Clinton and Obama support
June 9th, 2008 at 9:45 am by David FarrarThe NY Times has a fascinating interactive display showing how different demographics in the 50 states voted with Obama and Clinton. They do it for 16 different demographics. I’ve pasted below two of them – for blacks and whites.
The NY Times has also done this map showing support for the two candidates.
You can click on the version above for the full size one.
Related posts:
- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
- Dunne compares Clark to Clinton and Key to Obama
- Obama wins South Carolina by
- Clinton vs Obama
June 9th, 2008 at 10:23 am
The NY Times has a fine tradition of stunning info graphics.
Visualising complex data always makes it easier to understand, and the role of a good infographic is to make it easy for us to understand this sort of information quickly and easily.
I wish out papers would employ the use of good infographic, not just pretty tables and graphs.
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Comprehensive much… What i’d like to know is, how do these people know the demographics of people who voted – sounds like through ‘exit polls’…presumably that’s just another name for surveys?
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 10:29 am
and then you add the obama supporters and the clinton supporters together..
and you get a democrat landslide ..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Paul, agreed. Much easier to digest information presented like this. He black vs white split was pretty much to be expected.
Vote:For me a couple interesting high-level trends were:
1. Obama loosing support as voter age increased. Older folks remembering the good old days perhaps?
2. Clinton loosing support as academic qualifications increased (same trend as income brackets, so possibly related). Wiser folks remembering that the good old days weren’t really all that good perhaps?
June 9th, 2008 at 10:42 am
For me the monies still on JMcC to win Never under estimate the conservatives and those Dems worried by the economy.
If the economy was bouyant then IMHO either of the Dems would win the White House.
Its the mid west and the south that will decide the outcome
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 10:47 am
If the economy was buoyant then IMHO ‘change’ would not resonate quite so much…
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 10:58 am
“If the economy was buoyant then IMHO ‘change’ would not resonate quite so much…”
As if leftists ever know how to generate “bouyant” economies. Tax and spend is all they know, and now they’ve finally spent all the money, the NZ economy is about to reach the same degree of bouyancy as concrete. If the Americans are stupid enough to elect this America hating communist racist, then they’ll eventually reach the same degree of “bouyancy”, and it will be just what they deserve. Countries that foolishly embrace the poisonous deceit of leftism have to learn the hard lessons about listening to the empty words and false promises of the left.
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Bush has done an awful lot of taxing and spending too…though perhaps he is a ‘leftist’ as well, not sure.
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 11:32 am
“Bush has done an awful lot of taxing and spending too…though perhaps he is a ‘leftist’ as well, not sure.”
Its where he has truly lost the support of true Conservatives. He is a “leftist”, or as much as he is unfortunately compelled to be by force of the ascendant political establishment that mainly dances to the tune of the tax and spend left. The left control both houses. If you infantile brain damaged people would just go away, so much could be achieved. If you had some real vison, rather than the bitter envy driven navel gazing mass psychosis that grips you, humanity would thrive and prosper to such a greater degree. If Bush could do what he personally wants, it would be different.
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Redbaiter: “this America hating communist racist…”
Who are we talking about here?
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 11:42 am
But the left have only controlled both house for a bit over a year…
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 11:45 am
“But the left have only controlled both house for a bit over a year…”
The Democrats have, but the left are not solely confined to the Democrat party. Never heard of RINOs? What fucken galaxy are you visiting from you trying boring little lamer???
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 11:48 am
When you look at the charts the obvious question must be “are blacks racist”?
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Obama is a risky candidate no doubt about that. But the tide is flowing so strongly for the democrats and Obama has proven himself very skillful political operator, he is a risk worth taking. He managed to beat the mighty Clinton machine. Further the Clintons have probably damaged their relationship irreparably with black voters. Hillary Clinton ran a racist campaign that would even make the Republicans blush when she talks about hard working “white folk”. So the big wigs have given her the thumbs down decisively hence Obama is the candidate. There is not much between Clinton and Obama policy wise with Obama perhaps being slightly more liberal.
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 11:58 am
The reason i ask these questions is that I *know* we’re from different galaxies, and so it’s a bit difficult to get a handle on what you’re referring to most of the time.
nope, but i suppose the gutless lefty media is suppressing them?
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Redbaiter: “If you infantile brain damaged people would just go away, so much could be achieved. If you had some real vison, rather than the bitter envy driven navel gazing mass psychosis that grips you, humanity would thrive and prosper to such a greater degree. If Bush could do what he personally wants, it would be different.”
But, sadly, my vote is worth just the same as yours
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Clinton never talked about “hard working white folk” but a lot of commentators did. and the only “tide” that matters flows through the electoral college.
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
“When you look at the charts the obvious question must be “are blacks racist”?”
Its really no question. As they have in NZ, the left in the US have focused on driving a wedge between blacks and everyone else, and making political capital from that wedge.
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Anyone else smile at the names of the images?
Demwhites and Demblacks…
People still wonder what dem blacks are up too!
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Sorry Redbaiter, is every black person racist?
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
One of the reasons Clinton lost votes amongst black people was comments like
” Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again,”
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
context (May 8)>> “I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”<>Clinton rejected any idea that her emphasis on white voters could be interpreted as racially divisive. “These are the people you have to win if you’re a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that.”<<
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I heard the quote on the daily show, she clearly implied that Americans who work hard are also white.
I wonder how many of you would vote for a politician who had implied your entire racial group were lazy?
Of course many people argued that this was no mistke but classic Clinton “Triangulation” she was prepared to lose the black vote to shore up her support amongst white voters.
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
“Sorry Redbaiter,”
Apology accepted.
” is every black person racist?”
Most people, black white brown or any colour who suck on the pseudo-liberal leftist kool aid, are racists. Its a big part of their obsession with political power. Its why Klark took the time to visit almost every marae in the country prior to the 1999 election, and promised handouts to Maori. That was what “Closing The Gaps” was all about. A euphemism for cronyism, vote buying, racism and every other ugly device that the left resort to when they need to win elections. No problem that it is a policy that has split the country on racial grounds like never before. Klark won the election, and the commies had the power that is always their first objective and their obsession.
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
“Of course many people argued that this was no mistke but classic Clinton “Triangulation” she was prepared to lose the black vote to shore up her support amongst white voters.”
that’s the sort of lies that the MSM were speading about her.
Of coure she had no intention of implying blacks were lazy.
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
She clearly meant working class whites, a bedrock constituency of the Dems, were turning away from Obama. Working class blacks are almost certainly not, although the numbers on that are not as clear. That’s not racism, it’s a fact. In the US, 74% of the population identify themselves as caucasian and only 12% as black or african american. The “working class” is estimated variously to comprise between 30% and 45% of the employed population. It’s difficult to ignore such a significant voting block. I don’t know if this link will show up, but the actual number of blacks in the ‘working class’ is fairly small, by most yardsticks: time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,879319-2,00.html
Vote:June 9th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
“Bush has done an awful lot of taxing and spending too…”
Only half right. He’s cut taxes. He’s just done an awful lot of spending. That’s why the US govt (unlike NZ) has been diving into debt.
But that means he is increases taxes – in the long run. Increasing Govt spending is (in the long run) the same as imposing more tax, but just deferring it and increasing it. (anyone who says here that the Laffer curve means increased growth will be asked to provide a credible mathematical model based by real data: because even Mankiw doesn’t think that the added growth cancels out the added drag caused by owing debts overseas).
RedBaiter, if you think some of the Republicans in the US Senate are “leftists” then you’re stretching that term to cover so much that 99% of humanity must fall into that bucket. You use the word to profligately that it ceased to have meaning.
Vote:June 10th, 2008 at 10:45 am
icehawk..reddy is a fully-fledged 1%er..
and as already noted..it only takes the vote of one ‘progressive’ to cancel him (and his ‘regressive’/18th century list of desires..(heh!..)
he sees himself as from those times…laughing as the splashes from his carriage soaked (his) peasants..
..he’s a ‘right case’..
..and he is mainly here for the humour factor…
(..and did you know that most of his furniture has teeth marks in it..?..)
..and he is ‘big on flags’..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 10th, 2008 at 10:51 am
and where is kiwi in america..?
after subjecting us for months to his interminable/rambling explanations on how clinton will beat obama..
..he is no doubt preparing more of the same..
..on how ‘old man mccain’ will stop the obama wave/uprising..
..eh..?
feckin’ idjit..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 10th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
So, blacks overwhelmingly voted for Obama. Why?
Define racism please! If they are voting because they agree with his policies, then all power to them. If they are voting for him due to his skin pigmentation, then why bother with policies.
(Everone’s thinking it, so why not discuss it.)
Vote:June 10th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I should let KIA speak for himself, but since this is really just the usual ‘right-wingers are morons’ slur perhaps some examples are in order….
Hardly sounds like a Clinton’s-gonna-win ramble, more like a balanced pro-con analysis. And that’s just from one thread – from early May 2007!
Looks like Philu’s memory and history re-writing skills are still right up to the level of how wrong it was to oppose the Communist takeover of South Vietnam.
Vote: