Interesting Pa. Exit Poll Datum:
9% of the voters in the Pennsylvania primary were African Americans who said race was not a factor in their vote. Of those 9%, 91% voted for Barack Obama, exactly the same as the overall African American percentage for Obama, including the 4+% who said race was a factor in their vote (the poll doesn't give a breakdown of the exact percentages for the latter group, but it can't be very different than 91-9).
By contrast, both men and women (especially women) who said that "gender" was a factor in their vote were significantly more likely to vote for Clinton. And whites who said race was a factor in their vote were significantly more likely to vote for Clinton.
The party of Robert "KKK" Byrd strikes again.
IMHO, the most interesting thing about this post is the fact that DB could post "the sky is blue" and someone would bitch about it...
It's interesting for the reason DB implicitly cites. Those who say race is not a factor break down the same as those who say it is. That's odd, hence interesting.
It is possible to find an observation interesting without having a theory to explain it. In fact, not leaping to invoke some theory or other is commendable.
Yes, the party that people of color overwhelmingly support is the party of the Klan. ::tic::
Out of white Democrats who said that race was a factor in their decision, 75% voted for Clinton. If you can spin that in a way other than Dixiecrat ain't-gonna-vote-for-no-n*****ism, be my guest.
Why do you think the Democrat Party elite are so insistent that blacks need affirmative action, and college scholarships, and all the other accouterments that supposedly counterbalance America's 'inherently racist' society? It's because they look at white Democrats and project all that hatred and contempt and 'white guilt' onto genuine conservative Americans. They oppose the genuine equality offered by the Republican Party because they know granting white Democrats freedom of association would lead to de facto segregation and they think the rest of the country is just like them.
There does appear to be a problem with the "age by race" table. It seems to me they reversed the black and white labels. The white percentages add up to about what you would expect for the black percentage.
Consider a hypothetical voter who has decided that he won't vote for a racist. This voter is hypothetically disgusted by the Wright revelations, and has decided that he would no sooner vote for Obama than he would vote for someone who had regularly attended Klan meetings for the past twenty years, reasoning that black racism is still racism, and he wants nothing to do with it.
Now to this voter, "racism" is definitely a factor in his vote. But can one have "racism" without "race"? When a pollster asks him if "race" is a factor in his vote, what should he say? If he says "yes, racism is a factor," are we justified in lumping him in with "racist" voters, even though he's about as "anti-racist" as a voter could be?
Hold on there, bunny. That was 75% of the 13% who said race was a factor. A healthy majority of white Pennsylvania Democratic voters (66%) said race was NOT a factor. Over all, 80% of Democratic voters said race was not a factor. Gee, where did all that projection go?
Of course, we could look at Republican primary voters and see how race affected their choices, except...ur...um...
Who needs a decoder ring?
Props to Clinton for keeping the mistakes to a minimum under considerable stress. This campaign alone proves beyond any doubt in my mind that she has the moxy to scrap in the yard if need be. I'd vote for her if I didn't disagree with her on such fundamental ways. Obama on the other hand looks like an amateur who is riding a wave of elite-driven emotion, aided by an insufferably resistant media.
Bottom line, as an urban cracker, raised in Philly, which ahs been owned by the Democrats since the 1930's, I won't vote for Obama because he is a Socialist, because he will throw Israel under the bus, and he is anti-2nd Amendment.
By the way, I saw that there were 21 murders in Obamatown, aka Chicago, this weekend. I'd like to hear Obama explain how that is possible given the gun laws there.
That's a heck of a lot fairer than calling the Dixiecrats.
Am I crazy, or did someone not just do that?
There were not 21 murders in Chicago this weekend. There were 32 shooting incidents and 6 deaths. It was a very violent weekend.
According to police, the usual culprits--an increase in gang activity and warmer weather.
9 out of 10 blacks vote against Reagan.
9 out of 10 vote against Bush 1
9 out of 10 vote against Bush 2
9 out of 10 vote against Hillary.
I've got to say I think I know who the racists are.
Perhaps one thing to be said in favor of the Democrats' approach is that they are collecting many times what the Republicans have in campaign contributions. Or maybe that has little to do with the fact that they have more of a horse race going on, and everything to do with the Democrats's pent up anger.
My pleasure: "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
Females 3% to Clinton
Whites 8% to Clinton
Males 6% to Obama
Blacks 43% to Obama
Make of these numbers what you will. Obviously, blacks are (statistically) much more driven by race than any other group is driven by race or gender. I'm a bit surprised how little extra pull Clinton has among women.
Also interesting is the fact that by applying two shifts, one can predict, to within a percent or so, how, for instance, White Males will vote (8% to Clinton minus 6% to Obama is a net 2% to Clinton). This indicates that there isn't much interaction effect between race and gender.
Democratic Party identity politics is racist, but, set against that background, the black vote does not strike me as especially racist.
Now this discrepancy I find interesting. Voters who said gender was a factor in their decision tended toward the novelty and newness of the female candidate. But white voters who said race was a factor leaned heavily in favor of the less novel and more traditional white candidate.
So for those who considered gender a factor, they voted for the candidate who would break the streak of 43 male Presidents. But for those who considered race, they voted to continue an identical streak of white Presidents.
On the last two PA Democratic primaries, ten in ten men voted for a man, and ten in ten white people voted for a white person. Is it fair to say you know who the sexists are?
Going back to how men, women, black and whites voted, you can say that gender is not much of an issue for any group (biases of 3% or 6% are not that big). Race is a bit more of an issue for whites (bias of 8%) but huge for blacks (bias of 43%).
Of course, this analysis only talks about groups as a whole, not individual motivations, but I think the result is pretty robust.
Personally, I'd prefer to think of this as a pro-black, rather than an anti-white bias, on the part of black voters. But neither the data nor the "is race a factor" question can say if this is true.
If there was ever a situation where the white proportion of the vote for Clinton was *higher* than the black proportion of the vote for Obama, then and only then could you claim that the white voters supporting Hillary are doing so out of racial identity politics.
So far, that hasn't happened.
Set against the statistical background (see JT234's post), I would say that the black vote is most definitely "racist", that is, race appeared to be a key factor in determining their voting behavior.
Personally, I think the 91% of black voters and 13% of white voters who didn't call race a non-factor are racists, and that it's despicable that race would factor into their decision here (not kidding). But one of those numbers is a lot more staggering than the other, and it's absolutely incredible that people would be singling out white Pennsylvania voters for being racist.
John, I think you're confused. Black voters comprised 14% of the Democratic vote in PA. Approximately two-thirds of those black voters (9% of the total Democratic vote, not 9% of black voters) said race wasn't a factor in their vote.
I wasn't aware that Reagan's opponents, Bush 1's opponents, and Bush 2's opponents were black.
Maybe, but if you win by one vote, presumably that doesn't mean much in terms of who would win in November. So to give you all of the delegates and your opponent none may resolve the primary contest earlier, but it doesn't necessarily tell you who has broader appeal. At the same time, as the victory margin increases, you have a better idea of who can assemble a majority in the general. Maybe the better solution is to award increasingly more delegates as the margin increases, rather than use proportionality as the guide.
Also, I would dispute whether PA really tells much. Recall that in PA, independents can't vote. (I think the same was true for Ohio.) I'm not sure that Clinton has beaten Obama in any state where independents could vote in the primary, which leads me to question whether she can build a majority in the general against someone like McCain who clearly appeals to independents.
Do you count Texas? Anyone can vote in whatever primary they want here and Clinton won the primary here. You just pick what party you are voting for when you walk up to the voting booth. I almost voted for Clinton, but ended up voting for McCain again.
Same difference. You can't slip a razor blade between them.
Well, how is that different from all the caucus states where Obama wracked up his advantage in delegates? Not only can independents not vote, it's not even representative of Democrats as a whole.
Ok, you told me a possible "why" but again, "how" did that happen under Chicago's gun laws? After all, we all know that if you have strict gun restrictions, there will be no gun crime. At least, that's what I'm told.
Stop asking silly questions! We must never question the holy anti-gun gods.
No one told you that.
Atlanta has far more liberal gun laws, including CCW, and a much higher crime rate than Chicago. I'm not against gun ownership, and it doesn't bother me at all to be living in a state and city with very liberal gun laws. I won't have one in the house but that's just me.
But whining and saying stupid shit about gun laws instead of solving the other problems that cause violence in inner cities strikes me as particularly dumb.
And I'm relieved :-p At least until I see a full breakdown of the stats.