++Addition2++New Mexico's contest is officially called the "Presidential Preference Caucus" which explains why the AP, WaPo, Wikipedia, and MSNBC all refer to it as such. But the rules are pretty similar to a standard primary. As Hillary and Obama look to be just about splitting the vote at 13 and 12 delegates awarded, respectively, it doesn't much influence the primary-caucus disparity between the two.
++Addition++In the comments, Argent Paladin (what a cool name, btw) points out, among other insights, the enormous disparity between young white voters and older Hispanic voters in California. Among whites between the ages of 18-29, Obama wins 2-to-1 (63%-32%). Among Hispanics 60+, Hillary dominates almost 4-to-1 (78%-20%). The age trend among whites (younger voters more likely to support Obama, older folks to back Clinton) similarly exists among Hispanics, but it is much less pronounced (and is shifted a good 30 points in Hillary's favor).
In the bit on Jews, I overlooked Florida. In that state, Jewish (58%-26%, Clinton) support did pretty closely mirror white support (53%-23%, Clinton), with the former less supportive of the still-running Edwards than whites as a whole were.
Super Tuesday didn't bring many startling revelations in terms of demographics. However, I was surprised by how overt the bias in favor of Obama and McCain was on ABC and NPR, the two radio broadcasts I toggled back and forth between on Tuesday evening, though. I could feel Aaron Katersky, who was anchoring the coverage, try to cut off a putatively objective Alex Stone as he lectured California's GOP voters for being too restrictionist! NPR's Michel Norris, meanwhile, sounded almost orgasmic in pointing out that Obama had--as expected--won big in Colorado and Idaho!
Blacks overwhelmingly backed Obama, Hispanics favored Clinton (with the anomaly of Connecticut, where, comprising 6% of the total, they apparently preferred Obama by a narrow margin), and the larger the black share of a state's voting population, the more likely whites in that state were to flock to Clinton. Looking at all the contests that have taken place so far, there has been an inverse correlation of .35 (confidence just a hair outside 90%) between the percentage of a state's voters who are black and the amount of support Obama garners among whites in that state.
That's quite rigorous actually, given that obliterations like Illinois are outliers that attenuate the statistical relationship. Further, the real relationship is likely stronger than that, as I computed the results of all contests thus far (including those before Super Tuesday) as though only Hillary and Obama were running--in reality, most of Edwards' (overwhelmingly white) supporters in the southern states would have gone to Hillary if it had been a two horse race at that point. And I gave all the white undecideds in Michigan to Obama (neither he nor Edwards was on the ballot there), so he looked better among whites in that 23% black state that he would've in reality.
In the eyes of whites, Obama is only the Black Candidate when there are lots of blacks rallying behind him. Previously, I underestimated the extent to which this is the case, and am in peril of looking quite foolish in so firmly asserting Clinton would be the Democratic Presidential nominee. She likely faces four consecutive losses before reaching Virginia on the 12th, a state with a racial composition that has served her quite well thus far (a substantial black minority that nonetheless safely represents less than half of the voting population). If it is still 'deadlocked' by March 3rd, Ohio and Texas should be the final knockout punches for Obama, but the media fawning over his smaller state wins prior to those contests may be too much for her to overcome. For those who challenged my prediction, I'll humiliate myself more ostensibly when the time comes for it.
I still suspect she'll win, but I regret not taking sage advice and being a little more prudent. From this point forward, I'll try to stick to informed speculation rather than making bold assertions where uncertainty still remains.
Anyhow, there are a few notable observations to be made regarding the exit polls.
- The Jewish vote is inconsistent. In New York, Hillary beat Obama 2-to-1 among Jews (65%-33%). In New Jersey, her dominance was nearly identical, at 63%-37%. But in Massachusetts (48%-52%, Obama) and California (47%-49%, Obama), they split the Jewish vote, while in Connecticut Obama turned the tables with a nearly 2-to-1 victory, at 61%-38%.
It doesn't mirror the white vote, either. In NY and NJ, Jews were more supportive of Hillary than whites as a whole were. In Massachusetts, Hillary clobbered Obama among whites but narrowly lost among Jews. In Connecticut, she narrowly won among whites, but was clobbered by Obama among Jews. In California, the race was close among both whites and Jews, but Obama had the edge among Jews and Hillary among whites.
- That gallimaufry collectively referred to as "Asian" is solidly in Hillary's camp. In California, the only state in either party with a sizable enough number of Asian voters to adequately report exit polling data on, Hillary outdid Obama by almost 3-to-1 (71%-25%). In New Jersey, extrapolating from the other racial categories, the best estimate for the Asian vote (which comprised 4% of the Democratic total) suggests 59%-41%, in Hillary's favor. And she took American Samoa by a comfortable 57%-43% (the territory sends three delegates to the party's convention; Hillary gets two).
- McCain did better among whites and especially Asians (two-thirds of Asian Republicans backed him--not particularly surprising as Asians tend to shy away from conspicuously Christian politicians) than he did among Hispanics in California. Huh? Yeah, really. He took 66% of the Asian vote, 42% of the white vote, but only 39% of the Hispanic vote. It won't be much of anything the WSJ op/ed board will have to epicycle away (or ignore) though, as Huckabee and Giuliani took double-digit chunks of that vote as well.
- Steve Sailer mentioned Mitt Romney's strong performance in states holding caucuses. I'm looking forward to my state's run at it this Saturday. Although Paul's the guy I've been canvassing for, my little coalition is going to do all we can to get the various non-McCain factions to go after the McCain supporters. If Romney's crew has enough of a presence, though, I'm breaking for him. There's still a sliver of hope for a brokered convention, after all!
But what about the magi of the caci, Obama? He has been racking up lots of lopsided wins 0n the caucus side, coming out ahead in seven of the nine held up to this point. Tallying up delegates won by Hillary and Obama thus far, in each of the two electoral manifestations:
Primaries: Hillary -- 672 , Obama -- 621
Caucuses: Hillary -- 91, Obama -- 157
Are voters more likely to throw in with the 'oppressed' (white women are not as untouchable as black men are) candidate when others are watching them than they would otherwise be? Or are Obama's grassroot supporters simply more enthusiastic (they are younger, after all) and so show up at higher rates than Hillary's do at caucus time (primaries tend to bring out more voters than caucuses do)?
Uniquely, Texas may provide an answer. It holds a primary directly followed by a caucus that those who participated in the primary are eligible (but not mandated) to take part in. There are delegates to be won both from the primary and the caucus. Will the elderly pass on the caucus portion at greater rates than other age groups?