McGovern won only one state and 37.5% of the vote. While his coalition resembles that of McGovern I think a more likely performance if he makes it to the general election is something between what Michael Dukakis (46% of the vote, 111 electoral votes) and Jimmy Carter (lost the popular vote by 10, 89 electoral votes) got. The x factor is how much the inevitable decline all "new" candidates experience will be for Obama. It is very naive to assume a candidate who has gotten a small amount of bad press over a span of a mere seven weeks and has not had the opposing party's machine launch a full-scale attack on him is going to emerge through the summer and fall completely unscathed.
In the last two elections both Kerry and Bush 00', the "new" candidates in their respective years, suffered 11 point declines from the spring to the fall. Right now he is +1.2 in the popular vote against McSame in the rcp average.
If he loses 11 like Kerry and Bush did he would lose the election by 10 points, exactly like Carter did in 1980. Indeed we are already seeing this begin with Obama. McSame is not being attacked right now and is largely being ignored by the media, public, and the Democratic party so the correct measure is not to compare Obama's performance against McSame but to compare his relative performance with Clinton's. He once, as should be expected of a "new" candidate, did 10 points better against McSame than Clinton did. That has now slipped to 1 point and most crucially Clinton consistently does better in the electoral college, winning the key swing states and, contrary to a popular fairy tale, actually flips more Bush 04' states than Obama (she flips 5, he flips 3. The key is two of her five are Florida and Ohio. Her five account for 68 electoral votes. Obama's 3 bring only 21 more electoral votes.). The fact we are even having discussions about electability is revealing. There is no way a "new" candidate
in a change year (2000 and 2004 were not change years...) should in the spring being doing as well in the popular vote and worse in the electoral college than a woman who has been attacked by the rethugs and MSM for 16 years, the far left for 5-6 years, and two major rival Democratic campaigns for another year.
The nomination contest as far as Obama is concerned can be divided into two periods with Wisconsin serving as the dividing point. Prior to that he got zero bad press and was completely pristine. The MSM is still in the tank for him but there is the occasional vetting done now and then. That has taken a toll on Obama, who apparently has a glass jaw. This is why citing states he won in January and February won't cut it with superdelegates. They know his performance with several groups has dropped alarmingly since then. He lost Latinos 66-32 after managing to win them in Virginia, for instance. He managed to win whites in Virginia and Wisconsin. Since then he has gotten 34% in Ohio, 44% in Texas, 37% in Rhode Island, 60% in Vermont, 21% in Mississippi, and 38% in Pennsylvania. In Wyoming there is no exit poll but due to obvious reasons it is clear he won it there. Unfortunately, there are no caucuses in the general election. Wyoming's caucus had 2.5% turnout. Obama won't be able to rely on a system that is packed with Starbucks voters to win states in the general election. Legitimate primaries have 25-40% turnout and the general election will have around 55%. You can't glean anything from 1.9%, 2.5%, or 5% turnout given how unrepresentative the poll of voters in such "elections" are.
-snip-
For his part, Obama cut into Clinton's advantage, but couldn't erase it.
Even though he campaigned extensively among white working class Pennsylvanians, he still couldn't crack this constituency. He lost every white working class county in the state. He lost greater Pittsburgh area by 61 to 39 percent. He did poorly among Catholics--losing them 71 to 29 percent. A Democrat can't win Pennsylvania in the fall without these voters. And those who didn't vote in the primary but will vote in the general election are likely to be even less amenable to Obama.But
Obama also lost ground among the upscale white professionals that had helped him win states like Wisconsin, Maryland, and Virginia. For instance, Obama won my own Montgomery County, Maryland by 55 to 43 percent but he lost suburban Philadelphia's very similar Montgomery County by 51 to 49 percent to Clinton. He lost upscale arty Bucks County by 62 to 38 percent.
-snip-
Indeed,
if you look at Obama's vote in Pennsylvania, you begin to see the outlines of the old George McGovern coalition that haunted the Democrats during the '70s and '80s, led by college students and minorities. In Pennsylvania, Obama did best in college towns (60 to 40 percent in Penn State's Centre County) and in heavily black areas like Philadelphia.
Its ideology is very liberal.
Whereas in the first primaries and caucuses, Obama benefited from being seen as middle-of-the-road or even conservative, he is now receiving his strongest support from voters who see themselves as "very liberal." In Pennsylvania, he defeated Clinton among "very liberal" voters by 55 to 45 percent, but lost "somewhat conservative" voters by 53 to 47 percent and moderates by 60 to 40 percent.
In Wisconsin and Virginia, by contrast, he had done best against Clinton among voters who saw themselves as moderate or somewhat conservative.Obama even seems to be acquiring the religious profile of the old McGovern coalition. In the early primaries and caucuses, Obama did very well among the observant. In Maryland, he defeated Clinton among those who attended religious services weekly by 61 to 31 percent. By contrast,
in Pennsylvania, he lost to Clinton among these voters by 58 to 42 percent and did best among voters who never attend religious services, winning them by 56 to 44 percent. There is nothing wrong with winning over voters who are very liberal and who never attend religious services; but
if they begin to become Obama's most fervent base of support, he will have trouble (to say the least) in November.http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ec466d61-a900-414c-8daf-16ff27ccf85c 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
