Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Exit polls: Obama's voters smarter, more affluent than Hillary's are

++Addition++Steve Sailer excerpts from The Guardian:
"[Hillary] noticeably won the votes of those on lower incomes and without college degrees. In the words of that Clinton adviser: 'If you have a social need, you're with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool.'"

Exit polls from the Iowa caucuses revealed one putative surprise--Obama's victory among (non-menopausal) women. As the caucus and primary-goers are even more educated, affluent, and white than are the voters who show up on general election day, and given that both states are relatively egalitarian and well-off, the demographics aren't as potentially exciting as they'll be in November.

Still, a few things strike me as worth knowing, if you hadn't already been aware of as much:

- The IQ of the average Obama supporter is probably higher than the IQ of the average Hillary voter is. He makes more money and is better educated, anyway.

In Iowa, among those making over $100,000 (one-fifth of those participating on the Democratic side), Obama beat Hillary by more than 2:1 (41%-19%). Among those making over $50,000, representing nearly two-thirds of caucus-goers (63%), Obama came out ahead, 3:2 (36% to 23%). (Click on the graphics to more easily view them).

In New Hampshire, Obama bested Hillary among post-graduates, 43%-31%. And the post-grad group isn't a diminutive one--nearly one-fourth (23%) of those who participated in the NH primary on the Democratic side belonged to it.

Among those who had acquired up to a high school diploma (one-fifth of the total), Obama got clobbered, 48%-30%.

To be fair to the Senator, she did best among old fogies, who are less likely to have received as much education and a sizable portion of whom earn incomes today that are only a fraction of what they earned in the past. However, she (10%) was pounded by Obama (57%), and beaten by Edwards (14%), among those between the ages of 18-29, a bloc that comprises 17% of the total on the Democratic side, so it's hard to gauge if she had much of a built-in disadvantage (or even advantage) in this sense, or if it is essentially a wash.

- Despite Edwards' "Two Americas" theme, it wasn't the "hard working common man" but the "wealthy and privileged" who rallied to his side (in Iowa--the New Hampshire exit poll did not inquire about income). More than 21% of those who voted for him make over $100,000 per year. Among Obama's supporters, a little under 20% are in the six-figure range. For Clinton, fewer than 12% are.

- In New Hampshire, GOP voters stood behind their respective candidates more in consequence of the issues most important to them than due to their demographic profiles (although McCain did beat Romney handily among post-grads, 45%-32%).

Among voters who perceived illegal immigration as the most important issue facing the nation (23% of the Republican total), Romney outdid McCain by a walloping 3:1 ratio (56%-19%). For those who placed the most importance on the Iraq war, McCain beat Romney, 45%-27%.

Although McCain and President Bush locked horns in 2000, the Arizonan looks to be the Republican contender most likely to carry on Bush's invade-the-world, invite-the-world policies if he wins in November.


al fin said...

These days, "education level" is not a reliable proxy for intelligence. Given the rampant level of academic lobotomy--academic indoctrination to a singular point of view while denying students access to multiple competing POVs--a modern university education could be an intellectual liability. (read John Taylor Gatto's "Underground History of American Education" or Joseph Kett's "Rites of Passage)."

Smart americans would not vote for politicians with corrupt China connections such as Hillary, or with the race-bias that Obama possesses--as demonstrated by his book "Dreams of My Father" and his connections with Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Anonymous said...

So, it looks like things might get more interesting in states with more middle Americans.

Anonymous said...

In New Hampshire robo-globalist McCain won only with independents included. Romney won among the Republican primary voters. In other states only Republicans vote in that primary. No one seems to have pointed out in the media the crushing of the Bush legacy in terms of the continuity of his following in the next chapters of Republican national politics. Even obedient McCain is in raging campaign-wise insubordination to the president in wartime, than which there could hardly be a more thorugh repudiation of Bush-neocon global-brotherhood. JSB

Audacious Epigone said...

Al Fin,

It's a roughly reliable proxy for IQ, especially in that people with double-digit IQs usually don't graduate (nor should they feel compelled to, as they and society will both benefit more by them entering the workforce earlier and developing a practical skillset). Among those who do go, and pursue some non-technical (soft) subject, intelligence in the more vernacular sense may not be increased at all, or even hindered.

Re: Obama, WND finally put out a significant article on his connections with Wright. It's a lurking liability that puts the underdog out of contention. I figured Hillary would have earlier, and had she not won in NH, she might have done so in desperation thereafter.


Hillary has the Democratic nomination. On the GOP side, I'm hoping middle America boosts Fred Thompson. The thought of a 3-way contest between McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee--yikes.


I'd thought the same, but the NH exit poll shows McCain beating Romney among Republicans by 4 points, 37-33. Romney won among self-described conservatives though, 38-30.

pjgoober said...

Here is the inductivist on IQ and education (inspired by yours truly):
"Eductional level is now a poor measure of intelligence: Pjgoober wondered if the correlation between IQ and education has declined over the past few decades, which might explain why the association between educational levels of spouses has evidently not been rising. Indeed, according to the GSS, the correlation has fallen sharply in the past 30 years from .59 to .39. The overall trend held for both whites and blacks. One's educational level is now a poor marker of intelligence."

Anonymous said...

Smart people would also not vote for Bush and they should also not believe the phony claim about Bush talks to God/God talks to him craps.

The term "middle class" has become a favorite polical spin. Everyone want to talk, want to be in the middle. Wealthy people talk (or b*ll sh*t) about the so called "middle class values", poor people who are heavily in debts, have little of saving think they are belong to the middle class. In reality is that the middle is shrinking and the gap between the top and bottom is widen.

Anonymous said...

Heh, now it looks like people are claiming that Hillary's camp rigged things in New Hampshire.

I guess she will have to fire those evil dudes after all.

Audacious Epigone said...


Thanks for that, and good insight. Also, thanks for pointing me over to the Inductivist again. I'm not sure why I don't read him on a regular basis. That needs to change, and from this point forward, it has indeed!

That meshes with what Al Fin suggested, and what I assumed. Still, a correlation of ~.40 is not a weak one, especially in the social sciences. So it's still not a bad proxy, better than income.

Audacious Epigone said...


I wouldn't put it past them, I suppose. At this point, though, there doesn't seem to be much to the accusations, other than the fact that the polls and the final results didn't match up too well.

But in NH, unlike Iowa, the voting was closed. So the conspicuous moral posturing benefit that comes with voting for a well-groomed blackish man didn't apply there (it still would when pollsters were talking to people over the phone). I suspect that had something to do with the disparity.

See RP's post on just such a discrepancy.