Hillary Clinton, in her cynical, increasingly desperate attempt to steal the Democratic nomination from Barack Obama, claims her strength with "White, working class voters" makes her eminently more electable, and better able to defeat John McCain than Obama. In fact, this very demographic is why she loses to McCain. Add the alienation of Obama supporters if Hillary hijacks the convention, and you're looking at a defeat to match Dukakis in '88.
The logic is simple:
The "working class' voters who believe a white woman worth $100 million dollars better understands and represents their lives and their values than, until he published his two books, a middle class black man, will believe an ethically void, radical-right kowtow, lobbyist-owned, truth impaired, often addled white male septuagenarian worth $30 million will best represent their interests.
First, we have to recognize that Clinton is using a narrow slice of voters - those in Western Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana to declare her superior electability. But what she calls "White working class' is what most of the rest of America calls by the pejorative "rednecks." Clinton's "core demographic" has quite history. Contrary to common wisdom, the modern racist organizations did not originate in the deep South. No, the dubious claim for today's hate groups like the 20th Century Klan is smack in the middle of Hillary's prize support. Ohio, Indian, and even Western PA became hotbeds of not just anti-black sentiment, but the addition of anti-Jew, Catholic, immigrant, and just about anyone not White and Protestant. This is her "value voters."
While Clinton can rightfully claim that she wins this demographic hands-down over Obama, she conveniently disregards that these same people will vote for a white man - any white man, before they'll vote for her. These are the "Reagan Democrats" who voted for a rich Hollywood Californian over a Southerner. They voted for a patrician Yankee over a working class Greek. They chose a Bubba over that same Yankee, and then over a war hero. Finally, they chose a dim-witted good ol' boy from Connecticut over another Southerner and then another war hero. These are not particularly enlightened voters, but they are certainly selective.
They will not select Clinton.
Simple math becomes election algebra when you involve Obama voters. While Hillary is losing (at least) a third to a half of this killer demographic to McCain, she will also be shedding Obama Democrats. Obama's supporters will support any candidate who openly and fairly wins the nomination. If Clinton somehow sweeps every last remaining delegate in the primaries, garnering an actual majority of elected delegates, Obama voters will grudgingly flock to the polls to make sure a Democrat wins the White House.
But if Clinton steals the nomination with back room shenanigans, a large bloc of Democrats will refuse to vote for her. A number of Obama supporters have said to me that they'd rather suffer through four years of McCain and then elect Obama in 2012, than they would eight years of the (now revealed - and reviled) shrill, nasty, win-at-all-costs Clinton.
Neither Hillary's premise - that she wins the vote of redneck White working class voters in the general election - nor her math - including the support of Obama voters - weather close scrutiny.
I can't believe that Hillary - or at least her advisors - actually believe this group of voters will continue to support her versus McCain. But I do believe she thinks so little of the Democratic base that she'll burn the party to the ground and expect it to support her whole heartedly in a November election.
With luck, it won't come to this. But if it gets close someone with a bigger platform than me needs to explain it to the party nd the super delegates. Or it's four more years of (to quote Keith Olbermann) Bussssshhhed!