Obama's Circle Of Support

Brendan Nyhan has written the best summary of all the regression posts that have been circulating.

Nyhan pulls at some of the conventional threads we've noticed, like Clinton's strength among regular Democrats and Obama's prowess in states where liberal Democrats have the time and income level to caucus.

But he notices others that we've missed, namely that Obama did better in core Democratic counties in Missouri and California than Hillary Clinton did (although Clinton won a majority of the counties, generally -- it's not clear whose support better exemplifies a distributed appeal.)

Also: Obama seems to do better among white voters in states with larger black populations. The data doesn't explain why, but I would suspect that extrinsic factors are responsible, including the degree to which Clinton contests or does not contest a state.

Comments

Hmm. Maybe. Or maybe a person's whiteness or blackness or relative browness determines their electoral decisions a lot less than you might think. If there were really reliable guide to how people vote, wouldn't we be doing a better job of predicting? I think pundits have tendency to overthink this stuff. But I forgive them, since they get paid for overthinking this stuff.

Posted by alex | February 12, 2008 9:50 AM

Just voted for your blog on the Politics Online Conference website---

As for the coalition: Jay Cost also has a very useful (if inconclusive) summation of the mathematical analyses that extends the theories mentioned in your post a little: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/02/the_state_of_the_democratic_ra.html

Remember, Obama also does well in states with *no* significant black population. In order to explain this bifurcation, Cost argues, as I've seen elsewhere, that in states like Iowa where the population is overwhelmingly white (and thus, presumably, racial politics aren't an issue), that Obama is perceived as an intellectual insurgent. In states with moderately large black populations, politics are naturally more racialized, and his candidacy gets incorporated within this fold. Once the percentage of the black population passes a certain threshold (I've seen 20% bandied about), the politics become normalized and the tensions are eased, thus "Obama seems to do better among white voters in states with larger black populations."

To quote, in reference to the fact that he is pulling together both the Jesse Jackson and the Gary Hart coalitions of the past: "Perhaps white voters tend to see Obama as Jackson or Hart depending upon the racial demography of their environment."

Posted by Nathan | February 12, 2008 10:24 AM

One of the factors totally missing in the 'identity' groups is that Obama does really well in the rural vote.
Nevada he got all the rural. Iowa is largely rural.
Here in Illinois, we are a very rural state and his win in the state is propelled by alot of rural voters.
This is probably why he does so well in red states. They are mostly rural like in Kansas and Idaho.
This south side guy knows the values and language of the rural people.
That is why I don't give much credence to the working class theory. HRC may do well with the factory/union dems of the cities but, those are cancelled out by the 'latte' types and students. But, his leg up is the working class farmers.

Posted by vwcat | February 12, 2008 11:30 AM

Nyhan pulls at some of the conventional threads we've noticed, like Clinton's strength among regular Democrats and Obama's prowess in states where liberal Democrats have the time and income level to caucus.

Regular Democrats? Which ones are the regular ones?

Posted by southpaw | February 12, 2008 11:32 AM

Obama wins in all demo's.. I guess I am too young to identify with the racial politics. My grandfather is white my grand mother is black on my fathers side. My mother's family is Cuban. I am over it why can the older people get over it too.

Posted by Ann | February 12, 2008 12:18 PM

We've seen this movie too many times before. A Democrat who appeals to wealthy elites, African Americans, and college kids ... and loses the election.

Obama can't win a general. We are already seeing his weakness on large state primaries, in states with a diverse population.

Working class white don't really care for Obama. I think race is an issue to a certain extent.

Older voters don't care much for Obama. Again, I think race is an issue to a certain extent.

Latinos don't seem thrilled with him either, allow their appears to be evidence that younger Latinos are open to his message.

If Obama is the nominee you are going to see white fligth from the working class and older voters to McCain. You are also going to see many these same voters, who have no problems voting for an African American, run for the exits when they hear Obama say things like "all options are on the table" when talking about Social Security.

Some people need to pull their head out of the clouds, put their feet back on the ground, and come to their senses.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | February 12, 2008 12:50 PM

Obama seems to do better among white voters in states with larger black populations.

Are you delusional? Which state would that be?

He lost the white vote by double digits in Missouri, Tennessee, New York, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama.

Obama also does well in states with *no* significant black population.

Every time this is mentioned, no one brings up that the states with no significant black populations were overwhelmingly caucus states. The two exceptions I can spot are Utah and Connecticut, but they have the same characteristics of caucus states: overwhelmingly white liberal.

He is not carrying any other population but white liberals and blacks.

Now, this could change if people are convinced of his inevitability. But I'm highly skeptical.

Posted by Cal | February 12, 2008 1:49 PM

Hillary is a felon and liar. Watch this video and learn the truth.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019

Posted by Kid | February 12, 2008 1:59 PM

But he notices others that we've missed, namely that Obama did better in core Democratic counties in Missouri and California than Hillary Clinton did...

Who the heck missed that? I thought everybody was aware of it. Obama is a blue candidate. He's done very well in areas Democrats usually do well in even in bad years, as well as in caucuses. Hillary is consistently outperforming him with the culturally moderate/conservative voters (including the so-called "Reagan Democrats") needed to take the White House back from the GOP. Obama's superior electability is a myth. The media have bought Axelrod's spin hook, line and sinker, with virtually no analysis to determine whether said spin is valid. His is a classic anti-war, left wing insurgency campaign -- very similar to that of Eugene McCarty's or, I dare say, George McGovern's. Oh right, I almost forgot, opinion polls supposedly showing him doing better with "independents" -- and that's true -- he does do better with culturally liberal, upper income, youngish "independents" who are leaning Democratic this year anyway, and are found concentrated in blue states the Democrats would win this year even if they were running against Ronald Reagan himself.

Posted by The Obama Electability Myth | February 12, 2008 4:03 PM

one of the major themes of the Clinton campaign has been that the New York Senator is "battle-tested" and better prepared to take on McCain and the right wing attacks. But that has been turned on its head by the fact that a junior Senator from Illinois has ended up putting the Clinton campaign on the ropes. It's hard to argue that you can demolish John McCain when you can't decisively defeat an opponent who came from nowhere, with no national name recognition, in your own party's primary. That is just common sense.

Posted by Eyong Ebot,Lawrenceville,GA | February 13, 2008 10:24 AM

ixjd jhotrxmc ivfsebtr qfcnvdkg hwzsgq xqglk evzxpgq

Posted by ianc lhzqfckxw | May 17, 2008 6:34 AM

I am supporting Obama for their good thinking,i think it will really help the Americans.

----------------------------------------

joyesh

Wide Circles

Posted by joyesh | July 27, 2008 11:04 AM

I am supporting Obama for their good thinking,i think it will really help the Americans.

----------------------------------------

joyesh

Wide Circles

Posted by joyesh | July 27, 2008 11:04 AM

This piece details the "support" team Obama has retained from Chicago. ... political associates who are the core of Obama's inner circle.
_____________________________
jeff
Wide Circles

Posted by Jeff Hardy | July 28, 2008 1:47 AM

This piece details the "support" team Obama has retained from Chicago. ... political associates who are the core of Obama's inner circle.
_____________________________
jeff
Wide Circles

Posted by Jeff Hardy | July 28, 2008 1:47 AM

This piece details the "support" team Obama has retained from Chicago. ... political associates who are the core of Obama's inner circle.
_____________________________
jeff
Wide Circles

Posted by Jeff Hardy | July 28, 2008 1:53 AM

"I am asking you to believe.
Not just in my ability to bring about
real change in Washington...I'm asking
you to believe in yours"
what a powerful set of words by Obama, my vote is for him.

=====================
Jack
Wide Circles

Posted by Jack | July 29, 2008 5:11 AM