Faux-mentum For Barack At The Times

Adam Nagourney of the Times reports on the primaries and makes the same mistake Matt Drudge did  - both boosted Barack over Billary by forgetting that African-American women vote.  Here is Mr. Nagourney, with the LOL error in the third paragraph (emp. added):

Surging, Obama Makes His Case

By Adam Nagourney

WASHINGTON — The lopsided nature of Senator Barack Obama’s parade of victories on Tuesday gives him an opening to make the case that Democratic voters have broken in his favor and that the party should coalesce around his candidacy.

Mr. Obama’s triumphs capped a week in which he went undefeated in states across the country, in many cases by big margins, over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

And his strength on Tuesday sliced across nearly every major demographic line, with one element standing out: in Virginia and Maryland, according to surveys of voters leaving the polls, he beat Mrs. Clinton among women. 

As I noted yesterday, Obama won among all women way back in South Carolina - Ms. Clinton's heretofore unshakable base (and seemingly not stirred) has been white women, especially older white women.  Telling us that Ms. Clinton lost among women in states with a high proportion of black voters stopped being news after the South Carolina primary on January 26.

Incredibly, and even though Ms. Clinton was endorsed by the Times editors, there is no compensating "to be sure" paragraph buried further down.  Let's cut to Jonathon Weisman of the WaPo; he creates some faux-mentum for Barack but eventually allows reality to creep back in:

Obama's thrashing of Clinton in the two states yesterday raised the possibility that her coalition is beginning to crack, three weeks before she reaches what will probably be more friendly territory in Ohio and Texas.

Obama won among men, among women and among union voters. He won big among the affluent, educated voters in the District's suburbs, but he also won convincingly among rural voters and small-town Democrats.

...

Clinton still pulled more votes from white women, but that advantage was neutralized by Obama's popularity among white men.

As a quickie on the WaPo - since blacks can be found in rural areas and many are neither affluent nor possess a college degree, Obama won among the rural and less-educated in South Carolina.  If Barack were winning among rural and small-town whites Mr. Weisman would have a story.

But back to women, and let's have some number, please:  In South Carolina, Obama was backed by 22% of white women; Edwards got 36% and Billary earned 42%.  Among all women, however, Obama collected 54% to Clinton/Edwards 46%.  South Carolina had 55% black turnout on the Democratic side, and 78% of black women backed Barack.

In Maryland, 37% of voters were black; 82% of black women went for Barack, as did 38% of white women (Hillary got 56% of the white chicks).  On net, Barack won the woman's vote by 55-41.

In Virginia, 30% of voters were black; 86% of black women went for Barack, as did 47% of white women (Hillary got 53% of the white chicks).  On net, Barack won the woman's vote by 60-39.

Now, there is plenty for Ms. Clinton to worry about here - white women are clearly hopping off her bus and heading to Obamaland, apparently to the tune of "Where The Boys Are".  However, Mr. Nagourney's report that Barack's victory among all women represents a major shift is simply not accurate.

So why the faux-mentum at the Times?  I am reluctant to rule out bone-headedness, but let's also identify the possibility that the Times editors are re-thinking their endorsement of Hillary and trying to bond with their young, affluent, college-educated readers.

Comments

[kim]

It's the endorphins. Comin' down will be a bummer.
=================

[MayBee]

re-thinking their endorsement of Hillary and trying to bond with their young, affluent, college-educated readers.

As well as "curious," "engaged," "unusually intelligent," "unpredictable," "sophisticated," "skeptical," and "well educated."*

* one of my all-time favs

[anduril]

Clinton still pulled more votes from white women, but that advantage was neutralized by Obama's popularity among white men.

Which is to say: Obama's popularity among white men who voted in the Democratic primary. That's a very different thing than white men who vote in the general election,as poll after poll has shown.

[kim]

Obama's just the latest hot rapper. Which reminds me; Alice Cooper for President.
===================

[GMax]

OT

Very interesting news coming out that Ron Paul has internal polling showing him trailing significantly in the primary race for his House seat. Chris Peden is said to be 11 points up on Paul and Paul near in a panic.

If he had not paraded his nuttiness and his ragtag followers with their conspiracies and the ugly holocaust denials and racist views around, the folks in his district would likely have sent him back to congress again. Now its likely he will struggle to keep the cushy House seat.

There is some justice.

[GMax]

Kim

Were you thinking Welcome to my Nightmare as a theme song, or has Obama already locked that one up?

[clarice]

I was thinking "The King is in the Altogether" myself.

[kim]

Where's my Muppets?
=============

[Ralph L]

What percentages of Democratic primary voters are white men or rural voters? Seem like small parts of their constituency.

You would think big-city voters wouldn't be whistling past the graveyard wrt terrorism, or does appeasement just come naturally to most Dems?

[clarice]

I think we can blame Susan Estrich for the superdelegate nonsense.

[GMax]

What percentages of Democratic primary voters are white men

I dont know about elsewhere, but in Texas white men and Democrat almost does not go together. There are a fair amount in Austin, clustered around the University and the large amount of State government employees. But elsewhere, its pretty slim picking.

[Ralph L]

Slim Pickens wasn't pretty, but he may have been a Democrat.

[Gregory Koster]

Deear Mr. maguire: You write:

"So why the faux-mentum at the Times? I am reluctant to rule out bone-headedness, but let's also identify the possibility that the Times editors are re-thinking their endorsement of Hillary and trying to bond with their young, affluent, college-educated readers."

But, but, but, there's an iron wall between the editorial and news pages in newspapers. The TIMES, rowing back from an ill-considered editorial primary endorsement in its news pages? Say it ain't so!

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster