The Democrats' Super Tuesday, Going Behind the votes
The two remaining Democratic contenders have come through super Tuesday still locked in a near even contest. How is the press arrempting to tilt it" by rtbohan
(libertarian)
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Super Tuesday has come and gone, and Barack Obama and Hilllary Clinton are still locked in a tight battle for delegates, with the some remnants of the Edwards supporters still refusing, like their leader, to support either of the remaining candidates.
Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama found some pleasant surprises in the results and had some coresponding disappointments. Both carried some large states and some small ones and kept the race for the nomination alive.
The press is not content with that, however, and has gone behind the vote totals to identify democgraphic blocs and interpret the results. Obama won in Georgia, they say, but that is a state with a large black population and can be ignored. In the large states, the general analyisis is based on how many women voted for Senator Clinton and how many black voters voted for Senator Obama. Some go farther than that, and gives figures for white men and black women to make the contest more interesting. In a few state the breakdown includes how the hispanic voters divided. The San Francisco Chronicle also includes a breakdown of the Asian vote, and announces that Gay and Lesbian voters went to Clinton by a margin of 60% to 28%. There is no similar breakdown for heterosexuals or the asexual.
Now all of this is interesting in a trivial pursuit way, even though many of the groups overlap. But questions remain about the accuracy of the figures and the purpose of publishing them.
Since no state has voting booths segregated by race, sex, cultural background or sexual orientation, the breakdown is not based on actual votes. This is a statement based on the exit polls of the news organization. How reliable the results of any poll are depends on the size of the sample, the protocol followed for the particular poll, the honesty of the people actually selecting the voters to be qustioned, and the willingness of the voters to answer truthfully or at all.
The protocol determines how individuals will be selected for questioning. The AP indicates that they question every fifth up to every twentieth voter, depending on the turnout for the election. This is the basie sample. If someone declines to answer, that is to be noted by the person administering the poll and reported. But this part of the report does not get published so we are somewhat in doubt as to the size of the sample. And how do the pollster know where to put the respondent? In reporting the gender breakdown or the racial breakdown of the vote, visual evidence is a good although not infallible guide. When the poll reports on the cultural heritage or wealth or sexual orientation of the voters, this can only be done by self=identification and is more suspect. In addition, of course, this means that some of the voters are being included in the percentages of more than one group. An exit poll, like any poll and especially those which do not publish the margin of error, must be regarded as a guess.
But beyond the question about the reliability of breakdown of the vote is the question of why it is being published. The politicians, of course, are interested because it gives them information about where they are having the most success, and where they might work harder. But why are the voters being told this? Voting is an indvidual act. Is this intended to create some sort of localized bandwagon effect? Is it trying to create an aura of "All real women vote for Hillary?" of "Only black voters vote for Obama?"
All good politicians. like all good military men, know the rule of "Divide and conquer. It certainly serves Senator Clinton's interests during the pre-convention campaign to portray the struggle as Black against white, And since the number of white voters is greater than the number of black voters, this could be a winning strategy for the nomination. I don't know that the press is particularly in favor of a Hllary Clinton presidency, although I am sure that they would be glad to see Bill back in the White House because he provides such good copy. But for whatever reason, the black versus white story line is the one the press has chosen to present.
That explains why the percentage breadown of the white voters is not given for every state. On super Tuesday. the voting was not confined to New York, California and a few southern states. Consider these outcomes: In Alaska, Obama 74% , Clinton 25%; In Idaho, Obama 80%, Clinton 17%;In Kansas, Obama 74%, Clinton 28%; In Minnesota, Obama 67%, Clinton 32%; In North Dakota,Obama 61%, Clinton 37%; In Utah Obama 57%, Clinton 39%.
I realize that these are relatively small states in what the elite refers to as "flyover America" But I am interested in them because, with the possible exception of Kansas, they are clearly not states where Obama won with an overwhelming outpouring of black voters. And these are states where Clinton clearly did not win the white vote or the women's vote.
Despite the fact that she was on the ballot and certainly did not lack name recognition, Senator Clinton can explain away the outcome with the fact that she did not actively campaign there. But what excuse does the press have for not giving us the racial and gender breakdown of the vote in thoae states.
Turning the race for the presidency into a focus for racial and sexual conflict does a disservice to the country. It may well spell disaster for whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee.
.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of rtbohan only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
rtbohan is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
