Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have seen peaks and valleys in recent weeks. The peaks have been the continuing strength of the Democratic Party in almost every generic poll, the strong performance of Democrats in recent special elections, and Obama’s fundraising prowess and nearly inevitable status as the party’s 2008 presidential nominee. The valleys have been stubborn questions as to whether Obama’s message resonates with the white working class and whether this weakness could cost him the election in a matchup with Republican John McCain. 

In many ways, the big storyline has remained the same for the entire campaign. The election playing field tilts significantly towards Democrats. Pick your measure. President Bush’s job approval rating hovers around 30 percent. Survey respondents favor a generic Democrat over a generic Republican by 10 to 12 percentage points. By the same margin, they prefer Democratic control of Congress. When asked which of the two parties they identify with, respondents favor Democrats significantly; in 2000 and 2004, they were split almost evenly. 

This Democratic tilt has already produced results. Republicans have done poorly in several special congressional elections. Last month, a Democrat won the seat vacated by former GOP House speaker Denny Hastert; this was in a district that President Bush carried with 55 percent of the vote in 2004. This week, in an election to fill Republican Roger Wicker’s seat in Mississippi, in a district that Bush carried with 62 percent of the vote in 2004, the Democratic candidate won a plurality (and nearly a majority) of votes. He may well win the runoff in May. In a third special House election, Republicans worry that they will not be able to hold Richard Baker’s Louisiana district, which gave Bush 59 percent of the vote in 2004. In the fall elections, the GOP will be forced to defend many open seats and vulnerable incumbents. 

Obama and Democrats also continue to benefit from greater enthusiasm from their party faithful. This is reflected in both the voter turnout and the fundraising numbers. Obama in particular continues to raise money at a prodigious rate. On top of the $91 million he raised during the first two months of 2008, Obama raised $41 million more in March, compared to Hillary Clinton’s $20 million and John McCain’s $15 million. 

Clinton's core voters are heavily represented in the key Midwestern swing states, while Obama's core voters will help him most in states that are not as competitive.

Despite his loss in Pennsylvania, the freshman Illinois senator is still seen by most as the inevitable Democratic nominee. Clinton’s win in Pennsylvania may net her 10 to 15 delegates, but she trails by well over 100. The rest of the primary calendar has only a few states, and they are expected to divide their delegates relatively equally between the two camps. Clinton’s only real hope is for a major Obama collapse. 

So amid all of this good news, why are some Democrats worried about Obama’s prospects? Two reasons. First, McCain runs ahead of his party; he is not a generic Republican. Second, a number of signs point to Obama’s weakness among white working-class voters who are heavily represented in key Midwestern swing states. In recent weeks, the public has seen the Reverend Wright tapes and also read Obama’s remarks about “bitter” working-class voters who “cling” to religion, guns, and social issues instead of voting for their own economic self-interest. The “bitter” comments fed into a line of criticism that Obama is an Adlai Stevenson-style elitist. 

This storyline has some legs, as Clinton continues to hang around in the primaries and continues to score victories by racking up working-class votes. In Ohio, Obama won only five counties, all centered around the state’s biggest cities (Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and Dayton). Clinton won 83 Ohio counties, including small- and medium-sized industrial cities and rural areas. In Pennsylvania, Clinton showed the same strength by winning all the counties in western and northeastern Pennsylvania and all but a couple of counties in the state’s central region. Obama won in heavily African-American Philadelphia County, but he and Clinton split the vote in the Philadelphia suburbs. 

A Democratic primary electorate is different than one in a general election, but Obama’s trouble with the white working class supports the argument that, at least in this way, Clinton is the more “electable” candidate. Clinton’s core voters are heavily represented in the key Midwestern swing states, while Obama’s core voters (African Americans and young and educated white voters) will help him most in states that are not competitive. Put another way, Obama’s strengths may cause him to rack up bigger wins in California and Connecticut and to narrow Republican margins in Georgia and Mississippi. But Clinton’s strengths may provide the key votes to eke out victories in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Which would you rather have? 

Obama’s broad appeal, coupled with the Democratic tilt in voter sympathies, may be enough to let him win the popular vote by a significant margin. In that case, many states will fall into the Democratic column. But in a close election, Obama will have to show greater strength among white working-class voters, a group which has supported Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries and which may flock to John McCain in the fall. 

John C. Fortier is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Image by Corbis.