Legal Commentary

On March 24th, I posted the observation that Obama might have trouble attracting "Republicrats," a term that I use to refer to the descendants of 19th century New England Republicans who are now living throughout the northern section of the USA, from Massachusetts to San Francisco, because Obama was dependent on the union vote. "Republicrats don't like unions," I noted.

Now Michael Barone has published a survey of the Obama-Clinton primary race indicating how Obama has won counties in which "academics" dominate and how Clinton has won counties in which "Jacksonians" dominate. It turns out that the "academic" counties are precisely the same as the Pietist diaspora that spread Republicrats across the great northern section of the US.

In other words, Obama depends on the Republicrat vote. Orrin Kerr thinks that McCain will be competitive in winning this vote (see his comment on my March 24th post). I doubt it. Sure, Republicrats might like McCain's abstract policies. But will they like the man himself? Barone notes that McCain in name, lineage, personality, vocabulary, and profession is an arch-Jacksonian -- Scotch-Irish, military, rowdy, libertarian in mores, and educationally lax (i.e., near last in his class at the Naval Academy). I do not see the intellectual descendants of the Adams becoming enthusiastic about such a guy. After the Gilded Age antics of Bush II, I think that the Republicrats will, for better or for worse, gravitate towards gravitas -- that is, earnest, pious, serious, New England-style Good Government.

But I'd be interested in what people think of the Barone article, which I regard as the best piece written on the Primaries so far.