White men can jump — to Obama
It’s not just that Barack Obama keeps winning primaries and caucuses. And it’s not just the sizable margins of his victories. What’s really disconcerting for the Clinton campaign right now is how — and with whom — Obama is getting ahead.
Obama won the Wisconsin primary by stealing support from blue-collar workers, previously a key Clinton bloc.
If Clinton was to survive the string of February losses, it was going to be by holding on to what her chief strategist, Mark Penn, has called her “durable coalition.” White women, Latinos, and older voters would be unmoved by Obama’s flash. No group was more crucial to the Penn argument than blue-collar voters. Clinton aides argued that not only were bedrock Democratic voters for Clinton, but they had an aversion to Obama. “How can the Democratic nominee win without working people?” asked a top Clinton adviser recently.
In Wisconsin, according to exit polls, Obama placed ahead of Clinton among those who make less than $50,000 a year and among those with less than a college education. He has now won working-class white men in Wisconsin, Missouri, New Hampshire, California, Maryland, and Virginia. Obama also ate into Clinton’s usual margin with white women voters.
Any reasonable comeback scenario for Clinton includes a very strong showing among blue-collar voters. In fact, the same way Texas and Ohio are firewall states for Clinton, this is a firewall constituency for her. And yet, it looks like a firewall that is slowly starting to crumble.
The consequences of the shift have the potential to change (i.e., end) the race.
For one thing, it’s tough to, you know, win when some of your key supporters are backing the other guy. There’s no real fall-back constituency here.
For another, it further undermines the Clinton campaign’s superdelegate strategy.
The blue-collar votes are important because Clinton is banking on them for her comeback in the primaries of Ohio in early March and Pennsylvania in April. They also matter because as the two candidates make the pitch to superdelegates, who will determine the nominee, it becomes harder for Clinton to argue that Obama will have a tough general election because his reach is somehow limited. He is not just the boutique fascination of young people and wealthy elites. He has now won in every key geographical area and across racial and gender lines.
Other items of interest from the exit polls:
He split white women, marking about a 10-point improvement since early February. He also won half of married women, and even won single women. Obama took six in ten white men, a demographic that has shifted between the two candidates throughout the race. His white male support also marked about a 10-point improvement since Super Tuesday.
Regionally, the news was no better for Clinton. Obama won a majority of suburban voters, something Clinton did on Super Tuesday. He split rural voters, whom Clinton had won by about 20 points two weeks ago. Clinton also had won a slight majority of urban voters then. Obama won Wisconsin city dwellers by about a two to one ratio. […]
Obama won independents by a two to one ratio, which amounted to one in four voters. Obama won every philosophical persuasion of Democrat. Those who identified as “very liberal” to “somewhat conservative” voted for the Illinois senator. Half the electorate were liberal and Obama won them by double digits. The largest share of voters, though, identified as moderates. And Obama won a clear majority of their support.
The lone bright spot for the New York senator? She won seniors, again, who have become her most reliable backers.
They may not, however, be enough to get her campaign back on track.
wvng
says:Steve, on this same topic is an essential post from digby today on the angry white man. This is the one dynamic that really worries me about the fall. A key quote:
“I think if we nominate one of these two, we are talking about McCain as president,” says Bob Rodkey, a firefighter who doesn’t like either candidate but plans to vote for Sen. Clinton in the primary. “I talk to a lot of my Democratic friends and they are going to cross over in November or not vote at all. We don’t have a viable candidate. Neither of them is one of us.”
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/they-arent-democrats-by-digby-there-has.html
neil wilson
says:Has anyone else noticed that Obama is getting a bigger percentage of the vote than McCain?
In other words, Huckabee and friends get a bigger percentage of the vote than Clinton.
I hope that if Clinton loses Ohio and Texas that she does the right thing and withdraws on March 5.
Of course, if Clinton wins on March 5 then things will be very interesting.
zmulls
says:The *only* argument I see is that Obama does better in open primaries, and Clinton seems to do better in closed primaries. In the states where independents are allowed to vote, they help Obama (which is a good general election argument, of course).
With McCain out of contention — having sewn things up, for all intents and purposes — independents who might be torn between voting for McCain and Obama (I know, makes no intellectual sense, but there are plenty of people in that position), will now all vote for Obama when given the chance.
Clinton could make the argument that she’s the true choice of *Democrats* and that Obama is getting primary support from independents who will (she can argue) trend McCain in the general.
But even that argument seems less convincing every day.
I am an Edwards guy who leaned towards Clinton after Edwards dropped out. But after South Carolina, and hearing the stuff spewed out from her surrogates and campaign staff (superdelgates! red states don’t count! “plagiarism!” etc.!), I’m leaning the other way.
I often disagree with the conventional wisdom but I think it’s spot on now — if Texas and Ohio are close, or if Obama wins, I don’t see where Clinton goes after that.
NonyNony
says:The lone bright spot for the New York senator? She won seniors, again, who have become her most reliable backers.
That might help her in Ohio – we’re an old state, since our previous Republican “leadership” has successfully driven businesses out of the state – leading younger folks looking for work to leave as well. We’ve got a lot of retirees. And unemployed.
Of course, we also have a giant University in the middle of the state, which should play to Obama’s advantage provided the voter registration campaign they had here last fall worked as well as it was supposed to. I think Ohio is more of a toss-up than the pollsters are crediting it with anyway, but I suppose we’ll see in a couple of weeks.
neil wilson –
Without numbers, that comparison is meaningless. If more Democrats are turning out to vote in the primaries than Republicans, more people could still be voting for Clinton than for Huckabee or even than for McCain, since they’re measuring two different groups of people altogether.
ROTFLMLiberalAO
says:wvng…
There aren’t enough angry white males to vote that dead, bleached-out, shit-crab into office. There is a new wave breaking across the landscape. It is highly motivated. It is rainbow colored and it is sick to death of having its country controlled by the likes of Bush/Cheney/McCain. Even better: McCain’s overt dislike and back-of-the-bus attitude towards Barack will only work against him.
Lastly, a dozen or so threads back I suggested triage ($$$$) for Clinton’s inept campaign strategy.
I understand she spent a lot of time in last night’s speech with hat in hand…
If you have time here is a fine Guardian article that talks about that triage. Claiming the whole went south on her on Feb 6th:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_adams/2008/02/lost_in_wisconsin.html
One juicy snippet:
In Vermont, for example, while the Clinton campaign hasn’t yet opened a state office, the Obama campaign already has seven paid staff and four offices there, and has been advertising for a week on local TV.
Danp
says:“Obama does better in open primaries”
Other than New Hampshire, which I think was an aberration, the only TIME Clinton did well was Super Tuesday. And I think that can be attributed to name recognition and limited time for Obama to campaign.
FOR THE LOVE OF OUR COUNTRY
says:Obama’s speech (October, 2002):
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don’t oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
Let’s turn the page,
VOTE OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!
Ohioan
says:Someone should ask Mark Penn & Bill Clinton whether Wisconsin is “significant” enough for them…
neil wilson
says:Nony:
there is no doubt that more people are voting for CLINTON than are voting for McCain.
There can be a lot of reasons for that. I hope the Democrats win big in November. It would be nice to get 54 Democrats in the Senate. Then they would have a Lieberman proof majority. It would be sweet to see all the Republicans decide that the nuclear option is no longer a decent way to appoint judges.
I just found it suprising that Obama is doing better than McCain even though the Democrats are supposed to be close and the Republican race is supposed to be over.
TR
says:Attention all Democratic politicians:
Mark Penn is a complete and utter moron. Employ him only if you’re looking to lose.
Mary
says:Why hasn’t anyone pointed out that Wisconsin is adjacent to Illinois, Obama’s home state? I’ve lived in Illinois and So. Wisconsin, where more of the people are, is influenced by Chicago. There may have been more long-time exposure to him there, just as Clinton had more influence in the New England states near NY.
Jim
says:Mary, that may be true, but it didn’t stop Obama from winning in Connecticut, which is a border state to NY. Champions win the games they are supposed to win, and keep the ones they aren’t supposed to win close, and then pick off a few surprises in the close ones. If you can’t win the games you’re supposed to win, then your never going to be the champ. Simple as that. Clinton should have won Connecticut by your logic, and she didn’t.
Just for the sake of disclosure, I’m more of a Edwards guy, have been since 2004 primaries. But since I live in Michigan, I was denied a chance to have my vote count, so I am pretty much an impartial observer until the general election.
NonyNony
says:neil –
I just found it suprising that Obama is doing better than McCain even though the Democrats are supposed to be close and the Republican race is supposed to be over.
Ah – that makes your observation make a bit more sense. But really, it kinda comes down to enthusiasm, I think. If you’re a soft McCain supporter, and there’s nothing else on the ballot you care about, no one’s going to be out there to get you to the polls. Huckabee’s supporters at this point are almost all “protest voters” who are expressing their displeasure at the Republican elites foisting McCain at them – they know he’s not going to win, but maybe the can “send a message” with their votes, so they’re motivated to turnout, even if it is a “negative” motivation.
Contrast with the Dem side where both candidates are still in it, so even soft supporters are getting a lot of encouragement to turn out and make their vote count. I doubt that McCain’s camp in WI was picking many people up and driving them to the polls to vote, while I’d be surprised if both Dem candidate’s supporters weren’t doing just that. Enthusiasm is the key at this point, and I think that the Dems in general (and, apparently, Obama particularly) have a lot of enthusiasm on their sides.
BTW – just to confirm my suspicions, I note these numbers quoted over at the Great Orange Satan:
Yeah – enthusiasm abounds on the GOPer side right now…
NonyNony
says:Oh, and to follow up on those previous numbers:
Final distribution of Dem votes in WI (also from the GOS – they don’t quite add up to the total above, so I assume that there were some votes for Kucinich or Edwards or someone else included in the total above). More people voted for Clinton than voted in the GOP primary in WI. Awesome.
N.Wells
says:As an Obama supporter living in Ohio, I want to acknowledge that so far Hillary seems to be saying a lot of right things in Ohio, and her ads seem pretty good and her media coverage is positive and effective. I’m still going to vote for Obama, but I won’t be surprised if she does well here.
dj spellchecka
says:NonyNony said:
The lone bright spot for the New York senator? She won seniors, again, who have become her most reliable backers.That might help her in Ohio – we’re an old state, since our previous Republican “leadership” has successfully driven businesses out of the state – leading younger folks looking for work to leave as well. We’ve got a lot of retirees. And unemployed.
all of that is true. but we also have to factor in that Ohio has many more African-Americans.
petorado
says:wvng – I read Digby’s post as well and the more I read it the more it seemed like it might be the reverse of the Bradley Effect. In areas, like Youngstown, OH, where racism is as endemic as economic malaise, it would be very hard for any of these guys to publicly admit to supporting a black or woman candidate. But in the voting booth, how many of these guys want to see their tax dollars, children and friends heading off to Iraq while their neighborhoods crumble? Obama represents a clear break from the past and I can’t see these guys voting for another hundred years of war and more of the rich getting richer at their expense. McCain will bring no improvement for these angry white males and I bet deep down inside they know it.
SmilingDixie
says:For all the wonderful things that NAFTA has done for the workers of Ohio & Pennsylvania, Billary should be an overwhelming favorite.
4 yrs Bush I + 8 yrs Clinton + 8 yrs Bush Lite = 20 yrs of the screwing of the American worker
The definition of a Raygun Democrat is a white working male who can be convinced to vote against his own economic self-interest in favor of rhetoric serving the rich. May be about time for the end of Regan Dimocrats…
Misslovanu
says:NonyNony said:
The lone bright spot for the New York senator? She won seniors, again, who have become her most reliable backers.That might help her in Ohio – we’re an old state, since our previous Republican “leadership” has successfully driven businesses out of the state – leading younger folks looking for work to leave as well. We’ve got a lot of retirees. And unemployed.
I hope the previous primaries prove this philosophy as wrong. I’ve lived in Northeast Ohio, and was forced to move to Southwest Ohio because of the economy and job market four years ago. The disparities are now no different, Ohio is suffering economically, period. I’m hoping that statistics are proven wrong in March. I was initially a Hillary supporter, but after evaluating her speeches, and Bill’s supposed “help” on the campaign trail, I’ve become an Obama supporter.