Semi-Super Saturday - Democrats

10.12pm A clean sweep for Obama. He's piled up the votes in the Nebraska and Washington caucuses and the nets now say he's won a slightly closer race in the Louisiana primary (and you can if you want add in his victory in the Virgin Islands)

Some thoughts:

Obviously nothing surprising.  These results fit precisely the demographic and political profiles we've seen in almost every Democratic contest so far:

Obama does well in caucuses - going and standing around in a political meeting for a couple of hours is much more his extremely enthusiastic supporters' kind of thing - this probably accounts for his edge in Nebraska;

He wins "latte liberals" - well-educated, well-off voters who care more about values and ideals than hard, immediate economic issues. There is no more symbolic latte liberal state than Washington, the home of Starbucks.

He wins states with large black populations. There are few states with larger black populations than Louisiana.

None of today's states was natural Hillary turf - states with a predominance of low-income, less well educated whites, older voters and Latinos.  So before we conclude anything about today we should remember that the future of the Democratic race still looks likely to turn on these largely demographic factors and on whether the rest of the states are natural Obama or natural Hillary states.  Fascinatingly, the remaining races are in states that look likely to fall roughly equally (in delegate totals) into these two categories. Maryland, Virginia and DC next Tuesday are probably Obama turf.  Wisconsin a week later looks more like Hillary's .  On mini-Super Tuesday, March 4, Ohio looks like Hillary's; Texas may give her a slight edge. Then we're on through Pennsyvania (probably Hillary) and a host of smaller states (probably Obama).

One imponderable. WIll a series of Obama wins such as today's give him that elusive momentum that might outweigh these demographic factors by just enough to give him a better chance in Hillary states in the next month or two. I doubt it.  The one thing that has been missing from this whole election campaign so far is momentum. For proof of that, see today's Republican race - where even the candidate who has basically won the nomination, John McCain, is still struggling to nail down state victories.

 

Comments

[matty]

If Obama wins Virginia then I think his momentum could carry one of Ohio or Texas as Hilary is looking increasingly like a loser, some of these wins are so big as a percentage. Good win in Nebraska - hardly any african americans there. Come on Barack!

[Dave Cavanaugh]

The point about winning in states where there are large black population is correct; but,leaving the impression that they are Mr. Obama's only constituency is unfair to him and his campaign. I live in Nebraska and participated in the caucus yesterday and I can tell you there were not very many black people at my polling place. There is a reason for that; Nebraska has a very low level of black residents. Mr. Obama has won in many places where there is a low percentage of blacks. I believe that you people must be misunderstanding what appears to be a genuine phenomena about change and unity.

[Salamon]

With respect to Mr. Baker, for someone [Mr Obama] to be ahead in the game today, when the same someone was 20-30% behind but two months ago is what I call momentum.

Mr MacCain has excessive bagage [anti born-again-christian/evangaelical opposition] with respect to the core GOP electors, and he scares the H**L out of others with his promoise of the 100 year war.

[Daphne Kenward]

I am not sure about the levels of education in America, but the average person in Britain even if they don't have a single O'level to their names would not have Voted for the Moron they have in the White house called Bush & friends. One writer insulted Obama voters as being too educated to know about economic policies, shame on the writer education is exactly what helps people to make sensible decisions in life. American politics for several decades is this war policies, war cost money, and for a country near on bankrupt. verging on recession needs to look at its foreign policies, who will invest in a warmongering country, who is borrowing money not to invest in education or public services, or infrastructure, and have bridges falling down while hard working people are on their way home from work while building bridges in Iraq the Americans has blown up a fool could tell anybody is makes no sense. Sort out your stuff at home first, there was no Terrorist in Iraq, before the war, they are there now, another bad policy. £3.5 Trillion in debt is bad policy.
Obama knows that because he is not stupied. Wars is a drain on ones economy, that is what killed of Rome in the end, and if America don't change now they will become a banana Republic, Obama knows that, this fantasy that America lives on many have done it in the past and have ended up on the dust heap of History. Who paid for the last war?,China had to lend America the money. America had no exit stratergy, why because the plan was to invade Iran from there, it back fired, Iran did what America said it was doing, take the enimies on in their own Country, America was in Iraq so take them on in Iraq. America stays bugged down in the Middle East is the surest way to Bankrupt a Nation, economically and Morally. So the answer is Change your Policy, only go to war if you have a good reason. If america is spending 1.3 Trillion Dollars per year in Iraq, during a Recession and McCain wants to be there for 100 years, do the Maths. And when you do you will know why Obama is Your Man.

[Mark]

We are individuals, unlimited by race or gender. Barack Obama is multi-racial candidate who had a lily-white mother and grew up in middle class world. Senator Obama attracts a very wide range of voters. Pigeon-holing candidates into racial check boxes doesn't address the fact that voters have Clinton fatigue, reject her neo-con values & lousy record on the issues, and also have doubts about her leadership ability. This race is about the issues, including who can unite the country & bring about urgently needed change. A tidal wave of voters believes that person is Senator Obama, whose momentum is gaining by the day.

[chinedum]

I really wonder if the margin by which Obama won says anything at all. I have only read a few of your article, Baker, but from what I have read so far your take on the issues is quite amusing. The only extenuating circumstance would be if you are an avowed Cliton supporter. That would explain your selective myopia.

Quoting from your paper "The scale of his triumph sent shockwaves through Clinton’s campaign, even though it was braced for a poor night. Obama won the Nebraska caucuses by 68 to 32 per cent and Washington state by 68 to 31 per cent. He won 90 per cent of the vote in the US Virgin Islands."

While you did try to explain the losses, I do not think you have explained the magnitude.

[Jenny]

I have to comment on a few things here. Firstly, Louisiania no longer has the large black population it once had prior to hurricane Katrina.

Obama does get more higher educated, affluent voters, though they are not actually "values" voters, you misinterpret the term values, as they are intended to be applied to the party. The values voters are the lower income citizens, because democratic values have to do with the economy, jobs, health care access. To infer that the more often than not single issues that tend to define more affluent voters as "values" is a leap at best.

What will cost Obama the election is allowing Clinton to own the issues on change. Because change means something substantially more vote getting to working poor and struggling middle class American citizens, and there are more of them than there are affluent voters. Obama has resisted a strong commitment to the issues John Edwards championed, and those issues unite the majority of American citzen voters, if he continues to pretend he can ignore them, he will lose, and that will be his own doing.