39 Responses to “Obama’s Weaker Support With Democrats”

1. adam, on February 29th, 2008 at 6:40 am Said:

   “What happens when these independent voters find that Obama is offering little more than rehashed liberalism and the “post-partisan” fantasy is revealed as just that?”

   The bubble pops, that’s what. There are a handful of issues that independent 527 groups are going to ‘educate’ the public about.

   1. 2nd amendment. Any notion that Obama is going to do well among disaffected, libertarian minded Republican voters in Western states is nonsense on stilts. Even strong democrats out West like their guns.

   2. Abortion. I have a hard time imagining that any number of social-conservative voters are going to either vote for Obama or stay at home when they discover how radically ‘pro-choice’ Obama really is.

   Last but certainly not least is much less quantifiable: Down-scale working class white voters are not buying into the hope/change/new silliness, and are still sticking with Hillary. A pretty good number of them are going to vote for McCain.

2. M.Z. Forrest, on February 29th, 2008 at 7:41 am Said:

   Last but certainly not least is much less quantifiable: Down-scale working class white voters are not buying into the hope/change/new silliness, and are still sticking with Hillary. A pretty good number of them are going to vote for McCain.

   Doubtful. They may not vote Hillary/Obama, but they aren’t going to vote for an embarrassed pro-lifer whose economic message is “The jobs aren’t coming back.” Both Obama and Clinton seem willing to risk business support for their candidacies with naked appeals for protections. Presently, a household needs to make just $24,000 (or somewhere around there) before they start flipping GOP. We’ll see if that threshold moves up with the weak economy and the appeals to protectionism.

3. LMaggitti, on February 29th, 2008 at 7:58 am Said:

   Dnaiel,

   You make some good points, and this post is a refreshing change from your over-the-top “Obama is going to lose in a landslide” posts from a couple of weeks ago (to your credit, I think that, as you have more closely considered the question of Obama’s viability as a candidate, as opposed to your own feelings about his candidacy, you have moderated your position on this point.

   I have one disagreement, and would also like to highlight a few other factors, most of which favor Obama, though one of which favors McCain. The disagreement: I do not think that Obama’s liberalism is going to hurt much with moderates. As you have said yourself, correctly, in other contexts, the positions of candidates on the issues (and, I would add, ideology more generally) have surprisingly little to do with who swing voters end up supporting. And, to the extent that I’m wrong, Obama’s program, whatever one thinks of it (and believe me, I have reservations myself, especially with regard to foreign affairs), is well calculated to appeal to the moderate swing voter.

   So I don’t think that moderates are somehow going to recoil when they find out that (gasp) he is a liberal. And, contra adam, I think that his work together for change shtick actually resonates well with moderates & independents (one reason he is polling so well now among them). That said, there are plenty of reasons McCain could narrow his lead among independants and win the election.

   One factor to take into account, potentially, is the historically higher voter participation rates among republicans. Recent polls are of all registered voters, and hence perhaps exaggerate Obama’s current lead.

   However, there is at least some reason to believe that Obama, while losing a small portion of his base to McCain, will be able to do an unusually good job of bringing out the rest of the base to the polls. On the other hand, while I don’t think that many republicans are going to vote for Obama (the 8% is probably a ceiling of Obama’s republican support), there is some reason to believe that some disaffected Republicans, especially the evangelicals, will stay home.

   And then, of course, there is the question of what happens with the economy and Iraq between now and the election. I suspect that in both cases the news will be bad, and the bad news will help Obama. But obviously that is speculative on both counts.

4. adam, on February 29th, 2008 at 8:10 am Said:

   ” I think that his work together for change shtick actually resonates well with moderates & independents ”

   I think it is working well now, but it is going to start faltering very soon.The upside to being a “blank slate” with a thin record is that you can present yourself as a post-partisan avatar of hope and unity. The downside is that your opponent has a great deal of flexibility to take a few bits and pieces of that record and use it to paint a larger, much less flattering picture. The right has been very, very good at this over the past few election cycles.

   I do, however, agree that the “surge” in Iraq has been remarkably successful in pushing Iraq off of the front pages, at the cost of storing up trouble long term. I can also envision a scenario where gas is pushing $4 per gallon come Labor day and inflation is pushing 5%, neither of which is going to favor McCain, but as you said, that is speculation at this point.

5. LMaggitti, on February 29th, 2008 at 8:27 am Said:

   The downside is that your opponent has a great deal of flexibility to take a few bits and pieces of that record and use it to paint a larger, much less flattering picture. The right has been very, very good at this over the past few election cycles.

   True enough. But, as I said in another thread, I think that this stuff tends not to work well against a charismatic candidate such as Obama. Moreover, Obama’s “inexperience” actually helps him some here, as he has less of a record to comb through. Whereas McCain, OTOH, has a very long record with any number of embarrassing (in the context of a presidential election) votes.

   All that being said, i am by no means one of those people who thinks that Obama has it in the bag. Ultimately, I think he will win it, mostly because current circumstances favor the Democrats, but it will be close.

   And, as illogical as I think such an outcome would be, I think a major terrorist attack in the next 9 months would probably swing the election to McCain.

6. adam, on February 29th, 2008 at 8:37 am Said:

   “But, as I said in another thread, I think that this stuff tends not to work well against a charismatic candidate such as Obama.”

   I will have to disagree, and state that I think it will ultimately be the distance between Obama’s charismatic, post-partisan schtick and the rather banal, paint by numbers liberalism is going to be a problem, especially amongst those centrist swing voters he is doing so well with.

   Here is a better way of putting my thoughts on the matter.

   http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/obamas_glass_jaw.php

   “In a general, Obama won’t be running against Clinton, he’ll be running against McCain, a politician that has actually taken political risks and endured the wrath of party hacks in order to make progress on real issues: “What has Obama done? Show me a single issue or piece of legislation where Obama has done something politically unpopular in order to move forward toward a greater goal.”

   That the issues that McCain picks to go all “Maverick” on are a) questionable and b) rarely resolved are besides the point. The public believes it, the press certainly does, and that will frame the coverage going into the general. Charisma is a wonderful to quality to have, when tethered to something substantial.

7. chrisgbr, on February 29th, 2008 at 8:38 am Said:

   So, the only people who support Obama are the people whose taxes he’ll raise?

8. adam, on February 29th, 2008 at 8:49 am Said:

   chrisgbr

   Obama has assembled a unique coalition thusfar. 1. Upper income liberals + 2. African Americans + 3. slightly larger turnout among young voters. Ususally the Hart/Bradley type candidate does 1 & 3, but loses 2 and working class whites to the establishment Dem candidate (Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, etc.) I don’t know if the charismatic appeal will cross over to those working class white voters, but then the mood seems to be for a more economically populist candidate.

   On another demographic front, Daniel also linked a few days ago to a NM poll that showed McCain beating Obama handily among senior (65+) voters. This was absolutely astounding to me, as this is usually a very solid Democratic demographic. It could be that a) older voters are less inclined to vote for a black man or b) older voters are less inclined to vote for someone who seems so young or c) older voters this cycle are juiced to vote for another old guy.

9. LMaggitti, on February 29th, 2008 at 9:44 am Said:

   adam,

   At this point, I think we are mostly at the “time will tell” phase of the argument, but I’d like to make a couple more quick points. Firstly, and I know this is pretty cynical, but I’m not sure that many people, especially low information voters, are ever going to realize the disconnect between the rhetoric and the program. And (again, I’m being cynical, but appropriately so) I wonder if it would matter if they did. I’m not sure how much REAL change people want. Sometimes I think that Obama is the perfect candidate for our times - that is, the people WANT soaring rhetoric about change, but don’t want REAL follow through on that promise.

   In my less cynical moments, I’m inclined to think that some of the changes that Obama IS proposing, for better or worse, are, indeed, the kinds of (modest) changes that moderates and swing voters want. Health care, a feel good foreign policy that (ostensibly) means less war without giving up our empire, etc., etc. On the domestic front, there is considerable polling evidence that (like it or not) that the kind of “warmed over liberalism” that you disparage is (on an issue by issue basis,) is what a majority of people want.

   And w/r/t McCain’s “accomplishments,” you seem to realize, correctly, that there are in reality few, but you state that people (and the media) believe otherwise. You are right, of course, but, that, too, is subject to change, and Obama is smart enough to hammer on that issue hard.

   In my less cynical moments, I look at little pieces of Obama’s program that appeal to me personally (greater governmental transparency, smart economic advisers, the occasional glimmers of rationality on Israel and on the value of diplomacy) and hope they will resonate with the public at large, but I have no real hope that this will be true.

10. adam, on February 29th, 2008 at 9:51 am Said:

    LMaggitti

    Certainly I can agree with that. I happen to be in a place over the last seven years where my ‘less cynical moments’ with regards to politics as such are few and far between.

    Cheers,

    Adam

11. adam, on February 29th, 2008 at 10:09 am Said:

    One more note as to why Obama is not the game-changer he purports to be, and why even now the overwhelming support for Iraq withdrawal amongst American’s is not going to cut as decisively in Obama’s favor as you think.

    http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB120424840649401731.html

    But both candidates draw a distinction between “combat” troops, whom they want to withdraw, and “noncombat” troops, who will stay to battle terrorists, protect the U.S. civilian presence and possibly train and mentor Iraqi security forces. Conducting such missions would likely require the sustained deployment of tens of thousands of American military personnel, foreign-policy advisers from both campaigns acknowledge.

    “No one is talking about getting to zero,” said a foreign-policy adviser to Sen. Obama.”

    So the combat troops will leave, but the non-combat troops fighting terrorism will be staying.

    Change you can believe in.

12. leon hadar, on February 29th, 2008 at 10:31 am Said:

    I mentioned you here: http://globalparadigms.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-obama-stuff.html#links

13. LMaggitti, on February 29th, 2008 at 10:39 am Said:

    adam,

    Believe me, I need no convincing on that point. Though I tend to think that such subtleties tend to escape the typical voter. But even that doesn’t necessarily work to Obama’s advantage, as evidenced by McCain’s good performance (in terms of primary voting and polling) among people who want us out of Iraq.

    And, in fact, if you had to ask me why I wasn’t more optimistic about Obama’s chances, despite all of the advantages listed above, it would be this: despite Obama seemingly being more in tune with public opinion in terms of his rhetoric on Iraq (if not necessarily in terms of his underlying policy), opinion polls, for what they are worth, seem to suggest that, right now at least, McCain is more trusted on Iraq than is Obama. Maybe that is the “experience” factor coming in to play. I’m generally skeptical of the importance of the experience factor - certainly historically it hasn’t mattered much - but maybe in this election it will. We’ll see.

14. LMaggitti, on February 29th, 2008 at 10:44 am Said:

    Dr. Hadar,

    Good post (for what it’s worth, I agree with you 100% on all points). But it’s Larison, not Larson.

15. LMaggitti, on February 29th, 2008 at 11:06 am Said:

    Hmm, I seem to have too much time on my hands today, but one more quick thing, related to my 10:39 am post.

    While certainly Obama’s foreign policy fits very snuggly into the current hegemonic consensus, and people who think he is going to withdraw quickly from Iraq are likely to be sadly disappointed, it IS pretty clear that McCain is one of our more bellicose politicians, and IMO is much more likely to start another war or three than is Obama. See Yglesia’s recent post, http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/they_make_music_videos.php, though there is nothing there that is new to people knowledgeable about McCain’s career.

    The other side of the coin is that (ironically, in light of the conventional wisdom that gives McCain points for “experience” in terms of foreign policy) Obama is likely to do a better job of maintaining the empire and repairing our relations with our allies. So there is something to be said for voting for McCain and hoping that his overreaching in foreign affairs will help to discredit our imperial policies. Not that I would do that, mind you, but you can see the dillema for an anti-interventionist.

    Though of course the above two paragraphs are probably entirely irrelevant to how all of this will play out politically. But I DO think that one of McCain’s few endearing qualities - his penchant to speak (his version) of the “truth” without thinking about the political consequences, might come back to haunt him, specifically with regard to his bellicose nature.

16. adam, on February 29th, 2008 at 11:12 am Said:

    Obama: Same empire, better management.

    McCain: Bigger empire, worse management.

    Looking into my crystal ball, I see ignoring the top of the ticket in my future come 11-4–08

17. Daniel Larison, on February 29th, 2008 at 2:42 pm Said:

    My apologies to Mr. Lanier. When I was moderating comments, I accidentally deleted your comment. Here it is:

    I wrote about this a couple days ago: Demographics of the Democrat Primaries Not only has Obama failed to win over Democrat voters in total, he’s failed to win them in the primaries, if you use the percentages from the exit polls (which are imperfect, but a decent suggestion of reality). That’s probably why Hillary is backtracking from her “Texas is the firewall” strategy. Arguably, Obama will lose the registered Democrat vote on March 4th, while still winning Texas and Vermont. I don’t see how Hillary wins it on pledged delegates, but at some point, will the superdelegates pay attention to electability?

18. mnjam, on February 29th, 2008 at 2:55 pm Said:

    Fascinating.

    It only goes to show that the American voter is capable of anything.. Even the largest landslide in history in favor of Obama and against McCain by the time November rolls around. Praise the Lord!

19. kris, on February 29th, 2008 at 3:46 pm Said:

    adam wrote: “On another demographic front, Daniel also linked a few days ago to a NM poll that showed McCain beating Obama handily among senior (65+) voters. This was absolutely astounding to me, as this is usually a very solid Democratic demographic. It could be that a) older voters are less inclined to vote for a black man or b) older voters are less inclined to vote for someone who seems so young or c) older voters this cycle are juiced to vote for another old guy.”

    Or perhaps they are generally more centrist leaning and simply looking toward a more centrist leaning candidate than a true liberal candidate. They may also be less inclined to want to “take a chance” on the new guy when we’ve got some real problems in our nation and around the world.

20. garywildd, on February 29th, 2008 at 5:51 pm Said:

    You know why this is irrelevant? Remember when hillary Clinton had double-digit leads over Obama and thought she was invincible? Well look what Obama did to her. To assume that his brilliant strategic mind can’t make mincemeat out of McCain and pundits alike is SILLY.

21. ilakhung, on February 29th, 2008 at 7:22 pm Said:

    Dear Daniel
    I read the Pew survey, and your interpretation is torqued, to say the least.
    Grasping at straws is more like it.
    This is a fine example of the truism that you can take statistics and make them dance to any tune.
    The reality is that Obama would handily beat McCain in the general election, according to Pew.
    Surely that’s more germane than all your contortions?

22. Daniel Larison, on February 29th, 2008 at 7:39 pm Said:

    Okay, so you’re saying that it’s irrelevant that Obama loses large numbers of Democratic voters? I’m not sure that I see the advantage in having critical support come from the voters, independents, who are typically the most willing to shift allegiances in the course of a campaign. Nowhere in this post did I say that the survey shows that Obama would necessarily lose, but that he lacks the same level of party support as Clinton. This same thing is seen as a major liability for McCain on the other side, and I am assuming that it is also a liability for Obama.

    There are two points here. First, his claim that he can win Clinton’s voters and she can’t win his seems to be simply wrong or at least exaggerated. Second, at the risk of stating a cliche, locking down core party voters is necessary for a candidate to run a general election campaign that appeals to people outside one’s own party. This Obama weakness with Dems makes it harder for him to do that. That’s a real problem. Maybe it’s a problem that he can solve and it won’t be an issue in eight months, but the evidence suggests that Obama is going to have a harder time unifying the Democratic Party than his rival. This is rather ironic for someone who has made unity one of his buzzwords, but there it is.

    I frankly don’t know what “contortions” I’ve engaged in. I described some of the content of the survey and then asked a series of questions. The extent of my “interpretation” was to argue that independents are fickle and unreliable supporters. But many of them are fickle.

23. RRD, on February 29th, 2008 at 7:48 pm Said:

    adam wrote: “On another demographic front, Daniel also linked a few days ago to a NM poll that showed McCain beating Obama handily among senior (65+) voters. This was absolutely astounding to me, as this is usually a very solid Democratic demographic. It could be that a) older voters are less inclined to vote for a black man or b) older voters are less inclined to vote for someone who seems so young or c) older voters this cycle are juiced to vote for another old guy.”

    I have a theory about this - purely anecdotal but I am aware of several elderly women who are “mad as hell at the upsstart” - seems he is taking away what may be their last chance to see a female President. Women are a disproportionate share of that age group so maybe they vote for Mc/cain out of spite.

    garywildd, - congrats on the new religion and all but you might want to consider how horribly flawed the Clinton campaign has been. Obama is a good polititcian but in his senate race and this primary he has also been the beneficiary of opponents with incredibly high negatives and significantly incomplete campaign structures (Hillary for no apparent reason except arrogance, Keyes was a completely inadequate last minute substitute) - he has a lot to prove yet.

24. kordo, on February 29th, 2008 at 9:34 pm Said:

    Republicans kill me; I love you guys. The unspoken subtext of all Mr. Larison’s hard statistical slogging is this: McCain would lose to ANY Democrat. I know you guys were salivating at the thought of stomping Clinton. Sorry about your luck. By now, I think you’ve begun to realize what a rout it’s going to be when McCain’s zombie-impersonation gets propped up alongside Obama’s dynamism. And, plz for the love of God, stop with the “Hillary beats McCain” polling. It was a silly tactical stunt when Penn dreamt it up, it’s outlandish to hear smart conservatives parroting it. I have yet to see a poll this year that was useful as anything but toilet paper. If I’ve hurt your feelings, sorry. But, you did it to yourselves. You guys backed every mad imperialist scheme Bush and his band of thieves came up with. You were well compensated, financially and politically, and now the bill for that 8-year party has come due. So suck it up. btw, Gods help you if Clinton does win; the proscriptum would be rough on you. At least with Obama, your’re getting someone who will work with you.

25. Daniel Larison, on February 29th, 2008 at 9:49 pm Said:

    Your comment might have some relevance if I were a Republican, a McCain supporter or pro-war. I am none of these things, and you must have no idea what TAC has stood for since its inception. Otherwise, great points.

    Because the polls were badly wrong in New Hampshire, and pretty much accurate everywhere else, we are now supposed to ignore everything they tell us. That seems badly mistaken.

26. Cal Lanier, on February 29th, 2008 at 10:39 pm Said:

    Daniel,

    Don’t you feel like you’re in some weird alternate universe? Why should anyone have to point out the obvious–that a Democrat candidate getting to the big show on the support of liberals without the base is going to have a bad time? What I can’t figure out is why the Democrats aren’t talking about this themselves. Doesn’t it worry them?

    I feel like Kevin Mccarthy. I just can’t figure out if I’m in the original, and I get to the FBI before everyone is infected, or in the remake where I get run down by a car.

27. Daniel Larison, on February 29th, 2008 at 11:25 pm Said:

    Thanks for your comment. I think there are some Democrats who have started worrying about Obama being given a “pass” during the primaries, but because they tend to be Clinton supporters their concerns are dismissed as spin. The clumsy “Obama’s victories don’t count” spin has now made arguments pointing to his potential electoral weaknesses automatically suspect. The Obama supporters who might be concerned about this also seem to see arguments discussing any potential weakness in Obama as nothing other than pro-GOP propaganda. Then there are the true believers who think that Obama has the makings of a “game-changer” who will realign the country’s politics, and they are not terribly interested in anything that could contradict that story. Also, the massive incompetence and failure of the administration and the underlying pro-Democratic trends in the electorate have started to make some Democrats a little too confident about the presidential race.

28. theurbanrevolution, on March 1st, 2008 at 12:14 am Said:

    hmmmm…I’m confused. Are we all living in the same world? I don’t get it. On the democratic side he’s one more states, more of the popular vote and more delegates. Superdelegates are flocking towards him everyday. Too many major newspapers to list have endorsed him. He’s gotten some of the biggest union endorsements. So is what you’re saying is that we’ve all been duped? That 10.3 million people are absolutely batty? Do the teamsters now drink lattes on a regular basis and drive Priuses? Do the anglos in Wisconsin that make under $35k have clay for brains?

    How about blogs like this one:
    The next President is going to have some MAJOR challenges.
    I refuse to buy into the hype, on either side, but especially on that of Obama. However the “empty rhetoric” v. “history of accomplishments” arguments have prompted me to check it out on my own, not relying on any candidate’s website, book, or worst of all supporters’ diaries, like this one.

    I went to the Library of Congress Website… http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

    or articles like this one: http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Paul+B.+Hertneky%3A+Let’s+compare+the+public+accomplishments+of+Clinton+and+Obama&articleId=11dc4bb6-bc19-4f73-97a4-400fbd3dad27
    Which reads: INSTEAD OF COMPARING Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s experience — a vague set of claims — I turned my attention toward accomplishments. Not what they’ve accomplished for themselves, but what they’ve accomplished for others…

    I’ve done a lot of homework on all three candidates, we should all do that and stop relying on sound bites and and polls that have yet to truly predict an outcome.

29. Cal Lanier, on March 1st, 2008 at 1:37 am Said:

    “On the democratic side he’s one more states, more of the popular vote and more delegates.”

    But Clinton has more of the *Democrat* vote, which, you know, is what Democrat candidates usually need in order to be sure they’ll do well in the general.

    “Then there are the true believers who think that Obama has the makings of a “game-changer” who will realign the country’s politics, and they are not terribly interested in anything that could contradict that story.”

    I know. Like I said, I’m Kevin McCarthy and there are pod people everywhere. But while I understand the Obamabots thinking that way, I can’t understand why the Democrat leadership seems so eager to gulp down that Koolaid.

    That’s the thing that amazes me–fundamentally, the endorsements, the fundraising, the ads, everything–they aren’t making a bit of difference. the demographics are largely unchanged. Look at the race, income, and party breakdown of the electorate, and the outcome is entirely predictable. Obama hasn’t made a single sale. Neither has Hillary. But Clinton needs far fewer African American and liberal cutovers than Obama needs whites and Hispanics.

30. kordo, on March 1st, 2008 at 1:43 am Said:

    My apologies, Mr. Larison. You were quite right to point out that I haven’t done alot of research on your site, or the TAC, an oversight i’m now rectifying. While we may not agree on much, I don’t think you are a Republican, McCain backer, or pro-war. When I said “Republican”, i was speaking to several of the other commentators, but after looking at my post again, I can see that I left that unclear. All this Penn-fueled spin has caused me to forget my manners, and I utterly lack Sen. Obama’s calm good grace. I hope you won’t hold it against me. Also, the “hard statistical slogging” line was a compliment. Most pundits pick one or two polls they like, and call it research. You actually bothered to coalate info from alot of them. While we may disagree about conclusions/usefulness, it was nice to read an article that contained actual journalism. nice work.

31. David Bonner, on March 1st, 2008 at 4:07 am Said:

    Mr. Larison, the points you have made regarding Sen. Obama’s weak polling numbers with registered Democrats are well taken but I believe these numbers will turn out to be misleading as the general election approaches. Sen. McCain is well respected by Democrats as a war hero and as a man of principle. Many Democrats (older Democrats in particular) are wary of Obama’s overreaching rhetoric and at the same time have a general sense of trust for McCain. Also, there is, as has previously been observed, significant despair among women in the party who thought they were going to elect the first female president next year. These factors contribute to both Sen. Obama’s relative weakness and to Sen. McCain’s apparent strength among core Democratic demographics. It may be a mistake to read too much into these poll results at this time. I suspect that as the general election nears and partisan attacks intensify, Sens. McCain and Obama will both shore up much of the support of their respective bases. But only time will tell.

32. Daniel Larison, on March 1st, 2008 at 4:41 am Said:

    Kordo–my apologies for misunderstanding you. Thanks for the follow-up comment.

    Mr. Bonner–I agree entirely that current polling may not be indicative of what will happen in eight months, and I usually fail to note explicitly that polls are not intended to be predictive despite the habit observers, myself included, have of using them to make predictions. There is certainly nothing in the survey that suggests that it is impossible for Obama and McCain to unify their parties around them, but only that it isn’t happening yet. In Obama’s case, this may be more understandable, since there is still some real competition between the candidates. Some of Clinton’s voters may not have reconciled themselves to an Obama win McCain may be in worse shape: he still has significant ground to make up despite having essentially locked up the nomination almost a month ago.

33. davegnyc, on March 1st, 2008 at 10:06 am Said:

    I am part of the small percentage of Republicans who would vote for Obama but not for Hillary.

    I think Obama will make a serious effort to get us out of Iraq. I don’t think Hillary will do the same.

    I am willing to put up with the other parts of the Democratic platform (taxes, etc.) to get out of Iraq, but if they are not going to even do that then why bother.

34. kordo, on March 1st, 2008 at 1:57 pm Said:

    While I admit to relying on my “gut” for this one, I can’t help but note how many of the traditional Democratic constituencies are falling in behind Obama (Unions, Under-50k-a-year, GLBT, etc…) recently, while McCain is being forced to hold his nose and accept support wherever he can get it ( Hagee?? talk about a General Election poison pill.) The culturally conservative base of his party may decide that he’s what’s on tap, and turn out for him. But they don’t strike me as the type of voters to elevate practicality over principle, and I suspect they’ll simply stay home. There’s a chance hillary’s hard-core supporters might do the same, if they feel they’ve been unfairly slighted ( and when have they not? ), but I’m guessing Obama’s manner and methods will bring at least a portion of them around. Obama’s superior organization in Texas will carry the day there, I think. To my mind, the real test is going to be Ohio. If Sen. Clinton is going to stage a decent rear-guard action, that’s the state to do it in. Mr. Lanier, above, is seeing the race in the best possible light, from his candidates point of veiw ( something us “Obamabots” never do, of course :), but fails to consider how fast Clinton is losing *Democrat* support. . She’s trying to compensate for her organization’s deep structural flaws with ever-more negative, and let’s face it, desperate attacks that do nothing to improve her image, and generally serve to remind voters of the partisan hell of the last 16 years. Perhaps he’s right, though, and the Dems will all come down with a massive case of buyer’s remorse. I don’t see that coming, but I didn’t think Dubya would get a 1st term, much less a 2nd, so let every man ascribe what value he chooses to my political instincts…

35. Cal Lanier, on March 1st, 2008 at 4:49 pm Said:

    “(Unions, Under-50k-a-year, GLBT, etc…) ”

    Union workers and under 50K/year aren’t certain to go for Obama. You can’t use Wisconsin as an indicator, because over a third of the voters were independents and Republicans.

36. albetta, on March 3rd, 2008 at 10:45 am Said:

    Regarding Obama’s potential inability to consolidate the democratic vote, I think that when november rolls around and democrats are faced with with an alternative who is sticking with some remnants of the Bush presidency (Iraq, taxes), most democrats won’t cross party lines. After eight years of bemoaning the ills of a republican administration, to vote for a potentially better qualified moderate republican would take an amount of fortitude and independence that I don’t think most voters possess. I think a lot of dems right now are conceding that Obama hasn’t been tested on policy, but are hoping that he can shore this up between now and November to justify a vote that they will probably cast either way. This is why the vague “Change” banner is so effective for Obama. It answers the question of “Who are you?” with “Not Them!” and I think that will be sufficient for a lot of dems.

37. conradg, on March 3rd, 2008 at 7:10 pm Said:

    To be honest, I must admit that after losing ground for months, Hillary is on a slight uptick, enough that she might just win in both Ohio and Texas, though not by much. In the long run, I don’t know whether this helps or hurts Obama. I’d like him to just get this over with, but in some respects it might be good for him to take a lot of lumps now rather than later. Taking hit after hit from Hillary for the next couple of months might seem like a bad strategy, but considering that Obama is indeed a bit weak in the argument that he can’t take a punch, that he will falter under pressure or not prove able to handle crisis after crisis, that he’s not “tested”, this may be good for him, and good for the viability of his still likely nomination for the general election. Of course, on the other hand I like to think positively about even bad situations, and while it’s not technically speaking spin, it may not be true either. It just depends on how well Obama responds to the challenge.

38. Eunomia » Obama And Romney’s Disease, on March 7th, 2008 at 12:16 pm Said:

    [...] Obama’s Weaker Support With Democrats  37 conradg, albetta, Cal Lanier [...] [...]

39. Eunomia » Obama’s Enduring Problem With Democrats, on May 23rd, 2008 at 10:08 am Said:

    [...] This 23% of Democrats in Pennsylvania who back McCain probably make up a large part of the 25% of Democrats who think Obama should drop out of the race.  Are these just Clintonite dead-enders?  Maybe, but this percentage of Democrats who are resisting Obama’s candidacy has been pretty constant throughout the contest.  Obviously, if McCain gets anything like 20-25% of Democrats in November it is very difficult to see how Obama wins. [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.