York asserted that SC white men who did not vote for Clinton "voted against" her
SUMMARY: In another example of a media figure asserting that primary or caucus voters who chose a candidate other than Sen. Hillary Clinton were thus rejecting her, National Review's Byron York asserted that in South Carolina, "72 percent of white men voted against" Clinton. York did not point to any evidence that the white men who voted for someone other than Clinton did so because they were "vot[ing] against her."
On the January 27 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, National Review White House correspondent Byron York asserted that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "was kind of reduced to her core constituency in South Carolina. She had problems with everybody except for white women." He later added, "Seventy-two percent of white men voted against her." The Associated Press reported that, according to AP exit polls for the January 26 South Carolina Democratic primary, 45 percent of white males supported former Sen. John Edwards (NC), 28 percent of white males supported Clinton, and 27 percent of white males supported Sen. Barack Obama (IL). York did not point to any evidence that the white men who voted for someone other than Clinton did so because they were "vot[ing] against her."
This is not the first time a media figure has asserted that primary or caucus voters who chose a candidate other than Clinton were rejecting Clinton in doing so. In a January 2 "guide" to "post-caucus spin" posted on MSNBC.com, NBC News political director Chuck Todd wrote that if there were a "three-way tie" in the January 3 Iowa caucus, Clinton would have to "make sure the media doesn't somehow turn the tie into a '60-plus percent of Democrats rejected her' spin" and added: "While the Clinton campaign believes that they've gotten bad media coverage, they do have to worry about a certain segment of the press interpreting Clinton as the incumbent being rejected by majority margins." Despite Todd's "guide," MSNBC host Chris Matthews asserted that if Clinton were to "squeak" out a victory, she will nonetheless have been "rejected here in Iowa by two-thirds of the Democratic Party" while discussing possible outcomes of the Iowa Democratic caucuses on the January 3 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe.
In contrast to his analysis of the Democratic race in Iowa, earlier in the January 3 show, Matthews predicted that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) would win 18 percent of votes in the Iowa Republican caucuses, but did not assert that if he was right, McCain would have been "rejected" by 82 percent of Iowa Republican caucus participants. Rather, while Matthews characterized a "low 30 percent" result for Clinton as negative, he suggested on the January 2 edition of MSNBC's Hardball that if McCain were to receive 18 percent of the vote, he would be "the big hero."
From the January 27 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
YORK: You know, I don't think you can overstate the amount of anger created in Democrats by Bill Clinton's tactics. I mean they were very, very unhappy with them. I was talking to a Democratic strategist the other day who said, "My wife just got in the car. She's driving to South Carolina to volunteer for Obama." They were that angry at what Clinton had done. And he also said, you know, Clinton is trying to turn him into Jesse Jackson. And sure enough, after Obama wins big, what does Bill Clinton say but, well, you know, Jesse Jackson won here, too. But you know she -- Hillary Clinton was kind of reduced to her core constituency in South Carolina. She had problems with everybody except for white women. Eighty percent of black women voted against her, 80 percent of black men voted against her, and 72 percent of white men voted against her. I mean, she was down to a very small constituency.















Fried,
I agree, the consistency would be nice. But let's face it, the Democratic candidates are far "out" captivating the media's attention right now as opposed to the yawnfest that is the Republican field of candidates....once the nominees are settled, then we will see how it's covered, I suppose.
It's not necessarily the case that voting for someone automatically means that you are voting against someone else. You may just really like the other guy better.
The problem here is, this kind of negative interpretation is only being used against Clinton. No other candidates' lack of votes is being treated as pure rejection.
The big, overriding question is: why is Hillary being discriminated against by the media?
There is a huge difference between making a conscious decision to vote for a particular candidate or against a particular candidate. There are people who like Obama and Edwards more as candidates and vote that way. There are other people who are in the "anyone but Hillary" camp and actively choose who they believe to be the most likely to beat her.
If it comes down to Hillary vs McCain, for example, there will certainly be a number of people who vote McCain not because they believe in him, but because they hate Hillary.
Far too many pundits are attributing motivations to voters that they have no way of knowing. They are making wild assumptions and reporting them as fact.
Hi Thomp,
If I had to guess on this one, I would guess that the same commentators are not saying that anyone who votes for Romney is voting against McCain, just my guess.
MM is citing this as a general problem for Clinton, it's just that in this case the specific citation is "white men." They've documented other examples recently.
Only Clinton gets treated this way: that anyone who votes for her opponents is automatically personally rejecting her as well.
What's good for the goose doesn't ever seem to be good for the gander, with these reporters and pundits, if your last name is "Clinton."
It's baffling, all this irrational and dishonest Clinton hatred. The only explanation seems to be that they are rooting for a Republican victory in November.
I hate to harp on it, but still I don't get the distinction. If MM is speaking of a general problem, then why did they clip York's quote so short. I mean, in the same sentence he said blacks were voting "against" her too. Like I said, maybe MM wasn't implying anything by the omission, but it just seemed odd . .
In any case, I also don't buy the notion that the repubs are craving to face Obama in a general. The party is worn out, and running against a clinton would be a rallying cry. Obama, in my opinion, is a better general election candidate, and I don't think moderate republicans would hate him as they do her . ..
I think that MMFA is having a meltdown trying to defend Bill and Hillary:
York says that 'white men voted against Hillary' (oh MY!!!)
But, gee, Al Sharpton told Bill to "shut up"...
And then Ted Kennedy backs Obama! (and slams the old style politics of Clinton!)
And don't forget that S. Carolina absolutely spanked Bill Clinton.
And media members like E.J. Dionne and Frank Rich give the Clintons well deserved criticism!!!
... but York gives a pretty obvious analysis of the S.C. primary that isn't absolutely flattering to Bill and HIll.
And the purpose of this site is REALLY somthing other than to campaign for the Clintons? Don't make me laugh.
"And the purpose of this site is REALLY somthing other than to campaign for the Clintons? Don't make me laugh."
At least not exclusively. MMFA has been vehemently defending Obama and Edwards against the Madrassa-Haircut Smear Brigade.
I think that other resident MMFA detractors would disagree with you, since they have their own theories behind a multitude of purposes for MMFA's existence, such as:
Getting Bill O'Reilly off the air
Getting Chris Matthews off the air
Giving props to Keith Olbermann
and so on...
Thanks, Irony. I can't believe Pete forgot all of my "values issues".
Not to mention the fundamental mission of securing absolute power for Exalted Leader George Soros, who funds this site and sends me my marching orders.
I think it's absurd to claim that MMFA is backing Hillary. They are just being fair.
If they were reallly huge Clinton supproters, I think we would see scads more of these examples-- they are sure out there to pick from! One episode of 'Morning Joe' would provide a week's worth of Hillary-hate and insanity, alone.
For me this is just another example of the "All Hillary, all the time" obsession the press can't seem to get over.
Even today, which should have been a great day for Obama the press is asking "Will the Kennedy endorsement hurt HRC." rather than what it means for Obama.