I've been looking over the voting and exit poll results for yesterday's primaries, and a couple maps have kinda shocked me. In Ohio, only 10 percentage points separated the total votes received by Hillary (54%) and Obama (44%), but looking at this map of voting by county that I found on CNN, Ohio looks like a complete blowout:
While Hillary won the state soundly, it wasn't as totally soundly as this map would indicate. But the fact stands that Obama only got the majority of votes in five Ohio counties -- the ones containing the three C's (Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati), Delaware County right next to Columbus, and Montgomery County which included the decently sized city of Dayton.
Now most Ohio cities are working class, but Hillary got the uber-working class smaller cities: Canton, Lima, Toledo, Sandusky, Youngstown, Akron, and some others that I can't remember at this moment. The Ohio cities that Obama got, the three C's, are the largest and the most metropolitan in Ohio, but they also are the cities with the most students. Cincinnati has Xaiver and Uniiversity of Cincinnati; Columbus has Ohio State University; Cleveland doesn't have as many schools as the other two, but it still has Case Western Reserve University; and Dayton is home to the University of Dayton.
So Obama got votes in the cities with the largest population of young people, and that's it. Hillary got the working class, poorer cities, and -- maybe most importantly -- the rural counties. (I've resided in and spent a lot of time driving through Ohio. If a county doesn't have or isn't close to a major city, then it's rural.)
I've never lived in Texas, so I don't know as much about the demographics of the state, but I think they had a similar experience to Ohio yesterday:
This county-by-county results match the statistics I've seen in exit polls from yesterday: Hillary carried the poor vote, and Obama carried the vote for the more affluent.
I have two observations on this. First off: Why is this? Why is Hillary seen as a populist and Obama is the latte liberal?
Secondly: These rural support statistics for Hillary are very, dare I say... Republican? I like examining county-by-county votes in elections, and I've done so for our past recent presidential elections. So I can tell you that in 2000 and 2004, if a country was rural, Bush most likely won it. But in 1992 and 1996, the rural counties were more of a tossup... Bill Clinton didn't win all of them -- he probably didn't even win half of them. But he did win some, and those votes helped fed his meager popular votes totals and helped propel him into two terms.
What's the moral of the story? A presidential candidate can't win without getting at least some rural support.
If Obama can't win over rural counties, then I seriously have to question his electability. In 2000 and 2004, Gore (who actually won by a hair, but that's a whole 'nother story) and Kerry did not receive support from rural counties. Subsequently, both candidates lost. This is not a coincidence.
[Update] Like a good little blogger, I'm searching for information that would prove me wrong in this post. Some questions should arise from it, like if Hillary is really the "rural", non-metropolitan candidate, how come Obama won states like Utah and Nebraska? And how come Hillary got the majority of the vote in Los Angeles and New York City?
My answer -- and I'm sure you'll all love how scientific this is -- is that other states are just whacky. There are individual reasons, obviously... Hillary got NYC because she's their senator; Obama got Vermont despite its ruralness because there's something in the water there that makes Vermont residents lean heavily to the left (so much so that they have an unabashed socialist senator), etc. Every state has its characteristics, and I think for Ohio it's important characteristic to presidential elections is just how neutral the state is, leading it to often be an accurate reflection of America at large. Just like the United States itself, demographically Ohio has a decent mix of people from all political backgrounds mixed into large cities, small cities, suburbs, and rural counties. If one were to shrink America to the size of a European country, you would get Ohio. That's why I place a great amount of value on the way Ohio votes -- it's the quintessential bellwether state. So what happens in Vermont or Utah matters less because those states doesn't matter as much in November; and besides that, we already know how they will vote anyways. We never know which way Ohio will go, though.
For those still doubting the importance of these rural Ohio counties, here's some links for Ohio's general election county-by-county voting results for 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 -- check'em out. The differences between the years Clinton won and those that Bush won are stark. And these patterns are repeated in Carter's victory in 1976, and the Republican victories in 1988, 1984, 1980... Hell, the last time this cycle was broken was in 1960, and that was a long time ago.
For nearly five decades, the story has been the same: Win Ohio and you win the White House. Other states don't have this kind of electoral history, which is why I'm not analyzing rural areas of Vermont, Utah, Nebraska, etc. Ohio is a reflection of the country, and if a candidate has trouble winning rural areas there then they will be hard pressed to win the state, and hence the White House. That's my belief and I'm sticking to it... Until somebody smacks me down, that is.
It's not about rural vs. urban as much as it is about white vs. black. The counties where Obama won have high black populations, the counties where Clinton won had low black populations.
ReplyDeleteAll of this is meaningless when it comes to the general election, though, since the overwhelming majority of people who voted for Obama and Clinton will vote for the Democrat either way.
I disagree that the difference is white and black. While Cleveland is 50% black and Cincinnati is over 40% black,Columbus is only 25% black and Obama won there. By contrast, Obama did not win Akron which is 29% black; Canton which is 21% black; Toledo which is 23% black; or Lima which is 26% black.
ReplyDeleteI won't bother checking the demographics for rural counties, because we already know how white they are. Of course, the definition of "high" and "low" black populations might vary with person to person; my definition is that an area has a high black population if it hovers around 20-25%.
Anyways, Obama won Columbus which has a black population in the twenties, but lost all of those other cities which also have similar demographics. The one difference between those cities Obama lost and the one he won is that Columbus is a big city, the rest are small. We saw in 2000 and 2004 what happened when a candidate couldn't garner support outside of major metropolitan centers...
Though it makes me wonder about Obama's wins in breadbasket states that normally go red in the general election anyways, which sort of bleeds into your second point. I don't think this is meaningless because these are primary races -- the general election is different. In the general election, a candidate must compete with a Republican for the vote in these rural counties. I'd be a lot more comfortable with Obama if he could at least pull some of these rural counties into the fold, but he isn't getting any of them. And these aren't borderline votes, either: CNN's interactive map has a nifty feature that shows the vote percentages of each county your mouse rolls over. Hillary trounced Obama in many of these rural counties. To me, this is indicative of a mindset against Obama.
Let me admit that it's tough for me to note this because I thought Obama could bring everybody together... But the raw data tells me a different story. Obama has to win more than the college towns if he expects to get to the White House. Those Hillary voters in rural towns that you say would break Obama's way if he's the nominee, I don't think that's true. A lot of them could very well go for John McCain.
Kenneth, I would not be so sure that everyone is just going to fall in line. I can see defectors to McCain coming out of either a Clinton or Obama win, for much the same reasons.
ReplyDeleteThe longer this campaign drags and the more they sling mud, the more resentment it could create in voter minds which may push them towards another candidate - particularly a McCain who does well with independents.
Personally, Hillary drives me batty and should she get the nod I am not sold that I'll just vote for her.
Great and important post. What drives me batty is the fact that Dems can love Obama so much on one hand and find Hillary so repellant on the other that they might not vote for her. Why do some progressives dislike her so much? She's a triangulator, a politician, etc. Yeah, yeah its true and that drives me crazy too. But, has Obama really established that he's different. I just don't think so. Where's the proof that he's a maverick, a straightshooter? He didn't get this far this fast without being an establishment pol. Fact is we don't really know all that much about him do we --besides the fact that he voted to renew the Patriot Act and on every vote where he could vote he supported funding the war in Iraq. He's constantly mouthing dangerous Republican talking points (Reagan's transformational presidency, privatizing social security, etc.) He's not different, he's typical. He's a politician, doing what he's got to do to win. Jesus, in realty, aside from the cult of personality, there's a dime's worth of difference between them. Progessives should find plenty to criticize in both of these candidates. Back to your post-- it should give those discrediting Hillary's electability and demanding that she drop out alot to think about.
ReplyDeleteIt's ironic that you mention all of this, Lisa, because I'm one of those progressives who doesn't like Hillary and voted for Obama; though I've readily admitted that Obama is much too moderate and under normal circumstances, I probably wouldn't support him. Beyond issues, though, and I don't mean to spout off the boilerplate arguments/cliches for Obama, but he does represent change. Not only changing from the old guard (successive years of Bush/Clinton/Bush/maybe another Clinton ... or the prospect of McCain continuing the imperialism of the current Bush), but a change in the tenor of politics in general. Obama seems like a less partisan, less divisive figure. And after nearly two decades of blowjob politics (really, what else can you call it with some of the scandals that have popped up?), I want somebody in office who can change that.
ReplyDeleteHillary has been too negative for me during this campaign. Beyond that, whether or not it's fair to apply this to here, but if she's elected president the GOP will go absolutely apeshit and we'll have another 4 years of partisan girdlock. I see Obama as the only Democratic candidate left who can get around this... Sure, the GOP loonies will vent hate at him, but it won't stick to him as much as it would to Hillary. So while his agenda is moderate to the left, he might actually get some of it accomplished.
And up until this point, I also thought Obama was the most electable. But looking at the raw data, I'm really questioning that. It's not that I'm come full circle and believe that Hillary is electable to the White House -- I still think she would lose against McCain. Now what I'm wondering is if the Democrats have a candidate who can win at all.