MEMO to Superdelegates: Democrats Want Clinton, Not Obama
By Truthteller on May 25, 2008 at 12:57 PM in Barack Obama, Democrats, Electability, Electoral College, Hillary Clinton, Superdelegates
Paul Lukasiak of Corrente Wire has published an essay every Democrat and every Democratic superdelegate should read. Analyzed in Lukasiak’s rigorous and compelling essay are polling data and election returns that reveal how Democrats have abandoned Obama for Clinton since Super Tuesday. Although I reproduce the information I believe superdelegates should consider in order to cast votes in the best interest of the Party at the convention, I recommend everyone read Paul’s essay in full.
Important Finding #1: SUPPORT FOR OBAMA HAS DECLINED IN MOST DEMOGRAPHIC CATEGORIES SINCE FEBRUARY
ALL VOTERS, GENDER, RACE—CHANGES BETWEEN FEBRUARY and MARCH- MAY PRIMARIES
Once voters realized that Obama would be the nominee, his support within most demographic categories declined, and declined significantly in most cases. Obama’s support declined overall by 2.3%.
- Obama’s support among men declined by 2%
- Obama’s support declined among women by 1.2%
- Obama’s support declined among White voters by 4.8%
- Obama’s support declined among Hispanic/Latino voters by 3.2%
- Obama’s support declined among White males by 6.7%
- Obama’s support declined among White females by 3.6%
Lukasiak attributes the increasing rejection of Obama by Caucasian and Latino voters to the narrative of inevitability propagated by the Obama campaign and by the obsequious media. Other factors to consider include Obama’s comments about “bitter” rural voters of European descent and his affiliation with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The electoral effect of these controversies is clear: increased support for Hillary Clinton, who more and more Democrats view as the more electable candidate. Lukasiak refers to Obama’s drop in support as “Buyers’ Remorse,” and I believe he is correct, for the more Democrats learn about Obama, the less we want him to be the nominee: hence why we are flocking to Clinton.
IMPORTANT FINDING #2: SUPPORT FOR HILLARY CLINTON HAS CONCOMITANTLY INCREASED IN MOST DEMOGRAPHIC CATEGORIES
Clinton’s overall support, on the other hand, increased by 4.7%.
- Clinton’s support increased among Males by 6.0%
- Clinton’s support increased among Females by 3.1%
- Clinton’s support increased among White voters by 6.2%
- Clinton’s support increased among Hispanic/Latino voters by 2.6%
- Clinton’s support increased among White males by 10.8%
- Clinton’s support increased among White females by 6.0%
According to Lukasiak, the only demographic category in which Obama has increased support is African-Americans. But as Lukasiak correctly notes, this is in the end inconsequential, as this demographic does not comprise a large segment of the overall electorate.
IMPORTANT FINDING #3: ALTHOUGH OBAMA’S SUPPORT IN AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY INCREASED, IT IS NOT ELECTORALLY SIGNIFICANT
“Buyers’ Remorse” is also reflected in the changes in support among racial/ethnic demographic groups.
- Clinton increased her lead among White voters, from 10.2% (HRC: 52.6%, BHO: 42.4%) to 23.2% (HRC: 60.8%, BHO: 37.6%)
- Clinton increased her lead among Hispanic/Latino voters, from 28.2% (HRC: 63.4%, BHO: 35.2%) to 34.0% (HRC: 66.0%, BHO: 32.0%)
- The only major racial/ethnic category where Obama improved was among African American voters, where his lead increased, from a 67.8% (BHO: 83.0%, HRC: 15.2%) to 77.3% (BHO: 88.4%, HRC: 11.1%)
But while Obama’s numbers among African Americans may look impressive, his improvement as a percentage of the electorate is dwarfed by the gains made by Clinton among White and Hispanic/Latino voters.
- Obama’s percentage increase in the overall vote from African American voters was only 1.8% (from 12.7% in February in 14.5% in March through May)
- Clinton’s combined percentage increase in the overall vote from White and Hispanic/Latino voters was 9.1% (from a combined advantage of 10.1% to a combined advantage of 19.2%)
And it should be noted, when the numbers drawn from the demographics of the Democratic primaries are adjusted to reflect the overall electorate in the 2004 General Election, Clinton’s numbers are even more impressive.
Lukasiak is correct: Clinton’s ability to expand her coalition within the demographics that will constitute the majorities we need in order to win in November is quite stunning given all the negative press she has received since her string of losses in February. Obama, on the other hand, cannot cobble together such a winning majority, as his support is only increasing in one demographic.
I recommend everyone review Lukasiak’s essay at Corrente Wire, as I only offer a short summary. I also recommend everyone, especially superdelegates, read and reread Lukasiak’s conclusion until its import and significance is fully understood. I quote:
Given the level of “buyers’ remorse” demonstrated by Democratic voters, this adjusted data should serve as a major warning to super-delegates who are considering which candidate to support for the Democratic nomination.
Obama, in other words, has become increasingly unelectable, and Democrats nominate him at their peril. Perhaps this explains why Clinton and not Obama is the stronger candidate in November. These stories by SusanUnPC summarize the situation cogently and succinctly:
Once $299.98, now yours for $149.99.
Excellent and comprehensive analysis. This data is much more useful than some recent polls (eg recent CA ones) that make some weird weighting of the data by sex, ethnicity, etc and hence end up all over the place and with large statistical errors in the subgroups that matter. The article here is looking back and looking at hard data rather than extrapolating from a weighted set.
Thus its accuracy.
Thanks for reporting on this Truthteller.
About weigthing. The current article weights relative to the 2004 election in order to compute the percentage of HRC’s gain. But he is looking at the exit poll numbers. Note that even after weighting (down) the numbers favor Clinton enormously.
This is different than the weighting polling companies do in which they weight the sample (say 25% of the sample are AA instead of 14%) a priori not necessarily relative to the 2004 election but according to what they think will be turn out and from there they statistically predict (extrapolate) a percentage. Sometimes this is confusing because some “media pollsters” want it to be so. They play politics as well. It is not your fault.
Last summer my feelings were that there was no way a dem could lose the presidency in ‘09. Unfortunately, it looks like the dems are going to do what they traditionally do - nominate the most unelectable democrat - and running against the most electable republican no less, looks like we are doomed. I really didn’t think it was possible to lose the White House this year, but sure as shit, my party has found a way to do just that.
truthteller,
lukasiak’s is a very important analysis, and very comprehensive.
you have done a really excellent job of going thru it and distilling the essence for this post.
thanks.
Truth teller, I second orionATL said.
Paul Lukusiak has done some wonderful work in examining just what the exit polls are telling us this season. This report really says it all - Obama is bleeding support like crazy in almost every demographic group we need to win the election. The only ones who continue to support him are the far left and AA’s. It is unfortunate that neither of those groups seem to care about the evidence, or his many, many negatives, or whether he can win. The AA’s I can understand. The far left I cannot, unless their real goal is to tear up the democratic party and remake it in their image.
CogDis–BINGO! First the GOP was taken over by a holier-than-thou authoritarian movement, and now it’s happening to the Dems. The only difference is the GOP cult is right-wing and the Dem cult is left-wing.
The USA needs a strong third party to represent the centrist majority.
Thank you! I’ve been saying that all along.
Obama is the natural reaction to the Religious Right.
arrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhh*!
It’s so human. Yet so stupid of us.
Larry Off topic.
My cousin talked to me before about UIC/Cook County hospitals and how they treated the poor. I didn’t have time to follow up, my daughter had surgery and I had no access at the hospital.
I saw this and thought you may want to dig:
(consider the source)
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/25/obamas-lobbyist-problem-david-axelrod/
I read it. I admit that I already had that same gist. I say, “He’s tanking.” But this article shows definite proof of that assertion.
I think, too, what is significant is that this drop comes after an intense year of getting to know Obama. This is a reasoned tanking, in other words. It’s not a blip on the screen due to a gaffe or some loss (or win) that was less than (or more) than expected.
It’s solid. He is, truly, unelectable. I am somewhat in agreement that electability is an elusive quality that is fairly hard to pin down and, therefore, very subject to spin.
But this is looking very solid. It was the right time for just such an analysis.
I’ve always said that it was Hillary’s job to offer a real reason why the SDs should dispute the slim delegate lead. Of course, those of who are her ardent supporters never gave in on that argument. But I could understand the reluctance of the politicians to go against a delegate lead with the distatesful job of saying no to the AA candidate who has raised money and energized not only AA people but also the youth. I got it.
However, they need to “get” this, too.
It’s interesting that the rejection of Obama by most demographic groups coincided perfectly with the rejection of Obama by Democratic activists leaning towards Hillary. Anglachel thinks Obama has a legitimacy problem (like Bush in 2000), because he’s losing the popular vote.
sorry truthteller,
my friend and i looked at the charts and we are confused. i would like to pass it around and will, but i’m quite tired of pretending i understand the data…
we arent all brilliant analysts, and i wish people would write these for the ‘common folk’.
WHAT THE HELL DOES WEIGHTED MEAN?
(thank you, any other explanations would be appreciated…)
his analysis is a bit rebarbative. if you find it confusing, just consider the summary i provide here. in other words, obama has lost support with all major demographic groups, and this renders him unelectable. hillary, on the other hand, has gained in most demographic groups, and she gained with these groups during months of negative press coverage.
does this help?
Fantastic and well thought out round up. And thanks for making it easy enough for someone who had to buy a computer program to get through statistics.
It is very well done and very clear,
MEMO to Superdelegates: the 100 or so closet-Republican nutcases on this blog do not speak for Democrats. Vote as you wish, and as you think best for the party.
And YOU speak for all Democrats? Well, I’m a Democrat and you don’t speak for me. Just because I’m a registered Democrat does not mean I need to like someone who is running to become the Democratic nominee. I am hoping the SDs come to their senses and give Hillary the nomination.
Which, of course, is to side with Hillary.
I see it less as siding and more trying to make an intelligent decision in the best interests of the American people, and the American government.
That group, from the lobbyists to the politicians, is full of featherlight shitheads.
All this financial nonsense from men and women I find REPULSIVELY STUPID, yet none of them have the business sense of a cucumber, let’s be honest.
They have no grasp of the long term implications of the decisions they make — put a moron in the Presidency?
Then what?
Don’t care, they have theirs, temporarily, and they get to look important, if they can’t, and don’t, actually do the work.
Do these people, say, skew numbers to make the boss happy?
Why yes, they do.
So the temporary band aid just kills them, a little more, as opposed to facing the hard truths, and dealing with them.
But you know, if they want stupid, they got stupid.
The rest of us, thought, shouldn’t have to go down with a bunch of effeminate elites, none capable of a thought deeper than what to have for lunch, or where to buy the new Apple iphone.
No thanks.
But you know, it’s fascinating, really fascinating.
Who, other than Clinton, was the last true talent in Washington?
And I can’t name one.
bigkitty -
you hit that one over the fence.
i think it’s still rising.
That’s actually fair. We probably will end up voting Republican.
Now, me? I’ve voted over 30 years Straight Democrat, so when I say, “I’ll probably go Republican,” it sort of means a lot.
It means the Democrats have put forth a candidate that I can’t support.
That’s pretty devastating, actually. You’re not likely to meet a more middle-of-the-road, oh-heck…let em’ be, oh let’s be realistic moderate than me. I even annoy myself sometimes.
But I rather suspect that when you push people like me out of the party?
You have a very big problem.
It’s not just “he’s not attractive to the racists who screw their sisters.”
It means. The candidate has turned off the moderates.
You can get by with turning off the conservative Dems. Replace them with new registrants.
You’re never going to win even a race for dogcatcher without moderates like me.
“MEMO to Superdelegates: the 100 or so closet-Republican nutcases on this blog do not speak for Democrats.”
Typical Obama suppoter. When confronted with irrefutable facts, they resort to name-calling.
How many times have you voted? How many Democratic candidates have you supported? Let’s hear your record, shall we?
good idea lora,
i have been a democrat all my long life.
what an adventure, this will be my first election voting as a republican.
i’m thinking the republican party will be so overjoyed to see us all, that they may try and keep us.
i guess its true, ‘never say never’, i never thought i’ld vote repug., oh well…
as for the superdelegates, i will vote against anyone that voted against the candidate we voted for here in california. if they dont listen to the will of their own people, they need to go…
dear Lora..
Not only am i a 38 year registered democrat..i am first an American..i have donated tens of thousands of dollars to the dem party ..just in the past 8 years..i have been an elected Dem delegate for my state..i housed the Kerry Field rep for a 3 county area in my home in 2004 for 7 months..i worked daily running the kerry campaign headquarters..i ran the volunteer list and cleared everyone for the 15 + rally’s Kerry had in my area with the secret service for the kerry Campaign..
for 6 YEARS I HAVE BEEN A DEMOCRATIC POLL WATCHER AT LARGE ..making sure when democratic voters came to vote ..they got to vote.
I belong to 6 democratic clubs. One being the oldest Democratic womens club in the nation of which i put up the most money to be able to have a 65th anniversary party and fly Carol Mosley Braun and Pat Schroder as our speakers…for many women we have in their late 90’s that belonged to the club when women could not even be on the board of the womens club!
I helped start a democratic club in a second state i live in..in a very republican area..of which we started with 9 members and now have over 200.
I have lived in 9 states and have worked with the dem party since i was 19 years old.in each of those states.
My husband and i have worked directly with many democratic senators and congress people to help them get elected.
This year i flew from Fla to Iowa to volunteer for Edwards in the freezing cold..some days 15 below zero ..and i knocked on doors for 2 weeks..in the snow and cold..i was also a co-captain for one of the large Iowa caucus’s..where i saw the obama team cheat like i have never in my 56 years seen any democrat do!
I helped train people in Fla to work at getting rid of the voting machines that were stealing our elections for the republicans..and i also worked in NJ when an election was stolen there and went into court with the candidates when their votes went to machines 45 minutes away ..and helped their attorney’s deal with the electronic voting machines..
only to see Dean , Brazile , and Obama steal my vote in Fla and the votes of my fellow citizens in Florida.
and try to shove a caucus down our throats as they stole our votes!
Understand this..i have never voted for a republican in my life.
and this election if the cheater Obama is made our nominee..i will never ever ever ever ever ever vote for him..
hell would have to freeze over first.
I will not vote for a cheater..and certainly not a democratic one.
I saw the cheating first hand in Iowa..with my own eyes..and i damn well know what HAPPENED HERE IN FLORIDA AS ONE OF THE PEOPLE I HELPED TRAIN ON THESE VOTING MACHINE THEFTS ..WAS IN THE LEGISLATURE LAST MAY WHEN THE BILL TO BAN DRE VOTING MACHINES WAS PASSED..AND SHE WAS CALLING ME ALL THROUGHOUT THE VOTE.
THAT WAS THE BILL THE REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED FLORIDA LEGISLATURE ADDED AN AMENDMENT TO, TO CHANGE OUR PRIMARY DATE.
DEAN KNOWS THAT AS DOES DONNA BRAZILE..AND THEY HAVE WITHELD THAT INFO FROM THE ENTIRE NATION WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT THE F’ING RULZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
AND I WILL SAY IT AGAIN..I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR THAT FREAKING CHEATER OBAMA..
never!
and the dem party will damn sure miss my checkbook..so i hope you can make up for the big checks i have written them over the years!
dig in your pocket honey..
because not only am i a latte drinker..but i am educated..AND A NOW RETIRED PROFESSIONAL.. and rich!
And the money i used to send the DNC ..i will put towards candidates that run against those supers that vote for this obama crook!
Because … i do believe in democratic values..it is the democratic party that has crapped all over those values..the very values i have fought for my entire life.
It is the democratic party that has become the republicans..not the people of this party..and as of now..more people in this nation have voted for Hillary than obama so i would say it is you that has SCREWED up the democratic values.
fly a 2004 elected dem delegate for the STATE OF FLORIDA.
thanks for sharing your story hoping you can support Senator Clinton all the way to the White House!! I completely agree it is an outrage that the very people in years past that said FL votes had to count now are using lawyers to block them or insist that Hillary needs to share them with Barack. NO THANKS also if only if HILLARY IS NOT the nominee I too will vote for McCain… also a life long democrat not rich however have tried to help this year with Hillary’s campaign some.
Please join us at hillaryclintonforum.net and we’ll share information. We have a great place that deals with issues and all of us are going republican come Nov. if Hillary is not the nominee.
Obama is a dangerous person who should not be allowed in the highest position of our nation. Hopefully, you can share your encounters with the caucuses.
im a 26 plus year democrat i vote for my country not my party and obama will be very bad for the country imho look at what he has done to the democratic party already and if hes nominated i will be reregistered as a indenpendt and voting for mccain so will the rest of my family and i also converted my neighbor and his wife last night to not vote nobama ……..
OT activist’s alert!
Take a look at this wikipedia entry.
I think this entry can be easily changed and flagged to prevent editorializing. Under “Campaign Status” Obama is listed as needing “52 (estimated)” to win the nomination. This number is not in play since Florida and Michigan have not been settled and may not be settled until the convention. The only number that is valid still is 2210. Also:
Note in this paragraph they don’t even use the word “estimated” they just use the 2,025 figure. I also recall hearing on the radio of a CBS affiliate they used the 52 delegates needed figure and you will get a laugh out of this: some professor stating how us Hillary supporters will come to Obama in a GE contest against McCain. So there you have it. All will be well and we and the trolls can hold hands as Obama defeats McCain.
I should note this is on that wikipedia page:
There is mention further down the page about Florida and Michigan.
My issue with the entry is the top of the page should make it very clear that 2025 is in dispute.
Yeah Barky won’t win. But try convincing the SD’s especially those Barky has bought off or threatened of that.
To me thats the stickler.
I know his PAC outspent Hillary 4 to 1 on SDs. I presume he’s offering promises.
But is there any proof of this?
At this point, the burden of proof is on Obama, and they don’t care.
They also don’t understand how this plays, the provincial twits.
You could be right. He had weeks before PA to make a deal out her tax returns.
A lot of politics is timing.
But here’s the cool part of this election. No longer do editorial writers rule the world. I personally think blogs have matched them for good information and good analysis. Maybe hasn’t matched them in salaries yet, but that will come.
So we have seen a true transition away from the corporate media.
They are history. We’ll never have to go through this again, folks.
And THAT is progress.
What it comes down to; Hillary has 312 electrol college votes.
McCain has 229.
Obama has 217.
The SD and delegates are going to have a tough nut to crack to override this!
no matter how much solid evidence emerges, the pundits, the media and the press will overlook it. if the dnc and any and all super-delegates refuse to see evidence emerging day after day, then we all see and know for sure in our minds that this election is rigged. god damn the dnc…..
As usual, I wonder where in sulfuric HELL Barky is getting all that money. I do NOT believe the official “network-of-small-donors” explanation.
Didn’t you know? He was the winner of Oprah’s Big Give.
I want Hillary and I will never vote for Obama.
He’s had everything handed to him. EVERYTHING.
Job’s not reet.
The primary was rigged from the beginning.
Dean just ‘decides’ to exculed FL and MI? Please. The msm restart the smear campaign, working evertime to neutralize Bill? Obama’s age, race, and gender baiting goes unoticed, not to mention his shallow speech and frightening ignorance?
Bottom line: Dean and the far left quietly took control of the party after Nader’s treachery. Such folk have no honor, as shown by their disgusting tactics throughout this primary.
And commercial interests don’t want a knowledgeable president. They want a dingbat they can control.
And paid journailists either fell in line or risked their careers.
Wow, read today’s Jake Tapper article on Obama:
What the FARC was Obama talking about?
(Obama is a one man gaffe machine.)
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/what-the-farc-w.html
Thanks for that link `kat in your hat’.
It is hilarious except it would be a DISASTER were he POTUS.
Hillary will prevail. Rezko trial is winding down and more info is hitting the news. Backlash from women and dems who do not want Obama are making their voices heard. Statistics are proving out what we all knew and know-he is unelectable. Keep the faith Hillary supporters. Hillary will prevail.
Yes she will!
Someone above asked where Obamas money is coming from. It is coming from the city of Chicago. It is of the bundle variety. Which means it can not be traced back to any one in particular. It is coming from the Chicago Machine. It is the government contracts for campaign contributions slush fund.Don’t worry though the Machine plans to make it back in spades. Ghost payroll, nepatism, political hirings and once again contracts for contributions ( on the federal level). Google pay to play and Chicago. NoBama Never
he’s not trying to win new votes, he seems to have given up on that and has worked only to shore up his own base. According to Axlerod he isn’t interested in my vote. On George’s morning talk show he said Barack would not consider hillary as a running mate, even though 70 percent of us want them on the same ticket, because once he has the nom sewed up we’ll be obliged to vote for him, as the only game in town, or we’ll be voting for McCain. So, he doesn’t’ have to win us, he just needs to win the nom so we’ll feel stuck with him. Strange? Somehow I think Axelrod underestimates the lack of confidence in Barack’s ability to do the job and the dislike for McCain. I don’t want McCain but he’s a nice fellow and Barack won’t be able to smear him like he has Hillary, cause he’s another man.
i will not vote for him even if hillary were to accept the vp role ….
i don’t want hillary on the ticket with him. i don’t want him anywhere near the white house and i’m afraid he’d win if she ran with him.
axelass thinks we’ll be stuck with obaby? axelass can kiss my ass. i’ll vote mccain without a second’s hesitation if obaby’s the dem nominee.
hillary or mccain. no other option.
Now I understand why Obama supporters are so gaga to eliminate Hillary out of their path. Do they know that Hillary is a Scorpio. Scorpio is no quitter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWAR1NdqkTU
This young AA woman has the most incredible video on You Tube–it’s called the Strategy of Desperation and it is aimed at Obama supporters.
Please rate it up. Only 331 views as of now.
[...] MEMO to Superdelegates: Democrats Want Clinton, Not Obama [...]
I’m one of those Senator Clinton supporters that will steadfastly stay by my candidate. I refuse to be bullied into voting for someone that has absolutely no chance against Senator McCain in the Fall….does anyone remember John Kerry and Michael Dukakis?
I thought Kerry won the election. He just didn’t have the spine to insist on a recount in Ohio.
2008 is the third presidential election in a row that is being stolen. This is a friggin banana republic.
‘weighted’ (actually ‘weighed’) data shows what the support numbers mean as a percentage of the electorate. For instance, in part 3 of the series, I’ll be discussing how Obama is tanking in all the major religious demographics. But in the March through May primaries, Obama has a huge lead in the “something else” (non-Judeo/Christian religion) category (BHO 67.0%, HRC 32.5%). But the “something else” category comprised only 7.7% of the Democratic primary electorate…so that huge lead represents only 2.4% of voters.
Looking at “unweighed” percentages can give a false picture of what is happening in the overall electorate — which is why its necessary to consider not just how candidates do within a demographic category, but what those results mean in terms of the overall electorate.
As to writing stuff for “common folk” — the problem isn’t that I’m a “brilliant analyst” (I’m not — anyone can do what I did, its just that it takes a lot of time to get all the data together, and put it into a spreadsheet format). The big problem is that I suck as a writer.
The other problem is that unless I’m absolutely precise in what I write, it leaves a huge opening for anyone who doesn’t want to believe what the data shows — so when describing the data, I can’t discuss it terms of its meaning, I can only describe it in terms of the numbers themselves.
(of course, being precise and intellectually honest doesn’t prevent criticism — I get accused of ‘cherry picking’ the data, when I’m using all the data that is available, and there is enormous diversity in both the “February” and “March-May” primary states).
[...] ability to keep this race so close, with virtually no African American support, shows Obama’s incredible weakness as a candidate. This is not because of race, as the neo-liberal race-baiters would have you [...]