An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Obama Doesn’t Do As Well As Clinton Against McCain With White Voters

A new Gallup poll says Democratic Senator Barack Obama will not do as well when matched against GOP presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Senator John McCain among white voters as Senator Hillary Clinton would — particularly because he has problems with white women voters:

Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic nominee, will likely enter the general election with more of a handicap among white voters than would have been the case if Hillary Clinton had been the nominee, based mainly on Clinton’s stronger performance among white women.

080520Handicap1_fgrtcvd.gif

Gallup found:

–Clinton isn’t ahead of Obama due to her margin among blue collar white voters but due to her margin among white women.
–Obama and Clinton perform exactly the SAME among non-Hispanic white men when pitted against McCain.
–”Clinton’s slight advantage among blue-collar white men is offset by Obama’s advantage among white-collar white men.”
There has been discussion of Obama’s presumed problem among blue-collar white males should he win the Democratic nomination. The current analysis shows that relative to Clinton, however, Obama does not suffer from a large “blue-collar male” deficit as has been hypothesized. Obama loses to McCain in a hypothetical matchup among non-college-educated white men by 25 points, while Clinton loses by 20 points.

Gallup’s conclusion: if Obama is the nominee his problem isn’t entering into the election with a bigger problem among blue collar white men if Clinton headed the the ticket.
The implications? Gallup says:
The bigger issue appears to be Obama’s problems among white women, when compared to how Clinton would perform among this group. Obama loses to McCain by nine points among white women, while Clinton wins by three points. Clinton does better than Obama among both blue-collar and white-collar white women.

All in all, although both Democrats are to a degree handicapped against McCain among white voters, Clinton would perform better than Obama in a general-election matchup among non-Hispanic whites. Combining white voters of both genders, the current analysis shows that McCain wins over Obama among whites, 53% to 38%, and beats Clinton by a considerably smaller 51% to 42% margin.

It is important to note that Obama runs about as well vs. McCain as Clinton does, and both Democrats currently maintain a slight advantage over McCain in general-election trial heats. So any weaker relative performance for Obama vs. McCain among a demographic group (such as white women or lower-educated voters) is made up for by a stronger relative performance among another group (such as blacks or higher-educated voters).
In other words: there is some “nuance” in this poll — and both Democrats have different coalitions.

This “nuance” will likely be left out by strong supporters of both Clinton and Obama as they cite the parts most beneficial to their candidates. It shows both Clinton and Obama will have some work to do — and Obama in particular needs to work on wooing women voters. (SUGGESTION: Saying “Listen, honey, I’ll be a great President!” might be unwise…)

  • pacatrue
    Thanks for the poll link, Joe.

    Of course, the difference between the Clinton numbers and the Obama numbers are about 4%, which is likely just out of the margin of error, and, while numbers don't shift as much as one might think with campaigning, 4% is surely a manageable difference.
  • DLS
    Obama's weak elsewhere. Just in case any of you Obama lefties were planning another right-wing Samuel Francis-style attack against Holly the next time she is criticizing Obama...

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121124017412505...
  • DLS,
    That WSJ writer apparently forgot that this is an election for the President of the United States of America.

    Yet the significant question isn't whether Mr. Obama is "pro-Israel," in the sense that his heart is in the right place and he isn't quite Jimmy Carter. What matters is whether his vision for U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East – and the broader world view that informs it – will have ancillary effects favorable to Israel's core interests.


    No. Sorry. Wrong.

    The primary responsibility of the President of the United States of America is to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    Could you imagine the reaction if Mexican immigrants demanded that Obama or McCain pledged his unwavering fealty to the government of Mexico? They would rightly be laughed off the national stage. And yet, that's exactly what's being asked of every American politician of any significance. It's a sickening double standard.
  • DLS
    "Could you imagine the reaction if Mexican immigrants demanded that Obama or McCain pledged his unwavering fealty to the government of Mexico?"

    Jewish Americans are not demanding this of Israel. (If you claim or even try to insinuate they are, then your words become true: "No. Sorry. Wrong.") You are overreacting to obvious common-sense concerns Jewish Americans have with Obama's leftist foreign-policy statements and likely views (concern that extends to normal Americans outside the heavily Democratic and liberal Jewish American cohort).
  • Jewish Americans are not demanding this of Israel.

    Bull.

    I suggest you read this article by Glenn Greenwald: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/...
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC