Ronald Brownstein wrote an interesting piece for the National Journal called “Wider Net, Leakier Boat.” His argument is that Barack Obama potentially could put together a broader coalition than Hillary Clinton, but he also runs the risk of losing a lot more Democrats to McCain than Clinton would. Key excerpt:
In a recent Pew Research Center survey, for instance, Obama carried independents against McCain by 6 percentage points, while McCain carried them against Clinton by the same amount; the difference mostly reflected Obama’s stronger showing among independents earning at least $50,000 annually. Other surveys, such as a Quinnipiac University poll in the key battleground of Pennsylvania, have found that Obama also swipes more Republicans from McCain than Clinton does.
This all tracks Obama strengths familiar from the primaries. But primary-season trends more troubling for Obama are also persisting. In the national Pew survey, and in Quinnipiac polls of Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama lost more Democrats to McCain than Clinton did. In the Pew survey, Obama struggled particularly among the same blue-collar white Democrats resisting him in the primaries: Fully 30 percent of white Democrats earning less than $30,000 a year preferred McCain over Obama. Clinton would lose only half as many of them to McCain, the polls indicate. In the Quinnipiac surveys, Clinton likewise outpolled Obama against McCain among white women without college degrees, a key general election swing group that has overwhelmingly preferred her in the primaries.
Findings like these help explain why many Democrats think Obama offers greater potential rewards as a nominee, but also presents greater risks. If Obama runs well, he seems more likely than Clinton to assemble a big majority and trigger a Democratic sweep — not only by attracting independents and crossover Republicans but also by increasing turnout among African-Americans and young people.
But if Obama stumbles, he could face a greater danger of fracturing the traditional Democratic coalition by losing seniors and blue-collar whites to McCain, principally on security issues. Clinton’s reach across the electorate may not be as long, but her grip on her voters could be firmer.
I don’t seem able to get this argument across to some of the Obama supporters I know. Yes, he does better among independents and Republicans than Hillary, but he could lose a lot more seniors, women and working-class whites (and Latinos, though Brownstein doesn’t mention them) to McCain.
Obama has eight months to figure out how to improve his standing among the demographic groups that have favored Hillary in the primaries.
2 Comments
And
this is more of a problem than the droves of Obama supporters that would switch to McCain if Hillary were the nominee? I doubt it. I understand your point – you made it across to me – but it’s not that significant of a point.
Hillary supporters are generally hardcore Democrats, whereas Obama supporters have come to the Party to vote for Obama and would leave if Hillary were the nominee. Hardcore Democrats, like yourself, will vote for the Party nominee.
The fact remains that a Hillary vs. McCain battle is much more risky than an Obama vs. McCain race. Considering that Democrats have great momentum this year, the only thing that could ruin that is nominating a very divisive figure (i.e., Hillary) or outside events that would turn the tide of support toward the Republican platform.
Obama is clearly the best candidate to bring the Democratic Party to victory in November.
drinksgreentea Sat 15 Mar 5:43 PM
I know you understand this
but some other Obama supporters I’ve talked to don’t seem to get that independents are not the only key swing voter group.
Recent polls show both Obama and Clinton losing to McCain in Michigan and Pennsylvania, by the way. We’ve got a lot of work to do this year.
desmoinesdem Sat 15 Mar 9:25 PM