Obama, Oh My: The Blue Collar Catholic Fallout
April 23rd, 2008
After Obama’s ‘Bitter, Cling to Guns and God’ jab was made public I wrote:
If he actually said this condescending, elitist claptrap it will take all his vast rhetorical skills to talk himself out of the firestorm heading his way.
And not because us rubes are going to merely cling to our guns and our religion.
But rather, because he just insulted the largest block of swing voters in America.
Well, how did my prediction shake out after the first contest since his San Francisco treat?
Well, look at how Hillary Clinton trounced Barack Obama in Pennsylvania’s rural counties and the northern suburban counties outside Philly.
It’s not a matter of her winning there. Look at the numbers. The percentages are staggering.
White middle class, and Catholic voters went to Clinton by unbelievable margins.
If Obama had made those comments before the Wisconsin Primary (and if Clinton had actually mounted more than a 4-day campaign here) I believe he would not have won this state.
Voters here get to vote again in November, you know.
Same for voters in Michigan, Ohio, etc.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:08 am
And Obama outspent Hillary 3-1…
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
If only the facts supported your conclusion. Compare OH and PA: More whites voted for Obama in PA (34% OH, 38% PA). Obama gained among white men (from 39% to 44%) and women (from 31% to 34%). He gained among those earning less than $50k a year (from 42% in OH to 46% in PA). He did fall among Catholics (from 36% in OH to 31%) but he gained among Protestants (from 36% to 53%)–and remember, his “cling” to religion comment was not specific.
He narrowed Clinton’s overall margin in a state that should have been less friendly to him (fewer younger voters and fewer black voters than Ohio).
So you got one of those right–Obama lost some ground with Catholics. But the white and middle-class backlashes you predicted and claim happened did not actually happen. I suggest you revise your post.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:21 pm
folkbum,
Before you get too carried away with exit poll numbers let’s not forget that for the most part they had it at a 4-5% race. In 2004 they had Kerry winning several states by 20%+ so they’re not the most accurate things in the world.
The number that we do know is that Hillary was outspent by a huge amount and still won by almost 10%.
She also won with a large increase in party “leaders” expressing their concern over what a protracted process means for their November prospects…not to mention a huge gaffe of her own.
More telling than anything is that with a huge fundraising advantage, increasing pressure on Hillary to drop out, and an insurmountable delegate lead Obama STILL can’t win a big state…and a state the dems have to win in November.
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
You could choose to read the exit polls, or the actual results at the polls, Jay.
Those same exit polls had Obama losing by only 4pts when the polls closed last night.
Blue collar white catholic swing voters, who may have been warming up to Obama at one point, are running away from him in droves.
That’s probably why Obama spoke in front of a backdrop of white blue collar voters last night. He understands his problem.
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Bill, Fraley made a specific claim here, that Obama’s “bitter” comment about people who “cling” created a backlash among certain voters. That claim was false. Do you agree? Fraley is just dead wrong here, and all your trying to change the subject doesn’t alter that embarrassing fact.
And, are you seriously trying to tell me that Obama fully halving the gap in support between him and Sen. Clinton is not an impressive feat, in a state that was always going to favor Clinton, against the Clinton machine and Ed Rendell? Please. Obama did exactly what he needed to do–he did better in PA than he did in Ohio, even though PA’s voters were less likely to support him that Ohio’s voters were.
And if you think PA will go for McCain in November against either Dem, I’d love to talk to you about a bridge I have for sale …
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:43 pm
You could choose to read the exit polls, or the actual results at the polls, Jay.
So …. Obama lost in a state that he never led in and somehow this is voters fleeing him “in droves”? Obama improves his performance versus the results in the most recent comparable primary–Ohio–not only among all voters but basically across the board, and this is doom and gloom for him?
Please. You’re smarter than that.
And my question to you: How do you know that Obama suffered a backlash among whites and the middle class unless you look at the exit polls? The vote tally tells you nothing about the voters who voted, even broken down by region, CD, or county.
Saying that two candidates who appeal to two different core Dem constituencies fared better in the groups and regions to which they appeal is about as helpful as saying the sun rose this morning. So Obama lost the vast middle of Pennsylvania–that’s exactly the region he was expected to lose from the get-go. So Clinton lost Philly–that’s exactly the region she was going to lose all along, too.
Fact is, Obama did better in PA than he did in Ohio, and he did better among the groups specifically that you claimed were in “backlash” against him. Game over.
(I voted for Clinton in the WI primary. This is not some irrational Obama-love on my part. You’re just wrong.)
April 23rd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Jay, I realize that while I’ve only been doing this for 16 years, you teach in MPS and stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but let me try to explain.
When the exit polls and the poll results conflict, ignore the exit polls because they’re obviously inaccurate. When you look at polling results and want to know ‘why’ exit polls can be helpful as long as they at least reinforce the top level results at the polls.
Oh, and Obama lost both PA and OH, Jay. Troubling for him and for the Dem party come November.
If Obama isn’t hurting with white middle class voters, Jay, why was the crowd behind him on the stage in Evansville nearly, if not completely, white? He realizes the staging is important and he realizes he’s hurting with white swing voters.
And he did narrow Clinton’s lead in the polls there, but not by much. According to Rasmussen’s polling, Hillary’s lead was 15 pts on March (52-37. So, he did do better, but despite outspending her by nearly 3:1 Obama still lost by 10.
You can’t spin this as good for Obama, Jay. Even Joe Wineke (an Obama Super Delegate) said today there is no way you can spin the PA situation as a positive for Obama.
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Well then, Master, please enlighten this poor benighted novice (for the record, I prefer La Quinta):
What data can you cite to support your quite specific claim that “[b]lue collar white catholic swing voters [. . .] are running away from [Obama] in droves.” It may also be helpful to quantify a “drove,” and to state how many droves of such voters, exactly, are running away from him.
And no, repeating the claim that Obama lost PA–which was a given, as he never, ever, ever led in that state–or even the parts of it he was always predicted to lose is not sufficient to satiate my boundless amateur-pundit curiosity. I need something to back up your very, very precise claim that “white, middle class, and Catholic voters” were leaving him if I am ever to learn whence you vaunted professionals divine your wisdom.
(I’m also curious why you chose this narrative instead of the Hillary-can’t-win-because-blacks-must-really-hate-her-and-black-turnout-is-key-in-November-so-she-should-give-up-now line, which, to my untrained eyes, is equally supportable by the geographic results last night. Is it because Obama is now obviously the nominee, and the party line is to attack him, not her? Again, I want to know all your pearls of wisdom, Wise Elder!)
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Fraley, you’ve been spinning for 16 years and you do it here. No data supports your claim that white Pennsylvania catholics “left Obama in droves” after the comment because:
A> We have no data showing they were with him to begin with
and
B> He ended up losing by a margin that was within the margin of error of most every poll up to that point.
Folkbum’s spin however has me thinking I’m in a Maytag store. Did exactly what he needed to do? That’s like saying Turnbow did exactly what he needed to do by giving up a home run because at least the pitch was a strike. What he needed to do was put her away.
I don’t know how you hacks manage to filter reality through your preconceptions so consistently regardless of all evidence to the contrary.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Folkbum…
What data do I have?
Scoreboard. Look at the County by County vote totals. Clinton even won the northern suburban counties of Philly.
ATV…
They weren’t with him to begin with, but as was shown in Wisconsin, they started to vote for him.
who may have been warming up to Obama at one point, are running away from him in droves.
There was a narrowing in the polls in PA, too, but he ended up losing by 10 pts. The blue collar swing vote lurched back to Clinton after the San Francisco remarks became public.
My take is that Obama isn’t winning the white, catholic, blue collar voters, often referred to as Reagan Democrats that are a huge component of the swing vote in any election.
I anticipate that campaign tactics by Obama in the next few weeks will prove that Obama’s people share this belief. They will continue (for their sake hopefully revamp) their outreach to this key demographic.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Oh, forget it.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:07 am
[…] saw LeftStreamMedia bias up close and personal. - James Wigderson highlights a blog fight between a professional political type and a neophyte. Normally, I wouldn’t note this because I am a neophyte myself, but it’s […]