...I would be terribly concerned about Barack Obama's grotesque weakness with a key component of the Democratic coalition.
When Democrats win elections nationwide, they do well among lower-income, white, working class voters. Those same culturally conservative, economically populist folks embraced Reagan, drifted toward Clinton (or Perot), and never quite warmed to John Kerry is sufficient numbers.
Accordingly, look at tonight's exit poll from the Keystone State**:
White voters aged 60 and older made up 28% of the electorate. They went for Clinton 67% - 33%.
White voters aged 45-59 totaled another 31% of voters in today's election. They also went for Clinton 62% - 38%.
Clinton even won the 30-44 year-old white voters 56% - 44%, comprising an additional 14% of the Democratic electorate.
White, self-described Catholics made up 33% of the vote. They lined up with Clinton in a landslide, 71% - 29%.
28% of voters said they had no college education. That demographic tilted overwhelmingly in favor of Clinton, 62% - 38%.
In short, the heart of the lunch bucket Democratic crowd has taken a look at Barack Obama and said rather firmly: "no, thanks."
More importantly, that's just among Democratic primary voters. If Obama is struggling among such the members of these demographic groups choosing to vote in a Democratic primary, how much more is he likely to struggle among the broader base of general election voters coming out of this same slice of the electorate?
This may be hard news for the netrooters, the urban liberals, and the idealistic youth whose collective undergarments have frequently been moistened in the throws of Obama-mania. But, it is what it is. The county-by-county maps of Ohio and Pennsylvania look awfully similar: islands of urban, Obama liberalism, surrounded by a sea of working class support.
Does anyone think that trend will be reversed in Indiana, West Virginia, and Kentucky? Does anyone think Obama isn't going to consequently have significant problems in key portions of the Rust Belt come this fall? With states like Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and even perhaps Pennsylvania on the table in November, is that really path Democrats want to go down?
**Please note that if previous patterns hold, the final exit polls numbers may slightly modified from those viewed for this typing.
UPDATE: headline fixed, so Bruce feels like his whining is heard.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 22, 2008 07:52 PM | Email ThisWhy would I bother to post anything here? This a a neo-con blog! I'd be better off over at Goldy's place.
Hillary may have won the PA primary, but I think she's gonna be finished off at the convention. If the superdelegates don't come on board for Obama and Hillary gets nominated, I'll be a lot of Obama supporters will vote for Ralph Nader or will just not vote in November. That's what a lot of the moonbeams are saying on Air America, particularly on Thom Hartmann's show.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on April 22, 2008 08:25 PMNo, they don't. If you look at the results here from today and the results here from Nov. 2004, you'll see two things:
1. Obama won only 7 counties today. 5 of them were rural or exurban counties won by Bush in 2004. 2 of them were won overwhelmingly by Bush in 2004 (over 60% of the vote).
2. Three of the most rural counties that went for Kerry in 2004 (Luzerne, Lackawanna, and Fayette) were the locations where Obama got slaughtered the most.
What you're seeing today is what you expect in a state with strong unions. The party insider did well in the traditional Democratic strongholds and the outsider did better in some of the more traditionally Republican areas (and of course, among African-American voters). Pennsylvania is not Washington. The Democrats have long been the party of the working class there and you truly don't understand the state if you think McCain can pick up those votes and win the state. If John Kerry could connect to them and win those counties, Obama sure as hell can as well.
Posted by: thehim on April 22, 2008 10:02 PMComparing 2004 general election results with 2008 primary results isn't exactly constructive. Moreover, I'm not of the school of thought that McCain puts Washington in play. Close the margin from 2004? Maybe. Win? Probably not.
In the meantime, neither you nor other Obama supporters can explain why he is getting wrecked in a key Democratic constituency by an opponent who could hardly have been described as a woman of the people when this election cycle began...seemingly eons ago.
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 22, 2008 10:10 PMObama actually makes Hillary Clinton look pretty reasonable. Never thought I would say that, but if the only choice was between his Marxism and her Clinton tempered socialism, I'd vote for her.
Tune in tomorrow to watch Obama and the other Progressive nuts spin this as a win.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 22, 2008 10:51 PM
Clinton doesn't demonstrate any strength vs. Obama in a number of key places Democratic should do well in: i.e. urban strongholds like Philadelphia.
Posted by: Daniel K on April 23, 2008 12:05 AMI couldn't be.
I'm not a victim; I believe in my abilities; I believe in personal accountability and rugged individualism.........besides, my IQ is too high.
Give your one-song band a rest. Sen. Obama is being exposed for what he is, a globalist, un-American communist. As such, he appeals to essentially three groups:
1. Utopian, elitist, city dwelling liberal extremists who are long on PHD's in Philosophy and short on common sense.
2. People (of all colors) waiting for Uncle Sam to buy them a house and a car and feed them for the rest of their lives.
3. The young who believe in shangrila.
Folks (of all colors) who carry a lunch bucket to work are not idiots. They listened as Sen. Obama spoke of 'hope' but walked away when it became known that his brand of hope was not the same as their's. Obama's campaign died in San Francisco when the Senator essentially referred to working class Americans as ignorant fools.
Posted by: Saltherring on April 23, 2008 06:32 AMI don't disagree Clinton has a problem on that score, but...
a) she's not the probable nominee, Obama is.
b) urban liberals are much more likely to vote for any Democratic nominee in November than are the non-urban, working class white voters who were the crux of my post.
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 23, 2008 06:52 AMI am trying to analyze this objectively. I don't think these two have what it takes to do what neither Gore nor Kerry could do, and that is pick up Red states. I mean, they would have to do that. McCain is Red enough to preserve Red states and he's Blue enough to win a few Blue states, especially ones with many Reagan Democrats.
My 2 cents.
Posted by: Gary on April 23, 2008 07:40 AMinterestingly, your posts are devoid of the mccain mania i'd expect from a right-wing blog (are you wearing your flag lapel pin?), and suggests that even you recognize that most people are focused on the dems race.
that said, a competitor blogger with a larger profile on the left points this out about obama's pa performance:
"One of the arguments the Clinton campaign is making to the supers, hoping they'll overturn the will of the voters, is that Obama can't win certain demographics. Yet looking at the exit poll numbers, it's clear that Obama has actually been making serious gains the past six weeks.
Obama's percent of the vote:
OH PA
60 and older 28 38
White 34 38
White men 39 44
White women 31 34
Less than $50K 42 46
No college 40 38
College 51 49
Catholic 36 31
Protestant 36 53"
www.dailykos.com
Posted by: dinesh on April 23, 2008 07:48 AMWow, talk about leaving yourself open for trolls. =P
One note, really. Just like this state is a one-party state and will remain so, for the foreseeable future.
For SOME conservatives, the only response they EVER have on a comment about race is that the person commenting is something they hate or despise. No, I am neither a dem or pubbie as I think many in the leadership of both parties are idiots. Many voters seem to agree with me which is why there are so many indies. One of Senators Mc Cain and Rossi's biggest supporters, Rags was more than happy to make comments that Little Black Sambo is great literature and Blacks are pimps, prostitutes, and drug dealers. To his credit, the idiot said what many think. He gets points for honesty. I suppose, the party line is that those of color just are too stupid to know how great the republican party would be for them. Well, your voter outreach leaves a bit to be desired. People of all colors essentially want a decent life and decent government. Folks will never get to the details of what a particular candidate's program is if all that is seen as the face of your party is those who want Little Black Sambo read to every child.
You can't deal with the fact that the republican party has run on a Southern Strategy has its own collection of Robert Byrd clones. Anyone who points that out has to be a liberal, socialist, communist, or gasp, democrat. Right?
I have no idea who will head the dem ticket. I do know that because the pubbie party is like an ostrich on issues of race, the election will be much closer than many here imagine.
Posted by: WVH on April 23, 2008 09:36 AMDepends on who the VP nominee is. McCain is not drawing much of a turnout during his tour of poverty stricken America. He's got the religious right against him, he's going to need a strong Christian values/economically fluent VP to seal his deal. I don't think it's going to be Romney. He still has flip-flop issue, not to mention the general lack of information middle America has surrounding his religion. Based on the questions Romney took after the Texas Mormon Cult story broke I'm not sure if voters would be able to separate an LDS spinoff from LDS itself.
Heck, according to polls 15% of America supposedly thinks Sen. Obama is a Muslim. Just imagine what they'd believe about Romney and LDS.
We could all only hope that this garbage is trotted out by the Left come autumn. That is blatant discrimination & harassment, and anyone saying that in a modern American corporation would be headed off to HR training, if not summarily escorted out of the building.
Maybe Democrats don't realize that the older you are, the more likely you are to vote. People age 50+, 55+, 60+ all vote in MUCH higher percentages than the college kids and young urban dwellers who are currently swooning over Obama. If they start trumpeting this sorry form of age discrimination, Obama doesn't stand a chance.
Posted by: Larry on April 23, 2008 10:01 AMOne sure way to keep up a racial divide is to keep preaching horrific myths like HIV being introduced by the government to suppress blacks. Or to call all of "white" America, KKKAmerica.
The path forward is obvious. We treat each other with respect, and look at character and behavior of each person as our measure. We teach our children that people come in all colors like flowers, but what matters are a person's ideas. There are absolutes. There are good ideas and bad ideas.
As much as the left and Democrats want to try and hide this fact, color, economic status, gender and sexual orientation don't have any affect at all on one's freedom to choose between wrong and right. But for now, it looks like we'll still have bigots who try to explain away defective ideologies and poor choices using skin color.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 23, 2008 10:21 AM"Larry - but people are free to vote their bigotry in the anonymity of the voting booth or absentee ballot... No consequences..."
That cuts both ways, of course. I'd suspect there are more votes against the Dem candidates within the privacy of the voting booth for this reason than against McCain.
People will say "Oh, I have NO problem voting for a woman for President", and then walk in and vote against her 90 seconds later. That's human nature, and the Dems are swimming upstream against it this election cycle.
Posted by: Larry on April 23, 2008 10:27 AMThat's irrelevant to what I was responding to. You were talking about how Obama's support is limited to "urban areas" and I pointed out how that's clearly incorrect when looking at these primary results. Obama won Lancaster County, a rural and very conservative area. He also won Union County, a very small county which has little more than Bucknell University, a school that is heavily Republican (and also notorious for a history of racism).
Your overall thesis that Obama is in trouble because there's a danger that the blue collar folks of rural PA are likely to vote for McCain over Obama is rooted in pure fantasy. This is a constituency that is strongly pro-life and still refuses to vote for Republicans. If you think they're gonna vote for someone like McCain, you're out of your head.
In the meantime, neither you nor other Obama supporters can explain why he is getting wrecked in a key Democratic constituency by an opponent who could hardly have been described as a woman of the people when this election cycle began...seemingly eons ago.
I already explained it. It's because the union constituency (which is very strong in the rural parts of the state) is more likely to vote for the party insider than the upstart (think about why corrupt old farts like Jack Murtha and Robert Byrd stay in Congress forever from these places). But in the end, they'll vote for a pile of dogshit before they'll vote for a rich Republican from Arizona.
Posted by: thehim on April 23, 2008 11:30 AMHe had his lunch handed to him. His chickens are home.
Posted by: Gary on April 23, 2008 01:04 PMObama seems poised to win Indiana and has a significant lead in North Carolina.
On the other hand he will likely loose in West Virgina & Kentucky, but win Oregon.
Given that the GOP is already attacking him with Radio/TV spots and not Hillary should also be a clear sign he's going to be the eventual winner.
This is more fun then watching roller Derby!
Keep donating please, 10 million a day would be a great goal.
All the way to the convention!
Yeee Hawwww!
Posted by: gs on April 23, 2008 08:21 PM"23. WVH defending racism has become mundane. Are there individual bigots everywhere. Of course. But what party thinks in terms of racial set-asides? What party marches with La Raza? It's obvious that racism isn't a winning strategy, and yet Obama affiliates with a preacher who is convinced there are two Americas."
You are shocked, I tell you shocked by Rev. Wright. I don't think you are outraged by Rev. Hagee or the thought that someone thinks all Blacks are pimps, prostitutes, or drug dealers. You are shocked, I tell you shocked that some think Little Black Sambo is a classic. NOT. The reason is that it doesn't fit your partisan agenda. You want to argue respect as a tactic as long as it means that people can't point out the hypocrisy of being shocked by Rev. Wright, but not by other bigots.
Karl Rove and Terry Mc Auliffe are partisan slugs who use any means necessary to achieve their goals. They don't attempt this phoney balony we are balanced bs. They go for the juggular and want to drain out all your blood. That is what you want to do with Senator Obama. Just don't pretend to be anything less than a partisan when discussing bigotry. Your bigots are fine, other people's bigots are evil, right?
Posted by: WVH on April 23, 2008 09:41 PMtranslation: I hate those that are helping in anyway to defeat my candidate Obama, but don't dare call me a partisan or you'll be a racist and bigot. They (Rove and McCaullife) are filth, they believe Little black sambo is a classic. They obviously agree with Rev. Hagee and also that all blacks are pimps, prostitutes, or drug dealers. All the people here that disagree with me at this site are all racists and bigots afterall. end translation
Play it again Wilda.........same old,tired song with the same old,tired message sung by the same old, tired poster.
Is there a 'B'Side to this record??