More on the Catholic vote
Mark Sticherz notes on the GetReligion blog, that daily exposé of how the news media doesn’t “get religion,” that news organizations did not give much attention to the Catholic vote in the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. For the record, exit polls showed Catholics went for Clinton 61-39 in Indiana and 51-48 in North Carolina.
The political reporters may have Catholic vote fatigue by now, but I think the big news organizations participating directly in the exit polling – the TV networks and The Associated Press – need to make more creative use of the exit-poll data available to them. For example, there’s been a lot of talk about whether race is a motivating factor in the Catholic vote in Hillary Clinton’s favor. But no one has looked at whether there is a disproportionate number of Catholics among those who told the pollster that race was a factor in their vote. Nor have I seen any analysis of the Catholic vote based on income, age or education.
The company that is doing the exit polls, Edison-Mitofsky, would have that data and could probably also pool together groups of states if the total number of Catholics surveyed in any one state is too small to be meaningful. The data is available only to the consortium paying for it. It’s up to the networks or The AP to ask their pollster for the cross-tabs. So how about it?
One other point on the last round of primaries. It’s being treated as a given, but Barack Obama’s ability to attract above 90 percent of the black vote is extraordinary. Polls early in the campaign indicated that Clinton would be able to get a significant portion of the black vote. It’s rare for a politician to win any group above that 90 percent mark and, as far as I can recall, this was the best Obama has done to date with black voters. For all that was said about Obama and Rev. Wright, there might still be something more. Obama, who had said that Wright did not reflect the black church, emerges a tad more popular than ever among black voters.
on May 8th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Is this the highest a candidate has ever gotten from a demographic group? As I recall, even Kennedy, “only” got 85%, more or less, of the Catholic vote–though obviousely it was numerically huge….
on May 8th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Whether supporters want to face it or not the black vote for Obama is really similar to jury nullification in the Simpson trial. The issue is restitution, or you might say, revenge. The other irony is that there is hardly anyone who supported blacks more than the Clintons. And vice versa.
Given that only “newness” separates Obama from Clinton, draw your own conclusions. He has one thing over her he opposed the Iraq war earlier.
More importantly all of this does not bode well for Barack and the democrats in the general election. Now that McGovern who was the first to lose 49 states, is backing him, he really might be in trouble.
on May 8th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
You continue to astound, Bill. Nice analogy.
Gas tax holiday. Threatening to obliterate Iran. Great ideas.
on May 8th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
It’s not surprising that the Catholic vote in Indiana was 61-37 for Clinton as the white vote in Indiana was about 60-40 (not saying that all Catholics in Indiana are white, but . . .) People make a big deal about the Catholic vote, but Catholics tend to vote in percentages similar to the their secular demographic. The Catholic vote is a myth.
on May 8th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Aside from the Catholic vote stats here in NC, the stat I cannot ignore comes from the gubernatorial primary results.
If you add together all the votes that all 5 known Republican candidates received (505,634 total votes cast), that is still over 95,000 votes short of what the democrat who came in second received (601,071) — and he lost by 244,627 votes!
That means that in this particular model 3 Democrats voted for every Republican.
In this very Republican state, Democvrats must be licking their chops after seeing the activity on one side and the malaise on the other.
on May 8th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Stay with the facts, Grant, and avoid the characterizations. In that ad hominem arena, which you are choosing, you might be more vulnerable.
It will remain to be seen whether he is the stronger democratic candidate or not.
on May 9th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Here are some facts for you: no serious economist supports the gas-tax holiday and total nuclear obliteration is of course counter to just-war teaching. Maybe you missed those recently released photos of the victims of Hiroshima. You continue to ignore these issues.
Don’t cry ad hominem unless someone has actually launched a personal attack. What do you call comparing black Americans who voted for Obama to O.J. Simpson’s jury? Or claiming their support is merely revenge? Maybe insulting.
on May 9th, 2008 at 9:50 am
The gas tax protest has symbolic value. It is just getting on the bandwagon to make fun of it. Obama has been very delicate with big oil.
The Black vote speaks for itself. It is not a claim but more of a fact.
The statement on Iran was not pivotal to your choice in the campaign. To say that she is a nuclear hawk is a stretch and manipulation.
on May 9th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Some years ago, Jake Evseroff, a ueens attorney wrote a book, “What the Hell is Justice?” He revealed how he’d carefully selected a black conservative juror in the trial of a white policemen he was defending for shooting a black transvestite and how he won acquittal.
It’s now de riguer to manipulate, if you can, jury selection -as in the Simpson case, but that may not be indictive of how a whole group thonks or decides.
I’m sorry, bil, but i find your analogy simplistic and objectionable and still another indication that race is both a major factor in this election, and not always for the best, and why we need to have a further conversation of some depth on the topic.
I see Sr, Jamie Phelps, by the way is on the Obama committee, I’ve found her comments on race and the Catholic Church to be quite persuasive, but because she’s black, maybe you can write her off as just being part of a single minded group of non-thinkers.
on May 9th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Symbolic value? Is that what we’re settling for now? She can do better. She knows it’s a sham and pushes it anyway–and in the process panders by insulting “elite” economists–as if she doesn’t rely on them! What kind of Democrat is this? What kind of Clinton? Why are you fixated on when I decided whom to support, Bill? It’s strange. Can you defend her threat to obliterate Iran with nukes? I’m genuinely interested.