Photo credits: Getty Images
Posting at Caucus (NY Times), John Harwood provides a good analysis of demographic patterns that in order to win the Democratic nomination either Obama or Clinton must break.
Crediting in part identity politics, Harwood notes:
“Mrs. Clinton, of New York, who would be the first woman to be president, has dominated among women; according to exit polls, they have consistently constituted 55 percent or more of the Democratic electorate. Mr. Obama, of Illinois, who would be the first black president, has dominated among blacks by even more lopsided margins.”
He then elaborates:
“But with the exception of a few states like South Carolina and Georgia, where blacks represented a majority and Mr. Obama won, they have represented a far smaller share of the vote.
Crediting in part identity politics, Harwood notes:
“Mrs. Clinton, of New York, who would be the first woman to be president, has dominated among women; according to exit polls, they have consistently constituted 55 percent or more of the Democratic electorate. Mr. Obama, of Illinois, who would be the first black president, has dominated among blacks by even more lopsided margins.”
He then elaborates:
“But with the exception of a few states like South Carolina and Georgia, where blacks represented a majority and Mr. Obama won, they have represented a far smaller share of the vote.
“Mrs. Clinton, drawing on memories of prosperity during her husband’s presidency, has held steady advantages among Hispanics, older voters and blue-collar whites. Mr. Obama’s inspirational “Yes We Can” message has produced an edge among young people, independents, college graduates and higher-income Democrats.
“Those disparate collections can to some degree be distinguished using labels — Mrs. Clinton’s as more moderate, Mr. Obama’s as more liberal. But “the ideological differences clearly seem to be driven by demographics,” said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster.”
The Harwood analysis goes one step further. He says, “Those differences have helped define another important element.”
That element would be the difference between caucuses and primaries:
“While Mrs. Clinton has performed best in primaries, like New Hampshire and California, Mr. Obama has excelled in caucuses that turn on organizational prowess, from the kickoff event in Iowa to the Washington and Nebraska contests over the weekend.
“That is partly because Mr. Obama invested more heavily in grass-roots organization in his bid to overcome Mrs. Clinton’s establishment advantages. Moreover, the time and information required for caucus participation attract demographic elites drawn to the Illinois senator in the first place — his “Starbucks Democrats,” rather than Mrs. Clinton’s “Dunkin’ Donuts Democrats,” as Chris Lehane, a former aide to Al Gore, puts it.”
Finally, Harwood predicts the outcomes of upcoming contests based on his analysis of Clinton’s and Obama’s strengths:
He predicts that Obama will take Washington D.C. with its heavy black population, and Maryland with its “above-average proportion of both blacks and college graduates.”
And he also puts Hawaii in Obama’s column as he grew up there.
Harwood suggests that Clinton is favored in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania.
In conclusion, Harwood acknowledges that either candidate could forge new patterns and come up with surprising outcomes of upcoming contests.
No comments:
Post a Comment