Why AA support is KEY to Winning the White House

I also cross posted this at MyDD.

A lot has been made about how Obama can't win without white working class voters, women, and latinos.  Many have argued that these groups just won't vote for him.  I have pointed out without doing the serious number crunching before that this is just not true and that the key to a democratic victory is SOLID African-American support. I have now done the number crunching based on the 2000 and 2004 exit polls for key states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio with the help of others and without a doubt, no matter the maximum increase of voters in Hillary's  "voting blocks, " she nor any Democrat can win the White House without SOLID African-American support.

Here's why:

A lot has been made about how Obama can't win without white working class voters, women, and latinos.  Many have argued that these groups just won't vote for him.  I have pointed out without doing the serious number crunching before that this is just not true and that the key to a democratic victory is SOLID African-American support. I have now done the number crunching based on the 2000 and 2004 exit polls for key states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio with the help of others and without a doubt, no matter the maximum increase of voters in Hillary's  "voting blocks, " she nor any Democrat can win the White House without SOLID African-American support.

Here's why:

We started out with CNN's exit polls for 2004 for Pennsylvania.  Notice that Bush got 16% of the African American turnout compared to Kerry's 84%.  It should also be noted that Bush increased his AA turnout numbers by 9% in 2004.  Based on the 2004 exit polls, Kerry received approximately 680,000 votes from AA's.  He won PA by about 150K votes.  Now if we were to subtract all of the AA votes from both candidates and redistributed it to a 60-40 split,Kerry would gain about 400K or so votes and Bush would receive about 320K AA votes.  In the end Bush would win.  Keep in mind that AA turnout was 2% higher than in 2000.  If Obama was the nominee it is most likely that AA turnout would probably be about 4% higher than 2004  and given that Obama is usually getting 90% of the AA vote, he would most likely build upon that lead. I seriously doubt that if Obama is the nominee that McCain would get 16% of the AA vote and would most likely get closer to 10%.

In PA, latinos made up 3% of the vote and they went 70-30 for Kerry.  Yes, there is a good chance that their vote percentage would be a bit higher but given the population of PA, it wouldn't make that much of a difference.  As for whites, they went for Bush in PA by almost 9%.  If we were to give McCain white voters by 60-40, based on the numbers from 2004, and then included AA's which would most likely make up closer to 15% of the electorate and then gave Obama a 90-10 split, Obama would still win by perhaps a margin of 150K votes.  Hillary would lose PA by about 150K votes if  AA's didn't vote for her by at least a 70% margin.

We also examined Ohio as it is another battleground state which also has a higher AA population than latino population but also has a high white working class population.  In 2004, AA's made up about 10% of the electorate, Bush won again about 16% of the AA vote and he again increased his AA vote from 2000. Kerry lost Ohio by about 150K votes, similar to how he won PA.  Let's say that like the primaries in 2008, AA turnout is close to 15% in the general against McCain. In this case we would give Obama 90% of the black vote. Based on the 2004 numbers he would win Ohio. Latino's like in PA are less than 5% of the electorate so the Latino vote would be insignificant in Ohio as in PA.  The white working class vote would be important in Ohio just like PA.  Again, let's give Mccain a 60-40 split on the white vote in OH and take out all of the AA vote.  McCain would win.  However, when you add the AA vote and estimate a 15% turnout among AA's in Ohio and them going 90-10 for Obama, Mccain would lose OH by about 80K votes. Furthermore, although the Governor of Ohio was a Clinton supporter, I seriously doubt that he wouldn't be behind whomever was the democratic nominee which would also add to an Obama victory.

I would also like to point out something rather interesting in Ohio's democratic primary exit poll.  When asked if Hillary's supporters would be upset if she won the nomination 12% YES compared to only 3% of Obama supporters.  Similar numbers were seen in the MS primary.  If you took away 12% of Hillary's support in a general election plus another 3% of AA support, Hillary would lose OH by over 200K votes.

When you factor in AA support in key swing states and also the fact as Gallup has recently pointed out that Hillary is considered untrustworthy by the public, Hillary and Obama need SOLID  AA support to win.  Hillary has more working against her though in these two states in a general election if she were to win the nomination even though Obama won either/or the pledged delegate count or the popular vote.

My argument in this diary has been that AA support is crucial to a democratic victory no matter who is the nominee and Obama would be able to maximize the AA vote in ways that other democratic candidates have not.  However, at the end of this, we all need to be behind whomever is the nominee. Of course, as an Obama supporter, I think that he is the better candidate and  I want him to be the nominee and I think he will be.  As furious as I would be like many of his supporters if he were to lose by some back room deal, I would at the end of the day support the nominee because McCain is not to be trusted. For all of those Clinton and Obama supporters who disagree, you need to seriously think about a vote for John McCain. If you take a look at his voting record you will see that contrary to how the media has portrayed him as a "Maverick" he is far from it. Instead of claiming that one side won't vote for the other, we need to figure out a way to get all sides to vote for the Democratic nominee.  I will admit that I have told myself that I wouldn't vote for HRC if she stole the nomination but I realized that I would be voting against my interests and I have been encouraging many African-Americans to NOT vote against their interests as I would encourage those white working class voters and latinos to not vote against their interests if Obama gets the nomination.

http://www.cnn.com/... esults/states/OH/P/00/epolls.0.html

http://www.cnn.com/... esults/states/PA/P/00/epolls.0.html

•  Tips, flames, you know how it goes

  by oak510 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:03:06 PM PDT

•  A lot of AA's would not come out to vote for her

  and I wonder how she could win a general without them.  Democrats have come to count on the AA vote.

  Yet she's crossed the line with them too many times.  This is a serious problem.

  by newyorknewyork on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:07:24 PM PDT

  •  The has long crossed the line with AA

    and they will not come out for her

    by aaraujo on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:36:49 PM PDT

    •  they have (that is)

      by aaraujo on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:28:32 PM PDT

  •  Hillary Clinton's brinksmanship has doomed her

    In her misguided lust for the nomination Hillary Clinton's campaign has stepped across the line more than one time too often. Current polling shows something like upward of 45% of African American voters will not vote for her, and her racial play has likely driven off a substantial number of progressive white, Asian American and Latino voters as well. While many may return to the fold by November, a substantial number of people will not, enough to doom her chances.

    I am a "Yellow-Dog" Democrat, but when the race gauntlet has been thrown down by a Democrat, they have stepped over the line.

    As far as I'm concerned she has shown herself to be unworthy for higher office. I am one of those who simply will not and can not vote for her.

    by srsjones on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:43:13 PM PDT

•  My first thought...we need alcoholics to win?

  Heh!

  But seriously, I've been thinking for some time now what tremendous gratitude we owe black Americans for preserving and revitalizing Obama's campaign. Without their support and determination, we wouldn't have this strong, wise and decent candidate heading the Democratic ticket. We would be stuck with Hillary's inevitability. We have much, much to be grateful for.

  by Bugsby on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:17:59 PM PDT

  •  Glad it wasn't just me. nt

    by hungrycoyote on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:22:59 PM PDT

    •  :0)

      by Bugsby on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:25:52 PM PDT

    •  Me too

      I thought it was a new wrinkle, but one that had great potential!  

      by klnb1019 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:57:51 PM PDT

  •  Mine too then I thought

    My first thought...we need alcoholics to win?

    I thought that too then I though of the many that voted for Bush. Then I thought of the many new ones under Bush rule.

    by dynamicstand on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:31:12 PM PDT

  •  Step 1: My name is theloniously...

    and I am an Obama cultie.

    by theloniously on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:55:22 PM PDT

  •  AA

    As an Alcoholic American (a recovering one) I promise to vote for Obama.

    I would also -- with much less enthusiasm -- turn out for HRC.

    And I promise not to drink if she wins the nomination.

    by Invigilator on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:42:40 PM PDT

    •  Good for you!

      But I will worry about you if McCain wins. I will worry about all of us.

      by Tuba Les on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:43:50 PM PDT

•  Dude Mark Penn already convinced me through

  his memos that AA's don't count.

  They don't count in any of the states that do count.  I hope that makes sense.  
  There are not AA's in OH, FL, or any state that does count.  

  All the AA's live in Iowa, I should know I live there and I'm AA.

  by Shhs on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:23:05 PM PDT

•  What about the White/Latino vote with Obama?

  I don't like dividing us up into White and Black. Obama has low numbers with White & Latino people, Hillary has it with Black, the truth is that both need to improve this.

  by The Annoying Hater on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:28:43 PM PDT

  •  Actually

    Take a look at polling in Colorado and New Mexico, Obama outperforms Clinton in latino support against McCain. Despite the spin by the Clinton campaign, Obama does not have a general election problem with latinos.

    by NMLib on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:40:36 PM PDT

    •  Actually, no

      Look at everywhere else, Obama's latino support is lagging.

      by The Annoying Hater on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:48:27 PM PDT

      •  Then Does It Matter

        If we're living in the world where Latino's won't vote for a Obama, and blacks won't vote for Clinton, then the party might as well not even contest this election.

        The only way this line of thinking possibly helps Clinton, however, is if she can convience us that Latino's are horribly racist people who'll never vote for a black man, but blacks are enlightened and noble folk who won't take anything that might happen at the convention personally.

        Start working on your narrative.

        by kingfishstew on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:53:28 PM PDT

        •  What are you yammering about?

          I said BOTH have issues. Hillary with Black voters, and Obama with White/Latino. Why so defensive, if Obama is to win in Nov., we need to strengthen his weak spots, and not ignore them.

          by The Annoying Hater on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:04:50 PM PDT

          •  Voting For or Against?

            True. I just tend to think that, within a democratic primary, where it safe to assume that most of the people voting for either candidate will be content to vote for the other (and I think this is still true of both candidates) voting for someone isn't as crucial a symptom as voting against someone.

            While most of the people who voted FOR Obama or FOR Clinton will be content with either one, I think - among potential democratic voters supporting Obama -there's a higher percentage of his support comming from people voting AGAINST Clinton than those among Clinton's support that are voting AGAINST Obama.

            I could be wrong, but I do think that's something that should be considered in this analysis. Now, the longer this primary continues, I suppose the number voting against Obama will continue to increase...along with the number of those voting against Clinton.

            And that's a problem for the Democratic Party. I think that's transformation has gotten well underway in the AA community (in fact, I think the AA community started voting against Clinton before they started voting for Obama)

            I'm more skeptical that Clinton's Latino / Older White Female constiuency was truly voting against Obama. Although it may be an AGAINST Obama vote among some of the regan democrats.

            What would be interesting - and essential placing this discussion in context - is a poll of Latino democrats, asking how many wouldn't vote for Obama if he's the nominee.

            by kingfishstew on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:28:03 PM PDT

        •  Don't forget, some Latinos are black

          or have black cousins, wives, in-laws and friends. And they are just as pissed at Hillary's and Bill's racism as African-American's are.

          by Deoliver47 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:28:29 PM PDT

          •  I'm one of those Afro-latinas

            Trust me, they are pissed. Also, what is this nonsense about Hillary winning Puerto Rico? Puerto Ricans are not mexicans.  There is quite a bit of black puerto ricans on the island.

            by oak510 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:51:43 PM PDT

      •  Show me where

        And show me the poll. And when I say show me a place, I mean show me a place where the sample size is larger than 10%.

        by NMLib on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:58:18 PM PDT

  •  One Word For The Latino Vote:

    Vice President Richardson

    by kingfishstew on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:49:25 PM PDT

    •  Horrible idea

      Richardson would lose as many White voters, as he would gain Latino. Illegal Immigration would become a big issue if that happened.

      by The Annoying Hater on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:02:19 PM PDT

•  Great diary. Any Democrat will lose in

  November without all aspects of the Democratic base turning out in full force.  Clinton supporters had been denying the math for some time, hoping that she would get 100% of female voters.

  by lordcopper on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:33:16 PM PDT

  •  Exactly

    There is no evidence that Clinton would get 60% of all female voters let alone 100%.  People need to realize that not all women like her and Republican women detest her.

    by oak510 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:52:26 PM PDT

•  TV pundits like to pretend that

  the Mississippi primary wasn't attacked by rednecks voting for Hillary in massive numbers. They use the results of that primary (and Ohio's equally tainted primary) to make the "case" that Obama lost the white vote. Just look at who is turning out to see him and you know that that is a load of crap.

  by kitebro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:33:25 PM PDT

  •  why Mississippi?

    Why do they use Mississippi as the example for the white vote? Why not use Wyoming? How did Obama win Wyoming if he supposedly has trouble with white voters?

    Same goes for states like Nebraska, Kansas, North Dakota, Idaho, etc.

    by lauramp on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:57:33 PM PDT

    •  They make a curve using

      one point.

      by kitebro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:59:41 PM PDT

•  Hopeless

  All I can say is when people post polls a months before an election it is pretty pointless when it comes down to the general.

  Many are trying to make Obama people feel like them, hopeless. No thanx I got the memo and saw the speech. I am more determined than ever and I am not alone.

  Obama will win. What we need to do is be VERY aware that many will use race and terror. remember all the terror alerts during the last election?

  If we plan this right we can plaster the net with those video reminders from K.O and the rest. Do it a few months before the election. This is how we win. Stop it before it starts.

  by dynamicstand on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:36:02 PM PDT

•  Why I think Obama would gain democratic latino

  support: Because he hasn't ignored and/or insulted latino people.

  by DemocraticCitizenSoul on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:16:13 PM PDT

•  Really good, thoughtful analysis.

  What I take away from it is we need to pull together to defeat the greater evil. I agree.

  Thank you for discussing this important issue in a way that refrains from promoting your candidate. We need to look at demographic issues dispassionately, including race. Dismissing Hillary's strategy out-of-hand as "50+1" oversimplifies and distorts things. IMHO, Obama's appeal to hope is resonating in a once-in-a-generation kind of way. Just because Hillary's strategy and some of her tactics are failing (and for many are disappointing) doesn't invalidate examining how demographic blocs are voting. But the folly is oversimplification.

  My only disagreement is with the expression "back room deal". If, as I fear, we go into the convention with neither candidate having a majority with pledged delegates or a plurality of pledged delegates plus publicly unequivocally committed unpledged delegates, we're going to have a battle for the nomination. These are the rules. We denigrate them at our peril.

  The most commonly cited scenario is if Obama comes to the convention with a plurality of pledged delegates and loses the nomination. Frequently this is further embellished with conjecture about the so-called "popular vote" and "will-of-the-people" even though such things don't exist in reality under this system. Many Obama supporters have threatened to take their toys and go home, i.e., not vote, vote for McCain, vote for Nader, write in Obama, etc.

  My problem with this isn't discussing whether it's appropriate to be angry over such a result--it's discussing it only partially and allowing distortions, such as "popular vote", to go unchallenged. There are many facets to this problem. First, we don't select a nominee by direct national election. It is done by delegates at a convention. Like it or not, the so-called superdelegates have the same vote as the pledged delegates. Period.

  The reality is, if neither candidate has the votes to take it on the first ballot, we're in for a fight. This is old-fashioned politics as we have not seen it for a long time. It's an imperfect system and we're stuck with it for this election cycle. But frankly, I'm sick of people claiming the moral high ground when, in fact, they're just playing politics like everybody else. Obama is NOT the de facto nominee. Yes, I know all the arguments why Hillary "can't win", but that's really just posturing. The likelihood is that neither will go to the convention with a guaranteed first-ballot win.

  What I think is likely is that whoever has the plurality of pledged delegates will likely win, and probably on the first ballot. And I think Obama's momentum is likely to continue, as well. But there are no guarantees. And what I think people need to realize is that if Hillary manages to win this at the convention, it's not necessarily some great cabal trying to deny Obama. Let's remember here, he's been running the better campaign both strategically and tactically. He is not without friends and supporters in the DNC.

  But the closer the numbers are, the more possibility there is for unpredictability. And that's politics. We're not used to it in this venue, but historically it's a lot more common than we'd like to think.

  So can we pull together if the nominee is selected in a contested convention? I think we need to. But I think all this posturing does nothing to help that.

  by homogenius on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:23:55 PM PDT

•  As recently as December/January....

  ...HRC had a solid, in fact overwhelming majority of AA votes.  What happened in January?  The Obama campaign identified a weakness, and addressed it by claiming that the Clintons were racist.  Well-played, from an amoral political-consultant perspective, and I really don't have much of an ethical perspective beyond that when it comes to politics.  But you shouldn't imagine that Obama's magic touch with AA voters vs. HRC is any more than the product of a moment's political strategy, and if Clinton's the nominee she will be fine with that community.

  by Rich in PA on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:29:31 PM PDT

•  well duh!!!

  of course a dem cant win without the AA vote

  the question is can a dem win in spite of getting the AA vote.

  by Peace Train on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:01:05 PM PDT

•  But, if she STEALS THIS, then what are exactly

  are Black interests.

  I've written this before.

  When the Clintons began to Race-bait Obama, it wasn't even about Obama anymore.

  It was about ANY future Black politician with ambitions beyond a safe, gerrymandered Congressional seat.

  For, if the Clintons were to succeed in defeating Obama using the race-baiting..

  then, THAT would become the blueprint for others against future Black politicians.

  I'm a Black Democrat.

  Not a Democrat who happens to be Black.

  There is a difference.

  And, I refuse to be a complicit accomplice in setting into stone, the blueprint by which future Black politicians will be handicapped and defeated. For a Clinton victory now will justify the same blueprint to be used in the future.

  I won't be a party to that. I won't be a party to setting the ceiling for Black politicians.

  And, that's why I will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton.

  Never.

  It's a question of fundamental self-respect as a Black person.

  by rikyrah on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:09:43 PM PDT

  •  Good points

    I definitely understand your feelings on this. All I'd say though is that, given the very slight substantive differences between Hillary and Obama, I wouldn't go as far as you to say I'd never vote for Hillary. Surely, Hillary would be preferred to McCain?

    by YoGo on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:20:19 PM PDT

    •  No she wouldn't be

      There are plenty of young black folks, and young Latinos here on the East Coast (I can't speak for Mexican-Americans out west) who are deciding to vote for the first time - for Barack Obama.  I'm not just talking about 18 year olds.  I'm talking about folks who are casting their first ballots at 27 or 35.  They've never seen much difference between Democrats and Republicans - figuring that it doesn't really matter which party is in power - our folks get shafted either way.

      They haven't voted for "black" candidates either - like Charlie Rangel, and his ilk. "Fat cats and liars", is the assessment of that crew.

      So if Obama loses the nomination, they'll go back to doing what they were doing before - not voting.

      Here's a quote, "What's the difference between a racist white dude and a racist white woman?"

      Fill in whatever answer that comes to your head.

      That's the problem we are faced with.  Do they believe Hillary really wants to end the war.  Nope.
      They don't believe her period.  

      This goes for some older black folks I've talked to as well.  They have photos at home on the wall in the living room - shrines to Martin, John and Bobby.  They were willing to add Bill.  But he showed his ass and his photo is gone.  Hillary was never paid much attention to. They figgered voting for Hillary would get Bill back in the Big House.
      But since Bill is no longer courting them - and dissin' them instead - he's toast.

      They have voted regularly in the past - but they are pretty darned mad at Hillary, cause as far as they are concerned she is the source of the kitchen sink strategy, and the attacks on Rev. Wright haven't helped either.  These are church goers.  Who have pastors just like Rev Wright.  They forgive Barack for backing up and denouncing certain statements the Rev made, but they see he didn't throw his pastor down the drain.  Two-faced Hillary and Bill had the Rev in the White House when he needed to play "true confessions" and beg for forgiveness, but they are using the Rev against the second coming of Bobby and Martin in beige, and they aren't gonna go to the polls.  They'll sit it out and let the Lord take care of America.  And of them.  

      I am not saying that every black person wouldn't vote for Hillary.  Some would hold their noses and pull the lever.  But a significant portion of the community is going to flip - if they think the nomination was stolen from him.  Betrayal big time.

      They didn't revolt when Al Gore got shafted, because he was never able to "connect" with black voters.  But Barack Obama has connected big time.  The reason many were afraid to vote for him at first was cause they believed he'd get shot the first time he started winning anything.  Can't tell you how many times I've heard that said.  Go into churches and listen to the prayers in the pulpits and in the pews to "keep that boy safe".

      Anyway, sadly, if this party loses the black vote, I doubt seriously Hillary can beat McCain.  

      I hope the supers are paying attention.  

      by Deoliver47 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:19:08 PM PDT

•  We need everyone!

  We need African-Americans, Latinos, Whites, Asians, Native Americans.  We need women, men, and those who are between genders. We need Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, and folks who worship glasses of milk.  We need young, old, middle-aged, and those who want say their age.  We need liberals, progressives, moderates, and yes, even some conservatives.  We need poor, working class, middle class, and yes, even the rich.  We need urban, suburban, rural and folks who live on boats. We need Yankee fans, Red Sox fans, Dodgers fans, and Cubs fans.  We need Grey's Anatomy viewers and House fanatics. We need people who listen to Miley Cyrus and people who go to the opera. We need you, me, everyone who reads this site, all of our friends, neighbors, colleagues, and yes, even our enemies.  We need a movement, a mandate, and a mission.

  Everyone matters.  And yes, I think Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee and we should all rally around him.  I want Hillary to suspend her campaign soon. But if something happens, and the Supers do their own thing and pick Clinton, I implore everyone to get past it and support her anyway.  This election is critical and we must be united behind the Democratic nominee.

  by Valhalla on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:44:38 PM PDT

•  Thanks for an excellent diary, oak510.

  The thing I like most about Obama, as opposed to Senator Clinton, is his "boots on the ground" campaign strategy, and his ability to make it work. That is what pushed him ahead in delegates and popular votes, and will help his campaign succeed.

  A very well-run campaign that is successful is a sign of good leadership. Frankly, we haven't seen that in the Clinton campaign. There have been far too many "shot herself in the foot" moments there. Obama has been shot at, both by the MSM and the Clinton campaign, but has not been significantly damaged. Senator Clinton's campaign has suffered far too many self-inflicted wounds. Who sounds like the better President in this situation? I would guess that you already know my answer to the question.

  by allep10 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:20:44 PM PDT