1964

Political campaigns are, to a great extent, about numbers; and this year's presidential race has been no exception. The numbers we have heard throughout the campaign include 2025 - the number of delegates needed to secure the democratic nomination. Even this number had been disputed as the Clinton campaign has briefly tried to float the number 2209 as the real number of delegates needed to win the nomination, based on her desire to count the results in Florida and Michigan. 270 is the number of electoral votes needed to win in November. 14,000 is the number of votes by which John McCain beat Mike Huckabee in South Carolina to solidify his position as the Republican frontrunner and ease his path to the nomination.

There are, of course, many more numbers which I could cite as well, but there is one number which has been overlooked but is also very important for this election. That number, or more accurately year, is 1964. 1964 was the year the Beatles first toured the US, the year Mickey Mantle hit his last World Series homerun, the year we passed the Civil Rights Act. In 1964, John McCain had yet to be captured by the Vietcong; Hillary Rodham campaigned for Barry Goldwater; and Barack Obama was a toddler. 1964 was also the last time a Democratic nominee for President carried majority of the white working class vote, measured by either income or education. Since that time, no Democrat has carried a majority of these voters.

During the 44 years since Democrats last carried a majority of lower income white voters, this group has been called the silent majority, Reagan Democrats, angry white men and various other labels, but they have proven to be a relatively dependable part of the Republican coalition, providing significant majorities for GOP candidates Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush.

Obviously, losing this block of voters once central to the Democrat coalition was not easy for the party. However, 1964 was a long time ago and the party needs to move on and develop a strategy that recognizes this political reality. When, in the recent primary season, Hillary Clinton reinvented herself as the representative of the white working class voters, her surrogates and operatives dutifully reminded the media that the white working class is a key part of the Democratic base. Her campaign team was not simply spinning. They were saying what many Democratic strategists and leaders believe to be true, even in the face of 44 years of evidence to the contrary.

Clearly a Democratic nominee for president needs to win some chunk of the white blue collar vote, but winning a majority of that vote is not a realistic goal. Understanding this is essential because decisions about resource allocation are critical in campaigns. Strategic decisions to prioritize this vote over other segments of the electorate which might be easier to win could be very costly in November. By trying to win blue collar voters in the rust belt, Democrats overlook other potential growth areas for their party such as the west and, increasingly the south.

There are now several states in the west such as Wyoming and Montana where Democrats have recently won statewide elections, as well as southern states where Democrats are becoming competitive again. This strength has occurred largely without relying on blue collar white voters. Western voters have come to the Democratic Party out of concern about Bush's foreign policy and the growing sense that the Republican Party is no longer a good fit for their libertarian leaning view of politics. In the South, growing numbers of knowledge workers and other white liberals have, along with African American voters, formed the backbone of the Democratic coalition which has elected senators and governors throughout the region in recent years. In both regions, the increase in Latino voters has helped the Democratic Party as well.

Accepting this different road to 270 electoral votes will be difficult for many in the Democratic Party who have spent decades searching for the silver bullet that would bring white blue collar workers home to the Democrats. Unwillingness to accept this was at the heart of Hillary Clinton's electability narrative. Her narrative, that she was uniquely positioned to bring Reagan Democrats back home in November was prima facie absurd, but got an enormous amount of traction and was largely unchallenged in the media or, frankly, by the Obama campaign. The reality was that Clinton remained unpopular with this group, with 55% of white voters who had not completed college viewing her unfavorably in an April, 2008 AP poll.

The broader notion, however, that the only way for the Democrats to win was by sweeping the rust belt, is so widely accepted that Clinton's argument went unquestioned. The question that should be asked is that given that in each of the last two presidential elections the Democrats tried this strategy and failed, why would Clinton's chances in 2008 be any different. In 2004 the Democrats ran a war hero, albeit a liberal and extremely wealthy one from the Northeast, against an unpopular president who was viewed as mishandling an unpopular war, and still managed to lose Ohio, and, of course, the election. Betting the farm on the notion that in 2008 the Democrats can carry Ohio and win the election by running very liberal and very wealthy senator from the Northeast with no war record against a Republican who is a war hero and who has been critical of the mismanagement of an unpopular war, seems to fit at least one definition of insanity-doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

For the Democrats to win, they need to look to the future, not the past. The future has implicitly been one of the themes of Barack Obama's campaign. This is one of the reasons he has done so well with young voters and secured the nomination of the Democratic Party. More importantly, the path to victory for Obama is a 21st century one where Democratic strength in the northeast, upper midwest and the west coast is the base, as it has been in recent years, but the margin of victory will come from winning a few southern and western states. Obama is far more popular than Clinton in these regions and has swept primaries and caucuses in these states. Ohio and Pennsylvania aren't the only states with electoral votes that can get the Democrats to 270. North Carolina has 15, Virginia 13, Montana 3, Colorado 9 and New Mexico 5. These are also numbers worth watching in 2008.

Comments

[jsarets]

It doesn't really matter what percentage of bisexual Asian soccer moms votes for Obama. Those preferences are largely set in stone and may only change slightly no matter what the candidates say and/or do. The important part is how many Jewish albino veterinarians show up to vote. How the candidates run their campaigns can substantially affect turnout amongst various demographics.

Obama's strategist know quite well that the bubba vote is not going to come around. The appropriate response is to depress (not suppress) turnout among these voters. Don't bother courting them, just help them realize that they are terribly unenthusiastic about John McCain. He's George W. Bush without the charismatic cowboy shtick, someone you can't bear to watch on TV for more than 30 seconds without changing the channel.

Meanwhile, work the bottom-up organizational masterpiece that is the Obama campaign on the youth, blacks, professionals, urbanites, teachers, single women, etc. We know which kinds of people vote for which kinds of candidates. What we don't know is how many of each of these kinds of people will vote in November. That's where this election will be won or lost.

[egal]

Well, how dare you point out the obvious misassumptions of the media and the Clinton campaign.

Just stop trying to expose the facts thus far pretty much treated like they don't exist and just let all of the blatantly or subliminally racist smug among the white working class that is never the cause of a Democratic victory believe they are all that matters.

Then maybe they could enjoy their certainty of superiority unadulterated by that twinge of guilt or that annoying sense that they might not be able to find a more p.c. way of explaining that they would never vote for a black president because his forebears came to America unwillingly even though they didn't.

Sheesh, all these iconoclasts destroying a hard-fought-for contentment with our bigotry.

[AmbroseChapel]

Why doesn't the media really talk about this inconsistency consistency? In WV, PA, and KY the element if intolerance exists. It is blatant but is disregarded and words like traditional or unfamiliar become part of the daily cadence. Is it just too deep of a subject? Are we learning that Ohio and PA are different from Idaho and Indiana? Are we learning that states aren't always microcosms of the entire country? This country has different regions. Some regions grow quicker than others and some share only certain values . I'm not sure what too think. I do think we should stop generalizing and sidestepping.

[donballz]

David Gergen (i think it was) said this on CNN after Pennsylvania on Super Tuesday 3: tuesday with a Vengeance. Bu the media does love to parse out the demographics dont they? I hope that barack wins and this is the last election where we break people down by race. Its an ugly thing to do in an election.

[Danny]

The U.S. is the only country to parse citizens "by race".

[cbm17]

I think you should check your facts again: I just looked at 1976 data that showed that Ford won income groups over 15K and that Carter won all those under 15k. this approx similar to 50 k today. also Ford won those voters that were considered "professional" or "white collar", while Carter won those that were considered blue collar.....while the stats I saw didn't specifically break down race and income together, it seems highly unlikely that he could have lost blue collar whites while winning the entire lower income bracket and blue collar voters. while it's true that Ford won whites overall by a slim margin (52-48), he LOST catholics by a blowout of nearly 2-1. Ford also won protestants.

thus in 1976 the voting patterns were still similar to the days of teh new deal coalition (only a memory today). also, Carter won the majority of white evangelicals (who are generally lower income).

[joedabear]

While I agree with you regarding the strategic of a successful Democratic run for the White House, there are some other important factors left out of the picture.
The nineteen fifties were blah. America was ready for change.
The Democratic primaries were hard fought between Kennedy and Johnson, similar to the current primaries. Lyndon Johnson was selected for the vice president candidate because Democrats were trying to please southern voters believed necessary to win the presidency.
Lyndon Johnson was a conservative Democratic leaning towards segregation. The animosity between the Kennedy's and the Johnson's was immense. After JFK's assassination, the pressure was so intense that President Johnson was forced to champion causes that were believed to be "what JFK wanted".
Also, I lived in Mississippi thirty plus years ago when "open primaries" were new. The Republican strategy to cross over and vote for the weakest Democratic candidate started in the beginning and continues to this day. Most of Hillary's victories came as a result of these crossover votes. Don't expect them to vote Democratic in the next election or any other election.
Lastly, this country is in a fight for it's very existence. We MUST win the presidency back and return control to the American people. The next President must be willing and able to take names and kick butt.
If McCain wins, we will have a total fall of the Stock Market and sink into a depression, that will make the great depression look like a picnic, by July 2009.

[robinhood2]

The Democratic Party largely wrote off the south for many years to come when it passed the Civil Rights laws of 1964 and 1965. Lyndon Johnson admitted as much when he signed the bills. The recent election of a Democrat to a vacant MS seat in the House should not fool anyone. That white Democrat is anti-abortion, pro-gun and anti-gay. White southerners like him are very unlikely to vote for Obama, one of the most liberal members of the US Senate.. The Democrats would have had a better shot at the Presidency with John Edwards or perhaps Joe Biden or Christopher Dodd. But its too late for that now. They may up stealing defeat from the jaws of victory.

[EngineerBill]

While I do not take issue with this post, I think either blogger Trey Ellis or John Ridley (I don't remember wko exactly) made the more salient point. Obama and the Democrats should stop playing demographic bingo period. He should (and has already) speak about what he will do for all Americans. The demographics will take care of themselves.

[TruthIsAll]

The official Recorded Vote never reflects the True Vote. The Election Calculator Model (ECM) calculates the True Vote based on returning and new voter shares, guided by the National Exit Poll.

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/2008ElectionCalculator.htm

The ECM projects Obama will win a 71-59m (54-45%) landslide, doing extremely well among blacks, Hispanics, new voters, moderate Republicans and Independents.

But election fraud will reduce Obama's margin. And millions of disenfranchised ("caged") Democrats will never get to vote.

In 2000 Al Gore won the recorded vote by 543,000. The ECM determined that Gore won the True Vote by 55-51m (49.6-47.4%), closely matching his 49.4% unadjusted state exit poll share. The U.S. Census reported that 110.8m total votes were cast but only 105.4m recorded. In Florida, of 185,000 spoiled ballots, 120,000 were Gore votes; he actually won by a minimum of 60,000 votes. Bush won the recorded vote and stole the presidency by 537 votes.

In 2004 Kerry won the True Vote by 67-57m (53-45%). He won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate ( 52-47%) and the adjusted 12:22am NEP by 51-48%. Bbut Bush won the fraudulent recorded vote by 62-59m. The Census reported that 3.4m votes were uncounted. Approximately 2.5m (75%) were for Kerry. Greg Palast provided government records which indicated that 3.0m votes were uncounted, comprised of provisional, absentee and spoiled ballots .

In 2006, fraud cost the Democrats 10-20 seats.

[Oldchef]

Mr. Mitchell, I agree with you here that Democrats do not need to get all the blue-collar vote to win the election. They will get large portions of the blue-collar vote, but West Virginia and areas with a similar demographic will probably still vote against their economic interest again, but I do think that there are enough thinking people out there who will see the truth behind the lies and jingoism and vote for the candidate with the best policy.

[dartagnan]

" ... winning a majority of that vote is not a realistic goal."

I absolutely, positively, 110 percent disagree with this gloomy assessment. The Democratic Party historically has been the party that defended the rights and the interests of working Americans. But since the Nixon era it has allowed Republicans to distract working-class voters with scapegoats and sideshow issues -- abortion, gays, gun rights, "patriotism" (as demonstrated by wearing flag pins) and "supporting the troops" (as demonstrated by putting a magnetic yellow ribbon on your SUV). Democrats need to re-educate working Americans about economic issues and history, and show them that the Republican Party has for more than a century consistently worked AGAINST the well-being of working people.

[clevelandchick]

I agree that Democrats need to 're-educate' the white blue collar vote unfortunately we don't have enough time to undo the Reagan myth that Republicans represent anything resembling a blue-collar value by November.

That's why Howard Dean's 50 state strategy of building the party from the grassroots up is so vital. He's made inroads into some red states like Texas. You know those Democratic caucuses that the Clintons hate so much? In Texas, those used to be considered almost futile, maybe 10 or 20 people would show up but this year each location had hundreds show up. They couldn't fit in the buildings. Democrats are taking seats held by Republicans for decades.

Democrats are poised to take dozens of House Seats and at the very least gain 7 or 8 in the Senate. This is all due to Howard Dean's approach. And unfortunately the DLC (of which Hillary is a darling) does not want to build the party up from the grassroots because they like their top down big states rule all comfortable cat-bird seat. And they've been trying to get Dean booted since he took the job as DNC chair.

[MaureenSharkey]

Tim Russert was just saying, that, in the last 40 years, when it was a tight race between 2 democratic candidates for the nominee; the democrat lost in the Presidential election.

I also heard Howard Dean recently say, with Tim Russert, 'Who knows what could happen? We could have a (race) riot if we can't settle this thing so everyone is happy.'

UNITY! I see no unity coming out of ending this (and soon) with forcing voters to choose between them.

The only way to get unity and beat McCain is to have both these wonderful contenders on the same ticket.

And that way of thinking should start NOW, and quit beating the other person in the primary, up.

[SamThornton]

On the "race riot" remark, I think you may be referring to Fox News Radio's Tom Sullivan's March 18th remarks:

"...I mean, if Barack Obama can't get elected, then we're never gonna have anybody that's a black that's gonna be elected president.' And will there be riots in the streets? I think the answer to that is yes and yes."

One source: http://mediamatters.org/items/200803190013

[MaureenSharkey]

Tim Russert was just saying, that, in the last 40 years, when it was a tight race between 2 democratic candidates for the nominee; the democrat lost in the Presidential election.

I also heard Howard Dean recently say, with Tim Russert, 'Who knows what could happen? We could have a (race) riot if we can't settle this thing so everyone is happy.'

UNITY! I see no unity coming out of ending this (and soon) with forcing voters to choose between them.

The only way to get unity and beat McCain is to have both these wonderful contenders in the same ticket.

And that way of thinking should start NOW, and quit beating the other person in the primary, up.

[Oldchef]

Even posting it twice doesn't make it true. Obama-Clinton is disastrous in a number of ways. He needs a running mate with fewer negatives than Clinton.

[MaureenSharkey]

Well, don't you see that he is disasterous in a number of ways, as well?

I don't know how it got posted twice---I didn't type it twice. Though it deserved it.

[BlueGal]

Yes, great analysis, except to point out that the passage of the 1964 Voting Rights Act is WHY the Democratic party lost the white working class vote then. The brainwashing of that segment of the electorate on the abortion issue (just how many fetuses has Karl Rove saved, anyway?) continues the loss of that segment.

One can say "It's the economy, stupid." but this segment continually votes against its economic interests.

Obama has already shown with his campaign's amazing internet savvy that his is a different kind of campaign. I hope he can find a way around this old thinking in paving a way to the WH.

[TankerRat]

Just FIVE states gives McCain 43% of the electoral votes to become POTUS. All with huge numbers of that same old enemy. White working class men. Toss in a ton of white working class women and you Obamabots have big time trouble. Of course we could just ban such people from the election. Would that FINALLY make you happy. The D party STOPPED being the party of the people decades ago. As did the R's. Where you been? Living on the moon or doing hard time in solitary confinement. Give me Richardson as the Dem nominee and I'll vote for it a heartbeat. Perhaps you'll understand that NEITHER Billary or Obama is acceptable to LARGE segments of the voters. No matter their reasons. McCain is worse yet. So tell me. WHO do I support because it will be NONE of the BOZO'S currently running. The train wreck she is a coming.

[dartagnan]

What are those five states, and how many of them can McBomb -- or any Republican -- reasonably hope to carry, especially in this year?

I would also point out that just five states -- CA, NY, MA, NJ and IL -- give Obama ALMOST 50% of the electoral votes he needs to become POTUS. Throw in PA, MI, WA, OR and CT and he has almost 73%.

The train wreck that you see a-coming is McBomb's Straight Talk Express running off the rails and over a cliff.

[BusGreg]

You can slice 'em any way you want and arrive at plausible outcomes for November. We are about 5 1/2 months off from the election and too much can happen. What amazes me is that very few, none in MSM, are talking about the true silent majority. At previous elections those staying home and not exercising their right to vote had the numbers to override any republican or democratic candidate. With election turnouts in the General running around 60% of eligible voters actually voting, leaves roughly 40% to exercise their right to be lazy couch potatoes. The votes cast by those 60% or so are much of the time pretty well split, not all but many. That makes 30% of eligible voters cast theirs for either democrat or republican. Those who are the most fed up have the power to "overthrow" the government at the ballot box. Yet every 2 and 4 years we make the same mistakes and vote for either republican or democrat on the ticket and then bitch about the shitty mess this Country is in. Of course those candidates least tainted by special interests don't stand a chance because they are not heard from.

[devoto]

Amen. Obama is likely to forge a base of black and hispanic voters (Richardson for VP, anyone?) with a coalition of younger voters, suburban voters, and women. Ohio won't even be on Obama's map in the fall (sorry, Strickland).

[TankerRat]

Blacks yes. Hispanics? I doubt it because Bill R. isn't likely to be the VP nominee. In any case it's proven that people don't vote for the VP nominee. At least not the last time I looked. Secondly, I don't see widespread support for Obama amongst Hispanics. Now I said "widespread support."

BTW- WHY is it that the electorate is called all these things based on ethnicity. I always thought we were AMERICANS first??????????????????????????????????????.