I love the news about how motivated the Dem base is compared to the GOP, but I think that recent history has shown that Presidential elections are much more about personalities than parties. McCain will have broad appeal across independents, and I don't know how much concerns about his conservative cred will suppress GOP turnout, especially if the alternative is Hillary. The vote will be about the future, and we're not running against Bush this time.
Re: the class splits in the Dems, that's very interesting. I think that Obama is running more of an "intellectual" appeal. Plus, there has been some commentary that lower-middle class voters have a greater identification with the Clintons and their struggles and attacks they have sustained. Plus, racism can play a part in the primaries as well as in the general.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think that's right. The other trend is that the party that coalesces around a nominee months ahead of the other always wins: 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1992, 1996, 2004, which cuts very heavily against a Democratic Party that is going to decide its nominee with a floor fight barring a miracle in the next couple of dozen primaries.
I would want to look at your historic examples more closely. I think you'd have to tease out the years with an incumbent Pres or Veep. (Certainly there was no steep competition vs. 41 in 1992.) This would be interesting to look at, "controlling for" things like the nastiness of the contest.
Post a Comment