Judis Exaggerates Barack Obama's Electoral Death

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

Posted April 15, 2008 | 09:51 AM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

Respected Democratic political scientist John B. Judis has an article in The New Republic which seems to say that Barack Obama surely cannot win the presidency against John McCain -- especially after his San Francisco comments.

To win in November, a Democratic presidential candidate has to carry most of the industrial heartland states that stretch from Pennsylvania to Missouri. That becomes even more imperative if a Democrat can't carry Florida--and because of his relative weakness in South Florida, Obama is unlikely to do so against McCain. Ruy Teixeira and I have calculated that in the heartland states, a Democratic presidential candidate has to win from 45 to 48 percent of the white working class vote. In some states, like West Virginia and Kentucky, the percentage is well over a majority.

He then describes the three models of candidates needed for a Democrat to win over these voters: The Unacceptable Republican (someone they couldn't have a beer with), The Acceptable Democrat (whose social positions don't frighten them), or The Empathetic Democrat (someone who feels their pain).

According to Judis, the first two options are out of the question for both '08 Democrats, and the third model? He thinks Hillary's got Obama beat there.

The flaw is that Judis bases his argument for an "adequate" 43 to 44 percent share of the white working-class vote to win a national majority on numbers that he and Teixeira crunched in the summer of 2007. The huge numbers Democrats have racked up around the country in the 2008 contests -- largely due to Obama increasing the turnout among African Americans, the young, and suburban professionals -- proves the pie has expanded since their calculations. White working class voters will still be a major part of the Democratic majority come November, but their share might not be as large as he thinks.

Judis should also reconsider his proposal that Hillary is more able to connect with working class whites than Obama. After all, the country knows more about his battle with the Clintons than how he was raised by a single mom and Midwest grandparents or how he just finished paying off his student loans a few years ago. Hillary also keeps Mark Penn on her staff, who Judis and Teixeira used as a prime example of those who blamed Al Gore's 2000 loss on his pursuit of white working-class voters. If she goes on to the nomination, he will surely be back at the message helm.

In that very same book, they also note how Republicans have become clumsier in using race to divide the electorate, and how Democrats' updated positions on affirmative action (as Obama proposes to make it more needs-based than race-based) and similar issues have caused blatant racially-charged attacks to backfire. So Judis might take his own observations into consideration on whether Obama's skin color will be that much of a hindrance.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of Barack Obama's electoral death are greatly exaggerated.

 
 

Comments
66
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:

Obama will likely lose Ohio and Florida to McCain. There is a good chance he loses Arkansas and West Virginia and Missouri. Those are states Clinton might pick up. Pennsylvania is the real key here. If Obama loses Pennsylvania to Hillary Clinton, you and I had better get used to the phrase President McCain.

A loss in the Pennsylvania primary will show Obama to be a critically flawed candidate--not because of any real fault of his own, but because of the way US voters operate. Without Pennsylvania, the Democrats chances of winning the White House are ZERO.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:13 PM on 04/15/2008

The economy is so bad in ohio and they have lost so many people in Iraq i believe Obama could beat McCain there. Tennessee, Kentucky and Arkansas would be harder for him to win.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:01 AM on 04/16/2008

`
The New Republic Mag. is an instrument of the DLC
& hence Lady Hill
you'll find better reading in The Nation Mag.
for the discerning liberal
.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:58 PM on 04/15/2008

Word. Whenyou see their editor on a board with the likes of Bill Kristol, there ain't no liberal in the equation.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:47 PM on 04/15/2008

Thank you Huffingtonpost for releasing Obama's San Francisco comments.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 PM on 04/15/2008

How many independents and Republicans will vote for Sen. Clinton, as opposed to how many will vote for Sen. Obama?

How many new voters can Sen. Obama bring into the process?

How many Republicans will get out and vote only to defeat a Clinton? (What is her negative rating now, and what will it be in November?)

How can one awkward statement from Sen. Obama will come and haunt him against McCain, but Sen. Clinton can look straight into a camera and LIE over and over, and that won't hurt her in the general? A Clinton?

Will she run the same kind of dysfunctional campaign in the general? Will she waste money and take advice from the gallactically stupid?

Come now, let's be realistic. She is a terrible candidate who with all the money and name recongition in the world was trounced by a first term, African American Senator named Barak Obama.

Why should we respect her when even her husband so obviously does not?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:14 PM on 04/15/2008

"Why should we respect her when even her husband so obviously does not?"

How could anyone "make love" (bad visual) to the ice queen.....litterally. It would probably freeze his dick off.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:56 PM on 04/16/2008

Another example of the Obama crowd's "new politics". Is no smear to low for you?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:08 PM on 04/16/2008

Hillary: The Empathetic Democrat? Judis must've blushed when he wrote this. Really? Hillary, the stone cold corporatized policy wonk with the bad temper and money coming out of her ears that exudes sense of entitlement and arrogance? Are we talking about the same candidate? Let's just take a quick reality check. Which states will Clinton take that Kerry did not. The answer: none! She has zero cross-party appeal, and her disapproval rating is even higher now than it was before the start of the primary. When the GOP gets through with her, she'll be lucky to have an approval rating a couple notches above Bush. Right now she's skating below their cross hairs, as they know she has no chance of getting the nomination.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:48 PM on 04/15/2008

efranklin, here's a video of one of the first ad the Republicans already have waiting for Her Magesty, Queen Hillary, if she somehow were the nominee:

Video/BosniaTrip: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=NnXwcyuaRmI&eurl

She's the most electable Democrat? I believed that back in January. My mind has long since been changed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:15 PM on 04/15/2008

What states will Clinton take that Kerry didnt? Arkansas. Ohio. Florida. New Mexico.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:09 PM on 04/15/2008

If you think Clinton is going to carry Arkansas, Ohio, Florida, and New Mexico, you're dreaming. In both Arkansas and Ohio, her margin of victory will depend heavily on turning out the African-American vote. Trouble is, lots of African-Americans are angry about Clinton's race-baiting in the Wright controversy and her husband's denigrating of the importance of the African-American vote. And the more Clinton employs her slash and burn tactics against Obama, the more she alienates the Democratic Party's most loyal constituency. Whether Clinton likes it or not, a large percentage of black voters now view Obama as "their" candidate, and they're not please with Clinton's negative campaign. In New Mexico, Clinton's campaign has been engaged in a vicious attack on the state's popular governor, Bill Richardson, the most prominent Latino politician in the country. Gore barely carried New Mexico in 2000, and his negatives were lower than Clinton's, and he hadn't picked a fight with the state's top elected official. The lack of African-American support will hurt her in Florida, too, given how closely divided the state is. In Florida, even a few votes can make the difference.

Hillary Clinton's sky-high negatives mean that she'll need to turn out the base even more than most Democratic candidates to have any hope of carrying those states. The problem is, her "triangulation" strategy has her attacking the base -- liberals and African-Americans, precisely the groups who'll she need desperately if she's the nominee.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:47 PM on 04/15/2008

The speculation about what Clinton might have done is pointless, since Obama is going to be the nominee. When he runs against McCain, there is no need to overthink the election -- Obama should win easily for two reasons:

1. The economy is a mess. Republicans will get the blame for this;
2. The war will still drag on. McCain owns it.

The fake issues that rightwingers delight in will be of no consequence compared to the glaring failures of their party. Which states? Most of them. McCain has no strength anywhere. Republicans don't like him; Democrats don't; Independents will learn what he advocates and find they don't like it either.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:43 PM on 04/15/2008

Zahavi. I could not agree more. I have been posting this for months now. The puglies are dead in the water. The country is done with the war, the economy is killing them , gas prices will be $5.00 by the summer and people are hurting. No one wants 4 more years of the same.

Obama will clean the floor with McCain. McCain if he ever had it, has lost it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:50 PM on 04/15/2008

Forget the stupid remarks, Obama's stuffing of Michigan and Florida is what worries me in the Fall. Florida is a must and the folks there know his campaign is playing "stand in the corner you broke a rule" strategy to protect the possible nomination. I'd feel a lot better about November if these two states had primaries.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:59 PM on 04/15/2008

Obama has poretty much guaranteed a loss. He's gift wrapped MI and FL for the GOP. He can't go a day without alienating states like OH andPA. The west was lost the day the southwest McCain won the GOP nomination. And for all Bohrer's pretzel logic, teh fact remains that the AA community accounts for less than 9% of the total voting electorate and the latte liberals for even less than that. general elections are won by moderates, pure and simple. And obama has done the best job at alienating those voters of any candidate in recent history.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:08 PM on 04/15/2008

What rule did Obama break about MI and Fl? The people of MI and FI want along with the process and now want to change the rules. The GOP did the potential candidates in, all any of the front running Dems did was agree to a process in writing that Hillary now wants to recind because she needs the delegates. How valid is her word of honor?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:07 PM on 04/15/2008

Once again, don't buy the hype. Firstly, Obama had been trying to negotiate a reasonable conclusion in Florida, but Clinton has been ignoring the issue - except to spin it on the stump. Second, nobody I know in FL is as upset as the MSM keeps telling us and everyone else that we are. We understood & accepted the DNC rules. We are however, rip rarin' to get out the vote for Obama in the general - when we're sure our votes will count, and we'll get our chance to stick it to the Republican legislature who disenfranchised us to begin with!

Obama/Peace 08

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:57 PM on 04/15/2008

In Michigan, Obama actually does better against McCain than Clinton does, according to recent Michigan polls.
http://www.mlive.com/elections/index.ssf/2008/04/obama_does_better_against_mcca.html

In fact Obama beats McCain there and McCain beats Clinton.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:08 PM on 04/15/2008

Obama will beat McCain.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:51 PM on 04/15/2008

Thank you, I have been looking for that. I know I seen one like it yesterday and forgot what site I seen it on. She thought she was going to win Michigan. Hope people there figured her out. There is another poll out form there saying the same thing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:40 PM on 04/15/2008

That is a really bad poll - first I don't think Nader gets 8% of the vote in a McCain vs. Obama contest - 2nd, Obama isn't winning in that poll it is a statistical dead heat, 3rd, there are too many undecided in that poll to come to any conclusion.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 PM on 04/15/2008

Obama didn't stuff Michigan and Florida. The state legislatures did. I live in Florida, and our Republican legislature voted to move up the election knowing that the primary would not count.

Obama does not have a vote in the Florida legislature.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:15 PM on 04/15/2008

I live in Florida as well. The Democrats in the State Legislature approved of moving the primary date up, despite knowing what the consequences would be, and in fact, laughed about the threat to strip Florida of it's delegates. The blame does not lie with Barack Obama, it lies squarely on us, the residents and elected representitives, both Republican and Democrat, of Florida.

I think the way Democrats run their primary is imperfect, and I think a better system should be found, but that in no way negates the fact that Florida Democrats broke the party rules willfully and with full foreknowledge of what the consequences of that action would be. Crying about it now is both disingenous and dishonest, in my opinion.

Both of the Democratic candidates left standing also were fully aware of what they were doing when they agreed to the penalties imposed by the party, so holding Barack Obama responsible for failing to allow either Florida delegates to be seated, or to sign off on some kind of do-over is also disingenous and dishonest. As disingenuous and dishonest as Hillary Clintons claiming that Obama "doesn't want peoples voices to be heard". Neither did you, Senator Clinton, until you realized that you didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting the nomination unless you could somehow get those delegates seated.

We knew what was going to happen, so now we simply have to deal with it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:25 PM on 04/15/2008

I understand where you're coming from, but remember that Bill won in 92 without FL. I am also very confident that Obama will carry MI as well as pull out some surpises (VA, CL, and NM are all in play this year, IMHO).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:03 PM on 04/15/2008

Colorado is also in play.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:49 PM on 04/15/2008

NM is in play every year - Gore won the state by less than 400 votes. Also, Clinton won without Florida in 1992 but he also won in TN, KY, AR, MT, WV, MO, GA

Obama isn't even close to McCain in those states. It doesn't mean Obama can't win; it does mean his VP choice will be incredibly important. The truth is probably Clinton and Obama are strongest together.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:24 PM on 04/15/2008

Well Obama/Clinton is not going to happen. He does not need her

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:52 PM on 04/15/2008

NM is not in play with McCain. Sorry. Anyone who thinks that is idiotic. That's like saying Illinois is in play if Obama gets the nomination.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:19 PM on 04/15/2008

Two things have me worried:

1) McCain has been so weak up to this point, it's not a good sign that he's tied or slightly ahead in the polls. This isn't the McCain of 2000. He seems to have lost his touch, stumbling, bumbling even with the help of a Teleprompter. He supports an unpopular war and can't talk about the economy. But there he is: the presumptive Republican nominee still getting a free pass from the media and still holding his own in a potential match-up against Clinton or Obama.

2) Sen. Clinton has poisoned the electorate with her GOP-style campaigning, some of it racially insensitive and designed to exploit social divides, and some of it simply undignified. Her tone and language have encouraged a kind of disrespect toward Obama which no Democrat should receive from a fellow Democratic or his/her supporters. As Clinton's chances of winning have become less, the caustic, irrational responses of her core supporters have increased. 25% of Democrats who don't support Obama think he is a Muslim-- and Sen. Clinton has been there, with an assist from Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes", to keep that falsehood afloat.

Democrats should dig up some old mental videotape of themselves from the fall of 2007, when most of them liked all the candidates on the stage and were feeling optimistic and upbeat. The "St. Obama/Obamaniac" insult-hurlers have made this one depressing year-- unless you're a McCain supporter.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:24 PM on 04/15/2008

Believe me, the dem party knows how to win elections. We won the last elections and 2000 and 2004 were stolen. A lot has changed since 2000 and 2004. Believe me, there are meetings going on everyday strategizing and we are going to pick up lots of repuglican seats in both houses.

Keep the faith, there is plenty of ammunition to roll out against McCain.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:53 PM on 04/15/2008

So Clinton has "poisoned the electorate"? I think you need to read a few more things than Huffington Post and Daily Kos. I would suggest one of today's stories in Salon.

"The Rubes and the Elites"
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/15/elitism/index.html

and yesterday's Salon article about Obama supporter's sexism
"Hey Obama Boys, Back Off Already!"
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/04/14/obama_supporters/index.html

I am disappointed that the Huffington Post has been so afraid of diverse opinion that they won't link to them. After all, everyone knows that Salon ranks right up there with Faux News.

He that lives upon hope will die fasting.
Benjamin Franklin

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:16 PM on 04/15/2008

"We should not let our fears hold us back from pursuing our hopes."
-- John F. Kennedy

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:02 AM on 04/16/2008

That's rich, you complain about Samantha, relying on only two sources, then You cite two links from the SAME Blog.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:47 PM on 04/15/2008

You're pointing to supporters not affiliated with the Obama campaign, of which there are millions-- many with blogs-- and so naturally (and regrettably) a few will go too far. The occasional rudeness (as well as sexism) of Obama supporters is a bottom-up phenomenon: he can't control all opinions, and shouldn't try.

The poisoned rhetoric on the Clinton side is a top-down thing. When she sarcastically waves her arms in the air and mocks Obama supporters with "celestial choirs" or stages a phony victory celebration following the Florida Republican primary-- these gestures influence the tone and language of her most ardent supporters. They end up displaying a complete lack of respect for a fellow Democrat, belittling him as an empty suit, a fraud, a wimp.

Case in point: Clinton said Obama's whole career is based on one speech-- she couldn't even give this "motivational speaker" credit for *two* speeches (the 2004 convention speech as well as the 2002 Iraq war speech). Whether it's Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, Ed Rendell, Geraldine Ferraro or Howard Wolfson-- the talking points are issued, then repeated.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:43 PM on 04/15/2008

I think your #2 comment goes a long way toward explaining your #1 concern. McCain is a very weak candidate who recently has had the good sense to lay low, all the while hoping the two Democratic candidates will destroy one another, ensuring his cakewalk through the general election. I don't think it will happen that way.

It is unfortunate that the Clinton method of campaigning has so lowered the discourse of this primary season. We haven't heard too much about actual issues recently, just diversionary tactics designed to undermine her opponent. It's frustrating that McCain and Clinton would rather we vote our fears. It seems that only Obama give the electorate credit for intelligence and the ability to vote based on issues.

At the end of the day, I think more Democrats will vote Democratic and I hope some Republicans will do so as well. I don't think dissatisfaction with the Democratice nominee will result in a vote for a man who would bring us more of the same as the last 7 1/2 years. I hope not, anyway.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:03 PM on 04/15/2008

I believe I'm an average American voter. I always base my vote on the last thing I've heard or seen, usually a commercial on TV. I've noticed my vote is strongly affected by the presence or non-presence of three things in TV commercials: Bourbon, Banjos, and Baboons. Take the late French Chef, Julia Childs, who often cooked with and imbibed on air what she referred to as "that good Bourbon whiskey." If you squinted hard enough, Julia almost looked like a baboon. If she'd played the Banjo, I'd have written in her name for President like a shot every time. Now, I'm torn.