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 »
The Role of Race, Revisited
April 23, 2008 2:09 PM
Results in the Pennsylvania exit poll, not available from previous contests, underscore a potentially sensitive point should Barack Obama win the Democratic party’s presidential nomination: The role of race in voters’ decisions.
In Pennsylvania, as in previous primaries, white voters who rated the candidates’ race as an important factor in their vote were more apt to support Hillary Clinton, compared with those who said race wasn’t important. An open question has been whether this is best seen simply as affinity voting – whites more apt to support the white candidate, akin to women supporting the female candidate and blacks the African-American candidate – or as something less benign.
The new element is the matchup of Obama and John McCain in a general election trial heat in the Pennsylvania exit poll. The result: Among whites who called race an important factor, just 54 percent said they’d support Obama vs. McCain; the rest either went for McCain (27 percent) or said they wouldn’t vote. That compares with Obama’s much higher support – 72 percent – among whites who said race was not important in their vote.
We should be careful not to overanalyze this result. The number of whites who called race important was small – 13 percent of Pennsylvania voters – and the net effect of the differential is to cost Obama 2 percentage points of total vote, while giving McCain around a point and a half.
This may signal a problem for the Democrats if Obama's the nominee; after all, these results are among voters in a closed Democratic primary – people presumably loyal to the party. On the other hand, these Democrats were caught smack in the midst of their intramural food fight, before the general election campaign has begun. Looking ahead to November is fundamentally premature.
One reason the effect of race does bear watching – beyond the results themselves – is that they’re not replicated in similar measures of the impact of the candidates’ sex. Clinton has done better overall with women who say the sex of the candidates is important in their vote – 26 points better in Pennsylvania, about the average in all primaries to date. (Men who call the candidates' sex important also have been more apt to support Clinton, by 9 points.) But here's the crucial difference: whether Pennsylvania voters said sex was important or not important in their vote did not materially affect their preference in a Clinton-McCain matchup. That makes race, and its impact on an Obama-McCain contest, look like a different kettle of fish.
In a related point, the Pennsylvania data suggest that white voters who saw Clinton as not honest were about 20 points more apt to support her over Obama anyway, if they rated race as an important issue (compared with those who saw her as not honest, but said race was not important). But in this equation sex is a factor as well: Women who saw Clinton as not honest likewise were about 20 points more apt to support her if they rated the candidates' sex as important. In any case, these are very small groups – 4 percent of voters in each case – so the net effect again was very small, and not at all decisive.
As far as we can see, the impact of race as a self-described “important factor” in vote preference has not tipped the balance in any primary to date (with the possible exception of the extremely close contest in New Mexico). Nonetheless, the discussion of race, and sex alike, raises questions of how best these effects are measured and how best to understand them – in effect, how to parse out positively influenced voting behavior from negatively influenced voting.
Any way you cut them, the Pennsylvania results are a reminder of the complexities involved – and of the scrutiny the role of race likely will receive if it's Obama who leads his party into the November election.
April 23, 2008 in 2008 Primaries, Race | Permalink | User Comments (16)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Obama is simply weaker than Clinton
or McCain it has nothing really to do with
race....
Hillary 08!
Posted by: sara | Apr 23, 2008 2:27:04 PM
Many whites will justify the injection of race into their decisions because they see clear and undisputed evidence of it in blacks. A 60-40 split on just about anything political would be considered an enormous margin. Yet blacks favor Obama 85-15. That can hardly be anything but racists. So, the logic will be "What's good for the goose is good for the gander".
Posted by: Aston | Apr 23, 2008 2:27:59 PM
72 percent – among whites who said race was not important in their vote
Probably more Like in 90% rate who do not look at race or sex as a factor. Since we all know polls are a guestamate.
Most Are looking for Competency!!!!
Who will be the best President over all
Who will Protect and Defend this Country
Who will serve Their country and people Proudly.
The Reagan Democrats are going to go with that. Regardless of race, sex or party.
Posted by: Sharon | Apr 23, 2008 2:32:54 PM
I see a race issue in this campaign not as blatant racism on the part of most voters, but as a discomfort with a candidate who is not from "their group". It seems more of a subliminal factor - and if handled in a less polarizing atmosphere might actually bring voters back to voting for candidates they feel represent their interests.
Posted by: Sara | Apr 23, 2008 2:37:19 PM
I CAN SAY THAT OBAMA WAS VICTORIOUS IN PA.
THIS WAS HIS FIRST TIME CAMPAIGNING IN THE STATE AND HE GOT 45-55. THE CLINTONS HAS BEEN THERE FOR AGES.
I ALSO DISAGREED WITH PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT OBAMA IS WEAKER. JUST IMAGINE THAT A WOMAN AND A MAN FIGHTING FOR THE SAME POST.IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO PLAY GAME. IF THIS WAS BETWEEN TWO MEN THEN OBAMA WOULD HAVE WON THE MATCH FROM THE STARTING. HE WILL STILL WIN BUT IT IS NOT AN EASY MATCH AS PEOPLE ARE EXPECTING A TO BE.
Posted by: I.A.T. Smith | Apr 23, 2008 2:42:58 PM
Unfortunately, we CAN count on the media to continue to "hype" this statistic (or trend or whatever) WITHOUT ever getting to it's cause. So, let me tell you ...
The majority of white people in this country -- and certainly white Democrats -- did not give a fig about the color of a candidate's skin until that candidate's campaign -- aided by the media -- called the Clintons "racists".
Even people who do not/did not like the Clintons said to themselves ... "whoa, if Bill and/or Hillary Clinton can be called racists, NOBODY is going to be safe from that kind of prejudicial labeling." And sure enough, the "Obama supporters" and the media have proved they were right.
So while the media goes on it's merry way picking at this new "finding" as "proof" of some deep-seated racial animosity in Middle America, it will continue to ignore the obvious.
You're not looking at "racism". You're looking at "backlash".
Posted by: mlwheeler | Apr 23, 2008 2:45:12 PM
If blacks were voting for Obama simply because he's black, can someone explain why Hillary had 85% of the black vote when the candidates first started running?
Posted by: Que | Apr 23, 2008 2:47:18 PM
If Obama is still at a position where there was no Wright, no black racist church believing in black liberation theology, you will not see so many people cared about race, or you will see his race is actually a positive factor to him. This was the case when IOWA voted.
But, now things are different. All those skeletons are coming out of his closet, people started realizing he is not what he pretends to be. Then the race thing backfired. Also, all the way back to SC, his team used race card to fool the media, fool the average voters. But now, there are Obamam camp memos showing that they PLanned and Played race card all the way. It is just matter of time that he will be completely exposed for all his bad things.
Posted by: Amy | Apr 23, 2008 3:05:34 PM
Sen. Obama’s campaign has proven nothing else other than he’s another Mike Dukakis. He can’t win any of the large battle ground states like New York, California, Texas, Ohio, New jersey, Massachusetts, Florida or Michigan and last night he proved this fact again when he lost Pennsylvania by 10 percentage points Sen. Hillary Clinton. It’s fact that Sen. Obama can’t win in battleground states where a Presidential elections are decided. He has been successful at manipulating the caucuses with small groups of zealots; but now not in play for the presidential election. Now with Wright and Ruzko scandals nagging him Sen. Obama can quickly unravel at anytime. Remember, the old Ralph is in the race! With all the money he got in the bank, and all the media support he’s being getting, still he couldn’t defeat Sen. Hillary Clinton even if he had spent 11.4 million on TV ads in Pennsylvania! For all practical purposes he has become like another Mike Dukakis. I think Sen. Obama should be the one to step aside and let Sen. Clinton be the Democratic party’s nominee to face John McCain. I think the time has come for the super delegates to think about this “electability” matter seriously. The best chance of winning the White House for the Democrats is obviously with Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: charleychaplin | Apr 23, 2008 3:07:08 PM
Obama is the weaker candidate but he will will because of ultra-left political correctness. Unfortunately, that won't fly in the general election. Come November, Obama will have had to answer tough questions instead of declaring that he's going to take us in a new (undefined) direction. Then, he'll be found severely poor when it comes to understanding just about anything complex.
Posted by: Aston | Apr 23, 2008 3:16:00 PM
It is funny that the African American vote for Obama, is viewed as racist. When black voters have been voting for white canidates since gaining the right! Primaries are no reflection of a general election. The parties should close ranks for the general election. Rev. Wright and his ideas are not running for POTUS. William Ayers is not running for POTUS. Act like adults! When you are an adult, you stand on your own merits. It is children who play the in-crowd/out-crowd games. Grow up, America!
Posted by: Mahluli | Apr 23, 2008 3:44:39 PM
If I remember correctly, in 2004, 100% of African American voters voted for the white candidate. Was that racist?
Posted by: freddie cook | Apr 23, 2008 4:55:24 PM
Why is everyone talking about race when it comes to who the white population is voting for when the fact is that the majority of the black population is voting for Sen. Obama.
Are there plls out there that show how Hillary is doing in the different age groups among the black population?
Does anyone really believe that considering the canditates for this election the black population after years of voting for a white man will actually vote for a WHITE WOMAN.
Unfutunately racism has always been and still is a two way street.
Posted by: Angel | Apr 24, 2008 1:26:17 PM
Bobbi,
Racism has not always been a two way street, but prejudice is. In order for racism to exist, there must be an imbalance of power - African Americans do not wield an imbalance of power in any American institution. Please note as others have, that Hillary began this race with 85%-90% of the Black vote which was based on their loyalty and support of both her and her husband. Thus, the Black vote was hers to lose - and Obama had to earn the Black vote - it was not given to him. Also, White people in America have had the privilege of choosing amongst several male candidates of their own shared background ever since the founding of this country. Racism will have ended and the tide will truly turn when we have several Blacks and other marginalized group members running on a level playing field with their male White counterparts - until that time, it will always be assumed that Blacks are choosing a candidate simply because he is Black, because most White Americans do not accept the fact that he is also brilliant or, if they do, it is a strike against him (elite, uppity)rather than in his favor.
Lest you forget, Barack Obama is an American who represents both Black and White America and yet, the media and most of America still refers to him as the Black candidate.
Posted by: Lynn R | Apr 24, 2008 6:36:17 PM
Finally, some folks who are willing to admit that this election is all about race and sex. Blacks overwhelmingly vote for Obama but it's closer to 90%. That is obviously all about race. Yet the media talks about it like whites are somehow swayed by race. Uh, duh. I like the goose and gander comment. I agree with it 100%. It makes me physically ill to watch the media dance around the fact that he's black and blacks are voting for him because he's black. jeez, Obama's speech on race only highlighted the fact that both sides of the issue have their biases. I just want the best president and obviously that's Hillary. Just a matter of time, she'll get it.
Posted by: DavidO | Apr 27, 2008 1:42:26 AM
Is not revered Jeramy coments , is oboma
hyprocy about judgement always talking how good judgement he has, and he has been associate to rev,Jeramy for 20 yrs even in his book talked about his soiritual guiadance, and now he is renuncing him , another politic be sicere take of that mask and let us know who you are.
Go Mccain
Posted by: socorro | Apr 30, 2008 9:16:16 AM
Post a comment
