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 »
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 in 2008 Primaries | Permalink | User Comments (143)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
It's a mistake to focus solely on resentment on the part of Clinton supporters. We believe she is the more experienced, tested candidate. Obama just isn't.
the Obama campaign's treatment of Clinton throughout this process hasn't been seen before in a democratic contest, so, yes, the resentment is higher.
It's not the main factor concerning my turning away from Obama - it's just the icing on the cake.
If it comes to that, I'll vote the other experienced, tested candidate in this race - John McCain.
Many of us have gotten tired of repeating it in the face of a condescending media, so expect us to just go underground. Think of us on election night though if the match up turns out to be McCain/Obama.
Posted by: s. valenti | May 27, 2008 12:58:19 PM
I have heard rumblings that in addition to the groups that are mentioned above, the AA community is also showing some reservations about Barack. As his anti-american, enemy appeasment stances start to shine through, more and more americans in all demographics are becoming nervous about what this candidate really stands for.
But make no mistake about this one thing. The DNC will not heal before November if Barack becomes the nominee. Most Hillary supporters are more than willing to take a stand against Barack Obama. He is far too radical, inexperienced, and his involvement in the Chicago Combine will continue to get ever increasing coverage and show that he is not the new shiney politicain he has tried to portray. This guy would put Al Capone to shame.
Posted by: SadStateOfAffairs | May 27, 2008 12:59:43 PM
Obama can't win?
That's funny!
Posted by: Whatever you say Nostradama | May 27, 2008 1:02:12 PM
Whatever you say Nostradama
I guess you'll be cracking up come November. Not only will he lose, but he'll lose by an electoral landslide. This year the Republicans won't NEED to steal the election. We're handing it to them on a large silver platter.
Posted by: Get Real | May 27, 2008 1:08:24 PM
I just don't think Obama is a true change candidate. He is Rev. Wright/Ayers kind of guy. I simply cannot vote for an anti-american candidate.
Of course, pundits think anti-americanism is enlightened internationalism. Luckily, they each have one vote.
Posted by: Roger Miller | May 27, 2008 1:08:32 PM
Obama has been most liberal senator. He has problem with moderate dems. There is no evidence that he can unite this country. What he has done is the opposite. Only Hillary and McCain can cross the divide line.
Posted by: JP | May 27, 2008 1:15:13 PM
That's right ABC polling "expert". dismiss the Jewish vote. Hmmm, CA, NJ,NY,FL -what do they all have in common?
Posted by: geevill | May 27, 2008 1:15:59 PM
It appears to me Hillary Clinton supporters are just as divisive as she is! Your hateful and angry rants won't win the nomination for her.
Some of you voted for Bush because of the Bush name. Now look at the mess we are in! He is the worst president of all time! So some of you are willing to vote for another Bush in the likes of John McCain! If that isn't insane I don't know what is!
The elder Bush chose Quayle for his running mate. One paper noted that Dan Quayle was a Robert Reford look-a-like. How stupid! And he WAS stupid.
It's time for a Democrat in the White House. IT WILL BE OBAMA!!!
Posted by: Shay | May 27, 2008 1:16:29 PM
Please... everyone who posts that Sen. Obama will lose the general election by a landslide... who say that he cannot win... who say that he could only win with Sen. Clinton as a running mate, etc... please copy and paste your remarks into your calendars and refer to them on the night of November 4, 2008. That way you'll have something to read as you eat crow. Yum Yum
Posted by: Great Caesar's Ghost | May 27, 2008 1:19:19 PM
You forgot Barack Obama has serious problems among Hispanic voters impacting negatively in several states.
John McCain who was born in Naval Base in Panama only need to match George W. Bush in 2004 election with 44% of Hispanic voters while John Kerry received 53%.
George W. Bush (286 EV Total) took Hispanic voters in key states:
44% of Hispanics in NM winning 50% to 49%(5 EV)
43% of Hispanics in AZ winning 56% to 44% (10 EV)
39% of Hispanics in NV winning 51% to 48% (5 EV)
56% of Hispanics in FL winning 52% to 47% (27 EV)
30% of Hispanics in CO winning 52% to 47% (9 EV)
49% of Hispanics in TX winning 61% to 38% (34 EV)
This primary in CA (55 EV) Barack Obama received only half of the votes of John Kerry in 2004 among Hispanics.
Hillary Clinton received 900K votes exceeding Kerry votes in 2004 among Hispanics.
There is already a poll with Barack Obama showing 2-1 advantage over McCain among Hispanics. However, a poll of July 2004 indicated John Kerry having a 2-1 advantage over Bush which was not correct as per the 2004 election results (exit polls).
washingtonpost.com
Quote: "At a time when Bush and Kerry are running about even among all registered voters, Kerry enjoys a 2 to 1 advantage over Bush among Latino registered voters. Hispanics give Bush lower approval ratings than the overall population does, and the poll shows that the bulk of the Latino community continues to identify with the Democratic Party."
Democrats should not "dig their heads in the sand" on Barack Obama electability troubles among so many Democratic Voters Groups.
Posted by: Angel | May 27, 2008 1:23:55 PM
i think one out of ten of you is actually a hillary supporter
if you support hillary and her ideas, then there is no reason to not support obama...
you can say the race is unfair, but that is simply untrue
hillary failed to pull the trigger, she thought she was going to win by default
she only recently discovered that she could bank on the white working class as a group of supporters that could sustain her campaign
she is a liar
plain and simple,
you can try to portray obama as unamerican but his history is ultimately the closest to a normal american as it comes...
i call all of you out as closet republican who cant stand the fact that you are going to lose BADLY to an african american
if you woudlnt have elected the worst president in the history of america perhaps things would be different
my god you people are silly
Posted by: bhrandon | May 27, 2008 1:25:39 PM
It is NOT the color of his skin, it's his character and experience. He should NEVER be the leader of the greatest nation in the world. People are supporting him because he is "black" that is NO REASON to elect him.
Posted by: Anne | May 27, 2008 1:32:21 PM
I am writing-in for Hillary.
Period!
Posted by: Stacey | May 27, 2008 1:33:27 PM
America IS ready for a black president....
just not this one.
Michael Steele 2012 - a black man who doesn't hang around terrorists and isn't a Marxist and loves his country.
Posted by: Jo | May 27, 2008 1:33:32 PM
I have nothing against Hillary but does anybody can say what Clinton's experience is? Age? Wife of a president?
Did she try to "push" her health plan before and I don't remember what happen with it?;(((
If W. was elected and survived 8 years, how it can be worse with Obama?
Think a liitle bit more about your country and democratic party, than your own self-importance in cheer-leader fashion. Or go and vote for "Grandpa Monster" and wait to see how many more guys and girls die in Iraq and how much oil company and republicans from "brown-nose coalition" will get richer..
Use your brain, people!
Posted by: ghost | May 27, 2008 1:34:48 PM
Obama has the vote of Blacks, for the reason of Solidarity and promised made to them. Making history of the first Black President.
He has a few whites, whom some wish they could take their vote back.
He has a few minorities, that have fallen to his mind manipulation.
He has a problem with the Jewish people, who do not trust him. evident by his friends, and church lobbying sanctions against Israel.
The lies the people have seen him constantly portray in the media.
His platforms being socialist or fascist.
His inflated ego, arrogance, and stupidity of the government, foreign relations.
His lack of experience with the exception of running for office.
His voting present on most issues and not committing or fight for anything for the people
His best friends, closest people to him in life, being everything this country does not stand for.
His inability to with stand any pressure, with out falling apart, getting flusters.
His refusal to answer direct questions. evading, eluding or two stepping or changing the subject.
His lack of knowledge, and only knowing what his camp scripts or makes cue cards for. Evident by his interviews and interviews on plane and buses.
Him being irresponsible making comments, statements and mandating to other countries, in speeches, interviews and to the press.
His efforts to divide this country, incite racism and racial problems. evident by what he has said, done and how he has acted.
His disrespect for this Country, the Government of this Country. Constantly condemning it and putting it down.
His Defiant disrespect for the office of President and the president, with his words, actions and deeds, breeching on the verge of treason.
His lack of honor and defiance to serve this country and the people.
Obama should never, ever be President of this Great Nation.
Posted by: seah | May 27, 2008 1:44:18 PM
Obama stated his resolute love for America by saying we are spoiled ----spoiled; “the days where we can just drive where we want to drive and eat more than we have to, eat all we want; and keep our thermostats at 72 degrees; those days are over; the rest of the world doesn't look at us favorably like that," Barack Hussein Obama. He is preaching “less” for America. He is not the uplifting person that his speeches spout. The part where he says "the rest of the world doesn't look at us favorably like that"....Obama is telling us that we need to be like the "rest" of the world. Maybe he hasn't noticed that the rest of the world is trying to be like America? We have problems but nothing that American's can not solve together by working together. We are different than the Middle East, different cultures, history, ethics, morals, values, unless Mr. Obama plans to throw these in the waste paper basket along with the flag pin that he proudly wears now after the election is over.
Posted by: Anne | May 27, 2008 1:44:19 PM
Anne, great post. The rest of the world wants to be US, Obama has it backasswards, as usual.
Posted by: Jo | May 27, 2008 1:48:43 PM
S.N.: Your post of 1:44:53PM was incorrectly attributed. I believe that comment was made by Sen. Clinton...
Posted by: Great Caesar's Ghost | May 27, 2008 1:49:59 PM
Great Caesar's Ghost,
WRONG. Those guys would love someone like Michael Steele for president. And he could win. He is a patriot and not a radical like Obama.
You don't know America at all. But keep on losing.
Posted by: Jo | May 27, 2008 1:50:09 PM
Post a comment
