Based on five national polls that have been conducted this month--Gallup, Newsweek, Quinnipiac, CBS/New York Times, and ABC/Washington Post--Barack Obama is currently trailing John McCain by an average of nine points among white voters. So Obama is doing much better than John Kerry and a little better than Al Gore. In fact, the only Democratic presidential candidates in the past four decades who have done better among white voters were Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Not coincidentally, they were also the only successful Democratic presidential candidates in the past four decades. [Emphasis BTD] Based on his current showing in the polls, Barack Obama may well be the next one. With whites expected to comprise less than 80 percent of the 2008 electorate, and with a 20-1 margin among black voters and a 2-1 margin among Hispanic voters, Obama's current nine point deficit among white voters would translate into a decisive victory in November [Emphasis BTD]
.
Shocking, no... the numbers not lining up with the narrative pushed by a large segment of the punditry. Would it be better if Obama were able to secure a greater share of the White vote? Sure. But politics is about building coalitions, and there is no one single path to success that runs only through the support of White voters in America. Democrats can and repeatedly have secured pluralities and even majorities within the broader electorate even while carrying a minority of the White vote -- and, frankly, it seems more likely than not at this juncture that Obama will win in such a manner this year, too.
This is the Texeira/Judis Emerging Democratic Majority theory of electoral success. I am an adherent to this view. But it is silly to argue that this means that Obama does not have more problems with white voters than say, Hillary Clinton would have. This is a Democratic year and one would expect Obama to do better with white voters than he is currently performing.
Personally, I think the difference between Obama and Clinton with white voters is partly racial but also partly Obama's partial failure to resonate on economic issues and on the question of experience. As Singer says, coalition building is a tricky thing and Obama chose the Post Partisan Unity Schtick and only now is pivoting to a politics of contrast.
With regard to the polls, they seem to confirm these problems. The Newsweek poll, which has Obama by 3, shows McCain winning whites by 12 (Gore numbers). The Quinnipiac poll has McCain with a 7 point lead among whites. The Washington Post-ABC poll, where McCain holds an 8 point edge among whites, is interesting in that it shows a 37-24 Democratic edge in party ID, second only to being African American as an indicator of how voters will vote (note African Americans have been voting Dem by 9-1 for a long time, Obama pushes it up to 9.5-1). The NYTimes poll, which has Obama leading by 6 points, shows McCain with a 9 point lead among whites. The poll shows a Dem party ID advantage of 40-32.
On the economy, almost all the polls show Democrats with at least a 20 point lead on the economy. And Obama largely underperforms the Democratic brand on this issue. This underperformance is largely seen with white voters.
Obama's electoral poll performance is clearly effected greatly by his race. He will increase the already enormous Democratic advantage with African American voters. He does well with Latinos and not as well with white voters.
But he also has a problem making the sale on the economy, which turns up mostly with white voters. In an overwhelmingly Democratic year, Obama SHOULD be doing better than Al Gore, John Kerry and Michael Dukakis with white voters. He should be doing Bill Clinton numbers at the least. And he is not. I am very confident, almost certain that he will win the election. But there is no denying that in this election cycle, he is underperforming with white voters.
By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only
