September 12, 2008

Memo to Andrea and Eleanor: In Ohio, Not College-Educated Women Are Supporting Obama

On August 31 at Newsbusters, Warner Todd Huston caught NBC political correspondent Andrea Mitchell’s assessment about the kind of women who would be supporting the McCain-Palin ticket:

….. they (McCain-Palin) think that they can peel off some of these working class women, not college educated, who, the blue collar women who were voting for Hillary Clinton and may be more conservative on social causes.

Combining Mitchell’s take with the statement by Eleanor Clift (noted by NB’s Brent Baker) that “in many newsrooms” McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin was “greeted by “laughter,” you get the distinct impression that the media believe that women who are supporting McCain-Palin aren’t very smart.

The Mitchell-Clift Maxim isn’t passing the smell test in Ohio, at least if the results of the University of Cincinnati’s Ohio Poll released earlier today (a PDF can be retrieved at this link; HT to NB commenter Dee Bunk) are to be believed.

The overall results show McCain-Palin up 48% – 44%, which is barely outside the poll’s 3.5% margin of error. The demographic results based on education level contradict the Mitchell Maxim in a major way:

  • Those with less than a high school education favor Obama by 63-32.
  • Those with a high school education favor Obama by 49-42.
  • Those who have some college education favor McCain by 52-37.
  • Those who have a college degree favor McCain by 50-44.

There’s no breakdown between males and females within education level, but it’s hard to imagine that McCain is getting a majority of women in the first two categories.

As a resident of the Buckeye State, I can say informally that this result seems to conform to reality.

What was that you were saying, Andrea and Eleanor?

Cross-posted at



  1. What, no opinion on Her first interview? I can’t wait to get your spin on her “unblinking” determinism and how she was thinking of Lincoln when she referred to God’s plans for the pipeline. Not to mention the “Bush Doctrine” question. A hack like me could have answered those softball questions. McCain gambled on a woman he met ONCE… her performance reflects how rash McCain is, and how unsuited he is to lead this great country.

    Comment by Mike — September 12, 2008 @ 3:58 pm

  2. #1, see the previous post and the next post.

    She did fine. Charles Gibson came off as a condescending arrogant jerk. Advantage Palin.

    McCai and Palin are each separately infinitely more foreign policy ready than either Al Gore or Bill Clinton were. That C-G weren’t is demonstrated in how they gradually made us ever more vulnerable to terror attacks.

    The O team has no meaningful experience at the top and 30 or so years of experience at making the wrong calls at the bottom.

    Comment by TBlumer — September 12, 2008 @ 6:52 pm

  3. #1, Krauthammer and Malkin took apart Gibson on “the Bush doctrine” earlier today.

    Try something else.

    Comment by TBlumer — September 12, 2008 @ 11:35 pm

  4. Palin did fine, especially in light of Gibson’s terrible performance. In fact, she had to bail him out several times.

    He kept asking the same question over and over, either forgetting that he just asked it, forgetting that she just answered it, or expecting a different answer to the same question. Palin was classy enough to carry him through it though.

    Gibson embarrassed himself by asking her to respond to a quote that wasn’t hers, and then asking her about the Bush Doctrine that he obviously didn’t know had expanded over time. Even so, his “understanding” of it was the liberal’s definition – pre-emption – which is a small part. Palin knew what he was driving at, but also knew that he was wrong. Again, Palin could have slammed him, but she just smiled and answered the vague question the best she could. It’s like asking, “Do you agree with The War on Poverty.”

    “Well, what in particular? Are you asking if I am against poverty? or Medicaid? or a welfare state?”

    “Your an idiot! The War on Poverty obviously refers to defeating Republicans that turn everyone into slaves!”

    Despite all this, she did very well, and didn’t embarrass the interviewer – infact carried him most of the time. ABC owes her a vote of thanks for trying to keep Gibson’s reputation intact. Hopefully, with time and study, he’ll improve before the debates.

    Comment by Joe C. — September 13, 2008 @ 1:00 am

  5. So if you think the poll results are accurate on the ground (something I haven’t been able to figure out myself) where are the other 8% going? None of these polls add up to 100% and the makeup of that other 8% would make a big difference.

    Are people seeing any evidence of Barr or (gulp) Paul voters? I haven’t personally but that doesn’t mean anything.

    Comment by G Davis — September 13, 2008 @ 11:56 pm

  6. #5, Undecideds and Barr and Nader. Go to the link and then the PDF for the specifics.

    Comment by TBlumer — September 14, 2008 @ 12:12 am

  7. Let’s talk about this race. The foreign policy experts are Obama and Biden, hands down. Joe Biden chairs the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and Barack Obama is a committee member. Compare their experience to Sarah Palin’s cramming for two weeks before finally granting her first cringe-inducing interview.

    John McCain was reckless in his selection of Ms. Palin as his VP nominee. For this reason, I declare John McCain to be objectively unfit.

    Comment by Tony B. — September 14, 2008 @ 1:10 am

  8. #7, Oh you’re a hoot.

    Obama’s foreign relations cred, according to him, is largely based on the fact that he spent part of his childhood overseas (the “overseas” part of BOOHOO’s nickname).

    He more than likely met no “heads of state” before his European tour.

    As noted here, Bill Clinton’s foreign policy qualifications in 1992 were his breakfasts at the International House of Pancakes. His SUPPORTER at the New York Times in 1992, Tom Friedman wrote, “As a man who has spent his entire career in state government in Arkansas, Mr. Clinton has no foreign policy record to run on or be judged against.”

    Palin as VP candidate has more relevant experience than Clinton did when he ran for President the first time. A review of the FULL transcript of the Gibson-Palin interview shows that she has far better judgment than Bill, who left us vulnerable to 9/11, ever had. McCain-Palin wipes the floor with Clinton-Gore and Obama-Biden. Biden’s distinction is that despite his vaunted “experience,” he’s been wrong time after time and time (against Gulf War I, threw Vietnam to the wolves, loved the Sandinistas, supported communists who wanted overthrow in El Salvador).

    Nice try. No sale. An evaluation of objective unfitness has to have some defensible basis. Yours has none.

    Comment by TBlumer — September 14, 2008 @ 8:44 am

  9. Sorry Tom, but experience is just one piece that Palin lacks. Clinton, Gore, Obama and Biden are/were extremely well educated individuals who studied, pondered and debated foreign policy and defense strategies prior to commencing their WH runs. All were able to formulate and articulate their own cogent positions. After Sarah Palin’s two-week cram course, she has us going to war with Russia. Competence matters.

    Comment by Tony B. — September 14, 2008 @ 9:38 am

  10. She has us going to war with Russia.

    That’s a bleeping lie, and the full transcript (even what aired) reveals it to be a bleeping lie.

    Competence matters.

    So now studying, debating, and pondering demonstrate “competence.” And how do you know Palin hasn’t done these things anyway? If it’s not at Harvard or Yale, it doesn’t count? More insufferable elitism, from the elitists whose “cogent positions” and policies gave Islamofascism a home (Carter) and then brought us 9/11 (Clinton).

    Palin’s answers demonstrated that her knowledge goes far beyond whatever two-week cram course you think she received (while campaigning non-stop for the majority of the time since convention — you must think she really is SuperWoman), and has none of the naivete “well-educated” Carter, Clinton, Gore, Biden, and now Obama have never gotten past.

    Comment by TBlumer — September 14, 2008 @ 11:10 am

  11. You mean this transcript?

    GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?
    PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.
    GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.
    PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.
    Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but…
    GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
    PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

    Why do intelligence, education and carefully considered positions equal elitism to Republicans?

    Comment by Tony B. — September 14, 2008 @ 1:40 pm

  12. “she has us going to war with Russia”

    If necessarly, with the rest of NATO, and NATO’s agreement that it’s necessary, PER YOUR EXCERPT. What the bleep is wrong with that?

    That isn’t what you implied and you freaking know it. That is over-the-top intellectually dishonest, and was the best you could do because I called you on it. You lose. QED.

    Comment by TBlumer — September 14, 2008 @ 9:20 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.