The Potomac Primary: Why Obama's Victories May Spell Trouble for Democrats

A couple of things jump out at me in the exit polls from Barack Obama’s victory last night in Virginia over Hillary Clinton. In a contest in which he bested Clinton in nearly every category—from male voters to female voters, rich to poor, he (1) lost to Clinton among white Democrat voters 56 percent to 44 percent and (2) he won voters who identified themselves as conservative by a 73 percent to 24 percent margin.

Although CNN, MSNBC and other news organizations commission these exits polls (these figures are from the CNN.com website), not one of the talking heads mentioned these figures. Instead, the refrain was that Obama had broadened his coalition even beating Clinton in white voters (52 to 47 percent for Obama). The latter figure, which wasn’t clarified either, included independent voters, who are permitted to vote in Virginia’s open primary.

While independent voters have been going to Obama up to this point and may well do so in Ohio and Texas, which permit those not affilliated with either party to vote in either the Democratic or Republican races, there is much to suggest that the independent voters are not now aware that Obama is one of the most liberal Democrats in the Senate, something that Republicans will be sure to make clear if he is the party’s nominee (a recent National Journal article based on its assessment of his voting record in the Senate identifies him as the #1 liberal in the Senate for 2007; in the same article Clinton is ranked #16).

If the exit polls are correct and over 70 percent of the voters that identified themselves as conservative did, in fact, vote for Obama, these voters are either completely ignorant of Obama’s position on issues or political miscreants trying to create mischief. In any event, when the general election takes place these voters are most unlikely to vote for Obama if he is the Democratic party’s candidate. Also, while there is probably some overlap between the independent voters (which made up 16 percent of voters and voted about 2-1 for Obama) and those identifying themselves as conservative (12 percent of voters), many of those independents who voted for Obama last night are less likely to do this in a general election. Take these groups away from Obama last night and things don’t look as good.

Which brings us to Ohio and Texas. Based on past primaries, white middle class Democrats are more likely to vote for Clinton. Given the demographics of this state (Ohio voters are 86 percent white, 10 percent black, according to statistics from the 2004 general election) and his performance in states with similar demographics it is unlikely that Obama will win either state, though with the help of independents he may be able to get enough delegates and ultimately win the party’s nomination. If he does get a lot of these puzzling independent voters or Ohio and Texas voters simply become swept up by the juggernaut that is Obama’s campaign at this point, the party could have some real difficulties in November when Obama’s experience and liberal voting record are front and center of Republican attacks. Guess who independents and conservatives will be voting for then.

If this happens, all the talk of momentum and how Obama appeals to all voters—whether liberal or conservative; rich or poor; Democrat or independent; or even Republican—could seem like talk from a distant past and the very pundits now stoking this fire will shake their heads and ask one another how those silly Democrats could have been so misguided.