Reports of Obama's college graduate support have been greatly exaggerated. Yes, Obama won a majority, but he didn't dominante the category. In the primary states through Oregon, Clinton averaged 43% of the college educated vote per state to Obama's 52%.
Moreover, Clinton's share of the college graduate vote increased from March 4th and the Texas/Ohio primaries. She won the college vote outright in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky, pulled in over 40% in both Indiana and North Carolina, and pulled in a third of it in ultra-liberal Oregon.
That's not all. Looking at voters making over $100K/year (usually a subset of college graduates), Obama has pulled in an overall average of 51% per state to Clinton's 44%. However, since March 4th, Clinton won the category average, 51-47%. Obama won 56% in North Carolina and 66% in Oregon, but Clinton won the other states handily.
Thus, while Obama is winning a majority of college educated voters, he hasn't been dominating the category in the same way that Clinton does blue collar voters, and his hold has, if anything, slipped in the last few primaries. Clinton's continuing strong support among college graduates and wealthier voters raises the question: if Obama and Clinton are so identical, why haven't the college graduates crossed over? If Obama carried college grads by the same margins that Clinton carried white high school graduates, he'd have won Indiana and come within hollering distance in Pennsylvania.
The media has focused on the larger group of "downscale" white voters, or "Bubbas", who have rejected Obama with increasingly larger margins as the campaign has progressed. When that didn't seem quite enough, the media casually turned to feminists. Yes, that's it. Feminists, desperate to see a woman in the White House, must be to blame. No matter who it is, the media is determined to pathologize any Democrat who refuses to support Obama.
However, if college educated voters are increasing their support for Clinton, then perhaps there's another reason that explains why many Democratic voters are rejecting Obama, one that doesn't involve racism, feminism, or hysteria. Perhaps, despite all assurances to the contrary, the voters perceive a political difference between the two candidates and are expressing their preference.
What might the preference be? The most likely reason, given the margins, is that voters see Clinton as a centrist and Obama as a liberal. Leave aside blacks, who are voting overwhelmingly for Obama regardless of ideology, and Asians, who don't register on the exit polls in most states, to focus on the two remaining demographics who can be tracked in primary races. White and Hispanic Democrats (not including self-identified independents/Republicans) have been voting for Clinton by 3:2 and 2:1 margins, respectively. That certainly seems suggestive of a centrist preference for Clinton. This would also explain why Clinton's support has hardened as the news about Obama's pastor, the "bitter" coment, and the Ayres issue became widely known.
Or perhaps, the voters may be rejecting Obama because of his character, so completely unknown except negatives about his associates and rapid rise to celebrity. Perhaps they simply feel he lacks experience. Maybe they just find his wife completely unacceptable.
Regardless of their reasoning, the Democratic party leadership appears uninterested in understanding the preference, tacitly accepting the media's blame for the "Bubba" factor, and seem certain that Democrats will fall in line to elect anyone other than a Republican.
Two years ago, the Democrats took back Congress, not by running left, but by running right. Rahm Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer ran candidates whose values reflected their community or state, and as a result, the current Congress includes moderates such as Bob Casey, Claire McCaskill, Heath Shuler, and Jon Tester, all of whom ran on platforms diametrically opposed to the values Obama has promoted, such as late-term abortion rights, drivers licenses for illegal aliens, and tough gun control. This year, they are putting up a presidential candidate who has accomplished nothing, relies on patron support to advance, has many acquaintances and close friends who speak with disdain about America, and makes only a token effort to hide his liberal world view.
The country doesn't appear to have changed that much in two years, but the Democratic leadership has never expressed any concern about Obama's clear lack of appeal to large portions of the Democratic party. Rather, they've continually assured the media that the party will "come together" in November. They are clearly expecting that Democrats who find Obama unacceptable will plug their noses and vote for him anyway.
But voting for Obama will only ensure that the loudest and loopiest segments of the Democratic party will maintain control, a control that the leadership seems happy to accept. They seem to believe that the rest of the voters will follow along.
The best way to ensure they don't repeat this mistake is to elect John McCain.
May 21, 08 01:33 PM