Judis Exaggerates Barack Obama's Electoral Death
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.
Follow John R. Bohrer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JRBwrites
Loading comments…
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
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.
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.
The truth about rural Pennsylvania.
http://www
`
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
.
Word. Whenyou see their editor on a board with the likes of Bill Kristol, there ain't no liberal in the equation.
Thank you Huffingtonpost for releasing Obama's San Francisco comments.
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?
"Why should we respect her when even her husband so obviously does not?"
How could anyone "make love" (bad visual) to the ice queen.....
Another example of the Obama crowd's "new politics". Is no smear to low for you?
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.
What states will Clinton take that Kerry didnt? Arkansas. Ohio. Florida. New Mexico.
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.
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.
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.
She's the most electable Democrat? I believed that back in January. My mind has long since been changed.
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.
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).
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.
Colorado is also in play.
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.
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.
In Michigan, Obama actually does better against McCain than Clinton does, according to recent Michigan polls.
http://www
In fact Obama beats McCain there and McCain beats Clinton.
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.
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.
Obama will beat McCain.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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
and yesterday's Salon article about Obama supporter's sexism
"Hey Obama Boys, Back Off Already!"
http://www
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
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.
That's rich, you complain about Samantha, relying on only two sources, then You cite two links from the SAME Blog.
"We should not let our fears hold us back from pursuing our hopes."
-- John F. Kennedy
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.
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. John McCain looks and acts like a baboon, Hillary Clinton drinks something similar to Bourbon (but not my favorite, 10-High), and Barack Obama evidently doesn't play the Banjo, something he may live to regret. So, I'm torn. Maybe Mr. Judis can address these issues and make up my mind for me in the days to come.
So your take home message is that Obama can alienate any core voting block he wants to without hurting him in the election?
When Dems are chasing their own tails like this, it just goes to show how serious Obama's fumbles have been. Instead of telling Obama to stop bowling, they stand and cheer him on, gutter ball after gutter ball.
Well here is where you seem to disconnect with reality.
HE did not alientate him. He spoke of their voting habits when asked how he plans to overcome those same habits.
CLINTON alientated them by totaly distorting what he said, making it about personal habits instead of voting habits, labelling him "elitist", making up buttons and bumper stickers and slamming it 80 times a days.
Just like she alientated FL and MI by bald faced lying and slamming over and over that somehow HE was to blame for them being "disenfranchised".
I am sorry you do not wish to see reality, but please at least TRY to see something other than what Clinton tells you to.
Dirty minded people sees the dirt - that is all I can think of how can Clinton or Fox News labeling Obama disrespectful of small town peoples while Obama's remarks were totally well intended without any sense of criticism of small town people. The kingdom of spin only if we allow it. I liked what Obama have to say - instead of figuring out who is a better player in those dirty political games, end those games! We are waisting so much on distractions no wonder nothing is getting any better.
I am worried about Obama as the nominee if he does not pick from a very short list of VP nominees. Obama is weak in some very important places (FL, MO, OH, PA, NJ) but stronger in other states (IA, CO, NV, ND, VA). Unfortunately his strengths don’t currently add up to an electoral victory.
Obama could pick either Governor Rendell or Senator Clinton and secure a larger portion of the White-Middle-Class, Jewish, Female, Hispanic and Rustbelt State Vote. Obama by himself is not the strongest General Election nominee - but with a good VP to balance out his talents he could be a winning machine.
(btw - I still a Clinton supporter but I think several of my friends are overlooking how a strategic VP choice could really help Obama).
Smarter people than you and I BenMurphy are deciding the best Veep for Obama. Don't think for one minute that they are not weighing that decision heavily.
Don't worry my friend in NYC - Obama will win the nomination and be the President in 2009.
In the 2004 election of President of the United States (and in a process identical in Electoral Votes to the upcoming 2008 presidential election), the Republican candidate (President George W. Bush) won by winning 31 States, totaling 286 Electoral Votes, versus the Democratic candidate (Sen. John Kerry), who won 19 States plus the District of Columbia, totaling 251 Electoral Votes.
Under the reasonable assumption that those 19 States plus D.C., led by California (55 Electoral Votes), New York (31), Pennsylvania and Illinois (21 each), Michigan (17), and New Jersey (15), will again vote Democratic, that nominee will have to win at least 18 Electoral Votes from States that Bush won in 2004.
Of the 31 States ("red") that Bush won in 2004, he won 6 of them, representing 73 Electoral Votes, by a margin of 5% or less of the Popular Vote: in order of Electoral Vote size, they are Florida 27, Ohio 20, Colorado 9, Iowa 7, and New Mexico and Nevada with 5 each.
Beyond those 6 "red" States where the outcome was decided by 5% or less, the next closest "red" State was Missouri (7.2%), and then Virginia (8.2%). We may reasonably exclude MO and VA for their 2004 margin, and consider those 6 States (Florida, Ohio, et al) to be the ones that the Democratic nominee will have to win this fall, to win the Presidency.
Those 6 States are safely called "battleground States", or "swing States".
Of those 6 States which were "red" in 2004, deciding the presidential election for the Republican candidate, but which were "red" by only 5% or less of the Popular Vote (PV), and which must be won over to the "blue" side, in order for the Democratic nominee to win the Presidency in 2008 (6 States totaling 73 Electoral Votes: enough to "swing" the election from "red" to "blue")...
If those 6 States and their 73 Electoral Votes are considered with respect to the Democratic Primaries already held in those States, then they would reasonably be said to have voted this way:
4 States (Florida, Ohio, New Mexico and Nevada),
totaling 57 Electoral Votes,
were won by Sen. Clinton...
...versus 2 States (Colorado and Iowa),
totaling 16 Electoral Votes,
won by Sen. Obama.
Again, outside of the 6 States just mentioned, are 44 States plus D.C., who we can reasonably assume will cast their Electoral Votes in 2008, the same way they cast them in 2004 (due to them being decided in 2004 by more than 7% of the PV). Those 44 States plus D.C. are not the "battleground" in 2008... they are not likely to "swing" from Republican to Democrat, or vice versa...
It is the 6 States who were won by the Republican candidate in 2004, but by less than 5% of the PV, that are the "battleground" in 2008... they are in play, as possibly "swinging" from "red" to "blue".
That's what it's all about.
In addition to Sen. Clinton's showing in the Democratic Primaries in those 6 "battleground" or "swing" States, in which she can be reasonably said to have "won" four of them (four of them accounting for 57 of the 73 Electoral Votes that all 6 States represent)
In addition to that, I had mentioned above also, that the States ("blue") that voted Democratic in 2004, and may reasonably be expected to do the same this fall, in 2008...
Those 19 States plus D.C., being led in "Electoral size" by California (55 Electoral Votes), New York (31), Pennsylvania and Illinois (21 each), Michigan (17), and New Jersey (15)...
Those largest "blue" States mentioned there, of the 6 of them, Sen. Clinton can be said to have "won" 5 of them: the 5 largest "blue" States, totaling 139 Electoral Votes, versus Sen. Obama having "won" only Illinois (his home State) in that group of large "blue" States, at 21 Electoral Votes.
"Under the reasonable assumption that those 19 States plus D.C., led by California (55 Electoral Votes), New York (31), Pennsylvania and Illinois (21 each), Michigan (17), and New Jersey (15), will again vote Democratic, that nominee will have to win at least 18 Electoral Votes from States that Bush won in 2004.
Of the 31 States ("red") that Bush won in 2004, he won 6 of them, representing 73 Electoral Votes, by a margin of 5% or less of the Popular Vote: in order of Electoral Vote size, they are Florida 27, Ohio 20, Colorado 9, Iowa 7, and New Mexico and Nevada with 5 each.
Beyond those 6 "red" States where the outcome was decided by 5% or less, the next closest "red" State was Missouri (7.2%), and then Virginia (8.2%). We may reasonably exclude MO and VA for their 2004 margin, and consider those 6 States (Florida, Ohio, et al) to be the ones that the Democratic nominee will have to win this fall, to win the Presidency
And Obama has pretty much taken Florida, Ohio and PA out of play. McCain has pretty much taken NM and NV out of play.
Judis needs to take a look around and notice the Bush Administration's approval rating, public opinion on the occupation in Iraq, and Democratic fundraising and primary/caucus participation levels in comparison to the Republican's. These are the factors that will weigh most heavily in November, not some archetypal "model" candidate categories based on elections past. The level of dissatisfaction with where the Republican party has taken this country over the last seven years is enormous. And once the Democratic Party stops fighting within itself, it will be able to turn the country's attention, and the media's, back to this reality.
Have you seen Obama and his buddies' approval rating in the Dem controlled Congress???
Ignore it at your own peril.
Just because the Democrats hold a simple majority does not mean that they control Congress. Bush still has veto power. Only if the Democrats had a controlling 60 senators, your reference would make sense.
You DO know that Hillary AND McCain are in the Congress as well don't you?
Pretty disingenuous. When surveyed separately, democrats have a higher approval rating than republicans. Ignore facts at your own peril.
The reason why the Democrats approval ratings are so low in the congress is because they didn't end the war and that's why they were given back the power to do just that. You would have to be a total moron not to grasp this simple scenario.
Consider a 60 percent approval rating is as good as Congress is going to get. if Congress has a 20 percent approval rating, it's pretty simple. To have that low of a rating, that means that most Democrats have abandoned them too.
Bush has a 33 percent approval rating and not 20 percent like the Congress. Why? because there are more mindless Republicans who will support Bush no matter what he does then there are mindless Democrats who will support Congress no matter what. It's pretty easy to figure it out if you know how to crunch the numbers.
Amen to JXB. That is the story. Don't let the freepers in this forum bullshit you. They are scared to death knowing we will have the White House and both houses for the next 8 years and obliterate their nightmare from the face of the constitution.
This is the fun part about this years election cycle. It's not apparent to many old guard, that YOU CANNOT USE YESTERDAY'S MODELS. There are too many frustrated Republicans, many more Independents than there were in the 1980's, 1990's and even 2000. Reagan Democrats are getting older and many Democratic voters will not be around in 15-20 years. To put it bluntly - they'll pass on. So in order for either Republican and Democratic party to progress and not stagnate they need NEW VOTERS that will reinvent the party for at least another 25-30 years. That is what is happening now. Bush managed to decimate and frustrate the Republican party, give focus to the Democratic party, and Obama and the Democratic party is taking advantage of this. The problem in a Clinton Presidency is that it reinforces the old guard. Plays to the Reagan Democrats, in theory it maintains the Regan Era and keeps the line open for the same type of Republicans to continue to win over the next 20 years, stagnating both parties. So Judis, sees models but he fails to see the future because he's living in the past. To put it bluntly - he doesn't see all those late 60 many 70 years olds voting now, dead in 15-20 years.
Well put!
Where has this guy Judis been living the past seven years. To vote in another good buddy idiot like GW Bush would be an act of suicide for many middle income people.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
