Anatomy of Obama’s Victory – Analysis of the Exit Polls

One of the major purposes of exit polls is to provide information on the characteristics of voters who voted for the respective candidates, in order to provide clues as to why or how the winner won and the loser lost. This post looks for those clues in the 2008 presidential exit polls.

One problem of interpretation to keep in mind is that often it is difficult (or impossible) to sort out which came first – the voter characteristic or the decision to vote for the respective candidate. For example, suppose that a larger percentage of McCain voters than Obama voters say that Sarah Palin is qualified to be president. Is that because believing Palin qualified to be president makes them more likely to vote for McCain, or is it because being committed to McCain’s candidacy makes them more likely to think that Palin is qualified? Or is it because the same type of intellectual “quality” that makes them likely to vote for McCain also makes them think that Palin is qualified? Or is a combination of all three of those things? Sometimes it can be very hard to tell.

On the other hand, it is often quite obvious which came first. For example, a person’s gender, age, race, or sexual orientation is obviously determined prior to their decision on whom to vote for.

With that in mind, let’s take a look at what the 2008 presidential exit polls might tell us.


Gender, marital status, and sexual orientation

It was women who made the difference in the 2008 election. Not only did they comprise 54% of the electorate, but unlike men, as a group they demonstrated a strong preference in this election:
Males: Obama + 1
Females: Obama + 13

But the voting behavior of women differed tremendously depending upon their circumstances:
Unmarried women: Obama + 41
Married women with kids: Obama + 4
Married women without kids: McCain + 9

And voting behavior also differed tremendously for men depending on their circumstances:
Unmarried men: Obama + 21
Married men with kids: McCain + 9
Married men without kids: McCain + 4

So, what does all this mean? For a long time now, women have been voting bluer than men. It is often said (and I can’t think of a better explanation) that the reason for that is that women are more likely than men to believe in a helping role for government. That could also explain why women with children were much more likely to vote for Obama than McCain – Women with children might feel a greater need for the kind of social services that government can provide than do those without children.

But then, why are men more likely to vote for McCain if they have children than if they don’t have children? Maybe that’s because men with children tend to be more paternalistic and authoritarian than men without children.

And why are both men and women so much more likely to vote for Obama if they’re single? That could be partly because single men and women are less financially secure than married people. And maybe it’s partly because single voters tend to be more liberal, younger, and more likely to be of a minority race than married voters.

Gay men and women voted overwhelmingly for Obama:
Gay, lesbian or bisexual: Obama + 43
Heterosexual: Obama + 8

The strong Democratic leaning of homosexuals is easy to understand: Probably many of them are not happy about the fact that the Republican Party habitually marginalizes and demonizes them and uses gay marriage as a wedge issue in their attempt to win elections.


Race

It was not surprising that African-Americans voted very strongly for Obama. A little less expected was that all non-white groups voted heavily for him:
African-American: Obama + 91
Latino: Obama + 36
Asian: Obama + 27
Other: Obama + 35
White: McCain + 12

These results have led some people to conclude that-African Americans voted for president largely on the basis of race this year. However, that conclusion may be premature. For one thing, African-Americans have voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate in all recent presidential elections (though not quite as overwhelmingly as they did for Obama).

Secondly, only 9% of voters said that race was an important factor in their vote, and only 2% said that it was the most important factor. 80% said that it was of no importance at all. Furthermore, of those who said that race was an important factor, Obama won by 7%, whereas of those who said that race was not important, Obama won by an almost identical 6%.

This all suggests that race had little to do with the results of this election. But perhaps many people just weren’t willing to admit the extent to which race influenced their vote.

Another way to approach this question is to ask voters “In the next few years, race relations will…” Analysis of the answers to that question was very interesting, in that it showed a very strong correlation between voting for Obama and optimism about race relations in our country.

Race relations will….
Get much better: Obama + 49
Get somewhat better: Obama + 38
Stay about the same: McCain + 10
Get somewhat worse: McCain + 36
Get much worse: McCain + 55

So, what kind of people think that race relations will get much worse in our country? (10% of voters said race relations will get somewhat worse, and another 5% said they will get much worse.) Racists often have an obsession with race and believe that people of other races are out to harm them. It seems to me that many of the voters who said that race relations will get worse in our country are racists. Those people voted overwhelmingly for McCain. Therefore, it seems that McCain probably benefited substantially from the racist vote.

That theory is supported by the fact that the only region of the country where McCain did well was the region where slavery originated and flourished until 1865:
Northeast: Obama + 19
West: Obama + 17
Midwest: Obama + 12
South: McCain + 11


Age

Obama did much better among younger voters (18-29), whereas McCain did better among older voters (over 65):
18-29: Obama + 34
30-44: Obama + 6
45-64: Obama + 1
65 +: McCain + 8

In 2004, John Kerry also did relatively well with younger voters, but much less so than Obama – Kerry had a lead among 18-29 year olds of only 11. Among all the other age groups, Kerry did about as well as Obama did this year.

The age of the candidates was not acknowledged by most voters to be an important factor in their vote. Only 15% said that age was an important factor. Yet, those 15% made a huge difference in the election:
Was age of candidates an important factor to you?
Yes: Obama + 55
No: McCain + 4

It is possible that the age of the voter helped determine whether the age of the candidate was important to him or her. And it’s also possible that age was an important factor to some voters because McCain seemed to have so many mental lapses during the campaign. People who felt that McCain’s mental lapses were age-related might have felt that they were voting against him partly because on his age.


Income

At the lower ranges of annual income, below $50,000, income made a big difference, with voters heavily favoring Obama. Above $50,000, there wasn’t much difference in the various income ranges:
Under $15,000: Obama + 48
$15-$30,000: Obama + 23
$30-$50,000: Obama + 12
$50-$200,000: McCain + 1
$200,000 +: Obama + 6

It seems that in the lower income ranges people felt a great need to have a president who will have some compassion for them, and that this need was inversely proportional to their income.

It is surprising to me that the one income group (above $200,000) whose taxes will be adversely impacted by Obama’s tax plan voted more heavily for him than the large middle income group, which comprised 56% of voters. Obviously, most voters making above $200,000 per year are not terribly worried about Obama’s plan to raise their taxes, even though Obama clearly announced those plans. It is also worth noting that this highest income group voted for George Bush in 2004 overwhelmingly, by a 28 point margin.


Education

As with John Kerry in 2004, Obama did better in the least educated and the best educated groups:
No High School degree: Obama + 28
H.S. or college graduate: Obama + 4
Postgraduate: Obama + 18

Income and education generally parallel each other to a large degree. This year, Obama’s poll numbers reflected that relationship, as he did best in the lowest income and education groups, worst in the middle, and second best in the upper income and education groups. This suggests that it is possible that the reason for Obama’s good support in the highest income group reflected their higher educational level.

But in 2004, a very different relationship was evident. Although John Kerry did very well among voters with a postgraduate degree, those making over $200,000 per year voted overwhelmingly for George Bush. Why the upper income bracket voters voted so overwhelmingly in 2004 for George Bush, but turned around and voted for Obama in 2008 is one of the greatest mysteries to me of this election.


Religion

There was only one religious group that voted for McCain:
Protestant: McCain + 9
Catholic: Obama + 9
Jewish: Obama + 57
None: Obama + 52
Other: Obama + 51

Given all the effort to tar Obama with the charge of anti-Semitism, the Jewish vote is quite interesting. And it illustrates something that we’ve known for quite some time – Jewish Americans in general are far to the left of most Israeli lobby groups.

Support for Obama was inversely associated with the frequency of church attendance, irrespective of specific religious affiliation:

Vote by church attendance:
Weekly or more often: McCain + 12
Monthly: Obama + 7
Few times a year: Obama + 20
Never: Obama + 27


Issues

When categorized by what they thought is the most important issue, voters expressed the following candidate preferences (numbers in parentheses are the percentage of voters who considered the issue to be the most important):

Most important issue:
Economy (63%): Obama + 9
Iraq (10%): Obama + 20
Health care (9%): Obama + 47
Energy policy (7%): Obama + 4
Terrorism (9%): McCain + 73

Clearly, Obama benefited from the fact that the economy was in very bad shape, and therefore was considered the most important issue. But this data suggests that if voters considered health care or Iraq to be the most important issue, Obama would have probably won by even more than he did.

The only issue for which McCain held an advantage was terrorism. My interpretation is that many of the 9% of Americans who consider terrorism to be the most important issue we face today are so fearful that they can’t think straight. Perhaps if our country had suffered its second devastating attack on its own territory under George Bush’s watch within a few weeks of the election, John McCain would have won the. But don’t ask me to explain why that makes sense.


George W. Bush

One poll question clearly showed the utter contempt in which Americans hold George W. Bush, as well as the importance of that fact to the results of this election. The question was “Would McCain continue Bush policies?” An equal number of respondents answered “Yes” and “No” to that question. Here is how those voters voted:

Would McCain continue Bush policies?
Yes: Obama + 82
No: McCain + 72

Consider what that means. Even Republicans – even McCain voters – were persuaded to vote for McCain largely on the belief that he would NOT continue Bush’s policies. This same poll indicated that Bush had a 28% approval rating. But how could that be? If 28% of voters really approved of how Bush is handling his job, then why would 90% of all voters who believe that McCain would continue Bush’s policies vote for Obama? And why would 85% of all voters who believe that McCain would NOT continue Bush’s policies vote for McCain? Obviously, Bush’s approval ratings are inflated – apparently there are many people who are hesitant to say that they disapprove of the president, even if they don’t.

So, the most important question on voters’ minds in this election was whether or not McCain would continue Bush’s policies. And the overwhelming majority of voters – Republicans, Democrats, and others – judged a continuation of Bush’s policies to be a bad thing.


Sarah Palin

There has been much speculation of the effect that Sarah Palin had on McCain’s chances for victory. Most of that speculation says that her effect was very negative. That judgment is supported by the fact that 66% of voters consider Biden to be qualified to be President, compared to only 38% who believe Palin qualified to be President.

However, there was another poll question that somewhat contradicts that judgment and suggests that Palin could have been a plus for the McCain ticket:

Was McCain’s choice of Palin a factor in your vote?
Yes: McCain + 13
No: Obama + 32

What that suggests is that McCain was such a poor candidate that even the addition to the ticket of someone whom only 38% of voters considered qualified to be President nevertheless helped the ticket.


Hillary Clinton

There has also been a lot of speculation about the effect of Hillary Clinton on the election results. When the race for the Democratic nomination heated up, some people (including me) felt that Senator Clinton was running too negative of a campaign and thereby hurting Obama’s chances for the general election. But I changed my mind about that assessment when it came out that Hillary resisted advice from her top campaign aides to get way more negative than she did.

In any event, after she conceded, Hillary aggressively campaigned for Obama, and the exit polls suggest that that campaigning paid off:

Who did you want to win the Democratic nomination? (Democrats only)
Hillary Clinton: Obama + 67
Other Democratic candidate: Obama + 28
No preference: Obama + 50

In other words, as it turned out, Hillary Democrats voted for Obama in greater numbers than other Democrats.


Beliefs about personal characteristics of the candidates

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, when asked about personal characteristics of the candidates, most were more favorable to Obama than to McCain:

Who is in touch with people like you?
Obama 57 ; McCain 39

Who has right judgment?
Obama 57 ; McCain 49

Which candidate attacked unfairly?
McCain 64 ; Obama 49

McCain got a better rating than Obama for only one personal characteristic:

Which candidate has right experience?
Obama 50 ; McCain 59


The enthusiasm factor

30% of voters said that they would be “excited” about an Obama victory, compared to only 14% who said they would be “excited” about a McCain victory.

The enthusiasm factor is also illustrated by looking at first time voters. Only 11% of the electorate were first time voters in 2008. But they had a disproportionate impact on the election results:

First time voters: Obama + 39
Not first time voters: Obama + 2

Some of the first time voters were people who became old enough to vote this year for the first time. But in addition, the enthusiasm for Obama this year was such that many voters who had been eligible to vote in previous elections, but who didn’t vote, were persuaded by Obama’s candidacy to vote for the first time this year.


Summary

Demographic groups that voted most heavily for Obama included: women, especially single women and those with children; unmarried men; gay men and women; members of minority races; 18-29 year olds; people who earned less than $50,000 a year; those with graduate degrees; non-Protestants or people who attend church infrequently or never; and those from the West, Northeast, or Midwest.

Voters sided with Obama over McCain on the economy, health care, Iraq and the environment. Terrorism was the only issue (addressed in this survey) for which voters sided with McCain over Obama.

Voters also gave Obama higher marks than McCain for most personal characteristics. They believe that Obama has better judgment, is more “in touch” with them, and ran a fairer campaign than did McCain. The only characteristic for which they gave McCain higher marks than Obama was “experience”.

The over-riding issue of this campaign appeared to be George W. Bush. Those who believed that McCain would continue Bush’s policies voted overwhelmingly for Obama. McCain was able to get votes only by convincing people – even Republicans – that he would not continue Bush’s policies.

McCain fared better than Obama among: married men; whites; those who are pessimistic or fearful about race relations; Southerners; the elderly; and persons who are fearful about terrorism. Most of all, McCain did well with voters whom he somehow managed to convince that he would not continue George Bush’s policies if elected president. How he managed to convince voters of that – when all the evidence contradicted it – is beyond my understanding, but it was definitely his most impressive achievement of the 2008 campaign.

Obama ran an excellent campaign. He never unfairly attacked McCain, though he endeavored to expose the flaws in his positions and policies. He tried to give voters an honest indication of what he stood for, for example by being forthright about his plan to reverse the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. He soundly defeated McCain in three consecutive debates. There was no specific poll question or questions that proved these points. Rather, all of this was evidenced by the sum total of both the official election and the exit poll results, which demonstrated Obama to have broad and deep support among numerous diverse groups of American electorate.

Every mother I met hated Palin with stunning passion. They gave money to Obama, or switched from McCain to Obama (my republican dentist who confided that with only two children she can only get maybe 29 hours a week of work in), or gave money to planned parenthood in her name. I knew of only two women who did not scream about her. One friend had to go to see a therapist- but the message on her doctor's machine was: "due to the overwhelming number of women calling me to help them deal with Palin I will not be able to make any new appointments...).

I think that the intensity of emotion that Palin engendered in mothers has not been really grasped by men. I think that that contributed to the large leas in mothers of children for Obama and the Hilary voters for him as well.

Yes, for some men Palin is a fantasy: Public power in the family and all the perks (official and unofficial) that go with it, without the man having to be up front and on the line; and lets the man hold the baby from time to time.

I find the information above for those without kids voting McCain almost unbelievable.

Julie

The stuff about married men with kids being *more* for McCain, and married women with kids being *less* for McCain was particularly interesting. Men are more likely to want someone to control - and I'm not saying married men don't love their kids, it's just that the control factor seems more important to men than women. I think that men are more likely to prefer dogs to cats, while women are more likely to prefer cats to dogs, for a similar reason - dogs can be taught to do all kinds of things.

I had previously heard that women with kids are more likely to vote Democratic. I just assumed that the same thing would apply to me. So I was very surprised to see that men demonstrate the opposite pattern. And another anomoly resulting from the same fact -- Married women without kids actually vote more Republican than married men without kids -- at least in this election.

The numbers may tell a story, but in reality the story drives the numbers. Your post goes to the meat of that. Terrific observations from the exit polls!

This makes a great bookend to all the widget posts.

K/R :hi:

I'm honored to provide a bookend to your widget posts -- which turned out to be pretty much right on the money.

:hi:

Everyone should read this to understand what happened in 2008 and so that we can try to figure out how to win 2012 and beyond.

i.e. that people earning over $200,000 voted Obama +6. Among the higher range of that highest earning bracket, I suspect there would be many "old money", and wiser types, generally, who would welcome paying a more just and sane level of taxation.

It was heartening to read here in the UK the other day that Franics Pym, one of La Thatcher's so-called "wets", left an estate to the value of something like £2,300,000. It is uncommon for rich people in our benighted realm not to distribute the bulk of their money at an earlier juncture among their effective legatees, and I do suspect that it was not an accident, but a defiant validation of his enlightened, decent and compassionate character.

It may be that you felt their (apparent) vote for Bush in 2004 seemed to cast heavy doubt on their strong vote for Obama. Personally, I strongly suspect that they may have represented catchments targeted by the Republican for some "enhanced" Diebold treatment in 2004. I always felt they would count among Obama's strongest supporters, because they would tend to be smart, and inevitably have been as terrified at the thought of a Bush alumnus in the Oval Office, as they would have been impressed by the extraordinary balance in Obama's character (impressive, in the round, in any case) between a high intellect and a striking level of empathy.

Why so many people should lose their marbles when they marry, that is a mystery to me. I woud have thought the opposite. But perhaps the greatest mystery of all is how so many Americans could have thought that McCain would be better - could be better, on counter-terrorism.

I have the strongest suspicion that Richard A Clarke (Against All Enemies), counter-terrorism czar under Clinton and "majordomo" of the White House and the general situation during 9/11, will have forty fits when he reads that. It would be difficult to imagine him not feeling a sense of despair at such a profound naiviety on the part of so many Americans.

It may be, as you say, that it varied substantially with the amount of money that they made. It could be that voters in the lower range of that income bracket voted more for McCain, since they would be less financial secure than those above them. Or, it could have been the opposite, as taxes would increase proportionately to income. There is no way to tell, since CNN did not differentiate income brackets above $200,000.

With regard to your theory that those at the very high levels of income would be the ones most likely to vote for Obama because they are smarter, I don't know about that. Above $200,000 I don't think that there is much of a correlation between income and intelligence or between income and education. Graduate degrees don't get you much above $200,000 in this country, as far as I know. Many people with graduate degrees earn below $100,000 or even below $50,000.

What is most striking to me is the difference between Kerry and Obama. In Obama's case, voting behavior for very high income level paralleled voting behavior for graduate education, which would partially support your theory of high income voters voting for Obama because of intelligence. But in the case of John Kerry, there was a total disconnect between income and education at the high levels, with graduate degrees being a good predictor of voting for Kerry and the highest income bracket being a good predictor of voting for Bush. I don't see how the election fraudsters could have specifically targeted people with graduate degrees.

As you point out, the idea that Republicans in general, and McCain in particular, are rated higher on counter-terrorism than Democrats, is bizarre in the extreme. Bush is the first President since 1813 to allow an attack on the U.S. mainland, and all the evidence points to extreme incompetance of his administration -- at best. So, why he gets "credit" for "keeping us safe" for 7 years is beyond belief. But it's true. Most Americans have been led to that bizarre conclusion.

I don't believe pans out in the quite the way you see it.

To my mind, while academic accreditations count for quite a bit, in a significant majority of cases, they by no means equate to a correspondence, and the correlation could be complex. Even the most highly-educated people and ostensibly astute people can be the densest of half-wits, if, as not infrequently obtains, their assumptins are haywire.

During the height of the Thatcherite credit boom in the eighties here in the UK, when virtually indigent people such as myself, could and did eventally borrow ludicrously inappropriate amounts (albeit that much of it would have been accrued via high compound-interest rates on credit cards) I was speaking to a very rich, very "old money" man, (as one of his sidelines, he owns some vineyards in France), and I said why don't you buy more car yards? His main line of business seems to be importing, each week, top-of-the range Mercedes, BMWs, etc from abroad, the end customer thereby avoiding significant tax, but he also has car-sales showrooms. He just looked at me and smiled. It didn't take me long to realisie that his family had seen these booms and busts too often to be taken in. Nuff said.

In other words they have an inherited wisdom in money matters - obvious "black sheep" aside - and, moreover, non "old money people", however well educated, will tend to be more driven and perhaps more myopic in their pursuit of wealth. Although why anyone with even with the barest modicum of worldly intelligence could not see the peril in voting for McCain (even if he were a puppet for the likes of Cheney, and Palin had not been appointed Vice President) absolutely defies me.

As regards a high level of educatiion, while Americans can obtain the highest academic accreditations by hard work and sacrifice, there will be a preponderance of tertiary students and graduates, particularly in the more prestigious universities from a monied background; so, their families will reside in up-market, residential areas. It's a bit like the universities here in the UK. The students in the more prestigious ones will generally tend to be of above average height. (Also, though incidentally, an Aussie friend of mine, now a solicitor, but a Vietnam vet and a mature student before qualifying as a teacher, then a lawyer, told me he always drove with special care in the environs of the university...!)

It's probably quite barmy, exit polls surely being just exit polls, but the fact that the survey was broadcast by CNN disturbs me. In any event, the machines raise too many imponderables for me to take more from those polls than would make sense to me. I'm not trying to dispute the results; just saying "ah hae ma doots", and they're very real to me. But it is fascinating, nevertheless, to read the breakdown. Thank you for posting it.

Thanks

K & R

I know it's a cliche -- but I'll still say "AWESOME"!

In trying to explain why married men with children vote more for McCain than married men without children, the author states, "Maybe that’s because men with children tend to be more paternalistic and authoritarian than men without children."

Then goes on without giving ANY evidence for this opinion, which, IMHO, is a pretty big slap in the face to those of us men who are married with children.

By using the phrase "tends to be more paternalistic and authoritarian", that means that it doesn't apply to all of them, but applies to them on average as a group. Though I, and many other people, are in that group, that doesn't mean that we are necessarily paternalistic and authoritarian. I'm not, and yet I'm in that demographic group. And I make no apologies for being in that demographic group.

By using the word maybe, that means that I had no proof of that statement, but rather I was just speculating. People speculate on things all the time, and I see nothing wrong with that, as long as we indicate (with a word such as "maybe") that it is speculation, rather than established fact.

on DU that I really make a point to read. Good analysis, once again!

That's very nice to hear.

thanks

Basically, as stated before, Palin only sured up their base (which they would have had anyway) and Obama destroyed in the middle.

With education. AS you are educated, your income improves. You are more invested in the status quo. Those rich, are able to create their own quo and survive. The poor middle guy, clutches at the status quo like his life depends on it. This was a change election. Conversely, the republicans prolly thought that if they could get us all to get married young, under stigma environment, getcha a house, put a heap of your retirement in the stock market, they could make us all republicans.

We were assured over and over again by the talking chuckleheads during the campaign that certain things were undoubtedly true. They turned out to be undoubtedly false. And be sure to shove them up the nose of folks who are going to try to mislead you: The first myth was that Obama was going to lose the Jewish vote. Uh, plus 57 for Obama. Also, the selection of Sarah Palin was a masterstroke by the Republicans to win the female vote. Women +13 for Obama.

fragmented conurbation by the name of Greenwood, "You couldn't make it up."

The Jewish vote, imo, tends to validate my contention in another post to this thread, that the vote of any intelligent people for McCain was bizarre. Heck, even if you had a zillion shares in oil and defence, you'd have to fear for the future of the world even in the near future. And the Jewish people are a race second to none in terms of worldly wisdom, and a have fair representation of wise, spiritual people too.

I was quite surprised to see such a high Jewish vote for Obama, after having been led to believe otherwise.

My daughter was very upset when the news about the Palin pick first came out. She thought it was going to deliver the women vote to McCain. Not even close.

Demographic groups that voted most heavily for Obama included:

women, especially single women and those with children;
gay men and women; members of minority races; 18-29 year olds; people who earned less than $50,000 a year; those with graduate degrees; non-Protestants or people who attend church infrequently or never; and those from the West, Northeast, or Midwest.

I am a 35 yo married man with children, earn between 50 and 200,000 a year, I do have postgraduate schooling - the only one that fits, but I attend 'church' regularly (although, not a mainstream one) and I am from the South :P

I have a theory about the difference between the 50K and the 200+K people and why they broke the other way:

More people in the 50-200 range are "worried about money" on a regular basis, whereas those over that amount do not as much - and understand what that actually would have done to their money. I think there was probably some traction to the false claim of the raising taxes on those a bit lower on the pay range, and enough to create the effect that we see with the above numbers.

Except I'm a little older than you, I don't attend church regularly, and I'm not from the South (although I lived in Florida for 7 years).

You may be right about the tax thing:

Will your taxes go up if Obama wins?
Yes: McCain + 12
No: Obama + 56

Actually, that's pretty interesting -- I should have included it in the OP. 71% believed that there taxes would go up if Obama won. Yet, of those people who fell for that line, 43% still voted for Obama. That's amazing! 71% of Americans fell for that bullshit. And yet a large proportion of them still voted for Obama!

vote Obama, but rather made them stay home.

Barack won Ohio by the getting the same amount of votes as John Kerry, but McCain lost because he got 300,000 less than Bush did. Why did those 300,000 stay home? I think it had something to do with Palin. They didn't want to vote for Obama, but they didn't want to vote for her either.

voter turnout was above 2004 levels. So, I don't think that that explanation applied to the nation-wide election as a whole.

Have you, or anyone else, taken a look at the veterans, active military, or military family numbers? Did Obama do better with them than Gore and Kerry?

Off to look myself, but thanks again.

For those who are current or former members of the U.S. military, McCain held about a 10 point lead, whereas among all other voters Obama held about a 10 point lead.

Apparently many of the veterans and active duty military never got the news of McCain's numerous votes against veterans' benefits.

Edited to add: Kerry did a little worse with veterans and active duty military. He lost to Bush with this group by 41-57. And I can't find any information on that subject for 2000.

"Who did you want to win the Democratic nomination? (Democrats only)
Hillary Clinton: Obama + 67
Other Democratic candidate: Obama + 28
No preference: Obama + 50 "

Most of those "other Democratic candidate" would be Obama or Biden supporters. Wouldn't Obama supporters and Biden supporters have voted for that ticket by +90? So they must be factored out and "other" means "other than Obama, Clinton or Biden". Which leaves maybe 35% of the party, and is perhaps disproportionately represented by Kucinich and Gravel supporters who voted for the Green party.

There was another category of voters -- those who wanted Obama to win the Dem nomination. Those voted for Obama by 98-2 in the GE, which of course is not surprising. I didn't include that in my OP because it seemed like a useless figure. But I failed to consider that by leaving it out, that gave a different interpretation to the word "other" candidate.

But still, the general point holds. Democrats who preferred Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Gravel, Kucinich, or Dodd, voted for Obama over McCain by only 63-35 -- a much lower margin than the Hillary voters gave to Obama in the GE. Keep in mind that only a very small percent of those voters were for Biden in the primaries.

Nevertheless, I agree that that does seem like a small margin. Maybe a lot of that represents racism -- I just don't know. But maybe we just don't realize the extent to which people switch parties in the GE. Another question in the same poll showed that 17% of Bush 2004 voters voted for Obama.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Yes: Obama + 89
No: McCain + 98

Please tell me it was just a joke though!

But a believable one.

"But in 2004, a very different relationship was evident. Although John Kerry did very well among voters with a postgraduate degree, those making over $200,000 per year voted overwhelmingly for George Bush. Why the upper income bracket voters voted so overwhelmingly in 2004 for George Bush, but turned around and voted for Obama in 2008 is one of the greatest mysteries to me of this election. "

Easy - these people had their stock portoflios decimated by the b*sh administration policies. They have had their bonuses go down as well. WHo do you think they prefer? A president likely to bring back their stock portfolios or one who will tax them a little more? There is more juice in getting the stocks back up.