|
Edited on Sat Apr-26-08 11:02 AM by Walter Sobchak
There have been a lot of threads arguing that Hillary's strength among working class white Dems would make her a better candidate in the fall. What these threads intentionally fail to discuss are independent voters.
This matters because a Democratic candidate who can draw more independent voters is much more likely to win in a general election. Essentially, since independent voters can go either way, they're a bigger prize.
Which voters are most likely to vote for a Democrat? Democrats. While it's of course necessary for a Democratic candidate to win Democrats, Democratic voters so reliably vote Democrat that (and I know I'm not supposed to say this) Democrats can to a large extent be taken for granted in the fall, especially when there's no viable third party candidate. That's why the HRC supporters' argument that Hillary wins Democrats (well, putting aside black Democrats and non-working class whites, who apparently don't count anymore) is a red herring.
Here's how Democrats have voted in the last 4 elections:
1992: 39% of electorate - Clinton 77, Bush 10 Dem Candidate +67
1996: 39% of electorate - Clinton 84, Dole 10 Dem Candidate +74
2000: 39% of electorate - Gore 86, Bush 11 Dem Candidate +75
2004: 37% of electorate - Kerry 89, Bush 11 Dem Candidate +78
Now here's how Independents have voted in the last 4 elections:
1992: 26% of electorate - Clinton 38, Bush 33 Dem Candidate +5
1996: 26% of electorate - Clinton 43, Dole 35 Dem Candidate +8
2000: 27% of electorate - Gore 45, Bush 47 Dem Candidate -2
2004: 26% of electorate - Kerry 49, Bush 48 Dem Candidate +1
In short, the two years we won, the Democratic candidate won big among independents and did well among Democrats (though not quite so well in 1992). The two years we lost, the Democratic candidate lost or barely won independents, and did even better among Democratic voters. Simply put, the reason that Bill Clinton was a good nominee was because of his appeal to independents. Now, supporters of his wife seem to claim that we shouldn't worry about independents.
Let's see how each candidate has done among independent voters in exit polls (I left off a few that no Dem can win in the GE):
Arizona: 20% of electorate- Clinton 37, Obama 47
California: 18% of the electorate - Clinton 34, Obama 58
Connecticut: 18% of the electorate - Clinton 32, Obama 62
Delaware: 15% of the electorate - Clinton 44, Obama 50
Georgia: 19% of the electorate - Clinton 33, Obama 63
Illinois: 16% of the electorate - Clinton 22, Obama 72
Iowa: 20% of the electorate - Clinton 17, Obama 41
Maryland: 13% of the electorate - Clinton 27, Obama 62
Massachusetts: 33% of the electorate - Clinton 54, Obama 42
Missouri: 22% of the electorate - Clinton 30, Obama 67
Nevada: 15% of the electorate - Clinton 33, Obama 47
New Hampshire: 44% of the electorate - Clinton 31, Obama 41
New Jersey: 19% of the electorate - Clinton 43, Obama 49
New York: 12% of the electorate - Clinton 40, Obama 55
Ohio: 22% of the electorate - Clinton 48, Obama 50
Pennsylvania: 14% of the electorate- Clinton 46, Obama 54
Rhode Island: 32% of the electorate - Clinton 52, Obama 47
Texas: 25% of the electorate - Clinton 48, Obama 49
Utah: 32% of the electorate - Clinton 26, Obama 68
Vermont: 38% of the electorate - Clinton 35, Obama 65
Virginia: 22% of the electorate - Clinton 30, Obama 69
Wisconsin: 28% of the electorate - Clinton 33, Obama 64
Obama clearly has more appeal to independent voters that Hillary.
Now, I realize that there are posters here who feel that only votes cast by working class white Democrats should count. If that's your opinion then there's probably no point in supporting Obama. For the rest of the people here, Obama is the better candidate for the fall.
It's a good thing we nominated the right candidate!
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
