Is Obama really losing support from whites? Does gender matter?

Let's put the claim that Barack Obama is losing support from white voters to the test.

And let's also probe whether the question can be asked without factoring in gender.

First, a few caveats.

Number one, only exit poll data from primary states will be considered. (Yes, this leaves out millions of white voters.)

Number two, the white vote for Ohio, Texas, Mississippi, Indiana, and North Carolina will be adjusted to account for McCain meddlers. (McCain meddlers are those who vote in the Democratic primary but plan to vote for McCain no matter who wins the Democratic nomination. I'll show the original exit poll data as well.)

Number three, I'm excluding the January contests when it was a 3-way race.

Okay, that being said, let's start with the big picture.

Overall, Hillary Clinton has won 55% of the white vote and Obama 41%. (Including the McCain meddlers adds 1% to Clinton's total.) In February, the split was 53%-42% and in March-May, it has been 61%-38%.

Looks like strong evidence for Obama's collapsing support among white voters, right?

Except there's a huge flaw in this analysis: comparing Obama's performance among white voters in California to his performance among whites in Mississippi would be like saying that Bush must be getting popular because you did a poll of Vermont one week and a poll of Utah the next.

Uh, no. Bush still sucks. It's just that Utahns (?) like him more than other people.

So let's try to control for regional differences a little bit. To do that, we'll look at just traditional southern states (AL, AR, GA, LA, MS, NC, TN, and VA) and rust belt states (IN, OH, and PA). (The only controversy here might be that I exclude Wisconsin, Missouri, and Texas. There's a good argument for Missouri and there might be for Oklahoma as well, but I just thought would be, but Missouri cancels out Wisconsin, and Texas really is not typical of the south.)

In the six states that voted in February (AL, AR, GA, LA, TN, VA), Clinton won 60% of whites to Obama's 36%. In five states that voted from March-May (IN, MS, NC, OH, PA), Clinton won 61% of whites to Obama's 37%. Even if you don't factor in the McCain meddlers, she won 63% to 36%.

Now, 36% or 37% is nothing to write home about, but the trend does not match what pundits have been saying about Obama's supposedly shrinking level of support from whites.

What about trendlines within the March to May time frame? First we'll look at the numbers without factoring in the McCain meddlers:

• Ohio: 64%-34%
• Miss.: 70%-26%
• Penn.: 63%-37%
• Indiana: 60%-40%
• N. Car.: 61%-37%

And factoring in the McCain meddlers?

• Ohio: 63%-35%
• Miss.: 66%-30%
• Penn.: 63%-37%
• Indiana: 58%-42%
• N. Car.: 58%-40%

Again, I'm not trying to make the case that Barack Obama is somehow sweeping the so-called white vote. But it's equally false to say that there is some sort of "narrowing" trend. It's just not happening.

::

The big thing that all of these analyses forget to consider is that Hillary Clinton's strong support among white voters is largely a function of her popularity with white women.

In every primary contest taking McCain meddlers into account:

• HRC's support:
  • 73% comes from whites (63% of which comes from women)
  • 15% comes from Latinos
  • 5% comes from African-Americans
  • 7% is other/unspecified/rounding error

• BHO's support
  • 53% comes from whites (51% of which comes from women)
  • 32% comes from African-Americans
  • 8% comes from Latinos
  • 7% is other/unspecified/rounding error

Suddenly, form these numbers, it looks like Clinton is the one with a narrow but deep base (in the words of Prof. Krugman directed towards Obama).

Let's look at it a different way:

• Among white women, Clinton has a huge 61%-37% advantage
• Among African-Americans, Obama has a huge 85%-14% advantage.
• Among white men however, each has 48%.

Sure enough, Clinton predictably leads among white women, and Obama among blacks. I'll bet you that if Obama denigrated the value of white women in the same way that the Clinton campaign has denigrated the value of blacks, Clinton would be a lot closer to 80%.

Whatever the case, among Jed, Obama leads 100%-0%.

::

I know it's fashionable to prattle forth about Barack Obama's supposed inability to win the support of white voters.

But the true story is far more complex than the soundbites suggest, and the trendlines reveal that if anything, Obama is making progress. He certainly isn't falling further behind.

Finally, and most importantly, there's no evidence that on a national basis Obama has a bigger problem with white voters than Hillary Clinton.

Yes, his electoral map is a bit different than hers. Obama might have a slightly tougher time winning Ohio than Hillary Clinton, but he is better positioned in states that Bush won like Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Wisconsin.

A full analysis of the electoral map is beyond my abilities, at least with any competence. That's why God created Poblano.

I do know that if Pew's most recent survey is to be believed, then Obama and Clinton each receive 45% to John McCain's 50% among white voters. That's 2 points higher than Bill Clinton ever received. It's four points ahead of John Kerry.

Obama could probably win the general with 42% support from whites, but that would be close. 45% is a damn good starting point, and even if it weren't, it's no worse than Clinton's.

Clinton's support among blacks trails Obama's, though. Against McCain she gets 75 to McCain's 15; Obama gets 90 to McCain's 6. That's enough for about 2 points in the general election, which would probably be fatal to a Clinton candidacy.

Ironically, Clinton's own campaign is responsible for her lagging support among African-Americans. They brought it on themselves.

So my advice to the race-baiters is: please come up with a new argument for us to laugh at. Because this one is getting tired. Fast. And it's hurting your own campaign more than it's hurting Obama's.