The Democratic Rift Is Not Widening

11.03.2008

Looks like the final tally will be in the neighborhood of 18 to 20 points. Marc Ambinder says:

The rift in the party widens: Obama voters by and large would NOT be satisfied (55%) with Clinton as their nominee, while 7 and ten Clinton voters would NOT be satisfied (72%) with Obama as theirs.

It's not accurate to say that the rift is widening. The results in neighboring states produced almost exactly the same figures. In Louisiana, 54 percent of Obama voters said they wouldn't be satisfied with Clinton, and 70 percent of Clinton voters said they wouldn't be satisfied with Obama. In Alabama, the figures were 56 percent and 76 percent, respectively. Presumably this can be attrituted partly to race. (The figures are lower in states outside the Deep South, but not dramatically lower--pretty much everywhere, majorities of both Obama and Clinton voters have said they wouldn't be satisfied with the other candidate as the nominee. It's possible to read too much into these results: People like their candidate and want him/her to win.)

On another note, John King on CNN just pointed out that Clinton did better in more Republican parts of Mississippi, and implied that this might mean that Clinton would do better among Republicans in November. This is patently the wrong conclusion to draw, and is a good demonstration of the perils of attempting to predict general-election outcomes based on primary results. Obviously, whites voted heavily for Clinton, and white areas of the state support Republicans in presidential elections--thanks to the votes of people who don't vote in Democratic primaries. Clinton's strong showing in these parts of the state doesn't demonstrate anything about the preferences of a single Mississippi Republican. This is a simple enough point that CNN should be able to convey it to viewers.

--Josh Patashnik

Posted: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 10:50 PM with 7 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!

mundye said:

That's funny, because about an hour ago when talking about those exact same areas, King described them as areas where "there is no way a Republican loses in November." Wonder what explains the narrative shift?

Despite what SNL & Hillary think, the media is not in the tank for Obama. MSNBC? Yes, definitely. But that is balanced by the whole-hearted support that CNN throws her way. All of which is of course counter-balanced by Faux News love of all things Republican and desire for the Democrats to bloody themselves silly.

March 11, 2008 11:27 PM

roidubouloi said:

Yeah, will TNR columnists have been making similarly lame extrapolations from primary results to the general election. So let's not be too smug with regard to CNN.

March 11, 2008 11:29 PM

Rhubarbs said:

Josh, there is no point on any subject that is simple enough for us to assume CNN is capable of conveying it to viewers. On the basis of what evidence of past performance could you honestly expect CNN to correctly answer the question, "What color is a cloudless sky at midday?"

But two points. First, that disparity of Hillary's supporters being more intolerant of Obama than are Obama's supporters of Hillary has been present since South Carolina in the polling I've seen.

Second, Hillary has done best in the Republican parts of pretty much every state so far. Even when Hillary wins the state, as in Ohio, Obama wins the solid Democratic counties. In most states, Democrats rely on big margins in a relatively few populous counties to swing the statewide vote against the weight of big Republican margins in a larger number of less populous counties. Obama is winning the blue counties, Hillary the red ones. You can almost take the national map of counties won by Bush and Kerry in 2004, change the names in the legend to read Hillary and Obama, respectively, and have a map of the 2008 primary contest.

March 11, 2008 11:45 PM

ralphnelle said:

Too late, Josh. The Judis's and Cohn's of the world, together with the Clinton camp in general, have already pushed the racial divide story into the MSM. Now it's gonna be our story for the rest of the week, DESPITE the fact that Obama has won in places like Washington and Minnesota, etc.

March 12, 2008 1:01 AM

psantillana said:

Does nobody remember Rush Limbaugh telling all those Republicans to vote for Clinton?? It's not because they love her. They won't vote for her in a general. There are no "Republicans for Clinton" organizations, websites, etc. It's so they can beat her in the general or bloody up Obama for the general. He has SAID that. And yes, most Republicans are white. Look no further!

March 12, 2008 1:43 AM

jts44 said:

I would desert HRC and vote for Obama in a heartbeat if I thought he could win the general election. The chances of either one winning is slim at best. Face it Democrats we have two flawed candidates and neither one will be able to do anything for the country if McCain wins the election.

March 12, 2008 9:56 AM

jobeek2 said:

Josh, you're making a big mistake.

You write:

"In Louisiana, 54 percent of Obama voters said they wouldn't be satisfied with Clinton, and 70 percent of Clinton voters said they wouldn't be satisfied with Obama. In Alabama, the figures were 56 percent and 76 percent, respectively."

But thats not what the exit poll data you link in says. At all.

What the data you link in says is that in Louisiana, for example, is that Clinton voters made up 54% of the voters who would be satisfied with Hillary as nominee; and that Clinton voters made up 70% of the voters who would be dissatisfied with Obama as nominee.

Here:

LOUISIANA

Satisfied if Obama Wins Nomination

Yes - in total - 64%

No - in total - 34%.

Of the voters who said "yes", 18% voted Hillary and 80% voted Obama.

Of the voters who said "no", 70% voted Hillary and 14% voted Obama.

Now if you want to find out what percentage of Hillary voters would be dissatisfied with Obama as nominee, you have to do the following recalculation:

Step 1) Voters who voted for Hillary, but would also be satisfied with Obama as nominee, made up 18% of 64% of the electorate -- or 11.52% of the total number of Dem primary voters.

2) Voters who voted for Hillary, and would also be DISsatisfied with Obama as nominee, made up 70% of 34% of the electorate -- or 23.8% of the total number of Dem primary voters.

3) The total share of Hillary voters in this exit poll data is 11.52% + 23.8% = 35.32%.

4) Of the Hillary voters, then, those who would be satisfied with Obama as nominee as well make up 11.52 / 0.3532 = 32.6%. Those who would be DISsatisfied with Obama as nominee make up 23.8 / 0.3532 = 67.4%.

In short:

In Louisiana, 67% of Hillary voters said they would be dissatisfied with Obama as nominee. In Alabama it was 64%; in Tennessee also 64%; in Arkansas 69%. Meanwhile, in all other states, the percentage ranged from 30% to 59%. Now in Mississippi, it is, as Marc correctly noted, 72%. Thats a new record.

So two things stand out here: a) Mississippi sets a new record in terms of what I've called "the bitterness quotient"; b) it fits into a pattern where Hillary voters are MUCH more reluctant about Obama in the South than anywhere else.

For more information, see my posts on a forum here:

www.able2know.org/.../viewtopic.php

March 12, 2008 10:59 AM