 | Where Barack Obama has Won. What Does It Imply? |
On the night of the Iowa caucuses, Jerseydem wrote that since white people just won’t vote for a black man for president, perhaps we shouldn’t vote for the black man for president. Since then, Barack Obama has gained a plurality of delegates in Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington. These include states where white people predominate. A number of them are also states where Democrats don’t tend to win in the general election. Are the white people who vote for Barack Obama in the primaries representative or unrepresentative of the white people who would vote in a general election? Is Barack Obama more liable to win these non-Democratic states in the general because he has won them in the primaries, or would the pro-Obama vote in these states be swamped by a much larger conservative vote, washing out any seeming advantage?
Contact Us
The “white people who vote for Barack Obama” are not just any old white people. They are males under the age of 30.
The apparent Obama victories in red states are harder to read. A victory is usually defined within the candidate’s political party. All the major services display the statistics like that. Would there be another way to display the votes received as a percentage of all votes cast in the primary that would give a more accurate view of the candidate’s strength?
Comment by Iroquois — 2/10/2008 @ 9:30 am
Not all of them are under the age of 30, Iroquois. That’s too much of a simplification. Some of them are senior citizens.
Comment by Floop — 2/10/2008 @ 11:08 am
Nice try Flooper, but next time do your homework.
Senior citizens just don’t vote for Obama. Maybe they think he’s too green with only two years experience in the national scene. He hasn’t even been there long enough to figure out where to park the car.
Here is one typical:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1447
Comment by Iroquois — 2/10/2008 @ 12:35 pm
What are you talking about, Iroquois? What homework do you refer to?
Exit polls show that 39 percent of Louisiana Democrats over the age of 65 voted for Barack Obama. 357,547 Democrats voted in yesterday’s election, and 75,084 were over the age of 65. 39 percent of that 75,084 is 29,282. That’s 29,282 senior citizen voters in Louisiana alone doing something that you say senior citizen voters “just don’t” do.
Comment by J. Clifford — 2/10/2008 @ 12:57 pm
What are you talking about? Thirty-nine percent of Louisiana voters over the age of sixty-five are probably black. There seem to be so many people with various names posting the same vague Obama cheerleader fluff and non-information here and NONE of them ever posts a link. Maybe they think they can get by on good looks and charm.
Comment by Iroquois — 2/10/2008 @ 1:51 pm
Probably black? That’s a big assumption, Iroquois. You’re demanding that people do their homework. Where’s your assumption on this claim of yours?
Besides, you said that “Senior citizens just don’t vote for Obama,” and J. Clifford demonstrated factually that that’s not true.
Homework I’ll do, with a link, as that’s your fetish. Let’s go the CNN exit polls for Iowa, not known for a big African-American population.
The link: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#IADEM
The fact: Barack Obama got the vote of 18 percent of Democratic Senior Citizens in that state. That’s with a lot of competition too, not just Hillary Clinton - who got just 45 percent of the senior citizen vote - still not the majority of it.
You said that senior citizens don’t vote for Barack Obama. That was proven wrong. Now you seem to be saying that only African-American senior citizens vote for Barack Obama.
Are you really going stand by that suggestion? If so, what’s your point?
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 2/10/2008 @ 2:22 pm
Except for one minor detail, Peregrin.
First of all, Iowa exit polls are not going to tell you anything about Louisiana voters.
Second of all, in Iowa (yes, the link you provided after so much sniveling) Edwards and Clinton both beat out Obama in the 45 to 64 age group and the over 65 group as well, even with Republicans crossing over to cast spoiler votes for Obama. Obama finished a distant third.
Oh, but facts are such a “fetish”.
Comment by Iroquois — 2/10/2008 @ 3:35 pm
Obama’s winning implies that he is registering new voters. See my list below of RED states whose 2008 primaries had bigger Democratic turnout than Republican.
That’s why I believe that Obama can win. A race with McCain vs Clinton is the same razor-thin divide as before, easily manipulated.
We all know that the “likely” voters in all the polls don’t include new voters. Are you a new voter ages 18-22, or maybe you’re of the 50% of Americans who usually don’t vote?
Arkansas = Clinton by 43%
Colorado = Obama by 34%
Georgia = Obama by 35%
Kansas = Obama by 48%
Louisiana = Obama by 22%
Minnesota = Obama by 34%
Missouri = Obama by 1%
North Dakota = Obama by 25%
Oklahoma = Clinton by 24%
South Carolina = Obama by 29%
Tennessee = Clinton by 13%
Comment by amy — 2/10/2008 @ 5:16 pm
My 84 yr. old white mom said she’ll vote for Obama when PA gets its turn.
Comment by Tom — 2/11/2008 @ 6:47 am
Obama will get eaten alive by the Republicans for his lack of experience. Period.
There are way too many critical issues that the next President will confront, perhaps the most important was one discussed the other night on Fox news (of all places - I’m not a Fox fan, but this particular discussion was very informative.) The issue was getting China and India on board for environmental measures; global environmental risk, the commentators noted, is one that we have simply just about run out of time on. It’s now or never.
To me it’s clear: we don’t have time to cover Obama’s learning curve. We don’t have time to sit around and feel warm and fuzzy about vague notions of “hope” and “change.” We can’t afford to indulge whiny 20 and 30-somethings who just want someone with a last name other than Clinton or Bush (the latter is, of course, irrelevant).
Planet earth, and its inhabitants, must address environmental issues IMMEDIATELY. It seems to me that the only two candidates equipped to rise to this occasion are Hillary and McCain. And if Obama is the Democratic candidate, this Democrat, who has only voted Republican once (for the late Rockefeller Republican Senator Chase from NJ) will serious contemplate voting for McCain. It’s not a tempting choice, but it may be the only choice I can make with a good conscience, if Obama is my alternative.
Comment by jerseydem — 2/13/2008 @ 12:34 am
Yours is the generation that once said “Never trust anyone above 30.”
Now you’re telling us “Never trust anyone under 50.”
I think there’s a constant lurking underneath that variable.
Comment by Jim — 2/13/2008 @ 6:52 am
Jerseydem, you’ve written before that you don’t think that Obama should be the Democratic nominee because he’s not pure European-American.
If you’re really going over to the pro-spying-on-Americans-keep-the-soldiers-in-Iraq-for-ten-thousand-years McCain, then I say that you’re exactly the kind of Democrat that the Democratic Party most needs to be rid of. Go vote with your ideological kin in the Republican Party.
Comment by J. Clifford — 2/13/2008 @ 8:04 am
Go read jerseydem’s piece again. He did not say any such thing.
Jerseydem questioned whether (1) young idealistic voters are being manipulatged by conservatives behind the scene (2)voters are willing to see a black executive branch (3)an extreme liberal can be elected. The last two questions are yes, about electability.
The Republicans asked the electability question about Romney and now Romney is out of the race. They intend to win, in spite of Bush, and they just might do it. It is a pertinent question.
No, jerseydem is not a Republican. Not if he was a McGovern campaign manager. If you recall, no one had a problem with McGovern in the primaries. He had a great voting record and was anti-war to boot–but he lost in 48 states. Only his home state of South Dakota and the Teddy Kennedy machine of the kingdom of Massachusetts was willing to vote for him. Democrats were not willing to listen to electbility questions and that’s how we got Nixon for president.
Jerseydem is nervous about turning over the government of the most powerful nation in the world to a junior senator, no matter how charismatic.
Comment by Iroquois — 2/13/2008 @ 5:51 pm
If he’s willing to turn the government over to the likes of John McCain, then he’s wildly off his moorings. McCain has been a major supporter of all the major elements of the Bush agenda, and he’s considering voting for McCain because Hillary Clinton was in the Senate for four more years than Barack Obama? That’s nutty.
Comment by Jim — 2/13/2008 @ 6:30 pm
I don’t think Clinton’s senate experience is the only thing being considered. She is not exactly green when it comes to state and national policy work. She is not an unknown factor–she been around long enough to be vetted.
People also look at stuff like character. They are impressed with McCain’s war record, and also that he is less ideologically driven and more pragmatic than other Republicans. That’s probably why Clinton appeals to some centrist Republicans too–she is pragmatic as well. People like Obama and Huckabee are less centrist and don’t appeal to as broad a political spectrum. When it comes right down to it, most of the Obama and Huckabee supporters will probably vote for whoever is the party nominee. The Ron Paul supporters will probably stay home.
Comment by Iroquois — 2/13/2008 @ 7:02 pm
Who are these mythical centrist Republicans supporting Hillary Clinton? Last time I checked, Barack Obama was getting the predominant support of independents in the primaries as caucuses. Cite your source that shows Hillary Clinton is the one getting more centrist support.
The irony is that Barack Obama is slightly to the left of Clinton in his substantive record in the Senate. But nevertheless, he’s getting more support from centrists.
Comment by Jim — 2/13/2008 @ 7:43 pm
Looking at a Democratic primary isn’t going to give you much idea about Republicans.
Comment by Iroquois — 2/13/2008 @ 9:59 pm
Right. So it’s all the Rush Limbaugh Republicans who don’t cross over for Democratic primaries who are just waiting in the wings to vote for Hillary Clinton in November. Got it. Thanks for clarifying.
Comment by Jim — 2/13/2008 @ 10:39 pm
A lot of conservatives are unhappy with McCain. Not that I keep up with Limbaugh, but he is probably one of them.
Comment by Iroquois — 2/13/2008 @ 11:26 pm
If Hillary can look so alert and on top of policy in a debate compared to a young guy like Obama, just think how she would look next to McCain.
Comment by Iroquois — 2/13/2008 @ 11:30 pm