« Delegate Math | Main | Mac is Back » The Crucial Racist Vote04 Mar 2008 08:40 pm
According to MSNBC exit polls, it seems to have put Hillary Clinton over the top. Relatedly, I don't understand why they're not calling Ohio for Clinton. The exit polls look unambiguous to me -- she's won it. Obama made up a lot of ground over the past two weeks, but she won the state and all that's left to do is figure out the delegate count. Comments (101)
Poor old white women and racists... Hillary is building a real coalition. 
Actually, Matt, without the early voting totals and Cleveland (big on Obama) voting until 9pm 51-48.5 is too close a result to make a call.
The African-American percentage of the vote is the key wildcard. If it is great than roughly 22% Obama wins, and until Cleveland reports we won't know this.
They haven't called it because the polls haven't closed. Cuyahoga Cty. polls are open until 9 per court order. Also, I don't think early voting totals have been factored in yet.
Petey, do you make constant pronouncements in everyday life? Like: "It shall not rain today." or "Tonight, wife, we travel to see Transformers--Michael Bay's best effort in years. No arguments!"
This is Matt Yglesias' worst blog post of all time.
Good grief...
Not that this will impact exit polls, but the actual vote counting for Cleveland will take a long time. (The votes will be sent elsewhere for hand-counting, as I understand it.) So the race will be much tighter than the numbers suggest early on, although by then the narrative will have been written.
To be fair -- and I'm an Obama supporter -- I would be surprised if you broke down the people who voted because of race by race, you'd see that blacks who thought about race voted for Obama about as much as whites who thought about race voted for Clinton. Of course, it is still embarrassing.
52-48 Clinton if you use the male/female vote percentages and margins. In other words, pretty tight - and people are still voting.
Just looking at the male/female breakdown from that exit, and it's pretty damn close.
aren't exit polls famously wrong in ohio anyway? (ex: nov 2004)
Now, I (proudly) consider myself firmly in the tank for Obama, but what's to say this doesn't include a sizeable portion of African-Americans for whom Obama's race was an "important" determinant (not, notably, *the* determinant) of their vote. Anyway, this is all a good excuse to post one of my favorite Obama moments. Some interviewer asked him why he identifies as (or allows himself to be identified as) a "black" candidate when, in fact, he's mixed-race. His response was something like: "If I had been on TV for robbing a gas station and my picture was put up on the TV, I'd be identified as 'a black guy', wouldn't I?"
Matt,
But considering she wins both those who think "race" is relevant 57-43 and those who think "gender" is important 57-43 as well, the bottom line is that when everything is taken into account ... racism vs race-solidarity ... sexism vs gender solidarity ... she benefits from these bigoted attitudes.
You guys are really defending people who consider race an important criterion of who to vote for in an election? Really?
So Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comments in SC worked! Just took a while.
"aren't exit polls famously wrong in ohio anyway? (ex: nov 2004)" Exit polls are famously wrong fucking everywhere. Obama won the NH exit polls by 10 points, y'know. It's always a lousy sample. Brew a pot of coffee and wait somewhere between 45 minutes and 4 hours to see what happened today.
Assuming the actual vote turns out to be close--wouldn't any of a number of factors put the winner, whoever she/he might be, over the top? By my calc, if *no one* thought race was important, and everyone voted 50-50, HRC would lose less than one percent. I'd bet the misogyny vote will be at least that important, albeit obviously not in the same direction.
52-48ish was the CNN exit poll number, too, extrapolating from their either/ors. Even without the extended hours in Ohio, I still think that's too close for a call. I think this number, combined with the 70-30 65+ age breakdown in OH, does translate to a few 'old white, don't like uppity Obama' voters. Then again, that was only 13% of the sample size.
CNN exit polls show Obama losing both by incredibly slim margins. Well, I hate exit polls, so there.
"But considering she wins both those who think "race" is relevant 57-43 and those who think "gender" is important 57-43 as well, the bottom line is that when everything is taken into account ... racism vs race-solidarity ... sexism vs gender solidarity ... she benefits from these bigoted attitudes." Folks who want to vote for a female candidate are "bigoted", but folks who want to vote for a black candidate aren't. Standard Obama logic.
Sorry David but she wins those who think gender is relevant 57-43. Which means that for every four sexist idiots, she wins 6 women who vote for her because she is a fellow woman.
Why is it necessarily racist? What if the voters determined to vote on affirmative action principles? (I.e., they viewed the two candidates as equal, so decided to give a bit of extra weight to the black candidate.) Is affirmative action racist?
Yes, but we don't want to mention all of the black voters who are supporting Obama, do we? Honestly, Matthew, I can smell the hypocrisy from here.
"Why is it necessarily racist? What if the voters determined to vote on affirmative action principles? (I.e., they viewed the two candidates as equal, so decided to give a bit of extra weight to the black candidate.) Is affirmative action racist?" You might want to notice that more people who said race matters voted for the white one.
Obama made up a lot of ground over the past two weeks, but she won the state Matt you've got the analysis all wrong. Hillary is 1-12 and thus has regained all the momentum. It doesn't matter that her huge lead in OH evaporated over the last few weeks, the media are on a mission to prove that they are not in the bag for Obama.
Clinton won self-reporting moderates, but Obama won both liberals and conservatives.
Freddie, to the extent that anyone's "defending" it -- and I'm not sure they are -- I'd say...um, yeah, as long as they're voting for him out of pride, it's not much different than women who vote for Hillary because they're proud to see a woman go for the brass ring. Obviously, the idea of whites voting *against* Obama out of race pride is significantly more fraught.
No - this is veering into Andrew Sullivan territory. Ugh. I mean, there's snark, then there's good old fashioned dislike. This is the latter, IMV.
"Yes, but we don't want to mention all of the black voters who are supporting Obama, do we? Honestly, Matthew, I can smell the hypocrisy from here." Matthew is in Chris Matthews-land. The anybody but Clinton caucus seems to consist of all of General Electric, Marty Peretz, Andrew Sullivan, and Matthew. Interesting company.
You might want to notice that more people who said race matters voted for the white one. True enough. But what if people gave Barack some extra "credit" (affirmative action-wise), but still ended up voting for Hillary. The question doesn't ask if they considered it important in voting for their candidate. Just whether it was important at all. Right?
The net gain for Clinton from the racist vote minus the black empowerment vote is only +2.8%. As for the racist vote, there's a Nation story in which a reporter visited Ohio and encountered some voters who said they loved Hillary and would never vote for "the n****r". So it's real. But it's also real that there are a lot of men who won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman. And there are plenty of women who will vote for her for the same reason. Thank goodness the Republicans don't engage in these petty identity politics. No, they just all vote for the white male candidate.
"I mean, there's snark, then there's good old fashioned dislike." Who can blame Matthew. He's young and wealthy. That's Obama's wheelhouse. He wouldn't want to be a class traitor and support someone downscale like Clinton.
While the Pro-Hillary caucus seems to consist of John McCain, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Ann Coulter. Interesting company on that side, as well. Why would we let the Republicans pick our nominee? They want to run against Hillary.
It looks like the voting in Ohio was racially polarized, but I don't think there is much to make of this data point from the exit polls. Black voters are not (on the whole) going to cite race as their reason for voting for Obama. Same with racist white ethnics. I suspect that Hilary's race-conscious voters are older voters who don't think a black candidate can win the general, which seems to be a fairly common sentiment among elderly democrats.
He wouldn't want to be a class traitor and support someone downscale like Clinton. I've always said that I'll be happy to support Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination. Much happier, in fact, than I was to support John Kerry in 2004. Still, it'd be better for her to drop out rather than drag this out and sabotage the Democratic Party.
Matt, The percentage saying race matter happens to equal the percentage of African American voters. You don't suppose that might have something to do with it? Or might there also be progressives who think that it is important for racial healing to have a Black President? Without cross-tabs and a lot more information, the idea that these numbers mean anything one way or the other is a measure of your own prejudice rather than that of the voters.
Well, the exit polls show Hillary winning Ohio 51-48, and also winning Texas 50-49. So despite the returns so far showing a big win in Ohio for Clinton, it's still too close to call. And in Texas's case, the LARGE number of early votes seem to be breaking Obama's way. Of course the exit polls can be wildly off the mark so who the hell really knows....
Is affirmative action racist? Of course. It's inherintly based on nothing but race (or sex, or sexual orientation).
Is affirmative action racist? Of course. It's inherintly based on nothing but race (or sex, or sexual orientation).
ABC says BHO wins Texas, loses Ohio massively, close in RI.
Petey, you're starting to sound an awful lot like Don Williams going off about H. Saban. I don't like Marty Peretz either, but just repeating his name doesn't make him Matt's secret lover.
Their aren't "CNN" or "MSNBC" or anything else exit polls, right? They're done by a consortium and are all the same? Is this wrong?
FWIW, there is a long history of racism in Ohio. Marge Schott, anyone? Also, more recently, there have been riots in Cincinnati over police shootings of unarmed black children. I don't think this stat is a mistake.
"Why would we let the Republicans pick our nominee?" I have no idea why would want to let either Republicans or Independents pick our nominee. The one thing I know for sure is that Clinton has won the majority of Democratic votes cast in the nomination race.
Grew up in Cincinnati, OSU grad. Now live just outside Raleigh, NC (Cary). People talk about how the south is supposedly so racist. I'm here to tell you that it's MUCH worse in Ohio, particularly SE Ohio outside of Cinci as well as up in the NE in places like Canton and Akron. Hellholes all.
"That's Obama's wheelhouse. He wouldn't want to be a class traitor and support someone downscale like Clinton." It's not the fake downscaleness, it's the real warmongerness that turns certain democrats off of Clinton.
I forgot that only Democrats get to vote in November. Oh, and the idea that the majority of Hillary supporters won't vote for Obama is a joke. Democrats will throw fits now, but nobody could vote for Bush the 3rd.
Please, people- you don't really believe that it's somehow just as offensive for a black person to vote for Obama in part because he's black than it is for a white person to vote against Obama for the same reason, do you?
"He wouldn't want to be a class traitor and support someone downscale like Clinton." Because when a couple is worth $30+ million, they're just a couple of paychecks from the soup kitchen.
Hillary's the candidate of old, white, racist voters, most especially old, white, racist women. Says quite a bit about her as a candidate, don't you think?
"I've always said that I'll be happy to support Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination." I've always said this, too. However, now that she's doing her absolute god-damndest to throw the election to John McCain by spending millions of dollars to emphasize the paramount importance of having an experienced, hawkish leader in the White House during an international crisis, my "support" will be limited to showing up at a polling site in November and pulling the lever for her. I don't have any money or time to waste on John Kerry 2.0. Apologies for the live drunkblogging. Carry on.
The one thing I know for sure is that Clinton has won the majority of Democratic votes cast in the nomination race. Yawn. Even if that stat weren't ridiculous on it's face, she's obviously not winning enough of a majority of Democrats to overcome that small fraction of the population that crosses over to vote in a primary. I'm comfortable playing by the rules as they exist today, not as some would like them to be.
To vote for (or against) someone primarily, or even more than a little, because of race makes you a racist. To vote for (or against) someone primarily, or even more than a little, because of gender makes you a sexist. We're not covering ourselves in glory if we divide up with the ladies on one side of the room and the men and blacks on the other. It will make George and John happy men if we do.
"I don't have any money or time to waste on John Kerry 2.0." I'm confused. I thought you were supporting Barack Obama, LaFollette Progressive.
For once, I agree with Petey. Matt has had some pretty piss poor blog posts in the past, but this is (easily!) among the worst 10.
"Still, it'd be better for her to drop out rather than drag this out and sabotage the Democratic Party." That's my thought about Obama trying to win the Democratic nomination while ceding the Democratic vote. Seems a strategy designed to bring tears to the Party from my vantage point.
On the race question, in what scenario can Hillary bring out the African-American vote - especially in crucial states like Missouri - in the general election after beating the first legitimate African-American candidate in a manner that many will view as something less than cleanly? Democrats still need the African-American vote, right? And they can't just win it by large margins, they have to bring that vote out, no?
While the Pro-Hillary caucus seems to consist of John McCain, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Ann Coulter. Interesting company on that side, as well. They're obviously just really big fans of universal healthcare.
"Is affirmative action racist? Sexual orientation is a plus factor? ROTFLMAO!!! Affirmative action discriminates but that discrimination has to be put in context. Isolated down to 2 candidates, one who would have gotten the job, and one that did for political reasons, it sure looks racist. It takes a willful disregard of history, not to mention the inherent value of diversity, to insist on simplifying affirmative action to the point of absurdity. Sorry for feeding the troll. Gay people might get cool points in urbania, but suggesting that there is positive discrimination on our behalf is just plain stupid.
That's my thought about Obama trying to win the Democratic nomination while ceding the Democratic vote. I've never understood this argument. Do you think Democrats who voted for Hillary would fail to vote for Obama if he is the nominee? Would they jump to McCain? It doesn't make sense. However, the reverse is not necessarily true. Many independent and moderate Republicans who voted for Obama would most definitely NOT vote for Hillary. And this idea that he is ceding the Democratic vote is nonsense. I'm curious to see the exact numbers of Democratic votes for each candidate, but even if Hillary has a slight advantage (and I'm not convinced that she does), that's hardly ceding the Democratic vote.
Matt: This is incredibly unfair to those who answered the question and to HRC. You have no idea what they meant when they answered the question. Someone who thought "I don't think Obama can win the South and beat McCain" isn't necessarily racist, even though that isn't how you and I would think. This is an unfair smear.
"Do you think Democrats who voted for Hillary would fail to vote for Obama if he is the nominee? Would they jump to McCain? It doesn't make sense. However, the reverse is not necessarily true." That's not what recent polling has been showing. In a general election Clinton wins a higher percentage of Obama voters than Obama wins of Clinton voters.
With only 20% saying race was important, the only way the "racist vote" could have put Hillary over the top in Ohio would be if it were essentially dead even otherwise. And who knows, perhaps it was. Of course, I also think it's naive to believe that race was only important to 20% of the voters, including those who pulled the lever for Obama. I mean, I live here and that number of 20% seems low. I refuse to let fear of the bigotry of others determine my vote, but that's a factor this fall: how many people who always vote Democratic will absolutely not vote for a black man for President? Most of that ilk stopped voting for Democrats long ago, but not all of them.
We're not covering ourselves in glory if we divide up with the ladies on one side of the room and the men and blacks on the other. Uh... "Ladies" vs. "Men and blacks"? I am a little uncomfortable with Matt's frame of the question -- I don't think "conscious of race" necessarily means "racist", and it clearly includes black Obama voters as well. The attack ads and the news media's "OMG WE'VE BEEN CRITICIZED BY SNL" reaction likely had a bigger impact than a narrow lead among this specific sub-group of the electorate. At the same time, isn't it even a little analytically interesting that a majority of people who said they paid attention to race just happened to favor the white candidate? Clinton's supporters tend to be poor, old white people, the demographic group that's most likely to harbor racial resentment in this country.
Petey, you're a dick.
"That's my thought about Obama trying to win the Democratic nomination while ceding the Democratic vote." BS! He cedes nothing. I'm technically independent, since in CA it costs me nothing to remain so, but I'm a functional Democrat, and I'm tired of Petey telling me my vote doesn't count because I didn't bubble in the Democrat oval on a form years ago. I'd go ahead and register Democrat if I had to, since most of the politicians I respect are Democrats. I choose not to change my registration simply because I don't want to be associated with knee-jerk morons on the far left, or, for being called a cult member and misogynist for disliking Hillary Clinton. All the votes count. Period. If you truly believe that Democrats won't vote for Obama in the fall, then you've embraced the premise of Matt's post. Truly sad. Obama has won millions of white votes, in all sorts of States (VT, WI, IA, NH, NV, etc.) Likewise, millions of Democratic votes, maybe even more than Clinton (he has a MILLION vote lead, ahem). But if he doesn't win the cracker vote in OH, he's unelectable? Bullshit. Clinton can't win the cracker vote against McCain anywhere. Petey, you aren't a racist for supporting Hillary but this line of "analysis" is absolutely silly and reeks. It reeks of stale assumptions and constituency politics. Be part of the solution. There are positive reasons for supporting Hillary; Obama not being able to win in the fall is not one of them.
Affirmative action is not racist. It is an answer to racism. Black people voting for a black candidate in the hope of sympathy and justice in a racist country is also not racism but an answer to racism. Racism - at least the kind that is despicable - is a theory or practice of racial supremacy. It is not anything whatsoever that refers that race or anything that is directly intended to fix the effects of racism. That claim is racist propaganda intended to preserve racial supremacy by discrediting efforts to reverse it.
"Hillary Clinton has pulled slightly closer to Barack Obama among Democrats nationally, and now trails by a 48% to 43% margin". http://www.gallup.com/poll/104740/Gallup-Daily-Obama-48-Clinton-43.aspx
Most of the polls I've seen have Obama doing better against McCain than Clinton. Is it possible for this to be consistent with your claim? Even if it is, isn't the general election result more important? If this were a multi-party country, I'd agree that only party members should be able to vote in primaries, but in a two-party system, you have to let independents vote in the primaries and I think their opinion is important.
"Is it possible for this to be consistent with your claim?" Sure. They're measuring two different things. "Even if it is, isn't the general election result more important?" Sure, again. If I thought Obama were more likely to beat McCain than Clinton was, I'd be a lot more cautious about supporting Clinton. But I don't think Obama is more likely to beat McCain. Obama's potential general election weakness lies in some states the Dems really need to win - OH, PA, and MI.
In response to the thread: Call it affirmative action or whatever, but a black person voting for Obama because of black pride, or the hope it will lead to racial progress and equality is not the same as a Hillary voter being motivated by wanting the white person to win or not wanting the black person to win. By the same token the Mormon pride that caused Utah to go 90% for Romney is not nearly as bad (if it is in fact bad) as the anti-Mormon vote of some Huckabee and McCain voters in Iowa and Florida. "Poor old white women and racists... Hillary is building a real coalition." This seems to be the same kind of "those voters don't count" reasoning HRC's people have been engaging in. if the exit polls are correct, 80% of HRC's voters say race is not an important factor. Obama is going to win and should win, but his supporters should wake up and realize that a big chunk of core Democratic voters liked someone else more.
I've seen different polling on the issue of which candidate retains more of the other's supporters. It does seem to me as if Hillary supporters have grown increasingly disenchanted with Obama (they liked him fine when he wasn't a threat), whereas Obama supporters have always had something of a tendency to be disenchanted with Hillary, which is why they opposed the frontrunner in the first place.
"his supporters should wake up and realize that a big chunk of core Democratic voters liked someone else more." Correction: his supporters should wake up and realize that a majority of core Democratic voters liked someone else more.
If I thought Obama were more likely to beat McCain than Clinton was, I'd be a lot more cautious about supporting Clinton. You don't support Clinton. You support Nader. Told me so yourself, as I recall.
"You don't support Clinton. You support Nader. Told me so yourself, as I recall." You recall incorrectly. I'd enthusiastically vote Clinton this November. Universal healthcare is the issue of this election.
Petey: That's not what recent polling has been showing. First, I'd like a link to something showing this to be true...because I find this claim highly dubious, especially considering all the polls showing Obama beating McCain by a greater margin than Hillary. Second, Hillary is still in the race and her supporters are invested in her candidacy. Obviously, that's going to impact the number of her supporters who would declare their support for Obama if he were the nominee. Most importantly though, it doesn't make sense. If you are a Democrat and your choice is Obama or McCain, you are not going to vote McCain.
And speaking of race, thank god for Stephanie Tubbs-Jones. Without her bringing in enough votes in Cuyahoga, Clinton doesn't win Ohio.
Sully: The Clintons' argument for the super-delegates will almost certainly be that if Obama can't win white working class voters in Ohio, he can't win the general. And he can't.
So all of Hillary's white working class support will migrate to McCain on the basis of race, hmmm? I don't have to slander Hillary's supporters; they're slandering themselves.
Dude doesn't know how to read exit polls. 51-48 in Ohio is too narrow with the statistical margin of error to call anything. These pundits don't do so well with math, do they?
A candidate need not win any one state but a majority of the electoral college.
"So all of Hillary's white working class support will migrate to McCain on the basis of race, hmmm? I don't have to slander Hillary's supporters; they're slandering themselves." You're a bit confused, ChuckE. Andrew Sullivan is the opposite of a Clinton supporter. Sullivan would vote for Satan over Clinton.
"This is Matt Yglesias' worst blog post of all time." Nah. He'll beat it with his next one. Or tomorrow at the latest. Or you can read his ridiculous Iran comment yesterday.
Hillary can't win the Presidency with a disaffected African-American vote. No Democrat can. Every purple state requires a large African-American turnout in the cities to give Democrats a chance. Short of a Barack Obama Vice-Presidency - which would be a political dead end for him - African-Americans aren't turning out for the mildly racist candidate. She will still win African-Americans, but not enough of them. That is before even getting to the disappearing youth vote, the irritated upscalers, Hillary's unfavorables and the absence of a congressional blue tide. That is why this is a disaster for the Democrats. Even if Petey is right about an Obama candidacy, a Hillary candidacy is now also a total mess.
Maybe he referring to me. I'm not one, but still. GObama!
Enter the reverse-racism "good whites"... (drum roll)
Seriously? Seriously?! I am so over this primary. But at least it's helped me shorten my blog roll considerably.
Hillary can't win the Presidency with a disaffected African-American vote. Which is why Axelrod's strategy was so f@$ked up and destructive.
"He wouldn't want to be a class traitor and support someone downscale like Clinton." Petey: You're kidding, right? If she'd release her tax records, we'd see they made a boat load than your average "downscale" voter. Do like your candidate suggests and get real. Obama's the better candidate. Just because Ohioans, suffering decades of economic, cultural, and spiritual sclerosis can't see that don't make it any less true.
Errr - As for the racist vote, there's a Nation story in which a reporter visited Ohio and encountered some voters who said they loved Hillary and would never vote for "the n****r". So it's real. That's a long practiced tactic of the liberal-Jewish media. Interview until you find people that match your pre-selected narrative. Go through dozens of Marines in Iraq until you get the sound bites of 2-3 assholes. Edit out all the other footage, and put the assholes on the air. Shape the anti-immigration debate by selecting rural trailer park trash as typical of immigration critics - then air "nativists" as being overweight female hicks missing several front teeth and living in a shed with 3 autos up on blocks in the front yard. A Nation reporter cruises small town Ohio and goes through hundreds of white people until they find a fool or two that will use the word "nigger" with a reporter they never met before that day. The truth is the only people that regularly employ the term "nigger" as part of their vocabulary are underclass blacks and aspiring rap singers of all races.
African Americans like Clinton just fine and would vote for her in November. Young, affluent, white men who enjoy commenting on blogs dislike her and might not. While race, gender and age garner all the headlines, class is the underlying issue of this election.
So race had nothing to do with the 89% of black voters that voted for Obama, is that it? I thought we had put this race bullshit behind us. Guess not.
I know this is a bit late - but all of this talk about exit polls being useless (Ohio and New Hampshire being given as crucial examples) is wrong. Election results in other nations have been declared fraudulent primarily based on exit polling. In fact, the U.S. called for a revote recently in a Ukrainian election because the U.S. supported candidate was winning in the exit polls, yet lost the official vote count. It's interesting how even the with Diebold scandals, black Floridians being stricken from the voter rolls en masse, 0 votes reported for Obama in heavily black districts in NYC, etc., we still discount exit polls and look to the "official" count as the flawless measure of the reality of votes cast.
I know this is a bit late - but all of this talk about exit polls being useless (Ohio and New Hampshire being given as crucial examples) is wrong. Election results in other nations have been declared fraudulent primarily based on exit polling. In fact, the U.S. called for a revote recently in a Ukrainian election because the U.S. supported candidate was winning in the exit polls, yet lost the official vote count. It's interesting how even the with Diebold scandals, black Floridians being stricken from the voter rolls en masse, 0 votes reported for Obama in heavily black districts in NYC, etc., we still discount exit polls and look to the "official" count as the flawless measure of the reality of votes cast.
Hillary can't win the Presidency with a disaffected African-American vote. No Democrat can. Every purple state requires a large African-American turnout in the cities to give Democrats a chance. Short of a Barack Obama Vice-Presidency - which would be a political dead end for him - African-Americans aren't turning out for the mildly racist candidate. She will still win African-Americans, but not enough of them. You've got that right. Coming from an immediate family of 12 long-time African-American Democrats.. Only 2 will vote for Hillary. Period. The rest of us haven't made up our minds, but we know we'll NEVER vote for her. And Harold Ickes was delusional last week, thinking that we'd be Good Little Darkies and fall in line and vote for Miss Hillary. He's so very wrong. We are not his parents' Negroes. Not by a long shot.
Wow, this is quite a moronic post. You understand the exit polls for African Americans show them voting around 89% for Obama and 11% for Hillary? I'm sure that has nothing to do with "putting Obama over the top", but then you point to one moronic poll showing 20% of people voted 57% to 43% for Hillary and claim that's why she won? They didn't even say that it was THE factor, only that it was "important". The exit polls showed Hillary winning TONS of demographics (white men, white women, Latinos, poorer voters, etc.) and you just pick out the racist one. It's not really surprising though, either on this blog or Andrew's I've seen multiple posts about "The only reason Hillary is still in this race is because of older white women." But I'm sure you've got a post about voters who thought gender was important in voting... oh wait - I'm sure you don't. You really should delete this post because this is flat out embarrassing. The Atlantic should be ashamed to have all these blinded political hacks writing for them.
It was a long wait but finally it's the Obama supporters now ridiculously explaining away losses.
Actually based on the MSNBC poll, racists were only negligibly more likely to prefer Hillary than the average voter: Among all Ohio voters she beat Obama 54-44. Among those who said race was "important" in that exit poll, she beat him 57-43. That's only a net swing of 3 points - which I'm sure is well within the margin of error of that poll (especially when you consider you're only dealing with 20% of the original sample size).
Comments closed March 18, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Matthew jumps the shark.
He's officially in Chris Matthews-land.
Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 8:44 PM