17
   

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

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 11:13 am
maporsche wrote:
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?


Uh, no, it isn't. I don't know anyone who is claiming that Obama is winning by a landslide. He isn't. But he is up a lot on pledged delegates, b/c his campaign understood the rules of the game better then Clinton's did. Better strategizing.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 11:19 am
okie wrote:
The way I look at it, Limbaugh may have been wrong, by the time November rolls around, Obama may be easier to beat.


Limbaugh may think Hillary is more beatable, but in urging the crossovers, I think he mainly wanted to just keep her around as long as possible, prolonging the infighting, name-calling and nastiness the Democrats are displaying all the way to the convention.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 11:30 am
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
I think he mainly wanted to just keep her around as long as possible, prolonging the infighting, name-calling and nastiness the Democrats are displaying all the way to the convention.


Vietnam Veterans against John McCain wrote:
it would appear that under extreme torture and indoctrination at the hands of his communist captors, he may have been turned...Turned against his own country and sent back to dismantle that country. It is a possibility that now needs to be investigated.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 11:38 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Uh, no, it isn't. I don't know anyone who is claiming that Obama is winning by a landslide. He isn't.



What is the definition of "large margin"?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 12:28 pm
maporsche wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Uh, no, it isn't. I don't know anyone who is claiming that Obama is winning by a landslide. He isn't.



What is the definition of "large margin"?


His pledged delegate lead is a large margin - somewhere around 5%, and hillary will not be able to catch him. She is nearly mathematically out of it.

Even if she wins PA by 19%, as the latest poll put her up, she still would garner no more then 14-17 additional delegates on Obama. He will still be up by somewhere around 140 if that happened.

The reality of this is sinking in to the media, and the Clinton camp. Without some sort of malfeasance, she cannot be the nominee.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 12:42 pm
dyslexia wrote:
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
I think he mainly wanted to just keep her around as long as possible, prolonging the infighting, name-calling and nastiness the Democrats are displaying all the way to the convention.


Vietnam Veterans against John McCain wrote:
it would appear that under extreme torture and indoctrination at the hands of his communist captors, he may have been turned...Turned against his own country and sent back to dismantle that country. It is a possibility that now needs to be investigated.


Oh, that's going to be a real winner for the Democrats. They'll probably all show up at the Democratic convention in Denver and be mightily disappointed if they don't get their skulls cracked. Delicious!!! Smile
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 12:46 pm
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
I think he mainly wanted to just keep her around as long as possible, prolonging the infighting, name-calling and nastiness the Democrats are displaying all the way to the convention.


Vietnam Veterans against John McCain wrote:
it would appear that under extreme torture and indoctrination at the hands of his communist captors, he may have been turned...Turned against his own country and sent back to dismantle that country. It is a possibility that now needs to be investigated.


Oh, that's going to be a real winner for the Democrats. They'll probably all show up at the Democratic convention in Denver and be mightily disappointed if they don't get their skulls cracked. Delicious!!! Smile
actually, what it's going to be is real loser for the republicans. I think the Dems will just watch.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 03:19 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:

The reality of this is sinking in to the media, and the Clinton camp. Without some sort of malfeasance, she cannot be the nominee.

Cycloptichorn

We all know that "malfeasance" would never be considered by the Clintons? Laughing

If they thought some kind of malfeasance would work and they could get away with it, count on it. The only thing that might prevent it now is that their machine has lost so much control of this whole scenario that now the press no longer supports them as they once did, and malfeasance may no longer work. But with the Clintons, I would never discount the possibility of virtually anything as part of Plan B, or Plan C, or Plan Z, whatever it takes. Just keep your guard up, Barack.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 08:11 am
dyslexia wrote:
Vietnam Veterans against John McCain wrote:
it would appear that under extreme torture and indoctrination at the hands of his communist captors, he may have been turned...Turned against his own country and sent back to dismantle that country. It is a possibility that now needs to be investigated.

What the hell is that? Shocked

Thats just beyond the pale.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 08:40 am
nimh wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Vietnam Veterans against John McCain wrote:
it would appear that under extreme torture and indoctrination at the hands of his communist captors, he may have been turned...Turned against his own country and sent back to dismantle that country. It is a possibility that now needs to be investigated.

What the hell is that? Shocked

Thats just beyond the pale.
Just posted as a reminder to those delighting in the Dem Hillary Obama run-up how the republicans aren't so united either.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 09:02 am
Four days ago, I posted about what I called "the bitterness quotient":

nimh wrote:
I was curious whether, now that the campaign is lasting so long, the number of respondents saying they'd be dissatisfied with the other candidate as nominee was going up - and if so, who would be the more dissatisfied ones, Hillary or Obama supporters.

Finding out the latter isn't entirely straightforward, it involves a bit of recalculating. But the results are surprising/interesting:

  • The "bitterness quotient," to give it a flippant label, did increase over time, but it was mainly right between the SC/FL primaries and Super Tuesday, with surprisingly little deterioration since;
  • Hillary voters would be more dissatisfied with Obama as nominee than vice versa (something I hadnt expected);
  • Differences from region to region are much larger than the difference over time. In five Southern states, Hillary voters would be significantly more dissatisfied with Obama than voters of either candidate would be with the other anywhere else. A race question? Alternative explanations welcome.
Here's the table with results:

OK, now Mississippi has voted, I wanted to post an update of the table. Here it is. Note: the "bitterness quotient" was 58% among Obama voters, the highest so far. And it was a record-setting 72% among Hillary voters.


http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/8409/bitternessquotient2xd4.png


Notice the remark I added to contextualise the percentage of Hillary voters who said they'd be dissatisfied with Obama as nominee in Mississippi.

In the Jed Report post Cyclo linked in on the previous page, the author wrote:

Quote:
One of the key takeaways from the media yesterday was that Hillary Clinton's supporters didn't like Barack Obama as much as Barack Obama's supporters like Hillary Clinton. They implied racial animus was at the root of this division [..].

They thing they left out was that a full quarter of Clinton's supporters were Republicans! And the Republicans didn't like her either! Because they were gaming the process!

It wasn't race! It was Rush!


I wanted to take this possibility into account. After all, Republicans did apparently make up an extraordinary 24% of Hillary voters. And the fact that 13% of Hillary voters said that they'd be dissatisfied if she were the actual nominee does suggest such voters played a role.

However, a quick recalculation shows that when you actually discount such "Limbaugh voters" and then revise the numbers accordingly, the impact they had turns out not to significantly change the overall picture. Even if you discount every last Republican cross-over voter for Hillary (some of whom will have been genuine), the "bitterness quotient" among the remaining Democratic and Independent Hillary voters remains a sizable 63%. That's similar to other Southern states and higher than in any non-Southern state.

Here's the calculation for that:


http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/2782/bitternessquotient2msqg3.png
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 09:03 am
dyslexia wrote:
nimh wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Vietnam Veterans against John McCain wrote:
it would appear that under extreme torture and indoctrination at the hands of his communist captors, he may have been turned...Turned against his own country and sent back to dismantle that country. It is a possibility that now needs to be investigated.

What the hell is that? Shocked

Thats just beyond the pale.

Just posted as a reminder to those delighting in the Dem Hillary Obama run-up how the republicans aren't so united either.


OK, so that was a Republican attack group against McCain? Wow. It's always just that much worse than you thought it could possibly go, huh.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 10:53 am
dyslexia wrote:
"Vietnam Veterans against John McCain"]


I had to go look these guys up - I couldn't believe they existed.

They freakin' do.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 08:52 am
Interesting backgrounder on the numbers and regional politics and demographics involved in the Pennsylvania primaries:

Quote:
Obama Targets Clinton Supporters Along Philadelphia 'Main Line'

March 17 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama probably hasn't given much thought to Philadelphia's railroad system. It could be his map to holding back Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, the next big prize in the Democratic presidential race.

Built in the 1880s, the "Main Line'' railroad to the west of Philadelphia relocated the city's political and business elite, creating some of the nation's most affluent suburbs. Today, towns like Ardmore and Haverford remain upscale enclaves. They are also trending Democratic.

These politically progressive suburbs distinguish Pennsylvania from Ohio and could give Obama a chance to do better than the drubbing he took in the Buckeye state's contest March 4. Upper-income Democrats are among the Illinois senator's strongest supporters, so if he doesn't do well on the Main Line and adjoining Bucks County in the April 22 primary, New York Senator Clinton is likely to replicate her Ohio triumph.

"The Philadelphia suburbs will be a real battleground,'' said Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Politics at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster.

James Carville, Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign manager, once described Pennsylvania as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between,'' underscoring the conservatism of the middle sections of the state where Hillary Clinton, 60, is strongest.

Obama Projection

A Feb. 6 Obama planning document, obtained by Bloomberg News, shows the importance of the suburbs for his campaign. It projects Clinton winning the state, with Obama, 46, carrying Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and losing everything in between. Under this projection, the key to Clinton's victory margin would be a seven-to-10 percentage-point win in the Philadelphia suburbs.

If instead Obama carried or ran even in these suburbs, Clinton would be denied a big win.

Recent contested Democratic primaries demonstrate the importance of these suburban areas, which could account for 20 percent of the vote.

In 2002, Governor Ed Rendell won the state 56 to 43 percent even though he lost Pittsburgh and major southwestern and northeastern counties to Bob Casey, then the state's auditor general. Rendell won by huge margins in Philadelphia and its surrounding counties. Obama has hired the field operation Rendell used for both his gubernatorial elections, Rendell said last week.

Voters such as Ruth Hirshey Lincoln, a public-relations consultant in Lower Merion Township, will decide whether Obama can slow Clinton's momentum.

Hirshey Lincoln is torn between the two candidates.

`Willing to Listen'

"As a woman I feel a loyalty'' to Clinton, said Hirshey Lincoln, who pushed a shopping cart into an organic supermarket in Suburban Square, a shopping mall near a major Main Line stop. Yet, she said, ``I'm more willing to listen to him than I've ever been.''

Clinton has a sizable lead over Obama in most of Pennsylvania, particularly among the state's large elderly population. In the southeastern part of the state that includes the Main Line, though, she leads him by just two points, according to a Survey USA poll last week.

The Philadelphia suburbs are "going to be a hard-fought, heavily contested part of the state,'' said Mark Nevins, Clinton's Pennsylvania spokesman.

Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson said the Obama campaign has "clearly downplayed the importance of Pennsylvania'' because she is poised to win.

'Steep Hill'

Wolfson pointed to a March 12 memo in which Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said "Pennsylvania is only one of 10 remaining contests.'' On March 13, Obama himself called the state's primary a "steep hill to climb.''

Obama is counting on an all-out effort before the state's March 24 registration deadline to enlist college students, a sizable group in the area, which includes Philadelphia-based Temple University, Villanova-based Villanova University, Haverford College in Haverford and Radnor-based Cabrini College.

"What's throwing a monkey wrench in all this analysis is the number of young voters in this state,'' said Abe Amoros, the Pennsylvania Democratic Party's executive director. "The 18-30 vote is going to be critical.''

There have been 65,000 new Democratic registrations statewide since last fall, including young voters and Republicans and independents switching their affiliation to Democrat.

That's "unheard of in the history of Pennsylvania,'' Amoros said. The biggest registration gains were in three Main Line Philadelphia counties Obama is targeting: Chester, Delaware and Montgomery, which includes lower Merion Township.

Better Economy

While most of Pennsylvania resembles Ohio's blue-collar Rust Belt economy, the Philadelphia suburbs are faring much better.

In Lower Merion Township, the median income is $86,373, more than double the national figure of $41,994, according to the 2000 Census. Many Philadelphia suburbanites are white-collar workers more concerned about the Iraq War and international affairs than about losing their jobs.

Rick Loomis, a 54-year-old financial planner from Penn Valley in Lower Merion Township, said his top concerns are a candidate's leadership qualities, diplomacy and civil liberties, and national security; he didn't mention economic anxieties.

Jerry Francis, president of the Lower Merion Historical Society, said the Philadelphia suburbs, once a Republican stronghold, are now trending Democratic because of migration from the city by Jewish, Catholic and other white ethnic groups.

"Over time, the population grew and most of the Republicans moved west and are being replaced by a more liberal population,'' Francis said.

Muchos interesting. Smart of Obama to consistently downplay expectations this time, and smart to hire Rendell's field operation.

The characterisation of PA as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between" made me chuckle..
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 09:01 am
Yes, I'm much happier with expectations-setting this time. I think they let that get away from them with TX (which they may still have won!!! ;-)) and OH.

Interesting article, thanks.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 09:37 am
On the old question of how race and gender have played out electorally so far: how much has race hurt, or helped, Obama? How much has gender hurt, or helped, Hillary?

How have the blocks of blacks and women voting for these candidates at least partly out of a sense of solidarity matched up against those not voting for them at least partly because they were a black or a woman?

This article airs different opinions about the subject. But concludes: "All told, voter surveys suggest that Clinton ends up with more votes because she's a woman than Obama nets because he's black."

0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 09:41 am
sozobe wrote:
Yes, I'm much happier with expectations-setting this time.

More expectations-setting here:

Quote:
Source: Obama Tells Donors That Losing Pennsylvania By Less Than 10 Points Will Be "Victory"

By Greg Sargent - March 14, 2008, 3:40PM

On a call with some of his major California donors yesterday, Barack Obama acknowledged that Pennsylvania will be a steep uphill battle, and said that his aim is to get within 10 points of Hillary there, something that he said would be a "victory" for him, according to a donor on the call.

"He said that Pennsylvania is tough for them and that the demographics really are not the best for them," the donor tells me, adding that Obama was speaking to the group of 40-odd contributors via conference call.

"He said his goal is to finish within 10 points, and that that would be a victory for them. He said he'll be making a big effort there, but that she should win it and that the goal is to finish within 10."

Asked for comment on the conversation, Obama spokesperson Bill Burton didn't deny that it had taken place, saying: "She has a big lead, she won Ohio by 10 points and she is the favorite -- but we will fight as hard as we can for votes and delegates."

Obama's remarks are significant, because defining a Pennsylvania victory (and defeat) in such specific terms could make it tougher for the campaign to frame the actual results when they happen should he lose by more than 10 points. If he comes in under 10, however, setting expectations in advance this way could help.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 12:39 pm
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/03/florida_lawmakers_file_suit_ag.html


A federal lawsuit to be filed tomorrow by Florida lawmakers against Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean alleges that Dean and the national party are violating the equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act by refusing to recognize the state's Jan. 29 presidential primary.

In a draft of the lawsuit circulating among congressional aides and legal experts, Dean is accused of disenfranchising more than 4 million voters in a scheme that the lawsuit contends would also reduce minority voting. The DNC and the Florida Secretary of State are also named in the suit.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 03:04 pm
The media focus on Jeremiah Wright seems to be having an impact on Obama's numbers in the primary race.

In the last three days, he's lost the lead of around 5% that he'd been having for half a week or so (which peaked at about 7% three days ago). Now he's pretty much even with Hillary again: Rasmussen still has him 2 points in the lead, while Gallup now gives Hillary a 2-point lead.


http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/8766/galluprasmusdemslead8uu3.png
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 03:16 pm
It's interesting to isolate the development over time of each candidate's numbers separately. Here's a graph of where Hillary's numbers in these two daily tracking polls since January 19:


http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/8381/galluprasmusclintonyv8.png


Basically, nothing's happened. Her numbers are stable, consistent and not budging. At 40-50%, they're not enough to win her the nomination; but they're enough to drag the race on. Those who want Hillary knew they did from the start. They havent budging since, but she's not winning anyone new either.

Here's what Obama's numbers have looked like:


http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/9087/galluprasmusobamast6.png


There's a steady line upwards for Obama from at least mid-January (and earlier) through to mid-February, as most of the undecideds and Biden, Richardson and Edwards supporters went over to Obama.

But then he reached around 48% of the vote on Feb 14-16, and the line levelled off. The Hillary voters arent budging and there's always a fluctuating couple of percentage points waverers, so ever since he's polled at 44-50%.

And thats what brought us here. Barring five days after the Ohio + Texas primaries when Hillary led, and the tie today, Obama has had a narrow lead of between 1-7 points ever since Feb 13, with little sign of anything happening beyond that. Depending on whether you're an optimist or a pessimist, that's good or bad news for Obama.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 10:23:45