TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
08.01.2008
What We Can Learn From The Democratic Exit Polls

I've looked at the current Democratic exit polls, which, incidentally, are adjusted later to fit the final results, so what I have to say here must taken as subject to revision. What they show is that the pattern that held up earlier in the year between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama – not in terms of the extent of their support, but in terms of who is supporting them – is holding up in New Hampshire.  Clinton is still doing well among women (particularly older and married women), traditional Democrats, voters over 40,  and among lower-middle income white voters without college degrees who are worried about the economy.  Obama is doing fabulously among the young and very well among independents and upscale Independents.  Both of these can also be important blocs for a Democrat to win in the fall.

 

Here are the groups in which Obama enjoyed a significant margin over Clinton: men, young voters (18-24), voters making more than $50,000, voters with post-graduate education (a good indication of professionals), independents, first time voters, voters without religious affiliation, men without children and single men, voters who said they were getting ahead financially, voters who thought the war in Iraq was the most important issue, who wanted change, and who wanted someone who could unite the country.

 

Here are Clinton's groups: women, particularly married women, voters over 40, voters making less than $50,000, voters without a college degree, union voters, Democrats, Catholics (an important constituency for the Democrats),  people very worried about the economy, voters who thought the economy was most important, voters who valued experience, and voters who evaluated candidates on whether they "care about people like me."

 

There were anomalies. Voters who thought the war in Iraq was the most important issue favored Obama by 46 to 33 percent, while voters who favored our withdrawing  all troops "as soon as possible" favored Clinton by 40 to 36 percent. That may reflect Clinton's higher rating as a potential commander-in-chief, or it may just be a statistical anomaly.  Clinton's support by 38 to 20 percent over Obama on the question of which "one of these candidates "cares about people like me" is also interesting, and suggests that Obama has a different kind of charisma than Bill Clinton or George W. Bush.  This was, too, Edwards' strongest category – the only one where he won more support than his rivals.

 

What does this mean for the future?  If one assumes that Obama is the more likely nominee, it means that he is going to find a way of reaching white working class voters.  If he can't, he'll have trouble winning a lot of those Midwestern swing states.  Clinton, meanwhile, has to suggest those independents and independently-minded Democrats who don't look back nostalgically on the '90s that she would make a better nominee and president.

 

--John B. Judis

Posted: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 9:13 PM with 21 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

teplukhin2you said:

It would be interesting to see the breakout for marrieds with children and those without children.

Obama's a yuppie par excellence, the internet candidate. NTTAWWT, but the really crucial swing vote, as Judis suggests, is marrieds with children in places like Clark County OH, central Florida, Colorado Springs/south and southwest Denver, etc. If we can't do better than our current anemic 1/3 of such voters, then we lose to McCain.

January 8, 2008 9:59 PM

jacksondyer said:

"What does this mean for the future?  If one assumes that Obama is the more likely nominee,.."

This is a HUGE if.

At this point it seems that Hillary has the advantage.

January 8, 2008 10:03 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Neither of these candidates is a pushover. It's a good thing this race is close: it will improve their game, toughen them both up for the general. Or in Hillary's case, soften her up, teach her those crucial emoting techniques that seem to be doing the trick for her with those who vote for the candidate who "cares about people like me."

This is good. The process is working. I'm more and more confident about our chances in the general.

January 8, 2008 10:08 PM

scottlooper said:

The real question: what will happen to Obama's youth vote once college students return to their schools?  Feb. 5th should give some insight to this question -- and a good idea of how the November election will go down.

January 8, 2008 10:23 PM

teplukhin2you said:

scott - typically, only about 25% of kids vote, and as our country ages, the pool of young voters, in % terms, is shrinking. No candidate in his right mind puts much stock on the youth vote.

January 8, 2008 10:30 PM

r-ennis said:

Clinton would be a better candidate than Obama but I agree that McCain will probably win if he is the Republican nominee, which, after tonight is much more likely. Having Biden on the ticket would help big time.

January 8, 2008 10:56 PM

The Plank said:

With so much hot primary action to keep up on tonight, you may have missed these posts: *John B. Judis

January 8, 2008 11:07 PM

The Plank said:

With so much hot primary action to keep up on tonight, you may have missed these posts: *John B. Judis

January 8, 2008 11:29 PM

crumtd said:

Until the last couple of years I would have considered myself center right.  I still may be, but am completely disillusioned with the extremism of the Republican Party.  I have switched parties to vote in the Democratic primary this year.  Democrats have two candidates that have the possibility to really change the tone of this country.  Obama and Edwards are in position to really bring independents and center Republicans into a working majority, they may fail, but they have a chance.  Hillary Clinton is the status quo.  Because of her history, much of it not  her fault, she is as devisive as Bush.  Do Democrats really want a shot at changing this country, or is getting back at those evil Republicans what matters?  If Hillary is the Democratic nominee I will hope for a Michael Bloomberg candidacy, which will probably give the Republican the presidency.  Any other Democrat will have my vote.  I guarantee I am not the only voter somewhere in the middle that will vote for hope if Democratic primary voters give us the chance.

January 8, 2008 11:32 PM

jmfeigelson said:

Seems to me that given tonight's most interesting developments (a lot more interesting than an Obama win), Edwards is in the power position. Unlike the electoral college, the delegate race is not winner-take-all. If these numbers continue to hold up, and Hillary and Obama roughly divide the top tier, neither winds up with a majority of delegates at the convention, and Edwards can hold out for whoever can give him more of what he wants (he can certainly be VP if he wants it, for instance). Is there any chance he would give his delegates to Hillary given his statements in Saturday's debate?

January 8, 2008 11:35 PM

mmathog said:

Like I keep saying, Obama's class politics are the story of this race. He started out with a more elite constituency and now he has to reach middle and working class voters.

Good for HRC (I'm an Obama supporter), she's a fine candidate and we have a real race on our hands. No one put the other one away. Tep is right, the winner of this tough fight will make a formidable nominee.

I was a bit annoyed that HRC used a couple of right-wing 'frames' toward the end there, specifically, implying Obama was a 'flip flopper' and playing the terrorism card, but hey, it's a campaign...

January 9, 2008 12:07 AM

gchoward said:

Only the press was surprized by Hillary's win. No offense intended, but 2500 total Democratic votes in Iowa is an extremely small sample size to make any kind of extrapolation. Shortly, the race will move to much larger states (more Democrats will vote in my small town in California than in all of Iowa), and the advantage goes completely to Hillary.

January 9, 2008 12:24 AM

fnarf999 said:

Guess what? Obama won. He gets more delegates than Clinton from New Hampshire. They each get nine regular delegates (Edwards gets the other four), but Obama gets three superdelegates, Clinton only two. That makes it 12-11 Obama. See www.cnn.com/.../candidates

January 9, 2008 1:38 AM

asistos said:

I'm thinking the results were a combination of The Tears and the Bradley Effect.  The Tears explain why the exit polls had Obama up by five instead of ten-- the last polls concluded before everyone had seen The Tears on the evening news.  But they don't explain why Obama lost seven to eight points between the exit polls and the actual results.  Why would voters lie to pollsters?  Answer: the Bradley Effect.

I'm really curious to see how each campaign fields that question.  It seems almost impossible that they won't get asked about the Bradley Effect.

January 9, 2008 1:57 AM

psantillana said:

Asistos: How can anyone answer the question about the Bradley effect? It's all about what happens in the secrecy of the booth. No-one knows but the people who, if it were true, obviously aren't telling.

And don't forget the Independents who might have said they were for Obama [and maybe were] but then, thinking O was 7-10 points ahead of H, and McCain only 4 points ahead of Romney, decided to help out McCain.  I like this theory because I foresaw it/dreaded it.

January 9, 2008 4:21 AM

psantillana said:

Asistos: Do you know what the margin of error is on exit polls? If you take away that, and still have a decent missing chunk, I would like to know what the eggheads say.  Also, what is the margin of error on the margin of error?

January 9, 2008 4:24 AM

GoodLiberal said:

I can see how Obama can reach out to his constituency- start talking more about 'getting the ecomony moving again', 'more and better jobs' blah blah, but how does Hillary try and peel off the voters who Obama has wooed?

January 9, 2008 6:13 AM

Eos said:

The media swarmed Obama because he is a candidate of fashion, more like the iPhone or an Oprah cosmetic than he is like JFK, RFK, or MLK. It has been incredible hubris for Obama to compare himself to John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King without having done anything that even begins to approach what those men have done.

Obama is presumptious in thinking of himself as a great figure of historical importance without having shown the hard work and courage that greatness requires. What has he achieved? When has he been brave? On what issue has he led? JFK? RFK? MLK? Are you kidding? The media bought that because it sounded  cool.

Obama is a candidate of fashion, more like the iPhone, than he is like those men. He is a candidate for affluent and trendy dilettantes rather than for those who are suffering and ignored by those in power. Hilary actually bridges the gap between the powerful and those who are struggling. Her life has been a movement. She has shown courage. That is why she won in New Hampshire.

January 9, 2008 8:16 AM

cleavet said:

pccostello: Your characterization of Obama supporters is nothing more than nasty stereotyping. But do please continue to gloat publicly--your demonstration of How to be a Bad and Resentful Democrat can only do wonders for your candidate, and for the eventual nominee.

January 9, 2008 9:49 AM

alexmh said:

This looks like the race is narrowing down to the old DP beer vs. wine track candidates. And as we know from history, beer candidates (Mondale, Gore, Kerry) usually win but race and gender issues mixes the whole thing up.   And wine candidates are usually no where nearly as well funded as Obama is.

January 9, 2008 12:00 PM

Open University said:

John Judis notes one interesting development last night that deserves more attention than it will probably

January 9, 2008 12:09 PM