Obama's Appeal to Well-Educated Not Conducive to Winning Nomination

[wyldwolf]

From Gallup:

Barack Obama's support is higher among college-educated Democrats than among those who did not attend college, while Hillary Clinton performs best among the non-college educated set. Such differentiation of preferences along educational lines has been common in Democratic nomination contests of the past two decades. However, Michael Dukakis is the only candidate that appealed more to well-educated than less-educated Democrats who won the nomination.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is a clear second place behind New York Sen. Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, but he is highly competitive with Clinton among the most educated segment of the party. That appeal may be one reason he has met or surpassed Clinton's fundraising totals despite not gaining much ground in voter support this year -- well-educated Americans tend to have greater income.

An analysis of historical Gallup Poll data on rank-and-file Democrats' nomination preferences shows that at least one candidate has exhibited a pattern similar to Obama's education skew in each election cycle since 1988, but that candidate usually does not end up winning the Democratic presidential nomination.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28414

[Dawgs]

1. Well, which one of those groups will vote in the primary?

That's a question that Hillary supporters need to be asking themselves.

[wyldwolf]

2. if you read the link, you'll see

If the 20 year trend is the candidate with the least support among the more educated wins the nomination, and Hillary is that candidate, then the least educated will vote in the primaries in greater numbers.

[karynnj]

18. Except that is NOT the pattern

First of all, they are looking at relative support in the two groups. Also the 20 year trend is really just FOUR elections and in them:

You had:
2 winners with more % college then % high school - Dukakis and Clinton (19 vs 16).
1 winner with equal % - Kerry (maybe he wasn't so elitist after all - although looking just at Dec 2003 could be deceptive)
1 winner with more % high school only - Al Gore, a sitting VP

I could more easily take this as a 20 year trend that except for incumbent Presidents or their VPs, the candidate who gets less college educated support NEVER wins. Instead, I prefer to say that there is no clear cut pattern and this is a shoddy piece of analysis.

[Zueda]

4. That was my first thought on this. n/t

[DaveJ]

3. That must explain why they've gone after him...

...for being naive and inexperienced. Those below the belt attacks are typically waged against intelligent people, and probably ring well with the less educated.

It's a shame that, as a result, well educated people feel they need to lower their public discourse to a 3rd grade level in order to be understood by the least common denominator.

Of course, some need to pretend less than others.

[msongs]

5. sorta like eugene mcCarthy....without the conviction nt

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Yes. Pandering To The Lowest Common Denominator Has Worked So Well For Our Country

Marvelous.

[William769]

11. So are you saying these people should be left out in the cold?

[SaveElmer]

12. You propose an IQ test for voting privileges perhaps?

Or perhaps an income or property qualification?

Your comment makes it sound like people who are less well educated should just let the educated elite make their decisions for them. You think speaking to their concerns is pandering to the lowest common denominator...?

This is precisely the attitude Matt Taibbi was talking about recently on the left, and why so called "progressives" never actually make headway in their drive for anything approaching majority status...

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Captain Hilts]

7. A lot of people go to college, but very few actually get the degree. Numbers don't favor U grads. nt

[beastieboy]

8. I heard a theory that rich white liberals have "white guilt"

and thats why they are supporting him. I wouldn't know, I'm not rich...

[wyldwolf]

9. Stuart Rothenberg had a theory about that

While not chalking up all of Obama's white support to that, he feels much of it comes from white liberals who want to bolster their tolerance bona-fides.

[Colobo]

10. Latino of African descent with a M.A. here supporting Obama.

[Captain Hilts]

15. Yes, at least in surveys. In the actual voting booth, things are different.

Black candidates consistently get fewer votes than polling points. Doug Wilder's election as Gov. of Va. was a classic here. Polls showed him running away with it and election day was a squeaker.

Hillary Clinton, conversely, gets more votes than polling points in her elections.

[rufus dog]

34. Here let me try

While not chalking up all of Hillary's support to that, he fells that it comes from many liberals that have big fat thighs and cellulite asses to match who want to feel better upon their reliance on Bon Bons.

How is that!

[Colobo]

13. I'm proud to be on the intelligent side of the political spectrum

[Captain Hilts]

16. So those not voting for Obama aren't intelligent? This Clarkie disagrees. nt

[Colobo]

19. I'm just following the OP's line of thought

[ludwigb]

14. Let's Face It

Democracy is flawed--politicians cater to the lowest denominator and voters are easily manipulated by an interest-driven media.

We are damn lucky there are men of intelligence and character like Obama who are prepared to undergo the humiliation and platitudes necessary to secure the nomination and save this nation from the wingers.

That Obama is attacked because he appeals to education and virtue is just another indicator that fascism is an ever-present danger.

[karynnj]

17. Always be suspicious when there is an extremely complicated way of phrasing the variable

First of all consider there were only 4 past elections considered - hardly enough to really see a pattern. Here a pattern really does not exist. (Also - it is extremely annoying that he neglects to provide the comparable statistic for 2008 that he has for the other years - but splits some college and college graduate.) The fact is that the same data could be used to say Clinton's pattern has only won once - in 2000.

If you look at 2004, Kerry's % from college and non-college was the same. It was Gephardt and Edwards who had patterns of significantly higher %s from high school graduates. (Not to mention that the conventional wisdom that, to my knowledge, Gallup never used this data to counter the RW theme that Kerry only appealed to the elites.) Score 1 - for equal (though had January data when Kerry finally got coverage - who knows where the percents would be)

If you look at 1992, Tsongus, Harkin and Brown had the same or nearly the same percent. Wilder had more high school graduates and Clinton had slightly more college educated, while Kerrey had far more college educated. Score 1 - for more college

If you look at 2000, Gore had more non-high school than college and Bradley had more college than high school. Score 1 - for more high school

If you look at 1988, as the author said Dukakis had far more college than high school. Score - 2 for more college

You have:

One nomination winner with the same percent from both groups (Kerry).
One nomination winner with more support from high school only. (Gore).
Two nomination winners with more support from people with at least some college (Clinton, Dukakis).

Back to my subject line - This explains why he did not say something simple - like the one with more of the college group support than the high school group's support doesn't win. He needed to divide that group because otherwise - he can't make the point he wants.

Note, that you can make a simple statement, that in only one year did a candidate with more support from people with high school only education win the nomination. Then, if you further consider that 2008 is a year with no incumbent President or VP running - it might be reasonable to eliminate 2000 because that creates a very different dynamic, you eliminate even that observation.

The main point is that there is NO consistent pattern in the 4 years. This is a very contrived piece of analysis that they should have been ashamed to put out.

[Captain Hilts]

20. College educated are more likely to vote, but non-college have numbers on their side. nt

[karynnj]

21. That's what weighted averages are for

You do realize that this analysis is about the relative value of these numbers. Other reasons it makes no sense is it ignores the absolute value of the numbers and because all the numbers were from way before the primaries. Clinton wouldn't have won if he stayed at a composite 17%, nor would Kerry had he stayed at 9%.

Hillary is the front runner - not because she has a higher highschool to college ratio, but because put together she has more people behind her.

My point was simply that this was an extremely stupid, shoddy piece of analysis.

[Captain Hilts]

22. Yes, I was in polling for eight years. nt

[PurityOfEssence]

23. America is and always has been deeply prejudiced against intellectuals

The very national character is one of posturing "commonness", and anyone who comports him/herself as "better" because of education or vocabulary is a dead duck in politics. Yes, intellectuals who need to be hailed as superior as part of their personal identity are tiresome and self-absorbed, but we carry it to a ridiculous degree in this country.

The shirtsleeves common approach is necessary in American politics. It's an affectation, too, and it's at least as tiresome, but that's the lay of the land.

Kerry, Dukakis and Adlai Stevenson all had problems with this, and Jimmy Carter probably would have if his accent and the hayseed schtick hadn't worked in his favor.

[killbotfactory]

24. He needs to be more like Bush

That's the only way he'll win!

And if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you!

[quinnox]

25. Just like Dean

Dean had a lot of support from the "elite" ultra-liberal Dem wing but it didn't amount to a hill of beans in substantial support in the primary, Obama is following the same path.

[truebrit71]

26. Except that isn't the case...it is HRC that gets the 'elite' support...

...and hopefully will get "Deaned" in Iowa as well...

[ludwigb]

28. I don't know

Obama's getting so much more money than Dean. And he's running well in places like South Carolina.

[TSIAS]

27. I don't know why Dems are pushing this

Honestly, I don't see why it's viewed as bad to have a college education. I'm 3 credits short of a batchelor's degree from a major university.

I've never thought that my support of Dean or Obama was based on me being better educated than other voters.

I see this as an attempt by HRC to pit "ordinary Joe, John Q.Public" against stereotypical, educated, Northeastern liberals. I expect this kind of stuff from the Republican blowhards. But I hate it when it comes from fellow Democrats.

[snowbear]

29. Dems aren't pushing it. .... DLC'ers now, that is a different story...

[calteacherguy]

30. I guess that's how Bush won, huh? Not appealing to the intellectual types. nt

[snowbear]

31. No sir Mr. Cal............. Bush won........

.... this way the first time:






-------------------------


And this way the second time:

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.