1st exit polls (CNN/2:43 PM PDT)

The early pre-candidate vote exit poll results are dribbling out. (They have only teased us with this for more than 90 minutes)

For what it's worth, in Mississippi today, only one breakdown given for the candidates:

17(?)-29: O 67, C 32
65+:      0 44, C 55

Anyone care to compare with previous primaries?

Other questions not relevant to vote totals, but it showed that close to 3/4s of Clinton supporters would not be happy with Obama as nominee.

My guess? Definitely less than a 20 point margin (Kos') guess) from these little indications.

•  BTW

  for those who are confused by the youth grouping being "17-29", 17-year-olds can vote in Mississippi if they will be 18 by Election Day.

  by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:51:58 PM PDT

•  30-65

  Probably wouldn't be smart to bet on less than 20. You have no idea how 30-65 year olds voted, or how many 17-29 year olds voted in relation to 65+.

  by HatchInBrooklyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:52:06 PM PDT

  •  The previous demographics in exit polls

    for other states broke things down in quartiles 18-29, 30-44, 44-60, 60+.   The results were different usually in all four.  Obama has been strong with the 44-60 group.  That was his "secret" strength in Wisconsin.  another factor is the percentage of voters within each quartile.  The youth vote hasn't been as strong as hoped several times.

    by Rolfyboy6 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:59:12 PM PDT

    •  Louisiana

      Looks pretty much exactly like CNN's Louisiana breakdown:

      18-29: C 30 O 66
      65+: C 53 O 39

      And Obama won that one by 21%.

      by HatchInBrooklyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:18:11 PM PDT

  •  If they gave those numbers in the exit poll,

    we could back-calculate the eventual results within 3-4%.  It would spoil there evening news story, so don't expect it until late.

    by oscarsdad on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:19:00 PM PDT

•  I pegged it at 15

  by slinkerwink on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:52:13 PM PDT

  •  I agree.

    Not happy, but I agree.  He should not have ceded it to her this entire weekend.  What the hell was he thinking?  

    by 57andFemale on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:49:44 PM PDT

•  It seems that 17-29 is usually a mirror of 65+

  I would expect that this bodes well for Obama.

  by 3WaveRider on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:52:18 PM PDT

•  Here's my final prediction

  Taylor Marsh: Idiot
  Obama: Awesome

  by Mark Warner is God on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:52:37 PM PDT

  •  I'd put money on that one :) n/t

    by casperr on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:53:49 PM PDT

  •  Not a prediction if it's an established fact /nt

    by SLKRR on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:53:51 PM PDT

  •  At this point I'm rooting for Obama...

    ...almost soley to watch her head explode...

    OK, not soley, but it'll be a nice bonus...

    by Aqualad08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:54:47 PM PDT

  •  Here here

    Though I've always felt it's not nice to point and laugh at the mentally deranged ;)

    by NMLib on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:04:24 PM PDT

  •  Talk about...

    ...taking the safe money :)

    by Jonathan on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:14:52 PM PDT

•  I'm surprised Obama is doing well with old people

  in MS.

  by slinkerwink on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:52:41 PM PDT

  •  That's because

    60-70% of the vote is expected to be black.

    Frankly, based on that, it's a weak number for him.

    by seanflynn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:53:53 PM PDT

    •  Not really

      It's consistent with all of the other primaries we've seen thus far, and Clinton usually wins this group by 20 points or more.

      by scimitar on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:55:41 PM PDT

      •  In MS there are probably some white

        Democrats of a certain age who are hold-overs from the old Dixiecrat era. Younger voters of similar persuasion are most assuredly republicans.

        by beltane on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:59:25 PM PDT

      •  As stated below...

        It is about the same as Clinton got for Georgia.

        by RichM on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:59:47 PM PDT

      •  Indeed

        the last Rasmussen poll for Mississippi showed Clinton winning among those over 65 but still down by 15 points and that was with 8 percent undecided.  I wouldn't bet on the less than 20 points prediction.

        by True Independent on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:00:31 PM PDT

        •  One quibble

          Democrats of a certain age who are hold-overs from the old Dixiecrat era

          I'm not so sure the Dixiecrats are hold overs given the words from GF.

          by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:16:38 PM PDT

    •  Flawed

      You don't honestly believe this primary will be 60, 70% black do you?  Come on!  

      by 57andFemale on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:51:00 PM PDT

    •  Actually

      70% of registered Democrats in Mississippi are African American.

      by otis704 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:50:17 PM PDT

•  Why the question mark on 17-29?

  The first time I ever voted I was 17... the state I lived in allowed you to vote in a primary at 17 if you were going to turn 18 before the general election.

  I think it's too soon to say "definitely" less than a 20 pt margin.  We need to see how the age 30-64 voters  break.  

  by SLKRR on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:53:00 PM PDT

  •  I figured that was the reason

    Thanks for the clarification.

    by seanflynn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:54:27 PM PDT

•  The 65+ numbers are encouraging

  If he's only down 12 points among the oldest group, that indicates two things to me:

  1. A large African American turnout (Obama wins every subgroup of black voters).

  2. The fact that Clinton is gaining some votes from racism

  But young voters offset the older demographic, so I'd say this is a big win for Obama, especially considering his voters vote later in the day.

  by scimitar on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:53:11 PM PDT

  •  maybe

    I'm always uncomfortable relying on memes like "our voters vote later in the day", but FWIW, I was calling Connecticut on Super Tuesday because our boiler room had it really close and we needed a last-minute boost. In the end we won Connecticut by 4 points, so it is indeed possible that Obama voters vote later (which would contradict that whole latte-sipping stereotype...isn't it supposed to be the "working people" who vote later? And those self-important yuppies vote bright and early?).

    by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:58:02 PM PDT

    •  No

      Traditionally, "working people" vote EITHER very early or very late or at lunch. In truth, though, in 20 years of electioneering I've never really seen any patterns you can count on. Maybe, you could say older folks and college students vote during the workday when those with jobs are busy, but even that's not much.

      by ColoDem on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:24:55 PM PDT

•  Too early

  These polls will change quite a bit... what was telling, to me, was the 77% of Clinton supporters who would not be pleased if Obama were the nominee.  That tells me her vote was highly racists, not all of that 77% are, but 20% of people in polls were voting against a black man.

  by GB1437a on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:53:40 PM PDT

  •  I don't agree

    That's actually a higher acceptance rating for Obama than its been in past contests.  So I don't think we can say that the 20% who say they wouldn't be satisifed are racists.  For example, in TX 32% said they wouldn't be satisifed if Obama won.

    by skywaker9 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:57:13 PM PDT

    •  Oops

      Read your post wrong, sorry.

      by skywaker9 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:57:45 PM PDT

  •  It's way too early...

    ...I know Hillary would have you believe that people who don't work support Obama, but I'm pretty sure the people that do might like him too...

    by Aqualad08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:57:35 PM PDT

  •  Well let's not get carried away

    So 77% would be unhappy with Obama. Yet the majority of Clinton supporters want him to be put on the ticket as VP. Majority of Obama supporters say no Hillary period.

    So I think the 77% is a little misleading. And who knows, if it's 77% of 18%, then it really isn't that much when you take away the 9% that wants Obama to be VP, the racist vote is as little as 7%. It's probably higher than that. But I'm pretty sure Obama will win there.

    Also notable: better commander and Chief: Obama +10. That says it all. Mississippi has one of the highest enlistment rates in the nation. If Obama can be seen as the better Commander in Chief there, that meme is dead.

    by The Bagof Health and Politics on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:05:50 PM PDT

  •  80% here wouldn't vote for HRC...

    ..so I guess by your standards...a vast majority are sexist...

    by kevinmac1231 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:28:40 PM PDT

    •  No put earlier polls showed a high

      number who would not vote for any black candidate.

      by GB1437a on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:39:45 PM PDT

•  hmmm

  If African American turnout is really high..Obama should be winning the 65+ voters as well.  This doesn't sound too good for Obama.

  by markcaldicott on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:54:49 PM PDT

  •  Wrong

    Rasmussen poll had Clinton up among seniors but still losing by 15

    by True Independent on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:01:54 PM PDT

  •  how about 1992?

    anybody know how bill clinton did with elderly voters against george sr ?

    by soros on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:05:19 PM PDT

  •  No, not really

    Because that assumes that the African American population in Mississippi is of the same age as the white population. It isn't. It is markedly younger. Life expectancy for African Americans in Mississippi is low--I believe 63--so there are actually less African American voters over 65 than there are under 30.

    by The Bagof Health and Politics on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:07:17 PM PDT

  •  Well, old whites are more likely to vote in

    Democratic primaries [since they'd been doing so for their entire lives] than younger whites in the South.

    And whites make up 75% of those over 65 in MS, far more than their percentage of the population among 17-65 year olds.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:26:52 PM PDT

•  Very Stupid

  question.  I live in Arizona, am I in the same time zone as California now or in the Mountain Time Zone?  Oh well I'll just turn on the TV and see if anything is on.

  by EMKennedyLucio on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:54:54 PM PDT

  •  Mountain time. n/t

    by 2lucky on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:58:12 PM PDT

  •  it's tricky

    you're usually mountain time, but AZ doesn't do daylight savings, so IIRC you're on CA time as of last sunday.

    by wu ming on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:04:06 PM PDT

    •  Unless you are north of the Grand Canyon ...

      ... or live in Indian Country.

      by politichic on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:14:05 PM PDT

•  "3/4s of Clinton supporters

  would not be happy with Obama as nominee."

  Looks like there'a a lot of Ferraros in Mississippi.

  by jeepdad on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:55:43 PM PDT

  •  Looks like Clinton's efforts to hamstring him

    in the general election are getting some traction.

    Of course, they are asking people this in the middle of the war.  Of course they wouldn't be happy with Obama as the nominee, they're supporting Hillary and she's running a bitter campaign.  Obama will win so many of these people over during and after the convention.  

    It would help if Hillary proves that she isn't trying to help McCain win and actually comes out strong for Obama in the general.  

    by Sun dog on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:04:33 PM PDT

    •  He's surging

      in the national daily tracking polls.  I know, I know -- they don't mean anything and they are just today's snapshot. But he's up by 6 points the last few days, when he had lost ground.  

      The Ferraro thing has to play with Blacks in MS.  And she was even more awful today, and Hillary was non-commital awful.  

      by 57andFemale on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:55:06 PM PDT

      •  That's because she's playing for PA, not MS

        She doesn't mind stronger AA support that can be pinned on Obama supposedly playing the race card on her can help in areas of PA where lots of white folks are, er, predisposed to maybe not voting for, er, a candidate who is, well, black.  It's not the first time they've played this.  

        by Sun dog on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:54:56 PM PDT

  •  There are no Ferraros in Mississippi.

    Geraldine Ferraro doesn't understand that she's a racist.  The racists in Mississippi understand full well that they're racists.

    by oscarsdad on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:13:11 PM PDT

  •  Sad, but doesn't matter

    McCain carries MS with ease.  

    by ActivatedbyBush on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:17:05 PM PDT

    •  It's a national problem.

      Clinton, in rallying her troops, is also convincing them he's the devil as well as we're convinced she's a "monster."  it is something to worry about, and why i wish the party would find a way to end this thing this month instead of letting it go on the PA just so Hillary can have her power trip.  She can't and she won't win at the end of the day, so let's get on with it.

      by cardinalzen on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:27:25 PM PDT

      •  It's called a campaign

        Obama wished to challenge Clinton for the nomination.  He had to understand that this would create a significant contest with potential to split the party.   His right to do it, but he is going to have to finish the fight that he started.   That's what a campaign is all about.

        Of course Clinton can win.  She can still legitimately win the popular vote.  She can finish strong by taking PA (poll today has her up almost 20 there), MI and FL.   Neither of these candidates may get to 50% of the popular votes cast.  

        Finish what you started -- no one is convincing anyone that there are devils in this race.   Calling your opponent inexperienced, more interested in running for President than chairing his committee, is not calling him a bad man.   He is free to challenge her experience, her divisiveness (didn't he use that term to describe her?  ironic, since his candidacy took what would have been a united party behind clinton and divided it).   Again, he has every right to be in this race, but the campaign is on -- finish what you started.

        by ActivatedbyBush on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:32:44 PM PDT

        •  Hilarious

          "What would have been a united party behind Clinton" and "He wished to challenge Clinton".

          So you're trotting out the "it was her turn" argument and saying he was divisive just by daring to run against her? Yikes, good luck with that one.

          by MikeMinCT on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:48:30 PM PDT

          •  Not turn

            However, we had a candidate who had extremely high favorables within the party, who was well-supported by the establishment, and was well-funded.  In short, a very strong candidate for the election.  The party was united behind her.

            Obama's challenge has fractured the party into warring coalitions.   His absolute right to run, his supporters' absolute right to back him.  But that's where we are.

            We've gone from a solidly supported candidate with strong credentials to two almost equally balanced factions, and the losing faction will carry significant animosity toward the winner into November.

            I am not sure if Barack Obama fully considered this potential outcome when he entered the race.  Perhaps he did, and decided to run anyway -- his absolute right.  Perhaps he thought he could walk away with it.  Or perhaps he thought that it was a good trial run for future years.  Despite rhetoric, not sure.    Actually, any of the other end games besides the one we have now would have been fine -- party united behind Obama would have been great for him, he exits early but gets credibility good for him - sets him up as VP or for future.   Unfortunately, we have the worst possible end game.  And I say that even though I think that we have two great candidates, which is very frustrating.

            by ActivatedbyBush on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:56:49 PM PDT

            •  Ridiculous notion...

              When have we not had a serious challenger when there wasn't an incumbent president running for re-election?

              It seems the only thing that Obama did that was divisive was convince a majority of Democrats (so far) that the establishment candidate isn't the best candidate. Oops.

              by MikeMinCT on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:01:18 PM PDT

              •  True -- I use the term divisive in a

                non-derisive manner.  This is democracy.  He thought he would make a better President.  Great, run!   The effect, however has been to take down the clear front-runner, who while not loved by all in the party was acceptable to almost all, and factionalize the party.   His gambit was to convince a workin majority of the party to buy into his candidacy, but unfortunately he is falling a bit short of that.  He has received less than 50% of the primary votes, surely less than half of those of registered dems.   He has made a compelling case but not sufficiently so to consolidate the party behind him.

                So yes, his candidacy has been divisive.  But you know what?  I am glad he's running.  That is what this system is all about.

                by ActivatedbyBush on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:06:31 PM PDT

        •  what you appear to be saying is that

          the DLC is the only legitimate faction of the Democratic Party and that everyone was morally obligated to fall in line once they made their choice.

          How does it feel to have been assimilated? How did the KoolAid taste?

          Here's a new campaign hat for you:
          

          by alizard on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:42:23 PM PDT

  •  Those numbers are definitely overstated.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:25:18 PM PDT

•  In Arizona

  you are on Mountain Standard Time (year round), which is the same time as Pacific Daylight Time.

  In the summer, you are the same as California; in winter, the same as Colorado.

  by seanflynn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:56:33 PM PDT

•  FYI

  Georgia Exit Polls:
  http://edition.cnn.com/...

  Clinton won 65+ers 55-45.

  by GermanAmericanDem on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:57:15 PM PDT

  •  Now THAT is a solid point of reference

    Thank you!

    by lwisne on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:59:38 PM PDT

  •  And what were the final GA

    results again?

    by oscarsmom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:01:58 PM PDT

    •  Obama: 67 % // Clinton : 31 %

      by RobertInWisconsin on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:05:59 PM PDT

      •  Less than 60/40 split, just as we thought. :)nt

        by oscarsdad on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:14:20 PM PDT

  •  Georgia is MUCH younger than Mississippi

    Georgia percentage of people over 65 is less than 10. Mississippi is 12.4%.

    by ColoDem on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:05:50 PM PDT

    •  2% difference

      You're exaggerating that. These numbers are fine. Don't worry about it.

      by The Bagof Health and Politics on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:08:17 PM PDT

      •  Very droll! :)nt

        by oscarsdad on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:14:54 PM PDT

  •  So this could me closer to GA than AL

    He won Georgia by 36 points. I'd be pretty happy with that.

    by democrattotheend on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:07:25 PM PDT

    •  If true

      It could give him extra delegates, that's what's really important here, lots and lots of delegates. It's time to give Hillary Clinton a week of hell!

      by NMLib on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:11:05 PM PDT

      •  Last week wasn't so good for her.

        I think it's been months since she had a good week.

        by oscarsdad on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:15:45 PM PDT

        •  Yeah, I know

          Ok, let's call this the "year from hell" for Hillary :)

          by NMLib on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:23:19 PM PDT

  •  I think even older blacks

    Might be inclined to vote Clinton. Too many bad memories from the Jim Crow era.

    I'm sure to a very large portion of African Americans who grew up in 1950's-1960's Mississippi, a black President is simply impossible to seriously imagine.

    The future belongs to Obama though, if not the present!

    by Dont Just Stand There on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:08:16 PM PDT

•  My guess

  And this is only a guess, so take it for what it's worth.

  Clinton's vote in Mississippi is pretty small and primarily the hard-core Clinton supporters, which explains the huge "No Obama!" number.

  If Clinton was going to get, say, 45 percent of the vote, I'd be SHOCKED to see 70% of those voters so anti-Obama.  But if her number is more like 35%, it would make more sense.

  At least I hope I'm right about this!

  by Melquiades on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:57:40 PM PDT

  •  The other guess

    might be that the over 65 black registration and actual voting is a lower proportion of the total than most other states (based on unfortunate historical factors). Anyone with knowledge of Mississippi have any insights?

    by seanflynn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:04:22 PM PDT

•  When do the polls close? n/t

  by plf515 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:58:09 PM PDT

  •  7 PM Central / 8 PM Eastern -nt-

    by CA Pol Junkie on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:11:50 PM PDT

•  Ferraro?

  Hey...how dare you call Geraldine Ferraro a racist.  She was the first woman on a presidential ticket and one of the most progressive democrats to have served in Congress.  She is a historical figure in the Democrat party and in U.S. history.  She's a great person and is no racist.  

  by markcaldicott on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:58:26 PM PDT

  •  Somebody's late to the party n/t

    by oscarsmom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:02:37 PM PDT

  •  I disagree

    Did you see her latest comments??? She said everytime you try to talk about "real issues" you're accused of being racist. Really?? This is a "real" issue. And then she said they are attacking her because she's white. That is absolute bullshit and undoubtedly racist.

    by jenontheshore on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:02:46 PM PDT

    •  huh

      Why the hide-rate?

      Seanflynn, would you like to explain why you gave me a hide-rating?

      by jenontheshore on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:11:30 PM PDT

      •  My mistake

        I'll try to remove
        Was meant for someone else

        by seanflynn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:17:51 PM PDT

  •  You've been pushing

    this b/s on every thread on the blog today.  Give it up.  She's an Archie Bunker racist from Queens.  No matter how many times you say it, she's still a racist.

    Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.  He's a historical figure.  What's your point?

    If she called someone the n word, would you still say she wasn't a racist b/c she was the first woman VP candidate on a major party ticket?

    by mengelhart on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:03:34 PM PDT

    •  No way in hell

      Thomas Jefferson would speak like Ferraro if he were alive and raised in today's society. He'd be Obama's Ted Kennedy in Virginia.

      by Dont Just Stand There on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:15:16 PM PDT

  •  She is a racist AND a sexist

    She is a disgrace.

    There are Democratic women, usually from an older generation, who are just plain rabidly racist and some are sexist too. It's not just white Republican men, folks.

    by RobertInWisconsin on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:07:27 PM PDT

  •  Uh, she showed her true colors this week

    Racist. Then she goes on Fox News and repeats her racism. Ferraro, like so many others, is a naive idiot. She doesn't get that by sowing divisions between blacks and women neither dream will ever be achieved.

    by The Bagof Health and Politics on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:09:36 PM PDT

  •  What planet...

    Have you been on.  If her statement was iffy yesterday, she pretty much removed all pretense today.  Look at recommended diary by Geek.

    by RichM on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:14:17 PM PDT

  •  Seriously?

    Ferraro brought the Clinton campaign far enough that the next step for Hillary is to have a Macaca Moment.

    by The Dead Man on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:20:17 PM PDT

  •  Democrat Party?

    Goodbye GOP troll. You gave yourself away.

    by Elrod on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:33:43 PM PDT

    •  That's an acceptable thing to call it

      Some folks just don't feel like writing "Democratic" every time.  And after all, people in the democratic party are democrats, hence, democrat party.  It is a term of affection used within the party.  

      by KarlRove72HourGenius on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:36:03 PM PDT

      •  Oh, no! Two more letters

        "Democrat" is a noun: John Kerry is a Democrat.
        "Democratic" is an adjective: John Kerry is a member of the Democratic Party.

        As if we didn't already know, grammar and courtesy are obviously beyond the realm of right-wing hacks.

        by CA Pol Junkie on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:42:24 PM PDT

•  Looks a lot like the AL exit poll

  Alabama, according to CNN:

  18-29: 32 C 2 E 64 O
  65+: 46 C 1 E 42 O

  The number in the post look a lot like the figures they had in Alabama. Obama is on his way to a 20 point lead.

  by ClaudeB on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:58:58 PM PDT

  •  My bad

    The 65+ figure in the post above should read 56 C 1 E 42 O...

    by ClaudeB on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:01:00 PM PDT

    •  OK

      Scared me for a minute there...

      by Melquiades on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:04:51 PM PDT

  •  Not sure

    Alabama is I think a younger state than Mississippi. More universities and military families.

    Could be wrong ... anyone have the census handy?

    by ColoDem on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:02:05 PM PDT

  •  What? That's not even close!

    in Alabama the 65+ crowd was 46-42 Clinton.

    Today it is 55-44.  9 points. That to me, looks really bad. Mississipi will turn out old voters. I'm an Obama supporter. A worried one.

    by bradical on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:07:38 PM PDT

    •  ah, ok, didn't see the correction

      by bradical on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:09:40 PM PDT

•  It could still well be a big margin.

  There will likely be significantly more whites in the 65+ demographic, largely because at that point, you start getting into the Dixiecrat demographic.

  Take Georgia, for instance.

  AA voters made up a significant majority of voters under 45 [26% vs. 18% for whites]

  but only a small majority of voters between 45 and 59 [17% AA, 15% white]

  and whites were a majority of those over 60 [10% vs. 8%]

  Same for Alabama [whites were 17% of those over 60, blacks were 13%]

  In Alabama, by the way, those numbers were

  18-29 O 64 C 32
  60+ C 56 O 42

  We'll see what the breakdown is.

  I still think he's got a good shot at enough of a net gain in delegates to come out ahead in March.

  by DemocraticLuntz on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:00:31 PM PDT

•  mississippians don't like mccain.

  As for their opinion of John McCain:
  37 percent favorable
  59 percent unfavorable

  Not good news for McCain trying to attract Democrats in Mississippi.

  http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/...

  by fivefouranonymous on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:00:43 PM PDT

  •  MS dems, that is! nt

    by fivefouranonymous on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:03:14 PM PDT

  •  37% favorable for McCain

    among Dems in MS? Sorry, that's a great number for him.

    by seanflynn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:06:51 PM PDT

    •  a majority don't like him was my point,

      but i'd bet the 37% all voted for clinton.

      by fivefouranonymous on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:08:09 PM PDT

      •  So if Obama is the nominee, McCain takes

        40% of the votes from this primary?  Not sure that is what it means.  Anyway, doesn't matter.   McCain takes MS easily in the primary.  The democrat would have to run so far to the right to make MS compeittive that they would risk losing more moderate states.

        by ActivatedbyBush on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:20:07 PM PDT

        •  disagree.

          by fivefouranonymous on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:37:59 PM PDT

          •  this is why

            What matters to voters in Mississippi:

            Economy: 56 percent
            Iraq: 21 percent
            Health care: 21 percent

            How do you think the economy is doing?

            Excellent/good: 10 percent
            Not so good/poor: 78 percent

            Are you worried about your personal financial situation?
            78 percent: Yes
            20 percent: No

            voters get over the wedge issues when they realize their relative unimportance.

            by fivefouranonymous on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:41:08 PM PDT

    •  The R's have a primary today too in MS

      I'm pretty sure there is a GOP primary going on. McCain probably doesn't play well to the GOP base in Mississippi. He never wore his religion on his sleeve for one. Divorced also.

      by Dont Just Stand There on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:19:14 PM PDT

  •  Clinton supporters love her runningmate McCain

    though.

    by Geekesque on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:10:20 PM PDT

•  That's better than Alabama

  In Alabama, Obama lost the over-65 vote 61-37 to Clinton. The youth vote is basically the same.

  If this holds up, it's an Obama blowout by around 20 points.

  by daveweigel on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:01:37 PM PDT

  •  Obama won Alabama, 56-42

    by RobertInWisconsin on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:08:23 PM PDT

  •  How much did Obama lose the over 65s by in ID?

    Maybe we're looking at 80/20.  :)

    by oscarsdad on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:17:04 PM PDT

    •  No exit polls from Idaho

      The networks stopped doing exit polls for caucus states after Nevada, unfortunately.

      by democrattotheend on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:21:05 PM PDT

      •  It wasn't really a serious question. :)

        by oscarsdad on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:39:06 PM PDT

•  50% of Clinton voters ok with McCain

  That made my jaw drop.

  Half of Hillary's supporters are perfectly ok with McCain as President.

  She's done a great job of campaigning for him with her bullshit.

  by fcvaguy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:03:32 PM PDT

  •  this needs to be addressed.

    complete insanity from the clinton camp.

    by fivefouranonymous on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:05:10 PM PDT

  •  crossover voters

    ?
    Is it an open primary? are these R voters, voting for clinton either so they can beat her, or because they are voting on race and would never vote for a black man?

    by biscobosco on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:18:42 PM PDT

    •  It's an open primary. nt

      by oscarsdad on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:19:57 PM PDT

    •  You're probably right

      This looks like a lot of Republicans crossing over to vote for Hillary.

      by fcvaguy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:24:30 PM PDT

  •  It's Mississippi

    You can figure out why Clinton voters might support McCain. You would not get those numbers in Vermont.

    by Dont Just Stand There on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:21:02 PM PDT

  •  A great job at getting

    Repbubicans to keep her in the race to sabotage the Democratic nomination.

    by kanuk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:51:25 PM PDT

•  The longer the Clintons drag this out

  the less chance there is of the party unifying.

  But, I'm beginning to think that's the point. If they can't win, they're going to destroy the party.

  by Slatersan on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:04:04 PM PDT

  •  She has every right to campaign to

    win the nomination.  She clearly has a chance to win and she should stay in.  Millions of people have voted for her and have contributed to her, and just because Obama has a temporary 'lead' doesn't mean she should quit.  If Obama wants to unite the party, he's going to have to show that he can beat her in the last 12 contests and reach out to her and/or her supporters.  I can tell you that Clinton supporters would welcome Obama to the ticket as the VP, but I doubt Obama is thinking along the same lines should he be the nominee.  If he dismisses Hillary he will pay for it dearly on election day.

    by khyber900 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:18:13 PM PDT

    •  Fine. Stay in the race.

      I understand.

      But don't give the GOP ammo to use against him if/when he's the nominee. Don't keep people on your staff who are fanning the racial themes.

      Likewise, if Hillary dismisses him, the party is not going to unify and she will be toast. Because the only people she's bringing along are the hard-core Dem loyalists who've been blindly supporting the Clintons for 20 years. Obama is going to bring along a very broad coalition of people (ie., Repubs and Independents and Dems).

      by Slatersan on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:21:04 PM PDT

      •  Hillary won't dismiss him. She has already

        embraced him.  As for GOP ammo and racial themes, Obama is the one who has profited greatly from parroting the GOP/MSM theme that Hillary is divisive. His campaign also lied about the MLK and fairy tale comments to raise racial tension to help Obama increase his share of the black vote.  So Barack's hands are by no means clean.

        At least Hillary's question on CIC readiness was fair, because it was asked of Bill when he ran in 1992 and it is clearly the only leverage point for McCain.  She did him a favor by posing the question, because if he answers the question well and wins votes, he will cross the threshold in the eyes of the voter before McCain and the GOP get a chance to go after him. He didn't answer it well because he didn't take her seriously prior to the OH and TX primaries.  He has 6 weeks before PA to figure that one out.  

         

        by khyber900 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:26:07 PM PDT

    •  Exactly -- why does Obama have this locked up?

      He's barely ahead in PDs and the popular vote, and Clinton's won states w/more electoral votes.    

      If Obama wanted this over he should have won TX and OH.

      by ActivatedbyBush on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:21:51 PM PDT

      •  Ummmm...

        He won Texas.

        More delegates.

        by Slatersan on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:23:48 PM PDT

        •  Sorry - 1 person 1 vote

          She won the popular vote.  That is the only valid measure of victory in my view.    To have a caucus where 100K of 3M voters get to double dip, and to have the delegates/participant massively skew toward the caucus-goers, is not democratic.

          Basically 30X the number of people voted as caucused, but the primary only awarded 2X the number of delegates.

          It's TX right to do it the way they want to do it, but then we have superdelegates who can look at the way in which these delegates were awarded and make their own calls.

          by ActivatedbyBush on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:28:50 PM PDT

          •  Sorry - He's more than "barely ahead"

            154 pledged delegates is not barely ahead in a proportional system. It's a 2 touchdown lead late in the game, when scoring is only allowed in field goal increments.

            by MikeMinCT on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:39:35 PM PDT

            •  His lead is about 6% of pledged delegates

              2% of popular vote, and under 50% of the total popular vote.    Add FL and MI in, and she is ahead -- not suggesting they do, but points out how close this is in the PV.

              She has a good chance (perhaps not above 50% but decent) of catching him in pop vote.  To do that, she needs to win PA, FL, and MI relatively big.  If she does that, I think that she will have shown that she is the better candidate for November.  Outspent down the stretch, disadvantaged in organization, if she can still pull that off, she's made the case in my view.

              Gotta look at the pledged delegates, how they were earned and where they came from.   Lots of red state caucuses, states that won't be in play in the fall.   If it's not that close, then it doesn't matter, but if this thing is very tight then it's a relevant consideration.   Especially if Clinton wins the PV.

              by ActivatedbyBush on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:43:57 PM PDT

              •  6% of the Pledged Delegates...

                Is not insignificant. If someone is up 110-90 late in a basketball game, they're only up by 10% of the points that were awarded in the game, but they are BLOWING OUT the opponent because of the fairly even way in which points are distributed in the ebb and flow of a basketball game.

                Red states help build national party strength. He's doing just as well as her in the electoral college (slightly better according to SUSA) and his losses are closer than hers in all the states they both lose. That helps the party.

                by MikeMinCT on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:53:31 PM PDT

                •  2% of the popular vote

                  Is insignificant.   At this point.  Because it is a feasible deficit for her to overcome.  

                  It's more like a team being behind 24-20 mid fourth quarter of a football game, but having at least one more possession with good field position.   If Clinton is like Eli Manning, she takes it in.  If she is like Rex Grossman (deliberate Chicago dig, sorry), then she fumbles the ball and Obama puts it away.

                  by ActivatedbyBush on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:01:23 PM PDT

                  •  The idea she has control of her own destiny...

                    Is silly. Even if she puts it in the end zone, she then goes to the refs and says "I'm still losing, and time is just about up, but clearly I've got more yards, and more first downs, and I'm playing better right now, so we're not going to let 'the score' influence who we call the winner, are we?"

                    Her argument always comes down to a method that would be considered stealing it in the end. His comes down to "the rules".

                    by MikeMinCT on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:05:01 PM PDT

                    •  The rules

                      are the rules.  They allow 2 votes for a person in TX,  they allow undemocratic caucus states to be over-represented in the delegate counts.  And they also allow the superdelegates the same weight as PDs.   So yes, let's have this decided by all of the rules.  Including superdelegates weighing in here.   You are conveniently forgetting that superdelegates are part of the process.  There is no rule for them to support the pledged delegate leader, or even the popular vote leader.   The process is built such that when a candidate wins clearly, they are irrelevant, but when it is very close, then judgement intervenes.   If the Obama supporters consider it "stealing" then so be it.  Clinton supporters could counter that winning the nomination while losing registered democrats and running up big margins in tiny caucus states is "stealing" the nomination.   I disagree with that notion.  The rules are the rules.  But all of the rules do count.  

                      by ActivatedbyBush on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:09:42 PM PDT

          •  1 person, 2 votes

            It might be silly to give everyone two votes as they do in Texas, but that's what they do.  BTW, with 40% of caucuses reporting, there have been 500,000 participants so far.  Obama will end up with a net of roughly 120,000 more popular votes from the caucus, more than making up for Clinton's popular vote win in the primary.

            by CA Pol Junkie on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:47:54 PM PDT

        •  A profoundly stupid argument

          that undercuts Obama's claim to the mantle.  Hillary won the election that almost 4 million people voted in by around 100,000 votes, yet Obama fans want to claim 'victory'?  Not a whole lot of difference betweeen you and Mark Penn in terms of spin.

          by khyber900 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:37:22 PM PDT

      •  Actually, TX just certified today

        He won Texas. +4 delegates.

        by jamfan on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:24:38 PM PDT

        •  shouldn't the final margin be an odd number?

          by a wolf raised by boys on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:34:09 PM PDT

          •  Yep. +5. Me no add right.

            by jamfan on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:22:35 PM PDT

•  From What I've Heard & Seen.....

  The numbers look something like a 60-40, 65-35 split. However, I would caution that these exit polls are not always accurate. Last week the exit polling had Obama in a near tie with Hillary in Rhode Island & Ohio, and she won both by double digits.

  by Rimjob on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:05:06 PM PDT

  •  I think you have a some wilder effect

    People wanting to say that they supported Obama even though they voted Clinton.  

    by ActivatedbyBush on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:22:28 PM PDT

•  Clinton in Wisconsin...

  Was up 58% to 41% in the exits in over 65...

  He won by 17% overall...

  She was up 48% to 41% in LA over 65...

  He won by 21% overall...

  She was up 61% to 37% in AL over 65...

  He won by 14% overall...

  But most telling based on make-up and nearly exact percentages as the MS exit poll numbers, she was up 55% to 45% in GA over 65...

  He won by 36% overall...

  by Aqualad08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:09:19 PM PD