Only 3% of Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa considered themselves to be Republicans, but Edwards did well among them. Only 23% of Democrats and Independents voted for him, but 32% of Republicans gave Edwards their support.
Edwards did considerably better (28%) among people that make over $100,000 a year than those that make less (21%). And consider this breakdown of Edwards’ support by ideology:
- Very Liberal 16%
Somewhat Liberal 25%
Moderate 22%
Conservative 42%
Iowa was Edwards’ best state and the place he campaigned longest and where the people knew him best. In New Hampshire there was no income correlation in Edwards’ vote and he did best among moderates rather than conservatives. There is one piece of data from the New Hampshire Exit Polls that might be encouraging to Obama supporters.
- Opinion of Bill Clinton (among Edwards supporters)
Strongly Favorable 12%
Somewhat Favorable 21%
Somewhat Unfavorable 27%
Strongly Unfavorable 0%
In South Carolina the income correlation showed up again with more people supporting Edwards that earned more than $100,000 (24%) than less (18%). Edwards also did extremely well among people that want to keep our troops in Iraq (41%) and Republicans (43%). Most importantly, Edwards actually won the white vote (40%).
When asked if they would be satisfied if Clinton won the nomination, 33% of Edwards’ supports said ‘no’. When asked if they would be satisfied if Obama won the nomination 47% said ‘no’. The deeper you dig into Edwards’ white support in South Carolina, the more race-based it appears. But there really isn’t any evidence for a similar phenomenon in the other states.
As I have noted before, Edwards’ voters have never been who we would expect them to be based on ideology. They have been richer, whiter, more moderate to conservative, and more pro-war than Edwards’ rhetoric suggested they should be. His populist message neither attracted the downtrodden nor repelled the well-to-do. That’s a significant failure in Edwards’ campaign, but it can help us to understand where his voters will go now that he is out of the race.
Where do you think they’ll go?
In non-southern states, 75% to Obama, 25% to Clinton.
Flip that in the south.
Agreed but maybe with more like 66/33.
I know just reading the liberal blogosphere, there were those who were supporting Edwards because he’s a white male and only a white male can win the White House. Then there was the insulting, “I can’t believe black people don’t see that only Edwards can help them!”.
I would have never expected them to be pro-war and conservative. Yet, when you think about Republican/Ind. voters fed up with the GOP, who else would they turn to?
I really don’t know how it will pan out in Missouri but the consensus among we political watchers this morning was that Edwards in the race was better for Obama so this wasn’t good news for Obama.
But it’s really hard to say. Edwards was of course going to get the white racist vote in Southern Mo – but most of them are rabid Hillary haters so it isn’t clear to me that they’ll vote for her. And actually there aren’t that many Democrats down there anyway.
Any candidate who carries the cities will win – the question is whether KC and StL will split. Or whether the urban vs. suburban will split in both cities (which seems more likely).
It seems to me that the key will be white men. I suspect the younger ones will break for Obama. I really don’t know about the older ones. My rational sense tells me they break for Hillary. But as I always say, Hillary is irrationally hated here.
Just this morning a bunch of white upper income Democratic males told me they were definitely voting for Obama now (they were ‘undecided’ before) and calling everyone they knew to tell them the same. They don’t want Hillary.
It will certainly be an interesting Tuesday.
one thing is for sure…everyone is going to question everyone else’s motives for supporting the candidates. Well, I guess black men for Hillary and white woman for Obama will get a pass.
well, you’ve got identity politics with black and white, young and old, male and female. But you also have to factor in Clinton fatigue and the hatred of the Clintons by some factions and the instinctive Clinton protectionism by some other factions.
I can’t predict how it will break.
But I predict that once it’s over the Missouri narrative will be this:
If Obama wins it will be the “negative Clinton Factors” that put him over the top.
If Clinton wins it will be identity politics that put her over the top.
Doesn’t mean it’s true, but I suspect that CW will go that way.
Should the percentage of Edwards voters with highly unfavorable views of Bill Clinton be 40% rather than 0%?
I should have been clearer. The numbers on Bill Clinton are measures of what percentage of each group voted for Edwards and not a measure of how Edwards’ supporters felt about Bill.
So, among those that had a strongly favorable view of the Big Dog, 12% voted for Edwards. That doesn’t mean that 12% of Edwards voters had a strongly favorable view.
via Matt Yglesias I see that Obama is shifting the rhetoric in his campaign speeches a bit to take on both Hillary and John McCain and is focusing a little more on the politics of contrast.
I assume this was his strategy before Edwards dropped out (since the speech was probably already written) and I think it’s a good strategy, what I’ve been hoping he would do for some time. But with Edwards dropping out, my instinct is that white male voters will be attracted to this type of rhetoric more than ‘change’ speeches.
He doesn’t have much time before next Tuesday to close the deal with them. I hope he can do it.
My relatives in KC, GA, AR, DE and IL are saying the same thing: former Edward supporters are contacting them to ask about helping Obama. They’re not (yet) Obama supporters, but rather Clinton haters. My cousin in Atlanta said that her boss (white guy, Republican voter) just gave her a check for $2500 and said, “I know you work on the Obama campaign, make sure that gets to them.” and walked away.
It may well be that many of the moderate Edwards supporters are less politically active Democrats who have a positive impression of him remaining from 2004 and a negative impression of one or the other of the Clintons; so now with Edwards dropping out they are looking more closely at Obama for the first time. As a political junkie, I have a hard time believing that my sister hasn’t been following the candidates as closely as I have; yet that’s where she is.
Interesting variation in the demographics between states for Edwards… Missing is the same data but for preferences by race and gender – the strange affiliations of his supporters probably have that in common, explaining how the more well healed and ‘conservative’ voter could go for a fire-brand populist.
I am beginning to think that the Clinton’s race-baiting was as much to defeat Edwards by triangulating him on the ‘Good Ole Boy’-ism front as it was meant to make Obama act angry and therefore less ‘positive’ and ‘hopeful’. A new Southern Strategy, if you will.
I don’t mean to say that Edwards was actively seeking the votes of one race over another, just that behavior is native to a significant cohort of Southern whites even today (well, all whites).
the race numbers out of Iowa and New Hampshire were useless. The sample size was so small for blacks that the MOE was greater than the percentage of the electorate.
Wonder how the Edwards supporters who voted align with readers of MyDD & Kos as they’ve been outfront Edwards supported sites.
I just heard that Edwards will say he is “suspending his campaign” rather than “dropping out” so that he can continue to pay his employees. Technical distinction, but perhaps that is the reason for no endorsement of Obama or Clinton as of yet.
I wish he’d get on with it, so I won’t have to listen to his horrible campaign music. I much prefer Obama’s campaign music, on the whole.
Not suspending the campaign. He talked about how, now the Democratic party is set to make history.
He just said that he was suspending his campaign, though everything before that made it sound like he was completely dropping out. Does this mean that he’ll be at the debate or not?
Edwards said both of them pledged to make ending poverty and unequal economic policies central to their campaigns and presidencies.
and I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale if your interested??
I don’t believe the polling data. It is simply too far from my own personal experience. In my experience his supporters were like me, from strong labor union families.
The polls have been so screwed up from the beginning on most things that I am not sure why they are taken seriously.
I gree with you. I moved from supporting Dodd (because of the constitutional stuff) to supporting Edwards (because he was talking a lot about healthcare and poverty and things that directly impact the majority).
My choices had not one damn thing to do with race or sex. I’m wary of Hillary but am just not sold on Obama. Both have said and done things over the past few months that have diminished their stature in my mind. I think both will be too easily predisposed to bow to corporate rather than citizen interests.
Either way, I’m voting for one of them in November and look forward to GrOPer heads exploding regardless of which one it is.
BTW – I know of several GrOPers here that are changing their registration to Dem before we caucus in February in order to caucus against Hillary. This does not tell me that they will vote for Obama in the general – it tells me that they are only trying to keep Hillary out of the general. All have admitted that they have no intention of voting for any Democrat in the general election.
I am wary of Republicans and Independent leaning Republicans (because, face it, there are few TRUE independents – almost all lean predominantly one way or the other). I don’t trust their primary votes for Obama to translate to the general election one bit.
Across the border, probably. Beyond that it’s a matter of taste and economics. I’m headed south.
I’ll be headed to the write-in column – for Al Gore. I can’t bring myself to vote for either of them in the primary.
I’ll hold my nose and vote for whoever wins in the general.
This voter is going nowhere. Edwards was my fourth choice. Obama and Clinton were not ranked. This just freed up sometime for me on February 5.
If I were to allow my bitter feelings to dominate I would say Edwards voters will go to “hell in a hand basket” along with the rest of the country, now that the “radical” populist has dropped out. To answer the question though, I would expect more to move towards Obama rather than Clinton. Of course this is merely a reflection of my own personal feelings and may not represent the national view.
I find the numbers fascinating. Was he having Klan meetings when I wasn’t looking?
I’ve liked Edwards, but I don’t seem to fit the economic or political profile Booman’s got here. When I was working it took me almost three years to reach a 100k, and now that I’m retired, forget about it.
I suspect that there was a good percentage of votes that he picked up simply because he was a white man, which means that his message got out to even less people than he’d hoped. He didn’t have a chance with unions, I’ve written that I think my union threw its support to Clinton because they felt their own health insurance was safer with her in the White House.
fabooj’s point that some Edwards supporters(?) were saying only a white man could win the White House, or that only Edwards can help black people is certainly insulting, but one shouldn’t discount that he was the candidate whose rhetoric sounded more like FDR than either of the others, and whose policies seemed to benefit the working classes, no matter what color, ethnicity or gender.
I guess that just doesn’t work anymore. No class politics, just identity politics. I guess it’s all he’s black, she’s a woman, he’s white. Sad.