The Numbers
A Run at the Latest Data from ABC's Poobah of Polling, Gary Langer
Gary Langer is director of polling at ABC News, where he's covered the beat of public opinion for nearly 20 years - conducting and analyzing ABC News polls, evaluating data from other sources and setting the news division's standards for poll reporting. Langer has won two Emmy awards for ABC's reporting of public opinion polls in Iraq, and The Numbers blog was honored this year as winner of the 2008 Iowa Gallup Award for Excellent Journalism Using Polls.
ARCHIVES
SUBJECT INDEX
RECENT POSTS
- Views on the Terror Trials
- Sarah Palin: Rogue for President?
- Chasing Feathers
- Tomorrow's Elections: An Obama Referendum?
- Schwarzenegger's Nastygram: One in 10 Billion?
- Executive Pay? Cut Away
- Pols, Polls and Pushback
- On Nuclear Iran, Diplomacy and Sanctions are Preferred to Hostilities
- Polling, Politics and Nobels
- The War in Afghanistan: Reassessment, Eight Years On
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
PA Primary: What to Watch
April 21, 2008 2:38 PM
Groups to watch – and perhaps not watch - in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary:
EDUCATION - It’s hard see a single factor more compelling than socioeconomic status, particularly as defined by education. It’s split the Democratic electorate nearly all year, and as with her past victories, it’s what Hillary Clinton will be counting on tomorrow.
Across primaries to date Obama’s won college graduates by 52-43 percent, while Clinton’s won less-educated voters by a very similar 52-42. The picture sharpens among whites only (there’s no difference by education among blacks): White college graduates have split 47-47 percent, while those with no college degree have gone 2-1 for Clinton, 60-31 percent.
The proportion of college-to-non-college voters isn’t always critical – Obama cruised among both groups in Wisconsin – but it’s mattered more often than not. Last month, in economically stressed Ohio, less-educated voters were in great supply (just 38 percent of white voters were college graduates, compared with an average of 52 percent across all primaries to date) and that helped Clinton immeasurably: She won less-educated whites by 71-27 percent, while her edge among white college graduates was just 52-45 percent.
TIME OF DECISION and NEGATIVITY – Late deciders have been turning to Clinton recently, but only recently. She’s done better among late deciders than among other voters in 11 contests, including the eight most recent. Going farther back, though, she’s done the same among late deciders in 10 contests, and worse in 10.
The long campaign period, heavy advertising and sharp final arguments in Pennsylvania make late deciders especially worth a look tomorrow. Ditto for views of the tone of the campaign; in primaries to date, 52 percent of Democratic voters have seen Clinton as having attacked Obama unfairly; fewer, 38 percent, have said Obama’s unfairly attacked Clinton. Again the perception – and its relationship to vote preference – may matter.
AGE, SEX and RACE –The divisions by age, sex and race have been impressive all year. Obama’s won voters under 30 by 57-38 percent; Clinton’s won seniors by 58-33 percent. Obama’s won men by 50-42 percent; Clinton, women by 51-43 percent. And Obama’s won blacks by 81-16 percent while Clinton’s won whites by 54-39 percent, and Hispanics by 62-34 percent.
Though we only have previous data for Pennsylvania from 1992 and before, African-Americans have had relatively low turnout in its Democratic primaries, peaking at 17 percent in 1988 and 1984. As with all voters’ age and sex, blacks’ share of the electorate may matter much.
RURAL – Clinton’s had a 51-39 percent advantage over Obama among all rural voters to date, the biggest difference between the two when measured by locale; Obama’s had a scant 49-45 percent edge among small-town voters. Rural voters have accounted for 11 percent of all Democratic primary voters; small-town residents, 6 percent. They may constitute a larger share in Pennsylvania, and they’re of interest given the debate over Obama’s comment about small-town voters focusing on religion and guns. (Gun ownership also will be measured in the Pennsylvania exit poll.)
PARTY ID – Pennsylvania’s primary rules – closed to all but registered Democrats – may work in Clinton’s favor; to date she’s won self-described Democrats by a scant 50-46 percent, while independents have favored Obama by 53-39 percent. Self-identified Republicans, 5 percent of Democratic voters to date, likewise have gone 51-39 percent for Obama. Registration in the state’s at a record high; the exit poll will tell us who turns out in terms of party allegiance.
RELIGION – There’s been some talk in the campaign about Clinton’s support among Catholics, and it’s true that she’s done better among Catholics than among all Protestants – but that’s only because far and away most African-Americans are Protestant. Among whites only the vote to date has been very similar – 59-36 percent for Clinton among white Catholics, 56-37 percent among white Protestants. If Clinton does especially well among white Catholics in Pennsylvania that’ll be worth examining, especially to see if it perhaps masks a socioeconomic effect.
UNION – Union members, or voters from union households, accounted for 34 percent of the turnout in Ohio; it’s been higher only in Michigan, New York and Illinois. But that was down from its level in 2004 (44 percent from union households), and it didn’t much matter: Among whites, Clinton’s support was similar from union members (69 percent), union household members (66 percent) and people from non-union households (62 percent) alike. Whether union membership matters is an open question again in Pennsylvania.
ISSUES and QUALITIES – The economy’s been the No. 1 concern, but without a strong tilt in vote; voters who picked it have divided about closely, 49-46 percent, between Clinton and Obama. Those more concerned about Iraq have favored Obama, 53-42 percent; health care voters have gone to Clinton by a similar margin.
There’s been much more differentiation by personal attributes. Voters who care most about experience have favored Clinton by 90-6 percent in primaries to date. Those focused on a candidate who “cares about people like me” have been very slightly for Clinton; the few who care most about electability have divided evenly. But far and away the single biggest appeal to Democrats has been the candidate who can best bring about “needed change”; a whopping 51 percent have called it the most important quality, and Obama’s won them by 68-28 percent. Tomorrow will tell how well that theme plays in Pennsylvania.
April 21, 2008 in 2008 Primaries | Permalink | User Comments (101)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Vote using your brain. She has all the solutions for us.
Democratic superdelegates wake up, do not divide the party.
Posted by: Rick | Apr 21, 2008 2:43:49 PM
Good, because Obama mocked them. Shame on you Obama.
Posted by: Alfredo | Apr 21, 2008 3:05:42 PM
What a dubious distinction for Hillary. How does it feel to know the more educated the voter, the more likely that they vote for Obama. Ouch!
Posted by: dano | Apr 21, 2008 3:08:52 PM
The propensity of Obama supporters pointing out the demographics of Clinton voters could bite them where it hurts if Obama were to become the nominee.
But that's not likely to happen because we keep learning more and more about voting blocs that he's alienated.
Go Hillary!!!!!
Posted by: s. valenti | Apr 21, 2008 3:17:09 PM
I think we must all be concerned with who will win in November. I doubt that Clinton with her negativity can win against McCain...and we all know we don't want McCain in there...and another questions is will Hillary have enough money to sustain her campaign. Insiders say she is broke...
Posted by: cindyct | Apr 21, 2008 3:17:16 PM
Several Obama sites have urged their supporters to tell exit pollsters that they have college degrees to bulk up their "smart" voter numbers.
While pollsters can see age, sex and race, they don't verify diploma status.
14 million Clinton voters - don't lump the masses into classes.
Posted by: karen | Apr 21, 2008 3:25:59 PM
Axelrod, one of Chicago's most powerful political strategists runs Obama's campaign. Axelrod specialized in electing black candidates who could cross over and win white votes, emphasizing themes of unity and change.
He also worked for Mayor Daley.Daley is a United States politician, member of the national and local Democratic Party and current mayor of Chicago, Illinois. He was elected mayor in 1989 and reelected in 1991, 1995, 1999, 2003, and 2007. His 2007 re-election set him on the path to becoming the longest serving Mayor in the city's history (a record currently held by his father, Richard J. Daley), should he remain in office beyond December 25, 2010.
This guy Daley is corrupt like from top to bottom but still wins election, becoz he gets all the black votes and some cross over white votes.
Daley is what is called the dynasty rulling the corrupt Chicago city. Reminds me of Fidel Castro.
Anybody except OBAMA
Posted by: Rick | Apr 21, 2008 3:40:38 PM
That sounds about right!
Who else would fall for her
Bosnia sniper story or the
Irish peace process story, or the
I was opposed to NAFTA story!
I'm waiting for the I opposed the
Pardons my Husband gave to members
of the weather underground story!
Posted by: reaganfan | Apr 21, 2008 3:42:36 PM
John it helps >>>>>>
Posted by: h | Apr 21, 2008 3:54:05 PM
I wasn't going to vote for her, but I find the title and substance of this article insulting to those that do. I read conflicting stats here as well. On the one hand you say educated people went 52 to 43 for Obama. Then you go on to say educated whites are evenly split and there is no difference among blacks - educated or not - and why even mention race as it has nothing to do with the stats you are citing. So, what you are really saying is that educated people are evenly split and the non college graduates - that includes most of hollywood and half the press - are going more for Clinton. I doubt seriously whether a person's educational level is playing as big a role in how they vote. This article just wants to make Clinton voters appear less educated and thus - less informed. I'm not voting for Hillary, but I don't agree with this type of journalism.
Posted by: Mark | Apr 21, 2008 3:59:40 PM
Clinton on jobs: 1) NAFTA was written under Bush Sr. but Clinton rammed it through congress and Hillary helped promote it. 2) Bush Sr. refused to grant Most Favored Nation trade status to China because of human rights. But Clinton said that human rights were getting in the way of our commercial interests and granted MVN trade status. Clinton gave China entry into the World Trade Org. The result was hundreds of thousands jobs lost in the U.S. and Mexico, 3 times worse than NAFTA. 3) Clinton shifted regulation of technology exports from the State Department to the Commerce department, allowing companies to transfer technology used in nuclear warfare and missiles to China. 4) Hillary supports I.T. and Engineering outsourcing to India, and referred to herself as the Senator from Punjab. She co-founded the Senate India Caucus, and fought to increase the limits on foreign guest workers from 65,000 to 195,000 per year. One organization of IT Professionals presented her with a “WEASEL” award which it presents to politicians who ‘betray the trust of the American people’ because she assured business leaders in that outsourcing would continue and the US WOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO SAVE THE AMERICAN JOBS LOST. 5) John Miano, founder of the Programmers Guild, says it all for us. He was critical of Hillary Clinton and pointed out that it was “just two-faced." "We see [Hillary Clinton] undermining U.S. workers and helping the offshoring business, and then she comes back to the U.S. and says, 'I'm concerned about your pain.' 6) Now she has been caught with her Chief advisor working to pass the Colombia Trade agreement while she publicly opposes it. 7) Glover Park Group, former home to Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson, signed a $40,000 per month contract with the government of Colombia in April of 2007 to promote the Colombia agreement and 6 employees of Glover contributed a total of nearly $20,000 to Clinton’s campaign in 2007.
Posted by: Doug | Apr 21, 2008 4:06:12 PM
Well I guess if she lies to us and we still vote for her, and she out sources our jobs to offshore companies and then tells us she wants to help us, and she wants to start another war or two with her mideast nuclear umbrella scheme and we still vote for her, then I guess it helps to be uneducated. Or maybe it is some other quality that we must have lacking.
Posted by: John | Apr 21, 2008 4:18:02 PM
To Dano,
Want to know why Hillary favors the uneducated ? Well, isn't it obvious?
Those are the folks she can easily run a snow job on.Her strong suit is spinning yarns right off the top of her head, and certain groups that she seeks out, fall for her spin. Go figure.
Posted by: Wannaknow08 | Apr 21, 2008 4:22:21 PM
So, people without a college education aren't as easily fooled? Hmmm, must be the street smarts.
Posted by: Sandra | Apr 21, 2008 4:34:05 PM
So, people without a college education aren't as easily fooled? Hmmm, must be the street smarts.
Posted by: Sandra | Apr 21, 2008 4:34:07 PM
Obama clings to guns and religion...
Go Hillary!!!
Posted by: eagle | Apr 21, 2008 4:39:13 PM
To all the women voters:
I am left with nothing but disappointment with the way Hillary Clinton is running this campaign. I can't believe, as a woman, that she did not reject her own husband when he brought shame and disgrace to her and her daughter , yet expected Senator Obama to reject his pastor. I was leaning toward her for President but when I see how she deceives the American people with her embellishments and untruths, I have to take a second look at her. I see now that Senator Obama seems to be held in higher esteem and appears to be more up front with
the people.
Posted by: Wannaknow08 | Apr 21, 2008 4:42:16 PM
While all these "distinctions" are an interesting read, has anyone here - pollster or blogger stopped to think how many of these categories he/she belongs to???
I am white
female
over 65
college education
small business owner
non-active Christian
resident of small city (40,000)
married
parent
grandparent
married to foreign national/bilingual/kids dual nationals
and could probably find other ways to distinguish myself.
Now, where am I in the above article? Where are the rest of you? The slice and dice of the pollsters has truly added to the "pollarization" of this election rather than diminish it.
Posted by: Sara | Apr 21, 2008 4:44:01 PM
What is it that the Affluent Whites want from Obama, more tax breaks, more Oil money to line their pockets??
Poor and less educated want a good life for their kids; healthcare, education, a safe and clean environment. GO HILLARY . Clinton IS the PRESIDENT for ALL PEOPLE!!!
Posted by: DANENM | Apr 21, 2008 4:48:20 PM
Well, while those so-called educated voters with college degrees are expressing their wisdom and level of education by supporting a presidential candidate based on "HOPE for Change," I feel very fortunate that there are still voters in PA and small towns who are wise enough to know that a leader of this country cannot be elected based on "Hope for Change" and "Charisma."
These voters may not have the so-called diplomas to brag about, but they certainly know what they need and what they want.
Happy Voting tomorrow!
Posted by: Crystal Coy | Apr 21, 2008 4:53:37 PM
Post a comment
