Where are the exit polls for other states on race voting?

Why was WV singled out for asking voters if race mattered?

Was it to stir up more shit against Democrats or to make WV voters look racist?

There are many other voting areas where the results could be reversed completely.

To answer your question, WV was not singled out in exit polling.
That question has been asked in virtually every 2008 Democratic Primary exit poll.
You can see the exit polls by clicking through various state results at CNN or NYT, for example.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/votes/index.html

Still wondering why WV was singled out.

If you really have a link to the race question you say exist then why can't
you post the exact URL to these questions?

WV results

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#WVDEM

You will need to use the little arrow on the right-hand side to scroll through the different pages (all 7) to see all the exit poll questions. Because it uses Flash, there is no link to the exact page with the race questions.

Back on the main CNN election page posted above, click on the state you want to see on the US map, then under the results click on 'See full exit poll results." Again, use the arrow to scroll through the different pages. You can find the race question for all the states.

Maybe you can answer this for me:

Why do I feel I've just told you something you already know?

"Obama can't win the white working class rust-belt voters" meme was alive and kicking after Ohio, and pretty much since.

But they just started separating out blacks and whites' answers on the question. I think PA was the first time they separated out the question of whether race and gender mattered by the race and gender of the respondent.

In terms of just looking at the white vote, I think Mississippi was the only state where the white vote was more polarized.

Do you know the results of the PA race question if it exists?

Google only shows the race baiting poll questions that were asked in WV.

The race issue has been largely reported in exit polls in many other primaries.

The media and commentary like yours against WV accusing my state of racism, ignorance,
and every other nasty stereotype under the sun while other states showed much larger bigotry
and racism against Hillary was mostly ignored is a fact.

Too late to change it but we can learn to behave better in the future.

"The race issue has been largely reported in exit polls in many other primaries."

This is interpreted by you as "accusing my state of racism, ignorance, and every other nasty stereotype under the sun". Come down from the Appalachian hills and back to reality. The fact remains that exit polls have explored the issue of race, plain and simple. Did the media focus more on the race results in WV? The answer is yes. But that wasn't the question at hand. All I stated was that the exit polls did explore the race issue.

Your problem is that you're just dependent upon people to think for you. I myself looked at the raw data from the exit polls, while you depend on the MSM talking heads to give you a summary, a Cliff Notes version of the exit polls.

By the way, I'm a black man in my late 20s who worked and lived in Parkersburg, WV for a year. Not exactly a welcoming place for people like me. Don't try to pretend that WV is a victim here. Here's a random youtube clip for you to digest. Feel free to explain the rationale of these people:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-q4MDQ0cDI

It's the voters in WV who threw their own state under the bus.

It shows the *most popular* search results, or more accurately, the most *linked to* results. So, something that might be important, but doesn't have many links, won't show up as frequently as something that might be fairly minor, but has many more links.

In the case of PA/WV, it became a story when Obama was taking state after state, and then "suddenly" numbers started shifting in specific demographics (suddenly being relative to the news media, of course). Once it was more of a story that Hillary had actually managed to get another win, the media pressed for *why*, and discovered an absolutely breathtaking amount of self-reported racism in WV.

Now, as to *why* 80% of West Virginians freely admit to being racists, that, I just don't know.

Got any ideas?

Duh.

A certain segment of the white population has never voted anything but white.

When my state is attacked for 80% of white Hillary voters answering that race was a factor
and 93% of black Obama voters said the same thing. WTF is that talking point?

It's hard enough to survive as a Clinton supporter without being called a racist
for doing so yet pointing out that it is worse in the other direction it becomes a
RW talking point?

Even us uneducated WV natives can apply logic to a silent and blind emotional topic.

to shut down discussions of racism and also to block Affirmative Action. That's what kind of talking point it is.

And, you really should post links to decent sources for your claims, no?

I'm perfectly okay with your support of Hillary Clinton. I'm not okay with your unsubstantiated claims. And, by the way, topics can't be blind or silent. They have no eyes or mouths.

I'm reading the exit polls...now that I know where they are.

Racism exists on many fronts and we can change that through education.
What eats my lunch is the speed at which WV is written off as racist while
racism exists in the other direction in greater numbers elsewhere and is
ignored by those to take the first shots at WV.

And in doing so, she sort of opened the way for the cr@P that was then visited on West Virginia. I don't doubt there are awful unreconstructed bigots there. But, it's just wrong, wrong, wrong, to write off the whole electorate of the whole state that way.

While it is or seems to be true that there are some regions in this country where overt racism is more acceptable than in others, it's local people, it's us in our neighborhoods that will make a difference -- not all this cr@P from people who know nothing about us or how we move or what moves us, imho.

But, that isn't to say that there aren't places were the Klan vote is still viable. It would be dishonest not to acknowledge that. There are pockets in my own state of California that trend that way. While I was in school at Berkeley, there was a John Birch Society storefront two blocks away from my apartment. Regional stereotypes may contain a sliver of truth but there's no way they really describe the work we have before us.

Google is loaded with the attack on WV but nowhere can the same questions
about race be found for other exit polls.

Thanks!

With their evil "reverse-racist" algorithms that keep putting West Virginia at the top of the page.

WHY DOES TEH GOOGLE HATE HARD WORKING WHITE AMURKINS??!1??ELEVEN :sarcasm:

Otherwise making fun of the poster asking a valid question is not much help.

You don't have to play nice but I am not obliged to return the meanness.

Then you changed your question to why there are so many Google hits on the racial dynamics in the WV primary. That's because numerous articles were written about it and numerous people clicked on those articles. It is what it is. If you have a problem with it, then take it up with the MSM and the public who reads their output.

I have concluded that little old backwards WV can be attacked by the media and
many Democrats here can feel smug in continuing the stereotypes while ignoring
that 92% of Obama's voters in IL exude greater racism.

The question remains.

I truly hope you aren't implying this.

Web pages that are dynamically generated, heavy with images,and loaded with SWF are very difficult to index with search engines. No conspiracy needed. Just knowing more than you apparently do on this subject.

The OP said: "Google is loaded with the attack on WV but nowhere can the same questions about race be found for other exit polls" in response #10. The reason that is, Great Sage Of Teh Intertubes, is that many articles have been written about the racial character of the vote in WV, citing exit polls.

"Yeah, but apparently Google is conspiring against the state of WV."

Thank you for recognizing my superior knowledge. I am staying on topic.

The only reason I got into this at all was the uncalled-for attacks on the person from WV in this thread by people whose own abilities at data analyses seem insufficient to the task.

Because you are obviously too irony-impaired to deal with snark.

Oh, and you're still defending a fucking racist. Just saying.

I haven't noticed me defending anyone other than myself.

Web pages that are dynamically generated, heavy with images,and loaded with SWF are very difficult to index with search engines. No conspiracy needed. Just knowing more than you apparently do on this subject.

Thanks again for the links but it does not answer the main question
as to why only WV was singled out for the race baiting question.

If you don't have the answer then fine but posting a link without the
answer is not an answer.

For example, Massachusetts:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MA

Once you open the link, you need to click on "full massachusetts democratic exit poll" to view the exit polls, then page through the exit poll results to the question that says "was race an important factor."
In Massachusetts, it was 16% yes.
Repeat this with other states if you wish.

Ok, I have proven I am an idiot for not seeing the multi pages of the poll.

Honestly...not all WV Democrats are as dense as I have shown. <blush>

:party:

By the way, you'll see that for whatever reason, the question "is race an important factor?" seems to always result in 15-20% yes. And I will also admit that I have about zero faith in exit polling, except for the question about whether the respondent is male or female.

cheers

You have 'The Google' in front of you, so pipe down a bit and get to searching. If you can't find this kind of info on the internet, you need more practice using it anyway.

I got stuck in recursion and blew my stack.

void blahblah(void) { blahblah(); }

Now that I have learned how to find the exit polls I find that 93%
of IL black Obama voters used race as an issue when much fewer WV white
Hillary voter chose race as an issue.

The question remains....why was WV thrown to the dogs of bigotry while IL was
exemplifying a much larger racial bias?

I have a response memorized, because Hillary supporters have played the IL race card before. If you look closely at the voters in IL who said that race was important, Obama's margin of victory among those voters was lower than his overall margin of victory.

Also, WV was thrown under the bus because some of the voters freely and openly talked dumb in front of the media. "Obama is a Muslim." A false smear. I remember one older white lady said that she just didn't want to vote for someone of the "other race". Other race? There's only white and black in that lady's world. There are numerous examples of these interviews all over youtube and some in the MSM. Are they representative of the entire state? Perhaps not, but it does bring up the question.

Those in IL who said that race was one of several important considerations voted for Obama at 76%, considerably higher than the total population of voters.

Same was true in NC, where the breakouts by race of the voters gave more detail in the exit polls. The exit polls did not distinguish between race being positive/negative and relative to which candidates.

Almost as interesting a question is why and how this is covered in the MSM. Remember how important and positive it was in Iowa that Obama drew I and R voters to caucus for him. In NC, if Clinton drew such voters, it was reported as racist. I believe that this is the crux of the OP in this thread.

and the percentage jumps higher for those not voting for Obama. I think that the MSM has focused on race because people keep saying stupid things in polls, like believing the Muslim smear among other things. Also doesn't help when you have the news media interviewing voters in WV and they're saying some of the most racist things you'll ever hear.

But there's nothing in that poll that indicates that the majority of people for whom race was a concern were black. They did not break that number down by race. Obama won wide majorities among both people who cited race as a concern and those who didn't.

Was Race of Candidate Important to You Clinton Edwards Obama
Yes (23%) 27% 1% 72%
No (75%) 36% 2% 62%

In later states (e.g. NC) they broke it out by race of respondent to race is important question.

In IL, you can back derive that from the information you have on the other items, although you can't tell margin of error and such. It would appear the effect in IL was similar to the one in NC and in each of those states, a higher percentage of blacks said that race was important in their decision.

In order to bolster your contention that black people are racist. And you're lumping in the people who said race was one of many considerations with those who said it was the most important.

I made no claims of causality, motivation, or anything else about any voters in any state. I only discussed how they responded to the question and what you can tell about the cross tabulations from the incomplete data we have.

Now about IL. 23% said that Race of Candidate was important to them. These voters reported voting for Obama at a 72% rate vs 62% for those who said it was not an issue. In IL, those who said it was the most important and those who said it was not at all important voted for Obama at about the same percentages. The difference was with those who said it was one of several voted 76% for Obama. (This is a difference with NC and others where most-important and one-of-several voted nearly identically with each other.)

The IL data reported doesn't seem to have enough data to say more about where that 17% of voters for Obama by 76%. Theoretically they could all be whites who preferred Obama because he was black. There is probably enough other data reported that one could reconstruct enough of the underlying data to reject _that_ hypothesis.

None of this says anything about anyone being a racist -- not blacks, not whites, and certainly not me.

Now was that at an acceptable grade level?

I know this goes against your anti-Hillary sentiment but it remains a valid question.

Maybe we should just quietly ignore the situation and shut up?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#ILDEM

Go to page 4.

Was Race of Candidate Important to You

Obama: most important 60%

Obama seems to have the higher numbers for both people who say race matters AND for people who say it doesn't matter.

And overall in that election 3/4 of respondents said race didn't matter. That should give you some comfort that this country is moving on.

That's some uh...creative...interpretation of polls, I have to say.

The public poll results (almost any polling) does not provide the detailed crosstabs needed to say anything definitively. An interesting comparison with WV is my home state of NC.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM

In NC, 18% of voters said that race was important and they voted more heavily for Obama than for Clinton. The percentage of whites voting for Clinton and Obama were the essentially the same no matter their answer about race; same for percentage of blacks. A considerably larger percentage of blacks said that race was important to their decision.

The fact that a third of NC Dem voters are black was treated differently in the media. Same for SC early in the primaries, back when we had two historic candidates and "John".

BTW I think the national media usually likes to make fun of the South, including my home of NC. But WV was treated much worse than even the normal bad treatment. NY newspaper headlines referred to Clinton's "toothless" victory in WV.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!