Here’s Texas, where she won by only three:
And … here’s Ohio, where she won by 10:
I.e. race was worth 12 points to her overall and eight to Obama, for a net to Her Majesty of +4. Fair comparison, though? His “racist” supporters may be motivated by the possibility of a black president being able to improve race relations; doubtless he has his prejudiced fans too, starting with the kindly old pastor pal of his, but surely some percentage is voting less because they’re pro-black or anti-white than pro-postracial. It’s harder to make that same case for Hillary. Add in the fact that the exit polls were bound to have lowballed the number of people for whom race mattered, as some simply won’t cop to it, and you’ve got some tasty nuance.
As a control group, here’s the race question in two previous primaries. First is Massachusetts, where she won a contest that could have gone either way; for a state that’s supposedly so notoriously racist, her numbers here are lower than in Texas and Ohio. And second is Missouri, where Obama won by a single point — a margin that’s almost accounted for by the net here. Funny how we didn’t hear much about that on Super Tuesday. Exit question via Karl: How come Hillary’s whopping margins on the gender question don’t qualify as a “reverse sexist” vote? Are her supporters “pro-postgender”?