The Wisconsin primary results suggest an erosion in the Clinton coalition hinted at in the Potomac primaries. The talking heads on cable TV broke down the various blocs from the exit poll data, but a few key measures tell the tale.
The general pattern since New Hampshire, as laid out by Jay Cost earlier this month, was this:
We have found that both candidates are putting together diverse voting coalitions that differ according to region. There is evidence that Obama wins Independents, African Americans, white males in the North, “upscale” white voters, and white voters in homogeneously white states. He also seems to do well in caucus states where enthusiasm is a factor. There is evidence that Clinton wins Democrats, Hispanics, white females everywhere, white males in the South, “downscale” white voters, Catholics, and white voters in heterogeneous states. She seems to do better in a state the more attention is paid to it.
Analyzing the Potomac primaries, Cost wrote:
Again, these considerations assume stable voting coalitions, and therefore an absence of momentum. This assumption might not hold. If it does not, what we will see is Clinton start to lose portions of her strongholds, or Obama consolidating support in his. Unfortunately, the exit polls in Virginia and Maryland do not provide much of a clue about whether momentum is coming into play. Obama’s best groups are heavily represented in both states – and the exit polls do not really dig deep enough into voter demography to offer a clear answer as to whether Clinton is hemorrhaging parts of her core constituency. For instance, the exit poll shows Obama winning white men in Virginia by 14% and Clinton winning white women by 9%. The white gender gap remains, but it favors Clinton less. In Maryland, the story is the same. White men break more heavily to Obama than they have in the past; white women break less heavily to Clinton. Is this simply a function of wealthy voters, male and female alike, going for Obama? Amazingly, 39% of Virginia Democrats and 41% of Maryland Democrats reported incomes of $100,000 or more – this plays to a major strength of Obama. If income is causing these changes in the gender gap, it is hard to see momentum as a factor. If it is something other than income, Obama might indeed be benefiting from momentum. (Emphases added.)
Wisconsin is a northern state with a relatively small black vote, and not as affluent as Virginia and Maryland. These factors would suggest a gender gap type of race.
The exit poll data shows that Wisconsin was in fact a gender gap race — in favor of Obama. They split the womens’ vote, while Obama won men 67-31%. Given the state’s demographics, this also means he won white men 63-34%, while Clinton won white women 52-47%. Compared to Virginia, Obama increased his margin with white men from 14% to 29%, while Clinton’s margin with white women shrunk from 9% to 5%.
These results suggest that the results in the Potomac primaries were probably not the function of income, but the beginning of the erosion of Clinton’s coalition.
The same dynamic shows up in the latest Survey USA poll from Ohio, where Clinton’s lead has shrunk by half:
Interactive Tracking Graphs Show Obama Closing: SurveyUSA’s interactive tracking graphs, a SurveyUSA exclusive, show Obama gaining significant ground among men. One week ago, Clinton and Obama were tied among men. Today, Obama is up 16 points. One week ago, Clinton led by 9 among voters under age 50. Today, Obama is up by 2 points. (Emphasis added.)
While Clinton still leads in this poll, men swung decisively to Obama as they did at the polls in Wisconsin, without foreknowledge of the results in Wisconsin. Obama’s string of victories following Super-Duper Tuesday may have settled in with men in these states.
In Ohio, Clinton currently holds a lead of 28 points among women, and 21 points among whites. Whether she can retain those leads is an open question. More important, the current erosion of her lead in Ohio makes it more difficult for her to catch up to Obama in the delegate count.
Another way to look at Wisconsin is to note that Clinton’s exit poll numbers do not look strikingly different from her numbers in New Hampshire. The difference between then and now is that now she has only one rival.
At the beginning of the year, before the New Hampshire primary, I wrote:
The central dynamic of the Democratic presidential nomination has been known for years. It is a referendum on Sen. Hillary Clinton. It is a race between Clinton and NotClinton. Thus, the only real issue in the campaign would be whether NotClinton could reach critical mass to defeat Clinton.
On that issue, whether one examines the polls from the early primary and caucus states, or the candidates’ third quarter financial statements, the likely answer is fairly obvious. Though Obama has raised enough money to continue in the process for some time to come, Edwards takes enough of the NotClinton vote and NotClinton money that NotClinton is unlikely to defeat Clinton.
The unlikely happened. Sen. Barack Obama has proven to be a thoroughbred candidate who was able to marginalize the Silky Pony before Clinton could reach critical mass. Obama has become NotClinton (ironically looking like the reincarnation of Clinton ’92). He now appears to be gaining momentum, eroding Clinton’s standard coalition. A straight-line projection makes Obama more likely to achieve critical mass against Clinton.
Straight-line projections, however, are always a bit risky in politics. The media scrutiny Obama is beginning to receive could slow his momentum as the information settles in with voters. The Clinton campaign could find an effective avenue of attack against Obama, though the campaign’s performance to date suggests that is more likely to occur by accident than design. Some external event in the world or the domestic economy could make voters more risk-averse. But the nature of Obama’s win in Wisconsin, echoed in the new Ohio poll, suggests Clinton’s window of opportunity is closing faster than previously thought.
Very nice summery, eh?
Now to decide if my coffee is black or not. If not, always with real cream.
you got it, n/C!
It’s not summery here, datadave.
Heh. NOW it’s going to get UGLY.
Let’s go out to the lobby.
I like my coffee like Ray Nagin likes New Orleans.
Karl – is the exit poll data in Wisconsin proving accurate? That seems to be an important question and whether a weighting factor has to added in order to get an useful read from the data.
#3 Dan: Wet and with a strong odor?
Let’s go out to the lobby!
Let’s go out to the lobby!
Let’s go out to the lobby,
And get ourselves a snack!
cute. it’s actually cold today.
vernal is more like it….yupp. Hope springs eternal.
Actually cold? It’s 4 degrees w/o counting wind chill here. Fifteen degrees below normal, all month, so far. I think a polar bear just wandered-by.
Has Al Gore been to Michigan lately? I don’t know what else could account for this wintery weather.
I’ve seen Democrats spewing “1,080,298 – Democratic votes 394,074 – Republican votes…GAME OVER for the GOP”
Is there a stat for Republicans who crossed over, with stakes?
Mostly chocolate?
I’ve seen Democrats spewing “1,080,298 – Democratic votes 394,074 – Republican votes…GAME OVER for the GOPâ€Â
[Spongbob Squarepants imitation]”Good Luck with that!”[imitation off]
Obama is notClinton but what’s moving the dial I think is there-will-be-riots-if-he-loses. I just keep hearing that from a lot of Democrat people what are really hard to imagine rioting. But of course they mean them.
Heh, Mikey. I would have entitled it BeyONd Wisconsin. Which is why people respect Karl more than they do me.
Ohio here. 15 deg F. Still thinking about pulling the lever for “Ready on Day One!” since Johnny Mac’s got it knocked. I can saunter in and grab a Dem slip and try to destroy the Democratic Party on black Tuesday. Who’s with me?
But that’s not the right stake!
(Unless you expect the Happyfeet effect…)
Well it’s more the bougy Dems I talk to effect. But thing is also, they say it like a threat – it’s kind of creepy – but also I get that having said it they’d really like to be vindicated on that point if he does indeed lose. Right and proper they think it would be.
I’d just like to see Mrs. Clinton completely out of the picture by the General.
Then, we can concentrate on Maverick vs. Messiah.
I’ve some contemplations in mind already…
(h/t SondraK)
serr8d,
Between 1960 and 2004, the Democrats have always had a numerically superior voter turn out for the Primaries.
In honor of Dan’s Wisconsin Wideass post from last night:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-D99n9f3vU4
Did anyone listen to Hillary’s speech? My ears are still bleeding from that voice. I honestly believe that explains part of her decline among male voters. Shrill, fake, and annoying is no way to go through life.
Barack Obama (D)Illinois Senator 6/5
John McCain (R)Arizona Senator 7/5
Hillary Clinton(D)New York Senator 8/5
Mike Huckabee(R)Former Arkansas Governor 100/1
Ron Paul is not considered even in the running…but he’s winning the yard sign contest here in the NE (seems like)
That was Feb.14 here
I’d bet on McCain, hate to say it. Vernally, then Summery, then Autumally it’s going to be hard for either C or O to keep the momentum. And there is always the 500,000,000 that Freedom Watch claims they’re going to have to “swift-boat” either Dem. I am only sharing this with u’all…as I don’t won’t to be the usual party spoiler with folks actually near to me….o. I luv u 2.
http://www.aspiresite.com/americasline/newsite/PresidentialOdds2008.asp
Still thinking about pulling the lever for “Ready on Day One!â€Â
I did my part here in VA, not that it ended up mattering. Just prepare yourself for the nausea that follows once you realize what you’ve done. My advice is to get drunk after. That way there is less in your stomach when it will count.
I think the game is either up or almost up. The desire of the have-less to vote themselves the possessions of the have more, will in the end trump liberal Democracy. Maybe this election turns out relatively OK, but with the constant decline of the public’s capacity to make wise decisions and the
constantly decreasing cultural restraints on Media partisanship, it’s only a matter of time before
‘equality’ for all becomes government policy. Many thinkers have pointed out the inherent dangers
of law by majority vote (mobb-rule), and for the past 200 and someodd years we have been mostly able to dismiss their misgivings, but in the end, I believe, they will prove correct, and liberal democracy will be decided to have been as impractical as it has been wonderful.
The only saving feature is the Bill of Rights, but as those rights are perforce qualified (can’t
yell fire in a crowded theater) and those qualifications are continually defined by judges
who are (indirectly) popularly elected it is only a matter of time (maybe a long time) before those qualifications come to completely reflect the wishes of the majority of the ‘modern’ populace.
In Robert Heinlen’s ‘The moon is a hard mistress’ a successful revolution is lead by a wise proffesor self described as a ‘rational anarchist’ and dedicated, almost absurdly, to individual liberty. After the dust settles, an influential inner party member seeks to nominate the professor Monarch, explaining himself saying how he is a ‘Monarchist’ because he is a (real) Liberal. The proffesor decined, but the Monarchist had a point.
We had better hope for the real Messiah. Oh, and hold on to your guns.
[…] it looked to me like the Wisconsin primary results confirmed an erosion in the Clinton coalition starting with the […]