That’s symptomatic of a larger concern yet to be addressed: all the candidates in the Stevenson tradition have, generally speaking, ranked poorly in the black community and among the less wealthy voters in the Democratic Party. Kennedy swept the black vote against McCarthy. Ditto for Jimmy Carter against Brown, Walter Mondale against Hart, and Bill Clinton against Tsongas.
There was talk in 2000 that Bradley might be different, since he’s more recognizable in the black community, having played for a New York Knicks championship team. But Bradley chose to run as a kind of tweedy Princeton don rather than a former All-American; as a result, he was narrowly beaten by Al Gore in New Hampshire — a state Bradley had to carry, given his profile. The rest of the campaign was a foregone conclusion.
Thus, if Obama doesn’t change his campaign approach to focus more on the concerns of lower-income voters, history has shown us he, too, may soon run out of luck.
There’s still hope for the Illinois senator, though, given two advantages that the previous candidates in this tradition didn’t have. The first is that the Democratic primary electorate continues to get wealthier as the less well-off — who are less likely to vote for Obama — are less likely to vote at all.
The second, and more important, advantage is Obama’s race. And that likely will determine whether he ends up like his predecessors or transcends their efforts. There is an understandable pride among voters whenever “one of our own” seeks the nation’s highest office. Obama should be able to capitalize on that.
It wouldn’t hurt, of course, if he were to win New Hampshire, either, or come very close, à la McCarthy in 1968. The state is essentially made-to-order for Obama’s type of campaign, and the flood of his student volunteers trekking up to New Hampshire next January should be considerable. Let’s not forget, either, that Obama’s fundraising efforts show he has already built a powerful campaign, which gives him a good head start. But the well-to-do in the Democratic universe have always liked candidates like Obama.
The key to Obama’s success is not, as the press has led us to believe, whether he can overcome his relative inexperience. It’s whether he can appeal to someone who would rather share a beer with him than a glass of chardonnay.
THE FIELD
REPUBLICANS
RUDY GIULIANI
Odds: 2-1
MITT ROMNEY
Odds: 7-2
NEWT GINGRICH
Odds: 4-1
FRED THOMPSON
Odds: 6-1
JOHN MCCAIN
Odds: 9-1
MIKE HUCKABEE
Odds: 300-1
SAM BROWNBACK
Odds: 1000-1
TOMMY THOMPSON
Odds: 20,000-1
DUNCAN HUNTER
Odds: 50,000-1
TOM TANCREDO
Odds: 75,000-1
RON PAUL
Odds: 250,000-1
JAMES GILMORE
We hardly knew you.
DEMOCRATS
BARACK OBAMA
Odds: 4-3
HILLARY CLINTON
Odds: 3-2
JOHN EDWARDS
Odds: 7-1
BILL RICHARDSON
Odds: 40-1
JOE BIDEN
Odds: 65-1
CHRIS DODD
Odds: 150-1
DENNIS KUCINICH
Odds: 25,000-1
MIKE GRAVEL
Odds: 1 million to 1
On the Web
The Presidential Tote Board blog: http://www.thephoenix.com/toteboard
