This is the second part of a two part series looking at pieces of conventional wisdom that have dominated the narrative of the Democratic Primary. As a reality based community, we are not simply accepting of media narratives. We like to figure things out on our own, as we know others may not always be telling the whole story.
Here are the two pieces of CW I'm looking at:
1. Barack Obama is mapchanger. He can compete and win in states Gore and Kerry could not. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, can only hope for a "50+1 victory." She's looking at the same old electoral map, but she's hoping to flip Ohio or Florida. Her inability to compete in Red States will drag down the ticket for lower slate candidates.
2. Since New Hampshire, the primary campaign has been centered on race. The Clinton campaign has been using subtle and overt racial strategies to hurt Obama. As a result, Clinton has suffered a severe backlash among black voters. They're not only switching to Obama in the primary, but they also will not vote for Clinton if she's the nominee. They may even leave the Democratic party.
I'll start with a short recap of yesterday's diary, and then I'll dive into CW #2.
In challenging CW #1 yesterday, I looked at how Clinton and Obama have been polling in Red State general election matchups since the Iowa Caucuses. I presented data (in pretty charts) that led to two unmistakable conclusions:
1. Clinton performs better than Obama against every opponent in every state--except for Ohio where he's better against Romney and the same against Giuliani. Edwards performs a bit better than Clinton in North Carolina.
2. McCain is polling extremely well relative to other Republicans. He beats every opponent in each of these Red States. He's also polling ahead of both Clinton and Obama in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Shockingly, he's also five points up on Obama in Massachusetts.
While Obama pulled in more Republicans and Independents, Clinton retained even more of the Democratic base.
2) IS THERE ACTUALLY A RACIAL BACKLASH AGAINST THE CLINTONS
The mainstream media has been reporting on the rising racial tensions between the Clinton and Obama campaigns. The Daily Kos Recommended Diary list has been littered with diaries proclaiming the same. One of the central claims to this narrative is that the Clintons' race baiting is turning off black voters--voters who will not turn out for her if she's the nominee.
The evidence we have to support this claim is entirely anecdotal. There are claims by Joe blogger, reports by Jane diarist, and exposes by Jim reporter. But is this narrative reality? Is there any data to support such claims? Shouldn't we be skeptical?
People have claimed that the movement of black voters from Clinton supporters to Obama supporters is evidence that they've turned against Clinton. A couple months ago, however, the CW was that black voters were siding with Clinton because they were skeptical that Obama could win, but that they'd switch to him if he won a mostly white state. Was that narrative right? I don't know, but Obama won Iowa and the movement of blacks into his camp soon followed. Regardless, the fact that black voters prefer Obama to Clinton in now way suggests that they dislike Clinton, or that they wouldn't vote for her the general election. The same is true of women and Obama, of course.
I will approach this question in several ways, each of which relies on polling data.
First, we can look at how Clinton and Obama fare among black voters in general election matchup polls. I'll be using every post-NH Survey USA poll of states where at least 5% of the Primary electorate is expected to be black. The following is what percentage of the black vote each of the candidates currently polls at versus the Republican frontrunner, John McCain:
Obama polls a bit better than Clinton among blacks, but Clinton still retains the vast majority of black support. This was expected long before any charges of race baiting were made, as blacks are understandably excited about an Obama presidency. The average is not weighted by population or delegates, but it's there for the visually impaired to quickly average the bars.
One might argue that these states have not yet fully tuned into the campaign, and they'll be disgusted by Clinton when they finally do. SOuth Carolina has been ground zero for this narrative, so surely any backlash would be readily apparent there. An easy way to measure backlash is unfavorable ratings. Mason Dixon has been tracking the favorable and unfavorable ratings of the candidates Among Democrats in their South Carolina primary polls.
If the CW is correct, we should see a sharp rise in unfavorable ratings for Clinton following New Hampshire, and perhaps a similar one for Obama for being dragged into this. John Edwards wasn't really involved, so he should remain unscathed:
In reality, the unfavorable ratings for Obama and Clinton have stayed extremely stable, while Edwards' has shot up. This is strong evidence that Obama's gains in SC have been people choosing amongst two candidates that they like, rather than a backlash against a candidate they now loathe.
Now I'll move onto national polling data, with more specific questions. The latest LA Times/Bloomberg poll (conducted 1/18-1/22) asked some questions that might give us a better understanding of how prevalent racial tensions are in this primary.
They asked Democratic voters whether they would want Clinton to choose Obama as her VP if she's the nominee. Many people here have said Obama would never do such a thing, as it would simply condone the racial politics that have been played against him. What do black voters think?
Not only are black voters overwhelmingly supportive of this idea, but they're far more supportive than white voters. Well, maybe black voters simply love Obama so much that they're willing to tolerate him being on Hillary's ticket if it means a spot in the White House.
But they would never want Obama to choose Clinton as his VP, right?
We see black voters being overwhelmingly supportive of Clinton as Obama's VP. Again, this is strong evidence that while black voters prefer Obama, they still like Clinton.
The Bloomberg Poll also specifically asked whether voters thought the candidates were trying to use racial politics to gain votes. Here's how black voters responded:
Most black voters do not think either candidate is trying to use race to their advantage. While over a quarter think that Clinton has, that's not much higher than the percentage who think Obama has.
In one final polling note, Obama has just moved ahead of Clinton in Georgia, mostly due to a shift in black voters towards him. But, as usual, Clinton still enjoys an 80% favorable rating (just ahead of Obama's 78%).
To be clear, this diary does not address the tactics the campaigns have used. I am not saying people should or should not be disgusted by these tactics (though I certainly have an opinion on the matter).
Rather, my point is that however much backlash you feel against the Clintons, and regardless of how much backlash you think other should feel against the Clintons, the reality is that the electorate does not agree. The data shows the Democratic Party is not divided, and that both of the leading candidates are extremely popular.
Too often, we forget that our views are simply not representative of the views of the nation--or of Democrats. We often project our opinions upon the electorate, especially when those opinions seem to be widely shared through the blogosphere.
At some point we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture: Our party loves our two potential nominees, and we're all going to have to fight like hell together to beat McCain.
The Polls:
Kentucky (1/4-1/6)
Ohio (1/4-1/6)
Missouri (1/11-1/13)
Virginia (1/16-1/17)
Kansas (1/16-1/17)
Alabama (1/16-1/17)
New York
California
Wisconsin
LA Times/Bloomberg (PDF)