TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM
July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 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
12.02.2008
Did Obama Expand His Coalition Tonight?

The big question tonight: Is Obama's strong showing in Virginia a sign of an expanding coalition, or is it the predictable result of a contest waged on favorable terrain? The answer is probably a little of both. For example, Obama basically tied Hillary among white voters in Virginia* after losing them by 18 points in Missouri, a state he barely won last Tuesday. On the other hand, Virginia has a lot more affluent white liberals and moderates than Missouri does. The majority of them live in the populous DC suburbs, which Obama carried by a 62-38 margin.

Still, I think there are a couple of places you can find genuine growth for Obama. The first place I'd look is older white voters. In Missouri, Hillary won white voters above age 60 by a 67-28 margin. In Virginia, she only won them by a 57-42 margin. That's a 24-point swing toward Obama among a very significant bloc (25 percent of the Missouri electorate; 17 percent of the Virginia electorate).

Another place to look is white Catholics, also a key demographic (16 percent of Missouri voters; 12 percent in Virginia). Hillary won them 50-46 in Missouri; Obama won them 49-48 tonight. These voters aren't just important in Democratic primaries; they're a general-election swing group, too. So it's a doubly-encouraging development for him.

Obama also carried the 5 percent of Virginia voters who were Hispanic by a healthy 54-46 margin. Now, there may be qualitative differences between Virginia Latinos and Latinos in, say, California. (My understanding is that a relatively high fraction of Virginia Latinos have Central American rather than Mexican roots; vice versa for California; there are probably also differences between Hispanic communities that represent 25 or 30 percent of a state's population and Hispanic communities that only represent 5 percent.) Still, this does give lie to the idea that Obama can't compete among Hispanics, which is an important talking point if nothing else.  

Finally, CNN unfortunately hasn't broken down its data by both race and income. But, if you look only at income, Obama improved his showing among people making under $50,000 from 51-46 in Missouri to 62-36 in Virginia. While Virginia has about two-thirds more African Americans than Missouri, which could explain some of that movement, it's a big enough swing that I suspect Obama improved among the white working class, too. If true, it would be another real sign of progress. (I'll update you later if I can get the finer data.)

*As always, note that exit polls get updated throughout the evening, so some of these numbers may be off by the time you see them. I'll try to update them before I sign off. [Exit poll numbers updated--11:41 PM.]

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:11 PM with 12 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!

virginiacentrist said:

"there are probably also differences between Hispanic communities that represent 25 or 30 percent of a state's population and Hispanic communities that only represent 5 percent"

Not quite.

Northern Virginia hispanics are clustered closely in a small geographic area. Many have (rightly) compared certain crescents (rings around the inner suburbs and exurban areas) Northern Virginia's demographics to border states.

The political dynamics in Northern Virginia are extremely similar to border states. We have local elections decided on immigration on a regular basis.

What's the real difference between hispanics in NOVA and hispanics in California/Arizona? Proximity to DC. Proximity to DC gives them 24/7 political coverage which means that they have much more information than California hispanics.

That's the difference here. Give Barack Obama some time, and he will break through with hispanic voters.

Hillary Clinton is sitting on her hispanic lead, all comfy in her easy chair, munching on hot peppers. But she's in for a rude awakening if Obama can reach saturation with his message in Texas.

February 12, 2008 10:13 PM

ralphnelle said:

Listening to McCain's speech (or bedtime story?) right now. There's something really obnoxious about the tone and delivery of his speeches. Is it a Mr. Rogers quality? I can't figure it out, but it's really infantalizing.

February 12, 2008 10:13 PM

virginiacentrist said:

I'll add one more thing about Virginia (I'm so proud of my state tonight) -

This is what makes Virginia different than other states. NOVA isn't just a growing liberal bashion - it's a growing bashion of politically efficacious and knowledgable voters. That's why it can go for the Democrats in November. The DC mood (EXTREME Bush fatigue in BOTH parties) is amplified in states that are in close proximity to DC.

February 12, 2008 10:16 PM

kgrant1054 said:

My wife, a Lutheran pastor, tells me that she knows the cadence and tone of McCain's speech quite well.  It is the cadence and tone of the eulogy and sending rite at a military funeral or graveside service, usually conducted by some rather old veteran.  Each time he speaks she wants to turn off the television after a while because she lapses into the standard speech given at such events, and really cannot listen to it outside of the correct context.  She can match the tenor and tempo quite well.  Happens if you have done enough of these kinds of funerals.

Mystery solved.  

February 12, 2008 10:37 PM

The Stump said:

Pivoting off the great point Mike's correspondent made --is it possible that Ted Kennedy (and the

February 13, 2008 12:55 AM

jet said:

If as you say is true Noam, then it's good news for Obama as he needs pickups in the groups you mentioned.

VC, I agree with your take on Hispanic voters.  Obama has been warned that that's a group that needs addressing.  I'm looking forward to seeing if Noam or Mike detect more changes in Obama's campaign message as he gets closer to Texas.

February 13, 2008 2:01 AM

Rhubarbs said:

"Did Obama Expand His Coalition Tonight?"

Yes.

In Virginia -- and huge props to Obama for remembering to call it a commonwealth when addressing Madison last night; Hillary kept calling it a state in her Jefferson-Jackson Day speech in Richmond on Friday -- Obama won every demographic but white women, and he only lost them by 9 points. He won white men (14 points) the overall white vote (1 point). He won Latinos (6 points). He won black women (70 points). He won all age cohorts, including middle-aged voters (19 points) and senior citizens (4 points).

So in Virginia, Obama's "coalition" consisted of "everybody."

February 13, 2008 7:27 AM

stgla said:

This idea that Obama has a growing "coalition" of small demographic subgroups is somewhat patronizing and probably oversimplifies, in the sense that the easily measured characteristics (race/ethnicity, gender, age, religion, income category, education level) are NOT driving voter preferences anywhere near as much as factors that are unobservable to the typical pollster.

What is the evidence?  Each demographic trend breathlessly commented on and repeated by political writers and bloggers seems to disappear within one or two weeks and the writers/bloggers just say that the winds have shifted or the candidate has reached out more to this formerly disaffected, distrustful, or disgruntled demographic group, without questioning hte original analysis.  Social scientists are trained to say "maybe we were wrong" in the face of accumulating evidence.  On the other hand, if you keep claiming that the coalition is changing, then you can never be wrong.

I'm waiting for the writers/bloggers to start saying that Hillary's "support base" consists of left-handed white male Baptists and then two weeks later revise it to say left-handed white male Baptist former Presidents born in Arkansas.

For decades political scientists have been studying and trying to understand voter preferences, ideological formation, party identification, and ballot choice.  I don't think we've come very far.  We're still stuck on correlations that can be translated into "Hispanics don't like the black guy" and "the female candidate attracts little old ladies."

With two candidates whose positions are close together, the press needs to focus in on and magnify the differences that do exist (subsidized near-universal health care vs. mandated universal coverage; spoke against the war and later moderated rhetoric vs. voted to authorize and criticized the implementation) and differences in their preparation (e.g. Chicago organizer versus child advocate; political wife versus University of Chicago law professor; Alan Keyes vs. Rick Lazio).  By buying the campaign's slogans and repeating them, the press dumbs it down to "Obama= hope" and "Clinton=experience" and they both equal change and does everyone a disservice.  Then falling back on race, gender, ed, etc. they are just fumbling around and not making sense.

I'm rambling, sorry.  Haven't had coffee this morning. I meant to just make the point about left-handed baptists.

February 13, 2008 10:38 AM

boneill said:

great stuff, stgla.  

February 13, 2008 12:25 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Good analysis, stgla, but I differ with you regarding hispanics, specifically mexican immigrants in the southwest and CA. This is an enormous and growing group, and it is more homogeneous than just about any other large demographic except maybe evangelical Christians. This may well be due to information asymmetries, as VAcentrist points out, but mastering information flows to a bilingual, recent immigrant group is not a simple matter, esp when, as in BHO's case, he's not had any kind of history with that group and its core issues. McCain has such a history, and knows their issues well.

I continue to believe that BHO will have serious problems with southwest hispanics. Perhaps he'll turn this around, but I just don't see it. The last time we saw a southwestern GOPer running as a moderate, he made huge inroads with this group. Hard to see McCain not enjoying at least as much success.

February 13, 2008 1:52 PM

The Stump said:

One small note of caution in reading the otherwise impressive results for Obama last night: As I mentioned

February 13, 2008 4:03 PM

The Stump said:

I said it going in, and I'll say it coming out: Wisconsin was actually reasonably favorable terrain

February 19, 2008 11:56 PM