Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

Kentucky and Oregon Exit Polls and Results

Topics: 2008 , Barack Obama , CNN , Exit Polls , Fox News , Hillary Clinton , MSNBC , NBC News

I have a late appointment that will keep me off the grid until just before the polls close in Kentucky at 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Even then, I've got sole responsibility for the MysteryChildren (ages 3 and 5) as the MysterySpouse is out of town at a conference this evening. So "live blogging" is likely going to be pretty sparse tonight.

However, consider this an open-thread for all comments about what the exit polls will have to tell us about the results in Kentucky and Oregon. Here are the links where exit poll tabulations will appear shortly after the polls close in each state

All other comments will be in reverse chronological order. All times Eastern.

11:12 - For anyone not watching one of the cable networks, NBC, CNN and Fox have all projected Barack Obama the winner in Oregon. I'm headed to sleep

10:58 - The Fox News web site appears to have put up the Oregon poll up a few minutes early. They show a roughly 13 point Obama lead: 56% to 42%. Keep in mind, as per the original update below, this is a telephone poll of early voters conducted over the last few days.

7:05 - Mark Lindeman has done his usual extrapolation from the exit poll cross-tabulations currently being displayed the network web sites, and they currently reflect a 65% Clinton, 29% Obama margin.

The usual caveats: These initial tabulations are weighted to an estimate of the result that is usually a mashup of pre-election polls and the interviews exit polls conducted at polling places and over the phone (with early voters) by the networks. These estimates improve, becoming more accurate over the course of the night. Click here for more detail on how these numbers are derived and how they improve over the course of the evening.

7:00 - The networks call Kentucky for Clinton.

4:26 Incidentally, in Oregon, where all votes are cast by mail,** the survey conducted by the networks is not technically an "exit" poll. They conduct supplemental surveys by telephone in the days leading up to the election in many states with significant early voting (such as North Carolina, Texas and California). They ask the same questions by telephone that voters get on "exit" poll questionnaires administered at polling places. In Oregon, however, all interviews have been done by telephone.

**Not quite says Mark Lindeman (in the comments) with a "metaphysical clarification . . . although Oregon has a Vote By Mail system, voters can deliver their ballots by hand until the polls close tonight."

 

Comments
Mark Lindeman:

Just one almost metaphysical clarification to what Mark wrote: although Oregon has a Vote By Mail system, voters can deliver their ballots by hand until the polls close tonight.

On the ballot in Kentucky: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Uncommitted. Have at me, Thatcher! I am not afraid! ;) (The Survey USA polls apparently refer to Clinton, Obama, and "some other Democrat.")

____________________

Thatcher:

@Mark L -

Now THAT'S funny!

I'm going with KY:
Clinton: 58%
Obama: 32%
Edwards: 4%
Uncommitted: 4%

In OR:
Clinton: 43%
Obama: 57%

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

Just for fun, I'll bet that SUSA just about nailed it and Edwards + Uncommitted will be under 6% in KY; and that Pollster.com nailed it (along with SUSA) and Clinton will break 60% in KY. On OR, that's pretty much a push, but I will take the "under" (Obama wins by less than 14).

____________________

Thatcher:

@Mark L -

Either we are the only ones here - or the only ones that care? (and I have to leave in 30 minutes for about 3 hours).

Exit poll - 64.9%-29.2%-4.4% (1.6% not accounted for) - that what you see?

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

Thatcher, that's pretty much what I see too. I don't think there is a lot of suspense tonight -- probably not enough to keep me up past 11 local. And both these states are in two time zones, so we may not even learn anything about exit poll discrepancies -- although right now I have to feel pretty good about taking Clinton 60+ in KY.

____________________

Thatcher:

Yeah, I'm going to agree with you on this one. So tonight, I'll be having crow for dinner :)

____________________

Thatcher:

Again - because we are in a contested Dem Primary -we keep overlooking the fact that McCain may not get out of KY with 70% of the vote. And what about Oregon? I know, he's the presumptive nominee, but isn't there a story there?

____________________

Uri:

With more than a third of the precints coming in, it's much tighter than the 30% margin the networks are talking about. Could this be a bandwagon effect? 30% sounds more than just Louisville.

____________________

Thatcher:

@Uri -

Actually - it's Louisville and Fayette ... everything else Clinton is pulling high 60%-low 90%.

So, we'll see, we're over 50% of the total vote right now ... Clinton only needs to pull about 70-75% in the rest of the vote - and she could do that.

I'm out for about 3 hours ...

____________________

Tybo:

"With more than a third of the precints coming in, it's much tighter than the 30% margin the networks are talking about. Could this be a bandwagon effect? 30% sounds more than just Louisville. "

this was reported in several article this morning.
The urban AA areas will report, thus leading to the strongest showing Obama will have all night in Kentucky.

(and they won't double count as Indiana did)

____________________

hardheadedliberal:

"Why do millions keep coming out to vote?" asks Hillary in her fundraising speech. Well, first, it's not millions in West Virginia & Kentucky, and second, roughly 10% of the total # of voters are whites who are voting against Obama, who declare in the exit polling forms that they're not going to vote for Clinton.

If these interlopers had not voted in Indiana (they were about 7% of the total there), Obama would have won Indiana by 2-3%.

If these interlopers had not voted tonight in Kentucky (according to exit polls they are about 15% of Hillary's total vote, about 9.5% of all voters in the Kentucky Democratic primary), Hillary's margin would have been about 61.6% to 35.5% - a margin 5-6% less than the polls will finally report. In WV her margin was inflated by about the same 5-6% by the same white interlopers.

From living over 50 years in SC, I personally suspect that most of these anti-Obama votes are race-conscious votes to try to stop Obama. Probably some proportion were motivated by Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos," but my own suspicion is that anyone who would act as Limbaugh's dittoheads are as race-conscious as those who think they are good Democrats who just think that "America isn't ready for a black president."

____________________

Tybo:

In earlier states, republicans turned out to vote for obama with no intention of voting for him in the GE. They wanted the weaker democratic candidate as the nominee

When the temporary cross over republican voters were reported earlier in the season, Obama fans had no problem with it.
What comes around goes around. Best to not cry about it.

____________________

Uri:

@hardheadedliberal:

Ah yes, the usual Obama narratives.

Republicans voting for Obama = He brings in new voters
Republicans voting for Clinton = Operation chaos

If AAs had been voting not based on race, she'd be the nominee. So what ?

____________________

eternaltriangle:

HHL, enough with the "its racists that aren't voting for Obama" line (because Republicans love the idea of a woman president, and similarly love Hillary Clinton), and the continued inflation of Rush Limbaugh's ego - look at the facts:

For those that don't want to read my state-by-state analysis here is the punchline. In every state since the GOP primary ended (just before Texas/Ohio) Republican crossover voters were less likely to vote for Clinton than the state overall in all states but Mississippi and North Carolina. Even there, Republicans were as likely or more likely to vote for Obama than WHITE democrats in each state (it would hardly be a crazy assumption to assume that the vast majority of those GOP voters that crossed over are white).

In KY Republicans were only 6% of the vote - too low to count... but we know (from exit polls) Clinton won 68% of Dems and 47% of independents, for an average of 65.5% of the vote in those two groups. That is .5% above her current numbers with the overall electorate in Kentucky.

In Indiana Republicans went for Clinton by an 8 point margin and formed 10% of the electorate. That amounts to an improvement of Clinton's margin by about 11,000 votes - not enough to make a difference even in a close state like IN.

In West Virginia, 4% of voters were Republican, although the total and who they voted for was not recorded. However, you can see that Clinton got 68% of the vote among Democrats and independents - more than her statewide total. For Republicans to have dropped her overall total by one point they must have gone strongly for Obama (though probably this is at least partly the result of rounding).

Now in North Carolina they went for Clinton 62-31 - so that should be a point in your column since that clearly bucks the state-wide trend... except... Republicans are white. Clinton got 62% of the white Democrat vote, and only 61% of the [white] Republican vote - so if these racist motivations exist, they exist on both sides of the fence. If anything, given their demographics (more likely to be old), that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to back Obama than would be predicted from their demographic groupings.

Similarly, in Mississippi Republicans went for Clinton by a stunning 50 points. Of course, white Democrats went for Clinton by 47 points.

Pennsylvania? Voters registered as GOP went 50-50 between the two candidates, versus a 9 point win for Clinton state-wide and a 30 point margin among white Democrats.

Ohio? Republicans went 49-49 for each candidate (versus a 10 point win statewide for Clinton). This is opposed to a 53 point win statewide for Clinton among white Democrats.

How about Texas. Republicans went to Obama by 7 points. Now in Texas some Republicans are Hispanic, though most are white. Whites went to Clinton by 11 points while Hispanic voters went to Clinton by 34 points. Once again, Republicans are as likely to support either candidate and, GIVEN THEIR DEMOGRAPHICS, more likely to support Obama.

____________________

Uri:

By the way, how is it that Obama consistently wins a bigger portion of the delegates than the vote in that state? I can't figure out how they divide these delegates. Is it because of his lead in urban (AA) areas that have a higher representation than rural ones?

____________________

eternaltriangle:

Sorry, forgot to mention - in Indiana Clinton won white Dems by 30 points, while winning mostly white Republicans by 8 points. Maybe the question should be why GOP crossovers are such big sexists.

You can't just explain it as Clinton being too left wing either - she won among Conservatives overall by 28 points in Indiana.

____________________

tom brady:

This (Kentucky) is West Virginia all over again. Turnout is exceeding anyone's projection (certainly Poblano's) and Clinton is at 240,000 vote margin and climbing. He's not going to match this in Oregon...

____________________

Uri:

@tom brady: Yes, but luckily, Obama crossed the delegate threshold, so instead of a night of "why Obama can't connect with these voters" we're going to a victory speech in a few minutes.

As for republicans voting for HRC: Maybe because Obama is considered more liberal. Heck, that's why HRC is doing better with the so called Reagan democrats while he does better in the Latte states

____________________

tom brady:

I think the pledged majority speech is nicely timed to blunt the fallout from this West Virginia thumping, although it is a meaningless accomplishment since neither candidate is going to win this on pledged delegates. But smart campaign tactics.

____________________

Thatcher:

Well, I'm back and I see that the remaining votes did come in like I thought they would at 7:42 pm Eastern. Which was a much greater lead for Clinton than I originally thought. Congrats to Clinton.

Now, 40 minutes until Oregon.

____________________

Uri:

It's the media narrative that counts.
Not that any of this counts, really, it's all garbage time.

Also, we learn today that Richardson is going to Puerto Rico, to ensure that HRC does not win a majority of the popular vote.

____________________

AJ:

Obama's speech clearly shows that this thing is finally over, as he offers Clinton an opportunity for a gracious exit. In reality, KY results show nothing unexpected - he does poorly in Appalachia, and he has no shot to take any of these states in GE. Thankfully, he won't need them, and I certainly have doubts that Clinton would win them anyway.

____________________

Nickberry:

Graceful exit??? WHY??? Three more primaries to go plus resolution of Florida and Michigan.

Please note that both Ted Kennedy (1980) and Jesse Jackson (1988) did not "gracefully exit" but went all the way to the convention. Neither one is a quitter and neither is Hillary. Even if one does not get the nomination, there are other reasons to continue on. For example, both Kennedy and Jackson got rule changes.... as well as greatly influenced the final Democratic platform.... all voted on by convention delegates.

By the way... The Kentucky exit polls do not bode well for Obama. If the Democratic nominee he has some serious strategizing to do. One cannot afford to give up these demographics, which also include Pennyslvania and Ohio.

____________________

tom brady:

Over? Over? Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? It's not over until Hillary says it is!

Seriously, Obama needs to focus on closing this out rather than focusing on McCain. The "majorithy of pledged delegates" is meaningless. Speeches saying it's over are not going to mean much if he gets thumped in Puerto Rico by 35%. He needs to close the deal now.

____________________

Thatcher:

@Nickberry -

Right - and what happened to the Democratic Candidate for President those two years ... Oh yeah - THEY LOST!

So, you want Clinton to stay in and fight at the convention and then have Obama (or Clinton - if she pulls it out) to lose in November?

____________________

Uri:

The HuffingtonPost blogger Bob Cesca who covers the primaries for them managed to explain the KY results with a KKK video, and described Kentucky as a bowel movement. This is why Obama will not manage to mend things in the GE. His people are too arrogant.

Anyway, more than a 2:1 win for Obama in the major metros of OR, not a big surprise.

____________________

eternaltriangle:

I would not be willing to call it over for sure until we know what the rule committee decided about Michigan/Florida and Puerto Rico has voted. Will that make a difference in pledged delegates? No. However, Clinton stands a good chance to win the popular vote, depending on various factors of course.

If Florida is seated, then Florida's popular vote counts (likewise Michigan but that isn't going to happen). The Florida metric is winnable by Clinton if she wins Puerto Rico by ~250,000 votes and Obama wins Oregon by only about 100,000 (a margin of about 10-11%).

I don't see Clinton winning the nomination on that argument, but I do see Obama giving her the VP nod to prevent an incredibly acrimonious nomination. After all the last guy who won despite losing the popular vote, thanks to some sketchiness in Florida is not exactly popular at the moment.

____________________

AJ:

What kind of rule changes would she need to win??? Please explain what would be Clinton's path to victory...Florida and Michigan would net her 30-50 delegates at best and she is some 180 behind right now. Then she would need 90% of remaining supers to endorse her, even though that would be exactly opposite from any recent trends. Then maybe she could win pick 6 lotery to help her financially and Rev. Wright could have a Muslim terrorist brother that is Obama's best man at his wedding...I guess it's possible...

____________________

eternaltriangle:

Exit polls say about a 13 point win for Obama. Inputting the wins in WV and KY for Clinton on Jay Cost's spreadsheet that means Clinton needs...

184,000 votes to win + caucuses (WA primary), + FL or 234,000 using WA caucus. That is doable in Puerto Rico, and legitimate if they seat Florida - even with losses in the two western primaries (which may go better for Clinton than you'd think, based on the Nebraska primary - which, if used instead of the Nebraska caucus similarly shrinks Obama's margin.

Winning the popular vote + caucus votes without FL and MI, however, would take 478,000 or so votes. That is not plausible, unless turnout in PR is close to that in the last gubernatorial election, and they go to Clinton by about 25 points.

____________________

Uri:

@eternaltriangle: It will be more than 13 for Obama.

However, there is no reason why the FL votes can't be counted for the popular vote anyway (party rules are only about seating delegations).

Michigan should be counted with all the uncommited to Obama.

PR is not going to go for Clinton, it seems, or not significantly so.

____________________

eternaltriangle:

Uri,

13 Unrealistic? Obama is leading by 16 and Clinton's vote isn't in yet, with 42% reporting.

Have you seen any polls on Puerto Rico (if so, other than the one here, link link link)? I have only seen one, which had Clinton ahead 13 points (and a lot of undecideds). Moreover, it came out before Obama's main backer in the state was indicted (most of the other big fish there have endorsed Clinton).

The other thing is that a desperate Clinton can promise Puerto Rico a lot more than Obama can. If, following the rules you suggested, Michigan and Florida votes are considered (+ uncommitted -> Obama), Clinton only needs 145,000 votes out of Puerto Rico. I probably underestimated Oregon turnout, so using more realistic numbers it is more like 170,000-180,000, or 120,000 if you use the Washington primary (and less if you use the Nebraska primary instead of the Nebraska caucus).

____________________

eternaltriangle:

PS: biggest mistake the Clinton campaign made post-Super Tuesday? Not focusing on a single metric for victory. They should have repeated ad nauseum a (winnable) popular vote metric... Or maybe counties. Now that they could never lose!

____________________

Thatcher:

For those interested - the exit polls have been updated ... now project 57.3% for Obama, 41.7% for Clinton in OR. That's a +1.5 in Obama's favor from the first exit polls.

____________________

Uri:

@eternaltriangle: 13 is too low. I think it'll be a lot more. Seems like it's 18% and we've been stuck at 55% precints for a while.

____________________

Uri:

@eternaltriangle: 13 is too low. I think it'll be a lot more. Seems like it's 18% and we've been stuck at 55% precints for a while.

____________________

thorn969:

@eternaltriangle:

I believe hardheadedliberal was referring to self-declared 'lapsed Democrats' or the general population that say, in exit polls, they would vote for John McCain over their Democratic candidate of choice in the general election.

That electorate tends to go primarily to Hillary Clinton.

In Oregon, 3.7% of voters said they would vote for McCain over their candidate of choice. 70.3% were Clinton supporters.

In Kentucky, 11% of voters said the same thing. 80% were Clinton supporters.

In West Virginia, 8.9% of voters said that. 77.1% were Clinton supporters.

In Indiana, it was 8.7% of voters. 75.2% were Clinton supporters.

In North Carolina, it was 8.5% of voters. 78.9% were Clinton supporters.

In Pennsylvania, it was 4.6% of voters. They broke 67.4% for Clinton.

Before Pennsylvania, general election match-ups were not included in exit polls.

(All numbers processed from CNN Exit polls)

____________________

cinnamonape:

Looking as if it's going to be closer to 20% spread than a 13%.
Contrary to some of the posts above the main remaining precincts to be counted with 85% of the vote in were from large population strongly Obama districts where he was leading Clinton by over 20%. Many of these were in the Portland, Eugene, Medford and Corvallis areas...college towns that were going by as much as 65-70% for Obama.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2008/05/live_primary_results.html

Looks like they stopped doing updates about 12:30PST last night when the count was 42% Clinton and 58% Obama. I wouldn't be surprised to see him pick up one or two more percent (and Hillary lose them) given the districts still counting. But I bet it'll be at least 59-41.

____________________

tom brady:

No,it actually looks like it will be 16% - slightly closer to 13 than to 20 - as CNN is finally updating results again. But what's with the missing precinct total (Grant) - shades of Lake country again! The final margin is quibbling in any case - it's a good victory for Obama, given the scope of thumping he took in Kentucky.
Interesting how less polarized the Oregon electorate is compared to Kentucky.

____________________

Nickberry:

The ARG poll was right on with Kentucky and matched the CNN exit polling.

ARG 5/14-15/08
Clinton 65%
Obama 29%
Someone else* 4%
Undecided 2%
* John Edwards and "uncommitted" are on the ballot in Kentucky - both lines are combined here

Results:
Clinton 65%
Obama 30%
Uncommitted 3%

Must be very disturbing for Obama campaign that he lost by big margins in virtually every category except for the urban areas.

Bottom line from results in Kentucky, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana, Southern Illinois... rural white America is Obama's Achilles heel.

____________________

Tybo:

Uri:


@eternaltriangle: 13 is too low. I think it'll be a lot more. Seems like it's 18% and we've been stuck at 55% precints for a while


dreaming in Obama land.

____________________

Nickberry:

In addition to Portland city/suburbs, University of Oregon, and Oregon State University, I see that the Oregon windsurfers (Hood River) overwhelmingly went for Obama... as did the Bend ski crowd (Mt. Bachelor) with both 60%-40%. Also the artist community in Wallowa County (all 642 of them).

Whereas the non-elitist rural white voters (resource industries of fishing, lumber, agriculture, etc.) did in fact support Hillary.

Because Kentucky and Oregon both have very small populations of African American voters, these are good examples of the "white" socio-economic-educational divide(s). Racism is not the big issue for Obama as some would like us to believe. (Kentucky 9% and Oregon 3% African American.)

____________________

Nickberry:

Also notable is that Hillary got more popular votes yesterday than Obama.... around 700,000 to 550,000 (both rounded up with existing results to date).

Kentucky's large voter turnout does indeed help Hillary's popular vote argument.

Puerto Rico has a history of large turnouts... and so far it looks like they favor Hillary. Almost 2 million voters turned out in 2004 (81.7%). A 55-45 split would give Hillary another 200,000 popular votes... Throw in Florida and VOILA... Pretty decent lead for Hillary.... and a tie if caucuses (Iowa, Nevada, Maine) and Washington primary voters turnouts are counted.

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

Wow nickberry. Not everyone in Hood River, Wallowa County is an extreme sport elitist. Baker, Union, Jackson, Josephine Counties are full of old old old old people that voted for Obama. Hillary barely won any of the legitimate east of the Cascades counties with a resounding victory. They both split the retirement belt of the Coast/Grants Pass region and more than split places where lumber actually exists (West Cascades & Coastal region). East Oregon is remote and desert like and a good performance none the less in areas that are 100% blue collar and white.

____________________

Tybo:

"... rural white America is Obama's Achilles heel."
that's what happens when you continually insult people.. they stop voting for you.

Fromm Obama's denigration of Pres. Clinton's 2 successful terms, to obama's dissing white americans who work for a living to avoiding campaigning in those areas or whole states, mr. obama has created his own problem.

which he blames on racism

____________________

Nickberry:

Hmmm... I believe I have a better handle on Oregon demographics and geography.... which is NOT all desert as you envision... think grazing land... and high desert... and isolated mountain ranges (e.g. Blue Mountains) with trees (Ponderosa Pine, Western Juniper, Douglas Fir).

I also have relatives and friends in Eastern Oregon.... My relatives farm and ranch... and my friends live in Bend.. where there has been a huge influx of people who used to be the Sun Valley crowd before it got too elite and expensive... even for the recreational elitists.

East of the Cascades is not 100% blue-collar, albeit it is very white except for two major Indian reservations.

Note: That Wallowa Valley has an artist community... I did not say sports. (Barely over 1000 Democratic voters). Hood River is recreation-oriented (Barely over 3600 Democratic voters).

____________________

thorn969:

What the votes in all these districts prove are that poor, rural whites are a distinct strength for Hillary Clinton, not necessarily that they are a weakness for Barack Obama.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR