The New Republic

Here's a question: Would the selection of a certain kind of running mate -- say, for example, Jim Webb -- help Obama with the blue-collor white demographic? Would that have any real impact?

By contrast, It seems likely that if Hillary won the nomination, no running mate selection would help her with the independents that she'd need to win over.

In short, she has more severe limitations than Obama, and people forget -- she's a strong candidate in large industrial states in closed Democratic primaries. She talks as if this means this makes her a strong candidate everywhere and all the time, only that doesn't make it so.

- jdguida

April 23, 2008 at 5:32pm

I'm going to repeat this until someone listens.

Hillary Clinton is not winning "Reagan Democrats". These are the voters who ran KICKING AND SCREAMING away from her in 1994.

She is winning liberal working class voters. There are millions of these voters in our country. The only Reagan Democrats she is winning are turning out to vote against a black man. Reagan Democrats are incredibly sexist and mildly racist. They are not going to support Hillary over McCain.

- virginiacentrist

April 23, 2008 at 5:43pm

jdguida great points, but don't expect to see a Clintonite rebut them. They will just skip over it since they have no answers, and since they can't answer it, it doesn't exist. (Kind of like the states Obama has won)

- blackton

April 23, 2008 at 6:09pm

If memory serves me right, Reagan Dems were originally incredibly racist (affirmative action, busing, welfare, crime) and mildly sexist.  If they are the other way around now, I count this as progress.

- wildboy

April 23, 2008 at 6:10pm

virginiacentrist -- Have you ever been to Scranton?  You know, where Hillary kicked Obama's butt 70-30?  Those folks are not "liberal working class" voters -- whatever that means.  Scranton is ground zero for Reagan Democrats. They will vote Republican for president when the Democratic candidate is perceived as culturally alien to them -- see Mike Dukakis, Barack Obama, etc. Hillary thoroughly routed Obama in that demographic.

Chait -- As for your oberservation that Obama can win the GE in PA with upscale suburban voters, it appears from the exit polls that Obama is losing some of his suburban mojo.  Hillary beat him in Montgomery County, Bucks County, Berks County, etc.  They should have been his peeps.

- porterm

April 23, 2008 at 6:27pm

blackton, your snide dismissal glosses over what could be a an interesting line of discussion with Hillary's dead-enders:

For Hillaristas, who do you think would make a good running mate, and why?

For Obamaniks, who do you think would make a good running mate, and why?

For both, is there a McCain running mate who could make McCain an acceptable choice if the Democrat you don't prefer wins the nomination?

I'll start by nominating Brad Henry for Obama and any woman other than Condi Rice or Elizabeth Dole for McCain.

- rhubarbs

April 23, 2008 at 6:34pm

Anyone see this article on Hillary the Queen of Pork?  Kind of damning stuff:

www.rollingstone.com/.../print

- joelake

April 23, 2008 at 6:42pm

jdguida is right. Obama will go into the election in autumn in the midst of a painful recession, which will force white working class voters to re-evaluate their priorities. The addition of a candidate like Jim Web in the VP slot should seal the deal, as opposed to voting for a candidate who promises more of the same. Hillary's negatives are too high; she is a known quality and people are unlikely to re-think their opposition to her. What hurts Obama also helps him, i.e. the fact that he is still relatively unknown and unbranded. This means that people can be spooked by a Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, "Hussein" middle name, "guns, religion, and bitter" diversions, but it also means that people's impressions of Obama have not yet solidified and he still has the opportunity to define himself to the general public. If the Party stays focused on the Economy, the War, Political Partisanship, and the Influence of Money in Washington then odds are the Democrats should be able to beat McCain with Barack Obama at the head of the ticket. Not so, if the Party nominates Hillary....

- matthawk

April 23, 2008 at 6:51pm

Porterm, the figures I saw on Bucks County showed Obama losing in the Southern part of that county, which is white working class, but still holding his own in the northern more upscale area. Obama's class demographic still seems to hold.

- matthawk

April 23, 2008 at 6:56pm

Wildboy.  Can you please clarify what you mean by:

"If memory serves me right, Reagan Dems were originally incredibly racist (affirmative action, busing, welfare, crime) and mildly sexist.  If they are the other way around now, I count this as progress."  Is it progress that people are now less racist than they are sexist?  Help me out here.

Obama lost the Philly suburbs.  It's in the exit polls.  It was very close, but he lost them.

I'm starting to think that his inability to attract the white working class is due to persistent racism.  This is very discouraging.  I do think whatever the case, Obama needs to consider picking a running mate who can appeal to this group.  Not sure if Webb is the guy.  

I agree with Rhubarbs point.  If McCain picks a female, Obama would be in trouble.  But let's be real, the Republican party has been an all-boy, nearly all white club for a very long time and I don't see that changing any time soon.  Besides, Mitt if currently McCain's lap dog.  

- Tammy

April 23, 2008 at 11:05pm

tammy, your suspicions are confirmed.

It turns out that maybe Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania was correct afterall when he said that a good 5% of white Pennsylvanians would never vote for a black man.

elections.foxnews.com/.../pa-gov-ed-rendell-some-white-voters-not-ready-to-elect-black-candidate

In an exit poll taken on election day 13% of Pennsylvania voters said that race was a factor in the way they voted during the recent Pennsylvania primary. Of that 13% 2/3rd s voted for Hillary Clinton.

www.youtube.com/watch

What is particularly disturbing about this is that, unlike what has come to be known as the “Bradley Effect” in other states, where people polled were too embarrassed to say these things even over the telephone, Pennsylvanians were bold enough to say this to the face of the poll taker.

It also appears that Hillary advisor James Carville was correct in describing Pennsylvania as being Pittsburgh on one end, Philadelphia on the other, and Alabama in between. It is that “in between” where Bill and Hillary spent most of their time and energy during the six weeks leading up to the primary election.

en.wikipedia.org/.../James_Carville (see “quotes” section)

Also, the North Carolina Republican Party is preparing to air an political attack ad that even John McCain and the National Republican Party have called reprehensible. The ad uses clips of Jeremiah Wright, to attack Barack Obama, to attack two local black candidates for congress using the logic of guilt by race and association.

www.youtube.com/watch

While McCain has condemned the ad as not having a place in the political discourse Hillary Clinton, great champion for civil rights that she claims to be, has declined to comment on the ad and its appropriateness or inappropriateness in the political arena.

It turns out that Hillary will not fight against incivility and racial stigmatizing if it will benefit her on Election Day. Is this a surprise?

- matthawk

April 23, 2008 at 11:31pm

Virginia you are so right about the Reagan Democrats and Hillary.  I thought when she won even in NH that her core constituency overlapped with Reagan Democrats and if that was the case, they would be likely to pick McCain over Hillary any day.

Again I ask and wish we could start on open thread on this question irrespective of either Hillary or Obama... whither the Democratic Party?  How do you keep these very diverse segments of the Party together when they have so little in common in terms of attitudes, interests, values or stance toward life and a political community?

Matthawk... where is Hillary going with her strategy of appealing to the Alabamah core of PA voters?  Does she propose to run as a White Supremacist candidate.  I mean seriously... just what is it that she thinks she is doing in all this?  Is it delusional or what?

- Annabella2

April 23, 2008 at 11:54pm

"If McCain picks a female, Obama would be in trouble."

Actually, I think that if McCain picks a woman, Hillary would be in trouble. Well, in more trouble than she'd otherwise be in, which is kind of a lot of trouble given that she might be the second-least-popular politician in America. A woman VP would make it very easy for a lot of people to vote for McCain over Hillary.

Against Obama and an experienced white guy from the South or West, I suspect a woman VP might actually hurt McCain by eroding his "brand" of being a kick-butt man's man. That's why I want Obama to pick Brad Henry. Henry is youngish but experienced, a popular Democratic governor of a very Republican state, who hails from the Webb-Talent wing of the Democratic Party. Henry is a hunter and fisherman who's received NRA endorsements throughout his career, and he also has a strong record on pro-union issues and education. He's even been an innovator in he drug fight, successfully emphasizing prevention over punishment. His wife is a teacher. As a bonus, Henry is not an Ivy League alum. Plus, unlike Jim Webb, Henry is a good campaigner, a comfortable speaker, and he's been in office for more than a year (state senate 1993-2003, governor 2003-present).

In 2008, it's gotta be Audacity and Henry Too.

- rhubarbs

April 24, 2008 at 8:22am

porterm:

I understand that some of these folks are turning out in the Democratic primary to vote against Obama, who is a scary black man. But they do not "identify" with Hillary Clinton. If you believe that (and if superdelegates actually believe that), then this party is truly lost.

Bill Clinton never actually broke 50%. He barely scratched the surface with these "Reagan Democrats". They went for Perot and many stayed home. Or they voted against Congressional Democrats in 1994. And now we're supposed to believe that a pedestrian politician like Hillary Clinton (who is half of what Bill Clinton was) is supposed to clean up with these folks? Give me a break.

- virginiacentrist

April 24, 2008 at 9:45am

Rhubarbs:

I like Henry as well. But I think Obama may need to do something to solidify his base and bring the party back together. I'm almost certain it's going to be Richardson. I'm still of the mind that this race is a slam dunk for the Democrats. McCain's only hope of pulling it off is to pull sizable margins from hispanics and to pull in bitter/older Hillary Democrats. Richardson pretty much ends his hope of the hispanic vote. And it's a "daring" choice by Obama. The press will go nuts.

As far as picking a woman goes - at the end of the day, it's McCain's decision, but it's still the Republican party. The activist base of the Republican party thinks that women should be in the kitchen. McCain needs a strong/young conservative. I agree with the CW that there might be some room for McCain to pick off older independent women from Obama with a female on his ticket...but I think that would be a pretty depressing pick for the base. Condi Rice is the only potential choice (Palin is close but not there yet), and she ties McCain to the failed Iraq War policies (he's trying to liberate himself from the early policies).

Anyway, VP speculation is always interesting. I always like to stress to people that VPs barely affect anything in the modern era. They get you one news cycle, and that's the end of it. But who knows - Cheney may have changed the formula (as an active VP), so maybe people will expect more out of the VP this cycle. We'll see.

- virginiacentrist

April 24, 2008 at 9:51am

One more thing on Reagan Democrats -

I perhaps overstated my case above that these folks "were not voting for Hillary". They are turning out and probably voting for her. The Democratic primary is the only game in town, and a great deal of these folks are still registered as Democrats. But the issue for these folks, I believe with every fiber in my body, is Barack Obama, not Hillary Clinton. They don't like him...for nefarious reasons, I suspect. I mean - it doesn't take a genius to figure out why there's a huge education gap for Obama with white voters...

There may be a bit of fondness for the Clinton economic brand amongst these folks. I'll admit that. But the core/intense working class Clinton supporters (the ones who will actually vote for her in the fall) are the traditional liberal working class base, not the Reagan Democrats. People seem to be forgeting that these folks even exist. These are core Democrats. That's right - despite the common perception, there are millions of hard core Democrats who are not affluent elites. These folks will support Obama in the fall (no matter what they say in opinion polling right now), because they don't agree with McCain on a single thing. These are the working class voters who still vote on the economy, not cultural issues.

- virginiacentrist

April 24, 2008 at 10:01am

Virginia,

You are far and away the most astute political analyst here, including the editors of TNR.  Having read your post, and knowing the difficulties Obama has had with the hispanic voters, I am immediately persuaded that Richardson would be an inspired choice, hispanic and a governor.  I had been thinking that Obama needed Biden or someone to give him f/p cred (despite the two senator liability), but that can be handled another way and the fact is that f/p is seldom the deciding factor in our elections.  It is just background for most Americans.

Thanks.

Oh, by the way, I think Condi would be a huge mistake for McCain.  People have no idea what running for office is like.  To take someone who has never done it and drop them into a presidential campaign is a prescription for trouble.  Also, the utility of a VP choice is to solidify part of your base or to secure a particular state that could be critical.  It does not work to use a VP to poach the other guy's base because it cannot work.  The VP slot just isn't important enough to do that.

- roidubouloi

April 24, 2008 at 10:02am

Annabella,

Hillary isn't delusional.  She just doesn't give a shit.  Any way that she might claw her way into the nomination is fine with her.

- roidubouloi

April 24, 2008 at 10:03am

Yeesh - and you wonder why Obama appears dispirited - it is getting pretty racial out there.

- Wandreycer1

April 24, 2008 at 1:08pm

The higher defection rate among Democrats is going to have an impact on the election, but it might not have an impact on Pennsylvania.  Kerry won by only 2% in 2004 and had a defection rate of 15%.  That's higher than what the defection would be if Clinton voters stay true to their words and 26% of them vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee.  26% of Clinton voters works out to 14% of the Democratic electorate in Pennsylvania.  This tracks pretty well with what voters were saying before the election in polls.  No poll asked from the outset whether the Democrats polled were supporting McCain over <i>both</i> candidates, but we can guess based on poll results.  When asked whether folks were voting Obama, Clinton, 2.6% picked other and 19% picked don't know.  It works out to about 3.2% of Democrats voting for McCain regardless of who wins, and others voting for McCain based on whether their first choice loses.  

That means we can make an educated guess that an Obama win would work out to a Democratic defection rate of 17.5% (higher than in 2004), while a Clinton win would work out to a Democratic defection rate of 10.8% (much lower than in 2004).  That would result in a McCain victory by 1-2%.

That isn't the whole story.  We also have to account for differences in party turnout.  Democratic party idetification has spread from a 2 percent advantage to about a 5 percent advantage. One poll has Pennsylvania party identification spreading to a 12 point Democratic advantage.  That said, this works out to a 2% gain for Democrats but a 6% drop for Republicans - so really, Independents have a solid gain.   That would give Obama a 7-point lead over McCain.

Finally, we have to consider how independents break.  There's no good polling on this.  If Democratic turnout is as I have guessed, McCain would need to win independents by 11 points in Pennsylvania to win the state by 1%.  In 2004, Kerry won independents by 17 points.  That means McCain woulld have to cause a 28-point swing.

Let's make McCain's situation a little easier and assume (not unreasonably) that only 2/3 of the party identification swing in Pennsylvania will be represented in the actual vote total.  That would give Democrats an 8 point lead.  (They had a 5-point lead in 2006, so I think 8 is realistic.)  McCain would need to win independents by 3 points to get his win, which is a 20 point swing.

So basically, McCain needs to win independents in Pennsylvania by between 3 and 11 percent to win.  The most recent poll on the matter was in early April (an RNC poll) and it gave McCain a 9 percent lead among indepenents.  Reuters also did a poll that showed McCain with a 10-point lead over Obama among independents, corroborating the RNC poll.   By contrast, exit polls in 2004 showed Bush with a one point deficit among independents.  Polls a month before showed Bush with a 7 point deficit among independents.  If we scrub the poll and go with results, that results in an swing of ten points in McCain's favor.  If that's true, and we plug that swing into the Pennsylvania situation (giving Obama a 7-point lead in the state among independents), he still loses the state to Obama by 2%.

Current RCP poll of polls show McCain losing Pennsylvania to Obama by . . . 2%.

That makes me comfortable with my guess that McCain needs a 3-11% advantage among independent in Pennsylvania to win.  

- phargle

April 24, 2008 at 1:32pm

I found a Quinnipiac poll from February 14th that showed Obama leading McCain among Pennsylvania independents by 1%.  That was before Reverand Wright and the bitter comment.  

- phargle

April 24, 2008 at 2:02pm

"it appears from the exit polls that Obama is losing some of his suburban mojo.  Hillary beat him in Montgomery County, Bucks County, Berks County, etc.  They should have been his peeps."

Porterm,  Obama may have lost Montgomery (narrowly), Bucks and Berks, but he won in Delaware, Lancaster and Chester Counties.  I don't know enough about suburban Philly to know how that all shakes out, but I do recall John King on CNN saying that Obama was looking for about a 100,000 vote margin out of SE PA.  It appears that he exceeded that.  It was the rest of the state that went more worse for him than expected.

On the issue of Obama's VP--I say a flat No to Richardson.  First of all, he's  a terrible campaigner.  I cringe at the thought of him going up against the GOP VP in a debate, no matter who that may be.  Secondly, I think the Latino vote is being overrated in this election. The only states in play where it will matter are New Mexico and Nevada, and possibly Colorado.   In New Mexico and Colorado Obama came close to winning the Latino vote, to the point where there wasn't much difference between Obama and Hillary.  In Nevada, Hillary did substantially better than Barack, so Richardson might help there. California, Florida, and Texas are all not in play..  So Richardson will obviously help in New Mexico, where Obama may not need him, and in Nevada.  I'd much rather go with Webb or Henry and try to win back some of the blue collars in PA, VA, Ohio, etc.  Webb would be my first choice, war hero, former Sec. of the Navy, he's got military AND working class cred.  

On Rice:   Job #1 for McCain has to be to distance himself from Bush as much as he can. Therefore, he's not going to pick Rice, or anyone else from the Bush administration. That I am very confident about.  I think it will either be Crist or Pawlenty, with Rep. Portman of Ohio also being floated recently as a possibility.

- naomi88

April 24, 2008 at 4:20pm

No point in arguing about a HRC VP.

I share Matthawk's opinion about Webb, etc.  They are both winners, and they compliment each other, and they are both young agent of change.  Perfect.

- dannyc

May 8, 2008 at 9:47pm

Navy Cross winner Webb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense, former Secretary of the Navy,

Virginian, seems a perfect contrast to Baracks weaknesses yet a compliment to his strenghts . He is a fighter and a winner, and a change agent in similar style to OBama.. Perfect ticket.

Brad Henry is well known for  ... ah , strike that:; cousin of Rhubarbs, he has had a career distinguished for, um ... Oh well never mind.

-

- dannyc

May 8, 2008 at 10:02pm