Exit Poll Stats Show S.C. Voters Voted on the Issues
by EGeiss

Despite the media wanting voters to be conflicted, especially black women voters, it seems as if gender and race played less of a role in this election than the issues themselves and how the candidates address the issues. CNN's exit poll statistics reveal an interesting breakdown among voter demographics.

There have been so many great discussions about the South Carolina Democratic Primary today from PunditMom's post on Race, Gender and the South Carolina Primary to Heather B's poignant post showing that black women will vote on the issues to Maria's Open Thread about the primary. The discussion has been fruitful.

I was actually thinking about this issue of gender- and race-politics yesterday. For the first time, being black and a woman voter seems to mean something to the media. The questions have not been about the issues and how people will vote on how the candidates address the issues, the question (especially with the South Carolina Primary) has been which way will the the voters who are black and women will go: will they vote with their uteri or will they vote with their skin and ethnic heritage? And as annoyed as I am with the media for making this question more of an issue than it should be, in the South, there is another factor involved--and that is the legacy of the Civil Rights Era, regardless of gender. For those living and voting in the South who bore witness to struggles of the Civil Rights Era, having a viable black candidate could indeed mean something significant. But I am sure that's not the only factor in considering whom to vote for, and the exit polls show that despite a large amount of support going to Obama from those voters who have the memory of the Civil Rights Era, there were more ballots cast for him from voters who do not regardless of gender or race.

Right now, with 99 percent of precincts reporting, Obama has an outstanding lead with more than 55 percent of the vote to Clinton's 27 percent and Edward's 18 percent. But how did gender or race really play into this election and what about the historical issues at hand?

Let's look at the exit polls:

According to CNN's most recent exit poll: of Black voters who would have been old enough to witness the Civil Rights struggles, 79 percent of those aged 45-59 (which also includes those who would have been too young to remember or not born yet) and 73 percent of black voters over 60 voted for Obama. But, 42 percent of non-black (as CNN is calling it) voters over 60 voted for Clinton, with the remaining 42 percent of the over 60 and non-black demographic voting for their native son, Edwards. Meanwhile, in every other age group except for those aged 30 to 59 and non-black voted for Obama. And despite all of the media hype about the questions of race versus gender, the vote was evenly split between men and women voting for Obama at 54 percent. Of those votes cast for Clinton, 30 percent were from women and 23 percent were from men. For Edwards it was a 23 percent of men to 16 percent of women among the votes cast for him.

So what does this all really mean?
The media will probably portray an Obama victory in South Carolina as having to do more with race than it may have. His votes were earned by a greater portion of voters who are too young to recall the struggles of the Civil Rights era, and with the gender split being equal for him, show perhaps that those voting for him were voting on the issues and not on the basis of setting an historic precedent of having the first black president. Gender does not appear to have had the great weight that the media has created, and while race may have played a part in this election, 52 percent of non-blacks under 30 voted for Obama, thus helping to remove the artifice of race-as-an-overwhelming factor as well.

Submitted by EGeiss (view blog) on Sat, 01/26/2008 - 23:46

Comments

 

Racially motivated SC

While it's true, young people in SC did not experience the struggles of the "official" Civil Rights movement, young people in SC experience this every single day.

Race played a very very large role in why blacks and whites (excuse me, non-blacks) voted for Obama.

Look at CNN's exit poll again - Of the people who voted Obama, 99% of them would be satisfied or very satisfied if Clinton had one the election.

I've talked to several South Carolinian family members - some voted for Clinton, some for Obama and some voted McCain last week. The people who voted Obama are wishy washy on why they voted for him.

It was a toss up between Clinton and Obama and (for non-black men, Edwards). So, these nice white middle class liberal people voted for Senator Obama - because in SC, voting for a qualified black candidate over any other qualified candidate is a way to say "I'm not racist, even if I like that confederate flag flying over the capital and I still cringe when I see a racially mixed couple."

It's ugly, I know. I lived there and still consider it my home even though I haven't lived there in 30 years. I'd like to say Obama can bring change for racially divided SC, but I don't believe it. 99% of people who voted for him should not say they'd feel satisfied if Clinton won. That is not an indication of passion for your candidate.

(Of the people who voted for Clinton, 63% would be satisfied if Obama won - also not a really strong indicator of passion for your candidate.)

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

Submitted by Denise on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 06:47
 

Disagree that liking two candidates means
lack of passion

It simply means that unlike the a Republicans, Democrats are lucky this year to have a really strong field...both politically, and of course what everyone is focusing on, historically.

I actually *would* be satisfied with either Obama or Clinton as a candidate.

And for all those who think so too, I think it speaks to passion that they get out there and vote in the primary, despite knowing that they'd be satisfied with any of the leading contenders. You could make the case that that is the perfect excuse for staying home...but it's not happening.

Elisa Camahort
BlogHer
elisa@blogher.org

Submitted by Elisa Camahort on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 09:58
 

I would like to agree

And the optimist in me does agree - we've got two strong candidates and we'd be happy with either of them.

But part of me is listening to all of the angst, surrounding both candidates, and that part of me feels like we're just not feeling it ENOUGH for either one.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

Submitted by Denise on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 10:25
 

interesting (and valid) points

Forgive me--I haven't figured out how to use the quote function yet (this is to Denise): you bring up a perspective that I hadn't considered when you said:

"The people who voted Obama [from the family members you spoke with] are wishy washy on why they voted for him.

"It was a toss up between Clinton and Obama and (for non-black men, Edwards). So, these nice white middle class liberal people voted for Senator Obama - because in SC, voting for a qualified black candidate over any other qualified candidate is a way to say "I'm not racist, even if I like that confederate flag flying over the capital and I still cringe when I see a racially mixed couple."

Being in the Detroit area, while we don't have the confederate flag flying above the capitol, the latter statement bodes quite true--I live it. It makes me wonder whether there would have been the same kind of "I could take either candidate" attitude here, had Obama remained on our ballot. (Read my post "Puzzling Ballot for Michigan Dems" at my regular blog at http://geisswordsmith.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/puzzling-ballot-for-michi...
)
Clinton ended up sweeping the state with "undecided" votes only taking 30 percent of the vote. Whether that was out of sincere desire to vote for Clinton versus desire to vote for "my next option since my first or second original options weren't there" remains to be seen. I would imagine that like S.C., for many of the same reasons, black voters here would have be expected to choose Obama, especially given the ties between the south and Detroit from the Great Migration.

To both Denise and Elisa:
Regarding optimism and the fact that we do have two very strong candidates leads to an interesting question about the future of Clinton's and Obama's campaigns, the recent mishigas (to borrow the Yiddish) between their factions, and what will happen after one is given the party nomination--who will choose whom as a running mate. Given their strengths and the oscillating victories thus far (Obama in Iowa, Clinton in N.H., Obama in S.C.), it would only make sense for whomever the final front runner and party nominee is to ask the other to be his or her running mate...but then again, either could trump the other (for whatever reasons) and ask Edwards. (LOL)

Erika
WAHM, freelance writer and editor
Musings from the Mitten: http://geisswordsmith.wordpress.com

Submitted by EGeiss on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 16:29