Brendan Nyhan & PolySigh: An Obama Ceiling?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Anyone who takes pleasure in the fact that Obama attracts black voters or that Clinton attracts white voters is gross. There is not fun in it... the fact of tribalism in human nature is nothing to applaud. It is on par with our human proclivity to war as something to be overcome.

But the fact of tribalism is human nature is a fact, and anyone talking about politics has to consider demographics, group behavior, history and human nature.

The question of whether Senator Obama faces a ceiling in his support is being discussed by pollsters and political scientists with no favorite in the race, because it's a significant phenomenon. So this is offered for the few folks here who are still interested in politics as such.

Obama Ceiling Update

The exit polls from Nevada provide more evidence that Obama has been unable to break out of his ceiling of approximately one-third of the white vote. In fact, in each of the three Democratic contests thus far, Obama's support among whites has been remarkably consistent:

Iowa: 35%
New Hampshire: 36%
Nevada: 34%

If this 35% ceiling does, in fact, exist, it's interesting to compare it to Jesse Jackson's performance in 1988. Despite the passage of 20 years and the fact that Jackson and Obama are very different candidates and personalities, Obama hasn't performed significantly better than Jackson. During the 1988 primaries, especially once the race narrowed down to Dukakis and Jackson, Jackson's white support ranged between 20 and 35 percent.

http://polysigh.blogspot.com/2008/01/obama-ceiling-update.html

Obama Ceiling?

There's been much speculation on Hillary Clinton's surprise upset in New Hampshire. I'll offer up a rather parsimonious explanation. Barack Obama got 36% of the vote in NH, which is almost exactly equal to the 35% percent of the vote he got in the entrance poll of Iowa caucus goers. Even with what was perhaps the most positive press coverage for any candidate in recent history, he ended up with zero bounce. Zilch. Nada. This suggests that Obama has a ceiling, at least among white voters, of about 30-40 percent.

In Iowa, this was enough to win because Edwards and Clinton split evenly and the also-rans like Richardson, Biden, and Dodd were there to drain-off some additional non-Obama votes. But in New Hampshire, Dodd and Biden were out, Richardson did a bit worse than in Iowa, and, most importantly, Clinton managed to beat Edwards by 22 points (39 percent to 17). Had Edwards been able to split the non-Obama vote with Clinton, the result would have been 28 percent for Edwards, 28 percent for Clinton, and 36 percent for Obama--almost exactly the same result as Iowa. If this is true, rather than Edwards and Obama splitting the "change" vote in Clinton's favor, Edwards and Clinton are splitting the white vote in Obama's favor.

http://polysigh.blogspot.com/2008/01/obama-ceiling.html

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2008/01/an-obama-ceilin.html

[TwilightZone]

1. That's not particularly good news from a general election standpoint.

I'm not sure what percentage of GE voters are white, but if Obama can't get more than ~35% of that vote, we'll need huge turnout of non-white voters to win.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. The ceiling discussed is among just Democratic voters, so it has to be worse in a general

If Edwards wasn't in the mix we would know very quickly what effect race continues to have or not have, but in a three-way race it's tricky to say.

Also, just because a white person votes for Clinton doesn't mean he would NOT vote for Obama. And just because a black person votes for Obama, it doesn't mean he would NOT vote for Clinton.

Lot's of variables, and we really don't know the answer.

[Skwmom]

13. Oh please. A lot of the Democratic white vote is sticking with Clinton b/c

she is a Clinton. It has nothing to do with Obama's race.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. I don't see the disagreement

I said that just because a white person votes for Clinton doesn't mean he would NOT vote for Obama. And just because a black person votes for Obama, it doesn't mean he would NOT vote for Clinton.

Preferences are not necessarily negative.

[Dhalgren]

2. So by this analysis, Edwards dropping out helps Clinton, not Obama.

Interesting, because most Obamanians, recently, were saying just the opposite. Hmmm...

[cali]

4. Where and in what states did Jackson get 35% of the white vote?

Because there's a huge difference between 20% and 35%. In addition, I don't think that Obama can be expected to do well with the white vote in the South- particularly as the Clintons have employed the Southern Strategy.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. I remember Jackson winning Minnesota, so he probably got 35% there

There are black populations in the cities, but it's still a fairly white state.

The historical point with Jackson is that he seemed to do very well in a crowded field, but when everyone dropped out it got down to him and Dukakis, and Jackson's support didn't go up much at all.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. PS: You know I can't stand Edwards, but he really is the most electable

Tribalism and sexism cannot be wished away.

Hillary and Barack both start the campaign with a built in 5-6% disadvantage Edwards doesn't share, and though 5-6% is small, such a margin is definitive in most Presidential elections.

[TwilightZone]

8. He also won the Vermont causus in '88.

That would have obviously required a significant chunk of the white vote.

[jackson_dem]

17. Jackson also win Michigan

[tgnyc]

9. He won Michigan also.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. A map, for what it's worth

This is from wikipedia. I doesn't quite match my memories, but 1988 was a long time ago.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. re: Which primaries/states did Jesse Jackson win in the 1988 election?

Which primaries/states did Jesse Jackson win in the 1988 election?

There are conflicting accounts of this on the Web, but several major media outlets report that Rev. Jackson won 5 primaries and caucuses in 1984, and 13 such contests in 1988. A search of Web sites -- unofficial -- indicates he won contests in 1984 in Louisiana, Washington, D.C., South Carolina, Virginia, and one of the split contests in Mississippi. Four years later, he won primaries in Virginia, Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama on Super Tuesday; contests in Delaware, Vermont, Alaska, DC, Puerto Rico, Michigan and South Carolina; as well as a caucus in Texas (even though he lost the primary and Dukakis ultimately took more delegates). I suppose the "11" figure could come if you kick out the Puerto Rico (territory) and Texas results. FYI, one Web site cited a Congressional Quarterly book with all presidential primary results.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080103133439AA8hJCp

[jackson_dem]

19. Alaska and Vermont. So he won a few nearly all white states

But it goes to your original post. What was the margin? Was he at the ceiling again?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. I googled around, but haven't found primary vote totals state by state

I'd be interested to see them. I remebr that campaign, but it was a long time ago.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. The map should show Alaska and Vermont for Jackson, not Dukakais

[jackson_dem]

18. This is partly why Obama is struggling with whites

Obama is doing relatively poorly among whites in the South because he is against a white southerner and the spouse of a former president who carried the South. That advantage does not exist for Edwards elsewhere. Instead of realizing this the Obamaite reaction is to immediately tar and feather white Democrats who don't buy the empty rhetoric of "Hope and Change" (wtf is that supposed to mean anyway?) as racists.

[sunonmars]

5. This is possibly conclusive why Super Tuesday is going to be conclusive

If it happens again in SC, then i think we'll know its a pattern and i'd be worried if the demographics prove this as a big problem, if he gets the nomination.

Looking at the new head to heads against McCain, Obama loses Massachussetts. Only takes California by 6 and New York by 6, thats very uncomfortable leads.

[Meldread]

11. What I don't understand is why no one is investigating Hillary.

I could be wrong, but last I heard Hillary's support among men was equally low as Obama's support among whites. While this has not yet been an issue for Hillary because women have turned out in such large numbers, Hillary may have this problem in the general election.

I also think she is turning men off when she uses her gender to play the victim. For example, in the debate where she basically claimed that she was being ganged up on by the guys. I can't imagine how well that is going to play among most men, because it raises questions that really aren't being asked or answered.

Obama seems to get the abnormal amount of focus because he's black and the relation between whites / blacks. However, Hillary's relation between men / women is often over looked if not out right ignored. They both have common weaknesses with two different groups.

[calimary]

15. Most intriguing analysis. Tribalism. That ancient stuff still runs deep.

Most useful to keep in mind when trying to understand the human condition.