Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
WHO'S PULLING IN NEW VOTERS?
John Judis takes a close look at the New Hampshire exit polls and concludes:
What they show is that the pattern that held up earlier in the year between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama – not in terms of the extent of their support, but in terms of who is supporting them – is holding up in New Hampshire. Clinton is still doing well among women (particularly older and married women), traditional Democrats, voters over 40, and among lower-middle income white voters without college degrees who are worried about the economy. Obama is doing fabulously among the young and very well among independents and upscale Independents. Both of these can also be important blocs for a Democrat to win in the fall.
It's not clear to me if Clinton is pulling in new women and lower middle-income white voters, or winning a higher percentage than Democrats normally do. If she is, that's very important. If not, then those are presumably pretty solid Democratic blocs who will vote for the nominee in the general, and thus you can argue that Obama's success among non-traditional voters is more relevant. The results of the next few primaries should clear this up.
COMMENTS (6)
Ah, selective quoting. The rest reads:
What does this mean for the future? If one assumes that Obama is the more likely nominee, it means that he is going to find a way of reaching white working class voters. If he can't, he'll have trouble winning a lot of those Midwestern swing states. Clinton, meanwhile, has to suggest those independents and independently-minded Democrats who don't look back nostalgically on the '90s that she would make a better nominee and president.
The exits also showed Obama doing relatively poorly in 'cares about me' vote and on the economy. That should be a real concern for his campaign and Democrats.
Posted by: AJ | January 9, 2008 1:41 PM
I still think Obama's charisma and calls for hope along with Edwards's policies would have made for a dynamite package. I am shocked that normal people look at Hillary as the force for positive economic change when her husband helped set the table for their current malaise and her advisers are cut out of an even nastier, pro-corporate mold.
Posted by: Ricky | January 9, 2008 3:48 PM
One remarkable thing that's getting a bit lost in all the hubbub is that for the first time in history, a major party will choose either a woman or an African-American as their nominee. This is a big, big deal, and leads us into completely unprecedented territory. We simply don't know how the electorate will react to a candidate who, for the first time in our history, isn't a white male.
With Obama, it's more about whether a black man can compete on an equal footing with a white candidate. If Obama wins, it would demonstrate that race isn't (or doesn't have to be) a liability.
If Hillary wins, it might say even more - that being a woman is not only not a liability, but actually a huge advantage. If Hillary becomes president because women come out in droves to elect her, we might very well start seeing more and more female candidates, as the parties realize the electoral advantage this provides. The GOP, especially, could benefit from running a woman against a President Hillary in 2012, though it's hard to see who that woman could possibly be.
Maybe come November, we'll be kicking ourselves for not nominating a female candidate sooner.
Posted by: Jason C. | January 9, 2008 3:53 PM
Jason C, I would suggest that gender-based political parties would be, on balance, a very bad thing. The biggest problem this country has is that the Republican party is the White party.
But then again, people like you always cared a hell of a lot more about winning than you have ideas. That's why you're all Clintonites in the first place.
Posted by: soullite | January 9, 2008 6:45 PM
Clinton's pulling the older women - the Americans with the least to lose if Clinton attacks Iran or Syria. They won't fight, they won't die, and being old they won't be around so long, paying off the deficit incurred by Clinton & Bush's wars.
It's not their problem, so they can afford to vote for a hawk in a misguided show of Girl Power.
Posted by: Jon H | January 9, 2008 10:50 PM
It's not clear to me if Clinton is pulling in new women and lower middle-income white voters.
While I haven't seen the multi-variant analysis that would answer that question directly, we can get at least a rough idea from the simpler, two-variable cross tabs that are widely available online. These are from CNN:
Percentage of first-time Caucus-goers/voters, by candidate (with percentage of overall vote in parentheses):
Iowa
--------------
Obama 41 (38)
Clinton 29 (30)
Edwards 18 (29)
N.H.
--------------
Obama 47 (37)
Clinton 37 (39)
Edwards 12 (17)
Several conclusions seem warranted:
1. All three major candidates are drawing new voters to the polls (and the turnout in both contests permits us to add--in large numbers).
2. Obama is drawing a disproportionately larger share of his support from new voters, and Edwards a disproportionately smaller share. These effects were more prominent in Iowa, for Edwards, and for Obama, in New Hampshire.
3. Clinton's share of the new voter turnout is virtually indistinguishable from her share of the total vote. She is neither lagging among them, as is Edwards, nor excelling with them, as does Obama. She is getting her share.
It would be interesting to know if these same patterns hold up when controlled for race, class and gender but, unfortunately, that data doesn't seem to be publicly available.
Posted by: Amileoj | January 10, 2008 12:19 AM