A New Emerging Democratic Minority?
John Judis on Obama's hurdle, post-PA ...
,,, if you look at Obama's vote in Pennsylvania, you begin to see the outlines of the old George McGovern coalition that haunted the Democrats during the '70s and '80s, led by college students and minorities. In Pennsylvania, Obama did best in college towns (60 to 40 percent in Penn State's Centre County) and in heavily black areas like Philadelphia.
Its ideology is very liberal. Whereas in the first primaries and caucuses, Obama benefited from being seen as middle-of-the-road or even conservative, he is now receiving his strongest support from voters who see themselves as "very liberal." In Pennsylvania, he defeated Clinton among "very liberal" voters by 55 to 45 percent, but lost "somewhat conservative" voters by 53 to 47 percent and moderates by 60 to 40 percent. In Wisconsin and Virginia, by contrast, he had done best against Clinton among voters who saw themselves as moderate or somewhat conservative.Obama even seems to be acquiring the religious profile of the old McGovern coalition. In the early primaries and caucuses, Obama did very well among the observant. In Maryland, he defeated Clinton among those who attended religious services weekly by 61 to 31 percent. By contrast, in Pennsylvania, he lost to Clinton among these voters by 58 to 42 percent and did best among voters who never attend religious services, winning them by 56 to 44 percent. There is nothing wrong with winning over voters who are very liberal and who never attend religious services; but if they begin to become Obama's most fervent base of support, he will have trouble (to say the least) in November.
The primaries, unfortunately, are not going to get any easier for Obama. While he should win easily in North Carolina, where he benefits from a large African-American vote and support in the state's college communities, he is going to have trouble in Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, where he will once again be faced by a large white working class vote. He can still win the nomination and lose these primaries. Pennsylvania was the last big delegate prize. But if Obama doesn't find a way now to speak to these voters, he is going to have trouble winning that large swath of states from Pennsylvania through Missouri in which a Democrat must do well to gain the presidency. That remains Obama challenge in the month to come.
This paragraph, immediately before what you posted, is instructive.
"My colleague Noam Scheiber attributes Clinton's success among these suburbanites to the influence of Governor Ed Rendell, who campaigned with Clinton, but I wonder whether Obama's gaffes and his suspect associations--whether with Wright or former Weatherman Bill Ayers or real estate developer Tony Rezko--began to tarnish his image among these voters. If so, the electoral premise of Obama's campaign--that he can attract middle class Republicans and Independents--is being undermined."
The last sentence is key. How can we make a judgment about Obama's ability to attract Republicans and Independents in the general election when, unless they were willing to re-register as Democrats, were not permitted to vote in the Democratic primary in PA?
Let's be frank. Pennsylvania was always a state that set up well for HRC vs. Obama. But her ability to best him in a primary does not necessarily mean he can't win it, or states like it in the general election.
Watching MSNBC coverage on Tuesday night, I was simply flabbergasted by the over-analyzing of the results by an underwhelming panel of "experts". Judis' comparison of Obama to McGovern strains credibility for a number of reasons. But, as an ex-subscriber, should we expect anything better from a magazine dying a slow death? (Circulation continues to plummet, despite TNR's efforts to obscure this fact.)
Barack Obama is no lock to win the presidency, but we feel pretty comfortable in saying he won't be McGovern II.
We?
Sorry -- royal we used on houtopia. Old habit.