Two separate pieces today, from opposite sides of the political aisle, make the argument that Barack Obama is beginning to look a heck of a lot like the guy who lost in a landslide to Richard Nixon.
First, John Judis at The New Republic cites evidence that Obama’s support is coming from the far-left of the Democratic Party:
[I]f 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.
And, as Judis notes, he’s losing support among the white, working-class demographic in the same way that McGovern lost it to Nixon and Carter and Mondale lost it to Reagan:
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.
If those voters stay away in the fall, or turn in McCain Democrats, which is a good possibility, it will spell trouble for Obama in the fall if he’s the nominee.
Along the same lines, Victor Davis Hanson sees the Democrats staring into the same abyss they jumped into in 1972:
The Democrats are tottering at the edge of the abyss. They are about to nominate someone who cannot win, despite vastly out-spending his opponent, any of the key large states — CA, NJ, NY, OH, PENN, TX, etc. — that will determine the fall election. And yet not to nominate him will cause the sort of implosion they saw in 1968 or the sort of mess we saw in November 2000.
Hillary won’t quit, since she knows that Obama, when pressure mounts, is starting to show a weird sort of petulance, and drops the “new politics” for snideness. And at any given second, a Rev. Wright outburst, an Ayers reappearance, another Michelle ‘never been proud’ moment, or another condescending Obamism can cause him to nose dive and become even more snappy.
(…)
More and more, McCain will want to run against Obama and his far weaker coalition of elite whites, African-Americans, students—and closets of skeletons. More and more, we will start to see the buyer’s remorse of midsummer 1972.
And that may be the one argument that Hillary can make to the superdelegates that could save her from defeat.


April 23rd, 2008 at 10:22 am
Amazing, all my friends (middle aged White women) and I see Hillary Clinton as unethical and untrustworthy. We are sure McCain is begging to run against her because he feels he can beat her. Just by sound bites alone she comes out a liar (there is no mispoke about repeating a lie over and over again). Just because Obama has restrained himself from dirty politics doesn’t mean McCain will. I encourage Obama to forget the high road and drown the liar in her own filth.