Obama and McGovern
At the risk of developing a reputation for using The Coffee House as a means for commenting on intramural discussions at The New Republic, I do think there's a lot of value in today's exchange between John Judis and Jon Chait on the former's use of George McGovern's campaign as an appropriate metaphor for fears about Barack Obama's electoral strengths and weaknesses, if only because it nicely crystallizes a lot of issues that have been floating around for many months.
I agree with Chait's two main objections to Judis' use of the McGovern analogy: (1) the "McGovern coalition" of younger voters, minorities, and upscale professionals is arguably a whole lot bigger than it was in 1972; and (2) Obama's voter base in primaries isn't necessarily going to be his voter base in a general election campaign. But I'd add a few other objections of my own.
(3) It's sometimes forgotten that George McGovern didn't actually perform that well among "McGovern Coalition" voters. He lost the "youth vote" decisively, and showed some weakness as compared to past Democratic nominees among minority voters. There's nothing about Obama's primary election performance to suggest that he's going to have problems with either category.
(4) McGovern's campaign made a variety of big strategic and tactical mistakes that Obama's unlikely to replicate. Barack Obama is not going to deliver his nomination acceptance speech at 2:45 a.m. EST (even if he did, it would be viewed by many millions the next day on cable and YouTube). Nor is he likely to choose as his running-mate an unvetted politician who turns out to have a string of drunk-driving citations, or has repeatedly undergone electro-shock therapy. (If Obama's running-mate did prove to be weak, I doubt he'd say he's behind him or her "1000 percent" before unceremoniously dumping the poor sap, and then choosing a substitute, after repeated public rebuffs from others, whose media nickname was "Bozo."). I cite these mistakes not out of any disrespect for Sen. McGovern, for whom I was a loyal precinct captain in 1972. But his campaign did suffer from a notable plague-of-frogs series of misfortunes, some self-generated, some simply unique.
(5) The 1972 campaign was waged against an incumbent president whose approval ratings rose steadily throughout the year, and who manipulated both the economy and the Vietnam War ruthlessly and successfully to make himself virtually unbeatable. Obama's running against a Republican struggling to both identify with and separate himself from an incumbent president whose approval ratings will never significantly recover; who's already tried and failed to stimulate the economy; and who has zero chance of credibly declaring before Election Day that "peace is at hand."
(6) The 1972 campaign also occurred at the worst possible phase (for Democrats) of a long realignment of the presidential vote, exacerbated by the shooting of George Wallace, whose otherwise likely third-party candidacy would have depressed Nixon's vote totals in the South and elsewhere. Today, even a precise recapitulation of every mistake by the McGovern campaign would produce far fewer Democratic defections.
None of this should suggest that Judis isn't making some valid points about Obama's potential general-election vulnerabilities; he is, and I hope Obama's campaign is paying attention. But associating Obama with a forty-nine-state blowout thirty-six years ago creates more confusion than enlightenment in meeting the general election challenge.
I have so much admiration for Judis (who I consider something like a mentor) that I hesitate to disagree with him too easily. But I think Ed and Chait really have the better part of this argument. The key point is that you cannot extrapolate voting patterns from a party primary to the general. Suggestive, yes. But the direct arguments just don't hold up, as I tried to make clear in today's episode. The issue terrain is different, the partisan terrain leans heavily to the Democrats. And if things are really quite this bad for Obama, why is he still running even or ahead of McCain nationwide. Like Ed, this isn't to ignore some serious challenges. But the McGovern analogy really strikes me as a caricature.
One other point, it was John and Ruy's book, the Rising Democratic Majority that made this point, that the McGovern coalition, with the demographic changes that have occurred over the last 35 years, is much much bigger.
April 23, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...and who has zero chance of _credibly_ declaring before Election Day that "peace is at hand." Credibility isn't even a speed bump to the Bush gang. Plus, in 2002-3 they used the "Armageddon (nuclear) is at hand" ploy. I wouldn't count that one out. Then there's the non-traceable electronic voting and today's eefort to kill a paper-trail ballot initiative. AQ is very close to getting its hands on some Pakistani nukes. It's definitely a different dynamic than 1972. However, one thing I learned then and get reminded of every day now is: Just when you think they can't go any lower, they do. For me, that is the immutable rule of right-wing Republican politics.
April 24, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Repubs have a pretty good chance of, no, not "peace at hand" but certainly of "terrorists from Guantanamo are being brought to justice by this trial [which we have ingeniously managed to get to court in November, 2008]".
April 24, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know. As a member of McGovern's coalition of younger voters I thought we were pretty formidable. (at the time.)
I just think that the facade Obama carefully built for himself has been crumbling at such a rate that he will need a whole new coalition by November because his current base will have been completely disillusioned by then.
April 23, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
concern trolling IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
April 23, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poll numbers have a way of cutting through theories and casual impressions. Both Democratic candidates are roughly tied with McCain. Until I see that significantly change I will view claims that Obama has imploded with some skepticism.
April 23, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"[Obama leads in polls] Until I see that significantly change I will view claims that Obama has imploded with some skepticism."
Even that's being too generous to Judis. It's not necessary to refute an unsubstantiated theory.
If Judis makes the claim, the burden of evidence is on Judis to substantiate it. I don't see any besides wholly speculative interpretations.
That evidence exists to actually refute Judis' theory, and polls indicating Obama still leads in popularity with Dems, and in matchups against McCain, is only an extra nail in the coffin of a theory already DOA.
April 23, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure what you mean Otto, Obama's base is as strong now as it has ever been. He took over 90% of the PA black vote, and he won every group under the age of 40 (is that correct or was it 35?) He won amongst highly educated voters as well.
Just because the last primary was in a state chock full of poor, aging, blue collar Democrats (Hillary's base, which are demographics that have been shrinking). Doesn't in any way suggest his "facade" is crumbling. It means his traditional base in this primary was smaller than it has been in other states.
April 23, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh:
Like you, I have great esteem for John Judis. And I also understand--which I should probably have acknowledged in my post--that TNR's editors exaggerated the extent to which he used the McGovern Analogy by their headline for his piece.
But still, that analogy is toxic, and potentially viral--and in the end, no more credible than the Jesse Jackson Analogy that Bill Clinton unfortunately played with after the SC primary.
I did my post because I thought it was important to smack this down not just with poll numbers, but with some history.
Ed Kilgore
April 23, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ed, I think you slander the late Sen. Eagleton. He was never, as far as I know, arrested for drunk driving, and John Anderson retracted his allegation that Eagleton had supposedly been arrested on that charge.
April 23, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
But still, the areas where he struggled were those with lower incomes, shaky economies, the areas hardest hit by job losses. Obama can learn from this - he needs to strengthen his message on the economy. He needs to be able to speak to the demographic that worries about food on the table and paying the mortgage. He tried hard to do that during the last few weeks of campaigning in PA, but he didn't quite make the dent that he should have. He's going to have to do better for the GE.
April 23, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's left out in the comparisons to McGoven is that Obama has charisma in spades, something McGovern didn't have an ounce of. Democratic candidates have long had a problem trying to prove opponents' criticisms aren't true. Obama needs to stop doing that. He's an elegant, well-educated, articulate, intelligent, charismatic candidate who can move people to tears. PLUS he understands policy! Maybe he should diss Clinton -- say what she is: an aging, slightly overweight woman with so much ambition she can't keep herself honest. She plays on fears instead of hopes. Hope is what keeps us going. Fears cause us to vote for demagogues and worse. And after he says that, brush off all the garbage she distracts him with -- there she goes again -- and scold the press (gently and with humor) for distracting us from the enormous problems we need to be addressing.
April 23, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there is a recipe for disaster!
You've just lost the women, seniors, blue collar worker and the slightly overweight.
April 23, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment about Clinton is just plain offensive. It's too bad you can't see her from another perspective. Perhaps then you'd understand why this contest is for all practical purposes split down the middle.
What are your plans for Clinton supporters? More importantly, what is the Democratic party's plans for Clinton supporters? How do we figure in to the November election?
The party leaders ought to be mulling this over, because there are a lot of us and we are very passionate in our support, as are you Obama supporters. We are both sides working for our candidate's victory in ways that we can, and we are invested both emotionally and financially.
April 23, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our plan is that you should vote Democratic this fall unless you want to see the war continue for 4-8 more years, the Bush tax cuts extended, Roe and Casey overturned, etc.
What's your plan? That you'll let all this happen unless we hire Dick Morris to suck your toes?
We also expect you to convince everyone else who thinks like you -- just as you expect us to convince Black voters who would see a rightfully won nomination wrenched out of Obama's hands that they should vote for Hillary. The difference is that what we're asking of you isn't impossible.
April 24, 2008 3:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seneca Doane said:
Now there's a comment that, like buddenbooks', is sure to encourage Clinton supporters to join us in November.
I have to say I'm sometimes embarrassed by some of my fellow Obama supporters, some of whom seem more prone to self-indulgence than strategic thinking. I'm glad that Obama himself is running an inclusive campaign.
April 24, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent analysis. If I may, I would add these other points:
1. McGovern was a remarkably ineffective speaker. People supported him because it was the right thing to do, but it was tough to listen to him even briefly. McGovern's heart was in the right place, but his communications skills were far below average. The contrast with Obama is total.
2. McGovern was rallying people around an extremely important cause, stopping the Vietnam war, but, unfortunately, was unable to broaden the discussion. People backed McGovern because of the one issue - stopping the war. Though McGovern would have favored it, he was not trying to build a broad, lasting coalition to change the basic alignment of American politics. That was probably impossible in that period. Had it been possible, McGovern would not have been the right person for the job.
3. In personal appeal and political vision, Obama is more like Franklin Roosevelt than any other president. Obama wants to build a broad new coalition to create an effective working majority and break the partisan deadlock. He conveys the sense that he would try to enact a progressive agenda without enforcing a strict ideology or trying to make 40% of the population feel excluded and abused. Obama has a long way to go to match FDR, of course, but he's already in a different league from McGovern.
Ironically, Obama may have no choice but to build a totally new coalition within the Democratic Party. Sen. Clinton's divisive campaign has set blue-collar workers, low income rural Democrats and feminists against African Americans, more highly educated and affluent Democrats, and Democratic activists in Moveon.org etc. She even seems to be trying to accentuate divisions between Jews and African Americans in order to gain short-term political advantage - that seems to be behind the talk of Farrakhan and the joys of nuking Iran when Obama might try to combat antisemitism, rather than just shunning antisemites, and might even dare to open diplomatic channels with Iran. In short, Hillary has been hard at work demolishing the remnants of the coalition FDR built.
If Hillary fails to destroy Obama and compel the party to nominate her even though she lost the election, Obama will have a challenge just reconstituting the Democratic Party as it was pre-Hillary.
April 23, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
All right, but if he makes such a new coalition, the question becomes, "who does he add?".
April 23, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
One group he would add, I think, is the small but important group of moderate or liberal Republicans. There was a day when Nelson Rockefeller, John Lindsay, etc. were at least sane and actually seemed to have an interest in doing good things for somebody besides their wealthy friends. Michael Bloomberg may be their heir. Republicans like them have had no place to go.
My sense is that Obama would also try to enact policies that minimize government interference in private life without making all evangelicals and Catholics feel they're under attack. That won't be easy to do, but it could be extremely important to address major issues such as healthcare reform. There are a lot of Christians who would like to see more emphasis on Biblical values such as showing mercy, helping the poor and taking care of the earth and less on executions, hating gays, killing Muslims, persecuting pregnant teenagers and giving tax breaks to the super-rich. There is at least as much commonality between liberal Democrats and the merciful wing of Christianity than between the merciful wing of Christianity and the right wing of the Republican Party.
I don't think Obama would try to build a coalition of people who agree on every single issue, including healthcare reform, immigration, foreign policy, abortion, gay marriage, gun control, etc. He would try to build issue-specific coalitions to enact policies on which a majority of people can, in fact, agree. The surviving liberal Republicans and the merciful wing of Christianity might help bring about healthcare reform, for example. As for the hot-button social issues that divide the country down the middle, Democrats have to face facts and work toward the policies they favor, but not try to compel people who disagree on what are for them deeply held moral principles to abandon those principles and embrace laws that they believe violate those principles. That could only happen over time and voluntarily. There's a better chance of convincing those people that the government shouldn't be making decisions about private moral matters - that it should be between each individual and his or her conscience or God, and government's role is not to intrude in that private realm.
Rightly or wrongly, my sense is that Obama would combine high moral aspirations with pragmatic good sense. He would back the best laws that he thinks Congress would enact and the population would support. He can inspire people and bring more to his viewpoint, but he realizes politics is the art of the possible, and that more can get done by building coalitions one major issue at a time.
April 23, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
But still, the areas where he struggled were those with lower incomes, shaky economies, the areas hardest hit by job losses. Obama can learn from this - he needs to strengthen his message on the economy. He needs to be able to speak to the demographic that worries about food on the table and paying the mortgage. He tried hard to do that during the last few weeks of campaigning in PA, but he didn't quite make the dent that he should have. He's going to have to do better for the GE.
Agree. He'll definitely make inroads with this demographic by sharpening his economic message. However, the context on this is important. White, working-class Democrats were much better off for a good portion of the 90s than they are now, so the Clinton brand matters to them. McCain, who calls for continued tax cuts (the very same tax cuts he initially opposed), has an economic policy (and I'm being generous when I call it that) that doesn't even share the same solar system with these voters.
April 23, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post Ed. Agreed on all fronts.
Also lifelongdem makes great points.
Frankly the idea that this election will be anything like '72 is laughable. If anything we are headed towards the opposite of '72.
April 23, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's those people BEHIND Obama I have question of. The Chicago grass roots machine that is thrusting him forward was not constructed by Obama, but by those pushing him as the front man I fear.
April 23, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is what they call concern trolling. But I have never heard of the Chicago grass roots machine. Is it the environmental version of the Chicago Daley machine?
April 23, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am the author of the first book on the McGovern campaign since the 1970s: Bruce Miroff, The Liberals' Moment: The McGovern Insurgency and the Identity Crisis of the Democratic Party (University Press of Kansas, 2007). The book was favorably reviewed in the New York Times last November. Many of the comparisons currently being drawn between Obama and McGovern are based on foggy memories of 1972 (for example, McGovern did do better among young voters than among older age cohorts). There are intriguing similarities between the two campaigns, but they are more superficial than they appear at first. Obama is a much stronger candidate than McGovern, and even more important, the political context is vastly more favorable for Democrats this year than it was in 1972. To me, perhaps the most striking parallel is between the roles Humphrey played in 1972 and Hillary Clinton is playing this year.
April 23, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
How close are the parallels between Hillary Clinton's role now and Hubert Humphrey's then? I don't remember Humphrey doing a lot of the things I wish Hillary would stop now, but you're in a position to know how Humphrey did balance a moral sense with personal ambition. I'd like to believe he laid greater emphasis on the former than Hillary seems to. Was Humphrey the reformer long since dead?
April 23, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Bruce Miroff,
Thank you for taking the time to add your input, I appreciated hearing your opinion.
April 23, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I think the Mcgovern analogy is one more reason that Obama shouldn't nominate Hillary as his running mate:
Remember amnesty, abortion, and acid? Well Robert Novak revealed, after the election of course, that the comment came from Tom Eagleton, the shock therapy running mate Mr. Kilgore talks about. As I understand it, Mcgovern gave the VP nod to Eagleton in hopes of bridging a part chasm that was developing. And Eagleton ended up stabbing him in the back both directly and indirectly.
April 23, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we use the late Walter Karp's analysis of the McGovern election we see some very interesting similarities to this one.
Karp said that the Peaceniks wanted a true reform candidate, ie Eugene McCarthy. the Hacks said no way but how about a compromise candidate?
Enough of the Peaceniks bit so McGovern got the nomination. Then the hacks threw the election.
The hacks saddled McGovern with Eagleton who had bad mental health problems. Then they waited six weeks and called a friendly journalist and told him to look into Eagleton's mental health stuff.
If McG had had Kennedy in law Sargent Shriver as VP from the outset he might have done lots better. But hack Teddy Kennedy did not support McG and tried to discourage Shriver from taking the VP candidate slot when it was offered after Eagleton.
Remember that the aptly named George Meany took the AFL/CIO over to Nixon for the first time in it's history. When asked why, since Nixon had the worst organized labor voting record in the Senate and McG the best, spokespersons said Meany don't like McG. The press never asked another question.
The examples of collusion of Republican hacks and Democratic Party hacks in that election would fill a book. Democratic Party treachery stories would make you puke.
Hunter Thompson also saw the election in roughly similar ways as Karp. Karp's Indispensible Enemies, Fear and Loathing and the Boys on the Bus would be a wonderful five credit indpendent study project.
Obama is no reformer as far as I can tell. But Edwards was.
So while Edwards was in the race it was Hill, McC and Obama against the marginalized and ignored Edwards.
Now Edwards is out and Obama still is no real reformer but the reform energy in the race is behind him. Thus Hill and McC against Obama.
If Obama gets the nomination watch for a race war campaign the likes of which we haven't seen since Reconstruction. The Hacks really don't want a reformer in power ever but especially not now with all the possible jail time an aggessive and honest Justice Dept could bring down.
April 23, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
My own personal looking glass tells me that if Obama loses to McCain, the Clintons will be blamed, while the reality will be simply that he lost.
If Clinton takes the nomination, she will do to McCain what she's trying to do in the primary, which is to win at all costs.
I'm hoping that whoever ends up taking on McCain will try to win at all costs, because I'm thinking that we need (pardon the expression) change.
April 23, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you can make any comparison. The elephant in the room here is race. Race is a complex issue in the US. It's plays into other issues and particularly in other fears.
The Republicans were always going to use that against Obama. He needed solid, unified, support from his own party to provide the kind of affirmation that could withstand the attacks that were bound to come. Obviously, that didn't happen. Instead, the attacks began in his own party.
It's difficult to sort out the other factors. Obama could certainly be clearer and stronger on the economy. He is also too easily framed as a northern liberal. He does lack the kind of experience you'd like to see in difficult times.
But I just don't see how you take out the race factor. And I will never get over how its been used by some in this party to win at all costs.
April 23, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
To attempt to draw inferences of a current election from historical elections is a fool's errand, just as is framing a current candidate in terms of historical candidates, whether successful or not.
After all the electorate and the objective social conditions constantly change, and the qualities of candidates differ.
April 23, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I may add, I think the mistake that the Clinton campaign has made is run a campaign that was designed in the mid-1980s in the wake of the Reagan revolution. It is a design that failed Gore and Kerry. Though Bill Clinton ran according to the same design, he victories, I think, were due more to the force of his personality than to his strategy. He had the ability to connective with folks on a very personal level, a quality not shared by Senator Clinton.
April 23, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Without Ross Perot, it's doubtful Bill Clinton would have ever been president.
Clinton was never able to build majorities in Congress. He was a good president, but he's overrated as a politician. He governed about as well as he could with conservative Republicans controlling the legislative branch. Clinton's failure to build the Democratic base rather than a loyal personal organization, plus his considerable negatives - his unfortunate tendency to hand Republicans the kind of "moral" issues they use to win elections - paved the way for a president who could get majorities elected: George W. Bush. It wasn't as though Al Gore inherited a powerhouse Democratic Party from Bill Clinton. It's more like George W. Bush inherited a golden opportunity. We have paid a terrible price for that.
April 23, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"He governed about as well as he could with conservative Republicans controlling the legislative branch."
What makes anyone think Obama could do any better under the same conditions? I don't, which is one reason I reject his post-partisan unity schtick. I'm not interested in an appeaser in the Whitehouse.
April 23, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Same conditions? The Demos will have a 6-8 lead in the senate, and a 30+ lead in the house.
That's not "conservative Republicans controlling the legislative branch"
April 23, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Changing those "same" conditions you posit is the point of Obama's approach. We can differ in assessing his chances for success, but there is a contrast with the way Hillary indicates she would try to govern. She thinks it's all about fighting harder in a narrowly divided country to shove programs down the throats of the Republican half. Obama thinks it's possible to bring more people to the progressive side and to accomplish more without making half the country feel it's getting screwed.
If Obama is wrong or can't pull it off, we may have a reprise of the first Clinton administration, with much recrimination and little accomplishment.
If Clinton is right, ditto. She thinks that's just the way American politics is and that she can play a nastier game than anybody else to get her way. A second Clinton era driven by her self-proclaimed toughness would probably be better than having the Republicans get their guy in the White House, but it's not exactly an enthralling possibility, is it? She's further compromised the chances of Democratic success on the partisan battlefield by alienating many loyal Democrats. Who would have dreamed she would attack moveon.org while playing footsie with Scaife and Drudge?
April 24, 2008 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Without Ross Perot, it's doubtful Bill Clinton would have ever been president.
Lifelongdem, I'm afraid this is an urban legend that will not die. Exit polls at the time showed that Perot's effect on the election was at best neutral, possibly more favorable to Poppy Bush than to Clinton, but at all events Perot did Clinton no good. I'm too lazy to give you a link, but look at the Daily Howler and search on Perot, Clinton and E. J. Dionne. Somerby thoroughly debunks the "Perot got Clinton elected" meme.
That said, I agree heartily with your basic point, and with Ed's top post. The infatuation with long-past Democratic defeats strikes me as a sort of PTSD flashback to which we as Dems are sadly prone, and which we need to get past. Certainly it is not based in fact and reason.