Let's take a closer look at that CNN exit poll:
1. Hillary Clinton did not win a majority or even a plurality of white voters. (Edwards won a plurality of 40%.) She did win a plurality — 42% — of the white female voters (but Barack Obama still won 22% of them). Edwards won a plurality of the white males — 44% (but Obama still got 27% of them). Clinton only got 20% of the black women.
2. Hillary Clinton did not win a majority or even a plurality of the over 60 white vote. (She shared equally with John Edwards, each receiving 42%.) Barack Obama received a majority of the white vote in the 18-29 category.
3. Barack Obama received a majority of the male vote and a majority of the female vote — with exactly the same percentage, 54%.
4. Barack Obama received a majority of the vote in every age category except over 60 — and he won a plurality of the over 60 vote. Only by isolating the over 65 vote do you see a plurality for Clinton (40% over 32%).
5. Barack Obama received a majority or plurality of votes at all education levels, at all degrees of religiosity, at all levels of voting experience, in all regions, at all income levels, and in urban/suburban/rural areas.
6. Barack Obama received a majority among voters who considered each of the 3 main issues — health care, the economy, Iraq — the most important.
7. Barack Obama received a majority from voters who were married and who were unmarried, who placed issues first and who placed character first, who thought the economy was good and who thought it was bad.
8. Barack Obama received a majority from voters who called themselves liberals and who called themselves moderates and a plurality from those who called themselves conservatives.
9. Hillary won a clear majority — 84% — among voters who put "experience" first when asked to rank 4 qualities. Obama won for 2 of the other qualities — "can bring about change" and "electability" — and Edwards won for "cares about people."
10. Hillary Clinton won a plurality from voters who said Americans aren't ready to elect a black President (and a majority of those who said "definitely not ready," though Obama even got 9% of those).
What can Hillary do? Work hard on getting out the elderly vote? Harp on her experience some more? Scare voters about the unelectability of a black man? Hope the other states are not like South Carolina?
२७ जानेवारी, २००८
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३४ टिप्पण्या:
What percent were native South Carolinians (or Southerners) and what percent were from elsewhere (i.e. Halfbacks from Florida or other retirees from the North)?
There was much talk before the election that S.C.'s population had dramatically shifted due to large influx of retirees and others seeking warmer weather and low taxes.
If Obama did very well among new South Carolinians, that would seem to be a bigger problem for Hillary than if his majorities were among long-time Southerners.....
The primary ads are now cranking up in our state, and I am a bit lost trying to figure out how Sen. Clinton's claim of "35 years of experience" adds up. Thirty five years goes back to 1973 or so. That's 2 years before she married Bill. I guess her stint at Rose and Walmart counts, I'll grant that. But she also counts bearing and raising her daughter as experience.
If I was the experience accountant, I would give her 8 years.
She's just saying she's older than Obama.
"What can Hillary do?"
Appeal to more old people passing as "white" who think that race matters. Flatter them by asking the brand of their sun screen and then offer them free hip replacements and heart transplants if only they will vote for her before they die.
"What can Hillary do? Work hard on getting out the elderly vote? Harp on her experience some more? Scare voters about the unelectability of a black man? Hope the other states are not like South Carolina?"
First, Hillary Clinton did not win all those votes. She received them. She lost and no matter what the media pollsters call it, second place is losing.
As to what Hillary could do; she could do us all a favor and drop out. Since that is unlikely and since she already has over twoo hundred super delegates pledged through the DNC, she can actually verify her experience- you know what she has actually acccomplished versus the fairy tale. She can stop the attack counter attack, she can leave Bill home and run as her own person- we're not voting for Bill or a twofer presidency- and she can stop the racial/gender politics.
If she cannot stand on her own two feet, stop hiding behind her own skirt or her husbands pants, than she is not fit to run for dog catcher, let alone president.
Slice and dice the numbers any way you want, but South Carolina is an anomaly. The Clinton machine isn't going to lose where it matters.
Zeb, you are right. Although I don't believe Dick Morris' theory about white backlash is anything more than hot air, I do think that the Clinton strategy is mapped out very completely, through the convention. They are counting up the future delegates, and there are a lot of them going to her.
So, Zeb, you're going with "Hope the other states are not like South Carolina"?
But please specify how you think I engaged in some tricky "slice and dice." I think I looked straight at these numbers and was amazed. You know, you've sort of impugned my integrity with that "slice and dice" jibe. I challenge you to look at those 5 pages of numbers and explain what you think I've done to deserve that insinuation. Alternatively, you can apologize.
Obama did well, but I don't believe for a second that the "Establishment" and the mass of well-to-do White women who dominate the Democrat party will select him over HRC.
The superdelegates will go for her, she'll dominate on both coasts, and Edwards and Obama will split the vote in the midwest. Just winning in the South won't propel Obama to victory.
I wish he could win, but he can't.
What can she do? Get Edwards to quit, that's what.
The press, having their own agenda, are playing the results very differently. The Sacramento Bee sub-head this morning actually claimed Clinton won whites. As you pointed out, she didn't, Edwards did.
What can Hillary do? Keep doing what she's doing, probably. Unfortunately.
What can Hillary do?
Pander to a sane audience.
Ann,
Although I agree with Zeb, I do not believe that dismissing the SC primary demographic is an assault on your integrity. I only was opining that Clinton's strategy is very long term, and that losing SC is neither a major defeat or a harbinger. It is only one state, and it's only one party. No insult intended.
Barack Obama received a majority of the male vote and a majority of the female vote — with exactly the same percentage, 54%.
MSNBC reports Obama won 55% of the vote, so either they rounded off differently, or Edwards and Hillary won the transexual vote handily. Who wants to slice & dice that one, or do we have to wait for the hormone treatments?
Here's something to think about: Edwards. What if he stays in until the end, and then pledges his delegates to Obama?
Edwards has delegates?
Here's another idea: Hillary could get a new category of delegates added to the mix -- SuperDuper Delegates. Is it too late to change the rules? Maybe she could have her helpful spouse husband thingy to look into that.
Ann,
No impugnment of integrity intended. Not saying that you misrepresented anything or anything else like that. You asked, "What can Hillary do? ... Hope the other states are not like South Carolina?" And I was just saying that however interesting they may be, analyzing the internals of the South Carolina result won't tell us much about the larger picture as far as which is going to ultimately win the nomination. My opinion.
One thing I found interesting was that only 20% of black women went for Hillary. Pundits were wondering beforehand whether black women would vote their race or vote their gender. (I predicted race, and I was impugned as a racist by a commenter here for predicting that.) The SC returns do suggest that Hill has lost the black vote to Obama, and logically it seems to be something that would extend beyond SC. What I wonder now is whether blacks will return to her fold with vigor after she's nominated, and then turn out in numbers for her in November.
From the AP, I got this: Edwards has 58 delegates.
Just winning in the South won't propel Obama to victory.
Ah, but thats been the achilles heel of the Dem party - they nominate New England liberals like Kerry and Dukakis and write the South off. If Obama can snare a few southern states in the general election, its all over.
Pundits were wondering beforehand whether black women would vote their race or vote their gender. (I predicted race, and I was impugned as a racist by a commenter here for predicting that.)
That was silly of him. Blacks are the most racist demographic in America. Being shot in the face for dating a black woman is still a high probability. And then there is Obama's church - a covenant to only buy from black businesses, only hire black applicants, etc.
If Obama can snare a few southern states in the general election, its all over
How? The Dems already get the southern black vote. That's not the key. Maybe he could wheel out Jesse Helms as his running mate. That'd probably work.
Right. But as Ann shows us, Obama's appeal went beyond Jesse Jackson's 5%. If South Carolina is any indicator:
Majority of Male vote
Majority of Female vote
Majority of every age category [except 60+]
"Barack Obama received a majority or plurality of votes at all education levels, at all degrees of religiosity, at all levels of voting experience, in all regions, at all income levels, and in urban/suburban/rural areas."
Maybe he could wheel out Jesse Helms as his running mate.
Whats that supposed to mean? Are you making bigoted assumptions based on regional stereotypes? A black can't compete in the South because we're all racists?
What can Clinton do?
I'm surprised that we haven't already seen ads noting that there had been a number of unsolved rapes of white women by black men in Illinois before Obama became a US Senator, and some in D.C. afterwards. Not accusing him of anything, just noting a curious coincidence...
Probably still running it by the focus groups to get the wording just right.
Whats that supposed to mean? Are you making bigoted assumptions based on regional stereotypes? A black can't compete in the South because we're all racists?
I'm saying the obvious, that it's conservatives who win in the south, and that if Obama is the nominee and if wants to carry the south, then he'll need to balance his ticket bigtime. And even then it probably wouldn't be enough.
Zeb, you don't think it significant that 20% of black women in a hotly contested race felt free to vote for a white woman over a black man? Does that translate the same for you as the fact that 94% of Mormons voted for Romney in Nevada?
I'm saying the obvious, that it's conservatives who win in the south
No prob. I thought you were saying that it's white's who win in the south. Glad I was wrong.
Does that translate the same for you as the fact that 94% of Mormons voted for Romney in Nevada?
Having been born and raised in Las Vegas, I am familiar with the Mormon population there --a substantial population there-- voting for Mormons, and how that plays out on the local political scene. But I'm not sure that blacks supporting blacks is exactly the same thing as Mormons supporting Mormons. A similar concept to be sure, but a different dynamic. For one thing, blacks vote for the Dem 90% of the time. Have a Repub black run and see how many blacks vote for him or her. Meanwhile, while it seems that Mormons vote Repub most of the time, their numbers are not anywhere near as monolithic as that of blacks when it comes to party. Many Mormons are politically moderate and have no problem swinging both ways, supporting Mormons from either party.
Being a Democrat is tough out here (in america).
* you get no support from your base
* you can't make as much money
* your decades of hardwork to bring social change and peace and prosperity are impugned and ditched over simple rhetoric
* your disloyal subordinates want to upstage you
* you're vilified when you fight back
* Chris Rock disses you (okay might be a good thing)
* your supporters want to change the national anthem from The Star-Spangled Banner to Living La Vida Loca
* you're uncool if you don't have stripper appeal ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=ENCRu-2d35g )
* you get dissed if you don't bake cookies and iron laundry
* your constituents are mostly cowards
* and you sleep with a donkey.
So, how can ya be a comeback kid when they just want ya to fall?
What does Hillary do now? What she's always done. Sic a bunch of private detectives and oppo researchers on Obama and transform his image to that of a criminal, hustler, hypocrite, or whatever works, depending on the state. This is what they do. Most Democrats deliberately ignored this in the 90s because, hey, they beat the bad guys, didn't they?
Why Democrats thought the Clintons would be any different in a primary against a good guy is sort of a psychic payback.
In the mid- to late 90s, I was regularly accused of being a right-winger by my Democratic friends because I dared point out how sleazy Clinton was, how many people he hurt even just over the Whitewater/Monica stuff, the brutal expedience of Travelgate, etc.
The irony was, Clinton was probably as close to my ideological soul-mate as anyone who'd ever become president. But he was a thoroughly corrupt skank, and those types don't change their spots.
History was being exceedingly kind to Clinton in his post-presidency, turning him into a saint among us for turning back the mighty tsunami and stimulating a whole new trend of "giving back." But the selfless man mask does not have any purchase on BC. He will be a divisive, lying, infighting, life-wrecker til the day he dies.
If, as I suspect, Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, I will be sorely disappointed for at least four reasons:
First, I believe that there must be many other women in America who are at least, if not more, qualified to become President than Senator Clinton that are not in the (deep) pockets of the pharmaceutical and health-care industries.
Second, Senator Clinton's refusal to admit she erred when voting for the war reminds me of another politician who is notorious for almost never admitting mistakes, President George W. Bush. Besides, if memory serves, she was pro-war before she began her campaign for the presidency; she "found her voice" only after she started running for office.
Third, her nomination this summer would be the biggest gift the GOP could ever hope for in this election season. Senator Clinton is already a very polarizing figure in American politics, and conservative talk-show hosts have been salivating over a chance to "get" Senator Clinton even before her husband left office. This would guarantee that the highest approval rating she could achieve as President would be 50%, and would be much less over the majority of her term. A vote for Senator Clinton, in these circumstances, would in fact be a vote for partisan politics as usual and a guarantee of job security for right-wing media hosts.
And, finally, it is hard to believe that Senator Clinton will truly institute "change" in Washington, DC, especially as her election would perpetuate the cyclical Bush-Clinton dynastic presidencies that have occupied the White House since 1988.
If Senator Clinton is the Democratic Party's candidate for President in the upcoming general election, I will be unable to cast my vote for her. If that happens, it will be the first time in 30 years that I have not voted for a Democratic candidate.
"10. Hillary Clinton won a plurality from voters who said Americans aren't ready to elect a black President (and a majority of those who said "definitely not ready," though Obama even got 9% of those).
What can Hillary do? Work hard on getting out the elderly vote? Harp on her experience some more? Scare voters about the unelectability of a black man? Hope the other states are not like South Carolina?"
Yes. And she'll do all of that, and more, with an assist from the Clinton Pinkertons and their agit-prop disseminators at the NYT, WP, LAT, etc. The irony of this is that her strengths in the primary are exactly McCain's, but not so much as his (ergo, he wins the general), if that's the match-up.
But not before that red-faced philandering buffoon she's married to spends the next nine months haranguing us on why we owe it them to elect him, er, her, again.
If Obama can snare a few southern states in the general election, its all over.
True.
Being shot in the face for dating a black woman is still a high probability.
False.
If anything, it's the other way around. Women are the ones who prefer their own kind, and they're the ones who get violent about it.
Don't make me cite scientific studies. It won't be pretty.
Blacks are the most racist demographic in America. Being shot in the face for dating a black woman is still a high probability.
That's news to me, as a white guy who has dated several African-American women yet managed to come out of those relationships with no more holes in my face than I had when I went in.
But by all means, Fen, favor us with those statistics on nationwide murder rates for white men who date black women. How many deaths per 1,000? How much higher is it than the national average?
john said:
your decades of hardwork to bring social change and peace and prosperity are impugned and ditched over simple rhetoric
The Democrats are one hundred percent against prosperity. They want to tax the prosperous to pay the lazy. They hate prosperity. The Democrats idea of opportunity is a government job or generational poverty through welfare. History bears this out.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा