Hillary and Obama run equally well among working-class white voters...

If you delve into the internals of the new Quinnipiac poll (the one which shows a 7% Obama lead for the GE), there's an interesting tidbit...

"Working-class whites" break down as follows

McCain: 48%
Hillary: 41%

McCain: 46%
Obama: 39%

While slightly more are undecided if Obama is the nominee, they have an equal spread, losing working-class white voters by a 7% margin.

Now, this is only one data point, and as a small subset of the voters polled, the MOE on the sample is probably high.  Nonetheless, it really takes some air out of the idea that Obama isn't competitive on the working-class white vote.

We probably won't have many national polls of Clinton versus Obama, given the race will likely be over in three weeks or so, but I hope more pollsters look into this so we can get some further confirmation.  

Upon request, link to internals.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, WHITE, working class (all tags)



Re: Hillary and Obama run equally well among worki

Bush won this group with about 6/10, so if a Democrat gets up to 45%, it's probably over for McCain.  It's also possible that a Dem only gets 40%, but still wins easily because of new voters.

by freedom78 2008-05-14 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Obama run

You need to provide a link so we can see the entire data...Before and after the Rev. Wright factor. I think that's what really hurt Obama.

by soyousay 2008-05-14 07:38AM | 0 recs

With link.  Check it out.  

by telephasic 2008-05-14 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Obama run

You seem to be fixated on Rev. Wright when Doug Coe is much more radical and dangerous. Why is that?

by heresjohnny 2008-05-14 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Obama run

There's no denial that Rev. Wright has affected Obama's campaign. Well, I take that back; apparently you are in denial in reference to Rev. Wright and the impact he has on Obama's campaign.

Also, you ought to alert the media in reference to Doug Coe because most people don't know who he is.

by soyousay 2008-05-14 07:53AM | 0 recs
What purpose would there be in that?

We're not out to smear fellow Democrats by drawing attention to their religious practices.  That's the Republican's job... and Coe administers to many Republicans.  So there'd be no purpose there.  Thus it avoids attention.

Same thing with the Moonies.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-14 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: What purpose would there be in that?

Then why did you bring it up in the first place?

by soyousay 2008-05-14 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: What purpose would there be in that?

He/She didn't. I did. Since you're so concerned about religious influences in the lives of candidates you should learn about the right-wing dictator-loving spiritual guide of Sen. Clinton.

I'd take a left-wing radical preacher over a right-wing power preacher any day. But I'm a Democrat and so I'm more naturally at home on the left.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-14 08:02AM | 0 recs
Rev. Wright said some things that were just plain


But he didn't say them in his sermons ;-)

by RisingTide 2008-05-14 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Rev. Wright said some things that were just pl

Doug Coe has glorified Mao in his sermons. He loves the loyalty of Nazis. He courts murderous dictators and takes credit for Clinton's right-wing legislation such as her flag burning crap.

Wright was wrong about HIV and right about the rest of it. Doug Coe is wrong about everything. If you're a Democrat I mean.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-14 08:51AM | 0 recs
I don't believe that blacks and whites learn

differently inherently. If such a thing does exist, it is cultural.

Coe is a loon.

Rev. Wright is a well-meaning, god-serving lunatic.

by RisingTide 2008-05-14 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't believe that blacks and whites learn

Cultural differences certainly account for different learning styles. You're right about that. I was referring to his sermons though. Not his book tour. I forgot he said that.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-14 09:23AM | 0 recs
he's a good guy, no bones about it

and a strong voice in the african american church.

It's just... some of what he says makes me want to yell at him some. White folks don't need to be hearing that black people think they're 'different'.

by RisingTide 2008-05-14 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: he's a good guy, no bones about it

Someone needs to yell at him. Though perhaps he's gotten a little more  - however you describe it - over the years and that's why he retired. Oprah left at some point because she got a little uncomfortable for some reason.

But I don't have a problem with him at all. I don't go to church and he made me want to go to his. But I'm a lefty so I understand what he's saying and where he's coming from.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-14 09:51AM | 0 recs
Er, I didn't.

heresjonny did.  

I was just clarifying.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-14 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: What purpose would there be in that?

My mistake...You aren't the one that brought it up.

by soyousay 2008-05-14 08:01AM | 0 recs
Heh, It's okay

I probably shouldn't have butted in.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-14 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Obama run

Well perhaps you should learn who he is. However, the Rev. Wright factor seems to be insignificant.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-14 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Obama run

This is a recent poll and all the data is post-Wright, so any damage that has been done is showing in the numbers

I think the best source online is Quinnipiac's page on the poll: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1177

by werehippy 2008-05-14 07:46AM | 0 recs
Oh, and...

It's just my two cents, but I have a feeling Wright was immediately damaging more due to "electability" concerns than anything else.  Many, many undecided voters I talked to here in Western PA were not personally offended about the whole Wright thing, but thought it would be Obama's undoing - they were imagining someone else cared about it far more than they did.  This was backed up by some polling (sorry, can't remember the outfit right now) that only 24% of people said it would make them less likely to vote for Wright, but 44% said they knew people for whom it would matter.  

As it's fading from the news I think things are now returning to normal, except the right-wing has a reason to hate him now.  

by telephasic 2008-05-14 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, and...

I personally can't understand how Obama could have any ties to Rev. Wright, so I guess I fall into the category that you dismiss.

by soyousay 2008-05-14 08:05AM | 0 recs
Free Africa.

you would just as well ask why PastorDan has ties with Reverend Wright.

But he's a real person, with a genuine blog. Why not ask HIM?

by RisingTide 2008-05-14 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, and...

How can Clinton have a 15 year relationship with the right-wingers in The Family? At least Wright is a leftist.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-14 08:52AM | 0 recs
Special Elections

After winning two special elections in heavily red districts I'm not worried about our chances in November.

by map 2008-05-14 07:39AM | 0 recs

Including last night, we've won 3 red districts this year.  Foster, Cazayoux, and Childers all have formerly Republican seats.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-14 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Obama run equally well among worki

I guess her argument would be that the undecideds (>10% in both cases) would break for her more than for Obama.  I don't think that's an unreasonable position, but the contrast still isn't as stark as the primary votes in PA and OH would seem to suggest.

by the mollusk 2008-05-14 07:41AM | 0 recs
It's pretty clear...

Obama doesn't have a problem with blue-collar whites.  Appalachia has a problem with Obama.

Since Appalachia is split up among a dozen states and three of them -- PA, OH, and WV (which is entirely within its bounds) have been of note lately, it's easy to forget that he does just fine among blue-collar whites elsewhere, and west of the Mississippi, easily outpaces Clinton.

by Rorgg 2008-05-14 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: It's pretty clear...

Obama has won white voters without college degrees in ONE STATE.  Calling it an Appalachian problem is a false talking point that distracts from our ability to discuss the real issue.

by Steve M 2008-05-14 08:32AM | 0 recs
Utah and Missouri

... please reread your article, I believe it has changed.

by RisingTide 2008-05-14 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Utah and Missouri

My link says quite clearly that Obama lost white voters without college degrees in Missouri.

by Steve M 2008-05-14 12:40PM | 0 recs

it is the state EC totals that matter.  Look up, the averages are favoring Clinton over McCain, Obama loses.  All states are different, national polls are meaningless at this point.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-14 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: oy

State by state polls are also meaningless at this point.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-14 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: oy

More WV voters voted for Obama than McSame.  I think that WV voters love the Clintons, and Hillary in a personal way.  I now do not think that WV voters are racist, although there may me some older WV voters who still have a problem, but I think it is far fewer than one imagines.  I apologize again to WV voters for my comments.

by Spanky 2008-05-14 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: oy

Hi, Teresa.  Me again.  Shall I once more post the electoral votes in the head-to-heads vs. McCain?

You know, those ones I've replied to you now TWICE with that show Obama not only has more EV-worth of states where he does better than Hillary head-to-head with McCain, but also among swing states?

I'm sure you don't want to be pushing your pure speculative opinion as fact when there's hard data supporting the opposite conclusion.  Because you're a rational, logical person, who wouldn't ignore data just because it contradicted her own preferred narrative.

by Rorgg 2008-05-14 08:05AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads