Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

realjohnboy wrote:

The AP is reporting 90% of the black vote going to Obama compared to 1/3rd of the white vote for him.

26%, according to the preliminary exit poll numbers up now. That's pretty much in the same ballpark as he got among whites in most of the other Southern states (LA, OK, TN, AL, SC, FL), and pretty significantly less than he got among whites in almost all non-Southern states.

The 90% among blacks is about the same as he got in Wisconsin, Virginia and Ohio, and more than he got in all of the states (except Illinois) that voted on Super Tuesday or earlier.

0 Replies

Do you think that if the Mississippi exit polls show that Obama's voters are mostly low income, beer-drinking, high school dropouts that will this be reported in the media as him breaking into Clinton's constituency? Surprised

0 Replies

Some interesting preliminary tidbits from early exit poll data in this MSNBC news story.

Race played an important role. Not just among blacks, which would be par for the course now that there's a real chance to elect the first black president in US history, but among whites too:

Quote:

One in five whites said race was important to their votes, and nearly all voted for Clinton. Four in 10 blacks said race was important to their votes and nearly all voted for Obama.

Hillary voters like John McCain:

Quote:

More than half of Clinton voters said they had a favorable opinion of McCain; only about a quarter of Obama voters viewed McCain favorably.

I'm sure the Democratic party will be grateful to Hillary for talking up the Republican nominee this past week, just to put down her primary rival. Though this is probably at its basis more a question of race (white Mississipians, even Democratic ones, like McCain better than black Mississippians), it sure wont have hurt these favourability numbers for McCain.

Finally, contrary to what you might expect, it's the Hillary voters who are the more bitter about the prospect of the primary rival winning the nomination:

Quote:

On several counts, Obama voters were more charitable toward Clinton than vice versa:

-- Six in 10 Obama voters said he should pick Clinton for vice president if he wins the nomination; four in 10 Clinton voters said she should pick Obama as her running mate if she wins.

-- Nearly three-fourths of Clinton voters said they would be dissatisfied if Obama wins the nomination. Little more than half of Obama voters would be dissatisfied with Clinton.

-- Four in 10 Obama voters said Clinton has offered clear and detailed plans to solve the country's problems. Only about one in five Clinton voters said that about Obama.

Now one thing to remember on this count is what I posted half a dozen pages ago about "the bitterness quotient". The share of Hillary voters saying they'd be "dissatisfied" if Obama would win has crept up over time in general, from a percentage in the 30s back in January to one in the 50s last week, but throughout the process a specific subset of states have jumped out. In five of the Southern states voting earlier, the percentage was up in the 60s - which was higher than it was among voters of either candidate in any of the other states.

It's easy, if depressing, to interpret this as a specific reluctance among Southern whites about Obama; if you can think of an alternative, more benevolent explanation please post. Any which way, if it ends up being in the 70s in Mississippi that'll set a new record.

It does make me worry a bit about the general elections. There's been a lot of talk about how Obama supporters, often new to the process and with little entrenched loyalty to the Democratic party per se, could easily float away again in the unlikely case that Hillary ends up being the nominee. Hillary's negative campaigning has fuelled discussions that it would be hard for her to then win Obama voters for her again in the general election campaign. But the "bitterness quotient" numbers suggest that it's Hillary voters who would be harder to win over for Obama than the other way round.

Apparently this phenomenon is especially strong in the South. Now Obama wasnt going to win Mississippi in the general elections anyway, of course, but it could also preclude hypothetical landslide pick-ups in states like Kentucky and Arkansas. (On the other side, of course, Hillary would face similar obstacles in the West compared to Obama.)

0 Replies

Another interesting tidbit from the (preliminary!! Remember what happened with these numbers in Ohio/Texas..) exit poll data:

59% of the voters believed that Hillary had attacked Obama unfairly; 37% believed she had not.

38% of the voters believed that Obama had attacked Hillary unfairly; 58% believed he had not.

Recalculating how Hillary and Obama supporters are represented in those two groups yields an interesting detail: while between two thirds and three quarters of Obama voters believe she attacked him unfairly and he didnt attack her unfairly, Hillary voters were far more ambiguous. Their outlook seems to be that both candidates were equally bad. As much as 51% of Clinton voters said that she had indeed attacked him unfairly, while 56% said he'd attacked her unfairly.

0 Replies

What will be of more interest to me is the percentage of people voting... voter turnout is said to have been rather low. People have given up on government as a result of the Katrina fiasco and have just chosen not to participate no matter who the candidates are.

That will be a very telling vital sign as to the state of politics in Mississippi.

I'd like to know the number of people registered vs the number eligible, also the number of people who voted vs. the number registered.

We won't know those numbers for a few days yet.

0 Replies

Here ya go, Nimh -

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/28416/ClintonSatisfied.jpg

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/28416/ObamaSatisfied.jpg

Note the percentage of Clinton voters who would be dissatisfied if she won the nomination.

It would seem that Republicans gave Clinton a significant advantage, and I would bet my hat that 99% of them were white as well. The cross-over votes significantly helped her, while exaggerating the racial statistics.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

All of this looks like good news for McCain in November.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Here ya go, Nimh -

Note the percentage of Clinton voters who would be dissatisfied if she won the nomination.

Yes, that was the question in the exit poll data I was referring to. But dont forget that you have to recalculate them! (Although in this case the result turns out to be similar).

I.e.: the numbers above do not say that 15% of Hillary voters would be dissatisfied if she were the nominee while 59% of them would be satisfied (as evidenced by how that doesn't add up to 100%). They say that 15% of those who would be dissatisfied with Hillary as nominee voted for her, while 59% of those who would be satisfied with her as nominee voted for her. So it's a bit tricky that way. Thats what I meant earlier by how I had to recalculate that "bitterness quotient".

So you recalculate. 15% of 39% = 5.85% of total primary voters voted Hillary, even though they wouldnt be satisfied with her as nominee. Whereas 59% of 60% = 35.4% of total primary voters voted Hillary and would be satisfied with her as nominee. (Makes for a total of 41.25% of Hillary voters in the primary, a little too high; the exit poll numbers have since been adjusted a bit.)

So of Hillary voters, 35.4%/.4125 = 86% would also be happy with her as nominee, while 5.85%/.4125 = 14% of them would be dissatisfied if she were the nominee.

That is a bit odd, of course, you're right. That could then maybe be a rough approximation of the number of "Limbaugh voters" in the primary - Republicans who didnt cross over because they liked one of the Democratic candidates, but because they wanted to stir the ****, responding to Limbaugh's appeal.

Even then you do still have to subtract a small number of legit conservative Democrats who would end up in this category, because they are just not happy with either candidate but voted for Hillary as the least worst candidate in their eyes. And maybe a few white Democratic Mississippians who dont like Hillary, but are damned if they're gonna let a black guy become the Democratic nominee as well.

On the other hand, a few malevolent cross-over "Limbaugh Republicans" will have indicated that they'd be perfectly satisfied with Hillary as Democratic nominee too, so it can only be a very approximate indicator, but let's assume that those groups will roughly balance each other out and that "Limbaugh Republicans made up some 5% of total Dem primary voters yesterday and 14% of Hillary voters. Which brings me to your next point:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It would seem that Republicans gave Clinton a significant advantage, and I would bet my hat that 99% of them were white as well. The cross-over votes significantly helped her, while exaggerating the racial statistics.

I dont think so. First of all, the percentage of whites voting for Obama in Mississippi - 26% - is totally in line with the percentage he got among whites in most other Southern states - LA, OK, TN, AL, SC, FL; so there's no reason a priori to assume the number is "clouded" much by malevolent Republican cross-over voters.

But let's say, then, going on the above, that 5% of the primary voters yesterday were "Limbaugh voters," who I assume would almost all be white. White voters made up 48% of the primary voters, so Limbaugh voters, in this model, would make up 5% / .48 = 10.4% of the total white primary vote.

That doesnt change the racial statistics much at all. Instead of 26% of the white vote, Obama would thus have gotten 26 of every remaining 89.6 "legitimate" white Dem primary voters. That's 29%.

So even taking the role of cross-over "Limbaugh Republicans" into account, according to this indicator, Obama's share of the white vote would just be 29% rather than 26%. Still would rank Mississippi solidly in the bottom quarter of states in terms of his result among whites, better only than five other Southern states.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

(Makes for a total of 41.25% of Hillary voters in the primary, a little too high; the exit poll numbers have since been adjusted a bit.)

FYI, the exit poll numbers up now look slightly different and peg the overall Hillary vote more in line with the actual results (61% / 37%). See the table below.

Bottom lines:

58% of total MS primary voters would be satisfied with Hillary as nominee; 69% of them would be satisfied with Obama as nominee.
Of Clinton voters, 86% would be satisfied with her as nominee (and 14% wouldnt be), and just 28% would be satisfied with Obama as nominee.
Of Obama voters, 98% would be satisfied with him as nominee, and 42% would be satisfied with Hillary as nominee as well.

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/7349/msexitpollsatisfrv3.png

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

What will be of more interest to me is the percentage of people voting... voter turnout is said to have been rather low. People have given up on government as a result of the Katrina fiasco and have just chosen not to participate no matter who the candidates are.

That will be a very telling vital sign as to the state of politics in Mississippi.

I'd like to know the number of people registered vs the number eligible, also the number of people who voted vs. the number registered.

We won't know those numbers for a few days yet.

Quote:

One other thing: The turnout was huge. More than 400,000 participated in the primary -- near the 460,000 Mississippians who voted for Kerry and Edwards 2004 in the GENERAL ELECTION! Is there a hidden vote here than Obama can tap into if he's the nominee? Perhaps, but it will have to be greater than the nearly 700,000 who voted for Bush in 2004

Change of subject, but interesting:

Quote:

*** The popular vote: By winning by almost 100,000 votes in Mississippi yesterday, Obama increased his popular vote lead over Clinton to approximately 700,000. It's Obama 13,402,903, Clinton 12,705,360. And now even if you include Florida and Michigan, Obama leads the popular vote. That total is Obama 13,979,117, Clinton 13,904,497. This is fitting a pattern for Obama: When he wins a state, he wins it by a large margin and pads his lead in delegates and votes; hen Clinton wins, she usually does so narrowly.

Both from here:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/12/759757.aspx

0 Replies

Mark Blumenthal, from Pollster.com:

Mark Blumenthal wrote:

Second, the open Mississippi Democratic primary -- the first to be held after John McCain secured his nomination -- included 2-3 times as many Republicans (12%) as the other states. And those Republicans supported Clinton by a 3-to-1 margin, far more than Republicans in any of the other Southern states.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/mississippi_results_thread.php

0 Replies

The way I look at it, Limbaugh may have been wrong, by the time November rolls around, Obama may be easier to beat.

0 Replies

Nimh,

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/12/12154/1623

Some number-crunchers have figured out that the Republican cross-over voting cost Obama about 10 delegates in MS alone.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Mark Blumenthal, from Pollster.com:

Mark Blumenthal wrote:
Second, the open Mississippi Democratic primary -- the first to be held after John McCain secured his nomination -- included 2-3 times as many Republicans (12%) as the other states. And those Republicans supported Clinton by a 3-to-1 margin

Hmm.. so if we say, for simplicity's sake, that every last Republican Hillary voter was a "Limbaugh voter", that would be 3/4 of 12% = 9%.

But that's not quite right, since even in previous primaries there were some Republican cross-over votes for Hillary. In Alabama, for example, on Super Tuesday (before the Limbaugh appeals), where Republican cross-over voters made up 5% of the total vote, they split evenly between Obama and Hillary. So it will be a little less.

Let's take Blumenthal's lead and peg the percentage of Republican crossover voters in previous primaries at 4-6%. Let's consider that the 'regular' or legit cross-over vote (after all, on Super Tuesday there was still a fierce Republican contest on, not many Republicans will have wasted their vote on Hillary back then). So now in Mississippi, too, you would have had some 5% "legit" Republican crossovers who split evenly between the two Democrats, like they did in Alabama. That makes 2-3% "legit" Republican crossover votes for Hillary and 2-3% "legit" Republican crossover votes for Obama.

That covers almost the full Republican Obama vote, but leaves you 6-7% extra Republicans for Hillary, which is exactly the number by which the Republican cross-over vote increased. That 6-7% would then be, approximately, the Limbaugh vote.

Which is very close to what I calculated above, when I wrote, "let's assume that ... "Limbaugh Republicans" made up some 5% of total Dem primary voters yesterday." A sizable vote, but not enough to meaningfully change the breakdown by race of the vote.

E.g.: Let's do the calculation again but account for 6.5% rather than 5% of Limbaugh voters. Assuming they were are all white, that makes for 13.5% of the white vote. If you discount those, you are left with Obama getting 26 out of every remaining 86.5 "legit" white primary voters = 30%. His share of the white vote goes up from 26% to 30%.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Nimh,

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/12/12154/1623

Some number-crunchers have figured out that the Republican cross-over voting cost Obama about 10 delegates in MS alone.

Cycloptichorn

The details sure look interesting - the point about "thresholds" that were near and narrowly missed is well taken.

But the conclusions that the diarist goes to from there - well, I dont even know where to begin.

Eg: dismissing race as basis for the animus of white / Clinton voters towards Obama. "It wasn't race! It was Rush!", he exclaims. But come on. Even discounting all Limbaugh voters, Hillary still got 70% of the white vote (see above). Nuff said.

Moreover, the phenomenon of the "bitterness quotient" among Hillary towards Obama voters being bigger than vice versa predates Limbaugh's actions. Look at the chart I posted and just now linked back to. Dissatisfaction with the prospect of Obama as nominee among Hillary voters was up in the 60s as well in Alabama, ARkansas, Oklahoma and Tennessee - all back on Super Tuesday, before the Limbaugh appeals and the surge in Republican participation in the Dem primaries.

The "Limbaugh Republicans" phenomenon in the Dem primaries has been real, for sure, but the math just doesnt add up for it to significantly impact either the race issue or the Hillary-ites' bitterness issue that the media is highlighting. The author says the media is wrong in playing up those issues because "It wasn't race! It was Rush!"; well, that's just not true, the numbers for that assertion are not there. And I think it's dangerous for Obamaites to dismiss these real concerns and try to reduce it all to external spoiling, because that leaves them ill-prepared to deal with them if and when Obama does become the nominee.

0 Replies

I didn't even read the other analysis, lol, focusing entirely on the delegate math! I agree that the author jumps to some conclusions; but his math seems solid.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

The "Limbaugh Republicans" phenomenon in the Dem primaries has been real

[..]

And I think it's dangerous for Obamaites to dismiss these real concerns and try to reduce it all to external spoiling, because that leaves them ill-prepared to deal with them if and when Obama does become the nominee.

I agree with this. "Real but minor" is about my take at this point.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Quote:
*** The popular vote: By winning by almost 100,000 votes in Mississippi yesterday, Obama increased his popular vote lead over Clinton to approximately 700,000. It's Obama 13,402,903, Clinton 12,705,360.

This is fitting a pattern for Obama: When he wins a state, he wins it by a large margin and pads his lead in delegates and votes; hen Clinton wins, she usually does so narrowly.

Wow, Obama is leading the popular vote 51% to 49%. Amazing "large margin" victories Obama has had.........!

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

sozobe wrote:

Quote:
*** The popular vote: By winning by almost 100,000 votes in Mississippi yesterday, Obama increased his popular vote lead over Clinton to approximately 700,000. It's Obama 13,402,903, Clinton 12,705,360.

This is fitting a pattern for Obama: When he wins a state, he wins it by a large margin and pads his lead in delegates and votes; hen Clinton wins, she usually does so narrowly.

Wow, Obama is leading the popular vote 51% to 49%. Amazing "large margin" victories Obama has had.........!

Yeah, that's a pretty sizable lead.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

maporsche wrote:
sozobe wrote:

Quote:
*** The popular vote: By winning by almost 100,000 votes in Mississippi yesterday, Obama increased his popular vote lead over Clinton to approximately 700,000. It's Obama 13,402,903, Clinton 12,705,360.

This is fitting a pattern for Obama: When he wins a state, he wins it by a large margin and pads his lead in delegates and votes; hen Clinton wins, she usually does so narrowly.

Wow, Obama is leading the popular vote 51% to 49%. Amazing "large margin" victories Obama has had.........!

Yeah, that's a pretty sizable lead.

I suppose that it'd be hard to overcome this late in the game.....but it's not like he's blowing her out of the water.

Bush beat Kerry by a larger margin (I remember 52 or 53%) and there were a ton of people here stating that it wasn't a landslide and that almost half the country voted against Bush, etc.........and now the story is changing?

0 Replies

Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know