Recently, there's been a big kerfuffle between Melissa Harris Perry, who wrote this article in the Nation and Gene Lyons, who wrote this response at Salon.
Briefly, Harris Perry's article, titled "Black President, Double Standard: Why White Liberals are Abandoning Obama" claims that Obama is more liberal than Bill Clinton was, yet Clinton did not lose support. She then says the difference is due to a subtle form of racism, holding Obama to a higher standard because he is Black.
Lyons, in what can be called a diatribe, attacks Harris Perry personally. There's no need for that, nor any excuse for it.
But I think Harris Perry is wrong. I think the reason people are holding Obama to a different standard than Clinton is that different people voted for Obama.
Obama and Clinton each won by about the same margin. If you ignore Perot in 1992, then Clinton and Obama got about the same portion of the vote. But they did it quite differently. Obama won bigger, where he won, and lost bigger, where he lost. Ignoring Perot, Clinton lost only 4 states by more than 10 percent differential (Nebraska, Utah, Idaho and North Dakota). He won 12 by more than 10 (Hawaii, Washington, Minnesota, California, West Virigina, Illinois, Maryland, Vermont, New York, Rhode Island, Arkansas and Massachusetts).
Obama lost 15 states by 10 or more (Oklahoma, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Nebraska, Kansas, Tennessee,
Mississippi, West Virginia and Texas) and won 18 my more than 10 (Nevada, Wisconsin, New Mexico, New Jersey, Michigan, Oregon, Maine, Washington, Connecticut, California,
Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Hawaii).
Looking at that, I start to see that Clinton did better among moderates than Obama did, while Obama did better than Clinton among liberals.
Looking some more, we can find states where Obama did better than Clinton, and vice versa, and if we make a couple assumptions about Black voters, we can estimate the proportion of the White vote that each man got in each state. I assumed that Clinton in 92 got 90% of the Black vote, and that Obama got 95%. This is based on the fact that Blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, but that more Blacks probably voted for Obama than for Clinton (that is, more turned up at the polls). I also assumed that Blacks vote at the same rate as Whites, overall; in actuality, I've seen evidence that they vote a little less often, but not enough to affect the conclusions.
So, in which states did Clinton 92 get a much higher proportion of the White vote than Obama did?
Arkansas Clinton got 53% of White vote, Obama 30%
Louisiana Clinton 36, Obama 16
Wyoming Clinton 47, Obama 33
West Virginia Clinton 55, Obama 42
Oklahoma Clinton 42, Obama 29
Tennessee Clinton 45, Obama 33
Alabama Clinton 31, Obama 19
Kentucky Clinton 49, Obama 38
all of these are conservative states.
And where did Obama do much better among Whites?
Hawaii Clinton 55, Obama 72
Vermont Clinton 58, Obama 68
Delaware Clinton 46, Obama 55
Connecticut Clinton 49, Obama 58
all liberal states.
So, the reason more White Obama voters are dissatisfied with Obama than White Clinton voters were dissatisfied with Clinton might have nothing to do with Clinton or Obama, and a lot to do with the supporters.