Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Given that Senator Hillary Clinton was coming off the best two weeks of her campaign, while Senator Barack Obama was experiencing the worst two weeks of his campaign, Clinton’s slender victory in Indiana and landslide loss in North Carolina is nearly unadulturated bad news for her presidential aspirations. Sure it could have be a little worse. She actually could have lost Indiana. And, for a while last night around midnight, that possibility was looming large. Lake County, Indiana, where Obama was expected to do well (especially in Gary), came under the national spotlight for withholding reporting of votes for many hours after the polls closed. A win in Indiana may allow her to limp on for another week or two. But I don’t know of anyone outside of the Clinton campaign who still thinks she can find a way to the nomination.
As is often the case in politics, the significance of last night’s results depends in good part on how the expectations game was played. Only a month ago, before Pennsylvania and the return of Jeremiah Wright, Obama was expected to win North Carolina by 20 or more points and was thought to be at least even with Clinton in his neighboring state of Indiana. Thus, from that previous point of expectations, last night’s outcomes were unremarkable. But expectations after Pennsylvania and with the Wright controversy had changed dramatically, making anything less than a very good night for Clinton the equivalent of a great loss in the expectations game. And rewinding the campaign back a month in terms of expectations and comparative momentum would hardly benefit Clinton. Back then, she was on the ropes, before Pennsylvania breathed new life into her campaign — temporarily it now appears.
But while last night’s close contest in Indiana and lopsided result in North Carolina reflect a significant shift in the ebb and flow between the two candidates, a closer look at the results (at least in Indiana) suggests a remarkable and continuing stability in the general trends of the Democratic primary vote by demographic groups. The more things change in the prospects of the two candidates, the more they stay the same in terms of how different segments of the electorate have responded to their candidacies.
In series of posts over the past couple of months (here, here, and here), I’ve charted the Catholic vote in the Democratic primaries, documenting the overwhelming advantage that Clinton has enjoyed (and disadvantage that Obama has suffered) among Catholic voters. In the two states that held elections yesterday, Catholics were a smaller segment of the primary electorate, as compared with such earlier primary states as Rhode Island (55 percent), Massachusetts (45 percent), Pennsylvania (36 percent), California (34 percent), and even Ohio (23 percent).
North Carolina has a very small Catholic population, such that Catholics were only about 8 percent of Democratic primary voters yesterday. Thus, North Carolina doesn’t fit the same profile as those previous primary states with substantial Catholic populations and venerable Catholic communities, among which Senator Clinton has compiled huge margins. Clinton did win the overall Catholic vote in North Carolina, even while the state was going by a large margin for Senator Obama, but only by 51-48 percent. Clinton’s margin among white Catholics climbed up to 58-41, which is a bit closer to the larger Catholic margins experienced elsewhere.
By contrast, the basic Catholic voting pattern remained in place in Indiana, although it was somewhat less pronounced than in most previous contests. In Indiana, Catholics accounted for 19 percent of Democratic primary voters. Clinton carried that Catholic vote by a 22 point margin (61-39 percent). While that is a comfortable victory by any estimation, it does fall short of the more than two-to-one and even close to three-to-one rout of Obama among Catholic voters that we have seen in prior state primary votes.
What might account for the reduced Clinton margin among Catholic voters in Indiana, as compared with such nearby states as Pennsylvania and Ohio? At least three possibilities suggest themselves.
● First, perhaps Obama’s free fall among Catholic voters has bottomed-out. If this is true, while Obama still faces an up-hill climb to secure Catholic votes, the incline may not be quite as steep as previously.
● Second, because Indiana lies in Illinois Senator Obama’s backyard, the demographic results in the Indiana primary may be anomalous. After all, for purposes of divining national trends, no one places much weight on how Obama fared among various demographic groups in his home state Illinois primary (where he still lost the Catholic vote to Clinton, but by a closer 50-48 margin).
● Third, the overall Indiana Catholic vote results may indicate a unique “South Bend Effect.” In South Bend, home of the nation’s leading Catholic university, Notre Dame, the unusual mix of demographics created interesting and conflicting tugs and pushes with respect to the Obama and Clinton candidacies. Catholics generally have moved toward Clinton in big numbers (and, in addition, South Bend has a larger blue-collar population, another pro-Clinton constituency, than the average college town). By contrast, affluent white liberals and young people, more prevalent of course in university communities, have gone heavily for Obama in Democratic primary votes. Yesterday, Obama did win St. Joseph County, in which South Bend is the county seat, but by the modest margin of 53-47 percent. By comparison, Obama won Monroe County, where the University of Indiana-Bloomington is located, by 65-35 percent. We would hypothesize that Obama’s margin among non-Catholics in the South Bend area was substantially larger than 53-47 (observing also that almost a quarter of South Bend’s population is African-American, a constituency that has voted for Obama by nearly 90 percent). Thus, Obama probably lost the Catholic vote even in St. Joseph County. But the margin of defeat for Obama among Catholics in South Bend-St. Joseph County presumably was smaller and thus may have had the effect of diluting the heavier tilt toward Clinton among Catholic primary voters elsewhere in Indiana. Our friends at Notre Dame may have a better sense of the reality on the ground there yesterday. If there was a “South Bend Effect” at play yesterday in Indiana, it is not something likely to be replicated elsewhere in the country.
Whatever the reason, and it may well be a combination of all three of these theories and others, losing the Catholic vote in Indiana by only 22 points, rather than 30 or 40 points as elsewhere, should hardly be grounds for celebration in the Obama camp.
Whether the few remaining primary contests will shed any further light on our subject — by way of either confirming the continued and substantial Catholic deficit for Obama or showing that the gap may be narrowing — is hard to say, but I think doubtful.
West Virginia holds its primary next week on May 13, but it is among the ten states with the lowest levels of Catholic adherents (only about 6 percent).
The populations of Kentucky and Oregon, which hold their primaries on May 20, are only about ten percent Catholic. Still, given that Catholics traditionally have leaned Democratic and also tend to turn out to vote more reliably than most other groups, the Catholic portion of the primary vote may be somewhat higher. Oregon offers an interesting political case for other reasons, as those of us who do empirical work on religious demographics recognize it as one of the most secular states in the union (and, not incidentally and also consistently with other voting trends during this primary season, therefore looks to be a lock for Obama).
Looking ahead to June 3, Montana (with just under 20 percent) and South Dakota (with nearly 25 percent) have robust Catholic populations, which again may prove to be an even higher proportion of the Democratic primary voting electorate. And, of course, there is Puerto Rico on June 3 as well, which is overwhelmingly Catholic (85 percent), but also overwhelming Latino, a community that has not warmed to Obama.
But it now is hard to see a fully-fueld Democratic race racing along all the way to June 3. First, Senator Clinton may recognize the realities of the situation and drop out. Second, the super-delegates may shift to Obama in sufficient numbers to give him the majority of the delegates, thus ending any remaining suspense. Or, third, Clinton may stay in the race and plug along, but receive increasingly less attention from either pundits or voters — much as was the case with Governor Mike Huckabee, who stubbornly refused to withdraw from the GOP contest, even though it was clear that Senator John McCain was too far ahead to be denied the Republican nomination.
So, at least until Clinton pulls the plug on her campaign, we’re on to West Virginia next week. But it’s hard to believe a meaningful contest will carry on much beyond that.
Greg Sisk
