NY versus Illinois

I was looking over the exit polls for Illinois and New York and there's an interesting pattern to the data. In her home state, Hillary Clinton did better among pretty much all groups than she does nationwide. Still, Obama won his core constituencies -- young people and African-Americans. In Illinois, by contrast, Obama pretty much ran the table, eking out narrow wins even in bad demographic groups like old people and Hispanics. He even won women 64-35.

Now maybe this just reflects that fact that New York was more seriously contested than Illinois. Obama didn't put resources into trying to win the state per se, but he was playing for New Jersey and Connecticut in the same media market and did some fundraisers and rallies over the months. But on the other hand, it does fit a broader pattern, namely that the better people keep to know Obama, the more they seem to like him. Every state he campaigns in shows a strong upward trajectory, and in the state where he's best-known, even the most skeptical demographic groups come around to him. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, has her base and it's a big base, but the tendency is to only drop down from that level.

Comments

From the perspective of the Dems, I don't understand why it's so great that Obama attracts independents and Republicans (that is, in the primaries). Aren't we supposed to be against looking like Republicans? Aren't we supposed to be distinguishing ourselves from the Republican party -- showing our differences, and not DLCing ourselves so much? Also, I'm still not convinced that the Repubs and Inds willing to vote for Obama in the primaries would be willing to vote for him in the general against McCain, who appeals to the exact same demographic.

Posted by Lisa | February 7, 2008 5:51 PM

Besides old people and women, isn't her "base" mostly just low-information voters that recognize her last name?

The more people know Obama, the more they like him and the more support he gets. Can the same thing really be said about Clinton?

Posted by ben | February 7, 2008 5:52 PM

Did better??? She didn't even break 60% in her home state. That's better?

Posted by Dawn | February 7, 2008 5:53 PM

And let's not forget that Miss Carpetbagger herself actually grew up in Illinois, where she got stomped.

Posted by TheCarpetMuncher | February 7, 2008 5:53 PM

"the better people know Obama, the more they seem to like him. Every state he campaigns in shows a strong upward trajectory"*

*assuming Republicans are too cowed by his awesomeness to run negative ads against him

Posted by SMcC | February 7, 2008 5:55 PM

"They like him. They really like him!"

You've got to be kidding. Obama campaigned pretty hard in California, and MA, and didn't sway all that many folks.

Granted, the chardonnay crowd is pretty easy to impress, but the beer-drinkers are more discerning.

Posted by John Petty | February 7, 2008 5:55 PM

Lisa,

Sounds like a plan. Lets tell all the swing voters to get bent. McGovern 2008!

Seriously though, Obama is a liberal Democrat that appeals to independents and Democrats. Clinton is a centrist Democrat that appeals to Democrats. Not too hard of a decision, if you ask me.

Posted by ben | February 7, 2008 5:57 PM

Now you see why Obama will win every contest between now and March, not only do they play to his demographics, but he's got plenty of time to get his message out.

Hillary is gonna drop out close to March 4th to protect her image.

Posted by Mark from NY | February 7, 2008 5:57 PM

Actually, Obama did sway people in CA and MA. The problem was that the Clinton campaign was smart and got as many voters as possible to cast their votes early before they got seduced into the Obama cult.

Posted by Mike | February 7, 2008 5:58 PM

Besides old people and women, isn't her "base" mostly just low-information voters that recognize her last name?

This kind of condescending attitude is why your candidate will not win.

You ought to get to know a few of these "low-information voters." You'd find that they're smarter than you think.

Posted by John Petty | February 7, 2008 6:00 PM

Besides old people and women, isn't her "base" mostly just low-information voters that recognize her last name?

This kind of condescending attitude is why your candidate will not win.

You ought to get to know a few of these "low-information voters." You'd find that they're smarter than you think.

Posted by John Petty | February 7, 2008 6:01 PM

I dunno, it seems to me that the more people see of Hillary, the more they like her, too. I think the problem is that Hillary's starting point is lower - so many people who don't know Hillary have been taught to hate and loathe and despise her, whereas people who don't know Obama pretty much just don't know him.

Posted by bobbo | February 7, 2008 6:02 PM

John Petty,

Yes, because Illinois is a real chardonnay-drinking kind of place. Have you been to Carbondale?

Cults are huge here too.

Posted by Please | February 7, 2008 6:03 PM

I personally think it was a mistake for Obama to leave Oprah, Michelle and Maria Shriver to campaign for him in California while he was in Boise, Idaho.

Posted by MGJ | February 7, 2008 6:03 PM

I'd say it reflects that New York was more seriously contested than Illinois. Obama also used people from Illinois to work in Iowa heading into that primary. So despite there not being a serious attempt of either campaign to campaign to the Illinois voters, Obama had a large amount of campaign workers working for him already.

There were also advertisements of people running in the Democratic primaries that highlighted the support they've received or gave to Obama. Chicago primaries are also somewhat strange in that the primary is more important than the general election. The city is overwhelmingly Democratic with a huge political machine.

Posted by Alex | February 7, 2008 6:09 PM

I agree with bobbo. One of the big surprises of the campaign is what a great candidate Clinton is. I'm supporting Obama primarily because of the Iraq war vote. Absent that, I could easily see myself supporting Clinton.

Posted by Jim W | February 7, 2008 6:10 PM

Wait wait wait. I thought Illinois was Clinton's home state too.

Posted by MikeJ | February 7, 2008 6:12 PM

Actually, Hillary's original home state is...Illinois. She didn't do all that well there, it seems.

Still, a better comparison with Obama's Illinois rout I think is Hillary's performance in Arkansas. She lived there way longer than she's been in New York.

Posted by gustav | February 7, 2008 6:13 PM

So Illinois is her home state? What about Arkansas? How'd Osama do there?

Posted by Bill | February 7, 2008 6:17 PM

"ne of the big surprises of the campaign is what a great candidate Clinton is."

What the hell evidence is there for that?

Posted by otto | February 7, 2008 6:21 PM

Smarter trolls, please.

Posted by MikeJ | February 7, 2008 6:27 PM

How'd Osama do there?

I imagine that dark-skinned folks with funny names tend not to do too well in Arkansas. They probably don't get many votes there either.

Posted by ben | February 7, 2008 6:32 PM

This kind of condescending attitude is why your candidate will not win.

Uh, Reverend...how did you come by that little nugget? Divine inspiration? Did God speak to you in your sleep and tell you that Hillary is a reincarnation of Joan of Arc?

Stick to Fire and Brimstone, please.

Posted by Sandy Brevard | February 7, 2008 6:36 PM

From the perspective of the Dems, I don't understand why it's so great that Obama attracts independents and Republicans (that is, in the primaries).

Just admire that piece of logic.

Posted by blindjoedeath | February 7, 2008 6:38 PM

People like Bill in Arkansas tend to screw their relatives, cook up batches of meth in the shed behind the trailer, and dislike any person darker than their fat wives (aka sister) after a few sessions at the local tanning salon.

Posted by Texas Pete | February 7, 2008 6:38 PM

Wow, this thread is a total trainwreck from all sides.

Posted by jbryan | February 7, 2008 6:50 PM

If you regard Illinois as HRC's home state, then Hawaii is BHO's home state. It remains to be seen how he'll do there (Feb 19th).

Posted by Julian Elson | February 7, 2008 6:54 PM

I think the more obvious explanation is that Obama is simply doing very well among the groups that make up his coalition: upper income process liberals, young liberals, well-educated liberals, and African-Americans. New York (because of New York City) has lots of representation from such groups. What's more troubling to the Obama narrative is the weakness of his claims to being highly competitive among swing voters. Well, I think "independents" is the term he uses -- but the implication is that he will do well in a general election among swayable voters who are up for grabs. If that's the case, I would have expected him to romp in purplish places like Tennessee, Arizona, and Missouri. Well, he didn't do quite so well in these states (I realize he did win a number of purplish places where they held caucuses, but the general election isn't a caucus). What's all the more troubling is, in a general election, he's going to have to undertake this task against John McCain.

Posted by Perplexed | February 7, 2008 7:08 PM

People like Bill in Arkansas tend to screw their relatives, cook up batches of meth in the shed behind the trailer, and dislike any person darker than their fat wives (aka sister) after a few sessions at the local tanning salon.

Posted by Texas Pete | February 7, 2008 6:38 PM

Well, all I can say is that Texas makes Arkansas look like the most enlightened state in the Union. I won't even start in about what boys named George get up to over there.

Posted by arkansasbob | February 7, 2008 7:08 PM

Obama had commercials in NY up until Monday. He did events in New Jersey in the last 48 hours. He made a serious attenpt to win CDs in Harlem, the South Bronx and Brooklyn.

Hillary put essentially no resources into Illinois.

Occam's Razor.

Posted by ephus | February 7, 2008 7:14 PM

A number of us have been posting this very idea for more than 3 weeks now. We already could see this from data in the first 4 Primary States. HRC's trajectory is that of the classical Name Recognition candidate who is unable to convert voters face to face. What happens is that the numbers start out sky-high, and then meeting voters face to face causes attrition.

Obama has the exact opposite effect.

This is all factual, and has been easily gleaned from the data since Iowa.

In fact, the in-depth sentiment polling done in Iowa before the Caucus showed a negative divergence for Hillary. In other words, likely voter polling indicated she would receive more votes than Obama. But, sentiment polling which does not ask respondents about voting, but rather, how they feel about the candidates showed a sharp, negative divergence for HRC and was a warning that an upset was coming.

If you followed the data, then....

1. The Iowa result was not a surprise.
2. That Hillary would suffer a significant challenge from Obama was not a surprise.
3. It should be no surprise that people are making the case that Obama would do better in the general election than Hillary.

Posted by Gregor | February 7, 2008 7:15 PM

I think "Perplexed" analysis is pretty plausible. I'll bet Obama did very well in the wealthiest zip codes of NYC, but much less well in Upstate, Queens, or Long Island.

As for Obama's very good IL numbers, I think it's because he's about the first plausible nominee from IL in many, many decades---I honestly can't remember the last IL one for either party. IL contains America's third largest city and used to be one of the largest and most politically influential states, but things have changed since Lincoln's day. People tend to root for their home team, especially when it hasn't reached the Playoffs in something like the last 100 years.

And remember, Obama's overall under-35% share of the non-black vote is coming the committed liberals who dominate Democratic primaries AND without his having been hit with a single "tough" attack ad. Not a great position from which to start your campaign...

Posted by RKU | February 7, 2008 7:22 PM

"the better people keep to know Obama, the more they seem to like him"

Geez, why don't you just rename the blog "Obama boy" and be done with it?

Posted by michael farris | February 7, 2008 7:32 PM

The face remains that Obama took 40% of New York, while Hillary took 33% of Illinois. That is a huge difference. Many of the points upthread are also quite valid, especially wrt to the highly educated white vote in Manhattan, and the burbs of NYC. But Chicago too is not without those same demos, and, I might add two of Hillary's key demos: Blue Collar Dems and Hispanics. Illinois has a very significant Hispanic population, and it also has a TON of Cahtolics which if you look at data from other states Obama may be having some difficulty with Catholics. And yet, he was able to win those key groups of Hillary's in his home state.

I think it's hands down clear that Obama, on a very broad measures, did significantly better in the State of New York, than Hillary did in Illinois. It's also a preview of his stronger electability in the general as he will be MUCH more competitive in Missouri and Ohio than Hillary. Someone upthread said they were looking to see Obama do better, in MO. Fair point. But it's not like Hillary was stomping through MO either.

Bring on Ohio.

Posted by Gregor | February 7, 2008 7:32 PM

Gregor --

Couldn't have said it better myself. That Obama's success seems to be directly proportional to the amount of familiarity people have with him, and that Hillary has nowhere to go but down (or close to it) as a name-recognition default candidate has long seemed obvious to me.

The other big factor it seems is the amount of organization he's able to commit to contests. He lost Massachusetts because Clinton was able to far out-organize him, controlling from early on much of the local political apparatus (the LOCAL apparatus. She got most of the endorsements from state Senators and Reps. Obama got the Senators and Governor, but he got too late of a start on organizing to make a serious effort.)

The other thing that's hurt him so far was what happened in California. By conducting absentee-balloting two weeks before the election (while Edwards was still in the race and before his pre-Tuesday surge), his time was cut short. It's actually possible he WON same-day voting (or lost it very narrowly) but those who had to vote two weeks ahead of time and didn't get to see enough of him swung wildly against him.

Posted by Michael T Sweeney | February 7, 2008 7:37 PM

Another interesting observation which raises many questions and no answers: Look at the total vote in each state. 2 million in IL, 1.7 million in NY. There are numerous plausible reasons for this - the home state is fired up, Obama is running a strategy that competes in every state, voting may be more difficult in NY than in IL (though as a Chicago resident, I somewhat doubt it), but all have enough confounding factors that I don't feel comfortable claiming it's one thing or another. Still, it's got to mean something that the vote totals look like that, when IL's population is 2/3rds that of NY's!

Posted by Jon O. | February 7, 2008 7:46 PM

In re: "I honestly can't remember the last IL one for either party. IL contains America's third largest city and used to be one of the largest and most politically influential states, but things have changed since Lincoln's day."

Um, nice try but NOPE. Illinois is politically influential today. Dennis Hastert was speaker of the house for years. Rahm Emanuel was the force behind the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress. How about the Daley family? Bill Daley, U.S. Secretary of Commerce during the Clinton Administration. Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago. I can't remember the last time a NY Senator was a viable candidate for president either. Supreme Court Justice Stevens.

Posted by JDA | February 7, 2008 7:46 PM

Besides old people and women, isn't her "base" mostly just low-information voters that recognize her last name?

Sandy Brevard, if you can't see this for the condescending comment that it is, then I can't help you.

Those "low-information voters" just aren't very smart now, are they? And the people of Arkansas? Well, aren't they a bunch of hicks anyway?

You Obamabots should take a cue from your candidate--you know, all that "hope" and "unity" stuff?

Posted by John Petty | February 7, 2008 7:47 PM

Gregor,
how very misleading of you to say that they vote in iowa when they caucus which is just a big square dance, isn't it? Iowa was obama's neiighboring state and he had a big win there akin to tsongas winning in neighboring NH back when. And Hillary had high
15 million people voted on tuesday and half of them like Hillary just fine. Some of even tossed a few million dollars at her these past couple days.
And now, face facts, obama is a high name recognition guy too. and face facts: even hillary-hater chris matthews says she charms everyone in a room including him. New Yorkers like her up- close and personal and the facts that suggest that interpretation is that she won by wider margins in re-election than the first time: up close she closes the deal.
And mostly I just disagree with your opinions about there being facts that are self-evident from polls generally and exit polls specifically. you glean opinions and interpretations and perceptions from such data: hardly facts.

Posted by Michael C. | February 7, 2008 7:51 PM

I live in California, in the Bay Area, and as far as I can tell, Obama didn't do much campaigning here. Until two days before the election, there were no Obama signs. I've seen almost no Obama bumper stickers. I saw no Obama ads on TV (but a few Hillary ads).

There were plenty of campaign ads, but they were all for or against the Indian casino plan.

Posted by Cardinal Fang | February 7, 2008 7:56 PM

This data:
http://www.time.com/time/2007/november_poll/
(more links here: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/times_how_america_decides_poll.php)

showed the same pattern: with prolonged exposure, Obama's negatives fell and his positives rose; in the case of Clinton exposure had the *opposite* effect.

Look at the results for "candidate says what he/she believes" and "strong moral character." (You have to pick 2 candidates and then mouse over the flash chart to see full data on how these attitudes moved over time.)

Posted by Colin | February 7, 2008 7:57 PM

"Granted, the chardonnay crowd is pretty easy to impress, but the beer-drinkers are more discerning."

So John, I take it that this somehow isn't condescending? If you're going to complain about people being condescending, it would help your case if you weren't doing the exact same thing. Just saying.

Posted by Grand Wazoo | February 7, 2008 7:57 PM

John Petty,

The term "low-information voter" is not a reference to the intelligence of the voters in question; instead, the term refers to the amount of information those voters gather about the election before making a decision. They may be brilliant and have better things to research, or they may consider the choice of candidate relatively inconsequential, or they may not have access to a great deal of information, or whatever.

Survey research consistently indicates that low-information voters tend to vote for candidates with high name recognition. Hillary Clinton is famous from her many years in Washington; she's even more famous in Arkansas. Barack Obama, by contrast, is less famous and certainly less familiar. It stands to reason, then, that low-information voters favor Clinton. She has a natural advantage by virtue of her celebrity, and we can get to that conclusion without insulting anyone.

(Of course, Obama tends to do much better with highly educated voters. Make of that what you will.)

Posted by southpaw | February 7, 2008 7:57 PM

Obama's showing among women needs to be broken down. While it was 64-35 overall, it was 56-43 among white women, and he LOST Latino women 42-58.

Posted by plum | February 7, 2008 8:05 PM

Two thoughts:

First, Obama really does have incredibly broad support in Illinois: demographically, geographically, and even ideologically. And that should indeed tell you something about his long run political prospects (both in the general election and as a President).

Second, I am amused at people making the excuse for Clinton that she didn't make as much effort in Illinois as he made in New York. Assuming that is true, what exactly does it tell you? And while working out your answer, keep in mind the Democrats allocate delegates proportionally.

Posted by DTM | February 7, 2008 8:06 PM

John Petty's "smart" low information voters:

"As he greeted voters outside P.S. 175 in Harlem on Tuesday morning, Lieutenant Governor David Paterson was explaining how he thought Mr. Obama would win the district when an elderly woman approached him and asked who she should vote for.

"Mr. Paterson, a prominent Clinton surrogate--he was the guy directly behind her as she gave her concession speech in Iowa--hesitated.

"'Uh, Hillary,' he offered sheepishly.

"'Uh, O.K. All right,' the woman said, somewhat dismissively, as Mr. Paterson chuckled at his predicament."

http://www.observer.com/2008/clinton-wins-here-power-revolt-splits-new-york

Posted by plum | February 7, 2008 8:22 PM

In New York, Obama beat Hillary by a point among people who decided how to vote the day of the primary, so that should tell you where the trends are going.

Posted by David B. | February 7, 2008 8:42 PM

I volunteered for Obama in New York--there were 3 paid staffers in the entire state! I don't know what people mean when they say he devoted many resources here. We had some TV ads in the last week, but very little physical resources, and very few appearances by Obama or Michelle.

His success in New York is due in large part to the dedication of his volunteers, who worked much more visibly and passionately than Hillary supporters (at least in NYC). Obama's ability to inspire volunteers will continue to reap benefits.

More integrity, more progressive, more electable. Obama '08!

Posted by Jacob | February 7, 2008 8:53 PM

The better I get to know him, the less I like him.

I want to vote for a Democrat next November, not choose between two Republicans.

Posted by myiq2xu | February 7, 2008 8:59 PM

Obama does excellent with low experience voters. /snark

A subset of Obama's voting coalition has historically been part of the low-information Democratic base. He would not be in the position he is in now without their support. It is what sets Obama apart from typical "wine track" candidates in the past who peaked around 45% support in the primaries. (His ability to turnout youth and disinterested voters is impressive but is more about magnitude than a fundamental difference)

If you believe in democracy, then every vote should have equal weight.

Posted by vanguard | February 7, 2008 9:11 PM

how's about an obvious inference - when given the choice, African-Americans will more reliably vote for a fellow African-American than women will vote for fellow women.

And regardless, unless inane supporters continue saying stupid divisive things about the others, both groups will reliably support the Democratic nominee come November.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | February 7, 2008 9:12 PM

Beer drinkers more difficult to sway, Peter says? How does he explain Mr. Obama's sweep of red states? Obama can win every constituency except women who are excited about the prospect of the first woman president and Democratic Party elites who have been tied by self-interest to the Clinton machine since the nineties.

Posted by Chuck | February 7, 2008 9:15 PM

Colin:

If Obama's ratings go up with exposure and Hillary's go down, why is Obama ducking debates?

I've heard his excuse, and it's B.S.

It looks to me that he's afraid to go head to head with her.

Posted by myiq2xu | February 7, 2008 9:19 PM

Beer drinkers more difficult to sway, Peter says? How does he explain Mr. Obama's sweep of red states? Obama can win every constituency except women who are excited about the prospect of the first woman president and Democratic Party elites who have been tied by self-interest to the Clinton machine since the nineties. And we as Obama supporters are supposed to be ashamed that Obama can attract independents and Republicans? You're telling me that Obama is a DLC-type? Obviously the people making these claims know nothing of Obama's role in Illinois and Chicago politics before he was elected, nor seemingly his role in Washington politics, where the National Journal has ranked him the most liberal senator this year.

A black man who is the most liberal senator who can attract Republicans and independents? Obama represents a chance to seriously win converts to the progressive cause, and the elite Democratic party-types who oppose him sarcastically call him a DLC type. It's as if Hillary Clinton supporters WANT to maintain the status quo 51/49 game of Karl Rove politics: electoral victories without mandates.

Posted by Chuck | February 7, 2008 9:19 PM

Posted by John Petty | February 7, 2008 5:55 PM

"They like him. They really like him!"

You've got to be kidding. Obama campaigned pretty hard in California, and MA, and didn't sway all that many folks.

Granted, the chardonnay crowd is pretty easy to impress, but the beer-drinkers are more discerning.

Get your facts right.

Obama abandoned MA weeks before the primary, moving his operation to CT. Guess what, he won CT!

As for Cali, the Kennedy endorsements and appealing to Latinos came way too late to have a huge effect. All in all he made great last minute gains in both states from weeks before, but didn't put in the resources of time to make them competitive. Just the fact that he did better then the polls in each state a week before is an astounding victory.

Posted by IdiotIsYou | February 7, 2008 9:25 PM

I know caucuses "aren't supposed to matter" or whatever, but several of the states that Obama won (Kansas, Idaho, Utah etc) could hardly be called "chardonnay-drinking" states.

Posted by Abby | February 7, 2008 9:29 PM

Obama isn't "ducking" the additional debates Clinton is suddenly proposing to stay at home. He is planning to keep his original stump schedule.

And why would he prefer doing that? Well, it just might have something to do with Obama not wanting to bail Clinton out of her financial difficulties by helping her get even more free TV time.

Posted by DTM | February 7, 2008 9:31 PM

Beer drinkers more difficult to sway, Peter says? How does he explain Mr. Obama's sweep of red states?

A) Caucuses
B) Obama lost Oklahoma, Arizona and Tennessee -- that's hardly a sweep of the red states

I find it highly implausible that Obama's numbers would have been so good in his small red state wins had they been primaries. He hasn't won the white vote yet in a primary state outside of Illinois.

In Missouri, for instance, he barely got by Clinton. He did dominate in St. Louis and Kansas City, but she won all 100 rural counties outside those metro areas. Counties, in other words, where Democrats usually have a hard time winning votes. Obama, by contrast, won the areas where Democrats usually win big.

So much for Obama's much vaunted ability to go after centrists. His electability is looking more and more like a mirage.

That said, I like the guy a lot. It's just that my dislike of the idea of a president McCain exceeds my admiration for him.

Posted by Perplexed | February 7, 2008 9:37 PM

Chuck:

If Obama wants to win converts to the progressive cause, why doesn't he run as a progressive?

Posted by myiq2xu | February 7, 2008 9:40 PM

DTM:

According to the latest news, Clinton's money troubles are over. And both candidates schedules are very flexible.

But it doesn't answer the question:

If exposure helps him and hurts her, he should be eager to go head to head. But he isn't.

Why?

Posted by myiq2xu | February 7, 2008 9:46 PM

He hasn't won the white vote yet in a primary state outside of Illinois.

In California, Obama took 40% of White women, and 60% of White Men.

How do those numbers strike you?

In California, HRC took 53% of White women, and 33% of White men.

So how does this compare to your statement that Obama hasn't won the white vote yet, in any state outside of IL?

Shall I go on to other states? Or shall I stop there?

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/vote-polls/CA.html

Posted by Gregor | February 7, 2008 9:49 PM

I vote for show other states preferably ones that had a primary. I would also like to know how he does with rural white NRA members who are married to a non-white spouse so I can know whether I should vote for him or Clinton. Thanks

Posted by lazy | February 7, 2008 9:53 PM

Um, yeah, this weird obsession with "the white vote" is just arrant nonsense. In the largest primary state, at least, it was apparent that whites mostly split between the candidates on Tuesday, with white women going (mostly) for Clinton, and white men going (mostly) for Obama. If there's anything that Obama should *really* be worried about, it's the Latino vote (IMO).

Posted by Abby | February 7, 2008 10:07 PM

So how does this compare to your statement that Obama hasn't won the white vote yet, in any state outside of IL?

Gregor: I'm not sure how it "compares" or what point you're trying to make. What your information doesn't do, of course, is provide evidence contrary to my original assertion, that Obama has yet to win the white vote in a state outside of Illinois. None of this would matter, of course, if whites didn't make up, oh, three quarters of the people likely to be casting votes in November.

Re: my point about Missouri -- I'm not saying Obama couldn't win a place like Missouri in November. He might be able to take it by duplicating his primary performance (dominating the urban areas enough to put together 51%). But again, what we're told is that Obama expands the reach of Democrats. He unites us, and brings in Republicans. And yet, that bellwether state, at least, provides evidence to the contrary: Hillary ran stronger in rural, white, culturally conservative areas of the Show Me state. You would expect her tent to be bigger in November based on those results, because she won in areas where it's tough for Democrats to do so, and in a general election should be expected to win easily in areas where it's always easier for Democrats. I think that's prima facie evidence that the hype about Obama's greater electability vis a vis Hillary is just that. In fact Obama hasn't expanded beyond his coalition of African Americans and latte liberals. His is a niche candidacy whose ingredients are popularity among wealthy liberals (which makes for a very well-funded campaign), very smart use of that money to build a superb organization, and then leveraging that organization into caucus victories to augment his modest gains elsewhere. I see some evidence he's getting younger people to register and vote, but no evidence whatsoever he's pulling in people who would normally vote Republican, and also no evidence his process liberalism candidacy (which stubbornly and somewhat perplexingly downplays economic issues) would strongly hold down the votes of moderate and/or conservative purple state Democrats against the siren call of a John McCain candidacy. We're not going to be running against Duncan Hunter this November. John McCain has a powerful hold on the imagination of a lot of moderate voters -- quite a few of them Democrats.

Posted by Perplexed | February 7, 2008 10:17 PM

Let's face it, outside the African-American community, the only segment of the population that Obama consistently does well with is the latte-sipping elites. He consistently does quite poorly among the working class and poor, unless, again, they are African-American (who understandably have a real bond with him).

What does it say about the man's message of hope that the large majority of those who might be in the greatest need of hope simply refuse to vote for him, and vote for Hillary instead? How authentic might that message of hope possibly be if those least in need of it, the privileged elites, are the ones who seem to respond to it, and in the working class it achieves so little resonance?

Obama isn't comforting the afflicted, or even afflicting the comfortable. He's comforting the comfortable.

Posted by frankly0 | February 7, 2008 10:24 PM

In the largest primary state, at least, it was apparent that whites mostly split between the candidates on Tuesday, with white women going (mostly) for Clinton...

Abby: I hope the DNC is not taking advice from you this fall. The "largest primary state" is not in danger of falling to the Republicans. The race will be decided in places like Ohio and Missouri.

John Edwards was rightly thought to be strongest Democratic general election candidate. Hillary Clinton is the strongest of the two survivors, for similar reasons. I can understand why some people might have thought differently. I thought so myself, to be honest, several weeks ago. But clear-eyed analysis tells me otherwise, now that the dust of Super Tuesday has settled. Hillary Clinton really is our best bet at taking back the White House, especially now that it's clear the GOP is putting up a centrist who will compete very hard for the votes of conservative Democrats, moderate independents and Latinos. There's a reason they called it McCain-Kennedy, you know.

Posted by Perplexed | February 7, 2008 10:27 PM

Perplexed

With regard to Missouri, you are making this assumption that Clinton's supporters would not vote for Obama in the general election after all they are Democrats. If democrats were to maintain the same level of energy we see in the primaries then we should win the general election.

Posted by MGJ | February 7, 2008 10:27 PM

Obama isn't comforting the afflicted, or even afflicting the comfortable. He's comforting the comfortable.

Bingo.

Posted by Perplexed | February 7, 2008 10:32 PM

I'm just looking at what the data tells me, myiq. Can you offer an better interpretation of the data I posted links to?

I'm not doing campaign strategy, but the Clinton campaign was proposing something like five debates in the next month, which is an unusual pace. The question is how often your campaign schedule incorporates debates, not whether.

Re "Republican," Obama has positions that can be criticized fairly, and it would be great to have discussions of those! But calling him a Republican is idiotic. Two years ago Democrats running for House and Senate requested campaign appearances by Obama more than any other member of Congress, and he pitched in and helped. And how often do Senators Daschle, Kerry, and Kennedy campaign for Republicans? Obama is a loyal and hard-working Democrat.

Maybe you could explain to us what you mean by the term "progressive."

Posted by Colin | February 7, 2008 10:40 PM

With regard to Missouri, you are making this assumption that Clinton's supporters would not vote for Obama in the general election after all they are Democrats.

No I'm not. I'm making the assumption that:

a) Naturally there would be some drop off (away from Obama among Clinton supporters) in favor of McCain in rural parts of Missouri in a general election (these are, for the most part, moderate and culturally conservative voters, after all) should Obama win the nomination.

b) There would less drop off in Missouri urban areas (away from Clinton among Obama supporters) to McCain should Clinton win the nomination.

What I'm saying, in other words, is that their respective primary performances sure suggest Hillary gets us more votes in Missouri (although Obama could certainly win). Maybe I'm overlooking something obvious. I'd be happy -- and relieved -- to be corrected.

Posted by Perplexed | February 7, 2008 10:43 PM

myiq2xu,

Again, Obama is going to be putting himself before voters. He just isn't willing to add more debates than those already scheduled in order to help Clinton expose herself.

perplexed,

Well, it seems to me you are pretty much assuming your conclusion. In other words, you seem to be asserting that if states like Idaho had been primary states instead of caucus states, Obama would have lost. But I don't see any reason to accept your intuition on that subject.

Posted by DTM | February 7, 2008 10:45 PM

Frankly0,
I wonder if you have never been poor a day in your life, even as a student, because you can't seem to read their actions. It's a mystery to you.
The reason that the most needy back Clinton steadily is that the most needy are risk adverse;they can't afford to take chances cause they have so little and need so much

Clinton represents the Democratic establishment and the connector to a good past - the presidency of Bill Clinton. Needy voters like that reassurance. Two conclusions come from this. One, Hillary's supporters are loyal to the Democratic Party as a Party because of what it does for them, if the convention chooses Obama as the Party Leader they will follow him because that is what you do when you are loyal. Two, McCain has no chance with Hillary's voters because he is a republican and believes in the republican legacy. He will stress this as he tries to 'prove' to the GOP base that he is a true conservative. Hawkishness is not going to move the Hillary voter, especially in the economy we are about to face in the next 12 months.

So Obama's ability to reach out new groups, especially independent men becomes a huge asset and the makings of a true realinement election. Yglesias is right on the mark.

Posted by Northern Observer | February 7, 2008 10:47 PM

So, frankly0, because Obama does well only among the latte-sippers, and because he won the white vote in CA 49% to 44%, that means the majority of white voters, or more than 25% of California's population, are latte-sipping elites?

Posted by blymlvy | February 7, 2008 10:47 PM

Energy doesn't win elections--or sincerity, or feelings, or wanting it really, really bad. Votes win elections.

Obama will never get the nomination if he can't break through to traditional Democratic constituencies, which he hasn't so far.

Posted by John Petty | February 7, 2008 10:48 PM

What your information doesn't do, of course, is provide evidence contrary to my original assertion, that Obama has yet to win the white vote in a state outside of Illinois.

In California, Obama won 50.00% of the White Vote, Hillary won 43.5% of the White Vote, and Edwards won 6.00% of the White vote in the Democratic Primary.

I'm using the same definition of "winning the white vote" for a state such as California, that you must be using in your admission that he won the White vote in Illinois.

Answer this question: Who won the White vote in Illinois, and who won the White vote in California?

Posted by Gregor | February 7, 2008 10:50 PM

perplexed,

Oh, and you are overlooking something obvious in Missouri. In the general election, the potential voter pool expands, and you don't know how many voters Obama and Clinton would draw respectively from the people who did not vote in the Democratic primary.

Posted by DTM | February 7, 2008 10:50 PM

Obama isn't comforting the afflicted, or even afflicting the comfortable.

Is Hillary doing these things? I was under the impression they were both running for President.

What does it say about the man's message of hope that the large majority of those who might be in the greatest need of hope simply refuse to vote for him, and vote for Hillary instead?

Not a damn thing. Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are strong candidates. People make up their minds about them out of a mix of loyalty, emotional connection, rational consideration, and god knows what else. What people tend not to do is look at one person, "simply refuse" to vote for him, and go vote for someone else as an expression of that rejection.

The idea that certain demographic groups are in some way resolutely opposed to Obama because he doesn't get over 50% of their vote in a hotly contested primary is the sheerest nonsense.

Posted by southpaw | February 7, 2008 10:52 PM

Whole lotta latte out there, blym -- this explains those starbuckses on every corner!

--

Perplexed, I don't want to get into too many discussions, but you're raising smart points -- I'd just want to be careful about applying the results of a primary to a general election: people are making a different choice. (And I wish Edwards had been a more successful candidate.)

Posted by Colin | February 7, 2008 10:54 PM

In other words, you seem to be asserting that if states like Idaho had been primary states instead of caucus states, Obama would have lost.

No, I don't "seem" to be "asserting that" because I'm not asserting that. I do think it's overwhelmingly likely Clinton would have done better had those states been primaries. I certainly don't claim she would have won any of them.

Obama has cleverly leveraged his money advantage by building a formidable organization staffed by zealous supporters. That kind of organizational excellence is a huge advantage in the more exclusionary world of caucuses. It's also the case that the more limited hours of caucuses disadvantage candidates who rely on downscale voters for support (such voters have less control over their work schedules). The caucus format favors Obama's candidacy. That's hardly controversial. Ask yourself, if the DNC allows a revote in Florida or Michigan, which type of contest the two campaigns will be clamoring for. It's unlikely Hillary would agree to a caucus, or Obama a primary.

Posted by Perplexed | February 7, 2008 10:57 PM

John Petty,

What I meant by energy is turnout. As you know the democrats have been turning out more so than the republicans that demonstrates that the dems want to win the White House.

Posted by MGJ | February 7, 2008 10:58 PM

So Missouri has an open primary. According to the exit poll I found, among Missouri independents Obama beat Clinton 59-31, and among Republicans he beat her 71-21.

So I think that is a pretty good indication of who would do better once the voter pool expanded in the general election.

Posted by DTM | February 7, 2008 11:02 PM

Hawkishness is not going to move the Hillary voter,

So why, oh why, does she insist on positioning herself as a hawk? If Hillary had Obama's record on the War, she'd already be the nominee. She's continually over-compensating with regard to the military and that's very troubling.

Posted by Just Karl | February 7, 2008 11:02 PM

Energy doesn't win elections--or sincerity, or feelings, or wanting it really, really bad. Votes win elections.

Obama will never get the nomination if he can't break through to traditional Democratic constituencies, which he hasn't so far.

This is maybe the most bassackward thing I've ever read. Obama has more delegates for the nomination, he brings huge numbers of voters to the polls, persuades vast new constituencies to vote in the democratic primary, and his popularity is rapidly expanding. So, of course, he's doomed.

Posted by southpaw | February 7, 2008 11:05 PM

Alright... There are two major points that need to be added here.

1) Obama won the independent vote in MO by 37 points over Hillary.

2) Whether or not there is difference in demographics, I think many can agree that there is a real enthusiasm gap between the candidates. While there are many enthusiastic Clinton supporters, there's a reason that Obama's following has been deemed cultish. The risk of demoralizing and/or disenfranchising these individuals is far greater if Hillary wins the nomination over Barack.

Put simply, if you want to win so much that you will fight, then give the electorate a candidate that their willing to fight for.

Posted by Curious | February 7, 2008 11:05 PM

Er, not to point out the obvious or anything, but "the African-American community" represents a pretty sizeable proportion of the poor and disadvantaged. Many of them are the definition of what constitutes "the afflicted". Their ethnic identification with Obama should not lead us to discount them wholesale and conclude that Obama is merely the candidate of privileged elites. Since when are the afflictions of poor whites more worthy of consideration than those of poor blacks?

Also, please for the love of FDR can we get rid of "latte liberals" or "chardonnay sippers" and all associated constructs.

Posted by Lucy | February 7, 2008 11:07 PM

perplexed,

OK, but unless you are asserting the caucus advantage is so much that Obama would otherwise have lost all his predominantly white caucus states, then it doesn't seem particularly important to me that so far Obama has otherwise only won the "white vote" in Illinois and California. In other words, apparently you're just asserting that maybe Obama would not have won the "white vote" in those caucus states quite as much if they had been primary states, but I am not sure what you think that proves.

Posted by DTM | February 7, 2008 11:07 PM

Obama isn't comforting the afflicted, or even afflicting the comfortable. He's comforting the comfortable.
Bingo.
Posted by Perplexed

Did it strike you that the above is pure nonsense?
Who do you think this impresses. It's like something from The Corner or LGF.

And if your wondering why I think Obama will do better against McCain you can start here:
Clinton vs McCain

Obama vs McCain

Posted by bjd | February 7, 2008 11:12 PM

In California, Obama won 50.00% of the White Vote, Hillary won 43.5% of the White Vote, and Edwards won 6.00% of the White vote in the Democratic Primary.

Gregor: I've seen numerous citations on the web claiming Clinton eked out a win (a plurality, that is) among Caucasian voters in California. You're sure you're not referring to (flawed) exit polls? It doesn't matter in any event. Democrats shouldn't be spending time and money worrying about California in November, but I stand by my assertion absent evidence to the contrary.

Posted by Perplexed | February 7, 2008 11:13 PM

By the way, I am always puzzled by the reasoning of people who note that McCain has relatively high appeal among independents, and then argue that means the Democrats should nominate the person who is doing best among core Democrats in the primaries (Clinton), rather than the person doing best among independents (Obama). Despite the Democrat's party ID advantage, there are far, far too many independents these days for Democrats to actually just give them up to McCain. Rather, they will need to do everything possible to minimize whatever extra votes he may get among independents.

And that is even before you get to the issue of trying not to give Republicans an additional reason to turnout in high numbers despite their ambivalence toward McCain.

Posted by DTM | February 7, 2008 11:20 PM

Just a few more numbers:

Apparently independents make up about 35% of the electorate in Missouri, but made up a little less than 25% of primary voters (which makes sense: independents would be relatively less likely to vote in primaries). So that is a pretty large group of general election voters who didn't express a preference in the primaries, and yet getting at least a good share of them will be crucial in the general election.

With respect to just the Democrats, independents again made up a little under 1/4 of the voters, and they went overwhelmingly for Obama. I think it is reasonable to assume that if faced with a choice between Clinton and McCain, those Obama independents are likely to convert at a much lower rate to Clinton than Clinton Democrats would be likely to convert to Obama if forced to choose between Clinton and McCain.

Add that all up, and I think Obama looks like the much, much stronger candidate for Missouri in a general election against McCain, based on the information we got in the primaries.

Posted by DTM | February 7, 2008 11:31 PM

Perplexed let's be a little careful. Obama and Clinton raised almost identical amounts in 2007. His "money advantage" emerged only in January 2008. So she had the same opportunity and resources that he did to build organization. (Going forward it might be different.)

(And re "money advantage" let's remember that Clinton does better among large contributors; Obama's advantage comes from little donors like me.)

Can you deny that there's a significant intensity gap at the volunteer level? And is that somehow unfair? Have you ever done union organizing, for example? You need a core of committed people to *organize* the damn thing, and get people to think of something that they thought was not possible as possible. People don't just do it on some sort of collective whim.

It's possible, getting back to our host's original post, that this is part of the explanation for the data I posted a link to. Obama supporters are *happy*. Maybe you think it's a false happiness, but like it or not, we're happy, and as a result we have happy, hopeful conversations. Hope is great. It's infectious. Clinton supporters are defensive, and the most typical argument I hear from them -- that we need a really mean, tough candidate to take on the Republicans, is not a happy argument. You get, as with some folks above, this grim, divisive, and downright mean tone. Which group of folks would you be drawn to? So if political attitudes are formed and validated through conversation and interaction, that may be part of what's going on.

Posted by Colin | February 7, 2008 11:32 PM

Since when are the afflictions of poor whites more worthy of consideration than those of poor blacks?

Who says they are more worthy? But if you're going to pretend to be offering up "hope", how can you possibly be doing a good job of it if your appeal towards those who need it can't even break across racial lines?

Unifier? Not so much. Post-racial? Not so much. Hope? Not so much of that either.

The latte sipping elites love the Obama treatment though -- and God knows how desperate they are to find something in their lives that might ease the tremendous burdens of their existences and make the next day seem worth living. The lattes, the BMWs, the McMansions -- surely there must be something grander, something deeper, something more meaningful and enriching!

Comforting the comfortable.

Posted by frankly0 | February 7, 2008 11:39 PM

I second what Lucy said. It's a bit odd to scorn latte/chardonnay drinkers (which nobody's drank since the 80s, btw) on a blog associated with the Atlantic Monthly. Why is it, if Obama's the candidate of the elites (which only proves he's smart), it implies the exclusion of alternatives? Two weeks ago he was the second coming of Jesse Jackson. And what does it say when most of his donors give in small packets while his opponent has to loan herself the cash equivalent of $1 million lattes (w/ tax and tip)? I'd have hoped with Edwards out of the race, the Willie Starkism had dissipated.

Other than a technical difference on health care where he's actually to her left, and the war, where he's to her left, and mortgages, where she's in left field, their policies are similar. Both care about the working poor and all other Americans, including people who live in a bit of comfort and nonetheless care about social justice despite attempts to marginalize them (us) from the Democratic party. (Not that the coming recession isn't going to hit the upper middle class, either.) The differentiating factor is that HIllary cares more for herself and her lobbyist contributors than her constituents, while Obama puts the people he's supposed to represent in the lead.

Posted by David B. | February 7, 2008 11:50 PM

frankly0,

Ironically, you aren't giving Clinton enough credit by attributing her current edge among lower-income white Democrats to something Obama is doing wrong. I think the truth is that Democrats in general believe that Clinton is sincerely concerned about lower-income families, and Democrats in general think that the Clinton years were at a minimum better than the Bush years when it comes to issues like job creation. None of that implies, however, that Obama would be unable to get the support of lower-income Democrats who currently support Clinton if Obama ends up the nominee.

Posted by DTM | February 8, 2008 12:03 AM

Unifier? Not so much. Post-racial? Not so much. Hope? Not so much of that either.

The latte sipping elites love the Obama treatment though -- and God knows how desperate they are to find something in their lives that might ease the tremendous burdens of their existences and make the next day seem worth living. The lattes, the BMWs, the McMansions -- surely there must be something grander, something deeper, something more meaningful and enriching!

You're so fun! Tricky argument, though. It is a bit of stretch to believe the unholy alliance of African Americans and the Latte/BMW/McMansion Vote amounts to 38% of Iowa, 55% of South Carolina, or indeed could carry a sizable majority of Super Tuesday states and deliver Obama the delegate lead. Perhaps you should reexamine the data.

Posted by southpaw | February 8, 2008 12:06 AM

Oh, and I had no idea all those rural voters in New Hampshire and Nevada were so fond of lattes.

Posted by southpaw | February 8, 2008 12:09 AM

Well, it looks like we've both (1) uncovered the minutiae of the demographics, and (2) revealed vast, near cosmic, themes--chardonnay vs. beer, for example.

We also can agree that, while there is a grain of truth in such grand themes, there are also various exceptions and permutations which should be taken into account--if we are not to be "low-information voters," that is.

Obviously, you can make arguments both ways, and both candidates make telling points. Bringing in new people is a great thing. Point Obama. Traditional Democrats are great too: Point Clinton.

See? Unity! And from a divisive Clinton supporter!

Posted by John Petty | February 8, 2008 12:20 AM

I am *totally* taking a latte with me to my caucus Saturday.

There's another theory: we're just more caffeinated.

Posted by Colin | February 8, 2008 12:20 AM

Honestly, by now anyone who uses "latte-sipping" to describe the coalition of liberal middle-class whites, african americans, independents and others is pretty intent on not having a serious discussion. That's a pretty diverse bunch (so much so that I realize I've done us all a disservice by lumping them into three clusters). Hillary, to her credit, has also managed to hold on to significant parts of the Democratic base. Good for her, she'll need every last one of them if she gets nominated.

I've had it with large groups of Democratic voters being disparaged for how much they earn, the color of their skin, their level of education, or their genatalia. It's a little sad that some commenters can't find more constructive ways to use the information we're getting about these demographics.

Posted by sweaty guy | February 8, 2008 12:23 AM

DTM and southpaw,

Look, just about every exit poll demonstrates that Obama's appeal among whites skews VERY heavily toward the affluent, and the more affluent the more they favor him.

It's just the opposite for Hillary.

Why pretend otherwise?

In my state, Massachusetts, I need only look at an electoral map displaying the recent primary results town by town to see the pattern, which absolutely jumps out at me because I'm intimately familiar with the demographics. Starbucks goes big Obama. Dunkin Donuts goes Hillary. It's as regular as clockwork.

And what you can't seem to face is the obvious fact: beyond the African-American community, Obama simply can't reach the people who might most need to have hope in their lives. THOSE PEOPLE REJECT HIS MESSAGE. How can you pretend to have an authentic message of hope when the elite far more consistently listen to it than do the downtrodden?

If you base your campaign on a message, and that message is dismissed by those who are its purported audience, how can you be anything but a failed political leader?

Posted by frankly0 | February 8, 2008 12:23 AM

I've been a political junkie longer than I've been a liberal or a Democrat. Here's how I see it.

Obama is better at public speaking and inspiring people, Hillary is better at wonky policy stuff and has more experience in Washington D.C.

Obama and Hillary are both smart, skilled politicians who are competing for the Big Kahuna of politics, the Presidency of the United States.

They aren't that far apart on the issues, and they both have strengths and weaknesses.

Glorifying one while demonizing the other is stupid. Neither one is perfect, but both are better than anyone on the other side.

I favor Hillary, but I'll happily vote for Obama if he wins the nomination. My dream ticket is Hilary/Obama.

I understand that Obama has a strategy to win in November, but I wish he would stop saying nice things about Republicans and bad things about other Democrats. We're all on the same side.

Posted by myiq2xu | February 8, 2008 12:32 AM

This isn't rocket science folks. When one candidate wins among independents by 37%, there should be a very strong presumption that they would be the stronger general election candidate in that state. So while I'm not certain that Obama would be a stronger candidate in November in MO (weakness in rural areas in the state is somewhat worrisome), I think that it certainly makes sense to believe this on the available evidence. Anyone who thinks that all of Obama's independent and Republican voters in MO will go to HRC is just kidding themselves.

HRC's lack of appeal so far in virtually any reds states outside of the upper south is not encouraging (she did well in the bluer part of Nevada and in NM, but that is about it). And the independent vote almost always seems to go strongly for Obama. Obama would probably win MN and WI comfortably (narrow wins in 2000 and 2004 meant some serious investment of resources by the Dems) while having a very good chance at Iowa. We'll have to see about Ohio.

Posted by ikl | February 8, 2008 12:35 AM

I'll buy you a latte, myiq.

Most of the Clinton supporters I know personally are also Obama fans, and we'll all unite one way or another.

My only difference is with your last paragraph: if you're talking about the famous Reagan bit, go and look at the video: the Senator's remarks were a lot more nuanced than some folks have blown them up to be.

Posted by Colin | February 8, 2008 12:51 AM

Oh, and has everyone forgotten about the Reagan Democrats -- you know the working class voters in Ohio and Michigan and Pennsylvania who ordinarily would vote Democratic, but turned toward Republicans when the Democrats up for office turned them off?

How many Reagan Democrats has Obama won over?

If Obama doesn't in any way impress that segment of the population, why wouldn't they make easy pickings for McCain?

Posted by frankly0 | February 8, 2008 1:04 AM

Brand new on baseball, torture, Congress and human rights at Rudely Stamped:

"A Cock and Bull Story"

Michael Blaine
www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com

Posted by Michael Blaine | February 8, 2008 1:07 AM

"The better people know Obama, the more they seem to like him."

Obama won Caucus states that had a Democratic voter turnout of 21,000 in Idaho and 8600 in Alaska. By comparison, Hillary won the big population states such as New York, New Jersey, and California. There seems to be a disconnect about understanding his victories.

If I recall, Matt's prompt of "California Dreaming" had Obama leading in some polls. Hillary is the real underdog. She had the media, Ted and Caroline Kennedy, Oprah, MoveOn.org, and etc. all campaigning against her. Oh, I forgot about Obama's magic touch. Hillary won because Latinos, women, Asian Americans, older voters, and the absentee voters gave her the edge. Matt, I would argue that the more they saw Obama, they chose Hillary instead.

This Democratic primary is going to be a street fight. It is more complex because the Republicans are funding part of Obama's campaign. It is a clever way to undercut her resources. He is the one that they really want to run against.

Posted by EWard | February 8, 2008 1:32 AM

Strangely enough, another "theoretical matchup" poll came out on Thursday, from Time magazine, entitled "Clinton More Beatable Than Obama":

"Obama captured 48% of the vote in the theoretical match-up against McCain's 41%, the TIME poll reported, while Clinton and McCain would deadlock at 46% of the vote each. Put another way, McCain looks at the moment to have a narrowly better chance of beating the New York Senator than he does the relative newcomer from Illinois.

The difference, says Mark Schulman, CEO of Abt SRBI, which conducted the poll for TIME, is that 'independents tilt toward McCain when he is matched up against Clinton. But they tilt toward Obama when he is matched up against the Illinois Senator.' Independents, added Schulman, "are a key battleground.' "

Posted by Abby | February 8, 2008 2:05 AM

How does Obama handle the war against a guy like McCain. McCain will be all "victory" and "success," Obama for "cut-and-run" and "dishonor."

We all know that that's a bogus charge, but it would swing voters.

Posted by John Petty | February 8, 2008 2:09 AM

Petty, John:

Obama vs McCain = Kennedy vs Nixon.

McCain vs Hillary = Bush vs Gore

Posted by ben | February 8, 2008 3:02 AM

Ignorance is a dangerous thing

The Obama campaign actively contested NY ....not the whole state but the 6 districts in NY City with 6 delegates. They did that for 2 reasons

Demographic 4 of tham have large black populations...and they have 6 delelgates which meant to win half -3 - they only had to get 41%.

They worked to get those numbers. I have seen campaign memos from them...I ran GOTV for part of one of those targeted districts. They had a plan.

She did not contest Illinois at all. It wasn't magic and he's wonderful.

Do some research...you went to Dalton...you're smart...don't be lazy

Posted by debcoop | February 8, 2008 3:21 AM

As a coffee-drinking (large, black, no cream or suger; none of this latté bullshit) formerly-cynical Harvard student, I can tell you that after attending Obama's Monday rally, I feel prouder of America, its values, its constitution, and history, and its government, than I ever have in my life. My whole life, the Democratic party has been ceding the values debate to the Republicans, cynically arguing alternately that they deserve to win just because, calling the Republicans nasty names, and compromising all their ideals in the name of bipartisanship. This strategy has failed miserably, because this is a wholly negative message, completely uninspiring, extremely frustrating to liberals, and frankly quite pathetic. Pathetic like the last 6 years of Clinton's presidency, in which he backed away from all his principles, accepted the Republican's framing of every issue, and signed most of the shitty legislation that crossed his desk, as long as it polled 51% or better based on short-term spin from the Republican noise machine.

Obama offers something new. He explains why the liberal values which are the basis for the country (unity, pluralism, civil rights, liberty, civic pride, individualism, entrepreneurship, etc.) are common values. He accepts that all Americans can share these values, including conservative Americans. He co-opts the values offered by Reagan and the Republicans in general, accepting that those too are fundamentally American ideals, but goes on to explain how he supports those ideals as well, while simultaneously rejecting the policy agenda they led the Republicans to pursue.

Instead of cynicism and fear, Obama offers hope and unity and pride. This seems to be not getting through to Hillary supporters, who are still caught up in this bizarre boxing match mentality where we win best by declaring half the country our opponents, and punch them repeatedly in the face, then ask for their support. But it has struck a chord with me. I donated money for the first time to a campaign on Wednesday, and plan to get as active as my course load allows in the coming weeks and months.

Call me naive, but I don't think my experience is unique, and the sum of many such experiences is extremely powerful, and will transform American political discourse to the benefit of the Democrats whether Obama wins the nomination or not (and is already; look how much Clinton's message has shifted in recent weeks).

Posted by Jacob Rus | February 8, 2008 3:29 AM

Forgive grammar mistakes, etc. in the previous comment; it's late and I should sleep, despite the coffee.

Posted by Jacob Rus | February 8, 2008 3:36 AM

How does Obama handle the war against a guy like McCain. McCain will be all "victory" and "success," Obama for "cut-and-run" and "dishonor."

Petty,

Again, Clinton's in a far worse position than Obama on the war (vs. McCain). McCain will correctly paint Clinton as someone who likes to start wars, but is too gutless to finish them.

And boy does she like the idea of starting wars.

Of course, that's assuming Clinton will leave Iraq, which I don't think she would. However, if she is disinclined to leave Iraq, that's even more of a reason for Joe and Jane Public to vote for McCain since he's a more obvious fit as C in C (the parallels between his early criticisms and the new, more-effective strategies are quite close) and she would be positioning herself as a pale imitation.

At least Obama can say the war was a mistake he, unlike McCain, wouldn't have made and, as Dick Jones would say, "now it's time to erase that mistake." Not everyone will buy that, but enough people are tired enough of the war to win him the election on that alone.

Chait, from TNR, wrote a piece proclaiming how incredulous your average Democrat was that Republicans were resisting McCain--the clear, obvious (and only) guy with a good chance in November. He also noted that Republicans were in disbelief that any Democrats would resist an Obama nomination for the same reason.

Count me among the disbelieving Republicans. Against McCain, Clinton probably can't win. Republicans hate her. Even Moderate, Whiggish Republicans like myself hate her. Independents hate her. Purple-staters hate her. Given any semi-likable alternative, all will take it. They won't stay home, they will make sure to vote and make sure to vote for the other option.

Obama, on the other hand, not only fails to inspire hatred among those groups: he probably steals the independents from McCain. Failing to inspire hatred--the absolute worst he inspires is skeptical grumbling (skepticism never actually motivated anyone to leave his or her house)--he severely suppresses Republican turnout in a disaffected, cracking party. He wins easy.

Hillary v. McCain = President McCain
Obama v. McCain = President Obama

I'm not trying to motivate Democrats through reverse psychology.

I'd much rather be able to say 'I told you so.'

Posted by Shinyk | February 8, 2008 3:50 AM

Could we quit acting like Obama doesn't have any name recognition any more? They guy is known across the globe now. I think he will be on the Wheaties box tomorrow, for god's sake. Some of these posts act like people are just hearing about him. He has been on the front page and all over TV for about 6 months now. I think people know who he is.

Posted by JB | February 8, 2008 3:51 AM

What a thread!

Does anyone know if there's any breakdown of voting on Super Tuesday between mailed-in-votes and votes-on-the-day in e.g. CA and MA? In other words, did HRC only win - or to what degree did she have an advantage - because of early ballots?

Posted by otto | February 8, 2008 4:23 AM

frankly0,

Again, I can only note that your argument fails to give Clinton her due credit. Yes, she has done a bit better than Obama so far among lower-income white Democrats (although to read your posts one would think Obama gets none of those voters, which of course is incorrect). You then insist that is because those low income white Democratic voters who support Clinton are rejecting Obama. I really think that is wrong, and it is rather that those particular voters legitimately like Clinton.

John Petty,

Obama can win against that argument because the vast majority of the American electorate has already rejected it. To put the same point another way, you seem to be arguing that Obama's worst problem when facing McCain is that McCain will be making the same arguments about Iraq that Republicans were making in 2006. If that is true, why should Obama or Democrats in general be concerned? Rather, they should be ecstatic, given what ended up happening in the 2006 election.

Posted by DTM | February 8, 2008 7:08 AM

ikl,

As previously noted, it really does amuse me that Clinton supporters are trying to sell the idea that in a general election contest against someone popular with independents, you should choose the nominee who is doing the worst with independents.

And I know better than to think these people are going to give up on that argument just because of something like logic. However, as others noted there is a growing set of polls which consistently show Obama doing better than Clinton in a hypothetical head-to-head with McCain (so far by about 5 points on average, and I suspect this margin will grow as Obama keeps presenting himself to more and more voters). And it takes very little digging to find out why: big surprise, it is because Obama does better than Clinton among independents.

Of course even that is probably not going to be enough for the diehard Clinton supporters to give up their argument. But I suspect those polls are really going to start making it clear to persuadable primary voters (and superdelegates) who has the better general election argument.

Posted by DTM | February 8, 2008 7:28 AM

These statistics are interesting. A lot of the methodology evolved from classic market research tools, that companies like Procter & Gamble developed and refined. They're extremely helpful: but they don't build brands.
Enormous sums are spent every year on market segmentation audits, b-tests of new products, focus groups and copy testing, and so on...and the vast majority of new products fail, and no one, absolutely no one, can predict what works in the marketplace.
I find most of it is time spent looking ahead through the rearview mirror.
One of my favorite stories is the success of Prince's movie, "Purple Rain". I was there at the premiere in Los Angeles, and after it ended, the audience just sat there, dazed and amazed. You knew something big had just happened. And no in the industry saw it coming.
Then Warner Bros. went to work and analyzed it to death: who went, why, what they ate for breakfast, everything. And every young turk in Hollywood could "explain" the success, claimed they could repeat it, and so on.
No one ever did. Prince is just Prince.
A lot of people are scaling-down Obama's success by taking him apart. Good luck. I've seen this movie before. He's more than the sum of all of the data (to Mark Penn's consternation). Obama is just Obama.

Posted by fougasseu | February 8, 2008 7:34 AM

These statistics are interesting. A lot of the methodology evolved from classic market research tools, that companies like Procter & Gamble developed and refined. They're extremely helpful: but they don't build brands.
Enormous sums are spent every year on market segmentation audits, b-tests of new products, focus groups and copy testing, and so on...and the vast majority of new products fail, and no one, absolutely no one, can predict what works in the marketplace.
I find most of it is time spent looking ahead through the rearview mirror.
One of my favorite stories is the success of Prince's movie, "Purple Rain". I was there at the premiere in Los Angeles, and after it ended, the audience just sat there, dazed and amazed. You knew something big had just happened. And no in the industry saw it coming.
Then Warner Bros. went to work and analyzed it to death: who went, why, what they ate for breakfast, everything. And every young turk in Hollywood could "explain" the success, claimed they could repeat it, and so on.
No one ever did. Prince is just Prince.
A lot of people are scaling-down Obama's success by taking him apart. Good luck. I've seen this movie before. He's more than the sum of all of the data (to Mark Penn's consternation). Obama is just Obama.

Posted by fougasseu | February 8, 2008 7:36 AM

CA is a big exception. Obama threw the kitchen sink into this, but lost big. An Obama nomination will leave the state open to McCain.

Posted by bob h | February 8, 2008 8:22 AM

An Obama nomination will leave the state open to McCain.

That's pretty funny.
1) 2 million people voted absentee ahead of time, before the Omentum. He got, what 390,000 votes short of her? 2) Obama v. Clinton not= Obama v. McCain.
Why exactly do you think Republicans have been trying to rejigger California's electoral votes for years now?!?

What I came here to say, though, is w/r/t Yglesias' claim when the Yes We Can video came out regarding the actors in it, I read this today:

In the "Yes We Can" music video that will.i.am made of Obama's Jan. 8 speech, I spotted Eric Christian Olsen, a very smart actor I know. (His line is "Yes we can.") I called to see if he had gone all bobby-soxer for Obama, or if he was just shrewdly taking a part in a project that upped his Q rating.

Turns out Olsen not only contributed money, he volunteered in Iowa and California and made hundreds of calls. He also sent out a mass e-mail to his friends that contained these lines: "Nothing is more fundamentally powerful than how I felt when I met him. I stood, my hand embraced in his, and ... I felt something ... something that I can only describe as an overpowering sense of Hope." That's the gayest e-mail I've ever read, and I get notes from guys who've seen me on E!

From http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stein8feb08,0,3418234.column

(Why no handly html buttons for the technology impaired?)

Posted by Jen | February 8, 2008 9:20 AM

Er, not to point out the obvious or anything, but "the African-American community" represents a pretty sizeable proportion of the poor and disadvantaged.

I third what the other Lucy said.

Posted by Lucy | February 8, 2008 9:28 AM

bob h,

CA vote totals
OBAMA: 1,737,807
MCCAIN: 986,384

Obama's total vote in CA was only 50,000 less than the combined total for McCain and Romney. There is no way CA goes anyway but Democratic.

Posted by BlindJoeDeath | February 8, 2008 9:37 AM

Yeah, myiq2xu is a Californian Clintonian, and I think he would probably stipulate to Obama with one hand tied behind his back taking Cali over McCain.

Posted by jen | February 8, 2008 9:42 AM

Obama Supporters

There you go again! Why the obsession with theoretical polls? Obama has done well in caucus states where there are fewer Democratic voters. He had a chance to beat her in the big states. Except for Illinois and Missouri, Hillary won.

The Republicans are a very shrewd group. They know he is the weaker candidate. The fact that his campaign is challenging some of the New York results is illustrative of his tactics. Obama is trying to "nickel and dime" his way to the nomination.

Posted by EWard | February 8, 2008 10:10 AM

Here comes a raft of new, national polls supporting my case that Obama is more competitive against McCain, than Hillary. It's important however to distinguish between the two arguments, however. My work has been based on the micro data coming out of the states that have already had primaries, and the in-depth sentiment polls. My work showed the edge to Obama starting over four weeks ago, as we started to get data from Iowa.

Polls like the new one this AM from Time Magazine, or yesterday's from NPR, are broader national polls.

It's best to take the two together. My work is based on how elections are actually won--State by State. This method shows how Obama is the best candidate to go up against McCain. Obama is the one who will more assuredly win the critical states of MO and OH.

National polls are helpful too, however, because they confirm my work: that Independents tip away from Hillary towards McCain, but, towards Obama and away from McCain.

Time:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1711123,00.html?xid=rss-nation

NPR:
http://media.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2008/feb/nprpoll/pollcharts.pdf

Posted by Gregor | February 8, 2008 10:14 AM

I'm curious about the down-ballot argument for Obama, and I don't want to start WWIII, I just want an answer.

As I understand it, the CW is that Clinton brings out the Repugs to vote against her. Being Repugs, they'll vote for Repugs down-ballot and down-ballot Dems will lose on turnout.

But Obama is actively campaigning for the votes of Repugs and Independents. What makes the CW think those folks won't just be ticket splitters. They'll come out to vote for BO because he's their saviour, but down-ballot Dems, not so much. Why wouldn't they just revert to their R tendencies down-ballot?

Honest question. Please, no rancor.

Posted by ally's gift | February 8, 2008 10:26 AM

I think the CW is that Obama will get some votes from more independents, independent-minded Republicans, moderate Republicans. If Hillary is the nominee those folks will be more likely to go to McCain. Their down-ballot votes will probably be the same regardless. Their turnout will also likely be similar regardless.

But Hillary will get the rabid Republicans out, the hard-core conservatives. These guys don't like McCain. Given a choice between McCain and Obama, they're likely not to turn out. But make the other choice Hillary, and they will. So they're going to vote R down-ballot while they're there.

In other words, it's not really a theory that Obama Republicans are going to change their down-ballot votes too, because I doubt they will. It's a matter of turnout, of numbers -- Hillary is going to flush them out from under their rocks, and Obama is not.

Posted by Jen | February 8, 2008 10:37 AM

Thanks Jen. I suppose it all hinges on whether one thinks a Conservative who would stay home otherwise will come out to vote if Clinton is on the ticket. I wonder whether the Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck call to them to vote for Clinton will change that calculus. I have no idea since I don't really know any conservatives like that. Crystal-ball reading sure is tiresome. I think I'll stick with the person I believe will make the best president.

Posted by ally's gift | February 8, 2008 10:48 AM

From the perspective of the Dems, I don't understand why it's so great that Obama attracts independents and Republicans (that is, in the primaries).

Well, you see, there's this thing called the general election that's held in the United States to pick the president, and it really helps if you can get most of the voters voting for you, and most of the voters aren't committed Democrats, but you very well might get most of the voters voting for you if you appeal to Democrats AND independents AND Republicans.

Posted by John Althouse Cohen | February 8, 2008 11:08 AM

I wonder whether the Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck call to them to vote for Clinton will change that calculus.

I don't think they actually want anyone to vote for Clinton, and I think you will see them marching in lockstep behind McCain very soon if they aren't already.

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

This Democratic primary is going to be a street fight. It is more complex because the Republicans are funding part of Obama's campaign. It is a clever way to undercut her resources. He is the one that they really want to run against.

Yup. They'll do everything in their power to avoid facing the team that beat them twice in national campaigns in the 90s. The GOP knows that:

i) The Clintons will absolutely kill them with Latino voters. Obama, on the other hand, could conceivably lose the Latino vote to John McCain. This cohort is a decisive factor in Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado.

ii) The Clintons will easily win the Asian vote.

iii) Obama's weakness with these two groups actually would put California into play, protestations to the contrary. The math is simply too grim to ignore this possibility.

iv) The Clintons will perform well with white swing voters in Ohio, Missouri, and the upper south. Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia and Arkansas are all in play for the Democrats if the Clintons get the nod. I'd even be tempted to add Texas to that list. And yes, I put "Clinton" in the plural on purpose.

If Obama is the nominee, the red states become easier to hold down for the Republicans, and they can concentrate their resources on must win swing states like Ohio and Florida.

Posted by Tram | February 8, 2008 12:00 PM

I'll take the common sense of beer drinkers over wine sippers every day of the week.

People who really care about bread and butter issues know what elections are about. The smug snobbery of the "educated" classes and Barack and Michelle Obama are showing more and more. That's why they are less and less relevant to us working stiffs.

Posted by myskylark | February 8, 2008 12:42 PM

Jacob:

I volunteered for Obama in New York--there were 3 paid staffers in the entire state! I don't know what people mean when they say he devoted many resources here. We had some TV ads in the last week, but very little physical resources, and very few appearances by Obama or Michelle.

I was an Obamabot before Iowa, but have to say my enthusiasm isn't just for Obama, but for the Obama campaign, that is, volunteers like Jacob along with Obama. It's a huge group effort, hopefully, a movement too. And it's just not about Obama, but his message resonating with people and part of his message is that change comes from the bottom up.

Meanwhile you have Hillary loaning her campaign $5 million, a fraction of which she and Bill made during their years of "pubic service" because of book deals and speaking fees.

I am very very surprised Hillary's campaign is running out of money and their staffers are working for free for a month, after the mainstream media painted Hillary as an unstoppable juggernaut candidate last year.

Posted by Peter K. | February 8, 2008 12:59 PM

hey, myskylark: "[you] working stiffs"? golly, where do you find the time to read and comment on this blog? don't you have a load to haul or a ditch to dig or something? is political meta punditry gonna put bread on the table?

Posted by bobroy | February 8, 2008 1:00 PM

What bothers me the most about the theoretical matchups between McCain and Obama or Clinton is that Republicans have dug up all the dirt they can on Hillary already. Her base supports her despite all the mud that has been slung her way. We have no idea what mud Republicans are holding onto behind their backs in the hope that Obama will be the Democrats' choice. Of course it seems as though Obama would have broader support against McCain than Hillary -- because his character thus far is squeaky clean. The most dangerous implication of this "unknown" factor is that the independents supporting Obama now would be more likely to slide into the McCain camp if Obama found himself covered in mud.

Posted by Rebecca | February 8, 2008 2:09 PM

Ally's:

(1) If you're gonna say "no rancor" don't call Republicans "Repugs." These people are your neighbors and fellow-citizens.

(2) Independents and young voters may vote in more creative ways. We don't know.

(3) On straw in the wind is that Obama has done well in endorsements by red-state elected democrats.

Posted by Colin | February 8, 2008 2:15 PM

P.S. If you're interested, the case is laid out here: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080218/hayes

Posted by Colin | February 8, 2008 2:29 PM

"The most dangerous implication of this "unknown" factor is that the independents supporting Obama now would be more likely to slide into the McCain camp if Obama found himself covered in mud."

That's assuming that Mr. Straight Talk doesn't have his own mud. Don't forget that McCain was briefly implicated in the Savings & Loan Scandal during the late 80s. If Tony Rezko is an indicator of possible skeletons in Obama's closet, then the S&L scandal is an indicator of possible skeletons in McCain's closet as well.

Don't be naive and think Obama will let McCain pretend that only Obama has had associations with unsavory characters. McCain is just as guilty in this regard as well, and Obama will remind people that Mr. Straight Talk is talking a little crooked.

BTW, I don't think you can safely assume that the GOP has run out of dirt to dig up on the Clintons, and that reminding voters about scandals such as Whitewater won't have any resonance. That's it why it is fallacious that argue that the Clintons are less vulnerable to Republican attacks than Obama is.

Posted by eltoro | February 8, 2008 2:41 PM

Jacob Rus, hear, hear.

Look, I actually think Hillary will be a good president, too (consider the alternative, people, before you say you won't back anyone other than Hillary/Obama). Obama hits many points I care deeply about in his speech. Hillary, while lacking in the public speaking abilities, is amazing one on one.

That being said, Hillary has repositioned herself to the center over the past 8 years to better compete in the general election, a point I have been trying really hard to get over myself--- I tell myself that if it's for the sake of taking back the Whitehouse, I can just deal with it. But I realize that these calculations don't work--- not just me, people see through it. To me, it is very telling that after moving to the center so much for so long, Hillary is still very unpopular to the swing voters (aka the independents).

Finally, to the people arguing over working class voters supporting whom and what that means, you left out the Republican working class voters, whose votes gave us the Bush administration twice. What does it mean when they support the Republican party, whose policies have been anything but sympathetic towards the working class?

Posted by N. Huang | February 8, 2008 3:53 PM

I don't think Obama will do well with swing voters. He will be made to look just like John Kerry did in the last election, but now it's with McCain.

Posted by Devon T. | February 8, 2008 3:58 PM

Did anyone notice that Illinois has a population of 12.9 Million and New York State state has a population of 19.20 million.

Yet 1.964 million people voted in democratic primary in Illinois and only 1.7 million people voted in New York primary. Obama actually got more votes in NY than Hillary got in Illinois.

Neither campaign advertised in Illinois yet 72% on average more people showed up to vote in Illinois. More people voted in the Republican Primary in Illinois as well. Is it traditional that a larger proportion of the population votes in some states.

3.9 million people voted in the California primary with a population of 36.5 million. So its a greater proportion of people than New York but less than Illinois. But neither candidate was from there.

Do people in New York just vote less? Their polls were open longer. Why are people in Illinois so dramatically more motivated to vote? Absolutely no adds were ran by either.

I can only think that Clinton must not motivate people as much.

Posted by lowell | February 9, 2008 1:08 AM

Lowell

This is how I interpret your remarks. Why are the election results so muddled if Obama has such great appeal and motivates such humongous crowds? My answer is, Hillary's electability has always been discounted. Even when she wins, she's called polarizing.

The Hillary supporters respect Obama and what he has achieved. We take nothing for granted in this race. However, on Obama's side there is a disbelief that this controversial figure can be winning elections against Superman.

Posted by EWard | February 9, 2008 11:53 AM