Thank you!

Clinton's average margin of victory over Obama with white voters: 16.8%.

You might want to edit your diary. I asked the question, not made the assertion.

Thanks for doing the analysis. The best way to categorize it, to relate to the other graph, is by southern and non-southern, and as a percentage of the vote that Obama got in each state.

I am re-posting a comment from Jerome's 'analysis' - which your diary supports.

Jerome's front page (surprise) diary http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/8/10371 9/1420 is revealing the very disturbing and patently false spin that the MSM has attempted. Why leave a rhetorical question at the end regarding Obama among various white demographics? Why not post the exit polls from OH to PA to IN? Or better - why not post favorability ratings among white and african-american democrats since Jan 2008? Why? Because these will show that Senator Obama has in fact continnued to build a coalition AND is viewed more favorably among democrats now then he was 2/3 months ago. Clinton....not so much.

All those who are blindly letting Jerome and others create a narrative for you, should read the post linked here.

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1144

Clinton's comments (whether her own words or putting the AP in her own words) were calculated and I think we will see potentially destructive to her campaign. If you open your eyes and look around - you will see the Hillary Clinton has decided to feed the MSM obsession and also to further divide the democratic party.

Finally - why would Jerome find it necessary to defend Hillary's comment? Finally, Finally, why even push this narrative? Is it helpful for electing democrats?

We still want to do way better with white voters in the general, of course, but I'll be interested in seeing what, say, Oregon will look like now that he's the presumptive nominee.

and things won't get better from here on out with McCain getting more airtime.

This diary deserves to rest next to Jerome's on the front page.

To me, three figures from the analysis above shatter this bullshit narrative that the media and now HRC (and implicitly Jerome) is trying to push about Obama and the white working class vote:

OH - 30% Clinton
PA - 26% Clinton
IN - 20% Clinton

Hillary apparently wants to talk about a pattern emerging...I see one, do you?

Poblano proved with his accurate predictions of North Carolina and Indiana that demographics predict everything: not just race, but age, gender, income, and eduction.

Nothing else matters: not Wright, not Ayers, not "bitter", not Tuzla, and not the gas tax pander.  It is both reassuring and troubling at the same time: trivial stuff truly doesn't sway the electorate, but the outcome of the primaries has been set in stone since the beginning.

If you break down the white vote into male and female there is even less of a "white voter problem" then the talking heads claim. Hillary Clinton has a strong hold on the white woman vote and because white women make up the majority of the white vote this causes the numbers to look much worse for Obama then they actually are. I went through the exit polls available and pulled them out.

Alabama M 70 27 F 73 23
Arizona M 46 45 F 58 34
Arkansas M 71 24 F 85 11
California M 35 55 F 56 36
Connecticut M 40 57 F 56 42
Delaware M 47 47 F 61 35
Florida M 45 27 F 59 21
Georgia M 46 48 F 57 40
Illinois M 37 59 F 43 56
Indiana M 59 41 F 61 39
Louisiana M 51 31 F 63 29
Maryland M 45 48 F 56 38
Massachusetts M 48 49 F 65 34
Mississippi M 68 30 F 71 23
Missouri M 55 41 F 59 38
Nevada M 46 40 F 55 31
New Hampshire M 30 38 F 46 33
New Jersey M 58 39 F 72 27
New Mexico M 38 59 F 46 51
New York M 52 43 F 65 33
North Carolina M 55 42 F 65 33
Ohio M 58 39 F 67 31
Oklahoma M 55 32 F 56 26
Pennsylvania M 57 43 F 68 32
Rhode Island M 52 47 F 71 29
South Carolina M 28 27 F 42 22
Tennessee M 58 32 F 73 21
Texas M 49 49 F 59 40
Utah M 29 64 F 49 49
Vermont M 35 64 F 41 56
Virginia M 40 58 F 53 47
Wisconsin M 34 63 F 52 47

HRC's largest margins come from the oldest voters.

African-Americans, especially African-American men, have lower life expectancies than whites, so it stands to reason that they are underrepresented among the elderly.

Could this explain - at least in part - HRC's large margins among the elderly?  And, if the oldest cohort (60+ or 65+, depending on the analysis) is excluded, how much closer are the shares of the total vote and the white voe won by the two candidates?

I doesn't matter if Obama loses the white vote, as long as he wins enough Blacks and Latinos to make up for his loss among Blacks.  Look at this differently.  If you insist that Obama (or any Democratic presidential candidate) must be able to win the white vote in November then, after adding in the Black vote as well, you are saying that they candidate should win by a 13% margin.  When has that ever happened to a Democrat?

In fact, EVERY Democratic presidential candidate loses the white vote, but makes the loss up among Blacks.  That's not news.  It's simply reality.