Inflated Clinton Poll Theory: Great New Pew Crosstabs

Pew has just dropped an amazing and important crosstab set on the Democratic nomination campaign. It frustrated me tremendously that they still include Gore in the questioning, but it is still worth a look anyway.

Looking at these crosstabs, it occurs to me that there is an important structural flaw in the inflated Clinton poll theory that I have been overlooking. Although Pew does not offer crosstabs to prove this, I still believe that Obama probably does much better relative to Clinton among voters who are paying very close, or somewhat close, attention to the campaign than among voters who are not paying much attention at all. However, closed primaries in several large February 5th states might cancel out that advantage, since Obama performs relatively better among Democratic-leaning independents who won't be able to vote in closed primaries than he does among self-identified Democrats (in this case, I am assuming self-identified Democrats are more likely to be registered Democrats than are Democratic-leaning independents). Now, I don't know how many February 5th and earlier states this rule applies to, but I do know it applies to Pennsylvania where I live. I think it applies to New York as well, but that doesn't really matter one way or the other, because Clinton will almost certainly win New York. Overall, it might apply to enough states to counteract all, or at least half, of the advantage Obama currently holds high-information voters who are heavily tuned into the campaign. This probably means that Clinton is still ahead even among the universe of likely caucus-goers and primary voters in the Democratic nomination process. It does not, however, change my opinion that the theory needs to be tested.

Leaving that aside, there are some other very interesting cross-tabs here. First, it is useful to note that Clinton's advantage over Obama among liberal and moderates is negligible, but her edge among conservatives is enormous. Second, Obama holds a gaping lead among seculars--and even Edwards is tied with Clinton among seculars--but Clinton holds the edge among all other religious demographics. Many of the other patterns we have seen are also replicated here: younger voters, wealthier voters, highly educated voters, and male voters all skew toward Obama much more heavily than do other demographics. There clearly seems to be a cultural and class based divide between Clinton and Obama supporters, at least right now. It reminds me of something I wrote over four months ago, even before any crosstabs came out revealing this divide:
I think Obama, simply in terms of his demeanor and his biography, strongly appeals to politicos from a new generation and a new socioeconomic class because he strikes them in some sort of gut, intuitive level as being from that class. Multi-ethnic, post-Vietnam, highly educated, raised in a major urban center--these are many of the cosmopolitan, self-creating, forward looking aspects of life for many younger professionals. As much as we may or may not like Bill Clinton, coming from a little town in Arkansas is not a story many Americans can relate to anymore, because we just didn't grow up that way. Even John Edwards's story of growing up in a mill town when the mill closed seems very, very rustic for a northeasterner such as myself, since our mills closed down sixty years ago to move to places like North Carolina. These rustic visions of America simply are not where people are at these days, especially news junkies and activists within the Democratic Party and the bluer parts of America. Those people instead look to places like Harlem, where Bill Clinton now keeps his offices. People moving into the gentrifying areas of Harlem probably like Barack Obama quite a bit, and probably feel some sort of gut-level, identity-based connection with him that they can't even quite put their finger on at this point.
An important question is not just whether either Obama or Clinton's numbers are inflated, but whether either of their supporters are leading indicators for future trends in the campaign. It is possible that they each currently hold advantages in cultural groups that do not communicate with one another very often, and so neither group will influence the other. But it certainly is interesting, and I wish a lot more polling outfits would release crosstabs this like so we can monitor this socioeconomic divide within the Democratic rank and file.

Tags: Barack Obama, Democrats, Demographics, Hillary Clinton, inflated Clinton poll theory, partisan self-identification, polls, President 2008, Primary Elections (all tags)

Comments

45 Comments

nbc poll

I still believe that Obama probably does much better relative to Clinton among voters who are paying very close, or somewhat close, attention to the campaign than among voters who are not paying much attention at all.

The NBC poll backs this up. From the Today show this morning:

RUSSERT: Well, it's quite interesting, Meredith, looking at those numbers. You see Senator Obama has cut Senator Clinton's lead in half in just one month. And if you go inside the numbers, people who are watching this race "very closely," quote, unquote, Obama is actually ahead 38-to-31.

by tparty 2007-04-26 12:43PM | 0 recs
Some evidence to support your theory...

Although Pew does not offer crosstabs to prove this, I still believe that Obama probably does much better relative to Clinton among voters who are paying very close, or somewhat close, attention to the campaign than among voters who are not paying much attention at all.

The WSJ/NBC poll from yesterday has strong evidence to support this conclusion.  Clinton leads Obama in Dem primary voters 35-31, but Obama leads Clinton 38-31 in Dem primary voters paying close attention.  This was overlooked because it's not in the articles or published PDF...they only reported it on NBC News last night.

Very interesting.

by rashomon 2007-04-26 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Some evidence to support your theory...

Sorry..guess I need to press "post" faster.  =)

by rashomon 2007-04-26 12:46PM | 0 recs
The Demographics is interesting

Some of the Obama-supporting demographics are more likely to  attend caucus or primaries: Higher income, Higher education. Clinton's has an big advantage among High School educated, but that demographic is much less likely to vote. The least likely voters are from the combination of young & HS.

Clinton's advantage remains with the older voters who are more likely to attend caucus or primary.

Are younger voters angry enough or politicized enough to decide to participate more than they have done in the past?  If Obama's strength is younger, better educated voters, then a goo strategy would be to get them registered and voting.

Too bad the Republicans didn't push for a draft!

by MetaData 2007-04-26 12:45PM | 0 recs
Has Anyone Voted Yet?
...Clinton will almost certainly win New York.

Way, way, way too early be saying this about the performance of Clinton or any other candidate in New York or any other state.

On the candidates and on the polls, analyze away, but please -- please -- resist every temptation to feed the beast of inevitability about how voters in any state are going to respond to any candidate on that state's actual primary or general election day.

We are still nearly 9 months out from the first primary; and this is still a democracy.

by horizonr 2007-04-26 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Inflated Clinton Poll Theory

Some 2/5 states may be like CA, where on the day of the primary a person who has declined to state can pick the ballot of one party.  (At least I think that's how we still do it).

The cross-tabs certainly bear out Claire McCaskill's statement last year (New Yorker article) that midwesterners don't like Hillary C.  But they do like Obama. Is it because he has the cadences of a midwesterner from his grandparents and has lived there so long?  Is it because people in Iowa are paying attention and people in IL know him?  Or is it antipathy to Hillary, as McCaskill seemed to suggest?  Whatever, that is a really interesting dynamic, obviously unrelated to simple things like race or gender per se.

And how did Edwards get to be the candidate of rich white older people?

That little bit of snark aside, your analysis seems to be spot on.

by Mimikatz 2007-04-26 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Inflated Clinton Poll Theory

And how did Edwards get to be the candidate of rich white older people?

That's middle class white older people to you, bucko.

Compared to overall in April poll (18%)

  • $100K+: +0%
  • $75K-$100K: -4%
  • $50K-$75K: +2%
  • $30K-$50K: -2%
  • $0K-$30K: -2%

by BruceMcF 2007-04-26 01:11PM | 0 recs
Oops, sorry, make that ...

... middle class older white women.

by BruceMcF 2007-04-26 01:14PM | 0 recs
the way my mom whistles

when he is on TV may explain that number...

by DrFrankLives 2007-04-26 01:52PM | 0 recs
I bet she wants to give him a nice, ...

... home cooked meal.

I saw a lot of remarks along those lines on the OneAmericaCommittee blog in 2006, before it became JE08.

by BruceMcF 2007-04-27 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Inflated Clinton Poll Theory

Actually DTS voters in CA are not allowed to vote in the Republican primary.  The Democrats do let them vote.  They are something like 19% of registered voters at this point and growing.

by juls 2007-04-26 01:35PM | 0 recs
New Hampshire

Very important that in NH independants can vote in either the GOP or Dem primary. They tend to go to where the action is (the Dems this cycle).

by demondeac 2007-04-26 12:56PM | 0 recs
Iowa: independents can change registration

to either party on the day of the Iowa caucuses. I don't think a large percentage of them do so, but they can if they want to.

by desmoinesdem 2007-04-26 03:05PM | 0 recs
The African American Vote

At this point, the most interesting I think in these polls is Clinton's lead among African Americans.   I seriously doubt that she will maintain this.  

More importantly, though, is that between the two of them they split 82% of the vote.  Neither Gore nor Edwards are in double figures.  For Edwards this is a continuation of a trend in 2004.   Historically southerners have done better than northerners among African Americans (Carter, Clinton).  This trend reversed in '04, where Kerry beat Edwards by larger margins among blacks than Whites. Only in South Carolina did Edwards beat Kerry in '04.  

For Edwards in particular, his failure to make significant inroads among African Americans represents his greatest single weakness - a weakness that I would argue will prove decisive if not reversed.

by fladem 2007-04-26 01:04PM | 0 recs
Also similar to 2004

Clinton's primary support mirrors Kerry's exit polls, and Obama's mirrors Edwards'.

I don't think that it has much to do with race, sex, or income or "a new generation and a new socioeconomic class," except perhaps by proxy.  What it really comes down to is security.  

If you have a lot to lose if the Democrats lose - and that's the case for people of color, women, the poor, the elderly - you're less likely to take a risk on a relatively unknown quantity like Obama (or Edwards, circa 2004), and known ones like Hillary (or Kerry, circa 2004), are far more appealing.

What Edwards didn't do in 2004 and what he (or Obama) will have to do in 2008 is persuade those voters that it's a bigger risk to vote Clinton than it is to vote for them.

If they can't do that then Hillary will win.

by Drew 2007-04-26 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The African American Vote

If Edwards can't get a decent share of the African-American vote, he's screwed, even if he wins Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire.

It's quite possible that Clinton can hold onto nearly half the black vote.  She's a known commodity, and the black community still thinks the world of her husband - for good reason, I might add.

In terms of the nature of his appeal, Obama is this year's Bill Bradley, Paul Tsongas, Gary Hart, John Anderson.  Support tending towards young, well-off, well-educated, good-government types.  There's a limit to how well you can do in that demographic.

The thing that enables Obama to break the mold is that he's black.  And unlike the outsider-reformer types I've listed above, who rarely got much black support, Obama's pulling down a decent chunk of it.

Hillary's not-so-secret weapon is that a lot of Democratic women are more than ready for a woman President, and are ready to support her for that reason alone.  I don't blame them.

I wish Pew had done crossed white/black with male/female.  Would have been interesting to see what Hillary's support was in each quadrant.

by RT 2007-04-26 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The African American Vote

If he wins Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire, he will have the winner aura all over him, and the mythical "African American vote" (I love how you people assume that several million Americans can be lumped into a single-minded mass) will break for him along with the rest of the Democratic electorate.

If we don't have a nominee after 2/5, we're going to a brokered convention, and the only way we have a nominee after 2/5 is if one person wins the first three.  That person will likely be unstoppable.

If we split em up, Katie bar the door.

by DrFrankLives 2007-04-26 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: The African American Vote
If he wins those three, he'll probably win SC and Michigan, too, and do well in Florida.  He'll move into Feb. 5th with the most delegates, the most wins.  If he wins Iowa and NH.
And remember, SC has a lot of African American voters, but John Edwards has already won that primary before, when he looked like #2 or 3.  If he looks like #1 against Hillary and Barack, having won most of the contests, there's a good chance he'd win.  At least it would tighten up, and nobody would be a big winner.
by jallen 2007-04-26 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The African American Vote

I agree completely.

by DrFrankLives 2007-04-26 02:04PM | 0 recs
NH

I know a pretty senior Edwards person in NH.  He would tell you NH is by far and away the most problematic of the first three states.  If Edwards scores a big win in Iowa, he might be able to win it, but he is a bad fit for that NH.

But the real problem, as a describe below, is SC.

I really disagree about the brokered convention, btw.  Ain't gonna happen.

Nive to see you again, DR Franks.

by fladem 2007-04-26 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: NH

Then why have the last two NH polls I've seen shown him either tied with Barack or 1 point ahead (and both within reach of Hillary)?  What if Iowa gave him an 8-12 point bump?

by jallen 2007-04-26 02:23PM | 0 recs
If the word is from the ground, ...

... then the problem may be the difference between the degree of support for Hillary in NH compared to, say, Ohio, where she has a lot of support but its shallow.

by BruceMcF 2007-04-27 09:00AM | 0 recs
Here is why it's so important

for Edwards:

1. Scenario 1:

Edwards is one of two viable candidates after NH.  If he is unable to do better than he did in '04 among blacks, he will get creamed in SC.  Both Clinton and Obama have significant claim on the Black vote, and my guess is that in a two candidate race the black vote will move heavily to the last one of them standing.

This problem becomes even more acute as you move onto the primaries on Feb 5th.  

2. Scenario 2:
Three viable candidates after NH.

In some ways this would be the best result for Edwards, as I think it gives him a chance in SC.  However, there is NO WAY that he would do well on Feb 5 if the current deficit continues.

I was for Edwards in '04, and may be for him again.  But his inability to make inroads among blacks is a real weakness for him.

by fladem 2007-04-26 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Here is why it's so important

As Chris showed in a post last night, Edwards and Obama are slowly gaining, while Hillary is slowly eroding (sure, that can change).  With that, if Edwards starts winning states when the caucuses/primaries start, "the current deficit" will not continue.

by jallen 2007-04-26 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: The African American Vote

not a bad point but you left one thing out ----how many low-info voters are also anti-war and the biggest difference between the big 3 is the 2002 war vote, with Obama's ad budget the one thing everyone will know by the end of this is that Obama was against the war while Edwards and Hillary were for it, it's gonna be that simple to most people.

by nevadadem 2007-04-26 02:15PM | 0 recs
One HUGE difference, as you note

between Obama and Hart (whom I worked for) and the other you mentioned:

None of them did well among blacks.  In fact in '84 Hart was dependent on Jackson to keep black votes from Mondale.

In general, though, I agree - Obama is ideally placed to be the good government liberal.  That type of candidate usually wins NH (Carter, Hart, Tsongas).  

When I was working for Bob Kerry in NH, one the  consultants (and a well known one) told me Clinton was Gore plus NH.  When he said that, I realized he thought Clinton was unbeatable.

Obama is potentially Hart plus Jackson: its would be a lethal combination.

by fladem 2007-04-26 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Inflated Clinton Poll Theory: Great New Pew Cr

One thing that surprises me after my first glance at the chart is, Edwards doing poorly among progressive/liberal...Now, did i miss something here??...How is it that Hillary and Obama crushing him amongs liberal??...Edwards constantly polls great in the blogs because the blogs seems to be very liberal and i really thought that progressive/liberal would be his base.

Edwards definitely made the hard left to get this group on his side and apologized for his war vote...Could it be that because of his war vote, people(progressive/liberal) are still skeptical of his anti-war credential

by JaeHood 2007-04-26 01:05PM | 0 recs
Look at the other charts at the link

The Democrats in the survey see Edwards as the most conservative.

Interesting to see the different view of Hillary's liberal rating between Republicans and lefty bloggers.

The Independent 'Yourself' is much closer to the Giuliani than any of the Democrats at this point. Hopefully that will change.

by IVR Polls 2007-04-26 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Look at the other charts at the link

This is a very interesting chart. Two things that jump out to me are:

1) Democratic candidates are percieved to be more liberal than Democratic voters, but Republican candidates are percieved to be less conservative than Republican voters. Independents, for example, lean Democratic but they percieve Guiliani as closest to their idealogy (this may be accuate).

2) The R-D difference between how voters percieve Democrats and percieve Republicans. It's very large for Democratic candidates and dosen't exist really at all for Republican candidates. Not sure what to make of that.

by Korha 2007-04-26 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Look at the other charts at the link

Republicans in this chart view themselves as  failry moderate -- a 2.6 -- just a little right of center. Independents view themselves as just a little left of center.

But overwhelmingly, in other polls, when you ask people if they are liberal, moderate, or conservative, conservative wins out.

What's up with that?

by hubbird 2007-04-26 03:06PM | 0 recs
Actually

The scale is 1 to 6, so 3.5 is the center. Republicans see themselves as -0.9, Democrats as +0.5, Ind are -0.1

by IVR Polls 2007-04-26 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Inflated Clinton Poll Theory:

The country, at large, does not see John Edwards as being "Presidential".  That is the reality.  He needs to work on his image, even if it means moving the wife off-stage and getting rid of the blue jeans.  We want our First Lady to be just a tad elusive and not always the one who introduces her candidate husband.  I live in NYC and I am always talking politics and when I ask total strangers about John Edwards the response is always the same -- we can't take him seriously.  He doesn't look or act "official" enough to run the country.  And ten different versions of this same message.

Enough with the folksy stuff.  Edwards needs to look like the executive; and so far, he just doesn't.  

by samueldem 2007-04-26 01:38PM | 0 recs
Take Gore out and what do you get?

Take Gore out and I would be willing to bet Edwards' numbers go way up, by more than the other two go up.  Gore seems to be a repository of "not Clinton" votes.

And samueldem, your concern is noted.  Thanks for suggesting that Elizabeth should be shuffled aside to make John look better, but I have never heard any such statement about either Edwards. He's not serious?  Would that be why half the country voted for him for Vice President in 2004?

You remind me of the New Yorker who couldn't believe Reagan beat Carter because "nobody she knew voted for Reagan."

Take a look at the most recent MSNBC poll:

Among Democrats, the tally now is Clinton 32, Obama 31, Edwards 20.  All others are in single digits, and Edwards has moved up 5 points this month (Obama 3).  

Clearly, this is a three-way race between three serious contenders with disparate strengths.  And whatever she is, Elizabeth is definitely a strength for Edwards.

by DrFrankLives 2007-04-26 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Gore out and what do you get?

Please note for the record that I didn't have to insult either Clinton or Obama to make my case for Edwards.

Funny how that works.

by DrFrankLives 2007-04-26 01:58PM | 0 recs
we can say Hillary will carry New York

because if she doesn't she would win a single primary in the race and would be irrelevant. New York will merit little media attention unlike California and the others.

by nevadadem 2007-04-26 01:58PM | 0 recs
Great Chart!

Do you see what I see? Look at the education levels on Obama and Hillary supporters.

Nuff said.

;p

by ObamaEdwards2008 2007-04-26 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Chart!

Don't be an elitist.  Democrats depend on people with High School diplomas, and people who didn't/haven't finished high school.  Behind people with multiple degrees, people who don't even have HS diplomas are the most likely to vote Democratic, between them, HS graduates, people with some college, and people with a degree.  Aside from people with post-graduate studies, the more education you have, the more likely you will vote Republican.

by jallen 2007-04-26 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Chart!

While I wouldn't place any special knowledge on more educated people it is a good sign for obama that he does well in traditionally republican areas.

Not necessarily good in the primary, but good for making his case that he will win the general.

by sterra 2007-04-26 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Chart!

That's not my point. My point is that there is a HUGE difference between people who are NOT paying attention and those who are. This KILLS the argument that Obama supporters are just star struck idiots who don't know what issues Bararck Obama stands for.

by ObamaEdwards2008 2007-04-26 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Chart!

I don't think education is a good measure of that.

by jallen 2007-04-26 03:02PM | 0 recs
Iowa and New Hampshire

IF Hillary doesn't win Iowa does anyone really think she can win New Hmapshire with all the independants participating? Now that rudy had gone hard right it also hurts Hillary in New Hampshire because she would rather have New Hampshires large civic minded but indepenadant primary voters vote for Rudy. McCain's New Hampshire sucess also doomed Bill Bradley in the state as many independants might have voted for the "outsider" against Gore.

by nevadadem 2007-04-26 02:05PM | 0 recs
Clinton's HUGE state leads.
Clinton CRUSHES (saving Edwards in IA) the Dem '08 field in the most recent state polls (note the swing-states).  Clinton is UP:
22 in PA
20 in OH
21 in FL
10 in CA
22 in NY
19 in NJ
14 in NV
by JoeCHI 2007-04-26 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's HUGE state leads.

give me Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina right now and you can keep the rest, Iowa, south Carolina and New Hampshire put together have similar demographics in many respects to the country as a whole, the fact that Hillary runs so much worse in those states than the meaningless primary states is no coincidense combine that with Obama already ahead with the most interested voters, I think Obama is the front runner for that reason not to mention he'll have the most money, volunteers ect...

by nevadadem 2007-04-26 02:40PM | 0 recs
Doubts about Inflated Clinton Poll Theory???

I dont really understand your point Chris, which you believe casts doubt on your "Inflated Clinton Poll Theory"

My understanding of your original theory is this: (1) Hillary currently leads Barack in polls among Democratic Voters; however (2) the actual universe of voters at a caucus or primary are much much smaller then the universe described in number 1; (3) The gap between Obama and HRC among this smaller universe of voters is much closer then among the larger group; therefore (4) poll results taken among the broad group of Democrats "inflate" how well HRC will actually do in the primaries and caucuses.

Now, if I understand you, you are saying the fact that Obama does better among Democratic leading INDEPENDANTS and these individuals cant vote in many of the Democratic primaries and caucuses somehow casts doubt on your "Inflated Clinton Poll Theory?"  Yet, I dont think you are thinking this through correctly.  The fact that Democratic leaning Independants may or may not be able to vote in the Democratic state contests has NOTHING to do with the Inflated Clinton Poll Theory.

My understanding is that the polls that you have called inflated are taken among REGISTERED DEMOCRATS and do not include Democratic leaning Independants.  So, your theory is still actually true.  The problem still is that the universe being polled (a cross sample of all DEMOCRATS) are-at least at present-exhibiting different voting preferences then the discrete group of DEMOCRATS who will vote in the primaries.  Democratic leaning independants do not factor into this equation at all.

Now all MY analysis is based on the idea that Democratic leaning Independants are not questioned for polls of just the Democratic candidates competing against each other that you have identified as inflating Clinton's support.  If that is wrong and there are a lot of Democratic leaning Independant voters in these polls that are more likely to support Obama then Clinton but these voters will not be able to vote, then you are probably right, your theory is screwed.  Still, my impression has always been that the "horse race" polling done of the Democrats vs each other only poll registered Democrats.  So again, if that is the case, the Independants are irrelevant to your theory.

by Andy Katz 2007-04-26 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Inflated Clinton Poll Theory: Great New Pew Cr

Clinton does much better among older voters, and they disproportionately vote.  Obama does much better among younger votes, and they disproportionately don't vote.  There goes your theory (at least as far as primaries go; not so sure about caucuses).

by markjay 2007-04-26 09:44PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------