Democrats Pose Greater Peril to Obama or Clinton than GOP

There was absolutely no surprise at the results of Super Tuesday. This writer flatly said days before the first vote was cast that Super Tuesday would be anything but super for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, and that neither would or could deliver the knockout punch.

There are two colossal reasons that virtually preordained the muddled, confused and frustrating outcome for the two Democratic presidential contenders. The first is the Democrat's winner-not-take-all proportional system and the system of super delegates that they have dumped onto the primaries. Super delegates are at large delegates and can pretty much vote for whomever they want, and under the proportional system delegates can be divvied up according to the vote total that the respective candidate gets in Congressional districts. The idea behind that is to bring democracy with a small d to the vote process and snatch the decision about who gets the big prize out of deal making party bosses at the national convention.

But the first reason for the Democrat's Super Tuesday muddle pales when stacked up against the second reason. And that's the fast emerging and much alarming polarization among Democratic voters, or put another way, the hard lines between those backing Obama and those backing Clinton and the reasons why they're backing them. Exit polls showed two clear things. The overwhelming majority of African-Americans in the South back Obama. The overwhelming majority of Latinos in the Western states back Clinton. The other is that white men in increasingly bigger numbers are backing Obama. And Democratic voters are supporting their picks with passion and zeal.

Latinos and blacks are the two big, strategically placed, and dependable voting blocs for the Democrats. In every election back to Lyndon Baines Johnson's smash victory over Barry Goldwater in 1964, blacks have been the loyalist of loyal foot soldiers for the Democrats. With the surge in Latino voting numbers in the past two decades, Latinos have been just as important to the Democrats and have been nearly as loyal to them as blacks.

The tormenting question for Clinton then is if she eventually gets the grand Democratic prize will African-American voters who have virtually turned their tout of Obama into a messianic crusade back her with the same fervor and more importantly numbers? A lackluster and lukewarm turnout by blacks for her would spell big trouble for her and the Democrats in November.

The equally tormenting question for Obama is if he eventually gets the Democratic grand prize will Latino voters back him with the same fervor and numbers as they did Clinton? The same rule applies to him as Clinton. A lackluster and indifferent turnout by Latinos would spell big trouble for him and the Democrats in November.

Then there's the question of white male voters. They make up nearly forty percent of the American electorate. In every election dating back to Ronald Reagan's big wins over the Democrats in the 1980s and since, they have powered GOP victories in national elections and more importantly have been the sure ticket of GOP presidents to the White House. Bush got a whopping sixty four percent of the white male vote, and he did even better among white males in the South. Their sudden like of Obama then is suspect. The perplexing question is are they voting for Obama because they are truly sold on his message of hope and change, or is there a darker reason? And that is that they hate the thought of a woman bagging the highest office, especially if that woman is named Hillary.

A dirty secret little of the campaign just may be that in this age of supposed gender enlightenment when men profess profusely that they have no problem backing a woman for president many secretly do. This is not idle speculation. Polls have consistently shown that while whites are virtually unanimous in saying that they have no problem voting for an African-American for president, far fewer say the same about a woman.

When the dust finally settles in the fall, the eventual GOP presidential nominee will do his internal fence mending in the party, and will placate the warring other presidential opponents and competing factions. He will have the usual king's ransom campaign chest, the spin of Fox and other major cable TV news outlets and conservative talk radio jocks, the solid backing of millions of conservatives and Christian evangelicals, the sure electoral votes of most of the South and the heartland states, the X factor of race and gender working in his favor against Hillary and Obama, and the hunger to maintain Republican dominance.

The last thing that the Democrats need is a fractured Democratic Party that's hopelessly split into two feuding, finger pointing and irreconcilable factions. That could pose an even greater peril to their bid to take back the White house than the GOP. That possibility is looming bigger and bigger.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).

Comments

[SeanGardner]

Mr. Hutchinson, why should anyone believe anything you write? I mean, weren't you the blogger who wrote the curious posts entitled "Clinton Trumps Obama" and "Clinton Trumps Obama with Black Voters".

None of that turned out to be true.

You've had it in for Obama since DAY 1, and that is hard to forget.

Obama will be just fine. I'll see you at his inauguration. Make sure to wear a tuxedo.

[tbone99]

If EITHER of the candidates ran as a get out of Iraq candidate NOW( not 5 years ago , which was a whole differnt set of circumstances) they would differentiate themselves as something besides an race or gender candidate and probably gain a lot of votes. Even many Repugs want OUT of IRAQ.

The truth is we have NO anti -war candidate!

[longislandlol]

Oye Vey..

[SaintJimmy]

Here is Hillary Clinton's "man problem" in a nutshell: She has spent so much time and effort trying to woo those male voters most likely to reject her anyway (conservatives) that she has driven away many of the men who were most open to her (progressives). The classic romantic mistake.

That said, if she gets the nomination over Obama, I will walk through molten lava to vote for her in the general, because after her and Barack, the quality level of the candidates drops sharply.

As a white male, I, too, am getting increasingly annoyed with these condescending generalizations made against us. Not so much, though, that I would ever vote against our country's interests (i.e. voting Republican).

[ngmorris]

A very asute observation, and to a large degree I blame prominent progressive blogs such as this one for it becoming a potentially serious problem for the Democrats. Responsible editorial policy could have avoided this, and in particular, refraining from taking a side; waiting for the choice to be made, and then fully supporting the candidate. In the meantime, editorial policy should have focused on highlighting the positive attributes of all the candidates in the race' and discouraging negativism. I have read some very dumb arguements in this venue, in support of a favored candidate, which has had the effect on me of tainting the Post, and undermining its credibility.

[UltraClassic]

Yep Earl, so true. It amazes me that the party that is so quick to point the finger at others for lack of pure thought may in fact be rampant with impure thoughts it's self where race and gender are concerned.

[MrUnlimited]

"Bush got a whopping sixty four percent of the white male vote, and he did even better among white males in the South. Their sudden like of Obama then is suspect. The perplexing question is are they voting for Obama because they are truly sold on his message of hope and change, or is there a DARKER REASON (emphasis mine)?"

I just thought that I could "lighten" the mood on this page by posting the above quote from the article. It was well written and I'm fairly certain that Hutchinson didn't mean to make that pun. It put a smile on my face. I hope that others can say the same. Of course, an Obama victory will put an even bigger smile on my face...

[plbcm]

The race between Obama and Hillary comes down to two factors. Who do white males dislike most, women or blacks, and how many women are conditioned from birth to support men? The blacks and the Latinos might be a wash, as well as the old and the young. Men, both black and white, have permanently encased women in a rigid, low ceiling box. English law, including marriage and inheritance laws, the church, voting, the job market are major factors in the institutionalization of women as a sub class. Women, who have elevated their own glass ceiling with advanced education and hard work are a subset of those who reject either a female or this female as president. Perhaps they see themselves as competitors. African American have their own history of subjugation of which we are all familiar. Women have been the underclass in all cultures like forever, unlike some of the more advanced African cultures.
There is one last contrasting variable. Watching the show "Survivor" is instrutive. Women will invaribly make alliances with men rather than other women or will abandon other women when its gets down to crunch time. On the otherhand, blacks do stick together, witness their near universal abandonment of Hillary, long thought to have ties to the black community which would never be broken.
This leads to the conclusion that Obama, with his massive media support, has an easier road to the nomination than Hillary.

[jhamm1]

Evidently, the fact that Stalin resented Hitler does not make Hitler a saint, nor do sexist cracks against Hillary Clinton make her the right candidate for the job.

Evidnetly, Hillary supporters find it better to brush off any and all forms of criticism, legitimate or otherwise, as the end-product of rampant sexism rather than deal with the fact that their revered idol may actually be incurring criticism irrespective of the overplayed "intimidated by a strong woman" diatribe.

Hillary supporters can ressurrect the onstensibly misogynic motivations of her critics all that they want if only as a means of shielding CLinton from any standards of accountability, or possibly to further delude their deluded selves into believing that a candidate with an equally belligerent stance on foreign policy doesn't matter.

We know the essence of that argument "My gender, right or wrong."

Believe me, we get it.

[detriangulation]

I think it's far less likely to assert McCain will have "the solid backing...of conservatives and Christian evangelicals" over Obama or Hillary having the solid backing of most Democrats (excepting African Americans). The Republicans are trifurcated between defense hawks, economic conservatives, and social conservatives. Their coalition's breaking apart ideologically. Clinton is frankly the only thing that can consolidate Republicans and heal their schisms. Even against McCain, Obama has a far greater chance of winning more enthusiastic Latinos than Clinton has of winning African Americans. Hillary wouldn't be losing the latter group by these huge margins had the Clintons not played the race card in SC. That tactic backfired with white males. It didn't polarize the vote---it sealed the African American vote AND drew increasing numbers of equally angered whites to OBAMA'S side in GA and elsewhere.
Latinos, disproportionately represented in the Working Class, are supporting Clinton for the same reasons Blue Collar whites are: name recognition plus a perception that she can deliver on "kitchen table" issues. The Clintons have permanently alienated the African American vote. Obama has done nothing to alienate the working class (but needs to do more to make his case) and I don't think any significant number of Latinos are voting anti-black. He has room to make inroads; Clinton doesn't. Woman need to see who the anti-war candidate is---Obama, not Clinton. That's his appeal in the primaries and that's a real contrast with McCain in the general, a contrast Clinton cannot credibly represent. Another primary contrast for women is torture: Obama is unequivocally opposed; Clinton equivocates. Clinton's also attempted gender polarization, not just with absurd declarations that she "embodies change" by virtue of her chromosomes, but by laughably distorting Obama's 100% Pro-Choice record. Women should be insulted by this attempt to play them as pawns. These are Free Democratic women, DON'T PLAY THEM "SMALL." And for Latinos in the primaries on an issue of particular importance, some Clinton rhetoric has been to McCain's right on immigration, and Obama supports driver's licenses---Clinton doesn't.

[AnninCA]

The fact that men don't like voting for women isn't a secret. Many women who have been objecting to that fact simply don't recognize it.

I will always "believe" that the biggest negative feedback for Hillary when she took on Obama confrontationally had NOTHING to do about race and EVERYTHING to do about gender.

Women just aren't suppose to do that.

That is woven into the very fabric of our society and isn't likely to change.

[MikePA]

Here is the way to handicap the race in the general election.

Hillary is very popular in democratic circles. If you took out Independants and crossover republicans, Hillary would be way out on front now. If she is nominated, she will win all the blue states plus a few others, (like Florida, Ohio and Arizona) because she has the issues on her side.

If Obama wins, and he keeps up this adoration by the press, he has the potential to win the general election in a landslide.

The risk to Obama are 1) scandal, anything that pops up in a negative way could really effect his image, and lets face it, he is running on his current image. 2) The press gets bored and decide to tear down what they built up. (Lots of precident for that. 3) Something happens relating to terror or international trouble that would highlight his inexperience.

Hillary has voted on military issues, the way she has voted, so she can be seen as the commander in chief.

[TwoCentsWorth]

Earl --
Thank you. Finally someone has stepped forward and described exactly what is going on in the campaign.

Anyone who skims through the HuffPo blogs realizes that the vitriolic attacks against H. Clinton go far beyond any vote(s)or stance she has taken on any given issue -- they are clearly misogynistic -- the venom is palpable.

It appears clear that in most races 80% to 90% of blacks are voting for Obama. Interestingly, very few pundits have even mentioned that fact, but the pundits readily point out that H. Clinton has [Hispanics aside] about a 10 point advantage with white women which accounts for her wins. In the same breath the pundits failed to point out that Obama had about a 10 point advantage with white men.

Worse yet, and in keeping with the pundits ignoring the white male vote going to Obama or Edwards some of the main stream pundits have led misogynistic attacks against H. Clinton [e.g., Chris Mathews] without consequence.

We have two outstanding presidential candidates in H. Clinton and B. Obama. It will be great to have either one of them as the next president of this country.

I hope the HuffPo writers and bloggers can step away from their own personal problems/prejudices long enough to write about the issues the candidates are addressing. Thanks to your article, Earl, it may help the HuffPo writers and bloggers reach that goal even if the main stream media cannot.

[mickeyrat]

I'm afraid that Democrats are going to lose this election. The Republicans will be united. By contrast, every day, the vitriol against each others candidates gets worse and worse--and the convention is still five months away.

After five months, how many of you who have thrown Rezco at Obama, or Iraq at Hillary (I'm one of the latter, but I've already sworn her off) are suddenly going to say, if the other guy wins, "oh, that's fine, I'll vote for him/her"? After saying that Obama is a slime who took money from Rezco, dodged every vote, really supports the war in Iraq, are you really going to then vote for him? Or after saying that Hillary is a neoconservative (which she is) who is riding on her husband's phony achievements (which they were) and who does nothing but vote with Bush (which pretty much she has) are you really going to turn around and vote for her?

And it's only going to get worse.

By the time you guys are done, there won't be a Democratic party.

[not one of the sheep]

Earl it's not a "woman" problem, it's a "Hillary Clinton" problem. Pick any other woman who isn't devisive, polarizing, or stands for everything (depending on who she's talking to). 15+ years of business as usual, it's definately time for a change.