Horserace
November 12, 2008 3:25 PM

Who Were Those Clinton-McCain Crossover Voters?

CBS News’ Election and Survey Unit’s survey analyst extraordinaire Jennifer De Pinto goes inside the exit polls from last week’s election and finds some interesting nuggets about those Hillary Clinton supporters who voted for John McCain:

As voters left the polls on Election Day, many were asked how they would have voted if the election match-up were between Hillary Clinton and John McCain rather than Barack Obama and McCain. 52 percent said they would have backed the former Democratic candidate; 41 percent would have voted for McCain, wider than Obama’s 7-point margin over McCain.

Interestingly, 16 percent of McCain voters said they would have voted for Clinton, the Democrat, if she had been her party’s nominee.

So who were these potential cross-over voters?

  • They were older: 61% of them were age 45 and above.

  • 53% were women; while 47% were men.

  • 43% of these voters who supported McCain but would have backed Clinton if she were in the race described themselves as Independents. 31% were Republicans; while 26% were Democrats.

  • 84% of them were white – higher than the electorate at large. 12% were Hispanic, compared to 9% of the total electorate.

  • 21% of McCain voters who would have supported Clinton said race was factor in their vote. 19% of McCain voters overall said race was factor in their vote.

  • 61% of these McCain voters who would have backed Clinton earned $50K or more annually. 39% earned less. 61% do not have a college degree.

  • These voters valued experience over change. 47% said experience was their top candidate quality and 32% said a candidate who shares their values. Just 10% picked change. But like voters overall, the economy was the top issue for these voters.

  • 58% of McCain voters who would have supported Clinton if she were a candidate said their candidate’s personal and leadership qualities was more important in their vote; 36% said it was their candidate’s positions on the issues.

  • Among McCain backers overall, voters were divided with 48% choosing issues and 49% picking qualities. But among the electorate at large, 58% said their candidate’s position on the issues was more important.

    While 85% of Obama voters said they would have voted for Clinton had she been the Democratic candidate, 13% would not have supported her including 6% who said they would have backed McCain and 7% who said they would not have voted.

  • 60% of these voters were under age 45.

  • They were mostly men. 59% were men; while 41% were women.

  • 41% of these voters who supported Obama but would not have backed Clinton if she were in the race described themselves as Democrats. 20% were Republicans; while 38% were Independents.

  • While most of these voters were white (74%); 17% were black – higher than the share of the total electorate. 5% were Hispanic.

  • 53% of these Obama voters who would not have backed Clinton earned $50K or more annually. 47% earned less. 58% do not have a college degree.

  • These voters were clearly looking for change – 57% picked it as their top candidate quality. This was followed by values (20%) and cares (12%). Experience ranked last with 8%.

  • 60% of these voters said issue positions were more important; 38% said it was leadership and personal qualities.
  • Tags:
    Clinton ,
    McCain ,
    Obama ,
    exit polls
    Topics:
    Exit Polls
    Add a Comment See all 150 Comments
    by lakrosse November 12, 2008 11:04 PM PST
    this goes to show that Barack Hussein Obama clearly was not our strongest candidate. He only even took off after the economic crisis. Otherwise it was a close election again. Hillary was far ahead of both from the start. I still hate Hussein.
    Reply to this comment
    by panterazero November 13, 2008 1:07 AM PST
    We can expect the PUMAs and comparable crypto-populist libertarians to have a field day with this. As important as the election was -- since the affluent Democrats on the coasts can now breathe free at home and stop apologizing to their friends when they travel abroad -- what happens AFTERWARDS will be still more important. We need to replace ideologically driven business-as-business with truly proactive socioeconomic engineering on a scale not seen since FDR took over from Hoover. And another Clinton presidency, welcome as it might have been to those who misparse class as gender, wouldn''t have come close to exerting the necessary force.
    Reply to this comment
    by glennmcgahee November 13, 2008 9:33 AM PST
    I am one of those voters. We are people who really beleive in the concept of 1 person-1vote and fair representation. The Caucus system and the awarding of delegates is really a mess. The DNC made sure that millions of voters who supported Clinton were disenfranchised. Forget Florida and Michigan? Florida''s primary date was moved so that we could have a better and more transparent voting procedure but we were punished for it. When Hillary Clinton wins 11 states but receives only 5 more delegates than the loser, something is wrong. When the few participants in Caucus'' count as much as millions of votes in Primaries, something is wrong. The candidate was chosen before the voting began by the party powers, therefore they owe our states a refund for the money we spent on these elections.
    Reply to this comment
    by delphisans November 13, 2008 9:40 AM PST
    While those statistics are interesting, they are misleading. This is people saying, "I would vote for Hillary Clinton, the non-candidate form, above Obama, the candidate form." It is not directly comparable. Many of these people may have had different opinions of Hillary after the additional campaign time. These are people who have not been watching attack ads coming from and directed at Hillary for the past six months.

    Who knows how those opinions may have shifted had Hillary been engaged in six months more of campaigning, but to take this as some sort of untouchable truth that Hillary is a superior candidate is a very flawed conclusion. People like Lakrosse are assuming that the opinions of Hillary by voters at this point are exactly the same ones that they would have had if she had engaged in the general election campaign. What kind of gaffes may she have made? What missteps may she have made to turn some voters off? What new voters may she have pulled in that said they wouldn''t have supported her? It is far more complex that these simple exit polls seem to indicate.
    Reply to this comment
    by jkeenan102 November 13, 2008 9:42 AM PST
    This story is false. If Clinton won the Democratic nomination, blacks and hispanics would have been so incensed that they would have voted for McCain or stayed home thus allowing a McCain win.
    Reply to this comment
    by delphisans November 13, 2008 9:42 AM PST
    While those statistics are interesting, they are misleading. This is people saying, "I would vote for Hillary Clinton, the non-candidate form, above Obama, the candidate form." It is not directly comparable. Many of these people may have had different opinions of Hillary after the additional campaign time. These are people who have not been watching attack ads coming from and directed at Hillary for the past six months.

    Who knows how those opinions may have shifted had Hillary been engaged in six months more of campaigning, but to take this as some sort of untouchable truth that Hillary is a superior candidate is a very flawed conclusion. People like Lakrosse are assuming that the opinions of Hillary by voters at this point are exactly the same ones that they would have had if she had engaged in the general election campaign. What kind of gaffes may she have made? What missteps may she have made to turn some voters off? What new voters may she have pulled in that said they wouldn''t have supported her? It is far more complex that these simple exit polls seem to indicate.
    Reply to this comment
    by delphisans November 13, 2008 9:45 AM PST
    While those statistics are interesting, they are misleading. This is people saying, "I would vote for Hillary Clinton, the non-candidate form, above Obama, the candidate form." It is not directly comparable. Many of these people may have had different opinions of Hillary after the additional campaign time. These are people who have not been watching attack ads coming from and directed at Hillary for the past six months.

    Who knows how those opinions may have shifted had Hillary been engaged in six months more of campaigning, but to take this as some sort of untouchable truth that Hillary is a superior candidate is a very flawed conclusion. People like Lakrosse are assuming that the opinions of Hillary by voters at this point are exactly the same ones that they would have had if she had engaged in the general election campaign. What kind of gaffes may she have made? What missteps may she have made to turn some voters off? What new voters may she have pulled in that said they wouldn''t have supported her? It is far more complex that these simple exit polls seem to indicate.
    Reply to this comment
    by neonink November 13, 2008 9:52 AM PST
    I did vote for Clinton.

    I know I basically threw away my vote, but I could not vote against a military hero and for a socialist with ties to Ayers.

    and I could not vote for a war monger and against a democrat.
    Reply to this comment
    by kc7999-2009 November 13, 2008 9:53 AM PST
    This is not surprising at all, and an unfair "what if" question. Presumably, nearly every single Obama voter would guess that they would have voted for Hillary if Obama was no longer a choice. So only a tiny percentage of "swing" voters (McCain voters who wish they could have voted for Hillary), would increase the point spread. Why is this an unfair comparison? Because Hillary did not have to prove herself to the populace in a general election campaign. The political version of "absence makes the heart grow stronger".
    Reply to this comment
    by someclarity November 13, 2008 9:53 AM PST
    "52 percent said they would have backed the former Democratic candidate; 41 percent would have voted for McCain, wider than Obama%u2019s 7-point margin over McCain."

    Following your logic: If Clinton was running against Mickey Mouse and got 51% to the mouse''s 20% she would be winning by a larger margin, too. So what? Is this news? Obama got 53% of the vote! His larger majority is more important.
    Reply to this comment
    by rplat November 13, 2008 10:04 AM PST
    This poll should be taken with a grain of salt. Comparative research will reveal that CBS''s polling validity rests somewhere near whale manure.
    Reply to this comment
    by November 13, 2008 10:11 AM PST
    What a silly story. Clinton only beats Obama''s margin if 7% of voters remain undecided or vote for Nader. In fact, that only 52% of voters said they would have voted for Hillary, when 53% voted for Obama, suggests with equal power that she would have been a weaker candidate.

    Reply to this comment
    by byelin November 13, 2008 10:21 AM PST
    This article is an insult to intellegent readers. The article neglects to mention that Obama, and NOT Clinton, was subject to five months of daily Republican attacks. Clinton was, in fact, endlessly praised by both McCain and Palin. Obviously, if Clinton were the candidate, her negatives would have gone up as well. Whoever wrote this needs to learn how to think.
    Reply to this comment
    by aldon61 November 13, 2008 10:24 AM PST
    Woulda, shoulda, who gives a krap? This is over analyzing a PAST election. Get over it people and let''s move on. There will be enough time for partisan thinking to arise again in a year or so, right now, let''s pull together.
    Reply to this comment
    by asamiller November 13, 2008 10:26 AM PST
    Interesting hypothetically but does it really matter? Obama ran a steadier campaign during the primaries and the general election and that''s why he beat Clinton and McCain. If he continues that steady leadership, I think he''ll make a better president than either of them would have.
    Reply to this comment
    by notopennshut November 13, 2008 10:26 AM PST
    Total rubbish!! She couldn''t even beat Obama to be the nominee and you idiots now think that she could beat McSame IF she was the nominee?? Get a life, she got beat by Obama, and he won!!
    Reply to this comment
    by foodgoddess1 November 13, 2008 10:28 AM PST
    Seriously - I am a Democrat. And consider myself a strong woman, and a feminist. I support the Democratic agenda, and am impressed with the new and innovative social initiatives that are being developed. Given that - I would NEVER vote for Hillary! Ethically, I could not support her.

    On the other hand, the Republican party''s transparent attempt to curry the female vote with Palin as VP was an embarrassment. Had it been Clinton/? vs McCain/Palin, I would have had a very difficult decision indeed!
    Reply to this comment
    by tramaker3 November 13, 2008 10:33 AM PST
    Also keep in mind that the exit polls have no way of contacting Republicans who stayed home on election day. They would have come out in droves if there was a chance to vote AGAINST the Clintons getting back into the White House.

    That was the whole reason why Hillary should never have been the nominee. She is too polarizing. I''m a Democrat but many people on our side are delusional about the "popularity" of the Clintons.

    Believe me, if Hillary was on the ticket, many Republican voters who didn''t show up for McCain on Nov 4th vs Obama would have been there, just to vote against her. The same way we Democrats voted against Bush more than we voted FOR Kerry in 2004.
    Reply to this comment
    by renonv5 November 13, 2008 10:34 AM PST
    Here they go again, trying to deflect your attention away from all the other bullsh-t. I see they have succeeded by the amount of posts here.
    Reply to this comment
    by paris1969 November 13, 2008 10:35 AM PST
    If not for the economic downturn, McCain would have beat Obama. This time Americans put money first! ... and that''s just the way it turned out.
    Reply to this comment
    by cremefraishe November 13, 2008 10:37 AM PST
    I would love to see how many write ins HRC revceived I guess those arent published. I know many Dems and independants who wrote her in due to the abomination of the other 2 candidates esp. considering the potential trainwreck of a presidency from BHO. Good luck America, you made your bed now lay in it.
    Reply to this comment
    by briannorwood November 13, 2008 10:38 AM PST
    This is some really, really stupid stuff.

    I mean, Obama went through a really tough general election. Daily attacks by McCain and the Wasilla Hillbilly.

    Hillary? She was pretty much out of the spotlight.

    So here is a November poll showing Hillary would have won an even bigger landslide than Obama.

    And this means what, exactly?
    Reply to this comment
    by talaan77 November 13, 2008 10:47 AM PST
    Even faster than the crooked ACORN people hauling people out of mental institutions and casting their votes for them.

    Posted by FromTexwLove

    you never fail to come up with the most dumbests things. If the race was closer maybe people would consider listening to the reasons you believe Obama win. He won deal with it. I don''t care if you want to get over it, you can let it consume you if you want, just deal with it.
    Reply to this comment
    by dburfears November 13, 2008 10:48 AM PST
    People who conduct and analyze a poll like this are as stupid as those who believe it.

    Clinton did not suffer the last months of heavy negative advertising and personal attacks that Obama did. NATURALLY her positives would be higher and negatives lower by election day.

    So OF COURSE Clinton did better against McCain. If the situation between Clinton had won the nomination then Obama would have polled better than Clinton after the election.

    This is a meaningless and embarrassingly stupid poll.
    Reply to this comment
    by allencharles-2009 November 13, 2008 10:51 AM PST
    I voted for Hillry in the Florida primary but after Obama and the Elites at the DNC stole our primary, I changed my registratio to Independent and voted in the general against Obama. I would have voted for Hillary. The Florida primary theft cost her the nomination.McCain won because of his winning Florida so it WAS important. As for the Caucuses they are more like Communist China than what a Democratic America should use. The Caucuc is designed to allow activist to control the party''s influence in the nominating process, wworking class folks are excluded because of the narrow participation requirements.
    Obama did play by the rules and he won except for the DNC stealing the Fl and Mi primaries,
    Reply to this comment
    by doorgunner3 November 13, 2008 10:51 AM PST
    People who conduct and analyze a poll like this are as stupid as those who believe it.

    Posted by dburfears



    Couldn''t agree more.

    Reply to this comment
    by johngaltwho November 13, 2008 11:02 AM PST
    AllenCharles:

    It wasn''t the DNC who "stole" your Florida primary from you - It was your republican leadership.

    This article provides no real new data, it does twist the knife in Hillary a little more (as if she was close to being over it all yet) but the idea that this kind of inane what if has any value is just plain stupid. African American votes may have changed substantially and you would likely not have seen the Sarah Palin phenomenon which frightened anyone with an IQ over 85 away from the Republican ticket.
    Reply to this comment
    by megamanx1-2009 November 13, 2008 11:04 AM PST
    Soooo she couldn''t even beat Obama...but she could have beaten McCain by a bigger margin than Obama...

    o...k....

    Reply to this comment
    by mikeant50 November 13, 2008 11:04 AM PST
    Stupid Stories like this is why I seldom visit the CBS News website anymore. I was bored today and thought I would check it out. Big Mistake. CBS, no matter how bad you wanted McCain as president, he lost, so get over it. I will tell a pollster anything to get him or her out of my face.
    Reply to this comment
    by likelyvoter November 13, 2008 11:06 AM PST
    Too bad for Hillary that the media including CBS chose Obambi to be the nominee. The the media knocked McCain out of his way and destroyed Sarah Palin when they thought she was a threat to Obama.
    Reply to this comment
    by likelyvoter November 13, 2008 11:11 AM PST
    Too bad for Hillary that the media including CBS chose Obambi to be the nominee. The the media knocked McCain out of his way and destroyed Sarah Palin when they thought she was a threat to Obama.
    Reply to this comment
    by frankfurt200 November 13, 2008 11:11 AM PST
    Stupid Stories like this is why I seldom visit the CBS News website anymore. I was bored today and thought I would check it out. Big Mistake. CBS, no matter how bad you wanted McCain as president, he lost, so get over it. I will tell a pollster anything to get him or her out of my face.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Posted by mikeant50 at 11:04 AM

    I''m beginning to agree. CBS has really gone down in quality.
    Reply to this comment
    by oscarez November 13, 2008 11:13 AM PST
    If, ifs and buts were candy and nuts we would all have a Marry Christmas.
    Reply to this comment
    by txgrouch2007 November 13, 2008 11:23 AM PST
    WHO CARES?!?!? IT''S OVER.

    Obama won. Hillary didn''t even make it to the nomination. GET OVER IT!!!
    Reply to this comment
    by smurfcrusher November 13, 2008 11:23 AM PST
    ...and then again... he might not have.
    Reply to this comment
    by raleighdon November 13, 2008 11:24 AM PST
    So let me get this straight (and I was a Hillary supporter). Sen. Clinton lost the primary to Sen. Obabma. Now, by winning the primary, Sen. Obama ran a hard fought and highly focused general election campaign and beat his republican opponent by a very respectbable margin. He did this by generating an enthusiasm in younger voters, Hispanic, Asian, African American voters, and staying on message. So now we have a poll that says 16% of those who voted for Sen. McCain would have voted for Sen. Clinton but would not vote for Sen. Obama for whatever reason - I could take some guesses - and this is supposed to bring me to the automatic conclusion that Sen. Clinton would have won by a larger margin. Well, excuse me for raising my silly little middle aged white man''s hand and asking a stupid question here, but HOW MANY PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE STAYED HOME and not participated at all? This doesn''t seem to even be asked in this poll. It all goes to show that old adage rings true once more, there''s lies, damned lies and statistics.
    Reply to this comment
    by yleasure November 13, 2008 11:24 AM PST
    Hmm, intersting. Is this why Obama adopted most of Clinton''s platform and policies after the primaries? Is this why there are so many of the Clinton administration on his transition team? Is Hillary the one Obama will call at 3am? Probably!!!!
    Reply to this comment
    by pomoc-2009 November 13, 2008 11:24 AM PST
    YA LIKE YOU CAN BELEIVE THERE POLL DON''T THINK SO THEY DO POLLS TO MAKE NEWS THEN THEY CAN TELL YOU THIS NEWS YOU CAN USE FOR YOUR BIRD CAGE. cbs JUST DO USE ALL A BIG FAVORE AND GO AWAY.
    Reply to this comment
    by txgrouch2007 November 13, 2008 11:25 AM PST
    Soooo she couldn''''t even beat Obama...but she could have beaten McCain by a bigger margin than Obama...

    o...k....

    Posted by MegamanX1 at 11:04 AM : Nov 13, 2008

    What, were you expecting politics to be RATIONAL???

    Check back in two years. See how rational you think it was to give the Democrats ABSOLUTE POWER.

    We saw what absolute power did to the GOP. What do you think the "naughty boys" will do when THEY GET IT???
    Reply to this comment
    by yleasure November 13, 2008 11:25 AM PST
    I am one of those life long Democrats that voted for McCain.

    PUMA
    Reply to this comment
    by kerriwyn November 13, 2008 11:27 AM PST
    If you crunch those numbers...doesn''t that mean Hillary would have won with a much larger percentage than Obama did?
    Hmmm. Looks to me like there are more Pumas than anyone estimated and that they have yet to be defanged.
    Well, looking forward, I hope we DO get the opportunity to elect Hillary president! :)
    Reply to this comment
    by collin8028 November 13, 2008 11:32 AM PST
    What these polls don''t consider is turnout. This poll presumes that the exact same sample would have turned out for a Hillary/McCain matchup.

    Data shows that while new voters skyrocketed this cycle, the turnout was roughly the same. With Obama winning a decisive (though not major) victory, we can extrapolate that the new voters turned out to vote for him, and that (in order for the overall turnout to remain the same as ''04) many Republican voters stayed home.

    Who is willing to make the case that Hillary would have brought in just as many new voters and that conservatives would have been just as ambivalent about voting AGAINST her?
    Reply to this comment
    by vorenius November 13, 2008 11:34 AM PST
    The problem was she wasn''t black! Even though, she even took all the popular votes in the Democratic races, the Democratic leadership under Dean, had a hidden agenda and that was to deny Hillary her spotlight!
    Reply to this comment
    by yleasure November 13, 2008 11:34 AM PST
    The DEMOCRATIC PARTY Knows
    Nazi Fascist (Delusional-Crying) Hillary all Too Well

    The Real ... JUDAS =
    Nazi Fascist (Delusional-Crying) Hillary and Nazi (racist) Bill
    Make More Commercial Videos

    Standing again Next to : NAZI Fascist BUSH
    Again ENDORSING NAZI Fascist Bush
    Again ENDORSING : The Republican NAZI Fascist Party

    Saying Again and Again and Again :
    "OUTSOURCING American JOBS - Will Bring -
    MORE and BETTER Paying Jobs to America"

    Nazi Fascist (Delusional-Crying) Hillary and Nazi (racist) Bill :
    JOB DESTROYER
    WAGE PACKAGE DESTROYER
    WORKING MIDDLE CLASS AMERICA DESTROYER
    FAMILY UNIT DESTROYER
    DEMOCRACY DESTROYER
    HOME OWNERSHIP DESTROYER
    CREDIT DESTROYER
    AMERICAN ECONOMY DESTROYER
    FEDERAL TAX BASE DESTROYER
    DEMOCRATIC PARTY DESTROYER

    SLAVE LABOR and CHILD FORCED SLAVE LABOR
    The MEAL TICKET for :
    Nazi Fascist (Delusional-Crying) Hillary and Nazi (racist) Bill
    The Republican NAZI Fascist Party


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Posted by lastdance126

    So that''s is why Obama has so many former Clinton administration staffers on his transition team. That''s why he called Bill and his economic advisors on how to deal with economic crisis. Makes sense. Get ready for that Clinton administration again.
    Reply to this comment
    by collin8028 November 13, 2008 11:34 AM PST
    What these polls don''t consider is turnout. This poll presumes that the exact same sample would have turned out for a Hillary/McCain matchup.

    Data shows that while new voters skyrocketed this cycle, the turnout was roughly the same. With Obama winning a decisive (though not major) victory, we can extrapolate that the new voters turned out to vote for him, and that (in order for the overall turnout to remain the same as ''04) many Republican voters stayed home.

    Who is willing to make the case that Hillary would have brought in just as many new voters and that conservatives would have been just as ambivalent about voting AGAINST her?
    Reply to this comment
    by voteright November 13, 2008 11:35 AM PST
    Hillary would have won without election Fraud from ACORN. The only way Obama won was by cheating.
    Reply to this comment
    by collin8028 November 13, 2008 11:36 AM PST
    What these polls don''t consider is turnout. This poll presumes that the exact same sample would have turned out for a Hillary/McCain matchup.

    Data shows that while new voters skyrocketed this cycle, the turnout was roughly the same. With Obama winning a decisive (though not major) victory, we can extrapolate that the new voters turned out to vote for him, and that (in order for the overall turnout to remain the same as ''04) many Republican voters stayed home.

    Who is willing to make the case that Hillary would have brought in just as many new voters and that conservatives would have been just as ambivalent about voting AGAINST her?
    Reply to this comment
    by jsmithcsa November 13, 2008 11:37 AM PST
    IMHO Geraldine Ferraro hit the nail on the head when she said that if Barack were white, he wouldn''t be on the ticket. This merely validates her statement.
    Reply to this comment
    by cdfoxtrot5 November 13, 2008 11:38 AM PST
    Silly "analysis". A hypothetical situation put in front of people is very different from having had Clinton and McBush go at it for months beforehand, and then have people vote. If it had been Clinton vs. McBush, McBush would have won. Obama won in large measure due to his message of change and his opposition to the illegal war. Even though the economy is top of the mind for people now, Obama gained a lot of initial credibility by opposing the illegal war from the beginning. Unfortunately, Clinton voted for it, and has never apologized for her error of judgment.


    Reply to this comment
    by nikosk11 November 13, 2008 11:39 AM PST
    From TexweLove:

    What an idiot, biggot, dumba$$ you are!!!!

    It might come as a surprise to you but we, Americans, have spoken.

    Go have another Budwhipper, looser.

    Reply to this comment
    See all 150 Comments

    About Horserace

    Description for Horserace

    Add to your favorite news reader
    google
    yahoo
    msn
    • MOST POPULAR
    • Viewed
    • Commented