The McGovern Label

On the heels of the excellent post by Mike on the Hillary win yesterday comes this good summation of the Obama campaign from none other then….TNR. I know, floored me also:

Indeed, if 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 Victor Davis Hanson puts his two cents in:

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.

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 more and more I am gaining confidence that with a Obama nomination we will be swearing in John McCain as our next President. He isn’t my first choice but he is heads and tails above the Socialist twins.

Look at the numbers that came out of Pennsylvania. Obama lost 54% of those making less then 50 grand a year, 70% of the Catholic vote, 63% of seniors, 62% of the white vote, 57% of the Jewish vote while winning over those who make over 150 grand a year or those who are pretty much on welfare. All this when he outspent Hillary by 4-1.

Its only those elitest whites, the black vote, and the ever dependable youth vote (/sarc), that come out for him nowadays it seems and come November he very well may be beaten….and beaten badly.

Gotta love it.

UPDATE

Fred Barnes take:

The key was how she won in Pennsylvania. She clobbered him among the voting blocs that are critical to a Democratic victory: union households, women, Catholics, working class and downscale voters, and those who didn’t attend college.

The Democratic nominee who doesn’t win a solid majority of these voting groups is all but certain to lose in November.

In fact, she ran stronger among these voters than she had in Ohio, another state where she topped Obama. Ohio, too, is a must win state for the Democratic nominee in November.

And there was a telling number from the exit poll of voters. Nearly one-third of Clinton voters said they wouldn’t vote for Obama if he’s the nominee. Now, it’s likely many of these voters will change their minds. But a sizeable number may remain alienated from the nominee and vote for McCain. A smaller percentage of Obama voters said they wouldn’t vote for Clinton if she wins the presidential nomination.