Wo!Bama

Chris Bowers, who has emerged as one of the most prescient analysts of US primary politics, on the (1001) reasons for Obama's success:

Amateur demographers like myself will point out the income and educational gaps in the primary vote, and argue that Obama is securing the creative class vote ...Exit polls so far just haven't shown a major policy divide between the supporters of Clinton and Obama. Even though there is always a connection between ideology and identity, the gender gaps, generational gaps, ethnicity gaps, income gaps, education gaps, activist gaps and partisanship gaps we have seen appear to be more identity based than policy based.

One conclusion I can draw from all of this is that the identity coalition Obama has put together appears to be unique to him, and probably cannot be replicated by other candidates in future presidential primaries. The diverse group of supporters listed in the second paragraph of this article includes both working class African-Americans and creative class whites, both LieberDems and the very liberal, both online activists and establishment media pundits from the Village, both new voters and highly engaged grassroots activists. It is a pretty odd grouping, and not particularly stable under anyone who does not exude Obama's particular characteristics: new enough and with the sort of rhetoric to still be a bit of an empty vessel for both centrists and progressives, a background that appeals to both African-Americans and creative class whites, relative youth, and an opponent against whom progressives, conservatives, and establishment media types (but not establishment political types) are willing to organize. The coalition Obama is putting together is not only primarily identity based, but also specific to his campaign ...

[W]hen he becomes President he will eventually come to moments where he is forced to side with one or the other in a major administrative and / or legislative battle. At that point will come the real test of just how good Obama is at keeping his coalition together. If there are 1,001 reasons for your success, there are also 1,001 ways that you can face trouble in the future.

Post-partisan, candidate centered, and highly unstable.

Comments

[hayden fisher]

Obama (and McCain to a lesser extent) will shake-up Washington and politics like never before in our lifetimes heretofore; whatever comes out of the other side will be better than what preceded them. No one can predict what that will be except to know that it will be monumental.

Interestingly, McCain and Obama both did poorer in Virginia in the rural areas and won between the northern Virginia - Richmond - Hampton Roads I-95 South/I-64 East corridor where the creative class looms and lives large. Clinton/Huckabee won YESTERDAY; Obama/McCain won TOMORROW.

Let's looking forward to a competive race between two authentic and inspiring candidates, both of whom represent the best of their respective generations. May the best man win. May the country have ample reason to be proud again.

[Michael Wells]

I dunno,

Maybe no less stable than the unlikely coalitions FDR and Reagan put together. If Barack could get Democrats to adopt Ronnie's 11th commandment (thou shall speak no evil of another Republican) it could be a movement that lasts a while.

On the other hand at this stage it's definitely personality driven, as were the above. I worry about assassination for both him and Hillary, less for McCain, they don't seem to go for conservatives although he's got enemies too.

[Michael Wells]

Interesting map on CNN, which says it's the latest polling data from several states.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/map/polling/index.html

States where Obama won caucuses that poll pro-Clinton. Iowa, Nevada, Connecticut.

States where Clinton won primaries that poll pro-Obama: NH, Mass.

The race is very fluid, people are still making up their minds. Momentum to Obama, but don't be overswayed by the Caucuses.

[hayden fisher]

The assassination threat is much more real than any of us ever would have thought. Look at the hate pouring-out against McCain by the bozos on the far right; it's not unrealistic to speculate that a nut-job Rush listener wouldn't try and play the role of conservative hero by upping the ante to eliminate McCain. There's real hate out there for him, coupled with fear; always a dangerous combination. And with Obama, there are the idiot-racists and far right nuts to worry about as well as the Clinton machine establishment foot soldiers who will be motivated by hate too. Especially as big labor loses more jobs and sees their would/wanna-be savior (Clinton) defeated handily by the young upstart from Harvard (and with familial ties to Kenya).

Probably won't happen but the threat shouldn't be underestimated. It truly seems however that whatever fallout becomes the reality in November, politics as it has been is clearly finished. And, again, it's monumental that we have two candidates who do best in urban markets. That has to be considered a positive trend by any measure.

[john trenouth]

I wonder if the reasons for Obama's success have less to do with him and more to do with his fortunate situation: Can the nation stomach the other options?

With the moral sinkhole called the Bush administration still so fresh many voters simply cannot cast a ballot for the GOP. And the idea of Hillary Clinton in the White House is similarly too repellent for too many.

As a relatively empty vessel it's easy for people to project their near desperate hope onto Obama.

So are people flocking to Obama, or just away from the other options?

[Michael Wells]

Hayden,

I'll make you a deal. I'll go easier on McCain if you'll go easier on Clinton. Both are good people at the top of the game, with strengths and weaknesses.

[hayden fisher]

Michael,

I'll make that deal with you, Ms. Clinton certainly has received more bashing than she deserves lately and has been the subject of a lot of unfair personal attacks. My last comment about her "foot soldiers" was probably over the top.

Hayden

[johne]

For the last several years, the US has been following the path blazed in the 19th century by the Latin American elites, establishing their republics in the wake of the chaotic civil wars which resulted in independence. After such trauma, the purpose of the whole apparatus of government was seen as maintaining the social status quo. Crony capitalism, politicized courts and clergy, creative interpretations of law and constitutionality were all seen as legitimate means of maintaining civilization and society, seemingly shown in the wars of independence as all too fragile otherwise.
One unforseen result was "personalismo," in which a charismatic or skillful actor would create an ad hoc political structure that essentially depended on that personality, and seldom outlasted it.
Andrew Jackson has perhaps been the US president closest to that model. If he comes to power in a United States severely shaken by 9/11 and the draconian measures that followed, Barrack Obama, if he wins, may be a second.
Note that such personalities can be of the right or left, progressive or reactionary, reformers or defenders of the status quo. What they share is -- the fragility of governmental and societal structure that its founders feared and dreaded!