The Democratic Race: Onward

It is a sad irony or perhaps cosmic justice: just as Hillary Clinton succeeded in reforming her coalition -- older voters, working class women, self-identified Democrats, Latinos, the less affluent, the less educated -- just as she's succeeded in raising doubts about the presumptive Democratic nominee, the claws that are the Democratic rules tightened, perhaps inescapably -- in that she cannot escape from them. Forget about momentum. Or press coverage. Or arguments. Or moral claims to this or that. Forget about the external things that all of us in the media normally cover.

As the calendar progress, the reality is that the rules have become the controlling legal authority. When folks say "this ain't over for a while," they don't have a predicate. Perhaps the scrutiny on Obama will increase and that he will crash and that 30% of his superdelegates will crash and that 30% of his pledged delegates will defect and that 60% of the remaining superdelegates delegates will go her way. That could happen, but it is still not that likely to happen. I suppose that if we discover that Obama has a second family in Idaho...

Again, a Clinton "recovery" and nomination is not impossible. It just isn't likely. In the gut of many Clinton advisers 48 hours from now may be the sense that the confetti is ephemeral.

The basic argument they are putting forward: Three times, Democrats have been the opportunity to consign Hillary Clinton to the dustbin of history. Three times, they've given her new life. Just...just... just forget about the math. Forget about the numbers. Look at the big picture. Focus on Obama's credentials. Focus on the fact that he is not winning a lot of the, well, industrial, big, old-line, mainline Democratic states. Put all the chips on Ed Rendell's command of Pennsylvania and then Puerto Rico. Hope to win big. Hope that the superdelegates use PA as the proxy for their decision. Fast forward seven weeks...

Was Tuesday a rebuke to Obama?

Absolutely.

But a qualified rebuke.

From the exit polls, it's hard to discern a particular concern. Clinton seems to have raised general concerns about the entire nature of his candidacy, but only among her core demographic. And make no mistake: this demographic is absolutely vital for the Democrats in the general election. Obama needs Clinton voters as much as he needs Obama voters.

Comments

I will never vote for that crone and her sexual predator spouse. Ever. If somehow they manage to scam their way into the Democratic nomination, the only redeeming scenario would be that they so polarize the electorate that McCain will win the General and the Clinton's will fade mercifully into the sunset. These people truly represent and bring out the worst in the American people - that racist, ignorant, soft underbelly that we all would prefer stayed hidden.

Posted by Myron | March 5, 2008 9:10 AM

As much as I dislike Hillary, I think the best thing for the party right now would be for there to be an Obama/Clinton ticket announced NOW that could stop this internecine battle in its tracks and get on to the business of trouncing McCain in the fall.

The question is whether the ego on both sides of this will allow this to happen, even though it is obviously the dems best chance...with record turnouts of young voters, blacks, latinos, women, etc poor John McCain would get his butt whipped and the dems would have a huge mandate. As much as the Obama people have good reason to hate Hillary, I think we might need to consider such a ticket.

I hope some neutral parties with clout will get these two together to work this out. We don't need a nuclear war in Pennsylvania.

Posted by RKA | March 5, 2008 9:19 AM

Democrats generally want to nominate Obama, but wont brush off the Clintons, they want it to seem legit.

Obama needs to win the Pennsylvania popular vote to save the Democratic party.

It that a worthwhile goal?

Posted by Kim | March 5, 2008 9:22 AM

No, last night wasn't a rebuke of any sort, qualified or otherwise.

When you add regionalism into the mix along with demographics (regionalism is admittedly hard to quantify, but in this case usually pretty easy to see if you look at a map), all these results were in line with what we should have expected. And that has pretty much been true the entire race. Indeed, I bet when we get detailed geographic data from Ohio and Texas, it will provide even better confirmation of the importance of regionalism.

And the fundamental reason Clinton is losing is that when you add regionalism into the mix, Obama's coalition is significantly bigger than Clinton's. That is the true bottomline, not the rules, and that difference in the size of their coalitions is why there is no plausible path for Clinton to the nomination (as there hasn't been since those coalitions were confirmed on Super Tuesday).

Posted by DTM | March 5, 2008 9:22 AM

Here's why Hillary may well win: all your arguments about the delegates assume that the superdelegates will break 50-50.

But it seems to me just as possible that they will stampede in one direction or another: if Hillary has the momentum and seems more electable in the summer, they might break 3-1 for Hillary. If Obama somehow regains his momentum, they might break 3-1 for Obama.

Either way, it ain't over yet, and may not be until the convention.

Posted by Mike | March 5, 2008 9:24 AM

Polarizing opposing forces wins elections and ruins administrations. I'll never vote for Hillary, because you can't change Washington without a majority of support and you can't gather that support when you condemn anyone who disagrees with you. If Hillary did manage to beat Obama and did manage to squeak out a 51-49 over McCain in the GE, we'll see 4 years of bickering, secrecy, and ultimately nothing will get done. Hillary doesn't realize that we don't need a fighter, especially not the type of fighter she's been. She'll do everything short of chastising those who don't align with her "specific" views and consequently, it will be 4 years of healthcare bills dying in congress. We need to get something done, I think John McCain, like Barack Obama genuinely want to work in a truly bi-partisan way, which is the only way, to really bring about change. If its Hillary, you can call me a "McCainocrat"

Posted by Blake | March 5, 2008 9:26 AM

All last night proved is that when Hillary decides to put decency aside and attack someone in her own party like they are a republican people in Ohio are dumb enough to listen.

That state continually votes itself into more and more shit. They have no one to blame for their problems but themselves.

I also think its funny that Clinton's attacks about Obama being all speeches and no substance don't really work with reality. She is supported by the uneducated and the poor who don't know the actual details and are voting out of name recognition and nostalgia.

A healthy democracy needs an informed and educated populace. This country gets farther from that every year.

Posted by cbc | March 5, 2008 9:27 AM

I think if there is one simple truth coming out of this it's that being attacked relentlessly from party elders in BOTH parties for 2 straight weeks allows you to make up MOST of a 25-30 point deficit, but not all of it.

Obama is being battle-tested by getting a double-team from McCain and Clinton and yet he's still slogging along and winning the thing.

Obama is still the story. And no, it was not a rejection since he steadily gained amongst all these demographics that 'reject' him. In the ten-mile view, he is still the phenomenon.

Posted by Chris | March 5, 2008 9:28 AM

Telll me how Clinton can win Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia or Iowa in the elections? Obama can flip these in the elections.
Don't believe for one moment that people are ot aware of the dirty games the Clintons are playing. Barack Obama is the nominee.

Posted by Kelly Pierce | March 5, 2008 9:28 AM

Scanning MSNBC.com this morning, the head story was another Wolfson press release served up as a "news story." The character assassination is only going to get worse from here with the press being "goaded" into asking non-questions about Rezko meant to insinuate imagined, horrible deeds which no one can identify but since they can't be identified, can't be directly challenged either.

The simple fact of the matter is that Clinton is unelectable. Her negatives are over 50% and, if she were to get the nomination, her hostile, condescending campaign will ensure that McCain would pick up the vast majority of that chunk of independents who crossed over to vote for Obama. Unfortunately, the alliance of her paleo-feminist cult of personality and LBJ Democrats can't elect presidents on its own. Her supporters will crow about how Ohio is THE MOST IMPORTANT STATE EVER while failing to recognize that Nevada, Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, Iowa, and New Hampshire's electoral votes are worth just as much.

This primary is very much a race for the general election. Obama is by no means a sure thing but he has a chance. Nominating Clinton would be a cute little "statement" for the Tina Fey types, but it will ultimately result in four more years of war and economic injustice. Clinton, simply, has nothing to run on in the general election. The change mantle doesn't apply, and her laughably unscrutinized claims to experience will wilt and crumble when she faces opponents who are more than willing to sink to her level.

Posted by Annie | March 5, 2008 9:29 AM

It that a worthwhile goal?

Yes, Kim, it is. However, recall the famous quote by James Carville a few years back which I think is entirely apropos:

"It's Philadelphia on one side, Pittsburgh on the other, and Alabama in the middle".

Any he wasn't referring to the enlightened part of that southern state. Hailing from SE Ohio, which is a very similar area (guns, God, trucks, rednecks and beer) I can certainly attest that this isn't exactly friendly territory for Obama.

Posted by Jay | March 5, 2008 9:30 AM

RKA - She is counting on the fatigue of the electorate not to want to go the distance in an all out fight - but she has sowed too many seeds that Obama is "not ready" - that it is dangerous for him to be picking up that phone and be entrusted with our economic concerns - so much so that according to Pew 20% of Democrats will not vote for him - she wants that number to increase and will do anything accomplish it.

But she (and her supporters) will say it's not because she is "mean" but because she is our tough more experienced sainted Mother who wants to protect us. This is why she MUST fight on - all the way to the convention and why and a Obama/Clinton ticket is not acceptable.

Rather, she will put forth (and has on all the morning shows today) that the only way out of this mess is a Clinton/Obama ticket -It solves all our problems, addresses all our concerns (that she has created/brought to light) - she then is the Party uniter and if Obama refuses - that shows he is really a divider.

Trust me, this is the subtext of everything going forward. Meanwhile she will do everything to freeze the superdelegates and whittle down Obama's lead - including revotes - while she brings everyone to the same consensus.

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 5, 2008 9:34 AM

last night was disappointing b/c it reaffirmed to most strategists that smear politics coupled with the politics of hate work...in the short term. These tactics tear apart party's, movements and our country. The msm and progressive sites did little to call out these tactics thus tacitly enabling the clinton machine to cleverly call this vile garbage the kitchen sink....the clintons are such easy targets(impeachment/monica/911) yet Mr. Obama ethically decided these types of tactics were disgusting...either way the democrats have no one to blame but themselves...again.

Posted by jim | March 5, 2008 9:40 AM

C.B Todd. You said it perfectly. A great post.
Obama will have to go on the offensive with surrogrates on this.
Destroy, I mean completley her credibility. So she is nothing more than a withered tree. Nothing less than that will do.

Posted by Kelly Pierce | March 5, 2008 9:42 AM

I remember when Democrats used to make fun of Republicans for nominating a guy just based on his last name.

Then the Democrats did the same with a candidate who has even less relevant experience.

The bloc that's opposing Obama are the same ones who brought us Kerry. Except, of course, Kerry is a wonderful human being and a much stronger candidate.

Posted by Randall | March 5, 2008 9:46 AM

It might well be the 2012 strategy. If Hillary can cripple Obama enough to ensure he loses the general election, she'll be the presumptive democratic challenger in 2012. She can't win this time except by having the super's overrule the delegate count. If Obama wins and loses, he won't do near as well next time. If she wants to be president there is no downside to her going negative. Well no downside for her, plenty for the Democratic Party.

Posted by Stephen | March 5, 2008 9:51 AM

We Obama supporters are far too dismissive of HRC and her supporters. The truth is, and we have to recognize this, our candidate is an unknown quantity. I completely agree that HRCs experience claims are specious, but the public is familiar with HRC and believes that a co-presidency with Bill Clinton could be, at least, not as bad as what we've had. Clinton is getting the risk-averse vote. That's the best way to understand her coalition of older people, much poorer people (except for blacks, who know that a black guy does not necessarily represent a risk), and Latinos. You can look at an unknown as a good thing (better than the known when the known is unsatisfactory) or a bad thing. I think it's time for Obama, but we have to address the argument for the familiar.

Posted by alex | March 5, 2008 9:51 AM

Maybe Barack should shed some tears and talk about how tough this has been for him.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | March 5, 2008 9:52 AM

It is utterly amazing how pro-Obama the people who read this blog are, or at least the ones who post comments. There's your demographics for you. People who sit in front of a computer screen at 9:30 in the morning who have the time and energy to write a ever positive pro-Obama posts after legitimate losses. Paleo-feminist cult of personality? The politics of regionalism? Good God. You people line right up with that better-educated, well-off, liberal elite that flocks to Obama, and the ones Republicans mock at every chance. And in the process, you bash the people of Ohio, the "uneducated" dumb class and hide it with words like "regionalism." You bash Clinton at every chance with partisan attacks (i.e. not policy).

I am a Democrat. I want a Democrat in the White House. But I do not want to be part of a party that takes these views. Your jumping on the Obama bandwagon does not make you superior to those who vote for Clinton. It's your choice. But 12 million people choose not to. When this is all over, and let's say your man is the nominee, what are you going to do to win those 12 million "uneducated" blobs back? Keep up your elitist bigotry and Ronald Reagan's real, but humble, foot soldier will give you the answer. You won't. Crossing the divide to bring Washington together? Please, you can't even bring your own party together.

Posted by Joe | March 5, 2008 9:53 AM

C.B.Todd, lets ellaborate on the Pew Research poll. It says that 20% of "white" voters would vote for McCain, and that 20% is comprised mostly of "Older Democrats (ages 65 and older), lower-income and less educated Democrats" according to Pew. In other words, old people who at one time in their life referred to black people as the "n" word voted for her. She also proved that less educated people will give into negative campaigning and vote for her out of fear. I found it interesting that pew didn't mention how many would deflect to McCain if Clinton were the nominee and lets not forget the most important part of the equation that polls cannot give you... that is the high amount of hate for the Clinton's from the right wing. There are many Republicans who even if they don't support Obama, they don't dislike him... if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I would expect to see record turnouts from the Republican electorate, if you disagree... please speak up.

Posted by Blake | March 5, 2008 10:00 AM

And here's Joe to proclaim himself the stand bearer of the everyman who would never lower himself to posting comments on a blog at 9:30 AM. No, he waits until 9:53 AM, not like those liberal elitists who have the audacity to be better educated and articulate arguments about political realities.

Posted by Randall | March 5, 2008 10:02 AM

It looks likely that neither of them can credibly win at this point. He can't win 75+% of the delgates left and she can't win 95+% of the delegates.

Sure she's behind but not by very much...what then? The "supers" just go with whoever has the numerical advantage?

Posted by sam | March 5, 2008 10:04 AM

And Joe, we're not bashing "the people of Ohio."

The last time I checked, Clinton did not receive 100% of the vote.

She did, however, receive that 14% who said their primary motivation for voting was to put the black man in his place.

Posted by Randall | March 5, 2008 10:05 AM

Joe,

"Regionalism" is not a code word for "uneducated". Indeed, the whole point is that in addition to traditional demographic factors like educational level, political affinity is determined in part by the cultural differences associated with different regions. And that is how we can explain, say, the differences in the results in Wisconsin and Minnesota on the one hand versus Ohio and Tennessee on the other, when it turns out that demographics (including education level) don't provide enough explanatory power.

And incidentally, I would suggest it is the "liberal elites" in the media who simply do not understand what they view as "flyover" country well enough to understand regionalism, which explains why they are largely ignoring it in their analysis (despite how obvious it is if you bother to look at a map). For example, do you think most people in the media understand that there are actually no fewer than four different regions which happen to meet in Ohio, and that only one of those overlaps with the regions in Wisconsin? I would guess no: to most of them this is all the undifferentiated "Midwest", and the only tools they know how to use are the demographic measures which are proving insufficient to explain these results.

Finally, I certainly think you are right that whoever wins will have to convert most of the other person's supporters. Fortunately, partisanship will do most of that work among registered Democrats, but I also think it will be necessary for the nominee to understand why people were voting the way they did in the primaries. In that sense, ignoring the role that regionalism has played in forming the coalitions during the nomination process is the exact opposite of what the nominee should do, because understanding those effects is going to be an important part of understanding how to combine those coalitions for the general election.

Posted by DTM | March 5, 2008 10:08 AM

you bash the people of Ohio

Joe: I grew up in SE Ohio. Trust me when I say that there are many, many ignorant rednecks who are easily as bad as any caricature you'll see on TV or at the movies. Being a racist, ignorant jerk is far too commonplace. These are the types who are voting for Hillary en mass. If you choose to rationalize or excuse that sort of behavior it's entirely up to you. Calling it out for what it is of course won't change it, but don't blast people who point out that it's both unfortunate and ironic that this slimy sub-culture is dictating our national discourse. It's pathetic.

Posted by Jay | March 5, 2008 10:08 AM

I still don't understand how this is a "rebuke" of any kind when Clinton had such huge leads in Texas not long ago. The media (and here I'm talking about MSNBC, CNN, et al.) and its ability to ignore reality and fabricate story lines never ceases to amaze me. Oh, and disgust me.

Posted by JMW | March 5, 2008 10:11 AM

Joe, you're right. We do sugar-coat the less educated voters so lets get down to it... you basically said that Obama supporters are just snobby intellectuals who want to jump on his bandwagon because its cool. This is an absurd claim. First of all, what's wrong with having a good education so that you can develop good reasoning skills and make more informed decisions? I know its harsh, but it is a reality that in general, less educated voters make less educated decisions. And lets be honest, the past few weeks, you would have to be a political junkie to sort through all the stuff that's been flying at him to see if any of it is substantial, and in reality, none of it is substantial, but less educated voters don't have the time or maybe the resources to sort through it so they take Clinton at her word. Now, the more difficult question... how are these less educated voters going to convince these more informed voters to vote for Clinton?

Posted by Blake | March 5, 2008 10:12 AM

Wait, now Hillary has "reformed" her coalition by simply only campaigning in states which include a disproportionately members of her campaign. How's that add?

Or maybe you forgot to add that the only real coalition members she has added are those Republicans who are so scared of Obama in a general that they decide to poll for HC.

In the immortal words of Wycled Jean "[they'll] be gone in November, [they'll] be gone in Novemeber."

Posted by alex | March 5, 2008 10:18 AM

Blake, well said. At this point, the debate teams at Oxford from 1972-2006, en masse, couldn't convince me to vote for Clinton.

Posted by JMW | March 5, 2008 10:19 AM

Joe, I don't know about you, but 'us' 'educated' latte drinking Obama supporters sure do have plenty of time on her hands at 9am don't we? I mean, how else would we afford that wonderful new prius, right?

Posted by Kelly Pierce | March 5, 2008 10:22 AM

Your responses to my post are not helping your case. I return to my point. I am Democrat. I want a Democrat to win. Believe it or not, partisanship will matter on January 21, 2009. I will respond to DTM, who seems to be one of the few reasoned and fair posters here, how can you assume partisanship will bring back the "lower class" Democrats? I don't think you can say that, at least not today. The coaltion of either Clinton or Obama will fade in August. And then what? Reagan won the Democrats Clinton is winning for good reasons. If people want to boil it down to racism this time, that seems to be a little naive and not a very intellectual argument. How does Obama keep "those people" in the party? My point is the kinds of posts on this blogs is not the way.

Posted by Joe | March 5, 2008 10:24 AM

Thanks for the reminder, Kelly. Think I'll whip me up a hot delicious latte right about now. Mmmmmm....latte.

Posted by Jay | March 5, 2008 10:25 AM

Face it she won last night.
Why is that so hard for the BO supporters to admit?
One thing I did notice was that at the end of BOs never ending sermon last night-He did say the name of God.
Is this the word he intends to start using in his sermons?
A bit late for that dont you think?
(Note that MO was no where around when he said it Matter of fact she was not at his side while he spoke and spoke and spoke.
Could it be that she is bad for business?
BO&MO are falling apart.
What would they do against McCain and his party if they cant take the heat right now?

Posted by BETTY | March 5, 2008 10:27 AM

If people want to boil it down to racism this time, that seems to be a little naive and not a very intellectual argument.

Hmm, Joe, exit polls in Ohio showed that 1 in 5 voters admitted that race was a defining factor in their decision for who to vote for. Coincedentally an overwhelming percentage of those people voted for Hillary. Now, I don't know about you, but in my experience those that are willing to go on the record and admit being a racist fool is generally far less than the 'in the closet' racists. Naive? Look in the mirror, dude.

Posted by Jay | March 5, 2008 10:31 AM

Betty: Thanks for that irrational and ridiculous post. We needed some comedic relief around here this morning.

Posted by Brown Betty? | March 5, 2008 10:34 AM

Joe, stop trying to polarize the people posting on this blog. Stop trying to label us unreasonable and unfair. I genuinely want to hear you rebute or defend Clinton and tell me why we should vote for her? You're so for her, but all you can tell us is that we're just a bunch of crazies and we're being naive... where's your substance? Why "should" she be the nominee? What do you see that we don't?

Posted by Blake | March 5, 2008 10:38 AM

Does anyone know - if Michigan and Florida revote, and Clinton wins them - can she catch up in the pledged delegate race?

http://www.marbury.typepad.com

Posted by marbury | March 5, 2008 10:39 AM

I am not saying you should vote for Clinton. Far from it. I am asking you to explain why Reagan Democrats are not going to vote for John McCann. They aren't voting for Obama now. What makes you think they will?

Posted by Joe | March 5, 2008 10:42 AM

Rebuke? Jesus Christ on a cracker. Hillary won the states she was suppose to win. When Obama wins the next 2 states will it be a rebuke of Clinton?

Posted by bjd | March 5, 2008 10:47 AM

Betty, she did win last night. We're not disputing that. We're just trying to have a conversation about how and why she won. Kudos to her for pulling it off. One question... why do you support her? I have heard a million reasons from Joe on here and others why we shouldn't support Obama, but why should we support her? Please, I genuinely want to know.

Posted by Blake | March 5, 2008 10:49 AM

Joe, I think you have a good point: "Reagan won the Democrats Clinton is winning for good reasons." I agree. That said, Obama is likewise winning many independents and Republicans for a reason. (My father and stepmother, lifelong Republicans, both voted for Obama yesterday in Dallas.) As an Obama supporter (and more tepid "Democrat-in-general" supporter), what I'm arguing is that Obama has the POTENTIAL to beat McCain, say, 58-42, if everything breaks his way. I still don't see a scenario where Hillary beats him any better than 51-49 (remember, her husband never won a plurality), and I can easily imagine him beating her. The fact is, I haven't heard a lot of Clinton supporters saying there's "no way" they would vote for Obama in November, but you hear the opposite a lot, and I really don't think it has anything to do with latte.

Posted by JMW | March 5, 2008 10:49 AM

Joe

Not that I don't think you have a point, but it's hardly accurate to act as if this is a fight Obama and his supporters started. The Clinton's have been insulting everyone from African Americans to voters who work with their computers [we exist too and in rather large numbers] since Obama started winning. How do you feel about that? Do you think African Anerican's, who just listened to one of Hillary's feminist allies spout off about who got the vote first [lynchings aside]should forgo comparing the 25 women with state houses and senate seats to the TWO black men in their position? My problem with your question is that it compares what random folks on blogs have said to what paid surrogates have done [like say running an ad that blacked Obama's features].

You're right to point out the people don't react well when insulted, but doesn't that apply to both sides?

Posted by Dirk | March 5, 2008 10:55 AM

Nail on the head JMW. Look at a state like North Carolina.
EV 15. Thats a lot. I can see Obama, just on very high turnout of AA's and the people in the 'research triangle' flipping this state in the general. There is no way Hillary can do that.

Posted by Kelly Pierce | March 5, 2008 10:55 AM

It's not a rebuke of Obama, it's a proof that there are a lot of people who have different opinions than the majority of people in the states that have recently voted. The realities of individual people and individual choices fit very awkwardly in the attempt to describe these successive primaries and caucuses as a gradual revelation of general Democratic opinion.

For my part, I'm optimistic: if Clinton is fantastically savvy, lucky, and able to convince the Democratic Party to break its own rules, at least we'll still have a President who is against torture: John McCain.

Posted by Nate | March 5, 2008 10:57 AM

I suppose I'm just dreading the next six weeks, not from a "I hope so-and-so wins" standpoint, but from a tedium standpoint. Especially if no tricks result in her being in any way conceivably closer to taking the lead in delegates.

P.S. [cough] tax return [/cough]

Posted by norbizness | March 5, 2008 11:00 AM

No. She can't catch up in pledged delegates even if we re-vote in Michigan and Florida. But she could get it down to about 30-50 margin. Still, I don't see any path for HRC to win BOTH the nomination AND the General Election. Look, it's not like the Republicans nominated Mitt Romney or Rudy Mussolini. They nominated John McCain. I don't agree with John McCain on most things, but I LIKE and TRUST him. I, for one, will not vote for HRC. EVER. Even if Obama is on the ticket. If she gets nominated, I'll vote for McCain and look for a job in Canada.

I say this as an Obama, Dean, Bradley, Tsongas, Hart, Ted Kennedy Democrat. This party is so disfunctional I can't even believe it. It won't even allow us to save it from itself.

Posted by Greggie | March 5, 2008 11:02 AM

They will vote for Obama over McCain because they don't want to lose their jobs. McCain himself has said that the economy is not his strongest suit, he even told voters in Michigan straight up "You're jobs aren't coming back". He believes in less regulation and smaller government, sure, but once we start to discect what that means throughout the GE, we'll see that means less restrictions and more off-shoring of jobs. The jobs alone will put Obama over the top. Now, to go even further, Obama has been again the war since the beginning and has vowed to bring all the troops home, McCain says it will be 100 years, this will be a clear choice for voters, and last time I checked, people don't want this war to continue, considering most of our military is comprised of people who come from lower class backgrounds, this will sway them towards Obama as well. Last point, healthcare, its an issue that is very important to Democrats, especially middle and lower class who live everyday in fear that going to the hospital for a day means foreclosing on your house... John McCain believes the markets should decide (just as they have been doing). There are many more reason for why I think Obama will win those votes... now that I've answered you, will you answer me and tell me how Clinton is going to win the more educated, higher income voters as well as independents?

Posted by Blake | March 5, 2008 11:03 AM

I would like to join in on the Joe pile-on. I lived in Ohio for six years, and my grandmother still lives there (staunch Obama supporter at 92, by the way, as was everyone else in her retirement home). Obama supporters just tend to study stuff more. That's why they're always on blogs. I went to public schools, and grew up without money. The unifying force behind Obama voters is education and optimism, not a cavalier attitude toward any particular class.

Posted by alex | March 5, 2008 11:13 AM

Joe:

Keep up your elitist bigotry and Ronald Reagan's real, but humble, foot soldier will give you the answer.

You gave yourself away at the end there. McCain is "Ronald Reagan's real, but humble, foot soldier"? You actually believe that crap? McCain is as much a spinner and hypocrite as any politician in Washington --- or perhaps the world. He needs to get his lips off of Jerry Falwell's dead fascist bigoted ass before making claims about authenticity.

Posted by goethean | March 5, 2008 11:17 AM

How can one objectively consider Tuesday's result a "rebuke" of Obama? A few weeks ago, Clinton had massive leads in Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas. And, last night, she won those states; and in Texas, the gap in the primary was 3% and it looks like Obama will take the caucus. This isn't spin - it's a straightforward fact, impossible to deny. The real story is that the more time he spends campaigning in a given state, the better he does. If Clinton loses in Wyoming and Mississippi, will you consider that a "rebuke" of her? I won't.

Posted by Steven | March 5, 2008 11:20 AM

New Obama campaign rule:

The next time we hear the word "Rezko" out of the mouth of a Clinton surrogate, we bring up Monica, Whitewater, Travelgate, Cattle Futures, Paula Jones, Jennifer Flowers, Ken Star, Mark Rich, FALN, Kathleen Willy, tax returns, the Clinton Library, Dubai Ports, Soiled Blue Dress, Hugh Rodham and Roger Clinton selling pardons, Vince Foster, Rose Law Firm.... and on and on.

If she wants to go nuclear, we have all the ammo we need. We need to hit her between the eyes with everything we've got.

Posted by Greggie | March 5, 2008 11:26 AM

Look, I am not telling you to support McCain nor Clinton. What I am trying to do is get you to discuss whether or not Obama will have any trouble winning Reagan Democrats, for whatever reason. And more importantly, what does he do to keep that base in the Democratic Party. My contention is he has had trouble winning them and will have trouble. Without them, he will not win the GE.

McCain can easily frame himself as a Reaganite, in a way others Republicans could not. That frame is supported by a lot of Americans, including Democrats. And with McCain, Obama does not easily win those Independents and Republicans he does now. He will have to fight to get them. In doing that, he risks continuing to lose the Reagan Democrats.

My thought was for you guys to have a little critical discussion instead of the consistent Obama support here.

When I went to college, I was taught to think critically. Not just about others, that's easy. But about yourself and your beliefs. Criticizing these Democrats for their beliefs and votes seems unproductive.

You can't just assume they will vote for the Democrat for all the reasons Blake lays out. Assuming blacks would vote for the Democrat Establishment candidate didn't work out, did it?

Obama has to make some efforts to win them back. Your flip responses seems to suggest he will be fine, don't worry about it. Luckily, I think Obama is more politically savvy than that.

Posted by Joe | March 5, 2008 11:40 AM

Lets cut the crap. As a Democrat, I find both Clinton and Obama to be flawed candidates. Neither is probably better than a 50-50 bet to beat McCain. Clinton while very capable and more battle-tested than Obama, has very high-negatives and is a death sentence for a number of freshman House Democrats. And in a best case scenario for Clinton she beats McCain narrowly and can't govern because of the narrow majorities in the House and Senate. Obama may have more appeal and attract a broader coalition but he is young and hasn't had to battle Congress from the executive branch to get something accomplished. Both are flawed. But you don't have to risk control of the House with Obama at the top of the ticket. You may not gain the presidency but you won't lose Congress. I think Obama's candidacy carries inherently less risk for the party.

One last point, Obama arguing about the math is a process arguement that never works. Is he right? Yes. But he just lost two big states. His best argument the whole campaign has been to keep winning. If he keeps winning he'll be fine, if he doesn't he won't.

Posted by Ben | March 5, 2008 11:46 AM

the people in the 'research triangle' flipping this state in the general.

You bet, Kelly. I live in the Triangle and it's Obama country around here, baby!!!!

Posted by Wilson | March 5, 2008 11:47 AM

Joe, not all of these responses are flip. Some of them are, like yours, broadly analytical. You'd do better to address them rather than continuing to insist that you're the sole voice of reason in the room. For instance, you're still not addressing why, if McCain will steal so many independents, Obama still has a much more comfortable lead over him in polls than Clinton does. How does that happen if your calculus is correct? It seems likely to me that, barring a national-security event that would benefit McCain over ANY Democrat, an Obama-McCain contest would mirror the Clinton-Dole one in '96, allowing many people to respect McCain and his service while turning away from his age and his recent compromises to vote for Obama.

Posted by JMW | March 5, 2008 11:49 AM

You bet, Kelly. I live in the Triangle and it's Obama country around here, baby!!!!

Count me as one more Triangle Obama supporter (live in Raleigh, work and go to school in Chapel Hill). I never thought that it would come down to North Carolina's vote counting, but it looks like we may very well have a chance to voice our support.

Posted by Tom in Raleigh | March 5, 2008 11:56 AM

JMW - you're right. On a lot of points.

My argument about why Obama has a lead over McCain is emotional, at this stage. There is such an opposition to Repulican's in general that McCain is hurt by that.

But he has not campaigned generally yet. And has had virtually no press lately with the Dems.

I think he has the potential to frame himself as a real centrist, with a track record, in a way that Obama cannot. And that's a problem. If he campigns well (we'll see....) Obama will not be able to rely on much of his movement candidacy to win. He will have to counter McCain's record. And before someone says something about the war. As long as things in Iraq improve or at least don't get worse, McCain can win that case with a lot of voters. Being opposed to the war in 2002 is admirable, but meaningless to many Americans if the war isn't on the front page.

Besides, I would be careful about resting on big leads in the polls as proof that things are ok. Front runners have had trouble with that lately.

Posted by Joe | March 5, 2008 11:59 AM

Bottom Line: The rules of the game were known before all of this started.

One campaign prepared according to the rules, the other did not.

It's not an accident that the campaign who prepared correctly is the one with the advantage that matters.

Posted by John | March 5, 2008 12:07 PM

What makes you think they will?

Avoiding four more years of Bush-style economic policy is a pretty good reason.

Posted by justinb | March 5, 2008 12:07 PM

CB Todd,

I don't doubt that the clinton people will try to angle to be at the top of ticket, but there are several reasons they will not be able to make that claim

a) Obama's lead in pledged delegates
b) Obama lead in the popular vote
c) Obama's crossover appeal - I don't think all those crossover voters will turn out for Clinton/Obama over Obama/Clinton, but with Obama/Clinton, I think those masses of downscale white women still come through for the ticket.

If Hillary does lose in a bruiser, I don't know whether Sebelius will be a better choice. She doesn't have national sercurity cred nor does she have any inroads with the latino vote. Hillary could probably deliver huge turnouts of latinos and downscale white women as VP....I don't think Obama as VP would lead all those independents, many of whom don't like the clintons, to vote for Clinton/Obama. They'll still vote for Obama/Clinton because they will base their vote on the top of the ticket.

I think if Obama and Clinton got together and said in effect that he would be the CEO and she would be the COO, not only would they be unstoppable, but you might be looking at a landslide.

Look, I don't like the clintons as much as anybody, but it is clear in my mind this is the best move for the party with one big caveat: the clintons need to be on board 100%.

If they were smart, they would realize that this is probably Hillary's best move right now. If they have a great 8 years and Hillary morphs herself into Obama's right hand woman, she would still be younger than john mccain is now in 2016.

If Obama is the left's Reagan, Hillary could the next George H.W. Bush of our party and she could be elected in 2016.

Think about it people, this may be the best way to resolve this situation. It's going to take dampening down of egos on all sides, however. Trust me, there is a part of me that wants Obama to destroy her once and for all and run her out of the party...but honestly, I think that this is everybody's best move right now.

Posted by RKA | March 5, 2008 12:10 PM

Clinton must get out. I think she will. If she does it'll be before the next round of primaries. No matter what her campaign is saying I think they're willing get out with VP slot. Maybe that's her calculus -- VP slot now or more primary campaigning. I think she's bargaining. Just a hunch. She's ambitious and opportunistic and knows her options now are limited.

Core demographic of 65+ olds is, i'll say it, a dying breed, literally. Sounds mean, but is true. The young Obama voters are with Dems now, but many are new to politics in general and may not stick around if he's not the nominee. Why in the world would the supers nominate Clinton when 1) she is risky bet in the short term (this election) and 2) a terrible bet long term (with cross over Republicans and independents.) And then the math...the superdelegates would need to swing toward her drastically.

Posted by charlottemom | March 5, 2008 12:12 PM

Joe,

First, I think it is important to understand that many Reagan Democrats are no longer Democrats at all: they became Republicans (and in some cases independents). And, of course, in general you are talking about a period of time pretty long ago now (e.g., there are people born after 1984 who are now part of the general electorate). So, it is not really possible to refight the 1980 and 1984 elections, even if the Democrats wanted to.

Second, it turns out not to be the case that Clinton has uniformly won the people still within the party who most closely resemble the Reagan Democrats. Again, here is where regionalism helps explain what is going on. In the Appalachian regions, for example, it is true Clinton has been winning those people by large margins. In the Great Lakes regions, however, Obama has been doing much better (hence, the difference between Wisconsin and Tennessee, with Ohio in the middle). Moreover, when he gets Republicans and independents, he is in fact often getting people who resemble the old Reagan Democrats (again, because they changed registration, or were never Democrats in the first place).

In fact, I think that rather than Reagan Democrats, what we are really talking about is Clinton Democrats, namely Bill Clinton Democrats. That is what explains how Hillary Clinton is doing well not just in Arkansas, but also states like Tennessee and Ohio. But those Bill Clinton Democrats don't have the same presence in states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas, and so on. Indeed it is Obama (an Illinois politician, one might note) who has had the best success with people similar to Reagan Democrats in those states (particularly when you consider Republicans and independents).

Given that setup, I am not actually sure Obama will have a huge problem converting these Clinton Democrats: they like the Clintons, so are voting for Hillary Clinton. But that doesn't mean they will like McCain better than Obama--indeed, if anything McCain is farther away from them culturally than Obama, and he also has unpopular positions on the economy and the war.

On the other hand, I think Hillary Clinton does have a bit of problem with certain members of the Obama coalition in places like Wisconsin, Minnesota, and so on, particularly the Obama Republicans and independents in those states. I think that leaves those states vulnerable to McCain, who isn't from their region either, but not really farther away culturally than Clinton, and a strong contender for independents. Moreover, these states are legitimate swing states, and whereas Obama can win without states like Arkansas, Tennessee, and even Ohio, Clinton almost certainly cannot win without Wisconsin and Minnesota (or states in other regions that present a similar challenge for her, such as Maine and New Hampshire, or Oregon and Washington).

And in the end, the bottomline is that Obama's current coalition is bigger than Clinton's, and also more diversified (regionally, ideologically, and by party identification). So, Clinton would simply have a lot more work to do to get Obama's coalition than the other way around.

Posted by DTM | March 5, 2008 12:25 PM

@RKA

Here, here. I loathe both Clintons, but I could live with that agreement. And after last night, she's got the leverage to make it happen. I'd love to see Obama/Webb. But I'll take what I can get after yesterday.

And I'd even VOTE for her, WORK for her, and GIVE to her, if she could just suck it up and suffer the indignity of being only the Veep for 8 years.

But it won't happen. She's playing for keeps now. She's going for the jugular, and we have to respond in kind. Bloody her up, attack. Go after every piece of slime that surrounds the Clintons. Make it about them (not just her but them).

I pray I'm wrong.

At least John McCain is a decent guy. If this thing gets TOTALLY out of hand, at least it won't be President Rudy Mussolini!

Posted by Greggie | March 5, 2008 12:27 PM

Joe, I think you're right in that McCain will portray himself as a centrist, as a Reaganesque candidate, and that he has a record that if looked at selectively will defend that claim. However, you're overlooking something. You say the war doesn't matter, the reason it doesn't matter to Democrats in their primary is because every one in the party is against the war, there are no conflicts between Democrats in their current stance on the war, if there's no conflict, there's no news, the issue gets brushed aside. I guarantee you that no matter who is the nominee, the war in Iraq will come front and center and we're already starting to see a little of that. Be assured that when you have a Republican candidate who voted for the war, supports the war, is willing stay in for 100 years, thinks we should devote a majority of our resources to the war and then you have a Democratic candidate who was the first outspoken against the war, is still against the war, will bring all our troops home, and invest more in our own homeland... you can be certain that the war will trump all the other issues once again.

Posted by Blake | March 5, 2008 12:39 PM

Good points DTM. Thanks for partcipating.

I would agree with your point about Reagan Democrats being gone, in many ways. I am using that phrase in opposition to the "uneducated" descriptions above. My point really is the conservative Democrat. Some are lower-income, working class Democrats. There are lots of them. Some in Appalachia, which stretches through PA and into NY, as well as the Rust Belt. But there are other places. Florida, Texas, Arizona and California. We call those folks Hispanics. There are still others, as you point out, in TN, KY, IN, Ark, etc. Even Southern Illinois, which went for Clinton. And some are suburban women, Mark Penn's soccer moms.

But it isn't just about class. These folks are by in large more conservative than the average Democrat, on a lot of topics. Their perspectives on politics, law enforcement, foreign policy, and yes the military and the war.

I do not believe they are one block of people with all the same beleifs or geographical location. Rather, they are a mixture of beliefs.

My argument is that these Democrats have to remain Democrats in 2008. If they don't, Democrats will not win. That's the lesson from Reagan. And it's even the lesson from Bill Clinton, as you suggest, and from W. He played them like a violin.

Obama is liberal. Let's be honest. And he will have difficulty using his "bridge the divide" message as John McCain as his opponenet.

Posted by Joe | March 5, 2008 12:42 PM

Joe, you ask:

"explain why Reagan Democrats are not going to vote for John McCann. They aren't voting for Obama now."

That's a peculiar question, Joe. They aren't voting for Obama now because they are voting for *another* Democrat in the primary. In the general election there will be only one Democrat to vote for, obviously. What would motivate them to vote for Clinton now, but not Obama in November, when the two Democrats' policies are nearly identical and hugely different from McCain's?

Unless your point is that they aren't voting for any Democrat now in the primary, in which case I'm not sure how this is helping your argument that Clinton is better at capturing their votes.

IMHO, many Reagan Democrats will vote for the Democrat in the general election because, well, McCain ain't no Reagan, and:

1) Republicans are responsible for a hugely unpopular war.

2) Republicans are responsible for a truly ugly Recession that should be flowering nicely by November.

That's a pretty potent combination of negatives to take into a general election. A Democrat should win, unless the party self-destructs.

Posted by Jon M. | March 5, 2008 12:50 PM

Good points Blake.

But I would disagree. The recent Pew Poll (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1258) would suggest the war will not be the issue it was. This does assume the situation there contunes as it is today.

McCain said yesterday that he will not back away from that vote or the war. That's trouble in my eyes. He wants to talk about it and will defend his side. That expression of patriotism and "These colors never run" will resonate with the "Reagan" Democrats.

And what's Obama's response? We should spend the money we are spedning on the war here on domestic issues and anti-foreclosure funds. The problem is, the money for the war doesn't really exist. It's borrowed. If Obama wants to use that money, he continues to borrow. Tax and spend Democrat. You can hear it now.

I am not suggesting I have any answers here, just being Devil's Advocate. Raising a discusion. As a party there is time to work these things out.

Posted by Joe | March 5, 2008 12:56 PM

Joe,

Actually, ideology is another area in which the coalitions are not ones which people might expect. Overall, Obama has won with self-described liberals AND self-described conservatives, with Clinton winning among self-described moderates (which is somewhat predictable, in fact, given that Obama wins independents and Republicans). Again, I think that result requires a pretty complicated model to explain, with ideology obviously not being the dominant factor.

Anyway, I didn't mean to imply the Clinton coalition was limited to Appalachia (I was just using that as an example). For example, it is also true Clinton has regional bases along the Southern border of the United States and in the upper Northeast corridor (although I am a little curious to see what happens in Philly, which I think could either go the way of NYC or the way of Baltimore/DC), and in the border area that includes Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Eastern Tennessee.

But Obama also has a lot more regional bases, such as pretty much all the regions from the Upper Midwest through the Pacific Northwest, upper New England, and the Southeast starting all the way up in Maryland and down through Louisiana (and I suspect into parts of Texas). And it turns out his coalition is a bit more strategically placed: most of Clinton's coalition is based in states the Democratic nominee is either very likely to win anyway (e.g., CA, NY, and MA), or very unlikely to win (e.g., AZ, OK, TX, and TN). In comparison, Obama's coalition is based in a lot more swing states, although Clinton does have a few in her regions (but I would caution against overinterpreting Ohio in particular, because of its regional cross-roads status).

Finally, of course McCain is well-positioned to compete for independents. But the Democratic nominee cannot give up independents to McCain and expect to win: Republicans and independents together will easily outnumber Democrats. So, for any Democratic nominee to win, they will need to compete effectively for independents and disaffected Republicans, getting at least close enough to a draw to allow their likely party ID advantage to carry the election.

In that sense, as much as Obama would indeed have the vital task of converting Clinton Democrats to Obama Democrats, Clinton would also have the vital task of converting Obama Republicans and Obama independents to Clinton Republicans and Clinton independents, AND would also have to convert the Obama Democrats.

Again, that task is bigger and more complicated, and no less essential to her chances of winning the general election. In fact, that is what virtually all the head-to-head polls are showing: Clinton would just start out in a much worse position than Obama in a matchup with McCain, even with Clinton currently getting a bit more support from Democrats.

Posted by DTM | March 5, 2008 1:16 PM

In what can only be described as an episode reminiscent of MTV’s Celebrity Death Match, Clinton v. Obama continues, “ding.” Announcer: And, Clinton just handed Obama his head ... but wait ... he's screwed it back on; and, he's holding up a chalkboard. What's he trying to say? Oh no, it's the total number of delegates he's won! That's got to hurt folks. Clinton is countering with the kitchen sink. Obama's got a blowtorch. Wow! That sink is red hot; he's welding the pipes together. Wait, who's that entering the ring? Hey, he's not supposed to ... look out Obama! Bill Clinton just handed Hillary a pair of oven mitts. Oh, here comes Michelle Obama ... with a five-gallon jerry can of Texas barbeque sauce. Man is that stuff hot. She's marinating both Clintons. Folks, this is humiliating. Those Texas delegates just threw Barack Obama a flamethrower. Oh no ... who’s that? Wait, its Monica Lewinsky; the Clintons are using her as a human shield. Oh, is that Hillary holding out an olive branch? Well, I hope Ms. Lewinsky brought her asbestos thong. Somebody’s got to win this primary, but it won’t be her: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 5, 2008 1:19 PM

Joe, I appreciate you carrying the conversation, but you have to get your facts straight. The Pew Research poll does not suggest nor could it suggest that the Iraq issue will remain in the background, it is measuring its importance today and as I already stated it is not as important today because voters know that Hillary and Barack both have plans to end it. You know that when there is serious conflict between candidates, that conflict makes the news and innevitably becomes a priority issue. The biggest conflicting stance between the Democrats and the Republicans is the war in Iraq. You yourself just said "McCain said yesterday that he will not back away from that vote or the war", this further confirms that the conflict is prepped and ready and it will dominate the GE.

And as far as labelling Obama a tax-and-spend Democrat, I don't think that argument works as well now as it did in the Reagan movement. People aren't stupid, whether we're paying for this war out of pocket or we are borrowing money, ultimately, it all gets paid for with taxes. Since you bring up taxes, that's another conflict that we can easily win... the infamous "Bush tax cuts" that only benefit wealthy investors who don't need a break are what's preventing us from cutting away at our debt as well as preventing us from using that money for domestic issues. He'll let those cuts expire which will raise taxes for those people, but unless you're making a half million a year or more and still living beyond your means, it won't effect you. McCain on the other hand believe the tax cuts should be permanent. This issue will be scrutinized in the GE and when it does, no middle class or lower class American could possibly consider the Bush tax cuts a good thing b/c the less taxes the wealthiest have to pay, the more taxes the poor have to pay... and even if you've had no education you can figure that one out. So yeah, I don't think they will be able to pull off calling him a "tax and spend liberal".

Posted by Blake | March 5, 2008 1:29 PM

Good discussion.

I think we may have come full circle, or maybe just half circle.

Blake, you just mentioned that people aren't stupid. However, many others in this long list of posts would disagree. Kind of where we started. As one poster put it, the "people in Ohio are dumb enough to listen" to Clinton attacks.

Regardless of the realities, Clinton has played a pretty good conservative, at least in a Democratic Primary. In the end, do you think the liberalism of Obama won't be attacked in a General Election?

"Tax and spend Democrat" is so old school. No question. But I would argue those labels work, and can stick. Obama has tried to play centrist, but I believe there is more evidence in McCain's record for that, legitimately.

As for the war and the Pew Poll, it is a snapshot in time. But the tracking there has shown increasing support in the populace for McCain's positions, not for Obama's, over the course of the last year. By November, if that tracking continues, McCain gets a boost.

And think back to 2004. How well was the war going then? And who did people vote for then? Yes it was close, popularly, but not Electorially.

The Framers did not trust the masses. They do stupid things sometimes. They often believe what they are told. That doesn't necessarily make them bad people, but it means you have to adjust for that in a political campaign.

Posted by Joe | March 5, 2008 2:18 PM

I can only guarantee one thing: I will never vote for Hillary Clinton for anything. I, like most black Democrats, have been appalled at the Clinton campaign day after day. I won't ever vote for her, even on a ticket with Obama at the top; it simply won't happen. And since Rush Limbaugh is now supporting her in the primary, I can't even see how any other Democrat would.

Imagine 20-30 million black voters not voting for the Democratic candidate: that's what'll happen with Hillary at this point . Someone tell me how she wins the general with that occurrence, 'cause I can't see it, I know it'll happen. Hubert Humphrey was fighting with another white guy; no black voters would have punished him for that. Do you think this year is similar?

Posted by Michael's Mom | March 5, 2008 3:32 PM

MM:

I loathe her, too. Would NEVER vote for a Clinton/Obama ticket. But to not vote for her as VP with OBAMA as President is a bit looney, IMHO.

Posted by Greggie | March 5, 2008 3:34 PM

Hillary is just using fear. It is because of these tactics so many do not like Bush & Rove, and often do not participate in elections at all. If the Dems try to win elections playing the GOP's game... they will lose. Hillary cares about Hillary and will obviously do ANYTHING to win.

Its a psychotic idea for her to start digging into Obama's rather clean closet for corruption and lies... if Obama does the same to her (or even digs a little)I guarantee we see tears from her and "its not fair". I didn't mind Hillary before this race... now i dispise her. The muslim thing, lies about Canada meetings... she is taking advantage of the ill informed and uneducated, and thats what she will do in the White House.

WE WANT TAX RETURNS HILLARY!!!!!!

Posted by moe.ron | March 5, 2008 4:39 PM