Among working class whites, Clinton kicked Edwards' ass too

It seems to be taken for granted that John Edwards had some stranglehold on the working class white vote. But this was not really the case. The working class vote was not a particular strength of John Edwards in either relative or absolute terms.

Following is a summary of some key exit polling metrics from among the five states in which John Edwards competed (using the term 'competed' liberally in the case of Florida).



A couple of things to call your attention to.

Firstly, John Edwards actually performed slightly better among voters making more than $50,000 per year than among those making less.

Secondly, while we only have this data available in three states, there was no real difference in the education levels of Edwards supporters.

Thirdly, in every state where we have data available, Barack Obama performed significantly better than Edwards among voters making less than $50,000 per year, and among voters who did not attend college. This held true in racially mixed states like Florida, as well as extremely white states like Iowa and New Hampshire.

Fourthly, in every state where we have data available, Hillary Clinton performed significantly better than Edwards among voters making less than $50,000 per year, and among voters who did not attend college.

*-*

To the extent that Edwards had a demographic base, it was not determined by class lines but rather by geography: Edwards performed better in rural areas than he did in the suburbs, and better in suburbs than he did in the cities. But really, John Edwards didn't quite have a base: there was no commonly-identified demographic group amongst which he had a plurality, yet alone a majority of the Democratic vote.

This is not to disparage John Edwards. He had the misfortune of running against two All-Star level candidates who would probably have had the stage to themselves in any other year. To the extent he had a strength, it was among rural voters, and that could be helpful to Barack Obama in Kentucky, which among other things is quite rural.

But it sort of throws cold water on the notion that there's something about Barack Obama -- and particularly something about Barack Obama's race -- that makes working-class whites loathe to support him. (True, Obama performs poorly among certain types of working-class whites, like those in Appalachia and in much of the South. But he's doing just fine in Oregon, which is also full of working-class whites.) Rather, it's more likely that there's something about Hillary Clinton that makes these voters want to support her.

There is no absolute measuring stick against which to gauge a candidate's performance with a particular demographic. If Hillary Clinton had run against John F. Kennedy, she would have gotten her ass kicked among New England Catholics. Does that mean that Hillary Clinton would have had a Catholic problem?

There's More...

Contract Post

Delegate Scenarios, Edwards Edition

As DemConWatch explains, we can't automatically assume that John Edwards' delegates belong to Barack Obama. Instead, they have become something more akin to superdelegates. But I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of them will in fact follow their candidate's lead and commit to Barack Obama.

One upshot of this is that Obama appears to be on track to clinch a pledged delegate majority next Tuesday under all credible Michigan/Florida scenarios:



The worst of these scenarios for Obama is Scenario D -- Michigan and Florida are seated fully, with Obama getting Michigan's uncommitted delegates. Under this scenario, Obama needs 60 pledged delegates to clinch, whereas he projects to pick up about 47 in next Tuesday's primaries. So, that would leave him 13 short. But, he'd only need to pick up 13 of the 32 Edwards delegates between now and then to make up the difference -- remember, the number of Edwards delegates goes up if we count Florida. Four of those 32 Edwards delegates are effectively off the table, since they're tied up at the Iowa state conventions, but picking up 13 of the remaining 28 -- fewer than half -- would seem to be a given.

What about an overall pledged delegate majority? Let's make a couple of assumptions here. Firstly, let's say that my pledged delegate projections in the table above are correct, and that Obama adds 88 pledged delegates from this point onward (and Clinton gets 101). Secondly, let's assign 13 of the 19 Edwards delegates to Obama, 2 to Clinton, and leave his 4 Iowa delegates uncommitted. Thirdly, lets assign the 43 remaining add-on delegates (excluding Michigan) to the candidate who won their state; that would mean 25 delegates for Obama and 18 for Clinton.

Current Pledged Delegates    1602
Current Superdelegates        287.5
------------------------------------
Current Total                1889.5
Projected Pledged Delegates    88
Projected Edwards Delegates    13
Projected Add-On Delegates     25
-----------------------------------
Projected June Total         2015.5

Needed to Win                2025
Magic Number                    9.5
Superdelegates Outstanding*   192
Percent Needed to Clinch        5%

* Excluding Add-Ons

By this math, Obama presently has 1889.5 pledged delegates, and projects to have 2015.5 in mid-June, by the time the primaries are completed and after all add-on delegates are selected. That would leave him just 9.5 superdelegates short of a clinch. He might pick up that many by Friday.

What about if Florida and Michigan are seated? Let's take Obama's worst Florida/Michigan scenario, Scenario D, and also assume that Florida and Michigan superdelegates get a full vote. This puts 13 additional Edwards delegates on the table; we'll assign 10 more of those to Obama and the other 3 to Clinton.

Current Pledged Delegates    1602
Current Superdelegates        287.5
FL/MI Pledged Delegates       122
FL/MI Superdelegates            8
------------------------------------
Current Total              2019.5
Projected Pledged Delegates    88
Projected Edwards Delegates    23
Projected Add-On Delegates     25
-----------------------------------
Projected June Total       2155.5

Needed to Win                2209
Magic Number                   53.5
Superdelegates Outstanding*   224
Percent Needed to Clinch       24%

* Excluding Add-Ons

Under this scenario, Obama presently has 2019.5 total delegates, and projects to get up to 2155.5 between his share of the Edwards delegates, the add-ons, and the remaining elected delegates. That would leave him 53.5 superdelegates short of the 2209 he'd need to clinch. If Florida and Michigan are included, there are 224 outstanding superdelegates, not counting add-ons, meaning that Obama needs about 25 percent of the remaining total.

Let's reiterate the most important numbers. If the Edwards delegates, the add-ons, and the remaining pledged delegates fall reasonably in line with expectations:

Obama needs only about 10 more superdelegates to clinch if Florida and Michigan are not seated.

Obama needs only about 55 more superdelegates to endorse him -- about a quarter of the remaining total -- if Florida and Michigan are fully seated according to Clinton's wishes.

Only a DEFCON 1 type of meltdown will prevent Obama from getting the nomination at this point.

EDIT: Or, if you prefer, there is Gail Collins' scenario:

Given the Democratic Party’s innovative method of doling out delegates, all that’s necessary for her to snatch the nomination is:

1) A big, big win in Kentucky next Tuesday. Ideally, Obama should be limited to no more than 100 votes.

2) Oregon, scheduled for the same day, inexplicably breaks off and sinks into the Pacific Ocean.

3) Puerto Rico, clocking in on June 1, not only gives Clinton a huge majority, but also manages to become a state in advance of the vote.

4) Finally, on June 3 as the South Dakota polls open, Thomas Jefferson’s head on Mount Rushmore comes to life and starts shouting, “You go, girl.”

An ambitious scenario, true. But nothing less than we’ve come to expect from the most hard-working political family in American history.

There's More...

Contract Post

Multiple Choice

Team Obama touts a big endorsement at 7 PM. The endorsement is:

a. John Edwards
b. Al Gore
c. Roger Clinton
d. A cheap way to buy out a media cycle

More seriously, I figure the pecking order looks something like this:

1. Hillary Clinton
2. Al Gore
3. Colin Powell
4. John Edwards
5. Prominent Senator or Governor who had endorsed Clinton
6. AFL-CIO
7. Chuck Hagel
8. (tie). Nancy Pelosi and Jimmy Carter*
9. Jim Webb
10. (tie) Brian Schweitzer and Steve Beshear

* Points deducted because of their tacit endorsements already.

Keep in mind that the last two times the Obama campaign teased a "big" endorsement, they turned out to be Lincoln Chafee and Joe Andrew, who would rank about 493rd and 88th on this list respectively.

EDIT: I have no idea whether it's John Edwards. But remember the two contradictory viewpoints that I expressed last night. On the one hand, the Obama campaign knows that the 48 hours following West Virginia were going to be the most vulnerable time in the remainder of the primary cycle for them. So it would be a good time to hijack a media cycle. But, on the other hand, it would be a little awkward to roll out an "in your face" sort of endorsement the day after Clinton won a primary by 40 points. If, I don't know, Dianne Feinstein flipped to Obama, that might trigger exactly the opposite of its intended effect amongst her supporters (see also: the NARAL endorsement). So what you're going for is awe rather than shock.

John Edwards is perhaps the only name that can deliver awe without shock. And that's because, if you look at his appearances on Morning Joe and Larry King Live, he's been softening the ground on a potential Obama endorsement for about a week now. And he deferred to Clinton until after the North Carolina primary and Obama won that primary. It's an endorsement that would gather lots of headlines, but that wouldn't give the appearance of being hasty or presumptuous.

There's More...

Contract Post