Since the Pennsylvania primary, the Clinton campaign has succeeded in getting the media -- particularly the cable news talking heads -- to adopt an extremely flawed narrative: that her success among white working class voters in battleground state primaries calls into question Barack Obama's electability in the general election. The resulting conventional wisdom is that Obama has a "problem" with white voters.
Well, as we and numerous others have noted, using demographic voting trends from the Democratic primary as evidence of how either candidate would perform among certain groups in the general election is utterly nonsensical.
But more importantly, national polling data simply doesn't back up the claim that Obama should be concerned about his appeal among the white electorate. In fact, the data suggests the exact opposite: that Clinton may have a problem with black voters.
(More after the jump ...)
It's certainly true that, in head-to-head matchups with John McCain, the data does show white working class voters far more willing to vote for Clinton than Obama. Indeed, an April 26 Newsweek poll shows Clinton and McCain splitting "working class/poor whites" 47-46 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, among the same demographic, McCain beats Obama by 18 points.
But this discrepancy has little effect on either candidate's performance among all white voters (McCain beats Obama by 14 and Clinton by 10 in the Newsweek poll) or the total electorate (both Democratic candidates beat McCain by three points).
Other nationwide polls also fail to give Clinton a significant edge among all white voters. Take the April 27 Rasmussen tracking poll, which found that "among White voters, McCain leads Obama by twelve and Clinton by eleven."
That both Democratic candidates appear to be losing the white vote by over 10 percent nationally is not surprising when viewed in the context of the last two presidential elections. In 2000, Gore lost to Bush among white voters by 13 percent. In 2004, Kerry lost among this demographic by 17 percent. Bill Clinton also lost the overall white vote in his successfull 1992 and 1996 campaigns, but by much slimmer margins. However, he didn't really attract a greater share of the white electorate than his Democratic successors; rather, George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole won a lesser percentage, thanks to Ross Perot.
My point here is that -- despite all the hubbub over Obama's performance among the white working class in certain primaries -- current polling indicates that both he and Clinton are on track to take a similar share of the overall white electorate as the past four Democratic presidential candidates.
But the latest Rasmussen survey and other national polls do provide evidence of a large contrast among black voters. Once again, check out Rasmussen's April 27 findings: "Among African-American voters, Obama dominates but Clinton attracts just 59% support."
This is the demographic trend that the pundits should be paying attention to when trying to discern which of these candidates is more electable in the general election. That Clinton may only garner around two-thirds of the black vote against a Republican candidate is astonishing from a historical perspective. Indeed, in each of the past four presidential elections, the Democratic candidates have, to use Rasmussen's language, "dominated" the black vote:
1992: Bill Clinton attracted 83 percent of African-American voters (who represented 8 percent of the overall electorate).
1996: Bill Clinton attracted 84 precent of African-American voters (who represented 10 percent of the overall electorate).
2000: Al Gore attracted 90 percent of African-American voters (who represented 10 percent of the overall electorate).
2004: John Kerry attracted 88 percent of African-American voters (who represented 11 percent of the overall electorate).
This weekend in The New York Times, columnist Charles Blow pointed out that the Clinton campaign's "racially tinged comments and questions about [Obama's] character" have had a disastrous effect on Hillary's standing among African-Americans (h/t Al Giordano). As his chart shows, since July 2007, her approval rating among blacks has dropped 36 points and her disapproval has climbed 14 points. During the same period, Obama's approval and disapproval ratings among whites have both increased by 5 percentage points. If Obama's standing among the white working class were as big a problem as the talking heads tells us it is, wouldn't it be reflected in these numbers?
Blow spells out the ramifications of this data for Clinton:
While a favorable opinion doesn’t necessarily translate into a vote, this should still give the Clintons (and the superdelegates) pause. Electability cuts both ways.
If Hillary Clinton should defy the odds (and the current math) and secure the nomination, she would be hard-pressed to defeat John McCain without the enthusiastic support of black voters, stalwarts of the Democratic base.
Getting that support could now be tricky.
In short: "It's the black vote, stupid."
Post new comment