Those are sad statistics. I wonder whether there is a way to see further break the statistics by church attendance? That is, of those who consider race a factor, do they go to church more frequently. Elsewhere on this website, it was said that in Oregon for example, many of the people voting for Obama identified themselves as non-Christians. Do these stats imply that “values voters” consider race an important factor?

Sad, gmo2 but not the least bit surprising. Yes, the white bigots (er, so-called ‘values voters’) consider race inportant. Just liook at those numbers from KY (92% white) and VW (95%) and you get the idea. Mr. Waldman is right. Sometimes, it isn’t that complicated.

It’s not that his race is a factor, it’s just that he looks and sounds kinda different.

Ummmm, I thought there were 50 states? Unless you include all states and do some kind of mathematics, it is kind of hard to draw any conclusions.
According to what you have posted, anything over 8% race=factor is deadly for Obama. It is very unclear how a swing of 11% in those who think race is a factor would result in a vote swing of 51%. If there is some cause/effect relationship here, the effect couldn’t possibly be larger than the cause (since the cause is a personal reason to vote), in this case the effect is almost five to one!

Indiana was -.8% not -2. It was less than 1 percent.

His arrogance and elitism is appalling. Why we’ve never seen an ultra educated Black in these parts before.
We just got used to a Black in these parts winning a street cleaner job over a White man. Isn’t that something?

Hillary will tell the super’s on the 31st May that Obama can’t win against McCain {because of race}. If the Democratic Party blinks and gives the nomination to Clinton then they will endorse the idea that a black American can never be President.

also keep in mind that those exit poll numbers are only those people who were willing to admit to a complete stranger that race was an important factor in their vote. it’s not counting those who wouldn’t admit it.

Isn’t it also true that the more black voters think that a candidate’s race matters, the better Obama does? And same for gender. It would be nice if we all took Dr.King’s advice about making judgments of character, not color, but this is an election and we cannot ignore reality. Let’s face it– the strongest correlation between voter and candidate identity does not impugn the motives of women or white voters. Blacks are routinely voting for Obama in margins that exceed 85 or 90 percent.In light of this, it is not really constructive to assert or imply that whites who support Hillary are racist. The perceived hypocricy of the charge only further alienates a voting block that Obama needs make some progress with to win the election. To do this, he has to ask why his performance with white voters has deteriorated since January and February. Since early March (after Obama’s bitter/cling comments), Hillary has won more contests and substantially more votes. How is Obama going to address this issue in the general election? His assumption that Clinton voters will fall in line behind him seems naïve. He has inflamed the politics of identity (class, race, gender) and that stuff is fairly intransigent once it sets. He better figure this out and solve it, and FAST!

Kentucky: 18% — Obama -35: So if in Kentucky we subtract 18 points from Clinton do we then give them to Obama? Does that mean his -35 becomes a +1?
And West Virginia: 21% — Obama -41 . . . if we subract 21 from Clinton and add them to Obama does his -41 also become a +1?

single white male, 29 yrs old, and race is an important factor for me too, I am voting for Obama because he IS black. i can’t be the only one.

Blacks are routinely voting for Obama in margins that exceed 85 or 90 percent.In light of this, it is not really constructive to assert or imply that whites who support Hillary are racist
I love this crap.
When some activist points out that some company hires blacks in numbers way less than their representation in the population, most whites cry “foul” and demand evidence of racial intent before the charge of “racism” is bandied about. When blacks vote for a black candidate in numbers higher than predicted, however, these same whites claim that is proof of racism without any evidence that there was any racist intent.
I guess it depends on whose ox is gored.

The fact that black voters are voting for a black candidate doesn’t make them racists. Black voters have demonstrated in every prior election that they will vote for white candidates. (If they were racists, they wouldn’t have voted at all when only white candidates were running.) There is not a moral equivalency between black voters affirmatively voting for a black candidate, and white voters who REFUSE to vote for a black candidate. The former is identity politics; the latter is racism. There is no hypocrisy in distinguishing the two situations.

Brian,
That was my point. 99% of the time “Well, blacks are voting for Obama in record numbers, so they are the real racists” translates to “Its okay that I’m racist because they are to.”.
Hillary was ahead amongst blacks at the beginning. Obama won their votes from her.
Also, Hillary is stupid if she thinks Latinos aren’t looking at her new persona as the “White Candidate for White Americans” as though it doesn’t effect them. They know that the Clinton demographic hates them too.

Where are the polls for gender as a factor?

If you do this with the “was gender an important factor in your vote,” there is a similar pattern hurting Obama. exit polls: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226003 Clinton is clearly the one being helped by identity politics, which is of course what’s been behind her whole strategy of trying to marginalize Obama as “The Black Candidate” while playing the victim and frequently emphasizing her gender. It’s actually hilarious how we’ve gotten to this point where there is a generally accepted notion that Obama’s race has helped him and Clinton’s gender has hurt her. Almost 60% of Democratic Primary voters are women and about 15% are black.

In fact, libarbarian, Obama now trumps Clinton with Hispanics.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/the_party_coalesces_around_oba.php

Denny – you’re not alone. Same for me, but there is MUCH more to it than that. I truelly like the guy and find him impressive. Also, what better way for America to apologize to the rest of the world than to turn over a new leaf. All those racist can thank Bush for making it all possible.

As a person of White, Hispanic, and Black heritage living near Austin, Texas, and as someone who can tell you precisely what the terms “passing for White” and “not Black enough” mean in the twenty-first century, here’s what I am hearing.
The so-very-fair 74-year-old woman who cuts my hair would never admit to racism. Every time I come into her shop, however, she has a new and completely confabulous story of some horrible scandal that’s always just about to break on Senator Obama. She would never admit to being a racist. It’s much easier to believe lies that would disqualify him from office if they were true.
A lifetime friend in his 50′s who’s a Democratic Party precinct chairman and a Mexican-American similarly has reservations about Obama, and lists some cultural differences between Black and non-Black Hispanic that I find valid but I do not believe would be helpful to list here. He hasn’t looked at the policy differences between Obama and Clinton in any depth, assuming as so many did, they are essentially the same.
And a younger Black friend of mine, a minister, simply commented “Hallelujah. Maybe we can finally get beyond race.” And to that I retorted, “Amen.”
I suggest that if you aren’t a professional poll-taker or you don’t at least have friends and associates with whom you can discuss politics, you don’t know what “they” think. And if you don’t, get to know some people of those other races and find out!