BLOGS WE LIKE
_____________________________
Neighbourhoods
Partnerships

_____________________________

« Power to the People - but do they really want it? | Main | The Comeback Kid 3 - Morning in America? »

Comments

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

No surprise really that Hilary didn't win the male vote in this primary - did anyone in the Clinton campaign or in the country expect her to? - but definite surprise at your comment which classifies those aged 25-29 (which, according to exit polls, Clinton won by 37% to Obama's 35%) as older voters! I also note that the less well off you refer to includes those with total family income of between USD150,000 and USD199,999 - a demographic that Clinton won with a 48% share of the vote to Obama's 33% share. A higher margin that his win in the USD200,000 or more demographoc where he took 44% to Clinton's 36%.

The danger in reading too much commentary about what's going on in the primaries is that it predisposes you to a common tendency amongst commentators where they try and make the numbers fit the story they want to tell, regardless of its factual basis, as opposed to providing an objective analysis of the data available.

charliemansell

Until 2 weeks ago Hilary was comfortably leading in almost every demographic including men. Since Iowa a number of these have been contested areas for both main candidates.

There are a number of interpretations of the result and I have already posted on two of them. The comparisons with 1984 was even brought on by the Clinton campaign team themselves with her Chief strategist Mark Penn having been reported as producing a note called "Where's the bounce" a clear reference to Mondale's famous "Where's the beef" strategy to break the challenge of Gary Hart. Recalling the strategy myself at the time, it made sense for Hillary to focus on the core Democratic vote to beat Obama.

The fact there were anomalies for some of the smaller demographic slices does not detract from the point that in general the young (ie under 40's) and more well off voters (ie over $100,000) went for Obama compared to Clinton. I have no doubt we could slice the democraphics and find further anomalies but the broad trend if you sliced the voters into two haleves is clear. It also does not detract from the general point that she was beaten by Obama for the votes of Independents who in the end will decide who will be President.

It was the votes of Independents that put her husband into power in 1992 and 1996, so this is a group she will need to reach out to. However the battle between her and Obama for the Democratic Party's soul is likely to last at least until February 5, so we may not see her approach in this area until after then. My point was that if she wins, how she responds to the concerns of those who have shown more support to Obama will be crucial to the success of her campaign.

The comments to this entry are closed.