Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
PA goes to Clinton
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, April 22, 2008

The only thing left to resolve is by how much.

For the most part, the exit polling broke down much the same as they have for the previous Dem primaries.

Clinton took women, seniors, union households and those without a college degree. In PA she took them at a higher percentage than she usually does.

Obama took blacks, the young and urban voters, and although he took them convincingly, he didn't have the high percentages he had in previous primaries.

Where Obama suffered was among a group in which he usually does very well - independent voters pretty well split between Obama and Clinton.

Perhaps the most disturbing statistic for Democrats to come out of the exit polls show that 26% of Clinton voters would vote for McCain over Obama and 19% would just stay home. That's 45% of Clinton voters saying they won't vote for Obama.

On the Obama side, it is 17% claiming that they would vote for McCain over Clinton and 12% would just stay home.

Granted we're talking PA voters here, but it certainly tracks with some national polls which show numbers very close to those from PA.

So, how big will the Clinton win be? 3-6% - eh. Not good enough. 8-12% - signficant and lends credence to Clinton's claim to be the one who can lure the voters most necessary for a Dem win to the party, i.e. the Budweiser Dems.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
As I’ve felt for quite some time, the right will be essentially irrelevant this election cycle. Oh sure, McCain will get an obligatory 40%, but that has never been in question. The question that has always struck me, is just how compelling will a Dem be outside Democrat echo chambers? At one point I thought Obama might have a good chance, but not Clinton. Too high negatives. We are seeing now, however, that the hopiness and changitude foisted upon the electorate by Barack, his staff, and his unpaid but nationally syndicated PR machine, isn’t catching. Irrespective of Sully et. al. paid chits trying to insulate Obama from normal scrutiny, America does has questions.

We’ve yet to see whether Barak has the constitution to address.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
O.K., so:
Obama took blacks,
No, he took 92% of blacks.

A racial outcome for the non-racial candidate.

Way back it became clear that Obama was not just a candidate who happens to be black, but that he is the black candidate.

Imagine for a moment if the white vote in Pennsylvania was the mirror image of the black vote.

Whites would be accused of racism; they would have voted 9 to 1 for the white candidate.

Why, I could be accused of racism for even raising the question.

Barack Obama, pretending to be the candidate who transcends race, is the most racially divisive candidate to ever run for President of the United States, and it isn’t because he is black. It’s becauce that is the way he played it.

All along I said that he was talking over the heads of his white devotees to the black nation. Anyone want to challenge that?
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I distrust that 17 percent of Obamaniki who say they will vote for McCain. It makes sense that a high percentage would stay home in November if Clinton is the nominee—I would in fact hazard a much higher percentage—but I can’t see any Obamanik voting for McCain. OTOH, it’s utterly logical that Clintoniki would vote for McCain, since the differences between the two are much less.
(illustrative graphic)
Obama—————————Clinton——McCain————GWBush—————————Q&O

But Obamaniki voting for McCain in any signficant numbers? That, for me, puts the whole set of numbers in doubt.
 
Written By: kishnevi
URL: http://
Heh ... nice graphic.

I’m not at all expecting that number on each side to actually do what they say will now in November. My guess is most of them will suck it up and vote for their party’s candidate. What’s interesting to me is that those numbers are growing as this primary goes on and it displays a real dissatisfaction with the other candidate in the party’s race.

I have little doubt that between now and November, McCain will find numerous ways to turn off those who claim they’ll vote for him vs. the other Dem candidate. But it is an indicator of the problems within the Democratic party right now.

Even more significant though is the difficulty it may foretell with independents. And that could actually cost them the race.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
The reports of Obama clinging to guns and religion are greatly exaggerated.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Yeah, Neo, he’s only clinging to Rev Wright and religion. (Although given where he lives in Chicago I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if there’s an unregistered gun or two in the Obama household, although there’s a strong possibility that they would belong to Michelle.) Also, am I the only one who reads of him refusing to debate in NC and thinking of him putting his hands up over his face and saying, "No mas. No mas."?
 
Written By: JorgXMcKie
URL: http://
CNN (and Little Wolfie Blintzes) admitted tonight that the CNN exit polling showed Obama getting 47% - and yet he got 45%. What happened to that 2%?

It is the Douglas Wilder Effect (DWE), folks. DWE happens when white people tell pollsters or exit polls that they voted for the black candidate when it fact they have not.

Factor in to national (and state) polls the DWE, and see that Obama gets about 42-44% of the vote. As November gets closer, watch as the dimwitted liberal media does not take the DWE into consideration, and then watch as they are shocked that their polls on Obama are off by that same 2-4%, all part of the DWE.

Mark my words, folks. Factor in the DWE. It will be the reason why McCain is the next President.
 
Written By: James Marsden
URL: http://
"The reports of Obama clinging to guns and religion are greatly exaggerated."

Maybe, with all the gang violence in Chicago (which is, right now, more violent than Baghdad - maybe it is that civil war in Illinois!), Obama needs to cling to his guns and God.

Because guns and God are not going to help him win this election. Not when he tells reporters to stop asking questions so he can eat his waffle.
 
Written By: James Marsden
URL: http://
Just as Republicans who really disliked McCain will support him in the fall, Democrats who disliked the other will support their candidate. The exceptions on each side will probably balance out. It’s an eternity to November, that’s a whole new campaign with a new dynamic. April will be long forgotten. (I made a similar argument last summer about the pre-primary campaigns when people were assuming it would be Guiliani vs. Clinton, and Obama had no chance).
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Boris in Pollyanna mode again:
Just as Republicans who really disliked McCain will support him in the fall, Democrats who disliked the other will support their candidate.
Not the same thing. You’re looking at the rejection of Obama by Reagan Democrats, voters who are inclined toward the Democratic Party but who will not vote for a slick far-Left dude who is running a con on them. They’ll give frauds like the Clintons a pass because the cheeseball you know is better than the cheeseball you don’t know, and because Obama’s "mentor" asked God to damn America. Those who don’t get out of acanemia much won’t understand that.
The exceptions on each side will probably balance out.
That might be true if the "exceptions" were cut from the same cloth or for the same reasons. They are not cut from the same cloth or for the same reasons.
It’s an eternity to November,
If Obama is the nominee it will certainly seem like an eternity to Democrats.

The Wunderkind has not won the big states, and has not even convinced Democrats in those states that he should be president. If the Democrats were going winner-take-all in the primaries, the Clintons would have the nomination by now.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
James Marsden:
Mark my words, folks. Factor in the DWE. It will be the reason why McCain is the next President.
That 2 point difference between Obama’s exit poll percentage (47%) and his actual vote take (45%) is bound to fall within the margin of error of the poll and therefore shouldn’t be attributed to misrepresentation on the part of those polled.

I doubt seriously that race, racism or any polling artifacts deriving therefrom would figure significantly in an Obama-McCain contest. There are too many stark contrasts between the relevant attributes of those two candidates for voters to get sidetracked by anything so beside-the-point as race. In all honesty, should Obama get the nomination, I’ll be surprised if the polls going into the general election don’t indicate the winner just as clearly as the ballots surely will.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Linda:
I doubt seriously that race, racism or any polling artifacts deriving therefrom would figure significantly in an Obama-McCain contest.
Yes, in the straight on sense of race, where whites would refuse to vote for a black candidate. I don’t think that will be a determining factor. There are certainly whites who won’t vote for him because he is black, but I don’t think they would determine the outcome even in a close election.

My sense is that Americans would welcome the opportunity to elect a black president, if he met a sufficient number of their other requirements.

But I do believe that Obama’s own racialist background will be a significant factor. Americans want a racial reconciliationist, for sure, but not a racialist posturing as a reconciliationist and trying to hide and dissemble about his racialist background. It’s that "I only attended those Klan rallies. I never lit any of the crosses" BS that the majority of voters won’t buy.

I would never vote for Obama just on the basis of his political views.

That will probably be the main factor in what I believe will be his defeat, but his racialist background would cause his defeat in any case.

I believe that he will be roundly rejected in the general election.

But aren’t the Democrats masters at finding unacceptable candidates for president?
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Martin:
But I do believe that Obama’s own racialist background will be a significant factor.
Yes, you’re right. His own twenty-odd-year relationship with Wright and actual embrace of Wright as his spiritual mentor, which he has candidly and repeatedly described, do indeed bear on his prospects for November. No, neither he nor any assemblage of assorted apologists can spin his way out of that, or out of various other oddball notions he has expressed about race, such as how a “typical white person” responds to a stranger and why. Yeah, many voters will reject Obama for what his own words and actions reveal about his own attitudes towards race.
But aren’t the Democrats masters at finding unacceptable candidates for president?
And isn’t it scary how even the loopiest and most repugnantly asinine ones get millions and millions of votes, sometimes even making it to the Whitehouse?
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Maybe there have been exceptions farther back in US history, but as I make it from 1900 on, Americans don’t elect presidents far from the mainstream.

Obama was great—sort of a Tiger Woods figure—until we found out about Rev. Wright. However typical of black pastors Wright may be, and sadly I’m coming around to the view that he is more typical than I initially wanted to believe, most American’s don’t expect to hear "God damn America" from the church pulpit, and they don’t expect future US presidents to sit idly in the pews while that sort of invective is issued.

Now we are hearing about Ayers and Dohrn. Again, we don’t expect American presidents to idly consort with people who bomb the Pentagon, and continue to denounce America to the present day.

Prof. Erb has no response to this beyond vague handwaving and his usual assertions that it won’t matter because it won’t matter and besides it all balances it out.

Nonetheless, it has stopped Obama cold. It’s true that the majority of Americans don’t spend a lot of time reading the news and blogs or listening to talk shows, but they can see that Obama is nervous, defensive, and he’s not answering questions straightforwardly or at all. Judging by the 60/40 demographic splits, it’s clear that whites and women are spooked by Obama. The 90/10 black vote shores him up but it also makes it clear that he is not a post-racial candidate, but a racial one.

All the strategizing and reframing in the world is not going to help, because this only going to get worse as we move to the general election, when the attack ads start blaring quotes from Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, Lee and likely others as we learn more about Obama’s radical past and present. Obama is not a mainstream candidate.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
And isn’t it scary how even the loopiest and most repugnantly asinine ones get millions and millions of votes, sometimes even making it to the Whitehouse?
Linda,

In ’76, Carter didn’t seem that bad. He was a governor from a southern state, with what appeared to be moderate views. And he was running against Ford. It isn’t hard to see why people voted for Carter back then, just as it isn’t hard to see why they voted Reagan in ’80.

In ’76 I was 13. I didn’t like Carter because he supported gun control. My parents supported Reagan in the primary, and Ford v. Carter in the general wasn’t exactly motivating, although my parents did vote for Ford.
Now we are hearing about Ayers and Dohrn. Again, we don’t expect American presidents to idly consort with people who bomb the Pentagon, and continue to denounce America to the present day.
Yeah, and now we can add in his communist official blogger.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Carter made sense in 1976. He had attended the Naval Academy, had an impressive career under Admiral Rickover during the Korean, afterwards ran a successful business, and been governor of a state. He was a fervent Christian of the mainstream kind.

Carter is a decent example of what we might expect of the Democratic primary process and what we ought to expect of an outsider like Obama. Instead with Obama, we are getting a candidate from a hard left background connected to a radical black church and sixties wackos with no experience of the military or business, little connection to mainstream American, and almost no credentials aside from writing a couple of books and being elected to the Senate.

Yet, at this point, it will be very difficult to dislodge Obama from the Dem nomination.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
huxley:
as I make it from 1900 on, Americans don’t elect presidents far from the mainstream.
That’s a more complicated question that it would at first seem.

I recommend Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism (again) specifically on the provenance of Woodrow Wilson and his Progressive ideology. The 1900-1920 period is represented by most conventional histories in a vague and/or out of focus manner.

Wilson was an intellectual who got elected governor of New Jersey from the presidency of Princeton. So, knowing what we now know about that sort of progression, you can see there’s trouble afoot.

American voters might have thought he was mainstream because American voters want to think that our noble institutions would not breed hard deviants from the mainstream. But Wilson was wired up with all sorts of weird late-19th century American intellectual nonsense. He was also an explicit racist, who set the clock back for blacks in DC by re-segregating the federal bureaucracy.

Wilson’s war fascism/socialism inspired the "moral equivalent of war" crowd, and FDR essentially imported the Wilson administration brain trust into the New Deal, and the "great Democratic Party tradition" of the 20th century was thus made permanent.

Aside from the fact that Democrats threw the segregationist monkey off their back in the 1960s, one can trace Obama’s lineage right back to Wilson, Sanger, their contemporaries, and predecessors.

It is, in essence, the American fascist/socialist lineage, with the hidden sleepovers at Mussolini’s and Stalin’s variants and an uncanny similarity to much of the German National Socialist cultural agenda as well.

Obama comes from a particularly nasty ’60s outcropping of the lineage, which did in fact produce the racist "black theology" of Wright via Cone and the Weatherman bombings of Ayers.

So, I guess the bottom line is that this lineage is well-known inside the Democratic Party, but not necessarily to its rank and file or to American voters in general. It’s implicit, and when there are explicit outbreaks of it, as there have been with both Obama and Hillary Clinton, we get the routine BS about how it’s been "put behind them."
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Martin — I have read Liberal Fascism. So I am aware of Wilson and Goldberg’s arguments about him. It was an eye-opener.

Nonetheless, Wilson was a mainstream American when he was elected. He was even a college football coach! Wilson wasn’t organizing with Sacco and Vanzetti, attending Bund meetings, or seeking counsel from Fr. Coughlin, which are the early 20th century equivalants to Barack Obama’s associations we are supposed to overlook.

Obama is the most bizarre presidential candidate I can think of. Again, can anyone suggest a stranger candidate with a real shot at becoming president?
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider