Ohio primary shows Obama’s weakness in national race

(Note: See the first comment below, questioning Mr. Sutherland’s analysis.)

. Howard Sutherland writes:

I saw something on one of the omnipresent news screens here in rotting Gotham as I was on my way to work this morning: a brief glance at a county map of the Ohio Democratic primary results. I’m familiar with the layout of Ohio, and I think that image tells us the truth about Obama’s real support, something the mainstream media will try to ignore—or obfuscate if they can’t get away with ignoring it.

Curious, I went online I to find county-by-county 2008 Ohio primary results maps.

Presuming the Democratic primary map is accurate, it shows a glaring split between urban and rural/suburban Ohio. B. Hussein Obama carried only four of Ohio’s 88 counties on the way to losing, while taking 44 percent of the votes against Sen. Clinton’s 55 percent. Obama’s four counties are Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton and Montgomery. Cuyahoga is Cleveland, Franklin is Columbus, Hamilton is Cincinnati and Montgomery is Dayton.

So Obama carried the counties containing Ohio’s three largest cities, one more containing what must be one of the state’s top five, and no others. Now, in America who tends to live in big cities, and who tends to live—at least up North—in the country and suburbs/exurbs?

It’s obvious to me that Ohio’s Democratic primary vote was heavily racially polarized. I think a general election between McCain and Obama would be at least as racially polarized; Ohio is reputed to be, along with Pennsylvania, one of those states whose voting patterns are a microcosm of national trends. The old bulls of the Democratic Party are not always stupid—not about practical politics at any rate. I suspect they see the same pattern I do, and are likely to draw this conclusion: they can win with Clinton, and they would lose with Obama, regardless of how mediocre a Republican candidate McCain is.

My prognostication (which, however, will be undercut if Obama somehow carries a whole slew of rural Pennsylvania counties) is that the Democratic Party will not put Obama at the top of its ticket, for a variety of unmentionable-in-polite-society reasons. The question then becomes whom the Democratic convention will nominate as Clinton’s running mate. Will it be Obama, in multiculturalist we-are-the-world fashion, to placate the cultural Marxists and ethnic pressure groups that are the party’s hard core? Or will it be a white man mainstream politician from the South or Midwest to offset Clinton’s negatives among the group that still—diversity’s best efforts notwithstanding—is the substantial majority of voters?

I think the Democrats want to win the White House, and Ohio is a strong hint that they can’t win behind Obama.

- end of initial entry -

LA replies:

I thought Mr Sutherland’s analysis made sense when I initially read it. Then I mentioned it to a female reader who didn’t accept it at all. She said that the breakdown among Democratic voters in the Democratic primaries is meaningless when it comes to the general election. If Obama is the nominee, then the people who voted for Hillary in the primaries will vote for Obama in November—therefore the distinction among white Democrats and black Democrats, on which Mr. Sutherland lays so much stress, will be irrelevant in November. Obama’s not seeking the votes of Republicans, he’s seeking the votes of Democrats, plus some independents.

Further, the reader added, the Democratic turnout in the primaries has been much larger than the GOP turnout, indicating that the Democrats are involved, they care, and they’re going to come out to vote in November because they deeply want to turn the Republicans out of the White House.

Steven Warshawsky writes:

Howard Sutherland makes an excellent observation regarding Barack Obama’s limited appeal outside of major urban areas. I would add that it is not just the urban black vote that Obama attracts, but also the urban “cosmopolitan” vote, i.e., white liberals who fancy themselves “citizens of the world.” This happens to describe the mainstream media, which not surprisingly has jumped on the Obama bandwagon, thereby creating the sense—even among many Republicans and conservatives who should know better—that Obama is going to be elected this November. Like Mr. Sutherland, I strongly disagree with this prediction. However, I think Mr. S. underestimates the importance of racial politics within the Democratic Party. Despite Hillary’s strong showing yesterday, I would be surprised if Obama is not the eventual nominee. Black trumps female in the contemporary liberal calculus. This will redound to the Republican Party’s benefit. Barring some major unforeseen developments, I think John McCain will win in November.

Bill Carpenter writes:

Texas showed a similar map to Ohio’s. the densely populous areas went for Obama, everywhere else for Clinton. This is reminiscent of Frederick Turner’s “The New World” (1985), which I have mentioned before. In the 24th century the U.S. Has dissolved into the Free Counties, the Black Counties (which are fundamentalist), and the Riots (formerly cities). The populous areas are the future riots. I previously mentioned that there was a multiculturalist element to this poem, but I should have qualified that. The Free Counties are noble, sacrificial, religious polities. Their religion may be syncretic but they are devoted to transcendence and excellence. There may be intermarriage, but it meritocratic not egalitarian. Arguably the ethos is traditionalist, recognizing race as one of multiple dimensions of human existence which are actualized by human beings living out their full potential.

James R. writes:

Howard Sutherland writes: “My prognostication (which, however, will be undercut if Obama somehow carries a whole slew of rural Pennsylvania counties) is that the Democratic Party will not put Obama at the top of its ticket, for a variety of unmentionable-in-polite-society reasons.”

It would seem that Obama has little chance to carry rural Pennsylvania if it is anything like it was once derisively described to me by an urban Pennsylvanian: “Let me tell you about Pennsylvania. It’s a six hour drive across the state with Pittsburg on the west and Philadelphia on the east. In between lies four hours of Alabama.”

David B. writes:

Rush Limbaugh spent all day claiming credit for Hillary’s Ohio and Texas wins. He has it online at www.rmushlimbaugh.com. Some liberals, such as MSNBC’s Dan Abrams, are complaining about Republicans voting in the Democratic primary. Howard Sutherland’s analysis is on target. It shows that Obama is unlikely to win the swing states even against McCain.

Clark Coleman writes:

Earlier threads at VFR discusses the electoral problem in the GOP this year, namely that McCain was not only winning because of votes from non-Republicans, but he was winning the delegate race a few weeks ago by winning states such as New York and New Jersey that he will certainly NOT win in November. Those states should basically allocate zero delegates to the convention, but that is not how we do things in our “democracy.”

The Democrats have a similar problem. Southern states that will almost certainly not be won by Obama in November gave him a lot of momentum because the Democratic primaries were dominated by black voters, e.g. South Carolina. But McCain would beat either Clinton or Obama in South Carolina in November, so the fact that Obama is better than Clinton there is irrelevant. Hillary is stronger in states such as Ohio, Michigan, and Florida, and those three are more important to Democratic victory in November than all the states that Obama has won combined.

LA replies:

I question the logic of Mr. Coleman’s first paragraph, which is that because Republicans are a minority in New York State, Republicans in New York are non-representative of Republican voters. Mr. C. seems to be implying that because New York is liberal overall, therefore the Republicans in New York are liberal too, and they shouldn’t be able to choose the nominee. But the fact that there are more Democrats in New York than Republicans doesn’t mean that the Republicans in New York are liberal.

Clark Coleman replies:

You seem to be completely misunderstanding my comment. If McCain wins 32 percent of the vote in a state and e.g. Romney wins 30 percent, then McCain takes 100 percent of the delegates from that state and gets lots of media boost and momentum, even though that state will certainly go to the Democrats in November. This slight edge does not make him a better candidate in November than Romney would have been, yet such results can determine the nomination.

No where did I say one word about Republicans in New York being liberal.

LA replies:

I think I have understood your comment. You want nothing less than to deprive New York Republicans of the ability to send delegates to the Republican convention. What could justify such an astonishing rule? Why should New York Republicans be barred from participating in the selection of a Republican presidential nominee? You are not just saying that New York is Democrat-leaning overall. You are suggesting (and the logic of your argument would seem to require it) that New York Republicans reflect the liberal leaning nature of New York overall; therefore New York Republicans vote for a liberal-leaning GOP candidate (McCain) for the nomination over a more conservative candidate (Romney). If New York Republicans had voted for Romney, would you be calling for New York Republicans to be deprived of the right to elect delegates to the GOP convention?

I can’t see why the fact that New York will vote Democratic in November makes the New York Republicans’ choice any less valid for the Republican party, unless there is something about the New York Republicans themselves, and not just their state, that you find objectionable. You are implicitly attributing the Democratic-leaning nature of New York as a whole to the New York Republicans. That is the only way I can make sense of your argument.

Howard Sutherland writes:

This turned into a good thread! A few thoughts based on some of the comments:

While I understand Mr. Auster’s correspondent’s thinking, I’m not sure I agree with it. In the big swing states particularly, there are still quite a few mostly white centrist Democrats, who keep their party allegiance even if they don’t subscribe to the whole Democratic platform. A lot of these people might well vote in their party’s primary and then vote for the Republican in the general election.

Ronald Reagan, of course, did well with this group, without their formally changing party. There are still a lot of people (more of them than one might suspect in the Midwest and, especially, the South) who simply cannot stand to call themselves Republicans, even though they will vote for Republican candidates. I can see quite a lot of them voting for Clinton in primaries and then voting for McCain in November.

I think that is especially likely if the Democratic Party is so foolish as to nominate a half-foreign poster-child for affirmative action and anti-white preferences as its candidate. Most especially if that candidate’s wife is at large shouting from the rooftops her bitter resentment of those who willingly gave her all sorts of unearned affirmative action breaks.

[LA adds: Michelle Obama’s latest comment, delivered in her regular campaign speech, according to The New Yorker, is that America is a country that is “just downright mean.” Isn’t that nice?]

In principle, I agree with Mr. Warshawsky that in the Great Chain of Grievance, Black trumps Woman. But, as I said in my original note to Mr. Auster, I think the Democratic Party’s bosses want to win this one.

They know that black voters won’t stampede to McCain if they decline to nominate Obama. But after the polarization on display in Ohio and elsewhere, they must wonder what working class and centrist white Democrats will do if they nominate Obama—especially because the Republicans’ pre-anointed nominee is himself a liberal on so many issues, and only half-heartedly toes the GOP line on the ones where he nominally isn’t liberal. Add to that legitimate concerns about Obama’s laughably thin resume for a major presidential candidate and his easily demonstrable hard Leftism, along with the Pandora’s Box of his close ties to the Farrakhan-honoring, white-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright, then top it all off with Mad Michelle, and I think the Democrats will take black votes for granted, as always, and nominate Hillary. As I also said in my original note, I’m not sure they’ll even give Obama the VP nod—especially if Hillary beats him easily in Pennsylvania, as I think she will.

Mr. Coleman is right that primary results don’t necessarily predict general election results. This year’s primaries, for various reasons, allowed both McCain and Obama to look a lot stronger than they really are. In the Republican case, with media complicity, distorted results of open primaries have stuck the GOP with its worst possible (with the possible exception of Giuliani) nominee. Strong black turnout in high-minority but low-Democrat states has handed Obama irrelevant primary victories. Again, I think the Democratic bosses are at least as aware of that as we are!

Pace Mr. Auster, though, New York Republicans are—with rare exceptions—more liberal than the GOP average, and not representative of Republicans nationally. They pick standard-bearers like George Pataki, for Heaven’s sake. To say nothing of such Republicans as Rudolph Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg… Much as one might like to, though, that’s not cause to disfranchise them.

So, my guess is that who is the next President of the United States is up to the Democratic Party convention. If the Democrats nominate Hillary, say hello to another President Clinton; if they nominate Obama, say hello to President McCain.

LA replies:

Mr. Sutherland writes:

“Pace Mr. Auster, though, New York Republicans are—with rare exceptions—more liberal than the GOP average, and not representative of Republicans nationally.”

Mr. S. is disagreeing with something I haven’t said. I have not said that New York Republicans are not more liberal than the GOP average. I have said that the fact or belief that they are more liberal than the GOP average is the underlying justification for Clark Coleman’s argument that they should be stripped of the ability to participate in Republican presidential nominations.

Clark Coleman writes:

I am saddened that you would insist that you know what I meant better than I know what I meant, even after I clarified and expanded my remarks. Are you accusing me of dishonesty in my clarification? Do you know what I meant better than I do?

LA replies:

Arguments frequently rest on ideas that are implied, not stated, and that may not even have occurred to the person making the argument. To say that someone’s argument points to something not stated in the argument is something that just naturally comes up in the course of discussion. Specifically, I said that the only way I could make sense of your argument was through the implication that New York Republicans are too liberal to be representative of the Repubican party. I couldn’t make sense of your argument otherwise. If I’m incorrect, please correct me.

LA continues:

The first part of my comment that you objected to reads:

I think I have understood your comment. You want nothing less than to deprive New York Republicans of the ability to send delegates to the Republican convention. What could justify such an astonishing rule?

Now, that part is stated very positively and perhaps that alone made it offensive to you. However, I am not attributing something to you that you yourself have not clearly said. You have indeed said that NY Republicans should be deprived of the right to vote for the nominee. Then, in the rest of my comment, when it comes to what I think is your underlying reason for this drastic position, I specifically say that this is the argument that I find implied by, or required by, your drastic conclusion. I don’t accuse you of being dishonest. Thus:

… and the logic of your argument would seem to require it …

If New York Republicans had voted for Romney, would you be calling for New York Republicans to be deprived of the right to elect delegates to the GOP convention?

I can’t see why …

… unless there is something about the New York Republicans themselves … that you find objectionable.

You are implicitly attributing the Democratic-leaning nature of New York as a whole to the New York Republicans. That is the only way I can make sense of your argument.

Clearly, I am trying to tease out the meaning of an argument that otherwise does not make sense to me. Nowhere am I hinting that you are being dishonest. If I did write it in such a way as to suggest that, I apologize, as that was not at all what I meant.

Clark Coleman replies:

My point was pretty simple and not too much needs to be teased out from in between the lines I wrote. A winning presidential candidate from either party must (1) hold onto the states that almost always go to that party’s candidate, while (2) doing well in the “battleground” states that are usually very close races. How well he does in states that he is sure to lose is not too important.

With respect to #1, it does not matter a whole lot if Hillary or Obama would win a Democratic state by a somewhat larger margin than the other would. Electoral votes are winner take all (except in Maine), so all that matters is that they fulfill requirement #1. Witness Obama winning Vermont; so what, as either of them will win Vermont in November. Ditto for Republican candidates in solid Republican states. Yet, if one candidate wins 33 percent to 31 percent in a state that will definitely vote for either of them in November, then the candidate with 33 percent takes a commanding share of delegates, gets the media attention as the leading horse in the race from now on, etc. And, if one candidate wins 33 percent to 31 percent in a state that neither of them has a prayer of winning in November, how important is that?

McCain’s weakness is in holding the base. He cannot necessarily accomplish requirement #1. He started running away with the nomination by doing well in solidly Republican South Carolina and several solidly Democratic states. Hillary and Obama have no such problem. Either of them will hold their base. Democrats should therefore only be concerned with which of them can win battleground states. But that is not how the delegate race works.

The two parties have a similar problematic outcome (system does not pick the candidate who can actually win in November), but the problem is in different states. The similarity is not as strong as I thought when I first posted, but I think there is an underlying problem there. Perhaps this is why the Democrats have super-delegates who can take electability in battleground states into account, and both parties used to have the proverbial smoke-filled rooms before their conventions.

By analogy: I have mentioned before that Obama winning South Carolina is irrelevant if he cannot win it in November. Note that this is not some conservative vs. liberal problem as you inferred from my New York comments. It is not the case that Obama is conservative, the South Carolina Democratic voters are conservative, therefore South Carolina is just a conservative state that will vote Republican in November and Obama’s primary win is irrelevant. Rather, his strengths in South Carolina were white liberals (more so among males than females) and blacks. Those are his strengths in every state in which he competes! The question is, Will white liberals and blacks constitute a winning coalition in November? In certain states, they certainly will. Not in South Carolina, though. He will lose South Carolina in November unless McCain implodes (in which case Hillary could have won in November, also).

Likewise, McCain gets praise for being stronger in California than other Repub licans. If he loses California anyway, what difference does his GOP primary win there make?

This does not mean that California Republicans are liberals, just that they are outnumbered by Democrats.

LA replies:

While I’m sure the fault is in myself, I still fail to understand Mr. Coleman’s argument.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 05, 2008 02:46 PM | Send