when did a woman whose husband is an ex-President and whose daughter works for a hedge fund become “beer track”?

And if your analysis is correct, how come Obama won in Iowa? I used to live there, I assure you that beer is plentiful, and I also suspect that by your definition many if not most of Iowa’s Democratic primary caucus attendees were “downscale.”

And if Latino voters don’t go for ‘wine track’ candidates, how can they be swing voters and why did they give George Bush and the Republicans 40%? Because they thought George was some poor Campesino who was got delivered to GHW & Barb’s door in a basket as a baby? You think they just ‘missed’ the Yale/Skull&Bones father=ex-President thing?

Beowulf-- why do you think that most east coast Latinos are not originally from Mexico? As far as I can tell, there seem to be a fairly large number of Mexican immigrants all the way from Florida to New England.

Lombard-- “Sublimated”? You mean a direct solid-to-gaseous phase transition? If I wrote that your judgment about Obama’s supposed ‘moxie to handle the GOP’ involved sublimation, would that be correct? And where’s the exit or other survey polling data to support the assertion that “many (if not most)” don’t believe that Obama is ready for the presidency? Less ready that the former president’s wife? Some sublimation going on there as well? Exactly how much do people voting in the CA, AZ, etc. Democratic primaries actually know about Obama at this point (vs. someone who has been in the news for nearly two decades? Do you think that makes a difference at all? Also, it was really royal of you to give African Americans their due, even if their fixation on skin color clouds their better judgment.

Posted by WheatBoy | January 22, 2008 8:40 PM

Jinchi wrote:

"You've forgotten that a major reason Obama is in this campaign is that he had pretty much the only victory on the Democratic side in the 2004 election."

Apparently, you have amnesia. Obama won what may have been the biggest open Senate seat cakewalk in Illinois state history in 2004. The state GOP had to run an imported wingnut against him after the party's nominee dropped out due to marital scandals. Salazar in Colorado won a real contest. Why don't we nominate him?

Funny that you mention Daschle. Obama is cut from the same soft cloth, albiet with more charisma and superior stump speaking skills. And the party didn't lose outside the South and Texas (Daschle excepted) in 2004.

And nothing I say comes from the Hillary playbook. I call it like I see it. So do most other voters. Only you "more progressive than thou" types have to double check your opinions for consensus and social acceptability.

Posted by lombard | January 22, 2008 9:55 PM

Wheat Boy wrote:

"And where’s the exit or other survey polling data to support the assertion that “many (if not most)” don’t believe that Obama is ready for the presidency?"

Well, since you insist on being a supercilious little _________ instead of believing what is right in front of your face, I will point to the responses on the question of who is ready to be commander in chief during the last two state contests if you insist on empirical evidence. Clinton crushes Obama on that one.

Posted by lombard | January 22, 2008 10:04 PM

You've forgotten that a major reason Obama is in this campaign is that he had pretty much the only victory on the Democratic side in the 2004 election....And he won while many of those senior Democrats lost their own seats."

Jinchi:

Well, he was running against Alan Keyes(!)...who had no money. If Obama's the nominee and the Republicans again put up Alan Keyes---who's still in the presidential race---I'd give Obama very good odds at reaching the White House.

WheatBoy:

Actually, I rarely tend to use the "wine-track label", which I don't think I'd even ever heard much until just the last couple of weeks. Basically, Latinos tend to be blue-collar, working-class, socially-conservative but economically-populist voters. They're big on things like unions and the minimum wage, not so big on gay marriage and flag-burning. Essentially, they're classic examples of what used to be called "Reagan Democrats," an important swing voting group.

Now gigantic California contains approximately 1/3 of all Latinos in America, and Obama's behind by 40(!) points, compared with just a 2 point deficit among CA Anglos. I think I know why so few are supporting Obama, and I've explained my analysis. If you disagree, why don' you provide your own explanation behind those astonishing numbers?

Posted by RKU | January 22, 2008 10:09 PM

"You see, I’m a Caucasian, professional, six-figure income, one-beer-a-day, haven’t-voted-for-a-Republican-in-over-thirty-years guy, so do I qualify (as a beer-track Dem)?"

No. Your income marks you as a wine-track Dem.

"Also, just when and how did Obama make the decision to “cede” that (beer-track) role?"

When: first quarter of 2007, if not earlier.

Posted by Petey | January 22, 2008 10:11 PM

Obama "ceded" the "beer-track" role when Hillary told her supporters that Obama was a right-winger and idiots like Petey believed her.

Posted by Tractarian | January 22, 2008 10:58 PM

I am a lifelong Democrat and I expected to LIKE, REALLY really like, Barack Obama.

I was very favorably impressed with his 2004 Democratic Convention speech. AND I am from Chicago and don't find political bare-knuckle to be upsetting.

But I AM put off by him, and it all began when he dumped on Paul Krugman over Krugman's analysis of different Democratic health plans. Krugman has become a hero of mine over the course of the Bush Administration because he is intelligent AND truthful AND fearless. His analysis was spot-on and then the Obama campaign began releasing "info" on him.

Again, I don't mind bare-knuckle, but this was bone-head bare-knuckle.

When a Democrat talks about Social Security using Republican talking-points I am taken aback. Obama IS reaching out to independents and moderate Republicans by this, but he is running for the DEMOCRATIC primary. And his way of reaching out to THEM alienates ME.

My husband and I just had a fairly loud argument about this (he's an independent) and says it's just not fair that Democrats and Republicans get to pick "their" nominee and it's all that HE gets out of it.

I don't know what the answer is here; maybe Obama could get me into his camp by finding ways to "be more of a Democrat" in the primary. But it seems he's running a general election strategy without locking down the primary. I personally feel disrespected and unwanted as a supporter (and he may be right, he may get 'way more out of the Democratic Party support than he needs to win both the nomination and the Presidency) so I don't feel like a have much of a choice here.

And I DO like Hillary. I "get" what she's saying it's like she's talking to me. I remember the 1994 health care debate and I also remember that the Republicans had made the calculated decision to say no to reform no matter WHAT was offered. It couldn't've worked because the answer would always be NO.

Eva

Posted by Eva | January 22, 2008 11:19 PM

IMHO Nyhan is saying that if you compare the percentage of white votes that Obama has received to Jesse Jackson's you will see that it is the same and therefore may be Obama has hit the ceiling of white support. I don't see anything wrong comparing Obama to Jackson because in 1988, Jackson won 11 states. Obama needs to do better than that. And so far, it doesn't look like he is going to do better.

Posted by MGJ | January 22, 2008 11:59 PM

Only you "more progressive than thou" types have to double check your opinions for consensus and social acceptability.

I never claimed to be "more progressive than thou". You could be Dennis Kucinich for all I know. I don't even dislike Clinton, I just think the experience line is a bit ridiculous. Biden, Dodd, McCain - those guys have experience. Clinton, Obama and Edwards don't.

You made a statement that many, "if not most" don't think Obama's ready for the job. The only place I hear this is from Hillary's campaign. So why don't you back up your statement?

Posted by Jinchi | January 23, 2008 12:01 AM

MGJ,

I agree that Obama has yet to do as well as Jackson did in 1988. Obama has the reputation of being a spellbinding speaker but I remember Jackson as being a far more compelling one. Plus, Jackson received virtually no establishment support and the establishment fear of his candidacy was obvious. Obama has profited from Hillary hatred and fear and has been well funded. Jackson had to work hard for his votes with little money and had much more going against him.

Posted by lombard | January 23, 2008 1:13 AM