Over at TNR, Jon Chait has a lengthy article that purports to rebut John Judis‘ comparison of Obama to McGovern. Many of Chait’s points are being made throughout the leftosphere, and they deserve some rebutting. Before I begin, I should reiterate my view that I come down somewhere near Chait: I actually think Obama is still the favorite for the fall, if for no other reason than the Republican brand is so tarnished by Bush that Dennis Kucinich would probably be good for about 45% of the popular vote this year.
Nonetheless, I think Chait severely misunderestimates the dangers presently facing Obama. I’ll respond to his most salient points in turn:
John’s assumption that a candidate’s primary base will be the same as his general election base strikes me as seriously flawed. If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, will her electoral base consist of blue-collar whites? No, it will be highly similar to Obama’s, with a major reliance on minorities and white liberals. As my colleague Chris Orr has just burst into my office to point out — don’t be alarmed, he does this several times a day — right now Obama is having a hard time winning blue collar whites on the economy in large part because he has an opponent with a virtually identical economic platform. When he has an opponent who’s tethered himself to President Bush’s highly unpopular economic policies, winning over blue collar whites on the economy will get a lot easier. Extrapolating from primary dynamics to general election dynamics is very dicey business.
This is true. If Hillary wins the nomination, her base will be African Americans, yuppies, and working class whites. A Democrat needs all three, though. But groups one and two are the most loyal and liberal (in the case of yuppies) Democratic constituencies out there. Some may stay home if she is the nominee, but they aren’t going to add to McCain’s vote total.
Working class whites, by contrast will absolutely defect, and have shown a willingness to do so. in the past. The problem isn’t so much working class whites who vote in the Democratic primary, it is the possibility that these voters are proxies for what is going on in the minds of working class whites who do not vote in Democratic primaries — soft Democrats, independents, and even Republicans.
Remember, these voters didn’t oppose Obama. They rejected him. By like 3-1. That is not just a sign of a small problem. That’s a real danger. That the margin of working class whites’ opposition to Obama in the primaries, combined with their history of willingness to vote Republican, displays an innate opposition for Obama that just isn’t felt toward Hillary.
To put it differently: McCain has his problem with the right, but they have nowhere to go. He’s had a fairly easy time consolidating the Republican coalition. Hillary would ultimately have similar luck with the most loyal Democratic constituencies.
Obama is like Huckabee (who I thought was in many ways an underrated candidate). His weakness is with the most fragile members of the coalition. Just as Huckabee would have difficulty keeping suburban Republicans in the party, so too will Obama have problems with working class whites.
As for the Bush thing, and the economy thing, that is true, and its why I still think he’s the favorite. But that’s not been Obama’s message. Obama’s message is Hope/Change. Yuppies love that. Heck, I love it, or at least loved it until Wright came along and I found out that he wanted to change the s/s earnings cap. But good government doesn’t set aflutter the hearts of Joe Sixpack, who is really more concerned about food and healthcare and stuff than dreaming of a post-racial tomorrow.
More importantly, Obama has only been attacked from the left. Hillary has softened him up on the economy, on elitism, and on race. She’s done some real dirty work on him. But he hasn’t been hit particularly hard on his stances on abortion, guns, and a host of other liberal stances on social issues that working class Americans bitterly cling to. There’s been some discussion of these stances, but the thirty-second ads haven’t rolled in yet. That’s just as much a cause for concern for him as the economy is for McCain.
Second, while John compares Obama’s coalition to the George McGovern coalition, this may not be as deadly a comparison as readers might believe. John himself is the co-author of a book which argues that the elements of the McGovern coalition have expanded to the point where they can form the base of a politial majority. On page 37 of that book, he writes (with co-author Ruy Teiziera), “Perhaps it is time to reappraise the McGovern campaign — not as a model of how to win presidential elections, but as an election that foreshadowed a new Democratic majority in the twenty-first century.”
This is almost too easy. Teixiera and Judis argue that the McGovern coalition can provide a new base for the Democratic party. They don’t argue that the white working class can be ignored, they just say that at this point, it is no longer the be-all-end-all for the Democrats. Which is true. It will be even more true 50 years from now when whites, at least as presently defined, will be a minority. But for today, it is not the case, and Dems still need working class whites to win.
Third, John does not address the corrollary question of Obama’s electability problem: compared to what? The media has been obsessing over Obama’s electability problem in a vacuum. But the Real Clear Politics poll average still has Obama performing a bit better than Clinton versus McCain — and this is after several weeks when Obama suffered his worst two moments of the campaign, and the Republicans have been concentrating all their fire on him.
The problem is that national polls are meaningless. At My Election Analysis, I never cited to them. This is because we don’t have a national plebiscite for President. And working class whites are distributed in critical states for the electoral college: MO, PA, OH, MI, NJ. In THOSE states, plus Florida, Hillary runs ahead of Obama. Sometimes by substantial margins. In Missouri she is within McCain’s error margin. Obama is 14 points behind. In Kentucky she is ten points behind, just outside the MOE. He trails by 40 points.
It doesn’t do Obama any good to win CO, NM, or even the Dakotas and Alaska and Wyoming if he loses Pennsylvania. And quite frankly I think all it will take is a week of gun ads to bring him down to earth there.
Also, her argument is that he presently polls well among Independents and Republicans because they haven’t fully tuned in. After he is defined by the Republicans (see previous paragraph), those groups will reject him as well as much as they presently reject her. He’ll need every Democratic vote he can get in the end, she argues, and if he can’t pin down a critical component of every winning Democratic campaign of the last seventy years, he’s toast.
The other cause for concern for Obama is that he has currently run an effective national campaign. He spent $14M in PA. He spent millions of dollars in Virginia. I saw his touchy-feely happy ads almost constantly while watching Jeopardy. He got a big win here. But he trails McCain in the polls here.
What is Obama going to do now? He’s already introduced himself. He’s already run a ton of ads about how great he is. Sure he’ll outspend McCain 3-1, but given the results in PA, I think that and a nickel will buy him a very small cup of coffee. Go negative? He’s not particularly good at that, and it cuts against the central thrust of his candidacy.
Finally, Chait talks about Obama having the worst couple weeks of his campaign. This is true. But this is the problem. Obama is being brought down to Earth. The hagiographies are over. He built his win when the press stories were about people fainting at his rallies and such. No more. I remember after the TX/OH primaries an Obama supporter saying that he was glad that was over with because he had survived the worst with NAFTAGate and PowersGate. This was the day before the Wright story broke. Since then, there has been very little about Obama’s campaign that has impressed me. I think he is trading on a vast reservoir of goodwill that he built up from August of last year through February of this year, when the press gave him a pass. I think that reservoir is pretty well depleted.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Sean,
#1 Nice bitter reference
#2 Do you suspect that maybe McCain has also been the beneficiary of a vast reservoir of good will with the press as well, and that he may also find his reservoir dry as well come autumn?
April 24th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
I don’t think yuppies is the right term. Yuppies are concerned with money and were a central part of the Reagan coalition.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Very good article. November is a long, long ways away.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
(1) #2. Could be. McCain’s benefit is that he’s pretty well-known right now, and grants the press extraordinary access to stay in their good graces. Obama, not so much.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/04/2008-03-04_angry_barack_obama_bombarded_by_media.html
April 24th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
I grew up in a lower working class neighborhood in Maryland.
I remember the culture shock when I entered college and was in the culture of the individualistic mostly white middle class.
Obama seems to have the opposite problem having never been exposed to the white working class.
I think that’s why he can’t speak in terms that mean anything to white working class voters.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Sean, I think your nicely developed points may be similar to the ones the Clintons use at the convention if Hill has as much as a one-vote lead in the total primary count. I’m increasingly convinced that the Clintons will demand the top spot on a Hill/Bam ticket using arguments like yours.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Doug,
Exactly the same experience I had. This Oklahoma boy nearly transferred out of Yale the first two years were so rough.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Wow, I just went to a yuppified state university. I couldn’t imagine the “rarefied air” at Yale.
You must have really stuck out.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Doug/Sean… would you care to elaborate? I’m very curious.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Metro,
It take a book. There was just a much different air toward family, religion, and middle class values in general. When your friends can afford to take weekend jaunts to England, you know you were in a different world. In a way it was good, though. Hegel says you define things through negation of the other, and by seeing what I was not, it helped me see who I was.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Sean,
Obama hasn’t hit Hillary from the right either. She has a lifetime F rating from the NRA and a 0 from the NRLC. She’s backed to the hilt by Emily’s List and NOW. She has the same problems he does in that repsect.
Obama hasn’t even attacked Hillary about the 90s at all. He hasn’t told those working class white dems how Bill and Hillary cost the dems 50 seats in the house and 10 in the Senate. How the party had far fewer governors, state houses, and congressmen and senators after them than before.
He hasn’t brought up how Al Qaeda flourished in the 90s under her and Bill’s watch and how Bill did nothing while the Taliban took control in Afghanistan, how he let Osama get away on multiple occasions, how he did nothing about the USS Cole, the bombings in Africa, how he turned tail and ran in Somalia. He hasn’t brought up names like Johnny Chung and John Huang and Charlie Trie and the Riadys. He hasn’t brought up that it was Hillary’s personal failure on health care that was the main reason for the party losing 50 seats in the house and 10 in the Senate. He hasn’t brought up Bill’s disgraceful pardons of Marc Rich and FALN terrorists. He hasn’t brought up anything that the GOP will use against Hillary in the fall. He’s gone extremely soft on her.
You wrote that working class whites rejected Obama by 3-1. What do you call losing the black vote 90-10? Black voters, young voters and independents have decisively rejected Hillary. And will do so even stronger if she steals the nomination by having the old white guys in the party hand it to her on a silver platter. She can’t win without those.
And if those white working class are so bowleed over by the Clintons, surely most of them will come around when Bill and Hillary stump voraciously for him in the fall. Or perhaps Bill and Hillary want him to lose so 2012 is open for them? No, they wouldn’t be that craven, would they?
People talk about PA. He lost by 9 after trailing by 20 a few weeks ago. That was after Wright, Bitter, an awful debate. That was with Hillary having the backing of Rendell and his machine. That was with the state being tailor made demographically for her. PA is the 2nd oldest state, one of the most Catholic states, even Rendell said that being Black will cost Obama around 5 pts so you can look at his loss being closer to 4 when you factor that in.(OTOH, a 5 pt black penalty will likely cost him the state in November). She had an ex-President in Bill Clinton who won the state twice stump every day for her for 6 weeks throughout the state. I can go on and on.
He improved his #s over Ohio in many key demos and she gained all of 10 delegates, the same amount by the way that he gained a few weeks ago in Iowa when they had the 2nd round of their caucuses.
All in all, since March 4th, including her wins in OH, TX and PA, she las LOST a net 5 delegates against him.
Since Tuesday, he’s had 3 Super Delegates come out for him and will probably have a few more between now and May 6. They don’t seem to have lost faith in him.
He’s going to win by 10+ in NC and keep it fairly close in IN. He’ll win in OR, MT and SD.
I agree that he has real weaknesses in November, but so does she, and so does St. John of McCain, BTW.
The bottom line is that the Clintons only chance for the past 2 months has been to play the race issue and convince the party that a black guy can’t win. So far they’re doing a great job. Hopefully this disabuses the press of the notion that the GOP is the racist party and the dems are the party of Civil Rights. The dems have shown they’re just as racist if not moreso the past couple of months.
I’m in Pennsylvania. I’ve lived there all my life. I’ve heard people talking the past few months. I’ve heard rather large numbers of people say that they’re never going to vote for a ni**er. Especially from all those older white voters that Hillary cleaned up with. I’ve heard comments that would have been welcome in 1962 Birmingham or Montgomery.
Now that may be a fact of life. But in 2008, it is rather discouraging. That’s what her argument comes down to. He can’t win because enough white people won’t vote for him. For the former leaders of the democratic party and their last 2 term President and his minions, and for a couple that have pretended they care about black people for decades and consider themselves the first Black President, it’s disgusting behavior on their part. If she does somehow steal the nomination, I hope that black vote either all stays home or votes for McCain in protest and teaches them a lesson.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
I’m at loss for a more articulate description than Sean’s.
A few things stood out for me though.
1) The wealth differential was one. I could go for a long time about how this made my peers hard to comprehend and socialize with.
2) The culture was drastically different. Upper/middle class culture is individualized. My peers at college wanted to stick out and be different. They also seemed to be very self-confident/proud. I could go on about this for a long time.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Sean/Doug,
I grew up middle class, and was somewhere in between where you were and the people taking weekend trips to England. After college, I had financial ups and downs but at times have been much wealthier than my friends.
I have no problems hanging out with friends or acquaintances who have less money. Sometimes I like paying for them to do things they can’t afford.
Why would you not want to befriend such people and open up your experiences? And perhaps learn how to become wealthier yourself? In fact, the reason I made money was precisely because I associated with circles that got me a very high level job working for a centi-millionaire, which in turn gave me experiences that taught me how to become wealthy.
Most wealthy people do not look down on those who have less money, even when talking about what they are doing with their own money. Most would love to share their knowledge with you.
And isn’t that part of what it’s about to be in a Republican party that emphasizes entrepreneurship and upward mobility?
April 24th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Metro,
I don’t think he was attacking wealthy people; he was just pointing out that it was a bit of a culture shock. I had a somewhat similar experience, though on a different level. I grew up living with my mother, who makes about 35k a year, but I visit my dad (who makes about 150k) every other weekend. So I understood both experiences, when I went off to college. The culture shock for me, and I actually did wind up leaving, was attending an elite college where everyone was extremely socially liberal. Non-stop partying- we had something called a Queer Bash about once a month- shocking general values, etc. Both my parents are traditionalists- my mother largely through religious values, and my dad through his love of past culture (he practically lives 1940′s movies). I didn’t have a single drink in high school, even though I had a fair amount of friends. I just couldn’t handle an environment where it seemed literally impossible to escape that sort of lifestyle. After basically retreating to my room for months, I got the heck out of there towards the end of my sophomore year.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
BTW, a poll out of IN today has Obama +1 at 48-47.
He crushes her close to 70-30 among voters 18-29. How come no one asks why Hillary can’t close the deal with younger voters? 30% of the youth vote in November would mean she loses to McCain handily.
Obama’s at 42% of the white vote, 5 pts higher than in PA. He’s at 45% of the female vote, 5 pts higher than in PA.
Indiana is much younger, and much less Catholics than PA. It’s next door to IL and he’s won every state that borders IL thus far.
Even in PA, a state that was made for Clinton and which she owned from start to finish, Obama increased his #s by a few points as the campaign there went on, and that was with all the bad things tha happened to him.
I’m not saying he’ll win IN, but it’ll be a lot closer tha PA and when he beats her by double digits in NC, her chances at the nomination will sink like a stone.
Fortunately for McCain, her and Bill are dedicated to destroying Obama. They will fight this all the way to the convention and will do everything in their power to makes ure he loses in November so that they can ride to the rescue in 2012.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Metro, it’s not a matter of not wanting wealthy friends. It’s a matter of coming from a radically different culture and not understanding the middle/upper class culture.
The habits, speech, lifestyles and personalities of the middle/upper class peers were so alien it took me a while to figure their culture out.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
“You wrote that working class whites rejected Obama by 3-1. What do you call losing the black vote 90-10? Black voters, young voters and independents have decisively rejected Hillary. And will do so even stronger if she steals the nomination by having the old white guys in the party hand it to her on a silver platter. She can’t win without those.”
This is the crux of our disagreement. They will vote for her no matter what. They certainly aren’t going to vote for a party that offers them nothing. At worst they will stay home, which is bad, but not as bad as having your base cross the aisle.
There were outlying polls showing him down by 20, but the average was never greater than 16. It bumped up after her Bosnia slip, but other than that, for outspending her 3-1, he got 6 points out of it. That should be discouraging for him.
“He improved his #s over Ohio in many key demos and she gained all of 10 delegates, the same amount by the way that he gained a few weeks ago in Iowa when they had the 2nd round of their caucuses.”
And this is part of the argument that will be made against him. No one is saying that she will catch him in pledged delegates. The argument that will be made — if she wins the popular vote — is just that: That a screwed up system subverted the will of the people. She will probably add “just like the electoral college in 2000″ for good measure. Will that be enough? Probably not. But that’s the argument.
“Now that may be a fact of life. But in 2008, it is rather discouraging. That’s what her argument comes down to. He can’t win because enough white people won’t vote for him. ”
That would be the 800-lb gorilla in the room that no one wants to talk about. A looong time ago I wrote “the question becomes whether, in a general election, against a white male war hero (instead of a woman) those good ol’ boys are going to vote for a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama with pretty words who wanted to ban handguns in Illinois and voted so that doctors didn’t have to take care of babies who were born but who survived an abortion attempt (this isn’t to say that’s a completely fair characterization, but that is what the characterization will be). I’m not 100% sure, but I think the answer is “no,†and I think we’ve been seeing this in the Democratic primary results so far, without the actual policy issues thrown in the mix.”
It is much better than many years ago, and I think a black candidate can win, but not a Black candidate. And the Clinton’s have succeeded in making Obama into a Black candidate.
http://race42008.com/2008/02/20/obambi-v-the-comeback-coot/
I agree he will probably be the nominee. The odds are greater than 90%. And I am happy for that. He’s an easier opponent than her, though neither is easy.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Metro,
Exactly what Doug and MEM said.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
While we’re having this sharing moment: Jim’s descriptions sound the most familiar to me. Not that I don’t appreciate what you other fellas have to say — it’s all just beyond my own interests and background. Respect to Sean, Doug, Metro, and Matthew nevertheless.
Politically, for me it’s more about preventing the Democrats than supporting the Republicans. I don’t really trust any of ‘em, but I trust the Dems to Trojan horse a lot more of what I don’t like into government: state control.
Geez, I sincerely hope we can prevent the Dem Trojan horse this time around, but things look bleak. We’ve already been under the legislative thumb of the Dem congressional majority for over a year or so now. And look what that’s got us: food converted to fuel, higher food and fuel costs, looming trade wars, higher taxes to pay for all the unrepaired entitlements, you name it.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
BTW, Kavon used to post the Rasmussen polls every day when McCain was beating Obama soundly.
I notice he didn’t post the one today that has Obama 47-McCain 45. He now trails both Obama and Clinton nationally where he once led them both in March. He trails both of them in PA. He trails Clinton in OH by 5 pts.
McCain has actually lost ground against Obama in the past few weeks, not gained it. And Mitt Romney or a someone from a state that hasn’t gone for the GOP since 1972 and only once in the last 50 years is going to vault him to victory?
I thought Obama is unelectable? That he can’t win white voters. That Wright and Ayers and bittergate and guns have buried him.
How come with all that then he still leads McCain in 5 of the last 5 nat’l polls? How come McCain can’t seem to crack 45% in nat’l polls despite the fact he’s been the nominee for 2 months and the dems are destroying each other.
He’ll only fall further behind once Obama secures the nomination and gets his post-convention bounce.
Some of this talk reminds me of 2006 when I’d read on Red State or Free Republic or hear some of the conservative talk radio hosts all say not to worry, the GOP will hold the Congress, that Rick Santorum was making a huge comeback, that George Allen was making a huge comeback, etc…
We’re still in big trouble for the fall.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
I know. It’s giving me nightmares of the Obamanable Snowman.
*all apologies*
April 25th, 2008 at 12:02 am
“Some of this talk reminds me of 2006 when I’d read on Red State or Free Republic or hear some of the conservative talk radio hosts all say not to worry, the GOP will hold the Congress, that Rick Santorum was making a huge comeback, that George Allen was making a huge comeback, etc…”
Well you’ll be happy to know that I had the loss of the House pegged continuously from June last cycle, and the Senate at 51 votes pre-macaca, and 50 shortly thereafter. So this isn’t just happy time predictions for Republicans.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:03 am
And Jim, I addressed that. Take a look at state polls. It doesn’t help him to get 60% of the vote in WA. He needs it in OH or NM or some place like that.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:18 am
We face some severe disadvantages.
If the economy is much worse in August say goodbye to the White House (sorry guys).
However if the “rebate checks” help the economy muddle through McCain has a chance at winning. We are at the mercy of things beyond our control.
On the other hand any other Democrat would be pulling ~55% in this type of year. That Democrats wittled it down to two weaklings (a polarizing woman and a radical elitist liberal) is to our benefit.
If they had picked Evan Bayh or Mark Warner we’d have no chance at all.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Well, in OH, he’s trailing by around 2.5 pts right now. Given all that’s happened to him, you’d expect he’d be much further behind.
When the economy is in recession in November and Obama has Gov Strickland and Sen Brown in his corner, not to mention presumably Bill and Hillary, not to mention the Ohio GOP has been decimated and the party is at it’s lowest ebb there in years, I think he’d do ok. In November he’ll have the Rendell machine, not McCain. Not to say he’d win, but this talk of him being unelectable is way too premature.
Sean, what’s your answer then for why McCain’s #s haven’t improved any? Is it reasonable to think things are going to get better for him than they are now? The economy will get worse. The surge in Iraq is not going as well and casualties are up in March and April from Jan and Feb. They’ll probably continue to stay steady or increase. Iraq will not be a winning issue. Gallup today has the war at it’s all time high in unpopularity. McCain had 25% of the PA Gop vote against him. He’ll still be an old man who looks it against a guy who’s young and charismatic. He’ll still be outspent 5-1.
Basically his only hope is that enough white voters don’t go for Obama because he’s black and if he wins that’ll pretty much be the main reason why.
As of now, with everything what whould say the chances are of Obama winning in November vs McCain? I’d say McCain has a better chance than Dole did in 1996 but a far worse chance than Bush did in 2000 or 2004. I’d say it’s still something in the neighborhood of 60+% Obama wins. A McCain win would be the biggest upset in 60+ years. maybe ever.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Some of you are now saying what I’ve been afraid of all along. With all the problems Obama has faced in recent weeks and months, McCain should be way ahead in the polls. He’s obviously not. Once the 20%+ Hillary supporters that say they will not vote for Obama dwindle in numbers to single digits, where are we then? The ticket I still fear most is with both Obama and Clinton on it. That appeases nearly all of that 20%+. One would have to assume that in the polls taken today, those voters are saying they are voting for McCain. At the very least, those voters will go to single digits as the democrats made peace with each other. I think we’re dreaming if you think Clinton is going to work to make sure Obama gets beat to set herself up for 2012. She wil support him, maybe not work hard for him, but she will be there.
I just don’t think we have much to be elated about. A big part of the problem is that the base is still very disappointed in our candidate. When the pollsters call, that shows up big time. We have no one on the ticket to strengthen McCain on the economy. We’re sure not going to gain much if we put an unknown on the ticket even if they do have decent conservative economic credentials. You need someone known as a problem solver. The problem is, I don’t know if we can win, even if we do have Romney on the ticket. I just don’t like the numbers we’re seeing. We need someone in the debates that can make the other ticket look like inexperienced idiots. Mitt can certainly help do that. He either won, or nearly won every debate. And the money we will have to work with will be much greater if Mitt is on the ticket. We need to get our head out of the sand and realize Romney is our only chance to join McCain for a strong enough ticket to win.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:19 am
“Sean, what’s your answer then for why McCain’s #s haven’t improved any?”
They have.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#charts
April 25th, 2008 at 9:03 am
“The ticket I still fear most is with both Obama and Clinton on it. ”
Agreed. There is a lot of potential for supporters of the loser to bitterly stay home in Nov, and that potential dwindles if the loser is the Dem running mate.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:48 am
jim,
You’re also possibly forgetting that every GOP nominee, save Bush in 2000, has trailed their Democratic opponent in the run-up to the convention by a dozen points or more. Pre-convention, Ford trailed Carter by 40 points. He lost by 1. Pre-convention, Reagan trailed Mondale by 6 points. He won 49 states. Pre-convention Bush trailed Dukakis by 20+ points. He won like 39 states. This is just something that happens to Republicans; for whatever reason, almost every Democratic nominee in the last 30 years has lost significant ground after the spring of election year; or rather, the country drifted back towards Republicans. There’s no way of assuring that this will happen again, but I find it mildly encouraging is polling better then all but one Republican nominee in the last 30 years at this juncture of the race.
April 26th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
I’ll echo an early point: equating yuppies with white liberals is wrong. In my experience the yuppies were actually more conservative than most, especially on fiscal matters. (And I definitely mean to use the past tense – they’re all mauppies now.) If you want a substitute term you’d be better off alluding to education (i.e. there’s a strong correlation between PHDs and white liberals) and/or some of the social activist special interest groups on the left (e.g. abortion rights, gay rights).