The Demographics Of The Dem Contest

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:54:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Josh Marshall writes about the demographics of the Dem race:

The problem is in states with substantial but not particularly large African-American populations in which you have a deep-seated and pre-existing racial politics that ends up playing in Clinton's favor. This, if the theory is right, would explain why Obama does well in the Mountain West and the South but has a harder time in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. . . . But I don't think it adequately deals with all the admittedly small set of data we have. How, for instance, does it account for Obama's victories in Missouri, Maryland, Virginia, Connecticut among other states? . .

This is an issue we have explored in great detail here at Talk Left. For example here. Josh seems unfamiliar with the exit poll data. I am surprised he is pointing to Missouri as the counterpoint, since it actually is in line with the data in other bigger states. Wisconsin (with Virginia) was Obama's best results with white voters in bigger states. More . . .

I earlier wrote:

By my math, Hillary Clinton won about 64% of the non-African American vote in Ohio. African Americans were slightly less than 4% of her total votes. By contrast, Barack Obama won about one third of the non-African American vote. Even then, non white voters amounted to two thirds of Obama's vote. (Compare that to Mississippi where two thirds of Obama's votes came from African Americans.) Indeed, Obama garnered 26% of the white vote in Mississippi as compared to 34% of the white vote in Ohio (the difference largely stems from Clinton winning white Republicans in Mississippi and splitting them in Ohio.) Not that significant a difference, particularly among white Democrats, which were 70-23 in MS and 70-27 in Ohio. The demographics of Mississippi are what led to Obama's win.

It seems clear that if the Ohio result predicts Pennsylvania, Obama will get trounced. Indeed that is what SUSA predicts currently, Obama losing by 19 points, losing non-African Americans 61-29. If we adjust the SUSA number to match the Ohio exit polls (the adjustment primarily would be to up Obama's percentage of the A-A vote), the result would be about 60-40 Clinton. Thus, it seems fair imo to expect a Clinton win in Pennsylvania of at least 15 points.

Another possibility is a return to the Wisconsin model. In Wisconsin, Obama won among all whites 54-45 and African Americans 91-8. If this occurs, Obama wins Pennsylvania handily. The question is will Wisconsin or Ohio be a better model for Pennsylvania? Can Obama recapture his Wisconsin magic?

So I looked at another state, Missouri. Obama captured 39% of the white vote in Missouri and 84% of the African American vote. What can we learn from these three results?

Let's look more closely. In Ohio, Clinton won white Democrats handily but tied among Republicans, who are 99% white. Thus, Obama lost white Democrats in Ohio by 70-27, Mississippi numbers. In Missouri, Obama lost white Democrats by 62-35, won white Republicans by 75-21 and white independents by 59-37. To wit, white non-Democrats were nearly a third of Obama's vote in Missouri.

In Wisconsin, white Democrats voted for Hillary by 51-48, while white independents (26% of the vote) went for Obama 62-35 and white Republicans went for Obama by 72-28. Thus, nearly over a third of Obama's vote in Wisconsin was white non-Democrats.

As we all know, Pennsylvania is a closed primary. Only Democrats can vote in it. If Obama could somehow capture 48% of white Democrats, as he did in Wisconsin, he can narrowly win Pennsylvania. If he loses white Democrats 70-27, as he did in Ohio, he will lose Pennsylvania by 20 points.

Marshall confuses two issues. The number of African- Americans in a state can be dispositive for Obama - as he will carry at least 80% of the vote in almost every state. In Mississippi, that translated into a big win. In Ohio, it translated into a big loss. The demographic breakdowns in Ohio and Mississippi were almost identical. Yet Clinton won Ohio by 10 and lost Mississippi by 22.

In Missouri, Obama won white Republicans and that gave him a better showing. He now seems to be losing white Republicans (a redundancy of course. There are no non-white Republicans.) Luckily for Obama (before it would have been lucky for Clinton) there are no white Republicans in the Pennsylvania primary. Nonetheless, the demographics work strongly against Obama, because 82-85% of the Pennsylvania Dem primary vote will be white. He has to win at least 35-40% of the white vote to win Pennsylvania. That would be a striking improvement for Obama.

Outside of the big contested states, Obama has done much better with white voters. Yes, this does point to the West as fertile ground for Obama. But these very trends do make Obama a bigger risk in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida. This is not news for anyone who has been paying attention.

< Open Thread | Evening Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Demographics Of The Dem Contest | 52 comments (52 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Hope the Superdelegates see this post!!! (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by athyrio on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:06:04 PM EST

: Egh...who cares...the SDs hopefully are smarter (none / 0) (#41)
by Virginian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:06:01 PM EST

than Marshall...
But his premise is pobably the dumbest thing I've read all day...
Basically what he is saying is "When Obama loses, Obama only loses because of 'deep seated' inherent racism"
This same stupid thinking months ago was what brought us the theory "Clinton will take super Tuesday because Obama couldn't campaign everywhere enough...whenever and wherever Obama campaigns, he'll win...all people have to do is see/hear him, and they will support him"
It is victim based logic, and it is a way they continually shift the goals and rationalized Obama's actual under performance from his "promotional" production (ie...why he loses when he has 15k people rallies, etc.)

I wish people wouldn't try to explain... (5.00 / 6) (#4)
by OrangeFur on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:06:20 PM EST

... so many things with the theory that a large swath of white voters in the Democratic primaries are closet racists.

We see it over and over again:

How come the NH primary results were markedly different from polling? It must be the Bradley effect!
Why on earth would Hillary Clinton run a race-baiting campaign that would alienate African Americans, who make up 20+% of the voters in the Democratic primary? Because there are even more white voters who are susceptible to such sleazy tactics!
How did Obama lose Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island after winning 12 contests in a row? The white Democratic voters there won't vote for a black candidate.
Why is Obama trailing in Pennsylvania? Like the white voters in Ohio, the ones in PA won't vote for a black candidate.

Is that really our view of our own party? Do we really believe that a huge chunk of our own party is made up of people who are so racially biased?

I don't. And we should be careful. Even people who aren't racist or biased and are generally well-intentioned will get annoyed if repeatedly accused in this manner.

What you said (5.00 / 4) (#14)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:23:46 PM EST

Plus I have kind of a hard time imagining large numbers of non-misogynist racist Dem. voters.

I have a hard time believing there are all that many seriously racist voters left who are active Democrats. They all left for the GOP years ago. Why would they stay with the Dems? I'd be suprised if there were any more racists in the Dem. Party than there are African-Americans in the Republican.

It's understandable that African-Americans want to vote for Obama. But for the rest of us working stiffs worried about serious bread-and-butter issues, vague promises of "hope" and "change" and "unity" have very little appeal.

This race is so mucked up, though, with gender and race and Clinton hatred, it's never going to be possible to have any kind of consensus on voter motivations.


This is the result of the politics of (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Virginian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:14:10 PM EST

convenience...

On the left, you have many activists, bloggers, loudmouths, etc...who have gotten behind Obama....on the right you have many activists, bloggers and loudmouths who see an opportunity to stick it to the hated Clintons...it is a "frienemy" situation...

You have folks on our side of the aisle repeating stuff from the other side to boost Obama, you have folks on the other side pumping out the old 90s crud and laughing about how it's become popular on the left...and the result is the Obama supporters are selling out their values and party for their candidate and the right is chipping away at the left's credibility for the GE (and future elections) by creating narratives about the "selling out" of values, and sowing the seed of doubt they've been trying to sow for years about Democrats not supporting the black community (albeit with complete BS...but BS being pushed by liberals now...)

So what we will have is potentially a disastrous Democratic general election, followed by a potentially disastrous presidency by a too cute by half naive inexperienced candidate, and Republicans building their narrative for a political comeback (if not this cycle in a very near future cycle) on the back of Obama...

its politics...


I bvelieve I accused no one of being racist (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:09:42 PM EST

or sexist.

A-As are not racist for voting for Obama by 4-1.

Women are not sexist for voting for Clinton by close to 3-2.

Men are not sexist for voting for Obama by even greater margins.


I didn't mean you, BTD (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by OrangeFur on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:15:31 PM EST

I meant the folks you usually criticize.

I mean the folks who generate the conventional wisdom in the cases I've described above. When given a choice of options to explain something: perhaps the NH polling was off, maybe Ohio voters are more tuned in to economic concerns, maybe Hillary Clinton isn't running a race-baiting campaign after all, a lot of folks rush right by these and assume that it's due to subtle racism on the part of a large chunk of voters.


Sorry about the confusion. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by OrangeFur on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:16:49 PM EST

I hope you'll change your 1 rating.


i do not detect racism in any of your (none / 0) (#10)
by cy street on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:20:54 PM EST

comments.

it is the prism of race used to reiterate a well worn path that seems a little over baked.

i agree with your take and response, but to what end? as you say, it really isn't news.


To what end? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:22:22 PM EST

andgarden gets to it. I am basically on TPM Watch regarding their political coverage.

To be honest, I am exposing him here.


: got it (none / 0) (#19)
by cy street on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:28:56 PM EST

Obamabots: whites not voting for Obama are racists (none / 0) (#26)
by Prabhata on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:50:57 PM EST

If one is non-AA and does not vote for Obama, one must be a closet racist. Now no one would accuse AAs of being racist for voting 80 percent for Obama. I find the attack without merit and frankly disgusting. The pressure the Obama camp is putting on black delegates supporting Clinton to switch to Obama is racism at its worst.


The Bradley Effect was real (none / 0) (#29)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:00:49 PM EST

but not applicable to this election cycle.

Tom Bradley was the front runner in the polls, and he was a widely respected known figure.

Difference was, his polls weren't based on recent data. They had shown him consistently ahead for months.

There was no "bump" in the polls, or discussion about electability. Bradley was simply the leader in the polls, and it was a fairly bland race (Deukmijian who ran against him was also very bland).

There also wasn't a huge turnout of female voters. In my opinion, the reason the polls were off in NH was because the "likely voter" is an affluent white male, and with the two candidates here, they have had to be weighted to include more women, African Americans, and less affluent voters.

The pollsters explained that as "massive turnout is hard to calculate".


: Your opinion is not based on evidence (none / 0) (#47)
by Cream City on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:19:28 AM EST

or didn't you know that women have been the majority of voters since 1952? And that's all voters. Women have been 55% or more of Dem voters for decades -- ever hear of the "gender gap," first id'd in the 1980 race?
Now recalibrate what that alone means to the rest of what you wrote, and you'll see the problems.

It's more than annoyance (none / 0) (#53)
by esmense on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:14:11 AM EST

For those of us who have been activists in terms of Civil Rights, it's a deep sense of betrayal. Add in the misogyny and the rampant classism (Democrats who prefer another candidate over Obama at this time aren't simply racists, they're "redneck," "trailer trash," "low information" working class racists) and what you are left with is a terrible sense of alienation from people who you had long believed were your allies.

I can no longer visit blogs and publication websites I've been supporting for years -- TPM, TNR, The Atlantic, The American Prospect -- without being assault with post after post, not just from individual trolls who indicate their sexist and classist attitudes crudely, but from sophisticated contributors who, often unconciously, also betray such attitudes -- although much less crudely. I stopped participating at TPM months ago, realizing respectful conversation was impossible, after Professor Berube responded to me -- when I made a comment to one of his posts, in which I identified myself as an older, working class woman, suggesting that gender and class prejudice were involved in some attacks being made on Clinton supporters online (I did not accuse him of such prejudices) -- in pig latin. It was amusing to see someone use such a blatant display of condescension and disdain, based on my gender and class, while denying that any Obama supporters harbored such attitudes of condescension and disdain. But it was also heartbreaking. The message was clear -- you'll find no allies for your concerns as a working class woman among smart, academic progressives like me.


Republicans in PA. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by alexei on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:09:39 PM EST

There are Republicans in Pa - many switched to Democrats and I think that is good for Clinton.

There are a few black Republicans, but, so few, that I will go with BTD's none as far as effect on the vote.

I think that the dynamics of the race have changed dramatically and not only due to Wright. I believe that Clinton successfully got Obama off his big speeches and message. The momentum is with her and he is in ebb tide. So, I really don't think the white vote count in earlier states is valid. Plus, the economic news is much worse, which I think favors Clinton. PA will tell how much the white vote is Clinton's; I think that she has captured it, mainly on her message.

Obama camp (none / 0) (#28)
by waldenpond on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:59:27 PM EST

quoted on Politico thinking this was good for them. It's good for Obama in the primary, GE? Who knows.


: Obama camp (none / 0) (#43)
by Virginian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:18:37 PM EST

takes a huge page from Rove's campagins and message strategy...if you repeat something often enough and with enough conviction, everyone will assume it is true regardless of evidence to the contrary...
there's no evidence either way that PA Republicans registering for the Dem primary will support one of our candidates over the other (different states are different states, their results and polls don't have worth for any conclusion on PA)...however Obama, and probably Clinton too for that matter, will claim victory of those "cross-overs" before the votes are cast...

What does it say about JMM (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by andgarden on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:18:48 PM EST

that he is JUST NOW considering this?

We've been discussing race here since at least Super Tuesday. South Carolina, even.

It points out what I have been saying (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:21:18 PM EST

A lot of A-Listers know nothing about politics and should stay out of it. ISSUES is what they are good at.

In a Bowers post today, he discussed the value of horserace blogging vs. issues blogging. I do not think it is either/or.

I think the QUALITY of the blogging is the key.

On politics, Marshall is simply not very good imo. Yglesias wrote a great post on politics the other day that shocked me. I did not think he had it in him.

I think Bowers and Stoller are good on activism, lousy on politics and hit or miss on issues.

I am amazing at everything . . .


: That's a good distinction (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by andgarden on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:28:08 PM EST

I have a friend who likes to say "I know just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be useful."

I disagree wtih andgarden to a degree... (5.00 / 3) (#34)
by Oje on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:10:27 PM EST

Many of postracial political supporters of Obama have kneejerk racialist interpretations of state votes in the Democratic nomination. JMM has certainly lead the way on the construction of talking points about the racism of Clinton voters.

The impasse for JMM is that his racialist view of the Democratic party and presuppositions about the race-baiting of the Clinton campaign does not really produce a workable analysis of how states and superdelegates are voting in this primary.

According to JMM's political analysis, combined with the numbers provided by BTD above, the least racist voters in the Democratic primary are the Republican crossovers and Democratic party members of the "whitest" red states (of course, the most racist voters in America have long dreamed of a postracial society where all the black people are elsewhere!). Indeed, this is the fool's gold of Obama bloggers' most penetrating analysis.

Conversely, I once noted in another thread on TPM that an equally specious conclusion that we can draw from JMM's analysis: that America will enter the postracial millennium when progressive white men free the Democratic party of racist female voters. The lameness of Obama bloggers knows no depths at this point.


Andgarden, what is your prediction on (none / 0) (#12)
by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:21:21 PM EST

how those newly-registered Dems. in PA will vote in the upcoming Dem. primary?


I know a subsample of two, (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by andgarden on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:25:08 PM EST

both of whom will vote Clinton.

But I fully expect that they will go 75/25 for Obama.


I have a sample of 8 (4.50 / 2) (#23)
by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:49:00 PM EST

3 men and 5 women changed to Dems. And they will vote for Hillary. And for her in the GE too. It is not a Dem for a Day thing. In fact, they are the ones who went to the parade and shook hands with her and got a lot of close up pictures and proud of it. The remainder GOP will stay GOP.


: Add my son to that number (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by stillife on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:24:50 PM EST

He's 22 years old. He was an Independent who has voted Democratic in the past. He re-registered last month to vote for Hillary in the primary. He's worried about the war and the economy, and he was impressed by Hillary in the debates.
If Obama's the nominee, I can't say what he'll do in November.

Is your prediction based on the (none / 0) (#39)
by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:34:43 PM EST

demographics of the newly-reg. Dems.?


: No, just past experience (none / 0) (#40)
by andgarden on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:36:08 PM EST

this primary.

If Obama only wins (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by lilburro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:27:15 PM EST

34% of the white vote in Pennsylvania that will indeed be troubling esp because it's a closed primary. He may be able to do really well with men there though.

I am interested to see what effect the closed primary will have. For some reason I think it would help Obama with white voters due to the way he's been positioned by the media as the nominee-to-be. One assumes that the voters in a closed primary would have more allegiance to the party and be paying a little more attention than the voters in an open primary. I also think a voter in a closed primary might feel that they represent the party and the party's interest more so than a voter in an open primary might. Who knows, this is just conjecture.

Polls are looking better at the moment for Obama. The gap between Obama and Clinton is only 12 points by SUSA...so doesn't that mean he's currently doing better with whites than he usually does?

I'm thinking in his attempts to show solidarity with the rural working class, Obama will be going after white men in particular. I don't see it really helping him with white women. I do read his bowling and tagging around with Casey as attempts to get male voters more than women.

White male voters (none / 0) (#25)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:50:52 PM EST

have been with Obama since the beginning.

I think the only question is are they still with him after the Wright discussion.

Yeah, the media says Obama closed the issue with the speech, but I'm not so sure. I'm not saying its still open. I'm just not sure it's closed.

We shall see what we see, but so far, poll surges just before the voting haven't always run true. They end up being less substantial than the polling shows.

And Hillary seems to do better in closed primaries... but there have been a lot of GOP voters who are registered Dem in this one.


: No, he draws fewer white male voters (none / 0) (#49)
by Cream City on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:24:12 AM EST

than did either Kerry or Gore. Obama's percentage of all whites has been a lot lower than theirs, too.
If Obama has maxed out AA's, as seems possible, with not much more potential for their numbers to grow as much as usual between primaries and the general election -- his drawing a lot lower percentage of whites than either Kerry or Gore is a problem . . . because, of course, you remember how those elections went.

Not with bowling a 38 (none / 0) (#27)
by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:52:46 PM EST

And I have heard many laugh at that. The laugh was not as much at the score, but for the fact that he was even bowling to be one of the local guys and couldn't. I think that one he should have just gone back to sticking his head in a bar and shouting "The drinks are on me".


Yet another confabulation. Which (none / 0) (#32)
by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:05:37 PM EST

was it: 37 or 38?


: Yes (none / 0) (#35)
by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:14:00 PM EST

you raise an important distinction. And I believe the man himself has pointed out it would have been much closer to 40 if that stupid ten year old kid hadn't bowled a frame in his stead. Or was it an eleven year old?

But (none / 0) (#44)
by nell on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:40:21 PM EST

do you actually think this hurts him with their vote? I think it is hilarious...do you think it plays enough to the "he's not one of us" narrative?


: Go look at the video on CNN.com (none / 0) (#46)
by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:32:43 PM EST

The one where he is going into a store and the guy is trying to get his picture. He totally dismisses this guy and does not come across as Mr. Cool. Video on right. Fans Hound BHO.CNN

I hate to see pundit types yell about race (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by zyx on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:46:43 PM EST

I think in more hard-bitten states and states with older voters the change, charisma meme just doesn't play well. Voters have seen it before or just sense that they need to see a lot more before they buy into a candidate.

I get so irritated that this is framed into Candidate White and Candidate Black all the time. It could be framed as "Candidate Boyfriend" and "Candidate Mom". Or it could be "Candidate Experience" and "Candidate Fresh Face". Candidate "Great Speech, Great Baritone" vs. Candidate "Wins Debates, Very Wonky".

But people keep sayin' that in Appalachia the voters are racists. Maybe they just want universal health care.

: Or Candidate Pantsuit (none / 0) (#50)
by Cream City on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:26:14 AM EST

and Candidate "Empty Suit," as some pundit called him? (It was WaPo, as I recall, who mocked Clinton for her pantsuits.)

For what it's worth (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:02:26 PM EST

I wrote a diary about my perspective on racial politics here. Some people might find it interesting.

: Very interesting and well-written. (none / 0) (#36)
by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:18:48 PM EST

: Thanks (none / 0) (#37)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:24:30 PM EST

heh (none / 0) (#1)
by Turkana on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:00:28 PM EST

i read that post and couldn't figure out what he was saying, because it seemed he had no idea what he was talking about.

slightly o/t, but regarding your morning post, i do not think virginia will be in play. the last poll i saw had mccain beating obama by 11. mccain beats clinton by twice that, but it's irrelevant if neither can really contest it.

ultimately, the race will still come down to fl, pa, mi, oh, wi, ia, and mo. lose the first four, and no realistic combination of western states will make a difference.

Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by 0 politico on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:06:01 PM EST

numbers and polling stats are just too confusing for Josh to really make whatever point he was trying to make ;-)


HRC will do well in NM and NV (none / 0) (#31)
by Prabhata on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:03:33 PM EST

I'm not saying she'll win, but she has a good chance of winning. HRC is a known quantity and everything they say about her won't be new. I don't believe the tall tale that Obama will do well in the usual GOP states, like AZ and NV because what has made those states purple is the Latino vote that may go to the GOP in greater numbers than if HRC is the candidate.


: add: "not" (none / 0) (#33)
by Prabhata on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:05:42 PM EST

if HRC is not the candidate.

Sure wish the term for a primary (none / 0) (#15)
by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:24:45 PM EST

contest wasn't "race," as it gets confusing. The title of this post, for example, which I first read as "The Demographics of Race."

: Good point (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:29:11 PM EST

Will change my title

What about the GE? (none / 0) (#22)
by Alec82 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:46:47 PM EST

African American turnout is critical in those contested states with substantial black populations (i.e., Michigan). Assuming that Senator Clinton is the nominee, there could be problems in the GE, if only because of the media meme and comments made by President Clinton. Similarly, this analysis suggests that, if Senator Obama is the nominee, we might have problems with white voters.

That is, if winning the "big" states tells us anything about the GE.

: Unity Ticket (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:50:37 PM EST

You do not visit this site much do you?

There is an unexamined assumption (none / 0) (#48)
by AF on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:23:39 AM EST

Beneath this logic: that demographic breakdowns in the primaries correspond to demographic breakdowns in the general.

That is not necessarily the case. Consider, for example, that despite Hillary's sizeable lead over Obama in the PA primary, she does only slightly better than him against McCain in head to head match-ups.

Similarly, though Hillary "won" the Michigan primary, Obama and Hillary poll the same against McCain.

The discrepancy between Obama's showing in Democratic and general election match-ups cannot be explained by African American voters, because most of them vote in the Democratic primaries.

It can only be explained by one thing: non-African American voters who do not vote in Democratic primaries prefer Obama to Clinton.

This does not mean to demographics are not a problem. But you have to look at more than just the Democratic primaries to predict how it will play out in the general election.

I respectfully disagree (none / 0) (#51)
by cmugirl on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:20:36 AM EST

"It can only be explained by one thing: non-African American voters who do not vote in Democratic primaries prefer Obama to Clinton."

I think all it shows is that since McCain has been chosen as the Republican nominee, he hasn't had to say much or do much and all the focus has been on the horse race in the Democratic run. People always like their politicians better when they aren't talking (because they aren't lying to us? ;) )

I think once there is a definite nominee (in my case, hopefully HRC), then you will see some drastic changes in the head-to-head numbers. Of course, I could just be blowing smoke, because if I knew what I was talking about, I would be working for a campaign!


: Nobody knows what will happen in the future (none / 0) (#52)
by AF on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:56:53 AM EST

But in the present, Obama seems to do better among white non-Democrats than Hillary does.