Obama’s Electoral Problems Transcend Race
Barack Obama's difficulty luring white working class voters to his cause is well known. But he has plenty of other reasons to stay up at night.
It is no secret: Barack Obama’s near-nomination rests largely on a coalition of African Americans, high income voters, young people and self-described “very liberal” Democrats. These voters have consistently turned out in primary races, giving him a majority of the pledged delegates (if you don’t count Michigan and Florida). Many pundits, joined by Hillary Clinton, have focused on the absence of white voters in Obama’s coalition.
The numbers are striking. Since the heady primary days of Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin, white Democratic voters have in essence abandoned Obama, even after the mainstream media declared the race over. In Kentucky, for example, he received a paltry 23% of the white vote. In Pennsylvania he garnered 37% of the white vote. In West Virginia the margin with these voters was 71-23%. Even in Indiana where Obama lost by only two percentage points, he lost the white vote by twenty points. And in North Carolina where he cruised to a double digit win he still lost white voters 61-37%. (But, yes, in Oregon with 57% of the voters identified as liberal he managed to win whites — the first time since Vermont’s primary back on March 4.)
And although it is true that both John Kerry (41-58%) and Al Gore (42-54%) lost the white vote, it may be hard for Obama to slip below their levels of support and still win. John Pitney, professor of political science at Claremont College, reminds us that going back to 1972 the Republican share of the white vote has never fallen below 54% in winning years. To keep McCain below that figure Obama will need to improve substantially among white voters.
But this is not Obama’s only problem. There are several others that have gained less attention, but may be equally serious.
The first is an electoral puzzle. A handy map by Karl Rove’s firm lets us all in on the most underreported story of the election: Blue states are still Blue, Red states are still Red and there are not that many still left in play. At least not now. Put differently, the country’s population has largely divided itself by states that divide quite evenly between the parties.
And for all the hype about his ability to transcend historic differences, Obama’s obvious problems with Appalachian states and the South’s conversion to Republicanism limit his ability to make inroads beyond traditional Blue states. Whether using Rove’s map or other tabulations, John McCain may start out with over 200 electoral votes and enjoy some openings in Ohio and Florida. Given that, the road to 270 electoral votes is not yet clear for Obama.
The second issue for Obama is age. Now McCain supposedly was the one with the “age problem,” but the one that counts is the age of the voters. There are lots of seniors who vote and so far they have been wary of Obama. In state after state, even while winning in Oregon, he has lost the senior vote to Clinton. Perhaps they don’t “get” and don’t much approve of Obama-mania, or perhaps they have seen enough to be skeptical of someone peddling “change” as if it were a new shirt one can easily slip on.
As one report noted:
“In the Pennsylvania and Ohio primaries, Obama lost older whites by 30 percentage points, while Clinton split white voters under age 30 in both critical contests. Obama’s senior problem is even greater among Hispanics. The Illinois senator lost older Latinos by 40 to 60 percentage points in Texas, New Mexico and California. . , Even in Wisconsin, where the white working class moved to Obama, he lost whites age 60 and older by 9 percentage points. . . In Pennsylvania and Ohio, Clinton won a stunning seven in ten white voters age 60 and older primarily because the gender gap diminishes to Clinton’s favor with older voters.”
The degree to which seniors make up a significant portion of the electorate in key swing states that already are problematic for Obama (e.g. Ohio and Florida) only multiplies the problem.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Jennifer Rubin is PJM's Washington, DC, editor. She also blogs at Commentary’s Contentions.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
28 Comments
1. Ed Wallis:Well written. Only one observation:
“Since the heady primary days of Maryland, Virginia ….”
Also please note that, as A) these were “open” primaries and B) McCain had long been settled upon on the other side of the aisle, there were more than a few Republicans who chose to – ahem – “have their say” about the Democratic Party candidate, though they had no interest in voting Democratic in November.
Also on this subject:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/are_conservatives_cutting_off.html
May 30, 2008 - 4:04 am 2. John:I also thought your piece was well written and the analysis of the “white Catholic” vote is surely on the mark.
Obama is squarely Pro-Choice, Most Catholics are firmly Pro-Life. Many Dems with their liberal outlook miss that point by a mile, that there is a whole segment of our society which is fervently anti-abortion, this may also help explain Obama’s poor showing among predominately Catholic Hispanic voters.
And then there is the issue of Obama’s Church, I think too much has been made of the “Black Liberation Theology” taught at Obama’s Church, and I think it offends most Catholics’ sensibilities. Most of us like to vote for someone whom we believe *thinks* the same way we do, any glimpse into the workings of the TUCC reveals a world most of us don’t fathom.
Just a thought.
May 30, 2008 - 4:39 am 3. David Thomson:Non-Ivy League white voters would be foolish to vote for Barack “Barry” Obama. He and his guilt tripped white “elite” allies will almost certainly hurt them. The latter will be forced to pay for the “past injustices of the white majorities.” Never forget that the white elites some forty years ago sent their own children to private schools—while the progeny of the common folk were bused across the other side of town. There is tacit agreement between Obama and elite whites: “Go along with the politically correct agenda and you will be amply rewarded. The price tag will be paid by the hoi polloi.” At the end of the day, voting for Obama is inadvertently benefitting racist David Duke. The Chicago U.S. senator will set back race relations in the United States minimally twenty years.
May 30, 2008 - 5:07 am 4. MarkD:The military delivered my absentee ballot too late to allow my vote against Jimmy Carter to count. I look forward to the opportunity to correct that problem.
You say Carter’s not running? I say he is. Obama has the same naive policies that didn’t work then and won’t work now. Elect this guy and we could be praying for the Bush “recession” to come back.
May 30, 2008 - 9:00 am 5. the golden rule:Ed Wallis,
I don’t know what you mean by Maryland being an open primary. I’m independent and could not vote in the MD primary. It looks like I will be writing-in Hillary’s name in the GE, whether she throws her support to Obama or not.
May 30, 2008 - 9:19 am 6. Ed Wallis:tgr,
May 30, 2008 - 9:45 am 7. Joe Buzz:mea culpa…perhaps only VA in our area…but, if I may add, it certainly applied to many other states.
Thanks for the info.
Nice and concise JR. Denver will provide an interesting peak inside the “progressive” machine. Looking sort of forward to it.
May 30, 2008 - 9:57 am 8. Roark:In November I will be voting AGAINST Obama not for McCain.
May 30, 2008 - 10:32 am 9. John Samford:In November I will vote for the best democrat, which is John McCain.
May 30, 2008 - 11:40 am 10. LCSusan:As far as Ohhhh……BAMA being half black, that won’t matter nearly as much as him being all Marxist. He won’t do as well as Dukisis, Mondale, or Kerry for the same reason. Socialism had it’s day in America in the 30’s and it won’t come roaring back, no matter how much those tired old 60’s radicals want it to.
When you go at it by voting block, things look pretty grim for Ohhhh…..BAMA. Which is why Billery is still in the hunt.
Well written and don’t forget those of us who feel we have been either taken for granted by the Dems or even asked to leave if we are not prepared to become Obama-ites.
http://strictlyanecdotal.com
May 30, 2008 - 1:07 pm 11. s. james lippman:This is all well and good, and very interesting. But it is overthinking a very basic problem that Obama has. The population of the United States is not nearly ready to elect an unreconstructed, unapologetic, angry, envious and vengeful far-left radical to the presidency. It has nothing to do with his race, or his age. It has to do with what he stands for, what he says, what he thinks, who his friends are.
May 30, 2008 - 1:56 pm 12. Obama’s Problems Transcend Race « 4hillary’s Weblog:Dead man walking. Forget him. He will never come close to being elected. Ever.
[...] http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-electoral-problems-transcend-race/ [...]
May 30, 2008 - 2:02 pm 13. Increase Mather:I like the comment about voting for the best Democrat in the race: John McCain…conservatives are really feeling left out this year. In my neck of the woods(red part of a blue state) I am beginning to see Ron Paul and Tax Payer (Consitution Party) Party bumper stickers. There are many people here who think highly of Bob Barr…
…we are not only left with the least worst choice.
May 30, 2008 - 2:52 pm 14. Former Belgian:Increase Mather:
(sigh) So while Chicago Machine Messiah and his band of merrymen drive the place into the ground, they’ll be driving around (if you will still be able to afford the gas) with a sticker “Don’t blame me, I voted Libertarian!”? Why not go all the way and write in Ayn Rand or Ronald Reagan?!
There is protest voting, and then there is political masturbation. Sometimes one doubles as the other. If this were France (perish the thought), what these people want to do might actually make sense: a protest vote for during the first round, then vote for the lesser evil during the runoff 14 days later. Right here they’ll just make B-HO laugh all the way to the bank.
May 30, 2008 - 5:43 pm 15. Former Belgian:Increase Mather:
There are protest votes, and then there is political self-abuse. WHat these people propose to do might make sense in France: a protest vote in the first round, then vote for the “lesser evil” 14 days later in the runoff. In the USA all it will achieve is make Chicago Machine Messiah laugh all the way to the bank.
May 30, 2008 - 5:48 pm 16. dougf:“we are not only left with the least worst choice.”
Ummm, actually in REALITY you are. It’s only in Fantasy World that a vote wasted counts for anything whatosever.
If McCain is less ‘bad’ in your view than the usual suspect dressed up in all new spiffy attire, and you proceed to vote for Barr who is a nobody running for a nothing Party, then you have objectively cast a REAL vote for the worst possible outcome.
Subjectively you get to feel all righteous about your choice but if the ‘worst’ candidate of the REAL candidates then goes on to win, you have objectively allowed and indeed enabled that to happen.
So essentially you really are “left with the least worst choice ” scenario. You just don’t want to accept it.
Huge difference there.
Huge.
May 30, 2008 - 5:55 pm 17. dvd:bo has a purported 90% backing of black voters. The question is what % of that 90% is rasict? Or what % of that 90% ever thought about the causal equation of bo as president?
bo is a socialist, and the black voting block may not realize what that actually means. The entire US electorate hates socialism, and considers it as anti thwetical to being American. Now, the truth lies somewhere in the space betyween blacks voting as a block, for reasons of blackness…..or, that blacks dont care that the working class including both sexes, does not want socialism…
the problem is clear….and its not a situation that will be negotiated and compromised by those of us whose economics are more important than race gender or religion.
May 30, 2008 - 6:16 pm 18. dvd:go ahead now and do the math.
Attention black voters; here is the historical sum of socialists running for president…..
Here is what the American people thought of socialists when they had the opportunity to vote for someone brave enough to identify themselves for what they really are.
1936 Total vote cast 45.6 million Socialist Candidate Norman thomas 188,000
1940 Total Vote Cast 49.9 million Socialist candidate Norman Thomas 116,000.
1944 Total vote cast for President 47.99 vote cast for socialist candidate Norman Thomas 79,000.
1948 Total Vote cast for President 48.8 million vote cast for *progressive candidate henry Wallace 1,157,000
*reflects name change to broaden appeal.
1952 total Vote cast for President 61.6 million
Vote cast for progressive party Vincent Hailinan 140,000
1956 Total Vote cast for President 62 million vote cast for *progressive candidate socialist labor Eric Hass 44,000
*reflects name change to broaden appeal.
1960 Total Vote cast for President 68.8 million vote cast for socialist labor candidate eric hass 48,000
*reflects 3rd name change in 40 years to broaden appeal.
1964 Total Vote cast for President 70.6 million vote cast for *progressive candidate socialist labor Eric Hass 45,000
*reflects name change to broaden appeal.
1968 Total Vote cast for President 73.2 million vote cast for *progressive candidate socialist labor henning bloman 53,000
May 30, 2008 - 6:19 pm 19. Believer:*reflects name change to broaden appeal.
Well, with the release today of the tape of Pfleger ranting at TUCC, those seniors, Catholics and working class folks will be pretty hard to come by.
In fact, he’ll be lucky to get the vote of Anyone With A Brain.
May 30, 2008 - 8:00 pm 20. Jennifer Rubin is wrong:Jennifer Rubin is wrong.
She is comparing Obama’s performance in 2008 Democratic primaries to Kerry and Gore’s general election results against a Republican.
This is apples and oranges.
The white Democrats who didn’t vote for Obama in the primaries are still Democrats. To suggest that he has a “white problem” by cherry-picking states that Clinton won is just silly.
Iowa, South Carolina, Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah, Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia, Hawaii, Wisconsin, Vermont, U.S. Virgin Islands, Democrats Abroad, Wyoming and Mississippi.
Those are the states won by Obama so far. Would any serious person suggest that these states are represented primarily by blacks, “ultra-liberals” and college students?
This article reminds me of electoral college analysis from May 2004 that showed solid evidence of a John Kerry blowout. Democrats wanted to believe this so badly that they ignored all evidence to the contrary. We all know how that worked out.
People see what they want to see.
May 31, 2008 - 7:53 am 21. Moultrie:Obama’s chicago gang as well as their candidate are seeing dead people all over again…but only a few willbw able to vote!
May 31, 2008 - 8:44 am 22. ajmalkov:Jennifer Rubin Is Wrong:
Are you really trying to suggest that Obama can “win” the states you list?
Of non “blue” states, in a general election he MIGHT win Illinois, Hawaii and “Americans Abroad.”
And as an Illinoisan, I wouldn’t even give him Illinois. He’s giving this state a black eye with his racist associations.
May 31, 2008 - 1:09 pm 23. Jennifer Rubin is wrong:ajmalkov: “Are you really trying to suggest that Obama can “win” the states you list?”
No. I did not suggest that. I stated that Rubin’s understanding of Obama’s base is limited to his primary performance and can’t be used to measure his potential in the general election.
In fact the point of my post was that many of Obama’s states are NOT dominated by members of his supposed young, black “elitist” base.
Rubin is simply repeating Hillary’s failed argument. I’m not sure why she even wrote this column.
Party primaries and general elections are two completely different ballgames. There is no valid comparison.
May 31, 2008 - 6:07 pm 24. OLDPUPPYMAX:Of course Barry Hussein is a Marxist. But that is certainly not going to deter blacks from voting for him at better than a 90% clip in Nov. After all, blacks have been voting for Marxists for a very long time. It is the white vote that will sink the Messiabamas ship. We evil racists are not quite so willing to give up our rights to Big Brother for a monthly check, or a vapid use of the words change and hope. Even the 24/7 campaigning of the MSM will not give the White House to an utterly empty and dangerously incompetent suit like Barry Hussein. The left will just have to wait until they’ve succeeded in doing away with talk radio and the internet. Only the next Cronkite era media monopoly will give them the ammo needed to fool everybody again.
Jun 1, 2008 - 8:20 am 25. John Samford:“…we are not only left with the least worst choice.”
Yes we are. If you think otherwise, you are just as delusional as the Obamamites. Any vote for a 3rd party candidate is the same as a vote for Ohhhh…..BAMA.
Jun 2, 2008 - 7:49 am 26. John Samford:Remember how we got Billery in the first place. All those Perot voters did the trick for Slick Willie. I know, I was one of them. Learn from my error.
You might as well just go ahead and vote for Ohhhh….BAMA as for Barr or any of the other nutbags. I call it weasel voting.
Be a good American. Vote against the candidate you hate the most.
Rubin is simply repeating Hillary’s failed argument. I’m not sure why she even wrote this column.
Because it’s NOT a failed argument. You wish it to fail and are projecting.
Party primaries and general elections are two completely different ballgames. There is no valid comparison.
Jun 2, 2008 - 8:24 am 27. Commentary » Blog Archive » Hey, This Year’s Electoral Map Looks Just Like 2004:Actually there is. Go back to your Pyle and White “Fundamentals of Accounting”. Turn to the chapter on ‘Cost accounting’ (chapter 7, IIRC. It has been several decades). ANY two things can be compared. On a cost-per-unit (vote) basis if nothing else. Now using those numbers as a means of projecting future votes is completely bogus. But that is true of ANY statistical calculation used to predict human actions. Statistics DON’T predict outcomes, they predict trends. Look it up, Pyle and White again.
ALL the trends are going against Ohhh…BAMA in the general election. That is why I hope he can bluff Billery into quitting. I don’t think he will, but all a paleo-conservative can do in todays environment is hope.
Nobody to give money to, nobody to vote for. All I can do is vote against a candidate. That will be either the half black Marxist or the trailer trash in the pink tent suit, depending on which one the democratic party throws up.
[...] the base any more effectively than John Kerry and Michael Dukakis could. (Indeed Obama arguably has greater challenges than they did with key demographic groups). Add to that the fact that Americans have efficiently [...]
Jun 11, 2008 - 7:28 am 28. REB SHLOMO:How come Obama is leading in the polls? Jennifer do you hate or fear shwartzs? Try listening to what Obama has to say – you might be surprised if you reviewed his speeches in FLINT & DETROIT. I watch all speeches diligently, McCain is losing relevance with each new thing he says. What you say can only be correct if you ignore the enthusiasm for Obama– REB SHLOMO
Jun 17, 2008 - 2:39 pm