Exit poll suggests Edwards does better than Kerry among southern whites

[Woodstock]

Edwards got twice as many votes as Kerry from Whites. Republicans were allowed to vote in the Georgia Democratic primary, apparently. One question shows 10% of the votes for the Democratic candidate were from Republicans, and of those, 74% picked Edwards. But Edwards also did much better among the Independents. Does that sufficiently skew the results? What do you think, and have you heard an analysis anywhere else? Does this help the case for a Kerry/Edwards ticket? Or should we disregard it.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/GA/index.html

[lancdem]

1. I'm all for a Kerry/Edwards ticket

Frankly, we aren't going to win the South, obviously, but if we can make some states at least somewhat competitive, Bush will have to spend valuable time and resources there rather than in battleground states.

[spooky3]

2. The exit polls for many states showed Kerry doing better with blacks

than did Edwards, although this was not universally true. For example, I think, in OH and maybe other states, black women liked Edwards to the same extent that whites did. This was true earlier--not just on Super Tuesday. For some reason, Edwards' message did not resonate as well with blacks as did Kerry's.

[bornskeptic]

6. It was almost universally true.

The only state or which exit polling is available where Edwards did better among blacks is South Carolina, and there Edwards was only better by 3%. In most states Kerry's edge was huge. In Virginia it was 61-20, in Tennessee 47-15, and in Georgia 61-25.

[sventvkg]

3. Southern White Males are non-factor as they support Bush

...Ignorantly...We need Minorities to get out there in the south.

[PurityOfEssence]

4. It's not so significant that we can get those we can get anyway

I guarantee you, the minority voters who voted for Kerry would vote for the Democratic nominee anyway. The ones who won't vote for Kerry but might entertain another Democrat are the big issue.

This is a logic that never fails to amaze me: it's not important to have a popularity contest among those who have already voted for us, it's important to bring new people in.

Regardless, it's over now. The first draft of history has long since been written, and now they're publishing the copy.

[spooky3]

7. Hmm, I partly disagree, on two bases.

First, I don't think we want to take any groups' or individuals' votes for granted. Second, there is a big Get Out The Vote issue. It may be "the minority voters who voted for Kerry would vote for the Democratic nominee anyway" but it may be that they are not as enthusiastic about Edwards or someone else as they are about Kerry. If so, they simply will stay home for the GE--or they may vote for a third party candidate. I personally don't believe this but I have no evidence either way, so I can't say. My point is that it is not just a matter of whether the Dems' platform is more consistent with a group's or individual's beliefs than is the Repug's platform, but rather, whether these voters are fired up enough by the Dem. nominee to get out and vote for that nominee later.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. I mean no disrespect

to Edwards or his supporters, but looking at the numbers (in GA and WI) for who people voted who 'enthusiastically support Bush' seems to indicate that there was some strategic voting taking place. Contrast this to the numbers in Iowa where Kerry garnered support from Republicans - but not ones who 'enthusiastically support Bush' - it looks to me like Kerry can peel away the necessary number of disgruntled Repubs, veterans, military families, deficit hawks.

[spooky3]

9. where is your evidence for this?

I am looking at the exit poll info for Iowa

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/IA/index.html

and find no Republicans voted for either candidate (remember that these were caucuses and Reps were not welcome) and did not see any item concerning enthusiam for Bush (there were in some other states' exit polls).

and NONE of the exit polls I saw broke down Edwards vs. Kerry votes by more than item at a time, i.e., you can't know whether the Reps who voted for one were ALSO enthusiastic about Bush or not.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. Sorry, I guess it is only anecdotal evidence.

Many stories at the time of Republicans switching parties to vote for Kerry. There were accusations leveled here at DU that this was strategic voting as well. But you are correct that the IA exit polls don't provide any evidence on the matter. Mea culpa. As for your final point, I don't think it matters whether they are registered Republican or not, imho, voters who are 'enthusiastic about the Bush administration' are more than likely to vote for Bush in the GE. Exit polls in Georgia and Wisconsin showed those voters going for Edwards over Kerry by large margins.

I really have no desire to get into a Kerry-Edwards fight so that is that last I'll have to say on the subject.

[bornskeptic]

8. Edwards did better among whites in Georgia and SC.

Kerry did better in Virginia and Tennessee. While I would be OK with a Kerry/Edwards ticket, I don't think Edwards was really impressive enough in the South to be a convincing pick.

[woofless]

10. In Georgia, where a significant number of Republicans

voted for Edwards as an anti-Kerry gesture. If they got to vote at all. Did anyone hear anything about the voting difficulties in GA on CNN or MSNBC? Nope, me either.

Woof

[Jersey Devil]

11. twice as many? That prob means 20 votes instead of 10

Maybe if Jesus Christ was a southerner it would make a difference. Otherwise I doubt any democrat can count on the Bubba vote.