TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM
July 03, 2009 | 5:02 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
06.02.2008
Who Won Super Tuesday?

It’s hard to say, but if you put a gun in my head, I’d say John McCain and (very slightly) Hillary Clinton, but the elections revealed weaknesses in McCain and in both of the leading Democratic candidates. McCain blunted Mitt Romney’s challenge, but he failed consistently to win over conservative voters. Hillary Clinton won the big states she had to win, and arrested Barack Obama’s momentum, but she is going to have problems with white male voters. Obama is having trouble with white working-class voters and Latinos. Here is a rundown.

McCain beat Romney in California--that’s the end of Romney. But McCain continues to depend on moderate, non-evangelical Republicans for his victories. In California, conservatives made up 62 percent of the primary electorate; McCain only won 30 percent of them. In Tennessee, 73 percent of the voters were conservatives; McCain won 22 percent. In Missouri, 65 percent were conservatives; McCain won 25 percent. In these states, McCain failed to win a majority of Republicans. And he might face a revolt of these conservatives in the fall. They won’t vote for a Democrat, but they might not vote at all.

One group that is clearly dissatisfied with McCain are Republican evangelicals. In Tennessee, which Huckabee won, 73 percent of the primary voters described themselves as born-again Christians. McCain won 29 percent of these voters. In Missouri, 54 percent of voters described themselves this way; McCain won 24 percent. The other group that doesn’t like McCain is Republicans who think illegal immigration is the most important issue. In California, 30 percent of the Republicans thought it was; 23 percent voted for Republicans; in Tennessee 25 percent thought it was the most important. Only 21 percent went for McCain. It’s not clear how McCain can win these voters over.

Hillary Clinton won most of the big primary states, including California and Massachusetts. Obama won several important states, including Missouri and Connecticut, and, perhaps, more delegates, but many of his victories came in states like Georgia or Alabama that Democrats will not win in November or in caucus states dominated by left-wing activists who are unrepresentative either of the party or the fall electorate.

Clinton got pasted among blacks, but she should be able to win back those voters in November. What’s more troubling is her vote among white males and among independents. In California, Clinton lost white men by a whopping 52 to 34 percent. She lost white independents by 58 to 30 percent. In California, 6.5 percent of those voters who didn’t vote for Clinton said that gender of the candidate was “an important factor.” One must assume that the actual percentage is higher (voters don’t like to admit to prejudice) and that many of those voters who would not want to vote for a woman, but who potentially could vote for a Democrat, did not vote at all in the primaries, but will be around in the general election.

Obama, as I previously noted, had trouble with white working-class voters. In New Jersey, which a Democrat pretty much will have to win in November, Obama won only 31 percent of the white vote. Over 11 percent of those who voted against Obama (a group that might also include some Latinos) said that race was an important factor in their vote. Here, too, one must assume that the actual percentage is higher and that it would be even higher among voters in a general election. Democrats can win a state like Connecticut without winning these voters, but it won’t win most of the big Middle Atlantic and Midwestern states without them.

If the economy plummets, and Iraq goes up in flames, or if there is a conservative revolt against McCain, then Clinton or Obama could win with some ease in November, but if conditions are muddier, and if McCain is able to win over the Republican base, then the Democrats could be in trouble. McCain should be able to hold the Deep South and much of the Southwest against a Democrat. He will do well among Latinos in the Southwest (especially, perhaps, against Obama). In states like Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico, he could build a coalition of Republicans, independents, and a share of Latinos.

Democrats will have to win the Far West, the Middle West, the Northeast, and the Middle Atlantic states, and perhaps pick off a border state like Arkansas or Tennessee. White working-class voters make up a majority in many of the key Midwestern and Middle Atlantic states. If a Democrat can’t win a majority of these voters in a state like Pennsylvania, Missouri, or Ohio, they’ll have trouble winning the election. And as February 5 indicated, both Clinton and Obama are going to have trouble with these voters. Who would have more trouble? My feeling is that it’s a standoff. Hillary has less of a handicap than Obama, but she is not his equal as a politician.

--John B. Judis

Posted: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:42 AM with 61 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

AaronBBrown said:

The biggest winner of the night, the United States of America and her people.

Take a look at Lady liberty in New York Harbor, her light burns a little brighter this evening.

Obama 08, America Wins!

February 6, 2008 1:50 AM

forrestnash said:

Barack won at least 13 of the 22 states, most likely won more delegates, even after months of trailing virtually everywhere by wide margins, and Hillary won Super Tuesday? Where did she win that she wasn't widely favored in the last month of polling? She underperformed. Except, apparently, in manipulating the media.

February 6, 2008 2:01 AM

huntlib said:

In terms of winner-vs.-loser betting, I think Intrade says it all. Yesterday, Hillary was at 61% to win the nomination. Now, she's at 53%. She's still the more likely nominee, especially given the superdelegates. But tonight sure looks like a peg on Obama's inevitable rise.

As far as demographics go, Obama is going to have less and less trouble with blue-collar voters as his name recognition inches up.

February 6, 2008 2:13 AM

jhildner said:

I doubt actually that Clinton "arrested [Obama's] momentum."  He's in very good shape and has the edge going forward.  I bet he gets a ton more money out of tonight.  (Some of mine included, and I don't have much more to spare.  I have a DVD problem.)  Your analysis is, to some degree, based on old rules that Obama keeps breaking.  Especially when he's got time to break them.  I can't wait to see Obama in Ohio or Pennsylvania in the general.  He's the better politician?  Uh, yeah.

February 6, 2008 2:22 AM

jgoffman said:

this is a ridiculous post, you sound like Mark Penn's retarded cousin. This demographic stuff is vastly over blown.  You miss the forest full of trees. Many Independents can't vote and all the Democrats have to do is win Ohio.  You seem to make the class that some Kerry or Gore states are in danger. Based on Democratic turn out,  the 2006  election and John McCain's age, they will also put Iowa, Arizona, New Mexico, Arkansas, Missouri, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado and Florida in play in 2008. The democratic candidate is going to take back the white house even if we have to wait until Denver to find out. This is probably the worst post I have ever read on the plank.

February 6, 2008 2:45 AM

LDuncan said:

John, you are missing the point when you say Obama did not win most of the big blue states.  Our problem as Democrats never has been -- and will not be this time -- capturing the big blue states.  Obama will get Hillary's voters in the general if he wins the nomination.  Recall that the biggest problem for Obama -- overwhelmingly -- is in getting white women voters.  They make up a disproportionate share of the electorate in most of the states Obama lost. And there is no way on earth that these white women for Hillary are suddenly going to vote for a Republican.  No way.  Who might vote for a Republican?  The white men that Obama is now bringing in in substantial numbers.   Chris Matthews made the same mistake when he kept denigrating McCain's wins in the blue states.  Those wins show that McCain has crossover appeal, not that he'll be a weak gen. election candidate for the Repubs.

What the Democrats cannot count on is that they will keep many of Obama's white male voters; Hillary;s white female voters are in the bag.  There might be a tiny residue of anti-black sentiment among some tiny portion of the ethnic vote that Hillary pulled in, but not nearly enough to jeopardize any of the blue, or even purple states.  Further, blacks are showing up in record numbers to vote for Obama.  While I think they;ll utimately come home to Hillary, they won;t vote in record numbers in the general.  Some will feel dispirited.

Another lesson of tonight is that, though Hillary's political team gets credit for being so smart all the time, I am in awe of the decisions David Plouffe made after the NH loss a couple of weeks ago.  He played to keep Obama in the game after Feb 5; many a less disciplined operative would have played hard for a big glamor win.  We will need smart strategists in the general election, and if Obama is the nominee we will have some.

February 6, 2008 3:05 AM

rotramel said:

Are you paying attention to the same election I am?  Hillary cannot possibly win against McCain in November given her gigantic negatives and McCain's general positives.  Tonight clearly favored Obama and represented a huge setback for Hillary given her inability to put him away.  Her only shot at the nomination (as TNR's own contributers note on The Stump) was to put Obama away tonight.  She did not do that, and the remainder of the nominating process clearly favors Obama.  Very disappointed in your post, John.

February 6, 2008 3:11 AM

mattgunn said:

I disagree with most of what Judis writes here.

Obama should be fine with Latinos. They kicked his ass tonight in California and New York, but everything suggests that's because they're pro-Clinton, not anti-Obama. He fared better with them in Colorado and Arizona (and, of course, he won them in Illinois, where they know him best).

Yes, McCain is the only GOP candidate who could court Latino voters with a straight face, but he's got a serious problem: if he tries to court them in the general election, he further alienates conservatives. These people have been whipped into a frenzy over the immigration issue. Many really will stay home if McCain tries to talk up the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill. In fact, in a recent debate, McCain said he'd now vote against his own bill. (Yep, that uncompromising maverick rebel flip-flopped on one of his signature issues.) Despite some of the hubbub, the history of Latino voters is that they vote for black candidates when they run against Republicans, and they hate Republicans more than ever. I don't see Obama having a problem getting the 60 to 65% of Latinos against McCain that Democrats usually need.

Also, Judis dismisses Obama's caucus voters as "unrepresentative left-wing activists," when Republicans should be scared shitless of what he's doing in these states, because he's winning them mostly on the backs of rural voters who are going for him in greater numbers than they've ever gone for any Democrat. Tonight's results show McCain would also have trouble vs Obama with suburban voters, swing voters McCain would need to win any one of John Kerry's states. So McCain would be challenged for rural voters and in trouble with suburban voters. Where's he gonna catch a break against Obama? City voters?

Plus, I'd like to see the particulars on that "was race an important factor in your decision" question. I voted for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. So I guess I voted "against Clinton" the way Judis says Clinton voters were "against Obama." Was sex an important factor in my decision? I think I'd have to answer yes, because I'd really like to vote for a woman for president. That was an important factor, but it was outweighed by other important factors. So it may be a bit of a leap to assume those 11% of "against Obama" voters who answered yes to race being an important factor were admitting they were racists.

February 6, 2008 4:05 AM

BHLnyc said:

I must agree with all of the posters here that the numbers really don't support such a tepid assessment of Obama's performance last night. He won the most states, piled up the hugest margins (he got 55% or better in 10 states; she did the same in 4), ran strongly in regions where Democrats have to win in November, won with demographic groups that aren't a lock for the party, beat her for independents, and far from having his momentum "arrested," he won with voters who decided in the last few days. His fundraising decimates Hillary's and he's about to sail into a string of states where he's given the edge. He's now essentially tied with the frontrunner. Not bad for a guy who was down 20 points in the polls about two weeks ago.

February 6, 2008 7:43 AM

stanmvp48 said:

HAS ANYONE ADDED UP THE TOTAL ACTUAL VOTE CAST SO FAR.  I SUSPECT CLINTON IS AHEAD AS OBAMA IS WINNING A LOT OF CAUCUSES.  

February 6, 2008 8:00 AM

jobeek2 said:

An insightful if rather depressing analysis of the weaknesses of each frontrunner. Well worth the read. Thank you.

I'd feel less depressed if my fellow Obama supporters here in the comments box did not dismiss the analysis out of hand, insisting instead that it is "based on old rules" that Obama will just keep breaking.  Obama's failure to reach out to enough (white) working class voters in at least a good bunch of states (if obviously not all of them), his failure to reach out to enough Latinos too (which now appears to have cost him CA), have been popping up since New Hampshire, Just assuming they will melt away in the face of the Obama phenomenon is dangerous. I hope the Obama campaign will be looking (self-)critically at the same demographic Judis lays out in detail and adapt its strategy accordingly.

An Obama volunteer on a forum I post at wrote, after the California results came in, "We have to take a look at the exit poll analyses and figure out how to better get his plans and philosophy to various demographics." That's right. There are many things for an Obama sympathiser to be enthusiastic about in yesterday's results, many things to be proud about - but it's that volunteer's attitude that's needed to get beyond the draw that Super Tuesday basically ended up being, not a cursory dismissal of an observation of Obama's as well as Hillary's weaknesses as the stuff from "Mark Penn's retarded cousin" and a confidence that, well, if there are still 'rules' in the way, Obama will surely just break them.

February 6, 2008 8:05 AM

Rhubarbs said:

Super Tuesday showed both Hillary and Obama ratifying the conventional wisdom about each's approach to campaign strategy.

Obama: Campaign hard to build name recognition, use the last week to "close" and peak your numbers just in time for the finish.

Clinton: Establish a big early lead based on celebrity, try to establish a high "floor" of support and stagger across the finish line at or just above that floor.

Obama did better than I expected, but not nearly as well as I hoped, and Clinton showed that she can establish big enough early leads to survive heavy attrition. At least among Democrats, where older white women can be a decisive bloc. Obama's "finish strong" approach looks better to me going into the general election than Hillary's "fail to lose" approach, since there is no way Hillary starts the race with a substantial national lead. But I'm not sure either approach is the right one for November.

February 6, 2008 8:07 AM

lymon1 said:

I think Judis is dead-on.  The GOP is in such disarray and the economy/Iraq is so unstable that the Dems might win easily in the fall.  But the polls have consistently showed Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama doing about equally well against McCain -- they each have strengths and weaknesses. Have people forgotten "Reagan Democrats"?  If not, how can you assume that the white working-class dems that John talks about who voted for Clinton are all going to line-up behind Obama?  I wonder the same thing about older seniors, especially versus McCain.  And it's not like Obama is going to get *more* African-American support in the general election. (And of course you can flip that -- Hillary Clinton is not going to get the kind of African-American support Dems usually need to win).  I'm very concerned that the Dems have done more damage to themselves in this primary battle than they realize.  

February 6, 2008 8:11 AM

Eos said:

If Obama was winning, he would win. Obama lost every large, demographically diverse state except his home state of Illinois. Most of these he lost decisively. He won Missouri by the barest of margins. He lost Florida decisively. He lost Nevada, where he had institutional advantages and was expected to win. He lost Massachusetts, where he had Kennedy, Kerry, and Patrick. He lost California where he had Oprah, the Kennedys, and Shriver working hard for him. If Obama was actually appealing beyond the upscale Starbucks crowd, he would be turning these advantages into victories. But he is not. If he had won California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey last, then he could claim victroy and preeminence. But he didn't and can't. Hillary did and can. And once again she prevailed against the media mantra.

Obmamania is a creation of fans in crowds and commentators, not voters. Where's the beef? The results predicted by Obamamaniacs don't appear in actual elections. If Obama was winning, he would win.

February 6, 2008 8:22 AM

miceelf said:

Lymon

I agree to a point. But we can't get the presidency without getting a fair amount of men to vote for us. We also have a lot more room for growth in the under-60 crowd.

February 6, 2008 8:28 AM

jobeek2 said:

Read also Harold Meyerson's analysis of the demographics involved in the primary agenda ahead on TAPPED, "The Democratic Race From Here", it is good as well and quite complementary to this post.

February 6, 2008 8:31 AM

jobeek2 said:

pccostello: "If Obama was actually appealing beyond the upscale Starbucks crowd"

I never realised the Starbucks crowd was such a big thing in Kansas, Utah, North Dakota or Idaho. Which Obama all won. Or in Georgia, which Obama won also because he got 45% of white men.

February 6, 2008 8:37 AM

purcellneil said:

Race and gender matter more than we would like, but less than we all fear.  Yesterday was a tribute to the quality of the Democratic candidates - they fought to a draw.  Contrast that with the pathetic Republican situation -- Romney has been rejected, Huckabee is a pure religion play, and McCain - despised by the loudest and basest of the base - appears to be inevitable.  This morning, we can all be glad we are not Republicans.

Neil

February 6, 2008 8:44 AM

boxofrox said:

pccostello:

So did the results line up with the polls you were citing here in the recent past? It seems to me that this morning doesn't reflect the realities you were touting just recently. That supposed landslide reveals a little different landscape today. Neh? That inevitability has turned into a very real risk of your favorite losing. Not quite what you had in mind. Huh.

I admit that I expected Obama to show a bit better than he did. On the other hand the results last night revealed that he did cut pretty decisively into to what you were describing not long ago as a foregone conclusion. To blame the commentators and Obamamaniacs is pretty damned condescending to alot of those fools who cast their votes last night. It would appear as if this thing is a long way from over. Stay tuned.

February 6, 2008 8:51 AM

Eos said:

Actually, Georgia around Atlanta has a lot of Starbucks. In general, Obama wins in places that are upscale like Connecticutt, that don't like women as candidates, like Iowa and Kansas, and that are heavily African-American, like South Carolina. But he loses decisively in large, diverse states like California, New Jersey, Florida, and Massachusetts. This late in the game, he has yet to have a big victory. He was expected to do that in Californai, he tried very hard to do it, he got a lot of breaks in trying to do it, and he failed to do it. If it were not for the weird way the Dems apportion delegates, it would now be offically over. Add up the popular vote totals.

Obama supporters talk about needing more time, but this election is already one of the longest and most closely followed of any in history. How long does it need to go on before he actually wins in a big state? Obama has had enormous and extremely favorable media coverage, and tons of money for advertising and organization. Everyone knows Obama quite well. There is no excuse. The only sense in which he legitimately needs more time is that he needs eight more years before he runs again.

Enough of the endless excuses and tortured explanations. He has had every possible advantage and he is not winning with voters.

February 6, 2008 8:56 AM

jmurph79 said:

pccostello-

What a strange analysis, considering Obama almost certainly took the most delegates yesterday, and won in western states, southern states, midwestern states, Alaska, etc.  And if you could find someone that honestly predicted Obama would win CA, NJ, or MA, then I'll concede it was a disappointing night for him.

That being said, I think Hillary also had a good night.  Big wins in her strongholds, and a good job in holding off Obama's surge in CA and NJ.  The next month or so will be huge.

February 6, 2008 9:00 AM

boxofrox said:

The ultra righteous  bug up the ass Pubs are getting spanked a bit by the middle. That's good. I hope they succeed and throw together behind Romney and run their own gig. Let's call it " The Major Frank Burns Fan Club".

February 6, 2008 9:17 AM

timteeter said:

Perhaps a TNR analyst could evaluate the following proposition:

Look at the state polls just before the vote and consider:

California--Bradley effect.

Georgia--Reverse Bradley effect.

Any takers?

February 6, 2008 9:29 AM

Maverick_VII said:

"In terms of winner-vs.-loser betting, I think Intrade says it all. Yesterday, Hillary was at 61% to win the nomination."

Ah, lies damned lies and statistics. Before voting started, Hillary was at 53, Obama at 47 (or therabouts) after catching up for the last week. As Georgia started to tick in, Obama soared to 60+, then started a steady decline over the night. Next morning, everything was back to the way it was before the vote (53-47).

In other words, mostly everything played out according to expectations. Considering that Hillary was the tight favorite before, and still is, it's fair to say she won super tuesday.

February 6, 2008 9:29 AM

Rhubarbs said:

pcostello, since when does Kansas not "like women as candidates"?

I'm sorry, but arguing that a state with a Democratic woman governor is hostile ground for Hillary because of her gender is just, um, kind of insane, actually.

Last night, as has been the case all year so far, each candidate won just enough to avoid losing the race. For presumptive frontrunner Hillary, that looks a lot more like losing, or like slowly bleeding to death, than it does for Obama.

February 6, 2008 9:31 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

I agree with jobeek.  

I'm also going on strike against anyone calling anyone else names at this point - and I'm holding myself to the same standard.  I am a frigging social worker and  loathe Starbucks, and I support Obama, as did a whole slew of very excited black and latino kids I work with.  I l ike kool-aid, but am too old to indulge in it, so let's give that one a rest.

This analysis was quite smart and reasoned, and valid rebuttals are possible - but calling someone retarded is not something I even allow in the groups I run with teen-agers.  They are much more polite to each other than we've been in this primary battle. I am not proud of myself in this way.

Hillary Clinton is not evil, her supporters have every right to be proud of her and she won the big states last night, that matters and congrats to her.  Obama did well too, CT and MO were biggies.  The demographics are fascinating from both ends.  

How can I not be proud that women have had such a huge say in this election?  I am thrilled and don't care to parse it anymore.

We have to find a way to dismantle all this rancor between us and remember what the goal is: a Dem in the White House.  Republicans do not deserve to be rewarded for the abysmal job they have done these last several years and America deserves better.

February 6, 2008 9:38 AM

cypess said:

Obama's wins in caucuses should be emphasized. Llooking at the win differentials (from the NYT), Hillary's biggest numbers (above 20) were in Arkansas (+42) and Oklahoma (+24) but Obama had Alaska (+49), Colorado (+34), Georgia (+35), Idaho (+62), Kansas (+48), Minnesota (+35), and North Dakota (+25)

These big blowout numbers came from states with caucuses (AK, CO, ID, KS, MN, ND).  Georgia is the only non-caucus on his big list (and the last caucus state to report is New Mexico which always seems to be a few days slow).

What does it say that Obama wins big in caucuses?

February 6, 2008 9:40 AM

BHLnyc said:

Thank you, Rhubarbs, I was going to make the same point, adding that Connecticut -- another state that apparently hates women -- elected Ella Grasso, the first female governor who didn't succeed her husband.

February 6, 2008 9:43 AM

lymon1 said:

micelf -- I agree about the Dems needing men.  But they need women too.  The key question for me with Obama is whether there is that room for growth -- I can just as easily see some of Obama's "anti-Clinton" moderate/indie voters swining to McCain after their object of hate is gone and the campaign becomes more about issues.  But you can back and forth this to death -- I just don't see the polling that shows either is much stronger against McCain and given that we saw a Bradley effect in some of the exit polls yesterday, can you rely on those?  

I think the key is whether what you wrote is true: is there really room for Obama's support to grow, or has his surge largely maxed it out?  I'll say it again: Hillary's negatives have been pretty much absorbed by the electorate.  If bad stuff comes out about Obama in the next year (say during the Rezko trial), we (as I voted for him too) are going to look pretty bad in hindsight.  

February 6, 2008 9:53 AM

lymon1 said:

Cypres:  It could mean a lot of things:

Obama is better organized.

Obama does better when citizens talk to each other.

There's a Bradley effect type thing going on where whites vote differently behind the curtin.  

February 6, 2008 9:54 AM

forrestnash said:

I think the point that Latinos like Bill Clinton, and don't dislike Barack, is important to note, especially because it feels intuitive for some reason that Latinos wouldn't go for a black candidate. At least anecdotally, that doesn't seem to be the case. All of the people interviewed on NPR were just all about Clinton and prosperity (Bill Bill Bill) but seemed to like Barack as well.

I love Obama, and I can't drink a single thing at Starbucks. Gross.

February 6, 2008 10:06 AM

cypess said:

Thanks for the answer lymon.  

Note, Feb. 9 has 4 contests, 1 primary (LA), 2 caucuses (NE, WA) and one "other" (virgin islands).  I assume Obama will win big in LA (67 delegate total) but I haven't seen the polling.  But if the caucus trend continues, then NE (31) and WA (97) will be Obama's.  Then Maine on Feb 10th (caucus, 34 delegates)

February 6, 2008 10:07 AM

novaseeker said:

One of the main risks is the rancor that this primary campaign is causing *among Democrats*.  Democrats are screaming at each other as if the other democratic candidate were a republican at times.   The identity politics angle is getting quite heated, and this is creating angry rifts within the party.  If you add up all the rifts, it probably favors Clinrton (older women + Latinos > white democrat men + blacks), but the damage this causes to the party heading into a race against the Republicans is a real danger at this stage, it seems to me.

February 6, 2008 10:09 AM

JackR said:

Ah, Wandrey, your timely preemptive strike against name-calling saved me from characterizing pccostello's tortured pro Hillary spin in a pejorative way.  I agree with you that both candidates did themselves proud and that the race is still wide open.  Declaring a winner is surely in the eyes of the beholder.  If pccostello wants to see Obama's victories in Connecticut and Kansas as the expression of anti-female electoratesdespite their female governors, with your guidance I will be content to let our fellow readers judge the validity and sagacity of that analysis.  

February 6, 2008 10:17 AM

psantillana said:

"Clinton got pasted among blacks, but she should be able to win back those voters in November."

She should because why? Because blacks never vote for Republicans? Does that mean they always vote? I have a feeling they aren't going to vote so much if they have to vote for Hillary. I'm voting for McCain if that happens, myself. Why? Because I'm a white woman. [rim shot]

I hate everyone, thank you, good night.

February 6, 2008 10:18 AM

LDuncan said:

Further proof that Judis' thesis that Obama has a fatal weakness among white ethnics of the kind that ring Boston and other big NEastern cities:

CNN says this about Mass:   In Massachusetts, nearly two-thirds of white women said they had voted for Clinton, versus fewer than half (48 percent) of white men.

So unless white women have more of an ethnic/quasi-racist attachment to old-style politicians than white men, Judis's thesis does not square with the facts.

And I don't think white women are more racist than white men.

February 6, 2008 10:28 AM

LDuncan said:

This notion that Hillary's negatives have maxed out is unsupported.  New stories about Bill could undermine her, and new conduct by Bill can undermine her.

To all those Hillary defenders who have been peddling the "Hillary's negatives can't get worse" meme for months, how many of you would possibly have predicted that she would hemorrhage support from blacks, despite key endorsements from saints like John Lewis and respected pols like Charlie Rangel?  How many would have predicted a certain level of anger at her by blacks, and not just affinity for Obama?

Hillary's numbers most certainly can get worse, because she quite simply does not wear well.  She sometimes restrains her irritating tics (like at the last debate), but she often grates or comes off as trying so hard to be nice and pleasant that she seems phony and inauthentic.  She started this race with huge favorables among Dems and 47% national polling figures.  And she NEVER can break through that ceiling, because the harder she tries to win over new people the more she looks like she's trying to win them over -- in other words the more forced she looks.  And we have not done well with seemingly stilted candidates like Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.  She's firmly in that tradition.  Smart as hell.  Well-meaning.  Right on most issues.  But inpenetrable to many and downright annoying to others -- even within her own party.

February 6, 2008 10:35 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

psantillana - you made me laugh so hard, I knocked over my starbucks coffee.

February 6, 2008 10:48 AM

Rhubarbs said:

LDuncan, I'll actually go out on a limb and suggest that in much of the country, white women probably are a bit more racist than white men, though I doubt that the racism of either demographic is significant enough to make a difference in an election. I hear more what I'll call "racially troubling" comments from suburban women than from any other group of people, aside from older men in the Great Plains states.  

However, I think that men of all colors are significantly more anti-Hillary than white women are pro-Hillary, and unless she can convince a lot of men that she's not actually Hillary Clinton, she's gonna get creamed by a male vote.

There's a gender-gap that I see here in the Washington, DC area. At Nationals baseball games, you'll often see couples going to the game, the man wearing a shirt or a cap with the visiting team's logo on it, because he's always been a Phillies fan or a Mets fan or whatever, and he's not going to change now just because Washington finally has a home team. And he'll be with a girlfriend or wife with a shirt or a hat with the Nats' logo on it. Stand outside RFK stadium the last three years, and you'd have seen that tableau repeated thousands of times each night: a man hardwired to old opinions, the woman embracing the new home team.

I'm seeing the same phenomenon to a growing degree on the Clinton/Obama divide in my personal encounters, and last night's exit polling suggests the divide is happening in the wider world, too. Couples who usually vote together are splitting between Hillary for her, Obama for him.

February 6, 2008 10:52 AM

fougasseu said:

Big night for John McCain. He withstood and overcame more negativity from his base than any contender has from either party, in recent memory. The "base" sounds like something set in concrete. Well, the base moved, and John McCain is standing on it.

He should seize the moment and take a hard swing at Talk Radio - but he probably won't. But if he takes on Limbaugh, cozies up to Huckabee and stays close to Southern Baptist leader Richard Land, he'll win by a landslide in November...if he runs against Hillary.

Hillary showed more vulnerability last night (she did very poorly in Minnesota, a very, very white state), and again all of the GOP chatter was about their eagerness to battle the Clintons.

I may be over-reacting, but in the last 24 hours I've seen more race-centric posts than I had in the last week or so. Anybody picking up on that?

February 6, 2008 10:53 AM

lymon1 said:

I don't agree that African-American voters will return en-mass if Hillary is nominated.  They turned out for Kerry despite his lousy effort at reaching out to them because they knew Bush was that hostile (overall I think Kerry ran an ok race, btw).  

And consider this scenario: Hillary gets the nomination.  McCain bucks conventional wisdom and picks Colin Powell as veep.  I could see AA voters going for McCain while McCain's base just stays home, but they don't vote for Hillary.  

Foug:  I think the increase in race comments is because it's really turning into a factor, both in the primaries (Hillary's Latino firewall, Obama's AA base) and in the general (if Obama can't win more than a plurality of white Dem voters, how does he win a plurality of the general electorate?)

February 6, 2008 11:11 AM

The Plank said:

So now what? Like a lot of people, that was my first thought this morning, as I checked the final results

February 6, 2008 11:21 AM

ironyroad said:

The great irony is that a McCain-Huckabee ticket in November could be (a) one terrifying prospect for Dems and (b) such a strange offering that it could even win, despite McCain pissing off the hardline Repug base and Huckabee pissing off the Wall Street Journal.  McCain would pull in independents and Huckabee would keep the Evangelicals coming to the polls.

That said, however, an Obama-Clinton ticket could ultimately be unbeatable in November.  But that combination doesn't seem very likely.  The opposite variant seems even less so.  Either Barack or Hillary could strengthen the ticket with somebody like Joe Biden, but what's worrying me is that we have moved from having a wonderful field of bright and ambitious candidates with real ideas for pulling the country out from under the last seven years (facing a confused and testy Repug line-up) to a rather embittered one-on-one war of attrition.

It seems to me that what's been very damaging (more than we realized) is Hillary's basic posture that she's ENTITLED to the nomination, and that anyone who opposes her is a chauvinist jerk or a saboteur.  This has been a bit of a columnist's joke until now, but it's starting to become a noxious gas leaking into the process.  What Obama is trying to prove, among other things, is that Democrats don't inherit the nomination, they have to fight for it.  But the race/gender deal is now making that fight more destructive than, say, an Obama-Edwards battle might have been.

February 6, 2008 11:30 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

I don't agree that Obama didn't win a plurality of white votes - he beat Hillary in that way, her victory came from her strength with latinos, not whites.

From Slate, John Dickerson:

"Now look at Obama's performance in the first four contests of 2008. He took 33 percent of the white vote in Iowa, 36 percent in New Hampshire, 34 percent in Nevada, and 24 percent in South Carolina. In every outing, he beat Jackson's best performances of 1988.

Still, it was possible to argue, as Bill Clinton implicitly did, that Obama's ceiling, like Jackson's, was limited. Obama hadn't cracked 40 percent of the white vote anywhere. He hadn't even cracked 37 percent.

Pundits theorized that John Edwards' presence in South Carolina helped Obama by splitting white support that would otherwise go to Hillary Clinton. The theory implied that in a two-person contest, Obama still wouldn't draw much white support.

Tonight's results crushed that argument. Even if you don't count Obama's caucus victories in Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, and North Dakota, he shattered his previous white-vote ceiling in 11 other states.

In eight states, he crossed the 40 percent threshold. In Connecticut, he tied Clinton among whites. In California, he beat her. In Utah and Illinois, he won commanding majorities."

February 6, 2008 11:37 AM

LISAH said:

psantillana ---"I hate everyone, thank you, good night."  

Thank you, thank you -- sums it all up just right.

February 6, 2008 11:45 AM

Daily Intelligencer - New York Magazine said:

If you thought race would disappear from the Democratic campaign after the controversies in South Carolina, you were horribly mistaken. This issue returned with a vengeance after last night’s Super Tuesday returns showed a stark racial divide among

February 6, 2008 12:16 PM

cleavet said:

I threw together a spreadsheet from all the Democratic results so far.

In the pre-Super Tuesday primary states Obama won 32% of the votes while Clinton won 47%.

In the Super Tuesday primary states it was Obama 48% Clinton 49%.

The total so far is Obama 45% Clinton 49%.

If you take out Florida and Michigan the popular totals are Obama 48% Clinton 48% (47.89 to 48.26).

Were the two running for President the electoral vote count would be Obama 126 Clinton 200.

February 6, 2008 12:37 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Agree totally with Judis on this--btw, this is IMHO one of his shrewdest posts on TNR. The huge curveball in the general will be working class white and hispanic voters in the Southwest and the battleground midwest. Most of these voters are culturally conservative but not ideological or dogmatic. Few of them are single-issue ideological voters who'd be rallied by MoveOnLimbaughKosHannity. All of them are struggling economically now.

None of the three leading candidates has a strong hold on these voters, and on many issues these voters are a muddle (try using immigration to win a majority in this segment: don't think so).

Whoever figures out the magical narrative, or catch-phrase, or set of programs and positions, that can appeal to BOTH whites and hispanics will win this key segment. And with it, CO OH NM AZ FL and the election.

(Hint: It's about greater ** security ** for **working families ** of ** all colors **).

February 6, 2008 12:59 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Yes, race matters, but ONLY if the candidates have not figured out how to talk to the very real anxieties and concerns that transcend race-- and speak in a straightforward and non-patronizing way. Studies done in the late 1960s and 1970s of working class voters revealed that their favorite politicians were two who lined up on the exact opposite of the racial divide, Bobby Kennedy and George Wallace. Working-class voters liked them not so much for their economic policies or some vagur "populist" platform but because they showed real understanding and empathy and yet were tough, no BS. As one worker who supported RFK and then Wallace put it,  "They tell it to you straight.. either win in Vietnam or get out, but just give it to me straight, dammit."

February 6, 2008 1:03 PM

esmense said:

Of course Clinton is having trouble with white male voters. Her bid for the presidency is unprecedented. Plus, she has an opponent who, in his own self-interest, naturally enough, is doing everything he can to encourage fear and exploit natural cultural unease engendered by the unprecedented; a woman at the  top of the national ticket. That's why he repeatedly states that "his" voters won't vote for "her" in the general election. Routinely uses sexist Republican character attacks against her (such as  that wonderful gender code word "calculating"). And, argues that a politician who has clearly demonstrated in statewide elections that she can win male and rural voters, and, in her work in the Senate, has demonstrated that she work effectively with conservative Republic legislators is "divisive."

If Clinton does manage to get past such a strategy, encouraged by a conflict promoting media, to win the nomination she is also likely to get past the same strategy in her bid to win the Presidency. My bet is that, as has been demonstrated in New York, once men have an opportunity to see, hear and get to know the actual person behind the media stereotypes, and once she demonstrates that  she is able to overcome the disadvantage of those stereotypes to win votes, they will have much less trouble supporting her.

February 6, 2008 1:35 PM

jblum8156 said:

My God, if Thomas Jefferson were running today he couldn't win and neither probably could George Washington.  I'm an older white female. I won't vote for Hilary if she's nominated but I won't vote for McCain either.

To quote psantillana, I hate everyone. Thank you, good night.

February 6, 2008 2:02 PM

jmurph79 said:

Esmense-

That's good stuff.  Almost thought you were serious.

February 6, 2008 2:03 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Her problem's not her gender, it's her message-- or lack of one, to be exact. Unlike 1992, there's no simple, crystal-clear, compelling narrative and tagline that sums up working-class frustrations, a la helping "people who work hard and play by the rules."

Someone will figure this out. The goal is to connect all the ** security ** anxieties, both the economic and the nat-sec'y and the global financial ones, in a crisp line that shows voters who are now feeling the pinch that our pols grasp the problem and have a clue as to how to solve it.

February 6, 2008 2:04 PM

CharlesFosterKane said:

I will offer this back-handed compliment to the Hillaryites: if in a dozen or so years, Clinton & her staff were able to turn an unpopular, divisive First Lady into the President of the United States, congrats. It's quite an achievement.

I mean, honestly if you had told people in '94 or '95 that HILLARY CLINTON would be president of the United States, they would have had you committed. Dems would have rolled their eyes and said you were using paranoid right-wing talking points.

Of course, by the same token, if you had walked out of Junior or Jingle All the Way and told your date "the star of that movie will be the highly popular governor of California in 10 years"...

February 6, 2008 2:39 PM

CharlesFosterKane said:

Tep, I wonder if it's wishful thinking to assume the Democrats will bring national security to the forefront, even in a subtle way. It irritates me (and I've posted about this elsewhere) that 7 years after 9/11, with none of the resulting issues resolved, and new ones having arisen (Iraq, Pakistan), only John McCain is at the forefrunt talking about terrorism, the Middle East, foreign policy, albeit in a superficial way. That's what I liked about Biden (and I suspect what you did too). Any other year of this decade and the election would have been about foreign policy. And the issue will be back next year. But I've sensed a pseudo-reactionary element in the Democratic Party for years now that wants to pretend 9/11 never happened and go back to the good ol' days of "the economy, stupid." I fear they may be getting their way right now, not to the country's (or party's) benefit.

February 6, 2008 2:50 PM

dirkleisure said:

As a Kansas caucus goer, I want to personally assure Mr. Judis that the 37,000 Kansans who braved the cold and snow to caucus last night were not left wing activists unrepresentative of either party.

When the numbers are tallied up, I bet more than 15,000 of those 37,000 were people who are newly registered Dems, either switching parties or registering for the first time.

Dismissing the caucus process out of hand is buying into the spin being used to deflate Obama's decisive victories.  The 75% of Kansas caucus goers who stood up for Obama are offended by those remarks.

February 6, 2008 2:50 PM

jhildner said:

"Obama's failure to reach out to enough (white) working class voters in at least a good bunch of states (if obviously not all of them), his failure to reach out to enough Latinos too (which now appears to have cost him CA), have been popping up since New Hampshire, Just assuming they will melt away in the face of the Obama phenomenon is dangerous. I hope the Obama campaign will be looking (self-)critically at the same demographic Judis lays out in detail and adapt its strategy accordingly."

Jobeek, yes, of course the campaign will be addressing these issues.  It's not "dangerous" for me to express a little optimism based on Obama's performance up until this point.  I'm not working for Obama's campaign.

Still, I'm skeptical of Judis's analysis, because it seems to rest almost entirely on the white vote in New Jersey and the exit poll question about "race being a factor."  To say that Clinton did better among working-class voters and Obama did better among men says nothing about what these voters will do in November.  (In neither demographic was the other candidate blown out.  The only blow out is among blacks.)  Their candidate preferences now don't necessarily translate to McCain votes if their candidate loses.  In fact, that would be unexpected.  So, the one thing that makes Judis nervous is some possible racism or sexism at work -- very low percentages of those who voted against the other candidate in California and New Jersey.  I'm not getting the 2+2=trouble in Pennsylvania here.  One thing we know from watching Obama is that the more people get to know him, the more they like him, and across racial lines.  Hence his steady, persistent upward climb in this contest.  You can call that a "phenomenon" if you want, but it's working for him.  I see no reason to doubt that Obama can rally working class voters (or Latinos for that matter, with whom he's already narrowing huge gaps), especially if the opponent is John "Your Jobs Are Never Coming Back" McCain, and so I'm not as blown away or depressed by this scenario as you are.

February 6, 2008 2:50 PM

wendy_schmidt said:

Could someone more knowledgeable than me explain why Evangelicals dislike McCain? I mean, come on, he's actually Pro-Life, not strategically so like Romney. Do their candidates have to be overtly religious, more so than simply holding socially conservative positions? Just curious.

February 6, 2008 3:05 PM

arsonplus said:

I'm going to stop harping on this point after this, ... But commentators like Judis are making a serious mistake by assuming that African Americans will rally behind Hillary if she wins the nomination.  Let me put it this way, after upsetting between 80 and 86% of a community they realized their mistake and chose to apologize to the least offended group. ("black church" going lower middle class and working class blacks) A move that further offended the most aggrieved group (upper middle class African Americans), And for this election cycle, that group will either be voting McCain or staying home if the Clinton's are concerned. Now that group only represents roughly a third of the African American community but without them no democrat can win in Virginia, Ohio, or Florida and Maryland will start to look a tad purple.  I wouldn't count on that Louisiana senate seat staying in democratic hands either. That said I agree that Obama appears to have a Latino problem.  But won't any democrat have a fight on their hands in that area against McCain?

It also occurs to me that while Obama could patch his issues with women by making either Claire McCaskill or Kathleen Sebelius his VP Hillary can make no similar gesture. No one with either Obama's ego or his high-minded streak would agree to leave his political future in the hands of Bill Clinton's zipper,

Ok ... so now I'm going back to being just another political junkie slash foreign policy geek.

February 6, 2008 3:30 PM

mmathog said:

It's tribal wendy, he called their leaders 'agents of intolerance.' They don't trust him.

February 6, 2008 8:23 PM

sabatia said:

McCain and the Evangelicals. Many of them have rallied around Huckabee, who makes no bones about his respect for McCain and who in a big way has come to McCain's defense. Huck can and will deliver most of the core Southern Evangelical vote for McCain. Lots of talk on the conservative blogs about promises that McCain may have made, such as VP. I will bet that Huck would be in the Cabinet should McCain get elected. And I believe that Huck will deliver his supporters.

Its not the Evangelicals who McCain didn't get who are his problem, it is the rabid right: the folks who think that comprehensive immigration reform is "Amnesty", that America must win every war and always place itself above all nations, and that taxes are an instrument of the devil and private charity alone should provide for the poor, disadvantaged and elderly. Some of them don't even believe in charity: Its all the fault of the afflicted! Those a few Evangelicals are this totally rabid, the "true "conservatives" went for Romney.

As someone who hangs out on Republican and conservative blogs, I can tell you that the nastiness of the stuff thrown at McCain by the Romney campaign and its supporters, particularly I'm afraid to say, by his Mormon supporters is of exactly as bad as the stuff that was hurled at and whispered about the Clintons. The volume and number of commenters who use degrading and dehumanizing slime to try to undermine McCain, without even a modicum of humor, is legion.

February 6, 2008 9:16 PM