John G. Caulfield (whom I am proud to have brought over here from MEA and DalyThoughts) writes in the comments to my last post (which you can now read on RealClearPolitics!) the following, almost all of which I agree with (my only source of disagreement is the Mosely-Braun vote for Boozer in 2004):
What you have written prompts me to offer the following thoughts on the success of Obama and why it seems to be confusing so many MSM pundits.
Here is a picture of the Democratic Party since 1968. It consists of three voters:
First, there is Mrs. Waslewski (maiden name McLaughlin) of Lorain, Ohio. Her husband used to be factory worker, but now does odd contracting jobs. Her mortgage is paid off, but one of her grown kids is struggling with an ARM. She drinks beer, belongs to a bowling league, and gets to Mass roughly 36 out of 52 Sundays of the year, plus most holy days of obligation.
Then there is Mr. Ross of Bennington, VT. He has at least one post-graduate degree and works either for a university or a foundation. He is in the upper quintile of national income, and is nominally in the private sector, though his economic position is not assured, and is hugely dependent on decision-makers in the public sector (both federal and state) seeing his work as important, and adopting programs that, either directly or indirectly, create a demand for that work. He drives a Volkswagen (tuned to NPR), drinks good quality white wine, and never goes to church except for events that have some kind of “progressive” angle. He likes to think that he is a “new” Democrat not wedded to the New Deal – though what that usually amounts to in practice is simply supporting the funding studies to come up with innovative rationales for updated variations on the the New Deal.
Finally, there is Mrs. Boozer (nee Williams) of Chicago, IL. Despite her unfortunate married surname, neither she nor her late husband ever drank alcohol at all. She is an African-American woman who attends Church twice a week. She is an aide in a municipally-owned hospital, and was recently elected as an officer of her union local. Of her five children, three work for the City, one is deceased, and one ran into some bad luck and is temporarily incarcerated.
There you have the entire modern Democratic Party. Now let us look at their voting history.
In 1968, Waslewski supported Humphrey, Ross supported McCarthy, and Boozer supported Kennedy. After RFK was shot, Boozer supported Humphrey with no problem; McCarthy did not resonate with her at all.
In 1972, Waslewski supported first Muskie, and then Humphrey. Ross was an enthusiastic backer of McGovern. Boozer supported Shirley Chisholm, but, as between McGovern and Humphrey, felt a good deal more kinship with Humphrey.
In 1976, Ross put a Udall bumper sticker on his VW, but later changed it to Jerry Brown. Waslewski initially liked Jackson, then settled on Carter. Boozer liked Carter from the start.
In 1980, Waslewski and Boozer both at first considered Ted Kennedy, but then both decided on Carter. Ross stuck with Kennedy right through the convention, and even wound up voting for John Anderson.
In 1984, Ross was behind Gary Hart, while Waslewski supported Mondale. Boozer supported Rev. Jackson, but when the choice came down to Mondale or Hart, she had no question. She supported Mondale, as she regarded Hart as just another Gene McCarthy, who did not seem to speak to her concerns at all.
In 1988, Boozer was again behind Jesse Jackson, and Ross supported Dukakis. Waslewski leaned toward Gephardt, but wound up supporting Dukakis in order to defeat Jackson.
In 1992, after the field got narrowed a bit, Waslewski and Boozer both supported Clinton, while Ross supported Tsongas.
In 2000, it was similar. Waslewski and Boozer supported Gore, while the VW sported a Bradley sticker.
In 2004, Ross supported first Dean, then Kerry, while Waslewski supported Edwards. Boozer could not resist supporting Moseley-Braun, but later rooted for Edwards against Kerry.
Common pattern? Just one. The alliance had always been either Waslewski and Boozer against Ross, or else (as in 1988) Waslewski and Ross against Boozer.
There had never been a coalition of Ross and Boozer against Waslewski. (Not even in 1972 – which was the year in which it came closest to happening.)
Until Obama came along.
Obama remarkably bridges the gap betweeen the Gary Hart voters in lily-white places such as Vermont, Maine, suburban CT, rural Kansas, and upscale enclaves such as Boulder, CO, with Jesse Jackson voters in such places as central Mississippi and Alabama, Memphis, Portsmouth, VA, Chicago, St. Louis, and Baltimore.
Ann Arbor and Detroit have united against Macomb County. Princeton and Newark against Secaucus.
The long-term effects may be significant, and perhaps troubling. But what will be the shortterm effect of this shift? I would put my money on Macomb County and Secaucus. McCain will win, probably with about 316 electoral votes. Possibly with a lot more.
This is the million-dollar question for the general. This is also why I ultimately think that Obama is an easier opponent than Clinton. I’m convinced that Ross and Boozer will ultimately vote for Clinton. I’m not so sure that Ms. W will end up pulling the trigger for Obama. That’s probably what the election turns on.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:48 pm
That’s why McCain needs to do everything he can to reach out to Mrs. Waslewski, including attending events and giving speeches in places where the Waslewskis and the McLaughlin’s congregate. Both the Waslewski’s and the McLaughlin’s probably know what Yuengling beer is. They probably even like it. And I bet every single one of Mrs. Waslewski’s five children and their spouses can bowl a much better game than a 37. Even the females. They know what it is to have to work for something to get ahead in life and probably at some point have had a taste of hardship. Because of all this they are ripe for the picking if McCain reaches out. He has a lot more in common with them than barack Obama does.
I just hope he has the sense to work his heart and soul to win them over.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Sorry. I still disagree.
The analysis of who is the better GE candidate can’t be made in a vacuum. It needs to be made in light of the facts on the ground, and the facts on the ground are this: Obama can unofficially wrap up the nomination as early as May and officially wrap it up by June, whereas Hillary can only do so at the convention in late August. That means that Obama can spend the early summer wooing and pacifying the Hillary faction and have some time to pivot for the general election, wheras Hillary will still be campaigning for the bas in early October. October. There is no way a Democratic candidate still campaigning for the
base that late in the game will be able to appeal to the center.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
McCain & Clinton have been out on the main stage for several years and people have a sense of who they are. Obama on the other hand is new to the scene and a bit of a blank slate. That is why Obama attracts independents. He can be all things to all people.
This is what it was like with Kerry. During the Dem primary he was all things to all people. However, when Bush engaged with Kerry in the general election match-up, things changed. It wasn’t that Bush suddenly became popular, he didn’t. Kerry got defined and his great support plummeted.
Clinton was right about Obama, he has not been vetted. When the mask gets taken off Obama, and people realize he is a liberal (i.e., voted against eliminating abortion AFTER live birth, supported a total ban on handguns), his support will start to melt away.
To tie this in with the post, its going to be Mrs. Waslewski and her family that are going to start walking away.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Sean,
Congrats on the RCP link.
I sent that phenomenal geography article to all 4 of my conservative friends here in New York with the intro:
“Remember the movie Contact with Jodie Foster? Remember the part when the billionaire cracks the code of the alien message by showing that there isn’t a piece missing but the message is in 3 dimensions? THAT’S WHAT THIS ARTICLE IS!!!”
Have you tried to apply that method anywhere else?
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Fascinating clarification of Dem dynamics.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Adam,
I defy you to show me a person who has had Yuengling and not liked it
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
AdamPSU,
I used to like nickel drafts at the Crowbar. Though the Five Dollar Monkey Boys Pitchers at The Saloon ran a close second
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Interesting article. I’d like to see a similar breakdown of the 3 or 4 “Republican voters” since 1968 or whatever. Despite, some fairly obvious “types” I’ve always had the sense that the demographic/political makeup of the Republican Party was considerably more elusive then that of the Democratic Party. Does the Evangelical, the Businessman, and the Hawk really cut it? Those are ideological breakdowns, not sociological disparities.
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Thank you, Sean. You are quite correct that I am “cyber-stalking” you.
I think, though, that Sean P has a good point point. Even if, in a vacuum, Clinton might be the stronger candidate because of all the Mrs. Waslewskis she might be able to hold on to, she is simply not going to have time to rebuild the bridges to the irate Rosses and Boozers.
This is a win-win.
The Democrat with the time to reach out will not be able to. And the one with the ability to do so will be too deep in the middle her own scorched earth to have the time to do so.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Matt, a good place to look for that might be this breakdown of the electorate by ideology and group characteristics:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=949
The Republican groups are Enterprisers, Social Conservatives, Pro-Government Conservatives, Upbeats and Disaffecteds.
As you’d assume Democrats are much less diverse with Liberals, Conservative Democrats, and Disadvantaged Democrats.