March Madness
With the Democratic presidential nomination fight barreling towards March 4, two new surveys out today from the Washington Post and ABC News show an extremely close contest in Texas and a narrow Clinton edge in Ohio. Barack Obama resoundingly defeated Clinton in Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin by cutting into her core demographics, but the new polls find Hillary Clinton improving on her post-Super Tuesday performance among some of these same groups - women, voters without college degrees, Democrats and those from households earning less than $50,000 per year.
Her inroads into Obama's strongest territory may not be enough to generate the wide margin of victory she needs. As the campaigns ramp up their efforts in both states, here's a look at the landscape they'll face.
Avg. Obama margin Obama margin in:
post-2/5* Ohio Texas
Men +31 +4 +5
Women +14 -18 -6
Whites -6 -24 -4
Blacks +76 +64 +58
Latinos -1 NA -23
White men +8 -12 +10
White women -16 -35 -17
Married women +9 -27 -9
Unmarried women +16 -3 -4
Age 18-39 +41 +6 +20
Age 65+ -5 -24 -35
Democrats +17 -16 -11
Independents +31 +14 +13
Non-college +20 -19 -13
College graduates +24 +20 +10
Household income:
Under $50,000 +21 -11 -9
$50,000 or more +23 -3 +11
*In the four states where exit polling was conducted after Super Tuesday (Louisiana, Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin), Obama defeated Clinton by an average of 23 percentage points.
SOURCE: Washington Post-ABC News polls of likely Democratic voters in Ohio and Texas. Full data from the poll can be found here.
More vote data after the jump.
Q: If the Democratic primary were being held today, would you vote for...
Ohio: Texas:
Clinton Obama Clinton Obama
Men 44 48 45 50
Women 56 38 50 44
Whites 58 34 50 46
Blacks 17 81 18 76
Latinos NA NA 59 36
White men 52 40 43 53
White women 56 38 56 39
Married women 60 33 52 43
Unmarried women 49 46 49 45
Age 18-39 45 51 39 59
Age 40-64 50 42 49 46
Age 65+ 57 33 60 25
Democrats 55 39 53 42
Independents 39 53 40 53
Liberal 52 45 47 50
Moderate 49 41 50 44
Conservative 50 44 44 49
Non-college 56 37 50 43
College graduates 36 56 44 54
Among whites:
Non-college 65 27 52 41
College graduates 41 50 47 50
Household income:
Under $50,000 52 41 52 43
$50,000 or more 48 45 42 53
Among whites:
Under $50,000 62 31 58 38
$50,000 or more 55 37 44 51
Union members 51 38 NA NA
Union households 53 37 NA NA
Top issue:
The economy 52 37 51 45
Health care 51 43 53 42
By Jennifer Agiesta |
February 21, 2008; 5:12 PM ET
Post Polls
Previous: An education gap among white voters |
Next: Satisfying the Democratic Electorate
Posted by: Massachusetts Voter | February 22, 2008 11:52 PM
No, YOU imagine, If we had never had a white President, Who would you vote for this year! Its so easy to say dont vote for Obama just because hes black. But im willing to bet the farm if the shoe were on the other foot, you would have another opinion!
Posted by: Tim Leach | February 23, 2008 12:44 AM
Obama will be easy to be manipulated like Bush.
Posted by: Just Passing By | February 27, 2008 12:49 PM
If Obama lost 11 straight elections in a row, he would no longer be in this election. Hillary is still in because she his Hillary. If Obama said at the end of the debate that he wants to make history and that he thinks being the 1st African-American president would be good to change the way things are done, his campaign would have gotten hung to dry. Hillary gets away with a lot because she is a woman. Obama has to work twice as hard as she does, and he has. That's why he's winning. People can't always feel sorry for people and place her losses on gender difference. If she was winning, everyone could say because he is black. It is not a strong argument Massachusetts voter. Its ridiculous and brainless to say that. Its amazing Obama has come as far as he has in this election, being that he is black. Actually he is biracial in case you all didn't know. His mother was white and his father black. It doesn't matter what color or gender these people are. People are voting for him for what he stands for, just like Hillary's voters are. People need to quit putting stigmas on why people are voting for people and maybe realize America has evolved and that we look at people for who they are, not what they are. Massachusetts voter, you should open your eyes to reality. This is 2008! VOTE OBAMA 08, by the way I am a strong believer in women and their rights. She is in no way being scrutinized because she is a woman. I just think Obama will do a better job. I'm a 24 year old single mom with 2 children. Obama gives something she doesn't. We will have a woman pres. one day, not yet. VOTE OBAMA 08!!!!
Posted by: Lydia | February 27, 2008 1:27 PM
Obama is presenting a facade behind which is his age and limited experience. He is fooling a great deal of people, including journalists, clearly angry with Clinton's early handling of the press. He is like a prophet leading the desperate to the promised land. Heaven help us if we get another young inexperienced president; you think things are bad now- wait until he gets nominated and god forbid, elected. Will many people be sorry, as they are for voting who you who into office and you know who along with him. It will be time to head for the hills.
Posted by: Maureen Yocum | February 28, 2008 7:34 PM
When considering the exit polls in Wisconsin, the more Clinton convinces voters that Obama or the media is attacking her unfairly, the better she will do in the elections on March 4th. Her current rallying cry for feminists might work out for her. There are differences in how the media treats race and gender. They are not better nor worse, just different. This country has a historical instinct to protect white women, such as the Cult of True Womanhood. It can be a burden at times, but it's still there. Clinton gets her feelings hurt and voters rush to her aide. At the same time, this nation has a historic instinct to fear black men. It would be interesting to see the press give Obama as much room to be a stereotypical black man as they give Clinton to be a stereotypical woman. The moment he shows any aggression whatsoever, is the second the press sees him as the "angry black man." What would happen if he raised his voice to Clinton a white woman? Clinton conveniently plays off her gender oppression by allowing herself to be seen as a victim without recognizing the white privilege that often comes with it. To be sure, Clinton faces a lot of obstacles through sexism. Yet there are moments where she benefits as well. There are times where she has the luxury to portray herself as the victim to garner sympathy from voters and the media. She can slip end and out of the victimization. Clinton gets to embrace her "girl power" in ways Obama could never embrace his "black male power"- such as when he said he gave some pretty good speeches and a T.V. pundit thought he was being a little cocky.
To be sure, sexism must be fought as vigorously racism, and a better job must be done on both fronts. But I also believe that there are many white women who would never trade places with any black woman or man. Those same white women would clutch their pockets and call the police when they saw a black man in their neighborhood after dark. Racism and sexism is more complicated than the media is prepared to address. The media should point out double standards regarding women, but it should not ignore that Obama is also walking a racial tightrope. Obama has had to run his campaign under the interrogation of white approval which has had a tendency to regard what ever he has accomplish as not good enough. - He organized and managed a campaign of 700 paid workers and thousands of volunteers- not good enough. He raised millions of dollars- not good enough. He won eleven straight states by an average of 33%- still not good enough. He expanded the Democratic Party by bringing in Independents, cross-over Republicans and up to 70% first-time voters in several states- not good enough. He has draw crowds of 20,000- still not good enough. Now he has to win all four primaries on March 4th and so on.
Furthermore, Obama knows he could not do or say certain thing because he can not take the chance of making white people feel uncomfortable, especially when running against a white woman.
Obama came under a lot of criticism for saying, Clinton "you're likeable, enough" because people did not like the tone of his voice. He was demonized for what was seen as a "snub". Yet, the media does not persistently take her to task for her disrespectful behavior towards him- such as her not publically acknowledging his victories; her mocking his message; she scolding his supporters; she calling him an empty suit; she calling his words cheap, and his hope false. Her bad behavior should not be written off because there is a gender double standards in our society. The media has actually given Clinton fair press for her tantrums and poor manners, and feminists have not been vigilant in their criticism of Clinton using gender oppression so that she can be viewed as a victim and attract female voters. This sends out the wrong message, women should operate from a point of strength rather than weakness. But then, if the message is to win at all cost, it doesn't matter if you set feminism back and fuel racist sentiment. Both Obama and Clinton have been subjected to unfair treatment brought on by sexism and racism in this campaign season.
Posted by: Lydia | February 29, 2008 4:42 PM
Perfect!Amazing!Super!Thank you very much
http://www.newfxlive.com/forex-mhv-day-trading-signals.html " target="_top">forex mhv day trading signals
Posted by: Braden heemf | April 9, 2008 12:52 PM
If Obama were a black lesbian in a wheel-chair...... SERIOUSLY! Can we stop the "what if" game and play the "reality game". Math is reality. Clinton can't win mathematically. Instead, the only way she can win is to circumvent the will of the voters. And, haven't we had enough of that from the Republicans? I say "Just say No to Karl Rove's stupid games."
Posted by: radiocboy | April 11, 2008 1:15 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.

If Obama were a woman, and I don't care how articulate or wonderful, we'd be telling her that she didn't have enough experience." Or, as Susan Estrich wrote in her 2005 book, The Case for Hillary Clinton: "Imagine if Hillary weren't a woman. She'd simply be the best-qualified candidate, with absolutely everything going for her....