A few observations about last night's votes in Kentucky and Oregon:
- Nearly a third of the people who voted in Kentucky said that if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, they will vote for McCain, and another 15% said that they won't vote at all. The big question: how many of these people are Limbaugh Democrats? 20 percent of those who voted self-identified as conservative, and Hillary Clinton took 73% of those voters.
- 21% of Kentucky voters cited race as a factor in their vote, including 7% who cited it as the most important factor. Of these people, Hillary took a whopping 81%. Furthermore, 18% of voters overall were white voters citing race as a factor, and Hillary took 88% of these voters. (An interesting side note: 9% of white people who cited race as a factor voted for Obama.)
- Rural voters carried the day for Hillary in Kentucky: 56% of the electorate was from rural areas, and Hillary caried this demograpic with 77% of the vote. This probably has something to do with race being such a huge factor in the vote.
- John McCain took only 72% of the vote in Kentucky, with 8% voting for Mike Huckabee, 7% voting for Ron Paul, and 5% for uncommitted. Yes, that's right, 5% of Republican voters didn't want to vote for either of the two guys who dropped out of the race weeks ago, but still couldn't bring themselves to vote for the presumptive nominee. It wasn't as bad for McCain in Oregon, but Paul still managed to get 15% of the vote there.
- Despite supporting Obama by a double-digit margin, 62% of Oregon voters want the campaign to continue. This obviously doesn't jibe with the vast majority of Obama supporters in the blogosphere who want this damn thing to end already (including myself). Why the contrast? I suspect that a lot of non-blogger people want the campaign to continue because they find the race entertaining, and there are also probably quite a few who think that a nomination battle that includes all 50 states is a good thing for democracy. I would tend to agree on both points, as I assume most bloggers would, but where we differ is that we view the nomination battle from the vantage point of people who are more likely to be party activists: we see the long battle as a drain of resources that could be better used against the Republicans, and a potential threat to party unity. We may be right on the second point, but there's an argument to be made that the nomination battle has been one long, running infomercial for the Democratic party. Working from that viewpoint, it hasn't been a waste of resources because it has increased the party's visibility and promotion of its core message among people who aren't otherwise politically engaged, and could net us a significant number of votes this November.








Recent Comments