Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Comparing Clinton's Win in 1992 to Obama's in 2008

Jed L has a very interesting post at DailyKos.com debunking the notion (promulgated by right wing writers such as Gerald Seib at the Wall Street Journal) that Obama's mandate is similar to Bill Clinton's in 1992. Obama's is clearly bigger.

In 1992, Democrats actually lost seats in Congress (though they gained one in the Senate), and although Bill Clinton won 370 electoral votes, as Seib noted, he didn't achieve a majority of the popular vote. (One can "blame" Perot for this, but remember that Reagan still managed a majority in 1980 despite a strong third-party bid.)

In 2008, on the other hand, Democrats have gained at least 19 seats in the House. In the Senate, they've gained at least six seats. And Barack Obama assembled the strongest Democratic presidential coalition in decades.

Roughly 28.3% of the voting age population voted for Obama, a number exceeded only by Reagan in 1984 and Nixon in 1972 in the ten elections since 18 year-olds were given the right to vote. (Bill Clinton won 23.7% of the voting age population in 1992.)

Obama's victory was marked by depth as well as breadth. If you add up the electoral votes in all the states in which he won by at least 10 points, you get 262 of the 270 EVs he would need to win re-election. (Keep in mind that the distribution of EVs will change slightly after the 2010 census.)

It would take only two additional states to get over the 270 threshold, Iowa (which he won by 9 points) and Colorado (which he won by just under 7 points).

Comparing Obama's victory to 1992, if you look at the states that Clinton won big -- by 10% or more -- he only takes in 188 EVs. Even if you just look at two-party vote (a dubious method of factoring out Ross Perot), Clinton only gets 230 EVs.

Obama's victory wasn't just impressive for its electoral geography. Obama did best among young voters, most of whom will still be able to vote in 2012. (Not to mention the influx of another four years worth of younger voters.)

At the same time, Obama did worst among the oldest voters. I hate to be this blunt, but not all of those voters will live long enough to cast ballots in 2012.

Looking at these factors, Obama has about as rock solid an electoral coalition as an incoming first-term president could have.

Combined with the returns on senatorial and congressional campaigns, the notion that Obama in 2008 is in the same political situation as Bill Clinton in 1992 is laughable on its face. Obama is in a much stronger position.

I'm looking forward to 2010 and 2012 with a smile on my face. Are you?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Not so much 2012, O has written the book on how to win elections, and, the GOP is going to run with it for the next election and come out with more than enough money and a much more viable candidate than McCain was, who had they let him be himself, the race may have been closer.

I'm just going to take it one day, week, month year at a time.

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin