Making Sense of Super Duper Tuesday

First a word on the primary process. I've speculated here about the effect that frontloading would have on the presidential races, and was convinced that Super Duper Tuesday would be too big to matter. It turned out to be the opposite from what I thought--it didn't pick a nominee, not because the early states would have already decided it, but because they hadn't, and there wasn't enough time yet to sort things out. So the later states get to choose the nominee. Here's Marc Ambinder:

Had Michigan remained on Feb. 9 and Florida on March 4, their influence would have been considerable. Instead, their haste to go first wound up lessening their influence, rather than giving them a louder voice. Now, an array of new states and their tens of millions of voters will find their interests well represented in this campaign: Maryland, Virginia, Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio and maybe even Pennsylvania, whose voters go to the polls on April 22.

Now, what the heck happened on Super Duper Tuesday? Well first of all, Obama won 13 states, Clinton 8. (New Mexico's still up in the air.) Obama won 845 delegates, Clinton 836. Clinton has an overall delegate lead of 79, but this is due to her 83 delegate lead in superdelegates. The political markets thought it was a win for Obama.

Adam Nagourney parses the exit polls:

[O]ne of the most intriguing finding in the surveys of voters leaving the polls across the nation on Tuesday was when they arrived at their final decision. Throughout a week when Mr. Obama was campaigning with members of the Kennedy family, when there was a sense that he was creating a movement that cut across racial and generational lines, there was a steady movement of Democrats toward Mr. Obama, the survey suggested. But those who reported making their decision on the last day bucked the trend, tending to vote for Mrs. Clinton, of New York.

The Obama Democratic Party is made up of younger voters (under 44), blacks, white men (to a more limited extent) and independents whose show of support accounted for his victories in states like Missouri. Their level of enthusiasm for Mr. Obama — their excitement about the possibility of an Obama White House — is palpable in their response to him, or in any conversation.

The Clinton Democratic Party is the party of women, older voters, Hispanics and also some white men. A Clinton rally may not have the energy of a rock concert the way an Obama rally does. Yet the older women who have embraced Mrs. Clinton as the culmination of years of hope and other core supporters are no less passionate in their intensity and devotion.

The Hillary voters mentioned, in other words, are more solidly reliable. They turn out to vote in greater numbers, except Hispanics. But the reason why I've consistently favored Hillary to win is because of her voting base, and why I was in for a huge shock with the Iowa results. I underestimated the enthusiasm on the ground for Obama with young voters generating actual caucus-goers. But I'm not surprised by the decision-timing statistic, at least in the abstract. I always thought the Clinton machine would be able to stage a comeback if needed in the states after Iowa and NH. But it was surprising given the recent press Obama was getting.

But there's other factors Nagourney doesn't mention at all: Obama does better with wealthier and better-educated voters, and they turnout in greater numbers. Clinton's voters have less income and less education, and these voters have lower turnout. Obama and Clinton split college grads in CA, but Obama beat her 2-to-1 with college-or-more voters in Missouri, and that's why he narrowly won. Similar story in New Mexico.

Nagourney continues:

Mr. Obama split the white male vote nationally with Mrs. Clinton, but there was an important geographical disparity there: White men in California voted for Mr. Obama but white men in Southern states like Alabama did not. The question is what white men in Ohio will do next month, during what is shaping up as a critical showdown for Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton.

Ohio becomes crucial! When's the last time that happened? I'm sick and tired of the constant refrain of "the primary process is broken." A nationwide primary would be a disaster, and the current system is far preferable. As for rotating the early states, I think it's cool that Iowa and NH have a great tradition going, and that they are used to seeing presidential candidates every four years. What's wrong with having experienced voters decide? They don't decide anything, they just winnow the field of the terrible candidates. If you want your voice to be heard, then move there.