Analyzing The Nevada Democratic Entrance Polls

It is interesting to look at the entrance polls for the Nevada caucus to seek out the voting patterns detailed within them, and this particular entrance poll yields some important findings that will have a considerable impact on the rest of this race if the trends continue.

Turnout

First of all it should be noted that the newly positioned early date of the Nevada caucuses, 3rd after only Iowa and New Hampshire (ignoring Michigan), brought out record numbers. Estimates are that 116,000 Democrats voted on Saturday. The previous high was a paltry 9,000 in 2004, when the caucuses were held on February 14th that year. This continues the trends we've seen in the first two contests and bodes well for Democrats in all national races this year if it continues. Quite obviously Democrats are energized like never before, and 2008 is looking like it will make the Democratic wave of 2006 look like a mere ripple in comparison.

Gender

What is key here is not so much the fact that Clinton won 51% of women's votes to Obama's 38%, but that women made up 59% of all voters. She wins 55% of the vote from White women to Obama's 31%. The men seem to have stayed home. Clinton succeeded in getting out the women voters and benefited far more from doing so. While this is probably more of a case of Hillary doing very well with those of her own gender, rather than Obama doing poorly, he needs to improve his pitch to women, especially when it comes to Super Duper Tuesday. The fact he claimed 51% of the non-White women vote to Clinton's 43%, is an indication he can overcome this hurdle, or at least close the gap.

Age

As I've previously stated, Obama cannot win if he relies too heavily on the youth vote. They just haven't historically shown themselves to be a reliable demographic when it comes to that all important factor in elections: actually voting. Perhaps it is a disinterest in politics, a lacking of fervor about the issues, a short attention span, or just plain inexperience, but the fact remains, the Xbox Generation is a fickle and undisciplined crowd, and if there is one thing their elders can do far better than they can it's vote. Particularly in caucuses. Younger people just aren't as likely to participate in these types of gatherings as older people and senior citizens are. Go to any political meeting and attendance will be dominated by older folks. Even at my age I'm often one of the youngest at such meetings, and I'm no spring chicken.

Nevada followed earlier trends when it came to age. Obama took the teens and twenty-somethings at 59%, and Clinton took the sixty and older crowd at 60%. Problem is for Obama, his most youthful voters only made up 13% of all voters, while Clinton's seasoned voters accounted for 36%. When divided by those below or above 45 years of age, Clinton does best with voters older than 45, and Obama does best with voters younger. Again, however, Clinton's winning demographic comprises 68% of all voters.

Obama needs to make inroads with older voters, or get more young voters actually voting. As long as voting on your cellphone isn't allowed, Obama would do best to focus on the former.

Issues

I've said it before, but let me reiterate: the economy will be the top issue in the election. Voters in Nevada think so as well. 50% of voters said the economy was their top concern. Iraq came in at 22%, even trailing health care which was at 23%. And who did the voters concerned about the economy vote for? 49% went for Hillary and 40% went for Obama. Clinton took 51% of the health care concerned crowd, to Obama's 39%. The two candidates essentially did the same with those most concerned by Iraq.

Obama's candidacy of "hope" doesn't quite address concrete issues that hit home, such as those related to ones pocketbook and medical care. Voters seem to see Clinton as the candidate most able to deal with these real issues. While Iraq will certainly be a big issue in this campaign, I think most voters will view it primarily though the prism of the economic effect it is having on this nation. Indeed, if the Democrats do win the election, the new President will find the economic problems he or she faces to be huge constraints over the duration of their presidency, and Iraq as one of the few places they can possibly free up financial resources from to help offset them.

Any candidate running this year would do well to pick up on the economic angst out there and offer fiscally responsible leadership, and not just sermons about change. I think Obama has the ability to do so, but so far voters appear to be unconvinced. Obama needs to be seen as offering more than hugs and Kumbaya politics. The economy isn't going to get better just because we all start to get along.

Party ID

Clinton continues to win the Democratic base at 51% to Obama's 39%. This base made up 81% of voters in Nevada. Obama does well with Independents at 47% to Clinton's 33%, but they only comprised 15% of the total. To win a party's nomination, you really have to win with party voters. Clinton has that edge right now, which is ironic because people generally feel Obama appeals to a broader spectrum of voters. If Obama can win over the Edwards and Kucinich crowd, then he can level the field, at which point his Independent support would put him over the top.

Change vs. Experience

Change, change, change. This over-used term is what people see most in Obama. Half the voters in Nevada are looking for a candidate of change, and 60% of them think Obama is that candidate. That's good for Obama, especially since only 29% of them think Clinton is such a candidate.

The ch-ch-changes crowd is probably also made up of younger voters. Perhaps they should heed the words of David Bowie: "look out you rock 'n rollers... Pretty soon you're gonna get a little older."

Speaking of which, Obama scores very low with those looking for experience, 23% of the voters, and probably also an older group. He gets only 7% of those votes, compared to a whopping 87% for Clinton. This doesn't entirely offset the change crowd, which gives 30% of votes to Obama, to experience giving 20% to Clinton, but she, interesting enough, also does better on electability. People think she's been battle tested and they worry about what skeletons might yet be found in Obama's closet, and that Republicans will use against him should he be the Democratic nominee.

Obama isn't running on experience, so there is little surprise in those numbers, but Clinton has tried to convince voters she is an "agent of change". If she succeeds, she wins.

Race

While a vast majority of all American voters will be White, and 65% of them were in Nevada, with Clinton winning them at 52% to Obama's 34%, what is more interesting here is how each fared with minorities.

African-Americans comprised 15% of Nevada voters and Obama got support from 83% of them. That bodes very well for him in states with large African-American voting populations, such as the upcoming South Carolina primary next Saturday where they make up 50% of all voters. If he wins 80% of African-Americans in South Carolina he will surely win that state.

Meanwhile Clinton scored well with Latinos, also 15% of the vote, by taking 64% of those voters to Obama's 26%. Clinton benefited from the withdrawal of Bill Richardson from the race after New Hampshire, as he might have taken a number of these votes away from her.

Supposedly Obama has his work cut out for him to win over Latinos who historically haven't given African-American candidates much support. Nevertheless, whoever the Democratic nominee ends up being, they will surely be needing the Hispanic vote to go their way to win the White House, so hopefully that's a bar an African-American candidate can get over should the time come.

- - -

The race is neck and neck between Clinton and Obama heading into South Carolina, with each candidate practically splitting the delegates from Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada in half. The Media continues to focus on popular vote counts, giving Clinton more victory headlines by doing so, but what really matters are the delegate counts. South Carolina looms large now because Obama will be expected to win there. The large African-American voting population should assure him a win, but it could also marginalize his victory, with pundits dismissing the significance nationally. So Obama has more to lose than Clinton, who, were she to win, would deal a severe blow to Obama's nomination chances.

So with a must win state upcoming, Obama will need to look at these entrance polls and seek to do better where he has done most poorly, with White women, and older voters. Clearly, not everyone in American is quite ready for the kind of change that Obama represents and campaigns on. Obama's task in the coming days is to continue to try and convince those that aren't. If he succeeds he will win the nomination. If not, Clinton will begin to run away with the nomination at Obama's expense.