How demographics are driving this primary and why Hillary is not a racist.

Since early 2007, Obama has consistently run better in polls among white voters with college and (especially) post-graduate degrees, while Clinton has led among white voters without advanced education. That division follows an upscale-downscale--or "wine track" and "beer track"--pattern that has frequently characterized Democratic presidential primaries since 1968
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/pi_20080503_9050.php

Centered on blue-collar whites, Latinos, and seniors, Clinton's coalition resembles those of previous "beer track" candidates such as Walter Mondale and her husband, Bill Clinton. Obama's coalition of young voters, independents, and well-educated whites resembles the following of earlier "wine track" candidates such as Gary Hart and Bill Bradley, with one key difference. While previous "wine track" candidates struggled with African-Americans, Obama is dominating among black voters.

Obama's new coalition has allowed him to seize the advantage over Clinton in the nomination race. But the durability and magnitude of Clinton's edge among working-class white voters grounds her argument to Democratic superdelegates that she would be a stronger general election candidate.

On the morning after Pennsylvania, Obama told radio host Roland Martin, "We have won the white blue-collar vote in a whole bunch of states." But that's not true, no matter how the white blue-collar vote is defined.

Most analysts define the working class as those voters without a four-year college degree. The Edison/Mitofsky National Election Pool has conducted exit polls in 29 primaries this year, and Clinton has outpolled Obama among white voters without a college degree in 26 of them, according to a compilation provided to National Journal by the NBC News elections unit. Obama has carried white noncollege voters only in Wisconsin, Vermont, and Utah; and Clinton didn't compete in the latter two. Obama has failed to attract even 40 percent of those voters in every other state except New Mexico, Virginia, and his home state of Illinois (where Clinton still narrowly carried noncollege whites).

Obama's campaign prefers to look at voters by income, noting that he has carried voters earning less than $50,000 in more than a dozen states. But those results include his strong performance among African-Americans; his strength among recent college graduates just beginning their careers at lower pay also helps him here. Even so, according to figures provided by NBC News, Obama has carried white voters earning $50,000 or less annually in just four states: the same three where he carried noncollege whites plus Illinois.

Other Democratic-leaning analysts are more concerned that Obama's coalition may depend too heavily on affluent liberals and lower-income minorities, with a dangerous hole in the middle-income center. "If you look at Obama's vote in Pennsylvania, you begin to see the outlines of the old George McGovern coalition that haunted the Democrats during the '70s and '80s," veteran liberal journalist John Judis wrote in a much-discussed New Republic article last week.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Over the last week, an anonymous blogger who writes under the pseudonym Poblano did something bold on his blog, FiveThirtyEight.com. He posted predictions for the upcoming primaries based not on polling data, but on a statistical model driven mostly by demographic and past vote data. His model predicted a 17-point victory for Barack Obama in North Carolina and a 2-point edge for Hillary Rodham Clinton in Indiana. http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20080507_8254.php

But a funny thing happened. The model got it right.

What varies from primary to primary is less about the shifting allegiances of voters within these groups and more about differences in the demographic composition of each state.

Consider some specific examples. The outcome of the North Carolina primary was wildly different than Ohio or Pennsylvania, yet non-college white voters favored Clinton by virtually identical margins in each state (+44 in Ohio, +41 in Pennsylvania, and +45 in North Carolina, according to the Edison/Mitofsky National Election Pool exit polls provided by NBC and ABC News). Clinton's margin was far narrower among college-educated whites in each state (+7 in Ohio, +10 in Pennsylvania and +7 in North Carolina). And Obama won near monolithic support from blacks in all three states (87 percent in Ohio, 90 percent in Pennsylvania, 91 percent in North Carolina).

The different overall outcomes owed mostly to the varying demographic composition of each state. Blacks and college-educated whites made up roughly two-thirds of the North Carolina electorate, but only about half of the voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

All of which brings us to the underlying story of the Democratic presidential primaries. Since Super Tuesday, it has mostly been the story of what hasn't happened. Over the last three months or so, for better or worse, the underlying coalitions of support for Obama and Clinton have remained largely constant.

So therein lies the bad news and the worse news for the Obama and Clinton campaigns, respectively. The bad news for the Obama campaign is that evidence of an expansion of his coalition is weak.

I also asked SurveyUSA's Jay Leve how the model would have ranked on the scorecards he created to rate pollster accuracy in Indiana and North Carolina. Had it been a poll, Poblano's model would have been the top ranking "pollster" on 13 of 16 accuracy benchmarks applied in the two states.



Demographics are driving this primary, and to call Hillary a racist for pointing out the demographic breakdown is hysteria, plain and simple.

Primary selection does not indicate GE voting behavior. The argument being made with thinly disguised racism by the zombie clinton campaign is simply that 'her' voters won't vote for the black man in the GE.

The OP makes a strong case, backed up with demographic data, that the primary results are predictable.

If we're going to win the GE, we must change the underlying attitudes.

Once again the leap from primary vote to GE vote is unsubstantiated. The OP is sucking you into the Clinton campaign talking point du jour bullshit.

We do have work to do. We do not have to conclude that all the folks who didn't vote for Obama are going to vote for McCain.

There's no such thing as a hopeless cause. Not all the folks who didn't vote for Obama will vote for McCain - but we need to recognize the demographic trends to minimize the ones who do.

Specifically: ix-nay on "the low information voter" rhetoric.

not put them out.

It applies to law partners working 100 hour weeks as well as to people juggling three minimum wage jobs to get by. Given what the MSM are these days, it takes a specific decision to use some of your spare time to access accurate information, and there's plenty of time competition from many other worthwhile activities. What's the point of chortling in glee about this situation that only benefits the haves and have mores?

But I have no doubt that Hillary's campaign has used racism.

that nailed it for me. "You cannot call yourself a moral man if you can say n****r." She may not be saying that word but her intent is clear. She is not moral if she thinks using racial division is the way to go. She will lose. Its evil and it will fail. She will reap a price for it too. She will taint herself and her husband for this and it won't go away. This election will be dissected down to the DNA level and all the hidden stuff will come out. The plan to do this will be exposed eventually and she will be seen for what she is: someone so driven to win there is no level below which she won't fall.

minions, we tend to over look certain thing that other people say because
it doesn't affect us, your comment is offensive in so many ways and I'll
tell you why, comments like that are full of pride and ignorance mingle
with gross stupidity.

If you can't see what she is doing then you are part of the group that
she is reaching out to who feels superior enough to associate yourself
with comments that would stir up racism.

Capesh!!

I find what the Clintons are doing infinitely more offensive than my attempt at diplomacy regarding the charges of racism.

It is my belief that the Clintons are politicians through-and-through and although it would be presumptuous for anybody to state unequivocally they are racists per se, we can deduce with a certain accuracy their game plan and their manipulation of the "isms" in that process.

I'll leave the epithets for others. 'kay?

I have to admit that's kind of funny.

Kind of sleazy and opportunistic maybe but not racist.

care to elaborate?

Or we're you just trolling on by ...

the inability to understand, let me elaborate. I grew up in Jim Crow. I heard (not in my family) the n word everyday. That code that she's throwing out to the redneck portion of Kentucky and West Virginia is clear as a bell to me. I've heard it before growing up. If that is in you, if you can actually articulate it, then you are a racist. If this is a tactic you can use, if you can consciously choose to use it then its in you and you are one sick sack of shit. Fred Phelps says it out loud. He means it. He's an out and out racist. I realize that sometimes in these days racism is more subtle than him for many. But those of us who know what real racism looks and sounds like are appalled by her remarks and if she can say them out loud, that is what she is. As for your comments, bite me.

wth, is this 3rd grade?

it is in you to do it. No moral person uses evil to advance their causes. As for your little crack, grow up. Bite me. Some of us remember when the n word was normal usage and racism was the law. I don't want to go through that shit again. Too bad you can't figure it out.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

white vote in Virginia ( http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#VADEM ),
but only 37 percent of the white vote in NC ( http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM )
after weeks of "dog whistle" negative attacks from Hillary.

What would Poblano's model have predicted for Virginia, whose demographics are more similar to NC's than IN's?

posting that Hillary is racist for daring to discuss this. They should be ashamed of themselves! You know who you are.

"Demographics are driving this primary, and to call Hillary a racist for pointing out the demographic breakdown is hysteria, plain and simple."

truth teller. Hillary points out the demographics which are obvious to anyone and she is called a racist.

That is all.

an excuse is when you say something once and realize you've made a
mistake, but saying the same thing over and over and over and over
is not a mistake and people should stop making excuses for her,
because the moment you do she goes right back and embarrasses your
stance on her behalf.

She IS pandering in a big way and in the process making herself look
stupid and more people becoming disgusted with her.

White voters, WHITE VOTERS, hmmmm......

shame you don't seem to get it.

every single criticism, or setback for an Obama presidency ahead of us, I'm already tired of it.

for once in your life and get some fresh air...

You can't tell me what she said is not stirring

racism, Hillary Clinton is not racist but she is

prejudice, otherwise she wouldn't utter such

comment at a place where she knows her comments

are bound to inflame people who are ruled by

divisions.

Jesse Jackson, Hillary could have kept the AA vote which was solidly on her side up until that point. Too bad for her.

Obama for President!!!!!!!