North Carolina v Indiana
Lots of pundits are writing off Sen. Clinton because she lost NC and didn't win IN by as big a margin as they think she needed. This post does something different: I'm comparing North Carolina and Indiana to the rest of the country. Which state is the more likely proxy for the nation?
- Population: 74.0% white (80.1% nationally) and 21.7% black (12.8% nationally)
- Poor: greater percentage than the national average (13.8% v 12.7%)
- Median household income: $40,863 ($44,334 nationally)
- November Results: 2004 - Bush (56%) ... 2000 - Bush (56%) ... 1996 - Dole (49%)
- Population: 88.3% white (80.1% nationally) and 8.9% black (12.8% nationally)
- Poor: smaller percentage than the national average (11.1% v 12.7%)
- Median household income: $43,217 ($44,334 nationally)
- November results: 2004 - Bush (60%) ... 2000 - Bush (57%) ... 1996 - Dole (47%)
North Carolina is both poorer and blacker (1-in-3 voters) than either Indiana (1-in-7 voters) or the US as a whole.
Now compare those two states with Pennsylvania, a key swing state (about 1-in-7 black voters) and one that has voted Democratic the past three Presidential election cycles. Except for the November 2000 election, Pennsylvania more closely represents the rest of the country than does either Indiana or North Carolina.
- Population: 85.7% white (80.1% nationally) and 10.7% black (12.8% nationally)
- Poor: smaller percentage than the national average (11.2% v 12.7%)
- Median household income: $43,714 ($44,334 nationally)
- November results: 2004 - Kerry (51%) ... 2000 - Gore (51%) ... 1996 - Clinton (49%)
I don't know what this means. But if I were a super-delegate, I'd be asking myself that question.
And this one, as well. Sen. Obama consistently scores well with black Democratic voters; on average more than 9-in-10 vote for him. But can carrying 90+ percent of a demographic that accounts for only 13 percent of the nation's population lead to a win in November? I can't answer this one, either.
One last word: as a voter, I wish that John Edwards were still in the race. But as a political writer, I find that it's easier when there is no candidate who floats your boat.
Comments
Supers have only 2 choices. 1) Endorse the voters who have elected an absolute majority of delegates (in a race that started with numerous candidates) or 2) Turn against the will of the voters and pick a different candidate. They are entitled to make either decision, but those are the choices.
If they conclude that Obama is unelectable in the general election and chose to overturn the will of the voters there is no good reason for them to pick any of the the losers he defeated in the primaries. The could consider any number of other people, Al Gore, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Kathleen Sebelius or any number of other qualified people. To pick one of the primary losers because they are somehow “more electable” seems patently stupid to me.
Hi, Jim. I agree that those are the choices and I agree that they are not bound to pick between HRC or Obama.
I really need to study 1972 more deeply.
“Yes, this is going where you think it is.”
It’s just another in a series of pro-Hillary/anti-Obama editorials masquerading as political analysis.
Who do you think you’re fooling?
Miles
Hi,Miles — if you mean that I refuse to bow to conventional media wisdom … well, yeah. But as I made clear in the last paragraph, I have no dog in this hunt.
I’m simply looking at numbers.
“Will of the majority?” What will of the majority? This nomination ritual has been two year affair, not something that happened yesterday. The “will of the majority,” you’re talking about, has changed enormously, since people expressed it at the beginning, and since they voted as an expresion of their “will,” months agao. It changes in response to what they learn about the candidates, AFTER they vote. If I vote for a candidate, then, a week late, find out he’s murderer, in what way was my earlier vote an expressin of my “will?” If Obama is the nominee, we will lose the election. Obama is a fake, and a hypocrite. He refused to debate Hillary, or good reason. He knew his fakery would stand revealed if he debated. He outspent Hillary neary 3 to 1 in Indiana Indiana is a natural for Obama. It’s adjacent to Illinois, with major Counties, a few miles from Chicago. Media from Illinois come costantly into Indiana. ……and still he lost.
Clinton takes Indiana by a ‘razor’ and Obama wins North Carolina by a huge margin. Nevertheless, Kentucky, Montana and West Virginia are still to come.
The Democratic race for nomination is still very much alive – and most likely to be decided by superdelegates
If you’re tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to LobbyDelegates.com and push them to support Clinton or Obama
If you haven’t done so yet, please write a message to each of your state’s superdelegates at http://www.lobbydelegates.com
Obama Supporters:
Sending a note to current Obama supporters lets them know it’s appreciated, sending a note to current Clinton supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Obama, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Obama. It’s that easy…
Clinton Supporters too …. !
It takes a moment, but what’s a few minutes now worth to get Clinton in office?! Those are really worth !
Sending a note to current Clinton supporters lets them know it’s appreciated, sending a note to current Obama supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Clinton, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Clinton. It’s that easy…