Analysis: Hillary Surging Among Well-Educated Women
Political analyst Ronald Brownstein explains Hillary's consolidating lead over Obama by pointing to her recent surge among well-educated Democratic women:
Recent polls show Clinton dramatically gaining ground with better-educated Democratic women, both nationally and in the key early state of New Hampshire. More than any other factor, those gains explain why she has nearly doubled her lead over Barack Obama, her closest competitor, in national Gallup polls since summer....Clinton remains very popular among downscale Democratic women, the Gallup results show, and her newfound strength among college-educated Democratic women is allowing her to cut into the core of Obama's coalition: well-educated Democrats.
Brownstein has been interpreting this race for some time now in light of the "wine track" versus "beer track" divide that's traditionally endured in Dem primary politics, saying that Hillary was doing well among blue collar Dems while Obama was winning over well-educated, more affluent ones. But, Brownstein concludes, Hillary's success among "wine track" women is scrambling this calculus -- and, he claims, is making it tougher and tougher for her rivals to catch her. His full analysis here.
Brownstein:
How about those of us who do drink neither beer nor wine?
October 25, 2007 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, I'm really curious to know where the "whiskey track" vote is headed. I know a lot of people on that track.
October 25, 2007 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what Mr. Brownstein was saying was that if Hillary gets the nomination, we are going to be drinking a lot of beer and wine to drown our election night sorrows. Jake, I don't know what you are going to do.
October 25, 2007 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wild Turkey shots, anyone?
October 25, 2007 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This guy Brownstein doesn't understand a frigging thing about ladies. When it comes to women (and I'm one), there's only one track that counts -- the chocolate track!!
October 25, 2007 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was anyone able to get Brownstein's "full analysis" using the link above?
October 25, 2007 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many of you truly believe that if Rudy is the GOP nominee, he'd lose NY (as well as NJ and CT) to Obama or Edwards?
October 25, 2007 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rudy wears dresses. Rudy was a mayor. Rudy killed Dialo. Rudy cut firefighters's funds. Rudy's wives........ Rudy can't unite republican base unless Bush-Lite is the nominee. Rudy wants World War IV. Rudy wants to kill all Muslims. Rudy won't get communion. Rudy....................
How many of you truly believe that Richardson, Biden, or Dodd have been given a fair shot to win the nomination by the M$M? I didn't even mention Kucinich.
October 25, 2007 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Jake D, I was not able to get the full analysis.,.the link did not work
October 25, 2007 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
When is the "media" going to focus on who is conducting the polls, where their funding comes from, and their past political ties. Hillary has been "surging" for months, but her numbers are static. She will never win a majority of the nation, and at least half of the nation will vote for anyone BUT Hillary. Why in the world would the Democrats risk the White House and the future of the nation by nominating the most divisive figure in American politics. The nation does not need Hillary to lead it. Let's move forward and leave the Bush-Clinton era behind us.
October 25, 2007 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me guess . . . If we asked the 'well-educated' fem DEMs who support HRC if they own stocks, they'd out weigh the 'well-educated' fem DEMs who support Obama who own stocks . . .
October 25, 2007 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary Surging Among Well-Educated Women"
Well, duh. Those "well-educated women" are part of the same corrupt establishment Hillary is. T'ain't hardly no surprise there.
October 26, 2007 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately if their is another terrorist attack a lot of these women, the one's that are 'soccer Mom's', won't vote for a women and will support Guiliani.
Shouldn't be true, but it is...
After all, Guiliani says he is personally socially liberal, but it won't matter because he will be appointing more Fascists to the Supreme Court.
If it is Giuliani vs. Clinton, Clinton likely loses. Actually, Clinton is probably the only major Dem that can lose the Presidency in 2008. Biden even has a better chance of winning. That's why the major corporate media has already christened her...
She is both the most corporate friendly dem and the one most likely to lose. A double-whammy for the corporate MSM!!
October 26, 2007 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Guess that also blows the theory that well educated women always go for the cute guys. :b
October 26, 2007 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, gee. Why don't you do it yourself? Get your tinfoil hat on tight and go for it!
October 26, 2007 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just another waste of time...
October 26, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has a much better shot at winning the GE than Mr. Michelle. To the incredulity of supporters who believe their own propaganda the public at large views her as a lot warmer than Obama.
As to the negatives, they are higher for all the Rethug candidates than for Hillary.
Hillary is leading the polls because people like and trust her. Obama is fading because he goes off half-cocked and has a tin ear for the political repercussions of what he says. Mcglurkin
October 26, 2007 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink