Oregon Exit Polls: Obama Handily Beat Hillary Among Whites, No-College, Less-Than-$50,000 Voters
The Oregon exit polls lend a bit more weight to the theory that Barack Obama's real problem is more with Appalachia than it is with working class whites in general, as the Hillary campaign has repeatedly suggested.
In Kentucky yesterday, Hillary slaughtered Obama among these voters. But the Oregon exits show a different story.
Obama beat Hillary by sizable margins among all ages of white voters except those 60 and older. And he beat Hillary among voters with no college degree, too -- and since the state is overwhelmingly white, these voters are the ones he's supposed to have trouble with.
Late Update: The exits also show that Obama also beat Hillary by seven points among voters making less than $50,000 (though she won among voters making between $15,000 and $30,000).
What's more, Obama also won among voters from a household with a union member. I've edited the above to make that point.
Late Late Update: Mark Blumenthal, over at Pollster.com, has some caveats about Oregon's exits.
Ok, in the general, why don't they just set the lines up according to every damn category some consultant can think up?:
"Uneducated White Males"
"Uneducated White Females"
"Males with college degree; all ethnicities..."
etc.
Ok, another one of these racial voting pattern myths exploded. Can the blogs on the left give this a rest now, please? It's really not necessary, doesn't add one thing to the process, and is just divisive.
May 21, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are all the votes still not counted
in Oregon?
May 21, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess they don't have enough "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" counting them.
May 21, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ooh, your widdle hack is bwoken. Too bad.
May 21, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because Oregon does mail-in voting and voters had through yesterday to get they're ballots post-marked. Ballots in Oregon will continue to arrive in elections offices over the next week or so.
May 21, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean their ballots.
May 21, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any ballot arriving by mail after May 20 won't count. They might have been busy collecting ballots from the drop boxes and be delivered to where the counting is being done. These boxes can be located in spots spread over the counties. Some of our counties are very large. It might take a while.
May 21, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree. What pisses me off is that every minority gets lumped together and only the white vote is dissected. Personally, I'd love to hear how young Latinos are voting versus old outside of TX, and so on. Not a damn word though. Disgusting!
May 21, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The sample size is too small to be broken down that way.
May 21, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and "handily" got his ass handed to him Big Time by the "working class whites" in KY.
So...why is the presumptive nominee getting buried just before declaring victory?
Not good for the Hopeinator.
May 21, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, those exit polls were spread out over a few pages (check the bottom right, top right corners to flip through). Obama won 53% of voters with less than $50,000 income, and 57% of less than $100,000.
May 21, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
yeah. just noticed that. will add.
May 21, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
Clinton won, handily, in Oregon among voters with no college and those making $30,000 or less. I would say that she won the working class vote there. Obama has a problem with this group whether we call them Appalachian hillbillies or not. He has a problem with white, Hispanic and Asian working class voters but not black ones, so it isn't white racism that is at the heart of this. Spinning the numbers to mask the problem isn't going to help him in the GE.
May 21, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It should be noted that the Oregon exit polls were not really exit polls.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Exitbymail.html#comments
I don't think it makes a difference, but there you have it.
.
In all honesty the most important number from last night, in my opinion, is 31 million. That is how much Hillary owes. I can see why she sat on her financial reporting until after her win last night.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/clintondebt.html
May 21, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I could not agree with you more.
That one needs a lot more explanation.
May 21, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
At this rate she will probably be down around 50 million before she drops out.
That is a lot of money. My understanding of campaign laws is that Obama can not (becuase it is illegal) pay off her debts. The most his campaign could give her campaign is $2,000. So what the hell is she doing?
She can't win but she continues to spend money like my wife in a shoe store. What happens when all those vendors go unpaid?
May 21, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You go easy on your wife.....you can never have enough shoes.
While he can't pay off her debts, he can hold fundraisers or send out fundraising requests on her behalf, though.
My feeling is - why should anyone help her at this point? She's got almost a non-existent chance of winning - yet she's choosing to continue to spend money and pile on debt. She says she's staying in for her supporters - let them pay off her bills.
May 21, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I kid my wife about her shoes all the time. The only one who loves her shoes more than my wife are our foster boxers, who love to nibble on the heels of freshly purchased shoes.
I agree with you about her supporters paying off her debts, but I don't see how that is possible. If they were willing to do that she wouldn't be in debt in the first place.
So the question I go back to is this: What the hell does she think she is doing?
May 21, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just because Obama is the darling of limosine liberals doesn't mean that working class democrats can't vote for a candidate of their own. It amazes me how much Obama supporters sound just like Republicans. For all their empty rhetoric, scratch an Obamaton and it's really ALL about the money. It doesn't matter that Hillary is winning the popular vote. She shouldn't even be running because she doesn't have enough money to play in the corrupt system that Obama preaches against, while at the same time profiting from.
The amazing thing is that Obama is lined up to become the first presidential candidate since public financing to forgo public financing in the general election. And this from the candidate who preaches against the evils of money in politics. The more you look at the guy, the more he is like Bush. He says one thing and does exactly the opposite.
May 21, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do they care? Hill and Bill will pay it off themselves if they have to. Whatever else I may think about them, I don't think they're the kind of people who become distraught over the thought of being worth seventy million rather than a hundred million.
May 21, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it turns out the made a math error and counted her debt twice or something. There's a correction posted.
Which gives me deja vu, because I swear they did something like this once before. Must be old boys acting on the basis of sexism.
May 21, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
And there are supposedly intelligent people who want this woman to set our economic policy?
Uh, no!
May 21, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think her campaign was counting on saving money when her gas tax holliday bill was passed.
Kind of like how she promised the people of upstate New York, when she was running for the Senate, to create 200,000 new jobs. The end result: a loss of 30,000 jobs. Her excuse: Gore didn't get ellected. Nice!
May 21, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
That number is wrong. She owes around $20MM. The LA Times updated the story.
May 21, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not Obama's problem; it's the folks in Appalachia's problem. His policies are substantially the same as Clinton's, so it's not policy. Both are considered wealthy, liberal and are lawyers by training, so it's not the elite crap. In short it's either racism or ignorance and I'm going with the latter (though I think the former is driven, in large part by the latter).
Until the media starts recognizing that this isn't going to get any better.
It's not Obama's problem.
May 21, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can we wait until after the election?
This is what I don't get - why is everyone rushing to get these issues to the front of the line? And some of those people have no personal stake in the issues.
Why is every white liberal in the country sifting the numbers feverishly, looking for racial patterns? Are we that nervous about this?
sorry - that's how it looks to me -
May 21, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think us elitist liberals spend more time worrying about how blue collar voters feel than blue collar voters do. White collar guilt or something.
May 21, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're right.
;)
May 21, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL, what a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.
Before the week is over, "Appalachia" will means all states Obama lost.
What you are REALLY saying is very simple: anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a fool or has a problem.
May 21, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, what we are saying is their are a lot of racist in the appalachias (sp?) and they won't vote for Obama.
That is okay, they don't vote for Democrats in any case.
May 21, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know that and I also know they will vote for McLame, anyway, so it's all a bagatelle.
Like this continuing "primary" which has been over for at least 6 weeks.
May 21, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't most states, in the General Election, winner takes all?
If so, margins don't matter.
May 21, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
All but Nebraska. Obama could win an extra electoral vote if he wins the Omaha congressional district, which the most recent polling suggest is feasible.
May 21, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maine also divvies up electoral votes by congressional district.
May 21, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, you are just adding an additional twist: Obama wins the sexist vote and he splits the racists with Clinton.
May 21, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Clinton wins the sexist vote as well (the "I am only voting for her because she's a woman" crowd). So they're both split.
May 21, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is just not true. Of the 16% of KY voters that voted based on sex yesterday, 79% of them chose Hillary Clinton.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#KYDEM
May 21, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Today I read a very interesting story in the New York Times on white voting patterns in the GE.The article demonstrated that no Democratic presidential candidate has won a majority of the white vote since 1972.Essentially, that brings about the central role the significant support of other demographies have in the race for the white house, who have always supported the Democratic Party in droves.The article rebuffs Clinton's argument about working class white voters not supporting Obama.The botton line is every primary/election has its own particular factors that determine who goes up and who goes down.
May 21, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, God! A reasonably thought out statement on the primaries and the role of race. Forgedaboudit!
May 21, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was a mountain range, personally.
May 21, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The mountains do have something to do with it. I've spent enough time in small mountain towns in the west to see what happens when a small community is isolated.
It gets very weird! LOL!
May 21, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Twin Peaks?
May 21, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
The owls are not what they seem.
May 21, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
That gum you like is going to come back in style.
May 21, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do get why they're voting for Clinton, though. They look at her and go, "Hey, she's just like me - she's heavily in debt and a black guy's trying to steal her job." (sadly, that's only half-sarcastic)
May 21, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL
May 21, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
middlenames
lol. can I borrow it ?
May 21, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
So it's fair to say you failed reading comprehension in school.
May 21, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are arguing that the only difference between Clinton and Obama, as far as the voters in Appalachia are concerned, is the color of their skin.
So tell me again why exactly you are supporting Obama instead of Clinton? Do the enlightened voters outside of Appalachia have some criteria for evaluating the candidates that those poor, ignorant "hillbillies" are not privy to?
May 21, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
21 percent of Kentucky voters said race was important.
Can we please just sell Kentucky to Mexico?
May 21, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt they'd take it.
May 21, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt Mexico is a willing buyer, including Kentucky's populace in their population would lower Mexicos average level of education.
snark
May 21, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we should sell W. Virginia and Kentucky to China. Then they'd have their jobs back.
May 21, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe we could throw in West Virginia to sweeten the pot.
May 21, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lamont - think about it - why in the hell would Mexico want Kentucky? Mexico has enough problems.
;)
May 21, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can we hang on to the Maker's Mark and Old Forester distilleries? I mean, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water!
May 21, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
27% of black voters in the NC Democratic party said that race was important to them.
May 21, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Bill and Hillary had a big part in this (Bill in SC and Hillary talking about "hard-working white Americans"). I expected the number to be higher than that, honestly.
May 21, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what if Jed and all his kin don't vote for him in the primaries? Losing the hillbilly vote isn't gonna make or break the election.
May 21, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
These aren't Democratic voters in any case. The racist vote always goes to the Republics. (notice I called them Republics and not Republicans? When they start calling the Democratic party the Democratic party instead of the Democrat party I'll stop calling them Republics.)
May 21, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dukakis was a Republican? Because even he managed to win West Virginia in the GE
May 21, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute!! I thought anyone who wins WV wins the presidency no matter what! Don't they trump all other states and voters!?
May 21, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can we hang on to the Maker's Mark and Old Forester distilleries?
May 21, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
If y'all want to give Texas back, I've decided that's fine - I heard it so much that I finally got to where I like the idea. My money would be worth a lot more.
That would be a nice change.
May 21, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
It'll never happen T. We Texans provide more to the Federal government (in taxes) than we recieve back from it. States like Kentucky relly upon our taxes.
May 21, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes yes yes - I remember those memorable days when another blog went off on red state welfare and how much fun the ensuing days of insults were.
Texas doesn't get red state welfare - it contributes.
May 21, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meanwhile, Alabama liberals (Damn, that sounds oxymoronic, even when an Alabama liberal says it!) rely on Kentucky bourbon.
'Course I'll need a little less if we take back the White House.
May 21, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
No it doesn't - the Allman Brothers?
Alabama rocks.
May 21, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the Allmans are from Macon, Georgia.
Don't get me wrong - I love my state. It's a beeyoutiful state!
But we ain't exactly the hub of open-mindedness!
(And Alabama is home to Hank Williams, Sr. ... )
May 21, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right - it is a beautiful state. I was very impressed the first time I was there.
May 21, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanky!
I'm not going anywhere, but sometimes the blowhard Repug idjuts can make life difficult.
May 21, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I live in GA - trust me, I understand what you're going through.
May 21, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the Allman Brothers are from GA - Macon, to be exact.
May 21, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Allmans were from Macon, GA originally.
But I second the plea to keep KY in the union. Or at least it's bourbon.
May 21, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oregon and Wisconsin prove that Senator Obama has no problem attracting the support of white working class voters in states that do not have a strong history of slavery and Jim Crow.
Yokels still yearning for the horrors of slavery and racial discrimination are the ones with the problem. Any politician, in the Democratic party, that caters to the diseased minds of such imbeciles should be castigated for the vile cynical panderer that they are.
Shame on you Cynical Racial Panderer!
May 21, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhhhh, so this must be why Terry and Wolfie have been making appearances all morning on the talk shows spinning Obama's win in Oregon thanks to those RICH, WHITE VOTERS - not the uneducated rurals who ohhhhhhh so love Shrillary.
Asked whether it matters who won WV and KY because they will go to the GOP in November anyway, Wolfson said that was "dead wrong" and that "both states are known for being blue states."
WHAT IS WOLFIE SMOKING???????????????????
May 21, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You guys are onto something about Mexico not wanting Kentucky.
If you think about it, Kentucky and states like it are essentially the fat, unemployed 30-somethings that live in our nation's basement, living off the tax subsidies of wealthy blue states. Mexico would politely but firmly decline an offer to take them in.
May 21, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Besides, if you give away Kentucky, where would we get Louisville Sluggers? You can't cripple baseball because of an Appalachian mentality.
May 21, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I ask you all to consider the severe economic damage likely to occur to our nationโs daytime talk show industry should Kentucky and West Virginia be ceded to Mexico. Itโs a well-known fact that the Jerry Springer sector of the economy has been in constant decline since the 90s. Rumor has it that the Chinese are investing heavily in this sector and that โMr. Chouโs Disharmonious Family Hourโ is quickly gaining worldwide viewership!
PLEASE, THINK OF THE TALK SHOW HOSTS!
May 21, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about "redneck Appalachian transplants"? Do they poll for that in Oregon?
May 21, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's campaign debt has now balloned to $31 million.
"She added another $9.5 million in unpaid bills to vendors this past month alone, pushing her total debt to vendors and herself to the new astronomical figure, about a 50% debt increase in one month."
What the hell is the matter with all you Obamaniacs!
Does that figure not prove to you that Hillary is ready on day one to balance the national budget.
May 21, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
That 3 a.m. phone call?
It's a small-business vendor.
And he's pissed!
May 21, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The number is wrong. It's $20MM--the LA Times updated the story.
May 21, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, well, then. That's different!
Her campaign finances haven't been disastrously managed, just pathetically managed!
May 21, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you "working, hard working, white" Oregonians for making it clear that the real problem in WV and KY is RACIST SENTIMENTS, not a weakness in Obama's connection to working-class whites in general.
May 21, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
When a significant number of voters admit race is important to their vote, one can only conclude that the symbolism of racial supremacy in their choice is one of their core values.
May 21, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not necessarily. There's also the concern that too many other people are not ready for a black president, so it's a matter of electibility, not a personal belief in white supremacy, that would make race a factor in deciding to vote for.
(Which reasoning, for the record, I reject and deplore.)
May 21, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you admit that a significant number of black voters in the NC and PA Democratic primaries are racist?
May 21, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
One could make that case if there was data to bear out a tendency to vote against Clinton because she's white - sure.
Care to share that data? I've been looking for it myself.
May 21, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
CNN Exit polls.
Interesting, when posters state some white voters cast their ballots based on race, you don't ask for verification.
May 21, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I'd be very curious either way, thanks. As i stated below the crosstabs i have on exits for both states show no such breakdown as per racial percentages factored into that question, but i'm happy to pull CNNs to double check - thanks.
May 21, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Found it - thank you.
Looking at NC (local interest) - you've got a pretty even break between White and AA sampled who thought the Race of the Candidate was important - 8% of Whites vs 9% blacks in that sample. There's a percentage disparity within those groups that shifts more heavily toward Obama on the AA side of that divide than toward Clinton on the White side, but their overall percentages of sample (the 8 vs 9%) are essentially baselined against each other. Were AAs voting against Clinton because she's white? Yeah, maybe - in about the same numbers, in NC at least, as Whites voting against Obama because he's black (again, an assumption).
Comparing against KY, there's not a 1:1 correlation on the data per-se - there's no data available for AAs in KY who considered race important ("Blacks who say yes" is called out as 2%, with no additional breakdown, compared to the 9% of sample in NC). Among Whites who considered race of candidate an important factor, we ballon to 18% (vs 8% in NC). Of that 18% of sample, Clinton received 88% to Obama's 9% - almost a flip of the AA vote in NC, albeit in a portion of the sample that's essentially double that of the AA sample in NC.
Whites who considered the race of the candidate important in WV, btw, was 21% - of which Clinton received 84% of the vote. "Black who say yes" to that question accounted for 1% of sample in WV.
So with that said - I see the point you're making, but in NC at least the "AA Racist" quotient was a statistical tie with "White Racist" if we're going to boil them down like that - essentially noise in the equation. Signal to noise in WV or KY is much higher, albeit perhaps more focused as a simple function of the baseline racial breakdowns in the two states.
In PA, as an interesting addendum - Whites who considered race of candidate important was 12% of sample - Blacks who say yes accounted for 4% - so you actually had a higher disparity there than in NC, which is fascinating in its own right.
May 21, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although if you look at the PA Dem numbers, 4 out of 13 black voters said that race was important (30%) where as 12 out of 78 white voters said that race was important (15%) (once again these are a little rough due to rounding).
Just trying to point out the old line about people who live in glass houses (not that I'm saying you made that argument).
May 21, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry - lunch break :)
I agree to a degree on Penn - that's what i was driving at re: the lopsided comment as it doesn't jive with demographic assumptions but that's, of course, assumptions :)
Without that row of breakdowns on "Blacks Who Say Yes" in PA data I can't draw a 1:1, so I'm not putting much stock into the levels beyond that raw sample rate (not to dispute your math, rather the scope). Using NC as a point of reference I read the 92% and 90% voted for Obama subs on Race of Candidate (92% affirmative in "Yes" and 90% in "No" rows respectively) as indistinguishable in terms of percentage variance applied to the group overall - just as I'm doing the same on Clinton's 62 & 61%s. We see greater variance in Clintons subs when compared back to PA (and IN, WV and KY being the tabs i have open now), but I don't have Obama data (lots of N/As) to see if the rate held even or exhibited the same variance, so I don't think we can get meaningful reads by applying that scope.
We can, granted, only make soft conclusions on "racist vote" by reading the percentage of sample comparisons, but I'd read that as more telling as a raw rate of "admitting as bias" than trying to push percentages back out via the sub-tabs.
May 21, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've gotta disagree. There is a component of race in all this, but I think it boils down to not knowing Obama in any real sense. People will vote for the candidate they know 9 times out 10. Is there a natural hesitation based on his race, possibly, but how the hell do you prove that?
If Obama had campaigned there, told them that, no, he doesn't have an intimate knowledge of life in Appalachia, but he is learning, he would've gotten far more votes. They don't hate him because he's Black (well, not all of them), they just don't know him as well as Clinton. Hell, Clinton is pandering and campaigning like there's no tommorrow and he's not even putting up much of fight in any personal sense. It shouldn't be surprising more people voted for the politician who's been in the news for two decades.
May 21, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean like the 27% of Black Voters in the NC Democratic primary who said that race was important?
Or are you referring to the 30% of Black Voters in the PA Democratic primary who said that race was important to them?
May 21, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Link on that please? The Exit crosstabs i have onhand show a breakdown as per "Race was a Factor" but offer no granularity re: percentage of White vs AA voters that factored into that mix.
May 21, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
CNN isn't kind enough to do the math, so you have to do it yourself.
For example, in the question, was race important to you, the break the groups down by whites who say yes, whites who say no, blacks who say yes, blacks who say no and Other (I guess Other answer neither yes nor no, or answers both). The total percentages don't typically add up to 100%, I'm guessing due to rounding.
So if you take
(% of Blacks who say Yes)\(% of Blacks who say Yes + % of Blacks who say No)
You get the 27% for the NC primary.
It's a rough number, due to rounding, and should be cross checked against some other numbers. For example, % of Blacks who say Yes is 9%, % of Blacks who saw No is %24 for a total of %33. When asked the exit poll just asked the voters if they were white, black, or some other race, the NC exit polls said that 34% of voters were black. So 33% doesn't equal %34, but close enough due to expected rounding errors.
May 21, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, replied above. I don't think you even have to take it that far as a function of the sample - if we're just looking at race being a function of the vote, the 8% and 9% on the NC sample is really all we need - that's the "race based" portion. We're a pretty level state here, so that those levels are pretty even isn't much of a surprise, honestly, but that's beside the point ;) I was surprised to see the Whites to Clinton vs Blacks to Obama sub-breaks in those totals, though (expected far higher Whites to Clinton totals being from the WNC side of the state) - but i'd still consider their overall footprints in the equation statistical ties at 8 & 9% of sample.
The disparity between those percentages of sample in KY and WV are greater, and lean much heavier to Whites who consider race a factor (18% of sample > 2% in KY, 21% > 1% of sample in WV).
Is there racially-driven voting in NC? Sure. But it's a fairly level overall segment compared to the lopsided segment in WV and KY - I think that's what folks are getting at re: "Racism in KY" comments.
And I really had no idea there was such an uneven sample in PA on that front - so thanks for the heads up on this data. :)
May 21, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Race as a factor" covers a lot of territory, and I think it's dangerous to assume that that means that the voter is simply choosing or rejecting a candidate based on his or her race; i.e. that answering "yes" means the respondent is necessarily racist.
I pointed out one way in which race is a factor above - the "electability" argument, in which a voter picks a candidate they believe is the "safer" choice for the general election.
Another is when a candidate is perceived by some voters to be primarily interested in representing the interests of a voting block they do not identify with (e.g. seeing Obama as the "black candidate").
Another is something I think we saw when black voters started moving overwhelmingly to support Obama in part (I believe) because the Clinton campaign's attitude toward black voters was perceived to be dismissive.
Of course it's all interlinked. The exit polls can't tell the whole story based on yes-or-no answers to the term "race as a factor".
May 21, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree - that's why i tend to just go by the percentage admitting is as a driving factor rather than delving into their breakdowns from there. An exit doesn't reveal the calculus behind the thinking as it were.
But I'm glad to know CNNs exits have these breakdowns - the AP breakdowns i have here weren't nearly as granular & now I'm curious about a lot of other wedges of data. Life of a data junkie, lol :)
May 21, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would echo the sentiment that the polls don't tell the whole story. People lie to pollsters and they lie to themselves.
Merely pointing out that both candidates have benefited from racially based voting.
May 21, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is also the effect of voters second-guessing how important the race factor is to other voters. I've argued that that is pretty much racism once-removed, but really it is a lack of faith that the electorate can rise above racial prejudice.
Hillary cynically embraces the advantage that second-guessing gives her. Obama challenges the premise: Yes we can!
May 21, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Barack McGovern:
By Jim Wooten | Wednesday, May 21, 2008, 08:10 AM
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Barack Obamaโs now within a hundred delegates of securing the Democratic Party nomination to fulfill the legacy of George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, John Kerry and Al Gore.
John McCainโs spokesman Tucker Bounds set it up:
โThis election is fundamentally about who Americans can trust to secure peace and prosperity for the next generation of Americans. Without a doubt, Barack Obama is a talented political orator, but his naive plans for unconditional summits with rogue leaders and support for big tax hikes on hardworking families expose his bad judgment that Americans can ill-afford in our next president.โ
Oh well, nothing will change.
Nice work kool aid drinkers.
Still waiting on Obama to stop playing defense and step up and lead.
I think I will be waiting forever.
Much ado about speeches.
May 21, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your Republican is showing, gotalife.
May 21, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Total Kool aid Troll, blogging for McWar
I have NEVER written that much - this one is faker
I am real gotalife. Like me or not.
I am a dem. I will not be stupid. I will back nom.
Don't want OBama, but will take him if it means no gop.
May 21, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well if a McCain spokesman said it, it must be true!
May 21, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Truthy scale for Clintonites:
Hard-working white people (i.e., people who "need a president") - 10
Karl Rove - 9
McCain spokesman - 7 1/2
Women who voted for HRC - 6
Women who voted for BHO - 3
African-Americans - 1 1/2
The "Media" - 1
Reality - 0
May 21, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Just words?"
May 21, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you're quoting "Common Sense Conservative" Jim Wooten then you definitely are not a Democrat. The guy's a fricking idiot....I can see where he would appeal to you.
May 21, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
gotalife - how about kindly leaving us to join your newfound ideological brethren in the white supremacy club in WV and KY?
May 21, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
And all this time I thought you were just a moron. Obviously I underestimated you: you're an Operation Chaos moron, and that is a very special type of moron, indeed.
May 21, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Total BS McSame hacker
Identity thief
Sad
I am the real Gotalife - do not believe the liar
May 21, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG!OMG!OMG! McCain's asswipe consultant said something bad about Obama! Ohhhhhh, if only, if only we'd had the wisdom to nominate Hillary. McCain's spokesman would never have said anything about her. Oh, we're doooooomed, dooooomed!
Honestly, time to get a grip.
May 21, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trolling for McLame. Way to go, gotnolife. Way to fucking go.
May 21, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, shit T, leave him alone. He is a pathetic whinner and reality impared. He backed a loser and can't come to grips with the loss of the Panderer in chief.
Ignore him and he will go away.
May 21, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Though he apparently won't be getting Action Center Points for that one - didn't cover today's Talking Points and as such will not be qualified.
To be fair, though - this is the Gotalife troll. The real Gotalife, you'll remember, is now reformed and a true Democratic Unitarian preacher as of yesterday.
May 21, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Trollcritic is right.
Do not drink the Mcsame kool aid.
This troll is complete crap.
Greg?
I have reported.
May 21, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary picks up the phone at 3 a.m.
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/N/7/2/its-over-for-hillary.jpg
May 21, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!
You come up with the best.
May 21, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
lol. Thanks Liam. I agree with Tena. The best.
May 21, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has opened up a 10 point lead over McCain (O-47%, M-37%) and a whopping 26 point lead over Clinton (O-59%,C-33%).
From WaPo:
The attacks on him from Bush & then McCain, have backfired.
May 21, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the poll stated that it was an 8 point lead against McCain, but a 10 point lead if Barr and Nader were included...although I guess the 2 point difference is not statistically significant.
May 21, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zogby said that Obama win the CA Democratic primary by 10 points.
How'd that work out?
May 21, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howabout this from SurveyUSA, on the TPM front page, which showed Obama beating McCain in Pennsylvania by 8 points? They added a myriad of VP names to the mix, had McCain winning by 1 - 3 points in four combinations, Obama winning by 1 - 17 points in 12 combinations. Obama does best when paired with Edwards and Rendell (this is a Penn poll, again).
But, no -- obviously we've seen that working class voters in Penn just won't vote for Obama, so that poll must be bunk, too.
May 21, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. America will grow to admire this anti-Bush fighter.
He's no Dukakis, no Kerry.
BARACKARATE!!!
May 21, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Should have run Clinton radicals.
Just keep drinking the kool aid and watch him lose.
May 21, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which Clinton radicals are you speaking of....Gloria Steinem and Taylor Marsh? I agree...maybe they would've had a better chance against Obama.
May 21, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, yes!
Steinem and Marsh.
The undisputed leaders of the "Vast Vaginal Conspiracy"!
May 21, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I think "Fruit Punch" is my favorite. How about you guys?
May 21, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only one guzzling McSame kool aid is troll gotalife
I am a dem, life long. I will support nom.
I wanted Clinton, stronger candidate. If it is Obama, I will back him.
Democrats in 08. Stand together.
Sick of losing.
May 21, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton doubled her campaign debt in the last month.
Hillary gave herself a huge Gasbag Holiday, and left me still waiting for my friggin' thirty cents so that I can drive another block. Shame on you Gasbag Panderer.
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/5/6/2/full-service-pandering.jpg
May 21, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here are some other interesting polls:
McCain is beating Obama in FL by 10 points, but losing to Clinton.
Even more interesting, Clinton is beating McCain in NC; Obama, is losing to McCain.
May 21, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
But, of most immediate importance, Clinton has lost to Obama.
And there's a lot of time between now and November.
May 21, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Considering all of the hooplah that Hillary has been whipping up about seating the FL delegates AND considering that Obama hasn't campaigned there at all, I think 10 points is a pretty good starting point. Unlike Hillary, Obama's numbers usually go UP when he starts to campaign somewhere.
May 21, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which polls?
May 21, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
From Obsidian Wings:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/05/kentucky-primar.html
May 21, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary won all whites in Kentucky, including college educated.
May 21, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Every single one of them?
May 21, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not the ones who have been brain damaged since birth because their moms wouldn't stop talking on their cell phones.
May 21, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
100%?
ROFLMAO.
So?
May 21, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, I was watching Dan Abrams late last night...some after dark show, and a caller from KY stated that her husband and many of her friends said that they would never vote for an African American for fear that there would be "revenge" against white people because of the history of slavery and other past actions against blacks. I know she was just one caller, but perhaps Jon Stewart hit it on the head when he asked Obama whether his intentions were to enslave the white race if he became President. Tell me that can't be a real fear for some people?
May 21, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
To think there really are people out there who are afraid of something like this is just...I can't wrap my head around it at all. What is wrong with people?
May 21, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yea, and to think that there are people like Rev Wright who blame absolutely everything on the white race, even damning them to hell from the pulpit. Just think what someone from his congregation might actually do to the white race if they had the power to do it.
May 21, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
EVERYBODY PANIC!
May 21, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
They won't need to panic. They'll simply vote against Obama.
May 21, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
That says a LOT, doesn't it? The SMART folks vote for Obama, and the duds vote for BILLARY Clinton. That's FUNNY!
May 21, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
That really counters the whole Obama voters being elitist people who don't respect or under stand working class / blue collar folks. Way to go!
May 21, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on! Everyone knows "hard-working white working class" voters only live in Appalachia. And everyone knows the only people who live in Oregon are aging hippies, high-tech billionaires, and Starbucks-drinking yuppies.
How dare you publish something that contradicts the Hillaryland story line! Stereotypes are proven facts, while exit polls are fiction.
May 21, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another, very interesting take on the meaning of these Oregon results.
May 21, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
While there are, of course, racists who voted for Hillary and would never vote for Obama I see no evidence whatsoever that Obama's chances are any worse at winning most of the votes Hillary got and more in those states whether it is an Appalachian problem or not. If Obama were white or if they both were the same race and the outcome was the same in her favor would anyone look for reasons beyond that she is simply strong in those states and appeals to a large number of people in those states?
I find the assumption that Obama has no hope of winning Hillary's voters in the fall far more racist than anything else because that line of thinking assumes that most Hillary voters in these states are racists simply for casting a vote for her and that these people are so virulently racist that there's nothing Obama can do to win their vote. It's preposterous and simply foolish to think this way based on the startling fact that for some white voters (nowhere near a majority) are influenced by race. It's far more notable in this nation with it's long, long history of racism that so few people are motivated by race but why discuss that when we can obsess on the negative?
Obama may have a slightly steeper hill to climb in terms of winning over Hillary's voters, but not significantly higher than he would have had were he any other Democrat having lost those states. These prognostications and unsupported opinions about race indicate to me that pundits have little to discuss and thus far too much time on their hands these days.
May 21, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real problem is the utopist mode of thinking so prevalent among Obama supporters, which is so completely divorced from political realities. Obama's rhetoric is aimed at fostering certain delusions about what is likely to happen with an Obama candidacy. As we have already seen, far from bringing the country together, his candidacy has only highlighted and accentuated the differences between races and groups of voters within the Democratic Party. And those differences will only grow more stark and apparent in the general election.
May 21, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know of any "utopist" mode of thinking among Obama supporters. That's just another false stereotype that has been repeatedly pushed by people like you.
Also, did you ever stop to consider the possibility of Hillary playing a bigger part in all the divisiveness?
I recommend trying to accept the fact that Obama will be the nominee. It's time to end all this divisiveness you speak of and unite behind him.
May 21, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't accept 'facts' that are really only 'predictions' based upon disenfranchising voters and ignoring the popular vote.
May 21, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some people in this discussion are talking as if the people in Appalachia are racist, ignoring that they are, in fact, all older feminists. Who can forget the early 1970s marches of hard hat mine workers wearing "sisterhood is powerful"t-shirts. One thing that might be hard for you elitist male chauvinist liberals to accept is that in these white, hard-working class households, a genial equality between the sexes exists. All share household tasks equally, men often refer proudly to their "gal" "bringin home the bacon" Of course, local politics are dominated by mature women, legendary "good ol girls."
I'm not saying this feminist domination doesn't have its dark side. We all have been treated recently to the lurid stories from some of the more isolated hollows, where matriarchal Episcopal polygamist sects mate off boys as young as 13 to a "queen" who has 10 husbands already. Still, the point is that the hard working men in these districts have a long tradition of recognizing the superior judgment and natural leadership of women, and so it is natural that they would support Hillary Clinton for president over Obama. They would never vote for John McCain in a general election if a woman was also running.
May 21, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any links or evidence for the veracity of all of this analysis?
I'd be interested in seeing it.
May 21, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chub, if you're not doing anything else tonight... mind if I have your baby?
May 21, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
An important note: he's the presumptive nominee as the media has been telling everyone for forever. People are SUPPOSED to be drawing to him. I think the argument that winning the working class white vote in Oregon by 7 points is an accomplishment is a bit of an overstatement.
Next up Puerto Rico (oooh-OOOOOOOH) where somehow the media will explain away Hillary's strong support in the Hispanic community as Puerto Rico being a part of Appalachia.
May 21, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't count on Hillary's support being very strong in PR. You guys are in for a sad, sad disappointment.
May 21, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI - Hillary's support in this race has been stronger among Hispanics than whites. Puerto Rico is basically the 6th suburb of NYC. Home game! Hillary beats him in PR by at least the 16 point margin he won in Oregon.
May 21, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The team down by 15 hits a 3-pointer with ten seconds to go.
THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!!!1!
By the way, I understand and applaud Puerto Rico's role in the Democratic primary. However, for all the Clintonistas harping about "winning the big states" in the general election, how many electoral votes does Puerto Rico cast for President?
May 21, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
the democratic primary vote in PR has about as much influence in the general election as the Democratic primary vote in Wyoming does. Puerto can't vote for President. Obama will never win Wyoming in the general election, but they have a voice in the democratic nominee. What exactly is your point?
I can tell you Puerto Rico does represent Hispanic voters who Obama has had trouble winning over in this primary campaign. It will just further highlight his electability issues in the general.
May 21, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those darn Puerto Ricans of Appalachia. When are people going to realize that Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, Puerto Rico, that all these Appalachian states don't matter?
May 21, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yo Troll:
Sorry to burst your La-la Land bubble, but Obama will win Ohio, Michigan, AND Pennsylvania in spite of the racists you give aid and comfort to.
Deal with it.
May 21, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Troll def : someone who posts irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, with the intention of baiting them into an emotional response.
Up yours, troll.
May 21, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point was that now Clintonistas are touting Puerto Rico as the election upon which the primary hinges, despite it not being a "state that counts," as we heard ad nauseum regarding other states that Hillary won.
My point is that the inconsistent, illogical rationalizing done by some dead-ender Hillary supporters is enough to make one's head spin.
By the way, I remember that Wyoming was among the many states that "don't count"--along with caucus states (except Nevada), "small" states (unless it's a state Hillary won!), "red" states (except Indiana and Kentucky!), etc.
I'm just pointing out the inconsistency, that's all.
May 21, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're the one who's being inconsistent. If Puerto Rico shouldn't count, then neither should Idaho, Wyoming, South Carolina, and Georgia because a democratic candidate stands NO chance of picking up any electoral votes in those states either.
May 21, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um... I didn't make the argument that "they shouldn't count" in the first place. I believe in a 50-state strategy where every state counts (and Puerto Rico and Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands too, for that matter). It was the Clinton camp that started winnowing out states that "don't count"--based solely on whether Hillary won them, of course.
My entire point was the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the Clinton shills on this issue. Honestly, do you have to surrender your logical skills to be a hard-core Clinton supporter?
May 21, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you mean a 48 state strategy that has left 2 out in the cold. But Obama flies to florida to fill his fundraising coffers while simultaneously trying to thwart the will of the democratic primary voters in FL. That is inconsistent and hypocritical.
May 21, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's all Obama's fault! He is the party leadership afterall, right?
May 21, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
So true! His evil supporter Harold Ickes voted to "disenfranchise" FL and MI! And his other evil supporter Terry McAuliffe did the same thing back when he was DNC chair and MI tried something similar! Evil! EEEEE-ville!
Oh wait... those guys are Hillary supporters? Never mind! Withdrawn!
But it's still Obama's fault, somehow.
QED, at least via Argument By Assertion.
May 21, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
First get your facts straight - Terry Mac only took away 1/2 the delegates as punishment. I don't ebelieve there's ever been an instance of 100% of a state being unrepresente din the primary process but correct me if I'm wrong. second the clinton campaign and both states have been trying for months to rectify this situation. obama's campaign has been dragging his feet because he is scared of cutting into his lead. It is within the rules to petition for the delegates to be seated as FL & MI have done. Obama and his so called unpledged minions like Donna Brazille are trying to thwart that by saying rules are rules. Don't think that's going over well with FL & MI. But eff them right? Obama doesn't need them in the general - he's got a whole nother electoral map going on.
May 21, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the lecture. My basic points still stand, and the Hillary campaign's hypocrisy is still blatant, naked, and shameless.
Just for the record: Your hectoring tone doesn't make your argument stronger, just more abrasive.
May 21, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, Hillary also said that the rule-breaking primaries MI and FL wouldn't count... until she fell behind after Super Tuesday, and after she "won" them both.
But of course that doesn't bother a high-minded democratic citizen such as yourself--at least not as long as it benefits Hillary. Not even the Soviet-style "election" in MI can cause a hardcore Hillary supporter to blush with embarrassment when claiming "victory."
May 21, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"a soviet-style election in Michigan"? I thought it was Obama who voluntarily took his name off the ballot because he knew he couldn't win and didn't want to look bad. And as far as Hillary saying that it wouldn't count - it wasn't Hillary who decided not to count their votes, and it isn't Hillary who is doing everything that he can to disenfranchise millions of voters. In spite of your warped and anti-democratic perspective, she is not morally obligated to campaign for the disenfranchisement of voters.
May 21, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't Hillary who said that some states shouldn't count - it's states like Idaho, Montana, South Carolina and Mississippi that have constantly voted Republican for the last forty years, and will vote Republican again this year. It's a matter of these Republican states counting more than swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Hillary won by over 200,000 in Ohio and only netted 9 delegates. Obama won by 150,000 in South Carolina and netted 19 delegates. And it's been like that up and down the line. Obama is ahead by gaming the system, disenfranchising voters, and ignoring the popular vote. He is NOT a legitimate nominee.
May 21, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
los Apalaches
May 21, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama doesn't have a "working class" problem, or an "Appalachia" problem, or a "hard working white folks" problem. He had a RACIST problem. Why does everyone dance delicately around this?
May 21, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's remember that HRC handily won Massachusetts (which by the CW, Obama should have won). I attribute this to a very simple phenomenon: HRC and the Clintons have always been extremely well liked among Mass. Democrats. Obama was in the "Tom Harkin" role of a perfectly likeable but not compelling enough candidate to overcome HRC's established positive connections with Mass. Democratic voters.
May 21, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Masschusetts has already sat through Obama: the prequel
Together We Can...have casino gambling!
May 21, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice spin on Obama's crushing defeat in Kentucky. This malarkey about Obama only having an "Appalachia problem" is probably the biggest load of crap yet.
The only reason that Obama won Oregon is because Oregon's latte-drinking democrats are much more LIBERAL than most other democrats across the country. And also because he once again spent five times as much in advertising. It has nothing to do with your snooty cultural bigotry against Appalachia. And it definitely DOESN'T mean that his problem with working people, with older voters, with Hispanics, (and with just about ever other classification of voters except black and liberal) has magically gone away. Poof! Though Obamatons have their head too far up their arses to recognize the truth.
May 21, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Troll reappears?
How's Tayor Marsh?
May 21, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Troll def : someone who posts irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, with the intention of baiting them into an emotional response.
Up yours, troll.
May 21, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
One small problem with your argument: Hispanics now favor Obama (see link below). A similar Gallup poll also finds him now leading among Asian-Americans too. Seems to me that the core of Hillary's support is the 'menopause and Schlitz.' Perhaps she can resurrect her campaign by pledging to provide discount smokes and teacup cosis for all.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107419/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Maintains-Large-Lead-Over-Clinton.aspx
May 21, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Menopause and Schlitz set", I mean.
May 21, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant, "the menopause and Schlitz set." My apologies for the error in my condescending and sexist quip...
May 21, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your link didn't say anything at all about Hispanics. Leave it to the text-messaging latte cabal to back up a lie with the wrong link.
May 21, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops, wrong link. Here you go:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107407/Obama-Surge-Fairly-BroadBased.aspx
May 21, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leaving out the fact that it's probably an outlier, the only reason that Obama has suddenly gained with Hispanics vs Clinton is because the media is acting like he's already the nominee. But that doesn't mean that when Hispanics vote this fall, that he's going to have enough Hispanic support to defeat McCain.
May 21, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will be the nominee. I know it's hard to accept as a Clinton supporter. It's been a good contest but it's time to move on.
May 21, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't moved on from when George Bush stole the presidency in 2000 by disenfranchising voters in Florida. I'm still angry about that. So why would you think I would move on when Obama is doing the exact same thing?
May 21, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
How exactly is Obama disenfranchising voters? Hillary signed the same agreement as he did (only he's not trying to change the rules after the fact). Your beef should be with Florida's Democratic Party leadership (and even the DNC), not Obama.
I understand the desperation though. If Obama was the losing candidate I too would probably be bitching (except I wouldn't be confused about who is at fault).
May 21, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
More lies from a desperately dishonest campaign. Hillary NEVER made any promise to disenfranchise voters. She ONLY promised not to campaign in Florida and Michigan. Obama broke that promise and Hillary kept it.
Now, the Obama campaign is lying about what Hillary promised to support in their own campaign to disenfranchise voters in states that he couldn't win. He's the one who has prevented any resolution of this issue in order to foster the illusion that he is too far ahead in pledged delegates to change anything. It's been broken promises, lies, deceit, and disenfranchisement with Obama from beginning to end. Those are his tools, and you are his stooges.
May 21, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow...there is simply no reasoning with you.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/22/0226/35614/632/520082
May 22, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is everyone so concerned about poor, working class whites, especially since no democratic presidential candidate has won them since 1972? It's obvious that poor education and likely inbreeding have taken their toll to create non-thinking rascists. Why else would so many people vote against their interests?
A major reason why we are in the fix we're in is because politicians have been pandering to those people and they have primitive concepts of freedom and equality, plus a belligerence that's seriously twisted. In other words, we let those ignorant people choose our leaders.
We've invaded a country that did nothing to us, killed over a million of its citizens and created at least 3-4 million refugees. To me those are Holocaust-type numbers and we hung people at Nuremberg for a lot less than Bush and his cohorts such as Hillary Clinton did and supported. Yet those Appalachian hillbillies still support Hillary, Bush and whatever right-wing, white candidate is on the ballot.
Based on her support for NAFTA and the IRAQ war, I'd certainly include Hillary as a conservative.
It's time to celebrate education and learning, not the NASCAR, rascist, confederate-flag-waving, jingoism that is all to common here in the USA.
May 21, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's obvious that cell phone radiation and being educated beyond their abilities have taken their toll to create a generation of confused elitists.
May 21, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sa fancy me this, Troll:
Why did Obama win Virginia: too many liberal generals in Annandale?
LOL
May 21, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Troll def : someone who posts irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, with the intention of baiting them into an emotional response.
Up yours, troll.
May 21, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear La-la Troll:
what's it like to back a LOSER?
Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
It's OVER, and YOUR candidate is a LOSER, just like YOU!
Go vote for McSame!
May 21, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Troll def : someone who posts irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, with the intention of baiting them into an emotional response.
Up yours, troll.
May 21, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
because if they did, they'd have to hold those good white folks accountable for said racism. and we certainly could't have that, could we? to hear the pundits tell it, it's "obama's problem with white voters," not the other way 'round.
it's sad, really. oh, and disgusting too.
May 21, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Racism in America? The only shock is how naive Obama's supporters really are. Did they really need to lose another election to prove that America is a racist country? Or is this their way of proving that they aren't as racist as other people (even though, in their own self-denying way, they are)?
May 21, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Troll, I've grown up around these Appalachians for years.
This isn't La-La Land.
They wouldn't vote for Jesus Christ if he was a black man.
You and Hillary can have them.
Obama will win the general in spite of their bitter clinging to racism.
May 21, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Troll def : someone who posts irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, with the intention of baiting them into an emotional response.
Up yours, troll.
May 21, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Troll?
Why do you hate people of color?
May 21, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Troll def : someone who posts irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, with the intention of baiting them into an emotional response.
Up yours, troll.
May 21, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
By your definition...you are a "troll".
Huh. Funny.
May 21, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Troll def : someone who posts irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, with the intention of baiting them into an emotional response.
Up yours, troll.
May 21, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
oops, sorry. that was a reply to ingoman.
May 21, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
esles!! anyways, it's a perfect point: "to hear the pundits tell it, it's "obama's problem with white voters," not the other way 'round."
May 21, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama may never get past the Appalachian racists. Working people are not all the same throughout the nation. My own limited personal experience with West Virginia redneck racism was when my car broke down. When they picked up my car, I rode with the tow truck driver and his assistant. Within the first 5 minutes of the ride, they said a number of racist things about an African American event happening in Charleston that weekend. To me, a stranger from Illinois. They didn't know or care whether I would be offended.
It runs deep in Appalachia. They do bitterly cling to their guns, churches and their Confederate battle flags. He can try, but I don't see Obama ever winning them over.
Yesterday, the Chicago Tribune had an article about white folks in Kentucky who would never vote for a black man. The guy the story featured was a 55 year old fatso living on a government disability check and a year-round "garage sale" (AKA junk shop). So much for the hard-working white folks whose support Hillary claims to have. This guy will vote for the candidate with Mc in his name.
May 21, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Umm ... this same set of events could happen anywhere in the U.S.
It's called anecdotal information.
May 21, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
unfortunately, anecdotal information is often correct...
the question is not that it could happen anywhere in America, because certainly it could, but I think that most reasonable people would suggest that it would happen less often elsewhere!
May 21, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
i just hate to see it excused/ignored. those rednecks need to be called out for THEIR issues; they're not barack's. and there needs to be more direct criticism of those blatantly racist, anti-american views -- and how the abject poverty in those areas feeds into them.
May 21, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you talking about the black people who vote 94% for Obama or the white people who vote 65% for Hillary? Which racists in abject poverty are you talking about?
May 21, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
sigh.
black people have voted for white people since we've been allowed to vote. and hillary had black folks' support until they fully started to check obama out, assessed her negatives and heard bill's attempt to "racialize" the race in south carolina. also, there's nothing wrong with voting FOR someone, as opposed to voting AGAINST someone, a la the white racists who say outright that they're not voting for a black man. and surely you're not defending that, are you?
hmmm, i bet more black folks have voted for white candidates than vice versa. care to prove me wrong?
May 21, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Racism is defined as 'discrimination based upon race,' whether that discrimination is for one race or against another. Voting for Obama because he's black is just as racist as voting against Obama because he's black.
2. Just because black people vote for white candidates doesn't mean they are not voting for Obama because he is black, which is racist.
May 21, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
and please, i'm trying to cut those bigots some slack by attributing their ignorance to poverty. and i've had the whole cross-burning-in-my-front-yard experience as a kid, so i could go in a whole other direction with it ...
May 21, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
If calling them 'rednecks' and 'anti-american' is cutting them slack, then why not cut the black people who vote for Obama the same kind of slack by calling them the same kind of names?
May 21, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
Again I want to point out that your headline is flat wrong. I know that headlines here are sometimes misleading and slanted towards Obama (Yesterday it was Obama has "won majority of delegates"). Still, I'd think you would want to correct it. Obama did not win more votes from the no college group (HS graduate and below). He won among college grads and those with some college.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226003
May 21, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink