Clinton’s Super Tuesday Working Class Edge

Barack Obama narrowly bested Hillary Clinton on Super Tuesday, but several primaries suggest a potentially crucial edge for her in the days ahead.

In a majority of Tuesday's primaries, Clinton beat Obama decisively among working class voters.

Set aside the candidates' home states and the six caucuses, where Obama ran up huge margins, and Clinton drew more lower and middle class voters in eight of fourteen primaries. That even includes three states that Obama won.

New Mexico was settled by less than a point, for example, but voters diverged sharply by income. Those making under $50,000 went for Clinton, while Obama did better among higher income voters. He won Connecticut by four points, again buoyed by voters making over $50,000, while Clinton bested him among less affluent voters by nearly ten points. Obama won Delaware by a decisive 11 points, but Clinton still drew more voters there earning between $15,000 and $30,000.

The fault line was even sharper in states that went decisively for Clinton. Her California margin was 10 points, for example, but she opened up a 25-point lead among voters making under $50,000. In fact, the only income bracket that Obama won there was in the six figures. The same was true in Massachusetts, where Clinton's 15-point statewide margin powered her from the poverty line up to five-figure-voters. (The federal poverty rate is about $17,000 for a family of three.) She also won by about 30 points among voters making under $30,000, who comprised 16% of turnout. Tennessee had a similar breakdown, with Obama only winning among voters who earn over $100,000.

These gaps were not uniform, of course. Obama posted solid numbers across income groups in many states, even when trailing Clinton. They largely split the working class vote in Arizona and Missouri, a pivotal bellwether for the general election. He won all income groups in Georgia, Utah and Alabama. And while caucus states are hard to compare, given very different turnout dynamics, Obama's organization mobilized and won across income levels in several of the six caucus states as well.

Yet after months of campaign hype about race and gender, Super Tuesday revealed that another atavistic divide within Democratic primaries is still here. As columnist Ron Brownstein foreshadowed almost one year ago:

Obama's early support is following a pattern familiar from the campaigns of other brainy liberals with cool, detached personas and messages of political reform, from Eugene McCarthy in 1968 to Gary Hart in 1984 to Bill Bradley in 2000. Like those predecessors, Obama is running strong with well-educated voters but demonstrating much less support among those without college degrees…. All of the candidates whose support fit that profile ultimately lost the nomination to rivals whose support was rooted in the blue-collar and minority communities where Clinton is strongest in early surveys.

Early polls have been wrong about most things in both parties this cycle. But voter turnout now shows that Clinton is holding onto poor and working class voters. And the Democratic nominee needs their support to win back the White House.

Comments (29)

1. Since I figure Mett will be posting here sometime, I thought I should post this

   http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=177

   This is another campaign finance info sight and it looks much better organized than opensecrets. Now what it shows is that through the first three quarters Obama got 28% of his contributions from small donors. Not quite what you were saying.

   But wait for it.

   In the fourth quarter he got 47% of his contributions from $200 or less donors. That doesn't quite bring the totals to where you said they were, but it is much closer to what you were saying. I will forgive the fact that you were claiming numbers like these before the fourth quarter data came in. Maybe you have precognition.

   What it does show is that while Obama is getting lots of money from big donors, and so from suspect sources, there is a big difference between him and Clinton on the money issue. So now that it is a two-person race, I will admit that those concerned with campaign finance issues should prefer Obama.

   Posted by dentedpat at 02/07/2008 @ 12:20am

2. Clinton had in roads in those states. The media reads into the figures too much. Considering Clinton has big money in other places and Obama gets $50,000 and under people in other states, its no big deal. Political Humor [hillarydivides.com]

   Posted by indep2008 at 02/07/2008 @ 01:17am

3. The following Sharon Begley (science writer for Newsweek) piece is hot off the presses, and pertinent to so many discussions that have been, and continue to be waged here on the blogs and in the comments threads.

   As I was saying the other day, our supposedly rational decision making processes are ultimately underpinned by subterranean and subconscious emotional states --not big news to Darwin and Freud inspired modern thinkers, but always worth a fresh look from time to time.

   When It's Head Versus Heart, The Heart Wins.

   Excerpts:

   Because voters are not computers, willing and able to remember and analyze candidates' every position, they rely on what political scientist Samuel Popkin of the University of California, San Diego, calls "gut rationality," which provides one of the most powerful of the heuristics Lau cites. In his now classic 1991 book "The Reasoning Voter," Popkin uses an example from the 1976 Republican primaries, which pitted President Gerald Ford against Ronald Reagan. While campaigning in Texas, Ford ate, or tried to eat, a tamale without first removing its corn-husk wrapper. He nearly choked on it. Mexican-American voters inferred from this--reasonably, Popkin argues--that Ford didn't know much about them or their culture, and that it therefore made sense to pull the lever for Reagan. The Gipper carried Texas overwhelmingly, winning 96 delegates to Ford's zero, thanks in part to the Latino vote. In the 1992 campaign, when George H.W. Bush looked at his watch during a debate with Bill Clinton, the message that "gut rationality" received was that "Bush didn't want to be there," says GOP consultant Frank Luntz. " 'Voters felt 'He doesn't understand the country anymore,' which leads to 'I don't trust him'." In contrast, during the debate Clinton walked over to a questioner in the audience; as he looked into her eyes and spoke about the economy, she nodded and nodded. "No one remembered what Clinton said, but everyone remembered the visual expression of affirmation," says Luntz. "That one small move led hundreds of thousands of people to change their minds" and vote for Clinton...

   Campaign ads therefore aim for the heart even when they seem to be addressed to the head. One Clinton ad shows a skydiver in free fall against a background of headlines about the housing bust and stock-market gyrations. A parachute opens--and Clinton's image appears. The emotional goal is clear: stir up fear and anxiety about the economy, then present Clinton as savior. In another ad, Clinton talks about her economic-stimulus plan, followed by a voice-over warning that "we know you can't solve economic problems with political promises." By reminding voters that these are risky times, the ads are meant to make voters feel anxious and thus more receptive to the argument that this is no time to gamble on a relative newcomer such as Obama.

   When voters consider candidates' positions, they are drawn to the candidate who assuages fear, inspires hope, instills pride or brings some other emotional dividend...

   The many anxious voters taking another--and another--look at candidates may explain one of the more remarkable phenomena of this primary season: the many late-breaking voters. In New Hampshire, 18 percent of voters made up their minds on the day of the primary, says pollster John Zogby; in Michigan, 16 percent did. What sways those late deciders is more emotional than rational, says Obama strategist David Axelrod: "They're making critical decisions not just about the issues but about the character and personality of the candidates."

   Obama has staked his hopes on the appeal of hope, which tends to be a winning strategy as long as voters' fears and anxieties are not primed by, say, a terrorist attack or a sharp economic downturn. "The outrage and cynicism that the Bush administration has made so many people feel has led a lot of them to want to feel inspired again," says Westen. That is clearly something the Obama campaign is counting on. In his endorsement speech last week, Sen. Edward Kennedy scarcely mentioned Obama's positions on issues, emphasizing instead the country's yearning for "a president who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream … and who can lift our spirits and make us believe again," and calling Obama someone who can "summon our hopes and renew our belief that our country's best days are still to come." Although hope for the future is almost always trumped by anxiety about the present, it can sway voters whose fears are in check. That may explain Obama's success with better-educated, well-off Democrats, while Clinton appeals more to those who have only a high-school diploma and are struggling economically.

   In contrast to anxiety, enthusiasm tends to close voters' minds to new information. It makes voters stand pat, as it were, rather than try to learn more about candidates. The lack of enthusiasm for the GOP pack may therefore explain why that race has been particularly fluid: unenthusiastic voters are still actively seeking more information about the candidates...

   Explaining why voters make the decisions they do is hampered by people's poor powers of introspection. Exit polls ask people whom they voted for and why. But the explanations tend to be post hoc, and wrong, because people have such little insight into their own motivations, reasoning and emotions, says Eskew. "People default to things like 'He shares my values,' or 'I think he's authentic,' or 'I like his position on abortion," he says. "But those are rational reasons. The real ones, the emotional ones, are harder to articulate." But they are the ones that count, and the campaign that best harnesses the power of the heart is just about certain to see its candidate at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue one year from now.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/07/2008 @ 01:24am

4. Posted by DENTEDPAT 02/07/2008 @ 12:20am

   DENTEDPAT,

   I try very hard to use only "public" sources when posting here, but when I know something is not true, it is tempting to tell you what I know for the sake of the truth.

   The fact that Obama is getting close to half of his money from the grassroots says everything. Hillary has hit a fundraising wall because of her top-down approach to politics. Her rich donors are maxed out at the $2,300 limit, forcing her to dig into her personal finances to stay in the race.

   She doesn't have the wealth of Mitt Romney, so as the race continues, she will have to face reality that her management style and approach to politics is not conducive to winning the nomination when competing with a successful grassroots organizer like Barack.

   I would not be surprised if she bowed out after March 4th.

   As for her attracting low income voters, I would like to see greater demographic detail on who these voters are, especially their education levels and English language skills.

   Hillary has been great at fooling the uninformed voter and riding off her Clinton name. But as these voters get more information about her and Barack, they favor Barack when they realize that he has been helping people like them his whole life while Hillary was helping the rich and multi-national corporations as a corporate lawyer for 15 years.

   Posted by Metteyya at 02/07/2008 @ 01:28am

5. Off the topic but stingingly ironic:

   Clinton, Arkansas.

   'Nuf said.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/07/2008 @ 02:27am

6. I had a feeling that the Times would remove the photo of utter devastation from "Clinton, Arkansas" and replace it with a different one.

   Interesting.

   And too bad, because the original photo was photojournalist blue ribbon material.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/07/2008 @ 03:50am

7. 35+ years ago, this current "Clinton edge" was known as the George Wallace effect in the North. Wallace eventually got shot for his discovery of Northern white working class prejudices, and was knocked out of action that threatened Nixon's predominance. The Clintons are now playing it quite well; but fear not, they will in all likelihood survive intact, as they are hardly a threat to The Owners.

   Posted by sloper at 02/07/2008 @ 04:27am

8. Vote for me and I'll set you free [mickeyz.net]

   Posted by coolobserver at 02/07/2008 @ 06:16am

9. man...guess we do need a better education system...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/07/2008 @ 08:03am

10. Brownstein- "Obama's early support is following a pattern familiar from the campaigns of other brainy liberals with cool, detached personas ...."

    Hey....we here at the TN blog resemble that remark!!!

    (heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 02/07/2008 @ 08:33am

11. It's odd that people who have to earn what they have would go for Hillary who got where she is by virtue of marrying the right person.Typically workers don't like people like Bush and Hillary who got what they have because of birth or marriage and prefer those who get where they are based on their own merit.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 02/07/2008 @ 08:45am

12. aren't these kinda the same people who voted for bush?

    both times!?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 09:02am

13. Off the topic but stingingly ironic:

    Clinton, Arkansas.

    'Nuf said.

    Posted by B_KOOL_66 02/07/2008 @ 02:27am

    look at this little graph:

    http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/nebraska/US-tornadoes-1950-to-2006-bar.html

    (some can be explained by better reporting, ¿but all of it?)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 09:07am

14. Something to be said for the value of dumbing down and keeping people at low wages, huh?

    Obama does come across sometimes as an educated elitist (uppity) while Hillary has a bit of the common clod about her. But here is an interesting thought: Wouldn't it benefit Clinton the most to keep as many voters as possible poor and stupid?

    Posted by Lil at 02/07/2008 @ 10:04am

15. Hey RESE.....two more months!

    BLOG | Posted 01/25/2007 @ 12:52am Comments for "Edging Impeachment Back Onto the Table" by John Nichols

    "When, say, March-ish, maybe April 2008 rolls around and it becomes legislatively, much less politically, IMPOSSIBLE to impeach Bush and Cheney and they are inevitably going to finish out their 2nd terms and leave on Inauguration Day January 2009..... what are you going to say about them and why will it matter?" ----Posted by MASK 01/26/2007 @ 08:44am

    "By then then will have Nuked and invaded Iran. The Draft will be in operation, probably Martial law too and no body will be able to say anthing against them, because all openents will be classified enemy combatants and shipped to work in the New Reich concentration camps" ----Posted by RESE 01/26/2007 @ 1:18pm

    "I'll shut up if it doesn't happen!"----Posted by RESE 05/22/2007 @ 09:58am

    Posted by Mask at 02/07/2008 @ 10:20am

16. It's all about the education, just like it is between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats aren't elitists just as Obama's supporters aren't elitists, but what they do have in common is that Democrats on average are better educated that Republicans (and I think we can all agree what that means about Republicans), but also Obama supporters have the same advantage of Hillary supporters, which I think is somewhat telling. I'm not saying they are stupid, but I think they aren't likely to follow the campaign and issues as closely, so they are more likely to just vote on name recognition, which makes Hillary the default candidate. It is obvious that everywhere where Obama goes, after people actually take the time to check him out, they love him and his numbers shoot up. It is all about how well people understand things. This was highlighted perfectly with the whole "Obama loves Reagan" thing. For educated people who follow these things (who got the whole story for themselves instead of getting it filtered through the media or the Hillary campaign) and people who are used to conceptual thinking, and people who have historical knowledge, it was perfectly obvious what Obama was talking about, and he was dead on right. But for Hillary supporters and probably a lot of more casual observers (thanks to her, and Paul Krugman's, purposeful deception) it was over their heads, they didn't get it, and it isn't necessarily all their fault, because there were a lot of lies flowing from the Clinton campaign and their surrogates. Anyway, what I'm saying is the whole episode reminded me of Bush vs Kerry, where simple minded ignorance won because it was just easier to mentally digest for most Americans, and it was a sad sad tale.

    As far as the income goes, income rises with education, they aren't elitists, they just have more education which equals better paying jobs. If Obama doesn't win the nomination it won't be because he wasn't the best, it will be because Americans weren't engaged enough and informed enough to see through the Clinton propaganda and recognize what an amazing candidate we could potentially be sending to the White House.

    Posted by bridoc at 02/07/2008 @ 10:39am

17. "(thanks to her, and Paul Krugman's, purposeful deception)"---Posted by BRIDOC 02/07/2008 @ 10:39am |

    So just so I'm not mis-reading.... you're calling Paul Krugman "purposefully deceptive"?

    Posted by Mask at 02/07/2008 @ 10:42am

18. Just to reiterate, Hillary does have an interest in Americans not knowing any better. Her campaign has continuously been about misinformation and deception, which is why so many Obama supporters are so pissed at Clinton, because they are exploiting the ignorance of voters to their advantage, just like Republicans always rely on doing. Casual observers, uneducated people, people who are just apathetic enough not to pay attention or try to understand, but are just engaged enough to go to the polls and vote for the candidate they've known about for decades, those are Hillary's base. And this bullshit about calling Obama elitist, or calling his supporters elitists just because they are educated pisses me off, because it is EXACTLY what the Republicans say about the Democrats every goddamn election. Yet another way the Clinton campaign is taking pages directly from the Republican strategy guide.

    Posted by bridoc at 02/07/2008 @ 10:44am

19. "And this bullshit about calling Obama elitist, or calling his supporters elitists just because they are educated pisses me off, because it is EXACTLY what the Republicans say about the Democrats every goddamn election. Yet another way the Clinton campaign is taking pages directly from the Republican strategy guide." Posted by BRIDOC 02/07/2008 @ 10:44am

    Standard GOP practice going back decades, to attacking NY Mayor John Lindsay & his supporters as "limousine liberals," when GOP was addressing the public & press. More openly racist when confronting Lindsay face to face, shouting what Goldwater supporters shouted at NY Gov. Nelson Rockefeller in the SF Cow Palace GOP Convention '64 -- "Nigger lover" -- until their voices were hoarse.

    The Clintons are mining this same mother load of bigotry rather more slyly.

    Posted by sloper at 02/07/2008 @ 11:01am

20. Posted by BRIDOC 02/07/2008 @ 10:44am

    appealing to the lowest denominator is disgusting yet apparantly effective...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/07/2008 @ 11:24am

21. I'd like reiterate that college educated are also in that 'Working Class' group. That working class label focussing only on the lower end of the spectrum 15-30K is quite misleading. I think Billary are rather targeting 'low intellect' and the 'least curious' rather than the 'working class'.

    Consider the consequences of Billary are already apparent in the campaign, what about in office:

    8 years of the Clintons, major losses for Democrats across the nation.

    Governors (-12 Ds)

    30 Dems after the 1992 election

    18 Dems after the 2000 election

    U.S. Senators (-7 Ds)

    57 Dems after the 1992 election

    50 Dems after the 2000 election

    Reps (-46 Ds)

    258 Dems after the 1992 election

    212 Dems after the 2000 election

    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14494.html

    Only one choice really for building the dem party and removing intrenched new cons and it's not what weaken the dem party in the first place and to the point that led us right into getting the worst president in US history into office. One could reasonably argue that Billary was an extension of the Reagon error, not an answer to it, and another Billery, a hope to continue Reagon's error beyond the hsuB/cHenny admin, and to not once again correct or change it.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2008 @ 12:41pm

22. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 02/07/2008 @ 12:41pm

    But, uh, that DOESN'T extend to Bill's Vice President, right?

    (okay, okay...just couldn't help myself!)

    Posted by Mask at 02/07/2008 @ 12:45pm

23. "Consider the consequences of Billary are already apparent in the campaign, what about in office: 8 years of the Clintons, major losses for Democrats across the nation." Posted by HSUBFOOLS 02/07/2008 @ 12:41pm

    True fact, a matter of record. Now why hasn't Obama stressed it? Has he even mentioned it? It's a perfect primary point. Why hide it? Edwards was also silent on it. Why the fear?

    Posted by sloper at 02/07/2008 @ 12:47pm

24. Testing the waters, a brochure a movie to start?

    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14494.html

    http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/obama_directly_a ttacks_bills_p.php

    or

    http://tinyurl.com/2ravy4

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2008 @ 1:23pm

25. Just to reiterate, Hillary does have an interest in Americans not knowing any better. Her campaign has continuously been about misinformation and deception, which is why so many Obama supporters are so pissed at Clinton, because they are exploiting the ignorance of voters to their advantage, just like Republicans always rely on doing. Casual observers, uneducated people, people who are just apathetic enough not to pay attention or try to understand, but are just engaged enough to go to the polls and vote for the candidate they've known about for decades, those are Hillary's base. And this bullshit about calling Obama elitist, or calling his supporters elitists just because they are educated pisses me off, because it is EXACTLY what the Republicans say about the Democrats every goddamn election. Yet another way the Clinton campaign is taking pages directly from the Republican strategy guide. Posted by BRIDOC 02/07/2008 @ 10:44am | ignore this person

    Look, Obama is gorging himself from the same corporate feeding trough as Clinton; the difference is his happy-talk charisma, lack of familiarity, and cryptic messaging that will successfully bring in more Democratic backers to move forward whatever watered-down agenda is soon to be advanced, when enough knuckle draggers can be shoved out of office.

    You level unsubstantiated claims against Paul Krugman, who has been attempting to redirect media attention to the issues. Krugman recently pointed out the unintended consequences of Obama's use of Republican talking points in his ant-Clinton healthcare attacks, while using near replicates of the old ‘Harry and Louise' characters recklessly sliming government mandates. Obama is stupidly burning his own bridge and will likely be forced by reality to adopt mandates and rescind his Grover Norquist talking points, thus risk the John Kerry stupid "I was for them before I was against them" talk. Krugman is used to using empirical data when attempting to validate his argument, where's yours? Lots of Obama supporters are educated but that does not confer knowledgeable voter status. There is a serious argument to be made that Clinton has laid out policies more progressive than Obama but it is the untrustworthiness of the Clintons that negates move. The Clintons have become too toxic even if she were to move left of where Bill was in the 90s. Still, with Obama, I find myself with one hand plugging my nose the other poised to pull the lever next week in Va.

    I say all this to remain grounded. And if we elect this guy we better prepare ourselves to hold his feet to the fire, to redirect him and hold him to the rhetoric because I get the sense it's Bill 1992 again.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/07/2008 @ 2:54pm

26. because I get the sense it's Bill 1992 again.

    Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/07/2008 @ 2:54pm

    You mean we're "doomed" to 8 years of peace, prosperity, and budget surpluses?

    Posted by Mask at 02/07/2008 @ 4:27pm

27. You mean we're "doomed" to 8 years of peace, prosperity, and budget surpluses?

    Posted by MASK 02/07/2008 @ 4:27pm | ignore this person

    Clinton had wild growth fed by false accounting schemes and an internet speculation bubble, Bush had the 'ownership society' floating along predatory lending clouds, so what will be the next phony 1920s-style prosperity scandal?

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/07/2008 @ 4:43pm

28. Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/07/2008 @ 4:43pm

    So there was no surplus and no jobs creation (merely "speculation")?

    Thom Hartmann, is that you?

    Posted by Mask at 02/07/2008 @ 4:52pm

29. Why is there a balancing act of 1. jobs and better middle-class stability or growth even, to 2. weakening the dem party with triangulation/strangulation and divisiveness to a point that it opens the door to a hsuB/cHeney admin to walk in and create a dic'tatorship? Why do we want to go down that road again? And don't use the old you'll get used to it again, because it just keeps getting worse. We need to break that cycle.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2008 @ 6:27pm