Posted on 05/27/2012 12:24:27 PM PDT by neverdem
The new round of national and state surveys this week generally showing President Obama clinging to a tenuous advantage over Republican Mitt Romney reinforce the conclusion that socially liberal, upscale white women may stand as the president's indispensable line of defense in his struggle for reelection.
Both the national ABC/Washington Post survey released earlier this week, and the NBC/Marist Polls released Thursday in the battleground states of Ohio, Virginia and Florida show Obama retaining preponderant support among minority voters who were critical to his 2008 victory. Conversely, in almost all of the surveys, Obama faces a consistent pattern of erosion from his already meager 2008 levels of support among whites without a college education.
In both the national and battleground polls, college-educated white voters loom as a more conflicted and contested group-with Obama generally struggling among the men, but maintaining his support among the women better than many Democratic candidates did in the 2010 GOP Congressional landslide. Combined with Obama's minority support, that was enough to keep him ahead of Romney in all four of these national and state surveys-though not quite enough in any case to push the president past the 50 percent marker that allows incumbents to sleep better. "I think those women are pretty solid," says Democratic pollster Geoff Garin, who is advising a pro-Obama Super PAC. "Of all the things that keep me up at night, they are at the bottom of the list."
Different strategists focus on different fissures in the electorate (particularly the white electorate) when explaining the coalitions of support aligning behind the two parties. Some emphasize marital status, noting that single women vote much more heavily Democratic than married women. (In 2008, Obama won almost three-fifths of white single women and lost almost three-fifths of white married women, according to the exit polls.) Others stress age, noting that Democrats now usually run better with younger than older white voters. Among whites, the frequency of church attendance is now also a more powerful predictor of voting behavior than income.
Yet education levels have also proved a consistent thread in the shifting pattern of each party's support. In each of the past three elections, the Democratic nominee has performed better among white voters with a college education than white voters without one, reversing the pattern evident from at least the 1940s through the 1980s. And in every election since 1988, the Democratic nominee has performed better among college-educated white women than among any of the other three elements of the white education and gender quadrant: white men with a college degree, and white men and women without one. Along with the growing minority population, which comprised 26 percent of the 2008 vote, those women (who cast just under 18 percent of the ballots last time) have emerged as a pillar of the Democratic coalition. These women look especially critical to Obama's hopes this time because of the consistent signs that he's losing ground among other whites, especially those without college degrees.
The new surveys underscore the durability of Obama's strength with minority voters. In 2008, according to exit polls, Obama won a cumulative 80 percent of the vote among all non-white voters. The new surveys show him continuing to perform in that range. In this week's ABC/Washington Post survey, Obama led Romney among all non-white respondents by a margin of 77 percent to 19 percent, virtually unchanged from April. According to data provided by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion's Lee Miringoff and Stephanie Calvano, Obama drew 84 percent of non-white voters in Ohio and 74 percent in Virginia; in Florida, where NBC/Marist reported the results separately, Obama lead 89 percent to 5 percent among African-Americans, and 55 percent to 36 percent among Latinos.
At the other end of the spectrum, Obama posted weak performances among working-class whites in all four surveys. In the national ABC/Post poll, Obama drew just 34 percent of non-college white men (down from 39 percent in the national 2008 exit poll), and 35 percent of non-college white women (down from 41 percent in 2008). In Ohio, the NBC/Marist survey gave Obama 41 percent of non-college white women and 40 percent of non-college white men; in Florida he drew just 37 percent of the working-class white men and 36 percent of the women; in Virginia, just 32 percent of the women and 31 percent of the men. These results are consistent with an array of recent polls showing Obama facing anemic numbers among working-class whites.
Among white men with a college degree, Obama's numbers are also modest across all four surveys. The NBC/Marist Polls show him winning just 40 percent of them in Virginia, 36 percent in Ohio and 34 percent in Florida. The ABC/Washington Post survey is more promising for him: it shows him capturing 44 percent of those college white men, comparable to the 42 percent he won nationally in 2008, according to the Edison Research exit poll.
In all four polls, though, Obama runs much better with the college-educated white women than any other segment of the white electorate. In the ABC/Washington Post national survey he draws 51 percent; that's down from the elevated 60 percent the poll showed him attracting in April, but almost exactly even with the 52 percent he captured among those women last time. (ABC Pollster Gary Langer points out that even that nine percentage point drop is within the margin of errors for the two surveys.) Obama also wins 51 percent of those college white women in both the Ohio and Virginia state polls, and 44 percent among them in Florida. That's significantly better than his performance among the other three parts of the white quadrant in all three states.
Garin, the Democratic pollster, says he's confident of Obama's ability to maintain his support with these upscale white women. "They're not going anywhere," he says. "Unlike young people who I describe as having been Obama-cized and not politicized, these college women are Democrats. They have been driven out by the Republican Party. Obama is far more aligned with their values and priorities, and they are just in a very different place from the republican party...in terms of fundamental questions of the role of government and what's the country's priorities ought to be and on the social and cultural agenda."
Kristen Soltis, a Republican pollster, acknowledges that Obama has made inroads with these women around social issues such as contraception and gay marriage. "What I don't know is whether that pattern is sustainable," she says. "I don't know if you can sustain the 'war on women' narrative for months and months. Because, ultimately the economy is going to decide things."
If Obama stays close to his 2008 level of support among minority voters and maintains or slightly increases their turnout, Romney has to capture about 60 percent of whites to reach a national majority. The good news for him is Republicans reached exactly that level among whites in the 2010 Congressional elections, according to the Edison Research exit poll.
But in scaling that height, Republicans benefited from a movement in their direction from all whites. In 2010, the GOP not only drove down the Democratic vote to 35 percent or less among white men and women without a college degree and college-educated men, but reduced the Democratic numbers among college white women to just 43 percent, according to the exit poll. (Democrats did much better with those college women in some key Senate races, including California and Colorado.)
If Obama can maintain majority support among those well-educated women, while remaining close to his four-fifths support among minorities, the president can win a national majority while capturing only a little more than one-third of all other whites. Even that isn't impossible for Romney: In 2010, Republicans actually held Democrats to about that level of support with those other whites. But it's not a hill Romney should want to climb: no Republican presidential nominee since 1988 has dominated the other three quadrants of the white electorate to quite that overwhelming extent.
That percentage of the white vote in 2010 was a first. There's no economic reason to expect it to not increase. Obama got a bad situation and made it worse.
It's his ideology, stupid!
I sense another 1980 shaping up...at this point in the spring of ‘80 Carter led Reagan by double digits...as the msm claimed Reagan was just too conservative for the American people.
We know how that turned out.
College-educated white women who are unmarried are indeed Obama’s last line of defense. He’ll win them this year, but not by the same margin he won them in 2008. The same applies to the youth vote, who will support him again but not with the same margins and turnout levels as last time. We should also see Obama’s margin drop among Jewish voters, as well.
It’s ironic that a Marxist has such weak support from “working class” whites (most of whom probably don’t identify themselves primarily by “class,” whatever that is). The Marxists are supposed to be the vanguard of the proletariat. Somehow the American proletariat didn’t get the message.
I honestly think that Romney will win in a landslide. Unfortunately, Romney will think the lanslide was the result of his good looks and govern like the Massachussetts liberal that he is!
Maintaining turnout is a big problem for him this time round.
Disenchantment abounds.
Obama is going to be hard pressed about turnout from blacks and latinos too. Blacks have been let down with respect to tangible benefits that they were expecting from the "first black president." Their pols are expected to bring home the bacon. Latinos were hoping for amnesty. It doesn't matter that those expectations were "pie in the sky" politically.
“If Obama stays close to his 2008 level of support among minority voters and maintains or slightly increases their turnout, Romney has to capture about 60 percent of whites to reach a national majority. The good news for him is Republicans reached exactly that level among whites in the 2010 Congressional elections, according to the Edison Research exit poll.”
Well, this Republican will be there in 2012 to support House and Senate Conservative Republicans. However, I WILL NOT be voting for Romney or any other RINO foisted on us by the GOPe. I will leave the POTUS portion of the ballot blank. Both Obama and Romney are unacceptable to me.
“If Obama stays close to his 2008 level of support among minority voters and maintains or slightly increases their turnout, Romney has to capture about 60 percent of whites to reach a national majority. The good news for him is Republicans reached exactly that level among whites in the 2010 Congressional elections, according to the Edison Research exit poll.”
Well, this Republican will be there in 2012 to support House and Senate Conservative Republicans. However, I WILL NOT be voting for Romney or any other RINO foisted on us by the GOPe. I will leave the POTUS portion of the ballot blank. Both Obama and Romney are unacceptable to me.
One must question the "well-educated" part, if they are so uninformed about their earnings potential under four more years of a man who believes his caricature of a woman named "Julia" is the ideal for America!
Generations of women, from Abigail Adams to current business CEO's, scientists, astronauts, physicians, and leaders in every imaginable field of endeavor in America, have proven that freedom and independence from the coercive and enslaving power of government are what improve the lives of women and, in turn, their posterity.
"Well-educated" women who have read the documents of their freedom--the Declaration of Independence and Constitution--as well as the explanations of that Constitution provided in the 85 essays of THE FEDERALIST and other ideas of liberty, understand that they don't need arrogant ideologues of either sex who are in positions of power in government to make them successful.
Those who understand the sources of their liberty make up the truly "well-educated" women in America, and they will resoundingly reject the kind of snake oil sales pitches this Administration is delivering in order to get their vote.
The more we talk about "Obama" and not about "Democrat policies" the more perilous our situation becomes.
Look at all the talk about Zero fading, Fast & Furious, and his eligibility. If Zero pulls out and we see the Slave Party Switcheroo at the convention, white middle class women voting Hillary! would preclude Miltie attaining anything close to that 60% total. Everything from opposition research to the ad buy would be caught flat-footed. The Democrats don't need that because they have all the media time in the world.
Brownstein fails to mention that Obama is “clinging” to a lead in these polls only based on oversampling Dems.
Obama performs okay in polls but when he’s on the ballot he gets smoked.
Obama is going to lose in a landslide. And they know it.
Every election, since 2009, where it has been about repudiating Obama, he goes down in flames - even in liberal places like Massachusetts (Kennedy seat) and Brooklyn, NY (Weiner seat). Never mind New Jersey, Virginia, Wisconsin (many times), 2010 landslides, West Virgina primary (Texas Inmate), Kentucky (unknown), etc.
reinforce the conclusion that socially liberal, upscale white women may stand as the president’s indispensable line of defense
.........................................................
Sluts,feminists, and Dykes.
I don't think that is far fetched.
Unfortunately, Romney will think the lanslide was the result of his good looks and govern like the Massachussetts liberal that he is!
I'm not sure that you can judge Romney on the basis of his prior political behavior in Massachusetts of all places. I'm not apologizing for him, but he was just a politician from MA that did what he thought was necessary. He doesn't have a history of being a man of his convictions.
That said, if Romney tries to govern from the left, he'll generate a huge backlash from conservatives, IMHO.
The GOPe did everything possible to give him the nomination, e.g. a separate primary in NY just for the presidential primary, having open primaries in other states, etc. That doesn't mean Romney is trusted. The GOP indulged GWB's preference for big government and more debt. They were burned big time in 2006 and 2008.
The rats ran for "pay as you go" budgeting in 2006, in addition to running a bunch of prolife nominees where needed such as Bob Casey in PA and dozens of pro Second Amendment nominees for the House, but they shot their wad by electing Obama in 2008 with his hard left agenda.
The Tea Party movement just won't tolerate any RINO as usual business any more, IMHO, except in places where the hard left usually governs, e.g. Scott Brown in MA, the governator in CA, Pataki in NY, etc. Some places are hopeless, and a lot of states have very large numbers of independents, e.g. MA had over half of registered voters as independents when Scott Brown won.
P.S. NY is so bad that it's also having a separate primary to oppose Gillibrand for the Senate in late June, and another primary in September for local offices and the NY legislature in September, IIRC. NY is buried in debt, but the pols want a low turnout.
Look at all the talk about Zero fading, Fast & Furious, and his eligibility. If Zero pulls out and we see the Slave Party Switcheroo at the convention, white middle class women voting Hillary! would preclude Miltie attaining anything close to that 60% total.
Only a babe in the woods doesn't know that the environmental agenda, hostility to all forms of mined or extracted carbon energy, is the rats' agenda.
SuperPACS can expose Hillary's involvement with gunwalking to Mexico. The State Dept. sold serious military hardware to a Zetas' front in Columbus, New Mexico.
Wait and see how the whole thing turns as Panetta shows Obama how to gear up for an attack on Iran. He helped wag the dog for Clinton and knows how to work the media.
Don’t discount Zero’s REAL last line of defense — voter fraud on a massive scale.
Nope. It's global government. Carbon trading is merely the funding mechanism. That's about 70% of the electorate, IMO.
SuperPACS can expose Hillary's involvement with gunwalking to Mexico. The State Dept. sold serious military hardware to a Zetas' front in Columbus, New Mexico.
You think the mediots will sell time for those ads? I've got my doubts they will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.