I’ll probably do a longer piece on this later, but Ron Brownstein goes inside the exit polls to glean the coming political realignment. One thing I’ll note right off the bat is that John McCain must search for his votes among the elderly and non-college educated whites. This is the same coalition that is giving Hillary Clinton her votes, although her advantage with these groups has slipped as Obama’s success and name recognition have grown.
Obama is pulling off something that college educated white liberals have been waiting for since 1968. He has built a coalition of blacks and whites making over $100,000 a year. White liberals are sometimes called the ‘wine track’ to distinguish them from the lower educated and heavily unionized ‘beer track’ white Democrat.
The beer track Democrat has been coveted by Hubert Humphrey, George Wallace, Ronald Reagan, Walter Mondale, and Bill Clinton. Wine track Democrats have gravitated toward Eugene McCarty, George McGovern, Teddy Kennedy, Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, and Howard Dean. In other words, wine track Democrats have a long record of high passion combined with electoral disappointment. The Volvo driving, latte-drinking, English majors that typify the white liberal bloc have never been able to put together a coalition strong enough to take on the Republicans. Barack Obama has changed this.
However, just as many blacks are shocked at the rise of Obama because they never pictured it happening quite like this, white liberals are somewhat shocked by how Obama is pulling this off. Particularly in the face of the Bush presidency, where white liberals and white liberal values have been under such withering assault, there is a thirst for hard partisanship. And that is not what Obama is providing. Instead, he is deconstructing the old coalitions with a velvet glove.
Our experience is one of one failure after another, as our leaders have been taken apart by the press and a fire-breathing Republican wurlitzer. Look around and you’ll see a clear trend. The older the Democrat (regardless of race) the less likely they are to believe that a black man can become president. The older they are, the less likely they are to believe that we can win with a message of unity and hope. The older they are the more likely that are to believe that we can only win with the kind of bare-knuckles amoral approach favored by the Clintons. Some might call it the victory of experience over hope.
But a look at the internals of the exit polls helps explain both why Obama is succeeding (and will succeed) and why demographic changes favor this new ‘wine track’ governing coalition in the future. Another leader that lacks Obama’s special political gifts and strong support in the black community might have a harder time holding this coalition together. But the trends favor the party that appeals to the ‘creative class’ and the black/latino voter.
And Bush is the reason why.
In 2000, under-30 voters split about evenly between Bush and Gore, according to exit polls. In 2004, they preferred Kerry over Bush by 54 percent to 45 percent. In the 2006 House elections, they backed Democrats by 60 percent to 38 percent. In a race between Obama, 46, and McCain, 71, even many Republicans wouldn’t be surprised to see that wide a gap among the young.
“If you look at Ronald Reagan and how he performed among youth, he created a generation of Republicans that was able to sustain itself,” Dowd says. “Well, what Bush has done in his presidency is almost the opposite: He has won elections and lost a generation. Now this generation is emerging, and if Democrats end up winning this election, and then govern in a way that gives people a sense that it is a new politics, they will have a generation. It will be the reverse of Reagan.”
This is the victory that has eluded the white liberal since the death of RFK. When you add to it that it is the victory that the black community could scarcely dare to dream about, it will be so deeply satisfying. And…when this all comes off, it will greatly benefit the beer track Democrat…perhaps it will benefit them most of all. And that’s something we’ve been trying to convince them of ever since they started drifting away to Reagan and Wallace.
Um, do you have wine on your mind? Please correct heading and delete this post.
Read the post before you comment:
I’m sorry; you’re right. <blushes>
I spent most of my life in a blue-collar, unionized job. I like beer over wine. Why do I support Obama over Clinton?
Clearly, your beer of choice must be either microbrews or imports.
/snark.
Hillary got me pissed. Make her stop
She keeps on fearmongering – giving fodder to the GOP.
Josh Marshall has the video
Here’s the ad. Does this really work anymore? I don’t think so.
Remember: “Now one of Clinton’s laws of politics is this: If one candidate’s trying to scare you and the other one’s trying to get you to think, if one candidate’s appealing to your fears and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.”
-Bill Clinton, 2004
Hahahaha . . . wouldn’t it be great if he trotted that line out in response to the ad? How is the Clinton camp going to refute Bill’s own words without calling Hillary’s husband a liar?
but she has. Jane Hamsher, FDL caught Hillary in Ohio running against Bill’s NAFTA. …”she’ll change it”
Oh. Btw, the new Clinton memo moves the bar on Obama. A 1 in 4 win is sufficient for Hillary to keep soldiering on:
The New Clinton Memo Via Mark Ambinder
Is it Tuesday yet?
So she plans on winning Rhode Island and nothing else… and that’s enough to soldier on? My my my, how desperate she has become.
Well, she’s wasting her money, but she’s wasting my time. Or at least what little of it I plan to give her, which is already small and dropping fast.
I remember that quote from way back when. Maybe Obama should dig up that old footage and use it as a response ad to Hillary’s Fear! Fear! Fear! ad. It would almost be like an endorsement of the Hope Guy Obama.
Hehehe.
I’m so posting that on my blog.
Link – http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec04/battleground-bg_10-25.html#
Here’s theCNN report on that quote.
and Obama’s response…
I think he’s handling this the right way, though a commercial would help to reinforce the message.
Thanks RandyH.
that was a great response to a pathetic desperate move.
For those who think Obama will allow himself to be swift boated, this response should calm all fears.
Obama is more than ready.
Not that there’s anything wrong with wine on the mind.
hmm, that could be my new blog: Whine on the Mind.
Looks like someone else had similar thoughts this morning.
No kidding. I was about to bring up the fact that Blueprint (the DLC rag) ALWAYS talked about “upscale” voters. Wired workers. Tech savvy and union-ignoring. Tight job markets for as far as the eye could see, and not a blue collar in sight. That demographic was the electoral wave of the future, and should be catered to aggressively.
Another reason why the “she will fight for you” is off-putting, phony, patronizing…and really just offensive. I swear, Clinton opens her mouth and all I hear is, Oh, I’ll take care of you little people. Ugh!
And she says that Obama will disappoint? Please…if that’s not projection, I don’t know what is.
Boo: “Particularly in the face of the Bush presidency, where white liberals and white liberal values have been under such withering assault, there is a thirst for hard partisanship. And that is not what Obama is providing. Instead, he is deconstructing the old coalitions with a velvet glove”
I think you might have it wrong Boo. I don’t think the great center and young people have any thirst for partisanship. They have a thirst for actual governance and leadership from those in power. Obama’s velvet glove is the promise of an end of partisanship at the expense of actual governance.
Dionne I think gets it right here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/28/AR2008022803316.html?sub=new
I also think David Frum is actually correct (for once) when he characterized the Bush failure as rooted in the Bush gang’s general dislike of government and therefore disinterest in actually governing once in office. The important thing for them is to just be in office so others aren’t.
I think I wasn’t clear, or you misread what I wrote.
The thirst for partisanship doesn’t come from the influx of young voters but from the politically engaged white liberals that formed the backbone of Hart, Tsongas, Bradley, and Dean’s support.
Got it.
I spent a few days this week talking politics with two 40 something women, one black, the other white, but both former Hillary supporters. One even recently voted for her in the NY primary.
Their words, not mine, is they are just tired of her and she increasingly seems bitter. They also said that the thing that has them supporting Obama is his ability to rally people, particularly young people and they worry that without that there is little hope for the future. Government will otherwise be left to the corrupt and incompetents
I think they are right.
And let me add, for clarity:
White liberals, like you and me, have been fantasizing about winning the presidency since RFK got shot and the hacks gave the nomination to Humphrey. We got one real shot at it in McGovern, and we got shellacked. I don’t think white liberals really anticipated that when we got our next shot at it it would be a half black Chicago pol running a campaign that doesn’t overtly pander to our agenda.
Meanwhile, I don’t know what the black community anticipated, but probably not a candidate who’s black father wasn’t born here, and whose family has no legacy of slavery, and who is, likewise, not pandering to their agenda.
But just because we didn’t see this coming and never anticipated that our two coalitions would finally meet in this way, doesn’t mean that the moment hasn’t arrived. And it feels pretty good.