http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14921.html

Obama gets record white support for a Democrat

Quote :

" Polls: White support for Obama at historic level By: David Paul Kuhn October 24, 2008 05:58 PM EST Barack Obama, the first black major party nominee, is positioned to win the largest share of white voters of any Democrat in more than three decades, according to an exclusive Politico analysis of recent Gallup and Pew Research Center polling. The most recent two weeks of Gallup polling, which includes roughly 13,000 interviews, show 44 percent of non-Hispanic white voters presently support Obama — the highest number for a Democrat since 47 percent of whites backed Jimmy Carter in 1976. Until the stock market swoon in mid-September, Obama had never reached 40 percent among white voters. No Democrat has won a majority of white voters since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. John McCain has shuffled between 48 percent and 50 percent support in recent weeks — which would be the lowest share for a Republican candidate in a two-man race since Barry Goldwater's run. If Obama's share holds, it would top the 43 percent of white voters who backed Bill Clinton in 1996, when the Democrat won a plurality among white females and 38 percent of white men, the best performance by a Democrat in all those categories since 1976. Before the party conventions, Obama's support among white men had never passed 35 percent. In September, he matched Clinton's level of support, and last week he jumped five points to 43 percent. “That is amazing,” Obama’s pollster Cornell Belcher said after those numbers were read to him. “It was already a change election and now you have a cross pressure of the economy,” he said, causing whites “who have not been voting for white Democrats" to back Obama. A Politico breakdown of the Pew polling shows dramatic improvement for Obama among whites since early September on the question of who would do a better job "improving the economy." White women, who last month were split, now believe Obama will do a better job “improving the economy” by a 49 to 35 percent margin. White men, who had favored McCain by 10 points, are now split with 41 percent preferring Obama and 43 percent McCain. About half of whites say the economy is the most important issue in this campaign, while 8 percent said Iraq and 6 percent terrorism, according to the ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll covering Monday through Thursday. In a similar poll in mid-October 2004, white voters were evenly split, with 26 percent citing the economy as the most important issue, while 25 percent said Iraq and 21 percent said terrorism. A new Public Policy Polling report shows Obama's newfound leads in North Carolina, Virginia and Florida result from gains among white voters. “Even as Obama continues to trail by a good amount with whites overall in these states, he’s winning with them on the issue foremost on voters’ minds this year,” the report concluded. “There’s not much doubt the economy is the main factor causing whites who voted Republican for president in 2004 to go Democratic this year. That is the single biggest factor driving his lead in the polls across the country right now.” Only 7 percent of voters today are satisfied with the direction of the country, the lowest number in Gallup’s history. The reason, Gallup repeatedly notes, is the economy. A new report by the Democratic firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research found that in 13 battleground states, rural voters — nine in 10 of whom are white — were split, with 46 percent backing Obama and 45 percent McCain. In September these voters favored McCain by 10 points . The report found that Obama’s “improvement is driven by rising voter concerns over the economy in the aftermath of the collapse on Wall Street.” A recent analysis by Gallup of some 40,000 interviews found that Obama's lead over McCain “has risen proportionately when the percentage of Americans who are negative about the U.S. economy increases.” McCain maintains large advantages over Obama with white voters on issues ranging from instituting a “wise foreign policy” to “defending the nation” to “dealing with immigration.” But all of these issues, which have tended to draw whites toward the Republican party, have been eclipsed amongst voter concerns by the market dives. Pew recently found that 35 percent of whites said they are “most concerned about the financial markets” specifically, compared with 17 percent of blacks. Eight-six percent of white Democrats now support Obama, roughly equal to what John F. Kerry earned in 2004. Until the economic crisis began, that number had been in the 70s, on par with Michael Dukakis in 1988 and Clinton in 1992. More than eight in 10 white working-class Democrats now back Obama, roughly a 20 percentage point rise compared to the week before the Democratic convention. Obama also splits white independents with McCain, with 46 percent backing each candidate, a performance unseen by a Democrat since Clinton in 1996. In the past week, Obama’s support has slightly waned with independent white working-class men, the largest group of independents. But he has gained with women in the same bloc. Until the market collapse, Obama was narrowly losing white Catholics. He's now opened up a 54 percent to 39 percent lead, according to Pew. While Obama’s support among whites under age 30 has long been stronger than recent Democratic nominees, he's now within single digits among white voters age 50 to 64 as well as seniors, according to Pew. It remains to be seen if Obama's polling numbers among whites translate into support within the privacy of the election booth. About one in five voters say they “personally” know someone who will “not vote for Obama because he is black.” But the economy, in Belcher's view, has mitigated even the role of race. “We are seeing race being trumped by economic concerns and overall changes in the direction of the country in a fundamental way,” he said. “That is perhaps pushing aside, for the first time in our cultural history, race as a debilitating obstacle.” "

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 6:29 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2008 6:29:16 PM

I wonder how much of that is due to guilt?

10/24/2008 6:31:09 PM

Damn, was gonna reply kdawg will be in here sooner rather than later. Looks like he beat me to it.

10/24/2008 6:36:00 PM

thanks for making a meaningful contribution, troll

10/24/2008 6:36:53 PM

again, i wish polling included IQ numbers
maybe a cross reference with primary news stations as well

10/24/2008 11:23:59 PM

I'd like to say that this will shut up the media's cheap and lazy obsession with America's racism. But it won't.

10/25/2008 12:38:49 AM

Eh, I think this can mainly be attributed to McCain's epic fail.

10/25/2008 12:58:35 AM

yea im really anxious to see what will happen after four years of having a black president....because the blacks having the victim mentality will hopefully change

[Edited on October 25, 2008 at 1:06 AM. Reason : 1ST TBS POST]

10/25/2008 1:06:16 AM

blacks are going to be pissed off by obama

10/25/2008 1:14:37 AM

So after this election is over, can we finally put the whole talk of the "Bradley Effect" to bed?

I mean, not even the whole generic racism card - just the whole, "White folks only say they'd vote for a black candidate - but they're lying!" canard.

I think I'd be happy just if that went away.

10/25/2008 2:59:21 AM

I think this can mainly be attributed to McCain's epic fail.

10/25/2008 7:26:49 AM

i think this can be equally attributed to Obamas' general awesomeness and McCain's epic fail.

i'm also expecting to see a sort of "reverse Bradley effect" : white conservatives who wont admit to their friends/family/pollsters -- or even themselves -- that they would ever vote for Obama (for whatever reason)

but come Nov 4, and they're staring at the stark reality of voting for Insane McCain and goofy hockey mom who doesnt understand a single goddamned thing outside of either Alaska or the Bible...

and the sheer irony of their dilemma weighs so heavily on them it makes their head hurt past the point of tolerance ...

well, they're gonna pull that lever for Obama.






[Edited on October 26, 2008 at 5:14 AM. Reason : ]

10/26/2008 5:06:46 AM

^ hahaha... thanks for the lol

10/26/2008 6:53:27 AM

throwing around the word "racism" during this election as become silly.

but I obviously don't like Alan Keyes because hes black.

10/26/2008 12:38:01 PM

^^^ Hardcore right wing racists aren't going to vote for Obama. If Obama loses because of race, it'll be Democrat and moderate racists who cost him the election.

^ Thank you. I'm tired of hearing how race is a factor, I'm tired of hearing about the Bradley effect.

10/26/2008 1:07:02 PM

There was actually a pretty good interview with senior strategists for both Bradley and Deukmejian's campaigns on the show "On the Media": they both said that the Bradley effect is pretty overhyped. There were several other factors that hit that drove the shift in the polls (gun control ballot initiate was one) that helped bring conservatives out in record numbers. The guy from the Bradley campaign basically said that they knew that it was going to be a tight one and didn't expect the whopping margins that were being predicted.

There was one theory that with all the continuous talk by people like Mervin Field that the election was going to be a massive victory that many of Bradley's supporters may have got complacent and stayed home.

http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2008/10/24/segments/113589

10/26/2008 2:47:41 PM

Quote :

"hardcore right wing racists aren't going to vote for Obama"

well, no kidding. i never said that.

and hardcore right wing fascists arent out there telling pollsters that they're going to vote for Obama, but then change their mind at the last minute because he's black.

so, these people dont figure into any sort of "Bradley Effect", either in the traditional sense, or in the "reverse" sense. They will do exactly as they say.

what im saying is that theres not going to be a traditional "Bradley Effect" : the phenomenon where whites who claim to pollsters they are voting obama are not going to change their mind at the last moment because they're secretly scared of a Black Man in a Polyester Suit.

there MIGHT be a "Rreverse Bradley Effect" ... that SOME self-proclaimed typical conservatives who have been saying all along that they are voting McCain, are going to go into that voting booth on 11/04 with serious reservations about McCain's sanity and Palin's ability, and they just may go ahead -- in that moment of truth, when they're alone with their conscience -- pull the lever for Obama.



[Edited on October 26, 2008 at 4:08 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2008 4:02:30 PM

^The Bradley effect revolves around race though.

So if it's simply misgivings about McCain/Palin, that wouldn't be a reverse Bradley effect. That would just be voting like it's designed.

10/26/2008 4:37:02 PM

goddammit dont use logic on me

...

eh, you're right. im trying to simultaneously address race AND sidestep it at the same time.

you got me.

now im in a dilemma.

do i revise my theory to only include white conservatives who are "semi-racist"... or do i throw my whole "theory" out the window.

or ...

do i try to distract from the issue, engage in avoidance, and wait for this thread to go [OLD]

hmm


Hey, LOOK! The Queen! --------->

10/26/2008 4:45:16 PM

Quote :

"again, i wish polling included IQ numbers"

What effect are you expecting to see?

My baseline guess is that it would follow patterns in education and you would see the democratic U.

Low Education (and presumably IQ) citizens vote democratic and High Education (and presumably IQ) citizens vote democratic. The middle votes Republican.

This pattern is one of the more interesting in public choice theory and one that I think dovetails nicely with the increasing information on the relationship between IQ and economic success.

10/26/2008 4:56:00 PM

^ I don't agree.

I think it is going to be like this:

Republican voters will tend to have lower IQs, and Democrat voters high IQs, both average and the distrbution.

10/26/2008 5:11:16 PM

More like white guilt, AMIRITE?!

10/26/2008 5:11:59 PM

can we just say that electing a black man president is in lieu of reparations, and call it even

10/26/2008 5:31:01 PM

Quote :

"eh, you're right. im trying to simultaneously address race AND sidestep it at the same time. you got me. now im in a dilemma. do i revise my theory to only include white conservatives who are "semi-racist"... or do i throw my whole "theory" out the window."

What you seem to be trying to describe isn't necessarily a function of race (because, let's face it - I doubt people who are voting for McCain are actually going to change or conceal their vote because of race), but as a function of hidden preferences.

These people openly express a preference for McCain to appease whatever sensibilities of their family/community/etc. they are expected to (i.e., Obama is a "liberal", McCain is a "conservative", regardless of their actual avowed policy positions); but in reality, they have internal misgivings about McCain himself. They just don't want to be seen as liberals.

Because, let's face it - the number of people that claim to be Republicans who are less than enthusiastic about McCain but don't want to get outed as "liberals" probably far, far exceed the number of Republicans who don't want to be outed for secretly voting for a black man.

Maybe in the 1950's, but not now.

10/26/2008 5:43:29 PM

Quote :

"I think it is going to be like this: Republican voters will tend to have lower IQs, and Democrat voters high IQs, both average and the distrbution. "

It's possible, now that I think about it, I know quite a few "poor" (by that I mean lower middle class incomes) people who have IQs well above average.

10/26/2008 5:52:21 PM

Obama voters would have a gigantic edge in IQ assuming college education is proportional to IQ because I think he has like 75% of the college educated vote.

10/26/2008 5:58:03 PM

Quote :

"DrSteveChaos: What you seem to be trying to describe isn't necessarily a function of race (because, let's face it - I doubt people who are voting for McCain are actually going to change or conceal their vote because of race), but as a function of hidden preferences. These people openly express a preference for McCain to appease whatever sensibilities of their family/community/etc. they are expected to (i.e., Obama is a "liberal", McCain is a "conservative", regardless of their actual avowed policy positions); but in reality, they have internal misgivings about McCain himself. They just don't want to be seen as liberals. Because, let's face it - the number of people that claim to be Republicans who are less than enthusiastic about McCain but don't want to get outed as "liberals" probably far, far exceed the number of Republicans who don't want to be outed for secretly voting for a black man. Maybe in the 1950's, but not now."

yes, exactly! my god, man, you stated it exactly as i've been trying to do so, but only better.

i've been trying to coin it as a "reversal" of the "Bradley Effect." But I know it's not about race anymore. The Bradley Effect was from the early 80s. the same social issues aren't at play, now

the "Bradley Effect" phenomenon from early '80s -- the end result was that a significant fraction of people said they were going to vote one way, but then at the last minute, changed their mind. The reason was that they were personally, secretly afraid of their originally professed candidate, whom they were only professing as their candidate for social reasons. The attribute they feared, was the candidate's "blackness"

Today, there is a very real stigma amongst rural and suburban conservative voters that they dare not appear to be siding with "damn godless liberals". And these people, they personally believe this deep down. its ingrained in them almost as deeply race was for previous generations. But their heart is not in it for McCain whatsoever. so they merely go about their day-to-day routine mouthing support for McCain.

my so-called "reverse Bradley Effect" theory -- if true, the end result will be the same: a significant fraction of people who say they are going to vote one way, but then at the last minute, will change their mind. The reason is likewise the same: they are personally, secretly afraid of their originally professed candidate, whom they were only professing as their candidate for social reasons. The attribute is what has changes. rather than fearing their professed candidate's "blackness", they fear his blindly erratic, irrational adherence to political dogma, at the expense of sound judgment.


the way to see if this theory is true will be at election time. if there is statistically significant difference between recent pre-vote polling, and the actual returns...

well, we'll see i guess.






[Edited on October 26, 2008 at 6:31 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2008 6:21:15 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "again, i wish polling included IQ numbers" What effect are you expecting to see? My baseline guess is that it would follow patterns in education and you would see the democratic U. Low Education (and presumably IQ) citizens vote democratic and High Education (and presumably IQ) citizens vote democratic. The middle votes Republican. This pattern is one of the more interesting in public choice theory and one that I think dovetails nicely with the increasing information on the relationship between IQ and economic success."

i like the theory you present
i just think it would be an interesting data point

10/26/2008 7:57:21 PM

^ most people don't know their own IQ though.

10/26/2008 7:59:30 PM

I do. And it's PhD Certified.






[Edited on October 26, 2008 at 8:16 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2008 8:15:11 PM

If Obama was relying on the "high IQ" vote his ass would lose.

[Edited on October 29, 2008 at 8:58 AM. Reason : a]

10/29/2008 8:57:54 AM

..... are you kidding?

10/29/2008 9:12:27 AM

uhh ya

10/29/2008 9:16:10 AM

10/29/2008 9:53:57 AM

Quote :

"i think this can be equally attributed to Obamas' general awesomeness "

I'd put off affixing a halo to this guy yet. He hasn't been in charge of anything meaningful yet in his life. Outside of his marxist leanings, you know very little about him besides he's good with a teleprompter.

I've found most politicians to be very disappointing as you get to know more about them.

10/29/2008 11:01:45 AM

i finanly understand that a lot of rural racist whites are genuinely scared of what might happen when a black man becomes president.
i think they think people will break down their doors and turn them into slaves as retaliation or something
i think their fear is real

10/29/2008 11:21:06 AM

Quote :

"ALL THE MAVERICKS IN THE HOUSE THROW YOUR HANDS UP "

[Edited on October 29, 2008 at 12:59 PM. Reason : ]

10/29/2008 12:59:19 PM

that picture


ooo ooo ahh ahh ooo ooo

10/29/2008 1:11:02 PM

10/29/2008 1:30:36 PM

Stay classy.

10/29/2008 2:19:23 PM

classy and funny

10/29/2008 2:28:56 PM

haha

DOODS HALF WHITE MAAAAAAN

10/29/2008 2:31:18 PM

theyre both trying to quit smoking and dominate the food chain

10/29/2008 2:32:42 PM

I'd be a liar if I said I didn't laff.

10/29/2008 4:26:17 PM

yup. leave it to the TKE chapter of the KKK



i swear. y'all ain't right.

10/29/2008 4:51:56 PM

its okay to laugh at a mannaquin of Palin being hung though? Yeah that sounds about right.

Oh don't worry Joe, our TKE chapter has its share of liberal loons. You'd fit right in, we've got something for everybody.

10/29/2008 4:53:22 PM

how about you look at what I said re: the Palin effigy

Quote :

"i'm disturbed by the mannequins of Palin and McCain. i think the hanging one, especially, should be considered hate speech. it invokes images of vigilante executions -- lynchings -- and that shit just aint right no matter who is doing it to whom. it should be stopped where ever it occurs. --joe_schmoe "

10/29/2008 4:56:04 PM

TKEShultz - Not Quite Racist Afterall

10/29/2008 5:02:22 PM

yea thats an easy scapegoat

10/29/2008 5:06:20 PM

You realize don't you that OBama pic of the cigarette is fake?

10/29/2008 5:16:54 PM