The Demographics Of The Democratic Primary Contest

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:04:03 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

Chris Bowers does some yeoman work in putting together the available exit poll numbers from the primary contests. While I have some minor quibbles with Chris' methodologies, it is still some terrific information. And it provides some great insight into the potential and potential pitfalls of both an Obama or Clinton general election candidacy. I'll discuss those presently.

That said, there are a few thing Chris overlooks that seem to me to have merited tabulation. They are ethnic breakdowns (White, African-American and Latino at the least) and a study of how the candidates did in the big contested states. There is a reason the results in Wisconsin were so promising for Obama, he had finally broken through to some demographics he had not reached before in primary states. This is related to understanding that Obama will not win Idaho, Utah, Kansas or Nebraska so his inroads there are simply less meaningful than those in Wisconsin and Virginia.

Chris seems to realize the problem with his breakdown and defensively writes: {More...}

. . . I did not compile composite exit polls by race / ethnicity (I will do so at a later time). However, to this entire question I simply say "so [effing] what?" Does the vote of a white low income Democrat count different than the vote of a black low-income Democrat? Are white low income Democrats voting along racial and ethnic lines anymore than African-American Democrats?

This is an ostrich attitude. It is well established that African Americans have been voting for white Democrats for decades in numbers up to 90%. White Americans have not, especially white men. This is very much an issue for the general election. Indeed, it is one of the reasons why I believe Barack Obama is more electable than Hillary Clinton. Let us not shy away from this difficult question.

Barack Obama has run best, of course with African Americans. And no one can doubt that should Obama be the nominee, African American turnout will break all previous records, and likely by significant margins. This is very important and to Obama's credit as a general election candidate. But will it be enough to win Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida in a general election? Or will Obama's vulnerability with working class white men and with white women and seniors more than offset this? Can McCain poach enough Clinton demographics to beat Obama in November? Perhaps white women and working class white men and seniors will come home to an Obama candidacy in November.

And for all the talk of how Obama will help Democrats in the West, one has to wonder what his weakness among Latino voters portends.

Hillary Clinton has demonstrated incredible weakness among white men (I choose to view the support among African Americans as a vote for Obama, not a vote against Clinton). More so than is typical for Democratic candidates. But this may be mitigated by the groups she has been losing. Young white men and wealthier, college educated white men. Perhaps she can win them in November.

What does all this mean? I stand by my view that both candidates have strong and committed constituencies. The Media and the Left blogs are dedicated to their mission of ridiculing Hillary so they do not see what is obvious (and frankly surprising to me), Hillary's supporters REALLY like her. They do not like how she has been treated. If Obama is the candidate, he may need to pick Hillary as his running mate.

I have long believed Hillary would have no choice but to put Obama on her ticket. I think the reverse may also be true.

< The Malign Acceptance Of Sexism - Bill Maher Version | Clinton Derangement Syndrome >

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 Democratic Primary Contest | 35 comments (35 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Question for BTD... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by barryluda on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:24:28 AM EST

Do you think Clinton would say yes if Obama wins and asks her to be his VP?

Until recently I've thought Clinton would win, ask Obama, and I assumed Obama would say yes. I had been looking forward to a Clinton / Obama ticket. Watching them together, though, it no longer seems likely. Maybe it never was; just wishful thinking on my part.

: Both would say yes (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:54:39 AM EST

Rift in the party (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by wasabi on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:46:45 AM EST

Good questions. At least someone in the blogosphere is thinking about demographics. The "I can get all her votes, but can she get mine" is offensive and simply not true.
Three areas for concern that I see are white women, Hispanics and the seasoned voter. McCain could do quite well with Hispanics due to his immigration stance. I know the older voters will have trouble voting for Obama primarily due to the experience issue. As far as women, who knows how many will stay home or vote McCain? I'm a yellow dog, so I'll vote for Obama, but it sure won't be easy.
Is Clinton the right choice as a running mate? I think most people will think no. Why put a "polarizer" on the ticket? Wouldn't that lose him the Indie/Republican vote? If his shtick is "bipartisanship" will a Clinton ruin the image?
I've always thought a joint ticket would be able to garner the most votes, but I think Clinton/Obama makes the most sense. I just really hope that the Obama camp doesn't really believe their own spin that all the Democratic ducks will line up with him because they are after all, good democrats.

I try to count electoral votes. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by downtownted on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:50:13 AM EST

Then I look at how I think those votes will go in 08. Not hard. Go look at how they voted in 92, 96, 00 & 04.

I was originally for John Edwards. He had been vetted through the 04 process and would carry some of the southern, border and western states as well as the typical Dem states. A chance at government that cared, agencies that worked and judges w/o a conservative, corptocracy view. I worried about Hillary Clinton because of my perceived view that she would have difficulty carrying a southern or border state other than perhaps Florida. But I thought she could hold the states carried by Gore and maybe add Ohio and/or Florida and bring back New Mexico and Iowa (New Mexico went Bush in 2004, New Hampshire went Kerry, and Iowa went Bush, the rest stayed in line with 2000). I didn't, and don't see Obama taking any of the Bush 2004 states although arguments can be made for Iowa and New Mexico. I believe Pennsylvania comes into play for the Republicans and possibly one of the Midwestern Great Lake states as well..

These have been a difficult and sad 8 years for our beloved country. The thought of four more is repulsive. Hubris is ugly. But it can reach out to any of us. Look at the math of the electoral college. Bush showed you didn't have to win the popular vote to win the Presidency.

Do the math. Tell me where the votes are (not where the wishes may be). And, of course, hope that I do not know how to count.

: My take is quite different (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:54:06 AM EST

Obama takes Iowa, NM, Nevada and Colorado from the Bush states. That is 25 electoral votes. He has a chance in Virginia.
The question is does he hold PA and Michigan? Can he compete in Ohio?
Hillary actually expands the map in some ways that Obama does not and, seems to compete better in Ohio.
To me, she can win Florida and Obama can not, thanks to the DNC.
And she wins Arkansas.
More upside with Obama but more risk.

Democrats Secret Exit Poll (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Marguerite Quantaine on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:54:39 AM EST

Here's something Democrats won't admit to and won't be able to resolve.

Some of us see Obama as a white male opportunist using his black father's heritage to propel him to the presidency; a one vote blame gamer who ignored Bush and the Republican Party as being the architects of the Iraq war and has assigned the issue as Hillary's fault; a person whose poor judgment on nuclear energy and the covered up Resko mess demonstrates a careless disregard for the truth.

I will NOT vote for Obama.

I am NOT alone.

To us, Obama's message of hope and change is the Bush con game in donkey clothing. Obama is now the elephant in the blue room and Howard Dean is his handler.

I don't fit this group ... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:36:33 AM EST

but I think it's real. And this is why I think Obama's weaker in the general than Hillary.

He just doesn't have good Dem creds, and this is going to hurt him in Red states. Polling has already shown him weak in Massachusetts. Massachusetts? And PA. And NH.

I can easily see Hillary holding Kerry's states and winning OH. That's all she would need to do. Any state she picks up beyond that is gravy.

While I can see Obama losing Kerry states (especially in the NE) which of course means any new state he picks up could be a "make up" for a state he lost.

And if his support erodes in swing states, which it could well do, we could see a Dukasis level loss. Something I just don't see happening with Hillary.


: I have to agree. Since it is the (none / 0) (#20)
by hairspray on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:42:30 AM EST

bonafide Democrats who are supporting Hillary and not Obama, any calculations should start with that group as the base number. Then work from there. These caucuses votes are bogus and the country is being taken for a ride on them.

: Agree also (none / 0) (#28)
by DaleA on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:41:01 AM EST

I suspect Obama would put California in play. McCain is the only Republican who has appeal to key demographics here. Latinos with a military background are one prime example. Gays and lesbians concerned about national security are another. Then there are Asians who do not seem to warm to Obama at all. McCain has never been involved in bashing any of these groups. These three groups make up about 45% of the Dem base in CA.

I understand (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by PlayInPeoria on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:49:14 AM EST

your stance. My husband has basically the same view. He will not vote for Obama EVEN with Hillary as VP on the ticket.

I told him I wanted a Dem in the White House.. he is not convinced that Sen Obama will fight for Dem policies. And I can NOT reassure him that Sen Obama will step up to the fight.


Whaaa???? (1.00 / 2) (#21)
by pluege on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:54:28 AM EST

he is not convinced that Sen Obama will fight for Dem policies.

are you kidding???? how many Dem policies will john mccain fight for? Get real. Sounds like thinly disguised racism to me.


Since my (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by PlayInPeoria on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:07:46 AM EST

husband is considered in a minority (he is NOT white)... how in the world would that view make him racist.

Before you start throwing around racism... you might want to get the facts.


Minorites Just as Racisty or More than Whites (1.00 / 1) (#30)
by pluege on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:11:44 PM EST

Since when can't minorities be racist? Quite the opposite. Minorities prove themselves over and over to be racist when given the opportunity, just as much or more so than whites. Maybe you should look up what it means to be racist?
.


Maybe you (none / 0) (#31)
by PlayInPeoria on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:38:03 PM EST

should not assume that just because some one votes for McCain that they are a racist.

You support the very reason WHY a causcus is NOT a good system.... to much pressure to vote Sen Obama or a person is a racist?

Since my husband and I have ACTUALLY lived with racist attitude.... I can give you a lesson!!


Voters are only racist when voting (none / 0) (#33)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:57:41 PM EST

based on race. That includes minorities who do so. But nothing state here about Play's spouse suggests that he is voting based on race. Then it becomes those who make accusations based on race but without foundation who are the ones being racist.


: So Then It Follows That (none / 0) (#35)
by squeaky on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:42:00 PM EST

The women you have mentioned who will vote for Hillary because she is a woman are sexist.

America's Revealed Sexism (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by pluege on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:00:24 AM EST

The Obama - Clinton contest has revealed America to be even more sexist than it is racist. This includes the self-described "liberals" of the left blogosphere that have sounded more like wingnuts in their Clinton bashing and Obama yee-haaing than rational progressives. What America's hard sexist bent means in terms of Clinton vs Obama electability (i.e., electoral college number crunching), I wouldn't know, but needs to be part of the equation in picking the party's candidate.

Originally when the balloon was floated of Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton, I thought Clinton/Obama would work, but that Obama/Clinton was not possible. Given the irrationality of how the candidate's fans have behaved, and the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate's support, increasingly I think either combination is necessary to keep democrats from defeating themselves in November (ala Carter-Kennedy) and subjecting us to 4 and maybe 8 more years of republican disaster at the hands of chief republican loon mccain. Keeping a republican out of the White House is after all the primal importance of the election, not whether the POTUS is Clinton or Obama - WAY too many "progressives" have lost sight of this.
.

: Thank you! (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by barryluda on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:47:29 AM EST

I could not agree more...

Keeping a republican out of the White House is after all the primal importance of the election, not whether the POTUS is Clinton or Obama

: I'm not sure that I agree yet (none / 0) (#34)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:59:12 PM EST

but I am sure that I spewed my morning coffee upon seeing the phrase "hard sexist bent."

Although Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by PlayInPeoria on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:01:00 AM EST

believe that he will be the MOST electible in Nov.... I really beleive he HAS to have Hillary on the ticket to win. My reasoning.....

If Hillary is NOT on the ticket ..... Dem base will write her in for the GE OR they will vote for McCain.

Although McCain keeps trying to paint himself as a conservative Repub.... we know he is a Maverick Repub. Any other Repub nominee and Sen Obama would be elected in the GE.

At this time Roe vs Wade has not been on the top
of the list for issues.

McCain is already softening his Iraq stance (no longer 100 years) into a presence in Iraq (not WAR in Iraq). SWen Obama not voting for the War in Iraq is already starting fall on deaf ears... we have heard it too many times. So what are we going to do KNOW!?!

The top issue going into Nov will be the Economy... McCain will will on that one issue.

Sen Obama will need Hillary. You can already see that she is pushing him into being a BETTER candidate. He is listening to her and using it. (AND there is nothing WRONG with that) This actually makes me feel BETTER about Sen Obama being the nominee.

I hold a contrarian view about ... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:08:46 AM EST

using demographics. They need to predictive and significantly beyond random chance for me to take them very seriously.

There are very few demographic groups that fit this pattern. African American's votes for the Democratic Party would be one. And, obviously, party affiliation.

Other than that the groups shift too much and are not predictive enough to be significant for analysis.

In fact, I think demographics are often used by the MSM to subtly (or not so subtly) suggest things about a candidate. For example, when they say Obama does better with "educated voters" this is never fully explained. In many states this only refers to minor advantages with people who admitted to attending graduate school.

Wouldn't it sound much different if the MSM said Obama does better with people who attended graduate school?

Speaking Only For Myself (5.00 / 4) (#13)
by MO Blue on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:17:56 AM EST

Clinton as Obama's VP does not make an Obama presidency any more attractive to me. Obama would still be the one calling the shots and pursuing his watered down domestic programs and bipartisan forever agenda.

Personally, I think Hillary would be foolish to accept the position. She would get all the blame for anything that went wrong and no credit for anything that went right.

: if Clinton took the VP slot (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:23:27 AM EST

what would happen at Kos and HuffPo?
But, I agree that Clinton shouldn't take second place, because she's got much more experience and power in the senate. I asked some folks the other day who were saying that Clinton should take the senate majority leader spot if Obama, should he lose the nom, should take the same slot, and they said he couldn't get it because he's not experienced enough.
JFK took on LBJ to reassure people that he had some gravitas on the ticket, and both men hated each other. In the end, the reason Johnson was able to get so much done is because everyone in the senate owed him favors and he knew how to work the system.

WIll extra black turnout (none / 0) (#9)
by andgarden on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:02:44 AM EST

help O in PA? I say no. Black turnout in Philly has rocked since forever. It's a big part of the reason we've been winning at all.

No, Obama will have to do exactly what Kerry and Gore did: get himself known and liked in the Philly suburbs and demogogue the h@ll out of Social Security in western PA (Pittsburg burbs).

I am no expert on PA (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:04:18 AM EST

I know it won't be the difference in Ohio and Florida.

See, some of Obama's problems are not his fault.

Howard Dean and Donna Brazile screwed him in Florida.


: PA and FL are traveling in opposite (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by andgarden on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:08:19 AM EST

partisan directions. Sadly, PA is in line to lose another EV or two in '11.
I think both Hillary and Obama will have trouble in PA, but Obama will have more trouble, precisely because he still isn't connecting that well with beer track Dems and suburban women. Both are key to winning PA in November. You might say that the latter is THE key, as Bill Clinton discovered in the 90s.

2010 (none / 0) (#16)
by Ben Masel on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:43:41 AM EST

I see Obama or Clinton winning, but a Clinton Presidency losing the enthusiasm of young voters for the following election, tracking Bill's performance handing the Republicans Congressional victories in '94 and '96. It's the videogame censorship; stupid.

Heh (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:47:11 AM EST

My take is that the Dem performance in 2010 will depend upon whether a Dem is in the White House in 2010 and whether the economy bounces back by then.


: BTD is correct (none / 0) (#24)
by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:17:39 AM EST

It comes down to performance before 2010. Anything else is pure spin.

BTD, (none / 0) (#23)
by dk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:08:55 AM EST

I'm curious: Why are you surprised that Clinton supporters really like her?

I did not think (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:18:15 AM EST

she had such committed support. I was wrong.


The person who will turn out (none / 0) (#26)
by andgarden on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:22:55 AM EST

to have the least committed support: John McCain.


: Frankly, I think this is wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by dk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:27:10 AM EST

I would argue that Obama has the least committed support, because almost all of his supporters are for him based only on the HOPE of what he MIGHT do, not based on what he has ACTUALLY accomplished. Thus, as soon as he starts actually taking real positions on things, he will inevitably start disappointing various factions of his supporters, and they will quickly become disillusioned.

Is it clear (none / 0) (#29)
by DaleA on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:46:46 AM EST

that much of her support is personal? Her supporters will not support Obama much, IMHO. From what I am hearing on the blogs, should Hillary loose there is a lot of sentiment for punishing the Dems.


NJ in play? (none / 0) (#32)
by NJDem on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:22:10 PM EST

According to the latest Rasmussen NJ poll, HRC beats McCain handily, but McCain beat BO by a few. Interesting, no? LINK