A Party Divided?

by: Chris Bowers

Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:00


Here are the latest numbers, with commentary below the charts:

Obama Campaign Delegate Count
Type Obama Clinton Edwards Remaining 50% + 1
Pledged 1,494 1,333 18 408 1,627
Super 244 266 0 291 —
MI + FL 184 184 0 0 NA
Total 1,922 1,783 18 699 2,208

Clinton Campaign Delegate Count
Type Obama Clinton Edwards Remaining 50% + 1
Pledged 1,490 1,336 19 408 1,627
Super 244 266 0 291 —
MI + FL 103 167 18 80 NA
Total 1,837 1,769 37 779 2,208

And here are my projections for future delegate acquisitions:

Democratic Nomination Primary Schedule
State Date O % C % P. Del Obama Del Clinton Del
Guam May 03 — — 4 2 2
Indiana May 06 41.0% 49.0% 72 33 39
North Carolina May 06 49.0% 41.6% 115 62 53
West Virginia May 13 27.0% 55.0% 28 9 19
Kentucky May 20 27.0% 63.0% 51 16 35
Oregon May 20 50.0% 44.0% 52 28 24
Puerto Rico Jun 01 37.0% 50.0% 55 24 31
Montana Jun 03 — — 16 8 8
South Dakota Jun 03 46.0% 34.0% 15 8 7
Pelosi Club Jun 04 NA NA 6 7 -1
Future add-ons Jun 21 NA NA 60 8 3
Vacant Jun 21 NA NA 8 3 0
Total June 21 — — 482 207 220

Which leads to the following, dueling projections:

Democratic Nomination Delegate Projection
Type Obama Clinton Edwards Remaining 50% + 1
Obama Count 2,129 2,003 18 219 2,208
Clinton Count 2,044 1,989 37 299 2,208

There is a notion that the nomination campaign needs to end in June so that, among other things, the party can heal its wounds in time for the general election. However, I’m not sure that having an extra month or two will make a difference, given the identity gaps in the primary are actually widening. Check out these numbers from Pew:


At this point, the primary campaign has regressed to pre-2007 Philadelphia levels. If African-Americans are supporting Obama 7-1, and whites who did not attend college are supporting Clinton by nearly a 3-1 margin, then really the nomination campaign isn’t about much of anything except for race. This is what happened in Philadelphia in several past primary elections, where about 80% of whites would vote of the white candidate in a primary, and about 80% of African-Americans would vote for the African-American candidate in the mayoral primary. This changed in the most recent mayoral primary, where the top two candidates, Michael Nutter and Tom Knox, both had diverse, multi-racial coalitions. I have to say, its pretty pathetic that the national Democratic Party is now lagging behind Philadelphia in terms of race relations.

I have to wonder how divisions of this nature can be healed just given an extra month or two. I also have to wonder if this was always the danger we faced in the primary. Clinton and Obama are both pretty centrist, and do not differ from each other on policy that much (although there are some difference on health care and telecom policy). As such, wasn’t this really all about identity from the start? For a primary campaign to be based on identity instead of on policy is a ticking time bomb for any coalition, especially one that is built on historically under-represented groups in D.C. like African-Americans, Latinos, women and the LGBT community.

Now, the counter point to this argument would be that both Clinton and Obama are beating McCain right now anyway, so it doesn’t seem like the coalition is all that frayed. Further, identity plays the decisive factor in virtually every campaign, so this really isn’t any different–it is just more overt. So, while the identity gaps between Clinton and Obama are pretty striking, perhaps we make too much of these differences in the party.  

Chris Bowers :: A Party Divided?

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
A Party Divided? | 27 comments
a good start would be (4.00 / 1)
if Hillary would stop making digs into Obama over Wright, and instead dismissed it. But hey, then she would totally lose.

When both candidates roughly support the same policy then all that is left is identity. Neither was willing to take Edwards’ position or further left, so obviously there is not enough interest in the country to go there. I don’t think the identity politics was as negative as you make out. I think the country has selected where ideologically it wants to be and the candidates have gravitated there. So its down to identity.

Ultimately Hillary is the king maker. Right now she singularly  holds the near term success of the Democratic Party in her hands. She needs to stop the race baiting, and barring any more fiascoes, she will ultimately need to concede and enthusiastically support Obama, and i do mean enthusiastically to make up for the damage she has contributed to.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

 
I take issue with this. (0.00 / 0)
a good start would be if Hillary would stop making digs into Obama over Wright, and instead dismissed it.

It’s my impression (after doing a bit of Googling) that the Clinton Campaign has already followed your advice and wisely shut up about Wright (at least since PA after the initial firestorm). Since then, it appears that Clinton has instead let Wright himself and the media do the dirty work.

I do see reports of Clinton surrogates privately making the case to SuperDs that Wright may tarnish Obama’s electibility in the GE, but somehow I don’t see that as being dirty politics considering Obama’s polling numbers post Nat’l Press Club.  

Why nitpick? Because I remember how endless repetition of outright lies and inaccuracies about Al Gore sunk his campaign in 2000.  

[ Parent ]  
she was on O'Reilly the other night (0.00 / 0)
getting her “superior” judgement crap again, observing that Barack had “finally” denounced Wright. She would still be blazing on about it if Wright hadn’t self imploded on his own. In the run up to Penn she kept going on about Wright. Its not really a nitpick, its really horrible. Nobody asks Hillary if her judgement was poor to say with Bill after he betrayed her several times. She’s a ridiculous person.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]  
You forgot to emphasize the gender issue (0.00 / 0)
I agree that race is playing a big role in this primary and it is surprising to the degree especially since this is the Democratic party.  What you don’t mention is the influence of which is an even bigger influence in this election than race.  Please read the excellent diary posted on DKOS by TexasLiz titled “Women are keeping Clinton in the race” http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…
 
Along those lines (4.00 / 1)
I wonder too how strong the age issue is… I have long since reconciled myself to the fact that one of the reasons I am supporting Obama instead of Clinton is “identity politics” but in my case the key demographic is age rather than sex or race.
[ Parent ]  
Must. Stop. Babyboomers. (0.00 / 0)
good point, and its true, there are three identity inflection points.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]  
I wish they were more similar on clean energy policy (4.00 / 1)
but Obama is quite different on the detail, not the goals, (those are the same.) However there is a way that works and a way that hasn’t worked on switching to a non carbon economy.

And now that we see that he is quite stubborn on healthcare , I expect he is similarly married to his energy policy.

Some key differences, you can see at the 2 sites:

Production Tax credits for windpower:PTC
Obama extend only 5 years,
Clinton: make permanent.

Carbon neutral building (solar roof etc)
Obama: by 2030
Clinton: begin 2009.


John McCain vetoes every Environmental Bill already.

 
Speaking of character vs. policy… (0.00 / 0)
See, here’s why I can’t quite go along with a Krugmanian approach of looking at all the policy details, running them through an algorithm or whatever, and coming out with the best candidate. Because when you say that Clinton has the more aggressive and progressive energy policy, I just can’t buy it, after her ridiculous gas tax holiday proposal. I just can’t see that there’s any chance that she’ll do anything serious about carbon emissions and getting us off of oil, if it is so easy for her to chuck decent energy policy out the window for the sake of cheap political points. With Obama, the odds may be long, but there’s at least a chance that he would do something really dramatic on energy/climate change.

Also: carbon neutral building “by 2030” vs. “begin 2009” are not mutually exclusive.

[ Parent ]  
agree that was pandering (0.00 / 0)
as he has done in Illinois Senate:
http://apnews.myway.com/articl…
Obama took a different view on the issue when he was an Illinois legislator, voting at least three times in favor of temporarily lifting the state’s 5 percent sales tax on gasoline.

The tax holiday was finally approved during a special session in June of 2000, when Illinois motorists were furious that gas prices had just topped $2 a gallon in Chicago.

During one debate, he joked that he wanted signs on gas pumps in his district to say, “Senator Obama reduced your gasoline prices.”

I think the important thing is to look carefully at advisors. If we had looked at Bush advisors we could have predicted that we would have something other than just a beer with him.

So I do look at those clean energy advisors, carefully.
Clinton’s: The Center For American Progress:
Obama’s: The BipartisanPolicyCenter.org

dig further into both at the eco politics site
http://gristmill.grist.org/sto…

John McCain vetoes every Environmental Bill already.

[ Parent ]  
yes, except the illinois experience led him to oppose (4.00 / 2)
the gas tax holiday. He claims that “they tried this in Illinois,” and it didn’t lower gas taxes at all.
[ Parent ]  
sorry, I meant "lower gas prices" (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]  
Or could it be (4.00 / 1)
that the post-partisan message has passed its sell-by date?

Pew says

Fewer Democrats ascribe positive qualities to Obama than did so a month ago, with white working-class Democrats, in particular, expressing more skeptical views of the Illinois senator.

Maybe they are coming to the conclusion that reaching out to the Republicans isn’t the best way to get what they need–job security, health care, better gov’t services for themselves, not the fat cats.

If Obama can’t reach out across the divide inside his own party, how can he plausibly claim to be able to reach across the aisle to Republicans?

If he can’t transform internal Deomcratic politics, how can he transform national politics?

 
personally (0.00 / 0)
I think this probably has to do with the “elitist” charges, the Rev. Wright fiasco, etc.  Just the negative campaigning being flung at him from Clinton and McCain.

if it does correlate with working-class rejection of reaching out to Republicans to get what we need, then I will be much happier with the results…..

[ Parent ]  
sisterfish, you may be right (0.00 / 0)
Contrarian that I am, I automatically look for alternate explanations; and I do not like to think that so many Dems can allow race to distort their thinking, though it may well be true.

But there is also this from Pew:

The economy is much more important in this election than terrorism – or any other issue – in the eyes of voters. Fully 44% name the economy as the single issue they would like to hear the candidates address, up from just 15% in November.

Another alternative is that as more people see Clinton in person and hear her speak, they are realizing that she actually is on the ball and has given these issues much thought.  Just look at the reactions to her Indy Star and O’Reilly interviews.

[ Parent ]  
Policy, identity, and voter values (0.00 / 0)
The demographic divides in this election are certainly striking.  I think, however, that simply adopting the policy-identity dichotomy is a bit misleading.  While HRC and BHO don’t differ very much regarding policy, they differ pretty significantly regarding some non-demographic strengths and weaknesses and elements of their core message.  The demographic splits we see are the result not just because of simple identity politics – although in some instances, like with the AA vote and the gender divide, its hard to see any other explanation – but also because their messages resonate differently across groups.  I think that the class split among white voters is the best example of this.  While racism no doubt plays a role, part of the reason that the white working class is more hesitant to support Obama is surely because these people place more importance on experience and conventional displays of patriotism and are more worried about the economy.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an “unfunded liability.”
 
More worried? (0.00 / 0)
Foreclosures have hit Latinos and African-Americans hardest of all. Whilst I’d agree that those communities are less concerned with experience as it’s conventionally measured or with overt patriotism, surely they’d be just as concerned with the economy?

Obviously, I welcome any corrections based on polling of these issues.

Forgotten Countries – a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]  
I don't have any data on that (0.00 / 0)
but it wouldn’t be surprising to me.  What I’m saying is that there are a bunch of forces at play here.  Some of them are purely based on identity, but there are also others that are based on the values and priorities of different demographic groups.  My suspicion with the AA vote, for example, is that identity simply trumps all else.  Its really hard to explain a 90-10 split except on identity.  But I think part of Obama’s struggles among working class whites comes down to values and priorities, which is actually a positive thing for him in that in the general election he has a chance of convincing these people that he is indeed patriotic and has a good plan for the economy while the color of his skin obviously won’t be changing. I still think this is a very substantial weakness in the GE, but its not as bad as it would be if his struggles with the white working class were just all about race.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an “unfunded liability.”
[ Parent ]  
I don't know what you mean (0.00 / 0)
by “convincing these people that he is indeed patriotic.” How would he do that? By spewing hate? Wearing a flag pin? Remember, Bush won these pockets of lower-class whites, and he also won older white women. These groups that are supposedly the “core” of the Dem party are anything but. It’s funny how the AA vote is about “identity” but this doesn’t apply to white groups.
[ Parent ]  
A party divided (4.00 / 2)
Race has been the subtext of Obama’s bid all along. Who are we kidding!? I think he has been far too timorous about taking on the Republicans, about energy, healthcare, and the war. I frankly don’t think the positions he has taken (or Clinton for that matter) are really best for the country, nor do I know what he thinks in his heart of hearts. I do think he was running soft on issues in order to get people to forget that he is, well, black. And that probably makes sense for him — had he taken positions similar to those of Edwards, many would have dismissed him as a “black radical.” That is part of the racist double standard he confronts.

Then we get to Wright. Wright is the kind of guy that I might well have turned to as a young black man for spiritual support. I don’t think Obama agrees with Wright’s most controversial positions. I don’t agree with all the political positions of the people I have gone to for spiritual support either. Nonetheless, Wright has reminded white racists that Obama grew up, well, different from them. He is hurting Obama badly, and Obama supporters can’t blame all that on Hillary — McCain is of course giving tacit support to the negative ads in NC while claiming he opposes them. It is too bad because underneath this I sense in Obama a man whose character is somewhat higher than that of the average politician and I highly respect the way he has spoken about race, for example.

I think the business of dividing the party is overblown. Sure, some disaffected voters will sit it out if their candidated doesn’t become nominee but that worry is a thumbsucker for lazy editorial writers. Maybe the polling experts here can say how much that has mattered in past elections; my guess is, not much. Of course if I were black I would no doubt feel some rage if Obama lost the nomination and it looked in some way unfair. Blacks have been patronized far too often in such things, and Chris is right to point that out.

I care about electability and therefore I care about Bradley effects too. Therefore I suspect that whatever the polling data are, they understate the effect of race. Is that racist? I hope not. For the record I supported Edwards and will vote for the Democratic nominee whoever it may be.


 
these policy differences matter. (0.00 / 0)
I think he has been far too timorous about taking on the Republicans, about energy,

John McCain vetoes every Environmental Bill already.
[ Parent ]  
Without policy differences, voters focus on personalities (4.00 / 1)
The white/black divide will not be nearly as strong when there are significant policy differences between the candidates, as there will be in the general election.

Sure, given two candidates who are essentially good Dems, there will be a focus on other characteristics like personality, gender, race, etc.  But that’s not what we’re looking at in the general election, when it will be Democratic policies versus Republican (non-)policies.

 
Obama and Clinton are running on what has become the Dem platform. (0.00 / 0)
The policy differences are minor, and don’t take into account how laws get made in this country. It’s easy to limit the rest and call it “personality,” but it might be about trust. Clinton is not a good Dem. What she did during the worst years of the Bush admin should disqualify her for the Presidency. This is true of Edwards as well–I liked what Edwards had to say, but his record was abysmal. I felt it was just talk.
[ Parent ]  
simple thoughts (0.00 / 0)
1. Obama is going to win the nomination. Even the “Clinton count” leaves Clinton with substantial ground to make up with supers. Obama needs three hundred more delegates. Everyone agrees that he’ll win about a hundred in NC/IN and about a hundred in the remaining states. Does anyone really think that he can’t get the remaining hundred out of the undecided supers? This thing has been over since Super Tuesday.

2. Given #1, for Democrats to win the presidency this year, Obama will have to win. Simple statement, but let’s get used to it.

Since we all agree that he is potentially weak among white voters who don’t make a lot of money and didn’t go to college, his campaign and VP selection process should be attuned to this need. Webb, with all his substantial faults, looks better every day. Obama should be taking in NASCAR at Bristol and Martinsville with Mark Warner. On Letterman when he read the top ten, there was a gargantuan US flag behind him. You might call it pandering; I would. Good, good, good. More, more, more.  

 
well put (0.00 / 0)
tho I think Hillary and some of her particular surrogates, gov of Penn for example, could do what you are suggesting he needs a VP to do. I don’t think his VP necessarily has to cover this weakness, and there is always the issue that picking your VP to do so emphasizes it more than covers it. Dick Chaney isn’t less evil than George Bush, Joe Lieberman is. (i mean, he’s not, but hopefully you get the point).

man, i should stop trolling around here and go get some work done. Im too obsessed with the tension in this race.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]  
Thx for the response – to understand the tension is to understand the race. (0.00 / 0)
The race is really tense, but so is our country. We’re entering into a painful recession at best. We’re potentially screwed on energy – few seem to have processed the possibility of $200 oil in the near future. And while people around the world have laughed at our president for some time now, it’s a bit more painful when they laugh at our currency.

That’s the big picture, and it’s why Obama will likely win the presidency. When things are this bad, change looks good, even big change.

From a white, wealthy, prep school trained, uncurious, MBA baby boomer “decider” to a multiracial, progressive (relatively), world school trained, professorial Gen-X-er who, far from styling himself as a decider, instead emphasizes his listening… that level of change would disqualify a candidate in most years, but Obama chose his year perfectly.

—–

Your point re VP  and Ed Rendell is well taken. I’ve always thought that Rendell would have made a very strong presidential candidate. When I lived in Philly during the Rendell-Casey primary battle for PA gov, I was impressed by Rendell’s political skills.  

 

[ Parent ]  
Yes. Yes. Yes! You nailed it! (0.00 / 0)
I also have to wonder if this was always the danger we faced in the primary. Clinton and Obama are both pretty centrist, and do not differ from each other on policy that much (although there are some difference on health care and telecom policy). As such, wasn’t this really all about identity from the start?

We can continue this charade that one candidate is the “progressive” and the other “Republican-lite” but where is that gonna get us in November?  

 
It's not a charade. (0.00 / 0)
Obama is a centrist with some progressive qualities. But the fundraising model (at least half of it) and the attitude toward Iran is very different. Moreover, are our memories really that short? What Clinton has done (until recently) in the Senate is a disgrace. She was more hawkish than half the Republicans. The “lite” is unnecessary.
[ Parent ]  
A Party Divided? | 27 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2024