Isn't the answer to your question found in the open primaries and caucuses, where Obama does better?  I thought this was resolved a long time ago.  Of course, I've thought for months that the Clinton demographic destiny rationale for general election strength was pure bullshit at best and veiled racism at worst.

Noam, as always, your analysis is compelling, incisive, and a pleasure to read.  Keep up the great work.

Great stuff. I'm gonna keep harping on my Reagan Democrat point. Hillary wins a few of them, but she's mostly getting working class Democrats who never left the tent.

Get in a time machine and go back to 1994. That's when the Reagan Democrats bolted to the Republican party and ended the Democratic reign in Congress. Tell someone from that time period, "Oh yes, Hillary Clinton will one day run for President and win back these voters." They'll laugh at you.

Better yet, go back to 2004 and say, "John Kerry couldn't win these culturally conservative Reagan Democrats. They didn't connect with him. We need a different approach. Let's go with Hillary Clinton. She really connects with people." Again, people would laugh at you.

It's a complete myth that Hillary Clinton will take back the Reagan Democrats. Again, Bill Clinton ever broke 50%. While many of these folks may have contributed to his high approval rating in the late 90s, they never voted for him. It seems unlikely that they would fail to support Bill (a talented politician) and then come to their senses and support Hillary (at best, a pedestrian technocratic politician).

Stgla:

I'm not a mind-reader, but it's unclear why Obama did so well in those open primaries early on. I think it was a combination of viscerally loathing for Hillary Clinton amongst moderate R's and independents, and respect for Obama. It's hard to say.

Which brings me back to my invention, the "Hildabeast Bump". This is what will happen when she is finally vanquished: Obama will see his poll numbers soar as Republicans and independents reward him for finally doing away with their mythical arch-enemy, Hillary Clinton.

Exactly. Why hasn't anyone else figured out primary voters are not the same as general election voters?

Hillary argument take you here:

"Hillary did well with lower income whites in a Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, so she will obviously take Alabama." Uh. No.

Also, not that it matters, but Obama won 50% of the vote in the 2004 Democratic primary, but 70% of the vote in the general election.

African-Americans WILL be a swing group if Clinton gets the nomination. Some combination of depressed turnout and crossover voting will put a huge dent in the African-American contribution to the Democratic coalition in November should the first African-American presidential victory be overturned, by perceived undemocratic means, at the eleventh hour.

Noam ... eklein is right and you are further off the mark than you know.

to pick up on eklein criticism of Noam's black will remain on the plantation even after Hillary whips them, what would happen if McCain chose a black, such as either Condi Rice (or Colin Powell) for his ticket in response to her stealing the nod via superdelegates. It would be over in September as magazines run glowing article after glowing article about how McCain truly respects blacks, and there will be glowing articles about Condi (a 3fer, black, single, and female) and her upbringing rising to become Sec. of State and now VP candidate. How will Hillary respond to that? With more negativity?

Against Obama, otoh, picking a white female, while nice, won't be that persuasive, will feminists risk Roe Vs. Wade being overturned simply to put a woman on the bottom half?

I think you're ignoring the relative sizes of the groups in question.  There are more working class voters than affluent voters, usually more old voters than young voters, and more women than men (not quite sure if that last one holds up if you restrict it to non-Democratic women).  It's not just which swing groups you win; how big they are and the margin by which you win them matter a great deal.  I don't disagree with the conclusion, but I think this argument is an oversimplification.

Putting aside Hillary's weakness or strength, I question an affirmative response to this question:

"2.) How likely is Obama to win non-Democratic young people and non-Democratic affluent/ educated people?"

How many non-Democratic young people are there out there really?  And if you're young and somehow non-Democratic, I don't think you're going to be moved by either Obama's or Clinton's candidacies.

As for the affluent/educated, again, if they're not already in the Democratic fold and voting for Obama, it's likely because of their opinions about taxes and I really don't see them bolting McCain for either Obama or Clinton.

I'll admit that Obama is a pleasure to listen to, but I just don't see why on earth either of these two non-Democratic groups would vote for Obama (or Clinton for that matter).

I cannot believe how people here are not more skeptical of U.S. intelligence sources in the Bush Administration who so badly screwed up or hyped up:

1) Aluminum tubes

2) Biochemical weapons trailers

3) yellowcake in Niger

4) WMD in Iraq

5) Osama bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S. with Planes

oh, wait.

blackton, that's a nice theory, but it runs up against the rocks of reality in that Condi Rice and Colin Powell are terrible VP choices. Neither has run for public office, and both have recently been shown to be disgraceful failures in appointed office. Neither has a particularly strong following in the black community. Also, either would reinforce the attack on McCain as being Bush 44. Hillary should welcome a McCain-Rice/Powell ticket.

I think your theory is sound, if McCain can find a qualified black Republican who isn't both a failure and a Bush lackey. JC Watts? Lynn Swann? Michael Steele? That's probably the top three right there, and even that is like reaching down to your single-A farm team for your number-two starter.

I suspect McCain would get maximal benefit against either Hillary or Obama by choosing a white or Latina woman for VP. I also suspect that McCain lacks the dispassion necessary for a man in his position to make such a choice. He'd have to buck both conventional (media) wisdom and his own party's sense of hierarchal propriety, and in his career McCain has proven that he is willing to do the latter often, not the former rarely, and never both at once.

I firmly believe that the huge African-American turnout thus far will evaporate into thin air if Clinton somehow steals the nomination.  She may get 25 or 30% of those that voted for Obama, but I'd be shocked if she got more.  (And Bill can kiss that stuff about being a black president good by, as they'll all be calling the both of them 'typical whities')  What Clinton has been getting is the population that's uncomfortable with thinking of a brown skinned President ,plus all the real bigots.  Obama has been getting a lot of those uncomfortable with having a woman President, plus all the real sexists.  That's all there is to it.

I don't disagree with a lot of this analysis but it omits two things.  First,  think it underplays the women's vote: if there's a direct opportunity to elect a woman president, I think that's powerful.  Second, the states where non-democratic affluent people are big strike me as states that aren't really in play (the Lincoln Chaffee/Olympia Snowe types in New York and California).  

There's a simpler way to view this: if you cede Florida to McCain, which I think is likely, the Dems simply cannot win without winning Ohio AND Michigan AND Pennsylvania AND Wisconsin.  That changes a little if you can flip some of Bush's states, but Bush won largely by amassing a lot of smaller-electoral-college-vote states -- they have more margin of error.  

Here's the irony: I look at the electoral college map and can easily see Obama winning the popular vote (huge run-ups in California, Illinois, NY and closing the traditional western state gap margin) but losing the election.  I can with difficulty envision Hillary Clinton eeking out an electoral college win.  The obvious thing for the Dems is for these two to run together but apparently everyone would rather be bitter and self-righteous than win control of the entire federal government.  

lymon, vote for a woman, absolutely. Vote for THAT woman, never.

Oh yeah, putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket is just what Obama needs, running with the second most disliked politician in America.

The way the game is played, you hold your base and fight over independents.  Either Democrat will hold the Democratic base after 8 years of Bush (in the abstract that is, if Hillary actually WON the nomination rather than stealing it).  Obama does much better with independents and doesn't generate Republican turnout the way Hillary would.  It is actually a no-brainer, even before you look state-by-state, that Hillary is weaker in the general.  You simply cannot extrapolate from results in Democratic primaries to reach conclusions about the general.  A stupid exercise.

Basically, lymon, you're making it all up.  Here's what Rasmussen had to say today:

Election 2008: Electoral College Update

Minnesota Moves to Likely Democratic

Thursday, April 24, 2008Send to a friend

Advertisment

On Thursday, new polling data in Minnesota moves that state from “Leans Democratic” to “Likely Democratic” in the Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator. With this change, Democrats lead in states with 200 Electoral College Votes while Republicans are favored in states with 189 Votes. States with 111 Votes are “leaners,” and states with 38 Votes are Toss-Ups (see recent daily results).

When “leaners” are added to the total, the Democrats now lead with 260 Electoral Votes to 240 for the GOP.

"Second, the states where non-democratic affluent people are big strike me as states that aren't really in play"

Sort of...but there are a few states where affluent independents and moderate R's are in play. Virginia is definitely the best example. North Carolina is trending in that direction. Wisconsin, Colorado, Oregon, and Pennsylvania (believe it or not) are other examples of states where Democrats can overperform by winning over affluent converts.

On Florida:

We'll compete there. If Hillary Clinton can poll ahead of McCain, then that means they're at least willing to give Democrats a fair shake. I understand that it's moving away from us a bit, but if we win by 4% nationally, it should be in our column.

I second eklein's point and would go further: the less legitimte a Clinton nomination is percieved, the worse she'll do with black voters (and white Obama voters too).

By the way, in the unikely event Hillary does draw closer between now and June 3, the more I think the party should consider a third alternative: turn to Al Gore. He is almost certainly a stronger general election candidate than either Clinton or Obama and the cost to the party of choosing him could well be lower than the cost of choosing between Clinton and Obama. Also, it would solve the FL and MI problems because no one would have voted for him!  

wow, my comment was supposed to be on another thread. Sorry.

I think that eklein's point is more valid than what CW may realize.  I am a 31 year old AA female, most of my friends are from 28 to 32 years old, but I also of course have family members and older coworkers who have already shown little to no enthusiam for Hilary Clinton.  Just like working-class whites are "bitter" so or these older AA, but unlike them, older AA are more prone to not vote at all if they are not motivated by a candidate.  They just feel that the "system" is too stacked against them so why should they care.  I and most of my friends have been voting since we were 18 and we haven't ever thought of not voting before, but I have had a few friends who have said that they will either not vote if Hilary Clinton is the nominee, or they will vote for the down-ballad candidates only.

Also, as to Condi Rice, yes she may be AA, and many AA are proud of what she has accomplished, but there is no love lost between the AA community and Condileeza.  Colin Powell is another story, there is much more respect for him than her, even after the "WMD" debacle.

As for me, I can tell you right now that me and my fellow Katrina "refugees" have not forgotten that while people were stranded by the storm Condileeze Rice was shopping for shoes!

lymon,

I still don't buy the "Dems have to win Ohio" argument.  Sure, winning Ohio would provide more margin for error, but it's not necessary.  Gore states + Colorado gets you to 269, which is a win with a Democratic House.  Toss in any other state (for example, NH, NV, VA, MO, NC) and you've got an outright win.  Not outlandish by any means.

I think part of the problem for our Party is that the Obama camp is doing too much legalistic "parsing" based on a too narrow view of what it means to be a nominee of this party.

Here, for example are two huge considerations that have been left out of this "analysis."

1) Hispanic voters: this group is now America's largest and fastest-growing minority with huge concerns that need to be addressed urgently. Many Republicans with their nativist sentiments have alienated these citizens. Sen. McCain has at least some claim to speical understanding and sympathy being from Arizona, where a significant portion of his constituency is comprised of Hispanic voters. Yet nothing is said in this analysis about this group and how they will fare in a general election. Sen. Obama has demonstrated very little appeal to this group to date, in contrast to Sen. Clinton, who has a very strong track record with these voters and a large constituency in New York.

2) The State of Florida. One could reasonably ask at this point of the Democratic Party: haven't we learned anything? Regardless of your view of whether (or how) a Florida Delegation might be seated in Denver, what, realistically, is Senator Obama's chance of winning this critical Democratic State? Successful Democratic general election campaigns have been those that have won Florida. Having taken the position until now at least that Floridians should be denied a seat at the table, how would Senator Obama, as the nominee propose to win this state for the Democrats against Senator McCain in November.

It seems the Obama group's legalistic "parsings" are excluding vast questions of significance to the long term future of the Democratic Party.   Yet these are questions that are going to be on the minds of the super delegates as they make their decision.

AlanSp

I think you're overlooking the crucial numbers. Which is to say: Where which voting blocks are likely to be decisive. Even a mild drop in African American turnout will cost democrats in every statewide race in LA, MD, MI, MO, OH,PA and VA.

If Clinton were to get the nomination you would likely see people like Mark Warner and Mary Landrieu asking Obama to campaign for them and begging Clinton to stay away.

You're right though the dems don't have to win OH, but I keep thinking that Clinton eliminates three of your 5 alternates. You could make the case that Sen McCain will own New Hampshire regardless of the nominee and that NV will be a tossup in either case. So outlandish for Clinton as nom and not so much for Obama.

Tullius,

I think it is rather a while since one could consider Florida a "Democratic state" let alone one that the Dems must win.  If the Dems could win CA, NY and FL, they wouldn't have to bother with the rest of the campaign.

The point about Hispanics is valid.  Virginiacentrist has wisely suggested that, for that very reason, Obama is going to pick Richardson for VP.  She persuaded me completely.  It would be the smart move -- both to gain standing with hispanics and to block McCain.  I used to think the Obama needed f/p military cred, but he can get that in other ways.  Besides which, f/p doesn't decide presidential elections.  Besides which that notion violated my own no. 1 rule that policy does not win elections.  Thus, a pick addressed to policy, foreign or domestic, is a wasted pick.

If someone has a better idea than Richardson, I'd like to hear it.  Is it possible for Richardson to put FL in play because of the Hispanic vote there?  I don't know enough about FL demographics to have an opinion, not to mention that Hispanics are far from monolithic.  There's a whole pecking order that I cannot keep track of.

HuggyBear Bill Richardson has plenty of skeletons in his closet (hands, female subordinates) that won't withstand the scrutiny of a nast GE campaign. Distractions like that are the last thing Obama needs. Also, as his MTP  and other TV appearances showed, and as Ryan Lizza's hilarious piece on him suggested, the man is embarrassingly light. Much less there than meets the resume.

Biden's the smart choice. He'd win over blue-collar whites and prevent McCain from poaching PA, OH, MI, MO. Losing 3 or more of those crucial blue-collar battleground states would nullify any advantages gained with hispanics in the southwest, where in any case McC is on his home turf.

The Dems simply will NOT win FL.  Period. End of story.  Gov. Crist is polling at around 60-65%, and the state is red through and through.  Hell, if we could have figured out how to run someone not named Katherine Harris against empty suit Bill Nelson, he'd be gone, too.  Jeb, for instance, would have crushed him.

As for Hispanics, we now have more non-Cuban Hispanics than Cubans.  The Cubans will be for McCain, as he is perceived to be more anti-Castro, but the others are up for grabs.

Biden is a good choice, especially to shore up Obama's f-p deficits.

Tep

If you're talking winning over working class whites [to which I'd add while staying consistent] I'm not sure how Obama could do better than Jim Webb.  VA's got a democratic governor so the seats not an issue and between Webb, Warner and Obama the state would be a certain pick-up in the general and he would be a bigger help in PA, OH and MI than Biden.  Then there's the whole thing where there aren't two proper nouns in the English language that would fire more currently disgusted democrats up than Obama/Webb.

I'd still prefer Warner. He's the better choice from a torch carrying point of view. And the two of them could poach VA, NC and CO while holding onto MI and PA but Webb is the obvious second choice. Biden stinks of Washington [which is literally the last thing Obama needs] and you're right as a VP pick Richardson will make a damn fine Secretary of State.

I defer to the VAcentrist insider's take on Webb's campaigning skills. He's a good guy but an awful campaigner, even with sympathetic audiences. Not a natural pol, and probably not up to the rigors of a national campaign.

Warner seems OK.

I don't think Richardson's got the brains or temper to be Sec State. His record bears closer scrutiny given the chasm between the man's paper achievements and the actual brainpower and skill he's displayed in his presidential run.

Also, "disgusted Democrats" aren't going anywhere. It's independents and moderate fence-sitters in the exurbs who'll make or break us this year, as in every year.

Re: Florida

See 1976, 1992, 1996. The only times Democrats have won the Presidency.

Kiss Florida good-bye to your peril.

Results in an Obama/Clinton primary don't have any predictive value for resul...

I think Richardson as running mate would note be a good move for Obama, unless McCain picks someone even flakier.  Don't get me wrong, I kinda like Richardson and I'm sure he's been a good NM governor, but he's got an odd vibe that leads him to make goofy remarks and generally undermine his own case to be taken seriously.  I would not assume that large numbers of Hispanics are attracted to BR -- it might be the case, but it's a shaky assumption.

In line with the anti-intelligence deal going on in this election, I think Biden is simply too smart, too loquacious, too Beltway and too liable to lecture folks.

Warner is an interesting choice and his corporate history and generally non-threatening demeanor could be a plus for Obama when it comes to crossover Repubs and Independents -- it could also secure VA.  There's a bit of the Romney not-a-hair-out-of-place style to Warner, but it's not extreme.

[Parenthetical question:  why can't we have politicians dressing and looking normal in this country?  It's gotten worse, and now you can't go into national politics unless you look like you're dressed for a job interview with Prudential, circa 1959! ]

It's a pity about Webb's negatives, but he would bring an extra helping of psychic cojones to Obama's campaign, deal with the military cred deficit, AND he can also bring the populist message to PA, OH etc in a different and probably more effective way than Clinton.

If another Clintonite jumped ship, and that was Wesley Clark, he wouldn't be such a bad option.  He brings the military cred without Webb's crazy edge, and can do the f-p stuff without sounding like Biden, and he's a white southerner and West Point grad against whom the "bicoastal elite" slur isn't going to stick.