Ask not what your country can do for you....
The topline story is women for Clinton, but in the NYTimes graphic breaking out the exit polls, there's also this.
According to the exit polling, it becomes clear that Obama did better among the "Getting financially ahead" while Clinton scored bigger among "falling behind." Obama did much better among $50,000+, while Clinton did better among less than $50,000.
Also in the polling, only 16% voted on "Cares about people like me," but, notably, it went 41% to Clinton, 19% to Obama, 37% to Edwards.
Are we looking at a core difference here? Obama scoring bigger among those better positioned to "give for change" and Clinton winning among those who feel that they can't afford to give?
And should Obama be alarmed that people don't think he cares about them? Am I going to see a thousand pictures of Obama "caring?"
According to the exit polling, it becomes clear that Obama did better among the "Getting financially ahead" while Clinton scored bigger among "falling behind." Obama did much better among $50,000+, while Clinton did better among less than $50,000.
Also in the polling, only 16% voted on "Cares about people like me," but, notably, it went 41% to Clinton, 19% to Obama, 37% to Edwards.
Are we looking at a core difference here? Obama scoring bigger among those better positioned to "give for change" and Clinton winning among those who feel that they can't afford to give?
And should Obama be alarmed that people don't think he cares about them? Am I going to see a thousand pictures of Obama "caring?"
posted by mikevotes at
7:52 AM
4 Comments:
"Obama did much better among $50,000+, while Clinton did better among less than $50,000."
True. But in perspective, those in the 50K+ pool out numbered those below by more than 2:1. And less than half of this small slice voted for Clinton. But the point that Obama didn't really register with this demographic is interesting.
Taking all the points you highlight in the post, I come away with the feeling that those who are looking for someone to change things for them like Hillary. Those who are looking to actively participate to affect change do not.
Again, I think we're seeing Hillary doing well with the party's core, and Barack doing well among those looking for a new way of doing things. It's back to that generational thing. And I don't just mean age, but a divide between a new generational view of the Democratic Party and an old generational view.
Just an observation.
By
-epm, at 9:19 AM
It could be a certain amount of apprehension too (I nearly said fear). Hillary represents practical 'safe' change. Obama is a leap into the great unknown.
By
Anonymous, at 9:27 AM
EPM, that's exactly what I was after.
In the first draft, I had a too long riff about how Obama's speeches were about how "we" were going to change things, while Clinton more frequently uses "you."
And, yeah, the storyline is women and core democrats, but I figured everybody'd overexplore that story line.
*****
Anon, There's definitely that, too. It quietly underlies the "experience" argument.
By
mikevotes, at 10:54 AM
I pity the strategists who have to make sense out of all the cross-currents in that data...
One thing about Clinton doing better than Obama among lower-income people is that in New Hampshire I believe that group would be more white than in many other states, so perhaps it's not as counterintuitive as it seems for her to do well among them. Blue-collar whites are one of the more conservative elements in the Democratic party, so it would make sense for them to vote for Hilary, who's perceived as more conservative. Where there are more African-Americans in that group, most likely Obama will do better.
But how the heck to explain Hilary leading among folks who want out of Iraq now? No clue.
By
Anonymous, at 5:18 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home