Red State Superdelegate Math
Red State Democrats like Barack Obama. Or at least, their elected officials and party leaders seem more predisposed to back him than do their blue-state counterparts. One site puts Obama ahead among red-state superdelegates, 57-30. Their list is neither comprehensive nor current, but that 2-1 ratio looks about right. Nor is his edge restricted to superdelegates. From grey-hairs like Sam Nunn and David Bowen, to 29 Tar Heel legislators, he's been drawing heavy support from unexpected quarters.
It's one of the most puzzling questions of the race. Why does Obama fare so much better than Clinton among superdelegates who live in states that have generally voted for Republicans in recent presidential elections? What accounts for his red-state edge?
Until recently, the answer seemed fairly clear. Obama polled better nationally than Hillary against McCain; polled better in most red states, even when he lost; and had vastly lower negatives than Hillary. Then America became acquainted with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The Clinton campaign pushed hard to convince red-state Democrats of Obama's guilt-by-association, to no apparent effect. That was followed by our profound national dialogue on the role of base and superstructure, and the problems of false consciousness. Yet even after a week of such coverage, Obama's support remained fairly strong.
Only now, the terrain is shifting. Obama's lead in the general election polls has vaporized; his campaign is left touting month-old results, while the same average now shows an edge for Clinton. His negatives are up. And he's become a target, used to drag down promising Democrat candidates through racial demagoguery. So not surprisingly, red-state superdelegates are now breaking overwhelmingly for Clinton...
Or not. Actually, Obama's still doing remarkably well. In the past week, he picked up support from a number of red state Democrats, including Ben Chandler, the second of Kentucky's two Democratic congressmen. That's Kentucky, mind you, where not every voter is racially enlightened. Kentucky, where Clinton's outpolling him 2-1, and McCain by a similar margin. So what's the matter with Kentucky superdelegates? Clearly, this is worth a closer look.
First, let's acknowledge a few potential explanations. Perhaps Obama's fundraising strength and commitment to contesting every state is helping. Some will note that after Chandler was flooded with phone calls decrying his endorsement, the netroots flooded him with cash. But $20k is mostly symbolic for an incumbent with a million in cash on hand, and it's not clear that the money could offset genuine electoral liabilities. It's also possible that Chandler was swayed by sincere conviction. I'm sure that played a role, but this politics, and there's almost always more to it than that. It could be that these folks are simply recognizing that Obama's going to win the nomination, and that after he does, his numbers will rebound. But that should hold true nationally, and doesn't explain his red state edge. Finally, it's worth noting that Obama has generally done particularly well garnering endorsements among officials who came to office after the Clinton years. They were less tied to the Clintons in the first place, Obama assiduously courted them in the 2006 cycle, they tend to be younger than their peers, and many share his jaundiced view of partisan politics and the Washington establishment. There are very, very few Democratic electeds in red states whose hold on office dates back before 2000 (almost exclusively from majority-minority districts), and so part of what we're seeing is an artifact of this other broad split in support, between the future of the party and its past. But that doesn't account for Obama's success among party officials as well as electeds.
So here are two explanations of what we're seeing.
The first is that states aren't red or blue, or even purple. They're more like patchwork quilts. In Kentucky, Obama's endorsers hail from the 3rd and 6th CDs. The 3rd CD is Louisville. Not only is it 20% black, but the same poll which shows Obama trailing by 36 points statewide has him down by just 7 around Louisville. And we've seen that elsewhere - in red states, the CDs that tilt Democratic tend to be urban, where Obama runs strongest, not rural, which Clinton wins in the blue states. But that's not a sufficient explanation. The 6th CD is (probably) grouped in the north-central region for the purposes of the poll, and Obama's down 39 points there. And the polling of November matchups shows Hillary drawing 15 points more than Obama around Louisville, and 10 points in the north-central region. And even if the patchwork quilt explanation accounts for some of Obama's congressional support, it can't account for all the statewide officials.
But there's something oddly reductive about looking at the numbers in this fashion. After all, in 2004, Ben Chandler took his district with 58.6% of the vote - while statewide, voters split their ballots roughly evenly in the senatorial contest, and went 60-40 for Bush over Kerry. And Chandler won reelection in 2006 with 86% of the vote, while John Yarmuth squeaked into office in a district that had voted for the GOP incumbent 60-40% just two years before. If the vote margins of presidential candidates had good predictive value, neither of these congressmen would be in office today. And the senatorial race would've been a blow-out.
Which is not to say that it's unimportant who tops the ticket. If Kerry had run a better campaign in Kentucky, he might now serve alongside Senator Mongiardo. But it's worth noting that the impact is subtle, non-determinative, and complex.
So let's reflect on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two potential Democratic nominees, as Red State Democrats have surely done already. Senator Clinton runs much, much more strongly among the Democratic base. But while that's a worrisome fact for David Axelrod, I doubt it particularly bothers John Yarmuth or Ben Chandler. The typical dissaffected white Democratic voter - reluctant to pull the lever for Obama - is still going to vote for the incumbent Democratic congressman. That holds true across the nation. Even if Obama loses these voters (because of his race, or because of his putative affinity for arugala) that's unlikely to hurt the down-ticket candidates too much. Polls show these very same voters are still looking for change; they're angry at the Republicans over the war and the economy; and they're choosing Democrats in generic match-ups by huge margins.
Contrast that, if you will, with the typical conservative voter. Many of these folks are profoundly discouraged. They worked for decades, and in 2000, finally assembled GOP control over all three branches of government. And what did it get them? Record deficits, rampant corruption, foreign entanglements, and stare decisis. They're not going to get fired up over John McCain. And while many of them are distressed that we may elect our first Muslim, Farrakhan-loving, flag-pin-shunning, terrorist-endorsed President and have him sworn in on the Koran, they just can't seem to muster quite the same degree of visceral hatred for the guy as they can for Hillary. In other words, a Hillary candidacy will draw most of the same Democrats to the polls who normally vote, but it will also turn out larger numbers of conservative voters than might otherwise vote this cycle.
And Obama? He's driving record Democratic registration across the board, and investing resources in a 50-state voter registration drive. These new registrants (and others who vote only periodically) will come to the polls in November if Obama is the nominee. They're very likely to vote for Democratic candidates in the down-ballot races, too - and those are votes which local Dems can't generate on their own. After all, they've been running in elections for years without this kind of a registration surge. Not only that, but Obama's legion of committed supporters will volunteer for local coordinated campaigns, and help the party build a local infrastructure even in areas where it's typically fared poorly. And since voter preferences are often set for life in the first cycle in which they vote, the benefits of a surge of young Obama supporters are likely to be enduring, even in Red States. He delivers a long-term demographic edge that will work its way through elections for decades to come. So with Obama at the top of the ticket, conservative turnout is down, the party's base expands, and its infrastructure is strengthened.
And here's the kicker. It's quite likely that a generic Red State Democrat will draw more votes with Obama at the top of the ticket even if Hillary would have performed better against McCain. Let me repeat that, because it's such a vital point in understanding the present dynamic of the race. A Red State Dem is likely to get virtually the same number of votes from the Democratic base, irrespective of who tops the ticket (that is, even if some of those voters defect to McCain). But with Obama, they're likely to see depressed turnout among conservatives and huge numbers of new voters flocking to the polls. With Clinton, they get to rerun the last two presidential cycles, with a highly polarized electorate motivated on both sides.
That, more than anything else, explains the riddle. Red State Democrats view politics through a profoundly local lens. They're supporting Obama because they'll do better if he's at the top of the ticket, even if Obama himself fares worse than Clinton would in their state or district.
If you've enjoyed this, please share it with other readers by clicking the 'recommend this' link. You can find more analysis on my blog. As always, I welcome your comments and corrections, and thank you for your feedback.
It's one of the most puzzling questions of the race. Why does Obama fare so much better than Clinton among superdelegates who live in states that have generally voted for Republicans in recent presidential elections? What accounts for his red-state edge?
Until recently, the answer seemed fairly clear. Obama polled better nationally than Hillary against McCain; polled better in most red states, even when he lost; and had vastly lower negatives than Hillary. Then America became acquainted with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The Clinton campaign pushed hard to convince red-state Democrats of Obama's guilt-by-association, to no apparent effect. That was followed by our profound national dialogue on the role of base and superstructure, and the problems of false consciousness. Yet even after a week of such coverage, Obama's support remained fairly strong.
Only now, the terrain is shifting. Obama's lead in the general election polls has vaporized; his campaign is left touting month-old results, while the same average now shows an edge for Clinton. His negatives are up. And he's become a target, used to drag down promising Democrat candidates through racial demagoguery. So not surprisingly, red-state superdelegates are now breaking overwhelmingly for Clinton...
Or not. Actually, Obama's still doing remarkably well. In the past week, he picked up support from a number of red state Democrats, including Ben Chandler, the second of Kentucky's two Democratic congressmen. That's Kentucky, mind you, where not every voter is racially enlightened. Kentucky, where Clinton's outpolling him 2-1, and McCain by a similar margin. So what's the matter with Kentucky superdelegates? Clearly, this is worth a closer look.
First, let's acknowledge a few potential explanations. Perhaps Obama's fundraising strength and commitment to contesting every state is helping. Some will note that after Chandler was flooded with phone calls decrying his endorsement, the netroots flooded him with cash. But $20k is mostly symbolic for an incumbent with a million in cash on hand, and it's not clear that the money could offset genuine electoral liabilities. It's also possible that Chandler was swayed by sincere conviction. I'm sure that played a role, but this politics, and there's almost always more to it than that. It could be that these folks are simply recognizing that Obama's going to win the nomination, and that after he does, his numbers will rebound. But that should hold true nationally, and doesn't explain his red state edge. Finally, it's worth noting that Obama has generally done particularly well garnering endorsements among officials who came to office after the Clinton years. They were less tied to the Clintons in the first place, Obama assiduously courted them in the 2006 cycle, they tend to be younger than their peers, and many share his jaundiced view of partisan politics and the Washington establishment. There are very, very few Democratic electeds in red states whose hold on office dates back before 2000 (almost exclusively from majority-minority districts), and so part of what we're seeing is an artifact of this other broad split in support, between the future of the party and its past. But that doesn't account for Obama's success among party officials as well as electeds.
So here are two explanations of what we're seeing.
The first is that states aren't red or blue, or even purple. They're more like patchwork quilts. In Kentucky, Obama's endorsers hail from the 3rd and 6th CDs. The 3rd CD is Louisville. Not only is it 20% black, but the same poll which shows Obama trailing by 36 points statewide has him down by just 7 around Louisville. And we've seen that elsewhere - in red states, the CDs that tilt Democratic tend to be urban, where Obama runs strongest, not rural, which Clinton wins in the blue states. But that's not a sufficient explanation. The 6th CD is (probably) grouped in the north-central region for the purposes of the poll, and Obama's down 39 points there. And the polling of November matchups shows Hillary drawing 15 points more than Obama around Louisville, and 10 points in the north-central region. And even if the patchwork quilt explanation accounts for some of Obama's congressional support, it can't account for all the statewide officials.
But there's something oddly reductive about looking at the numbers in this fashion. After all, in 2004, Ben Chandler took his district with 58.6% of the vote - while statewide, voters split their ballots roughly evenly in the senatorial contest, and went 60-40 for Bush over Kerry. And Chandler won reelection in 2006 with 86% of the vote, while John Yarmuth squeaked into office in a district that had voted for the GOP incumbent 60-40% just two years before. If the vote margins of presidential candidates had good predictive value, neither of these congressmen would be in office today. And the senatorial race would've been a blow-out.
Which is not to say that it's unimportant who tops the ticket. If Kerry had run a better campaign in Kentucky, he might now serve alongside Senator Mongiardo. But it's worth noting that the impact is subtle, non-determinative, and complex.
So let's reflect on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two potential Democratic nominees, as Red State Democrats have surely done already. Senator Clinton runs much, much more strongly among the Democratic base. But while that's a worrisome fact for David Axelrod, I doubt it particularly bothers John Yarmuth or Ben Chandler. The typical dissaffected white Democratic voter - reluctant to pull the lever for Obama - is still going to vote for the incumbent Democratic congressman. That holds true across the nation. Even if Obama loses these voters (because of his race, or because of his putative affinity for arugala) that's unlikely to hurt the down-ticket candidates too much. Polls show these very same voters are still looking for change; they're angry at the Republicans over the war and the economy; and they're choosing Democrats in generic match-ups by huge margins.
Contrast that, if you will, with the typical conservative voter. Many of these folks are profoundly discouraged. They worked for decades, and in 2000, finally assembled GOP control over all three branches of government. And what did it get them? Record deficits, rampant corruption, foreign entanglements, and stare decisis. They're not going to get fired up over John McCain. And while many of them are distressed that we may elect our first Muslim, Farrakhan-loving, flag-pin-shunning, terrorist-endorsed President and have him sworn in on the Koran, they just can't seem to muster quite the same degree of visceral hatred for the guy as they can for Hillary. In other words, a Hillary candidacy will draw most of the same Democrats to the polls who normally vote, but it will also turn out larger numbers of conservative voters than might otherwise vote this cycle.
And Obama? He's driving record Democratic registration across the board, and investing resources in a 50-state voter registration drive. These new registrants (and others who vote only periodically) will come to the polls in November if Obama is the nominee. They're very likely to vote for Democratic candidates in the down-ballot races, too - and those are votes which local Dems can't generate on their own. After all, they've been running in elections for years without this kind of a registration surge. Not only that, but Obama's legion of committed supporters will volunteer for local coordinated campaigns, and help the party build a local infrastructure even in areas where it's typically fared poorly. And since voter preferences are often set for life in the first cycle in which they vote, the benefits of a surge of young Obama supporters are likely to be enduring, even in Red States. He delivers a long-term demographic edge that will work its way through elections for decades to come. So with Obama at the top of the ticket, conservative turnout is down, the party's base expands, and its infrastructure is strengthened.
And here's the kicker. It's quite likely that a generic Red State Democrat will draw more votes with Obama at the top of the ticket even if Hillary would have performed better against McCain. Let me repeat that, because it's such a vital point in understanding the present dynamic of the race. A Red State Dem is likely to get virtually the same number of votes from the Democratic base, irrespective of who tops the ticket (that is, even if some of those voters defect to McCain). But with Obama, they're likely to see depressed turnout among conservatives and huge numbers of new voters flocking to the polls. With Clinton, they get to rerun the last two presidential cycles, with a highly polarized electorate motivated on both sides.
That, more than anything else, explains the riddle. Red State Democrats view politics through a profoundly local lens. They're supporting Obama because they'll do better if he's at the top of the ticket, even if Obama himself fares worse than Clinton would in their state or district.
If you've enjoyed this, please share it with other readers by clicking the 'recommend this' link. You can find more analysis on my blog. As always, I welcome your comments and corrections, and thank you for your feedback.
Advertisement
Thanks for another great analysis Fly.
I wonder if the Clinton campaign's dismissal, as unimportant, of the states Obama has won might also be a factor. Democrats in the so called red states are working mightily to build their state democratic organizations and elect down ticket democrats, and to have a candidate sniffle at their state's importance, it seems, might not go over well.
May 1, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
A breath of much-needed fresh substance at the cafe. I've been suffocating. (inhales deeply)
May 1, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
As ever, I agree with Genghis. Thank you so much, dear FotW, for another fine, substantive post. Like a cool drink of water in the parched desert.
May 1, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a fabulous outfit you're wearing today.
May 1, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent analysis as usual, Fly, augmented with 27 links to further information with not a single Rick-Roll among them.
May 1, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe you counted. As for the gratuitous Rick-rolling reference, isn't that a bit like saying: "I applaud the media for refusing to discuss my opponent's sordid affair?"
May 1, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Resisting the urge to rickroll is what separates the real pundits from us amateurs.
May 1, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
My, the little tyke is growing so quickly!
When did the fangs come in?
Meheheheh.
May 1, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. And I agree that the significance of the $20K given to Chandler's campaign recently is almost entirely symbolic. But I would explicitly tie this in with a point you make later on in your post, namely that about "Obama's legion of committed supporters."
I think the $20K is a monetary expression and reminder of that commitment. But it's not just a simple microcosm of Obama's record fundraising from smaller donors at the national level. It's a distinct phenomenon that complements many of the considerations you describe.
Obama's supporters increasingly see more clearly, largely through the example of Obama's campaign, the connections between local and national politics. This increased awareness could be very beneficial to red-state dems who historically have been left out of the national political consciousness because of the emphasis on those states that are immediately relevant in the arena of presidential politics.
To some extent, this monetary support indicates to red-state dems that Obama supporters will not just work on the ground for them as a by-product of the national campaign, but also that they increasingly understand the importance of these more local efforts in their own right.
In a sense, that may make the relatively modest $20K Chandler saw come in over the last 24 hours just as poignant to him and other state-level Democrats as the millions Obama is bringing in at the national level every month.
May 1, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
In spite of the indignation by the Clintons over Obama's praise for Reagan, there is much to Obama's message which Red State inhabitants and other Republicans can relate to. Obama seldom preaches over-reaching government solutions to problems. He emphasizes the importance of parenting, school, work and individual initiative, as Reagan did, but, unlike Reagan, within the context of government promoting these by offering leveled playing field. Instead of a program for this problem and another solution for the other, Obama focuses on the fundamentals, and Republicans get it.
May 1, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a new participant in local (CO) party conventions, this is exactly my experience. Even "safe" Republican districts are facing a serious challenge for the first time in decades. 10,000 delegates and alternates are expected for the state convention this month, a 400% increase over last cycle.
May 1, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't that comment a bit out of character?
May 1, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Notice the name! This is "Goatlife" instead of "Gotalife".
I like Goatlife but I can't say much for his trolling cousin!
May 1, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did notice the name. Hence my comment.
I know gotalife can't string two coherent sentences together, so there was no possibility of me mistaking the poster.
May 1, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Morphing from interested activist to troll patrol is using a lot of energy.
I'll go back to eating random stuff now.
Meheheheh.
May 1, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your valuable public service.
May 1, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a hypothesis - people nearer the political center may break towards the party that generally holds power in that state. Those that stick in the minority party may thus on average tend to be more to that party's extreme.
So Clinton, with her DNC connections, triangulation, and corporate ties, may find that much of the segment she appeals to is no longer in the Democratic party in red states. Whereas Obama, who is perceived as being more liberal, garners stronger support from those still blue in the red states.
May 1, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well-written and quite insightful analysis. However, I have one quibble with this:
Yes she does do better with one large part of the the base, but African-Americans are a substantial portion of that base as well and Obama has done extraordinarily well with that large constituency within the base. He runs stronger in that portion of the base than Clinton does among the remaining segment of the base.But, it is true that the Obama organization is a voter registration and fundraising juggernaut in all 50 states. Bringing in large number of younger voters and first time donors is not to be trifled with in any election cycle. It will have a long lasting effect on the prospects of Democrats at all levels of government.
May 1, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly didn't mean to imply that black voters are anything other than the very core of the Democratic base.
But the paragraph you quote was discussing voters in the red states in the general election. My point was that Hillary is likely to draw roughly the same coalition of voters who turn out for any Democratic presidential candidate. The polling currently suggests she might get as much black support as Kerry or Gore, and that she'd keep the party's white voters, too.
Obama, by contrast, expands the base. I don't consider voters who haven't even registered before to be part of the party's base - even if demographically, they might be expected to support Democrats. So all those extra black voters Obama pulls to the polls, just like all the young voters and the jaded independents - those aren't base voters. They're what he adds to the mix.
May 1, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
TGP - the problem with saying HRC runs more strongly with the so-called base is definitional. She does run more strongly with what the base once was. However, Obama has effectuated a political realignment in both the Democratic Party and in the country generally. The so-called white, blue collar workers were once a large part of the base. However, most of them left the party in 1980 and 1984, the so-called Reagan Democrats. And here is the probablem for HRC and the GOP: this group of voters has been steadily decreasing for over 30 years. The Billary ideal of reclaiming white, blue collar workers just does not make since the fact of demographic facts. Further, it appears that the under 45 voters (two whole generations, Gen X and & Millennials) Obama has brought into the party now far exceeds those in the white, blue collar (and over 45) category who often as not vote GOP.
May 2, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies, I hit the send button before I was finished.
One of the great strengths of Obama's stategy is that it looks not to just winning in 2008 but to also having a popular vote majority spread across the country, in red, blue, and purple states, truly large enough to really govern. Further, for down-ballot Democratic candidates, it is about 2010, 2012, 2014, etc. The Obama political realignment gives these candidates a much brighter future.
May 2, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr Super (http://www.mrsuper.org) has cautioned readers that most superdelegates have been decided for some time now and have just been waiting for the right moment to declare.
If so, polling, recent primary results, controversies, etc...have not had any effect on recent endorsements nor will they on most yet to come. Do you agree Fly?
About 61 more for Obama and he'll be able to hit the magic number and win the nomination outright.
May 1, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, absolutely. And you don't have to take Mr. Super's word for it - Claire McCaskill, for example, says that most of the 80+ uncommitted Congressional supers have already decided to support Obama, but are waiting for political cover to announce it.
But these things aren't immutable. Even the publicly announced decisions can be reversed if the pressure is strong enough. So one of the points I tried to make in the pot above is that the media has been misinterpreting the threshold for support. There's been a general sense in news reports (aided and abetted by Howard Wolfson) that Obama's support is a function of his lead in state and national polls, and that as that lead evaporates, his superdelegate support may vanish, too.
I think that's unlikely. For reasons explained above, it's in the interest of most superdelegates to have Obama at the top of the ticket even if Hillary runs better against McCain - not that, whatever the polls presently suggest, I find that probable. So one of the key arguments being made by the Clinton campaign to continue the race ("Look! His national lead is dissappearing, so the superdelegates may switch!") seems, to me at least, deeply disconnected from the underlying reality. And every time another superdelegate steps forward and makes (or discloses) a commitment to Obama, I think that's further underscored.
May 1, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course we love him - we've seen how brings the voters out.
It's fucking miraculous.
May 1, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. They're voting their political self-interests.
As Tip said, all politics is local. Lining up behind a candidate is politics.
Thanks for the analysis.
May 1, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Not only that, but Obama's legion of committed supporters will volunteer for local coordinated campaigns, and help the party build a local infrastructure even in areas where it's typically fared poorly."
How very true this is. A campaign I'm very close to - every single volunteer came out because Obama has inspired them to become activists.
May 1, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really agree. It's a beautiful thing the way Barack motivates young voters. I haven't seen so many young voters fired up.
That is the kind of energy a political party has to have to survive - there have to be infusions of new energy.
Which are always met with great resistance by entrenched old timers.
May 1, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Fly!
Wonderful, interesting analysis... as everyone else said already. I hope you don't mind a couple of questions: exactly how large is the trend you're explaining here? How many red state delegates have declared their support in the last month or so, and how do those percentages break down? And how many of them were delegates who declared their support for a different candidate than the one who won (or is projected to win) their primary?
May 1, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those are all good questions, but to be perfectly honest, the answers require more time than I have to give. I'd encourage you (and other interested readers) to compile a list.
Part of the problem is definitional: What's a red state? (One that went GOP in 2004? In 3 of the last 4 presidentials?) How do you know who won the primary - that is, are you counting statewide? In the endorsers district? By delegate or vote tally? And how do you date an endorsement - from the point of decision, or of announcement?
My general sense of it is that Obama pulled even in the red states with a surge of endorsements in mid-January, and dominated in February. Since March, the ratio seems to have been roughly 2-1 in support of Obama - for the most part, it's elected officials backing Obama by an even higher ratio, and DNCers at a somewhat lower clip. But that's generally true of the supers. And no, I don't have any hard numbers to back up those vague impressions.
May 1, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good work!
Unspoken dynamics are at play.
1.Obama has correctly judged the tenor of the time; he has the personality and temperament, the essential political skills, and has the intellectual capacity for the task of the office.
2. A wide range of generational shifts whose dimension he has expanded by the simple fact that he recognized these and built upon them. These expansions are evident in his wide spread appeal. It is more than the post baby-boom, post racial, or post anything; the core is basic: address what is in common first and always. In sum restore the national sense of the common good. Yes, this county did have this much so than today; I do not mean to suggest that is was or can ever be perfect.
3. Finally, Obams's appeal rest on the putrid political climate of the past 35+ years; this time frame is embodied in Bush, rove and Co. Again, the stress is on the common good, it is inclusive, and much more politically tough than it may appear.
(Note his campaign operation, this is no fluke; it can be called the Overdrive 50 State Strategy.)
Again great stuff you put together, and in many respects my remarks mirror your thoughts, I trust many others think much the same.
May 1, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll tell you exemplifies your thesis, flyonthewall, perfectly: Chris Bell, the Democrat running against Gov Goodhair.
The minute the Wright thing broke the first time, he sent out a long email defending Barack I guess to Democrats all over the state - I really don't know who else got one.
May 1, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
They see the politics of division coming from the Clintons, and they realize it doesn't get them or the democratic party anywhere. Here is Bill Clinton's gem today, calling Obama supporters elitists, and trying to drive a wedge between Obama supporters and West Virginia democrats:
Former President Bill Clinton was in West Virginia on his wife's behalf. In Clarksburg, he called her a scrapper and contrasted her appeal among working-class voters with the elitists he said support Obama.
"The great divide in this country is not by race or even income, it's by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules," he said. "In West Virginia and Arkansas, we know that when we see it."
May 1, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Big Dawg,
Fuck you. This person who thinks she's better than anyone took a lot abuse on your behalf.
You are just about everything the Republicans and the Vast RightWing Conspiracy said you were. And more - much much more.
May 1, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it ironic. MoveOn, the base and the rest who are now being told to shut up and be nice to the Clintons regardless of their behavior are the ones who defended them through thick and thin for years, took on the vitriol of O'Reilly and his ilk. Now she sides with her enemy against the base, but any outrage against it is inane and substanceless.
May 1, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watch out. You don't want Billy to call you a grackle. It might hurt your feelings!
May 2, 2008 5:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's just following the Campaign of Hope - if her opponent can toss his preacher under the bus, she can toss MoveOn under the bus (though ironically I suspect MoveOn had already.... moved on).
May 2, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
ARGH!
MATH SHMATH! I DON'T COUNT TO TALLY MY BOOTY... I WEIGH IT!
WENCH HILLARY'S AMPLE BOOTY IS LOOKING LIGHT IN THE PANTS. SUITS HER FINE.
ARGH!
May 1, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent as usual. I appreciate not only your analysis but you ability to communicate it.
May 1, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fly - thanks again for a great post. TPM should have a separate category for your posts altogether. Maybe a "really recommend this" link.
What are the reasons that red state supers do endorse Hillary? My governor, Mike Easley, just did for instance. Although with him it was only surprising in that he's not a political risk taker and backing Hillary at this stage seems like such a losing bet.
But on Easley, I think I know the reason (it's the other SDs I don't understand). Easley has never been very involved with the state Democratic party, never shown an interest in building the state party or helping Democratic legislators raise money. He often skips party functions. In many ways, he's almost an independent who identifies as a Democrat. He's also leaving office in January. So he doesn't seem to care that much about the building of the party aned a candidate like Obama who could seriously compete here in November.
But what about other red state SDs who are endorsing her: what's their profile/motivation?
May 1, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant, Fly. Simply brilliant. Highly recommended, and I'm sending links and printing hard copies.
Pig out.
May 1, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet it is May, and this thing will... not.... die.
May 1, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was a long and cogent analysis, but it omits mention of Howard Dean's crucial role in effectively implementing the 50-state strategy to such good effect back in the 2006 mid-terms. The "red states" had been written off for decades, systematically starved of national resources and attention, by such geniuses as Mark Penn and Terry McAuliffe, the anti-Dean.
May 1, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
FlyOnTneWall, you have been able to explain why Dem governors of red states have supported Obama. That was a bit of a mystery to me. Thanks, for your enlightening post and analysis.
Two questions:
Does this mean that in the general election, Obama (if he's the nominee) may lose to McCain but that the SD's see their congressional gains as outweighing the loss of the executive office?1) I am somewhat confused by this
2) Do you have any insights as to why Obama has been unable to establish grips on the white democratic base?
3) From up-thread
Do you disagree with Jim Clyburn's take on this?May 2, 2008 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
eeeep! 3 Questions! It was two when I started writing the post.
;)
May 2, 2008 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's the old "white Democratic base" which supports HRC. It's about generational differences.
May 2, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Evainne:
Thanks for your response. I'll try to take those question in order.
1) What I'm trying to say is that a red-state superdelegate might conclude that Obama will lose their district in November, or even that he'd run worse in their district than Hillary, and still have good reason to back him. I think these guys want the party to win at every level - but it's a lot easier to choose the fellow you think will be the stronger candidate nationwide or the better president if he's also going to help your own chances in the fall.
2) There are two groups of white voters with which Obama hasn't (thus far) been able to break through in the primaries - white women over the age of 40, and all white voters over the age of 65. The younger, the wealthier, and the more heavily male the white electorate, the better Obama does. Frankly, I expect him to do pretty well with many of these white voters in the fall. Women skew Democratic - there's every reason to think Obama's struggles to win their votes in the primary elections are a function of their deep, passionate commitment to Hillary, and not of an aversion to Obama. And seniors, alas, may be the most selfish voting block in America - they overwhelmingly vote on the basis of their federal benefits. They're backing Hillary right now because she represents stability; Obama is the candidate of change (racial, economic, generational, etc) and change is not a comforting word to the average senior citizen. But while McCain may be of their generation, all Obama has to do is hammer away at Social Security, and they'll come home. So his primary problems won't, by and large, translate to the general.
But he'll gain other problems in the general. I suspect that he'll do much, much better among white women - but that he doesn't have much likelihood of carrying a majority of white men. It's the opposite of how he's presently faring. That's partly a function of McCain's testosterone laden image, and partly a function of - well - racism. There isn't a prettier word for it. And those are the voters to whom I meant to refer when I wrote about split-ticket voting; the voters who won't be willing to vote for a young black guy from Chicago, but will still back good ol' Billy, their congressman.
3) Is Clyburn wrong? Frankly, who knows? I suspect, in fact, that he's largely right, but it would depend on how Hillary managed to wrest the nomination from Obama's grasp. But it's almost irrelevant - Obama's going to be the nominee, so worrying excessively about the long-term damage to the party of a Hillary nomination is really fairly immaterial. The post was trying to game out the optimal scenario from Hillary's vantage point - assuming that Obama would stay stuck at his present nadir, and that Hillary would continue to enjoy her recent surge. My point was that, even in that unlikely event, Obama would still be the more attractive presidential candidate for many of these superdelegates. But that scenario is improbable beyond belief. And Clyburn's point is just one of the reasons for that.
Hope that helps. Thanks for posting.
May 2, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great analysis, the Bigger Picture is missing for a lot of us, thanks!
I wish the Obama supporters would also FLOOD Chandler with congratulations and calls of support after his endorsement....
Hillary's base is more motivated to act, for sure.
May 2, 2008 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another excellent effort.
It's not only Red State Democrats who view politics through a profoundly local lens.
Plenty of Red State GOPers (like my folks) have become disgusted with how their local GOP pols have behaved during these Bush years, and they're open to Obama as an opportunity to clean house.
What's under-appreciated in the deep blue bastions where most of our progressive bloggers are based is that the number of racist Dems is dwarfed by non-racist GOPers out in the Red States who are fed up and will cross over for Obama. They may not share many of our political views, but if my own family is any indication, they feel deeply that something has gone very, very wrong with the country.
That's why it's been so critical for Hillary and Sid Blumenthal to paint Obama as un-American by association. That's the one fear that'd break the deal for these otherwise receptive GOPers in the Red States.
May 2, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point, Chino. From personal experience, from a Republican family in one of the top-3 reddest states in the country, no one out there will vote for Obama. My dad, a Republican who voted for Clinton in 1996 (he's never really explained that) and Bush four times (88, 92, 00,04), he said he would vote McCain in a heartbeat over Clinton but Obama over McCain. He says, "it's time for a reformer, and Clinton clearly isn't that." I've yet to convince him McCain isn't either.
The only Republicans "back home" who aren't considering voting for Obama are the partisan extremists and those low-information evangelical voters who believe what they're told (i.e. Obama is a Muslim).
I wouldn't be surprised if Obama picked up 1-2 of the EVs from Nebraska (CD-2 and possibly, but unlikely, CD-1) in November.
May 2, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Love the avatar. LMAO.
May 2, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
This should have gone upthread to GoatLife.
May 2, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Fly. I always am eager to read your posts which unfailingly set my feet more firmly on the ground of reality.
I believe there may be another, albeit harder to quantify, consideration in the matter of Obama's appeal to down ticket red state dems. I admit that this consideration is entirely subjective, i.e., just my personal experience at this point.
But here it is: When I think about my strong commitment of backing Obama in this political process, I do not see my involvement ending with Obama being nominated, and I do not see my involvement ending with Obama being elected POTUS.
As a citizen, I agree with Obama's view of what is needed to pull our country out of its decline, and when Obama says that 'only we together can do the job', I see and accept that this will be a long haul many-years-ahead job for we grassroots patriots..... to have his back, to stay active and even more involved as Obama is in the White House doing his leadership work, and so forth. That will involve working in the future mid-terms and in 2012 to support the right candidates at the local levels across the nation.
In other words, I believe that the change we need will take years of continued commitment on the part of Obama's already huge and growing grassroots 'army'. That, in itself, can countervail the usual insecurities of down ticket dems and help them to be free of the sell-out compromises to old power structure bosses that, in the past, often were the only 'safe' route to election or re-election.
As I said, this is entirely subjective, but I can't help but imagine that others, including down ticket dems, might also recognize the democratic healthiness of the power and change potential of this movement behind Obama.
May 2, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fantastic post. It is such a relief to read detailed, substantive analysis.
Obama does expand the base. Non-voters vote. People who vote (and maybe even follow politics closesly) but don't do anything else, start volunteering and donating money.
I've given significant sums to Obama. The only other time I donated in a primary was $100 to Bob Graham (3 weeks before he dropped out!). I am also a strong introvert who is terrified of canvassing. I might not be doing that, but I am going to be an attorney volunteer for election day, spending the entire day as a poll watcher. I have also strongly pushed Obama with family and co-workers.
If Obama asked, I'd probably give him a kidney.
May 2, 2008 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been trying to figure out how to say this for a while.
I think The Party is in for a big surprise in this election. Here's how.
It seems to me that there are now two Democratic parties at this point. There's the Clintonians, the old guard, The Party, and then there's Mr. Obama, who is the "outsider" and not just because he's giving the Clintons such a run for their money, but because he's not using the party structure to build his 50-state strategy. Every party supporter is welcome, but he's looking to a new politics and clearly using all this money we give to him to create it. That new politics jibes with his message - that change must come from the people and not from those who pose as their representatives.
He may become the nominee and gain the sufficent number of delegates but many of those people are going to be really uncomfortable with giving up their accumulated power to his band of young people. They sure do admire his "fund raising" skills, but they're the people who can't figure out how to set up a computer network, can't understand why their PCs get viruses, use the phone instead of email, can't type etc. They are really going to be surprised when they discover that, despite years of "service" to The Party, Mr. Obama's money source (all 2+ million of them) constitute the place where this new "Democratic" president turns when he wants to actually get something done.
And I think some of them are beginning to figure this out and it's really got them puzzled about which band wagon to jump on. Consider, how would you feel about supporting someone who wanted you to commit to text on paper the stuff you told them on the phone, wanted you to confirm your conversation with an email followup? Boxed in, anybody? No wonder they're holding their cards close to their chests, waiting to switch or come out until they're absolutely positive that they can handle this new politics, scared of the depth of belief in what Mr. Obama is saying on the part of his mobs of young people, not certain at all that Mr. Obama can hold on to the mob of kids but knowing, deep down, that if The Party doesn't change it's going to die.
It's a very interesting situation here.
May 2, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
My thanks to Urbinato and to all the others who have taken the time to post their encouragement and their questions. You're what makes TPMCafe such a great forum.
It's tougher to make generalizations about the red-state supers backing Hillary, mostly because they're not (taken as a whole) acting in a fashion that obviously serves their collective self-interest. But I think there are some very good reasons that some of them have taken a stand with Clinton. For example, a bunch of them endorsed Clinton back before Obama had won in Iowa, when backing the frontrunner seemed an obvious move. Sticking with her, despite her travails, can seem like a matter of basic honor and loyalty to these folks. Others have ties with the Clintons dating back to the 1990s, and are swayed by a sense of political debts or the bonds of friendship. (Ironically, these two factors may be most true of the red-state supers from majority-minority districts; most of these folks endorsed Clinton, and did so early on, back when Obama wasn't black enough. Remember those days?) Then there are those who have taken counsel of their fears, and concluded that whatever benefits may accrue to them on the basis of Obama's candidacy, he'll be defined by his most odious acquaintances and prove a millstone around their necks. I think, for good reason, that most supers have come to the opposite conclusion, but can understand why some would disagree. There are also plenty of supers who represent distinct constituencies within the party - so, for example, union officials with AFL-CIO unions tilt toward Hillary, and those with Change to Win toward Obama, almost irrespective of where they're from. They may happen to live in red or blue states, but that's not what they're representing at the DNC.
But I also want to be really clear on another point - some superdelegates are standing with Hillary Clinton because they believe in her. They think she has the experience and the tenacity to be a succesful candidate and a fabulous president. Some of them are deeply committed to putting a woman in office as our chief executive. Others have known the Clintons for decades, and trust them.
I think it's sometimes tough to attribute honorable and thoughtful motivations to people with whom we deeply disagree. But just as it's a mistake to assume that everyone who endorses Obama is pursuing a narrow self-interest, it's also wrong to assume the same of Hillary's backers.
May 2, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's not much mystery about Obama's appeal in "red-states", to me. And I'm just a rube who lives way out here in the sticks. (Colorado)
Obama doesn't insult us. He wants our votes, and doesn't write us off. Hillary does insult us, and writes us off. Superdelegates know this, by and large.
Obama ascribes to the 50-state strategy. Clinton ascribes to the 20-state strategy. If you aren't in one of those 20, by the Clinton rules, she basically says, FUCK OFF AND DIE.
I don't think I can make it any clearer than that.
Clinton wouldn't stand a chance here in Colorado. Obama definitely could win it.
May 2, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well I'm a terrible Texan, and nobody likes us. But Howard Dean brought the Democrats in Texas back to life and then Obama infused us with some kind of magic that caused there to be about 99% turnout in some precincts - not all, but there was overall an an astounding rise in voter turnout for the primary.
May 2, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The party wins, even if Obama loses the GE (which he won't).
Strong words. Been my impression for months. You gave the facts and analysis to bolster my impressions.
McCain may not be up to the challenge of a presidential race. I mean it. Pay very close attention to the VP -- he may be the one to finish the race. McCain looks feeble now, without the rigors of GE campaign.
Of course, I've never seen Hillary so vehement against a Democrat as she has been against Obama, so maybe she'll be nice to him.
I repeat: Obama is the future of the party even if he were to lose the GE. A larger working majority of Democrats could deadlock McCain. Of course if Obama wins the GE with a working majority, he is still more adept at convincing the American people to support legislation in their own interests, like lowering our dependence on foreign oil and healthcare. This is what he is truly effective at.
Hillary is showing how she will treat Congress and the American people with her gas tax holiday stupidity: not consulting people who actually know something about the economics of such a plan, falling all over herself to align herself with Republicans who she naively thinks are going to vote for her in November, publicly ridiculing her Democratic colleagues in Congress to strongarm them into something that helps her win the next primary, and has nothing to do with helping the American people with gas prices.
This is how Bush behaves -- no facts are going to get in the way of what he wants, like a three-year-old child. Hillary can only plan past her next tiny goal -- she has no vision, acts with impunity and takes no responsibility. We know why the gas tax holiday is stupid -- I won't go into the facts.
She would end up with Congress looking pretty much like it does now, which gives her cover to rush to the right on issues, and whine about no one working with her to fulfill her gift basket of promises she has made. It's despicable.
So I say yet again -- even if Obama lost the GE, the party wins. The party starts to grow for the next generation, energized and organized and committed. Instead of supporting the last gasp of power for people who have been proven unworthy.
If the supers don't see it, it's going to be an ugly four years. Because Hillary will be a one-term president. Unfortunately, will unitary executive powers then be so vested that we can't change it?
That's a discussion for another day.
May 2, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only fly in the ointment, excuse the pun..., is that some GOP strategists are trying to "taint" Democratic candidates in some of the current Red States elections with Obama. I'm watching if that turns out to help the Democratic candidates in these states - it would really vindicate your theory.
May 2, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your posts, as always, make it still worthwhile coming to this place!
May 2, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's nice to see you posting on threads again, TheraP.
May 2, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a reason there aren't so many Dem office holder superdels from before 2000. The Clintons used the DNC as their own personal fundraising arm and did little to build the party or help down ballot candidates from 1992 to 2000.
In 2006 Obama was all over the country appearing with, raising money for, and maxing out his PAC donations for Dem candidates from coast to coast. He contributed $576,769 to federal Dem candidates that cycle to Hillary's paltry $214,000.
Hillary raised $51 million for re-election in 2006. I got hundreds of emails from her campaign trying to gin up fear of the vast rightwing conspiracy arrayed against her. With all that money behind her she managed to whack the John Spencer "juggernaut" (John Who?) handily with $10 million to spare to immediately transfer to her presidential campaign.
She didn't even coordinate with congressional Dems in her own state, some of whom could have really used the help. It really is all about her and to hell with the rest of the party.
No wonder there's so little loyalty to the Clintons within the party. It goes both ways.
May 2, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you so much for this post, FoTW, and to so many others for the thoughtful responses.
THIS is what has attracted me to the blogs for years - thoughtful articles and (mostly :) reasoned responses - not to mention that the overall message is optimistic, as opposed to the constant, pointless bickering and shallow analysis I am subjected to nearly everywhere I look these days.
I'm sure we'll all get through this, but man I'm sick of yelling at the teevee!
May 2, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
These new registrants (and others who vote only periodically) will come to the polls in November if Obama is the nominee.
Sweet! They'll be Democrats as long as they get to call all the shots? Sounds fair. Who could argue with that?
I've seen this same thought expressed again and again on the boards I post to...ie 'you'd better vote for our guy cuz we won't vote for her'. Not a winning strategery it would seem. And Obama himself gave birth to it with his 'I guarantee that I'll get all of her votes but she won't get all of mine' comment. To me, that said he should just form the Barack Obama Party since he's already got the Dems in his pocket.
Delusion leads to disaster. Here we go.
May 4, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink