Getting at the meaning behind those numbers

All praise the fine folks who put out MSNBC's "First Read" political note.

Sifting through the mass of numbers floating about in the wake of Super Tuesday, they cut to the chase and put together the statistics that best explain the big picture of what happened (and provide likely previews of the contests to come):

"Looking inside the Democratic exit polls (per the last wave we saw), it is striking to us just how predictable Clinton and Obama voters are. Nationally, Clinton won among women (52%-45%), and Obama won among men (53%-42%). Obama won big among voters ages 17-29 (59%-38%), and Clinton won big among those 60 and older (55%-38%).

"Obama won the African-American vote (82%-16%), while Clinton won Latinos (61%-37%). Obama did seem to do better among whites (with 43% of that vote); in fact, Obama won white men (49%-44%). And Obama won among those making $200,000 or more (52%-46%), while Clinton won among those making less than $50,000.

"On the GOP side, McCain narrowly beat Romney among self-identified Republicans (38%-37%), among moderates (52%-24%), and those who said they were "somewhat conservative" (40%-36%). Yet among those identifying themselves as "very conservative," it was Romney 48%, Huckabee 26%, and McCain 19%."

-- Don Frederick

Comments

[Jon K.]

Hillary Clinton is the candidate for single, overweight femaile babyboomers.

The only reason she won California is that she played off the fact that undereducated Lations are overwhelmingly racist against black people.

My distaste for Hillary "the Witch" Clinton is so profound that as a lifelong Democrat I would vote for McCainf even if Hillary was the VICE-PRESIDENTIAL candidate.

Why? She's too manipulative. It wouldn't surprise me if Obama was suddenly assassinated two years into his first term in office. Surprise.

The Clintons are simply power hungry egoists. Just look at their body language. 45% of what is communicated through human communication is stated through body language. She is an arrogant narcissist. She will bring culture wars and ruin to our country.

Time to turn the page on their place in history.

[Susan R.]

My 2008 Minnesota Caucus Experience: I put my vote in a cat box (really)

Fantastic! Encouraging! Exciting! And my candidate won.

Let me start again. I left my apartment at 6:20PM to head across the street to the school where the caucus was being held. What a sight! As I stepped out onto the front steps of my apartment, I saw dozens and dozens of people walking down the sidewalks in all directions – all seemingly heading to the caucus. I had to wait a few seconds before I could break into the line on the sidewalk. I was heartened!

I followed the group up the slight hill into the school (no sidewalks had been shoveled; everyone was literally trudging through about five inches of snow). There was the beginning of a semi-organized chaos. A long line had already begun to form to vote. I’ve never been to a caucus before, so I didn’t have a very good idea of what to expect. There was one tiny 8” x 12” district map on the wall to my left that everyone was crowding around trying to get a look at to determine which district they should get in line for. Ends up that I was in district 62 (could have been in 61).

However, that really didn’t help either. There appeared to be one person directing people to the two different lines with an Obama sticker on his shirt. Got in line, waited, saw other people from the 62 line get in my line because they picked the wrong line, and waited some more. Approximately 20-25 minutes from the time I came in the front door of the school did I read the table where I wasn’t asked for any type of identification, did I sign my name, address, e-mail address and phone number on a sheet of paper. There were three women manning the sign-in table. I was then handed a small piece of paper (very small) with the names of all the Democratic candidates (even those that had dropped out) on it. I then was asked my name by a young guy with what appeared to be about 100 sheets of paper stapled together, he found my name and crossed it off. Don’t know what that was about.

I then got in the line to drop my vote into a box (which I didn’t know that at the time). Waited, looked around, waited and finally got up to a table where there was a box with the words in magic marker on it “Murkey’s Toy Box.” I asked the guy what that meant. I guess no one had asked him, he looked chagrined. He said that the party leaders had asked him to bring in a box for people to put their votes in and this was the only one he had – his cat’s toy box. So I put my vote in Murkey’s cat toy box. How quaint is that?

The caucusing took place in the school cafeteria. It was already filling up and it wasn’t even quite 7PM. So I took a seat at one of the lunch tables, interested in what a caucus entailed. I never saw the line for voting decline – people were streaming in at a steady rate.

My perspective is that there were tons of young people and when I say young – I mean 18-22 years of age – there to have their voice heard. My neighborhood evidently isn’t populated by quiet youth. I saw hope, I saw enthusiasm, I saw interest. I saw the face of my neighborhood: many ethnic groups represented, I saw the elderly (came with their walkers!), mothers with their young children, fathers, working people (their uniforms probably still on from coming straight from work), and me.

The leader of our district stood up right at 7PM and announced what we would accomplish that evening. He would be reading of the rules of caucus, the DFL platform, vote on planks, vote for presidential candidates, vote for delegates and district leaders. I have to say, it was very orderly – but enthusiastic.

By the time this man (can’t recall his name) start reading the rules of caucus, the cafeteria was jammed full, standing room (barely) only. There was barely room for him to stand and read. I don’t know the official capacity of this particular cafeteria, but it was full to the rafters. The leader went through all the steps of caucus. I found it all quite fascinating. Seemed authentic, real, down-to-earth and made me feel like my voice counted. Never felt like that in any “normal” voting I’ve done in the past. This seemed very “grass roots.” I liked it; I wasn’t sure when I went over that evening if I would or not. I was surprised by the electricity in the air.

I also noticed so many people I recognized from my bus route. I also recognized some people that I’ve just encountered in the neighborhood and from the Fringe Festival. I was pleased to political activism in action and out in force in my neighborhood. The chair announced right before the vote results were announced, that this was the biggest precinct turn out in over 30-40 years. He said typically there are around 150 people that turn out – the 1200+ was a huge increase!

The group elected two vote counters and one judge to oversee the count. When 8PM rolled around, they went to the front of the cafeteria and started counting. Everything was out in the open. I liked that. You could feel the excitement in the air, everyone anxious to hear how this group voted. At 8:25PM, the chair read off the count – Obama 952, Clinton 150, and a handful of other votes (probably amounting to around 25 votes for other candidates). Obama won overwhelmingly in my precinct. A huge cheer went up and everyone clapped. I left after that.

I’m so glad I went to the caucus. It was an experience like none other I’ve had in the political arena.

Susan

[J. Green]

The Democrats will come out of this in tatters.

Their raging hatred for one of their own (the Clintons) know no bounds. Even Republican Richard Mellon Scaife, who spent millions investigating Bill now admits he wasn’t so bad after all. Check out: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010771.php.t

Rich, white, “educated” liberals are so desperate to connect with a “coo/hip” Obama, they’re willing to dump someone who has worked on behalf for the rights of women, children and working poor for over 35 years.

Southern blacks who did well under Bill Clinton voted for their own, rather than someone who had a proven record for helping them.

Obama supporters call him the candidate for the people, but he’s backed by the Democratic establishment: Kennedy, Kerry, Daschle, etc. They also cite his many years as a state legislature in Illinois, but look closely at his record: Voting over 130 times “present” and admitting to hitting the wrong button at least 6 times does not bode well for someone who claims to be “right from the start”.

The true blues are clinging to Clinton, not realizing her party’s already been swift boating her.

The only history the Democrats will be making will be the end of their party!

[GS]

What's the actual delegate count won in the Democratic side, not including super delegates? I can't imagine the politicos deciding who will be the nominee of the party? Is it me, or do the Republican delegate counts not include super delegates as in the Democratic side. If so, why?

[seanmay]

Some one above, an Obama supporter, tried to sabotage Hillary. Thi s has been quite a common practice on any website--because most of Obama supporters are young and Internet generation.

I don't mind people critize Clinton's policies, but this type of personality assassation doesn't sit well with me, a neutral observer of this primary election.

[Soldier's Mom]

The absentee ballotting in California was an out-sized advantage for Clinton, since many had cast their ballot before they got a chance to see Obama campaign. The reliance of some Latinos on Mexican media sources restricts them to learning about only candidates who have achieved international notoriety.
J. Green's comment about African American voting patterns is insultingly facile. Like the under-thirty crowd, African Americans have been Extremely motivated to learn about Obama, his views, & his record. Like most Americans, once they learn thism they really like him.

[gina]

Jon K. --you obviously are totally ignorant. The Clintons did not exploit un-educated Latinos. Latinos have a long-standing RELATIONSHIP AND HISTORY with the Clintons. If you want to buy into the MSM's media B.S., then go right ahead, but there are A SIGNIFICANT amount of Latinss, such as myself, who are highly educated and who make choices based upon intelligent choices. My vote for Hillary is NOT based upon prejudice nor is it based on my lack of political savvy. Hillary, IMHO, happens to be the better candidate, it's a no brainer. Hillary gets down into the trenches, into the neighborhoods and WORKS. While Obama stays up in his Ivory Tower and pedestal delivering loafty speeches. He doesn't even want to face the her in any more debates. He's weak on issues and lacking in substance. Oh, BTW-- I am a healthy, slender Latina with a Master's Degree in Government and Education. It would do you a world of good to stop making sterotypical genralizations based on the media's obvious bias towards Obama

[Soldier's Mom]

Clinton had an out-sized advantage from the absentee voting in California. Many had voted before having a chance to hear Obama.
The reliance of some Latinos on Mexican media sources (which is part & parcel of the low investment US media has made in Spanish language products) limits their information to candidates that have achieved international notoriety.
I must take issue with J. Green. His assertions about African American voting patterns are insultingly facile. Like the under-thirty crowd, African Americans have been EXTREMELY motivated to learn about Obama, his record and his philosophy. Like most Americans, once they learn this they like him very much.

[Joan]

Thanks, California, for rejecting the Oprah-Michelle-Maria-Caroline-alapooza and sticking with the right candidate for the job. Here's how it should go....a real rainbow coalition with a Clinton-Obama ticket. Then after 4 or 8 years on the job, it will be his turn. Right now, our world is in such a perilous state, we cannot afford to elect either a hothead (Mc Cain), bible-thumper (Huckabee), country-clubber (Romney) or a "brand" (Obama). We need someone who knows the score, has a breadth and depth of knowledge, a large network of contacts, and a keen analytical mind. Obama has potential, but he's proven nothing, except that he qualifies as one of Oprah's favorite things.....and if you follow that trend, it has included $50 lipsticks and $400 pashmina shawls that quickly went out of style. He is my senator, and I remember nothing that has made him a stand-out, other than his preoccupation with being the messiah since he got elected. He has NOT been a transformative leader in the state of Illinois. Hillary takes a licking and keeps on ticking, and we need a brilliant woman to reestablish or moral standing in the world.

[Sp5 Bill Ninth Infantry Division]

I am a white male who served in South East Asia in the sixties. I am happy that we, the Caucasians, have apparently gotten past some of our prejudices. We are accepting of all nationalities on our sports teams, N.L. / A.L, NFL, NBA, college football and basketball. I am not sure we have gotten past these prejudices in the minority world. The negro or black vote in Georgia was 87% for one specific candidate. That same candidate received 45% of the white male vote. Now the white females supported this candidate at 37%. If this candidate can only win with black votes or independent votes something is wrong. Another thing, here in Cincinnati, is the school drop-out rate. In the inner city schools the rate is near 10% These voter are the same ones Barack Obama is attracting. This is not a negative on his part, it is just that there is only one consideration when this group of voters are voting.

Barack reminds me of the Bengal coaches that have been in Cincinnati for the last seventeen years. The are very good cheer leaders, but the Bengal's have hade only one winning season. Rah rah and optimism got us nothing but mostly loosing seasons. Leadership comes from chances taken and results achieved. Three years spent in the U.S. senate with one of them spent campaigning isn't much of an accomplished record. One major accomplishment was getting endorsed by Senator John Kerry and Senator Ted Kennedy. This endorsement is the very Old Washington Establishment that Barack portrays Mrs. Clinton as being and his being against.

Some of you youngsters need to research how the republican attach machine went after President Carter. Then they went after President Clinton for frivolous items until they could find something that would work. Finally look at how they attacked Harold Ford of Tennessee two years ago. Obama needs to spend eight years as V.P. with Mrs. Clinton. He would learn how to deal with the republicans and then he could be President for eight years.

If Barack is the democratic candidate, some of us will likely vote republican for President and try to have a democratic congress to keep things in check. The reason for this is if the republicans can keep the public distracted the way they did under Clinton and Carter. When this happens no governing is accomplished and they get every thing back in four years. Remember when President Clinton went after Osama Bin Lauden he got accused of the tail waging the dog. The republicans were after President Clinton and he was after Osama. Who hit the world trade center eight months after Bush took over the White house.

[Natali]

J. Green - maybe you should be asking yourself why Obama is considered so cool and hip.

[Monica]

SoldiersMom-- how much more time is it that Obama needed to get his message across to America? He's been a candidate for President for 1 year now -- non-stop Obama play on the airwaves, this over-saturation of Obama by the media who have readily admitted that they like him is getting sickening.

Natali-- your age is surely showing. Serious voters don't need to ask themselves why Obama is cool and hip. This is a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION to determine the next President of the U.S. and leader of the Free World. How absurd of you -- this isn't American iIdol.

It is getting awfully surreal when newbie kids who barely have a handle on life and obviously without any concept of history or government, actually have the unmitigated audacity to think that a qualification of President should be how hip and cool the candidate is supposed to be. And, what is really getting unnerving is that they honestly think that they are so ahead of the game that they can give advice on Hillary v. Clinton like it's a football game. Most astonishing of all, is they actually think they haven't got a clue -- this is getting really scary.

[J. Green]

To Soldiers Mom: My comments are based on the election results. Just check out www.cnn.com/election/2008.

To Natali: I had "cool/hip" in quotes (") - That's called sarcasm. Monica is right. Your age (or lack thereof) is definitely showing. Again, look at the results: Obama won in places such as Santa Barbara County, where, by the way, Oprah has her westcoast home and Connecticut.

Obama has only been in the US Senate since 2005. He wasn't even around to vote for Iraq. He simply made a speech against it, but he uses this as his single attack on Clinton and his campaign is beginning to look eerily like McGovern's, who voted AGAINST the war in Vietnam and lost in a landslide to Nixon.

I remember Americans feeling extremely vulnerable in the aftermath of 911, fearing we'd be attacked again. Unfortunately, most Senators, including Kerry, Edwards, and yes, Clinton had to vote in light of this, as well as in response to their constituents' concerns. When the war began, a whopping 68% of Americans were FOR the war. The fact is that Bush withheld vital information and misled both the Senate and the public with regards to WMD.

With hindsight, most Americans who were once for it, are now against it, including many of the Senators who had first voted for it.

I'm also old enough to remember the Bill Clinton years as being economically buoyant. Many young people today benefitted from their policies.

It's appalling that so many are willing to lynch (for lack of the better word) Clinton for one vote and are ready to wipe out all her years of work, not just for the nation as a politician, but as a citizen for her country.

My main point is that the Democrats are now divisive, perhaps, beyond repair.

Clinton is referred to as "old guard", but the ones running Obama's campaign are no different. Unfortunately, the Obama campaign has managed to convince young, inexperienced voters as well as wealthy, educated whites to back them with hype, and celebrity endorsements. (Hallelujah to California and Massachusetts for not falling into this.) The sad part is that much of this conflict is amongst Democrats is played out with the party elite pulling the strings from behind the scenes at the expense of the American public.

Unfortunately, Obama will NEVER be able to take the red states that he won over Clinton. - That's why they're the called the RED states. Just look at how many came out to vote for the Republicans versus Democrats. For example, about 120,000 people came out to vote in the Democratic primary versus double the amount for the Republicans. There were less than 3000 Democrats who turned out for Iowa versus over 100,000 for the Republicans.

No doubt, Clinton is not perfect, but everyone needs to vote responsibly. We need to ask questions and explore a candidates record of service, and look at the big picture: Who can REALLY win against the Republicans: Who can hold on to the Democratic strongholds and make inroads in the swing states, and Clinton managed to hold on to the strongholds so far.

Democrats need to realize that all this in-fighting will only benefit the Republicans. The Democrats will be so burned out by the end of this, they won't have the money or energy to fight the national elections. Sadly, the losers will be the majority of Americans, who can no afford to give the rich any more tax breaks, nor the military more funds to continue a never ending war.

PEACE OUT.