"Academics"

It seems quite plausible to conjecture that a majority of academics in America are for Barack Obama, but does Michael Barone really expect people to believe that academics comprise the bulk of Obama's supporters? If that's right, then how does Barone explain Obama's lead in the polls? Unless I'm mistaken, academics are a pretty small slice of the overall American demographic pie.

It's all pretty bizarre. Everyone tells me that once upon a time Barone was a valuable source of information about American politics.

Comments

For a Republican, "academic" refers not only to professional academics, but also anyone with a post-graduate degree, and undergraduate degree, someone who wants one of those degrees, or someone who has a general respect or interest in those degrees. We could extend this category to include anyone who enjoys and/or admires thinking.

If you read Barone, this seems to be what he's referring to, in context, perhaps because "intellectual elites" have either lost their sting or is too transparently a reference to "the jews." Ultimately, Barone is using "academic" not as a reference to a specific profession but rather as an "attitude." So he can simultaneously argue that "hardly anyone supports Obama, just academics!" while also giving himself enough weasel room to deny that obviously stupid claim when called on it.

Posted by Tyro | April 4, 2008 12:06 PM

He's using the word "academic" incorrectly to make a cheap point.

If you can bear his repetitiveness and get this far down in the article, he writes about himself:

I don't know which side of this argument you like, but as someone who is an academic by experience (degrees from Harvard and Yale) and a Jacksonian by inheritance (my paternal grandmother, whose West Virginian great-grandfather voted Republican as late as 1944 because the Confederates had burned his family's barn), I think I have some understanding of both sides.

So he's apparently using the term - incorrectly - to describe just someone who has degrees from universities, and not someone who is actively employed as a researcher/professor at a university/college.

Posted by SoCalJustice | April 4, 2008 12:06 PM

Actually, Barone uses the code word "academic" to refer to anyone who has two brain cells to rub together.

I.E., Anyone with enough intelligence to know that Barone is full of shit.

Posted by Don Williams | April 4, 2008 12:12 PM

"Everyone tells me that once upon a time Barone was a valuable source of information about American politics."

Most of an entire generation of American journalists has been ruined because of their accomodation of the Bushpigs. It's hard to see how many of them will ever recover.

Glenn Greenwald alone has done more respectable political reporting in this terrible era than the entire staffs of the New York Times, Washington Post, and LA Times have done combined.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 4, 2008 12:12 PM

People who share the view of the universe you find on the average college campus. They are a subset of people with college degrees (as well as a subset of those getting college degrees).

And coupled with African Americans, that's about all the support he has.

Posted by Cal | April 4, 2008 12:13 PM

Well, I guess the bright side is that this means that republicans plan to rehabilitate the term "intellectual."

Also, I knew I was never going to make it in "academia" (as we traditionally understand the term), but now thanks to Mike Barone, I can still call myself an "academic"!

Posted by Tyro | April 4, 2008 12:15 PM

Barone is an academic by schtupping the daughter of a wealthy contributor to Harvard, and a jackass by choice.

Posted by Barone Von Munchbushesschlong | April 4, 2008 12:16 PM

"does Michael Barone really expect people to believe that academics comprise the bulk of Obama's supporters?"

Well, that's a pretty easy question. The answer is "no". Did you bother to read the article, or did you just make a cheap criticism based solely on the headline?

Posted by ostap | April 4, 2008 12:18 PM

People who share the view of the universe you find on the average college campus.

My time in college was limited and the campus I attended was not average. For the benefit of myself and others like me, could you please supply a quantitative description of the "average college campus" and its denizens' "view of the universe?"

Posted by James Gary | April 4, 2008 12:18 PM

Did you bother to read the article, or did you just make a cheap criticism based solely on the headline?

Rhetorical question, I assume.

But of course the point of Matthew's blog post has nothing to do with analyzing Obama's and Clinton's support, and everything to do with attempting to demean Barone. But the shoddy manner in which Matthew makes that attempt only demeans himself; after all, anyone who actually clicks through to the article are reads further than Barone's headline would realize that Matthew is making a fool of himself.

Posted by Al | April 4, 2008 12:23 PM

SoCalJustice, I think Barone is being even more dishonest than you give him credit for. Tyro's pretty close to it -- I think he really wants to use class terms, namely "professional elite" and "(white) working class" but this (a) would involve repeating the standard description of the contest between Obama and Clinton, making his incredibly long-winded piece more obviously pointless, and (b) would amount to an admission that economic class plays a role in American politics, which the Right really hates to admit.

He makes his argument even worse by talking about "academic and state capital enclaves" and grouping together "academics and public employees (and of course many, perhaps most, academics in the United States are public employees)". Most public employees, however, are not "academics" or even necessarily holders of BAs or advanced degrees. Lots of "Jacksonians" work in the public sector, and he can't explain that huge problem in his analysis by introducing the magic of the state capitals as some kind of epicycle.

Posted by Pesto | April 4, 2008 12:24 PM

It is an odd article. The first half makes clear that he has a pretty good sense of the data as to why Obama is winning. The reference to academics is suggested by his noting that some of the places Obama won are college towns, but the emphasis is on black voters and upscale voters. While Clinton is associated with Hispanic and Jacksonian voters.

But then the article does take a kind of crazy turn by changin gthe dynamic from upscale to academic (with many of the comments about academics turning on facts about actual academics and not just people who have been educated).

The best that can be said is that he considers the contrast between the Jacksonians and the academics more interested than the contrast between the Jacksonians and the more upscale, so he changes the topic. Something like that.

Posted by Lon | April 4, 2008 12:24 PM

So who then, Cal, are Hillary Clinton's supporters? Are they all uneducated, knuckle dragging, morons? Last time I checked there are plenty of "academics" who support(ed) Clinton.

The whole thing is incredibly dishonest. Barone is saying that somehow a majority of Democratic primary voters are academics. Which is patently absurd. Unless you take Barone's definition of academic, which appears to simply be:

Academic: A supporter of Barrack Obama

Posted by NM | April 4, 2008 12:24 PM

"Obviously, Obama's supporters are just academics. Well, and black people. And all those people who live in 'flyover country'. But in my predominantly white and affluent neighborhood in a coastal city, it seems to be a lot of academics."

By the way, there is a pretty obvious reason why Clinton does well among white Democratic voters in the Appalachians and the South. Barone is right it doesn't have much to do with Obama's race per se, but it also doesn't have much to do with Clinton herself being a "Jacksonian" figure (which is kinda ridiculous if you think about it for more than a second or two).

Nope, it because those voters really like Bill Clinton, and they view their vote for Hillary as a de facto vote for Bill. Which is fine, but it also has absolutely no implications for what will happen among those voters when it is McCain versus Obama, rather than the Clintons versus Obama.

All of which is leading me to reexamine something I have been saying for a while. I used to complain that people in the media couldn't be bothered to look at a map, which would instantly tell them that there was something wrong with their overly simplistic demographic descriptions of the Obama and Clinton coalitions. But if the next step after looking at a map is to start describing Hillary as a "Jacksonian" figure, maybe we are better off with them sticking to the demographics, misleading as those may be.

Posted by DTM | April 4, 2008 12:25 PM

There are a lot of people in college towns besides professors and students. The academic "industry" includes librarians, administrators, IT people, staff at the university medical center, and so on. Most have degrees, but there are lots of technicians who don't. And even plenty of blue collar workers on a campus, if you think about it. Who keeps the plumbing and heating in working order?

College towns are like any other kind of company town in that respect. And it makes sense that even a clerk in research administration would pick up some of the opinions and attitudes that are common in a college town.

People with the same education in a town with a big military base as the primary "industry" would probably pick up a different set of ideas.

Posted by M.C. | April 4, 2008 12:25 PM

"Academic" actually means that Barone wants to paint Obama supporters (and Hillary's supporters too, if she were to be nominated) as effete, elite, arrogant, and unpartiotic.

In short, according to billionaires and their toadies, anyone who isn't for cutting capital gains tax to zero is "elitist."

It's a decades-old canard and they're going to use it again (see Rove's recent comments). It's about all they have other than "Remember the really great wars the US fought? Iraq is like that, rah rah rah."

Posted by riffle | April 4, 2008 12:27 PM

Simple, for Barrone "academics" include campus populations and also some edge with the college-educated.

Posted by MC | April 4, 2008 12:31 PM

What an odd thread this is, BTW. It's as if Matthew linked to an article discussing Obama as the "wine track" candidate and Clinton as the "beer track" candidate and then complained that author of the article made all Democrats appear to be alcoholics. And then the commenters start complaining that Obama attracts people who drink microbrews, so isn't the author of the article a moron.

Posted by Al | April 4, 2008 12:32 PM

I guess the Starbucks/ Dunkin Donuts analogy was too shopworn even for a hack from US News.

Posted by Mike | April 4, 2008 12:33 PM

Cal,

Right, Obama's coalition for the primaries is just educated white people and black people. Oh, and every sort of person in the Midwest and West. Oh, and young people in general.

But you are right, that is all the support he has in the Democratic primaries. Since I assume with such a narrow coalition he doesn't have a prayer of winning, I won't even bother to check the results.

Posted by DTM | April 4, 2008 12:34 PM

Matt, you keep asking rational questions about the merits of the arguments made by irrational people.

At some point, you should only have one question: Why do these people have jobs?

Posted by WinSmith | April 4, 2008 12:34 PM

"Academics" is at least more polite than "latte sipping black people". Barone's the same guy who recently projected Clinton to win with 60% in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Montana, and South Dakota, something she has not achieved anywhere but Arkansas, while projecting Obama to hit only 55% in North Carolina (not enough academics, apparently).

Posted by commenter | April 4, 2008 12:34 PM

Al-the-obtuse-troll, words mean actual things. Academic has a specific meaning. "Wine-track / Beer-track" have no already- established meaning. Barone is just trying to make up his own code-words by stealing the terms for known professions.

Are you stupid or are you just trying to pick a fight with MattY? Based on your track record, I'm going with the former.

Posted by Tyro | April 4, 2008 12:38 PM

Cal,

Oops, I forgot independents. Also liberals. Also conservatives.

But THAT is really all the support Obama has in the primaries. Clearly still doomed, no need to check.

Posted by DTM | April 4, 2008 12:38 PM

So who then, Cal, are Hillary Clinton's supporters? Are they all uneducated, knuckle dragging, morons? Last time I checked there are plenty of "academics" who support(ed) Clinton.

You appear to be unacquainted with the word "subset". Go make the necessary introductions.

Right, Obama's coalition for the primaries is just educated white people and black people. Oh, and every sort of person in the Midwest and West. Oh, and young people in general.

No evidence yet of "every sort of person" in the Midwest, as he won caucuses--which is liberals, the relative subclass of "academics".

Young people who don't go to college are underrepresented; for the most part, "youth supporting Obama" and "youth going to college" is the same group (with the possible exception of blacks).

Since I assume with such a narrow coalition he doesn't have a prayer of winning,

It is a narrow coalition, but it's a great one to have for the Democratic primaries. In fact, arguably, it's impossible for anyone to beat a black liberal, given proportional representation.

But yes, he's behind in overall Democratic votes (self-identified Dems), and getting killed by white Democrats (3-2) and Hispanic Democrats (2:1).

So it's a narrow coalition, all right. That's why more of Clinton's supporters bleed off to McCain in most polls.

Look, Virginia and Wisconsin were the states that caused people to wrongly believe that Obama was broadening his coalition. But in both cases, Obama lost white Democrats. He won the white vote based on a much larger than usual independent/Republican turnout--probably the last vestiges of the anti-Hillary primary voting behavior. But whatever the case, it should not be confused with a trend or a pattern.

Overall, Barone is right--he's got the liberal elites and the blacks and pretty much no one else. It remains to be seen whether Clinton's supporters will obediently fall in line.

Posted by Cal | April 4, 2008 12:49 PM

By the way, near as I can tell, Barone is actually using "Academics" and "Jacksonians" as code for something like the Nerds and Alphas in the movie Revenge of the Nerds. Note the Nerds eventually joined a historically black fraternity, and did in fact win their contest with the Alphas in the end thanks to their larger coalition of support.

Charming as I find this analogy, the prima facie ridiculousness of it is the premise that Hillary Clinton belongs on the Alpha side of this Nerd/Alpha divide--and, for that matter, that Obama belongs on the Nerd side. Of course, Bill Clinton was definitely an Alpha, and he is getting some of his fellow Alphas to vote for Hillary.

But just not enough of Alphas are willing to vote for Bill Clinton's wife in order to beat a person who basically wasn't represented in the movie but who exists in real life: someone with a lot of Alpha virtues (charm, fitness, good looks, and so on), but who is also an intelligent and decent person, and so well-liked by Nerds as well. Namely, Obama.

Oh, and John McCain may fairly be identified as an Alpha as well. But he is even more like a blend of Niedermeyer from Animal House (militaristic and in league with the unpopular current Dean) and Blue from Old School.

Posted by DTM | April 4, 2008 12:58 PM

The argument that "it's impossible for anyone to beat a black liberal" is pretty staggering. Have there just been no black liberals in history up until this point? Because none of them seem to have won so far.

Posted by Kraz | April 4, 2008 12:59 PM

Barone is misrepresenting the data. He describes Forth Bend County and Grimes county in Texas as having fast growing black populations. that isnT' the case. Fort Bend is a fast growing exurb with a large concentration of upscale Asians, whites, etc, and a older balck suburb of Missouri City.

Grimes counti is where Texas A&M is located.

Barone is just making things up.

Posted by TexAss Watcher | April 4, 2008 1:04 PM

Democrats tired of Bush will fall in line with "Even More Bush than Bush" McCain if they can't get Hillary.

There's such a great logic to that.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 4, 2008 1:11 PM

Cal,

Right, obviously caucus states don't count. And obviously they didn't conduct entrance polls for Iowa and exit polls for Utah, so there is no way to factcheck your assertions about the nature of Obama's support in caucuses. And obviously it makes sense to ignore Wisconsin because while Obama won white voters in Wisconsin, and he won Democratic voters in Wisconsin, he barely lost white Democratic voters.

That is because obviously the smallest triangle you can find on the Venn Diagram is the one which counts the most for the general election. Obviously, that particularly holds for the triangles which are formed when you apply the "only Democrats count" screen, because obviously we should only look to Democrats for indications of general election support.

And easily the most obvious thing you wrote is that any anti-Hillary sentiment among independents and Republicans is in its "last vestiges". Obviously they are now waiting to greet her with flowers and candy if she somehow manages to become the Democratic nominee.

Excellent points, all of these, and quite obvious.

Posted by DTM | April 4, 2008 1:12 PM

Wow, the entire mountain West and north central of the United States is populated by Blacks and academics?

Posted by Bill | April 4, 2008 1:19 PM

Kraz,

What, you don't remember how Jesse Jackson won the Iowa Caucus in 1988 and then went on to sweep all the states from the Midwest through the Pacific Northwest? Because obviously any black liberal is going to automatically do that--just ask Cal!

Posted by DTM | April 4, 2008 1:19 PM

By the way, I really wish our race-obsessed posters would get together and work out a consistent set of arguments.

For example, yesterday I was dealing with RKU, who was claiming that Obama was an arch conservative (citing Krugman and Petey), all for the purpose of arguing that the only reason black people are voting for him is because he is black.

And now today I am dealing with Cal, who is arguing that Obama coalition is limited to black people and educated liberals.

So, RKU and Cal, which is it? Is Obama an arch conservative, or is he a pinko? I know you share the common goal of explaining why black voters shouldn't count, so can't you agree on one consistent argument to that effect? I think it would save us all a lot of effort.

Posted by DTM | April 4, 2008 1:28 PM

I agree that his distinctions are trying to burnish a little new life onto "college-educated" and "not college-educated."

As the former I can't speak for the latter, but isn't "Jacksonian" an awfully poofy title for someone who may not want to be associated with The Trail of Tears?

Posted by Deborah | April 4, 2008 1:46 PM

he's got the liberal elites

God God, so now everybody with or studying for a frigging B.A. is 'elite'? You're just having a laugh, right?

Posted by novakant | April 4, 2008 1:54 PM

Barone really is being ridiculous. Take his "analysis" of Utah:

Out west, Obama won big in Utah, where folk hardy enough to be Democratic are apparently pretty liberal and upscale and voted 57 percent to 39 percent for Obama. But this was a kind of enclave victory, too. Over half the votes, 58 percent, were cast in Salt Lake County, though only 40 percent of the state's population lives there. The upscale neighborhood around the University of Utah, just a few miles east of the Mormon Church's headquarters, is a hotbed of liberalism—well, at least as much of a hotbed as you can find in Utah. He won 66 percent to 36 percent in Utah County with a light turnout, which shows that there are at least some liberal faculty members at Brigham Young University.

It's kind of ridiculous to say that it's an enclave victory because a county with 40 percent of the population cast 58 percent of the votes, because it's pretty likely that the majority of the Democrats are in Salt Lake County. And it's double super ridiculous to write off all of Salt Lake County as an enclave because of the neighborhood around the U, which is a very small part of the county.

But where Barone reduces himself to absurdity is in the first and the last sentences. What's his evidence that BYU has liberal faculty members? That Obama won Utah County. What's his evidence that Utah Democrats are liberal and upscale, something that would be news to Jim Matheson (Utah's conservative Dem congressman)? That Obama won Utah. This is pure circular argument -- he's defining Obama's supporters as upscale liberal academics (in the Utah County case, quite literally so), even though he has no evidence for this.

Posted by Matt Weiner | April 4, 2008 2:05 PM

Well, by the end of his piece "academic" just means non-hawk -- the whole U.S. population gets sorted into fighters and talkers ("Jacksonians" vs. "academics.)"

That doesn't stop Barone harping on the distinction between professor and senior lecturer.

Posted by Colin | April 4, 2008 2:18 PM

High education = High information

Low education = Low information

To a high-information Democratic voter, Obama is a well-known and capable person who has served in government at the federal and state levels. His policy ideas are similar to Clinton's and substantive, and in line with the Democratic voter's own ideas. The typical high-information voter has been exposed to the candidates enough to find his demeanor, political style and promise favorable to hers.

To a low-information Democratic voter, Obama is an unfamiliar and inexperienced guy with no policy ideas other than a vague call for "change." Clinton is a known quantity, positively associated with her husband's presidency, which is remembered as a good time for the country. The typical low-information voter hears Clinton speak about bottom-line, kitchen-table economic issues and it resonates. The low-information voter is not paying enough attention to recognize when Clinton says something that directly contradicts something she said previously, thus the question of trustworthiness is less of an issue.

Posted by Brian | April 4, 2008 2:21 PM

Everyone tells me that once upon a time Barone was a valuable source of information about American politics.

It's true, I swear. Back in the 1980s, he used to have a clue.

I don't know what happened to him. I was living in fairly small towns during 1988-98 (mostly pre-Web years) where the papers didn't print his stuff. He changed dramatically during that period.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | April 4, 2008 2:34 PM

Matt W.,

Spot on in tackling Barone's ridiculous Utah "reasoning." Another poorly argued element of that? Barone argues, "Out west, Obama won big in Utah, where folk hardy enough to be Democratic are apparently pretty liberal and upscale..."

But this doesn't really jive when one looks at the ideological breakdown in Utah and compares it against other states, even states that Obama lost. Utah's ideological breakdown, according to exit polling, was 52/39/10 (Liberal/Moderate/Conservative). But this is virtually indistinguishable from Georgia (47/41/12), Virginia (50/38/12), Rhode Island (49/40/11), New Jersey (51/41/9), and Connecticut (55/37/8). It's much LESS liberal than Clinton states Massachusetts (59/34/7) and New York (57/33/9).

The whole article is just atrocious from an evidence standpoint, but I guess that isn't really required much these days.

Posted by jbryan | April 4, 2008 2:51 PM

Is Obama an arch conservative, or is he a pinko?

Don't be an idiot. Of course he's liberal--far more liberal than Clinton, who's no slouch herself on that front. There's no need to "argue" that; there's not much disagreement about it.

What supporters like to pretend is that if you call it something other than liberal, everyone will get on board and be as one.

Right, obviously caucus states don't count.

I said nothing of them "not counting". But they certainly don't demonstrate that he has broad support, as caucuses draw the true believers and little more.

There are exit polls for Utah; he tied Clinton for white Democrats.

As for Wisconsin, 5% of the voters were black; they put him over the top in Democrats. Certainly,he came closer in Wisconsin, but they had same day registration and a lot of college students.

There's no evidence that his win there presaged a larger acceptance by white and Hispanic Democrats--and of course, plenty of evidence to show that it was an exception.

And easily the most obvious thing you wrote is that any anti-Hillary sentiment among independents and Republicans is in its "last vestiges". Obviously they are now waiting to greet her with flowers and candy if she somehow manages to become the Democratic nominee.

No, not at all. But if Mississippi is any guide, Republicans may be now voting to ensure Clinton is on the ticket--not because they think she's the easier to beat, but because they actively dislike Obama. That remains to be seen, of course.

God God, so now everybody with or studying for a frigging B.A. is 'elite'?

Again,what part of "subset" are you incapable of grasping?

On Jackson--he didn't have money back then, and the primary calendar was different. As an underfunded black liberal, he did exceptionally well, winning all the Southern states Obama did (with one exception), and several caucuses, including Michigan. So yes, he supports the contention that a black liberal would do well. Obama is better funded, with a pretense of an electoral politicalcareer, and pretending he doesn't care about race (but of course, taking the 90% black vote anyway), but it's much the same model.

Posted by Cal | April 4, 2008 2:52 PM

In fact, arguably, it's impossible for anyone to beat a black liberal, given proportional representation.

Just wanted to note that we have a strong contender here for most idiotic comment of the entire silly season so far.

Posted by live | April 4, 2008 2:56 PM

Actually, Cal, Obama's not running the Jesse Jackson model, he's running the Gary Hart model, except that this time he, unlike his opposition, can get the vote of African-Americans.

Much of this argument tries to claim that, somehow, Obama's voters don't "count" but that, somehow, the sorts of voters that propelled Mondale to the nomination are the ones that will ensure victory in November. But if Obama's voters don't really "count," how come there are so much more of them than there are Clinton voters?

Obama's difference from Jesse Jackson is not money, it's stature and support.

Posted by Tyro | April 4, 2008 2:58 PM

Also worth noting about Barone's Utah inanities? Sure, he won Salt Lake County, which accounted for 60% of the primary vote -- but it was Obama's weakest performing region in the state. He won it with 55%, whereas he won east Utah with 56% and west Utah with 61% (meaning, he won every region, not just the "enclave" area). And while Obama won self-identified liberals, he also won self-identified moderates, and self-identified conservatives weren't large enough to get an accurate sampling.

Posted by jbryan | April 4, 2008 3:00 PM

Just wanted to note that we have a strong contender here for most idiotic comment of the entire silly season so far.

Cal's argument isn't that silly. He just left off the part at the end: it's virtually impossible to beat a black liberal, given proportional representation, when that black liberal is also getting 51% of the white male vote nationally.

Posted by jbryan | April 4, 2008 3:08 PM

Cal,

You write:

"Don't be an idiot. Of course he's liberal--far more liberal than Clinton, who's no slouch herself on that front. There's no need to 'argue' that; there's not much disagreement about it."

Like I said, please get together and straighten this point out with RKU, your fellow traveler in discounting black voters, because just yesterday he was telling me that everyone agrees that Obama is more conservative than Clinton.

"But they certainly don't demonstrate that he has broad support, as caucuses draw the true believers and little more."

If only there were entrance and exit polls available for some of the caucuses ... oh well.

"As for Wisconsin, 5% of the voters were black; they put him over the top in Democrats."

Right, he only won Democrats in Wisconsin, and only won white people in Wisconsin, and didn't quite manage to win white Democrats in Wisconsin. As I agreed before, you are obviously right that the key to winning elections is to find out who did best in the smallest triangle on the Venn Diagram.

"On Jackson--he didn't have money back then, and the primary calendar was different. As an underfunded black liberal, he did exceptionally well, winning all the Southern states Obama did (with one exception), and several caucuses, including Michigan."

Right, and given your analysis, I am sure he also won Iowa (still first back then, and still a caucus), and also I am sure Wisconsin (still 5% black and full of colleges!), and all those other states throughout the Midwest and West with their caucuses that liberal black people automatically win. In fact, I am so confident in your analysis I won't even bother to check an electoral map from 1988, because I am absolutely sure that Jackson must also have done extremely well in all these states that Obama has won by massive margins.

Posted by DTM | April 4, 2008 4:19 PM

What I found most striking about Barone's piece was how disdainfully he views Obamas's base voter:
"Obama gives the impression, through his demeanor and through his statements on Iraq, that he would never start fighting. That appeals enormously to voters in the academia and public-employee enclaves of America, who want to deny honor to our warriors and arrogate it to themselves."
Really? Really? So if you are an academic or a public employee voting for Obama, you hate the military and really think you're the hero. Fantastic analysis Michael! Thanks!
And then he throws in this gem about Reagan:
"...after he was shot and then walked out of the ambulance into George Washington University hospital, when he got out of the car, stood up and (for me, the greatest gesture) buttoned his suit coat, and walked into the building and then, when out of camera range, collapsed on the floor. Would Obama be capable of doing that, while in great pain and in mortal danger? Maybe. The academic doesn't think about it."
I just want conservatives to be consistent so I know which one it is. Is he too crazy b/c he wants to attack/invade our allies (Pakistan) but is simultaneously a closet Muslim and Jew hater, or is he just a giant pussy that clearly isn't a man b/c he sucks at bowling, is scared to fight and would probably cry for his racist white grandmother if he would get shot?
Any monkey can break down exit poll data, but it takes a special kind of asshole to just make shit up like this.

Posted by mbuchel | April 4, 2008 4:39 PM

Right, he only won Democrats in Wisconsin, and only won white people in Wisconsin, and didn't quite manage to win white Democrats in Wisconsin.

Um, yeah. You don't read exit polls much, do you? 1 in 3 voters in Wisconsin was independent or Republican. They provided him with his margin of victory (along with 5% blacks). So yes, Obama didn't win white Democrats. He's only won them three times (tied once).

I am absolutely sure that Jackson must also have done extremely well in all these states that Obama has won by massive margins.

Obama didn't win a primary by massive margins, but caucuses.

And yes, Jackson did do pretty well in the "white" states, precisely because they were caucuses. Cite

He came in third in Iowa, despite far less money and staff. He won Alaska and Vermont. He won the Texas caucus. He almost won Washington; the recount took several days. He also came in second in Idaho, Minnesota, Maine, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Texas (primary), Missouri, Illinois, Kansas, Connecticut, Colorado, Wisconsin, New York, and Wyoming--all when there were more than two people running.

As I said, Jackson wasn't as attractive a candidate as Obama was, but the patterns are still there. Jackson did phenomenally well in 1988 when you consider he didn't have institutional support or all that much money. Obama wins more of the white vote than Jackson did, of course, but then he isn't running as a black man. Except to black voters, of course.

As for RKU, I have no idea what he said or who he is. I'm not discounting the black vote. It's simply not enough to win the White House, particularly when it's coupled with the standard Democratic kiss of death: the white liberal. And Obama is very much the liberal.

Posted by Cal | April 4, 2008 5:15 PM

Obama didn't win a primary by massive margins, but caucuses.

Really? Looking at the 15 primaries he's won, his victory margins average out at 22 points (compared to 13 points for Clinton). If you're really concerned about those results being skewed by an outlier, his median win is 21 points compared to 10 for Clinton.

I'd say that qualifies as "massive." 29 points in Virginia, 23 in Maryland, 21 in Vermont, 18 in Utah, 17 in Wisconsin, 36 in Georgia -- all of these are massive primary wins.

Posted by jbryan | April 4, 2008 5:31 PM

Also, while Jackson did "pretty well" in caucusi, he was at no point in time the frontrunner for the nomination. He never won nearly as many states as Sen. Obama (27 and counting), and what's more, he never had the popular vote or primary achievements that Obama has won on top of his solid caucus achievements. While the caucus wins are pretty obviously bolstering Obama here, he's still won more primaries than his opponent and he's won more votes (51/49).

The idea that it's impossible for a black liberal to lose is ludicrous, which is why all the prior black liberals who have tried (from Jackson to Sen. Moseley-Braun and Sharpton and Chisholm) have... well, lost. Furthermore, even if proportional delegation assignment does give some overwhelmingly insurmountable advantage to black liberals (it doesn't), that's what superdelegates are built into the system for. And yet Obama has cut Sen. Clinton's lead amongst them down to only 30 and, uh, the trendlines are not in her favor.

Posted by jbryan | April 4, 2008 5:38 PM

I just read Michael Barone's very silly article. (Why does this exercise in pop sociology get to be published in US News?) There are any number of problems with it, but here's one: he assumes, along with much of the mainstream commentariat, that because Hillary wins a given county or region or state and Obama wins another one something is revealed about who will win that same county or region or state in a general election. Although some Democrats will cross over to vote for McCain in any case, most Democratic primary voters will vote for the Democratic candidate, whoever that is. So commentators should stop reading so much into banal primary results, for example, the fact that Democrats in Cincinnati voted mostly for Obama--after all, those same Democrats will probably vote for Hillary in November.

Posted by Peoplegazer | April 4, 2008 5:39 PM

I just read Michael Barone's very silly article. (Why does this exercise in pop sociology get to be published in US News?) There are any number of problems with it, but here's one: he assumes, along with much of the mainstream commentariat, that because Hillary wins a given county or region or state and Obama wins another one something is revealed about who will win that same county or region or state in a general election. Although some Democrats will cross over to vote for McCain in any case, most Democratic primary voters will vote for the Democratic candidate, whoever that is. So commentators should stop reading so much into banal primary results, for example, the fact that Democrats in Cincinnati voted mostly for Obama--after all, those same Democrats will probably vote for Hillary in November.

Posted by Peoplegazer | April 4, 2008 5:39 PM

I just read Michael Barone's very silly article. (Why does this exercise in pop sociology get to be published in US News?) There are any number of problems with it, but here's one: he assumes, along with much of the mainstream commentariat, that because Hillary wins a given county or region or state and Obama wins another one something is revealed about who will win that same county or region or state in a general election. Although some Democrats will cross over to vote for McCain in any case, most Democratic primary voters will vote for the Democratic candidate, whoever that is. So commentators should stop reading so much into banal primary results, for example, the fact that Democrats in Cincinnati voted mostly for Obama--after all, those same Democrats will probably vote for Hillary in November.

Posted by Peoplegazer | April 4, 2008 5:40 PM

Cal,

You said: "Obama didn't win a primary by massive margins, but caucuses."

I guess it depends on your definition of "massive," but I think it's fair to say that anything over a 15-point spread is massive in a race that is roughly 52-48 overall. Obama has won TEN primaries by 15 or more points, eight by 20 or more points, and two by 30 or more points. Unless your definition of "massive" is 36-points-or-more, your statement is false. Obama's largest primary wins:

GA by 35
IL by 32
VA by 29
SC by 28
MD by 25
LA by 24
MS by 24
VT by 20
UT by 18
WI by 17

(AL by 14 just misses the cut.) Clinton, by contrast, has just five 15-point-or-better primary wins, with just two wins by 20 or more:

AR by 44
OK by 24
RI by 18
NY by 17
MA by 16

Posted by Brian | April 4, 2008 5:49 PM

Brian,

You forgot the 51 point win in the DC primary.

Posted by jbryan | April 4, 2008 6:01 PM

I used to rely heavily on Michael Barone when I covered politics. Now, reading him is an out-of-body experience. I can only imagine that he has suffered a Clintonesque descent from self-importance to self-delusion.

Posted by phillygirl | April 4, 2008 7:07 PM

That appeals enormously to voters in the academia and public-employee enclaves of America, who want to deny honor to our warriors and arrogate it to themselves

It is, of course, long past impossible to read this without thinking of Glenn Greenwald's rogues gallery of the fat, flabby, out-of-shape, ugly Kagans et. al. I'm a middle-aged guy with bad rotator cuffs, but I make it to the gym once a week and I think I could whoop-ass on these Keyboard Kommandos myself as long as I could avoid getting sat on.

What sort of "warrior" has Barone been? The right age for Vietnam, but another wuss with other priorities.

Posted by Andrew J. Lazarus | April 4, 2008 7:11 PM

Cal,

I already agreed with you about Wisconsin: although Obama won white voters, and he won Democrats, he barely lost the group at the intersection of those two sets, and obviously we should be looking for the smallest possible subset of voters to make into the only one that counts. That is what I mean when I agreed with you that the smallest triangle on the Venn Diagram is obviously the most important.

And I also agree with your new point about Jackson: obviously losing a state is pretty much the same as winning a state by a huge margin. Therefore, obviously you are right Obama is using the same model as Jackson, with the trivial difference being that Obama is winning many states by huge margins that Jackson lost.

Unfortunately, I am highly disappointed that you wrote "Jackson wasn't as attractive a candidate as Obama was." You are obviously wrong about that: Jackson was black and liberal, and Obama is black and liberal, and you absolutely convinced me that there is nothing more to say about Obama. As a result, there just can't be any other dimension upon which Obama could possibly be compared to Jackson, once you have covered black and liberal. No, I like better your theory that one person winning a bunch of states by large margins and the other person losing those states is just the same pattern, so there is nothing to explain.

Finally, RKU is just like you in that he believes Obama can't win the general election because black people vote for him. The problem is that just yesterday, he was telling me everyone agrees that Obama is more conservative than Clinton. But now you are telling me that everyone agrees that Obama is more liberal than Clinton. So whether you know him or not, you need to track him down and figure out what everyone agrees, because right now I am finding it very confusing.

Posted by DTM | April 4, 2008 8:34 PM

"Obama's difference from Jesse Jackson is not money, it's stature and support."

This statement underestimates Jesse Jackson. By 1988 Jackson had spent over 20 years in the civil rights movement and had been running a national organization dedicated to social justice and political activism for over 16 years.

Stature is apparently shorthand for approval rating among white people.

Obama's core is affluents not academics - individuals with college degrees earning more than 100K per year and their offspring. The earning/educational divide may be overstated since they are based on the exit polls from primary states.

Posted by dont trust whitey | April 5, 2008 6:16 AM

Barone's historical thumbhails and contemporary analysis in his Almanac of American Politics is still really good. How Richard Cohen and Barone produce a reference that good and then write the (much lower) quality columns they write is kind of a mystery. A lot of great interns taking over the grunt work on the Almanac?

Recently Barone also argued that opinion polls on the state of the economy don't mean much anymore because people percieve the economy through a partisan lens. The latter claim is a fact, but it's pretty strange to argue that the massive difference between the public's perception of the economy between 98 and 08 is due to a massive pro-Democrat shift in partisan loyalties. For a Republican who just lost his job, the economy still stinks and he's not going to lie about that to pollsters in order to help Bush.

Posted by Colatina | April 5, 2008 2:18 PM

"What's his evidence that BYU has liberal faculty members? That Obama won Utah County. What's his evidence that Utah Democrats are liberal and upscale, something that would be news to Jim Matheson (Utah's conservative Dem congressman)?"

Methson's a conservative Democrat because he has a lot of Republicans in his district.

I don't know if Barone has any evidence about BYU, but they do have plenty of liberals there. The real point is that we're talking about a few hundred people, only some of whom went to the caucus. It's also kind of absurd to claim that they monolithically supported Obama. So he got maybe a 150 vote boost from BYU faculty, absolute tops.

Barone is obviously trying to score some political point by calling Obama supporters academics (why I have no idea--professors are not as hated as Barone thinks). But all he really means is that white Obama Democrats tend to be younger, more educated and more middle to upper class. That does describe Utah pretty well--few blue-collar workers, large middle class, large number of young people. This was already known about Utah and about Obama voters, and it is very strange that Barone feels Obama should be embarrassed that his white supporters are well-off and educated. This is also a demographic that trends conservative, especially in Utah. But to be a *liberal* white, educated upper-middle class person makes you an elitist.

This condescending class underdogism of the highly educated white media elite is pretty sickening. Even white, well-off educated conservatives have a horror of bourgeois types like themselves. David Brooks has made quite a career playing on this horror.

"Of course he's liberal--far more liberal than Clinton"
Cal needs to get together with Petey, Paul Krugman, and other Hillary people who say the opposite and get this straight. Then Hillary who says a black man can't win needs to get together with her supporters who say that a black man always automatically wins just because he's black. Or maybe the point is to take both contradictory, muturally exclusive claims and use them both, each when the argument requires it. Now Obama's much more liberal than Clinton! Keep an eye on the focus group memos, Cal, Penn may be asking you to switch again tomorrow.

Posted by Colatina | April 5, 2008 7:01 PM