I've said before that I don't think electability issues should be considered in a primary--first because it's hard to know ahead of time who's more electable, second because we should choose who we want and not worry about others, and third, I'll be damned if the fear of closet racists or right wing lunatics decides our nominee.

So the following is merely an observation, not an argument for or against any candidate:

There used to be a name for the working class white folks you describe above: Reagan Democrats.

Clinton will certainly not be VP no matter how close of a 2nd she comes in.  I don't think she would accept that at all.  

I don't understand why everyone just "assumes" that Obama can't win "downscale" voters... as if all of them would simply jump ship if Hillary wasn't the nominee...  

Besides, I'm sure that hearing about all of McCain's love affairs with lobbyists won't help much with "waitress moms"...

Thanks,

Mike

Well, another issue is GOTV.  Obama's campaign seems to totally get it!  Hillary's campaign probably couldn't keep up with the Republican machine.  Obama's campaign would dwarf republican efforts.

That is, I think, way more important than anything!

Isn't Obama cutting into the Reagan Democrat base? Has anyone missed the last few elections?

Furthermore, I don't see how McCain's views on trade, social security, or the minimum wage will square very well with lower income voters.

if obama wins, clinton suspends her campaign.  if, by the time of the convention, it appears obama can't win, she directs her delegates to vote for her.  chaos ensues, the party is torn... until al gore steps in  he takes up the mantle, and runs an effective two and a half month campaign.  he makes obama veep and hillary either a powerful cabinent member, or, if he could pull it off, an eventual sc justice (i know she's never been a judge that's why i said "if" he can pull it off, unlikely, but possible.)  that's one of a trillion possibilties at least.

I realize Brownstein feels the needs to be evenhanded, I found this to be kind of an extreme understatement:

As the nominee, Obama might benefit from a more enthusiastic base.

Ya think? Democratic turnout in the primaries has just crushed Republican turnout. I don't know if the GE matchups adequately capture that or not.

He also neglects the huge potential difference in money, which could be extreme as Obama raising $50 million a month vs. McCain trapped in public financing until the convention.

Jerome, Clinton's body language and tone of her speech since Thursday say she'll laying in on the line on May 4th, and she's getting out if she fails.

Did you see the new Texas poll: Obama by 14
http://www.decisionanalyst.com/publ_data /2008/obama.dai

The claim that Obama won't do well among working class whites misses a larger narrative about reform-oriented candidates in general. Going back to Hart and looking at Tsongas, Brown, Bradley and Dean, reformers always got the educated liberal set first. And then some wise sages of the party endorsed the reformer too. But nobody in the voting base of the party wanted to buck the establishment and the reformer usually petered out. What makes this year different is that the reformer had a huge portion of the base locked up - African Americans. With black support in SC, Obama could survive to Super Tuesday and hold serve that day, thanks to superior organizational savvy and some strategic miscalculations from Clinton. Then Obama was able to expand beyond his coalition of well-educated liberal whites and African Americans by targeted white men, younger and middle age white women, Independents and disaffected Republicans, and finally white working class voters and Latinos. Maryland gave the first indication that Obama was finally reaching working class whites. In Wisconsin, Obama won non-college educated whites 52-47. He officially broke through. I suspect the same thing will happen in Ohio.

The notion that these former Reagan Democrats will support McCain over Obama is based in elitist assumptions about working class racism and in self-delusional belief that Obama is all fluff. Unions and many former Edwards endorsers have turned to Obama because they realize his appeal on trade and jobs and they know he's the real deal. They liked Clinton at first - and they still do - but they're starting to like Obama better. This is especially true among working class white men.

As for working class white women - the base of Hillary's NH comeback - Obama's appeal is less certain. But McCain's appeal is even farther away. Unless these women are religious conservatives and pro-lifers, they are not going to find McCain's schtick very appealing at all. McCain doesn't promise them hope like Reagan did in 1980. McCain doesn't have Hollywood charisma like Reagan. And most importantly, McCain is not campaigning against a struggling Democratic Administration as Reagan did. Working class women do not support the war. They are not going be feared into voting for an old fool who openly disdains economics, shuns all talk of values, and cares little for ordinary people. They will vote for Obama.

Latinos, ironically, are a bit harder to gauge because of McCain's support for comprehensive immigration reform. But I suspect the 2006 anti-immigrant bashing has caused enough damage to the GOP that Latinos will only give McCain about 33% of their vote.

All of these concerns about working class whites in PA and OH choosing McCain over Obama are misplaced. When Obama starts campaigning in those states, they will gravitate to him just as they did in Wisconsin. There are no Reagan Democrats anymore. They were a unique function of divisions in the 1960s and 1970s Roosevelt coalition, the hostage crisis in Iran, stagflation and malaise under Carter, and racial tension of the era. There is nothing paralleling that today to convince working class whites who would normally back a Democrat like Clinton to, instead, back McCain over Obama.

Obama is running stronger against McCain than Clinton. That's a huge advantage, and one would think that any diary on the subject of an Obama-McCain contest would delve into the reasons for that.

Don't forget Jerome, that Hillary needs to not only "win Texas & Ohio"..she needs to win them by 30 points.  Anything less and she doesn't have a prayer of regaining the delegate lead later.

A win of say 55-45 is almost as bad as a loss.

She NEEDS LANDSLIDES.

"In the general election, Barack Obama and John McCain are tied at 44% while McCain leads Clinton 46% to 43% . . .Nationwide, Obama is viewed favorably by 53% and unfavorably by 45%. McCain's numbers are 53% favorable, 44% unfavorable. Clinton earns positive reviews from 48% of Likely Voters nationwide and negative assessments from 50%. . ."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/daily_presidential_tra cking_poll

Surprizing to me that McCain would be tied with Obama, and that Obama would have such high negatives. Have they been this high all along?

After March 4th we begin to explore the $64,000 question. Can a A.A be elected president in these United States of America.  States like NY and CA will stay in the Dem column while states like OHIO and FL will be once again true battle ground states.  Whats amazing and at the same time kind of bewildering to me is that the Dem primary hasnt really factored in the electability mathchup in a G.E.  Hillary seems to do a lot better vs. McCain in states like Fl and Penn. While Obama fans seem to argue that she gets crushed in states like Iowa and Colorado.  But I'll tell you this much... Speaking as a A.A male; I'll be truly impressed with our nation if we elect Obama.  10 years ago this phenomenon would have been  impossible.  Its quite impressive.

Why would working-class white women not support Obama in the General?  The assumption only makes sense in an every thing being equal match between Clinton & Obama as it might be now in the fight for white men.  But to suggest Obama's present appeal to Hillary's gender base says something more about Obama than what is says about Hillary is quite a stretch.  Would African-Americans be open territory for McCain if Clinton is the candidate?  If he's getting their husbands, we will get the wives once making a historical vote for the first Woman President is no longer an option.

McCain is the Black Knight. He's been mortally wounded but won't admit it.

One more thing, the general public as a whole has been quite baffled by Obama's impressive primary victories over HRC.  The question then becomes, will this translate into a general election match-up with a GOP candidate?  The major advantage that BHO seems to have is an inspired base.  However, it's going to take more than inspiration to deliver battleground states.  Often his supporters have argued that Independents prefer him over HRC.  Yes, that may be true but one must remember that Independents are often republicans mascarading as Indy's.  I just pray we get it right.  The GOP hates HRC with a passion so our only choice is Barack.  

If Hillary wins the popular vote from all 50 states combined, even if she remains behind in pledged delegates, she can make the powerful argument that the pledged delegate allotment is skewed and more people voted for her than Barack, and that she also won the essential democratic states.

The superdelegates would be very swayed by that, I believe.

She can make this happen with solid but unspectacular wins in TX OH and PA.

In other words...it aint over. They just have to start winning again. Remember New Hampshire! Remember Massachusetts! Remember California!

Remember 1992!

WHen Rasmussen or any other tracking poll samples people, they will come up with a methodology to ensure a fair representation of voters. In other words, they make sure that it's 50/50 Repugs/Dems or 40/40/20 Repugs/Dems/Indys or some factor there. The bottom line is that all of these polss are oversampling from Republicans because self-identified Dems outnumber Repugs by 10-15 points. In other words, in mos tpolls, you can actually add about 3-4 more  points to the Dems. This would very well be the margin for a victory in VA, OH, IA, NV, CO, NM, ?FL (although the Cuba stuff will make it harder for Obama)

One thing Jerome is forgetting here is that if Hillary suspends her campaign after March 4, it's likely that Obama will run up massive numbers in the remaining states - even over 85% - so that he'll get all the remaining delegates in many states. When Edwards suspended his campaign in 2004 some folks still voted for him. And Vermont still voted for Dean. But in most states Edwards didn't register more than about 7% of the vote. If Hillary suspends, her supporters will gravitate to Obama or stay home on primary day. Only a small handful would continue to cast what is an in essence a protest vote for her in the remaining states.

Also, I bet at least half of Clinton's superdelegates will switch to Obama if she suspends, and all of the remaining supers will support him too. That will be enough to avoid controversy at the convention. And MI and FL can be seated.

There will be a reconciliation between Obama and Clinton regardless. We saw the beginnings of that in Clinton's closing statement the other night. But it won't have anything to do with delegates.

I hope no one else was as dumb as I and just wasted an hour watching Bill Maher. He had pompous David Frum and a blowhard GA Congressman Kingston spouting off nonsense after nonsense with typical Hannity propaganda.

What a waste of time !

There will be no obvious downside of an Obama nomination to the Democratic Party and super delegates. National polls will be the focus, not vague demographic hints from state to state. A summer shift toward Hillary would require her with a decisive lead over McCain in hypothetical national polling, superior to the Obama/McCain numbers, which is never going to happen. Her general election ceiling is steady, well known, and low.

Obama, even if attacked by the GOP or floundering leading up to the convention, will maintain enough strength in national polling via the teflon of likability. Once a candidate secures a major nomination he's given a major benefit of a doubt, which lasts until late summer at the earliest. Ousting the well-known presumed nominee further shields Obama from early collapse. And since our convention is first, the GOP will not yet have unleashed full throttle  against Obama.

Hillary always faced a vulnerability that she would fare worse in hypothetical general election polling, if the GOP nominee were already known. I've blown plenty of calls this cycle but perhaps a year ago on many sites I emphasized that Hillary needed to cinch her nomination prior to the GOP candidate being identified. If not, and where we are now, it was otherwise inevitable that Obama or Edwards would look stronger than Hillary in head-to-head polling.

The fascinating variable in fall '08 will be how well the normally reliable partisan index holds up. With Edwards as nominee the traditional margins would appear. No problem. Same with Mark Warner, who I supported originally. But with Hillary and particularly Obama you can't take a +3 national consensus, for example, and assume that's plenty to lasso Ohio, and hold Pennsylvania comfortably, and be in a virtual dead heat in Florida. The shifting from national margin to individual states will be decisively altered from what we've come to expect. I guarantee it's going to drive poll-based sites and analysts mad. Some analysts will be comfortable with the old guidelines while others will assert the state polls are more in tune with current reality, regardless if they reject 20+ years of partisan index logic.

My concern with Obama is he's likely to fare worse than Hillary in the vital states like Ohio and Florida. Ohio is more backwards and conservative than we want to believe, and Obama will be hard pressed to win Florida Hispanics. Once those states are straying, the straight flush of smaller states to make up the electoral difference is so mathematically remote it's not something you want to count on. This year we're virtually birthrighted to own the margin for error advantage, but an Obama nomination has severe potential to surrender it.

One thing I noticed and made sure to remember, even though it wasn't really picked up by the media. When Obama won Virginia his victory speech included a mention of Jim Webb, full of praise, even though Webb was not in attendance. Placing Webb on the end of the ticket with Obama not only makes sense from a national security standpoint, but it also plants Virginia absolutely in play. A favorite son VP from that state should be worth at least 3-4 points, maybe more since Virginia hasn't been represented on a national ticket in so long. And earning Virginia's electoral votes, though basically half of Ohio's or Virginia's in number, is nearly as good as the two biggies, since only a couple of smaller states would be required to push us to 270. Losing Ohio/Florida/Virginia means we'd need a very unlikely sweep.

Here's the methodology. I tried looking for the link but I couldn't. The distribution of the sampling i.e. 40/40/20 or whatever is based upon the likely voters as also determined by 2004 & 2006 voting. THe fact that there are more  Dems than Reps in '08 compared to '04 and '06 is not factored in consistnely in polls. In other words, the D vs. R breakdown in Jan 07 is different than in Jan 08. More Dems. But the polls do not take that into account today because they can't continually adjust their methodology to factor that in. In other words, in July 07 they had a set ratio i.e. 45/40/10 or whatever. In every poll since then they have kept that same  ratio even though in the last six months more Dems have registered than Reps.

Here's the methodology. I tried looking for the link but I couldn't. The distribution of the sampling i.e. 40/40/20 or whatever is based upon the likely voters as also determined by 2004 & 2006 voting. THe fact that there are more  Dems than Reps in '08 compared to '04 and '06 is not factored in consistnely in polls. In other words, the D vs. R breakdown in Jan 07 is different than in Jan 08. More Dems. But the polls do not take that into account today because they can't continually adjust their methodology to factor that in. In other words, in July 07 they had a set ratio i.e. 45/40/10 or whatever. In every poll since then they have kept that same  ratio even though in the last six months more Dems have registered than Reps.

I dont see obama winning florida
more backasswards than many think

ohio will be a battleground, that is all i can say.  it will be ugly

but obama can put the midwest into play (flip co and new mexico)  
virginia will be in play regardless of webb

plus obama will have much more money than mccain, as well as much more motivated soldiers.  obama will outwork mccain and force mccain to defend states he doesnt need to be defending

it could come down to outside events (war/terrorism/blowing things up) if nothing major happens (iraq stays as is, rest of world stays relatively stable, at least in the media's eyes) obama should win... could be a landslide

but if some major international chaos occurs, it will be a dogfight that get ugly and could favor mccain

would favor mccain

First I'm fairly sure most Regan democrats are now republicans or indys(on the flipside some repblicans from that time especially in the NE are now democrats).

Second in politics class can mean many things including most importantly money and education. Due to both his primary performance and general democratic performance I would guess Obama's biggest struggle would coime from those with a bit of college or a two year degree, rather then those with least money.

Obama's worst demograohics will be lower middle class especially those with low levels of education(except for those with the lowest levels), also more trouble with men then women and both genders among socially conservative voters (McCain's main draw is the strong macho man image), also among catholics and white ethics.

It ain't over 'till the fat lady sings!

There are a number of misconceptions about the role that delegates will play in this election.
The three most important things to remember are:

1) A candidate needs 2208 delegate votes to secure the nomination with Florida and Michigan included.

2) After weeks of voting, the race is a virtual tie, with Hillary and Senator Obama now separated by little over 2% of all the delegates to the Democratic Convention.

3) Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will need automatic (super) delegates to win the nomination.

Senator Obama has aggressively courted automatic delegates, while his campaign has simultaneously tried to discount their role in the process.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't North Carolina change up its EV allocation so it's by Congressional District now? That would presumably throw a few more electoral votes our way, right?

Guns.

Obama is on record in favor of very stringent gun regulations. While I don't necessarily disagree with him, this has the potential to be a huge liability in the general election, particularly in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio as well as some of the Mountain West. I hope his campaign has some way of trying to defuse this issue.

I'm quite frankly shocked this is still being discussed.  Whoever has more PLEDGED delegates by the convention should received ALL of the super delegates.

The only downside is Clinton winning in spite of the people. Other than that, Barack changes the map and everything is in play.