Guest Post: The Smart Choice Narrows… To One

Note: I have vowed not to look at the horse race too closely till after Labor Day, but with the VP choice on the near horizon, here's a thoughtful essay by longtime commenter Bruce B - please read and react.

Many experienced, progressive Democrats were concerned about our party’s choice of Senator Barack Obama as its Presidential standard bearer. I was one of them. He has little experience; while his actual platform is substantive, its popular expression and interpretation comes  in vague and easily satirized bromides of “hope” and “change”; some of the most effective tactics in his campaign, such as the giant rallies and the Oprah endorsement, had little shelf life. Despite the incessant bleatings of a section of the media (take a bow, Rachel Maddow and Gene Robinson), he did not accumulate votes so strongly in the primaries, especially in the second half of the  schedule. He had trouble “closing the sale”; and he continues to have trouble with key constituencies he needs to win, especially the white working class. Finally, there is the 600 lb gorilla in the room: is America ready for an African-American President?

Make no mistake: I am proud to support Obama, proud to have him as the nominee of my party, and whomever he chooses for VP, I will work my tail off for his election. Obama is incredibly intelligent and authentic, substantive and thoughtful. He is an orator of the highest quality, a superb organizer, and has a knack for building coalitions. While I have lately had disagreements with some of his moves towards the center, he has progressive instincts and core beliefs that have been equaled by few major American politicians in recent years. He is clearly still a work in progress – how could he not be? – but he has the potential to be a great President.

My concern right now – and this should be the concern of all Democrats and progressives – is that he get the chance to be a President at all, whether a great, good, or indifferent one. I am concerned that Barack Obama will not win the election.

Any experienced poll watcher shares my concern, and genuine reflection shows the seriousness of the situation. The discussion has been, “why isn’t Obama ahead by ten points?” The discussion should be, “what will it take to elect Obama?”

The answer to the question of why he is not 10 pts ahead is of course complex, but also very easy. While not reducible to race, it revolves around race. In the Democratic primaries – and let’s recall that his nomination victory was, to be euphemistic, less than overwhelming, especially when the caucus states are removed – the section of the electorate that sees Obama’s race as a plus or neutral was much, much larger than it will be in the general election. Start with the fact that the Black electorate is almost all Democratic. Add in the self-defined “progressive whites” – the college towns, the knowledge workers, and so on – and you had the bulk of Obama’s coalition. It was enough to win the nomination, barely. It is not enough to win the general election. To do that, he needs to attract the white working class. (I am assuming he will hold onto his current strong position, a little over 70%, with Latino voters.) And this he did not do in most primaries, at least in the required numbers, and he so far has not done so in the general election.

Let’s avoid the discussion of “is this racism”? As the pundits like to say, that’s not a helpful way to frame it. The fact is, for many of the white working class “swing” voters – and there are more of them this election than in the past few  – McCain is the default, easy choice. It is less of a jump to vote for a white war hero who has been in the Senate since you were a teenager than some guy you never heard of until a few months ago who looks a heck of a lot different than any President in history, has a foreign sounding name, a minister who scares you – well, you know the arguments.

So, Democrats, forget what Rachel Maddow, Gene Robinson, and – sadly – Keith Olbermann are telling you. This is a damn tough election to win. Obama is the underdog. People have started to make up their minds, and we don’t like the way they are making them up, as the chart below, from fivethirtyeight.com, shows.

 

The overall math of this election is surprisingly simple. We know how Obama will do amongst the Black and Latino votes. The Black vote will be in the range of 12% -13% of the electorate: Obama will get 11 out of 12 votes. The Latino vote will be in the range of 10% of the electorate: Obama will get 7 out of 10 votes. Asian and “other” votes will be about 4% -- assume a rough split.

That leaves approximately 74% of the vote as white voters, down from 77% in 2004. Obama needs about 40-41% of those votes. By my calculation, interpolating from his standing in the various polls, he is currently at 30-35%.

One final point on poll-watching. Everything we know about how voters react in a situation where there is a breakthrough first-time  Black candidate  tells us that it is likely that Obama will underperform by at least a few points against the final polls. This is the “Bradley effect.” Do we KNOW that this will happen? No, we don’t, as a Black President is unexplored territory. But because of the history, we have to look at the polls with caution, and with this in mind.

So let me cut to the chase. Obama needs all the help he can get. Specifically, he needs 7-10% worth of help amongst white voters. His Vice Presidential choice is the next key watershed, the next chance for a boost, and one of the most important. As events have unfolded, it has become clear that there really is one VP who can give Obama the maximum possible boost. All the other choices pale next to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As events have unfolded, the decision tree of possible running mates has narrowed. Does anyone seriously think that either Evan Bayh, neutral on all things, or Tim Kaine, who as Tom Watson has pointed out is only the third most popular Democrat in Virginia,  can give Obama the boost he needs? Kathleen Sibelius is an even worse choice. She would be perceived as a tokenist slight by the legions of Hillary’s women supporters. David Gergen points out that Obama needs a “game changer”, and he raises  two VP possibilities: Clinton and Al Gore. While Biden is a stronger choice than Bayh, Sibelius, or Kaine, Gergen asks the rhetorical question, “Is Biden a game changer?” The answer is obvious.

It has been clear since the beginning of the primary process that if Clinton’s and Obama’s natural constituencies can be added together, the Democrats will have an unbeatable coalition. Just to reiterate what Clinton brings to the table:

• Her selection would, as Gergen states, be a “game changer” in terms of excitement and party unity. Voters would take a second look at Obama and the ticket.
• She would vastly expand the Democratic vote among white women.
• More than any other Democratic leader, with the possible exception of her husband, she is beloved and trusted by the white working class voters of the Midwest – the core of this election's swing vote.
• Her somewhat pugnacious style of campaigning is a good complement for Obama’s more cerebral style. He needs an attack dog in the second slot.

Perhaps Obama will ask Al Gore, and Gore will say “yes,” but I can’t see that. The remaining logic for Hillary Clinton is inescapable. The sense of this is starting to be in the air; for example, John Nichols of the Nation had a column today with a similar point. Even Ralph Nader said that there is no other logical option. Maybe we will wake up in the morning to a Joe Biden, or an Evan Bayh, or someone else who we did not even consider. If this happens, I will bite my lip and do what I can to help Obama win. But a bold choice is needed, and I hope for the good of the Republic that Senator Obama seizes the opportunity.

UPDATE: Obama says he's picked his VP.

UPDATE II: He informs the also-rans. Politico says “She’s waiting for the text message like everyone else.”

Comments

[Redstar]

It's my understanding that Obama leads among women, Latin@s, African-Americans, and workers making less than $50k per year (I could be wrong on the income details here). Where he lags is among white men - across the income spectrum, specifically.

I think this "white working-class" meme has been overdone, by this point, no?

[Hootsbuddy]

Damn.
Just, damn.
I'm afraid you're right.

[Esoth]

Throughout the primary season, I was ferociously opposed to HRC, and even more so when the choice narrowed to Obama or HRC. Following Obama's wrapping of the nomination, I was initially strongly, if predictably, opposed to HRC as Veep, but I've gotten used to the idea and can see some positives despite the risk that it is just too much change on one ticket. The comment above is a bit much, though. Even in years when the top candidate is weak and/or dull, a Veep won't be a "game changer" and Obama is neither dull nor weak. Its plain silly to fashion an argument that HRC MUST be the candidate. There are other good choices, and Obama seems to have sound judgment.

[Edgewater Joe, Chicago, IL]

You forget one other blockbuster "OMG!" grassroots-re-igniting choice that Obama can make - one that has been doing the dirty work for four years and already has enormous support through the party that can continue to do the organizing that Obama already is doing:

Howard Dean.

[Jim Hannon]

Howard Dean? We don't need to win an election limited to the population under 35 or those who are part of the webroots. It's a national election. The game changer is Hillary Clinton. This is the most important move Obama will make in the campaign. The Obamamaniacs who trashed Hillary during the primaries have done a lot of damage to the Dem chances of winning this election. Obama can undo that damage if he can see what needs to happen and has the guts to make this choice.

[TomInStL]

If there is one sure way to make sure that every single person in the right half of the political spectrum goes to vote in this election, it would be to add Hilary Clinton to the ticket. SO the question reduces to a comparison of the Clinton people that will jump to McCain versus the adrenaline injection to the republican cause. I still want to know why people would toss their positions on the issues and contimue the current republican mess instead of voting for Obama. To date, I have not heard a good reason for such a move.

[Paul]

I'm hoping that Obama picks Hillary Clinton. I've been wondering who Bill has slept with over the last 8 years. Once Obama picks Hillary, I'll get to find out! I love that stuff! Please pick Hillary, Barack! I can't wait to hear who Bill has been sleeping with!

[SA]

Adding HRC to the ticket would be a very bold move - and it seems to make a lot of sense. What better way to unite the party, inject more excitement (can see this announcement drowning out McCain media for weeks!), build an even more historic ticket, and most importantly, boost the poll numbers significantly. The choice of Springfield (team of rivals), the tight secrecy, and other signs do seem to point strongly in this direction. From someone who was also strongly opposed to HRC, I think this would be a great move for Obama to make. Thinking back to the primaries, I'm starting to actually MISS her! This argument that it would unite the right wingers is hogwash - they are united already against Obama and you bet they are going to turn out regardless of who is on the VP tix. It is the Democratic base that Obama has to worry about, not the Republicans.

[gormenghast]

Obama has revealed that he is a weak, stumbling, bumbling pandering, right wing twit. It matters not a wit who he chooses as a running mate, he is going to lose!

[Neil M]

"I'm hoping that Obama picks Hillary Clinton. I've been wondering who Bill has slept with over the last 8 years. Once Obama picks Hillary, I'll get to find out! I love that stuff! Please pick Hillary, Barack! I can't wait to hear who Bill has been sleeping with!"

Paul makes an excellent point here, I think. Whether or not you like Hillary Clinton, and whether or not you think it's her fault, the woman is a lightning rod. Lots of Americans (irrationally, in my view) despise her, and LOADS of Republicans despised her husband, and that sentiment carries right over to her. In addition, Bill proved during the primaries that he's a loose cannon; does Barack Obama really want on his ticket a Second Husband who constantly goes off-message and can't be reined in?

Also, can we be certain that the nomination of Hillary is veep will really bring disaffected Democrats back into the fold? In my conversations with PUMAs, I've become convinced that *nothing* will do but that Hillary sits in the Oval Office. They're angry, bitter, disappointed, and they've convinced themselves that their candidate was somehow cheated by Obama, the media, sexism, orcs...whatever. You can't argue with that kind of rage, and I wonder if any VP choice will do better.

I go back and forth on the Hillary-as-VP thing. I can see that she might - might - be able to bring some unity to the party, but I can also see how she might energize the Republican base like no other.

[Hal]

If I'm getting it right: Obama is weak with whites, Clinton did well with whites against Obama, ergo Clinton as VP will bring in more whites. I see two major flaws with this logic:

1. White Dems who voted for Clinton because Obama is black are not going to come on board because Clinton is the VP. They will still stay home or vote for McCain. White Dems who voted for Clinton for other reasons are largely already in the Obama camp. The idea that there is a large voting block of Clinton supporters that won't vote for Obama is a Rove/Limbaugh created myth. On a personal note, if these people really do exist in numbers they are reprehensible and do not deserve to be catered to by the party.

2. White independents and Republicans who currently are undecided likely already have a negative view of Clinton, and we know Clinton's negatives are just as high as her positives. If these voters were previously in Clinton's camp and it has nothing to do with racism, then they are mostly all already for Obama.

The open voting block with the most opportunity for Obama is independents and moderate Republicans that voted for Bush in 2000 and/or 2004 that are dissatisfied with the Republican Party and the Bush administration. These people need to be convinced that Obama is trustworthy, sincere, and qualified. The VP pick and the VP debate will help sway some of these people, but I doubt Clinton is the best person to accomplish that. I'd like to see Obama keep from moving to the center on his major policy platforms and he can do that while still picking a VP that is more to the center historically but will have more of a traditional role in making policy (as opposed to Cheney). I personally think Sam Nunn is the best combination of factors that will bring in white voters and southern voters while complimenting Obama on experience and showing a willingness to have an open mind to differing social and political viewpoints. Nunn is a good middle ground between someone more politically similar to Obama and a crossover candidate like Chuck Hagel.

[Judith]

ya know, only ugly old fat guys are interested in who a 62 year old man with a bad ticker is sleeping with. The rest of us actually have lives.

[Neil M]

"White Dems who voted for Clinton because Obama is black are not going to come on board because Clinton is the VP. They will still stay home or vote for McCain. White Dems who voted for Clinton for other reasons are largely already in the Obama camp. The idea that there is a large voting block of Clinton supporters that won't vote for Obama is a Rove/Limbaugh created myth."

Hal, I have long thought this myself. I suspect that all those white voters Hillary picked up in the primary states of Kentucky, Pennsylvania, etc. were hers simply because she was the only white Democrat left on the ballot. If John Edwards had been there, he would probably have gotten those votes.

[Motherlode]

Unbelievable. Some of you are still running with the meme that if you're a Democrat who doesn't support Obama, it must be because of his race, ergo you're a racist. Doesn't it ever occur to you that we might harbor motives a little more noble, such as worries about his lack of experience and his complete want of achievements in the area of caring for and helping other people while opportunistically advancing his own ambitions? Many of us lifelong Democrats who ALSO fought for civil rights during the sixties resent being called racist because we can spot a phony when we see one.

And HOWARD DEAN??? As a former (2004) Deaniac, I can tell you that a great number of Hillary supporters are appalled and disgusted at his standing idly, silently by while a fellow Democrat was scourged in the most demeaning, misogynistic ways by the media and the Obama campaign itself. Put Howard Dean on the ticket and I guarantee John McCain will be marching down Pennsylvania Avenue next January.

No, I have no intention of voting for McCain. But I just might vote only down-ticket and write in a more trustworthy name for POTUS.

[Neil M]

Ah...a PUMA arrives, revealed by this:

"I can tell you that a great number of Hillary supporters are appalled and disgusted at his standing idly, silently by while a fellow Democrat was scourged in the most demeaning, misogynistic ways by the media and the Obama campaign itself."

There were allegations of racism against the Clinton camp, too, and we could spend all day bickering about it and get nothing except another 8 years of Republican rule. Personally, I'm choosing to look at the big picture and vote for the candidate who comes closer to my values and agenda. Others have chosen to kid themselves that they're basing their vote on experience rather than bitterness and disappointment. Whatever.

"Unbelievable. Some of you are still running with the meme that if you're a Democrat who doesn't support Obama, it must be because of his race, ergo you're a racist."

I'm not sure who here has said this...it certainly wasn't me.

[Hypatia]

Howard Dean and Sam Nunn. I can’t tell you how much I enjoy reading this stuff.

Yes, just forget about the candidate with millions of voters and a sector of very angry supporters who was kicking the presumptive nominee’s butt in the late primaries.

Clinton is not a perfect fit for Obama’s VP (as he would not have been the best choice for her), but she’s the right and clear choice given this particular set of circumstances – as he would be if she had won the nomination, and I can’t even imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth that would be going on amongst Obama supporters if Clinton blew off Obama as he’s dismissing her.

But let it pass. He’s not going to choose her.

****I can also see how she might energize the Republican base like no other****

Obama is doing fine on that score himself.

****The Obamamaniacs who trashed Hillary during the primaries have done a lot of damage to the Dem chances of winning this election.****

They will never understand this.

[Susie]

I should note that I just posted the previous message. I'm not sure why that name popped up and I didn't mean to use it. Don't want to be accused of sockpuppetry. If there's a way to delete or change it, I'd be obliged to our board host. :)

[bruce b.]

Thanks to everyone for the (mostly) interesting and insightful comments on my "guest post." And special thanks to Media Baron TW for running it as a guest post.

I am writing this at 8:15 Friday night... and Obama still hasn't made the announcement of the VP choice. I have the sneaking suspicion that they are having technical problems with the "texting alert" system. There are special companies that do these systems, and I am not sure anything has ever been done at this scale. It is not necessarily a simple thing to do.

To me, one of the most interesting discussion by the commenters was regarding whether Obama NEEDS the white working class to the extent that I argued he does. Hal, for example, said:

The open voting block with the most opportunity for Obama is independents and moderate Republicans that voted for Bush in 2000 and/or 2004 that are dissatisfied with the Republican Party and the Bush administration.

This is a substantive point. I want to look at this argument a little more closely before responding.

[Motherlode]

So Obama has chosen Joe Biden as his running mate. Now explain to me, please, how his choice reinforces his "anti-war, anti-Washington, anti-lobby" themes that brought him this far.

How can any progressive cheer the choice of Mister MBNA, who won about 1% of the Democratic primary vote as opposed to Hillary's near-50%? And how will Obamacans justify his choice of a man who championed the Iraq war, which was Obama's raison d'etre?

It's patently obvious that Obama's story line of being a "new kind" of politician is, as the Big Dog characterized it, a fairy tale. His Big Ego has moved him to pass over the one person (Hillary) who could unify the party. Instead, he chose a man who epitomizes much that Obama campaigned against.

[Judith]

Motherlode - maybe. But they are still better than the GOP.

[bruce b.]

re: the Biden choice. I can live with it. It could have been a lot worse: Bayh, Kaine, Sebelius...

[mrmobi]

How can any progressive cheer the choice of Mister MBNA, who won about 1% of the Democratic primary vote as opposed to Hillary's near-50%? And how will Obamacans justify his choice of a man who championed the Iraq war, which was Obama's raison d'etre?

It's patently obvious that Obama's story line of being a "new kind" of politician is, as the Big Dog characterized it, a fairy tale. His Big Ego has moved him to pass over the one person (Hillary) who could unify the party. Instead, he chose a man who epitomizes much that Obama campaigned against.

Ok, Motherlode, let's take these one by one. First, Biden represents a tiny state which basically has one big business, the credit card industry. Opposing the awful "bankruptcy reform" bill would have been political suicide. I don't like it either, but he's solid on most other economic issues, and it doesn't hurt that he stands 99th out of 100 of the richest Senators. Trying to make the case that he somehow greatly profited from his vote on the bankruptcy bill is a dog that won't hunt. Contrast that with the Senator who can't remember how many homes he owns, has no economic policy and is likely to pick a guy who probably richer and more out of touch than he is, and I'm liking the way this is shaping up. I'm also really looking forward to a Biden-Romney debate. Multiple choice Mitt won't know what hit him!

Biden voted to authorize the Iraq War, as did a lot of other Senators, including Clinton. He did not "champion" the rush to war, however. In fact, he and Senator Lugar tried (unsuccessfully) to pass a bill which would have slowed the rush to war. Another dog that won't hunt.

I'm 61, and have seen a lot of politicians, so I never believed in the "new kind of politician" narrative, but can we just stipulate that it takes one ginormous ego to run for President? You don't do this unless you really want it. The big dog called it, and he represents it very well.

I, like Tom W, was thinking that picking Hillary would have been a game changer, but I'm not at all (bankruptcy bill aside) disappointed in this pick. Biden is a terrific speaker who isn't afraid to call Republicans on their bullshit in plain language. He's also widely respected in Washington, and is frequently consulted by other world leaders. Of all the possible picks, no one can better articulate a sensible foreign policy than Joe Biden. He's no shrinking violet on the ego front either.

No matter who Obama picked, the pick itself was going to be characterized as underscoring his weakness, I get that. It is very difficult to run against a leader who's capable of inspiring and motivating people like Barack. Your only choice is to ridicule his language as empty rhetoric and point to his thin resume. It doesn't hurt Republican's chances that there is a small minority of vocal, vituperative Democrats in name only who've lost their grip on reality and are all about damaging the nominee's chances, despite their candidates enthusiastic endorsement of Obama.

What's important going forward is that Biden will be a terrific surrogate whose Pennsylvania roots and Catholicism might just help Obama win over more of those older white voters. Hillary made some very generous comments on the pick. One thing I've wondered is why former Hillary supporters are unwilling to accept the idea that she just didn't want to be Vice President? It seems like that's quite possible to me, and now we can look forward to her strong leadership in the Senate.

Personally, I'm pumped. Obama/Biden 08. It sounds good, too.

[Neil M]

"One thing I've wondered is why former Hillary supporters are unwilling to accept the idea that she just didn't want to be Vice President? It seems like that's quite possible to me, and now we can look forward to her strong leadership in the Senate."

mrmobi, great post. As to the above, I think that trying to understand the motivations of those Hillary supporters is a waste of time. I don't think *they* really know why they're angry, other than that their candidate didn't win. You're right; they've lost their grip on reality, and are doing their level best to live up to the stereotype of women as irrational, emotion-ruled harridans who waste their votes on sentiment. If you want to talk about sexism in this race, I think we should start there.

As to Biden, I am less sanguine than you. You make some good points, admittedly, but I'm a bit worried about his foot-in-mouth disease. Hell, the man even commented negatively about Obama earlier this year (something about him being a "clean" candidate), so I shudder to think what might come out of his mouth for the next two months.

It's funny...Obama takes alot of flak for lack of experience, and then he takes more flak for picking an insider. It's like Americans want to elect an outsider with decades of insider experience. Does such a person exist?

[Slappy]

with all due respect to Bruce b. (and much is due), elections are not won by percents. They are won by states. Percents are interesting historically but are meaningless in present. It's all about individual states. Nothing else. Count the votes in the way they truly will be counted and the picturis not grim.

Obama is doing what it takes to get elected, not showing himself to be the no. 1 liberal in America. Biden let's many in middle America know that Obama is not the reincarnation of the black panthers and soothes many fears. I'm probably more liberal than 99% of America but I applaud any move that eases his road to victory. Biden is a boring choice but that is the point. A bold vp choice might not be the right choice. Obama is enough of a pill for many to swallow.

The fact that Obama was able to defeat Clinton only proves his political savvy. Obama understands the electorate. Biden was chosen for good reason.