The Blue Voice

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Super Tuesday

One of the strangest things about the Republican Presidential race is that the Maverick McCain, who wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years or maybe a thousand or even longer, has been getting votes from Republicans who are critical of the Iraq War: Curious and Curiouser: McCain Popular Among Anti-War Voters by Jason Linkins Huffington Post 02/05/08. I haven't yet seen any detailed breakdown of that factor. For instance, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the people who the polls pick up as "antiwar" are actually thinking the Iraq War should be escalated, i.e., they are unhappy with the war because it's not violent enough. In that case, voting for St. McCain, chief Congressional advocate of The Surge, makes good sense.

It could just be coincidence. McCain has one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate, voting with Cheney and Bush on just about every issue. But here's where warped media coverage can make a significant difference. The adoring "press corps" lavishes praise on McCain, to the point of endlessly repeating his claim to be a "straight talker" and, of course, constantly referring to him as a Maverick. There could be some significant numbers of Republicans who think McCain really is moderate on some issues like theocracy and vote for him in the primaries for that reason. It's hard to see how anyone can think there's anything moderate about today's authoritarian Republican Party. But to the extent that some Republican primary voters who see themselves as moderate also might tend to be more skeptical of the Iraq War, I can see that might produce the effect the voting results are showing of "antiwar" voters going for the legendary Maverick.

More generally about the Super Tuesday results, one of Digby's readers has an interesting analysis of why Obama may have done so well in the Democratic primaries in predominantly Republican states...

... (Savvy Political Behavior 02/05/08):

While the networks focus on demographic explanations (white-black, man-woman), I think there is a case to made now that the regional draw of these two candidates is more deeply rooted in the recent political culture and history of each state. Obama's post-partisan, one America appeal resonates best in the states that have been dominated by Republicans and republican lite candidates (Iowa, SC, GA, AL, DE, CN). Obama is really cutting across the red states. On the other hand, Hillary is doing best among the blue states or trending blue states from the most recent elections (NH, NV, NY, NJ, MA). There are some slippery states for such a formula (TN, OK), but it might knock back the old political talk about identity politics and redirect the discourse to savvy political behavior and choices by the voters.

The post-partisan, bi-partisan argument favors the party out of power, so it is not really surprising that Obama resonates more with those states who see reconciliation as the path to local power. Clinton though seems more acceptable to partisans and state parties who control their local agendas.

That certainly sounds plausible. Now, "plausible" and "correct" aren't necessarily the same thing. But it's an intriguing observation.

And one of the things that needs explaining is Clinton's substantial win in California, 51%-42% over Obama at this writing, according to the San Francisco Chronicle Online with most votes counted. I'm not surprised she won. But while she didn't get as big a blow-out win as the early projections indicated she might, that's still an impressive spread.

A strong Latino vote going her way is surely part of the reason. But as Digby's commenter recognized, demographic explanations are only partial explanations. The Latino turnout was reported to be strong in California. Not all Latinos are especially sympathetic to undocumented immigrants. But few of them can miss the ugly racial and nativist undertones to the anti-immigrant hysteria which even the bold Maverick McCain is willing to indulge. And they know that politicians respond to votes, not raw demographics. Even though on the drivers license issue, Obama had a more immigrant-friendly position, I'm guessing that some substantial portion of Latino voters were judging that they could be more confident that Clinton could fight the Republicans effectively.

Once again, the polls showing Obama and Clinton running very close in California, including the recent results by the Field Poll, which supposedly has the best track record on California polling, didn't pick up anything like this margin for Clinton.

I suspect that some significant portion of Clinton's vote was based on the desire of the Democratic base for an experienced fighter to go up against Maverick McCain, the darling of the press corps. Obama sounds like he wants to bring everyone together. Clinton sounds like she's ready to fight the Republicans. First things first. Zachary Coile (How Clinton won California San Francisco Chronicle Online 02/06/08:

California has long been "Clinton country," but Hillary Rodham Clinton seized Super Tuesday's biggest prize by winning big among women, Latinos, Asian-Americans, gays and lesbians, older voters and working class Californians - which blunted Barack Obama's strong support from African Americans, white men and independents, according to exit polls.

While Obama was able to carry some of the state's progressive centers - including San Francisco, Marin and Santa Cruz counties - Clinton dominated in the voter-rich Democratic strongholds of Los Angeles, Alameda and Santa Clara counties. The New York senator also vacuumed up support in inland areas like Fresno, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

Despite the Ted Kennedy endorsement, that voting pattern doesn't indicate any left/right - or more-liberal/less-liberal - split, though the national press corps seems to view Obama as the more liberal candidate. I was struck by this breakdown in Coile's report:

Clinton won with all age groups in California, but racked up her biggest margins among voters age 60 or older, winning 53 percent to 30 percent. She even won narrowly with voters ages 18-24 - 52 to 46 percent - a setback for the Obama campaign, which had counted on turning out young voters in droves.

Clinton also won among union voters, 54 to 37 percent, despite a last minute effort by some of former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards' labor supporters to swing the vote to Obama. But Clinton had her own endorsements from important unions such as American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the American Federation of Teachers, and she was popular with the rank-and-file. ...

The vote in California also split along class lines. Voters from families making less than $100,000 tilted heavily toward Clinton - 54 percent to 37 percent - while Obama held a narrow edge with those making more than $100,000, 49 percent to 47 percent.

Clinton won overwhelmingly with voters who did not complete high school (82 percent to 15 percent) and had a 2-to-1 edge among those who had graduated from high school. She also won among college graduates, although Obama narrowly outpolled her among those who had pursued post-graduate work, 48 percent to 46 percent.

Gays and lesbians also broke sharply for Clinton, backing her 60 percent to 25 percent. (my emphasis)

Obama's foolish use of an anti-gay minister last year to pander to conservative Christian voters probably had a lot to do with the lop-sided Clinton vote among gays and lesbians. Given that California Democrats tend to be pro-tolerance on sexual choice questions, it probably hurt Obama among straight voters, as well. That was the kind of thing California Democrats would notice and be concerned about.

The breakdown of the California vote does show that Obama had more appeal among independents. But Clinton's across-the-board strength in California certainly raises a question about Obama's argument that he would have a broader appeal than Clinton. Or, as he has put it, that Clinton's voters would turn out for him but his voters wouldn't necessarily all turn out for her.

Brother Huck did better than the conventional wisdom of the punditocracy expected, even though the polls showed him with significant support, especially in the Deep South states, where of course he did well on Tuesday. Having watched the CNN talking heads last Wednesday during and after the Republican debate, I really think the pundits wanted to write the Huck out of the race because it's just too confusing for them to have to think about a three-way calculation. The pain of actually having to think can be quite distressing. It would be so much easier to just forget all this primary stuff and sing the praises of that living saint, the Maverick McCain, the press corps favorite.

Brother Huck probably increased his chances of being a McCain VP pick with his showing on Super Tuesday. The states he won would likely go to the Republicans in the general election, though Arkansas could conceivably be competitive. But putting the Huck on the ticket would bolster the Maverick's appeal to the Christianist base. Although the polls don't show the kind of hostility to McCain that prominent conservative figures have expressed, adding the Huck to the ticket could blunt some of the criticism from the OxyContin crowd and add some enthusiasm for the Maverick among Christianists who may have been disturbed by his occasional criticism of torture or the mild signs he has sometimes shown of being friendly to immigrants.

And, if you haven't seen this Huckabee Girl video, it's irreverent but surprisingly insightful on the Christianist viewpoint:

Tags: barack obama, hillary clinton, mccain, mike huckabee

posted at 12:52:00 PM by Bruce Miller

| +Save/Share | |