Just an amen addendum to the conclusion of Ed’s article below that “Obama’s “ghetto” may be bigger than the pundits realize.” If any presidential candidate can be said to be appealing to the broadest possible demographic cross-section, it has to be Senator Obama. Conversely, I can’t think of any constituency he has pandered to as aggresively as, say Senator Clinton’s outreach to women voters of a certain age, or Edwards’ targeting of unions and blue collar workers.
Obama’s grand strategy seems to be casting the widest possible net, while his opponents are focused on snagging key demographics they see as critical for their respective campaigns. Sure, Obama wants the highest possible percentage of the African American vote. But if memory serves, he has been criticized by Jesse Jackson and other Black leaders for not being focused enough on the Black demographic. And yes, Obama is no doubt grateful for his huge edge with younger voters. But it’s not like he’s out there spending a lot more time on college campuses at the expense of other groups. He doesn’t have to spend a lot of time working young voters. They just like him. The young, white voters in my family talk about him like he is the hope of their generation.
I had to chuckle at the title and subtitle of Mickey Kaus’s Slate article flagged in Ed’s post: “How Obama Can Win: He can escape his electoral ghetto by playing the race-blind card.” Well, that train left the station some time ago, regardless of what happens in SC. Also the thought of any pundit giving Obama advice beyond maybe some really good ads targeting California Hispanics and seniors may be a smidge presumptuous. This guy was a state senator less than four years ago, and he’s got a good shot at becoming the leader of the free world by this time next year. There’s not a lot any journalists can teach him about taking advantage of political opportunity. Like him or not, Obama is running one hell of a smart campaign.

There is a new and (no matter whom you support) disturbing CW dominating analysis of the Democratic nominating contest at the moment. It’s that Obama is becoming the “black candidate,” repelling the white and brown voters who will determine the ultimate outcome. Indeed, this point of view is feeding the Clinton campaign’s efforts to downplay an expected Obama win in South Carolina this Saturday. After all (suggest the pundits, not the Clintons), SC is just about black folks, who won’t matter down the road. Typically, Dick Morris is the bluntest in publicly presenting this point of view, but I can tell you, it’s endemic in the DC chattering classes.
Totally aside from the corrosive effect of such race-based political assumptions–including the planted axiom that white and Latino voters don’t want to be on the same bandwagon as African-Americans–they strike me as a being over-simplistic from even a cold, amoral perspective. Here’s a new flash for the punditocracy: there are African-Americans who live in states other than South Carolina.
A case in point: the most under-discussed story about the Nevada Caucuses was that (according to the entrance polls) the African-American vote was a large as the Latino vote. Among the latter, it was widely reported that Clinton won by a little better than two-to-one. But among the former, Obama won by better than five-to-one. And lest we forget, Clinton was running even with or even ahead of Obama among African-Americans nationally until very recently.
In the February 5 states, African-American voters will almost certainly outnumber Latinos in a majority of states, will be crucial in quite a few (e.g., Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Arkansas, New Jersey, Delaware, plus Obama’s own Illinois) and will be a significant factor in others, including California. If Obama’s margins among black voters match what he won in Nevada–not a bad bet, given the “racialization” of the campaign–then he can lose white and Latino voters substantially and still be competitive.
In other words, it’s not all that clear which candidate would ultimately benefit from a “racialization” of the nominating contest. And to use Mickey Kaus’ infelicitous term, Obama’s “ghetto” may be bigger than the pundits realize.

The “electibility” argument among Democratic presidential candidates is complicated enough from the get-go, as illustrated by a recent exchange between Jonathan Chait and Ezra Klein about the general election strengths and weaknesses of Obama and Clinton, which pretty much covers the waterfront of informed speculation.
But two new factors are pushing the electibility debate in new directions. The first is the re-emergence of John McCain as the Republican front-runner. He’s the only GOPer in shouting distance of the two Democratic front-runners in general election trial heats, and actually runs ahead of Clinton in some. And there’s a reason for that: aside from his famous appeal to independents, and the media adulation he enjoys, he’s the one candidate hardest to typecast (except on the subject of Iraq) as mired in the same ideological delusions that gave us the Bush administration. His one major electoral weakness, the hostility of movement conservatives, won’t be much of a problem in a general election (and they seem to be coming around; elite conservative attitudes towards McCain at the moment strongly resemble those of establishment Democrats towards Howard Dean just prior to Iowa in 2004–resigned).
The second factor, though, cuts in the opposite direction. It’s now virtually certain that the economy will be in recession during the critical period prior to the general election. This will represent a real anchor on the Republican ticket, regardless of its composition. And this is not a subject conducive to any McCain Magic. The Arizonan’s economic message is basically one of fiscal austerity seasoned with a commitment to heavy defense spending. It’s hard to imagine a prescription less well suited to hard times.
This problem may catch up with McCain in the primaries; Mitt Romney would be insane not to exploit the advantage of being both more knowledgable and more conservative than McCain on economic issues. But if McCain does win the nomination, all the talk about service and courage and straight talk won’t matter much to people who are worried about their jobs, their pensions, and their homes.

Well, what can I say? World financial markets are in an uproar; the Fed has discarded all decorum in issuing a major interest rate cut; the Bush administration, after spending most of the autumn posturing against federal budget deficits, is now in a panic-stricken drive for a “stimulus package;” and the two leading Democratic candidates for president are going after each other like crazed weasels.
I think giving this day a few hours to sort itself out would be a prudent idea.

As a white southerner whose childhood was mostly spent in a Jim Crow society, the life and death of Martin Luther King, Jr., is not something I just read about in history books. I remember the searing challenge he posed to the polite white southern “liberals” who were embarassed by his simple demands for justice, and his direct evocation of the ideals of their country and their faith. And I also remember the incredible hatred his gentle, quintessentially Christian movement provoked in so many of my own “people” (e.g., an aunt who before the apprehension of James Earl Ray said she’d love the opportunity to hide and care for King’s murderer).
Even today, I’d guess a majority of white southerners–and white yankees, for that matter–think of MLK Day as an ethnic holiday that has nothing to do with their own “people.” I recently read a new biography of Jesse Helms that showed pretty convincingly that Helms’ opposition to a federal MLK holiday was the single most important factor in his survival of the toughest political challenge of his life, his come-from-behind victory over Jim Hunt in 1984. Clearly, many white North Carolinians thought of MLK as a man who had helped vanquish their heritage, when in fact he helped redeem it.
More than anyone in recent memory, Martin Luther King, Jr., held up a mirror to the people of this country and asked them to live up to the best of what they believed about themselves. And that’s why this is, and should be, a truly national holiday, for all of us.

Democratic candidates are all in South Carolina on MLK Day prepping for the CNN debate. HRC will start the day in the front ranks of the King Day March and Rally in Columbia and will join Edwards and Obama at the CNN debate in Myrtle Beach. Her husband Bill Clinton will address the MLK Commemorative Service at Dr. King’s Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. (Interestingly, Huckabee will also attend). Edwards will hold a campaign rally in Columbia before the debate and afterwards will take part in a town hall meeting in Conway. Obama apparently doesn’t have major scheduled events, other than tonight’s debate, according to the New York Times candidate schedule tracker.

John McCain’s narrow win in SC over Mike Huckabee probably dooms the Arkansan and creates an entirely new dynamic in the January 29 FL primary. As you will hear over and over in the next few days, SC was a kind of terrain that was as close to ideal for Huckabee as he could have wanted, a southern state with a heavily evangelical Republican voting base.
But in the end, Huck’s luck wasn’t that good. Fred Thompson’s decision to throw everything into SC, and to go negative on Huckabee, and Romney’s decision to all but bail in the state, almost certainly produced the McCain win. Thompson ran well in Huckabee Country, while Romney ran well in McCain Country. Had Thompson pulled out, and had Romney really competed, it’s pretty clear Huckabee would have had a major advantage.
Now we get to find out if Rudy Giuliani’s decision to concede every state prior to Florida was a fatal mistake. Today Rudy won 4% of the vote in NV and 2% in SC; he was running first in some SC polls less than two months ago.
But more and more, it’s looking like a McCain-Romney contest for the nomination. And despite McCain’s reinforced front-runner status after SC, Romney may have the money and the positioning to overcome him.

As you’ve probably heard by now, Hillary Clinton won the Nevada Democratic Caucuses by a decent if not overwhelming margin. As in Iowa, the results are being reported in terms of state delegates elected. By that measurement, she won by about a 51%-46% margin, with John Edwards finishing a very disappointing third with less than 4%. The entrance polls probably give a better indication of the raw vote, with HRC winning about 46%, Obama about 41%, and Edwards a bit over 8%.
It appears HRC won Las Vegas handily, and at least one report indicates she may have actually won those at-large Strip caucusing sites that her allies tried so hard to shut down.
The most striking finding in the entrance polls (IMHO) was the age composition of the caucus participants: 13% were under 30; 19% were aged 30-44; 34% were 45-60; and 36% were over 60. Unsurprisingly, HRC’s vote rose with each older age group, peaking at nearly a two-to-one margin among the oldest, and Obama’s declined (he won by nearly two-to-one among the youngest group). Income, ideology, religion and union status didn’t seem to matter all that much. And while Obama won handily among independents (51%-33%), they were only 15% of the participants.
Knowing the MSM, however, I suspect their big story won’t be the age composition, but the racial/ethnic/gender breakdown. According to the entrance polls, Obama won a staggering 83% of the African-American vote, while HRC beat him among Latinos 64%-26%, with each group representing 15% of the participants. The former is probably a good sign for Obama in SC, the latter a good sign for Clinton in a number of February 5 states.
And as in NH, the gender disparities were notable. Women outnumbered men by nearly a three-to-two margin, and HRC beat Obama among them 51%-38%.
According to MyDD, total turnout was over 100,000, much higher than anticipated, making this the third straight contest where Democratic turnout set new and high standards.

As a complement to Matt Compton’s essay about the blogosphere and Barack Obama in our Featured Content section, you might want to read a new Chris Bowers’ OpenLeft post, which looks more closely at blog readers’ preferences, and the factors that influence them, including demographics, high information consumption, and hostility to “bipartisanship” and to the Democratic status quo.
While you’re at OpenLeft, you can also read Chris’ predictions for the Democratic caucuses in Nevada. He thinks Obama may eke out a close win over Clinton, and cites the reasons, while acknowledging that all the late polls show Clinton ahead, albeit narrowly.
I think the truth is that we still know virtually nothing about likely turnout in Nevada, so making any prediction–and for that matter, taking any poll–is probably a crap-shoot, if you’ll excuse the gambling reference.

Want to know how desperate Mike Huckabee is to win the South Carolina primary tomorrow? Well, he’s desperate enough to grab the Third Rail of cultural politics, by identifying himself with bitter-end defenders of the public display of the Confederate flag.
As you may have heard, Huck coupled his state’s-rights-oriented position that “outsiders” shouldn’t tell South Carolinians what flag to fly with a colorful suggestion that said “outsiders” should be told to perform an act that he would otherwise deplore as banned by “God’s standards.” And the line now seems to have become part of Huckabee’s SC stump speech.
It’s pretty odd to hear an “outsider” urge Palmetto State voters to go sodomistic on other “outsiders” for allegedly butting into their sovereign right to celebrate the Lost Cause that this very state plunged the nation into in 1861. Presumably he knows that African-Americans in the state have not been “outsiders” since their arrival on slave ships some time ago. And Huckabee may even be aware that some would question the propriety of raising this issue in the midst of the annual commemoration of Martin Luther King’s legacy. But hey, black folks don’t vote in Republican primaries, right?
Other than reminding voters that he’s from a dixified background himself, Huck seems to be appealing to a small group of voters that in Georgia we refer to as “flaggers,” a small and dwindling segment of largely rural white folk for whom the Confederate flag remains a fighting and voting issue (their impotence was exposed in Georgia when they failed to carry through threats to do political damage to Gov. Sonny Perdue, who reneged on a campaign promise to hold a referendum on the subject). His decision to “go there” is all the more puzzling as part of a campaign tour with former Gov. David Beasley, who infuriated flaggers while in office by removing The Flag from public property.
In any event, even if Huck wins the battle of South Carolina, his decision to embrace this hoary symbol of white supremacy could help lose him the war. Already maginalized as the candidate of conservative evangelicals and not much of anyone else, he now bids fair to make himself a southern regional candidate as well, and divisive even in southern conservative ranks. It’s a sure sign of a campaign that can’t see the forest, or even the trees, and is scratching around in the pine straw for some dirt to throw.