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 is a two-time Emmy award winner, both for ABC's reporting of public opinion polls in Iraq.
ARCHIVES
FAVORITES
RECENT POSTS
- The Other Moon Walk
- Two Emmy Nominations for ABC News Poll in Iraq
- Groves Nomination: On the Move?
- Sarah Palin: Up Among Republicans?
- In Iraq, Progress - and Problems
- Mark Sanford and the Affairs of State
- Iran's Election: The Odds of Fraud
- Affirmative Action: Words Matter
- Hold on Groves: Mystery Hour at the Senate
- "Medical Bankruptcies:" a Data Update
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Democratic Voter Groups: A Second Look
May 27, 2008 11:56 AM
Voter-group analysis in the Democratic contest has been flying thick and fast lately. Among the arguments: Barack Obama has a problem with white voters. And/or with Jewish voters. And/or with supporters of Hillary Clinton.
Each can use a second look.
Newsweek stressed the racial issue this weekend, saying Obama “is facing lingering problems winning the support of white voters,” and that his race “may well explain his difficulty” because he does less well among whites who express “racial resentment.”
Maybe, but there’s other evidence worth considering, including this: Obama’s currently doing no worse among whites – a 12-point deficit to John McCain in the Newsweek data – than Al Gore did; he lost them by an identical 12 points in 2004, yet won the popular vote. John Kerry lost whites, moreover, by 17 points; Mike Dukakis, by 19 points.
Each of these three Democrats lost their elections, and Bill Clinton, who won his, did better among whites, losing them by 3 points in 1996 and a scant point in 1992. Obama surely wants to do better among whites; after all they account for three-quarters of voters in presidential elections. But the fact that he’s currently even with Gore and outpacing Kerry and Dukakis among whites would seem to militate against racism as the prime agent.
My vote’s for the socioeconomic effect I’ve covered in previous blogs. Working-class whites are not a good group for Obama; he does much better among better-educated whites. That would seem to cut more to the politics of the man, not the color of his skin.
Then there are Jews; The New York Times headlined a piece last week, “As Obama Heads to Florida, Many of its Jews have Doubts.” The piece reported anecdotally that elderly Jews have particular concerns about Obama; said Jews were “important to his general election hopes,” especially in New York, California, New Jersey and Florida; and reported that “in recent presidential elections, Jews have drifted somewhat to the right.”
The Florida exit poll, however, found that Obama did no worse among Jews voting in the uncontested Florida primary – 26 percent support – than he did among other white voters, 23 percent. The Florida sample’s not big enough to look at seniors only, but across all primaries this year, Obama in fact has done slightly better with Jews over age 65 (35 percent support) than among non-Jewish white seniors (29 percent). (See here for Jan Crawford Greenberg’s blog on the subject last Thursday.)
As far as their importance, Jews are hardly a large group, even in the states listed. In the 2004 general election Jews accounted for 8 percent of voters in New York, 7 percent in New Jersey, 5 percent in Florida and just 4 percent in California. And Jews (second perhaps only to African-Americans) are among the most reliably Democratic voting groups. They voted more heavily Democratic in the last four previous elections than in the previous four – by more than a 3-1 margin in 2004. A rightward shift is tough to see; just 13 percent of Jews in the 2004 exit poll identified themselves as conservatives.
Finally there’s the ongoing brouhaha about polls in which Clinton supporters say they wouldn’t vote for Obama in November, and vice versa. I’ve argued against putting too much of a stake in these findings, simply because of the timing: Asking Democrats their November vote in the midst of their nominating contest is like asking a married couple in the middle of a knock-down, drag-out fight what they’ll be doing for Valentine’s Day. They need a little time to calm down and try to make up.
A run through our data from past elections reinforces the point: In primary polls since 1988, supporters of a losing nominee routinely have been loath to say they’d vote for the winner in November.
In an ABC/Post poll in January 1988, among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who supported someone other than Gary Hart (the front-runner at the time), just 54 percent said they’d support Hart against George H.W. Bush in November. Among Republicans who preferred someone other than Bush for the nomination, a less-than-monolithic 79 percent said they’d support him as the nominee in November.
In February 1992, among Democrats who did not support Bill Clinton, just 63 percent said they’d vote for him in the fall; 31 percent said they’d cross over to vote for Bush. In January 1996, among Republicans who did not support Bob Dole for the nomination, just 66 percent said they’d support him in November. In March 2000, among Democrats who supported Bill Bradley for the nomination, just 64 percent said they’d vote for Al Gore in November; and on the Republican side, among John McCain’s supporters that year, just 73 percent said they’d support George W. Bush as the nominee. Finally, in December 2003, among Democrats who did not support Howard Dean for president, just 67 percent said they’d support Dean in the fall.
In our last national poll, among Democrats who favor Clinton for the nomination, just 64 percent said they’d vote for Obama against John McCain in November. That looks a lot like most of the numbers above.
The history adds some context. It tells us the phenomenon we’re seeing now is not new. We don’t have data that let us clearly parse out how supporters of a losing candidate in the primaries voted in November. We do know that partisans by and large stick with their party, and independents make the difference.
Given the stickiness of partisanship, what may well matter more than crossover voting is voting in the first place: People disaffected with their party’s nominee probably are likeliest just not to vote, rather than to vote for the other side. That suggests the endgame matters. If the winning and losing candidates hold hands and make nice, that sends a message. If it ends ugly, that sends a different one.
There’s one clue in corresponding Republican data. In an ABC/Post poll in January, with the Republican contest still underway, 78 percent of leaned Republicans said they’d vote for McCain against Obama in November. This month, with the nomination in McCain’s hands, that had inched up to 84 percent. Time, it seems, heals at least some wounds.
May 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (143)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
ok, keep thinking that we will come to Obama, can't wait for election night, your faces will look like they looked in New Hampshire. Shock and Awe!! you people are unbelievable. Never, ever, will he get my vote or the vote of millions. Keep fluffing it ABC, your not helping your Savior.
Posted by: Kim | May 27, 2008 12:06:55 PM
Kim, Whew!
Posted by: hang | May 27, 2008 12:15:34 PM
Obama has problems with more than just whites, Jews and Clinton's supporters. He has problems with any intelligent, rational American who will ask him/herself exactly WHAT does Obama have to offer? Not experience. Not leadeship. Not foreign relations knowledge/savvy. And certainly NOT how to fix an economy that is going down the drain due to the oil companies.
Posted by: jeananne | May 27, 2008 12:18:14 PM
Better take a much closer look. No matter what the polls (mostly fixed anyway) say, obama will NOT be elected president of the USA. It won't happen. He DOES NOT like "typical white people" (meaning the "less educated" and poor, does NOT LIKE Senior citizens and does NOT LIKE the Jewish people or Israel. Prove that the does! He can't prove this and these "uneducated" people are not dumb and no magical speech can fix this. They know when they are being lied to and manipulated and used. And obama is doing all three. So before you count your chickens - let's just wait until the general election. If Hillary Clinton is not nominated, you can bet that more than 50% of the Hillary voters will vote for McCain - just to keep obama from winning - and the golden saint does need those votes to take the general and he cannot.
Period - bye bye obama. At the general he will lose by a landslide. People are not dumb like obama and his campaign want you to think. Huh - only the better educated and wealthy love obama? He has succeeded in forming a cult. But that is all.
Posted by: Lou | May 27, 2008 12:18:43 PM
There's a silent vote out there.
This "SILENT VOTE" will vote in
november.
This group do not vote on primaries or
caucuses but they vote in november.
Posted by: Nicholas | May 27, 2008 12:19:59 PM
Hillary should run as independent.
I want to see three candidates compete in the fall: Hillary, McCain, Obama. Obama is the last in my list.
It's not good for the country, some elders forcing Hillary to withdraw. We want to elect the best candidate. The one currently heading in delegate count doesn't mean he is the best.
Posted by: golfgirlusa | May 27, 2008 12:24:11 PM
Or, Obama should not represent Dem. party. He is another party, liberal party.
Posted by: golfgirlusa | May 27, 2008 12:25:24 PM
Maybe Hillary and Mccain should team up..Boy what a way to stick iy to Obama..
Posted by: JC | May 27, 2008 12:28:44 PM
Kim...I'm with you and there are millions of us. It sure isn't his race..it's HIM. Most liberal unknown to ever be nominated. I lean right anyway, and McCain isn't your typical Republican....so voting for him instead of Hillary, will NOT be a problem. What the survey didn't explore is WOMEN, and the phrase "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned".
This race should have been the two candidated closer to middle...McCain to the right and Clinton a little to the left = close race. Now you've got a guy so far out left against a moderate Republican. Hello Pres. McCain.
I don't think racism will be the biggest factor against Obama....it's just regular 40 something women (and men) like myself who don't like his poor judgement in bedfellows and his dubious past and lack of experience. HE DOEN'T DESERVE TO BE POTUS.
Posted by: Debra | May 27, 2008 12:29:23 PM
We've all been in school before. We all know there are some students really capable, but they just can not get top scores in the exam, due to carelessness, ignorance, or other factors. But there are some sudents who are NOT top, but they are good at taking exams, because they just focus on the exams. They practiced a lot, prepared well, prepared all kinds of questions in the exam, don't do outside or social activity, utilized all their time for preparing the exams.
Obama is that kind of student, only good at taking exams.
I don't see Obama's many achievements in real world. His only big achievement is in the campaign. Because the campaign, he doesn't want to spend time running a single meeting for NATO, he doesn't spend time attending Feb. black union's party.
It's very dangerous and risky to elect someone who is ONLY good at taking exams.
We should watch a candidate's long-term career, what did he really do.
Just like a high school student, we can not focus on his score in ONLY one exam to determine which University he should go to; we should see all his records, all kinds of records in his whole student life, to see if he can enter the top school.
Obama wants change, right? This is a change we should have:
Change the election process.
Posted by: golfgirlusa | May 27, 2008 12:33:57 PM
Obama has problems with more than just whites, Jews and Clinton's supporters. He has problems with any intelligent, rational American who will ask him/herself exactly WHAT does Obama have to offer? Not experience. Not leadeship. Not foreign relations knowledge/savvy. And certainly NOT how to fix an economy that is going down the drain due to the oil companies.
Posted by: jeananne | May 27, 2008 12:18:14 PM
========================================
Your post is 100% correct.
Millions upon millions voters believe
and share the same exactly views.
Posted by: Nicholas | May 27, 2008 12:36:03 PM
Does anybody think the DNC is looking at all the numbers and states Obama will lose and voters he will never get, and really think they youth vote/black vote and radical liberal will put him over the top? Who is doing the fuzzy math. Still can't believe because of the 11 wins in Feb., before anyone knew Obama, he rung up his delegate lead, yet Hillary has the popular vote. And the super delegates can chance their minds right up until August.
Posted by: Debra | May 27, 2008 12:39:25 PM
I agree with almost everyone here! Hillary supporters WILL NOT RALLY around Obama no matter how much he pays the media. This is why Hillary will get her FL and MI votes fully seated! With that she'll be within 65 won delegates of Obama. With the last three primaries it'll inch even closer! The DNC knows this. They know Hillary supporters are patriotic and have long memories. We NEED the Clintons. Go Hillary!
Posted by: jeep395 | May 27, 2008 12:41:44 PM
the republicans are scared !!!!
lol
look at you people?
Obama has inspired a nation, for change, he represents an america that no longer works on fear, but works to better US, and the World...
Its funny when people use his middle name as if its indicative of something..
You can play word games all you want, but saddam hussein has no relation to Barrack Obama...
saddam also had nothign to do with 911
Obama will be our next president because he can lead america on a better course, a logical course, and a healing course.
He is the only candidate that can heal the wounds of George W. Bush
while mccain will only continue the path of bush...
Obama 08
Posted by: bhrandon | May 27, 2008 12:46:08 PM
look at you people was suppose to be an exclamation point!
Posted by: bhrandon | May 27, 2008 12:47:15 PM
How many primaries did Dean win? Bradley? Who ran against Dole? anyone, bueller? bueller? We are almost in June and Clinton is winning primaries with 67%. How many of the examples were actually still running bot to mention cleaning the leader's clock?
Posted by: geevill | May 27, 2008 12:49:16 PM
Let's get this clear. I am a Clinton Supporter. I will never ever vote for Obama. I don't care if he's the last candidate standing. I will vote for Howdy Doody before I vote for Obama. You can expect my vote for him in November, BUT YOU WON'T GET IT ! so, don't hold your breath.
Posted by: Shiloh | May 27, 2008 12:52:59 PM
Reasons pundits will give out after Obama getting whacked in November:
1. Iraq war stopped being an issue.
2. Obama did not speak to working class white voters the way Hillary did regarding their economic distress.
3. McCain moved to the center more quickly than Obama could because of the protracted nomination fight.
4. GOP used racial tactics and wedge issues.
5. Obama did not address his stance on symbols of patriotism sufficiently.
6. The prolonged nomination fight damaged brand Obama.
7. Blah Blah Blah
8. Blah Blah Blah
They will never say "we promoted an unelectable candidate and we are not really pundits".
Posted by: Roger Miller | May 27, 2008 12:56:10 PM
I think the anger against Obama is not something that will go away come November, but it goes further than Obama. Clinton supporters, of which I'm one, are angry at Obama, the Media, and the DNC in the way this primary election has gone. It exposes the raw side of politics and we want very much to prove you pundits WRONG. Our vote in the GE will be the vote of an electorate no one cared to listen to during the primary season. McCain will be the happy beneficary of our anger.
Posted by: Get Real | May 27, 2008 12:56:52 PM
I always laugh out loud when pundits, usually in the DNC, say that , oh, all the Dems will come together in Nov and vote for our candidate, no matter who it is, like we're all one happy family and will sing "kum ba yah"! You don't seem to get it, do you? It is not a party issue, it is what is safe for this country. OBAMA IS A DANGEROUS LIAR. Can you get that into your feeble pundit head? Millions of people agree. I, a lifelong Dem, WILL NEVER EVER VOTE FOR OBAMA. And if you decide to disregard and ignore our voice, you will hand the election over to the GOP with a big red bow. Count on it.
Posted by: doublestandard | May 27, 2008 12:57:13 PM
Post a comment
