Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white voters

Oh, look: guess what, Hillary Clinton loses the white vote to John McCain in the latest Newsweek poll. By ten points.

I know, shocking, after all the play-pretend effort with guns, shot glasses, bowling balls and other implements utterly foreign to a Georgetown aristocrat with a nine-figure bank balance.

Well, actually, it's not shocking: Democrats tend not to win a majority of the white vote. Neither Kerry, Gore, Clinton or Dukakis got it.

A little bit more on the subject below the fold, before we proceed to fruitful demagoguery in the comments section. >>>

The Newsweek poll has a margin of error, just to get that out of the way as well, of 3.5%, 5% for the Democratic sub-sample; N is 1,203 registered voters, N for the Democratic and Democratic-leaning subsample is 592 registered voters.

So let's look at the numbers. Newsweek finds that McCain performs exactly the same against both Democrats, gaining 52% of the white vote overall.

(As an aside, both Democrats beat him, Barack 47% to 44%, Hillary 48% to 45%. Yay Democrats!)

Obama wins 38% of the white vote, Clinton 42%; he has 10% undecideds, she has 6%. Statistically, and remarkably enough after weeks of racial commentary, that's roughly the same result within the margin of error. What we can detect between Barack Obama and white voters is some apprehension on the part of the latter largely determined by class; noticeably, though, that does not benefit McCain, nor does Clinton benefit from her marginally better performance overall. That's because Obama carries 75% of non-white* voters against McCain, and Clinton only 69%; which is notably outside the margin of error.

These results for both are also in line with expectations. In 2004, Kerry carried 37% of white men, and 44% of white women.

Further into the bowels is a striking set of numbers; when voters are asked if they are likely to vote for a given candidate - "If ... is on the ballot as the Democratic Party's candidate for president in November, is there a good chance, some chance, or no chance you would vote for (her/him)?" - Hillary faces a set of ceilings that Obama does not.

Overall, 40% of voters say there is a "good chance" they'd vote for him, and "some chance" at 17%; 40% say they won't vote for him. Her corresponding numbers are 38%, 18% and 43%, showing marginally softer support coupled with slightly higher opposition. Crucially, and happily for us Democrats, both have an available and persuadable voter pool in excess of fifty percent of registered voters.

Among white voters, Barack attracts a total of 52% of possible voters, with a good/some chance split of 35/17, and 40% 45% [Update: oops, it's 45%, not 40%, which is a less dramatic difference than originally noted. My apologies for the error] refusing to vote for him; Hillary attracts only 51%, a good/some split of 35/16, with a refusal rate of 47%.

Yes, you know what that means. 47%.

By that measure, Barack Obama performs better among white voters than Hillary Clinton.

So, how do Obama or Clinton make up the gap against McCain? Remember, he still carries 52% of the white vote. The answer is simple: our margin of victory comes from the non-white vote, and here, it's a blowout - for Obama.

(Another aside: Clinton backers like to claim that blacks are voting for Obama only because of ethnic affinity; the Newsweek poll shows that, while 16% of non-white respondents are indeed more likely to vote for him because of his race, 18% of female respondents are more likely to vote for Hillary because of her gender. Overall, 88% of respondents do not take race into account, with 81% taking the same position on gender, giving her a slight but distinct advantage. On the other hand, by 74 to 19, respondents think the country is ready for a black President; the corresponding figures for a woman President are only 70 to 25. When Hillaryites mention misogyny, don't kid yourself: it's there, and it's a slightly bigger hurdle than racism. That she can overcome that hurdle, even to a critic is a testament to her abilities.)

Along the good/some/no voting chance continuum among non-white voters, Obama enjoys remarkably stronger support than Clinton, at 60/17/21; her numbers are 47/27/25. Obama carries 75% of non-white voters against McCain; Clinton carries 69%. That's perilous, considering that Kerry's strongest demographic was African-Americans at 88% of vote share for him.

So it's probably a really good thing that Democrats in the poll choose Obama for the nomination at 48% to 41% (non-whites break for him 62% to 30%). He's the stronger candidate, no matter how you slice it. Throw in a 59% to 29% split among young voters (18-39) for Barack, and we really can't afford to nominate anyone else.

--------------

*Note: the Newsweek poll tosses around the terms 'white' and 'non-white' with relative abandon. For the purposes of this survey, non-white includes blacks, Hispanics, Asians, mixed race, and other, while white is defined as non-Hispanic whites.

Update [2008-4-27 2:12:9 by MBNYC]:: thanks to lori in the comments for catching a rather meaningful data typo.

Tags: Barack Obama, Demographics, Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Comments

119 Comments

Tips

Gosh, it's late, isn't it?

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 09:09PM | 0 recs
There is some serious lack of

reasoning going on around here right now. If all of this energy wasted on Obama could be directed at McCain there'd be some great diaries out there for people who look up McCain to read.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-26 09:14PM | 0 recs
Yeah, I know.

Right now, we just need to correct some misapprehensions amongst our partisans. People are throwing around stuff without fully understanding what it means, just for starters.

McCain will be getting it from both barrels soon enough, I hope. Gof alone knows, he's a huge target.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 09:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, I know.

Oh yeah. He's a very weak candidate. His real strength, and it's a big one, is that the media sucks up to him. However, that can be overcome with concerted efforts to push information into the public sphere.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-26 09:23PM | 0 recs
He's not weak.

Don't make that mistake. Out of the delorable bunch that they fielded this year, he's the strongest with the biggest cross-over appeal. McCain is the only R that can win this election, I think.

But until we have a nominee, there's just not too much we can do about any of that.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: He's not weak.

IMO the crossover appeal is paper thin. It's based on the myth of him being a maverick. A myth that can be shredded if the real information gets out there. The sooner the better though. If we have to wait until August to get him I think it would be real trouble.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-26 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: He's not weak.

McCain's greatest weakness may be his uncontrollable temper. I'd love to see a GE debate where Obama or Clinton needle him to the point where he blows his lid. All it would take is one red-faced meltdown to sink his election chances.

by jdusek 2008-04-26 10:22PM | 0 recs
Re: He's not weak.

Maybe. Or maybe the media would spin it away as passion. They're in the bag for that guy.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips

by ragekage 2008-04-26 09:25PM | 0 recs
Ha!

That's hilarious :-D

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

unintentionally funny diary!

by canadian gal 2008-04-26 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

How so?

by heresjohnny 2008-04-26 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

that this poll and diarist is trying to spin HRC as the weaker democratic candidate with this demographic.

by canadian gal 2008-04-26 09:20PM | 0 recs
In some ways, she is.

A 47% refusal rate is unprecedented, I'd say; I'd have to look for Kerry's numbers, but I seem to recall they were lower at this stage in the cycle.

She does relatively well with low-income whites, however, in fairness. There are a lot of class divisions in this poll, more than gender or race.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 09:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

Well it seems that she is weaker but it is just a poll and as such is just a snapshot in time so I guess you can disregard it.

What interests me is how anyone could expect her to win in the GE if she walks into Denver behind in pledged delegates but walks out the nominee.

Care to take a stab at explaining how that would work?

by heresjohnny 2008-04-26 09:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

np - i diaried about it earlier.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/26/1838 47/643

yes he leads in delegates, but the nominating process is not supposed to be a suicide pact. no matter how much shouting or willfully ignored by BO supporters who care more about a particular candidate than they do for the democratic party the numbers inside the numbers are much more supportive of HRC's argument than BO's.  it is about winning right?

by canadian gal 2008-04-26 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

What about the African-Americans who decide to stay home? How many will it take for her to lose swing states?

by heresjohnny 2008-04-26 09:39PM | 0 recs
Hell, I'll stay home if that happens. -nt

by Dumbo 2008-04-27 01:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

I think the point he was trying to make is that if you tell the African American community that we couldn't pick the winner of the elected delegate race because he's unelectable they are going to sit this election out.

by map 2008-04-26 09:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

so but both of your reasoning - the dems should put up a candidate who is weaker based on the possible threat people will sit out based on identity politics?

if so - one could make the argument the other way, as seemingly HRC's supporters seem more (in all polls) inclined to vote for JM that for BO.

by canadian gal 2008-04-26 09:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

Um, the data seems to contradict your point about Obama being a weaker candidate. Poll after poll has shown that when asked by democratic voters who they think is stronger against McCain they all go overwhelmingly for Obama.

What do you say about that?

by cranberry 2008-04-26 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

I say that it's totally irrelevant. Most Democrats aren't ners like us and poring over electoral vote scenarios and internals of relatively reliable state-by-state polls showing that Obama doesn't perform up to snuff.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-04-26 10:21PM | 0 recs
You are right!!

Despite that, they still think he is a stronger candidate so now what?

by cranberry 2008-04-26 11:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

The problem with your argument is that you might think he's unelectable but I guarentee that a substantial number of voters disagree.

So how many can Hillary afford to lose? What percentage? I assume you've done the analysis since you did a post about it.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-26 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

read my post and the comments.  

by canadian gal 2008-04-26 09:55PM | 0 recs
I didn't see an answer there....

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 05:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

But your arguments she's a better candidate are tenuous at best, and fundamentally flawed at worst. We could make arguments all day for both sides; and each side could be right. We just don't know.

I think her negativity ratings, plus her lack of appeal to independents, such as myself (especially in the face of John McCain), plus the problems she has with what African Americans may do (especially if the Republicans play that angle hard with them and the independent voters, as we should expect them to do) may prove an impossible situation for Clinton to pull out a win.

Tell me, if Clinton is the nominee, and she loses miserably, then what? The destruction of the Democratic party, that's what.

by ragekage 2008-04-26 09:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

But your arguments he's a better candidate are tenuous at best, and fundamentally flawed at worst. We could make arguments all day for both sides; and each side could be right. We just don't know.

I think his failure to get the EV needed, plus his lack of appeal to older women, plus the problems he has with what lunch bucket may do (especially if the Republicans play that angle hard with them and the independent voters, as we should expect them to do) may prove an impossible situation for Obama to pull out a win.

Tell me, if Obama is the nominee, and he loses miserably, then what? The destruction of the Democratic party, that's what.

see?  works both ways my friend.

by canadian gal 2008-04-26 09:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

Didn't I admit as much? And no, because I don't know any group that would rail against and break up the Democratic party like overriding the will of the voters by a backroom deal would. Sorry, at least if Obama lost, the party integrity would remain because hey, we followed the will of the voters, right?

by ragekage 2008-04-26 10:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

my last post of the night - your comment is logical, but not really fair or based on reality.  the rules/system - whatever you want to call it - is based on the supers.  i dont like it but they have the power to decide who wins the nomination - not the remaining states for either of these candidates.

the party integrity/will of the voters nonsense went away when mcgovern was destroyed.  for some strange reason - democrats though this system was better than winner take alls - which btw, if we had em - well HRC would have won already.  so - like it or not, it is a backroom deal for EITHER of them.

by canadian gal 2008-04-26 10:06PM | 0 recs
A stab at the AA & young voters question

Under George McBush, how have black people fared?
 a) The amount the subprime mortgage crisis will cost black and Hispanic homeowners $213 billion.
 b) Dropout rates have climbed to 12% for blacks under Bush
 c) Uninsured 20.5% of blacks and 6.1% black children with no Health Care
 d) Highest unemployment in 2 years with a rate surpassing 10% for 15 consecutive months versus 7.3% in March '99.  Black teens an astounding 33%
 e) Older blacks receive 44% of their total income from SS with over 1/3 as their only source of income, McBush has pushed privatization and medicare cuts for years.

So I put it to you Obama supporters, will blacks be so put off by Clinton as to sit out or actually vote for McBush and let him run roughshod over their communities for another 4 years?  

Reasonable people would say that's RIDICULOUS, especially considering virtually every category listed improved under Bill Clinton.  And if they are willing to hold a grudge to the absolute detriment of their own community then I suppose that's their right - but I give them more credit for being reasonable then Obamafans might.

I certainly hope it's different with the youngsters but I temper those feelings as we've hung ourselves numerous times on the petard of relying on young voters.  A hot game of Halo III could cost us the election.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-04-26 10:30PM | 0 recs
YES

This nomination process is about pledge delegates period. Also, because of the harsh drug laws that Bill Clinton put in place as well as welfare reform, many blacks were left behind. The income divide among not only blacks but whites grew under Bill Clinton.

Young voters have been coming out in this election so far what makes you think they are going to stop unless there is some backroom deal.

by cranberry 2008-04-26 10:34PM | 0 recs
R

Let me get this straight, you are saying since Bill Clinton got tough on crime, led welfare reform allowing hundreds of thousands of AA's to be proud of earning their own living and not be on the government dole that you believe they will sit out or vote McBush rather than vote Hillary?

Please say it ain't so, 'cause that takes some effort to absorb.

And you're flat out wrong if you believe the income divide hasn't worsened under Bush. The wealthiest 1% of Americans earn 21% of income - highest ever.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-04-26 10:51PM | 0 recs
Re: R

Right. It was  bad under Clinton and now worse under Bush. Anyway you slice it, Blacks aren't doing too well.

by cranberry 2008-04-26 10:57PM | 0 recs
Re: R

and Latinos?  Why doesn't anyone talk about Latinos, who make so much less money than any group (based on race)?

And aren't Latinos growing more rapidly as a group?  Why aren't people talking about the unfairness and the inequality that Latinos face?

by colebiancardi 2008-04-27 04:26AM | 0 recs
Re: R

Latinos do face unfairness and inequality though studies show that racist employers would prefer to hire Latinos over African-Americans. However, in many instances the populations do not overlap so it may be hard to compare.

In fact, for mixed immigration families Bill Clinton's immigration "reform" was devastating and has created even greater hardship for many Latino families. Add to that all the BS racist state laws that have been passed - starting with Prop 187 - and many Latinos have been under attack for years. Not to mention the racist criminal justice laws.  

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: R

lol. Tough on crime? Racist laws aren't "tough on crime". Welfare reform simple created more homeless people.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 05:48AM | 0 recs
Re: R

Yes welfare reform is hilarious lol:

Child poverty rates for African American families have dropped the sharpest since statistics began to be tallied in the 1960s

Percentage of welfare recipients with jobs increased dramatically

Increased the welfare-to-work education and training resources

Welfare rolls dropped (57%) in the years since passage of the bill.

Don't like the crime laws? Vote for legislators you support and change the laws.  I don't know why AA's are just 12% of the popltn. but account for 45% of prisons... racist laws? possibly...possibly not.  Do you know why?

by wasanyonehurt 2008-04-27 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: R

Of course welfare roles have dropped. Welfare has been gutted. We haven't saved a dime, it costs just as much, but services only about 10% of the people it used to service. People didn't get jobs that support them and over 30% of African-American children live in poverty.

Racist drug laws in particular but also a completely racist criminal justice system where white perpetrators will be released or given probation for crimes that minorities get prison time for.  

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 06:16AM | 0 recs
HR

I don't know why AA's are just 12% of the popltn. but account for 45% of prisons... racist laws? possibly...possibly not.

...racist stereotype. The AA crime rate is roughly the same as that among other ethnic groups when you control for income and education levels, and yes, arrest and sentencing rates are higher for blacks than for whites on comparable crimes, kthnxbai.

by MBNYC 2008-04-27 06:33AM | 0 recs
Misuse of HR

You HR'd for a statement of fact. AA 12% but 45% prisons is FACT.  There was no racist sterotype whatsoever in my post.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-04-27 09:12AM | 0 recs
LOL.

Yeah, whatever. And 95% of illegal immigrants to this country are Latinos. You really want to go the Lou Dobbs route of argument? Really? How about we start treating illegal immigrants as felons - what then?

Thing is, once you step away from the 'blacks are just criminal' argument you imply, it gets a little bit more diffuse. As I pointed out above, once you control for income, education, and some other variables, the AA crime rate is the same as for other populations. Just as Latinos are over-represented among illegals because, drumroll, the countries bordering us, from whom illegal immigration is possible and desirable, happen to be Hispanic, not because Latinos are more given to criminality. This is not rocket science, it's demographics.

What an awesome Democrat you are. I hope this was helpful.

by MBNYC 2008-04-27 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL.

Unlike you, I don't run-from, obscure or misrepresent the facts.  I readily admit the overwhelming majority of illegals are Latinos. I accept the facts as they are and ask how we can move to where we want to go.

You on the other hand spin FACTS as racial stereotyping, make ad hominem attacks (call me rethug troll) and misrepresent.

You are likewise some type of Democrat.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-04-27 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL.

Right. Keep on spreading your freeper talking points.

by MBNYC 2008-04-27 04:00PM | 0 recs
Wow.

Bill Clinton got tough on crime, led welfare reform allowing hundreds of thousands of AA's to be proud of earning their own living and not be on the government dole

Condescending stereotype much? What is this, Free Republic? Have you lost your mind? "Allowing"? Blacks needed Bill's "permission" because what, "those people" were just too lazy and stupid to get ahead on their own without a kick in the butt?

The Dixiecrats are alive and well.

by MBNYC 2008-04-27 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow.

Really insane things coming out on MyDD these days about minorities.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 06:17AM | 0 recs
I've heard all of this before.

From my mom and dad's neighbors in Mississippi, the ones that casually drop the n-word in conversation. I'm going to hide this, this is ridiculous on a Progressive blog worthy of the name.

by MBNYC 2008-04-27 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: I've heard all of this before.

I've seen this kind of talk before but never on progressive blogs. This election is really bringing out some interesting things.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 06:32AM | 0 recs
In this instance

I think we're looking at a rightwing troll. In fairness, most Hillary supporters I know would be as  aghast as anyone else by this crap.

We'll see if it stays hidden, won't we?

by MBNYC 2008-04-27 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: In this instance

Unhiding it would be telling.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: In this instance

heresMBNYCjohnny, tell us how you really feel about Bill Clinton and those that don't share your viewpoint.  If ya can't handle the FACTS, get out of the Kitchen.  FACTS not stereotypes.

Actually, I'm sorry heresMBNYCjohnny is so upset.  Please support Hillary when Obama fulfills his pledge of throwing his endorsement to her when she wins the nom.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-04-27 09:43AM | 0 recs
Who's unelectable

The problem is Obama is not trying to get the super delegates to give him the election because Hillary is 'unelectable'. All the nonsense about why can't Obama win over the voters who are voting for Hillary could be made about Hillary as well. Without the African American vote Hillary would not even carry NY.

Without younger voters, African-Americans and independents Hillary would not just lose the swing states she would lose the blue states. So the game of pick me or my people will take their marbles and go home is really an absurd lose-lose game. Yet at this point this bogus fable it is the only argument Hillary and her surrogates have to make to the supers.

by hankg 2008-04-27 03:24AM | 0 recs
"it is about winning right?"

Yes it is. And I've just demonstrated not only that he can win, but very likely will win, and has a better chance than she does.

Better yet, I make a data-based case.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 09:46PM | 0 recs
Re: "it is about winning right?"

actually you dont make the case, or rather a data-based case.  but if you want to keep on beating that drum - go ahead.  as i said in a previous comment - i diaried about this earlier - its really quite simple, based on polls, states won and the electoral vote - she wins the presidency.  

hit home on your browser and take a gander at the little maps on the corner of your screen.  just sayin.

by canadian gal 2008-04-26 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: "it is about winning right?"

You are kidding right?  You have to go deep into the polling numbers to understand why she is not a stronger candidate. Please explain to me how you win the general election when more than 50% of the voters will never vote for you.

by cranberry 2008-04-26 09:54PM | 0 recs
Re: "it is about winning right?"

Again, I could pull three or four other flash maps that show different results- hell, that one not too long ago said Obama'd get 300 EVs. But it was wrong then apparently, eh?

by ragekage 2008-04-26 09:56PM | 0 recs
Once again...

I am quite familiar not just with those little maps, and with the data that underlies them. With that said, I feel very comfortable saying that you are misinterpreting them. Not to get technical, but those maps are very much more volatile than the data I'm looking at, for example.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 09:58PM | 0 recs
Re: "it is about winning right?"

Talking about all whites in the country as one monolithic group is meaningless. How many were from MA? TX? AL? etc. What weightage was given to each states white, non-white votes? How many were from rust belt? How many were from Mountain west?

Winning is based on states and electoral votes in those states.

And I dont want to say this but I wouldnt trust Newsweek in this election cycle.

by Sandeep 2008-04-26 11:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

She's gonna get Walmart to buy the Electoral College in a hostile take over.

by lockewasright 2008-04-26 09:35PM | 0 recs
Actually

What I think this diarist is trying to point out is that the hooplah about Hillary winning over white voters is just that--hooplah. This just goes to prove David Axelrod's point. The problem for Hillary now is that she has alienated the very groups that she would need to be successful in a GE. Furthermore, Obama performs far better among independents which is the group that we need to win over which we haven't.

Yes, Hillary draws democratic support but she can't draw anyone else. We see how well that worked out for us.

by cranberry 2008-04-26 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually

and its one big reason Obama can't go uber-negative on Hillary because he knows that he needs her voters in November...

it doesn't matter to her now.. she can say anything, just as long as the nomination is hers and then she can heal whatever wounds she inflicted..  very short sighted thinking.

by soros 2008-04-26 10:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually

Exactly. The problem for Hillary is that people are fed up with this shit and the wounds are not going to be easily healed.

by cranberry 2008-04-26 10:56PM | 0 recs
She's weak in every respect.

Obama is under attack by Hillary, McCain and the media combined, yet is still beating Hillary like a red-headed step child.  Hillary would not survive a week of GOP attack.  For the love of God, open your eyes.  Are you on board with the Democrats or not?  If not, get out of the way.

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-04-27 12:51AM | 0 recs
Marie Antoinette? Is that you?

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-04-27 12:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

Nope .

Obama's problems are with the working class / rural voters.

That is what the whole discussion is all about . These are voters democrats have had problems getting in presidential elections and would be imporatant in states like Ohio , PA , Florida and the Rust belt generally.

Check the discrepency in the poll :

Working class :  Clinton 47 / Mccain 46 .

              : Obama   35 / Mccain 53.

Those are Dukakius type numbers , and signals a huge problem supers have to wonder about.

The working class vote has been lost by our candidates in recent times and for Clinton to be leading by 1 is a huge development.

This is what the discussion is centered around .

By the way a 2% shift in the votes of whites is pretty significant too .( could determine a win or loss ).

by lori 2008-04-26 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

Remember Axelrod saying democrats have usually not won the working class voters and don't need them to win in December ,

However we have a candidate in Clinton who is actually winning the working class votes which is pretty impressive and there is no big difference in the percentages she is getting in Obama's supposed coalition that I can detect in the poll , however there is a huge difference in the working class votes.

Clinton would have a powerful argument of electability with that poll.

Its becoming more obvious as the sheen wanes from Obama that she is more electable.

by lori 2008-04-26 09:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

You think young people & black people will vote for her if she gets the nomination despite trailing in delegates? If so, why do you think that?

by heresjohnny 2008-04-26 09:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

I think that they would, largely.

But the reason I am responding to your point is that I have heard this across the media as a repeated talking point.

At the end of the primaries, Hillary and Obama will have won exactly the same thing: NOTHING.

If Hillary is ahead in actual votes, as now appears likely, then that is a valid and important calculus for superdelegats to consider.

I, as a young person, am adamant that a screwy system that is too-heavy on ill attended caucuses and disenfranchising two large states is no way to win a nomination.

I know these are a reliable voting bloc for Dem candidates. Have been for half a century. I think most will show up for Hillary.

Do you think that Reagan Democrats and blue collar workers in the Rust Belt (read: the most important swing area in the country) will show up for Obama even though the incredible margins that they have shown for Clinton are ignored by the Democratic party's arcane and silly system for picking a presidential nominee?

The idea that one or two voting groups get veto power in determining an unresolved nomination is about as rediculous to me as saying that one candidate gets to veto a re-vote in states that were penalized for voting a few days too early....oh, wait....Obama got to do that.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-04-26 10:10PM | 0 recs
Um, no

See that's the problem. You and many in the media are well out of touch with what is actually going on.  AA's are NOT going to come out if it appears that the nomination was stolen. You should really check out the prominent black blogs and listen to Tom Joyner's show on any given day to know this (TJ has an average audience of about 15 million AA's).  

It's nice that you don't like caucuses this year but that's too bad. This race is about delegates and Hillary's folks made it very clear back in January and February when she was ahead in delegates. You don't get to change the rules mid-game.

I'm all for changing the rules after this election but it's not going to happen now. End of story.

by cranberry 2008-04-26 10:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Um, no

AA's are NOT going to come out if it appears that the nomination was stolen.

Interesting semantics.

I thought that in order to have something "stolen," someone has to first possess it. Which, of course, neither Clinton nor Obama will at the end of the primaries.

Let me make the same point a different way: If Clinton wins more votes and Obama is nominated anyway (having not won the nomination through pledged delegates), I predict that you will see a massive defection among Clinton supporters.

And I will be one of them.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-04-26 10:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Um, no

You and maybe five other people. According to the exit polls in PA, 80% of those who vote for Hillary would be happy voting for Barack Obama.  

Obama has won the nomination already. Since this is a race for delegates, he is ahead and will be ahead at the end of the primary season.  It is mathematically impossible for Hillary to win the pledged delegate count. She would also need 60% of the remaining superdelegates to overturn the pledge delegate leader. How many SD's has Hillary picked up since Super Tuesday?

BTW, you should read mrsuper.org. It is run by an uncommitted SD who explains what is going on with the SD's and it is not looking good at all for Hillary.

by cranberry 2008-04-26 10:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Um, no

Don't laugh to quickly at the concept of Hillary defectors.  There is a sizable segment of the population whose choice of president would be, in this order:

Hillary > John > Barack.

If Barack's base voted for John, it would be only to spite Hillary.  Barack's base is the one that's most interested in seeing the Democratic ideals implemented.  African Americans are not going to enjoy a McCain presidency packing the federal courts (the main vehicle for substantive equality in the 20th century) with old white bigots.  

By contrast, Hillary's base of more centrist voters see a lot more to like in McCain.  Hillary's base is older and suspicious of young men and women who claim the powers to usher in unprecedented magnificent change (the kind of talk that, while new and exciting for college kids, is old news to old folks who have heard it a million times before).  Latinos and Jewish voters also have very thorny issues with Barack Obama.    

by BPK80 2008-04-26 11:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Um, no

Wrong. Hillary seems to attract the racists and angyr white woman who were probably sexually harassed and/or feel like they are owed something.  I've dealt with quite a few of those white woman who  feel "oppressed."  If they want to go with John McCain, fine.

by cranberry 2008-04-26 11:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Um, no

A person like you is really out of touch with reality. Keep dreaming such narrow minded fantasy.

by Sandeep 2008-04-27 12:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Um, no

According to those same exit polls, 85% of those who voted for Obama will vote for Hillary. So your point of AAs not voting for Hillary is baseless.

by Sandeep 2008-04-27 12:17AM | 0 recs
Reality Check

Those Obama voters in exit polls are assuming he's getting the nomination. Ask that question again and rephrase it. If today the Super delegates gave the nomination to Hillary would you vote for her and the answers you get will be very different.

There is already a vitriolic backlash building in the African American community. It has been expressed by Rep. Clyburn in a polite manner. The conversation about electability goes on as if Black votes don't count. We can give it to Hillary because she MIGHT get more Appalachian / blue collar white voters (against a Scots-Irish war hero? doubtful) but African Americans we can take for granted they have to vote for Hillary no matter what. We own their vote and don't need to earn it.

Think again. If the perception is Obama was robbed, Hillary won't be able to win even NY state. Without the AA vote goodbye NJ, Ohio, Florida, PA, etc. There is a reason that Republican efforts at disenfranchising Democratic voters are aimed exclusively at Blacks. Without them Democrats can not win any national election.

by hankg 2008-04-27 03:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Um, no

Rasmussen had her polling at 55% with AA's in the general in a poll from about a month ago. You're looking at the wrong numbers.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 06:09AM | 0 recs
Also,

1) That would be ridiculous with an "i."

2)Bill Clinton didn't win Reagan voters in either of his elections. He won because of black voters.  No democrat can win without independents and black voters.  The Reagan Democrats are former democrats for the most part.  It is also interesting that white working class men are not supporting Hillary.  When was the last time that a democrat lost white men and won the presidency?

by cranberry 2008-04-26 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Also,

This isn't a spelling bee.  Picking on contributors for small typos, spelling, and grammar errors is obnoxious.  

There should be a space after the "2)" in your comment for consistency.  You should use two spaces after every sentence.  Democrat should be capitalized.  

Now let's stop picking on each other for stupid things and syntax errors.    

by BPK80 2008-04-26 11:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Also,

Again, another lie. Hillary won the white working class men in both PA and Ohio.

I feel you love spreading random lies.

by Sandeep 2008-04-27 12:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

I understand your point however you take our loyalty for granted at your peril. This is a game for delegates. If the person with the most delegates walks into Denver and isn't the nominee and the reason is that he's "unelectable" because of his black preacher then all bets are off.

Rasmussen already had one poll out showing that Clinton was only getting 55% of the AA vote against McCain and that was a month ago. Things haven't gotten better since then.

We're not a reliable voting bloc. We're the MOST reliable voting bloc. Telling us he can't win because he's too black will be the end of 2008 and the end of the Dems for generations. Clyburn and others are merely talking about the pulse of our community. Ignore the warnings at your peril.

Though I'm certain the supers know this so it's not going to happen.

Clinton's argument is that Obama can't win White Working Class voters so he can't win. She's arguing that that groups has veto power...

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 05:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

Telling us he can't win because he's too black will be the end of 2008 and the end of the Dems for generations.

which was is it?  Last year, the Obama camp had a problem with black voters, because he wasn't "black" enough for them.  He has now has met the criteria of the black voters, which is a plus for him, but to the rest of the American population, this can be a negative for him

Obama has only himself to blame.  He had to make himself over to win the black votes, because Hillary was polling high in the AA community and he wasn't.  That is why his surrogates came out during NH and called the fairytale comment racist, JJ making that statement of how Hillary didn't cry for Katrina, and implying that her MLK/LBJ statement was somehow dismissive of MLK.

not to mention Obama's style of using code words like hoodwinked and okay-doke in NC.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-27 06:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

You're focusing on the wrong thing. It's what African-Americans will think. Not what Obama has done or not done.

You're not dealing with the math. You'll need to start dealing with it.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

I think the Hispanic/Latino vote will come out strong for her - that is a block we could really win on and keep, if we really tried.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-27 04:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

Hispanic voters vote at about 45-50% Dem and are underrepresented at the polls. African-Americans vote 90% Dem and come out strongly at the polls.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 05:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

during the Clinton years, they voted in the 70 percentage range.  We can keep them, but we've lost ground over the last 8 years.  

are you stating we shouldn't go for the largest growing community in the US?  Their numbers will grow.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-27 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

Sorry. I didn't say that at all so that doesn't make any sense for you to even suggest that's what I was saying.  

Do you have a link to those numbers because I don't recall that being correct?

However, even if it is you still lose if AA's stay home.

BTW, their numbers won't grow for this election.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

Well if OBama is ahead in the polls obviously the working class voter thing isn't that much of a problem. I would also like to point out that if Hillary can't win black voters by significant margins in OH and PA, she loses. In 2004 Kerry won PA because of Philadelphia.

by cranberry 2008-04-26 09:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

You seem to be missing the point , the emphasis on the working class voters is because of their concentration in certain parts of the country.

The polls worth checking out is PA , OH , FL , MI , Missouri most of Appalachia in terms of the working class votes.

If he is doing well in polls in those states ( which I doubt ) then he is fine .

by lori 2008-04-26 09:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

The argument here is bunk, anyway, Lori. That suggests he can improve before November in any way.

BTW, we drafted you! Lori! Lori, you've been drafted, we want you because you're one of the better Clinton supporters around these parts! Didn't you read the diary? :)

by ragekage 2008-04-26 09:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

Hey thanks for the consideration , I can have a discussion about her positions ( especially her foreign policy/National Security position ) at an appropriate time.

by lori 2008-04-26 10:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

No, I am not missing any point. Yes, white working class voters are part of the equation but not the full equation.  The pollsters(to our detriment) are currently not asking all voters the most important question which is, "If candidate a was given the nomination after losing the pledged count and popular vote(which is not a valid metric btw) would you still vote for them?"

Once that question is asked, Hillary would fall far behind John McCain. Why? Because she would lose other important voting blocs in key swing states that would put her over the top.  Hillary's base is very limited and it doesn't have any room to grow.

Winning elections is all about EXPANDING coalitions not consolidating them.

by cranberry 2008-04-26 10:00PM | 0 recs
Well, for example

in most of the recent polls I've seen, Obama carries Pennsylvania, as does Clinton. He also carries Michigan, which she does not, while she polls better in Ohio and Florida.

Meanwhile, she loses the Northwest, the Mountain West and the Upper South, where he's competitive. Obama's map is broader than hers, it's that simple.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 10:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, for example

Well I still believe the map is not much different than 2004 .

I don't believe Obama would win any state in the South Including Virginia.

Super delegates would have to decide whether they want to gamble in the general election.

He might be polling better in the Mountain West , but against Mccain who is from that region it is going to be a lot tougher than it looks now.

Just my opinion.

by lori 2008-04-26 10:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, for example

My dad is from Colorado and it has changed dramatically.  It is turning blue fast.  McCain is not particularly popular in Colorado because of his immigration issues. Also, race issues in Colorado are not as prominent as in northeast states which makes for friendlier grounds for Obama.  My dad has made it very clear that if anyone was to turn Colorado blue, it would be Obama.

by cranberry 2008-04-26 10:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, for example

My dad is from Colorado and it has changed dramatically.  It is turning blue fast.  McCain is not particularly popular in Colorado because of his immigration issues. Also, race issues in Colorado are not as prominent as in northeast states which makes for friendlier grounds for Obama.  My dad has made it very clear that if anyone was to turn Colorado blue, it would be Obama.

by cranberry 2008-04-26 10:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, for example

The map is VERY different. If you look at the mountain states that now have many democratic state elected leaders since 2004 it is amazing. Look at Montana for instance.

by cranberry 2008-04-26 10:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

Actually, Obama isn't ahead in the polls. He is statistically even with McCain in almost every poll I've seen of late.

Further, if you look at how it shakes out on the electoral map, it's actually a very big damn problem for Obama. (You know, those are the ones that predict what actually elects a President). Those are the ones that show Clinton beating McCain and Obama losing to McCain.

These national poll internal numbers are a useful point for discussion but not particularly relevant in discussing electability.

However, if Obama gets Kerry-esque margins among Latinos (or worse, which seems likely), loses Reagan Democrats in the Rust Belt (which Gore and Kerry got in PA, but not really in OH), how does he win?

Or more focally: if Obama enters, say, October, as totally uncompetitive in Ohio and Florida as he now appears to be, are we really going to be confident if we are counting on Virginia to deliver the Presidency to Obama?

I remain in April where I started the year: Nominating Obama is a huge gamble that we are likely to lose.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-04-26 10:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

You are kidding right?  

There have been plenty of polls that show Obama getting HIGHER amounts of latinos than even Hillary. What is your answer to that?

Also, Hillary can't win WI, WA, OR, MN, IA, CO,NV,NM. Remind me how she is supposed to win again?

by cranberry 2008-04-26 10:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

Also, Hillary can't win WI, WA, OR, MN, IA, CO,NV,NM. Remind me how she is supposed to win again?

- Thats false .

To make life easy for you.

Just go to this site , it has a compilation of the most recent polls from all states and shows the electoral map of each candidate .

As of today Hillary Clinton will be president of the US , Obama will not.

CLinton's map :

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Cl inton/Maps/Apr26.html

Obama's map :

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Ob ama/Maps/Apr26.html

by lori 2008-04-26 10:37PM | 0 recs
Problem is

that he can make up any deficits elsewhere, while she cannot. Remember: Obama has been hit by two Presidential campaigns now for weeks, and he's beating both of them. He can make up the deficit with the white working class, either directly or by substituting other demographics for it; she can't.

Take a look at her underlying numbers. Hillary is far weaker than you've been led to believe, and if she had half the incoming fire he has, things would look a lot different.

And despite all that, 47% of whites will not vote for her, as opposed to 40% for him. If you can explain that metric away, I'm all ears.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 09:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Problem is

Actually for Obama 45% of whites won't vote for him and 47% for Clinton , according to the poll.

With regards to him making it up somewhere else , I suspect you are talking about Independents , he is not getting anymore independents than she is getting in that poll. He has been losing support from independents since the whole Wright thing in most polls I have seen.

If he had not been cuddled by the press for this long he would probably not be the front runner now.

Lets not start comparing the coverage of both candidates because thats a no brainer .

However I just pointed out what the parameters of the debate was , its about white working class voters , these are the swing voters in OH , PA , FL , KT , WV , TN and in Dixie that are dems both vote republican in general election if dems nominate a candidate they feel doesn't represent their values.

Thats the danger here ( not whites as a whole ).

by lori 2008-04-26 09:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Problem is

I'm sorry but did we read two different polls?  I mean the numbers are very clear and they are consistent with previous polling.

She is a weaker candidate.

by cranberry 2008-04-26 09:56PM | 0 recs
Crap.

I transposed a digit.

That said, again, the poll shows him performing if not better than her - though he does, by 2%, not 7% as originally posited - then at least the same, with mre room for growth. That's really a baseline.

by MBNYC 2008-04-26 10:07PM | 0 recs
Obama is the Democratic candidate.

No amount of arrogant self-entitlement will award Hillary with the nomination.  Time to embrace reality and get on board with the rest of the Democrats.

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-04-27 12:53AM | 0 recs
Hmmm

Newsweek has a lot of egg on its face this cycle, as usual.  Its polls are the very pro-Obama outliers in national head-to-heads.  In fact, just last week Obama had some unprecedented +15% lead over Hillary!  Since Pennsylvania, he's lost about an average of 6 points in national tracking polls, and even the latest Newsweek has him 10 points down from their previous outlier.  

In 2004 I used to love Newsweek because it would mislead me into believing John Kerry was really going to pull it off... bigtime!  No cigar then, no cigar now.  

FWIW, there's some arbitrary figure the pollsters & demographic pundits have come up with, either 42% or 43%.  I'd encourage you to research it.  It's allegedly the amount of white vote a candidate needs to win a general election so it looks like Hillary's set for a win via this poll.  

Keep in mind also that "where the white vote is distributed" is the huge issue here.  It's cute to win Illinois by 50% but no different than a 10% win there with the rest of your national strength concentrated elsewhere.  

by BPK80 2008-04-26 10:37PM | 0 recs
Wake up.

The entire country is pro-Obama.  This is not Hillary's time.  She needs to check her ego and start rooting for the home team.  She just isn't going to be president.... EVER.  Got it?

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-04-27 12:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Wake up.

the entire country is pro-Obama?  Gee, tell that to all the millions of voters who voted for Hillary...

get a grip.  The entire country is not pro-Obama.  You may be, the media certainly is, but not everyone

by colebiancardi 2008-04-27 04:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Wake up.

Nonsense.  Half of the Democratic Party is pro-Obama, and that's it.  Of that half, enormous segments are impressionable and fickle college students who will vote any way the wind blows if it is trendy and will help give them an identity.  

Last time I checked, African Americans and academia are far from being "the whole country."  

by BPK80 2008-04-27 10:58AM | 0 recs
OF COURSE she loses it, but

to win a Presidential election, we must come close in white voters to win. Clinton and Carter both came within 5 points of the white vote, which is why they both won. Kerry and Gore got killed in the White vote by double digits, and while, yes Gore won the popular vote, if he had done better with whites, his win woulda been decisive enough to put him over the top in NH or TN to get him to the White House.

The reason it matters that Obama is losing it in this primary so bad but doesn't too much that Clinton is losing the black vote is of course blacks are gonna go for Obama because their racial bonds with each other are typically much stronger than whites with whites, because blacks are more closely connected, due to their smaller number. Because they finally see one of them that can win, they are going for him. Whites don't have such strong ethnic bonds with each other, which is why Clinton doesn't get 92 percent of the white vote, but the overall white vote is amuch bigger portion than the black vote from the electorate. Newsweek is just doing another Clinton hit piece trying to cry hypocrisy where there is none.

by DiamondJay 2008-04-26 11:06PM | 0 recs
Re: OF COURSE she loses it, but

In a contested primary, I think it is hard to make the assumption that Obama wouldn't win white voters. Especially since he has won them in many states thus far.  It is really unfortunate that the media has decided to harp on this issue when in fact Hillary is still in the race.

by cranberry 2008-04-26 11:32PM | 0 recs
But, but ,but ,but, but....

But's don't win elections.  It's time for you and Hillary to join the reality-based community.  It's just not her time.

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-04-27 12:56AM | 0 recs
"their racial bonds with each other"

Actually, if you go back to what I actually wrote, you'll notice that your paternalistic tripe about silly black people who only vote based on color affinity isn't supported by the actual data.

Correspondingly, Hillary would be an even deeper shade of toast if women weren't voting for her out of simple gender affinity to a higher degree than blacks are foing the same for Obama.

Long story short, if Hillary didn't carry her own demographic to the extent she does, it would have been completely over long ago.

This election sure has been an eye-opener on some Democrats, buddy.

by MBNYC 2008-04-27 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Newsweek poll: Hillary's deficit with white vo

This Newsweek poll seems counterintitive to primary results. I'm not saying Hillary wouldn't end up losing whites (even Bill did), but the margins are important there. But Obama would do better? Then how the hell isn't he doing better, uh, i dunno, when people go vote?

by zcflint05 2008-04-26 11:42PM | 0 recs
Operation Chaos will not extend to the GE.

She has already lost the nomination and needs to face reality.  

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-04-27 12:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Operation Chaos will not extend to the GE.

lol

by zcflint05 2008-04-27 03:20AM | 0 recs
He's not doing much "better"

He's also not doing appreciably worse. Which is the point amidst all the hysteria.

by MBNYC 2008-04-27 06:11AM | 0 recs
I was wondering when .....

you would stop your constant diaries about the evils of Hillary and begin to post positive diaries about your chosen candidate.

No good news to report about Obama, nothning worthy of a diary or a headline?

Looks like I can keep on wondering, can't I?

by emsprater 2008-04-27 06:53AM | 0 recs
Disappointed

So, you issue a "correction" about the refusal rate, but leave the rest of your piece, including bold-faced lines that become central underpinnings, intact.  Nice job.

Basically your entire diary can be summed up like this:

The Newsweek poll showed few, if any, statistically signifcant differences between the candidates.

But instead, you put on your Obamavision glasses, and went to work, trying to figure out some obscure (and untrue) angle that you could use for your latest hackjob.

In a previous diary, we spoke about the need to write about issues rather than politicking.  You suggested that you would write a diary explaining why you believe Barack Obama has the better policy toward energy and the environment.  I said it would be a great idea, and that I would debate you on it.

Since then you have done nothing but rake muck and engage in juvenile sarcasm.  I am very happy to meet an Obama supporter that I can have an interesting and intelligent conversation with.  Perhaps one day you will find something positive to say about your candidate.  In the meantime, I am disappointed with your choices.

by bobbank 2008-04-27 07:18AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads