But It’s True!
- 05.09.2008 - 1:38 PMPeggy Noonan joins the long list of horrified Democrats deploring Hillary Clinton’s comments that she has a base of support among white voters and Barack Obama does not. Yes, I agree it was surprising that she said it. But her saying it isn’t the problem. Indeed, Paul Krugman wrote the same thing:
There’s just one thing that should give Democrats pause — but it’s a big one: the fight for the nomination has divided the party along class and race lines in a way that I believe is unprecedented, at least in modern times.Ironically, much of Mr. Obama’s initial appeal was the hope that he could transcend these divisions. At first, voting patterns seemed consistent with this hope. In February, for example, he received the support of half of Virginia’s white voters as well as that of a huge majority of African-Americans. But this week, Mr. Obama, while continuing to win huge African-American majorities, lost North Carolina whites by 23 points, Indiana whites by 22 points. Mr. Obama’s white support continues to be concentrated among the highly educated; there was little in Tuesday’s results to suggest that his problems with working-class whites have significantly diminished.
Clinton’s comment is not quite like the 3 a.m. ad: John McCain can’t turn around and run ads saying “Even Hillary says white voters don’t support Obama.” She didn’t give the Republicans some rhetorical advantage. She was caught remarking on a very unpleasant and troubling question for Democrats. It’s the key question for the fall: what kind of coalition can Obama put together?
If it’s the McGovern-like grab bag of African Americans, ultra-liberals, and young voters, he’ll lose, and maybe even in some states Democrats have traditionally counted in the their column (e.g. Pennsylvania). If he inherits the blue-collar voters from Clinton, sprints to the center and successfully re-runs the 2006 election (”throw the bums out!”) he’ll win. But as disagreeable and annoying as Clinton may be to the Democratic establishment and mainstream media, this potential for electoral polarization and defeat is not Clinton’s doing. She just reminded them of their worst fears. How dare she.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
May 9th, 2008 at 2:01 PM
“But it’s true!” When has that ever been a deciding factor to the left? It prefers to live in theory. If reality begs to differ with theory, guess which gets the hook.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:03 PM
In support of Krugman’s point, I think it bears mentioning that HIllary Clinton is not a natural champion of working-class whites. She has no history of counting on this group as her base, and her Upstate New York “listening tour” during the 2000 senate race only highlighted her awkward relationship with downscale constituents. If, in other words, Hillary can gain the loyalty of this group with such apparent ease against Obama, imagine how McCain will do. Yet, as Jennifer says, his success will depend on just how toxic the Republican badge has become.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:17 PM
The one thing that differentiates Obama’s coalition from the McGovern one, however, and this is highly significant, is the proportion of the electorate that is now white, affluent and liberal. Back in the 1970’s and 1980’s, the number of people in this category was considerably less than it is today. Increasing college enrollment, and the upward polarization of income distribution has increased the size of this group. Meanwhile, the relative size of the white working class has gone down.
These demographic facts undoubtedly explain why David Axelrod could state in an interview recently, that Obama doesn’t need the white working class - they have been voting for Republicans for decades already.
OK, so let’s say, numbers-wise, he may have a good point. It may still be possible for Obama to win with a poor showing in the white working class demographic. But, here is the counterpoint. Other demographic changes have been going on, as well, while the cuckoo bird has been asleep. There has been an explosive growth in the Hispanic working class. In this election, in addition, the small but highly concentrated Jewish vote will not be in the bag for Obama the way it normally would be for a Democratic candidate. These are the two constituencies that may make or break Obama, not white working class people.
If he loses the white working class, and also does poorly among Hispanics and Jews, relative to their historic support for Democrats, he will lose the election by losing key states including Florida, New Jersey, and a few others.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Relevant factors include (1) the extent to which students through college age have been successfully indoctrinated with the left-PC political line, (2) how long the typical person’s indoctrination lasts after college, and (3) how the above factors break down by state.
My impression is that politicized teaching has become more prevalent in recent years, almost everywhere. The 1972 election occurred much closer to the beginning of this perversion of education, when fewer people had been affected by it.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Much of this presidential contest is about race! Nobody told the Democrats to cast so many votes for “Barry” Obama, a man who freely chose to join a race baiting church. This sad state of affairs is almost entirely his fault. Non-racist white people have every rational reason to fear Obama. They would be foolish to support his campaign.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Peggy Noonan and her one sentence paragraphs. How sententious and epigrammatic. Not. She’s becoming as rapt with herself as MoDo is.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:06 AM
Good points, Ellen S, and I would simply add the following: the demographic advantage Obama will likely have are mostly in states where Democrats would win anyway. I’m not sure if the number of Jews in NY opting for McCain are going to be enough in this very liberal state, but the same isn’t true as you point out in NJ. And Western states where Hispanics are a signficant voting bloc, like CO, NM and NV, aren’t likely to go for Obama, especially b/c McCain has an appeal to Hispanic voters for more than one reason, race being one of these (unspoken) factors.
And for the first time in a good while, CA is in play even though it remains uphill for McCain. Hispanics are one reason, Reagan Dems another, as they also are in many key battleground states. PA, OH, WI and even MI are all ripe for McCain.
May 10th, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Yawn. This argument is so 20th century. He’s like McGovern! He’s like Carter! He’s like Dukakis! The rural, white folks in Appalachia will determine the election! Folks, you make yourselves seem like you’re living in the Eisenhower era. The world has changed. This is exactly why this phantom black guy could emerge from out of the blue and bring down the biggest Democratic machine in recent history. And, while he was at it, build a base of support that included one and a half million donors and one million volunteers. Wake up and smell the shifting plate tectonics! The power base has shifted. And you offer up in contrast a 72 year-old “foreign policy expert” who doesn’t know the difference between Shiite and Sunni and who admits to having almost no interest in economics, while most Americans struggle with absurdly high gas prices. Trust me, Jennifer, Obama won’t lose. He’ll break the back of McCain’s campaign with an army of unpaid volunteers who engage in the process out of no other reason than - ironically to you flag-pin wearing Republicans - patriotism. God bless America.
May 11th, 2008 at 2:05 AM
nepat,
what you’re saying is that Obama deserves to be, and will be, elected because he’s percieved as being “Black.” White people are racist regressives who are holding back the tide of history. Political correctness and rank racism will rule supreme over tolerance and decency.
You are a racist, a hypocrite, a moron and dead wrong.
The anointed one cant win the Electoral College, even with the shameless media on his side, because claiming that America is a racist, sexist imperialistic country is the stark opposite of patriotism. Get your yellow ribbon ready.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:04 PM
@Steve -
A racist, a hypocrite, and a moron? Wow. I contain multitudes.
I made no claim that Obama would win the election because he’s black. My point was simply that we’re in a period in history when the prevailing political dynamics are changing and that Obama’s rise is a manifestation of those changes. The rise of Obama has to be evaluated within the context of this emergent new approach, not with analytical yardsticks that no longer apply.
My point about McCain is that, ironically, given the new paradigm, the Republican party nominated someone distinctly within the old paradigm and who is even now pushing him into the old boxes (by forcing him to the right). This will pose a challenge to his campaign and whether or not he will prevail. My advice to his campaign would be to back away from pandering to the right and reclaim the “maverick” identity that has served him so well, with the polity and the media.
OK?