Following up on Logan’s item from last night, Obama clearly cruised to an easy win in Mississippi, but the exit polls have some interesting numbers on how he won.
* Gender: Obama won 61% of men and 58% of women. That’s going to lead to a pretty good day.
* Race: It’s fair to say this was an important factor in Mississippi. 91% of African-American voters backed Obama, while 72% of white voters backed Clinton.
* Age: There continues to be a striking age gap between the candidates. Despite Obama’s landslide win, Clinton still won a majority of voters 60 and older.
* Income: Obama won every income group except those making more than $75,000, who preferred Clinton.
* Honesty: Here’s a surprising one. 70% of Mississippi voters said Obama is honest and trustworthy. Only 52% said the same about Clinton.
* Commander-in-Chief test: Voters preferred Obama to Clinton by 10 points on this question, 53% to 43%.
* Republicans: Is Rush Limbaugh’s strategy catching on? 13% of voters in the Democratic primary identified themselves as Republicans, and they overwhelmingly backed Clinton over Obama, 78% to 22%.
* VP: 6 in 10 Obama backers said that he should select Clinton for the ticket if he won the nomination, while 4 in 10 Clinton supporters said she should choose Obama if he she won.
And with that, the long slog to Pennsylvania begins — its primary is six long weeks from yesterday.
No Trackbacks To “Tidbits from Mississippi exit polls“
But when it comes to gender and race, we need to heed the wisdom of Geraldine Ferraro: Mondale Had Top Spot on ‘84 Ticket Only Because He Was Norwegian
Is that honesty statistic really that surprising to you? Have you been following this campaign and/or ever heard of the Clintons?
I think that is the most telling number, ~10% of Clinton’s vote came from people who won’t vote for her later.
I am one of those who votes for Hillary..not because Rush Limbaugh told me so, but because Oblama’s health care plan is not going to work as it is not universal. Health care is the MOST important issue, so there we go. He wants to sit down and play nice with insurance companies…hehe…guess who is going to win in that case? Everytime you want to be nice and sit down with everybody at the table, that means businesses always win. Oblama is naive to believe he is going to change that if he is going to be just nice with them. He speaks good, but that’s about it. And screw Rush who?
You people need to all get off the Obama cult and realilstically look at things..do you need empty promises or real solutions. At least health care is better with hillary because it requires coverage for everybody…position on nafta is better with obama, but like I said health care is the most important issue for me. So, don;t be naive and choose real solutions not MLK-like talk.
Look at all those limousine liberals voting for Obama. Who would have thought that you could afford such a swanky ride when you’re making less than $75K/year?
Could those on ovr £75,000 be the Limbaugh Clintonistas?
those next 6 weeks will be interesting. has SNL booked Al Gore yet ?
When is Team Obama going to make a big deal over the Republican vote for Hillary in Mississippi (and, I guess, Texas)? I’ve not really had a dog in this fight, but I think the Dem nominee should be someone who is supported by, you know, Democrats.
All the more reason for the superdelegates not to go against the popular vote come convention time…
Thjose numbers on each picking the other as VP are strange to me. I think Obama would make Clinton more electable but I’m not sure Clinton would have the same impact on Obama. In other words, Hillary detractors really don;t like her and are likely to stay home if she is the nominee, unless Obama is on the ticket.
And this Mississippi will be voting democratic in Nov.?
So much for latte Obama supporters in MS.
ken melvin @ 10:
Not likely, but not entirely out of the question if Obama is the Dem candidate.
Andy @ 4:
Hillary voted “yes” to kill 4000 (thus far) troops, maim scores of thousands more, murder/displace at least one million Iraqis….all because she chose to ignore intelligence reports all for a dash of implied political strength…she has had no problem killing our troops, selling out our freedoms and benefitting financially/politically for it…what makes you think she gives a goddamn about your health and your well-being?
Mississippi? Texas? Who cares? They are both Red states …
“Long slog to Pennsylvania?” Why slog? It’ll get here when it gets here, and it won’t decide a damned thing. This is reality TV and no matter how many promos run saying that “next week” it will all become clear, a thirteen week run goes thirteen weeks. Actually, this one goes more like 26; to the Convention, in other words.
Here in WV, we’ve got a stand-alone primary coming in May and no one’s “slogging” to us, although I’d welcome the opportunity to ask Senator Obama precisely WTF he means about wanting Applachia to be “the Saudi Arabia of coal.” He said that recently while being squired around by “my” (HA!) senator, Jay Rockefeller. Yeah, that Jay Rockefeller. The same Jay Rockefeller who wants to give immunity to the telecoms.
They say you are known by the company you keep. As one of the relatively few Americans who still has a primary vote coming, I can’t help noting that Senator Obama’s not keeping company with folks who make me feel good about him. Us hillbillies could use a little of that vaunted Obama “hope” and “change,” but talking about making Appalachia a vast and arid wasteland (again, “the Saudi Arabia of coal“) isn’t the change we’re looking for.
We’re looking for a change away from a filthy, coal-based mono-economy and toward a sustainable, un-poisoned future for our children and grandchildren. Senator Obama doesn’t presage that by swanning around the state on the arm of a man who believes in the bunko scam of “clean coal” and wants to run the Air Force on “liquid coal,” the fuel equivalent of Three-Card Monty.
“Si, se puede” have our state continue to be assaulted by 3 million pounds of high explosives per day. “Si, se puede” be treated worse by our own countrymen than any other place on earth short of Iraq.
“The Saudi Arabia of coal.” Gee, thanks, Senator Obama! But no thanks. We’re already well on our way and that kind of accelerated “change” we don’t need.
latte supporters in Mississippi are the type of folks whose wealth was gained differently than the northwest voters..It shouldn’t be difficult to understand why
any way, Obama’s win was bitter-sweet last night..
The gain in delegates were nice, but the way in which he achieved that gain ( those who voted for Clinton, 75% would be dissatisfied if Obama gets nomination) should be a SMALL cause for concern.. Then again, Its Mississippi…
Taking exit polls with a huge grain of salt (we all saw the debacle of exit polls in Florida in 2004 and polling in general in this years New Hampshire primaries), could it be that Mrs. Ferraro’s statements have some merit? Has the press given Senator Obama a “pass” because to go after him as they have Senator Clinton would brand them as “racist”, which appears to be worse than being “sexist”? Did 92% of black voters in Mississippi truly vote for Senator Obama because of his message of “hope” and “change” or did they vote for him because he is a person of color (bi-racial).
If I truly felt that Senator Obama wasn’t a theocrat in the guise of a “progressive” (whatever happened to the term “liberal”?), I would be more open to vote for him. If I truly felt that he fight harder for equal rights for gays, I would be more open to vote for him. If I truly felt that he wouldn’t continue the Bush Administration policy of targeting adult entertainment companies (porn companies), I would be more likely to vote for him.
The thing is, I do feel that Senator Obama is a theocrat in the guise of a liberal. I do feel that Senator Clinton would fight harder for equal rights for gays and I do feel that Senator Clinton would not continue the Bush Administration policy of targeting porn companies.
This is why I voted for Senator Clinton in the Arizona Presidential Preference Election back in February and this is why I continue to support Senator Clinton today.
Evidence of the Rush Limbaugh effect from the MSNBC exits:
* Among voters who found neither candidate inspiring, Clinton wins with 76%
* Among voters who specify that Clinton does not inspire, 17% vote for her, and these make up 9% of all voters
* Among voters who specify that Obama “does not inspire” 4% vote for him and these make up 1% of all voters
* 8% difference between Clinton and Obama here
* Among voters who say neither candidate is trustworthy, Clinton wins with 77%
* Among voters who specify that Clinton is not trustworthy, 23% vote for her and these make up 12% of all voters
* Among voters who specify that Obama is not trustworthy, 8% vote for him and these make up 2% of all voters
* 10% difference between Clinton and Obama here
* Among voters who say neither candidate has plans to solve the country’s problems, Clinton wins with 65%
* Among voters who specify that Clinton has not offered solutions, 24% vote for her and these make up 11% of all voters
* Among voters who specify that Obama has not offered solutions, 14% vote for him and these make up 5% of all voters
* 6% difference between Clinton and Obama here
* 50% of Democratic Primary voters identified as Black, and 48% identified as Black Democrat or Black Independent - so only 2% of voters in the Democratic primary were Black Republicans (compare 1% of voters in the Republican primary were Black)
* 12% of Democratic Primary voters identified as Republican, and we know (per above) that 2% were Black Republicans, so 10% of voters in the Democratic Primary were White Republicans.
* Assume those 2% Black Republicans voted for Obama (as did 90% of Blacks in general), and that means that of White Republicans voting in the Democratic primary, 1 in 10 voted for Obama, and 9 in 10 voted for Clinton.
* In other words, 90% of White Republicans voting in the Democratic primary chose Hillary, and these made up about 9% of total voters. So Hillary’s performance among White Republican crossovers was MUCH stronger than her performance in any other Mississippi demographic. She did almost as well with White crossover Republicans as Obama did with black Democrats (92%), and better than McCain did with White Republicans over 65 (89%). It just doesn’t pass the sniff test.
* Where does the effect of these renegade White Mississippi Republicans (let’s call the “Rushovers”) show up? I’m guessing it explains most if not all of the difference between Clinton and Obama on the irrational voting patterns outlined above.
If this is right, without those renegade White Republican Rushovers who made up 9% of Democratic primary voters - and who will NOT be voting for a Democrat in November - Obama gets a resounding 69/31 win over Clinton in Mississippi instead of the reported 61/37.
Time to go run these numbers on Texas and Ohio …
Andy @ 4:
Health care reform is not going to be determined in any detail by the new president, whoever that might be. The only thing that is needed from a president is NOT to veto the bill that will emerge from the congress at some point. That’s the reality of it.
Andy @ 4:
Please note that neither candidate has a HEALTH CARE plan — they both have health INSURANCE plans. This distinction is really important because if all we control is the money flow, then the money flow will absolutely control the kind of care we end up with. Health care is EXPENSIVE — cancer, end-of-life, cardiac emergency, chronic pain and disease…all of these suck down money. If we pay for it all, and add in private rooms or doctors whenever we want, we’ll be paying way more than we perhaps realize. If insurance plans are required to cover everyone and not cherry pick, premiums will rise–which could be fine– but if they rise to pay for whatever the system asks without cost control, we’re sunk. If we force lower premiums, then we’re going to compromise care. If you can get a budget insurance plan, you still won’t have care. There are so many complex issues here that it’s not a great idea to choose either candidate based on their positions as abbreviated by “Universal Insurance with mandates” and “nearly universal insurance without mandates”. Mandates are not going to solve cost and care issues, nor make insurance affordable for people just above the subsidy line. No mandates will likely leave people out. But insurance madates don’t solve the care problem anyway. My guess is that we’re going to have to make a range of unpleasant health CARE decisions eventually. But for now, let’s at least remember that semi-universal insurance (it won’t be 100% for either candidate) is not at all the same as affordable, universal health care.
Did anybody catch Matt Lauer this morning stating that if Barack Obama were a white man or woman he would not be in the position he is in today? Gotta love the mass media tool.
SuburbanGrrrl @ 11:
They’re not just Latte drinkin, they’re Volvo drivin, and Birkenstock wearin. Silly girl.
Let’s be honest……….Are we so gullible as to think that when either Hillary or Barack get into the White House that they will be able to implement ANY universal health coverage?
We all want universal coverage(most here) but they would have to borrow the money to kick start the program, and unless the Dems have fillibuster proof majorities the Repugs will not allow it to happen.
What will the economy look like on 1-20-09 will determine what spending programs will be feasible. By that time we will be $10 trillion in debt and will still be in Iraq.
We will see a Dem in the White House but other circumstances will control their effectiveness.
One more health care note, briefly, we are “discovering” that cholesteral may be less bad than we thought, that hormone replacement therapy may be worse than we thought, that anti-depressants may be less effective than we thought. Probably anyone interested in real health care reform ought to be looking incredibly closely at Big Pharma and trying to figure out why we spend so much on prescriptions drugs that turn out a few years later to be ineffective, dangerous or both. Here’s a place we could save money?? Here’s a place to press ALL of the candidates.
* Republicans: Is Rush Limbaugh’s strategy catching on? 13% of voters in the Democratic primary identified themselves as Republicans, and they overwhelmingly backed Clinton over Obama, 78% to 22%.
and the Obama-hate parade rolls along
Must be inflationary times. I remember it was not too long ago when they would have used $50,000 as a benchmark.
Southjaw @ 18:
Astute AND astounding!
Pawn @ 21:
Caught that. Same media fails to mention Hillary wouldn’t be in the race at all if her last name wasn’t Clinton, and fails to mention McCain winning because there were no contenders. Repubs basically said, “we aren’t going to win unless it’s close enough to cheat, so let’s toss McCain under his StraightJacket Express”
xoites Hussein defends Constitution @ 26:
the bush tax cuts must be working.
CoIntelPro - against unnecessary war(s) @ 29:
Any idea how many eligible voters actually make more than 75 grand a year? I’m just curious. I know where I live, not many.
so rove used the war against Kerry
Now he’s using “Hate is the new Black” against Obama. What’s worse, the “left” media is acting like there’s a brawl going on when Obama is NOT participating in the bullshit.
someone needs to purge the Democratic Party of the DLC, DSCC and DCCC.
ConcernedHusseinCanuck @ 30:
As far as I have been able to observe, the ‘over $75G’ crowd is also over 45-yrs-old. The younger crowd are the people suffering with the lowest paying jobs (as also are the seniors who retired too early or got hit by the recently burst financial bubbles), and living in their parents basements (or apartments).
The simple income demarcation at $75G does not tell a whole story, either. It’s hard to live ‘the american lifestyle’ with $75G as a single household income.
ConcernedHusseinCanuck @ 30:
Good question. You can probably count them on one hand in Mississippi.
Ack! What a mess. All candidates are AIPAC affiliated, delegates and electoral college is more powerful than the voters, leaders on both sides have broken their oath’s of office.
So I ask, why even bother with elections why not just start impeaching the holy crap out of everyone?
We could have President Pelosi leading us into 2009 with a dollar worth ZERO.
I am going to get my ass outside and plant a victory garden.
Phil @ 34:
I hope it’s smokable.
CoIntelPro - against Divisive Democrats @ 31:
http://www.healthandyoga.com/g.....nt_new.jpg
Reverend J @ 3:
It’s also possible that a lot of the Republicans who crossed over and voted for Hillary in the Democratic primary were white women motivated by gender bias. The exit polls don’t break down that 13% Republican crossover by gender.
knifewrench @ 8:
You’re contradicting yourself. You’re arguing we should go by the popular vote that’s being presumably tainted by the Republicans. Super delegates are party regulars.
Additionally, if you don’t see which line they’re waiting in, and interviewing them after they leave the buildings, you only have their word on who they voted for, and that alone is sufficient to confuse the percentages in such facile reporting.
ysbaddaden @ 35
Ha. That’s luxury. We don’t have luxury anymore. It will be FOOD to EAT.
Since I ain’t got no health care, and ain’t made NO money since 199x(something)
On the other hand it could be considered smokable pain control. I don’t wanna grow that and risk loosing where I live!
John @ 6:
No, but possibly be David Milliband supporters.
* Republicans: Is Rush Limbaugh’s strategy catching on? 13% of voters in the Democratic primary identified themselves as Republicans, and they overwhelmingly backed Clinton over Obama, 78% to 22%.
Why does anyone even care about this? The race is over. Clinton cannot catch Obama even with landslide victories the rest of the way through (including Fla & Mi do-overs). See Newsweek article last week “Hillarys Math Problem”. The Corporate M