Bill Clinton won in 1992 with "only" 39% of the white vote

[mshan]

"The problem for Clinton is that this is another case in which her math does not add up. Yes, every voter the Democrats can get their hands on is critical. But all this talk about Obama not connecting with salt of the earth white folks cynically forgets that white leaders in the Democratic Party have not solved this problem since Jimmy Carter's 48 percent of the white vote in 1976, yet want to make Obama the poster child for it despite his multi-racial crowds and record turnouts of voters. In the late throes of her insurgency, to borrow from Dick Cheney, Clinton is playing "divide and doubt" about Obama getting "only" 37 percent of the white vote in North Carolina and Pennsylvania and 40 percent in Indiana.
But in a year in which Republican enthusiasm is in doubt with a bad war and a bummer economy, it must be remembered that Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992 in three-way races with a grand total of 39 percent of the white vote and 83 percent of the black vote and 61 percent of the Hispanic vote and besting the first President Bush and Ross Perot among all age groups."
http://www.boston.com/bostongl...shing_of_black_voters/

 

[Jaskalas]

Good catch, though I have to wonder - isn't this comparing apples and oranges?

Primary voters for the Democrats are Democrats. General election voters are in all likelihood going to include Republicans and Independents so racism will be more of a factor.

 

[Uhtrinity]

And don't forget the votes were split between 3 main candidates, Bush, Clinton, and Perot.

 

[mshan]

Valid points, but I suspect only part of Clinton's base would never vote for a black man (some probably voted for her because they remember how good the economy was for them under Bill, or because they wanted to see the first woman elected president).

That being said, when viewing Obama vs. McCain polling data, I think you will always need to shave at least a couple points off of Obama's lead because people may be embarassed to tell pollsters so overtly about their racial biases (vs. how they really vote behind the closed curtain of the polling booth). I remember reading that this was what the first black governor of Virginia said after Obama lost Pennsylvania by "double digits" (assuming of course that 9.2% always rounds up to 10%, and ignoring all of the provisional ballots that apparently dropped the actual margin to 8.8%)

 

[Lemon law]

I think as the campaign progresses, people will get more comfortable with Obama and more alienated about McCain.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Good catch, though I have to wonder - isn't this comparing apples and oranges?

Primary voters for the Democrats are Democrats. General election voters are in all likelihood going to include Republicans and Independents so racism will be more of a factor.

Good point, but why not apply your logic all the way?

Not only is Obama and Bill Clinton an apples and oranges comparison, but so is the democratic primary and the general election. Why should we assume that none (or few) of the white supporters of Hillary would support Obama against McCain? I'm sure some of the democrats voting for Hillary are never going to vote for Obama (for policy reasons, experience, race, or whatever). But some will. Why are so many people accepting Hillary's assumption that she would carry the same voters into the general that she is carrying in the democratic primary?

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: mshan
Valid points, but I suspect only part of Clinton's base would never vote for a black man (some probably voted for her because they remember how good the economy was for them under Bill, or because they wanted to see the first woman elected president).

That being said, when viewing Obama vs. McCain polling data, I think you will always need to shave at least a couple points off of Obama's lead because people may be embarassed to tell pollsters so overtly about their racial biases (vs. how they really vote behind the closed curtain of the polling booth). I remember reading that this was what the first black governor of Virginia said after Obama lost Pennsylvania by "double digits" (assuming of course that 9.2% always rounds up to 10%, and ignoring all of the provisional ballots that apparently dropped the actual margin to 8.8%)

It's called the Bradly effect or Wilder effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
And don't forget the votes were split between 3 main candidates, Bush, Clinton, and Perot.

This is the post that tells you something. Perot got 19% of the popular vote. Clinton got 43%. So while Clinton only got 39% of the white vote, it matches up pretty well with his popular vote totals. Certainly much better then the statistic would originally lead you to believe.

 

[Lemon law]

When Obama goes head to head with Hillary, the democratic white male vote may bias towards Hillary because she is white. But we are talking two very politically similar candidates here and much of the white male support is also tied to labor issues where Hillary does slightly better.

But that comparison may be over hyped when it comes down to comparing two highly different candidates when we get to a Obama McCain general election. And even if the white male labor vote may want to support McCain because he is white, McCain is chock full of political positions that will alienate voters of all races. And as GWB chickens keep coming home to roost, they can't help but land on McCain.

And the GWB record is so bad for the past eight years that many independents and even republicans will definitely not vote GOP this year. On the core base issues the GOP needs to have their various bases energized and going to the polls. And come November, I think that factor will doom the GOP.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
And don't forget the votes were split between 3 main candidates, Bush, Clinton, and Perot.

Exactly, that bit about Bill is meaningless since the other 61% of the white vote was split two ways.

I am not sure the exact figure, but I believe Obama would need over 40% of the white vote to win the Presidency.

In 2004 Kerry won 40% of the white vote and lost.
In 2000 Gore won 42% of the white vote and tied.

 

[mshan]

Those numbers may indeed may not be as easy to interpret as that article may superficially suggest.

I would guess, however, that the wild card is how actual voter turnout compares to historical norms (e.g. will college age students actually show up en force on election day?).