Super Duper Pooper Scooper Tuesday analysis--The Democrats

I'm going to start this analysis with the Democratic Party, and the wins and losses on both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. My previous post has a number of mainstream media links, which I will go through with this little analysis. But first, I want to include this New York Times map showing the Super Duper Tuesday wins for both Democratic candidates:

Graph showing Super Tuesday victories for the Democratic presidential candidates. From New York Times.

Now I want you to look at this Washington Post graph showing the overall scorecard of states won for both the Democratic and Republican primaries. Look closely at the Democratic scorecard:

Graph showing overall scorecard of Democratic and Republican candidates' state wins. From The Washington Post.

Do you see some interesting trends on the Democratic side? Hillary Clinton's wins have been concentrated in the Northeast, the Southwest, and the border states along the south (Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Tennessee). Barack Obama's wins have been concentrated in the Midwest and the Deep South. It is a fascinating breakdown, showing how each of the nation's regions are actually going for one candidate over the other. For example, if Hillary Clinton wants to win in the general election, she is going to need to peel of a couple of southern states, in addition to taking both coasts, and a chunk of the Rust Belt. However, Obama is especially strong in the Deep South with his wins of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. The regions also pose a problem with Obama, and his need to solicit the Hispanic vote in the southwest--an area that Clinton is strong with. And you can see this in some of the news stories. From MSNBC News:

In the Democratic races, Barack Obama led with eight in 10 black voters and Hillary Rodham Clinton led with just over half of whites. Obama’s support among four in 10 whites across 16 states was more than he had captured in earlier primary states. Clinton won six in 10 Hispanic voters. Obama led among white men, while Clinton led among white women.

Obama won in Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, and his home state of Illinois, all states where more than one-fifth of the voters were black. Clinton won in Arkansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, and Oklahoma, states with fewer black voters, but she also won in Tennessee and New Jersey, both states where one-fourth of the voters were black.

Overall, Obama led among men and Clinton led among women, although her advantage among women appeared smaller than was seen in early primary states. An exception was New York, which Clinton represents in the Senate. There, Clinton was competitive among men and gained the support of four in 10 blacks. In Arizona, Obama was more competitive among Hispanics than he was nationally.

So it is not just race and gender that is going to be important for the Democratic primaries, but it is also the regions where race and gender can affect the outcome of these primaries. Consider this from Newsweek:

Up next for the candidates: Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington, which vote on Saturday. Then comes the so-called Potomac Primary—Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C.—which takes place next Tuesday. And also looming large on the horizon is March 4, when the delegate-rich states of Texas and Ohio vote. The spin wars have already begun. Obama's camp claims that it's well-positioned in states like Louisiana, with its large black population, and Virginia, where Gov. Tim Kaine has endorsed him. Meanwhile, Clinton's advisers see promise in Texas, with its large Latino population, and Ohio, where her economic message should resonate with voters. On Wednesday, Clinton was scheduled to travel to Washington, D.C.; Obama was planning on heading there as well as New Orleans. The Super Tuesday delegates weren't even tallied, but the candidates already had their sights set on the next battlegrounds.

In a sense, what we're seeing here is a nation that is split down the middle between Clinton and Obama. It is a split that is going through the states with race and gender. Consider this LA Times story:

Democrats who once thought their race would wrap up early instead face a potentially long duel between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, with votes divided not by ideology but, in many states, by race and ethnic group.

Clinton and Obama divided the nation almost down the middle, with Clinton winning at least eight states, including giants California and New York. Obama won at least 13 states, including Illinois and Georgia. The close result guaranteed days of uncertainty over the delegate count, followed by weeks more of renewed campaigning.

With the two candidates separated by only modest policy differences, Tuesday's results illuminated divisions of what scholars call "identity politics." Latinos turned out in large numbers and mostly supported Clinton; African American voters turned out too and voted overwhelmingly for Obama; and white voters divided, giving pluralities to Clinton in some states, to Obama in others.

This Democratic race is going for the long haul, possibly not finishing until the convention. What could happen now is that both Clinton and Obama could split the delegate votes between them--perhaps with no one emerging as the front-runner. This brings up the super-delegates, and how they may vote in the convention. Suppose, for example, Barack Obama gets a slight majority in the votes of regular delegates, but a greater number of the super-delegates decide to support Hillary Clinton for the nomination. Will Obama voters and supporters feel that their candidate has been cheated out of the nomination? We could see a situation where the Democratic Party could fracture itself over partisan infighting where one set of campaign supporters may feel cheated out of the nomination by another set of campaign supporters. Whatever anger and energy the Democrats may have had against the Bush administration, and the Republican Party, could be dissipated by intra-party bickering.

More to come in the Super Duper Tuesday analysis.