Expansionism

I'm not sure I understand Marc Ambinder's logic here:

The data from last night suggests that voters believe that Hillary Clinton's argument about Barack Obama's general election viability will remain valid until Obama renders it invalid. He did poor relative to Clinton among most discernible swing groups despite a massive, $12 million, six-week investment. The argument, incidentally, isn't that because Obama didn't win Pennsylvania in the primary, he can't win it in the general. It's that the coalition Obama is building in these states cannot, without a significant modification, give him victory in the fall. The corresponding argument is that it will be easier for Clinton to expand her coalition.

It seems to me you need to cut this closer. Certainly one easy opportunity Clinton has to expand her coalition is that versus John McCain she would pick up all these African-American Obama supporters. But conversely, I don't see Hillary Clinton's feminist supporters suddenly deciding that they want to see John Paul Stevens replaced with an abortion-banner. The theory here seems to be that Clinton's strength among white working class Democratic party loyalists will translate into strength among white working class non-loyalists. But there's no evidence for this theory -- both Al Gore and John Kerry formed "beer track" primary coalitions and then went on to perform terrible among white working class voters overall. This is an electoral challenge for either candidate, but it really is an electoral challenge for either candidate. Young, anti-war Obama supporters will back Hillary over Old Man War and Clinton's supporters in the public sector unions (notice all the AFT and AFSCME signs behind her at every rally) will easily sign on with Obama. Ultimately, for the party not to unite behind the eventual winner there would need to be a much more serious substantive cleavage between them.

Ultimately, the only thing we really know about either candidate's base of support is that Obama's is slightly larger, and that he's demonstrated more ability to expand it over time through campaigning. Either way, though, I think Democrats can be fairly confident. What voters "know" about the three candidates right now is that John McCain is a war hero maverick, Hillary Clinton is a castrating harpy, and Barack Obama is a radical black Muslim and given that . . . the race is about tied. As Ross Douthat points out that's not good news for McCain.

Comments

It's that the coalition Obama is building in these states cannot, without a significant modification, give him victory in the fall.

A significant modification like, say, defeating his primary opponent and running against a Republican?

Posted by Jake H. | April 23, 2008 12:59 PM

Hillary (via Bill) has managed to alienate blacks. If handed the nomination by the superdelegates (the only option she now has), she would alienate young voters who have been a bigger force in the primaries than the pundits believed. She'll also fare worse with independents. Without these groups, there's no way she could pull off a victory in November.

Of course it's all moot because the math says she's already dead. She, her supporters, and the media just doesn't know or can't face it yet.

Posted by LFC | April 23, 2008 1:00 PM

and given that . . . the race is about tied. As Ross Douthat points out that's not good news for McCain.

But it's good news for Rudy!!!!!!!

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 23, 2008 1:04 PM

Matt, Ambinder is a twit. You'll be much happier if you don't try to understand his tortured logic.

In addition to the example you cite, yesterday he claimed that there isn't enough information about the candidates to decide who would perform better against McCain. That's right the campaign will have been going on for 18 months (!) by June, but Ambinder thinsk two more months will add something to our knowledge. Even if it is the case that more info would be available to superdelegates by waiting, this marginal benefit must be weighed against the marginal cost of disunity. It's obvious to everyone but Ambinder that the possible benefits of waiting are more than outweighed by the costs of further disunity.

Posted by nattybumpo | April 23, 2008 1:04 PM

The mistake you and others (mainly Obama supporters) keep making is that it's not a matter of the nationwide base of support, but of SUPPORT IN KEY ELECTORAL STATES. Here, Clinton's advantage over both Obama and McCain is significant. For example, a significant portion of the black vote is concentrated in the South - as in North Carolina - which the Democrats probably wouldn't take anyway. In other words, her not getting that vote would matter much less than his inability to get working-class whites in states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Do an electoral map analysis, and the picture is more one-sided in her favor than you suggest.

Posted by Winston | April 23, 2008 1:07 PM

I misconstrued 'abortion-banner', and pictured an 8-man court with a big yellow banner behind them that said KEEP ABORTION LEGAL! I think some people would go for that, though it would struggle during the confirmation process.

Posted by Boring Commenter | April 23, 2008 1:11 PM

Notice how Ambinder disabled comments right before several essays using absolutely tortured logic? :)

Posted by Natascha | April 23, 2008 1:11 PM

It doesn't make much sense to me to try to discern who's stronger among swing voters using data from a closed primary.

Posted by Royko | April 23, 2008 1:11 PM

Obama did better among most of those swing groups than he did in Ohio. The reason the result looked the same is that there are fewer black voters in the Pennsylvania primary compared with Ohio's, and a lot more older white voters.

Both Gore and Kerry won Pennsylvania. The real question coming out of the state is whether, despite the awful environment for Republicans overall, enough white voters would turn against Obama on racial grounds to deny him a win in November. Hillary is making that argument indirectly, because it would kill her politically to just come out and say it.

How Hillary expands her coalition into something that could win in the fall without African-American support (anyone who believes black voters would meekly accept the denial of Obama at this point must think awfully little of their capacity to think for themselves) is an interesting puzzle.

Posted by ChuckE | April 23, 2008 1:12 PM

echo LFC. If, say 15% of the normal black turnout stays home because they are mad about Obama's nomination being overturned by the white democratic establishment then Clinton will lose to McCain.

Af-Am voters are the bedrock of the Democratic party and I can't imagine they are going to be enthusiastic about Clinton given her only path to the nomination.

Posted by CalDem | April 23, 2008 1:12 PM

Winston,

You don't know what you are talking about. You want an electoral map analysis? You mean like this one atfivethirtyeight.com?

You are right in that Obama is weaker in OH, PA, FL, AR, MO. But he is stronger than Hillary in WA, OR, CO, NV, NM, IA, MN, WI, and MI. Overall, Obama really is the stronger candidate to oppose McCain.

Posted by nattybumpo | April 23, 2008 1:18 PM

Just to add what CalDem & LFC said, it's not only that black voters who won't turn out for Clinton, it's also that liberal activists won't give money & support to a candidate who just insulted them.

Plus, the fact that she can't get the nomination before August means she won't have an opportunity to develop an organization & general election message against McCain before then.

Posted by Peter H | April 23, 2008 1:18 PM

The argument, incidentally, isn't that because Obama didn't win Pennsylvania in the primary, he can't win it in the general. It's that the coalition Obama is building in these states cannot, without a significant modification, give him victory in the fall.

I fail to see how he is drawing a meaningful distinction here. The primary "coalition" will not be the same as the general election "coalition" (Clinton will no longer be in the race, McCain will) so I don't see how you reach conclusions about the general election based on performance in the primary.

Posted by blah | April 23, 2008 1:19 PM

Does anyone remember the grand claims that there was no way that the Republicans and "conservatives" could possibly reverse course on all they'd said about John McCain?

And how wrong that was?

Maybe that applies to the Democratic side, too.

Posted by El Cid | April 23, 2008 1:22 PM

I don't understand the logic that Hillary has a better chance in the general. It seems to me that she has tapped out her support. Maybe I'm missing something (a point I'm willing to concede) but I don't foresee a large number of republicans crossing over to vote for her. Especially the conservatives who are least happy with McCain. So that leaves the Obama coalition who, if disinfranchised by the party, may either stay home or vote for McCain.

I just see a lot of people who have despised the Clintons for a long time, and a new group (myself included) who have come to despise them in the course of the primary. I just don't see where she makes huge gains. I see upside for Obama given that Independents had to sit out Pennsylvania.

Posted by tinare | April 23, 2008 1:23 PM

For some reason the media thinks swing voters vote in primaries. They don't. The fact that working class white people went for Clinton doesn't say anything, because these are party loyalist working class white people. They will vote for obama in the general, you really can't draw anyconclusions about either candidates viability in the general.

I think they would both do pretty well against mccain

Posted by stephen | April 23, 2008 1:23 PM

his inability to get working-class whites in states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Who says he wouldn't get the Democrats among those voters in November if he's the nominee? Just because majorities of them prefer Hillary to Obama doesn't mean they'd prefer *McCain* to Obama.

it's not a matter of the nationwide base of support, but of SUPPORT IN KEY ELECTORAL STATES

By your logic, Winston, the Democrats might as well not even bother holding primaries in the South, since whoever wins them won't win those states in the general.

Posted by Ryan | April 23, 2008 1:23 PM

It doesn't matter if it doesn't make any sense, it's all Hillary's got for an arguement and by god when her surrogate get's on TV and says it one of them is going to feel duty bound to get on the internet and repeat it.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 23, 2008 1:23 PM

Two points:

1) In both Ohio and Pennsylvania, Clinton has enjoyed the support of the local Democratic party establishment (i.e. the "machine"), whereas Obama has had to build his coalition from the outside (including bringing in new voters). One can't help but wonder how Obama might do if he could combine his grassroots organization with the Democratic party apparatus. (On the other hand, I don't see Clinton having much grassroots appeal.)

2) Don't be so certain that "young, anti-war Obama supporters will back Hillary over Old Man War". As one of those young, anti-war voters, I haven't forgotten that Hillary voted for the Iraq War, and supported it until fairly recently. And her recent rhetoric towards Iran ("totally obliterate") really worries me.

Posted by DaveWoo | April 23, 2008 1:24 PM

Jesus that's dense.

So, to summarize:
1) they're not arguing he can't win PA in November
2) they're arguing he can't win states like PA in November

Uhm, OK.

I stopped reading Ambinder when he put up something like 20 posts in 24 hours on bittergate and how Obama was doomed.

Posted by Jake | April 23, 2008 1:26 PM

Two points:

1) In both Ohio and Pennsylvania, Clinton has enjoyed the support of the local Democratic party establishment (i.e. the "machine"), whereas Obama has had to build his coalition from the outside (including bringing in new voters). One can't help but wonder how Obama might do if he could combine his grassroots organization with the Democratic party apparatus. (On the other hand, I don't see Clinton having much grassroots appeal.)

2) Don't be so certain that "young, anti-war Obama supporters will back Hillary over Old Man War". As one of those young, anti-war voters, I haven't forgotten that Hillary voted for the Iraq War, and supported it until fairly recently. And her recent rhetoric towards Iran ("totally obliterate") really worries me.

Posted by DaveWoo | April 23, 2008 1:27 PM

Oh, and Winston, including Michigan in your list of states where Hillary beat Obama is pretty cheap, since he wasn't on the ballot there.

Posted by Ryan | April 23, 2008 1:30 PM

Atlantic commenting by proxy! Next let's use this blog to comment on head douche Andrew Sullivan's posts!

Posted by norbizness | April 23, 2008 1:30 PM

Clinton's base is low-info white women. They came out in force in Pennsylvania (60% were either women or white women, I'm not sure which) and Obama kept it to single digits. I think with a Clinton endorsement he'll be fine.

Posted by 55 | April 23, 2008 1:37 PM

Don't be so certain that "young, anti-war Obama supporters will back Hillary over Old Man War". As one of those young, anti-war voters, I haven't forgotten that Hillary voted for the Iraq War, and supported it until fairly recently. And her recent rhetoric towards Iran ("totally obliterate") really worries me.

Yeah but Dave, more than McCain worries you?

I prefer Obama, because of the war among other things, but I can't believe anyone who's antiwar would pick McCain or stay home rather than vote for Clinton if by some weird chain of events she ended up the Democratic nominee. Idealistic Dems really need to stop making the perfect the enemy of the good when voting. That sort of behavior is a big part of why we have the current President we do.

Posted by Ryan | April 23, 2008 1:45 PM

What DaveWoo said. There's every reason to think pro-Choice women will back Obama, since he will indeed appoint pro-Choice judges. There's little reason that anti-war voters will back HRC, since she is likely to give us a war with Iran. She's on the wrong side of the median voter in the general election on this issue, and way off the Democratic base.

Posted by otto | April 23, 2008 1:47 PM

Black voters vote their interests. Clinton knows this. Blacks seem to vote in this order: Race (which white nominee hates them the least / or tolerates them w/ the most ease); Economics (who demagogues the safety net the least & who attacks taxes the least [black people are well aware that this stands metonymically for "niggerwelfarestate"); Foreign Policy (who is least likely to invade a brown / black nation).

Harvard educated pundits like MY and Sullivan were seduced by War against non whites. Even the poorest, most humble African American knew that this was the same old bullshit.

Clinton knows that since blacks vote their interest, they will forgive and rejoin the fold. But she is in unchartered territory here. This is not Bill Clinton and Sistah Souljah, a rapper/activist very few blacks had ever heard of (which is why they didn't actually care). No. She is attempting to destroy a good man, a man whose posters now adorn the homes of many African Americans. And she used the Black Church to accomplish this. The cost to the party, if Clinton were to prevail, may be the very destruction of the Democratic party.

Posted by jay | April 23, 2008 1:48 PM

There's little reason that anti-war voters will back HRC, since she is likely to give us a war with Iran.

I favor Obama over Clinton, but I'm sorry -- this is crap. If this is how actual anti-war voters plan to behave and argue in the (extremely unlikely) event of a Clinton nomination, then they are desperately naive and irresponsible and should really just grow up. Refusing to vote for the Democratic nominee will hand the Presidency to John McCain. That's really a better outcome for you than Hillary Clinton?

Posted by Ryan | April 23, 2008 2:05 PM

Thanks for the thrilling game of Sailer/Not Sailer, jay. I guessed Sailer, though the fact that you didn't say that blacks vote to impress white people should've given you away.

Posted by mark f | April 23, 2008 2:05 PM

Of course it is nonsense, but here is the best you can do to make sense of their implicit argument:

Clinton's supporters in the Democratic primary aren't voting for Clinton because they actually like her, because of course Obama is obviously a better candidate than Clinton. Rather, they are voting for her because they are racists who are refusing to vote for the black guy even though he is the better candidate. So, even though usually these people would support the eventual Democratic nominee in large percentages, this time they won't do that if the nominee is Obama, because they are such racists they would rather vote for McCain than the black guy.

In contrast, Obama's supporters are just voting for him because he is obviously the better candidate, not because they are sexists who won't vote for a woman. So, these people will as usual convert to Clinton in large percentages if she is the nominee.

Oh, and please ignore the importance of independents and cross-overs in the general election. Also, please ignore all of the people in every state west of Appalachia and outside of the South. But if you insist on thinking about those people at all, please assume they are mostly a bunch of racists too.

And that in a nutshell is her implicit argument for why she should get the nomination, even though Obama's coalition is manifestly bigger.

Posted by DTM | April 23, 2008 2:08 PM

I have to wonder why more people haven't commented on the money situation in the PA race.

Obama went heavily into PA and made it a race. He didn't have to, he could have held back and conceded PA to Clinton and walked away with a 16pt loss instead of a 10pt loss, but with the media declaring PA a gimme for Clinton.

So, why did Obama run so hard in PA?

In my opinion, it was for one simple reason: to bleed the Clinton campaign dry. The result was essentially a draw, the state of the race is pretty much agreed to be about the same as before PA, but the Clinton campaign had to empty their coffers to stay in the game.

Obama could afford to lose PA.

I'm not so sure Clinton could afford to win it.

Posted by David Helms | April 23, 2008 2:09 PM

The general election comparison ultimately comes down to two things. Will older and working-class whites choose McCain over Obama? Will pre-partisan young people and post-partisans choose McCain over Clinton? I think there's a greater possibility of the first happening (though I think there's a greater possibility of the Obama people just staying home or voting 3rd party rather than vote for Clinton). Trying to make it about feminists and blacks is a fatal misdirect, because neither of those groups forms the fringes of either candidate's support.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | April 23, 2008 2:43 PM

Clinton's unfavorable rating in the last Post poll was 54.

A bruising convention fight will only raise that and with only two months between the convention and election day she'll be very unlikely to repair the damage.

The question isn't whether or not African-Americans and liberals will vote for McCain but whether or not they'll show up for Clinton and just a three or four point drop will cost her.

Bush in 2004 for was very disliked by liberals which got them moving to the polls. There just isn't that intense hatred for McCain.

Posted by Mike | April 23, 2008 2:46 PM

Clinton's supporters in the Democratic primary aren't voting for Clinton because they actually like her, because of course Obama is obviously a better candidate than Clinton. Rather, they are voting for her because they are racists who are refusing to vote for the black guy even though he is the better candidate. So, even though usually these people would support the eventual Democratic nominee in large percentages, this time they won't do that if the nominee is Obama, because they are such racists they would rather vote for McCain than the black guy.

For the first time, I'm beginning to believe this. I'm beginning to believe this is how it will be written in the history books.

I think Obama will still win, b/c the Republicans have had such a bad time recently.

Also I bet Ambinder and Krugman drew the short straw at the staff meetings and therefor had to play to the Hillary voters. Anyone with moderate intelligence can discern the issues and themes of the primary.

Posted by Peter K. | April 23, 2008 2:49 PM

It's pointless to try to predict a main election outcome from the primary, especially a closed primary like in PA, where only registered Democrats can vote. The race against McCain is a completely different race.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 23, 2008 2:51 PM

Clintons just disclosed $100 million of income, so I think they will be as okay.

How government creates policy is as important as what that policy is. There is substantial cleavage between the Clintons and Obama on how they would govern.

The Clintons made W possible by taking the idea of executive privilege to heights not seen in many years if ever. Does anyone have confidence that they would cede back to the other branches and to the people the power usurped over the last fifteen years?

Even before my loyalty to abortion rights and universal healthcare, I am loyal to the principles of segregation of powers and co-equal branches of government. The last thing we need is another president who feels entitled and certain of her own virtue. (Granted, McCain is pretty much a self-righteous ass, too, so I don't know that he is any better than Clinton. So I don't know that I can say my preference is certainly Obama - McCain - Clinton, I don't think it is unreasonable for people to feel that way.)

Posted by Curtis | April 23, 2008 2:56 PM

This is a stupid argument that Armbinder makes. If you look at the electoral map from 2004, Kerry won PA by winning the urban areas, Pittsburg and Philly and that is with extremely high A-A turnout in both areas overwhelmingly for him. Someone needs to explain to me how White male voters count more in this equation than Black voters, who have been the victory margin for Dem candidates in that state.

Can someone explain to me how Hillary gets this nomination and it does not lead to lower A-A turnout? If people think that Black voters are just going to accept such a move and step in line behind her, I really don't think she understands Black people at all. Which is obvious because she thought she could get away with race-baiting. Black America has had their eyes openned to the Clintons and let me tell you, they are not liking what they are seeing and I can guarantee you that Black Americans are reassessing the Clinton legacy with African-Americans. What exactly did he do for us again?

Here is the crux of the problem that Hillary is facing. White American tells Black America that the culture of Black America is the problem. That is if only Black people worked harder, saved their money, focussed on education and they strived to succeed, that then the American dream would follow. Well how do you think that is going to square with a Black man doing everything asked of him, by the rules and then when he wins, the rules suddenly change and what he earned is given to a White woman? Keep in mind that Black women are the largest proportion of Black voters and Black women and White women have issues. Can anyone explain to me how this is going to go down well? I am sorry but Bill Clinton lip biting will not fix the anger that will be caused by this. But not just the anger, the lesson that Black people will learn and take to heart from this is that there is no hope for them in America. And quite frankly, we would be right to think so. If Obama as a Black man is not fit to be the nominee, then under that standard there is not a single Black man in America who is fit to be President. White people need to get over it, Black people are BLACK.

Why don't we just call this like it is. Armbinder doesn't seem to want to. What he is saying and what the Clinton campaign is saying is that "Obama cannot win because he is BLACK!" Why not just tell the truth about it? That may or may not be true, but to deny him the opportunity to run because he is Black is the ultimate in White patronizing behavior and frankly it is racist at it's core just covered in the veneer of "concern". It is also the ultimate in tokenism, because what it says is that, "Black people, we love it when you vote for us, but you will never be allowed to be one of us."

This follows with the lame argument that he will be Swift Boated and we cannot allow that, so we cannot give him the nomination. They are saying, "my god, the Republicans are going to run a racist campaign and we cannot afford to offend our sensibilities" Huh?

The reason why I am writing this is because I myself as a Black person feel that anger just listening to this garbage. It is simmering right below the surface and it is palpable. I am rather highly educated at "elite" institutions and no matter what your education or income level, such a move will lay bare the race divide in this country for all. I guarantee it will leave Black Republicans reassessing their place in our society. Surely they will be on the all shows screaming about how it is not because he is Black, but because he is far left. But when they go home and tuck their kids in at night, what do you think they are going to be thinking about?

The argument that Clinton would make to Black people that it is too important not to vote for her is absurd and reeks of paternalism that Black Americans can see and feel quite viscerally. Why do you ask? Well because the one source of pride tha Black Americans do have is that we are a people, like the Jews, who have survived hardship. We survived slavery. We survived Jim Crow. We survived Vietnam and Nixon and Reagan and desegregation and resegregation and Bush and then Bush again and secret FBI intelligence programs. We survived first heroine, then crack cocaine (and yes the introduction of it in LA was linked to Hassenfus and the Iran/Contra mess) and epidemic gang violence in the 80's. We are currently surviving a resurgence of that violence now. Does she think her laundry list of promises is going to entice Black people to come out and vote for her after decades and decades of people making promises to the Black community? Does she think that coming to a Black community and saying the words "lower gas prices", "100,000 cops on the street" and "health care" is going to overcome that anger? Particularly since we have been surving so long with substandard health care and it is only becoming a problem now because "middle class Whites" are getting exposed to substandard health care too (thanks Hillary). How is that going to entice Black voters when the idea of more cops is generally helpful, but what Black people want is a change in the attitudes of Police and their tactics in our neighborhoods.

Someone, somehow, needs to explain to me how this is going to work, because I just cannot see it. And you can be assured that any Black superdelegates that approve of this are going to face a contested primary next time around. I have a tip for White people, listen to Tom Joyner in the morning sometime. After you do that, then explain to me how Black people are just going to go along with this.

What the Black community really wants is affirmation that the American dream is real and that we are a part of it too. And we don't give a damn if Obama loses as bad as Ferraro did, we just need to know that when you work hard and deserve something, you will have earned it.

Posted by Bubba | April 23, 2008 3:05 PM

Obama supporters need to at least acknowledge that there are many voters who have fond memories of the 90s. And besides, a lot of people don't know Obama. Clinton's supporters need to aknowledge that many Democrats like both candidates

Posted by Micheline | April 23, 2008 3:13 PM

He did poor relative to Clinton among most discernible swing groups despite a massive, $12 million, six-week investment.

That statement's a load of crock. The $12 million is beside the point, but since he brought it up, that $12 million bankrupted the Clinton campaign and Obama has plenty. Obama GAINED support amongst 60 and olders, white men, white women and middle and lower class voters. How exactly is that a poor showing?

Posted by tom.a | April 23, 2008 3:14 PM

I'm co-signing with Bubba on this one.

African-American voters may not vote for McCain, but they sure as hell won't vote for Clinton. They're staying home. And if you don't think that will cost the party then you'd better think again.

Posted by C.Michol | April 23, 2008 3:34 PM

Among the 60+ percent share of women voters Hillary got last night, many were former Republicans who switched parties to vote for her. Presumably, they would do so again in the fall. They might be less disposed to vote for Obama, and could ultimately be persuaded (hoodwinked?) to vote for McCain.

Also, what's with calling Hillary's supporters "feminist"? While the core of her support is women, I doubt many would call themselves feminists, given the make-up of this support (white working class women) and the perjorative this word has become. While I don't have a problem with it, the word "feminist" is, unfortunately, a loaded one that carries all kinds of negative connotations. You assume women are voting for Hillary just because she's a woman. Perhaps some are, but perhaps some just admire her grit and pluck, and see a little bit of their own struggles -- and dreams -- in her. For one who is newly sensitive to "whistles," given all the supposedly racial ones intoned by the Clintons, I think your use of "feminist" may reveal some latent views of your own about gender. I'm not sure if you're one of the many liberals in the blogosphere who have trained themselves to detect such whistles, but, if so, perhaps you should set it to pick up gender stereotypes as well racial ones. (Hey, if "fairy tale" can imply a black man's naive hopes of attaining the presidency, "feminist" can mean a 60ish screechy Steinem-ite with one or two fairy tales of her own.) Considering how much we read into words -- and what they sometimes do truly reveal about ourselves -- it's a wonder anyone says anything ever.

Posted by Sue | April 23, 2008 3:41 PM

Damn you people are bitter.

Clinging to your new religion and all. People who already have a religion don't want what you're selling.

Posted by Sweet Jane | April 23, 2008 3:43 PM

I've stopped visiting Ambinder since he disabled comments, since nearly all the fun on that site is seeing his readers regularly make fun of his preposterously argued claims.

Why did he disable comments anyway? Does anyone know?

It can't be helping his site, since people don't go there for his own insight when they can just as easily go to its source at www.hillaryclinton.com

Posted by wj | April 23, 2008 3:44 PM

The Clinton strategy is '300,000 more votes than Kerry in Ohio'.

That's not an expanded coalition. Particularly when her surrogates have been telling small states, caucus states and purple states that they don't count, and that Michigan's primary does.

Her victory, should it happen, will come about through the destruction of Barack Obama's political career. If she thinks that she can match Kerry's 2004 numbers after doing that, she's deluded. That doesn't even begin to consider the effect on the Senate map, upon which her legislative platform depends even if she wins the election.

There's a bigger question of political strategy here: Obama's candidacy reflects the expanded ambition and engagement of the 50 State Strategy and the 2006 mid-terms; Clinton's is now premised upon an ever-more circumscribed core group. It's retrograde.

And as I've said here before, I don't want another October packed with idiot undecided voter forums in Dayton and Columbus.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 23, 2008 3:49 PM

Sue,

You wrote: "Among the 60+ percent share of women voters Hillary got last night, many were former Republicans who switched parties to vote for her."

How many?

Posted by DTM | April 23, 2008 3:49 PM

Sweet Jane, what the fuck are you talking about? Was that an attempt at a joke, or an insult, or both?

It's what you Clinton voters have to fall back on, since you know deep down that she can't win without blowing the general. "Obama supporters are just dumbasses who worship him!!" Yes, because you Clinton supporters just get it, and the majority of voters so far don't. Give me a fucking break.

Posted by 55 | April 23, 2008 3:54 PM

And Bubba's absolutely right.

Obama has run a primary campaign aimed at getting enough delegates to win: i.e. the rules that the DNC put in place.

Clinton's campaign is now premised on winning the popular vote, including Florida and Michigan. Pardon me, but where in the fucking rulebook is that?

Does this mean that Mark Cuban will be campaigning for Dallas to be awarded last night's game against the Hornets because they got one more defensive rebound?

Her campaign is the zombie mother in Shaun of the Dead.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 23, 2008 4:01 PM

It's bad news for Hillary that there's those 15-20 percent of Democrats who think men make better supporters, and that she carries more of them than Obama (believe I got those statistics from you in the first place, Matt). Right now, she might be taking more of them than Obama because he's the wine track candidate, but I feel like she'd lose them to the white male republican war hero. Just a guess.

Of course maybe Obama has to worry that people who don't want politics as usual will vote for the Straight Talk Express, regardless of its manifest flaws.

Posted by Justin | April 23, 2008 4:04 PM

It's bad news for Hillary that there's those 15-20 percent of Democrats who think men make better supporters, and that she carries more of them than Obama (believe I got those statistics from you in the first place, Matt). Right now, she might be taking more of them than Obama because he's the wine track candidate, but I feel like she'd lose them to the white male republican war hero. Just a guess.

Of course maybe Obama has to worry that people who don't want politics as usual will vote for the Straight Talk Express, regardless of its manifest flaws.

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

I don't know how a Democrat can read this and not want this team up against McCain in the fall:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=f746721e-74d7-4313-9231-7e75e5d56fbb&p=3

Compare that to the Clinton campaign, who was "inevitable" and had every single advantage going into the season. I read yesterday that Obama spends $0.75 for every dollar he gets, while Hillary spends $1.10. It's just a brilliant team.

Posted by 55 | April 23, 2008 4:33 PM

"John McCain is a war hero maverick, Hillary Clinton is a castrating harpy, and Barack Obama is a radical black Muslim and given that ... the race is about tied. As Ross Douthat points out that's not good news for McCain."

I think that about sums it up, except to say that Hillary funnels all her campaign money into foundations, friends, and the like, so it can all come back win, lose, or draw. Obama's got class, and I believe he'd make the better president. Anyway, underestimate Hillary at your own peril: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | April 23, 2008 7:52 PM

Clinton's coalition is bigger:

Obama: blacks (13%), 18-31 year olds (25%)*, Creative Class (13%)*

Clinton: women (51%), working class (33%), Latinos (15%), elderly (12%)

Not all youth vote for Obama, not all women vote for Clinton, etc., but her numbers are more the twice as big if you add them up (111% to 51%).

*see League of Young Voters and Richard Florida's book

Posted by donna darko | April 23, 2008 8:10 PM

Clinton's coalition is bigger:

Obama: blacks (13%), 18-31 year olds (25%)*, Creative Class (13%)*

Clinton: women (51%), working class (33%), Latinos (15%), elderly (12%)

Not all youth vote for Obama, not all women vote for Clinton, and groups overlap, but her numbers are more the twice as big if you add them up (111% to 51%).

*see League of Young Voters and Richard Florida's book

Posted by donna darko | April 23, 2008 8:13 PM

Young, anti-war Obama supporters will back Hillary over Old Man War

---------

no, we won't. we will stay home. Clinton auto-loses the massive increases in youth voting as well as a significant portion of the African American vote. should she win the nomination by any foreseeable means, a large percentage of these people will not vote.

period.

Posted by BA | April 23, 2008 8:20 PM

The out spent meme doesn't hold water.

If you're introducing a new product line (Obama) into a status quo market (the Clintons political world), you massively spend on advertising hoping to cut into the status quo market share.

The Clintons WERE the Dem party for years. Obama came into this cycle a virtual unknown nationally. He has state by state out performed, out maneuvered, out financed the Clintons at every turn and either cut their long existing market share in half or beaten them hands down.

It's not Obama's fault that the Clintons screwed away their massive advantages - financial, political, name recognition, etc. He's just doing what any good manager, any good leader, any good CEO would have done.

Quit buying into the Clinton talking points please. Because they say it does not make it so.

Posted by G Davis | April 23, 2008 8:34 PM

Re donna darko's comment "Clinton's coalition is bigger:"
--------------
I guess that's why Hillary is currently so far ahead of Obama in popular votes and number of pledged delegates, huh? Why hasn't Obama just thrown in the towel?

I've seen second grade elementary students that can put together a more plausible story than you guys.

Posted by Don Williams | April 23, 2008 8:38 PM

Ooh, can I play?

Obama: Independents (40%), Republicans (30%), Democrats outside the Northeast (20%) = 90%

Clinton: Democrats inside the Northeast (10%) = 10%

So, Obama's coalition is bigger, and I didn't even overlap groups.

Posted by DTM | April 23, 2008 9:27 PM

> I haven't forgotten that Hillary voted
> for the Iraq War, and supported it until
> fairly recently.

As far as I can tell Senator Clinton is still a strong supporter of the war on/in Iraq. She has waffled a bit at the edges but I haven't seen a single statement from her that indicates her core of support for Cheney's Excellent Adventure(tm) has wavered one iota.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | April 24, 2008 8:10 AM

Thanks to natty for the Poblano link--last decade's key electoral states have tripped up two would-be Dem presidents now, whereas the 50-state strategy gained a Dem congress. I am not taking anyone seriously who starts talking about only a couple of states really mattering, and those being always the same states.

Nor anyone who claims a state that's elected the "other" party to governorship and senate seats would never vote for that party in the general.

I agree with Matt's overall point but join in this quibble: if she wins 70-80% of remaining pledged delegates, I'd certainly grant her ability to regain some black support. Since the story is, however, sending the black man who won to the back of the bus because it's Hillary's turn, that won't happen, especially with social conservatives to whom "The McCain Supreme Court" holds less terror.

Posted by Deborah | April 24, 2008 4:59 PM

All we can do now is wait until June.

As an Obama supporter, I think that Michigan and Florida must be counted. The voters cannot be punished for the antics of their politicians -- not if the Democrats want to have a chance to win in FL and MI in the fall.

It is my expectation that Obama will end the primary season June 3 with a pledged delegate margin of about a hundred votes.

I hope that shortly thereafter, the DNC and Obama's campaign will announce they will recommend that the credentials committee seat the Florida and Michigan delegations selected at their state conventions, giving Clinton a 60 net delegate gain. Obama will continue to lead the total pledged delegate count by about 40 votes.

A few hundred superdelegates will announce their committment to vote for Obama at the convention. Obama will be the presumptive nominee, AND Michigan and Florida will have been counted in the total.

If the situations were reversed, and Clinton was ahead by any number of pledged delegates, she would be the nominee. To do anything else would leave her supporters feeling severely alienated and cheated. The Democrats won't do that to either side. Since Obama will almost certainly be in the lead, he will be the nominee.

I hope that the Democrats can then unite around Obama, our nominee, and win in November.

Posted by kucinich_fan | April 27, 2008 11:13 PM