Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Behind Obama's Big S.C. Win

Preview: Our story in the Sunday Post is headlined "Black Vote Vital, but Not the Whole Story." Obama was the overwhelming favorite among African American voters, and he picked up a quarter of white voters. As in previous contests, he did especially well among younger, better educated and wealthier voters. Obama also won three-quarters of "change-voters."

Half of white voters under 30 supported Obama, as did about a third of those with college degrees and those with family incomes of $100,000 or more. A breakdown of vote preferences among white voters is below, and an earlier version of the story from the exit poll is up now on The Trail.

There were fewer differences among black voters: Obama won both black men and black women by about 4 to 1, and had big margins among both younger and older African Americans. Complete exit poll data are available here.

South Carolina Democratic primary vote among white voters:

            Obama   Clinton   Edwards
All           24      36        40
18-29         50      26        23
30-44         25      34        41
45-64         24      34        42
65+           11      47        41
Male          27      28        45
Female        22      42        36
Household income:
Under $50K    19      40        41
$50K-$100K    25      31        44
$100K plus    32      36        32
Non-college   16      38        46
College grad  32      33        35

UPDATE: The Sunday story is here, the accompanying graphic here. Other data from the exit poll went into S.C. analyses by the Post's Dan Balz, Anne E. Kornblut and Shalaigh Murray "Obama Is Big Winner in S.C. Primary," Jonathan Weisman "Edwards's Appeal Overshadowed by Rivals' Celebrity" and Alec MacGillis "A Margin That Will Be Hard To Marginalize."

By Jon Cohen  |  January 26, 2008; 10:29 PM ET
Categories:  Exit polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: New Racial Dynamic in S.C.
Next: Obama 2008 vs. Jackson 1988


Besides the 'african american' appears that Clinton still has a significant edge over Obama. But then again, what difference will the coming week make? I suspect the final debate in California must be decisive for the Clinton campaign.

Posted by: Nick | January 27, 2008 1:46 AM | Report abuse

It's interesting that Obama's victory speech was all about people of all backgrounds coming together, and again the analysis is looking at how to put each of the candidates in a box in terms of race & gender. When I look at the data what I see is that come November when Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee for President of the United States, he will pull support from a wide group of people and build on the coalitions he's forming in the primaries.

Posted by: Sidney | January 27, 2008 8:39 AM | Report abuse

i am not a us citizen but i think hillary clinton is the best candidate given her superior intellect. the dems' debates so far have obama soar in rhetoric though. but rhetoric is not what the us needs. its presidency needs mental fortitude and solid leadership background. only clinton has these qualities. and maybe mccain on the side of the GOP.

Posted by: lemuel t. fernandez | January 27, 2008 9:08 AM | Report abuse

since your chart show CLinton did better with the well educated than Obama, why do lie and say its the other way around?

She also did better with High income.

Is your whole story a lie?

Posted by: troy | January 27, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

It would be nice if the polls (and debates) were about issues rather than race and gender.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 27, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Obama getting 50% of the 18-29 year olds makes total sense since he has led Hillary in the "web presence" and matches the fact that 42% of that age group use the internet to get their facts. See:

Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama - the internet statistics:

Posted by: David | January 27, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Did I read this wrong? Does race matter?
It seems that Edwards wins among whites, overall Obama24-Hillary 36- Edwards 40

Can Obama win the general election with 25% of white Democrats voting for him? Will white Republicans vote for Obama, his favorite comments about Reagan notwithstanding.

If Edwards becomes the nominee, what can happen?
He might get the white vote; and would then black voters vote Republican?
The Media should clarify the data. Enlighten the people. Is that your job?

Posted by: Inessa0 | January 27, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

It looks to me that Clinton's attacks on Obama were a hit with the poorest, least educated voters. Surprise, surprise, inaccurate negative attacks only work on idiots!

Posted by: Anonymous | January 27, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

I'm so sick of the pundits in the media. It is a disgrace that the Washington Post would print an article like this. It is unproductive, employs backwards logic, and clearly does nothing to make this country a better place. It illustrates that undue influences are controlling the media and our system is truly broken.

What truly disgusts me is that there are so many Clinton patrons, with positions of strength, scattered throughout our society and media. What is it that the Clintons promised you for your patronage? You're truly dancing with the devil. Don't think that they won't drop you if they don't need you.

In general, the American Dream can be defined as having the opportunity and freedom that allows all citizens to achieve their goals in life through hard work and determination alone. Vote for Obama!!

Posted by: Mike | January 27, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Considering the polling information, as well as listening to voters, I have concluded that gender more than race, is a significant factor in people's decision regarding presidential choices. Many ex-military men do not feel comfortable with the notion of a woman commander-in-chief, just as they do not accept them in military ranks, as evidenced by the many reported rapes and sexual harassment cases.

Posted by: Bonnie | January 27, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

"As in previous contests, he (Obama) did especially well among younger, better educated and wealthier voters."

Obama came LAST in both the better educated and wealthier segments!
Obama Clinton Edwards
Household income:
$100K plus 32 36 32

College grad 32 33 35

I know its a Sunday,but you are not even trying. You are just re-hashing an old storyline despite your own pol showing the opposite.

Posted by: bambuzzled | January 27, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Ughh! Even in the clean cold air of Canada one has to hold his nose against the Clintons' reeking hypocrisy. One of their most ardent supporters, a founding quean of feminism, once famously observed that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. But for the Arkansas Darter there's only one way across the Potomac and that's on a bicycle built for two.

Posted by: Canada Dry | January 27, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters wake up. Obama is running a racist campaign.

Obama's camp compared their victory over Clinton in Iowa to OJ Simpson's murder of his white wife. "The natural reminder here is O.J. [Simpson] -- how does an African American candidate attack a white woman?" said Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), a fellow Black Chicagoan whose father ran for president twice in the 1980s.

That was waaaaaay back in January. And the media covered it up!

This is how Washington Post buried the information by ignoring its racist tone.

Posted by: fjstratford | January 27, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Again the liberals can not get a grip on their inability to read. Barak got the black vote because he is black. Or 80% of black voters know what is best for this country than 80% of white voters. Let us look at what black leaders have done in Africa when they took the leadership from the whites. How many whites or for that matter blacks are going to Africa to live under black leaders rule?

Posted by: highly intelligent | January 27, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Remember, these voters are Southern white voters. Obama did respectably well with white voters overall in SC, getting about a quarter of them in a 3-way race, but he did much better among white voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, and my guess is he'll replicate that elsewhere in the North and West. Also note that native son John Edwards took 40% of the white vote in SC; but that's by and large a pro-Edwards vote, partially an anti-Clinton vote, and very likely not an anti-Obama vote according to the exit polls. Edwards' share of the white vote will recede as the campaign moves North and West, and Obama's will rise.

The Clinton campaign is trying to put Obama into the "black candidate" box, trying desperately to spin an overwhelming show of strength into a weakness. But the real story out of South Carolina is Clinton's weakness, not Obama's. She showed strength only among older white women and voters 65+ (regardless of gender) in SC, and even among those groups she did not command a majority. Those are important demographics to be sure, but a slender basis for a national campaign. Clinton's weakness among African-Americans (who make up at least 25% of the Democratic Party's base nationwide), young voters, and white males is eye-popping. Obama has already peeled away a majority of younger white women, a significant fraction of affluent and well-educated white women, and an overwhelming majority of African-American women---the key battleground in SC, a demographic once solidly in Clinton's camp and one which the Clinton campaign believed right until the end they could compete for. Add to all that the fact that the only thing Republicans can unite around is their loathing of the Clintons, and most independents don't want to touch her with a 10-foot pole, generally preferring Obama or McCain, and Clinton's weakness in a general election becomes apparent.

It is also noteworthy that Obama is expanding the electorate by bringing record numbers of African-American and young voters to the polls, something Clinton has shown no capacity to do. Perhaps the most significant stat is that for the first time in anyone's memory, more people voted in the Democratic primary in South Carolina than in a hotly contested and pivotal Republican primary. South Carolina may be too Republican to be in play in the general election, but it suggests Obama could put a number of other Southern states into play for the first time in a long time. Looking at her performance in South Carolina, it's hard to see Clinton being competitive anywhere in the South. Democrats looking to win back the White House in November should think long and hard about Clinton's shrinking core of support before they cast their ballots on February 5.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 27, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

lemuel: I'm not a US citizen either, but I think you are wrong about Hillary having superior intellect. I consider Obama's intellect to be superior and his judgment - if records are compared and words are compared. An unintelligent man does not become the Editor of the Harvard Law Review, nor attain the status of a Professor of Constitional Law. I see nothing in Hillary's record that comes close to this. That Obama has kept his campaign clean and factual also attests to the fact that he got his message right from the start. When people get their message wrong from the start, this shows bad judgment, and when they go underhand and distorting and negative they further compound their poor judgment. Obama is the right choice for America, of this I am 100% convinced.

Posted by: Jay | January 27, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons used the same old strategy. They lie. They are not honest. The will say anything to win the nomination. They have no ethical value. Things that Bill Clinton did in the white house as president that has lead to the prelude of his impeachment, was so bad, I do not even know how to explain it to my 6 year old. Precisely, what I am refereeing here is the need to be candid under all circumstances. They used all kinds of tricks, tears and anger to manipulate the media and scare up votes. This is disgraceful. I know that Bill wants to finish his legacy, but he needs to conduct the campaign in a way that is conducive to respect, and civility.

Here is the current strategy -- Bill goes loose and says anything that he wants including distortion to derail Obama off his message. In the meantime, Hillary will have more time to talk about the economy and her mandating health care system, similar to the ones implemented by governor Mitt Romney in Massachusetts before his departure. People in Massachusetts, who cannot pay for their heating bill, would rather pay the current fine because it is less than buying a health insurance premium. Forcing people to pay a fine and yet calling the plan, universal heath insurance, sounds more like a great euphemism to me. This sounds just like as a real fairy tale to me; give me a break. Our problem will not be solved until we remove the lobbyists in Washington. The previous attempt to solve the healthcare crisis was done behind closed doors. The second attempt will be a mandating health care plan to force people who can't afford it to pay additional fees. She may as well choose the previous governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, as a running mate, for they have the same health care plan.

The strategy outlined above may win the nomination, but it will lose the election.
1. The Clintons are working vigorously to put a wall - calling Obama "young African American.
2. This morning, she called him a frustrated young man
3. The Clinton purposely lied to provoke Obama and to derail him off his message.
Please Obama do no let this only hope dies.
Without Obama, there is no more interest in politic on the democratic side. Without Obama, there is no surge in voting registration. Without Obama, there is no full auditorium with thousand and thousands followers. Without Obama, there is no more reason to believe in again. Without Obama, the Tiger Woods analogy ceases to make sense - he made golf interested to young people as Obama make politic interested to college kids across the country. Without Obama, citizens would stop changing party affiliation from republican and independent to become democrats. Without Obama, we are back to the same food fight - red and blue state again -- Red for republican and blue for democrats.
Please don't let the status quo blocks the change movement and derail Obama off the message to unite America and heal the nation - Please let be honest!!!
"There is not a liberal America and a conservative America - there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America - there's the United States of America."

Posted by: Richard Andre | January 27, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

For those questioning this data - in the primaries before SC, Obama secured majorities in the educated and higher income voters, this data is just showing a similar trend. It does not make sense, either, to conclude that only 24% of white people in South Carolina or elsewhere in the States would vote for Obama. You must remember that these were democrats voting for a Democratic candidate - not choosing between a Republican or Democrat. The majority of those white votes will fall behind Obama in the main election. The SC primary was a litmus test on his white support when going up against two other candidates, one who was a home-grown SC white boy and the other who was a former first lady, with an ex-President campaigning for her. These were two very tough opponents in SC, and I think Obama did very well to capture the percentage of the white vote that he did, particularly in the young age groups, who represent the future of America. Added to this, he won Iowa, which is almost totally white and he won more counties overall in both Nevada and New Hampshire. Some have said that the New Hampshire polls were wrong due to hidden racism, however I think what caused the last minute swing in Clinton's favor was probably more to do with a letter drop made just prior to the primary that made false allegations about Obama's pro-choice positions. A leading woman in this area, who formely backed Clinton, has come out and spoken against what was done to Obama - it was plain wrong, dishonest and dirty tactics. Obama also had to overcome such tactics in South Carolina, where a letter drop went around about him being Muslim - trying to appeal to the fears of the white voters in the area - claims that were again, patently false. Obama has also drawn much support from Independents and Republicans in all of the primaries - these are crucial swing voters who do not like Hillary by in large. Their support is also needed to win the Presidential Election. I think how well Obama is doing, despite the negative and destructive forces that have been going against him, is testament to how strong a candidate he is. And ask yourself this question - why try and put such effort into trying to destroy a candidate - by any means necessary - if he is weak and inconsequential? Quite simply, there are people in both parties that would like you to believe that he is unelectable because the truth is he is the only Democrat with a very strong chance of winning come the final election.

Posted by: Jay | January 27, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

We have the freedom in this democracy to vote for the candidate whose vision courage and policy best match our own hopes. "Gender" and "race" are one word sound bites that make for easy and pointless journalism, unless the point is to drag the election down and keep secret the stands on the issues that the candidates take.

Posted by: Susan | January 27, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

PS. I should clarify - the Republicans would see Obama as the most competitive contender, but those who believe Hillary is the most competitive contender have got their blinkers on and won't face up to the facts that are staring them in the face. She has very high negatives, has weakened the democratic base through her tactics, and has a trunkload of material that the Reps can use against her.

Posted by: Jay | January 27, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse



Posted by: lynn parker | January 27, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

getting ted kennedy's endorsement will certainly signify that he's an agent of change.

Posted by: o'bama the "black irish" candidate | January 27, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

With all due respect for Mr. Obama and the campaign he has run I'd have to agree he has alot of good things to say, who can argue with that? but the major difference is, Obama has nothing really but his words so far, what has he actually accomplished? nothing much in his 2 very short years in the Senate. He skipped on 130 Senate votes, no one does that and gets things done, seriously. Change happens when you TAKE ACTION and sitting back and not voting 130 times, is not taking action. You know I have nothing against Obama's ideas, but Hillary and Edwards both have alot more to back up their promises. One step at a time, I think Obama is an impulsive choice and the wrong choice for what America needs right now. Change is great! of course it is, we ALL want change and no one wants it and can make that change happen more effectively for what we all need to restore America right away quite like Hillary Clinton starting on her first day in office. Hillary has my vote and support all the way and John Edwards is my second choice, I wish Edwards would be Hillary's running mate in fact, those two would be just awesome together. I would consider Obama another time but he is way too young, untested and inexperienced still for what we need done now. Do the right thing and vote for what we KNOW will work at a time in America's history when we cannot afford to lose another another child, another job, another business, another family, another home, another day. Hillary already knows exactly what to do and how to do it, you cannot just promise that or say 'yes you can' make change, it takes hard work. You have to actually have the skills and know how to get it done like Hillary absolutely does. Bottom line, you don't hire an amateur to do a professional job. Vote for Hillary for real serious, immediate change, she is the sure thing and she will not let us down.

Hillary All the Way!!!!!!

Posted by: Hillary Ready For Change | January 27, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

I've been a Republican and a Democrat, and I believe the Democrats have the moral high ground in this election, but I won't vote for O'Bama. He engaged in racial baiting and was the first to backhand Hillary in the SC debate, he is certainly no gentleman. Some of the right wing media is helping O'Bama bias the voting to racial issues (corridors of shame, great racial divide, etc.), perhaps because they think he'll lose handily in the gerneral election. I'll gladly vote for a black man, a woman or a mormon but not one who speaks only shameless rhetoric. Go get 'em Hillary!

Posted by: Jess | January 27, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Check Hillary's Cattle Future trading history:

Posted by: Richard | January 27, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

People who say that Obama is all rhetoric and Hillary has the detailed plans are simply ignorant. Go to their websites and look at the issues. You will see that Hillary mostly says she wants to improve so and so, but she doesn't mention how she will do it or how she will pay for it. Obama tells you exactly what he will do and how he will pay for it.

For example, look at the economy. Seriously, go look, otherwise do not go around saying that Obama is all talk and no plans.

In contrast, Hillary doesn't even discuss her plan for the economy in any of her 13 issues! Who is all talk now?

People who say Hillary is "smarter" are also simply incorrect. Obama was president of Harvard Law Review, the most important, prestigious, and selective and law journal in the world. What did Hillary do in law school? She failed the DC Bar exam, which is simply embarrassing.

Posted by: Michael | January 27, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

One more thing, I believe that those who say that Obama is inexperienced compared with Hillary are also mistaken. What political or leadership experience does Hillary have? She was a first lady in Arkansas and the White House, but first ladies do not get security clearance and do not make decisions. Hillary's one big policy move, her 1993 Health Care Plan, ended in a miserable failure, and cost the Democrats the House and Senate in the 1994 midterm elections.

Hillary's first political experience was as Senator for NY in 2001, a position she would have NEVER been in without her husband. In contrast, Obama was an Illinois state senator since 1997, four more years experience than Hillary, and everything Obama accomplished, he did on his own. Who really has more experience and is a better leader?

Posted by: Michael | January 27, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the only one who has a chance on the democractic side.
Clintons are too negative, self involved, divisive. Obama is the only candidate capable of reaching across the aisle and rebuilding our country.

Posted by: mel | January 27, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

These figures, like those from IA and NH, show that, as Obama has maintained, that the electorate is more polarized by age than by gender, race or class. A good sign for those who thing significant change is long overdue hope for it sooner rather than later.

Posted by: mnjam | January 27, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

To all those people thinking the story's breakdown of the poll data is wrong (e.g., troy and bambuzzled): compare the percentages to what you "expect" each candidate to get in that category, i.e., take into account that the table is just for white voters in SC, and so in each column (with everything else being equal) you "expect" for Obama to get 24% and for Clinton to get 36%. So when Obama sacks a third of the $100k+ vote, this is much more than is expected, even if it is a small number of points lower than Clinton's massing.

In other words, don't call something or someone stupid unless you know what you're talking about.

Posted by: mollishka | January 27, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

What fun, listening to the Clinton supporters whine!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: thrh | January 27, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

Or, as Bill Clinton would put it, "Hell, dem N*s will vote for anyone, even me!"

Posted by: thrh | January 27, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

The funny thing is, I'm a lifelong Independent/Democrat, generally to the left of the Democrats. Until a couple of weeks ago, I was a major Bill Clinton supporter. Then I started listening to the racist garbage he was spewing. And now I wouldn't vote for Hillary, or Bill, or even Chelsea, for dogcatcher. As we used to say.

Posted by: thrh | January 27, 2008 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Hey! everyone, l'm in love with Barack!!!!

And there is nothing wrong in loving your president even before he takes office.

He is a fine, intelligent, authentic, innocent man, with good judgement and he will make an A+ president.


Posted by: sandra | January 28, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

To bambuzzled:

While you are criticizing the post for their writing stating "I know it is Sunday but..."; maybe you need to question your own "Sunday" reading comprehension. Your comments seem to indicate that the article was wrong in stating that Obama did better among young voters, educated voters, and voters earning 100K+. Please reread the statements and look at the chart over and over until you understand that: If he gets 11% of the vote of whites 65 and older and 50% of the votes from voters age 18-29, then he did "better among the younger voters" percentage wise. Also, if he got 32% of votes from those earning 100K or more versus 19% of voters earning 50k or less, then he did better among those who have larger incomes. I think you get the picture without the need to explain that 32% of college educated is "better" than 16% of the non college educated. The statement reads that he did better among those groups, not that he beat the other candidates in those groups...reading comprehension is a beast sometimes!!!

Posted by: Lynn | January 28, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

I'm undecided about who & which party I'm voting for, but found this great article called "Black Voters and a Twist of Bias" on the BlogZine SAVAGE POLITICS.
WOW- all I have to say!
Here is an excerpt: "Last Saturday's South Carolina Democratic Primary produced the widely expected result of a Barack Obama victory. From the beginning of the week, it was the ethnic composition of the State in question which was amply discussed by both the Media and it's multiple pundits. It was here and through other sources that we discovered that 55% percent of Democratic voters in South Carolina were African American. An interesting number when you consider the "coincidence" that Obama actually won the election by exactly the same margin: 55%. Of course, many in Clinton's campaign have used this demographic reality to spin their defeat, vociferating that they had always expected to loose from the start. It should be noted that it has been this exact attitude which they have ridiculed Obama's camp for, insinuating that they had proved to be "sore losers" by not admitting their own failures in stating their case to the American People. As we all know, in modern politics, no campaign is free of idiotic childishness, sadly resurfacing the reality that our current political existence is dominated by whining imbeciles of the lowest ilk. Nevertheless, the Clinton Campaign's affirmation (victory based on a unified ethnic constituency) is valid, especially when we consider the data.
The Primary's exit polling, presented by all major networks, were utilized by analysts to determine how was Obama's, Edwards', and Clinton's support spread throughout different social markers. Their results indicated that 80% of the Black vote, and only 20% of the White vote, went towards Barack Obama. Regarding most White voters in the State, you could easily identify their split between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. The significance of this racial division is crucial in understanding the fate of Barack Obama's campaign, and the Democratic Party, if they chose to face the General Election with him at the helm...." Find the rest of the article at

Posted by: elsylee28 | January 29, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama's entire campaign has been a bold-faced farce. He claims to be a unifier, but he was the first to play the race card. Does anyone else remember when he accused Joe Biden of being racist for saying he was "clean and articulate"? That was a long time ago.

There was no mention of race again because the first two states were predominanly white. Then, the day after he lost New Hampshire, Donna Brazille claimed on CNN that Bill Clinton's "fairy-tale" comment offended her "as an African American". The next day, Obama's supporters were all over the air like a batch of parrots calling both Clintons racist (Hillary for the LBJ/MLK comment).

Later that day, I watched Barrack Obama give a speech in a black church in Los Angeles. It was a short speech about the Civil Rights movement reminding everyone of dogs, beatings and firehoses. There was not one mention of a presidential campaign issue.

During the following week, leading up to the SC primary, I watched him do the same in black churches in Atlanta and SC. Not once did the press ever mention this obvious race-baiting.

No, instead, they continued to propagate the lie being spun by the Obama campaign that the Clintons were racists. And even claimed that the Clintons were making Obama "the black candidate". Huh? Wasn't he doing that himself in those churches?Anyhow, judging from the results of the primary and the ensuing spewing of hatred for the Clintons on these blogs, black people were obviously convinced.

So now that Florida has voted in what proved to be a disastrous turn-out for the Obama campaign ("the beauty contest"), his new tactic is to attack Clinton as being "a bridge to the 20th Century". This from a candidate who's now comparing himself to JFK? Hummm.....

I'm glad he was caught on camera snubbing Clinton at the SOTU. His and McCaskill's lies about what is so obvious you'd have to be an idiot to believe them, just puts another crack in his well-polished facade.

This man is nothing but a hypocrite and it is he who "will do anything to get elected".

Posted by: Antifish | January 31, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company