GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Democrats are in a tizzy over Senator Clinton’s comments that she is better positioned to win in the Fall because she can win among white, working class Americans. Part of it is the concern that she equated hard working Americans with white Americans, suggesting that non-white Americans are not hard working. I have no opinion on what Hillary meant there, and will leave it to the Democrats to sort that out.
But the larger beef with the argument is that it takes other portions of the Democratic coalition for granted. Roland Martin sums this argument up nicely:
No Democrat can win the White House unless he or she is able to pull from all the various constituencies in the country, and it’s downright silly for the Clinton campaign to assert that idea that hard-working white votes are the only ones that matter.
. . .
But one major failure in Clinton’s argument is the assumption that all the traditional Democratic constituencies will offer her broad support if she’s the nominee. And considering her high negatives, she can’t afford any erosion.
Obama could make the case that she has failed miserably in the primaries in garnering young and African-American voters, and without them, she loses.
Let me tell you a little story. In 2006, after three decades of public service, Democratic Senator Paul Sarbanes of Maryland retired. Republicans nominated Michael Steele, a smart, dynamic African American candidate. Democrats nominated Ben Cardin, who was smart, but boring. Steele ran an unconventional campaign that stressed an empowerment agenda and his humble roots. After defeating an African American candidate in the primary (in part because of concerns that Mfume would scare the bejeezus out of white people (and yes, Obama is different than Mfume)), Cardin proceeded to, among other things, skip the NAACP debate, and had other problems being accused from both the right and left of taking the black vote for granted.
The moral of the story: Steele got 25% of the black vote. Now that may seem pretty good, but remember, this was an African American candidate, running in a state with a lot of upper middle class AAs, against a Democrat who defeated an AA candidate in a primary that divided along racial lines. It doesn’t get any better than that for Republicans. To put things in further perspective, George Allen got 15% of the vote after basically calling a kid a n*gg*r on videotape.
In other words, in the end, Clinton will get the black vote by a sizeable portion. Some AAs may stay home, but it is highly unlikely that there will be a stampede toward McCain. The same goes for young voters, who will likely hold their noses and vote for Hillary in the Fall.
Working class whites, on the other hand, are the Democratic swing vote. They are the Democrats’ equivalent of outer suburbanites for the Republican party (who were the reason so many Republicans were terrified of a Huckabee candidacy). A candidate who is being rejected in a primary 3-1 by a swing segment of the primary electorate may well have real problems in the general election holding on to them. It’s by no means a certainty, but it is a much greater risk than youth or AAs voting for McCain.
Martin is certainly right that Democrats need a broad coalition to win. But the answer to finding the broadest coalition is to find the candidate who appeals the most to the weakest members of the coalition. Hint: It ain’t Adlai Stevenson’s intellectual descendant . . .
One other thing, on an unrelated note. Martin writes:
Not only that, the Democratic Party has a chance to expand the map beyond the battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania. Democrats have a solid shot at winning Iowa, New Mexico, Missouri, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire. Of those states, Obama won four of the seven, and he had narrow losses in New Mexico and New Hampshire.
Hating to be the bearer of bad news, but Democrats have won Iowa, New Mexico, and New Hampshire in three of the last four elections. Bill Clinton carried Missouri twice, Colorado and Nevada once (and narrowly lost them once), and came close in Virginia. All of those states were in play in 2004. As McCain would say, this isn’t expanding the map, my friends. Moreover, while Obama won four and lost two narrowly, Hillary won three and lost two narrowly (IA and MO). Pretty much comes out in the wash.
UPDATE: PabloZed writes in comments (and I’m not picking on him, but this is the most important counter out there to what I’ve written):
Yes, Clinton made a mistake by using the adjective “hardworking,” but her and Sean’s bigger mistake is making the illogical conclusion that the voters who chose Clinton necessarily reject Obama. These were democratic primaries after all and the idea that these voters would reject a candidate en mass based on race is absurd. A percentage will, but certainly not a significant percentage. Similarly, the voters who “rejected” McCain in Iowa, MI, and other states are not going to therefore flock to the democrats.
The problem is, again, that you are dealing with a Democratic swing constituency. When this group of voters votes Republican, Democrats lose. When blacks and liberals vote Republican . . . well, that doesn’t happen, so we don’t know what will happen to Democrats.
Will the white working class ultimately reject Obama in the election to the extent that they are rejecting him in the primaries? It is anyone’s guess. I think he has a problem because (a) I think part of the reason he’s losing 75-25 in this demographic is race, which isn’t going to change between now and the election, (b) I think if he has a problem with white working class Democrats, there is a reasonable chance this split is replicated with white working class independents who are even more likely to vote Republican and (c) he doesn’t have to lose all of them to lose the election, just a good chunk.
The reason the same rationale doesn’t apply to McCain is the same reason it doesn’t apply to Clinton: The people who rejected McCain in the primaries have nowhere else to go (save the Constitution party). Again, you have to look at this from the p.o.v. of a Republican receiving the nod in the face of strong opposition from a Republican swing constituency, eg Republican exurbanites. I would be sweating bullets if Republicans to McCain’s left had voted against him heavily in a primary, and Obama definitely needs to be concerned the Democrats to his right aren’t crazy about him.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Yes, Clinton made a mistake by using the adjective “hardworking,” but her and Sean’s bigger mistake is making the illogical conclusion that the voters who chose Clinton necessarily reject Obama. These were democratic primaries after all and the idea that these voters would reject a candidate en mass based on race is absurd. A percentage will, but certainly not a significant percentage. Similarly, the voters who “rejected” McCain in Iowa, MI, and other states are not going to therefore flock to the democrats.
Clinton is desperate, sadly so. She has been openly using gender since she cried in NH and now, with her campaign at death’s door, she thinks being white will save her. The problem is Clinton and her husband are detestable and being white and having a vagina simply means she is a detestable white woman.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Sean, you still haven’t said what those maps were the other day.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
And Huckabee got 50% of the black vote in Arkansas. Which means he should be VP.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Anyone watch the Edwards interview on the net today? He doesn’t have to say who he is endorsing, it is quite obvious to me that it is going to be Obama. He and his wife voted for different candidates, the one he voted for is “very likely” to get his endorsement (he is not going to endorse a loser), the comments he makes about Hillary, how he tries to play up Hillary at every turn and then say “Oh, yes, and Obama is just as competent.” Etc, etc. This guy would be terrible at poker, I have absolutely no question come June 3 or so he is going to throw in his lot to Obama.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Sean, Bill Clinton carried Nevada twice, not once. I think this will be a realigning election though where many working class whites abandon the Democrats forever. The Democratic party of the future is going to be an upper middle class, fiscally moderate, socially liberal party. The bad news for conservatives is some of these working class Democrats who come over to our side will bring their economic liberalism over with them. As a result, candidates like Huckabee might do better in the future.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Steve, you’re right. Edwards was on MSNBC and he gave clear signs he’s backing Obama.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I should be more specific. The way the realignment will manifest itself is as follows: You may have noticed in the last two elections how the county maps are a sea of red with blue specks here and there. Gore and Kerry did very well in urban areas with large populations; Bush everywhere else. That divide will be the same this time, but it will be on steroids under Obama. He will win huge in cities and lose bigger than they did in towns. You’ll see McCain tear through just about every county in western Pennsylvania, even the ones Kerry won, West Virginia could be one of McCain’s best states even though it was a Dukakis state in 1988. Also, you might very well see McCain do better with voters making less than $50,000 than voters making more than $50,000, which would be unusual for a Republican.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Sean,
Spot on. I’ve been pointing out for weeks that there’s a fairly obvious difference between Hillary’s performance among blacks, and Obama’s performance among working class whites; Hillary’s weakness with blacks is a relative weakness. I.e, blacks aren’t rejecting Hillary, they’re just overwhelmingly supporting the most appealing candidate to them in history; one of their own. Of course Hillary can’t point this out, but it’s quite obvious. Hillary’s in nowhere near as absolutely strong with working class whites; any of number of Democrats, with adequate resources, would have done better then her with working class whites. Evan Bayh, Mark Warner, Kathleen Sebellius, etc, etc, etc. The same goes for Catholics. The fact that Obama’s losing working class whites 2 to 1, against a candidate we don’t have any reason to expect to dominate among this group, and losing weekly Catholics by as much as 50 points (ditto), is an ominous sign. It suggests that Obama isn’t just unappealing to these voters, compared to Hillary Clinton, but compared to anyone. And yes, anyone includes John McCain.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Clarence,
I think if we’d nominated Huckabee, you would be spot-on.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Sean, the divide would have been even more pronounced with Huckabee, but I was basing my prediction of a realignment much more on who the Democrat nominee is than who the Republican nominee is. A Hillary-McCain map would have been much more traditional than an Obama-McCain map.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Sean, interestingly, if you look at Virginia’s map, Hillary and Huckabee did well in the same parts of the state, while McCain and Obama did well in the same parts. A lot of Hillary voters would have been well-disposed to Huckabee.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Clarence,
w/r/t #2, all will be revealed in the next couple of weeks.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
There are alot of disaffected Clinton voters (working class and women) who will not vote for Obama. He can’t win.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Oh, Hillary dominates among working class whites for several reasons. They like her healthcare plan, they view her as someone who will fight for them, and won’t give up no matter what. She won’t desert them on Social Security in the coming years either. She is a person of faith.
They view Obama as someone who dismisses them - remember cling, and bitter? He is as fake as a three dollar bill and can’t be trusted.
May 9th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
“blacks aren’t rejecting Hillary, they’re just overwhelmingly supporting the most appealing candidate to them in history; one of their own.”
“In other words, in the end, Clinton will get the black vote by a sizeable portion. Some AAs may stay home, but it is highly unlikely that there will be a stampede toward McCain.”
Both of the above statements betray a bad misunderstanding of black voting behavior. The first comment is often made around the net in commentary and essentially assumes that blacks are only voting for Obama because he is black, and this is incorrect. Blacks have not voted in overwhelming numbers for black republicans, nor have blacks voted for candidates like Sharpton. Blacks make an assessment of viability and credibility with a black candidate. For black voters, Obama is qualified, credible and bonus, he’s black. All things being equal therefore and assuming he’s doing a good job of campaigning, he gets that vote and Obama has done a good job. Clinton had black votes largely coming her way until Obama shocked her in Iowa and black voters saw that this guy had a credible chance. Even still, Hillary had much of the black establishment in her pocket, but they blew that good will in South Carolina and they used race baiting tactics which rapidly alienated black support. They didn’t correct that, in fact they have exploited racial division, and black voters feel, justifiably so, that after the support they gave the Clintons, this was a massive betrayal.
That brings me to the second comment. Again, you’re stunningly wrong. Hillary did nothing to repair the problem with black voters (other than going to the SOBU) and her recent comments have further cemented the existing view among 80%+ of black voters that Hillary is prepared to win at any cost. If that means destroying Obama through racial tactics that pander to blue collar white voters with arguments that rely on racial resentment for their potency, so be it. Even more insulting after black voter loyalty to the Clintons and the party is the assumption that such a blatant slap in the face will be rewarded with votes in the general election. Black voters sent a message about that in these most recent primaries that the Democrats had better hear. In NC and IN, the black vote went 90% plus for Obama. Pundits and others keep soft selling this and behaving like they are scared to talk about the reality it represents, which is that black voters are pissed off at Clinton and she will not get their vote. John Lewis switched sides because his constituents made it clear to him that there would be repercussions if he maintained his support of Clinton. There is talk of retaliation at the ballot box against black superdelegates who maintain support of Clinton if she were to wrest the nomination from him. If Clinton succeeded in wresting the nomination from Obama using these tactics (which would require a fight that goes all the way to the convention) I can guarantee you that it WILL result in very large scale suppression of the black vote, because black voters won’t get over that between August and November. I can further assure you that it will result in active campaigning within the black community to deny her the vote in the GE. Republicans already know that if 20% of the black vote stays home in a national election, democratic candidates across the country are toast. The dems will know it too.
People engage in what often comes across as a commentary of contempt when it comes to black voters. As Clyburn noted, she is questioning Obama’s viability because he is only pulling about 30% of this blue collar demographic, while pundits and commentators act as though the fact that she is only getting 8% of the black vote in primaries is only mildly interesting, rather than a serious question about her viability. The post rightly notes that these blue collar voters are swing voters. They have not been loyal in the past and could defect now if they are too discomfited by Obama. Black voters not only turn out for the democrats, but the value of the black vote is that it turns out nearly 80-90 percent for democrats, so it has major impact. But make no mistake; while blacks may not have a clear alternative place to put their votes, they can choose to withhold them, and I guarantee you they are already saying “if she gets it, I won’t vote for her” if she is perceived to have won dirty, and winning dirty is the only thing she has left.
Blacks would stay home, they would do so in very large numbers and both Clinton and many downticket candidates would crash and burn in the general. Obama is viable and black voters are looking at the potential of a black president in their lifetimes, something most, including me, did not expect to see. In my own children’s lifetime, perhaps, but not in mine. If she beat him fair and square, blacks would not balk, but she won’t be rewarded for destroying the dream if she does so by using race. Under those circumstance, the convention would be Armageddon. Believe it.
May 9th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Aaron you really think African American voters would stay home?
Moveon.org would run ads making McCain look like David Duke. Would black voters really stay home when Hillary started talking about Iraq and Healthcare?
It’s always dangerous doubting loyalty of African Americans to the Democratic Party. I’ve never seen anything that broke the bond.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
#3 - do you have any idea how idiotic that sounds?
May 9th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Sean:
I think the Democrats’ problem is even worse than Clinton primary voters not voting in sufficient numbers for Obama.
I think you made this point once before:
The problem is not just that Democratic primary voters who chose Clinton will not vote for Obama. Many Democratic primary voters who chose Clinton would not even vote for *Clinton* in November if she were the nominee.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
15. I wish you were right about that. I’m sure some AAs would stay home. But not enough to make a difference. Again, see Cardin-Steele ‘06. Or, see Bush ‘00 (who ran the most racially inclusive Republican campaign in history, and was rewarded with ads accusing him of re-lynching James Byrd and 8% of the black vote). Or Bill Clinton, who signed welfare reform, NAFTA, dissed Sister Souljah, called for revising Aff. Action, dumped Lani Guinier, and was rewarded with the moniker of “First Black President.”
Sorry if I’m a little cynical about the willingness of black Democrats to abandon the party of LBJ. But there’s a lot more in the record to support the notion that they would turn out than that they would stay home. And even if you’re correct, if about as many AAs stay home as working class whites vote for McCain, the Dems are still better off with AAs staying home, since an abstention hurts half as much as a switched vote.
May 10th, 2008 at 12:47 am
I’m definitely right about what the black vote will do in the event that Obama were to be denied the nomination despite winning on every metric. It would protest loudly and visibly at the convention, it would savage the democrats at the convention and it would stay home in November precisely because the insult is so severe, so beyond the pale and Obama stands on the very threshold. Denying him the nomination would be rightly perceived as a severe injustice and it will not be tolerated. The NC and IN black vote performance for Obama is black america’s way of signaling the democratic party just how seriously such a betrayal will be taken. Nearly everyone keeps tiptoeing around it, but all you have to do is review black blogs to know how this is playing in the black community.
Republicans have little standing with black voters as a party because the party does very little to make its case to black voters and in fact goes out of its way to demonstrate that it has no need of black votes when we do things like blowing off debates. There are black republicans but the party most of the time behaves as though it could care less if there are ever anymore. This despite the fact that many blacks are social conservatives and there are areas where republican public policy approaches are extremely responsive to black issues, such as charter schools on education. The party does not make a serious effort.
McCain showing up in New Orleans and at the King events comes off as completely insincere pandering that is rendered ineffective when neither he nor the party do much of anything else to communicate that we have any real interest in black votes.