Does Obama Have a "White" Problem?

[Brainster]

Al Giordano says no:

I turn on the TV, read the political columnists (and a significant number of analytically-challenged bloggers, too) and all I hear is a bunch of white folk prattling on about their favorite narrative: "Obama's losing white voters!"

They've swallowed the Clinton racially-obsessed spin, hook, line and sinker. Some, because they are gullible, haven't an original idea in their little pea brains, and follow the pack of what everybody else is talking about. Others, because they like to toss around knowing falsehoods.

A little bombastic there. Giordano cites this article which says:

The question is this: Have white Democrats soured on Obama? Apparently not. Although his unfavorable rating from the group is up five percentage points since last summer in polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News, his favorable rating is up just as much.

On the other hand, black Democrats’ opinion of Hillary Clinton has deteriorated substantially (her favorable rating among them is down 36 percentage points over the same period).

Of course, favorable ratings are only useful to the extent that people actually follow through and vote for the candidate. According to CNN's exit polling (admittedly inexact), here are the percentage of white voters voting for Barack Obama in the last several primaries:

Pennsylvania: 37%
Mississippi: 28.5%
Ohio: 31.8%
Texas: 41%
Rhode Island: 34%
Vermont: 59%

Compare those numbers to his results in February:
Wisconsin: 54%
Virginia: 50.4%
California: 45%

I've ignored the caucus states and Hawaii, New York and Illinois, states where there is an obvious home field advantage for one candidate or the other. In February, Obama was competitive against Hillary for the White vote, but since then (with the notable exception of Vermont) he has struggled to break 40%.

One oddball thing I noted: Obama does better with White independents than he does with White Democrats.

Note: I am not making any claims about why White voters seem to be turning away from Obama. Voting for a presidential candidate is a complex process. I don't know if a candidate getting less than 40% of the White vote in the Democratic primaries means that candidate can't win in the general election. Certainly the independent twist is interesting; one must assume that White Democrats are more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate than White independents, right? So perhaps the fact that White Democrats are turning away from Obama is not as bad as it might sound.

Thoughts?

 

[BenBurch]

So what if he does? He will get out to the polls people who NEVER vote. More than makes up for the fact that "crackers" will never vote for him. In fact, I don't want a candidate who has to depend on the "cracker" vote to win.

 

[T.A.M.]

I think he has a problem with older white people, mainly women in that demographic. To comment as to why would be baseless conjecture, so will leave that to those who like to do so.

TAM

 

[chipmunk stew]

Thoughts?

In the end, the only numbers that matter are the net votes. Slicing up the country by demographics and trying to extrapolate the trends to the general election based on punditricious psychoanalysis is a meaningless exercise, IMO.

As an example, if you just look at white men, Obama's numbers come much closer to Clinton's. So maybe Clinton has a "Black" problem, while Obama has a "Woman" problem. Or, more likely, Obama has a "Black" bonus, while Clinton has a "Woman" bonus.

It's impossible to tell who these voters would go for in a general election match-up.


Edit:
White men who voted for Barack (and increase over total white vote),
based on CNN exit poll numbers:
Pennsylvania: 43% (+6)
Mississippi: 30% (+4)
Ohio: 39% (+5)
Texas: 49% (+5)
Rhode Island: 47% (+10)
Vermont: 64% (+4)
Wisconsin: 63% (+9)
Virginia: 58% (+6)
California: 55% (+10)

 

[Brainster]

So what if he does? He will get out to the polls people who NEVER vote. More than makes up for the fact that "crackers" will never vote for him. In fact, I don't want a candidate who has to depend on the "cracker" vote to win.

As for those people who never vote, there's a word for candidates who claim to be depending on them: Losers. Yes, it's Carville's definition.

Obama got 34% in Rhode Island, and I'm sorry, there are no "crackers" in Rhode Island.

 

[Gurdur]

.... To comment as to why would be baseless conjecture, so will leave that to those who like to do so.

Why do you hate bulletin boards and America?

 

[BenBurch]

As for those people who never vote, there's a word for candidates who claim to be depending on them: Losers. Yes, it's Carville's definition.

Obama got 34% in Rhode Island, and I'm sorry, there are no "crackers" in Rhode Island.

Then you haven't lived there...

 

[chipmunk stew]

As for those people who never vote, there's a word for candidates who claim to be depending on them: Losers. Yes, it's Carville's definition.

Obama got 34% in Rhode Island, and I'm sorry, there are no "crackers" in Rhode Island.

CNN's exit poll put it at 37%, but at 47% if you look at white MEN only.

 

[Brainster]

In the end, the only numbers that matter are the net votes. Slicing up the country by demographics and trying to extrapolate the trends to the general election based on punditricious psychoanalysis is a meaningless exercise, IMO.

As an example, if you just look at white men, Obama's numbers come much closer to Clinton's. So maybe Clinton has a "Black" problem, while Obama has a "Woman" problem. Or, more likely, Obama has a "Black" bonus, while Clinton has a "Woman" bonus.

It's impossible to tell who these voters would go for in a general election match-up.


Edit:
White men who voted for Barack (and increase over total white vote),
based on CNN exit poll numbers:
Pennsylvania: 43% (+6)
Mississippi: 30% (+4)
Ohio: 39% (+5)
Texas: 49% (+5)
Rhode Island: 47% (+10)
Vermont: 64% (+4)
Wisconsin: 63% (+9)
Virginia: 58% (+6)
California: 55% (+10)

Same trendline, just starting from a different level. Obama winning white males by pretty good margins in the earlier primaries, Obama losing white males by pretty good margins after March.

 

[Brainster]

CNN's exit poll put it at 37%, but at 47% if you look at white MEN only.

I didn't have the crosstabs and estimated the totals based on the exit poll here. As you can see, they don't show the totals for the 9% of voters who were 18-29, so I left them out. And that's almost certainly why my % for Obama is down there, because he does get a disproportionate share from that cohort.

 

[kallsop]

Yes. Bitter white gun nut religious kooks are falling off the bandwagon:

Obama appeal to working-class whites faltering

 

[President Bush]

Yes. Bitter white gun nut religious kooks are falling off the bandwagon:

Obama appeal to working-class whites faltering

Living in terror of making decisions on your own has nothing to do with skin color.

 

[Brainster]

Here's a relevant article to the discussion:

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama’s difficulties connecting with working-class whites have become more consequential as the race moved to key electoral battlegrounds in populous states with mixed populations. While he edged Mrs. Clinton in the popular vote in the 22 states that voted on Feb. 5, exit polls showed he lost among white voters by 52 percent to 43 percent; that margin widened a month later in Ohio.

But the article does bring up another factor:

Yet others suggest the split within the party is less a matter of race than of economics. Support for Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton has been divided by income as well as race; Mr. Obama has attracted the same sort of affluent voters who backed Gary Hart in 1984, while she has dominated the blue-collar whites who, along with blacks in that campaign, delivered that year’s nomination to Walter Mondale. This has made Mr. Obama vulnerable to charges of elitism, as did his comments about “bitter” small-town voters. “He’s been pulled into a demographic corner, not a racial corner,” said Tad Devine, a top strategist for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.

That does seem to be true to a certain degree. And it's well-established that Obama has an older voter problem as well, offset by his strength among younger voters.

 

[T.A.M.]

What will be most interesting, will be to return here in November, after the election, and compare the comments about all of Obama's "problems", to what actually transpired.

TAM

 

[chipmunk stew]

Here's a relevant article to the discussion:



But the article does bring up another factor:



That does seem to be true to a certain degree. And it's well-established that Obama has an older voter problem as well, offset by his strength among younger voters.

These analyses discount the possibility that these demographics are more a strength for Clinton than a weakness for Obama.

A lot of people have fond memories of the Clinton years and are betting that the Clintons can magically restore the economic landscape of the '90s. A comment you'll hear quite often when people are explaining why they support Hillary, and is usually thrown out at the end of a list, as though it was an afterthought, goes something like this: "And besides, she'll have Bill with her."

 

[Sefarst]

If Obama had a "white problem" he wouldn't have been able to get as far as he has. This is nothing more than "such-and-such a poll had Barack Obama at a 34% approval rating among white, female, bilingual, hamster enthusiasts but recent polls suggest he might be slipping down to only a 32% approval rating in this key demographic." You can see this pointless hysteria over percentage points in the Poll of Polls that some news organizations use. Four or five polls are taken measuring the same demographic, all come out with different number and so they are averaged. Why so much significance is put on these is beyond me when every poll comes out differently. If there's one thing this election season should have taught us is that polls try to shape public opinion just as much as they try to measure it and usually fail on both counts.

 

[Just thinking]

So what if he does? He will get out to the polls people who NEVER vote.

I keep hearing that about Obama, and I'm wondering if it's something of an urban legend --- after all, isn't Hilary getting out just as many, if not more, to vote for her (please count Florida and Michigan --- after all, they did vote, even if they eventually don't count)?

 

[Brainster]

These analyses discount the possibility that these demographics are more a strength for Clinton than a weakness for Obama.

A lot of people have fond memories of the Clinton years and are betting that the Clintons can magically restore the economic landscape of the '90s. A comment you'll hear quite often when people are explaining why they support Hillary, and is usually thrown out at the end of a list, as though it was an afterthought, goes something like this: "And besides, she'll have Bill with her."

Excellent comments. Determining whether this is "figure or ground" is of course difficult, but Hillary didn't crush Obama among White voters early on.

You're dead on the money as to why Hillary is doing better among older voters, though.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Excellent comments. Determining whether this is "figure or ground" is of course difficult, but Hillary didn't crush Obama among White voters early on.

That's true. She has been hitting the populist theme pretty hard, though, and she's made a deliberate effort in recent weeks to pump up her testosterone quotient.

There's little doubt the Wright media blitz had an impact among whites, but there's an interesting set of polls just released that suggest the impact is limited, and that Obama has already rebounded somewhat from it. And the impact was most pronounced among voters who were unlikely to vote for Obama in the general anyway:

A large number of voters - three-quarters - say that what Wright has said has not changed their opinion of Obama. However, Wright has caused 24 percent to change their view, with 22 percent saying their view of Obama is less favorable. Republicans are more likely than Democrats or Independents to describe the Wright impact negatively.
...
When voters are asked about their support for Obama as a candidate, the impact of the Wright situation is again negative -- but limited. Seventy-three percent say say it has not changed their likelihood of voting for him, 18 percent say it makes it less likely and six percent say it makes them more likely. As with personal views of Obama, it is Republicans most likely to report a negative impact.

Most voters also say they do not expect Wright’s impact to linger in their own minds. Only about one in ten say this will affect their November vote a lot, with 73 percent saying it will not affect them at all. The impact appears strongest, however, among Republicans, who are least likely to vote for any Democrat.

You're dead on the money as to why Hillary is doing better among older voters, though.

 

[dudalb]

If people think Obama can win without getting the Blue Collar White vote in the Key States, they are living in a fantasy land.
What disturbs me is the terms of contempt like "Cracker" being used here. It really seems to prove every accusation that a lot of Liberals have a basic contempt for "Fly Over Country".