Great moments in journamalism aren't so hard to come by, though they may be hard to recognize when the math gets sorta tough. Enter Norah O'Donnell in the waning minutes of MSNBC's coverage tonight of the primary contests in Kentucky and Oregon.
We've seen a reluctance in Appalachia to support Barack Obama's candidacy. And, while it may be tempting to explain their intentions to cross over and support McCain as racial prejudice, we've done some analysis. And, our analysis suggests that's too simple of an explanation. This is important. We've found defections by white democrats in an Obama/McCain election are actually similar to the democratic cross over to George W. Bush.
A bit of background here. As many of us have seen reported tonight in Exit Polls that 21% of Kentucky voters saw race as a factor in their vote (7% said most important and 14% said it was one of a group of factors).
Of the 21% voters who responded on the race question, Clinton won 78%-19%. Therefore, 16% of Clinton's support came from people who acknowledged that race was a factor in their vote.
Of course, this is just the percentage of voters who admitted any bias. Frankly, when asked a point-blank question, its hard to imagine any sane human being showing such vile ignorance. Suffice, the numbers were likely higher (arguably on both sides of the tally).
At any rate, out trots Norah O'Donnell to dispel any racially biased myth to the Kentucky vote.
Look at this. And, we'll start with one-third of the white working democrats voting in Kentucky said they'd vote for John McCain if the Democratic candidate is Barack Obama.
How Would You Vote in November?
30% McCain
49% Obama
Norah is referring here to those people who voted today and who'd they'd back in the fall. Note that the math doesn't add up to 100%? That's because, as the AP reports, and Andrew Sullivan has recently blogged
Only three in 10 whites who said race was a factor said they would vote for Obama should he oppose McCain in November. Nearly four in 10 said they would back McCain, while the rest said they wouldn't vote.
Somehow, Norah missed the math, and forgot to ask the basic question of why the numbers didn't add up. However, she was clearly confident in her analysis and continued.
But, look at, now, 2004. The proportion of white democrats in Kentucky who defected to Bush was just as high four years ago. 32% cast their ballot for the Republican.
How Did They Vote in 2004?
32% Bush
67% Kerry
Norah concludes here that the cross-over vote was the same in 2004 as projected in 2008. But, she clearly misses that nearly 20% of the vote is missing for Obama from people who say they'd sit home.
That 20% is roughly equal to, though higher, as noted above would be expected, who said they wouldn't vote for Obama based on race. This is exactly the number/thought she stepped out to dispel, and exactly the one she claimed she had dispelled. And, she was 100% dead wrong.
But, she continued.
And, check this out. One-third of white Democrats in the Kentucky primary with annual incomes of less than $50,000 said today that they would cross party lines and vote for McCain.
White Kentucky Democrats Making < $50,000
How Would You Vote in November?
33% McCain
41% Obama
But, as the numbers show in 2004, their defection rate to Bush was slightly higher. Actually 37% gave him their vote.
White Kentucky Democrats Making <$50,000 <br>How Did They Vote in 2004?
37% Bush
63% Kerry
Again, near/over 20% of the voters are missing from the Obama tally equaling, and actually exceeding slightly, the number who said race was a factor in their decision to vote Hillary. This, in principle, makes sense considering lower income/lower educated people may be thought more likely to be influenced by race relations.
In conclusion, Norah did nothing to dispel the claim that race is hampering Obama in Appalachia.
In fact, she reinforced the whole damn thing.
Another truly great moment in journamlism.