It seems all but assured now that the Democrats aren’t going to have a clear nominee going into the convention. Sen. Clinton picked up huge, momentum adjusting wins yesterday. Let’s take a look at some of the numbers.
Sen. Clinton won Ohio by roughly 230,000 votes (10%). 44% of all the voters in Ohio were white women, and they gave Sen. Clinton 66% of their vote. Black women, meanwhile, made up 7% of the voters, but only gave her 9% of their votes. She also won the older people, taking 67% of voters age 60 and over (compare to Sen. Obama, who won 67% of the voters between the ages of 17 and 29). She won “the poor” vote (less than $50k a year), the “less educated” vote (63% of those without a college education), the moderate vote (Obama took both the liberal and conservative vote), the vote of those who are religious, but not really practicing (Obama won the non-religious and the religious who attend services on a weekly basis), and the vote of union house-holds. But among almost all of those segments of the voting public, none seems as important as white women. They showed up and voted for her in droves.
In Texas, the trends seemed about the same. White women weren’t such an overwhelming percent of the voters (27%), but they continued to support Sen. Clinton by a large majority: 59% of white women voted for Sen. Clinton. She also won white men, but only by a percentage point. What really seemed to make the difference were the Latinos. 66% of Latino women, who made up 18% of the vote, cast their ballot for Sen. Clinton, and 58% of Latino men (12% of the vote) did too. Again, she won the “poor vote” (by 2%) and the “less educated” vote (72% of voters without a high school diploma, 56% of H.S. graduates, and 51% of those who had “some college or associated degree”), but Sen. Obama took more moderates. He also won those who rated the economy or the war in Iraq as the top priority; Sen. Clinton, meanwhile, took those who said health-care was the most pressing issue.
One interesting thing is that, in both Ohio and Texas, Sen. Obama won the people who voted in the Democratic primary but identified themselves as Republicans and/or conservatives, which I believe supports his claim that he stands a better chance in the national election, especially against a Republican who is in a position to claim a large number of independents.
But regardless of what I think, it seems that yesterday’s results all but guarantee a brokered convention. If you want to see how fun that can be, you might want to watch The West Wing, Season 6, Episode 22. It’s gonna be a lot more fun than balloons.
7 Comments
“One interesting thing is that, in both Ohio and Texas, Sen. Obama won the people who voted in the Democratic primary but identified themselves as Republicans and/or conservatives, which I believe supports his claim that he stands a better chance in the national election, especially against a Republican who is in a position to claim a large number of independents.”
I object on pure speculation. It does not mean that these people will not vote for Clinton over mcCain just that they prefer Obama.
I wouldn’t say it’s pure speculation. Perhaps “educated speculation” would be a better phrase.
There are some numbers to support it…weakly. For example, in Ohio, roughly 25% of the voters said they would only be satisfied if Sen. Obama was the nominee (44% said they’d be satisfied with either one). 97% of the people who said that voted for Obama (no idea what the other 3% were thinking). There’s a chance that some those voters don’t show up in November, and there’s chance that some of those who do will cast their vote for the “independent minded” John McCain. Remember, 13% of Ohio voters declared themselves Conservative, and 53% of those voted for Obama. It’s easy to imagine at least a few percentage points shifting from Obama to McCain and not from Obama to Clinton.
Speculation? Okay. But we’re talking predictions of what might happen eight months from now, so yeah, there’s gonna be some speculation.
This isn’t a textbook man. It’s a blog. Speculation is half the fun!
I was thinking about this and given the states that Clinton won; New York, New Jersey, California, Ohio, Texas, Massachusetts, and Florida wouldn’t that make her more electable then Obama?
she’s a new york senator so you might as well give her that state… - it just so happens that it’s one of the biggest and most famous of the states… - she doesn’t have the popular vote of the entire country so… - i would say that she hasn’t won anything yet… - but then again… - bush didn’t have the popular vote in 2000 and look what happened…
Not necessarily, Justin.
Comparing the wins in a primary election with the potential wins in a national election isn’t as easy as saying Obama lost Ohio to Clinton, therefore he will lose Ohio to McCain.
Not that this really matter, but for comparison’s sake, look at the popular vote from Ohio:
Let me repeat, the fact that Obama lost to Clinton yet still beat McCain doesn’t prove anything, but it is interesting to think about.
Plus, New York, California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey are pretty much Democratic strongholds, so even if Obama lost in the Dem. primary, it’s a safe bet he’d take those states in November.
What I think the primary results show is that Obama plays better than Clinton in the states that traditionally go Republican: Kansas, the Carolinas, the Rocky mountains, etc. That seems to suggest that he is more electable, that he has more of an ability to win the votes of independents and Republicans than does Clinton.
And that’s why I think the polls show Obama beating McCain by a wider margin than Hillary (the average spread shows Obama beating McCain by 5.2%, while Clinton only wins by 1.7%).
Also…as a side note, you said Clinton won Florida, but that’s only because no one campaigned there, as per the rules of this year’s primary. If Howard Dean has his way and they re-do the Michigan and Florida primaries, I’m not so sure Clinton wins.
In Ohio I am curious if there was a low republican turnout because that race was pretty much in the bag and that would change. For some reason Hispanics hate Obama and will vote for Clinton or McCain. That is why I would give Florida to Clinton in the main election. There are only like 5 states that matter anyway.
I want to see who McCain gets as a running mate before I give Obama the Carolinas and the south in general.
Well, let’s take California then. They have a relatively heavy Hispanic population.
On the popular vote, Obama lost to Clinton by roughly 400,000 votes, but he beat McCain by 800,000 votes. Of course, the Democrats had almost two million more people vote in their primary than voted in the Republican primary, but if we talk percentages of the total votes cast that day, Obama took 27% of the vote while McCain took 15% (of course, Clinton wins with 33.5%).
You’re right about Hispanics though. In California, Latino men made up 13% of the vote and 62% of them voted for Clinton; Latino women made up 16% of the vote and 69% of them voted for Clinton. On the Republican side, Latino’s weren’t broken down by gender, but they made up 13% of the vote, with 33% of them voting for McCain.
Now, more Hispanics voted in the Democratic primary than in the Republican primary. But let’s take a look at the numbers anyway.
McCain’s 13% equals 333,549 votes.
Obama’s 37% of Latino men and 30% of Latino women equals 409,075 votes.
Again, this is all proves nothing, but it’s interesting to look at.