Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on The Lunch Pail Crowd?

1

Yes, there will be lots of talk trying to figure out why OMG JESUS 2.0 didn't win.

Posted by Non | March 5, 2008 9:36 AM
2

Obama supporters are all bitches.

Posted by pencil riot | March 5, 2008 9:46 AM
3

I know what you mean Eli. I mean, those people must be the worst kind of racist to vote for a woman. Afterall, we all know the working class and union sympathizers are a bunch of dumb racists. How dare they have the audacity to live outside of urban center, make the goods we consume, or vote for that awful bitch HRC?!

Posted by pbaitch | March 5, 2008 9:47 AM
4

Easy

1. Black pride
2. White guilt
3. GOP (KKK) crossovers

Posted by Simple | March 5, 2008 9:48 AM
5

@3: Umm... what are you trying to say? I can't tell how you're getting that interpretation out of this post.

What this post says is statistically, more people who said race was important to them voted for a WHITE woman.

That's racism, not sexism.

An analogous example would be if a majority of voters who said gender was important voted for Obama. That would make them sexist.

I haven't seen those statistics anywhere, have you?

Posted by Mike | March 5, 2008 9:51 AM
6

Racism is a non-problem compared to sexism. Hillary supporters told me so.

Posted by tsm | March 5, 2008 9:52 AM
7

Let's not forget ECB's stat that 1/4 of Democrat voters said they would switch and vote for McCain if Obama won the nomination.

Posted by Gomez | March 5, 2008 9:54 AM
8

As I said in the other chain, Clinton won on the redneck vote in both Ohio and Texas. You can't deny it, uneducated old white racists love Clinton.

Posted by bob@gmail.com | March 5, 2008 9:56 AM
9

Being from Ohio, I will say that there is a lot of racist people in that state. While mostly in the southern part of Ohio, even the urban/progressive NE part of the state suffers from quite a bit of racist tendencies.

While most are pretty closeted about it, you don't have to drive far to see a few confederate flags draped outside houses in many of the more rural sections.

I was trying to figure out why some of the smaller cities went to Clinton, especially Youngstown, Akron/Canton, and Warren, but then I remembered all the prejudice I encountered from my time spent in those areas. So, frankly, such correlations wouldn't surprise me.

Posted by Packratt | March 5, 2008 10:05 AM
10

... Was there a poll asking if gender was an issue?

Posted by Hannah | March 5, 2008 10:07 AM
11

It isn't so much racism as this is the demographic stupid enough to believe rumors that Obama is a Muslim who won't say the pledge of allegiance. In the general elections these rubes will believe the stories that Hillary is a satanist lesbian, and that's why she won't hold them.

Posted by elenchos | March 5, 2008 10:11 AM
12

And this is just the percentage of people who admitted to a pollster that race was an issue. Imagine what the real situation is.

Posted by Gabriel | March 5, 2008 10:21 AM
13

um, 59 to 53 percent means statistically this is within the margin of error for both subgroups.

Unless your sample size was: a. random, b. matched, c. bigger than 512 for both subgroups, then it means ... absolutely nothing.

Zilch.

Nada.

Zip.

Comprende?

Using exit polling (a non-random selection technique due to physical presence) makes it even more useless.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 5, 2008 10:24 AM
14

(Boy, I'll be glad when the analysis is all over and Ohio can quietly go back to being Ohio. Guys, there are racists in every state, even yours I'm sure.)

Ohio has a very different character depending on where you are in the state. Northeast Ohio (Cleveland area) thinks it's in New York. Toledo thinks it's in Michigan, Northwest Ohio is pretty rural and Indiana-ish except for Bowling Green State University. Southeast Ohio is poor, rural, white, and identifies STRONGLY with Pittsburgh. Cincinnati is in Kentucky. Columbus is probably the only city actually IN Ohio, and has an inferiority complex as a result. It also has a remarkably diverse population, including the second-largest Somali population in the country (#1 is Minneapolis).

Hillary was encouraged by Gov. Strickland to campaign in the rural areas with pockets of Dem voters, and she did well with those people. According to my friend who lives near Steubenville (southeast Ohio, about 1/2 hour from Pittsburgh), that area is traditionally Democratic and traditionally rather racist.

Posted by Nora | March 5, 2008 10:24 AM
15

what a difference a photo with a turban makes... (thanks, Billy, Hilly and Drudge)

Posted by Andy Niable | March 5, 2008 10:24 AM
16

According to the same exit poll, Clinton took 64% of the White vote while Obama took 87% of the African-American vote.

So, just what the hell does "Was Race of Candidate Important to You" mean?

Posted by umvue | March 5, 2008 10:26 AM
17

Will, you're comparing the wrong sets of numbers. For those who said race was an issue, 59% went for Clinton and 39% went for Obama.

Posted by Gabriel | March 5, 2008 10:28 AM
18

The point is valid: PA looks really rough for Obama, at least in the western and, uh, lunchpail parts. How's he look in Philly?

Of course, even a 60-40 Clinton win is about a 30 delegate edge. 55-45 like Ohio is half that. Not enough.

Posted by Fnarf | March 5, 2008 10:39 AM
19

OK, time for you Obamazoids to put your hands over your ears and scream "I'm not listening," but when you look at the remaining primaries, BO will be doing very well to win ANY of them. And BTW, those committed delegates that you're so happy to talk about are only committed for the first ballot. If no-one wins on the first ballot (which has happened many times in the past, and is looking increasingly likely this year), thdy can vote for anybody they want.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | March 5, 2008 10:41 AM
20

certainly race AND gender will be a factor for some people...where is all the unscientific non-statistically significant data on gender? certainly if ohio is racist it follows they would be misogynists too.

Posted by uhmmm | March 5, 2008 11:10 AM
21

I couldn't find the polling but if 20% of those voting in the Dem primary said race was important and the state is 12.5% black which could easily be 20% of the Dem vote and since 90% have been voting for Obama, is it possible that most of those that considered race were black Obama supporters.? Now if there is other data I'm not aware of I apologize but from this post the above would seem the logical conclusion.

Posted by McG | March 5, 2008 11:31 AM
22

My mistake most couldn't be black Obama supporters. But 8% of the total could be or 39% of the race voters. Then of course how many of both races were lying?

Posted by McG | March 5, 2008 11:36 AM
23

mcG@21/22: I think your statistical analysis is faulty. If you look at this matrix of the 20% that said race was important 59% voted for Hillary and 39% voted for Barack.

So 60% of the people who admitted to caring about race voted for the white candidate.

Posted by Mike | March 5, 2008 11:44 AM
24

@10: Yes, in the same exit poll. Results:

Was Gender of Candidate Important to You?
Yes (17%) C 60% O 40%
No (82%) C 53% O 45%

So those who thought gender was important were a little more likely to vote Clinton than those who didn't. Note that people are being asked if race/gender were "important", not decisive. Only 5% said gender was "most important".

As a former Ohio resident I agree with #9. I'm not at all surprised that some whites voted against Obama on the basis of race, nor am I surprised they would admit it. Expect the same in central and western PA.

Posted by CG | March 5, 2008 11:45 AM
25

Obama's going to win in NC, 5280, and MS, and MT, and SD, and OR, and probably IN as well. Clinton needs to blow away PA, which she's not going to do. She'll probably win in WV and KY, and she's a shoo-in in PR -- but she needs upsets in at least two, maybe IN and OR. Even then, she's short.

Posted by Fnarf | March 5, 2008 11:53 AM
26

@23

Mike, I think McG's point is that the math really isn't being looked at closely enough.

Therefore,

IF
you assume that "race is important to me" = "I want a candidate the SAME color as me",
AND you assume that more than 59% of Ohio is white
AND you assume that less than 39% of Ohio is black
THEN black voters are more likely to consider race important.

I'm not really that into analysing the impact of race on the election, I'm just into math.

Posted by pain | March 5, 2008 12:10 PM
27

oops, put my THEREFORE in the wrong spot.

replace THEN with THEREFORE.

Posted by pain | March 5, 2008 12:12 PM
28

right mike - but 40% were obama supporters - it would seem that about the same share of both campaigns voted on a racial basis - 18% of obama's votes and 22% of clinton's

Posted by McG | March 5, 2008 12:18 PM
29

Indiana is more "lunch bucket" than Ohio. Clinton wins there. Obama will do well in Philly, but the rest ofo Pennsylvania is like Ohio. Clinton wins. She easily wins WV & PR. Obama should do well in MT, Miss, NC, SD. OR is a tossup.

Posted by Fitz | March 5, 2008 12:34 PM
30

I'm more of a "word guy" than a mathematician -- I think I'm more into the language used around numbers: Hillary's "decisive win" last night gained her FOUR delegates, but a 4% difference in "racism" isn't significant?

But to be honest, I think I've just lost all objectivity about this.

Posted by Mike | March 5, 2008 12:48 PM
31

Talk about selective use of statistics. Among the overwhelming majority of people who DIDN'T think race was important she also won big (53-45, which given the margin of error is not a giant leap from 59-39).

And the fact is that of those 20 percent who said race was important to them, no doubt a high percentage of them were black and thus voted for Obama.

Posted by tomcat98109 | March 5, 2008 1:28 PM
32

tomcat98109: Did you look at the whole chart? It shows what percentage of those who thought race was important voted for Clinton and Obama. 60% of those who thought race was a factor voted for Clinton.

Posted by Mike | March 5, 2008 1:49 PM
33

Again, this all depends on not just the total sample size, but the method of collection (random) and the subset asked the subquestions.

Including those who (frequently) refuse to answer the subquestion.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 5, 2008 2:42 PM
34

oh, and @25 has a point - among the people I know from Pennsylvania, including relatives and friends, there is only one Clinton supporter (one of my aunts), the rest are all Obama supporters, and nobody is excited about McCain - and (shockingly) most of them voted for Bush not just in 2000 but in 2004 as well.

Clinton needs to win every state from here on out by more than 17 percent.

Won't happen.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 5, 2008 2:46 PM
35

The whole "blue collar" and "lunch bucket" stuff is a bunch of baloney. In NE Ohio the factory jobs have been gone for decades. The biggest employers are now hospitals and schools. Elections in Canton Ohio are decided by little old ladies. And the old ladies are scared to death of black men. The blue collar element that does vote is typically tradesmen; electricians, plumbers, carpenters. They don't care for blacks either, and blame them for the long economic and social disaster.

Many parts of Ohio have declined in population by half since the glory days. Middle class young white folks have headed for the sun belt and left their parents in the cities to fend off the copper thieves that are trying to steal their plumbing. The biggest story for the past year in Canton Ohio has been about the black cop that strangled his pregnant white girlfriend. People have latched-on because the story seems to affirm their suspicions. Voters there are in no mood to give more authority to black men.

Southern Ohio is more racist than much of the deep south. Cinci has been trying to keep the hordes on the other side of the river since its founding. Political affiliation in Cinci is primarily a function of skin tone. And the great 30 year expansion of its northern suburbs has been about white flight.

Posted by Curmudgeon | March 5, 2008 4:08 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).