Mississippi Thread
Jeff Alworth
The networks have already called Mississippi for Obama, based solely on exit polls (at 5:30, there are no results to report). You can use this post to comment. Meantime, looking through those exits, here are a few interesting nuggets:
Race was the biggest factor, predictably. If you were a black Mississippian, you voted Obama, if white, Hillary. Obama won 91% of blacks, Hillary 74% of whites. I know very little of the politics of the South, but I find that unsettling.
Republicans made up 11% of the vote, and Hillary won 85% of them. The Limbaugh factor? Maybe so: Independents split roughly evenly.
CNN asked voters of both candidates whether they had a positive or negative opinion of John McCain. Counter-intuitively, Obama voters were more unfavorable (71%) than Clinton voters (29%)--but maybe that's just because Obama voters are Southern blacks who strongly mistrust the GOP.
Weirdly, only 58% of Clinton voters would be "satisfied" if she won the nomination. (Danger!) 84% of Obama's voters would be satisfied if he won.
Full exits here and here. Discuss.
[Update: with 98% reporting, it's Obama 60%-38%. CNN and others are saying the delegate split will be 20-13 for Obama.]
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Mar 11, '08
I'm not sure why it's counter-intuitive that Obama's voters have a more negative opinion of McCain that Hillary's -- she's the one saying McCain would make a better president than Obama!
Sure, Obama and McCain have worked together in the Senate. But he's gone after McCain pretty steadily since super Tuesday while Hillary has spent the last week praising him. Maybe her supporters are picking up on that.
6:03 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
Jeff:
This was what I was talking about some weeks back when I talked about how I wasn't sure how people in the South would handle the two candidates they'd be choosing from being Hillary and Obama. Many people in the South distrust the Clintons. However, unfortunately a good chunk of the white population is racist. So it definitely makes an interesting vote when your choices are a Clinton and an African American (could be why the large white vote for Clinton and the low satisfied rating for her).
I can't wait until abstracts are available for my home county in Texas so I can see how this played out.
I think Edwards might have done better in these southern states than either Hillary or Obama. I wonder what the polls would look like if you added Edwards as Obama's VP and as Hillary's VP. Would either do better in polls of the southern states than they do now?
6:11 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
Race was the biggest factor, predictably. If you were a black Mississippian, you voted Obama, if white, Hillary. Obama won 91% of blacks, Hillary 74% of whites. I know very little of the politics of the South, but I find that unsettling.
From CNN:
I hate to bring up racism as an explanation for any vote, as it's completely unfair to the vast majority of Clinton supporters (aside from Geraldine Ferraro apparently), but the press is certainly hinting at it.
Mar 11, '08
Let's simplify it: most white people, Mississippi or Minnesota, with not much thought or feeling invested in politics, will vote for the white candidate. Here in Jesusland (formerly Alabama), any white male will beat any white female. Any white candidate will probably defeat any non-white candidate. The names, the policies, the records? None of that matters. People will make that gut decision, hold their noses, and pull the lever. In Alabama especially, they're most likely voting against something; someone; the lesser of evils to their minds.
Mar 11, '08
As a Minnesotan, I don't think that's true anymore. Maybe 30 years ago, but not now. Minnesota is much more multicultural than it used to be(though it's not New York or Manchester or Sao Paolo by any means).
7:15 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
Southern politics experts, please enlighten me....if folks vote by race, will the white folks be more aligned to their party that their race? Will they vote for Obama because he's the Democrat or will they vote for McCain because he is white (and oh so white he is)?
7:43 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
Let's simplify it: most white people, Mississippi or Minnesota, with not much thought or feeling invested in politics, will vote for the white candidate.
As a Minnesotan, I don't think that's true anymore. Maybe 30 years ago, but not now. Minnesota is much more multicultural than it used to be(though it's not New York or Manchester or Sao Paolo by any means).
Ditto Bridget. But on a larger scale, I take exception to Jeff's use of the word "most" because I don't think that's accurate. There are racists out there, nobody's denying it, they probably even vote. But you're saying that because I'm white, I should be voting for Clinton? I guess I didn't get the memo, and apparently neither did a lot of other people around the country. If whites weren't willing to vote for Obama, he wouldn't be nearly as successful as he has been.
Mar 11, '08
It's Mississippi, what do you expect folks? It's the least well-educated, poorest state in the country.
8:37 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
Yeah! Don, Yeah! People who don't get a good education, and who are poor, shouldn't even be able to VOTE! For crying out loud, why do we even let them stay here in our country?? Fer chrissakes!
Mar 11, '08
Race was the biggest factor, predictably. If you were a black Mississippian, you voted Obama, if white, Hillary. Obama won 91% of blacks, Hillary 74% of whites. I know very little of the politics of the South, but I find that unsettling.
Mr. Alworth, perhaps you haven't been following exit polls, but it has been like this in pretty much every state so far. Something like 40% of white voters in Ohio said race was an important factor in their decision... that's DEMOCRATIC voters.
When considering who would be a better general election candidate, it is worth bearing this in mind.
Mar 12, '08
Yeah.. states like Iowa, they really voted on race. So I guess Hillary's great drawing point this electoral season, she's running on the George Wallace platform, "I'm not black." Given that Obama is racially white and black, perhaps that means he should get 50/50 in the vote breakdown. According to Peter Bray any candidate who is racially mixed is disqualified because just too many Dems and Americans are racist. Well, Peter, your Hillary Clinton's wedge issue of race is not going to win her the nomination or the general election. And the Clinton legacy is gone down the toilet. The party will repudiate them and she is finished as a national and perhaps even as a state candidate for trying to use the racial wound to win elections. She will be remembered as the George Wallace of the 2008 elections when the story is written. It has not been since George Wallace ran in 1972 that race has consciously and intentionally used as a wedge issue in the Dem. party. It might work in Penn. but it will be rejected by the party as a whole.
And Bill Clinton, he has revealed his true colors, forming an alliance with Rush Limbaugh, appearing on his program. Turns out that 13% of Clinton's voters in Miss. were Rush Limbaugh cross overs. That really impressed a lot of Democrats.
8:55 a.m.
Mar 12, '08
Peter, you're dead wrong. The Deep South has looked far different than Northern states. You're forwardig a common but false talking point from the Clinton campaign (an apparently common practice). Iowa, Virginia, Vermont, Connecticut, Wisconsin, just to name a few--all had large percentages and in a few cases majorities of white voters.
You don't like Obama, I get that from your many comments. But don't spread misinformation.
Mar 12, '08
Well the Dems love to play identity politics so they shouldn't be surprised when the natural result follows. By focusing on gender and race rather than policy they have now created a contest that is mostly about race and gender. They'll both find it hard to get out of the trap they've set for each other.
11:49 a.m.
Mar 12, '08
Southern politics experts, please enlighten me....if folks vote by race, will the white folks be more aligned to their party that their race? Will they vote for Obama because he's the Democrat or will they vote for McCain because he is white (and oh so white he is)?
Kristin:
I don't know. It's going to be interesting to see what happens there. I've seen a mix of this - sometimes they vote for the person who isn't white, but is a Dem. Other times they vote for the white person, who is a Republican. It really seemed to matter how much time was put in, what the candidate's issues are, etc. I think Obama can do well in the Southern states in the general election. I think a lot of those Democrats, even if they are racist, are looking for a change in this country. But that's just my read based on what I've seen, what I've heard back from my own (racist) home town, etc.
Mar 12, '08
Mr. Alworth:
You are dead wrong. Take a look at Obama's hispanic vote in just about any state. Take a look at Obama's white vote in any state with a poorer white majority with a sizable black minority.
If Obama is losing New Jersey, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania in a general, well... he can win Mississippis and North Dakota's until the cows come home, but he will still lose.
Mar 12, '08
Oh, and I like Obama fine. I just think he is a weak candidate that will lose the general election. Clinton is far stronger.
Mar 12, '08
Why do people think that Hillary or Obama will win Florida in a general election?
In the last 8 out of 10 Presidential elections, Florida has voted Republican.
Today, McCain is polled ahead of Obama or Clinton. Either candidate will have a rough time winning in Florida.
I don't understand why so many are assuming that Clinton or Obama will win Florida when all the evidence shows the opposite.
4:27 p.m.
Mar 12, '08
Jeff, I just heard Randi Rhodes report that Bill Clinton won something like 84% of the black vote in 1992. The fact that the vote is splitting on racial lines does not necessarily indicate a problem.
To me it's pretty easy to see how a historically marginalized population would gravitate toward Obama, who has made inclusiveness a hallmark of his campaign. I have to admit, I'm a little less clear why Mississippi women would, as a group, be so strongly in support of Clinton. But I've never lived in the south.
Mar 12, '08
This absurd logic that because Clinton beats Obama in a state that he automatically is weak there. Here's an example, polling out on Penn. where the expectation is that Clinton will do well. One of those few states that actually "count." Note that in the match-up with McCain Obama does better, although they both are behind. So 20 pts is the expectation for Clinton. If that holds, and I don't think it will, it nets her 26 delegates I'm told. Not a dent in the 160 plus pledged delegates.
<hr/>Strategic Vision: Clinton Up in Pennsylvania Political Wire got an advance look at a new Strategic Vision poll in Pennsylvania which shows Sen. Hillary Clinton holding a big lead over Sen. Barack Obama, 56% to 36%.
In a general election match up with Sen. John McCain, McCain leads Clinton, 48% to 42%, and tops Obama, 47% to 44%.
<hr/>On another note Ferraro steps down from the Clinton campaign, uncontrite as ever. Turns out she has a lengthy history of racial attacks. This from Jack Cafferty: And the Dem. Party elders remain ever silent. Such leadership! Such moral forthrightness! Such inspiration to us all!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3fpitO19fk
4:32 p.m.
Mar 12, '08
Peter, no candidate wins every demographic category. But Obama's won a far wider variety of the demographics than Hillary in a wider selection of states. The deep south has a unique racist history and the politics there are different than the rest of the state. But Hillary's not going to win there and neither is Obama, so your point is ... ?
Obama has to improve on Latinos, whom Clinton has so far won. But she was also winning blacks until about January. Things change in the general.
5:13 p.m.
Mar 12, '08
The polls that SurveyUSA has on Obama/McCain and Clinton/McCain show Obama winning or within a 3 point margin of error of McCain in 5 southern states. Hillary wins or is within the margin of error in 3 states.
Obama: Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.
Hillary: Arkansas, Florida, and Tennessee.
I was very excited to see Texas show as a potential Obama win (it's a 46-46 tie). That would be a huge win - the only state with more electoral votes is California (and only 10 less than all of Hillary's potential southern wins put together). Not only that, but it opens up the potential for more wins in Texas this year (such as Cornyn's U.S. Senate seat), plus future wins in the south. It could be part of the Dems taking back parts of the south where it used to win.
11:50 a.m.
Mar 13, '08
Jeff, I wasn't trying so much to make a point of my own, as respond to your statement:
Obama won 91% of blacks, Hillary 74% of whites. I know very little of the politics of the South, but I find that unsettling.
(I see that I made one mistake in responding to it, I thought you said Hillary won 74% of women, not whites.)
Just wanted to suggest that there are perfectly reasonable explanations for the black electorate to gravitate toward one candidate over another, that might not be "unsettling" at all. But, I'm not sure exactly what you found unsettling, so maybe my reply was off the mark?