Tribal Warfare
Michael Barone analyzes the voting in the Democratic primaries to date and notices the emergence of what he calls tribal warfare among the voters. Essentially, you have various identity groups at odds with one another right across the nation. Barone sees a nasty little trap looming for the Democrats.
Exit polls have shown that the contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has produced deep divisions among Democratic constituencies. It looks something like tribal warfare. Whites have voted, if you average the results from the states, 53 percent to 39 percent for Clinton; blacks, 80 percent to 17 percent for Obama; Latinos, 58 percent to 39 percent for Clinton; Asians, in California (the one primary state where they're numerous enough to gauge), 71 percent to 25 percent for Clinton.
The differences in voting by the young, overwhelmingly for Obama, and the elderly, overwhelmingly for Clinton, are as large as any I can remember in either a primary or general election. Upscale voters are heavily for Obama; downscale voters are heavily for Clinton.
As the contest has continued, increasing percentages of Clinton and Obama voters say they wouldn't vote for the other candidate against John McCain.
But the exit polls don't show another tribal division, one that emerges when you examine the election returns by county and congressional district. In state after state — from New Hampshire and Michigan to Texas and Ohio — Obama runs unusually strongly in counties with large universities. Academics — and I include here those who choose to live in university towns as well as those actually in or teaching school — seem to find Obama particularly appealing.
Also, Obama runs unusually well in many state capitals — Concord, Lansing, Tallahassee, Atlanta, Nashville, Santa Fe, Dover, Jefferson City, Sacramento, Trenton, Madison, Columbus, Austin — which of course have unusual concentrations of public employees (and in some cases big universities, as well).
You'll want to read his entire analysis, it is some interesting stuff. A slightly different take on the problem the Democrats face in November, regardless of who finally wins. Since it looks like it will be Obama, a large chunk of Clinton supporters will be unavailable to the Democrats according to Barone. I suspect he's correct, as polling has shown recently.
Identity politics comes full circle for the Democrats this year. We're going to need more popcorn, Maggie.
By Mwalimu Daudi, Sunday, 6 April , 2008 @ 7:29 am
There is only one way for the MSM and their Democrat pets to head off defeat in November, and that to to aim both barrels of identity politics (race and gender) at the GOP in the general election. This has been their standard operating procedure for decades, and there is no reason to think that they have learned anything from their current troubles. If anything, the rage of the MSM/Democrat axis has increased as Republicans and independents have laughed at the spectacle of the Tolerance Wars. If you thought that the 2004 and 2006 general elections were nasty, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet! Expect Obama or Clinton to give Mugabe a run for his money.
By Neo, Sunday, 6 April , 2008 @ 12:44 pm
Can anybody explain the difference between "identity groups" and "special interest groups" ?
By martian, Sunday, 6 April , 2008 @ 12:47 pm
"Obama runs unusually strongly in counties with large universities"
Is this really a surprise to anyone? Universities and colleges have been a bastion of liberalism for decades - to the point where it’s almost impossible in many schools for a teacher who has conservative views to even obtain tenure. Why wouldn’t they be supporters of the most liberal candidate in the race?
By sam, Monday, 7 April , 2008 @ 3:32 pm
While Maggie is up getting the popcorn, could you have her get a couple of beers out of the fridge?