Senior Citizens, Blacks and Jews Aid Clinton, Poll Finds

By RONALD BROWNSTEIN

April 8, 1992 12 AM PT

TIMES POLITICAL WRITER

NEW YORK —

Solid showings with the core Democratic constituencies of blacks, Jews and senior citizens carried Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton to victory in the New York primary, despite significant doubts about his integrity, a Los Angeles Times exit poll found.

In driving to victory through repeated controversies about his past, Clinton again demonstrated Tuesday a powerful ability to assemble the historic Democratic base of blacks and working-class whites--overcoming a challenge from former California Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr. and a surprisingly strong protest vote for former Massachusetts Sen. Paul E. Tsongas.

Clinton carried roughly half the votes of both blacks and Jews. Even with a low turnout, that is a stunning achievement in a state where the votes of the two groups so frequently diverge.

As in earlier primaries, he amassed a commanding margin among senior citizens, carrying 50% to Brown’s 14% and Tsongas’ 28%.

But the poll also shows that many New York Democrats remain uneasy about Clinton. One sign was the strong showing by Tsongas--who suspended his campaign last month but remained on the ballot--particularly among the upscale suburban voters who have been coolest toward Clinton in the past.

More important, the poll indicates that the repeated allegations of misconduct lodged against Clinton--ranging from unsubstantiated charges of marital infidelity to fresh controversies about his Vietnam War-era draft status--have raised New Yorkers’ doubts about the front-runner’s honesty to a level potentially debilitating in a general election.

The Times’ poll, supervised by John Brennan, surveyed 2,686 Democratic voters as they left 60 polling places around the state; it has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

If the results highlighted nagging worries about Clinton, they offered few signs that either Brown or Tsongas--who was a visible presence in New York despite officially remaining on the sidelines--are positioned to expand their appeal enough to threaten Clinton in upcoming key primaries in Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina.

As a non-candidate, Tsongas attracted support from the same relatively narrow base that sustained him as an official contender: He remained most attractive to well-educated, affluent whites, while voters of moderate means and education gave him fewer votes.

Brown, meanwhile, stumbled into the racial divide that Clinton artfully bridged. By so closely embracing civil rights leader Jesse Jackson--a symbol of incendiary power on both sides of New York’s jagged color line--Brown ran much better among blacks than he has elsewhere, but there were signs of a backlash among whites.

Brown carried just one out of 10 Jewish votes and less than 3 out of 10 white Catholics--an extremely disappointing showing for an Irish Catholic competing against a Southern Baptist and a candidate not officially in the race.

To some extent, Brown’s eclectic appeal and the unique characteristics of New York--with its unusually large percentage of well-educated Jewish voters--distorted the demographic patterns that have governed the primaries through March.

But even in an environment challenging for Southerners--New York Democrats decisively rejected Jimmy Carter in both the 1976 and 1980 primaries and gave Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore Jr. the back of their hand in 1988--Clinton essentially reassembled the K Mart coalition that carried him to victory through the South and the Midwest.

As in earlier contests, demographics mattered more than ideology in New York. Support varied little for the three contenders among self-identified moderates, liberals and conservatives.

More decisive was class, race and ethnicity. As he has throughout the primary season, Clinton ran best among voters of moderate education and means, as well as the elderly. He carried half of the voters with a high school education or less and a majority of those households with annual incomes no greater than $20,000.

Clinton also ran strong among both blacks and Jews--although Brown offered him his stiffest challenge yet for the former group, and Tsongas showed durable appeal among the latter.

Brown’s embrace of Jackson and his relentless attacks on Clinton for playing golf at an all-white country club last month apparently paid dividends.

In each of the last five large-state showdowns--Georgia, Florida, Texas, Michigan and Illinois--Clinton carried at least 70% of the black vote. But in New York, where blacks represented slightly less than a fifth of the electorate, down from 1988 when Jackson was on the ballot--Clinton carried only 50% to Brown’s 38%; Tsongas attracted 8%.

For Brown, the flip side of his strong showing among blacks was his dismal performance among Jews--many of whom consider Jackson anti-Semitic.

But Clinton was unable to reap the full benefits of that anti-Brown sentiment because so many Jews preferred Tsongas--who repeatedly hinted that he would rejoin the presidential race if he ran well in New York.

Given the apparent antipathy for Brown, Tsongas’ showing among Jews may have been the key factor preventing Clinton from ringing up a more decisive victory: Tsongas carried 40% of the Jewish vote, in the process holding down Clinton’s tally to 45%.

Still, Clinton’s relatively strong showing among the affluent and well-educated Jewish electorate, which constituted slightly more than a fifth of those voting, allowed him to improve his overall performance with upscale voters. Clinton carried 35% of voters with a college or advanced degree, while Tsongas won 34% and Brown 26%. Similarly, Clinton and Tsongas split voters earning more than $60,000 annually--with each taking slightly more than a third of that group and Brown getting approximately a fourth of the vote.

Although Jewish distrust depressed Brown’s totals among the well-educated--a group he had run well with in earlier states--he made significant inroads among less-affluent voters who had previously preferred Clinton.

Brown ran almost evenly with Clinton among blue-collar voters--although union households, reflecting Clinton’s endorsements from teachers and government employees, narrowly backed the Arkansas governor over Brown, 37% to 29%.

Voters under age 30--who had also given Clinton healthy margins earlier--preferred Brown over Clinton by 41% to 29%.

Still, Brown’s vote remained fairly constant across ideological and economic lines, which suggested that his populist attacks on the wealthy and powerful may have been less important than the aura of alienation he conveyed.

That cynicism proved just as attractive to a share of the affluent as it did to a portion of the poor: Brown, in fact, ran as strongly among the one-sixth of the electorate who said they were better off than four years ago as he did among those who said they had lost ground.

But Brown failed at what he repeatedly laid out as his central task: proving to New York voters that he would challenge business-as-usual in Washington more fundamentally than Clinton. One out of five primary voters cited the “ability to bring needed change” as the key factor in their vote, but they preferred Clinton over Brown, 47% to 34%.

Likewise, about one out of four primary voters echoed Brown’s message by agreeing that Washington’s highest priority should be to “clean out corruption in the political Establishment;” but they gave Clinton a slim 36%-to-32% edge over Brown, with Tsongas attracting 28%.

About three out of four voters said Washington should focus less on corruption than on developing “better policies for solving the country’s economic and social problems;” they preferred Clinton over Brown, 40% to 25%, with Tsongas attracting 30%.

Even those casting their votes as a protest--almost a fifth of the electorate--deserted the former California governor: Those angry voters gave Tsongas 47% of their votes and Brown 28%.

Clinton was preferred by those who chose because they liked their candidate--slightly more than four out of 10 overall--and by those picking the “best of a bad lot”--also about four out of 10.

Nor did Brown gain any advantage from his principal policy proposal in the campaign: a 13% flat tax on income and a 13% value-added tax that would replace all existing federal levies--including income, estate, corporate and Social Security taxes.

Clinton lacerated the plan as regressive and a threat to Social Security, and that message apparently outweighed Brown’s promise to simplify the tax system now and fix any inequities later.

Slightly more than a fourth of the electorate cited the flat tax as a major factor in their vote: Brown carried just 26% of them compared to 40% for Clinton and 29% for Tsongas.

An equal number of voters said that “doubts about Brown’s qualifications to be President” influenced their decision. They gave a majority of their vote to Clinton and just 2% to Brown.

As in other states, New York voters saw in Clinton many of the attributes they are seeking in a nominee and a President. Just over one out of eight said leadership was a major factor in their decision; they gave Clinton almost seven out of 10 of their votes. One in 7 cited experience; 53% of them preferred Clinton. One in 11 said concerns about electability in November heavily influenced their decision.

But a substantial shadow of doubt lingered over those glowing appraisals. Nearly a fifth of primary voters cited as a significant factor in their decision one or more of three controversies that have dogged Clinton: charges that he had an extramarital affair, allegations that he tried to dodge the draft during the Vietnam War and questions about his past financial dealings.

Those doubts had a palpable impact in New York. Only one out of 9 of the voters citing any of those allegations backed Clinton--while he was preferred by almost half of those who did not raise any of those issues. Voters who were looking primarily for a candidate they could “trust” gave him just one out of in five of their votes; those who cited ethics gave him just one out of seven.

Asked directly whether Clinton had the “honesty and integrity to serve as President” voters split evenly, 35% to 35%, with 30% undecided--a figure made even more damaging by the fact that the primary was open only to registered Democrats.

Only one of every 25 voters who questioned Clinton’s honesty gave him their vote.

These doubts were not uniform across the electorate. Ominously for Clinton, they were sharpest in the groups that he may need the most to add to his primary coalition in the fall if he wins the nomination.

Pluralities of independents, white Catholics, college graduates, and voters earning more than $40,000 annually all said they did not believe Clinton was sufficiently honest to be President.

On the other hand, Brown did not score much better than Clinton on honesty and integrity, suggesting that at least some of these doubts may be endemic to politicians in this age of anti-Washington sentiment. Asked if Brown had the integrity and honesty to serve as President, New York voters gave him only an unenthusiastic 35%-to-31% endorsement, with 34% unsure.

Indeed, after this bilious, often bizarre demolition derby of a primary, it was the candidates not on the ballot who fared best in the exit poll. Asked who they would have voted for if Tsongas had remained actively in the race, 42% of New Yorkers preferred the former Massachusetts senator, while 33% said they still would have voted for Clinton and 21% for Brown.

New York’s most celebrated non-candidate, Gov. Mario M. Cuomo, did better still: Nearly three-fifths of those who voted Tuesday said they would have pulled the lever for Cuomo if his name had been on the ballot.

THE TIMES POLL

Candidates’ Key Support Groups

The Times questioned New York voters Tuesday to determine how candidates did with key demographic groups and what voters considered to be strengths and weaknesses. The poll is based on interviews with 2,686 Democratic primary voters at 60 polling places.

CLINTON

Appealed strongly to:

Those with a household income of less than $20,000 (54%)

Black voters (50%)

Jewish voters (45%)

Did well among those who:

Believe he has strong qualities of leadership (69%)

Believe he has the experience (53%)

Believe he can bring change (47%)

Did poorly among those who:

Are self-styled independents (25%)

Are looking for a candidate they can trust (19%)