Print
John Gress-Reuters
Tonight’s two primaries highlight the contrasts that have been playing all season between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. As I write this Clinton has already won Kentucky by an impressive margin more than doubling Obama/s total: 69%-30%. Meanwhile projections show Obama will achieve a big victory in Oregon, although not by as impressive a margin.
Kentucky
The results and exit polls are in for Kentucky. Here is what our chart shows. The data at the top come from the Census Bureau; the exit poll data from CNN.
The Kentucky data show no surprises. This was expected to be a Clinton state due to the demographics and it has not disappointed. For Obama supporters the one discouraging sign is that the turnout of black voters has not been very impressive. Usually Obama has managed to turnout substantially more black voters than their percentage of population, but tonight that has not been the case. He also failed to turn out the younger voters that have been part of his base.
As in her past victories, Hillary Clinton has successfully mobilized her base of older voters and women. More impressive is the fact that Hillary Clinton won 67% of the female vote and an astounding 77% of the voters over 60.
But there are some disturbing data coming from Kentucky. A total of 48% of Kentucky Democrats said they would be satisfied if only if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination. An additional 8% say they would be dissatisfied with both. In other words, a majority of those voting in the Democratic primary would be dissatisfied with an Obama win. Whether this is just temporary or permanent could decide the results in November.
Another disturbing statistic is that race continues to play a role in Clinton’s wins. Seventy-eight percent of Clinton supporters said race was one of the important factors that determined their vote. Seven percent said it was THE most important factor.
This may account for the statistic that shows 32%–or almost a third–of Clinton’s supporters say she does not share their values. This leads to the question of whether Clinton’s win was not so much a vote of confidence in her as a vote against Obama. Added to this is the statistic that 19% of Clinton voters said they would not be satisfied if she wins the nomination. In contrast, only 3% of Obama voters would not be satisfied if he wins the nomination.
The final disconcerting statistic is that 13% of Kentucky voters said neither candidate shares their values. Maybe this should be no surprise considering 6% identified themselves as Republicans and an astounding 32% of those voting in the DEMOCRATIC Kentucky primary said they would vote for John McCain in November.
In the end Hillary Clinton’s victory appears somewhat tainted. With a third of the voters self-identified as McCain supporters and the much-discussed GOP attempt to try to prolong the Democratic contest, you can deduct half or more of Clinton’s 30% win. Also troubling is the data that show voters did not vote so much for her as against Obama.
This would appear to negate Clinton’s argument that she will be a better candidate because she can win. Her recent wins have come about largely through Republican cross-overs and those for whom race is a major issue. This is not a coalition to build a victory in November.
Oregon
The Oregon data will be late. Currently the Real Clear Politics composite poll has Obama leading by 12%. The largest margin is 20% and the smallest 4%. So much for the accuracy of preliminary polling data. Someone is going to look pretty silly on this one.
Here is the preliminary spreadsheet for Oregon:
You will note I have added Kentucky’s demographics at the bottom. Age and gender are virtually the same for the two states. Union membership is higher in Oregon. The differences are in race, education and income. Oregon is almost totally white while Kentucky is poorer and less-educated. On the surface, you would think the older voters and women in Oregon along with the lack of black voters would give Clinton a chance. So it will be interesting to see the exit polls.
As expected the networks called Oregon just time for the 10:00 news here in the Midwest. Surprise!
Here are the data as CNN has them right now:
I have inserted the Kentucky data below the Oregon data in blue. The line marked “ken poll” shows the exit polling data from Kentucky so you can see it side by side with Oregon. The turnout among women in Oregon was slightly lower as was that of lower income voters. The less-educated and older voter turnout was much lower in Oregon.
This leaves an intriguing question: could Clinton have made the race closer in Oregon if she had made a more concerted attempt to turn out her base? The answer is no. She won less than half the female vote and only 51% of those 60 and older, with many votes yet to be counted.
The race card did not play in Oregon the way it did it Kentucky with only 10% of voters saying race was one of several important issues.
Oregon also did not display the negativity of Kentucky with only 16% saying they would be satisfied only if Clinton wins.
Two Conclusions
These two races present a glass half-empty/half-full analogy for both Clinton and Obama supporters. I’m sure you can write the spin by now.
But for the Democratic Party there is also a similar dilemma. Clearly Clinton has both stirred up and/or uncovered some strong negatives about Obama that have played well in the states she has won. The resistance of older voters to Obama’s candidacy may be the most troubling. Women may be angry if Hillary Clinton does not win the nomination but it seems hard to believe they would support a Republican candidate who will put someone on the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe v. Wade.
Another troubling statistic for both candidates has been their inability to mobilize low income and less educated voters. Neither candidate appears to be evoking themes that resonate with them, following the misguided strategy that has cost the Democrats the last two elections by aiming their campaigns at the middle class while ignoring these two critical Democratic constituencies. In both Oregon and Kentucky the less educated make up more than a third of the electorate. Those making less than $15,000 range from 15-22% in both states. If these voters stay home as they did in these two primaries, you can write John McCain’s address a year from now as 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Then there is the race issue. The Kentucky data and those from other states Clinton has won where it has been a factor raise more questions than answers. I would love to see some cross-tabulations and correlations. One theory is that they are the same people who say they are going to vote for McCain anyway. In other words, they are not true Democrats. If that theory is true then the issue becomes less troubling.
Finally, anyone writing about this contest must ask the question: are Republicans purposely helping to keep Hillary Clinton in this race? If I were the Democratic National Committee I would be doing some polling data on this and if it did show GOP influence it would be time for some tough talk with Hillary Clinton. If I were a superdelegate it is also a question I would want answered. If one-third of those who voted in Kentucky are McCain voters, is that really a Democratic primary?
What we do know now is that neither candidate has captured enough of the “real” delegates to win the nomination. The superdelegates now hold the cards. Everyone is waiting to se how they play them.
Print Posted by: liberalamerican
