Paul Lukasiak (originator of the “Bush AWOL” theory) has a guest-post up at Taylor Marsh’s website, making the argument that:
Ever since the media declared that Barack Obama was “inevitable†after February 19th, based on a two week period when the an unprepared Hillary Clinton campaign suffered “10 straight lossesâ€Â, rank and file Democratic voters have been sending a message. Rather than rally ‘round the “inevitable nominee†that message has been a consistent, loud, and clear message to the Democratic Party – DO NOT WANT.
In nearly every demographic category since February 19, Clinton percentage of the vote has risen, while Obama’s has fallen. This includes Obama’s supposed “strong†demographic categories such as voters with college degrees post-graduate degrees and voters whose income is above the national median. And Clinton beat Obama in the primaries in March, April and May in most of the major categories.
Lukasiak has a number of bar charts illustrating this point, but to suggest that it shows “buyer’s remorse” or that Democrats are rejecting Obama is a stretch.
The game played by Lukasiak (and I have heard Terry McAuliffe recite similar stats) is in the selection of February 19th as the dividing line. It places a number of Obama’s notable post-Super Tuesday wins — Louisiana, the Potomac primaries and Wisconsin — on one side, and his significant losses in Ohio, Texas (primary), Pennsylvania, West Virginia, etc., on the other.
I think it should be cause for concern among Democrats that Obama has continued to have significant losses, even as he virtually locks up the nomination. It carries the faint odor of the 1980 Democratic campaign, when Ted Kennedy won a number of the late primaries against the incumbent Pres. Carter. Moreover, inasmuch as Clinton has bested Jesse Jackson as the most successful losing candidate, it might be asked whether years with strong losers, like 1980 and 1988, are suggestive of a deeper problem with the winning candidate or the party.
Nevertheless, it does not appear to be a case of “buyer’s remorse.” Rather, it is an illustration of the fact that the Democratic campaign has been more determined by demographics over momentum. As the campaign entered a stretch of states in the “Rust Belt” and Appalachia — and made comments likely to alienate working-class white voters in these states — Obama’s voting coalition took on a more McGovernite cast. However, as noted on May 20th, the Gallup tracking poll (which does not distinguish among Dems and Dem leaners by when they vote(d)), was showing Obama finally starting to make inroads into a number of Hillary Clinton’s key constituencies, including whites, adults with no college education, and Hispanics (though he could still stand to do more work with whites and Hispanics.)
In short, the case for “buyer’s remorse” is unconvincing. The February 19th dividing line was picked ostensibly because this is when the establishment media deemed Obama to be “inevitable.” To the extent the stats say otherwise, it proves that the media is not good at determining inevitability. But we knew that when Obama beat Clinton in Iowa.
(h/t Instapundit.)
Lukasiak is entertaining.
Karl
Dude, Clitnon?
What, the peons have a preference? Pfaugh! Let them eat cake-like baked products! The Obamessiah is a-comin’ and there ain’t shit y’all can do about it!
Karl – I admire your ability to wade through some of this writing. I have not been able to read Lukasiak without laughing since the AWOL symphony of mendacity.
You still hear blacks on tv talking about how relieved they were when they found out it wasn’t a black that shot jfk. Now, we’re going to have a nation that cozy’s up to terrorists, starts to nationalize health care, taxes the hell out of everything, etc, etc. And it will be a black man that commits these attrocities.
If I was a rank & file Democrat, there’s be no way I’d have buyer’s remorse. I would understand that IT WASN’T MY CHOICE in the first place, Q.E.D. I’d have nothing to regret.
But I think there may be a wee bit of delusion over there, so maybe they do think it’s about them.
This race would be entertaining if the Republicans had a candidate.
#2. Fixed, though the original probably works for those who thought she had testicular fortitude.
Obama ’08 – Yes, we can. And we did. Wait, can we get a do-over?
Lukasiak deserves none of our attention. None at all.
There. Now I’ll never get those five seconds back.
SI SE PUEDE, Senorita Lisa !
Lisa, that depends on how you feel about riots. Was the ’68 convention to your liking?
Mister, we could use a man like Hubert Humphrey agaiiiin!
or
It was 40 years ago today
That Abbie Hoffman taught the kids to play
But change is coming back in style
and it’ll prob’ly be around a while
So let me introduce to you
the one and only Barry O
And Bubba Clinton’s Lonely Pols Club gang
Now, we’re going to have a nation that cozy’s up to terrorists, starts to nationalize health care, taxes the hell out of everything, etc, etc. And it will be a black man that commits these attrocities.
Oh shit, I never thought of that. In the back of my mind, I always figured if O’bama was elected we’d finally have a good leg-up on the a black man can’t get ahead in America bullshit. That would be the light in the harbor to get me through the four years.
But, yo man is right. Oppose O!’s policies? Well, that’s because you’re a racist… every critic of Pres O! will be a racist.
Hmmmm.
@ Karl
But doesn’t the results of West Virginia and others show that the strong support Obama got early in the campaign may no longer exist?
“Lukasiak is entertaining.”
In small doses. Like, parts per million. But he could discredit the First Law of Thermodynamics by throwing his weight behind it.
#10: Ha. Yes, if we can indeed. Part of me says “damn, we were so pressed to proved that we are new and improved liberals that we delivered ourselves the same old shit.” But, hope springs eternal in the other part of me.
#11: I personally love the picture of Abbie Hoffman out in front of the convention, shirtless and in tight white bell bottoms and a stupendous jewfro. Totally awesome. I am certain he had dropped a couple of tabs and smoked several fatties before he showed up there with his Chicago Seven buddies. If we are going to riot, there had better be weed, acid, and maybe a few quaaludes or it will be totally pointless.
Karl,
They’re just not at the “buyer’s remorse†stage yet – they’re still muddling around in the post-facto-justification stage (see msnbc). Once that new car smell is gone, buyer’s remorse will be everywhere, especially when they see the value is less than what’s owed.
I like the buyer’s remorse meme, but my evidence is that only 33% of Democrats want Hillary to drop out–which is amazing to me considering Obama has the nomination just about wrapped up and the continuing primary is generally seen as a distraction and damaging to the party. In fact, the number that want Hillary to drop out is not that much greater than the 23% that want Obama to drop out.
If that many people want the race to continue, then a fair number of people who already cast votes for Obama must be realizing what a disaster he will be for the Democrats (and only the Democrats–in my opinion he has zero chance of winning the general election).
They voted for him, but they no longer want him as the nominee.
#14:
Mostly not. It mostly shows that W VA is a bad state demographically for Obama — small black population, few big cities, not a ton of university towns, and the Appalachian white vote is more conservative and Jacksonian. Had W VA and VA swapped primary dates, I doubt the results of either would have been all that different.
#17: Maybe, but only if O! loses.
#18: One of my recurring themes is to always be careful when reading polls. Only 33% of Dems want HRC to drop out, but there are many explanations for that other than preferring her to O! After all, Dems tend to be the sort who abjure the harsh proclamation that someone is a loser, particularly when the Clintons still have some reservoir of goodwill with the rank-and-file.
#19: Agrees, agrees, and agrees again. Karl you are on a roll with the superb analysis .
Dems tend to be the sort who abjure the harsh proclamation that someone is a loser, particularly when the Clintons still have some reservoir of goodwill with the rank-and-file.
That could not have been said any more perfectly.
Would you please say something that I can be reactionary and trollish about instead of agreeing with you? This is making me nervous.
;-)
Okay, new post is imminent.
so who is Taylor Marsh? Not even in wikipedia.
I guess the Clinton aura isn’t what it used to be. Obama might not get elected but he speaks to the Democrats who have had to put up with the crazy corruption of Bill and Hill for so long.
– As I posted previously, he needed to get it wrapped up before the inevitable polarizations set in, mainly race, and he didn’t quite pull it off. so now the stiff upper lip and whistling past the cemetery starts. Hes down to just two main tactics; engaging McDinosaur totally, ignoring her as much as possible, and salting all possible news outlets with the Obama has won theme.
– Lets put it this way. A recount of all the state races at this point would be extremely interesting.