Obama's victory in the Tar Heel State
Yesterday, I got back from volunteering for the Obama campaign in North Carolina. I was mostly doing Get Out The Vote work in Raleigh, but then I spent primary day in Dunn, about 45 minutes south of Raleigh. While I was driving back to Raleigh, the networks started calling the election for Obama, with almost no precincts having reported yet. I immediately thought that the exit polls the networks were looking at must be showing two things: 1) that black voters had come out in record numbers, and 2) that Obama had also won among a substantial minority of white voters.
I knew the exit polling must have shown that Obama carried a decent chunk of the white vote because North Carolina's black population, while large, is a smaller percentage of the state's population (roughly 22%) than that of many other Southern states (for example, South Carolina's population is 30% black, Georgia's 29%, and Mississippi's 36%). Yet, if you listen to many of the pundits, Obama's win in the North Carolina primary was almost solely the result of his support among state's African-Americans. For example, Robert Novak wrote that:
Clinton's failure Tuesday was a product of demographics rather than Obama's campaign skill. Consistently winning more than 90 percent of the African American vote, Obama is unbeatable in a primary where the black electorate is as large as it is in North Carolina (half the registered Democratic vote there). [Washington Post]
And the Wall Street Journal's editorial on the NC victory came with this caveat:
But his victory in North Carolina depended heavily on his overwhelming (91%) share of the black vote, which made up about a third of the primary electorate. Mrs. Clinton won 61% of white Democrats in North Carolina, according to the exit polls, and 65% of white Democrats in Indiana. Mrs. Clinton also broke even among independents. Clearly Mr. Obama's early promise of a transracial, postpartisan coalition has dimmed as the campaign has progressed and voters have learned more about him. [Wall Street Journal]
The reality is that while the black vote obviously played a huge part of Obama's NC win, it was part of a broader coalition. At least the Wall Street Journal piece was straightforward about what portion of the NC Democratic primary electorate was black (34%). In contrast, Novak mentioned Obama's 91% support rate among black voters, and then noted that 50% of registered Democratic voters in NC are black, without clarifying that blacks only made up 34% of the Democratic primary (which includes independents, who made up at least 18% of the vote) - seemingly in an effort to suggest that Obama did not need any more than a tiny fraction of the white vote to win.
Anyone who actually looks at the numbers can see that, even if he had won the support of literally every single black voter, Obama could not have beaten Clinton by a 56%-42% margin without a substantial share of the white vote (which made up 62% of the Democratic primary electorate, compared to the 34% black share). In fact, applying the exit poll percentages to the total votes, at least 41% of the votes for Obama in NC were cast by white voters.
Obama won 37% of the white vote (to Clinton's 61%), winning among whites aged 17-29 by a 57%-41% margin, and nearly splitting the vote among whites aged 30-44 (she won the demographic 52%-45%). Most of Clinton's support came from white voters 45 and over; Clinton dominated among whites aged 45-60 by a 64%-33% margin, and whites aged 60 and over by a 69%-29% margin.
As for other demographic categories, Obama won among voters at every income and education level measured by the exit polls, winning among voters with postgraduate degrees by a 59%-41% margin, and with college degrees by a 55%-44% margin. Among voters with a gun in their household (who made up 45% of the electorate), Clinton edged Obama 51%-47%. After all the hand-wringing about the white Catholic vote in Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama did somewhat better among white Catholics in NC (getting 41% to Clinton's 58%), while Clinton beat him badly among white Protestants (losing 67%-30%).
Assuming Obama wins the nomination, his campaign will definitely need to work to reach out to Clinton's supporters, especially whites over 45 years old. But it is important to keep in mind that a vote for Clinton is not necessarily a vote against Obama, as some of the recent commentary seems to assume. For example, it's quite a stretch to assume that registered Democrats who chose Clinton because they see her as better on domestic policy (e.g. - they preferred her health care plan to Obama's, or saw her as better-prepared to right the economy) would defect en masse to a Republican candidate with conservative domestic policies, or that those who preferred Clinton primarily for pragmatic reasons (e.g., they see her as the safer choice who has the greater likelihood of winning the White House back for the Democrats) would become completely disinterested in the pragmatic concerns of their party and/or political goals.
The $64,000 question is to what extent race influenced support for Clinton. It would be naive to look at her huge margins among older primary voters without considering the differences between older voters' and younger voters' views on race (and I don't think the exit polls questions about race are going to get an accurate read on this issue). But it is important not to assume that because race is a factor in someone's decision, that means that they are a racist, or that they would never vote for a black candidate.
While I'm sure there is some percentage of voters who will never vote for a black candidate, it is important not to overlook what I would describe as race as a pragmatic concern. It is probably difficult for older voters who grew up in a segregated world to wrap their heads around a black candidate having a shot at winning the presidency, regardless of their views on race and the civil rights movement. Some observers hear hesitant voters say "well, I'm fine with a black candidate, but I'm worried about everyone else" and respond by saying "that's what they all say - it's always someone else." I'm sure some of those voters are using pragmatism as an excuse, but I actually think a lot of them are genuinely concerned about a black candidate's ability to win in November.
Once Obama is the Democratic nominee and has the entire party establishment backing him, he should be able to win over the more pragmatic-minded older Democrats fairly easily. As for those voters who are personally uncomfortable with a black candidate, I think Obama's selection of a vice presidential candidate could be more significant than any previous candidate's has been. Just pairing Obama with a white VP would go a long way toward reassuring older Democrats, especially if the advertising emphasizes both names on the ticket, as most recent campaigns have. I think a lot of older Democrats who were iffy about Obama could get behind "Obama-Webb" or "Obama-McCaskill" - especially if the Obama-_____ campaign targets older voters heavily with issue-oriented advertising.
North Carolina Primary Exit Polls [CNN]
I knew the exit polling must have shown that Obama carried a decent chunk of the white vote because North Carolina's black population, while large, is a smaller percentage of the state's population (roughly 22%) than that of many other Southern states (for example, South Carolina's population is 30% black, Georgia's 29%, and Mississippi's 36%). Yet, if you listen to many of the pundits, Obama's win in the North Carolina primary was almost solely the result of his support among state's African-Americans. For example, Robert Novak wrote that:
Clinton's failure Tuesday was a product of demographics rather than Obama's campaign skill. Consistently winning more than 90 percent of the African American vote, Obama is unbeatable in a primary where the black electorate is as large as it is in North Carolina (half the registered Democratic vote there). [Washington Post]
And the Wall Street Journal's editorial on the NC victory came with this caveat:
But his victory in North Carolina depended heavily on his overwhelming (91%) share of the black vote, which made up about a third of the primary electorate. Mrs. Clinton won 61% of white Democrats in North Carolina, according to the exit polls, and 65% of white Democrats in Indiana. Mrs. Clinton also broke even among independents. Clearly Mr. Obama's early promise of a transracial, postpartisan coalition has dimmed as the campaign has progressed and voters have learned more about him. [Wall Street Journal]
The reality is that while the black vote obviously played a huge part of Obama's NC win, it was part of a broader coalition. At least the Wall Street Journal piece was straightforward about what portion of the NC Democratic primary electorate was black (34%). In contrast, Novak mentioned Obama's 91% support rate among black voters, and then noted that 50% of registered Democratic voters in NC are black, without clarifying that blacks only made up 34% of the Democratic primary (which includes independents, who made up at least 18% of the vote) - seemingly in an effort to suggest that Obama did not need any more than a tiny fraction of the white vote to win.
Anyone who actually looks at the numbers can see that, even if he had won the support of literally every single black voter, Obama could not have beaten Clinton by a 56%-42% margin without a substantial share of the white vote (which made up 62% of the Democratic primary electorate, compared to the 34% black share). In fact, applying the exit poll percentages to the total votes, at least 41% of the votes for Obama in NC were cast by white voters.
Obama won 37% of the white vote (to Clinton's 61%), winning among whites aged 17-29 by a 57%-41% margin, and nearly splitting the vote among whites aged 30-44 (she won the demographic 52%-45%). Most of Clinton's support came from white voters 45 and over; Clinton dominated among whites aged 45-60 by a 64%-33% margin, and whites aged 60 and over by a 69%-29% margin.
As for other demographic categories, Obama won among voters at every income and education level measured by the exit polls, winning among voters with postgraduate degrees by a 59%-41% margin, and with college degrees by a 55%-44% margin. Among voters with a gun in their household (who made up 45% of the electorate), Clinton edged Obama 51%-47%. After all the hand-wringing about the white Catholic vote in Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama did somewhat better among white Catholics in NC (getting 41% to Clinton's 58%), while Clinton beat him badly among white Protestants (losing 67%-30%).
Assuming Obama wins the nomination, his campaign will definitely need to work to reach out to Clinton's supporters, especially whites over 45 years old. But it is important to keep in mind that a vote for Clinton is not necessarily a vote against Obama, as some of the recent commentary seems to assume. For example, it's quite a stretch to assume that registered Democrats who chose Clinton because they see her as better on domestic policy (e.g. - they preferred her health care plan to Obama's, or saw her as better-prepared to right the economy) would defect en masse to a Republican candidate with conservative domestic policies, or that those who preferred Clinton primarily for pragmatic reasons (e.g., they see her as the safer choice who has the greater likelihood of winning the White House back for the Democrats) would become completely disinterested in the pragmatic concerns of their party and/or political goals.
The $64,000 question is to what extent race influenced support for Clinton. It would be naive to look at her huge margins among older primary voters without considering the differences between older voters' and younger voters' views on race (and I don't think the exit polls questions about race are going to get an accurate read on this issue). But it is important not to assume that because race is a factor in someone's decision, that means that they are a racist, or that they would never vote for a black candidate.
While I'm sure there is some percentage of voters who will never vote for a black candidate, it is important not to overlook what I would describe as race as a pragmatic concern. It is probably difficult for older voters who grew up in a segregated world to wrap their heads around a black candidate having a shot at winning the presidency, regardless of their views on race and the civil rights movement. Some observers hear hesitant voters say "well, I'm fine with a black candidate, but I'm worried about everyone else" and respond by saying "that's what they all say - it's always someone else." I'm sure some of those voters are using pragmatism as an excuse, but I actually think a lot of them are genuinely concerned about a black candidate's ability to win in November.
Once Obama is the Democratic nominee and has the entire party establishment backing him, he should be able to win over the more pragmatic-minded older Democrats fairly easily. As for those voters who are personally uncomfortable with a black candidate, I think Obama's selection of a vice presidential candidate could be more significant than any previous candidate's has been. Just pairing Obama with a white VP would go a long way toward reassuring older Democrats, especially if the advertising emphasizes both names on the ticket, as most recent campaigns have. I think a lot of older Democrats who were iffy about Obama could get behind "Obama-Webb" or "Obama-McCaskill" - especially if the Obama-_____ campaign targets older voters heavily with issue-oriented advertising.
North Carolina Primary Exit Polls [CNN]
posted at 8:23:00 PM | permalink
