« Clinton Wins Kentucky | Main | Iraq and the Candidates » McCainiacs for Clinton20 May 2008 11:54 pm
Well, as predicted Obama won Oregon canceling out Clinton's win in the similarly sized Kentucky. Meanwhile, I found this part of the Kentucky exit polls interesting. Obviously, given the extent of her win this didn't alter the outcome, but it seems that a pretty hefty chunk of Clinton primary voters in that state don't plan on voting for her in November -- they just really, really, really don't like Barack Obama. Comments (56)
I think they look upon McCain's foreign policy as producing nearly full employment due to greatly increased need for people to join military service. Purely a self-interested vote, I'm sure. 
Maybe it's because I'm in the middle of finals and my brain is fried, but this chart seems a little obtuse to me. I'm feeling pretty dumb, anyone wanna help me out?
Ricky B, I also don't understand that chart. It's about as clear as mud.
Maybe his fancy pants cocktail party made him forget the benefits of clearly labeling his axes.
Hey Matt - how about a source for your chart?
I really hate these charts - nothing about them is clear.
Or maybe, Matthew, they'd vote for McCain over either but, since they know a Democrat will probably win in the general, they voted for Hillary because they'd rather see Hillary President than Obama. Also, I'd note that it looks like a pretty hefty share of Obama voters would vote for McCain over Hillary.
I believe you read the table left to right. To wit: Of those who voted today in the Democratic primary, and who answered our exit poll, they were asked (a) for whom they would vote in the general election, and (b) for whom did they vote today. Of those Democratic primary voters who said they would vote for McCain in the general election, 55% of those McCain-leaning primary voters said they had voted today for Hillary Clinton. And that is the part that attracted Matt's attention. Then you have an indicator of proportions, such that of those Democratic primary voters exit-polled, only 16% of them responded that they would vote for McCain in the general election.
Looks like about 14% of Hillary voters plan on voting for McCain over Hillary in the general, if I'm doing the math right. Source of Matt's data is here: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#KYDEM
One useful thing from MSNBC's exit polling: of yer white Kentucky Democrats earning under $50k p.a., about 37% voted for Bush over Kerry, and 30ish% voted for Bush over Gore. So the 34% who said they'd vote for McCain over Obama really are just the same people who, while registered as Democrats, almost always vote for a Republican president. This isn't so much Operation Chaos as 'In Certain States, Lots of State Democrats Don't Vote For National Democrats'. The same applies the other way.
Put it this way: There's a group of people who voted for Clinton today in the Kentucky Democratic primary but would vote against Clinton in the fall if she became the nominee. And that group works out to a little more than 8% of the overall primary electorate, according to this poll.
Right: 16% of the voters said they'd vote for McCain in November; of those, 55% went to Hillary, 28% went to Obama. Not sure why the exit poll didn't also ask for those voting for Obama in November; the meaning is unclear. It's also interesting that Obama did better, percentagewise, amongst white Independents than white Democrats. Unsurprisingly, amongst whites who said race was important to their voting decision, 88% went to Clinton. People who voted for Clinton tended to believe that Obama shares the views of Wright; the converse is true as well. Both sides will be dissatisfied if the other candidate wins the nomination, but Clinton has 53% of the voters who don't like *either* candidate (Obama has 13%). So, basically, Clinton did well amongst voters who prefer McCain, voters who don't like either Democratic candidate, and whites who voted significantly based on Obama's being black. That's a hell of an electoral coalition right there. I assume we'll be hearing McAuliffe tout it real soon now.
I always love the math of Harvard graduates - yes, Matt, Obama's probable 140-150k win in OR cancels Clinton's 250k win in KY. Impressive, grasshopper!
I'm not sure I'm reading this chart right, but let's say we count the 5% would not vote as Obama supporters. Then we have Total Obama = .28 * .77 + .28 * .16 + .05 = .31 and Total Clinton = .71 * .77 + .55 * .16 = .63 which aren't too far off from the actual totals. Now, to get the defections, we have: Clinton for McCain .55 * .16 / .63 = .14 and Obama for McCain .28 * .16 / .31 = .14 So, it looks like you have pretty much the same defection percentage for each. But I'm pretty tired at the moment, so I might be messing this up.
What's interesting is that if you look at which states went for Hillary, you see basically a swath through Appalachia. But how much MONEY are those voters likely to contribute to the General Election? You know --for hideously expensive TV advertising? Or would Hillary plan on Israeli billionaire Haim Saban and other supporters of the Israel Lobby to do all the heavy lifting, finance wise. And what would they want in return?
Impressive, grasshopper! In scottreads world, the Detroit Pistons won tonight's game 8-5 in offensive rebounds, which cancels out the 88-79 points score.
Pseudonymous, You're leaving out a critical part of those numbers, just as MSNBC did in its discussion. Not a single analyst picked up on the fact that, although the percentages for Bush and McCain were similar (in the 30s), the percentages for Kerry were in the high 60s, while Obama's were in the 40s. In other words, a large number of Democrats won't vote at all if Obama is the nominee. The math does not directly translate, obviously, because the non-voters in a general election are not factored in. (In other words, in the exit polls, you add Obama plus McCain plus won't-vote to get 100, whereas in the general election, you add Democrat plus Republican to get 100.) But it doesn't tell the whole story to just point to the Bush/McCain comparison and ignore the Kerry/Obama comparison.
Point taken, Brian. I only caught the numbers in passing, and I can't find the breakdown on msnbc.com. I think you're right that the stay-home number is new and significant; I also suspect that a third of registered Democrats in places like Kentucky default to voting for the GOP presidential nominee.
Thanks for the explanations guys, but I must still be missing something here. The part that is throwing me off, is that the way I read it, of the 77% who intend to vote for Hillary in November, 28% voted for Obama today in the primary. That makes no sense, so I must be reading it wrong.
There is no way a Democrat is going to win Kentucky in the 2008 presidential elction (unless he/she already has like 330 electoral votes in the bag). The only utility these what'll-ya-do-in-the-fall? numbers provide is in constructing rhetorical arguments.
No, Ricky, it makes sense - assuming that there is a Hillary-McCain matchup, 28% of the people who'd vote for Hillary voted for Obama.
Simplified chart: Kentucky McCain vs Obama 'nuff said.
Ah, I get it now when you put it like that Asher. I wasn't making the connection that they weren't including Obama as an option in November. Studying has ruined my brain. Thanks for the help.
From Poblano at the538, talking about the gap between voter registration (and thus primary voting patterns) and general election voting: One thing that may be a factor is what I call the "lapsed Democrat" vote. Kentucky has about 1.6 million registered Democrats, but had just 713K votes for John Kerry in 2004 (45 percent of the registered Democrat base). By contrast, Oregon has about 800K registered Democrats, but had 943K votes for John Kerry in 2004 (118 percent of the registered Democrat base). Gore got 638,898 votes in KY in 2000, losing by about 230k. Might Obama get half that in KY in November, basically winning Louisville and nothing else? Possibly. Doesn't change the outcome.
So the question asked was "If it were Clinton vs. McCain, who would you vote for?" 77% said Clinton. 0% said Obama b/c that wasn't the question.
"White working class" has become code for "redneck." Funny Obama had no trouble winning white working-class voters in Wisocnsin, Maine, Oregon, etc. Obviously Hillary has no lock on that vote or she would have wrapped up the nomination by now! But once she went racist, suddenly the "white working class vote" (which has not been won by a Democratic presidential candidate in 44 years) has become the deciding criterion -- at least in the minds of the pro-Clinton media -- which also has swallowed that suddenly the country has turned "misognystic" and doesn't support poor, poor Hillary. WAKE UP, MSM!!!
When did it become fashionable or political wisdom to pander to the what amounts to the racist vote? Why not take it on and defeat it? We can defeat racism; don't try to "appease" racism...defeat it.
What Bergman said:
Appalachian voters are obviously racists. Its no surprise to anybody who's actually traveled thru that area. They will never vote for a black man, no matter the circumstances. Even the most liberal white woman who wants to give away free abortions and schedule public rallies to burn american flags would beat a black man in a primary there.
Of course, anyone who lives anywhere can tell you appalachians are never going to vote for any Democrat. They view Democrats as the black party, not the liberal party of the democratic party.
It's also possible that some of these people aren't racist at all; they're just Republicans who want the Democratic primary to continue because they think that's bad for Democrats.
Clinton for McCain Do you see the difference between Obama voters who pick McCain over Clinton, and Clinton voters who pick McCain over Clinton?
Poblano calls these voters "lapsed democrats" and points to Kerry getting under 800K votes in KY last time around when there are 1.5 million registered Dems or something like that. In other words, people who are registered as Democrats but have been voting Republican since Nixon or Regan but retained their "D" affiliation for whatever reason. In other words, though I'm sure it will come back to haunt me, not real Democrats.
fp, good point. There is especially interesting after a look at the corresponding table for the Obama/McCain matchup: ------- Clinton Obama (See page 3 of http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#KYDEM ) So the overall number of defectors doubles, and they go 10 to 1 Clinton/Obama compared to 2 to 1 in the other table. In sum, of the 32 percent of Kentucky Democrats who say they will completely defecting in the actual general, roughly half of them are doing so because they won't vote for Obama, and 2/3 of the other half are Clinton primary voters who don't plan on voting Democrat anyway.
Seeing some of the numbers I'm going to attribute republican douchebaggery and racism as the leading factors giving hillary 30-40 pt leads instead of 10-20
The cultural history of both West Virginia is one of a slaveholding state without many slaves that were as segregated as Mississippi until forced to desegregate. Neither state has a significant black population to counterbalance the racial biases of the white voters. Neither state has been blessed with immigration from the north due to good weather and/or tax climates as have Georgia (Atlanta) and North Carolina (Charlotte). Louisville is the closest example in these two states. WV and KY are very unlike Oregon or Pennsylvania or Ohio in many respects, regardless of the working class designation. Racial bias is ingrained and it has not been counterbalanced by an indigenous black population or the immigration of more liberal northerners. Note that 3 of 4 WV House members and both senators are Democrats. Kentucky, on the other hand, has McConnell. Kentucky seems to be more Republican in its core values (WV does not have the death penalty and no one is running around asking for it). Both states are more nuanced than is generally noted by the media or bloggers.
KY isn't white working class. KY has the lock on insane voters. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing but expecting a different result. These people are upset about Bush and Clinton policies (like NAFTA and the lack of health care) but they keep voting for the same people. They are insane.
Their votes were part of the Rove "bloody up Barack" strategy or "operation chaos", something MSM is not pointing out! However, women who are Hillary supporters who choose not to Vote for Barack will be complicit in seeing their sons and daughters, nieces and nephews, husbands and fathers go off to a war that might last a 100 years! might be complicit in helping to elect judges that will put an end to Roe. v. Wade.... might be complicit in not getting the college aid their sons or daughters will need for an affordable higher education... or possibly themselves if they choose to go back to school! might be complicit in not finding solutions for global warming... and failing to be a good steward of the Earth... all issues women with intelligence and foresight care very deeply about. This despite Hillary and her surrogates who continue to fuel a racial and gender divide, something which does nothing to serve the common good!
Matt has helpfully presented a matrix of political outcomes, which has an eigenvalue of 2012.
"When did it become fashionable or political wisdom to pander to the what amounts to the racist vote?" 1876
In an ideal world, people who produce tables like this one go straight to the fifth circle of Hell. Bloggers who quote them do some time in Purgatory and read everything by Tufte, Zeldman, and Hillary Clinton.
I agree the chart is not at all intuitive to read. I work in information graphics, and it doesn't make sense to me.
As someone who's traveled extensively in both KY and WV, I can attest that most of the people who reside in those states are pathetic racist assholes.
Middle and working-class (white) Oregonians (and people who move there from places like Oklahoma) are not stupid fucking idiots like Kentuckians or West Virginians. A smarter breed are the wild horses who escape from those backwater hellholes.
Leave it to the pundits (Matt Y, Gergen, Anderson) and the Obama supporters to characterize Hillary's win in KY as a racial vote. The truth is, voters across the country are voting for her because she is ready to deal with domestic and foreign issues. Obama isn't! If Hillary is denied the nomination, a Democratic Congress and a McCain Presidency will be the best option for the United States.
If Hillary is denied the nomination Those damn voters! Always conspiring to deny Hillary her rightful place at the pinnacle.
Obama got more votes than McCain in many counties in Kentucky. At the same time, Clinton got a higher percentage of the vote than McCain in many counties. Most of the time, these were the same group of counties. Go figure. (Obama with less than 30% of the vote beat McCain with more than 70% of the vote in many counties!) http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#KY
Obama got more votes than McCain in many counties in Kentucky. At the same time, Clinton got a higher percentage of the vote than McCain in many counties. Most of the time, these were the same group of counties. Go figure. (Obama with less than 30% of the vote beat McCain with more than 70% of the vote in many counties!) http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#KY
Obama wins 90% of the AA vote. That is a racist vote! The Obama supporters are hypocrites!
Nobama, take your bullshit somewhere else. The only way that can be racist is if they voting against Clinton because she's white. They are voting against Clinton because they don't like her as a person. She's a liar. She is not the leader in the popular vote and yet she continues to say that she is. It's a bold face lie. Women are voting for Clinton because she's a woman, explain that. No Clinton voter can give me a good enough reason as to why they feel the need to vote against Obama. And sorry, Fl and MI is not a good excuse.
Nobama, take your bullshit somewhere else. The only way that can be racist is if they voting against Clinton because she's white. They are voting against Clinton because they don't like her as a person. She's a liar. She is not the leader in the popular vote and yet she continues to say that she is. It's a bold face lie. Women are voting for Clinton because she's a woman, explain that. No Clinton voter can give me a good enough reason as to why they feel the need to vote against Obama. And sorry, Fl and MI is not a good excuse.
Women, AA, men, Republicans, the military, college-educated, and the elderly are all voting for Hillary because she is the most experienced candidate. For most of this race, when Hillary has won, the racism factor of the voters has been used to justify Obama's lost. Obama wasn't around when the Clintons were working with the AA community. The only nonsense that you seem to be taking is Obama's. Good Luck on the Titanic!
As an Oregonian, I feel a bit cheated. It's the first time ever that the Oregon primary has ever counted for anything, and we don't even get our own post! Instead we get some one liner tacked on to an analysis of West Virginia. If that's not insulting, I don't know what is. I'd like to see a break down of Oregon's voting demographics, and maybe an explanation of why, if Hillary picks up all the hard working white vote, she lost much of rural Oregon. I mean, she only won Harney County (full of white gun totin' yahoos who've probably never seen a black person) by 2 percentage points! She also lost much of the Oregon coast (a conservative, lily-white area), and the areas next to Idaho. And speaking of Idaho, how come no one talked about how racist whites won't vote for a black person when Obama won the former home of Aryan Nations by, like, 60 percentage points??
Comments closed June 03, 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
they just really, really, really don't like Barack Obama.
The Daily Show on West Virginia comes to mind.
Also it's weird how white working class voters in Oregon are so different from white working class voters in Kentucky. It's almost like class wasn't the deciding factor--almost like "white working class" was a stand-in for Appalachian cultural attitudes we're all less than comfortable discussing.
Posted by southpaw | May 21, 2008 12:04 AM