Jackson Free Press

Crunching the state's numbers from last week's primaries shows that something is happening in Mississippi. The question is: Will the Obama Effect linger in the state, creating a new political landscape?

Total voters in the 2008 primaries: 565,000
Registered voters who voted in the 2008 primaries: 30%
Voters in the 2008 Democratic primary: 420,000
Voters in the 2008 Republic primary: 145,000
2008 Democratic voters for Obama: 255,809
2008 Democratic voters for Clinton: 155,680
Total voters in the 2004 primaries: 100,000

Race and Democratic Turnout
Voters who said race was "not important": 67%
White Dems who voted for Clinton: 70%
Black Dems who voted for Clinton: 9%
White Dems who voted for Obama: 23%
Black Dems who voted for Obama: 91%

Youth
Voters 18-29 who voted in 2004: 20%
Voters 18-29 who voted for Kerry in 2004: 67%
Increase in the 18-29 demographic who voted in the primary: 30%

Republicans and Crossover
2008 Republican voters for Sen. John McCain: 145,000
Clinton voters who identified as Republican: 75%
Clinton voters with a favorable opinion of McCain: 57%
Clinton voters who believe she is untrustworthy: 23%
Obama voters who identified as Republican: 25%
Obama voters with a favorable opinion of McCain: 37%
Obama voters who believe he is untrustworthy: 8%
Mississippi voters for Bush in 2000: 58 percent
Mississippi voters for Bush in 2004: 60 percent

Previous Commentsshow

Very interesting. Before we go any further, you have some inaccuracies combined with some incomplete truths. So let's examin them shall we? The combined 2004 Mississippi primary vote was NOT 100,000. It was 95,026 according to the certified results listed at the MS Secretary of State website. The Republican Primary in 2004 took in only two congressional districts as there were no other federal offices in contention. That's hardly a substantive benchmark for any further comparisons. Now, for the other undocumentd and therefore equally unreliable data you posted: 67% of Democratic primary voters claimed race was not an issue and yet the Democratic Primary vote fell quite stridently along racial lines accroding to your numbers. On your "Crossover" numbers I would dearly like to see some citations for these numbers. First of all, the TOTAL GOP vote was 143,286 (SoS). Second, the McCain vote was 113,974 (SoS). With these two verifiable numbers misquoted by you or whatever source you (don't) claim, how can you expect any of your other numbers to be taken seriously? BUT if we did (try to) take them seriously, what it shows me is that you better nominate Hillary if you want to keep any sizeable support away from McCain in November. Looks like the Hildabeasties are more likely to become McCainiacs than the Obamalama's after their candidate goes down with whatever convention compromise is struck. "Will the Obama Effect linger in the state, creating a new political landscape?" The only lingering effect I see from either is the all to familiar galvanizing of Mississippi right and center voters in opposition to the Democratic nominee.

Rex

Mar 26 2008

Rex: Looking over this there are some muddled numbers, but I'm not sure your premise follows. The combined 2004 Mississippi primary vote was NOT 100,000. It was 95,026 according to the certified results listed at the MS Secretary of State website. Right... 95k would have been more precise. For the sake of discussion, though, 100k is just rounding and doesn't really matter in context. The truth is the 2004 isn't a great comparison year, it's simply the most recent presidential primary and one that has good numbers online. Frankly, it's tough to compare 2008 to *any other presidential primary* where there are numbers on the Internet because there haven't been contested presidential primaries this late in the season in a while. Now, onto the analysis numbers...you're right about this one being a mistake: 2008 Republican voters for Sen. John McCain: 145,000 That's 2008 Republican voters in total, not for McCain. However, those voters would, presumably, all be motivated to vote for Republicans, right? So the effect is the same, even if it's inelegantly stated. (In other words, it's not like Lush Rimbaugh told some Democrats to go vote for Republicans. We're reasonably sure those are actual Republicans, with a slight outlier for Ron Paul.) The next one: Clinton voters who identified as Republican: 75% Is totally muddled. According to the AP exit polling data, 75% of self-identified Republicans who voted in the Democratic primary voted for Hillary. So this one should have read "Of Republicans Voting in Dem Primary, Percent for Hillary: 75%" Republicans made up 12% of the total who voted in the Democratic primary. So, that's about 50,000 total Republicans who voted in the Dem primary and about 37,500 of those voted for Hillary. (Again, that's based on exit polling data which is only interesting at this level of granularity.)

Todd Stauffer

Mar 26 2008

67% of Democratic primary voters claimed race was not an issue and yet the Democratic Primary vote fell quite stridently along racial lines accroding to your numbers. Actually, this is in the exit poll and can be trusted as far as the exit poll can be trusted. (Which is further than most people think, not as far as other people think. ;-) And "strident" is certainly an overstatement. One, it assumes (as national media has) that race is the only factor driving these choices. Another might be, for instance, electability. Or charisma. Or policy positions. Or who was leading. For instance, in the 2004 Mississippi primary, Al Sharpton got 8% of the African American vote. If voters voted exclusively on race, then that vote would have been higher. So clearly they factor *electability* into the equation. What's interesting is that people of different races in Mississippi think differently about who is *electable* and one factor in that is race. In 2008, Obama got 91% of the African American vote, which was 44% of the Mississippi Dem primary turnout. He also got 40% of the vote that identified as "White Independent," 24% of Republicans and 23% of self-identified white Democrats. SO...if there's a "race question" in the Democratic primary, the only real supportable "race question" is *electability*, since that's why people vote in primaries. Once Obama is the nominee, then the numbers change from Dem primary numbers to overall state numbers. All this says that the "Obama Effect" that might carry through to the general election is ***huge turnout among African-American voters***. Black voters are 44% of the MS electorate. If a huge percentage of black voters show up at the polls and that vote goes nearly 100% for Democrats, then you need to add 24-27 percentage **points** of the overall White (or non-Black) vote in the state for Obama wins. In 2004, turnout was 34% Black and 66% White, roughly. If those percentages changed significantly (with a large black turnout and a more mixed White vote between Dem/Rep) then something like 35% of whites voting for Obama would turn the state to blue in the 2008 Presidential election. Possible. Whether it's likely or not remains to be seen...Obama, once running for the general, would have to somehow beat McCain to these voters. And he might do it if the message is the economy.

Todd Stauffer

Mar 26 2008

The only lingering effect I see from either is the all to familiar galvanizing of Mississippi right and center voters in opposition to the Democratic nominee. I can see you assuming that, but I don't see how the numbers support it. My guess is that Mississippi while cast its 6 electoral votes for John McCain, but that it'll be more like a 53/47 split instead of a 60/40.

Todd Stauffer

Mar 26 2008

"what it shows me is that you better nominate Hillary if you want to keep any sizeable support away from McCain in November." Not really. Not at all. The Dems have been weak in national elections because the party leadership's policy has been to narrow the gap between the GOP and the traditional Democratic platform, and run as Republican-lite. Hillary is Republican-lite. Voters of that ilk will abandon her for Repug-genuine. That's the current GOP strategy, to support Hillary running against McCain because McCain is no match for Obama. The people want change from the failed Busch, Neo-con, Republicans. Obama represents change and hope for change. That's the real power behind his candidacy and charisma. The closer Obama gets to genuine New Deal Democratic values the better he will run against anyone. Obama will have a cake walk against McCain.

willdufauve

Mar 26 2008

Again, see the headline of this sidebar; it really is about turnout. Obama is going to turn out a shit ton of voters who won't turn out otherwise. The evidence of this is everywhere. As for the muddled numbers, the editors here are responsible for the following; this was misstated in an early draft of the main story and apparently copied from there, but wasn't corrected after we fixed the main story: Clinton voters who identified as Republican: 75% Is totally muddled. According to the AP exit polling data, 75% of self-identified Republicans who voted in the Democratic primary voted for Hillary. So this one should have read "Of Republicans Voting in Dem Primary, Percent for Hillary: 75%" To Adam/Ronni's defense, I gave them three days to put this together because the turnout had been so amazing. But the premise is the same, regardless: The turnout numbers indicate that Democrats do not need to nominate Hillary Clinton and expect to beat McCain.

DonnaLadd

Mar 26 2008

My apologies for any errors or muddling of the numbers. I believe the SoS' "certified" numbers were not yet available at press time. For my two cents worth, no one has commented on what may be the two factors that will make the most difference in the long run. First, the total number of registered voters who actually bothered to come out at all: 565,000 vs. fewer than 100,000 in 2004. True, 2004 wasn't much of a contest, but still, that's huge. The second is the 30 percent increase in the 18-29 demographic. Those numbers say to me that people WILL vote when they believe they can make a difference, and Obama--and the overwhelming desire for a change in leadership--seems to be the contributing factor, at least in Mississippi. IMHO, both McCain and Clinton represent politics-as-usual, regardless of party affiliation. I suspect if they're the choices the American people are left with, we'll see the same anemic turnout-as-usual in November. Just saying... Hard to work the voting machine when you need one hand to hold your nose.

Ronni_Mott

Mar 26 2008

I'm not in the 18 to 29 demographic. I'm in the jaded, cynical 60 to 100 demographic. I haven't voted in the past 35 years or so, I'm not even registered, but I think I will for Obama. He's the first person in public life who has ever spoken as if to me personally, as a multi-racial. Unfortunately, he comes up short on middle east policy. I think he'll stay the AIPAC course to get himself elected. But his speech, which he admits is just a start, or one step, convinced me he's the best there is in a multi-racial, pluralistic America, right now. He might begin a healing from the post Reagan, Bush nightmare era.

willdufauve

Mar 26 2008

ladd -- "Again, see the headline of this sidebar; it really is about turnout. Obama is going to turn out a s*** ton of voters who won't turn out otherwise. The evidence of this is everywhere." Hmm... okay. 2008 Democratic primary turnout in Mississippi was 420,000 by your "muddled) numbers. The 2004 General Presidential vote for the Democratic nominee was 458,094, according to the Certified Election Results. So the "s*** ton of voters" turning out everywhere must be some theorized future calculation because the recent primary vote seems to indicate a DROP in turnout of some 38,000 Democratic votes... or more if you claim a lot of Repulican votes "checking off" for Clinton. iTodd --"My guess is that Mississippi while cast its 6 electoral votes for John McCain, but that it'll be more like a 53/47 split instead of a 60/40." Fair opinion, but if you look at the history of Mississippi's recent votes, you will note that 1. Republican votes overall increased by more than Democratic votes when comparing 2000 and 2004 elections: 2000 GOP-- 572,844 2004 GOP--684,981; 2000 Democrat-- 404,614 2004 Democrat-- 458,094 2. The same can be said if you look at the percentage of total vote for GOP and Democratic candidates. In fact, by percentage of vote, Mississippi Democrats lost ground in the 2004 election, from 40.70% in 2000 to 39.76% in 2004. 3. The already lower Democratic primary numbers for 2008 (see above) combined with the November vote trends from 2000 (57.62%/40.70%) and 2004 (59.45%/39.76%) indictae that the GOP could easily win with 60% of the vote this time around. Resulting conclusion, Obama or Clinton, GOP will easily take Mississippi by the largest vote percentage in recent years.

Rex

Mar 27 2008