In PA, Clinton Wins by Holding Her Ohio Base

| Wed Apr. 23, 2008 3:54 AM PDT

Six weeks ago, Hillary Clinton won Ohio by ten percentage points. Tuesday night, she won Ohio's equally bitter neighbor to the east by ten percentage points. The voting blocks she relied upon to win the two states are the same: Hillary Clinton was twice carried to victory by white voters, female voters, and voters lacking a college education. Barack Obama made headway with older voters, but saw young voter turnout drop. He also gained among independents, but fewer of them turned out to the polls. Hillary Clinton won Pennsylvania because she successfully defended her base for the six weeks between the Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4 and the PA primary Tuesday.

According to CNN exit polls, women were huge for Clinton in both contests. They were 59 percent of Democratic voters in both Ohio and Pennsylvania, and she won 57 percent of female voters in both contests. White women were particularly important for Clinton. In both states, two-thirds of white women voted for her.

Obama could point to a modest five point jump among white men and four point jump among whites overall. It did not help Obama that the white vote in Pennsylvania was slightly larger than it was in Ohio (80 percent to 76 percent), and the black vote slightly smaller.

In Ohio, those lacking a college education went 58-40 for Clinton. In Pennsylvania, the numbers were a nearly identical 58-42. It's hard to then point to correlations in under $50,000/over $50,000 voting groups (often, voters lacking a college degree and voters making less than $50,000 show identical trends, indicating that they are in fact the same voters), because Clinton won both income groups Pennsylvania, as she did in Ohio. White collar Pennsylvanians were no more receptive to Obama than their blue collar counterparts.

Continues Below

Continued From Above

In Ohio, independent voters nearly split down the middle, going 50-48 for Obama. In Pennsylvania, indies were more completely in Obama's camp, going 55-45 for the Illinois Senator. The problem? Independent turnout dropped eight percent. Both Ohio and Pennsylvania were closed primaries, meaning independents were able to vote in the Democratic race only if they were registered as Democrats.

Obama's only substantial gain was among older voters. In Ohio, he took a meager 28 percent of voters over 60 years of age. In Pennsylvania, he added 10 additional percent to that figure. The fact that Clinton still won the elderly vote, which comprised one-third of all voters, by a margin of 62-38 meant that Obama was going to have a hard time winning the primary, but an Obama camp desperate for positive indicators can look at the success of their elderly outreach.

But they have to be disappointed by their youth outreach. Voters under 24 years of age, which includes the vast majority of the college demographic, were just six percent of the vote last night. Pennsylvania is one of the nation's older states, but that's no excuse. In Ohio, voters under 29 were 16 percent of the electorate. In Pennsylvania, they were just 12 percent.

A note on how Clinton won. In Ohio, just over half of voters thought Clinton had attacked unfairly. But six weeks later, after Jeremiah Wright and "bitter"-gate had hit the headlines, that number had jumped to over two-thirds. But the negative attacks didn't hurt the most important numbers — she still won the state by 10 points, and the same number of voters, 26 percent, say they would be disgruntled if she took the Democratic nomination.

While the Obama campaign tried to point to a largely unchanged delegate count and look ahead to the next primaries ("The bottom line is that the Pennsylvania outcome does not change dynamic of this lengthy primary. While there were 158 delegates at stake there, there are fully 157 up for grabs in the Indiana and North Carolina primaries on May 6."), the Clinton campaign was jubilant in Philadelphia last night, and they were pushing the never-say-die storyline. Speaking before Clinton, Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter pressed the point in excitedly incoherent fashion, saying Clinton was the "the comeback kid, come-from-behind, every-day-and-in-every-way Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is back." Governor Ed Rendell said Clinton's victory was so shocking that it was "an earthquake so large it's going to shake up American politics." He said that every time the media tries to write Clinton's "political obituary," she comes back from the dead.

Clinton herself embraced the storyline of the evening, saying "the tide is turning." "You know," she said, "the pundits question whether Pennsylvanians would trust me with this charge and tonight you showed you do. You know you can count on me to stand up strong for you every single day in the White House."

What's funny about the Clinton campaign's message is that Clinton never trailed in Pennsylvania. One month ago, she was leading in the state by 15 percent, and she won Tuesday by 10 percent, hardly what practitioners of math would call a comeback. But the wielders of spin are not the same as the wielders of calculators. With the delegate math pointing to a foregone conclusion in the Democratic primary race for weeks, even months, it's clear who holds more sway.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Comments

"Why aren't people shocked about the African American vote being so racially aligned?"

OK ? a little bit of the race card in reverse I guess, so why aren't people shocked about the Caucasian American vote being so racially aligned.

You know, it never ceases to amaze me how the minions from the HRC camp continue to spin the events on the ground into a consistent negative attack against Obama. Six plus weeks ago HRC had a 15+ point lead over Obama and wins, as expected I might say, but by only 10 points and yet that is branded as a come from behind win. She was never behind but could have been if she didn't adopt what is rightfully being branded as a scorched earth campaign policy that she herself has re-enforced by stating that she is willing to win at any cost. That is a great Republican tactic that she is adopting and using against her own party.

Yeah, some have been saying that he will be facing these questions, issues and tactics from the Republicans come this fall if we are so lucky to have him as our Democratic Presidential Nominee but that does not mean that we should serve him up on a platter for them. Talk about eating your own babies.

And one last thing: While I would be most proud to vote for Obama as President of the United States I will still vote for HRC if she is the Democratic nominee because any Democrat is better than four years of McSame. Will you hard line HRC supporters do the same or will you sabotage the process?

"Why aren't people shocked about the African American vote being so racially aligned?"

OK ? a little bit of the race card in reverse I guess, so why aren't people shocked about the Caucasian American vote being so racially aligned.

You know, it never ceases to amaze me how the minions from the HRC camp continue to spin the events on the ground into a consistent negative attack against Obama. Six plus weeks ago HRC had a 15+ point lead over Obama and wins, as expected I might say, but by only 10 points and yet that is branded as a come from behind win. She was never behind but could have been if she didn't adopt what is rightfully being branded as a scorched earth campaign policy that she herself has re-enforced by stating that she is willing to win at any cost. That is a great Republican tactic that she is adopting and using against her own party.

Yeah, some have been saying that he will be facing these questions, issues and tactics from the Republicans come this fall if we are so lucky to have him as our Democratic Presidential Nominee but that does not mean that we should serve him up on a platter for them. Talk about eating your own babies.

And one last thing: While I would be most proud to vote for Obama as President of the United States I will still vote for HRC if she is the Democratic nominee because any Democrat is better than four years of McSame. Will you hard line HRC supporters do the same or will you sabotage the process?

For me the main news coming out of the Pennsylvania Primary was that Pennsylvania was not for sale, that the high-powered high-priced ad campaign that Obama waged did not win.

I think that Indiana will also resist the Glitz.

The fact that you don't give the percentage of black voters voting for Obama but you do give the percentage of white voters voting for Clinton points up an unfortunate double standard. This is the same double standard that is operative when someone replaces the word "black" by "white" in a quote from a Reverend Wright speech and the result reads like a Ku Klux Klan brochure.
Why aren't people shocked about the African American vote being so racially aligned?

Quite so. Obama lost because he did not connect with blue collar voters. He lost Pittsburgh by 10 percent, in no small part because of his "clinging to guns and religion" gaffe.

It isn't that his gaffe changed the minds of many people....but he offended many, and gave them a reason to show up and vote for HRC.

"Why aren't people shocked about the African American vote being so racially aligned?"

OK – a little bit of the race card in reverse I guess, so why aren't people shocked about the Caucasian American vote being so racially aligned.

You know, it never ceases to amaze me how the minions from the HRC camp continue to spin the events on the ground into a consistent negative attack against Obama. Six plus weeks ago HRC had a 15+ point lead over Obama and wins, as expected I might say, but by only 10 points and yet that is branded as a come from behind win. She was never behind but could have been if she didn't adopt what is rightfully being branded as a scorched earth campaign policy that she herself has re-enforced by stating that she is willing to win at any cost. That is a great Republican tactic that she is adopting and using against her own party.

Yeah, some have been saying that he will be facing these questions, issues and tactics from the Republicans come this fall if we are so lucky to have him as our Democratic Presidential Nominee but that does not mean that we should serve him up on a platter for them. Talk about eating your own babies.

And one last thing: While I would be most proud to vote for Obama as President of the United States I will still vote for HRC if she is the Democratic nominee because any Democrat is better than four years of McSame. Will you hard line HRC supporters do the same or will you sabotage the process?

i've been struck by the consistent disconnect in new hampshire, massachusetts, new york, new jersey, and now pennsylvania between polling data in advance of the primary voting and the actual vote tally. in all of these cases, the polling done just prior to voting indicates that either obama was going to win the primary, or that he'd closed the gap to a much smaller one that the actual result indicated.
this gives rise to the question: why is the the pre-vote polling consistently wrong and always skewed the same way? and i would argue that when you ask an american voter: would you vote for obama for president - - very few are going to openly admit that "no - - i can't vote for a man with brown skin", but once in the privacy of the voting booth, it's another matter. and, i would argue, senator clinton knows this, and when she's constantly talking about electability, she'll never state this openly, but this is the unstated bottom line.
so, in response to ALD who asked if all of the hardline clinton supporters would vote for obama if he gets the nomination, my guess is that your answer is pretty clear - - absolutely not.
at the same time, when it comes to electability, i'm surprised that no one mentions the deep well of absolute hatred that exists towards the clintons among conservatives. why do you suppose mr. limbaugh would encourage listeners to register in primaries and vote for senator clinton? because he knows that a surefire way to activate the conservative base, and to enhance the republicans' chances for presidential and legislative victories in november, is to have senator clinton be the democratic nominee. so how is it that we seem to be spending lots of time talking about senator obama's electability, or presumed lack thereof, and not raising similar questions about the senator from new york? (cue - chuck berry's "brown-eyed handsome man")

I think that ALD should use the "white" for "black" test on the Pennsylvania primary. What if the results had been eighty or ninety per cent of "Caucasian" voters supporting Hillary Clinton?
It's easy to be shocked then, isn't it? Yet these are the same high percentages that Obama is getting among African American voters regularly. And nobody says a thing.

I live in France and on this side of the Atlantic, the media are "lethal" with Clinton. France has been totally victimized by its media which was highly instrumental in "guiding" voters in the last presidential election. I read commentary accompanying polling results just last week which tended to pump up enthusiasm for every little point Obama gained and treat as "statistically insignificant" many of the leads Clinton had.

If I were to say that Obama's smile "makes me nauseous", I'd have a good chance of being treated as a racist. Yet that's what one blogger here on the Mojoblog said about Clinton. The blogger was female, I think. Can a woman be macho?

Hillary is amazing! In her thoughts she is one of those queens from the past ready to get her crown. The amount of entitlement is a scarey strange thing that she and Bill share. NAFTA she was the champion of until she faced the voter who lost jobs. Bill is going around visiting places like Columbia and with Burkle Dubai and do we know what he does besides talk for the money? It makes me wonder if he is helping import our jobs or something.

Post new comment

Alternately, you may login to or register an account
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote> <img>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Photo Essays

When you dial a 1-900 number, who picks up the phone?
Meet the KKK's seamstress of hate couture.
The other side of Gitmo.
A photographer’s year at Angola Prison.