In Terms of Geography, Obama Appeals to Academics and Clinton Appeals to Jacksonians
Corrected on 4/07/08: An earlier version of this blog incorrectly stated Obama's vote percentage. He has won over 50 percent of the white vote in New Mexico, Illinois, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Vermont.
Corrected on 4/03/08: An earlier version of this article incorrectly reported the Vermont primary results and Barack Obama's title at the University of Chicago. Obama won the Vermont primary and was a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.
In reviewing the maps of the Democratic primary results, in Dave Leip's electoral atlas, I was struck by the narrow geographic base of Barack Obama's candidacy. In state after state, he has carried only a few counties—though, to be sure, in many cases counties with large populations. There are exceptions, particularly in the southern states with large numbers of black voters in both urban and rural counties. But overall, the geographic analysis has pointed up to me a divide between Democratic constituencies—a divide as stark as that between blacks and Latinos or the old and the young—which has not shown up in the exit polls. It's a division that helps to explain the quite different performances of Obama and Hillary Clinton in general election pairings against John McCain.
Let's look at Obama's and Clinton's geographic bases in the primaries, in order of voting. Readers who are not interested in detailed analysis, or whose eyes tend to glaze over, may want to skip to the concluding paragraphs of this post.
New Hampshire. In the first primary state, Obama's support was spread across the state—though not heavily enough for him to beat Clinton. As I pointed out shortly after the primary, his geographic and demographic base was very similar to Bill Bradley's against Al Gore in 2000. This would have provided a handy metric for judging Obama's performance in later primaries but for the fact that Bradley dropped out of the race after New Hampshire. In what was still a multicandidate race, Obama won 36 percent of the white vote—a good thing for him, since there are almost no blacks in New Hampshire.
Michigan. The Democratic National Committee has ruled that these results do not count, and Obama was not on the ballot, though prominent Democrats urged Obama supporters to vote for "Uncommitted." Hillary Clinton beat "Uncommitted" by the unambiguous but not overwhelming margin of 55 percent to 40 percent. Yet Obama carried only two of 83 counties: Emmet County, a small county at the northern tip of the Lower Peninsula, and Washtenaw County, the site of the University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University. "Uncommitted" beat Clinton in two of 15 congressional districts, the black-majority 13th and 14th districts.
South Carolina. Obama's big primary victory in this state was indeed very broad based. He lost only two counties, Horry to Clinton (Myrtle Beach, the Grand Strand) and Oconee to John Edwards (it was his childhood home). Blacks made up about half the electorate, and they voted 78 percent for Obama, but he also got the votes of 24 percent of whites—an impressive showing in a three-way race.
Florida. The Democratic National Committee has ruled that these results do not count; all the candidates were on the ballot but didn't campaign here (unless you count a national cable TV ad for Obama and Clinton's arrival in the state on Election Day). Obama carried five of the state's 25 congressional districts—the two panhandle districts (1, 2) with narrow pluralities over Clinton and Edwards and the three black-majority (or near-majority) districts (3, 17, 23). In terms of counties, he carried only seven of 67 counties, including Duval (Jacksonville), Alachua (the University of Florida), and Leon (the state capital and Florida State and Florida A&M universities). He trailed Clinton by fairly large margins in the big I-4 corridor and Gold Coast counties where Edwards was a minimal factor.
The Super Tuesday states . Obama did best in Georgia, where he beat Clinton 66 percent to 31 percent (Edwards had withdrawn, and it was essentially a two-candidate race). He got 88 percent among blacks and an impressive 43 percent among whites. He carried most of the state's 159 counties and got very large percentages in metro Atlanta's 20 counties—a combination of black and upscale white voters, it appears. He also carried most of south Georgia, where probably more than half the voters were blacks. But note that the counties at the northern edge of the state voted for Clinton, in many cases by wide margins. This was the first sign in the primary season of Obama's great weakness among Appalachian voters—call them Jacksonians, after their first president. We see this also in Alabama, where Obama lost all but one county north of Birmingham and several counties in the southern wiregrass region: These are almost entirely white counties (indeed they were conquered from the Indians by Andrew Jackson and settled by Tennesseans). Note Clinton's 85 percent in Winston County, a hill county ornery enough to have opposed the Confederacy in the Civil War.
Speaking of Tennessee, Obama carried only eight of its 99 counties. They include Hamilton (Chattanooga), Davidson and Williamson (Nashville and its most affluent suburbs), Shelby (Memphis), and four counties just east and northeast of Memphis. Obama got 26 percent of white votes in Tennessee, almost identical to his 25 percent in Alabama, but that level of support didn't enable him to carry any county outside these enclaves. In Scott County, the ancestral home of former Sen. Howard Baker, Clinton beat Obama 85 percent to 9 percent. You see a similar pattern, even more marked in Arkansas, but here I think the story was Clinton's strength more than Obama's weakness. She won the state 70 percent to26 percent; some of her critics may charge she used Arkansas only to advance her ambitions, but evidently Democratic primary voters there regard her warmly and don't resent her going off to New York and running for the Senate there. Obama carried only three black-majority rice-growing counties in the Delta. Old acquaintance, however, does not explain Clinton's big win in Oklahoma, where Obama won only one county (Oklahoma, which contains most of Oklahoma City). Clinton ran particularly strongly in east Oklahoma, the most Jacksonian part of the state.
You can see a similar Jacksonian effect at the edges of the South. In New Mexico, Clinton won a 1 percent victory by carrying Hispanics (most of them with deep roots in the state) and Little Texas. She lost Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Taos, and Los Alamos, the most urban and upscale parts of the state. (Santa Fe and Taos are thick with trust-funder liberals.) New Mexico, by the way, is one of at least six states in which Obama has won more than 50 percent of the white vote in primaries; the others are Illinois, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Vermont. Scoot around the country to Delaware, and you'll see that that state's three counties produced different results: New Castle (Wilmington and suburbs) 56 percent to 40 percent for Obama (he'd love to duplicate that in the demographically similar Philadelphia suburban counties), Kent (Dover, the state capital) 52 percent to 43 percent for Obama, and Sussex (the southern-accented south end of the state) 53 percent to 40 percent for Clinton.
Then there's Missouri. Obama's 49 percent-to-48 percent win didn't net him any delegates, but it gave him rights to brag that he could carry the southern-accented Midwest. Except that he carried only small geographic parts of it: St. Louis City and St. Louis County (the county is much larger than the city, and more blacks live in the county than in the city), Jackson County (central Kansas City), Cole County (Jefferson City, the state capital), Boone County (Columbia, the University of Missouri), and rural Nodaway County in the far northwest (did some Iowa caucus organizers go over the line?). He lost Pike County, Mark Twain's home county, 63 percent to 33 percent, and Dunklin County in the southeast boot heel 78 percent to 18 percent. There's a similar pattern to Obama's landslide victory in his home state of Illinois, which he carried 65 percent to 33 percent but where he lost 14 of 102 counties, all of them in far downstate Illinois, all of them originally settled by southerners—more Jacksonian country.
Out west, Obama won big in Utah, where folk hardy enough to be Democratic are apparently pretty liberal and upscale and voted 57 percent to 39 percent for Obama. But this was a kind of enclave victory, too. Over half the votes, 58 percent, were cast in Salt Lake County, though only 40 percent of the state's population lives there. The upscale neighborhood around the University of Utah, just a few miles east of the Mormon Church's headquarters, is a hotbed of liberalism—well, at least as much of a hotbed as you can find in Utah. He won 66 percent to 36 percent in Utah County with a light turnout, which shows that there are at least some liberal faculty members at Brigham Young University.
Arizona is a different matter. Clinton won here 50 percent to 42 percent, with 53 percent of the votes from whites, 55 percent from Latinos, and 12 percent from the relatively few blacks. Obama carried one of eight congressional districts, the upscale Fifth (Scottsdale), and two of 15 counties, Yavapai (Prescott, Sedona) and Coconino (Flagstaff). Apache County, home of much of the Navajo Nation, voted 58 percent to 30 percent for Clinton.
The county map of California shows Obama carrying a fair passel of territory. But much of it in the north and on the Coast is lightly populated. When you look at the congressional district map, you get a different picture: The state looks overwhelmingly Clinton red. Obama lost the state by just 51 percent to 43 percent, not a crushing margin, yet carried only 11 of 53 congressional districts: 1 (North Coast and Napa Valley), 5 (Sacramento, another state capital where Democrats are liable to be upscale public employees), 6 (Sonoma and Marin counties), 8 (San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi's district), 9 (Berkeley and Oakland, represented by the sole vote against military action in Afghanistan), 14 (Silicon Valley and Stanford), 23 (Santa Barbara coast), 53 (San Diego beaches), and 33, 35, and 37 (black-dominated districts in Los Angeles County). Clinton carried the one Jacksonian district in the state, 22 (Bakersfield), but did even better in heavily Latino districts—18 and 20 in the Central Valley, 31, 32, 34, 38, and 39 in Los Angeles County, 43 in San Bernardino County, 47 in Orange County, and 51 in San Diego and Imperial counties, in which she got between 60 percent and 73 percent of the vote. According to the exit poll, Clinton carried whites by only 46 percent to 45 percent and lost blacks by 78 percent to 18 percent, but she carried Latinos by 67 percent to 32 percent. Latino votes enabled her to lose the San Francisco Bay area by only 20,000 votes while she carried the four big counties in the Los Angeles basin by 316,000, three quarters of her statewide margin.
In the Northeast on Super Tuesday, Obama carried only enclaves. In New York, where turnout was lower than in Illinois, Clinton carried 61 of 62 counties, losing only Tompkins (Ithaca, Cornell University). Obama carried three of 29 congressional districts, all with black voting majorities, the Sixth in Queens and the 10th and 11th in Brooklyn. New Jersey was a similar story, though Clinton's margin was slightly lower. Obama carried Essex County (Newark, large black percentage), Union County (Elizabeth, many blacks), Mercer County (the state capital of Trenton and Princeton University), and Somerset and Hunterdon counties (upscale suburbs and exurbs).
Connecticut, 51 percent to 47 percent for Obama, was a boundary land. Obama carried upscale Fairfield and Litchfield counties and heavily black central cities, but Clinton carried the grittier and less fashionable eastern part of the state. Massachusetts, despite Edward Kennedy's endorsement of Obama, was a similar story. Leip's map, which breaks down the vote by county but not, alas, by city and town, misses some helpful detail but gives you the general picture. Obama carried Hampshire and Franklin counties in the Pioneer Valley (Amherst, Smith, UMass), the central city of Boston, and Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard.
Now we're on to the Potomac primary of February 12. Here Obama made excellent showings among white voters: 52 percent in Virginia, 42 percent in Maryland, an unspecified number in the District of Columbia (I can't find an exit poll, but Obama seems to have carried every neighborhood in the city). In Maryland, Obama got 75 percent and 73 percent in the two black-majority congressional districts (4, 7), 66 percent in Steny Hoyer's District 5, which has a rapidly increasing black population, and between 55 percent and 58 percent in the white-majority suburban districts 2, 3, and 8. He lost the Eastern Shore district narrowly and the Sixth District (western Maryland) by a wider margin. Those Jacksonians again: The state's three westernmost counties, beyond the first Appalachian ridge, gave Clinton margins between 21 percent and 26 percent (and seem to have squandered an unusually high percentage of their votes on John Edwards and Uncommitted). Virginia is the largest state so far except Illinois to have had a majority of its whites vote for Obama. In congressional districts with lots of upscale suburban Democrats (1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11), he won between 60 percent and 66 percent of the votes; in heavily black districts (3, 4), he won even more. But the county map shows you that Obama country stops around Lynchburg and Roanoke. Buchanan County, which borders both West Virginia and Kentucky, voted 90 percent to 9 percent for Clinton.
Wisconsin, voting February 19, is another state where Obama did well across the board—65 percent and 69 percent in the congressional districts that include Madison and Milwaukee, between 52 percent and 56 percent in the six others. The few counties that Clinton carried tended to be at the edge of the state and get out-of-state TV; they may have missed Obama's big ad buys.
Then came March 4, when Clinton won three of four primaries. Two are unremarkable, in small New England states that are enclaves unto themselves. Obama won 59 percent to 39 percent in Vermont, which voted much like Nantucket (59 percent to 38 percent) and Martha's Vineyard (58 percent to 40 percent). Rhode Island voted 58 percent to 40 percent for Clinton, much like Worcester County, Mass. (61 percent to 36 percent).
Clinton won her crucial victory in Texas, 51 percent to 47 percent.
Obama carried 24 counties, Clinton 226; one was tied, and three small counties in the northern panhandle cast no Democratic primary votes at all. Obama carried four counties with more than 60 percent of the vote—Travis (Austin: state capital, University of Texas), Dallas (blacks and upscale whites), and Fort Bend and Grimes (western suburbs of Houston, with rapidly growing black populations). Obama counties were concentrated in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, metro Houston, and a ring of counties around Austin, whose denizens seem to be spreading across the countryside (the hill country west of Austin is beautiful). He carried Jefferson County (Beaumont, with the highest black percentage in Texas) and Smith and Tyler counties (East Texas, Tyler, and Longview, where most whites are Republicans and most Democratic primary voters were very likely black). Obama got an impressive 44 percent of whites' votes, probably mostly upscale, and 85 percent of blacks' votes. But he got only 35 percent among Latinos, according to the exit polls, and ran far, far behind Clinton in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, where she got 73 percent of the vote in Hidalgo County (McAllen), 77 percent in Webb County (Laredo), and 69 percent in El Paso County. You also see Clinton getting more than 70 percent in some east Texas and central Texas rural counties with low black populations: Jacksonians.
In Ohio, Clinton won 54 percent to 44 percent. Obama carried only five of 88 counties: Cuyahoga (Cleveland), Franklin (Columbus: state capital, Ohio State University), Delaware (upscale Columbus suburbs), Montgomery (Dayton), and Hamilton (Cincinnati). He carried only four congressional districts, 1 (Cincinnati), 3 (Dayton), 10 (east side of Cleveland), and 12 (Columbus), and came very close in 15 (the other side of Columbus). Clinton won between 61 percent and 70 percent in four districts: 6 (Ohio River from Portsmouth up toward Youngstown), 10 (west side of Cleveland), 17 (Youngstown-Akron), and 18 (east central Ohio). Here we see our Jacksonians again, very negative toward Obama. On Fox News on election night, I emphasized the strong Clinton (or weak Obama) showings in southern Ohio, and I think rightly so. I was stunned by the size of the Clinton margins, and I have thought ever since that this bodes ill for Obama's chances of winning votes in western and central Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, and perhaps (though it's a small part of the state) western North Carolina.
Finally, Mississippi, where voting ran almost entirely along racial lines and Obama won March 11 by 60 percent to 37 percent. The colors on the map reflect the racial proportions of the population or of the Democratic primary electorate. Obama carried Hinds County (Jackson: state capital, black majority) 81 percent to 18 percent. Clinton gets her biggest percentages in northeast Mississippi, quintessential Jacksonian country, and in the far southern part of the state, just inland from the Gulf Coast, in counties with low black percentages.
Relying on exit polls, analysts have been seeing the battle for the Democratic nomination as tribal warfare, between blacks and Latinos (and Jews), between young and old, between upscale and downscale. These analyses support that view and show another sharp division in Democratic ranks. Barack Obama, who started off with an appeal transcending race, has been able to win impressive percentages from white voters but seldom majorities. He gets majorities from whites only in his home state (Illinois), in states where the white Democratic primary electorate is unusually upscale and non-Jewish (Virginia, Vermont), and in mountain states where the cultural divide is not black-white: in New Mexico, where it is Anglo-Hispanic, in Utah, where it is Mormon-gentile. He gets in the mid-40s among white voters in states where most of them are from fast-growing metro areas (Georgia, Texas, California, Maryland).
But looking at these electoral data suggests to me that there's another tribal divide going on here, one that separates voters more profoundly than even race (well, maybe not more profoundly than race in Mississippi but in other states). That's the divide between academics and Jacksonians. In state after state, we have seen Obama do extraordinarily well in academic and state capital enclaves. In state after state, we have seen Clinton do extraordinarily well in enclaves dominated by Jacksonians.
Academics and public employees (and of course many, perhaps most, academics in the United States are public employees) love the arts of peace and hate the demands of war. Economically, defense spending competes for the public-sector dollars that academics and public employees think are rightfully their own. More important, I think, warriors are competitors for the honor that academics and public employees think rightfully belongs to them. Jacksonians, in contrast, place a high value on the virtues of the warrior and little value on the work of academics and public employees. They have, in historian David Hackett Fischer's phrase, a notion of natural liberty: People should be allowed to do what they want, subject to the demands of honor. If someone infringes on that liberty, beware: The Jacksonian attitude is, "If you attack my family or my country, I'll kill you." And he (or she) means it. If you want to hear an eloquent version, listen to
Sen. Zell Miller's speech endorsing George W. Bush at the 2004 Republican National Convention. The academic who hears the Rev. Jeremiah Wright declaiming, "God damn America," is not unnerved. He hears this sort of thing on campus all the time. The Jacksonian who watches the tape sees an enemy of everything he holds dear.
But the Reverend Wright doesn't account for the positive reaction to Obama from academics and the negative reaction from Jacksonians. The last primary, in Mississippi, was held on March 11, and the Wright tapes were given notoriety by ABC News on March 13. Academics' adulation of Obama and Jacksonians' disdain for him comes out vividly from the election data starting back in January. Why do academics love Obama while Jacksonians reject him? Probably for the same reasons. Because Obama is not at all a warrior and is something of an academic. He is all college campus and not at all boot camp. Indeed, his campaign has claimed he was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, while he was actually just a senior lecturer; but all the evidence is that he was very much at home there and indeed was offered a tenure-track professorship. He grew up in a state—Hawaii—with a large military presence, but like most men with his academic aptitude, he seems never to have seriously considered military service. He has campaigned consistently as an opponent of military action in Iraq (though, as Peter Wehner has shown, his record is rather more complicated than that). His standard campaign statements on Iraq seem to suggest that all honor should go to the opponents of the war and none to the brave men and women who have waged it. His latest statements about leaving a "strike force" in Iraq suggest a certain insouciance or even indifference about what happens in a theater in which 4,000 Americans have died. He clearly lacks the military expertise of John McCain or Hillary Clinton, both diligent members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Like another eloquent little-known Illinois politician who emerged suddenly as an attractive presidential candidate, Adlai Stevenson, he seems more comfortable with the language of diplomacy and negotiation than with the words of war.
Like Stevenson, he speaks fluently and often eloquently but does not exude a sense of command. He is an interlocutor, not a fighter. His habit of stating his opponents' arguments fairly and sometimes more persuasively than they do themselves has been a political asset among his peers and in the press but not among Jacksonians, who are more interested in defeating than in understanding their enemies. He has the body of a younger man—he is slim like a man of 31 rather than 46—and moves gracefully but without exuding the sense that you get from every movement of Colin Powell, that he is in charge. Ronald Reagan also had the gift of graceful maneuver, from the movies discipline of knowing the camera was always on him, but he also had the sense of command and an understanding that he must always be in charge: hence the moment, after he was shot and then walked out of the ambulance into George Washington University hospital, when he got out of the car, stood up and (for me, the greatest gesture) buttoned his suit coat, and walked into the building and then, when out of camera range, collapsed on the floor. Would Obama be capable of doing that, while in great pain and in mortal danger? Maybe. The academic doesn't think about it. The Jacksonian thinks it's very unlikely.
In contrast to Obama, Clinton has given herself the image of a fighter. And it's not entirely inauthentic. Against very unfavorable odds, she is continuing to campaign and to insist—and for Jacksonians, this is among the most admirable of qualities—that she is not a quitter. She is fighting fair and foul—think about her lies about being under fire in Bosnia—but she is still fighting, and Jacksonians may not hold her lies heavily against her. We have seen her rebound from humiliations professional (healthcare) and personal (Monica Lewinsky) and keep fighting. This is off-putting to academics but admirable, or something close to that, to Jacksonians.
When I first noticed Obama's weak showings among Appalachians, I chalked them up, as many in the press will be inclined to do, to an antipathy to blacks. But that simply doesn't hold up. Go back to 1995, and look at the polls that showed that most Americans would support Colin Powell for president. I don't think you'll find any evidence of resistance by Jacksonian voters to the Powell candidacy. Rather the contrary, I suspect. He was a warrior, after all, and always exudes a sense of command. Or go back and look at the election returns in 1989 in which Douglas Wilder became the first black governor in our history, in Virginia. Jacksonians in southwest Virginia showed no aversion to Wilder; rather the contrary. Take Buchanan County, which runs along both West Virginia and Kentucky, and which voted 90 percent to 9 percent for Clinton over Obama on February 12. In 1989, it voted 59 percent to 41 percent for Wilder over Republican Marshall Coleman. Overall, Wilder lost what is now the Ninth Congressional District (long known as the Fighting Ninth) by a 53 percent-to-47 percent margin. But that is far less than the 59 percent-to-39 percent margin by which George W. Bush beat John Kerry in the district in November 2004 or the 65 percent-to-33 percent margin by which Clinton beat Obama there in February 2008. Jacksonians may reject certain kinds of candidates, but not because they're black. A black candidate who will join them in fighting against attacks on their family or their country is all right with them.
Of course, the real Jacksonian in this race is John McCain. He is descended from Scots-Irish fighters who settled in Carroll County, Miss. Former Sen. Trent Lott, who once worked as a fundraiser for the University of Mississippi and therefore knew the folkways of elite types in his state very well, once told me that he had relatives who had known McCain's relatives in Mississippi. "They were fighters," he said, as best I can remember his words. "They would never stop fighting you. Those people would never stop fighting." Obama gives the impression, through his demeanor and through his statements on Iraq, that he would never start fighting. That appeals enormously to voters in the academia and public-employee enclaves of America, who want to deny honor to our warriors and arrogate it to themselves (think of those bumper stickers that call for spending Pentagon dollars on teachers). Clinton and, more convincingly, McCain give the impression that they will never stop fighting until they have achieved victory (Clinton in Denver, McCain in Iraq). I don't know which side of this argument you like, but as someone who is an academic by experience (degrees from Harvard and Yale) and a Jacksonian by inheritance (my paternal grandmother, whose West Virginian great-grandfather voted Republican as late as 1944 because the Confederates had burned his family's barn), I think I have some understanding of both sides.
Clinton's support from Jacksonians gives her, as I have argued, a chance to overtake Obama in the popular vote and an opportunity to argue to the superdelegates that she should be the Democratic nominee. They're a significant bloc of voters in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Kentucky (although I should note that this week's polls in Pennsylvania show her running behind my projections). The Democratic Party has seldom won a presidential election without their support: Jimmy Carter carried Jacksonian voters in 1976, and so did Bill Clinton in 1992 and, by a lesser margin, in 1996. If Al Gore had carried just West Virginia or Kentucky or Tennessee or Georgia or Arkansas—all states carried by Carter in 1976 and Clinton in 1992, all heavy with Jacksonians—he would have been elected president in 2000, and we wouldn't have spent 37 days arguing how to count the vote in Florida. This Democratic primary contest has become a bitter fight between blacks and Latinos, young and old, upscale and downscale—and academics and Jacksonians.
Tags: presidential election 2008 | Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (123)
Reader Comments
Obama Appeals to Academics and Clinton Appeals to Jacksonians
Execellent article with great analysis and I do believe that the only way the Democrats are going to any closer to beat Mcain in general election in November is by nominating thier own Jacksonian candidiate Sen.Clinton.
Obama was not an adjunct
Following is a statement from the University of Chicago Law School, which refutes Barone's claim that Obama "was actually just an adjunct lecturer":
"From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
More Good Maps
I like Race42008. Another excellent blog is TheElectoralMap.com.
Readership
Nice to know USN&WR is now the preferred read for those who never graduated H.S.
OOOpppsss!
I never graduated H.S. and much prefer The Economist. Perhaps it is because I am a retired knuckle dragger? Hardly.
What I do know is that Barone & Klein from TIME are locked in a fierce struggle to force the current world into their out dated mold and in so doing break their own mold.
Stay tuned as the race to irrelevancy heats up between these two giants of....what..oh ya...AARP punditry!
My goodness
Sorry to trash your work - but this is ridiculous. Deconstruction is often accused of taking everything apart and reducing parts to such small components that the effect is meaninglessness. I won't agree that applies to deconstruction but it certainly applies here. Your broad conclusions do not link up at any point with the incoherent and decidedly inconclusive evidence.
statistics that lie
many of the commentators have been making the same type of analysis.
what people forget is that obama is running against the democratic
establishment which has been delivering huge majorities in such
states as New Jersey, Ohio, New York etc. When the playing field
is equal, no machines, then obama wins the white and the black vote. Clinton
will not win the popular vote because he will sweep north carolina and
oregon. Also, if you count caucus votes, obama is ahead by 900,000.
jackslonians
yesterday, my wife and i, two grandparents, were sitting on a bench in the
sun. two people in a pick-up truck stopped near us and we talked. they
were picking up some beer. each of them had 4 tours of duty in Iraq.
They said the movie stop-loss, about being sent back to iraq was true.
i asked who they suported for president. anyone but hillary they said.
her story about bosnia was too much for most soldiers.
The question should be who will win GE
That's what SDs should focus their attention. It's so counterintuitive for some people that a monster like Hillary would win a popular vote and electoral vote. But if the number shows it, SDs will begin to see the facts after they used their intellect.
For the minimum, Gore should have carried his home state TN. There is no dispute that If he had carried TN, he would be the president in 2000.
Constituency
Great article. Lots of info and analyses. I think Hillary can win and I think some of the black voters who have voted for Obama will stay home in November if she wins but a lot will vote for her rather than McCain. I'm not sure many Hillary supporters won't vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. He is way too liberal for most and most don't get or want to hear his sometimes boring speeches, which remind them of religious sermons. Most Hillary supporters cannot identify with Barack Obama in any way not because he's black but because of who he really is and his obvious lack of experience. The MSM's love affair with Obama also turns off many voters...they are tired of seeing those on MSNBC and CNN weepy eyed about his candidacy. Most of us realize that most of them are Republicans and just want the weaker Democrat to win the nomination. But some are obviously enchanted with Obama, especially black women journalists.
Laughable
The real shame is that real people don't always fall into catagories. They don't always react the way charts say the "should". Clinton has shown that she has issues with telling the truth and as such 67% of the people polled do not trust her to lead this Nation. THAT has to be figured into your charts or they become biased and nothing more than fuzzzy math in what is actually an ad for YOUR choice of a candidate.
I may not be as learned as you apparently are sir? BUT I know people and I know why Clinton is losing and why she will lose when it's all over. No one truly likes her BUT some dislike Obama so much that they vote for her. Did you also ad in Rush's Republicans that changed parties to vote against Obama? I thought not.......You also fail to mention that actually Obama WON Texas by 5 delegates...or do you follow Bill Clinton's reasoning that caucus don't count unless Hillary won them?
Thanks
Great article; thoughtful, evidenciary, convincing.
I look forward to the next one.
Thanks again!
Western NC
It will be interesting to see how hillary fares in western North Carolina, which is obviously appalachia, but also has a multitude of colleges.
This is an excellent analysis. The best and most accurate picture of the Democratic race. Mr. Barone appears to be the only one in the media (who are academics not Jacksonians).
The bottom line is that Obama is unelectable. Democratic Clinton supporters (Like myself) will vote for McCain if Obama is on the ballot, (even as VP).
There is one error or typo in the column. Obama won Vermont, not Clinton.
Nevada
Why did you leave out Nevada, where Clinton won in Clark County (Vegas), and Obama won the rest of the state in all the rural areas? Because it completely disproves your point.
Appeal to Jacksonians
Mr. Barone,
Just one small correction to your article- Obama won Vermont and not Clinton as you stated.
I voted Republican since 1992, and If Obama is the nominee, I will vote for Obama for taking out the Clintons and for the return to civilty in American Politics. I think we have had Jacksonian politics for way too long. and I am tired of each side really hating the President for 8 years.
I find Obama likeable and like his ability to compromise with the Republicans - something we have not seen for a long while. I find McCain to be a decent man as well. The Clintons are way too divisive and I can not stand the thought of seeing her in my living room for 4 years and I don't wish to start hating the President in 2009. The Clintons have to go - It is always about them and never about us (U.S). When something goes wrong in there administration, they always blame somebody else. They were the King & Queen of the Politics of Personal Destruction and I can't wait for them to fade into the Sunlight. This is why I will be voting for Obama in 2008.
BTW, I am a big fan of yours every election night, and I look forward to your analysis of each county and congressional district on Fox News.
In 2004, a day that was suppose to look dark for GW Bush in 2004, your detailed analysis early in the night proved to me that the election night projector polls were incorrect and I new he was going to win.
Illinois and Cook County
I was listening to Rush Limbaugh's radio show yesterday. He pointed out that of Obama's 700,000 plurality over Clinton in the popular vote, some 600,000 votes come from Illinois. Moreover, something over 400,000 of these votes come out of Cook County. Absent Cook County, the popular vote totals would be much closer and absent Illinois closer still. If Florida and/or Michigan are added into the mix, Hillary might now be ahead.
This may explain, at least in part, why she continues to stay in. Cook County, as I understand it, does not have the world's greatest reputation for vote accuracy.
COLLEGES
While i appreciate the amount of work you did for this, it seems like you were shoe-horning data into your model. C'mon, central florida is full of academics and upscale liberals? Gimme a break. I know IM breaking "the rules" because im a white working class moderate from New York who supports Obama, so how many colleges are in the districts/counties that Clinton won?
Thorough analysis - except of Jackson
A lifelong Democrat, I have never attended a Jefferson-Jackson Day event because Andrew Jackson was a repulsive, genocidal maniac and our party should be ashamed to have him in our lineage. I'd much rather put Abraham Lincoln, Garfield, Teddy Roosevelt, LaFollette - Colin Powell or Lincoln Chafee in our family tree.
Three words: Trail of Tears.
Your analysis is way off
These results aren't about academia vs military but educated vs noneducated, and simple good old fashioned racism.
The word 'academic' implies employed in academia. Those employed in academia are a very, very small percentage of the urban, suburban and other places Obama has won. So right there your thesis falls apart completely.
Your argument that you have the right to make baseless conclusions based on attendance at ivy leagues schools and West Virginia Republican family (ie nothing like the rest of the south, which did not support any Republicans--the party of Lincoln and the Yankees who destroyed our culture--until very recently) is laughably ludicrous, since all it means is you have a northern perspective through and through.
You seemed to have overlooked that Obama's support comes from places with high numbers of college-educated people, who also happen to make more money than non-educated, and happen to be less racist than non-educated people. While those populations would vote for Clinton if she wins the primary, they gravitate toward Obama because he is MORE articulate, MORE fit, more urbane, more modern and youthful--ie, more as they see themselves--than Clinton..
You also overlooked that the military happens to have higher populations of uneducated people (although many join so they can get an education later). Once indoctrinated--and from what I've heard from some military types, I'd say brainwashed is more accurate), they keep the company line for a good long time. (Before you jump on me for this, know my father and brother are buried in Arlington.)
It's also about racism, pure and simple. The fact that most blacks vote for Obama is case in point.
(However, the fact you labeled these folks Jacksonian is very telling--Jackson was about as openly racist (against native americans) as one could get, and he didn't let things like laws or treaties get in his way in attempting to exterminate.)
Appalachia (where I have lived) still has high levels of illiteracy and racism. (For decades, Blacks were warned that if they wandered into the mountains they would never come back). You discount Appalachian racism by noting support of Powell, but provided no evidence that the polling included or represented Appalachia in any way whatsoever, so your conclusion is without basis. Again with Wilder, you limited the data on which you based your conclusions, skewing your thesis with limited, rather than complete, data..
In the end, I think the best way to account for voting is by observing that folks tend to vote for the person they see as most like them. Educated people identify with each other more by education and income first, race second, but race--and military experience in some places--becomes more important to less educated more by race, life experiences etc. Also, in the south, there's still a bias against Northerners, especially Massachusetts. Kerry could not possibly have won here.
But forget all that. I am deeply deeply offended by the remark that our "academics" a term you use to really mean educated plus public employees plus those in academia, want to "deny honor to our warriors and arrogate it to themselves." It is patently untrue, unfair and purposely inflamatory and divisive and you owe an awful lot of people--to include those 'academics' who have lost loved ones to war--a deep apology.
(I notice that Best Western is paying for your website column. Wonder how they would feel about you claiming so many of their customers are unpatriotic towards our troops.)
Nodaway County, Missouri
Home of Northwest Missouri State University which explains the Obama vote.
Vice presidential candidate
On balance, the article seems to offer an argument for Jim Webb as Obama's running mate in the general election.
of course Hillary can win
It's Obama that cannot win.
Strip all of the caucuses out of the campaign, and he loses the nominee.
What on earth of people thinking? The Democratic nomination is so corrupt and so anti-democratic that no one should take comfort in it's results. It is a sham.
Only Clinton could beat McCain.
Copy error?
The text says Clinton won Vermont. My recollection is that Obama won.
I think its pretty safe to say that you fall into the academic category of voters. You are obviously mythologizing the Jacksonians in this post but it falls pretty flat when you claim a piece of the Jacksonian ehtic by virtue of "my paternal grandmother, whose West Virginian great-grandfather voted Republican as late as 1944 because the Confederates had burned his family's barn." By that logic, Obama is equally Jacksonian inasmuch as his maternal grandparents are form Kansas and his grandfather fought in WWII.
Anyways, I think you should stick to politics and stay out of psychology.
Must-read Post
Thank you for this terrific analysis - it could only come from someone, like yourself, with some personal exposure to this group, and can see Jacksonians for who they truly are, and not what others make them out to be.
Sum it up
Basically what you are saying is that Obama is a wimp. He looks like a wimp, walks like a wimp, and talks like a wimp. The "Jacksonians" are men's men and women who appreciate a man's man. When I first saw him walk on stage I thought, "my 110 lb. wife could kick his ass with one hand tied behind her back." This is the reason so many of our enemies like Obama. He will be a pushover. If Obama get's the nomination McCain gets my vote; no question.
Just so you know where I am coming from. My grandfather was a steel mill worker (Jacksonian) and my father has a masters in Electrical Engineering (academic). We all think Obama is a wimp and him bowling a 37 makes him look even more like a wimp. I bet he drinks wine coolers.
Academics vs. Jacksonians
I am a real fan of Michael Barone’s analysis and I gobble it up eagerly whenever I can find it. This article masterfully reveals the electability problem that Barack Obama faces. As he moves into the general election the hostility of the non-elites and Jacksonians will mount against him. He will only find greater hostility and less hospitality. Those who are inclined to vote for him are already Democrats and they have had their say. The battle will be very much uphill from the convention on.
My Democrat friends gleefully rub their hands thinking of a 40, state sweep. I can only imagine their chagrin when it turns out quite the other way.
This is no time for effete leadership of the kind offered by Adlai Stevenson. American’s want an Eisenhower. It’s curious that the candidate in the race most in touch with his feminine side is the male Barack Obama and not his opponent, Mrs. Clinton.
I Don't Understand
I think you make some interesting points but I'm not sure what they mean.
You say Clinton and McCain would keep fighting until they achieve victory. Like Bush neither of them has defined victory.
This is precisely why Obama will be the next president. Most of the nation is tired of marching forward into a battle with no clear objective and being lead by a president that feels no need to explain.
Beyond the Race Divide
Mr Barone,
I appreciate you looking at a new angle that separates and defines the two Dem nominee candidates, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. I appreciate how you look at a defining separation or characteristic that moves beyond the argument of race, trust or likeability.
What I would like to know from you now is: what do you think America needs in a president: academic or jacksonian? Democrat or Republican? While all available choices are qualified for the presidency, what candidate of the possible three remaining has the greater policies combined with experience to lead America in for the next four years?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions Surround Obama's Campaign
http://questionbarackobama.blogspot.com
More cool maps
Love the post. TheElectoralMap.com has some more cool maps.
reason for low appalachian support
Barone, I challenge you to come up with more convincing evidence to counter the argument that Obama's weak Appalachian support is based largely on discomfort with non-whites.
These areas are poor. They have been for a long time. They have a(fading) culture of racism. Why haven't you provided more support for your Jacksonian theory?
Having lots of family ties to southwest Pennsylvania and western Maryland, I could quote you the reasons my relatives didn't vote for Obama, but then I would risk offending even myself as I typed them.
election
Mr. Barone
Thank you for the insight on the primaries. It's good to hear something positive for Hillary Clinton The media is constantly thrashing her. If she sneezes it's the wrong way. Obama is the media's Favorite Son. Once I saw Obma and his mentor blaming America for all their problems. They are also blaming Italian Americans calling their garlic noses. Wake up America. This type of hate comments need to stop.
Jacksonians
Jacksonian is a good description of Hillary Clinton. Andrew Jackson was a racist and this campaign has shown that Hillary will stoop to racism when it suits her purposes. Andrew Jackson ignored the law when he didnt feel like following it, ditto the Clintons. Andrew Jackson's hamhanded attempts to meddle with the banking system ended up causing a severe recession as will Hillary's and Jackson led a faction which supported high tariffs and protectionism as does Hillary. Hillary hasnt been in any duels to protect her spouses honor, but thats to her credit, given the circumstances. her views on Cherokee resettlement are unknown but the massive redistribution of wealth she proposes will have us all on our own personal Trail Of Tears before too long.
Barone cant see the forest for the trees. This election is not going to be close. It will turn on large national issues and perceptions and not boil down to a precinct to precinct battle.
Obama vindicated on law-school title
The Clinton alleged last week:
"Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, 'Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter.' In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]."
But the University of Chicago Law School has now posted a statement declaring his claims semantically sound: "The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as 'Senior Lecturer.' From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."
Barone on Academics and Jacksonians
This is absolutely one of the best analyzes of the present presidential primary campaign on the Democratic side that I have read and, blowing my own horn, I have read many of them. Many, many thanks to the brilliant Barone.
I want a fighter '08
I think it was your Jacksonian heritage that prompted you to slog through all of this material and your academic background that enabled you to distill it into a very informative and reasoned article! Thank you!
business as usual
The frantic, even if calmly stated, frenzy to make Obama look bad. Never ends. If Hillary wins the country will regret it for decades
Nodaway County MO
Mr. Barone, In regards to Obama winning Nodaway County, MO. The largest city and county seat Maryville, MO is also home to Northwest Missouri State University (6500 +/- student pop). Add that with college faculty in a town of 10,000 +/- and that's likely the reason for Obama's vistory. Having gone to school and lived in the town for 8 years its a bit of the liberal bastion in that part of the state despite being in a rural setting. Granted a good portion of the college students aren't registered to vote, but the one's that are tend to go liberal.
Them's fightin' words!
Normally I would have just read this article and quickly moved on. However, I must comment on the following statement:
"Obama gives the impression, through his demeanor and through his statements on Iraq, that he would never start fighting. That appeals enormously to voters in the academia and public-employee enclaves of America, who want to deny honor to our warriors and arrogate it to themselves (think of those bumper stickers that call for spending Pentagon dollars on teachers)."
As an "academic" by your definition, this little nugget puts me in a downright "Jacksonian" fighting mode. I guess that according to you, me and all of my ilk -- which, by your theory, includes everyone voting for Obama -- are citizens who would gladly turn our backs on our brave soldiers in order to hold hands and sing "Kum Ba Yah" while smugly patting each other on the back for being such superior, peace-loving human beings.
Way to insult millions of Americans, Mr. Barone!
Signed,
A fellow Yalie
The End of the Democratic Party
Jacksonian Democrats might as well be Republicans. I have utter contempt for the uneducated masses - they might as well go raise tobacco and cotton on their plantations and wallow in self-pity for losing a job and being too stupid and unmotivated to find other work.
As for the correlation btw. Hillary and the Jacksonian Democrats - she's a Republican anyway, so it's a natural fit.
"Jacksonians"
Is it not funny that Mr. Barone reaches so far into our past to find a respectable-sounding label for these voters - who could much more easily and accurately be called hillbillies, rednecks, yahoos, flat-earthers, or bigots?
Why treat these goobers with more respect than they deserve? (Oh, right, because they help your candidate win...)
Bill
Obama crushed Clinton in every single county in my state, WA, including the rural areas east of the Cascades.
Um, Clinton did NOT win Vermont
It was OBAMA who won Vermont 59-39, dork. And why mince words. "Jacksonians" is code for ignorant, uneducated, and bigoted.
Interesting that you include no caucus states. Apparently they are "insignificant."
Counties
Mr. Barone
Your analysis, overall, is interesting. But I want to propose a disagreement on specifics: San Diego went for Obama. San Diego is not a "Latte Liberal" or "Academic" county. San Diego county traditionally is one of the counties in California that breaks Republican while neighbors to the north are Dem territory. The Reason? Military. San Diego is a military city still. And if you want to know how the nation's armed forces are leaning, San Diego is as good a proxy as any.
Correction
You've got the names switched on Vermont, where Barak Obama won, not Hillary Clinton.
Obama was a professor
The article mistakenly implies that Obama's campaign was less than 100% accurate by citing his experience at U Chicago as being a professor. Obama was indeed a professor, a fact which has been acknowledged by the university.
And Although this is a minor topic to begin with, it is worth noting that the Clinton campaign tried to twist this and spin it to their advantage in a desperate yet calculated attempt to shove a negative story into the news cycle. It didn't work. Why? Because 'we the people are' are tired of this nonsense.
God save us from whatever the Clinton camp starts tossing out between now and the PA primary, especially since Obama is closing the gap in the polls.
Clinton is still in the race because.....
Clinton is still in the race because millions of people, just like me, believe she would make a better president than Barack Obama! So when writers like Sally Bedell Smith write: " Hillary Clinton cannot let go of her dream" That's bunk!
No! It's our dream!
I'm so sick of ludicrous articles!
Hello! Clinton is still very much in this contest!
The Post-Patriotic Candidate
Barone’s analysis fits in well with my own evaluation of Barack Obama: that he’s the post-patriotic candidate. Not unpatriotic, not an actively engaged in bashing America, but simply unable to grasp what this whole “patriotism” thing is all about. Since the vast majority of Americans are patriotic, Obama’s inability to demonstrate an emotional attachment to his country means that he is probably unelectable. And if somehow he did manage to get elected, his presidency would be a farce.
nice but pointless
Great fine-grained look at the contest so far, but ultimately this does not seem to be really relevant to a matchup in November. It's not going to be a contest between a traditional Democratic candidate and the new Mr. Cool. All Barone's analysis maps is the contours of the new Democratic polity, with the "Jacksonians" coming from the traditional base in a lot of rural counties and Obama stronger among urbanites. As long as, to paraphrase Lee Atwater a long time ago "We take the tar out of McCain and make Al-Maliki his running mate," you can add most of those two constituencies together in the fall, with Obama getting far more votes from Hillary's supporters than she would get from the few million additional voters he is bringing to the Democratic party. Obama's support only looks thin because the real battle (the Future vs. Grandpa Munster, Turn the Page vs. 100 years in Iraq) has not yet been defined for the American people.
Biased Facts
"Then came March 4, when Clinton won three of four primaries. Two are unremarkable, in small New England states that are enclaves unto themselves. Clinton won 59 percent to 39 percent in Vermont, which voted much like Nantucket (59 percent to 38 percent) and Martha's Vineyard (58 percent to 40 percent). "
You are wrong. Obama won VT.
Tracy,
I think you missed the point of the article.
Jim,
If you're a Republican, you must be the most uninformed one I've ever met to think that Obama compromises and works well with both sides of the aisle. He is boilerplate liberal, full stop, and he will only work well and "compromise" so long as it is the other side that is doing so. And not to go off on a tangent here, but quite frankly I'm sick of hearing that partisanship is somehow bad for the country. IMO, more often than a divided government is better for the country because they get less done; only a liberal can truly believe that more government action is better.
And for the record, conservatives and republicans in general aren't going to be any nicer to Obama than they were to Clinton. "Return to civility," ha!!
Obama's supporters seem so proud of themselves. They can never resist pointing out that they have higher levels of income and education.
Obama's supporters should not forget that academics have long been Democrats because they support the common man and the ideals of equality, not because they believe that education puts them above the common man.
An "uneducated" union activist is more likely to have a stronger grasp on the American political system than is a person with graduate degrees in medicine.
Execellent article with great analysis. I, like many women like me - over 40 yrs, highly educated, veteran, Hispanic, etc. will not vote for Obama. If the college kids want to vote for him...fine, their choice. But experienced people like me will not vote for a slick "snake oil salesman". I will vote democratic for all other positions on the ballet, but not for the Presidency if Obama is the cannidate. Hopefully, by voting for all the other democractic slots, we can at least retain and improve democratic control of the House and Senate and thereby control the new Republican President.
Jacksonian division
As one of Scots-Irish background and life experience, I believe that Mr. Barone's analysis is spot on. I am also an academic.
However, I would be interested to see how Sen. Obama does among the general election Jacksonians.
A Falsehood
The author claims that Obama was just an "adjunct instructor" at the University of Chicago, trying perhaps to allude that Obama is guilty of the same falsehood and exaggeration as Clinton (dodging bullets in Bosnia being a recent example). Note that the author's statement about Obama is in direct opposition to the University of Chicago Law School's own website. The University of Chicago website states that Obama was a "Senior Lecturer", which is distinct from the lower paid position of an Adjunct Instructor. I know, because I am an academic (and hence apparently a natural Obama supporter).
This means that either the author is lying about Obama, or the University of Chicago is lying on its own website. I am going to guess the former. One would hope that someone writing in a national paper would get their facts straight. It seems to have been intended as a subtle put-down of Obama, similar to other statements that come from the Clinton campaign, such as the idea that Obama is not a Muslim, "as far as I know" etc.
Shame on you.
SOUTHWEST MISSOURI/OZARKS
YOUR INSIGHT HOLDS UP WELL HERE IN S.W. MO, POPULATED BY APPALACHIANS WHO EMIGRATED FROM TN, KY, AL, MS AND THE CAROLINAS, HILLBILLIES, THAT IS. OBAMA WAS IN THE 30 PER CENT RANGE IN EVERY COUNTY EXCEPT GREENE COUNTY, HOME OF MO STATE AND SEVERAL OTHER UNIVERSITIES, WHERE HE REACHED THE PINNACLE OF 42 PER CENT. THIS JACKSONIAN, SCOTS-IRISHMAN STOPPED VOTING DEMOCRATIC WITH THE ADVENT OF MCGOVERN. MCCAIN WILL CLEAN THE CLOCK OF HILLARY OR BARRY THE WIMP. OF COURSE, IN THE GOP PRIMARY, HUCKABEE CARRIED ALL THESE COUNTIES DUE TO HIS BAPTIST BACKGROUND. NOT A BAPTIST, MY VOTE WENT TO MCCAIN.
Whatever
Though I thought your analysis was interesting, the bias is once again undeniable. I find it interesting that so many articles that may have actual value are drowned out by the inherent bias of the author. Let me see if I can interpret:
Academic = sissy, nerd
J
Maps
Mr. Barone,
I normally don't come here to hype my own blog, but I have some county-by-county maps for the Hillary/Obama race on my post here that feed into your post. THe amazing things is that once you get into federally recognized Appalachia, Hillary's percentages shoot up to 80-90%. The correlation is uncanny.
http://race42008.com/2008/04/01/no-really-hillary-has-a-decent-shot/
Apr 02, 2008 18:24:43 PM [permalink] [report comment]