New Hampshire Crosstabs

January 27, 2004 5:33 PM

New Hampshire Crosstabs: Primary voter characteristics cross-tabulated with their candidate choice. Dean runs strong with PhDs while Kerry gets the high-school-only crowd. Veterans vote just about the same as everyone else. And, surprise surprise, there don't seem to be any African Americans or Asians voting in New Hampshire.
posted by alms (30 comments total)

Uh, Kerry pretty much swept everything, including PhDs. I was surprised that he had such an across the board appeal, including those who opposed the war.
posted by phatboy at 6:07 PM on January 27, 2004

I was just looking at the MSNBC exit polls and found them enormously interesting and entertaining, and identical in content to the FPP, while being much easier to read. Most fascinating to me was that people who attended church services on a weekly basis were much more likely to vote for Lieberman, regardless of whatever religion they were. (of course, Kerry and Dean still did better among that particular demographic.)
posted by evinrude at 6:14 PM on January 27, 2004

boy, kerry scored big with people opposed to civil unions--44% percent of those folks went for him : < (from the msnbc exit poll link)
posted by amberglow at 6:24 PM on January 27, 2004

Regardless of how you voted today, do you think Howard Dean has the temperament to serve effectively as President?

Wow. They're really not going to let that one go until they beat Howard Dean into the ground with it.
posted by 4easypayments at 6:28 PM on January 27, 2004

4easy, maybe Dean should be beaten into the ground with it. Just sayin'?
posted by Wulfgar! at 7:01 PM on January 27, 2004

man, this scares the piss out of me.

i think id rather have Bush than Kerry. They are both millionaire washington frat boys, but at least bush isn't wearing the sheep's clothing anymore.

SKULL AND BONES 4 EVAR!
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 7:15 PM on January 27, 2004

to those of you who didn't believe it when TV told you it was unpresidential for a coach to get excited when his team lost the first half the last game of the season(dean):

be cautious of anyone well liked by the same media that is all but blind to bush's failures, and can only twist Dean out of context. (Kerry)

Im voting for Dean, but really, I couldn't care less who wins as long as its not John Bush... or is that George Kerry? the evil guy... whatever.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 7:21 PM on January 27, 2004

Dean just gave a great speech--really really good : >

I wanna see now if the media's going to be as tough on Kerry as they have been on Dean. (which i doubt)
posted by amberglow at 7:23 PM on January 27, 2004

Am I seeing things or do ALL the candidates have huge Patton-sized flags behind them?
posted by republican at 7:49 PM on January 27, 2004

they pretty much all do, republican--they learned from all of Bush's public appearances. (I prefer a wall of people myself)
posted by amberglow at 7:51 PM on January 27, 2004

This gives me a sick feeling. Kerry is opaque and clumsy and uncomfortable in the Dukakis mold. Dean, on the other hand, has a brusque doctor's personality and is too much of a statement candidate to win.

I feel sad that John Edwards, who has the simplest and most persuasive demeanor and the best set of arguments, is being overlooked here.

What is wrong with this process that, aside from Clinton, we turn out one oaf after another in presidential election cycles?
posted by argybarg at 8:00 PM on January 27, 2004

Apart from Sharpton, the Democratic candidates seem an unusually good bunch - best I can remember.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:01 PM on January 27, 2004

It sucks that Edwards didn't even beat out Clark--he's my second choice, after Dean. (and it is a pretty good bunch this time, miguel--but i'm with argybarg sort of--i don't see that Kerry has the fire to bring it off)
posted by amberglow at 8:09 PM on January 27, 2004

Sharpton has surpassed my wildest expectations. I wouldn't vote the guy dog-catcher, but I think he's done very well in the debates (the federal reserve questions aside). I'm really curious how he'll do in South Carolina, where he's been busting his balls to make a good showing.
posted by jpoulos at 8:11 PM on January 27, 2004

Edwards is a used-car salesman. He's an opportunist. He talks a great game, and if that would be enough to get him elected, I'd take it. But any comparisons to Clinton are short sighted. He's got Clinton's charm, but not half his intelligence or vision.
posted by jpoulos at 8:14 PM on January 27, 2004

Edwards grows on me--Clinton was not so hot in the beginning either--remember the "Town Called Hope" bs?
posted by amberglow at 8:16 PM on January 27, 2004

Maybe this is an AskMe question, but can someone explain this info a bit? I see that Dean has more delegates, and I presume that those extras are superdelegates, right? At least that's what I gather from the explanation on the CNN site and some googling.

So, my other question is, are the superdelegates subject to change, or is each one a "done deal?"

amberglow, i feel your pain!
/clinton
posted by whatnot at 8:26 PM on January 27, 2004

CNN says superdelegates can change their mind whenever they like.

it takes a village, whatnot ; >
posted by amberglow at 8:42 PM on January 27, 2004

whatnot: Superdelegates = party hacks *cough* insiders and elected officials. Theory: post '68 reforms favored populist outsiders, good fellows but unelectable, so around '84 the superdelegates were created to give yon Dem elders a bit more say in things. By definition they are wholly unpledged to any particular candidate. Practice: influential before the primary season, particularly locally. But after primary season, and at the increasingly formal first (and only) ballot, vote for the anointed winner. Even if they support Dean now, do not count on them to stage a protest at the convention -- because everyone recognizes that party unity is essential on opening the general campaign, and is a particular weakness of the Democrats. And these are the insiders, not Deanite outsiders.

phatboy: even if Kerry is a flat winner in every category, the importance of a crosstab demographic analysis will be in the standard deviation, how much a group diverged from the norm. Political strategists eat this for breakfast, but for most of us it's just a little bit of wonkery that tells us little.
posted by dhartung at 9:02 PM on January 27, 2004

ooh--drudge is focusing on Kerry's face work (botox? eye job?)
posted by amberglow at 9:12 PM on January 27, 2004

just that his face gets longer with each lie.
posted by quonsar at 10:56 PM on January 27, 2004

Too me, if Kerry wins the nomination, he won't win the Presidency. He has had years in the Senate to be a true leader on the positions he now defends, but instead he usually took the easy way out.

Personally, I hope the others (especially Dean and Edwards) stay in until Feb 19th, so I can have a chance at voting someone who would have a chance at beating Bush.
posted by drezdn at 11:44 PM on January 27, 2004

Of course, Kerry was in "Attack of the Clones".

More worryingly, Liebermann appears to be Senator Palpatine. (Geocities link)

via Making Light
posted by thatwhichfalls at 1:32 AM on January 28, 2004

I found it interesting that there are two "Religion" boxes. One lists Protestant, Catholic, Other Christian, Jewish, Other, and None. The revised one, immediately afterward, removes "Other Christian" from the list and lumps them in with "Protestants."

So, I guess I'm Protestant now.
posted by oissubke at 6:04 AM on January 28, 2004

Regarding alms' comment "And, surprise surprise, there don't seem to be any African Americans or Asians voting in New Hampshire."

That's because there hardly aren't any.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/33000.html
posted by HogarthNH at 6:57 AM on January 28, 2004

Longshot as it may be, I'm going with my gut and supporting this guy until he drops out.

Beyond that, Kerry and Bush---both Bonesman, both millionaire kids---what kinda choice is that?

Guess I'll be writing in Ricardo Montalban(again)this November.
posted by spirit72 at 9:04 AM on January 28, 2004

Would someone kindly tell whoever's in charge of the dems to please stop nominating introverts? Thanks.
posted by callmejay at 10:26 AM on January 28, 2004

I couldn't vote for Kerry anymore than Bush. He's a weasel, look at his voting record vs. his new stance on the "issues" at hand, which are basically ripped from all of the other Democratic contenders (especially Dean) after they became popular. I think anyone who votes for Kerry thinking that their getting something better than Bush is a nitwit. He's a reactionary, not a leader (which I think is probably the democrat's/left's biggest problem right now).

Kucinich on the other hand is great on issues but horrible on image, and if the democrats want to win they need image bad. Bush is kicking ass with the cowboy asthetic and if he goes up against Kerry it's going to be just like Dukakis/Bush all over again. Dean or Edwards, they're the only two that can beat Bush, Edwards obviously better on image there and personally less frightening to me than Dean (who is much less frightening than Bush.)
posted by velacroix at 1:16 PM on January 28, 2004

The 1950 census figures in the back of my kid dictionary listed 14 African-Americans in the Granite State. The kid across the street's Mother had grown up there, and she assured us there were basically none there.
posted by gwyon at 5:54 PM on January 28, 2004

I'm hoping for a Dean/Edwards ticket myself, velacroix (in any order, at this point)

I want to hear what bills Kerry sponsored or co-sponsored in all his years in the Senate that helped regular people. None of his supporters ever seem to mention them.
posted by amberglow at 6:34 PM on January 28, 2004