The Democrats' polling puzzle

Can any candidate cover the party's many bases?

Anyone who remembers trying to solve a Rubik's cube can appreciate the challenge facing the contenders for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

The Democratic coalition, in its early reaction to the candidates and many of the key issues facing the country, is fracturing along lines of race, class and gender. The candidate who wins the nomination next year is likely to be the one who most successfully bridges these divides. But so far none of the leading contenders—all of whom will descend on San Diego this weekend for the California Democratic convention—is showing consistent strength with all segments of the party. And given the divergent priorities that the party's different elements are expressing, building that kind of broad support won't be easy for any of them. These are dynamics that point toward a race unlikely to be settled as quickly, or as decisively, as either the 2004 or 2000 Democratic nomination contests, both of which essentially ended after the first primary in New Hampshire.

I noted recently that the competition between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, the two top contenders, is following an upstairs-downstairs pattern familiar from most Democratic primary races since 1968. Obama, like past Democratic hopefuls such as Eugene McCarthy and Bill Bradley who stressed reform and railed against politics-as-usual, is running best with college-educated voters; Clinton, like predecessors such as Walter Mondale and Al Gore who emphasized bread-and-butter concerns, polls best among voters without college degrees.

But in a contest that features the first woman and African-American candidates with a real chance of winning the nomination, race and gender are also shaping the initial patterns of support. In most surveys, Clinton polls better with women than men; for Obama the reverse is generally true. Among African-Americans, the two run closely, with most polls giving an edge to Clinton.

A recent Times/Bloomberg Poll of likely Democratic voters allows us to explore in the greatest detail yet how race, gender and class are interacting to shape the competition. Thanks to figures provided by Susan Pinkus and Jill Darling, the director and associate director of the Times/Bloomberg Poll, we can combine all three factors to establish a hierarchy of support for the leading contenders: Clinton, Obama and former Sen. John Edwards.

Obama and Clinton are each strongest at the point where their class and gender advantages intersect. Clinton runs best among white women who have not attended college, a group often described as waitress moms. In the Times/Bloomberg Poll, Clinton led Obama with those women by a resounding 16%. By contrast, white men with college degrees provide Obama his highest margin over Clinton—10%. Each candidate is so weak in the other's stronghold that Edwards runs ahead of Clinton among college-educated men, and ahead of Obama among waitress moms.

More closely contested between Clinton and Obama are the groups where gender, education and race pull in competing directions. Clinton led Obama among white men without college degrees, though only by three percentage points. Obama led Clinton among white women with college degrees, but only by five percentage points. With both of those groups, Edwards runs a distant third.

African-Americans preferred Clinton over Obama by 9%. And although the sample was too small for definitive conclusions, the survey found an interesting pattern: While Obama led Clinton comfortably among black men, she trounced him even more decisively among black women. Largely because of the broad appeal of Clinton and Obama, Edwards did not get off the ground with African-Americans: just 1% of those surveyed backed him. Finally, Clinton also led Obama and Edwards among other minorities, predominantly Latinos, though the number surveyed was also too small for definitive conclusions.

Looking at the race from this demographic angle offers new perspectives on the challenges facing the major candidates. Edwards' strength is his weakness: He is competitive across much of the party but he hasn't established a clear base with any group. He is attracting enough support to remain close to the top two, but not enough to threaten them, and his deficit with African-Americans looms as a major obstacle. Edwards has made himself a factor, but he will likely need a breakthrough in Iowa and New Hampshire, next year's first contests, to close the last mile separating him from Clinton and Obama.

Obama faces a stark mathematical dilemma: The groups that now prefer Clinton comprise a larger share of the Democratic primary electorate than the groups that favor him. College-educated voters often cast a majority of the votes in Democratic primaries along the two coasts; Obama, for instance, would find favorable terrain in New Hampshire or California where about three-fifths of Democratic voters hold college degrees. But overall, the Times Poll found that among likely Democratic primary voters nationwide, whites without college degrees still outnumber those with degrees by about two-to-one. Part of Obama's problem is that he isn't as well-known among non-college voters, who are not paying as close attention yet as the upscale Democrats. Still, most experts agree that his message, with its heavy emphasis on political reform and overtones of a crusade to transform politics, is targeted more at the Volvo than the Chevy set.

"Obama is a very compelling guy; he has a very compelling story and he's gotten from zero to 60 faster than anybody in history that I know of," said Mark Mellman, who polled for John Kerry in 2004 and is neutral now. "But … his base right now is a fairly narrow upscale base. And I think that Bill Bradley and Paul Tsongas and Gary Hart have all demonstrated that that is enough to create a lot of excitement but not enough to win the nomination. Obama has a need to expand his base."

Clinton's problem is that she may not be a perfect fit for the voters on whom she is relying. Through her two New York Senate campaigns, she's convinced working-class families that she will champion their economic interests. The groups where Clinton runs best—non-college white men and woman as well as African-Americans—expressed significantly greater unease in the poll about their personal finances than the groups that favor Obama.

But on other fronts Clinton could be vulnerable with less affluent voters. White Democrats without college degrees and African-Americans, for instance, tend to be more conservative on cultural issues such as abortion, gay marriage and gun control than more affluent Democrats. None of Clinton's 2008 rivals may move far enough to her right to take advantage of those sentiments. But a more intriguing vulnerability could come on immigration.

As the recent Times/Bloomberg poll found, blue-collar white Democrats and African-Americans are both much more concerned than affluent whites about the economic competition from immigrants and more likely to support tougher enforcement at the border over new guest-worker programs. That suggests Clinton may be tugged toward more restrictive immigration positions, such as greater skepticism toward guest worker programs opposed by organized labor. If she doesn't move, she'll leave an opening for another Democrat willing to risk widening the party's divisions by questioning "comprehensive" immigration reform.

On some issues, Democrats enjoy a strong consensus. Most importantly, there is overwhelming opposition to the Iraq war among all of the party's major groups. Other fronts show clear differences in priorities and perspectives: Downscale white Democrats, for instance, are much more open than their upscale counterparts to an economic strategy focused on tax cuts rather than deficit reduction or spending on social programs.

These differences will all move through the spotlight next winter as the race winds through the key early contests on the calendar—mostly downscale states like Iowa and South Carolina and more upscale outposts such as New Hampshire, New Jersey and California. Eventually one of the leading contenders, or any of the other candidates in the field, may establish preponderant support across the party. But the stark cleavages evident in the Times/Bloomberg Poll and other early surveys, like the Pew Research Center results that were released yesterday, suggest it is more likely the Democrats will face a close, tough primary that will test each candidate's ability to reach beyond their natural base into communities that now tilt toward their rivals. The pieces are assembling for an epic race that will expose all of the fault lines in the Democratic Party—and challenge the winner to surmount them as soon as the nominating fight is over.