Is Obama the next McGovern? The superdelegates surely must be looking at these numbers...

[jackson_dem]

McGovern won only one state and 37.5% of the vote. While his coalition resembles that of McGovern I think a more likely performance if he makes it to the general election is something between what Michael Dukakis (46% of the vote, 111 electoral votes) and Jimmy Carter (lost the popular vote by 10, 89 electoral votes) got. The x factor is how much the inevitable decline all "new" candidates experience will be for Obama. It is very naive to assume a candidate who has gotten a small amount of bad press over a span of a mere seven weeks and has not had the opposing party's machine launch a full-scale attack on him is going to emerge through the summer and fall completely unscathed. In the last two elections both Kerry and Bush 00', the "new" candidates in their respective years, suffered 11 point declines from the spring to the fall. Right now he is +1.2 in the popular vote against McSame in the rcp average. If he loses 11 like Kerry and Bush did he would lose the election by 10 points, exactly like Carter did in 1980. Indeed we are already seeing this begin with Obama. McSame is not being attacked right now and is largely being ignored by the media, public, and the Democratic party so the correct measure is not to compare Obama's performance against McSame but to compare his relative performance with Clinton's. He once, as should be expected of a "new" candidate, did 10 points better against McSame than Clinton did. That has now slipped to 1 point and most crucially Clinton consistently does better in the electoral college, winning the key swing states and, contrary to a popular fairy tale, actually flips more Bush 04' states than Obama (she flips 5, he flips 3. The key is two of her five are Florida and Ohio. Her five account for 68 electoral votes. Obama's 3 bring only 21 more electoral votes.). The fact we are even having discussions about electability is revealing. There is no way a "new" candidate in a change year (2000 and 2004 were not change years...) should in the spring being doing as well in the popular vote and worse in the electoral college than a woman who has been attacked by the rethugs and MSM for 16 years, the far left for 5-6 years, and two major rival Democratic campaigns for another year.

The nomination contest as far as Obama is concerned can be divided into two periods with Wisconsin serving as the dividing point. Prior to that he got zero bad press and was completely pristine. The MSM is still in the tank for him but there is the occasional vetting done now and then. That has taken a toll on Obama, who apparently has a glass jaw. This is why citing states he won in January and February won't cut it with superdelegates. They know his performance with several groups has dropped alarmingly since then. He lost Latinos 66-32 after managing to win them in Virginia, for instance. He managed to win whites in Virginia and Wisconsin. Since then he has gotten 34% in Ohio, 44% in Texas, 37% in Rhode Island, 60% in Vermont, 21% in Mississippi, and 38% in Pennsylvania. In Wyoming there is no exit poll but due to obvious reasons it is clear he won it there. Unfortunately, there are no caucuses in the general election. Wyoming's caucus had 2.5% turnout. Obama won't be able to rely on a system that is packed with Starbucks voters to win states in the general election. Legitimate primaries have 25-40% turnout and the general election will have around 55%. You can't glean anything from 1.9%, 2.5%, or 5% turnout given how unrepresentative the poll of voters in such "elections" are.


-snip-

For his part, Obama cut into Clinton's advantage, but couldn't erase it. Even though he campaigned extensively among white working class Pennsylvanians, he still couldn't crack this constituency. He lost every white working class county in the state. He lost greater Pittsburgh area by 61 to 39 percent. He did poorly among Catholics--losing them 71 to 29 percent. A Democrat can't win Pennsylvania in the fall without these voters. And those who didn't vote in the primary but will vote in the general election are likely to be even less amenable to Obama.

But Obama also lost ground among the upscale white professionals that had helped him win states like Wisconsin, Maryland, and Virginia. For instance, Obama won my own Montgomery County, Maryland by 55 to 43 percent but he lost suburban Philadelphia's very similar Montgomery County by 51 to 49 percent to Clinton. He lost upscale arty Bucks County by 62 to 38 percent.

-snip-

Indeed, if you look at Obama's vote in Pennsylvania, you begin to see the outlines of the old George McGovern coalition that haunted the Democrats during the '70s and '80s, led by college students and minorities. In Pennsylvania, Obama did best in college towns (60 to 40 percent in Penn State's Centre County) and in heavily black areas like Philadelphia.

Its ideology is very liberal. Whereas in the first primaries and caucuses, Obama benefited from being seen as middle-of-the-road or even conservative, he is now receiving his strongest support from voters who see themselves as "very liberal." In Pennsylvania, he defeated Clinton among "very liberal" voters by 55 to 45 percent, but lost "somewhat conservative" voters by 53 to 47 percent and moderates by 60 to 40 percent. In Wisconsin and Virginia, by contrast, he had done best against Clinton among voters who saw themselves as moderate or somewhat conservative.

Obama even seems to be acquiring the religious profile of the old McGovern coalition. In the early primaries and caucuses, Obama did very well among the observant. In Maryland, he defeated Clinton among those who attended religious services weekly by 61 to 31 percent. By contrast, in Pennsylvania, he lost to Clinton among these voters by 58 to 42 percent and did best among voters who never attend religious services, winning them by 56 to 44 percent. There is nothing wrong with winning over voters who are very liberal and who never attend religious services; but if they begin to become Obama's most fervent base of support, he will have trouble (to say the least) in November.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ec466d61-a900-414c-8daf-16ff27ccf85c

[anonymous171]

1. You're wrong.

[Stand and Fight]

17. It's a bloody post from another site!

How is the OP wrong?

"You're wrong." :wtf: That's your response?

Since the article mentioned stated facts as a basis for their conclusions, can you do the same -- with facts -- as to why the article's author is "wrong"? I seriously doubt that you will. I seriously doubt that you are able. Reality bites for you, doesn't it?

[anonymous171]

21. It's not reality. That's why it's wrong.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Respectfully, If He's Wrong Say Why

Here...

I'm a huge Muhammad Ali fan... If someone said Mike Tyson could beat Ali in his prime I submit I could make a decent case why he couldn't...

[Stand and Fight]

39. Argue with logic and reason?

I doubt it.

I made a simple request of the poster -- as you read. State why the article's author is wrong given the reality of the facts cited with facts of your own. This poster has neither the acumen or the guts to do so, and their only retort is along the lines of a child stumping their foot insisting the other person is "wrong."

[Silent Tristero]

84. One Small Point

The article states:

"In the last two elections both Kerry and Bush 00', the "new" candidates in their respective years, suffered 11 point declines from the spring to the fall."

And proceeds to argue the consequences of the same thing happening with Obama v. McCain. However in 2000 Gore was the incumbent Veep and in 04 B**** was the seated president, McCain is neither of those things. Since neither of our two perspective nominees are incumbents wouldn't either of them be just as susceptible to the 11 point drop? Does the fact that either of them will be facing McCain, who is also not an incumbent mean the 11 points drops would offset each other or would a third party candidate siphon away exactly 22% of the vote in November?

[Stand and Fight]

36. How delightfully small-minded of you. And how disappointing.

Is this what the politics of "Hope and Change" look like?

You only trumpet the facts when they favor your candidate. The arrogance and nativity of Obama supporters will ultimately prove your undoing. And if you keep up the arrogant and elitist comments -- it will prove the undoing of your candidate now and in the general if he is the nominee. You'd all serve yourselves well to take a lesson from the book of the meek.

[merbex]

54. Read this whole exchange and you are spot on...dealing with rabid partisans

is an exercise in futility.

They ignore any news that threatens their allegiance to their chosen candidate.

I am committed to having both feet planted firmly in the reality based world....every point presented in the link is MAJOR cause for concern.

[DJ13]

2. Wow, the Clinton talking points seems rather dense today

[Renew Deal]

3. Hillary is doing her best to be the next Mondale.

[DJ13]

5. Mondale and Ferraro all in one package

[dave29]

28. the way she moves the goalposts... more like W.

low expectations slowly give way to no expectations.

[JoFerret]

75. It's not a bloody football game

The field is way bigger. And more important.

[zulchzulu]

4. McSame might be like Nixon in personality...but he's gonna get his ass beat by Obama

There is just too many things to attack McSame on with his loving embrace of The Chimp. People are SICK of the Bush years and will certainly not vote for four more.

[jackson_dem]

6. Ordinarily yes, but Obama is the one candidate that will give McSame a fighting chance

They are sick of the Bush years. That is why Obama saying McSame would not be as bad as Bush was so damaging to the "McSame" argument Democrats have been trying to make.

Obama cries like a baby when a montage of presidential crises over six decades includes Bin Laden. That is because his polling and focus groups must show how weak he is perceived on the security issue. How can he beat McSame given that when that is the only thing McSame will run on?

[LSparkle]

18. And you think people are MORE willing to vote for Bush in a pantsuit?

"Obliterating" Iran, using her "security umbrella" to protect ever-
expanding "U.S. interests" in the Middle East? Considering McLame's
war-mongering (yes, I typed it!) stance, we need a clear CHOICE, not
just another pro-war candidate (who, since she's a woman, feels
compelled to show she's even TOUGHER than the boys). The entire
country IS NOT PRO-WAR ... It would be smarter to cede that vote
to McSame and run a candidate who gives voters a CHOICE.

[jackson_dem]

23. Only the "netroots" thinks she is like Bush

One big reason Obama supporters on the netroots think he can win is because they fail to realize how out of step the netroots and folks of that stripe are with the mainstream.

[LSparkle]

32. I think the netroots are more in tune with the people, frankly

You probably still think a majority of Americans support the war ...

[jackson_dem]

35. The netroots hate Clinton, revere Jeremiah Wright. I rest my case

[LSparkle]

42. Not true ... I don't think Wright is "revered"

and whatever sentiments exist about Clinton have been
aroused only recently (last 6 months at best), due
to her behavior and that of her surrogates.

[John Q. Citizen]

22. If your argument made sense the SD would be going toward Obama's opponent. But they aren't.

They are going overwhelmingly toward Obama.

The SDs are much more politically attuned than say your average voter, or even than your average DUer.

I see why Obama's opponent is attempting to make this spurious argument. But the only ones buying it are the opponents supporters.

Not the SDs. Sure the SDs are our Dem congress critters and party elected officials and you can try to claim that they don't understand politics if you want to.

But why would you want to, other than for your personal agenda?

[jackson_dem]

43. Have you read DU today?

There are concerns other than electability the supers have to consider. Besides it is only fair to give Obama a shot to disprove this. If he wins Indiana and West Virginia this argument become moot (although the "big state" argument has forever been cemented by Clinton's PA win).

[Capn Sunshine]

83. The "Big State" argument is among the most BOGUS ever

How totally specious to postulate that if you aren't the candidate that "won" the "Big state" that you won't win that state in the general.

It's ridiculous, and it's a bullshit talking point

[grantcart]

7. Do you really think that it is a good idea to use "numbers" around SDs to promote Hillary

[helderheid]

27. Great graphic. Blows that whole "Clinton is the Underdog" right out of the water!

GOBAMA!

[bowens43]

8. He certainly has a better chance of winning the GE then hillary does.

Give it up., hillary is through. Her deimal performance in Pa sealed her fate.

[redstate_democrat]

9. lol

Hillary IS Dukasis. I don't even think she would be able to win her own state against McCain.

THIS IS WHY the superdelegates haven't rushed to her side. She is basically the incumbent and she still can't beat Obama. She has the Clinton brand name and yet, she is broke, she is far behind where it matters, and her negatives are threw the roof. This race is over and the only folks who don't realize it yet are her and her supporters. She has proven to be the weakest candidate EVER. She let a freshman Senator from Illinois remove her from her "throne". You can't blame it on what happened in SC and Bill's use of the race card because Obama wouldn't be leading based simply on his AA support. A LOT OF DEMS prefer Obama to Hillary. How can you win if MOST DEMS prefer the OTHER candidate? And to top it off, her last name is CLINTON, not RODHAM.

[SeaLyons]

19. If your line of thinking

was accurate, we would not have 300+ SD's waiting in the wings.

[totodeinhere]

10. You can't necessarily extrapolate primary election results to the general election.

Many voters who voted for Clinton in the PA primary are Democrats who will not vote for McCain in November. Clinton may be their first choice, but Obama, not McCain, will be their second choice.

[jackson_dem]

45. Yes but the question is whether he can connect with these voters

Even if he wins 80% of these Dems in the general that won't be enough, as Mondale proved. Obama's primary lead would go from +0.7 to -double digits if GE demographics are in play. His true weakness is masked right now by the unique make up of Dem primary voters.

[theboss]

72. Do you think "Reagan Democrats" will choose Hillary over McCain?

It is obvious that Obama has a problem with Reagan Democrats - at least in PA and OH. It's unclear why he was able to do so well with them in Wisconsin.

However, this idea that Hillary has won the Reagan Democrats just don't sit very well with me. The fact that she polls worse against McCain indicates to me that she won't win these same voters in a general election when they can vote for the nice white man with the military record and she suddenly becomes a liberal feminist attorney again. She has an advantage in blue collar states over Obama because she can more plausibly run to the right. But she can't run to the right of McCain on anything.

I think there are several problems with Hillary's ascension right now.

1. She can't run as this person in the general. There is no way her act as some sort of economic populist is going to fly against a Republican. So, what we are seeing now ain't what we are going to see in the general.

2. She really isn't going to bring anyone new with her in November. And, she is doing a pretty solid job of pissing off the single most important Democratic constituency (single most important in terms of raw votes in key states). The "black vote" and "youth vote" may not be there for her when she needs them come November. Obama can take both groups for granted at this point.

I think that's really what is interesting about this campaign. Aside from "older women," I still don't think Hillary has any natural constituency that she can simply take for granted. McCain is going to get "military votes." Obama is going to get the "black vote" in staggering numbers. Is Hillary really going to do that much better with woman voters than any other traditional Democrat come November? I don't know.

I think she is temporarily winning demographics here and there because she can damage Obama. But I don't think these groups have any real affection for her.

That was the problem with Mondale and Dole and even Kerry other "establishment" candidates - there was not one group of people in America who were actually excited to elect these candidates, but they were able to out-maneuver their primary opponents enough to win the the right to lose in November.

[jackson_dem]

77. I addressed the poll issue in the OP

1) She can and has. Wisconsin is the state Obama supporters love to cherry pick out of the 43 that have voted thus far. This is revealing because he has won these voters so rarely there aren't many states to point to.

2) As to Clinton and these voters she is winning them in both primaries and GE polling, especially in the key swing states. How can she do it? The same way Bill Clinton did. She can run as an economic populist. It worked for Clinton and almost for Gore.

3) She is not a great candidate. I agree that she won't add new voters. However, she is up against a weaker candidate whose appeal is limited to people of his ethnic group, affluent white Democrats, and young voters. This is the McGovern coalition redux and it won't work now for the same reason it didn't work then. There simply are not enough of these voters to win.

4) Latinos keep getting overlooked in all this. Clinton beat Obama 66-32 among Latinos in the last primary with a large Latino population. There is one solid constituency for her right there. She also wins Asians big. She has women, especially white women and among Latinas she did 7 points better than with Latino men in Texas. She has working class people. Any Dem will carry the black vote, although the rate may be reduced to 70% instead of 89% with her if things end ugly with Obama. In short, she basically has the Bill Clinton coalition with less white male support.

5) Having a small group of people who are excited about you is not enough. McGovern proved it as did William Jennings Byran, an electrifying speaker who had a zealous following but lost the GE three times. Where were Obama's excited flock yesterday anyway? Only 12% of the voters were young. In Ohio they were 16%. That is a decline of a quarter. When it comes to age she is clearly the big winner. Seniors will show up in November, Obama's young voters won't.

[theboss]

89. I'm not buying the McGovern argument

1972 for the Democrats was the equivalent of 1984 for the Democrats and 1964 and 1996 for the Republicans. No candidate was going to beat Nixon that year.

And if Obama is McGovern, I guess that makes Hillary Muskie. And I'm not sure that is any better.

Anyway, the dynamics are completely different. Even the Dukakis comparison is off, because he was essentially trying to stop Ronald Reagan's third turn.

As for Latinos, they get overlooked because their numbers have rarely made a lick of difference in anything other than state-wide California elections and in Florida. And in Florida, the group makes the difference is Cubans - and they should be classified as their own separate voting bloc because they have very specific issues.

We've been waiting for 20 years for Latino voters to make a numerical difference in presidential politics. We're still waiting. I assume it will happen someday but I'm not going to put any faith in the power of that constituency until it actually shows a tangible electoral result.

[jackson_dem]

90. Obama needs Latinos to offset what he will lose with whites

Someone here looked at the numbers and estimated he would need 70% of the Latino vote to have a shot.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

11. there's more Dems than GOPS, thanks to Obama

and most of them are REAL DEMS.

SO they'll be voting for the nominee in Nov, not McSame.

[scheming daemons]

12. Except he's not the next McGovern..... he might be the next FDR, though....

[Cali_Democrat]

13. If they are looking at those numbers, why no flood of super delegates for Hillary?

:rofl:

[jackson_dem]

46. They have many other factors to consider

One reason Mondale was chosen by the supers over Hart was that, while he was sure to get slaughtered in the general election, he would help down ticket by keeping black and union turnout high.

[cali]

14. nope. not even close.

and the SDs are going for him. hey, did you hear about all the Edwards folks who endorsed him today? And Governor Henry?

[kwenu]

15. Yeah. You're going to have to reduce your diatribes if you want people to bother reading them.

Bottom line: No one is giving Hillary a nomination if she didn't earn it. To earn it you need to lead with pledged delegates and the popular vote. She doesn't have that. The voters will not be disrespected as Hillary desires. End of story.

[jackson_dem]

25. She just cut Obama's popular vote lead almost in half yesterday...

[kwenu]

70. Were making progress. You've at least acknowledged that she is behind.

Let's see what happens on May 6.

[berni_mccoy]

16. Only idiots would compare 2008 PRIMARY stats to 1972 GENERAL ELECTION stats

Not atypical for Clinton supporters though.

[jackson_dem]

30. lol John Judis is an idiot? What are your political credentials?

Obama is fueled by the same things McGovern was, except at a higher level. O

Obama's popular vote margin is 0.7% now. It comes from a coalition with three pillars. One will decline by half in the general election, another by almost half, and the third probably won't even show up at necessary rates in the general. With general election demographics he would be losing the primaries by at least 15%. This was never the case with Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, et al. This is what makes Obama such a dilemma for superdelegates.

[berni_mccoy]

44. Clinton is FAR MORE like McGovern than Obama is. And yes, he's an idiot for making that comparison.

[jackson_dem]

51. In what ways?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. If He's An Idiot I Wish I Had His Body Of Work

SENIOR EDITOR



John B. Judis, a senior editor at The New Republic, has been a contributor since 1982. He received his B.A. in 1963 and his M.A. in 1965 from the University of California at Berkeley. An active member of SDS and the left of the Sixties, he taught philosophy at Berkeley and at the San Francisco Art Institute.

Judis was a founding editor of the Socialist Revolution in 1969, now called Socialist Review. In 1975 he started a new monthly called East Bay Voice. He moved to Washington in 1982 as the Washington correspondent for In These Times. Soon afterwards, he began writing for TNR and for GQ. His articles have also appeared in The American Prospect, The New York Times Magazine, The Washington Post, Foreign Affairs, The Washington Monthly, American Enterprise, Mother Jones, and Dissent.

His books include The Paradox of American Democracy: Elites, Special Interests, and the Betrayal of Public Trust, William F. Buckley: Patron Saint of the Conservatives, and Grand Illusion: Critics and Champions of the American Century.

[SeaLyons]

20. K&R

[VotesForWomen]

24. correct; O has nowhere to go but down, and in the crucial states that could cost dems the GE.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Too liberal!! Too Liberal!!

The same bullshit as in '72.

[jackson_dem]

34. How many electoral votes did McGovern win?

Humphrey, who won the popular vote in the 1972 Democratic primaries, nearly won in 1968. How did McGovern do?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. So?

Humpty-dumpty pandered to the right. McGovern didn't.

[jackson_dem]

47. Thanks to McGovern we had four more years of rethugs and the Watergate debacle

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. Thanks to the conservative Democrats who voted for Nixon.

Which are the same sort that Hillary is pandering to, along with McCain.

[jackson_dem]

52. We can't win without them. Do Obamites want to win or get a rush?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. So you say.

Either hilly (Ugh!) or Obama should be able to trounce McCain by just being not a republican.

If either can't, they should look another line of work.

Both are "moderates" with little difference between them in substance.

Neither are McGovern.

[jackson_dem]

64. How many Democrats have trounced rethugs since 1964?

Even Clinton's popular vote margin was "only" 8. That was solid by hardly a landslide.

It doesn't matter what they are. What counts is how they are perceived. Kerry was successfully painted as an out of touch liberal elitist. Sound familiar?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. Which indicates that the party has lost course by becoming more moderate.

It sure as hell does matter what they are. Why bother voting for them if, like Humphrey, and the Clintons, they are offering the same tired crap that has resulted in the nation as it is?

[BlooInBloo]

31. Is that concern crawl out from that bridge?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. It's A Well Thought Out Essay

That being said, the political environment favors Democrats in a way that didn't favor them in the (in)famous 72, 80, and 88 elections...

Can a positive political environment for the Democrats trump the flaws Hillary (and) Barack have as candidates and McCain is not a perfect candidate either due to health and age concerns...

[jackson_dem]

50. It is hard to say

McSame has some strengths that make him the only rethug with a shot at winning the general. If Romney or Huckabee had won we would have it in the bag.

Keep in mind the political environment was very good for Gore in 2000 and we know what happened. Clinton can win although it would not be a landslide. The only way Obama can win is if the economy spirals into a massive recession, unless he somehow finds a way to broaden his appeal.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. What Would Have Happened If The Dems Nominated Huey Long Or Norman Thomas In 1932?

~

[jackson_dem]

65. 2008 is no where near the crisis of 1932

This is more like 1976 for us where there is dissatisfaction with government (in part due to actions taken during an unpopular war) and a weak economy. Even with Watergate the "new" candidate of that year Carter, after hemorrhaging 33 points, won by only 2.

[Hart2008]

37. Nothing here says that Hillary is a better GE candidate. She could be worse.

In the current campaign, it would take a small number of Superdelegates to vote for a third choice and send this to a second ballot.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. They Are Both Flawed And More Than Capable Of Snatching Defeat Out Of The Jaws Of Victory

It's sad the partisans on both sides don't see this...

This is the most favorable climate for Democrats since 1964...

[jackson_dem]

48. The article isn't about Clinton, except by implication

She has flaws too, just not as big ones as Obama.

[Hart2008]

55. Hillary always has the highest negatives. n/t

[jackson_dem]

61. Yes, yet she runs as well as Obama right now

What does that tell you? Something holds back many folks who like Obama from voting for him. That is his lack of experience. He can't take "how to be president 101" over the summer. It is easier to fix Clinton's problem, which is chiefly due to right-wing and far left caricatures of her than it is to convince voters to overlook their fears of Obama having no experience.

[Dr Fate]

85. How does she "run as well" as Obama if she is behind?

We should say, she runs well, but so far, not as well as Obama.

Also, "far left charicatures" are not a factor-the media doesnt care what we think and certainly would not paint her as a "war monger" or whatever-- its up to her to make amends with the DEM base if she chooses.

Fighting "Far right charicatures" means basically calling everyone in the media a liar and turning every "conventional wisdom" perception on its head- I hope you are right -that Hillary is prepared to fight the past 16 years of what they have said about her while staying on current issues...

[jackson_dem]

91. I am talking about GE polling

Among Dems she has high favorables.

[Phillycat]

53. Excellent, well-reasoned article. Thanks.

[Chalco]

56. This was Buchanan's point on Morning Joe today. nt

[MattBaggins]

57. Jackson Dem's white folks post of the day NT

[jackson_dem]

66. Obama also sucks with Latinos and Asians

[MattBaggins]

71. Yes we all know your

Real Politik reasons as to why minorities ought not to run for political offices.

[jackson_dem]

73. Obama isn't losing these groups because he is a minority

He loses every ethnic group except his own because he is a weak candidate. Obama beat several white candidates among whites, he trounced Richardson among Latinos. He just doesn't have the broad cross-cultural appeal that Clinton has.

lol because I recognize that Obama is unlikely to win that means I, a minority, believe minorities should not run for office. This kind of stupid use of the race card is part of the reason Obama has tanked with whites and Latinos since 2/19.

[ieoeja]

58. Is Hillary the next Humphrey?

Humphrey started out as the front runner in an open election (no incumbent). So the bigger general election failure between McGovern and Humphrey was Humphrey's.

Furthermore, the parallels between Humphrey and Hillary are stronger than between McGovern and Obama.

One of these things is not like the other.
One of these things doesn't belong.
Can you guess which one?

A. Humphrey '68
B. McGovern '72
C. Obama '08
D. Hillary '08

The answer is D. Obama will enter the convention having won a majority of states and delegates, and possibly the popular vote. Neither Humphrey nor McGovern won any of those categories in their primaries. And it is almost certain that Hillary will win none of those as well.

[jackson_dem]

63. Humphrey lost by 0.7%. McGovern lost by 23...

You can't seriously compare Humphrey to McGovern. McGovern lost even more badly than Goldwater did!

Humphrey was a stand-in for LBJ when LBJ withdrew after New Hampshire. The parallel in 68' to Obama is McCarthy.

Humphrey won the popular vote in 1972, McGovern got the nomination. How did that work out? As to 68', primaries weren't the means of choosing a nominee so you can't read into anyone prior to the 70's not winning the popular vote or delegate battle through primaries.

[stevietheman]

62. Obama is the presumptive nominee. Cut the crap. n/t

n/t

[jackson_dem]

67. That disproves Judis' argument how?

McGovern was the nominee. How'd he do?

[stevietheman]

82. Cut the crap NOW, thug! n/t

n/t

[jackson_dem]

86. I agree, it would be crap if McSame won the presidency because we nominated Obama

[Two Americas]

69. I agree with that analysis

The Obama campaign represents the penultimate, and I believe final, manifestation the "magical mystery tour" we have been on for 35 years, since traditional left wing politics were replaced by lifestyle and personal choice cultural ideas in the early 70's. After decades of relentless propaganda and attempts at remaking the culture and expanding the base of "like minded" people, we are probably seeing the high water mark of the movement, and I expect it to collapse or at least relinquish the stranglehold it has over the party and the political left. After decades of political logjams and frustrations, this is a very positive development and long overdue. As more and more people recognize that it is not the fault of the people, and that blaming the Republicans is a form of denial and avoidance, and come to see that we have been wounded in the house of our supposed friends, all of the frustration, confusion, and divisiveness will start to melt away. We are right on the verge of very exciting and creative times, and the Obama campaign is a last ditch effort to suppress, channel and harness that energy safely back into the fold.

Modern liberalism was never a solid foundation for a political movement, and over the years has come to be less and less political and more and more a cultural phenomenon. It has run its course.

[Dr Fate]

74. All I know is all the white Republicans I know like Obama and hate Hillary.

Where you get the idea that white conservatives prefer Hillary to Obama or McCain is beyond me.

When did Hillary Clinton all of a sudden become so popular with trad Repubs in the South & Midwest?

Anyway, if the Super Delegates hand the nom to Clitnon, I hope you are right- I hope the conservatives go out and campaign for Clinton like you say they will.

[jackson_dem]

78. You must have misread the OP and the data

Obama gets the same rethug support against McSame that Clinton does--right now when he is still fairly pristine because the GOP hasn't sent its machine after him yet. "Obamacons" are another fairy tale.

[Dr Fate]

80. You misread reality if you think Hillary is popular. I disagree w/ you on many counts-

"the GOP hasn't sent its machine after him yet"

Errr- ever checked to see who owns the media? The media certainly has attacked him on race, patriotism, elitism, etc- and Hillary joined them.

"Obama gets the same rethug support against McSame that Clinton does"

Data? How about TALKING to people? Are you really saying that you KNOW Republicans who will go out and support Clinton over McCain or Obama? You have met these people?

"Obamacons" are another fairy tale.

Well, then that means I persoanly know and have spoken with at least 15 or so "fairy tales" in my family, workplace and neighborhood- and I'm constantly AMAZED at the fact that such die-hard conservatives find him appealing. I can honestly say I've never seen this with any other DEM on any level, much less Hillary.

Come on- you cant *really* think Hillary Clinton is the one who can swing the Republicans against McCain, do you? It's like asking me to believe that Democrats would line up to vote for Jeb Bush.

[jackson_dem]

87. You are in for a wild ride if you think the MSM and rethugs have given him a hard time so far...

How many people out of 300 million do you know? The "netroots" is not reflective of reality. How many people here don't know a single person who voted for Hillary?

The fairy tale is that he gets a lot of rethugs to crossover. There are rethugs who will vote for both just as there were rethugs who voted for Kerry and Dems who voted for Bush and Dems who will vote for McSame.

[TheDonkey]

76. Obama should be concerned. But so should Hillary

She cannot win without Obama's coalition. No one is asking if she can attract educated, young, independent or black voters. If she cannot hold onto them she will lose badly to McCain.

[jackson_dem]

79. Yes, but her coalition is larger in a GE so there are greater concerns about the more likely GE lose

She did win the educated voters yesterday by the way. She did 14 points better with those without a college degree but she won college educated voters and even won those with postgraduate degrees 53-47. Perhaps she is making inroads into Obama's college educated base, although Obama did hold onto the wealthy. Young voters didn't even bother to show up yesterday. I would rather have seniors than the young since they out number the latter by a significant margin. In the GE she won't be running against a black guy. She would win at least 70% of the AA vote, even under the worst case scenario regarding Obama using the race card to try to keep the supers from going with Clinton. Keep in mind Obama will not want to destroy his political career. He will, given his record, play the race card if it goes past June but after the decision is made he will support Clinton out of necessity if he wants to preserve his career.

[Dr Fate]

81. I wouldnt assume that she can hold on to her working class base. They are easily lied to.

If Hillary/Media can convince those folks that a mixed race black man is "the real racist" and "the real elitist" and " a terrorist supporting muslim"-then the GOP will have no problem convincing them of anything they want about Hillary.

I dont think Hillary has a lock on those folks- I think McCain can easily get them back in his fold- all it takes is a few lies & smears- and he will have the entire media backing him up...

Also- who besides racists use the term "race card?" I've never heard anyone but racists and Republicans use that term until I heard Hillary latch on to it.

Feel free to defend your use of this Republican invented race-baiting term here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5648608

[DeepModem Mom]

88. This scares the heck out of me, coming from John Judis...

co-author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority." I'm an Obama supporter, but not so blind as to dismiss potential danger in a candidacy. Believe me, those inside the campaigns of both candidates are well aware of both their candidates' strengths and their weaknesses, and work hard in areas of weakness.

As many have pointed out upthread, Judis is not an advocate for Hillary. He has plenty of criticism for her. She has her own danger zone. Judis is interested in not losing in November.

I hadn't realized Obama's perception among voters had changed, and that he is losing support among certain demographics. He is almost certainly our nominee, and this should be of concern to any Democrat interested in victory in November.

Judis is not saying Obama is McGovern. I would add, for example, that he is a more compelling candidate than McGovern. And he is banking on a new coalition -- but it's not guaranteed (and Judis indicates it's potential size is shrinking). With a skillful political team, however, and I think he has one, and a serious addressing of the potential problems Judis highlights, Obama, I think, can attract the votes he needs.

I think this is an important piece. Thanks for posting. K&R