The Wisconsin effect

Obama won big. Last week I pointed to an interesting article by Jay Cost which argued against the idea that Obama had already built unstoppable momentum, and showed that demographics could account for his recent run of successes, leaving Texas and Ohio as likely wins for Hillary. Jay's update on Wisconsin is worth reading. If it is right, the news is bad for Hillary.

Hillary Clinton suffered a stinging blow last night, losing Wisconsin by 15 points. What is worrisome for her is that Obama seems to have broken into several of her core voting groups. This is the first real evidence of momentum we have seen on the Democratic side.

After the Potomac Primary last week, some argued that Obama had already begun to build momentum because of his large victories in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. I thought this talk was hasty. Given the large number of African American voters in each contest, and given that white voters in all three primaries were quite wealthy - Obama's sizeable victories did not come as a surprise. In particular, 39% of all Maryland Democrats and 39% of all Virginia Democrats claimed to make $100,000 or more per year. So, it is hard to argue that Obama's success among whites was due to him peeling off portions of the Clinton coalition. What seems more likely is that he won handily because his best voting blocs were in good supply that day.

The same cannot be said for Wisconsin. Just 20% of Wisconsin Democratic voters claimed to make $100,000 or more per year. So, there is strong evidence that, at least last night, Obama expanded his voting coalition. Consider the following chart, which uses the exit polls to review Obama's margin of victory with key groups in the non-southern states in comparison to his performance with those same groups in Wisconsin last night.

So, for instance, Obama won white males in the non-South by 8 points prior to the Potomac Primary. Last night, he won them by 26 points, yielding a net increase of 18 points.

March 4th could settle it.

Comments

By the time he concludes Obama has momentum, he will have clinched the nomination already.

A point I've made elsewhere is that the story of Obama significantly outperforming his polling is a very underreported story right now. (In fact, I haven't seen anyone discuss it at all.) No poll from Wisconsin gave Obama a 17-point margin, and while there was little tangible information in Hawaii, I'm not sure anybody predicted those kinds of margins there, either. Likewise in the Potomac primaries a week ago.

In terms of trying to quantify this intangible idea of momentum, I think that is as strong an indicator as anything I've seen.

Posted by SDinIA | February 20, 2008 11:50 AM

I wonder when the drama unfolds, will HRC be surprised and shocked to find out that not many people really like her and that she has been used for political purposes for many years?

She's trying to undo Obama's campaign by revealing that he isn't as great as his speeches may suggest. It matters not, he's just better than her.

Thats all it will take for the Democratic party to dump the Clintons.

HRC is strong and smart, but this might really sting.

Posted by kim, livonia, michigan | February 20, 2008 1:51 PM

march 4 will wrap this up for obama.

and by the convention, his negatives will be as high as clinton's are now.

Posted by howard | February 20, 2008 3:44 PM

With the Obama momentum continuing, he will force the parties hand in March. Hillary is done, but the concern for Obama will be can he continue to live up to the hype. The guy is brilliant and people are buying the goods. He has the incredible challenge now, of living up to what he is creating...

Posted by Ray | February 20, 2008 9:28 PM

The reason Obama is winning is not because he is the greatest thing since sliced bread,but because a) the Clinton haters are voting against Hillary Clinton, not necessarily for Obama; b) yuppie white liberal guilt; and c) old white men who are more sexist than racist. And, add to that the independents who don't have enough guts to commit to a political party, but have no trouble voting in what is a private (political party) event. God helps us through the Obamamanswoon!

Posted by T D | February 20, 2008 11:02 PM

TD: Uh, you forgot to add that people genuinely think he'd be a better president. But then again I'm just a member of a cult, what do I know?

Posted by Lesley | February 21, 2008 8:24 AM

I wouldn't jump to conclusions that Obama is on the verge of co-opting HRC's support among some of her core constituencies. The people who point out Wisconsin's downmarket similarities with Ohio need to remember that the former state really is quite a bit more, er, liberal than Ohio. It doesn't surprise me that the same group of people who nominated and elected Russ Feingold would prefer Obama -- especially given the fact that Obama has been riding a wave of momentum. There's also his favorite son status (a lot of Wisconsinites reside in suburban Chicago). Clinton has two weeks to work over Obama in the substantially more culturally conservative state of Ohio (not to mention heavily Latino Texas). If she loses those two states, it really is over. But I still think holding off on calling the undertaker is the prudent course of action at this point.

Posted by Anonymous | February 21, 2008 12:05 PM

mjneZm hi great site thx http://peace.com

Posted by bob | February 21, 2008 12:41 PM

TD, I like Hillary Clinton. I wouldn't lose any sleep if she becomes the nominee but this is ridiculous.

a) the Clinton haters are voting against Hillary Clinton, not necessarily for Obama;
They had the opportunity to vote for John Edwards in the beginning. Why didn't they? He was an afterthought this entire race.

b) yuppie white liberal guilt
Why wouldn't that extend to sexism too?

c) old white men who are more sexist than racist
See response to a). Don't sexism and racism go hand-in-hand? They're probably voting McCain in the general.

Posted by Lynn | February 21, 2008 12:57 PM

I was going over some of my hurt feelings from the 2004 cycle this morning, remembering what a disaster the Kerry campaign ended up being in the final moments of the race when I came across this William Saletan piece from election night, 2004 entitled "Why you keep losing...."

"If you're a Democrat, here's my advice. Do what the Republicans did in 1998. Get simple. Find a compelling salesman and get him ready to run for president in 2008. Put aside your quibbles about preparation, stature, expertise, nuance, and all that other hyper-sophisticated garbage that caused you to nominate Kerry. You already have legions of people with preparation, stature, expertise, and nuance ready to staff the executive branch of the federal government. You don't need one of them to be president. You just need somebody to win the White House and appoint them to his administration. And that will require all the simplicity, salesmanship, and easygoing humanity they don't have.

The good news is, that person is already available. His name is John Edwards. If you have any doubt about his electability, just read the exit polls from the 2004 Democratic primaries. If you don't think he's ready to be president—if you don't think he has the right credentials, the right gravitas, the right subtlety of thought—ask yourself whether these are the same things you find wanting in George W. Bush. Because evidently a majority of the voting population of the United States doesn't share your concern. They seem to be attracted to a candidate with a simple message, a clear focus, and a human touch. You might want to consider their views, since they're the ones who will decide whether you're sitting here again four years from now, wondering what went wrong.

I agree with everything said here, except of course that the "simple" man that the Demos need is none other than Obama. That the man is able to tailor simple messages that connect on more than just a "gut" level with people is a great bonus. I'm glad that people realized (whether conciously or not) that the solution was not to emulate Bushes simple message appeal (with an Edwards type). I see no problem in Obama's "speechifying" ways - they are the keys to victory in November, more so than his keen intellect or any policy position would suggest.

Posted by Michael | February 22, 2008 12:52 PM