Home > Blogs > Campaigns Don't Count > Archives > 2008 > June > 20 > Entry
Obama and Ohio: Race Comes Down to Race
Here’s a piece that I just wrote on my day job with the Dayton Daily News. It kind of enlarges on a subject already touched on here. Starts now:
This column has already done everything possible to make clear that Barack Obama will win the national popular vote in November. It’s a Democratic year. The predictive system that is always right (pretty much) says so.
A reader might be tempted to assume that a prediction of an Obama win nationally implies a prediction of an Obama win in Ohio. After all, Ohio has been the decisive state lately (pretty much).
If Ohio had gone Democratic in either 2000 or 2004, the Democratic candidate would have taken office. The state was hotly contested and close in both years.
This year, however č and this week in particular č the possibility has been raised that as Ohio goes, the nation might not.
Most specifically, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe has made the case that Obama can win the election without either Ohio or Florida (the other Ohio, politically speaking).
He notes that the Democrats came within one large state or a few small states of winning in 2004 without Ohio or Florida. He says Virginia, Georgia and some western states that went Republican are in play for various reasons (mainly because they’ve been trending a little toward the Democrats).
Plouffe made this point on defense. So many people had been pointing to Obama’s problems with white, working-class voters in Ohio that he decided that, rather than argue with them, he would say that, no matter how pessimistic they might be about that, they should not give up on the election.
At the same time, he went out of his way to say that, of course, Obama would be working at full tilt to carry both Ohio and Florida. Nevertheless, Ohio Republicans pounced, pretending he hadn’t said that.
Party Chair Robert Bennett said Plouffe has been “meeting with Washington insiders about how they will write off Ohio.”
And Rep. John Boehner, of West Chester, said “Obama has a message for Ohio voters: I don’t need you.”
This resulted in a story in the newspaper in the state’s capital city with the headline, “Obama’s team says he’s not giving up on Ohio.”
Ironically, at about the same time, some new polls were showing Obama doing better in Ohio than in those other states. Three polls showed him ahead here, one by 11 points.
These are the first polls since Hillary Clinton gave up. Obama is starting to get the stature that comes with actually being the presidential nominee of a major party.
In the end, all this talk about individual states might miss the point. For all anybody knows, there will be a strong national tide one way or the other.
If we are going to talk about states, it should be noted that polls about them are notoriously bad predictors when conducted so early. Typically, polls do become more accurate in September and October.
But even as to that, there’s a special problem this year: race.
Some years ago a certain pattern developed: some black candidates did better in polls than elections. Apparently, some voters who were going to vote on the basis of race didn’t want to own up to that.
More recently, the phenomenon appears to have faded.
But there’s never been anything like a presidential election with a black candidate. So we’ll just have to see.
We do know that in 2006, Ken Blackwell č the only black Republican candidate č lost bigger than anybody else statewide.
We know that just about the only Democrats who lost statewide that year were black (one for auditor and one for the Supreme Court).
If I were personally to hedge on whether Obama will carry Ohio, race would be the reason. All the other reasons for him possibly losing are wrong:
The state is still basically red. (It was never red, always purple.) The Democrats can always find a way to lose. (Come on.) He’s too Harvard for Appalachia. (He’s got enough special strengths to make up for any special weaknesses.) The Hillary people are mad. (That’s so over.)
It should be a Democratic year in Ohio. The natural instinct of independent voters to throw out the president’s party in times like this are stronger than any of that other stuff.
That instinct is also stronger than any possible reaction to, say, Michelle Obama, or to any running mate, and stronger than any reaction to any campaign events, such as debates.
History makes this clear: the nature of the year is what rules.
Is that factor stronger, even, than race? History is silent. I think yes.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment |
Comments
By Tom Q
June 25, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this
To expand just a little on that “Bradley effect” (the tendency of polls to not capture resistance to black candidates): As I recall, even in the race that gave rise to the syndrome — Tom Bradley vs. George Deukmejian CA ‘82 — voters didn’t lie (say they were voting Bradley and turn around and vote Deukmejian). What happened was, the alleged undecided swung virtually 100% for Deukmejian, turning a 49-41 Bradley lead into a 51-49 loss. The same happened eight years later in VA, where Doug Wilder managed to hold on for victory, but only scoring the exact 50.1% he’d been polling; again the undecided went en masse to his seemingly-far-behind opponent. I’m not familar with the Ohio results you mention, but some recent races have seemed to suggest this effect is fading — Obama’s own IL race, Deval Patrick in MA won by predicted margins. Even Harold Ford in TN, though he lost, lost within almost the exact parameters polling had suggested. So, the fact that Obama is already scoring 50-51% in some national polls is a very good sign for him (though of course I agree that Spring/summer polling is ephemeral at best). On the general Keys subject: don’t you love how everyone is jumping on the Charlie Black statement, about a terror attack helping McCain, essentially agreeing with Black’s premise even while saying it was gauche to mention it out loud? Why are people so persuaded something bad happening could help an incumbent party? Yes, polls show terrorism is McCain/the GOP’s best (only?) asset; but wouldn’t a devastating attack undercut that? Polls for some time have shown voters trust Democrats far more on the economy. Does that mean an October market crash during a Democratic administration would help their re-election prospects? I can’t see anyone falling for such a stupid proposition, but you hear this analogous one all the time.