Does History Favor Obama or Clinton?
There is a natural tendency to look to history as a guide to the future, but in the 2008 presidential campaign, that is of limited help. After the first two contests on the nominating calendar, neither the Democratic nor the Republican race clearly fits the pattern of past campaigns.
The Democratic race may come closer, at least at first glance. The battle between Clinton and Obama evokes comparisons to a number of past nomination fights in which an establishment front-runner drew a stiff challenge from an insurgent underdog. Mondale-Hart in 1984 is the classic example. Gore-Bradley in 2000 is another.
Certainly Clinton is more like Mondale and Gore, and Obama is more like Hart and Bradley, and on that basis one could argue that Clinton has important advantages heading into the next rounds of primaries and caucuses.
Clinton has stronger support among constituencies that have often made the difference in nomination battles. She does better than Obama with Democratic voters, while he does better with independents. She does better with voters whose incomes are below $50,000, and he does better with those who earn more than $50,000. She does better with voters who have less than a college degree, and he does better with those who have more education.
The new Washington Post-ABC News national poll underscores those divisions. She led by 8 points among Democrats; he led by 13 points among independents. She led by 8 among those earning less than $50,000; he led by 7 among those earning more than $50,000. She led by 4 points among those with less education, while he led by 3 among those with college degrees or advanced degrees.
Her support is among voters who make up a larger share of the Democratic primary electorate -- less educated voters account for close to 70 percent of Democratic electorate, for example -- and that coalition helped Mondale prevail over Hart in their battle of "new ideas" vs. "where's the beef?" Gore, too, drew on those same kinds of voters to block what looked at one point like a serious threat from Bradley.
Other dimensions make this potentially a very different kind of race, however. Both Clinton and Obama are extraordinary candidates in part because each represents a barrier-shattering constituency that could affect the balance in upcoming contests in a way they haven't in past campaigns.
Neither Hart nor Bradley could attract the kind of support among African Americans that Obama is likely to get. The Post-ABC poll showed Obama with the support of 60 percent of African Americans. Mondale saw a considerable part of his black support go to Jesse Jackson in the '84 primaries, but Clinton has a larger worry about losing African Americans to Obama.
If the contest polarizes along racial and gender lines, however, Clinton potentially benefits more from her support among women, who make up more than 50 percent of the Democratic primary-caucus electorate. She now also has an advantage among white voters and particularly among white women. In the Post-ABC News poll, 50 percent of white Democratic women support Clinton while 29 percent support Obama.
Read entire article at WaPo
The Democratic race may come closer, at least at first glance. The battle between Clinton and Obama evokes comparisons to a number of past nomination fights in which an establishment front-runner drew a stiff challenge from an insurgent underdog. Mondale-Hart in 1984 is the classic example. Gore-Bradley in 2000 is another.
Certainly Clinton is more like Mondale and Gore, and Obama is more like Hart and Bradley, and on that basis one could argue that Clinton has important advantages heading into the next rounds of primaries and caucuses.
Clinton has stronger support among constituencies that have often made the difference in nomination battles. She does better than Obama with Democratic voters, while he does better with independents. She does better with voters whose incomes are below $50,000, and he does better with those who earn more than $50,000. She does better with voters who have less than a college degree, and he does better with those who have more education.
The new Washington Post-ABC News national poll underscores those divisions. She led by 8 points among Democrats; he led by 13 points among independents. She led by 8 among those earning less than $50,000; he led by 7 among those earning more than $50,000. She led by 4 points among those with less education, while he led by 3 among those with college degrees or advanced degrees.
Her support is among voters who make up a larger share of the Democratic primary electorate -- less educated voters account for close to 70 percent of Democratic electorate, for example -- and that coalition helped Mondale prevail over Hart in their battle of "new ideas" vs. "where's the beef?" Gore, too, drew on those same kinds of voters to block what looked at one point like a serious threat from Bradley.
Other dimensions make this potentially a very different kind of race, however. Both Clinton and Obama are extraordinary candidates in part because each represents a barrier-shattering constituency that could affect the balance in upcoming contests in a way they haven't in past campaigns.
Neither Hart nor Bradley could attract the kind of support among African Americans that Obama is likely to get. The Post-ABC poll showed Obama with the support of 60 percent of African Americans. Mondale saw a considerable part of his black support go to Jesse Jackson in the '84 primaries, but Clinton has a larger worry about losing African Americans to Obama.
If the contest polarizes along racial and gender lines, however, Clinton potentially benefits more from her support among women, who make up more than 50 percent of the Democratic primary-caucus electorate. She now also has an advantage among white voters and particularly among white women. In the Post-ABC News poll, 50 percent of white Democratic women support Clinton while 29 percent support Obama.