The Numbers

Wow. Generally speaking, the more educated people are going for Obama. Hmmmm.... how very interesting. This is nothing surprising to Obama supporters! Hahaha... just kidding!!! C'mon people... Hillary isn't resident evil, just not my choice. Overall, they (Clinton/Obama) have the same thought process and ideas, just differ on how to go about it/specifics. No matter who gets the nomination, many people are going to have to make a choice... vote for the person you have been trashing for a year... or not. Don't brainwash yourselves against the other one, whatever your choice. Keep an open mind.

I make over 200,000 per year and am also a peace activist, so I guess I don't fit in a mold.

Many white men -- closet sexists -- don't support Hillary the major reason is that she is a bitch (a female dog).

Fortunately many white men are glad women got the vote, and may sport the equal rights amendment which has never been able to pass. I bet those same "closet sexists" are also "closet racists" but Obama is half white, and at least is not a woman.

This is not a slam agaist white men -- I am neither a sexist or racist -- but I am mature enough to know, you can make a crown move like lemmings but experience does count.

There is no way the Jr. Senator can win agaist Mccain.

You Can Learn A Lot By Supporting A Little Known Candidate.
I am an Alan Keyes supporter.  In my quest to get Alan's message out, the biggest obstacle is the polls.  The media looks at the polls to decide who gets the most attention. (I would think reporting standards would require more research during presidential elections) The national debate sponsors look at the polls to decide who to invite to their debate.  Organizations that give voting recommendations on their websites rely on the polls to decide who to mention.  Even some state's GOP's rely on them to decide who to put on their "suggested ballot" for their caucus! (Isn't that against election laws?). 
 So I investigated the source of these polls and what I discovered was disheartening to say the least:  The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press;
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Assoc. Intl.; Diago Hotline Poll; Research 2000 Iowa Poll; ABC News/Washington Post Poll; and Bloomberg/LA Times National Poll;
All pose the question: "If your primary/caucus were today which of the following candidates would you vote for?" They then read a list that does not include Alan Keyes, so he couldn't possibly register in the polls.  I read how the polling industry's purpose is to assist campaigners in developing their campaign strategies.  So I wonder how polls have come to have such influence in our election process.
This research took some time so I have abandoned it, with the conclusion that there are probably many more polls that exclude Dr. Keyes.  So rather than argue with the media & debate sponsors on how biased the polls they rely on are, I will ignore them and hope every rational American will do the same.  I did my own homework on the candidates and Alan Keyes is the best candidate we have for President.  His campaign is strictly grassroots which requires all citizens to get involved to be successful.  He continues in the race hoping to move as many citizen's as possible out of complacency to take their government. back. Please check him out at: www.alankeyes.com, and after doing your homework, join us to take back our government.
I believe every presidential candidate deserves the same treatment.  It is up to us to decide who to vote for.  Win or lose the learning experience I'm getting from supporting him is worth the effort.
We could take the easy way out and say it’s useless to even try to get our voice back. But what have we got to lose by trying? If everyone votes for the best candidate he will be elected. If everyone continues to raise their voice, we will be heard.

These stats are amazing! Good job. They really help tell the story so far. Two sets of stats you could have added were the percentage of these demographics in the voting population, and the percentages that actually came out to vote. So how do we interpret these stats? Does it mean that issues don't really matter in this nomination process? Or does it mean that the fight between the candidates is who can fire up their base more and thus get them out to vote?

Astonished - I hear what you're saying, but I think it's easy to over-accentuate the racism and sexism. Sure, they're there. In fact, I would contend that even you have some in you. I fight mine for all I'm worth, but I would be a fool to deny that I ever treat any two people subtly differently solely based on my unconscious perception of their race or gender.

At any rate, I don't think it's fair to write-off opposition to her candidacy as sexism. In fact, I think that's a rather sexist approach. I've got a lot of other reasons. I

The stats presented here don't appear to explain why Obama leads Clinton in national polls.

Amazing numbers Gary, thanks.

It goes to show that the less educated know the difference between the Steak and the Sizzle...
Because they're the ones most hungry.
The ones neglected these last 8-year and the ones who's numbers are growing from the middle class.

If Obamas support comes mostly from college educated voters and considering that less educated and poor voters will vote in numbers in the G.E he may have a tougher time than he thinks.

Does SES represent different interest groups in the Democratic electorate or is it instead a correlate of political information? Hillary Clinton has experienced a great deal of support from lower-income whites and older voters. Is this because she better represents these groups interests or because of her public visibility in the 1990s?

Lower-income voters tend to have less political information, so it is possible that these voters are not updating their preferences on the basis of information in the primaries as quickly as better informed voters, who also tend to be richer and better educated. Similarly, older voters may have stronger and more informative prior beliefs about the Clintons formed in the 1990s, especially in the early, pre-Monica days of the Clinton White House. Similarly, one would expect these voters to require an additional amount of political information to be persuaded to a new, less-familiar candidate.

By any standard, this has been a high-information primary election, which does shed some doubt on these two hypotheses. However, if someone -- like the ABC News poll -- would include a battery of political information / current events questions in their surveys, we could address these competing theories by running statistical simulations to estimate the outcome if the electorate were fully informed.

For more info on simulations to estimate the impact of political information, see Bartels, Larry. "Uninformed Votes: Information Effects in Presidential Elections." American Journal of Political Science 40:1 (February 1996), 194-230.

Any ideas as to why Clinton appeals to the lower educated/lower income? What notions are behind this trend?

Using non-college to college graduates solely may not give you an idea of who can win a general election.

In 2000, 58% of the voters were college educates and Bush won splitting with Al Gore the non-college and college graduates almost 50-50..

In 2004, 58% of the voters were non-college graduates and Bush won with 53% of the college graduates splitting the non-college graduates 50-50 with Kerry.

Defining the voters by college education may be a non-issue like the last 3 elections (1996, 2000 and 2004) with both, Democrat and Republican splitting those voters 50-50.

I assume that some policies like the expiration of the Bush Tax cuts in 2010 may drive voters with college education and high salaries to vote Republican and away from any democratic candidate, Clinton or Obama.

Correction: In 2004, 58% of the voters were non-college graduates and Bush won with 53% of the non-college graduates splitting the college graduates 50-50 with Kerry.

Comparing the data with the Gallup Poll data using White Democrats by Church Attendance

1) 25% of all White Democrats attend church weekly:

Hillary Clinton with 57% and Obama with 29%

2) 57% of all White Democrats seldom or never attend church

Hillary Clinton with 47% and Obama with 43%

3) White Democrat men seldom or never attend church

Hillary Clinton with 39% and Obama with 52%

Considering other issues, Hillary Clinton camp may focus in voters noncollege graduates / attending church.

With the poll numbers as they now are and with both the delegate and popular
votes with the Democrats being what it is, Senator Clinton can only strengthen
McCain's position by continuing to be
petty and mean spirited in her attacks on Senator Obama.

She represents a large democratic constituancy and has every right to continue to wage her campain through
March 4 but she is turning so negative at this point that I can only think that
personal ambition is her motive. Not
the welfare of Americans as she is laying the groundwork for Senator McCain
who is going to continue the Bush/Cheeney, mostly disastrous, plan
for the welfare of America.

Senator Clinton needs to play positive
or step aside.

Another interesting statistic in the Pennsylvania primary is that 60% of those earning over $200,000 voted for Obama who is supposedly the more liberal of the two. Do they know something about Obama that the rest of us don't? Is he really going to put
an end to the economic disparities in America or is that just Obama hype again?

Another " little " disparity in the statistics. 81% of those who are African American and college graduates are voting for Obama and 78% of non college educated African Americans are voting for Obama.

In a political primary in which both candidates have
positions on the issues which are almost exactly
the same and college educated whites are almost
an even split between them and the non-college educated whites are voting 59% Clinton and 29%
Obama which race is primarily voting on the basis of race?