Trouble?

I'm not sure I really buy John Judis' argument here. First, he observes:

Hillary Clinton won the big states she had to win, and arrested Barack Obama’s momentum, but she is going to have problems with white male voters. Obama is having trouble with white working-class voters and Latinos.

Then he goes on to extend this analysis to the general election, arguing that both Clinton and Obama have critical weaknesses. The trouble here is that Judis' method is going to reach the conclusion "Party X is Doomed" any time Party X has two fairly equally matched contenders. Even if the two contenders are both very strong, each is going to look "weak" among whichever groups of voters prefer the other candidate. Conversely, if there are two very weak contenders then they're both going to look "strong" within the demographic groups where their rival is especially weak.

To me, most indications are that the Democrats have two strong contenders. Consider that in Missouri about 552,000 people came out to vote in the GOP primary -- a primary that all three candidates seriously contested. By contrast 800,000 people came to vote on the Democratic side. If you put all five candidates into a single election, Hillary Clinton's second place showing of 395,000 would have trounced John McCain's 194,304 for third place. Both candidates, in short, are good at appealing to large numbers of voters and getting them to show up.

Comments

The huge vote totals for the Democrats is the most important story of the primary season. The Repiglicans are going to be swamped in November by an activated Democrat base combined with independents who now despise everything Bush, since the moron has been the biggest fuckup in American history.

I just hope the legislative pickups are strong enough to run the GOP into the ground. It's what the pricks deserve.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 6, 2008 3:04 AM

"If you put all five candidates into a single election, Hillary Clinton's second place showing of 395,000 would have trounced John McCain's 194,304 for third place. Both candidates, in short, are good at appealing to large numbers of voters and getting them to show up."

This reasoning is just as specious as Judis' reasoning.

McCain is still going to win Missouri this fall against either of the two Dems.

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2008 3:04 AM

I have some quibbles with Judis' piece as well. He writes:

"[M]any of [Obama's] victories came in states like Georgia or Alabama that Democrats will not win in November or in caucus states dominated by left-wing activists who are unrepresentative either of the party or the fall electorate. "

True, but then again, nearly all of Hillary's victories came in states Obama would undoubtedly win in November should he be the nominee.

"Democrats will have to win the Far West, the Middle West, the Northeast, and the Middle Atlantic states, and perhaps pick off a border state like Arkansas or Tennessee."

Hillary is obviously in a better position to pick off a border state like Arkansas or Tennessee, but if you look at where Obama won tonight it's largely the middle west. So California should go to the Democrat in November, as should the Northeast. It seems Obama is stronger than Hillary in the Midwest. And the key Midatlantic states are still up and coming... In many ways it seems like whoever can win Ohio and Pennsylvania will be the nominee, and that's probably the way it should be, as those will be big battleground states come November, as always.

Posted by Brian | February 6, 2008 3:09 AM

Listen, I'm from Northwest Ohio. We are the white working class. People over 50 here, who I would have never pegged as Obama supporters, are apparently more sexist than racist, because every single man I meet says they'll never vote for Hillary. Never.

Ohio is two things, which are both contradictory: Obama country which is young and college educated, but dumb. People in Ohio are not paying attention to this race. And if they are, they're old and had more money from a middle class perspective than they knew what to do with during the Clinton administration. So I think that helps Hillary here. But this state is also perfect for Obama's campaign style. Each city is no more than 2 hours from the other. So he is going be holding rallies of 20,000 plus everywhere in the state because a lot of people can easily get to them. Obama needs alot of face time here because democrats in Ohio don't believe he can win the nomination. They don't know him. Their exact words are "Do you really think America is going to elect a black muslim President?" So there needs to be a lot of education here.

http://www.politicalinaction.com

Posted by Brian | February 6, 2008 3:15 AM

Petey, what makes you think McCain has Missouri locked up in November? Missouri has been a bellwether state in every presidential election since 1956. Bill Clinton won there twice. And as Matt points out, Obama and Hillary clearly seem better able to mobilize support there. Not to mention the fact that MO Republicans are strongly evangelical, a group McCain struggles with. I mean, sure, McCain might win Missouri, but it's far from a foregone conclusion.

Posted by Brian | February 6, 2008 3:15 AM

I think MO is in play in November, it will almost certainly be within 5% of the vote. And regardless of MO, I agree with ML&J above. Between primary voting in the last 5 weeks and fundraising over the last year, it's clear that the Dem supporters are much more enthusiastic than the Republican side. The Republicans are a house thorougly divided, Bush hatred by nonpartisans is real (30% approval), and not even HRC running on the Dem side will negate that. Plus, McCain seeminly doesn't care very much about the economy, paying attention to beancounter stuff like that must be beneath a man of so august a personage, and even before today the economy was going to be issue #1.

I still stand by my prediction that the Dem candidate wins handily in November, by more than 5% of the popular vote. Dems also pick up 4-6 seats in the Senate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections%2C_2008

Posted by blah2 | February 6, 2008 3:24 AM

Judis has a blindspot that is revealed in his book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority". Time after time he argues based on demographics he seems to imply that demographic rules or perspectives do not change. Professionals don't change per se, but the parties react and 'grab' their votes. In actuality, everybody is acting within a larger culture, reacting and responding to it.

My point is that though Obama and Hillary have demographic sweet spots and weaker spots, the candidates and the voters out there change all the time, react to new information and are capable of acting outside their construct.

I guess I resent Judis' approach in that he seems to disempower the average voter as totally hostage to his/her demographic, unable to act independently in any significant numbers.

What we are seeing more and more in this election alone is that more and more people are looking at candidates beyond race and gender and as the campaign progresses other issues are becoming deciding factors and the race and gender gaps are blurring and not explaining the patters we are seeing.

This is something to be proud of and the long cycle is showing that as a society, maybe we are not so dumb and superficial, but when given the chance are able to look at people more substantively.

I am white, I voted for Obama, but I could vote for Hillary. My decision was not in any sense about their race or gender but about was around whether to have a inspirational big message candidate or a pragmatic, systematic facilitator of concrete change. I actually want both and want both candidates to show that they can do both --even if their sweet spot is in one place. My grandparents generation might not have gotten past race or gender at all, my generation almost considers it a distraction from the actual decision being made. What an incredible accomplishment.

Posted by david in norcal | February 6, 2008 3:25 AM

"Petey, what makes you think McCain has Missouri locked up in November? Missouri has been a bellwether state in every presidential election since 1956."

MO was +7R in 2004, vs +2R for the nation.

MO was +3.5R in 2004 vs +.5D for the nation.

MO has become a solidly Republican leaning state over the past 15 years, as have several other interior border states like KY, WV, and TN.

Unless Republicans stay home in November en masse, neither Clinton nor Obama will be winning Missouri.

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2008 3:29 AM

McCain's not going to clean up anywhere with: (a) a third party candidate vacuuming up the votes to his right, or (b) an ultraconservative party platform hung ponderously around his neck.

I don't see how he gets out of Minneapolis without (a) or (b). See generally, Digby.

Posted by southpaw | February 6, 2008 3:30 AM

Edit: MO was +3.5R in 2000 vs +.5D for the nation.

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2008 3:31 AM

So by your own logic, Petey, if the nation is +5D, Missouri could go Dem. You don't think that's possible? I do.

Posted by blah2 | February 6, 2008 3:39 AM

"So by your own logic, Petey, if the nation is +5D, Missouri could go Dem. You don't think that's possible?"

It's possible, but pretty damn unlikely that the nation will be +5D.

I think it's going to be a close election. It'd require Republicans to stay home en masse to produce the kind of margin that would put Missouri in play.

Don't forget that over the past 74 years, Dems have gotten more than 51% of the vote precisely once.

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2008 4:05 AM

Edit: 64 years.

Dems have gotten more than 51% of the vote in only one out of the last fifteen Presidential elections.

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2008 4:08 AM

"MO was +7R in 2004, vs +2R for the nation.
MO was +3.5R in 2000 vs +.5D for the nation"

Not a negligible piece of the puzzle, but it leaves so much out that I have to think there's more to your logic than this. Your data presumes that you can simply tack on X percentage points to any and all Republican nominees in Missouri, regardless of the year, the opponents, etc., etc. Or am I reading you wrong? Because so far I'm unpersuaded.

Posted by Brian | February 6, 2008 4:22 AM

In terms of the primaries (let's stop worrying about general election results for the moment), Obama's razor thin Missouri win bodes well for Ohio, doesn't it?

Ohio is demographically very similar to Missouri, but the rural white people are going to be less southern, and thus somewhat more likely to vote for Obama. Cleveland ought to be as strong for Obama as St. Louis...we'll see, but I'd say that, given the fact that Obama is likely to sweep the remaining February states, and that Obama tends to do better when he has more time to organize, I think Obama should be the favorite in Ohio (although it will likely be extremely close, and probably nearly a wash as far as delegates go).

Texas looks, er, less favorable to Obama, though. I really have no idea how this things ends up.

Perhaps my vote in Pennsylvania on April 22 will actually matter!

Posted by John | February 6, 2008 4:23 AM

I am an independent. The Democratic Party has one strong candidate in this election, not two. Unfortunately, its establishment, which is increasingly out of touch with people who haven't been registered Dems for at least 20 years, has chosen to throw all its might and spin potential behind the weaker of the two, because she shares her last name and marriage bed with a popular former President.

The message liberal-minded people should be sending after 8 years of travesty is "the ends no longer justify the means", in election politics or generally. The Clintons have branded this message, which Obama is delivering, as naive, while pulling out all ethically questionable stops to win at any cost. So a Clinton machine victory sends exactly the opposite signal.

It also leaves us with a choice between two long-term Washington insiders who never had the brains (or worse, the balls) to make the rights decisions on Iraq or on such moronic and ridiculously named ventures as "The Department of Homeland Security", the "War on Drugs", the "Patriot Act" and the "War on Terror". The result is that fewer in the world, and fewer Americans themselves, take the most powerful government in the world seriously. That is a very dangerous position for the world to be in.

What a bummer that in this country of 300 million with 230 years of democratic government under its belt, we could end up with no real leader on the ballot in the most important general election since World War II.

(PS - I very strongly support the military, in case you are wondering.)

Posted by Tim | February 6, 2008 4:32 AM

"Your data presumes that you can simply tack on X percentage points to any and all Republican nominees in Missouri, regardless of the year, the opponents, etc., etc. Or am I reading you wrong?"

It's not quite that simple, but everything else being equal, modern Missouri has a pronounced Republican lean. If the national vote is even, the average Dem will lose Missouri by about 5 points.

Neither of the two Dems still in the running this year would alter that calculus in our favor. Obama would lose Missouri by more than the 5 points margin vs the national vote due to racial dynamics. Clinton would run closer to the average Dem deficit.

A Southern or rural attracting Dem could reduce the GOP advantage in Missouri, but we're not nominating one of those this year.

It may only be February, but we already know we're going to win NJ and lose MO this November (unless evangelicals stay home en masse to protest McCain).

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2008 4:43 AM

It may only be February, but we already know we're going to win NJ and lose MO this November (unless evangelicals stay home en masse to protest McCain).

Could happen. His performance in the south tonight was hardly confidence building.

Posted by John | February 6, 2008 5:00 AM

"It's not quite that simple, but everything else being equal, modern Missouri has a pronounced Republican lean. If the national vote is even, the average Dem will lose Missouri by about 5 points."

That makes sense in a vacuum, but unfortunately it doesn't have anything to do with real life -- everything else ISN'T equal, and we're NOT dealing with "the average Dem," whoever that creature might be.

I was listening to Tom Ashbrook's radio show last week, and he had a woman on from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. She said their polling data suggests that both Clinton and Obama would beat McCain in Missouri come November, but it was so close that it fell within the margin for error. Does this prove the Dems will actually win in November? Of course not. But it does suggest that reports of their death in Missouri are greatly exaggerated.

And with that you can have the last word, Petey, b/c my guess is that the other readers are far less interested in this pedantic debate than we are.

Posted by Brian | February 6, 2008 5:02 AM

Petey leaves out the 2006 election, where the Dems took the Senate contest 50 to 47.

So:

2000 = +7 R
2004 = +3.5 R
2006 = +3 D

I see an unmistakable trend, and turnout numbers corroborate it.

Survey USA matchups from a month back:

Clinton 50%, McCain 46%
Obama 47%, McCain 44%

Petey's data is not comprehensive, and doesn't completely reflect current trends.

Posted by Maxwell | February 6, 2008 5:02 AM

Missouri has four Democrats and five Republicans as representatives, and a Democrat and a Republican each as senators. Its governor is a Republican, but is so unpopular that he's not seeking reelection as an incumbent in '08.

If we're pre-emptively conceding Missouri -- and states like Missouri -- for the 2008 presidential elections, how are we expecting to win the country as a whole any more than in 2004 or 2000?

I'm not saying that we should steadfastly ignore every political reality, and declare ourselves committed to winning all 50 states + DC, including Utah and Nebraska, and actually try to commit significant resources to winning lost causes, but the fact is, if we write off states that we lost in elections we lost but won in elections we won, then we'll lose elections.

Posted by Julian Elson | February 6, 2008 5:08 AM

"Missouri has four Democrats and five Republicans as representatives"

NC, TN, and IN all have more Dems than Republican in their House delegation. The way CD boundaries are drawn and/or the way Congressional incumbency works sometimes has very little to do with a state's partisan makeup.

"Petey leaves out the 2006 election, where the Dems took the Senate contest 50 to 47."

National contests are different than local contests. North Dakota has two Democratic Senators, despite the fact that hell will freeze over before a Democratic Presidential candidate carries North Dakota.

"Survey USA matchups from a month back..."

Kerry was beating Bush in MO at this point in the '04 cycle. Likewise, Republican will come home in MO for a national election against Obama or Clinton, unless the evangelicals stay home to protest McCain.

"If we're pre-emptively conceding Missouri -- and states like Missouri -- for the 2008 presidential elections, how are we expecting to win the country as a whole any more than in 2004 or 2000?"

I don't think we are expecting to re-align the map this year.

It's always been pretty clear that the price of nominating Clinton or Obama was that we were going to be operating off of the same basic map as '00 and '04.

Maybe Obama picks off CO. Maybe Clinton picks off AR. Maybe either picks off OH. But neither candidate is going to be a significant map changer, unless the evangelicals stay home to protest McCain.

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2008 5:45 AM

Everyone always thinks the next election will be like the last one. Theres a reason we have campaigns. Its because they can end up changing things.

Posted by yoyo | February 6, 2008 5:52 AM

"Everyone always thinks the next election will be like the last one."

Everyone always thinks that because most elections are just like the last one. Re-aligning elections are few and far between.

And given the Democratic choices this year, it seems clear that we're not going to have a re-aligning election this year, unless the evangelicals stay home to protest McCain.

The changes at the margins are likely going to be enough to hand us the White House, but MO is a bit beyond what Clinton or Obama are likely to accomplish.

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2008 6:15 AM

Not that Edwards would have produced a 'realignment' either. He might just have pushed the Democratic tide an inch or two more into Redstate territory, but realignment means permanent switching of interests or territories from one coalition to another, like the Republicans in the South after Goldwater. Nothing like that is on the cards at all.

Posted by otto | February 6, 2008 7:04 AM

McCain was all over Huckabee and his supporters during his speech. He also talked about his 97 year old mother. McCain started his campaign for the general election tonight.

FYI: There is a difference between a hick and a redneck. Not every white southerner is racist. Not every white northerner isn't.
And just for fun: I think Ohio has four parts - midwest, Rust Belt, southern and Columbus

Well my daddy come on the 0hio works
When he come home from world war two
Now the yards just scrap and rubble
He said,"Them big boys did what Hitler couldn't do."
These mills they built the tanks and bombs
That won this country's wars
We sent our sons to Korea and Vietnam
Now we're wondering what they were dyin' for.

Posted by Youngstown | February 6, 2008 7:16 AM

"realignment means permanent switching of interests or territories from one coalition to another, like the Republicans in the South after Goldwater. Nothing like that is on the cards at all."

There are major re-alignments like Southern whites moving to the halfway house of Wallace in '68, and then to the Republicans for good in '80.

But there are also minor re-alignments like suburban voters moving to the Dems in '88 and '92. Or like nativist voters moving to the halfway house of Perot in '92, and then to the Republicans in 94 and '00.

'08 looks like no re-alignment at all. Both Clinton and Obama should strengthen the Democratic hold on the suburbs, while making no inroads whatsoever on Republican stronghold geographies.

"Not that Edwards would have produced a 'realignment' either."

I thought he would've made the Democratic Party (and an expansion of government programs) safe for the Perot voters and for border state whites, which would've been a significant minor re-alignment. It would've put places like MO and WV back into play, along with the Southwest.

The "permanent switching of interests" would have rested with investing those demographics in activist government, something they've resisted for the past 30 to 40 years.

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2008 7:22 AM

Re-aligning elections may be few and far between, but we're due. And a major premise of the Obama campaign is that he's the candidate to lead a Democratic realignment. This is what makes his sweep of the caucuses tonight significant. He won those states (many by huge margins) by *organizing* them. And should Obama be the nominee, those organizations will keep growing and growing until the general - with door-to-door retail politics lifting down-ticket races and pulling off some surprises. The whole point is to rearrange the map to put Republicans on the defensive. With Obama's rural, small-state strength and his ability to drive African-American turnout, Obama is gathering evidence that he can do just that.

Posted by Ravi | February 6, 2008 7:31 AM

Re-aligning elections may be few and far between, but we're due. And a major premise of the Obama campaign is that he's the candidate to lead a Democratic realignment. This is what makes his sweep of the caucuses tonight significant. He won those states (many by huge margins) by *organizing* them. And should Obama be the nominee, those organizations will keep growing and growing until the general - with door-to-door retail politics lifting down-ticket races and pulling off some surprises. The whole point is to rearrange the map to put Republicans on the defensive. With Obama's rural, small-state strength and his ability to drive African-American turnout, Obama is gathering evidence that he can do just that.

Posted by Ravi | February 6, 2008 7:32 AM

Re-aligning elections may be few and far between, but we're due. And a major premise of the Obama campaign is that he's the candidate to lead a Democratic realignment. This is what makes his sweep of the caucuses tonight significant. He won those states (many by huge margins) by *organizing* them. And should Obama be the nominee, those organizations will keep growing and growing until the general - with door-to-door retail politics lifting down-ticket races and pulling off some surprises. The whole point is to rearrange the map to put Republicans on the defensive. With Obama's rural, small-state strength and his ability to drive African-American turnout, Obama is gathering evidence that he can do just that.

Posted by Ravi | February 6, 2008 7:33 AM

I'm sorry for the triple comment. Commenting from a Treo is trickier than it looks.

Posted by Ravi | February 6, 2008 7:45 AM

"I'm sorry for the triple comment. Commenting from a Treo is trickier than it looks."

Understanding the difference between a Democratic caucus and a general election seems a bit tricky for you as well...

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2008 7:51 AM

I don't see how these "wins" amount to anything when delegates do not vote for months after a primary/caucus. According to the Gray Lady Obama has 34 committed delegates to Clinton's 21. None of the superdelegates are committed yet.

At least, also, Dem primaries are mostly not winner-take-all. So again I ask, what do the victories count for besides grist for the MSM to keep tensions and passions high?

Posted by Baltimoron | February 6, 2008 7:52 AM

A diehard to the last, I agree with Petey that Edwards would have put more border states, like Missouri, Tennessee, or Virginia, into play more effectively than either Obama or Clinton will be able to do. Judis may overstate the negatives for Obama and Clinton, since many democratic male voters will wind up supporting Clinton if she's the nominee. Likewise, most democratic female voters will support Obama, and he'll probably atract his share of white working class males. But Edwards had the most progressive agenda, and the strongest potential for increasing the electoral math and downticket appeal throughout the country, and we lost him due to the unique dynamics of this race. Wouldn't have been realignment, but a more arguable mandate for universal healthcare, etc. Maybe I'm wrong about Obama's limitations. Maybe his inspirational message will carry the day all the way through next November (although to me his sonorous cadences are becoming more and more predictable), but I'm pretty sure that Clinton's high negatives are going to limit her cross-over appeal and electoral effectiveness. If things go well, we may still win the presidency, but perhaps with less wind at our back.

Posted by edwardian | February 6, 2008 8:09 AM

I'm starting to think that November might be more about turnout than the standard battles over a fixed sized electorate.

If primary trends could be made to hold for turnout in the general election, Democrats win no matter who's at the head. And it pushes all the elections down field toward more liberal outcomes.

If the DNC and every affiliated or friendly organization don't go broke this fall turning out each and every possible Democrat to vote in any possible quantum superpositioned universe as if it were the last election to be held in any potential cosmos, they are idiots.

Posted by El Cid | February 6, 2008 8:14 AM

"Judis may overstate the negatives for Obama and Clinton"

Yup. Judis' reasoning here is badly flawed.

I think both Obama and Clinton can hold together the Gore '00 coalition, which with the movement in Ohio should be enough for a win.

It won't be much of a mandate to actually do anything, but a win is better than a loss.

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2008 8:19 AM

Two comments:

First, in any hotly-contested primary one of the key questions is whether the current supporters of Candidate A will be able to accept Candidate B if Candidate B ends up winning. That of course is why analysis that looks only at the current supporters is usually misleading: it doesn't directly address the hypothetical in which the first choice has lost and now the question is whether the allegiances will switch. With respect to core Democrats, this should not be a problem, because polls show that Democrats like both Clinton and Obama and will accept either one. The major difference, however, between Obama and Clinton is that some of the independents, Republicans, and new people supporting Obama may not support Clinton. And this could be a crucial problem if McCain is the Republican nominee, as currently appears likely.

Second, I agree that the real division in recent elections has been between urban, suburban, and rural areas, and the red-purple-blue state stuff is just the state-level manifestation of this underlying division. I also agree that just because Obama is winning rural "red states" in the primaries doesn't mean he will win those states in general election. However, I do think he has a decent chance of keeping it closer than usual in rural areas throughout the country while winning the suburbs and running up the score in urban areas. And that would be enough for what would look like a "realignment election".

Posted by DTM | February 6, 2008 8:20 AM

Although I was an Edwards supporter, I agree with El Cid (one of my favorite childhood movies by the way; though not as great as Spartacus), we need to be sure to get out the vote no matter which of the final two is our candidate. Both are absolutely superior on issues to the republican alternatives.

Posted by edwardian | February 6, 2008 8:22 AM

"I also agree that just because Obama is winning rural "red states" in the primaries doesn't mean he will win those states in general election."

Yup.

"However, I do think he has a decent chance of keeping it closer than usual in rural areas throughout the country"

I've seen ZERO evidence or viable theorems to support this, however.

-----

Also, don't forget that "rural" has a high correlation with "Southern" in general election patterns.

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2008 8:30 AM

So if Clinton wins the nomination we are doomed but Obama's strength in rural areas will usher in a realignment. Not worried about losing some working class whites or Southwestern Hispanics or southern white Dems to McCain or a certain number of women staying home in November. Seems a bit more partisan than analytical. Though you are right about the Obama campaign's complete failure in converting new people to Democrats or even supporters of the broad goals of the party. I think it is because the campaign doesn't even try.

Posted by skeptic | February 6, 2008 8:41 AM

As the morning glooms over the moors, Petey mixes 30mg of Ambien dissolved into a fine single malt scotch, served over ice.

Two shots and you get sent into hyperspace straight to the PA primary. Do not pass go.

And if you rock Defemder uou'll get sent to hyperspace.. Body movin'. Body movin'.

on and on. Likr a nice bon-bon.

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2008 8:41 AM

It may only be February, but we already know we're going to win NJ and lose MO this November (unless evangelicals stay home en masse to protest McCain).

Given the comments of Dr. James Dobson this morning, the eveangelicals may do just that (stay home en masse).

Yesterday was to be the day the Clinton Machine finished off the upstart Obama. Before the vote counting was finsihed in South Carolina both Clintons took to the stage and announced we were now on to Super Tuesday where, I'm sure, they both thought Obama would be devastated. It didn't happen.

Anybody who has ever watched a football game, like last Sunday perhaps, knows that the longer you let the underdog hang around the more likely he is to pull out a late win.

Clinton's supporters keep pointing to one Zogby poll that showed Obama winning California and touting some kind of come-from-behind win for Hill. Didn't happen. The fact is she led by 20+ points in California for months and won by 10. She was far ahead in the polls in almost all the Super Tuesday states as recently as ten days ago. She had a good night, but it wasn't supposed to happen this way. Obama was supposed to be finished today.

Posted by Pug | February 6, 2008 8:57 AM

Clinton's supporters keep pointing to one Zogby poll that showed Obama winning California and touting some kind of come-from-behind win for Hill. Didn't happen. The fact is she led by 20+ points in California for months and won by 10. She was far ahead in the polls in almost all the Super Tuesday states as recently as ten days ago. She had a good night, but it wasn't supposed to happen this way. Obama was supposed to be finished today.

This is what I think Judis ignores in his analysis. I mean, if you look at it in strictly delegate terms, it was in fact a narrow Clinton win. To say that Hillary narrowly won Super Tuesday seems to ignore EVERY other factor from yesterday, and (what seems to be) the new dynamic of the race -- as well as the month ahead, which looks Obama-friendly indeed.

Posted by jeff larson | February 6, 2008 9:07 AM

But what about Clinton's stunning come from behind victory in Massachusetts?!

Posted by J.B. | February 6, 2008 9:24 AM

With 93% of precincts having officially reported, it looks like Georgia saw about 72,000 more Democrats voting in yesterday's primary than Republicans.

If this were somehow managed to be reflected in general election turnout, then Democrats would outnumber Republican voters by a bit under 4%. Could be enough to turn Georgia "blue".

http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/election_results/2008_0205/swall.htm

Posted by El Cid | February 6, 2008 9:34 AM

With 93% of precincts having officially reported, it looks like Georgia saw about 72,000 more Democrats voting in yesterday's primary than Republicans.

If this were somehow managed to be reflected in general election turnout, then Democrats would outnumber Republican voters by a bit under 4%. Could be enough to turn Georgia "blue".

http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/election_results/2008_0205/swall.htm

Posted by El Cid | February 6, 2008 9:35 AM

So good I apparently posted twice. Sorry.

Posted by El Cid | February 6, 2008 9:36 AM

I think Obama is 55-45 to win the nomination but I also think there is some revisionism going on here.

Did you all really think Clinton was going to win the nomination going away? That polls that showed her with 30 point leads were meaningful for anything beyond name recognition? I always assumed Clinton's support was broad and shallow and that she would lose to the not-Clinton. I thought the not-Clinton would be Edwards hammering away from the left (until Obama raised $100 million and Edwards fell into a media blackhole. Sorry Petey but I threw in the towel after NH)

The only two reason Clinton's is still in the race are:
1)Obama went right leading up to New Hampshire and continues to do so. How the hell did he make Clinton the economic liberal in the race? Does he not know the history of wine track candidates in Democratic primaries?
2)Just like 2004, The Iraq war isn't a deal breaker for primary voters. In California, 46% of the voters thought Iraq was the most important issue yet Obama only won those voters by 9%. (I assume his margins in the other primary states among that group are even lower)
I think this is partly due to Clinton's effective spin but Obama's lack of leadership in the Senate is also hurting him. People are sick of the war, a majority supported it on the eve of the invasion, it isn't on the front page anymore and 2002 seems like a long time ago especially if the centerpiece of your claim to superiority on the issue occurred then.

Obama is going to tear through February but he needs to do something to connect with the white part of the Dem base or Clinton may come back in OH and PA. I suggest stop talking to David Cutler (or even better Goolsbee) and propose single-payer but I am still waiting for Clinton to dump Penn.

Posted by unduly influenced by Petey | February 6, 2008 9:47 AM

It was not a "stunning, come-from-behind" victory in Massachusetts. Obama was pegged with a statistically-irrelevant two point lead by a 7News(WHDH)/Suffolk-University poll on the morning of the election according to The Boston Globe. Prior to that poll the state was throught to be a Hillary stronghold! Again -- she was originally projected to have a 15-20 point lead last month. While some of the talking heads on CNN were not aware of this, Paul Begala was and repeated it at least twice.

Hillary was also supported by a large base of politicians in MA -- ones who tend to have more support. I do not like Kerry, I do not like Kennedy. Many people do not. But do we seriously want to elect a Republican -- if one ever runs -- to the Senate? No. In addition, Duval Patrick has not been seen as a very effective governor by the people that I have spoken with there.

In Boston you had support from Mayor Menino. My representative, Richard Neal, strongly backed Hillary. There goes much of Western Massachusetts -- and the third largest metropolitian area, Springfield. She was also supported in Worcester by Rep. Jim McGovern. She also visited Worcester recently -- the second largest city and metropolitian area. Yes -- Hillary visited both Springfield and Worcester in the week prior to the election, whereas Obama made one very-quick stop to metro Boston.

Look at the backing of other representatives from Massachusetts. The influence of Kerry and Kennedy was blown up by the national media because they are known nationally!

Posted by Sean | February 6, 2008 9:56 AM

Did you all really think Clinton was going to win the nomination going away? That polls that showed her with 30 point leads were meaningful for anything beyond name recognition? I always assumed Clinton's support was broad and shallow and that she would lose to the not-Clinton.

Yeah, but I thought that would happen too, but in September or October. But it didn't, Clinton's lead held up and even grew during the intense campaigning in the fall. Obama didn't really close in Iowa and New Hampshire until mid-December, and the polls everywhere else (and the national polls) barely quivered. Clinton carried a huge lead in nearly every state right through most of January. The only revisionism I'm seeing is people looking at all that Obama has accomplished in the last 2-3 weeks and not being deeply impressed. He made up a lot of ground in a lot of states in an extremely short period of time. If you look at any of the charts of polling results from the beginning of January up through last night, Obama's growth is almost exponential, while Clinton has flatlined.

Posted by J.B. | February 6, 2008 10:06 AM

Where's that jackass, Jasper, and his cadre of Hillary loving castrati? Didn't they predict a Hillary "blowout" and that Obama would win "3 or 4 states at best"? LMAO.

That will teach you to be bullied by your fat wives into voting for the Shrill One.

Posted by Joe | February 6, 2008 10:12 AM

McCain's not going to clean up anywhere with [...] an ultraconservative party platform hung ponderously around his neck. - southpaw

Why not? How many people will pay attention to the party platform (outside of the base who will be reassured and vote for McCain based on the platform)?

Instead, people will hear "even the liberal media" going on and on about "how McCain is so bipartisan" and all of that. Even if they are aware of the platform, they'll figure McCain will be a moderating influence ("all those whacko wingnuts hate McCain, so he can't be that bad" ... in my more paranoid moods, I wonder if the McCain "hatred" is some sort of political theatre designed to hide his right wing record) while the Dem candidate will either be Clinton ("I dunno about Clinton, she has woman-parts and the out-of-touch -- and I know they are out of touch because they are liberals like the media, who are clearly out of touch, are -- Dem. establishment likes her") or Obama ("he's a black Muslim extremist liberal hippy"): who will be a moderate in the demotic imagination -- i.e. amongst low information voters who insist on supporting "moderates"(TM)?

McCain would make a worse president than Romney (and would be more "conservative") yet our electorate, full of self-proclaimed moderates, would be more likely to vote for McCain than they would for Romney ... moreover, they might very well vote for McCain over an actual moderate like Clinton or a moderate-liberal like Obama (as "independents" did in NH).

Something is seriously wrong with the mindset of too many Americans. But it is what it is, and we have to consider that in strategizing how we're gonna win this thing in Nov.

Posted by DAS | February 6, 2008 10:38 AM

Petey, you're forgetting that evangelicals staying home is the default mode, not an exception due to extreme circumstances such as a McCain nomination.

And MO doesn't have to be won to make it significant, merely in play. The story of huge democratic turnout in these primary races is going to turn out to be the story that matters.

Posted by Tyro | February 6, 2008 10:56 AM

Thank you for this common sense observation!

It seems obvious to me that the contender who ends up with the nomination will do just fine among those whose first preference was the other candidate.

So why does Obama, and his supporters, constantly warn that his voters won't vote for Hillary Clinton?

Are there any "liberals" and "progressives" out there willing to be honest and condemn this as a naked appeal to gender bias and an intentional campaign tactic designed to exploit fear (of the unknown) and cultural unease about something as unprecedented as a female candidate at the top of the national ticket?

If Obama's supporters really believe this is a "post-feminist" world, and that we're ready to politically "turn the page" on issues of race and gender, then they shouldn't be so afraid of what will happen if Clinton wins the nomination.

Posted by mary | February 6, 2008 10:57 AM

It won't be much of a mandate to actually do anything

After Bush in 2000, we're still talking about mandates as if they mean anything?

Posted by Scott Lemieux | February 6, 2008 11:15 AM

J.B.

Impressive is going from less than 5% to frontrunner to out in ten months. Dean lead in New Hampshire by 30% a week before the Iowa caucuses. I found out the hard way that polls don't matter until the voting starts.

Obama had a great night because he won a ton of delegates not because he outperformed expectations from two weeks or two months ago.
(I will give him an extra gold star for the gains from a week ago in some states but I don't think that will help him if he hasn't wrapped it up before the convention. He definitely had the mo and it is a tribute to his ability to bring out new and sporadic voters and his formidable ground support.)

I expect Obama to win the nomination(and have expected Clinton to lose for quite some time) so perhaps I am a bit jaded. If you look around I am sure you could find me writing about Howard Dean's great accomplishments in 2004 or about Edwards influence on the other candidates this year but at the moment the only things I care about are Obama's less than stellar healthcare proposal/rhetoric and who wins.

Posted by unduly influenced by Petey | February 6, 2008 11:22 AM

"...don't forget that "rural" has a high correlation with "Southern" in general election patterns." This is true over the past quarter century. We're seeing some cracks in that correlation during this primary season, though, especially if you look at the breakdown of the independent vote in the primaries.

Rural Northerners and rural Southerners actually tend to have a very different set of political interests, and they always have. That both groups have had a grudge against "liberalism" in recent years should not lead us to forget that they tend to be motivated by different cultural grudges and economic concerns.

Obama is doing better with rural white males in the North and West. Clinton is doing better with rural white males in the South. Obviously, in a general election, the Republicans are going to win most of these voters. But at the margins, in swing states, this stuff can make a difference.

Can Clinton can actually win any Southern states (except maybe Arkansas) against McCain? Probably not. Can Obama actually carry Colorado or Missouri in the general election? I'd say he's at least got a sporting chance. Bare minimum, McCain has to spend more time and money there against Obama.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 6, 2008 11:30 AM

LaFollette Progressive --

"Can Obama actually carry Colorado or Missouri in the general election? I'd say he's at least got a sporting chance."

But why wouldn't you say Clinton has a sporting chance in these states? Both are states that have elected Democratic women to statewide office, and, additionally, Colorado has a significant number of Hispanic voters, a demographic with which Clinton has shown unusual strength.

Are you suggesting that urban, African American voters, like those who put Obama over the top in Missouri, and highly educated, affluent white voters, like those who provided his strength in Colorado, won't vote for Clinton in the general election?

If that is what you are suggesting, why do you think that is true?

Posted by mary | February 6, 2008 11:53 AM

Mary, you're missing my point. I think Hillary Clinton will get fewer votes in the rural parts of each state than Obama, thus making it harder for her to win a statewide victory. My evidence for this is the higher percentage of male independent voters that Obama won in each state.

Hillary Clinton is an extremely unpopular figure among moderate to conservative male voters in the midwest.

Her strength among Latino voters is impressive, but ultimately a Democrat needs to make inroads among constituencies that lean Republican in order to win a national election. By that standard, Obama is the stronger candidate.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 6, 2008 12:28 PM

Obama has as much of a problem with white women as Clinton has with white men. Many women have an emotional stake in seeing Clinton win the nomination. Whichever candidate wins the Democratic nomination, the racial or gender supporters of the loser will be so passionately disappointed that some of them won't support the winner. I know, because that's my reaction and that of many of my friends. This is why I think that Obama blundered by entering this race instead of waiting until he had a full senate term under his belt. Instead he entered a race where everyone knew that Hillary would run, and her history-making nomination would inspire many women - a core constituency of the party. By choosing to run anyway, he activated a devoted African-American support that now clashes with many women supporters of Hillary. He would have been all of 54 for the presidential race of 2012. But Obama couldn't wait. What not many people know is that Seantors Durbin, Kennedy, and former Majority Leader Daschle encouraged him to run in 2008. Of course no one thought to give Hillary a heads-up. Sorry, but I can't help thinking that consciously or not, part of that decision was the feeling that a woman is not as significant as a man. I will never vote for Obama because he is trampling over my dreams, he's not really qualified, and he has split the Democratic party so that the nomination may prove worthless to whomever wins it.

Posted by myskylark | February 6, 2008 12:49 PM

Myskylark's comment is a good example of the emotional sense of entitlement that drives Hillary's base and turns everyone else off.

Posted by Josh | February 6, 2008 1:08 PM

I applaud all the white women who voted for Obama and all the black men who supported Clinton.
Extra claps if the women were over 60 or the men were under 25. Hooray for the race/gender/age cohort traitors.

Posted by not Noel Ignatiev | February 6, 2008 1:14 PM

By choosing to run anyway, he activated a devoted African-American support that now clashes with many women supporters of Hillary. He would have been all of 54 for the presidential race of 2012

So you're assuming she would lose in 08? Or you just figure he'd play Teddy Kennedy to her Jimmy Carter?

It's not her nomination. It's not his nomination. It's the Democratic nomination, and nobody is entitled to it or has to wait his or her turn. We hold the primaries (and caucuses); the candidates who want to run, run; and we pick our standard-bearer. Coronations are what the OTHER party is all about.

Posted by Dave Pooser | February 6, 2008 2:05 PM

Geez, myskylark...what a self-entitled, juvenile, ill-informed rant. You sound much too old to be so immature. Grow up, babe.

Posted by Jay | February 6, 2008 2:44 PM

Good observations re Ohio on this thread. Ohio is going to be tough for Obama. Ted Strickland, the popular, white, 67-yr.-old governor is in the Clinton's pocket. Bill added $225,000 recently to his campaign coffers. He's strong in rural areas and small towns, and is appealing to white moderate Republicans and independents: He speaks the code well, very Clintonesque (he'd be a strong contender for VP) - and where else can the black vote go?
I was raised in Cincinnati, which is a bit further to the right than Munich in '39. Every Republican I know there practically has a stroke when you mention Hillary's name...but several of them genuinely like Obama.
Ohio will be fascinating.

Posted by fougasseu | February 6, 2008 3:38 PM

LaFollette Progressive --

But Hillary, not Obama, won in the rural parts of Missouri.

I can't see a rationale for thinking that Obama will overcome the persistent problem the Democratic party has with rural white males. But I can see an argument for Clinton attracting women, including independent and moderate Republican women, in large enough numbers to overcome the party's persistent problem with rural white males.

But I'm also not totally convinced that she would do as poorly among rural, independent men as some people assume.

I'm a small business owner. My husband and I manufacture and market after-market auto parts to an almost entirely male customer base -- from teenagers to elderly retirees -- in mostly rural and small town America. I spend my days in conversation with the kind of guys you are talking about, plus, my husband's family is from rural Northeastern Montana and my own roots are Southwestern Missouri. I know who these people are and I'll tell you quite simply; Obama does not speak their language. As a matter of fact, most Democrats don't.

To be honest, I think Hillary -- Midwestern, Methodist, earnest Hillary -- at her best may actually have a better chance with those voters. These are guys who may listen to and laugh at Rush Limbaugh, but nonetheless respect the women in their lives and certainly understand about partnership marriages and working wives. It is a big mistake to presume they are sexist or that, given a fair chance to hear her out, they couldn't warm up to her.

Posted by mary | February 6, 2008 3:39 PM