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
- In Afghanistan Decision, Risks Abound
- 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
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.
I dislike Obama intensely because when it suits him he swings from a scoundrel to a saint so effortlessly. This whole race issue is a perfect illustration of it.
The race row really started when Bill Clinton called Obama's Iraq stand a "fairy tale". Apparently this phrase "fairy tale" is racist in any context. Where was Obama's high flown pedantry when Bill was being cruelly turned into a racist over this?
Hillary tried to say that activists (such as MLK) require Presidents/legislators (LBJ) to convert policies into law. According to Obama this statement is tinged with racism. Where was Obama's contextualizing and preaching for forbearance then?
Another one of his spiritual advisors from Harvard writes an op-ed saying the 3am ad is racist! For the first time in my life I saw even Obama supporters uncomfortably shrugging off that claim. Did we hear anything from Obama? Any post-racial calls?
Geraldine Ferraro at worst was crudely trying to say that Obama wouldn't have come this far in the race without 80-90% of the African-American vote. Perhaps an imprudent statement but it was made in a paid speech in an insignificant forum and would hardly have been noticed if Obama's camp had not pushed it. She was merely one of Hillary's hilariously big finance team. Where was Obama's mature outlook towards race then? What was especially galling was Obama, in his dysfunctional union speech, trying to equate Wright's hateful, anti-American speech with Ferraro's remarks! Whoa! This guy is positively reptilian. I mean, chameleons have more consistency than this multi-faceted slickster. To compare the hate speech of a mentor/spiritual advisor of 20 years with mildly insensitive remarks of a woman tangentially connected to Hillary's campaign is really something. And he wanted Ferraro to resign straight-away. He came with hatchets at her. Look at the cold-blooded nature of people like David Axelrod who sought and got Ferraro's support several times in the past for minority candidates and is known to be her friend. No benefit of doubt for a friend. No respect for a former democratic vice-presidential nominee.
That Obama's candidacy has been sustained by "we know what is good for you" attitude of mainstream press. That such intellectuals should be so naive is what is galls me. Did they really think a person who ginned up a real estate deal with a top-notch crook to add a 10 square foot of land to a $1.5 million dollar home is of any remarkable probity? How ding-dong in the head do you have to be to expect that such a person wouldn't be upto all sorts of other crookery?
And, of course, so it has been the last few weeks. All kinds of crookery. He relentlessly beats up Hillary for being supportive of NAFTA while his top economic aide comforts Canada - ah, don't worry, it's all campaign rhetoric. Approaching Iowa, he viciously beats up Hillary for not having a firm Iraq withdrawal date, for suggesting that such a date is hard to predict not knowing what she would inherit as president. Meanwhile, his top foreign-policy aide tells another ally that Obama wouldn't be relying on some withdrawal plan he has for the campaign trail!
I mean, in terms of crookery, Nixon, Rezko, Norman Hsu have nothing on this guy.
What is truly remarkable is the incapacity of those stupid "latte liberals" to get down from their Ivory Tower of wine and pastries and take some responsibility here. It is time, poets and star-gazers, to put aside sentimentalizing, and give us a hand as we throw this guy overboard. There is a policy on this ship, folks. No rats allowed. Put Hillary down, she's not the one and give us a hand over here.
Posted by: Har | Apr 21, 2008 4:55:26 PM
Cynics always moving that imaginary bar to satisfy the incessant cynicism that never stops. Answer this, tell me that, what about this, oh, what about your bowling score. You can't possibly be CINC with a bowling score like that!!!!
Cynics are funny aren't they??
First he had no chance of winning, now he won't go to the White House.
Memo to brain. One doesnt' come this far with the support and backing via grassroots mobilization from the American people without being victorious. It's not just Obama, it's the American people.
Mad at us too?? Get over it.
OBAMA POTUS
Posted by: Nat Turner | Apr 21, 2008 4:57:02 PM
All words of truth.
Hurts huh, UM?
Posted by: Nat Turner | Apr 21, 2008 5:00:42 PM
Hey, do you see how massively negative Obama has gotten over the last week. He has thrown about $3 million worth of slime - ads/robocalls/fliers at Hillary. What a scumbag he is, folks. New Obama campaign slogan:
BITTERNESS YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!
Posted by: Umbria | Apr 21, 2008 5:01:11 PM
Still can't get over Obama's unguarded reflection on Middle American economic anxiety: "It's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
First, religion is a cultural value not a disease of the poor. Second, It is not usual for people who belong to small-time America to suffer from bigotry. Third, if anti-trade sentiment is, for those who are suffering, only a "way to explain their frustrations" then why has Obama been going around saying what a bad thing NAFTA is.
Never has a politician packed so much astounding stupidity in a single statement.
I know quite a few people who were previously charmed by Obama but now find him reprehensible. As one of my friends said, If Obama had the courage of his convictions he should have just said that to our face rather than to money bags in a private San Francisco dinner.
Posted by: aamittal | Apr 21, 2008 5:05:39 PM
I guess all the blacks that are supporting OB are college educated. If that is so, why all this cry about disparity amongst the races in America. I guess black America is even more educated than whites in; big news to me.
Posted by: PAT | Apr 21, 2008 5:12:03 PM
Wannaknow... The reason why Hillary and Bill have remained married is because they took the VOW....til death do us part AND because LOve and Foregiveness are stronger than Fear, hatred and DIVORCE!! Love is the greatest gift of All.....................GO HILLARY!
Posted by: DaneNM | Apr 21, 2008 5:12:17 PM
I am sooooooooooooo sick of Obama.
Posted by: Carl | Apr 21, 2008 5:12:42 PM
No amount of whining or sniping is going to prevent Obama from being POTUS.
He's smiling and staying above the fray while going straight to the White House.
That explains the cynics coming out in droves. They know too, but they only thing they can do is whine.
WHINE ON! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAH!
Posted by: Common Sense | Apr 21, 2008 5:13:05 PM
Clinton supporters are cheering thinking one battle will make a difference when they've already lost the war. How funny is that?
Who cares if she wins PA? She's primed to lose it to be honest with you.
People in PA are definitely tired of Clinton negatives and lies. Most are opting to just sitting it out.
That's not good and she knows it.
Posted by: Common Sense | Apr 21, 2008 5:20:19 PM
Since when have highly educated voters prevailed in presidential contests? As for the claim that Clinton's voters are not educated, I wonder why it is that all the people I know who voted for her have at least a college degree and a number of them hold postgraduate degrees. Be careful in assuming we're all uneducated. It is isn't so.
Posted by: Two-cats | Apr 21, 2008 5:32:47 PM
Considering who most of the people voting for Obama are I seriously doudt that their the most educated. and beside's that some people would be insulted to think the uneducated people vote for Hillary.. where do they do their polling on this anyway? If It's those phone call's,or some of it anyway people can lie on the phone. or do they ask people what kind of an education they have going in and out of the voting precient's. If it's the collage kid's that they are referring to as being the educated voter's for Obama then they are like him, they have a lot more growing up to do and taking responsibilitie's as an adult.
Posted by: Jeanette | Apr 21, 2008 5:37:41 PM
Senator Barack Obama stood before Washington's elite at the spring dinner of the storied Gridiron Club. In self parody, he ticked off his accomplishments, little more than a year after arriving in town.
"I've been very blessed," Obama told the crowd assembled in March 2006. "Keynote speaker at the Democratic convention. The cover of Newsweek. My book made the best-seller list. I just won a Grammy for reading it on tape.
"Really, what else is there to do?" he said, his smile now broad. "Well, I guess I could pass a law or something."
Obama? I will never vote for him. Liar, never says "sorry" (Clinton does), cocky, arrogant, nose so high in the air he'd drown if it began to rain.
Posted by: Phoenix Comment | Apr 21, 2008 5:38:59 PM
This makes sense, educated people are too smart for the Clinton's bull. The uninformed or under-educated people is what Clinton has always count on. I shouldn't talk. I only have a 12th grade education myself but Hillary insults my intelligence.
Posted by: Crys | Apr 21, 2008 5:41:24 PM
Boy oh Boy, Oh Boy!
Now, you mean to tell me that all you have to do is be able to take a shot and a beer,and go hunting, you can become President? Oh Hillary, voter of the Irac war and Nafta, maker of closed door deals, spinner of wild stories,give it a rest.
Posted by: Wannaknow08 | Apr 21, 2008 5:46:50 PM
To 'Common Sense' I don't know where you are from, but it can't be PA. The people I know are very anxious to show Obama just how BITTER we really are. All his millions spent on his negative campaigning and blatent lies in PA are going to be for nothing, Come tomorrow night that slime-bag is going to be more than aware of just what bitterness is.
Posted by: Barb | Apr 21, 2008 5:50:00 PM
What a crock this article is? I can't imagine how anyone could come to some of these conclusion, especially the one about the black voters. Since their is a huge number of black people who lack a college education, a large number who lack a high school education based on this analogy a win by Obama would be based on a large amount of uneducated black people. Truthfully, the largest number of Hiliary Clinton Af-Am supporters, even though the percentage is smaller are more educated than the large number of AF-AM Americans who are voting for Obama. I guess that would be considered the exact opposite of the rationale for the educational background for Hiliary. Actually, these polls mean nothing. One of the reasons that Obama is always ahead in the polls because who has time to answer twelve to 32 question depending on which poll you are taken. Every time I click on a poll, I hurry up and click out of it because it entails a waste of valuable time.
Statistic are as follows: - 51 year old, Af-AM, college degree, AF veteran, mother of three, grandmother to 8, health care professional, born in rural Louisiana, currently living in Houston, Texas and voted for Hiliary.
Posted by: winning0853 | Apr 21, 2008 6:03:46 PM
If college was all it was cracked up to be, these "educated" Obama supporters would realize his position on healthcare is partial, on Iraq simplistic, and on the economy poverty-inducing protectionist. His recommendation to double capital gains tax rates would wreak havoc on the housing market, inflate the cost of consumer goods and drive more jobs overseas; it would do as much harm to the US economy as the Bush years and seriously damage the middle class.
For those who question Hillary Clinton's integrity, her record speaks for itself. No matter how her opponent has tried to paint her support for trade deals and corporate influence, you can easily look to her two terms in the Senate. Bosnia is only an issue for people who already hated her for personal reasons. I would rather vote for a typical politician who takes their job seriously than another politician whose whole life is a lie.
Posted by: Genevieve P. | Apr 21, 2008 6:19:05 PM
Let's see, Obama loses in a face to face debate to Hillary Clinton on Wednesday, and then on Thursday behind her back he gives her the finger in a speech in North Carolina, and all those "more educated" voters scream and laugh like kids in high school. The amount of education a person has is not an indication of his sense of decency, his integrity, his maturity level, or the amount of common sense he has. Mr. Obama fails the test on all the above, but he is well-educated.
Posted by: Grammy Barb | Apr 21, 2008 6:28:17 PM
Karen....I campaign for Obama and no one has told anyone to say they have degrees if they don't. I really don't see what this has to do with anything. I am so proud of Obama, I live in Indiana and we went out to register voters and he told us to register who ever wanted to register no matter who they support. What a man of great INTERGITY! OBAMA 08*****************
Posted by: Emilianna | Apr 21, 2008 7:14:36 PM
Post a comment
