Head to Head

Is Barack Obama doomed in a matchup with John McCain among the demographic groups where he did poorly against Hillary Clinton? The AP says not really:

Polls this month show the Illinois senator leading McCain among women, running even with him among Catholics and suburbanites and trailing him with people over age 65. Results vary by poll for those without college degrees. And though Obama trails decisively with a group that has shunned him against Clinton -- whites who have not completed college -- he's doing about the same with them as the past two Democratic presidential candidates.

The key fact here is "doing about the same" with whites who lack a college degree as Al Gore and John Kerry. Gore and Kerry both lost narrowly, but they lost. On the other hand, though they both lost, they lost narrowly. I think it's totally feasible to win the presidency without improving on the Gore/Kerry performance among this demographic group (you'd have to make up the ground elsewhere), but it's hard for me to see how it would be viable to slip further behind and still win.

Comments

Bingo.

Holding steadily where Gore & Kerry were in these demographics

+

Obama's gains elsewhere (increased turnout, huge Dem ID)

=

McCain shitting in his Depends.

Posted by JBS | May 28, 2008 10:17 AM

If McCain picks either Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina as his running mate and Obama does not pick Clinton, will there be a flood of disaffected largely lady Democrats to the Republican side? Could it be as simple minded as that? I guess there are well-paid people on both sides working this out with Venn Diagrams.

Posted by Richard | May 28, 2008 10:27 AM

And who's to say that he can't improve them?

Something feel decisively wrong in letting pre-general-election polling color so much of the debate.

If we've seen anything this year, it's that Obama is a more gifted campaigner than this country has seen in a long time. If he could get past Clinton and get to work on more national campaigning I have no doubt that he could still improve his numbers among every group.

Posted by Terrance Peabody | May 28, 2008 10:28 AM

Gore and Kerry both lost narrowly, but they lost.

Well, your argument is made even stronger by the slight misstatement that Gore lost, which, in popular vote terms (at the very least, leaving Florida aside for the sake of argument), he did not -- he won by 600K.

Posted by Gee | May 28, 2008 10:29 AM

The real kicker is increased African-American turnout for Obama and its effect not only in the presidential race but also downticket races for the Senate in places like North Carolina and (a boy can dream) Mississippi.

Posted by NCProsecutor | May 28, 2008 10:38 AM

"Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina" !!
What a pair of fuck ups. Do you know how much Ebay overpaid for Skype? Carly got the boot at HWP for a reason -- whe was tearing the place down. Plus they do nothing for McC in California. Nothing. If he wants of W on the ticket pick a ME senator or Christine T/W or Hillary herself.

Posted by wren | May 28, 2008 10:41 AM

it's hard for me to see how it would be viable to slip further behind and still win.

Well, according to Ruy Teixera, Kerry split college-educated whites making 30k-50k and lost college-educated whites making 50k-75k by five points. So it's possible that Obama could make up lots of ground in that demographic, to make up for falling further behind among non-college-educated whites. I guess that according to Teixera there are three times as many non-college-educated whites as college-educated whites, but still it doesn't seem completely implausible that Obama could make big gains in this demographic.

Posted by Matt Weiner | May 28, 2008 10:43 AM

it's hard for me to see how it would be viable to slip further behind and still win.

Well, according to Ruy Teixera, Kerry split college-educated whites making 30k-50k and lost college-educated whites making 50k-75k by five points. So it's possible that Obama could make up lots of ground in that demographic, to make up for falling further behind among non-college-educated whites. I guess that according to Teixera there are three times as many non-college-educated whites as college-educated whites, but still it doesn't seem completely implausible that Obama could make big gains in this demographic.

Posted by Matt Weiner | May 28, 2008 10:45 AM

"I think it's totally feasible to win the presidency without improving on the Gore/Kerry performance among this demographic group"

The demographic composition of the population in Nov 08 won't be precisely the same as it was in Nov 00 or Nov 04. Off the top of my head, I believe that the combination of immigration and higher birthrate amongst minorities is giving us a trend towards a larger nonwhite fraction; and more (though not vastly more) people go to college. So that "white non-college" demographic is relatively shrinking.

And that's just as a percentage of the total population: with Dean's DNC and Obama both pushing hard, and apparently with success, for higher registration and higher turnout amongst voters under 30 and minorities, that "white non-college" demographic may shrink even further as a percentage of likely voters.

With those trends, prospects of a healthy Obama win in the popular vote look good. Quite how that translates into electoral college votes is a bit trickier: the demographic trends seem to be pushing some red states to purple, e.g. Virginia,
Arizona. But I don't feel confident yet about Ohio or Florida, which of course turned the last two elections.

However, the Obama campaign is evidently highly competent and now battle-tested, whereas the McCain campaign seems pretty lame so far. The numbers will look very different after another all-white Repub convention with a big speech by Bush, and a forward-looking Dem convention with a crackerjack Obama speech. A landslide is a distinct possibility.

Posted by Richard Cownie | May 28, 2008 10:48 AM

...but it's hard for me to see how it would be viable to slip further behind and still win.

And it's hard for me to see how working class whites could possibly be stupid enough to increase their support for the party that brought them wage stagnation and collapsing healthcare coverage. But one never knows.

Posted by Jasper | May 28, 2008 10:50 AM

"If McCain picks either Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina as his running mate"

Oh yeah. Really old guy picks a VP with zero foreign policy or military experience. We've seen how the "CEO presidency" works ...this just isn't going to fly with the voters. I realize McCain has a big problem finding a Republican VP who isn't badly tainted by one or more of the Bush-era scandals and/or disastrous policy errors. But
picking a newbie blows up his whole message.

Posted by Richard Cownie | May 28, 2008 10:58 AM

Dear American Voters,

Hon. Senator McCain and Obama besides each having many attributes and characteristics. The critical differences in my professional, political, and personal opinion are as under:

1. Presidential "Temperament and Integrity".
2. Little Washington "insider Versus outsider" connectedness.
3. Vision and mission for our future rather than past.

In my professional opinion one senator has it and the other does not. We need one for our Greatgrand Nation to address our all these challenges with a fresh, clean and new slate.

God Bless America. its diverse people, and our Greatgrand Nation.

Yours truly,

COL. [retd] A.M.Khajawall
Forensic psychiatrist, Las Vegas NV

Posted by COL. [retd] A. M.Khajawall | May 28, 2008 11:00 AM

Perhaps Barack Obama will gain with a group that has supported him in the primaries - whites outside Appalachia and the Ozarks who have not completed college. (They will help him in Iowa and Indiana more than Kentucky and Tennessee.)

Posted by Aaron | May 28, 2008 11:02 AM

Obama can run ads tying McCain to Bush thru the war and to the subprime crisis thru Phil Gramm. Once Clinton stops undermining Obama, as well, we'll start seeing some good pickups among all demographic groups other than the certain percentage that are idelogoues or single-issue voters. Clinton acting like a grown-up and enthusiastically endorsing Obama would also help considerably among working class WOMEN East of the Mississippi, though it's hard not to be a bit worried that her "elitist" attacks won't carry over int othe general, even though I don't think it'll matter nearly as much as what we learned about her during the primaries.

Posted by David B. | May 28, 2008 11:02 AM

This is where ground game comes in. In addition to registration and GOTV, we need to be handing out diplomas on every street corner.

Posted by apm | May 28, 2008 11:05 AM

It's not just how the various pies are split, but it's how big they are. In other words, turnout matters. That may not be the solution to all of Obama's problems, but it surely has to be part of the analysis.

Posted by alkali | May 28, 2008 11:08 AM

the democrats haven't gotten 50 percent of the vote since 1964. (some statisticians credit carter with 50.1 percent, but it's not crystal clear.) the only chance they have this year is the exact same chance they had in 1992 and 1996: splitting the republicans with a third-party conservative, like bob "the new ross perot" barr. obama needs to take some of the titanic mountain of cash he has on hand and give it to barr. his activists need to take a page out of limbaugh's book, and campaign relentlessly for barr. a vote for barr is worth 2 votes for the gore/kerry coalition.

Posted by tommy jonq | May 28, 2008 11:08 AM

the democrats haven't gotten 50 percent of the vote since 1964. (some statisticians credit carter with 50.1 percent, but it's not crystal clear.) the only chance they have this year is the exact same chance they had in 1992 and 1996: splitting the republicans with a third-party conservative, like bob "the new ross perot" barr. obama needs to take some of the titanic mountain of cash he has on hand and give it to barr. his activists need to take a page out of limbaugh's book, and campaign relentlessly for barr. a vote for barr is worth 2 votes for the gore/kerry coalition.

Posted by tommy jonq | May 28, 2008 11:10 AM

the democrats haven't gotten 50 percent of the vote since 1964. (some statisticians credit carter with 50.1 percent, but it's not crystal clear.) the only chance they have this year is the exact same chance they had in 1992 and 1996: splitting the republicans with a third-party conservative, like bob "the new ross perot" barr. obama needs to take some of the titanic mountain of cash he has on hand and give it to barr. his activists need to take a page out of limbaugh's book, and campaign relentlessly for barr. a vote for barr is worth 2 votes for the gore/kerry coalition.

Posted by tommy jonq | May 28, 2008 11:10 AM

the democrats haven't gotten 50 percent of the vote since 1964. (some statisticians credit carter with 50.1 percent, but it's not crystal clear.) the only chance they have this year is the exact same chance they had in 1992 and 1996: splitting the republicans with a third-party conservative, like bob "the new ross perot" barr. obama needs to take some of the titanic mountain of cash he has on hand and give it to barr. his activists need to take a page out of limbaugh's book, and campaign relentlessly for barr. a vote for barr is worth 2 votes for the gore/kerry coalition.

Posted by tommy jonq | May 28, 2008 11:11 AM

the democrats haven't gotten 50 percent of the vote since 1964. (some statisticians credit carter with 50.1 percent, but it's not crystal clear.) the only chance they have this year is the exact same chance they had in 1992 and 1996: splitting the republicans with a third-party conservative, like bob "the new ross perot" barr. obama needs to take some of the titanic mountain of cash he has on hand and give it to barr. his activists need to take a page out of limbaugh's book, and campaign relentlessly for barr. a vote for barr is worth 2 votes for the gore/kerry coalition.

Posted by tommy jonq | May 28, 2008 11:16 AM

No dude, the OFFICIAL CERTIFIED VOTE TOTALS gave Carter 50.1% of the popular vote - *some* people dispute that, for reasons that aren't "crystal clear". Quit trying to rewrite history.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | May 28, 2008 11:30 AM

As others noted, of course Obama could do worse in any given demographic slice than Gore or Kerry and still win by doing better among the remainder of the electorate.

However, I suspect that point will be moot once Clinton endorses Obama and both of the Clintons start campaigning for him.

Posted by DTM | May 28, 2008 11:32 AM

[who wrote this post?]

Posted by joejoejoe | May 28, 2008 12:12 PM

"I think it's totally feasible to win the presidency without improving on the Gore/Kerry performance among this demographic group (you'd have to make up the ground elsewhere), but it's hard for me to see how it would be viable to slip further behind and still win."

That's true. Which makes Hillary's polarizing statements about Obama and white voters and about Florida and Michigan all the more destructive. I hope those people who say she's going to enthusiastically support the nominee after the primary races are over are correct.

Posted by Rick Taylor | May 28, 2008 12:35 PM

I dunno; for a black guy to be running even with Gore and Kerry in the demographic group most hostile to blacks in politics has to be seen as a positive. And this coming on the heels of weeks and weeks of "white resentment" campaigning on Hillary's part.

I'm not the first to say this, but more and more this election looks like a rerun of 1980, with most November polls looking really close only because the "challenger" (Reagan then, Obama now) is scary to a certain number of people. But in the end, I don't think a majority of Americans want to support the Republican this year any more than they wanted to re-elect Carter in 1980; and once Obama convinces them he's not the second coming of Stokely Carmichael, he should be able to win.

Posted by ChuckE | May 28, 2008 1:13 PM

Results vary by poll for those without college degrees. And though Obama trails decisively with a group that has shunned him against Clinton -- whites who have not completed college

This makes you realize the genius of the Karl Rove method.... how to get so many people voting against their own best interests.
One would think that blue-collar/ non-college-educated people would have the MOST to gain from someone like Obama. But for the past 30 years they have been voting consistantly for the very policies (courtesy of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economic Fascism) that have steadily eroded their own standard of living, not to mention their environment.
Maybe Obama won't win over those ol' racist hillbillies in Appalacia, but I think he is a gifted enough campaigner that he can begin to win over those working class groups so eloquently discussed in "What's The Matter With Kansas?"

Posted by Jimmy Horowitz | May 28, 2008 1:24 PM

Results vary by poll for those without college degrees. And though Obama trails decisively with a group that has shunned him against Clinton -- whites who have not completed college

This makes you realize the genius of the Karl Rove method.... how to get so many people voting against their own best interests.
One would think that blue-collar/ non-college-educated people would have the MOST to gain from someone like Obama. But for the past 30 years they have been voting consistantly for the very policies (courtesy of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economic Fascism) that have steadily eroded their own standard of living, not to mention their environment.
Maybe Obama won't win over those ol' racist hillbillies in Appalacia, but I think he is a gifted enough campaigner that he can begin to win over those working class groups so eloquently discussed in "What's The Matter With Kansas?"

Posted by Jimmy Horowitz | May 28, 2008 1:24 PM

Results vary by poll for those without college degrees. And though Obama trails decisively with a group that has shunned him against Clinton -- whites who have not completed college

This makes you realize the genius of the Karl Rove method.... how to get so many people voting against their own best interests.
One would think that blue-collar/ non-college-educated people would have the MOST to gain from someone like Obama. But for the past 30 years they have been voting consistantly for the very policies (courtesy of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economic Fascism) that have steadily eroded their own standard of living, not to mention their environment.
Maybe Obama won't win over those ol' racist hillbillies in Appalacia, but I think he is a gifted enough campaigner that he can begin to win over those working class groups so eloquently discussed in "What's The Matter With Kansas?"

Posted by Jimmy Horowitz | May 28, 2008 1:25 PM

Results vary by poll for those without college degrees. And though Obama trails decisively with a group that has shunned him against Clinton -- whites who have not completed college

This makes you realize the genius of the Karl Rove method.... how to get so many people voting against their own best interests.
One would think that blue-collar/ non-college-educated people would have the MOST to gain from someone like Obama. But for the past 30 years they have been voting consistantly for the very policies (courtesy of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economic Fascism) that have steadily eroded their own standard of living, not to mention their environment.
Maybe Obama won't win over those ol' racist hillbillies in Appalacia, but I think he is a gifted enough campaigner that he can begin to win over those working class groups so eloquently discussed in "What's The Matter With Kansas?"

Posted by Jimmy Horowitz | May 28, 2008 1:25 PM

Results vary by poll for those without college degrees. And though Obama trails decisively with a group that has shunned him against Clinton -- whites who have not completed college

This makes you realize the genius of the Karl Rove method.... how to get so many people voting against their own best interests.
One would think that blue-collar/ non-college-educated people would have the MOST to gain from someone like Obama. But for the past 30 years they have been voting consistantly for the very policies (courtesy of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economic Fascism) that have steadily eroded their own standard of living, not to mention their environment.
Maybe Obama won't win over those ol' racist hillbillies in Appalacia, but I think he is a gifted enough campaigner that he can begin to win over those working class groups so eloquently discussed in "What's The Matter With Kansas?"

Posted by Jimmy Horowitz | May 28, 2008 1:25 PM

Results vary by poll for those without college degrees. And though Obama trails decisively with a group that has shunned him against Clinton -- whites who have not completed college

This makes you realize the genius of the Karl Rove method.... how to get so many people voting against their own best interests.
One would think that blue-collar/ non-college-educated people would have the MOST to gain from someone like Obama. But for the past 30 years they have been voting consistantly for the very policies (courtesy of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economic Fascism) that have steadily eroded their own standard of living, not to mention their environment.
Maybe Obama won't win over those ol' racist hillbillies in Appalacia, but I think he is a gifted enough campaigner that he can begin to win over those working class groups so eloquently discussed in "What's The Matter With Kansas?"

Posted by Jimmy Horowitz | May 28, 2008 1:25 PM

Results vary by poll for those without college degrees. And though Obama trails decisively with a group that has shunned him against Clinton -- whites who have not completed college

This makes you realize the genius of the Karl Rove method.... how to get so many people voting against their own best interests.
One would think that blue-collar/ non-college-educated people would have the MOST to gain from someone like Obama. But for the past 30 years they have been voting consistantly for the very policies (courtesy of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economic Fascism) that have steadily eroded their own standard of living, not to mention their environment.
Maybe Obama won't win over those ol' racist hillbillies in Appalacia, but I think he is a gifted enough campaigner that he can begin to win over those working class groups so eloquently discussed in "What's The Matter With Kansas?"

Posted by Jimmy Horowitz | May 28, 2008 1:25 PM

Results vary by poll for those without college degrees. And though Obama trails decisively with a group that has shunned him against Clinton -- whites who have not completed college

This makes you realize the genius of the Karl Rove method.... how to get so many people voting against their own best interests.
One would think that blue-collar/ non-college-educated people would have the MOST to gain from someone like Obama. But for the past 30 years they have been voting consistantly for the very policies (courtesy of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economic Fascism) that have steadily eroded their own standard of living, not to mention their environment.
Maybe Obama won't win over those ol' racist hillbillies in Appalacia, but I think he is a gifted enough campaigner that he can begin to win over those working class groups so eloquently discussed in "What's The Matter With Kansas?"

Posted by Jimmy Horowitz | May 28, 2008 1:25 PM

Results vary by poll for those without college degrees. And though Obama trails decisively with a group that has shunned him against Clinton -- whites who have not completed college

This makes you realize the genius of the Karl Rove method.... how to get so many people voting against their own best interests.
One would think that blue-collar/ non-college-educated people would have the MOST to gain from someone like Obama. But for the past 30 years they have been voting consistantly for the very policies (courtesy of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economic Fascism) that have steadily eroded their own standard of living, not to mention their environment.
Maybe Obama won't win over those ol' racist hillbillies in Appalacia, but I think he is a gifted enough campaigner that he can begin to win over those working class groups so eloquently discussed in "What's The Matter With Kansas?"

Posted by Jimmy Horowitz | May 28, 2008 1:25 PM

Results vary by poll for those without college degrees. And though Obama trails decisively with a group that has shunned him against Clinton -- whites who have not completed college

This makes you realize the genius of the Karl Rove method.... how to get so many people voting against their own best interests.
One would think that blue-collar/ non-college-educated people would have the MOST to gain from someone like Obama. But for the past 30 years they have been voting consistantly for the very policies (courtesy of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economic Fascism) that have steadily eroded their own standard of living, not to mention their environment.
Maybe Obama won't win over those ol' racist hillbillies in Appalacia, but I think he is a gifted enough campaigner that he can begin to win over those working class groups so eloquently discussed in "What's The Matter With Kansas?"

Posted by Jimmy Horowitz | May 28, 2008 1:25 PM

Results vary by poll for those without college degrees. And though Obama trails decisively with a group that has shunned him against Clinton -- whites who have not completed college

This makes you realize the genius of the Karl Rove method.... how to get so many people voting against their own best interests.
One would think that blue-collar/ non-college-educated people would have the MOST to gain from someone like Obama. But for the past 30 years they have been voting consistantly for the very policies (courtesy of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economic Fascism) that have steadily eroded their own standard of living, not to mention their environment.
Maybe Obama won't win over those ol' racist hillbillies in Appalacia, but I think he is a gifted enough campaigner that he can begin to win over those working class groups so eloquently discussed in "What's The Matter With Kansas?"

Posted by Jimmy Horowitz | May 28, 2008 1:25 PM

Hmm, I guess fleet fingers run in the Horowitz family.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 28, 2008 1:43 PM

Hmm, I guess fleet fingers run in the Horowitz family.

There's a strong Phillip Glass influence as well.

Posted by apm | May 28, 2008 2:07 PM

As someone mentioned above, any time you want to talk about Democratic candidates' historical performance in presidential elections, particularly when you are using those results to analyze possibilities for the future, you have to count Gore as a win, albeit a very narrow win. Not merely on a popular vote basis, but also on an electoral college basis.

Sure, Gore didn't take up residence in the White House. But when you think of all the bizarre factors involved, such as the Nader voters in Florida and New Hampshire, the butterfly ballot, the overvote/undervote stuff, etc., the conclusion is inescapable that when it came down to Al Gore or George Bush, Al Gore was the choice of the plurality of voters in enough states to make up an electoral college majority.

That voters had certain problems registering that choice was very relevant in 2000, but not really relevant if you are using past results to predict what may happen in 2008.

(And I hope to God this only posts once.)

Posted by Steve H | May 28, 2008 2:52 PM

I have to say that I think this whole 'Is Hilary more electable' meme is a classic case of Democrats overanalyzing an issue. There are 2 simple common sense reasons why Obama is far more electable:

a) He's much more photogenic. I like Clinton, but she doesn't take a good picture on her best days, and she doesn't fare any better on TV.

b) Obama is a far better speaker.

No, those aren't the most rational reasons to vote for someone. But politics, especially elections, are not exactly rational processes.

Posted by Gary | May 28, 2008 4:10 PM

I dunno; for a black guy to be running even with Gore and Kerry in the demographic group most hostile to blacks in politics has to be seen as a positive.

You might want to remove your head from your ass before you comment chuckles

Posted by ura clown | May 28, 2008 5:04 PM

Unless Obama can do three things: 1) defang Clinton (and I use the term "defang" advisedly); 2) gut McCain on his "war hero" image; 3) do something to blunt the war bounce for McCain of attacks on Iran (current rumor - by August)...

He's going to lose.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 28, 2008 6:07 PM