Department of Silly Arguments

In the interests of being less of an Obama-shill, let's note that Nick Kristof really ought to dump this electability argument:

But one clue emerged in Tuesday’s balloting in 14 “red states” that were won by President George W. Bush in 2004. Mr. Obama won nine while Hillary Rodham Clinton won four and is ahead in the fifth.

But, look, Obama's not going to win Utah so what's the point of counting like this. Meanwhile, the idea that the primary electorate in state x is a good proxy for that state's general election is badly flawed. The South Carolina Democratic primary, to cite a salient example, is a contest in which one's appeal to white voters is not very important. A South Carolina general election isn't like that at all. Conversely, the demographic magic that let Hillary Clinton win California while losing white voters and losing black voters isn't going to work in a general election. Reasoning from independent facts, however, lets us know that this isn't going to happen in HRC in California any more than Obama would lose New York.

Comments

True - Utah and South Carolina are out of play. That's not the crux of the electibility argument. Those are the two of the most conservative states in the country. How a candidate does in states whose primary/caucaus participants are more moderate-to-independent is a factor, however. Unfortuntaely, this isn't readily available by considering if a state is "purple" or "red". South Carolina is a "red" state, but the primary voters are pretty liberal. The true test will be in states like Virginia.

Posted by MIke O | February 8, 2008 11:32 AM

You're right about Obama's results in South Carolina not telling us anything about his electability in a general election, but wrong, I think, about Utah, Alaska, and the like. Isn't the median voter in a Democratic primary in Utah more like the median voter in a general election than the median voter in your average blue state Democratic primary is?

Posted by Zippy | February 8, 2008 11:37 AM

Well, yeah, Obama isn't going to win SC in the general. But in these red states, he will increase Democratic turnout and depress Republican turnout (relative to Clinton), which can only help Democrats in some marginal congressional races.

Posted by MHD | February 8, 2008 11:40 AM

But didn't Obama get more votes in SC than McCain and Huckabee combined? Doesn't that suggest that the state might, in fact, be in play in a general election?

I actually think that either Clinton or Obama could win the general -- it's just a bad climate for Republicans. I think Obama has the potential, though, to shift a lot of states Dem that haven't been going that way. At the very least, he has the chance to pull a lot of Dem voters out to vote for Senators and Congresspeople, even in traditionally Rep areas.

Posted by NoahB | February 8, 2008 11:41 AM

Maybe Matt is finally starting to get some political common sense, though it means he's probably forfeited his chance of ever being an NYT op-ed columnist (since the Krugman slot is already filled).

But why does Matt think Hillary *lost* the white vote in CA? The numbers I've seen are that she beat Obama among whites, though by not the gigantic margin that she crushed him among Latinos and Asians. After all, whites were the majority of the Democratic electorate, and if she'd lost among whites, how would she have won in a near-landslide overall? If I'm mistaken, please correct me.

Posted by RKU | February 8, 2008 11:41 AM

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, and I don't have enough coffee in the house to get through a Kristoff column, so I'm not sure if I'm agreeing with you or not, but.... Any Dem barring some huge unforeseen event is going to win CA, NY and NJ, and lose Utah and So. Carolina (and Texas and Georgia and Wyoming).
However, a lot of mid-size states--Minnesota, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon... those are in play. Even Connecticut, from what I read, is up for grabs, thanks to Joe Lieberman.

Posted by Jim | February 8, 2008 11:42 AM

The question is which candidate maintains purple/blue states and possibly wins purple/red states.

Posted by BlindJoeDeath | February 8, 2008 11:42 AM

Matthew writes "Obama's not going to win Utah"

How do you know that? I think the defeat of Romney will drive many Mormons away from the Republican Party because they see his defeat was caused by religious bigotry against Mormons. Hillary will not be able to attract them because she's too divisive, but a post-partisan unity candidate like Obama could very well win those Mormons and Utah.

Also, Obama's strong support among African Americans will help him in South Carolina, Alabama, and other states. Hillary and Bill could lose many states because African Americans would stay home or vote for McCain because they are sick and tired of the Clintons playing the race card.

Posted by TLM | February 8, 2008 11:42 AM

It’s about down ticket races.. You guys just don’t get it.. Clinton on the ballot will tip "swing" seats to Republicans. I know I live here in the south. Ask Heath Schuler who he would rather have on the top of the ticket especially with his district... Please stop ignoring flyover country and think about the bigger picture.. I will tell you Obama at the top will fair better than Clinton..

Posted by Ann | February 8, 2008 11:43 AM

I more or less agree. There is only one salient argument for Obama and Clinton to make at the moment: I can beat McCain.

I think Mitt Romney may have inadvertently given Obama the nomination by dropping out now rather than two weeks from now. It was obvious Romney was going to lose to McCain weeks ago, but having the actual event occur crystallizes reality in a way that may significantly alter the thinking of Democratic party voters.

Every day that goes by that Obama and Clinton are still fighting and spending money against each other gives McCain an advantage. McCain can raise money and unify his base while the Democratic nomination battle goes on.

Democratic voters are going to start feeling the pressure to settle on someone. This won’t change the votes of die-hard Clinton or Obama fans, but undecided or soft supporters will take it into account. This makes momentum and electability against John McCain real factors for the first time.

The way this helps Obama is two fold. One, he polls better against McCain. He can legitimately argue selecting him gives Democrats the best chance to beat McCain.

Two, many of the February primary and caucus states favor him. Let's say he ends up with a long string of victories in the next three weeks. These victories could create a powerful perception that more of the party is gravitating to him, creating a snowball effect that will get soft Clinton supporters to vote for Obama, a candidate with similar policy positions as Clinton, if they think doing so will end the nomination battle early and preserve their chances to win in November.

Posted by Jason | February 8, 2008 11:43 AM

Matt is right but you shouldn't ignore the popular vote. Obviously, the Dem nominee has to win the electoral college. But if you assume for the sake of argument that Obama and Clinton win the same number of states, the Dem who can wins more votes in red states he/she loses will be the preferable candidate.

Posted by Led | February 8, 2008 11:46 AM

The only salience this spin has was supplied by the Clinton campaign's spin, which was basically that just as South Carolina doesn't count because it's got a lot of black people, Kansas doesn't count because it wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton. Or: "Fuck the flyover states. We're going to spend $200 million in Florida and Ohio and hope the dice come up the right way."

I imagine you'll see the same spin if Obama gets really lucky and wins Texas.

Posted by Dave Weigel | February 8, 2008 11:49 AM

Right, California and New York will go Dem no matter which candidate wins. And S. Carolina will go Republican no matter what.

Really, what is important about this election is if the Democratic nominee can win key rust belt states, which looks likely, and why this election was a foregone democratic win.

In 2004 Bush won narrowly by edging out in Ohio. But this time around Ohio looks to be Democrat. All else the same, that one state changes and democrats win.

So really what we should be talking about here is "Is the Republican's Southern strategy finished?" If the Dems take the Northeast, the Rust belt, and the left coast, they could edge out enough votes to win regularly. That means forgetting the south and the hinterland and focusing on Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and states that they *can* win but lost or were marginal in 2004 (not that Minnesota was red or even purple in 04, just saying).

Posted by freddiemac | February 8, 2008 11:54 AM

Matt is correct that Kristof is making a stupid electability argument. I don't, however, think it's difficult to make a smart electability argument for Obama based on the same set of data. Like pointing to the fact that Obama won among white independents in Missouri by a 59-37% margin.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 8, 2008 11:59 AM

You're leaving out the key point of the Obama electability argument: I like Obama and I don't like Clinton.

Actually, what is most absurd about this kind of electability argument is that we are estimating how candidates would fare in certain states, rather than their level of appeal to the country as a whole. But obviously this isn't Kristoff's fault. However, since we are forced to examine things within the framework of the electoral college, what I found most interesting about the Super Tuesday results were that the two most purple states, Missouri and New Mexico, were also the closest results. Iowa and New Hampshire weren't exactly blowouts either, although there was obviously different dynamics at work then. Not sure what that means... perhaps the argument could be made that big wins in purple states say more about electability that winning red states that are out of play in the general anyway. In which case neither would be significantly more electable.

Posted by ibid | February 8, 2008 12:01 PM

Here's my logic: Democrats are voting in droves in these elections, turning out more people, sometimes double, than Republicans in all states. It thus follows that in a general election the Dems will turn out more voters who will vote Democrat no matter who the candidate will be. I sincerely believe that Democrats will rally behind thier candidate to beat a Republican in the fall. Especially if the Dem loser emphatically supports the winner. On the other hand, Republicans, especially Conservatives, are refusing to support McCain - they hate him as much as Hillary. I don't feel that kind of hatred on the Dem side. Unless McCain pacifies the Conservatives (by compromising his integrity)he won't get the Rep turnout. Thus a Dem victory.

Posted by SN | February 8, 2008 12:01 PM

It's been said a couple of times, but to be specific:

Just because Obama won't win Utah, his impressive showing in states like Minnesota might make a difference, and his showing among independents in swing states seems entirely relevant.

Posted by Jay J | February 8, 2008 12:03 PM

There are 'new purple' states. South Carolina may not be one of them, but North Carolina is, and Virginia certainly is. Crack even a couple off the Republican South, and it's game over.

Posted by drinkof | February 8, 2008 12:03 PM

I must say I find the "cognitive dissonance" among all these Obamabots very, very amusing...

On the one hand, they endlessly claim that the reason Obama has only been getting 35% of the non-black vote in all these states is the massive "racism" among so many of the liberals who dominate Democratic primaries. Lots of them cite anecdotal evidence of hard-core Democratic family and friends who say they won't vote for Obama either now or in November because he's black.

On the other hand, they also endlessly claim that Obama is a dramatically stronger general election candidate, because he'll bring in lots of the Republicans and conservatives who'd previously been reluctant to vote Democratic.

Maybe David Brooks really is right and the Democratic Party is the "racist" party while the Republican Party is the "anti-racist" party.

Posted by RKU | February 8, 2008 12:04 PM

Are you sure South Carolina isn't in play in the General? Googled CNN for these numbers... In 2004, about 291,000 Democrats voted in that primary. Obama got 293,000 South Carolina votes all by himself this year. In 2004, Bush won the state in the general by 938,000-662,000. In 2008, there were 530,000 votes cast in the Democratic primary, compared to 443,000 for the Republicans. (Granted the Republicans lost delegates from the early scheduling; that might have lowered turnout). I would think that most of those primary voters are likely voters in the general. If this is any indication of what it's going to be like in November, I would say that South Carolina could very well be in play.

Posted by Tel | February 8, 2008 12:05 PM

I think Ann hits the nail right on the head--Obama's ability to win primaries in Utah, Idaho, and South Carolina doesn't guarantee he can win those states in the general election (although with the massive Democratic primary turnout, you never know), but it does show his ability to help the down-ticket races. An Obama nomination doesn't just suppress the anti-Clinton vote, it mobilizes the base and independents. That could mean larger Democratic majorities in Congress and state houses, instead of holding even or possibly losing seats.

Posted by Marc | February 8, 2008 12:06 PM

John McCain is going to have a hard time unifying the Republican base to come out and support him. Dobson is endorsing Huckabee. The AM windbags are riling the base. Nothing unifies the base of the Republican party more than putting a Clinton on the ticket.

The general election is nine months away still, and who knows for sure what the top stories will be? So the polls showing Obama doing five points better or whatever against McCain are meaningless to me. What does matter is that nominating Hillary leaves McCain free to pivot to the center on every issue, where he already has credibility, because Clinton unifies the right and ensures the base turning out.

Matt is exactly right in his post.

Posted by Curtis | February 8, 2008 12:11 PM

Thanks Marc for seeing the forest through the trees..

Posted by Ann | February 8, 2008 12:12 PM

freddiemac:
We better win Ohio this time. Blackwell isn't there to help rig elections any longer.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 8, 2008 12:12 PM

On the one hand, they endlessly claim that the reason Obama has only been getting 35% of the non-black vote in all these states is the massive "racism" among so many of the liberals who dominate Democratic primaries.

I haven't seen any Obama supporters argue that white Clinton supporters are racist. I have seen a few Clinton supporters (the NY NOW press release, for example) argue that male Obama supporters are sexist. Do you have any examples of Obama supporters crying racism?

Posted by ibid | February 8, 2008 12:19 PM

Also, Matt, you should remember your "holy shit" moment when Obama did what he said he would in Iowa -- bringing a ton of new people into the electorate in a way that politicians always say they're going to, but never seem to actually manage.

I find that will.i.am video nauseating, and a quick pass by the Obama website message board gave me a bit of a saccharine overdose. I am not a positive person. I see why inspiration and hope all day every day makes y'all roll your eyes. I think there's going to be a fairly large number of disappointed people if Obama gets into office and it becomes clear that he's really, in a lot of ways, a pretty typical middle-road progressive Dem who is quite willing to wheel and deal and even bend the truth on occasion. But. He's smart, and does appear to have some principles, and he's run an amazing campaign. The fact that he inspires folks is a benefit; it means he has some wiggle room with both his base and his enemies (which is important for any President.) Cynicism is no bad thing, but don't let your desire to be a McCain-like contrarian blind you to the benefits of an Obama candidacy and (hopefully) Presidency.

Posted by NoahB | February 8, 2008 12:19 PM

Jason you make a great point.. Lets also point to the fact that now the John McCain will win the nomination Indy’s may feel more inclined to vote in the Dem primary since a vote for McCain in the primary will be meaningless.. Advantage: Obama

Posted by Ann | February 8, 2008 12:22 PM

RKU: I can understand how treating every Obama supporter as an undifferentiated "Obamabot" might lead you to find cognitive dissonance when completely separate people express different opinions. But, while understandable, it's still pretty stupid.

Posted by Led | February 8, 2008 12:22 PM

Jason you make a great point.. Lets also point to the fact that now that John McCain will win the nomination Indy’s may feel more inclined to vote in the Dem primary since a vote for McCain in the primary will be meaningless.. Advantage: Obama

Posted by Ann | February 8, 2008 12:22 PM

In response to SN:

Democrats voting in droves is largely attributable to Obama-specific support. Lots of these voters are traditionally apolitical or non-voters (ie youth vote, rural 'previously undiscovered' type Dems).

They go away from the general, disillusioned with politics, if HRC wins the Dem nomination. Dem voter turnout then drops back to earlier levels, evening out with the Republicans. Also, there are a lot of Clinton-hating Dems.

In contract, many HRC supporters are longtime, card-carrying Democrats who vote regularly and will vote Dem no matter what in Nov. to take back the White House, and they tend Not to bear anti-Obama animosity so much as HRC preference.

So, HRC-supporting Dem's would probably vote for Obama in a general, but not vice-versa.

Posted by JN | February 8, 2008 12:23 PM

Frankly, I've never heard anyone accuse people of being racist for not voting for Obama, so I think that's a straw man argument. And I've heard far, far more "anecdotal evidence" of hard-core Dems (I'm not one of them, btw) who are adamant about voting for McCain in the general election if Clinton is the nominee. I'm not sure what that says about the electability of either candidate.

Posted by Abby | February 8, 2008 12:24 PM

RKU, has it occurred to you that these two arguments are not coming from the same people?

I think there's a fair amount of anti-Clinton conservative astroturfing going on at some liberal web sites. And there are a handful of Obama supporters who have made some annoying race-based comments. But by far the most common phenomenon I've seen involves Obama supporters making fairly bland attempts to explain racial disparities in the vote, which are then twisted beyond all recognition into ridiculous straw men by Clinton supporters.

Regardless, I think the most interesting disparity in the exit polls so far has been the fact that white Democrats lean slightly toward Clinton, while white independents lean strongly toward Obama. I think this points to race being a less significant factor than Hillary Clinton being extremely popular with core Democratic constituencies and generally unpopular with everyone else in America. Obama is going to face some bigotry, especially from older voters, but I think this challenge pales in comparison to the the antipathy that Hillary Clinton provokes outside of Democratic strongholds.

I'll add that I don't share this aversion to Clinton. I'll vote for her in November with very few regrets, if she wins the nomination. I just think we can do much better.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 8, 2008 12:27 PM

Marc:
Thank you!!! Also, we know it is stupid but there is a lot of Clinton hate out there(not just Republicans but Independents too). And remember, as good a turn out as Democrats had in '04, Rove and Bush did even better. Do you want to help them ramp it up again with Clinton as the nominee?

Tel:
You are right. Problem is, it is possible with Obama, it won't be with Clinton.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 8, 2008 12:30 PM

"On the one hand, they endlessly claim that the reason Obama has only been getting 35% of the non-black vote in all these states is the massive "racism" among so many of the liberals who dominate Democratic primaries. Lots of them cite anecdotal evidence of hard-core Democratic family and friends who say they won't vote for Obama either now or in November because he's black."

Who's saying that? Obama obviously won the white vote in Iowa and, I believe, did much better than 35% in most of the Super Tuesday states. I think everyone would acknowledge that Obama probably loses some white votes because of racism, both in the primaries and in the general. That's why I think Bill Richardson makes a better VP for Obama than a white guy who won't get back those votes. But Hillary will absolutely lose a lot of white, male voters herself.

The electability argument for Obama and against Hillary is that Hillary guarantees a repeat of 2000 and 2004, where the entire election is fought in a small number of swing states. Hillfans think they'll be able to win Ohio or Florida this time, but shrinking the playing field like that makes it easier for the GOP to say in the game. Everything we've seen from Obama makes it look like he'd at least make the Republicans spend some of their limited money and energy defending some red states in the South and Mountain West.

Not to mention that we can already see how the campaign will develop with Hillary. She'll crush McCain on domestic policy but lose foreign policy (because "Win in Iraq" is a better message than "I supported the war when everone else did, but now I don't because everyone else doesn't"). People will agree with Hillary on most of the issues, but McCain will win the commander-in-chief question and he'll be more likable. Obama will also win domestic policy and lose the commander-in-chief question, but he's much better positioned to win foreign policy and be more likable than McCain.

Hillary, of course, can and should win in November. But the case that she could also lose seems much stronger than it is for Obama.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 8, 2008 12:34 PM

People like the meta-Obama. There's an awful lot of projection going on, not only among the voters, but in the Village.

But do they like Obama? Of that, I'm not so sure.

Posted by lambert strether | February 8, 2008 12:39 PM

Ibid, LaFollette Progressive:

Just take a look at the long "Asian Problem" thread earlier this morning. Various Obamabots kept on claiming their hard-core Democrat family and friends refused to vote for Obama either now or in November because he's black. The same sort of thing has come up on lots and lots of other threads.

Mbunge:

Just look at the numbers, either on Steve Sailer's "racist" website or anywhere else you can find them. So far, Obama has been consistently averaging less than 35% of the non-black vote across all the secret-ballot Democratic primaries, with the one (major) exception of his home state of Illinois. I pointed this out yesterday in the long "How The Supers Could Matter" thread, and had a big rumble with the Obamabots over it, which you can read and judge for yourself. But arithmetic is arithmetic...

Led:

I certainly admit that some of the different Obamabots have totally opposing views. Maybe they should all fight it out themselves, since there are so many of them around here.

Lambert Strether:

You nailed it! But after the Republicans spend $100M on "tough" attack ads, I think lots more people will be seeing "Obama" (or even "Obama-minus") rather than "meta-Obama".

Posted by RKU | February 8, 2008 12:51 PM

"Problem is, it is possible with Obama, it won't be with Clinton." - JK'sC

Which brings it back to the electability question. SC's in play if the candidate is Obama. SC is not in play if the candidate is Clinton.

Posted by Tel | February 8, 2008 12:52 PM

I don't know if the Village likes Obama, but I know they love McCain. "Independents" who would/will vote for McCain are people who vote for personality, not issues. On paper, the man who vows more wars, fewer jobs and more Alitos should be dead in the electoral waters. But he thinks we're fighting Word War II, and has managed to persaude a lot of people (in their hearts if not their heads) that we just need to liberate France I mean Iraq from the Nazis I mean the Islamofascists. He's an ignorant, clueless, delusional right-winger, and he's the candidate tailor-made to beat Hillary Clinton, and please don't kid yourselves about the Republicans staying home

Posted by Jim | February 8, 2008 12:53 PM

I think a lot of people like Obama..

Posted by Ann | February 8, 2008 12:53 PM

Blackwell isn't there to help rig elections any longer.

Blackwell was a HUGE jackass. He hit on my wife back in '95 when she was out to lunch with my Mom! Too bad I wasn't there - would have knocked him silly and perhaps saved us from all the eventually vote rigging he was responsible for.

Posted by Jay | February 8, 2008 1:09 PM

Electability arguments aren't ALL silly, but this one really is.

Look, you just haven't been able to tell much about a general election from a primary map, at least not historically. The two aren't comparable.

Posted by soullite | February 8, 2008 1:12 PM

2 biggest keys:

1. Down ticket voting, it could result in more people like Sebelius, McCaskill, and Conrad getting into office.

2. Purple states. ANY democratic presidential nominee is going to win CA, MA, and NY. But looking at the map in 2000 and 2004 it's clear the effect extra votes in states like CO, MN, VA, and IA would have. Who's in better position to hold or flip these states?

Posted by dwightkschrute | February 8, 2008 1:13 PM

I agree with Matt that Kristof's argument is rather silly. I also think in general the electability discussion is rather getting tedious. From looking at the election results it is obvious that both candidates have their strengths and weaknesses. These are two strong candidates and that is why you see a virtuall tie or draw in delegates and the popular vote. Most democrats like both of them. People act like it is a zero-sum game where one dismiss one demographic group while proping up another. Come November all groups are needed to win the White House.

Posted by MGJ | February 8, 2008 1:15 PM

I must say I find the "cognitive dissonance" among all these Obamabots very, very amusing...

If you keep using words like "Obamabots," I'm going to continue to bring up the fact that we're more-educated, better-informed, and wealthier than Clinton supporters.

On the one hand, they endlessly claim that the reason Obama has only been getting 35% of the non-black vote in all these states is the massive "racism" among so many of the liberals who dominate Democratic primaries.

You're an idiot. You continue to trumpet that statistic (where the hell does it come from?) without acknowledging the fact that Obama couldn't have crushed Clinton in states like MN, ID, AK, IA, CO, and KS without overwhelming support from white voters. Moreover, Obama beat Clinton among white males nationally, and from what I understand, among all whites in California.

Lots of them cite anecdotal evidence of hard-core Democratic family and friends who say they won't vote for Obama either now or in November because he's black.

I've never heard anyone say anything of the sort. But I have been told that I'm not supporting Hillary because I'm a sexist.

On the other hand, they also endlessly claim that Obama is a dramatically stronger general election candidate, because he'll bring in lots of the Republicans and conservatives who'd previously been reluctant to vote Democratic.

And the polling and results confirm it. Recent match-ups between McCain, and Hillary and Obama show McCain and Hillary tied but Obama beating McCain by 9% due to support from independents. And Obama has done far better among independents and Republicans in every single primary state. Moreover, Obama has 32% negatives whereas Hillary has 48% negatives. What part of all of this are you incapable of understanding?

Maybe David Brooks really is right and the Democratic Party is the "racist" party while the Republican Party is the "anti-racist" party.

Non-sequitor.

Posted by asdf | February 8, 2008 1:17 PM

RKU--if I'm not mistaken, he won the white vote in California. He's also been winning the white male vote with a great deal of consistency. In fact, he mostly losing among white women(he won them in Iowa) and white women aren't about to vote Republican just because Hillary isn't the nominee. (Unless you think she's drawing Republican women? I doubt that, but I'd be interested to know if its true.)

Posted by Abe | February 8, 2008 1:28 PM

I don't buy that Obama is more electable. For one thing, you can't even assess that properly right now. He's riding the crest of a wave--or was--and nobody has seriously gone after him. It strikes me as weird that no one has ever run a negative ad against Obama in his political career.

That is about to change, and he is vulnerable in multiple areas. For one thing, his anti-war record--highly touted in Democratic primaries--won't help him at all in the general election. McCain will accuse him of trying to cut and run, while McCain will portray himself as being the candidate of "victory" and "success." (We all know this is bogus, but it will work like a charm with the electorate.)

Posted by John Petty | February 8, 2008 1:31 PM

Just take a look at the long "Asian Problem" thread earlier this morning. Various Obamabots kept on claiming their hard-core Democrat family and friends refused to vote for Obama either now or in November because he's black. The same sort of thing has come up on lots and lots of other threads.

From a I quick look at that thread, I didn't see any of those who speculated about racism identify themselves as Obama supporters. Is it possible that you made that assumption because you think Obama supporters are racist? There also seem to be more commenters attacking the idea that racism played a role in Asian Americans favoring Clinton than defending it. It's likely that some of them are Obama supporters, so is it possible that the Obamabots are not uniformly crying racism?

Even if those accusing Asians of racism are supporters of Obama, as LaFollette Progressive pointed out they aren't necessarily the same people making the argument that Obama's appeal is trans-racial. True, they probably shouldn't jump to the conclusion of racist motives from Asian-Americans in general, but that is a different issue than whether they are suffering from cognitive dissonance about the role of Obama's race in the electability debate.

Granted, there probably are some people who think Asians (or whites) don't vote for Obama because they are racist, and at the same time think he will be more appealing to Republicans and independents, whose greater tendency towards racism than that of Democrats is implicit in your argument (perhaps it isn't cognitive dissonance as much as giving Republicans and independents to much credit for being able to look past race). But at any rate, a few commenters on MY's blog, who have not even identified themselves as Obama supporters, hardly constitute a case of cognitive dissonance in the monolith of Obama supporters.

The NY NOW head, on the other hand, obviously made her statement as a supporter of Clinton, and directly accused Kennedy et al of sexism. I'm not arguing that this means Clintonbots think people vote against her because they are sexist, since the press release was obviously written by a single crazy person. I mention it simply to serve as an example of an actual supporter of one campaign accusing supporters of the other of a form of bigotry. I still haven't seen an example of this from Obama supporters (although I wouldn't be surprised if they are out there), much less a fairly prominent one such as a state director of a black interest group.

Posted by ibid | February 8, 2008 1:44 PM

"For one thing, his anti-war record--highly touted in Democratic primaries--won't help him at all in the general election."

Yeah, when well over 60% of the public say they want to get out of Iraq...being anti-war couldn't possibly help at the ballot box.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 8, 2008 1:45 PM

MBunge: That means less than you think. Yes, 60% think the war is a mistake and that we never should have gone there in the first place. That does not necessarily mean they are ready to pull out--or, as John McCain will say, "cut and run."

When pollsters ask more specific questions, the pull-out right away tack registers in the 30's, or even less. A hard-core anti-war position will not be an advantage in the fall election--not with McCain going around spouting "victory."

Posted by John Petty | February 8, 2008 1:52 PM

how do you know Matt that Obama will not win Utah?

With Romney out - and McCain the presumptive candidate - how do you know?

Answer: you don't

Posted by AMBER | February 8, 2008 2:26 PM

RKU, I ran the numbers, based on the overall vote totals I got from CNN and Sailer's percentages. I excluded Utah because it noted that there were hispanic voters, but didn't say how many voted for Obama. I don't have any asian numbers, so I can't use those. I can post the full analysis later, if you would like, but basically, out of a total 13,074,044 votes cast in those primaries, there were 10,646,553 "non-black" votes cast, or 81% (This seemed high to me, but it's because Calfornia with only 6% skewed things.)

Out of the 10,646,553 "non-black" votes, 3,801,842 were for Obama, which is 35.7%. If you take out NY, it only lowers it to 35.6%. Without Arkansas, it is 36.1%.

I'm going to review my calculations one more time, but I'm pretty sure they are accurate, based on the underlying data.

Posted by Sulla | February 8, 2008 2:38 PM

Sulla:

It sounds like you actually did the work I was too lazy to do myself. And although my "eye-balling" made me think Obama averaged just under 35% of the non-black vote outside Illinois, I'd hardly be that surprised if the correct figure was yours, which is just over 35%. I'd be glad to stand corrected.

But one thing you've said confuses me a little. Why would you care about the Hispanic or Asian percentages since they're not part of the calculation? (All you need are the black numbers and the total numbers). Also, I just want to make sure you did exclude IL, since that was an important part of my "eye-balling" estimate.

Posted by RKU | February 8, 2008 3:29 PM

I excluded Illinois.

My basic formula was:
Non Black vote = Total state vote * (100-percentage of black voters)

white vote = Non black vote * (100-%hispanic voters)
White vote for obama = white vote * percentage white vote for obama

hispanic vote = Non black vote * (%hispanic voters)
hispanic vote for obama = hispanic vote * percentage hispanic vote for obama

Total non-black vote for obama = white vote for obama + hispanic vote for obama

This seemed like a quick way at the time, but if I have a chance, I'll run the numbers a different way, using Obama's vote totals and the % of black votes he got. I didn't do it this way at first because it seemed like it would take more calculations, but looking at it again, It might be quicker. There's a reason I'm not a statistician :)

Posted by Sulla | February 8, 2008 3:43 PM

Obama might not win Utah, but he probably would win Colorado and Iowa. And if he wins Colorado and Iowa, then he only needs to flip two more electoral votes.

Which you need to ask yourself -- is it more likely that Hillary wins Florida or Utah, or that Obama wins Colorado, Iowa and NM?

Posted by Joe | February 8, 2008 4:02 PM

I agree that Obama would likely win CO and IA, but then so would Hillary. Neither will win UT, or even come close. And yes, I think Hillary is more likely to win FL. In fact, I seriously doubt that Obama would win any southern state, and probably no border states--MD excepted, and possibly MO, but I doubt it.

Posted by John Petty | February 8, 2008 4:11 PM

"MBunge: That means less than you think. Yes, 60% think the war is a mistake and that we never should have gone there in the first place. That does not necessarily mean they are ready to pull out--or, as John McCain will say, "cut and run.""

You just touched on the reason why Obama's anti-war stance will be better in November. McCain is going to be running around talking about "cut and run" and "victory". What's the best way to combat that...Hillary's defensive crouch of "I voted for the war and now I'm against it but I won't cut and run" or Obama's "It was a mistake from the beginning and you're damn right I'll pull the troops out"?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 8, 2008 4:13 PM

Many of George McGovern's primary wins were won with independent and cross over Republican votes, as well as a large influx of new, young voters (in states where Wallace wasn't on the ballot McGovern tended to pick up his voters too). But in the general those voters either didn't show up or went to Nixon.

My point isn't to suggest a McGovern-like defeat in the general election. Unlike '72, this is a high interest year that favors the Democratic nominee, no matter who gets the nomination.

But, I would warn against pinning too much expectation of what swing and cross over voters will do in the general election based on what they do in the primaries. History shows they are not especially dependable voters.

Posted by mary | February 8, 2008 4:20 PM

"I'm going to review my calculations one more time, but I'm pretty sure they are accurate, based on the underlying data."

Hey, Sulla. Have you ever heard of a little thing called Google? It took me less than 5 minutes to discover that...

Obama got 43% of the white vote in Georgia.
Obama got 55% of the white vote in New Mexico.
Obama got about 50% of all white male votes on Super Tuesday.

The only "problem" Obama has with white voters is that lots and lots of white women are supporting Hillary.

And by the way, Hillary is only getting about 15 percent of the black vote. No Democrat can win the White House with only 16% of the black vote, so I guess both Hillary and Obama have racial problems they can't overcome, right?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 8, 2008 4:28 PM

You just touched on the reason why Obama's anti-war stance will be better in November. McCain is going to be running around talking about "cut and run" and "victory". What's the best way to combat that...Hillary's defensive crouch of "I voted for the war and now I'm against it but I won't cut and run" or Obama's "It was a mistake from the beginning and you're damn right I'll pull the troops out"?

Given a choice between "cutting-and-running" and "victory," the American people will choose victory.

Hillary will talk about things like "responsible re-deployment"--or such as that--which would be much more saleable to the American public.

RE: the white vote. So Hillary and Obama split the white vote. That's about what a person might expect.

Posted by John Petty | February 8, 2008 4:33 PM

"Given a choice between "cutting-and-running" and "victory," the American people will choose victory.

Hillary will talk about things like "responsible re-deployment"--or such as that--which would be much more saleable to the American public."

Which is exactly the same way Obama's going to phrase his withdrawal proposals. What do you think, he's going to stand up in one of the debates and say "I'm going to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq in 15 days and I don't care what happens or how many people get killed"?

Obama can respond to the "Victory!" stuff by saying "We never should have been there in the first place". Hillary's response is to admit she's cutting and running, just in a very responsible manner.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 8, 2008 4:50 PM

Mike,

Thanks for injecting some reality into RKU and Sulla's discussion. You'll notice that they conveniently leave out the typically 85-90% white caucus states where Obama trounced Clinton with 57-79% of the vote (AK, UT, ID, MN, ND, CO, KS).

Posted by asdf | February 8, 2008 5:01 PM

Obama has lost the white vote in every direct primary state except his home state, Illinois. He assuredly lost the white vote in California--don't you people read the exit polls?

Clinton/Obama white vote percentage. The ones Obama won are in bold.

California:
Total: 45-42
Men: 34-52
Women: 55-34

New York:
Total: 59-37
Men: 52-43
Women: 65-33

New Jersey:
Total: 66-31
Men: 58-39
Women: 72-27

Missouri:
Total: 57-39
Men: 55-41
Women: 59-38

Connecticut:
Total: 49-48
Men: 40-57
Women: 56-42

New Mexico:
Total: 39-55
Men: 34-59
Women:42-52

Tennessee:
Total: 66-26
Men: 58-32
Women: 73-21

South Carolina:
Total: 36-24 (Edwards won 40%)
Men: 28-27 (Edwards 45)
Women: 42-22 (Edwards 46)

Arizona:
Total: 53-38
Men: 46-45
Women: 58-34

Arkansas:
Total: 79-16
Men: 71-24
Women: 85-11

Georgia:
Total: 56-40
Men: 48-45
Women: 60-37

New Hampshire: (with more candidates)
Total: 39-36
Men: 30-38
Women: 46-33

Florida (where no one campaigned except Obama's ads):
Men: 45-27
Women: 59-21
Total: 53-23

Caucuses are irrelevant, as they tilt highly liberal. Combining direct primary votes with caucuses is misleading when dealing with perentage of the popular vote.

There's no reason to think that direct primaries in the caucus states wouldn't reveal that whites of both genders would vote for Hillary. The richer the whites, the more votes Obama would get--but rarely would he actually get more than Hillary.

So the real question is how is it anyone thinks Obama can win when the Republicans are running a relative moderate and Obama has lost whites, Hispanics, and Asians in every major state holding a direct primary?

Posted by Cal | February 8, 2008 5:28 PM

Matt - Kristof's argument is lame but there's more sophisticated versions that can be made. One is that Democrats have lost the last two elections because they were soundly beaten among white men (a substantial voting group - 36% or so of the electorate). Gore lost white men 36-60; Kerry lost 37-62.

So rather than worrying about South Carolina - a bit for a long stretch for any Democrat - the question might be: which candidate can win enough white men to win the presidency? (I don't know the answer to that question.)

Posted by RA | February 8, 2008 5:31 PM

So the real question is how is it anyone thinks Obama can win when the Republicans are running a relative moderate and Obama has lost whites, Hispanics, and Asians in every major state holding a direct primary?

Stupid argument. First of all, blacks vote at much higher rates than Hispanics and Asians. How's Hillary going to win the general election when she's lost 80% of blacks in every primary? And how's Hillary going to beat McCain when the polls show him and her even (or worse) but show Obama leading McCain? And how's Hillary going to win when 12% of voters say they won't support a woman versus 6% who won't support an African-American?

Posted by asdf | February 8, 2008 5:59 PM

Aside from the effect each candidate will have down the ticket, which other people have referred to, the only other difference I see is the amount of money the Democrats will force the Republicans to spend on their "safe" states.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who talks about states like South Carolina or Texas being "out of play" has already conceded the election. Do you honestly think your party can keep giving the Republicans 200 electoral votes every election and somehow cobble a win out of whatever's left? Every state the Republicans don't have to spend money to win means more money for the rest of them.

Obama is quite clearly more popular than Clinton in Republican states, and no matter what they may say publicly, the Republicans don't want him campaigning there in the fall. He may not win Kansas or Alaska or Utah, but he can make McCain spend money there to keep them in the Republican column. Remember McCain is less popular in those states than Huckabee or Romney. He did better by comparison in the blue ones.

If the Democrats campaign using the Clinton logic, they will have to defend states like Oregon and Michigan in addition to going after Florida and Ohio, all the while dismissing 20 states as unwinnable. That dissipates their likely cash advantage.

Using Obama's thinking, McCain has to spend a lot of time and money defending Louisiana, South Carolina, and New Mexico, while being able to do less in Ohio and Florida.

Clinton might be the more likely winner, all things being equal, but it is becoming clearer to me as the campaign progresses that things are not equal. Obama is quite clearly the stronger candidate for this election. I might have prefered Clinton if the Democrats had less cash on hand than the Republicans (as has often been the case) and had to face a nominee with solid support, but that isn't going to be the case this time.

Posted by Splitting Image | February 8, 2008 6:25 PM

"So the real question is how is it anyone thinks Obama can win when the Republicans are running a relative moderate and Obama has lost whites, Hispanics, and Asians in every major state holding a direct primary?"

Hogshit.

Obama won those groups in Illinois, which is bigger than every state on that list other than NY and CA. He was within the margin of error of winning whites in CA (keep in mind that these numbers are based on exit polls, which do have a MOE).

Basically, the only Super Tuesday states (i.e., the states after Edwards dropped out) where Obama got trounced among white voters were Hillary's NE base (though NOT Connecticut, where -- like CA -- it was a statistical draw) and her AR/TN/OK wins. California, Connecticut and Delaware were statistical draws.

Posted by Joe | February 8, 2008 6:36 PM

"Do you honestly think your party can keep giving the Republicans 200 electoral votes every election and somehow cobble a win out of whatever's left? "

This works both ways. The Republicans have no chance in CA and NY and a bunch of others, despite Bush's head-fake in 2000.

As for the rest of the argument, I'm not sure I buy it. If Obama campaigns in Kansas, Alaska, and Utah, that takes up his time and money too. Worth doing for the down-ticket races if he's already going to win, but if the race still looks close, it isn't worth it. McCain would just work on the states that really are in play.

Posted by AlanC9 | February 8, 2008 10:25 PM

I honestly can't understand why "Joe", "MBunge", and lots of other commenters are so totally focused only on *white* voters. Are whites magic or something? Let's just look at the non-black numbers, which are pretty easy to work out.

After initially questioning my repeated 35% non-black estimate, "Sulla" did the actual calculation and determined that across all the states on Super Tuesday---excluding Obama's own home state of Illinois---Obama averaged 35.6% of the total non-black vote.

Actually, this was a bit of an improvement for Obama, since across all the states prior to Super Tuesday---while Edwards was still in the race---I think he'd had been averaging under 30% of the non-black vote.

Folks, it's not that complicated. We're talking public data and simple arithmetic here.

And remember that non-black voters will probably be almost 90% of the total turnout in November...

Posted by RKU | February 8, 2008 10:49 PM

"This works both ways. The Republicans have no chance in CA and NY and a bunch of others, despite Bush's head-fake in 2000."

Not exactly true. Nixon took both those states in 1972 and Reagan took them again in 1984, along with just about everything but the District of Columbia. The point is that the Republicans used their monetary advantage to attack the Democrats in their "safe" seats while the Democrats fought to keep what they could of the swing states. Over time, the Republicans worked to make the purple states red, the red states redder, and the blue states purple.

The basis of Rudy Giuliani's entire campaign was the (vain) hope that he could topple the Democrats in New York and the entire point of kneecapping the Democratic governor in California and installing Ah-nold in his place was to undermine the Democratic base there. Then there is the initiative to distribute California's electoral votes by district. If you don't think the Republicans are gunning for those "safe" states, you haven't been watching.

My point is: it's time for the Democrats to start doing some gunning of their own. They made enormous inroads in the House two years ago by not letting the Republicans win seats by default. They need to do the same this November.

Posted by Splitting Image | February 8, 2008 11:40 PM

Red States Clinton or Obama might win based on the make up of their current voting coalitions:

Clinton: FL, AR, NM,
Obama: IA, CO, VA,
both: OH maybes: MO WV

I don't see a big advantage either way. Willing to accept Obama might be better for down ballot races in red states with the caveat that any Republican could run on the exact same themes as Obama so it would come down to turnout. IMO Edwards was the best candidate if electability, red states, and down ballot races were your primary concerns.

Posted by skeptic | February 9, 2008 2:33 AM

Obama's numbers are what one would expect of a wine track Dem candidate who also wins a large percentage of black voters. As many people have observed, he's basically a black Gary Hart. And he's running against a couple who are very popular with the downscale elements of the Democratic base and who have strong relationships with local party machines. There's no mystery here and no reason to search for race-based explanations for his relative lack of success with downscale non-black voters. I don't think there's any rational basis for concluding that downscale voters that traditionally vote Democratic wouldn't vote for Obama in the general unless you are assuming that a significant percentage of Democratic voters simply won't vote for a black man. The fact that they prefer someone else in the primary is certainly not sufficient evidence to conclude that.

Posted by Led | February 9, 2008 4:03 AM

kristof is a moron, get this from his jan 31 column:

"In a presidential campaign that has involved battles over everything from Iraq to driver’s licenses, one sweeping topic has gone curiously unexamined: Does it diminish American democracy if we keep the presidency in the same two families that have held it since 1989?

If Hillary Rodham Clinton serves two terms, then for 28 years the presidency will have been held by a Bush or a Clinton. By that point, about 40 percent of Americans would have lived their entire lives under a president from one of these two families."

yeah, NO ONE's talked about this issue!

Posted by zafar | February 9, 2008 5:36 AM

How's Hillary going to win the general election when she's lost 80% of blacks in every primary?

Far more easily than Obama will without the Hispanic vote. Besides, Hispanics will be far more likely to vote for McCain than blacks for any Republican.

And how's Hillary going to beat McCain when the polls show him and her even (or worse) but show Obama leading McCain?

Polls haven't proved too helpful this time round, have they? Focus on what voters *do*, as in the exit polls.

And how's Hillary going to win when 12% of voters say they won't support a woman versus 6% who won't support an African-American?

Have you been paying attention? Regardless of what people say, they are clearly more willing to vote for this particular woman than this particular African American. In almost every non-caucus primary, Hillary has won huge or Obama has won narrowly.

Obama is quite clearly more popular than Clinton in Republican states,

There's nothing "clear" about it. He won most of those states in caucuses. It's far more "clear" that a direct vote primary would have followed the usual demographic patterns, which would have led to Hillary winning.

Basically, the only Super Tuesday states (i.e., the states after Edwards dropped out) where Obama got trounced among white voters were Hillary's NE base (though NOT Connecticut, where -- like CA -- it was a statistical draw) and her AR/TN/OK wins. California, Connecticut and Delaware were statistical draws.

You forgot Missouri and Arizona. (And let's politely avert our eyes from his beat down in Florida, since we have to pretend it's not indicative.)

So let's see. Obama was trounced among white voters in New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Arizona.

He was only defeated among white voters in California, Deleware, and Connecticut. So it's all right, then! He's doing great!

Keep on gulping the Koolaid, puppy.

I don't think there's any rational basis for concluding that downscale voters that traditionally vote Democratic wouldn't vote for Obama in the general unless you are assuming that a significant percentage of Democratic voters simply won't vote for a black man.

You are saying that it's no big deal to nominate the guy who lost in most of the direct vote primaries that didn't have 30% or more black voters, because all the people who voted for the other candidate will just shrug and vote the party.

But hey. Democrats always vote for Democrats, and Republicans always vote for Republicans. Guess there's no reason to hold an election at all, is there?

I wouldn't bet against a lot of them becoming extremely disgusted with the Democrats nominating process--particularly as regards the caucuses. They might even view Obama's win as a weird form of affirmative action.

Maybe it will play out as you suggest. More likely, Hillary will win the nomination because the Democrat leaders aren't as dimwitted as Obama supporters.

But then again, maybe the liberal elites need a Stevenson or McGovern slaughter every thirty years or so to remind them that yes, no matter their fantasies, they're completely out of touch with the rest of the country.

Posted by Cal | February 9, 2008 6:26 AM

If this election were taking place in Switzerland, Cal, your obsession with white primary support might make sense.

But here in the multicultural US, if Obama is the nominee, he can handily put together enough Democrats and independents -- white, black, hispanic & Asian -- to carry current blue states. It's the economy, stupid, and the war.

Then what will happen in purple states? McCain will have obvious trouble rallying the base, whereas Obama will rally black, youth and change voters. That makes for a powerful dynamic in places like Missouri, where Obama won more humans than any other candidate in the race (twice as many as McCains) and there were 235,000 more voters in the Dem than Republican primary on Super Tuesday.

Even Georgia becomes interesting. Republicans had a very narrow edge in primary participation, but again Obama won the most humans -- 2.5 times as many as McCain and twice as many as Hillary. It sounds like Obama is putting together a powerful coalition in contested areas, which is how you win elections in this country.

Posted by Urban Badger | February 9, 2008 9:05 AM

I wouldn't bet against a lot of them becoming extremely disgusted with the Democrats nominating process--particularly as regards the caucuses. They might even view Obama's win as a weird form of affirmative action.

So Obama has won more states and more delegates to date on the basis of affirmative action? That's just goofy. Essentially your argument is that IF you slice and dice the data in just such a way that makes Obama's results look the worst....then Obama's results look bad. To do that (i) you eliminate caucuses because, I suppose, caucusers aren't real white people, (ii) you eliminate Illinois because, I suppose, white people will vote for anyone from their own state, (iii) you ignore the fact that his opponent is a strong candidate and she and her husband are very popular with the downscale base and have an unprecedented name recognition advantage with low information Democrats, and (iv) you ignore the fact that the white votes Obama is losing are solid Democrats (a majority of whom are women) who will tend to vote for the party nominee whoever it is and that he wins among independent whites who can't necessarily be counted on to vote Dem in the general if Clinton is the candidate.

Posted by Led | February 9, 2008 2:02 PM

I wouldn't bet against a lot of them becoming extremely disgusted with the Democrats nominating process--particularly as regards the caucuses. They might even view Obama's win as a weird form of affirmative action.

So Obama has won more states and more delegates to date on the basis of affirmative action? That's just goofy. Essentially your argument is that IF you slice and dice the data in just such a way that makes Obama's results look the worst....then Obama's results look bad. To do that (i) you eliminate caucuses because, I suppose, caucusers aren't real white people, (ii) you eliminate Illinois because, I suppose, white people will vote for anyone from their own state, (iii) you ignore the fact that his opponent is a strong candidate and she and her husband are very popular with the downscale base and have an unprecedented name recognition advantage with low information Democrats, and (iv) you ignore the fact that the white votes Obama is losing are solid Democrats (a majority of whom are women) who will tend to vote for the party nominee whoever it is and that he wins among independent whites who can't necessarily be counted on to vote Dem in the general if Clinton is the candidate.

Posted by Led | February 9, 2008 2:02 PM

FWIW, I was only making a very discreet point in reference to RKU's claim, that across the non-Illinois primary states, Obama had less than 35% of the non-black vote. I think Obama is the most "electable" candidate for a host of other reasons.

Posted by Sulla | February 9, 2008 2:34 PM