Super Tuesday - what did it mean?

I arrived in the office bleary-eyed from lack of sleep, having stayed up into the wee hours watching commentary on primaries that did not give a resounding victory to either Obama or Clinton as I had hoped. I almost don't care who wins the nomination at this point; I just want some resolution.

I arrived bleary-eyed and went immediately into Theological Reflection (a weekly spiritual practice at the office for the interns that I sometimes take part in). Today, one of the ministers from All Souls, Shana Lynngood, lead us through a reflection on identity. This was especially fitting because it is identity that has got me on edge in this election. Amazingly, instead of the usual suspects of older, wealthy white males, for the first time we have front-runners who are a black (well, biracial) male and a white female. And the politics of both race and gender are all mixed together.

The analysis that I had stayed up too late watching broke the voters up, state by state, by gender, race, economic class, education level, and age.  We learned that older white women went overwhelmingly for Clinton.  We learned that the black vote, which the Clintons used to have locked up, went increasingly to Obama.  We learned that younger folks in their 20s and 30s tended to favor Obama, as did college-educated folks and people who made over 70k a year.  We learned that blue collar Dems strongly favored Clinton.  

After a while, my eyes glazed over from the numbers and yet I kept watching, trying to make sense of the pundits trying to make sense of this.  Surely in this historic primary election, when we should be celebrating two important milestones, it hasn't come down to something as simplistic people voting for the candidate that is their race or gender or age?  Surely, the numbers do not tell the whole story.  


Forum Activity

Fri, 10/31/2014 - 08:11
Mon, 06/16/2014 - 07:09
Tue, 10/01/2013 - 22:01

Acknowledgments is made possible in part by generous support from the Fahs Collaborative