17
   

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

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2008 03:23 pm
nimh wrote:
okie wrote:
Possible or probable translation, Republicans and independents are less racially biased than Democrats.

Huh?

Just a quick note, I will be back later, but the vast majority of Republicans vote idealogy not race. Of the moderate or independent types that may go for a Democrat, that is where they go Obama over Clinton, proving no racial bias, so I think my point still stands. Old line FDR Democrats or southern Democrats are more racially biased, I think.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2008 08:46 pm
nimh wrote:

- five out of six liberal Democrats would vote for Obama against McCain
- two out of three moderate Democrats would
- one out of two conservative Demorats would
- one out of four pure Independents would
- one out of six moderate/liberal Republicans would
- one out of twenty conservative Republicans would



Conservative DemoRATS huh Nimh. Trying to tell us something? Mad
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2008 08:46 pm
nimh wrote:
okie wrote:
Possible or probable translation, Republicans and independents are less racially biased than Democrats.

Huh?

1. What the poll said was that Obama outdid Clinton among Republicans and Independents. But the overwhelming majority of Republicans, of course, wouldnt vote for either. So these numbers say nothing, either way, about the (lack of) racial bias this overwhelming majority of Republicans might have.

My take on it. Of the Republicans voting against both, it is due to idealogy, not race. And of the ones that are wandering off the reservation, and voting Democrat because of idealogy, and since the idealogy of Clinton and Obama is roughly the same, it shows that the majority going for Obama proves their is no racial bias among these Republicans.

Quote:
2. Think about the implications of your argument. You're arguing that the fact that some Republicans are willing to vote for Obama (more than for Clinton) means they're not racially biased. But of course many more Indies, and many more Dems still, even conservative ones, are willing to vote for Obama. So...?

3. Plus, look at the other side of the paradox: conservative Democrats are a lot less willing to vote for Obama than liberal Democrats. Just like conservative Republicans are a lot less willing to vote for Obama than moderate Republicans. So using your logic, you'd agree that conservatives are more racially biased than liberals then?

<shakes> These are nonsequiturs. Whichever is true, these numbers say little about it.

It depends upon who Obama is matched up with, Clinton or McCain. And party affiliation does matter. Also, I don't think polls asking questions of somebody's racial bias are going to get altogether honest answers.

I think the rough split between Obama and Clinton 50/50 roughly shows the racial divide in the party. I don't think the two candidates differ much in regard to policy, so the main difference is personality, race, and gender. The voters are roughly splitting by gender and race, plus a huge contingent voting for the celebrity band wagon status of Obama, which I think includes alot of younger voters. I also think alot of white liberal voters are voting for Obama for the sole reason of proving they can vote for a black person

Quote:
These are the data:

- five out of six liberal Democrats would vote for Obama against McCain
- two out of three moderate Democrats would
- one out of two conservative Demorats would
- one out of four pure Independents would
- one out of six moderate/liberal Republicans would
- one out of twenty conservative Republicans would

Those estimates reveal nothing surprising. First of all, Obama is hugely liberal, and secondly, many Democrats will vote for a Democrat regardless of idealogy. Their party is almost a religion, so it is almost impossible for them to think outside of what they are trained to do, and as they have done their entire lives. Their ability to reason is severely impaired. Commonly their grandparents and parents voted Democrat, they have always voted Democrat, so they continue to vote Democrat.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 06:18 am
And of course, if I put up stats for McCain that mirror the above (with "Republicans" and "Democrats" switched), that'd mean that everything you say about Democrats applies equally to Republicans... right?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 06:32 am
Meanwhile, I saw this headline and winced:

Quote:
Obama: We can win Pennsylvania


But what he actually says seems pretty good:

Quote:
He also said he thinks he can win the state on Tuesday.

"I wouldn't be campaigning hard if I didn't think we could win," he said.

Asked if he will win, he responded: "We are definitely the underdog. Sen. Clinton has a huge advantage. Keep in mind how quickly political perceptions change. It was pretty well established five weeks ago that she as up 20 and she had to win by 20 in order to make a dent in our popular vote lead or delegate lead. Her campaign was going around saying she was unbeatable in this state. I think we have done a pretty good job closing the gap but I think the pressure is on to live up to their claims."


http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/obama_can_win_pennsylvania.html

Manage those expectations, guys!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 01:09 pm
maporsche wrote:
Conservative DemoRATS huh Nimh. Trying to tell us something? Mad

Ha! Razz


(You are joking, right?)
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 02:30 pm
nimh wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Conservative DemoRATS huh Nimh. Trying to tell us something? Mad

Ha! Razz


(You are joking, right?)


Yes!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 04:36 pm
Good :wink:
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 04:40 pm
Good article in the Boston Globe - with an a propos warning to Obama supporters about how the 10% of Pennsylvania voters who are still undecided are likely to break down.

And it's great to see a reporter dig into the numbers and check the two candidates' claims about who does best, when, for himself, rather than just report the "he said, she said" thing. Used to be such a staple feature of journalism...

Quote:
In Pa., late deciders could lift Clinton

April 20, 2008

Despite wall-to-wall media coverage, inescapable TV ads, and impassioned pleas from friends and family, thousands of Pennsylvania voters still cannot make up their minds about whom to support in Tuesday's Democratic primary.

Unmoved by all the pressures and the candidates' nearly daily visits, they tell pollsters that, though they plan to vote, they are not quite ready to declare their choice, postponing their decision until the waning hours, or even until they're in the voting booth.

If the pattern of previous primaries and caucuses holds, the biggest procrastinators - those who make up their minds on Tuesday - will probably break for Senator Hillary Clinton. If they side with her again in Pennsylvania, it may help Clinton hold off Senator Barack Obama with a big-enough victory to save her candidacy, again.

In three polls conducted last week in Pennsylvania, which showed Clinton holding single-digit leads, 9 to 13 percent of voters said they were undecided.

Through 27 contests where exit polling on late deciders is available, Clinton has won those voters in 20. Combined, she has a median showing of 50 percent among voters who decided on the last day, compared with 43 percent for Obama. Such voters have, on average, made up about 13 percent of the Democratic electorate in each state, the exit polls show.

These voters have helped cement Clinton's crucial victories in Ohio and Texas on March 4, which kept her campaign afloat after 11 straight victories by Obama. And they may have made the difference in their closest contest, her narrow victory in New Mexico on Feb. 5.

Indeed, Clinton often has done better among late deciders than among all voters, at times drawing more of them even in primaries Obama won, including Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, and Maryland. [..]

Johnson said Clinton has helped this trend by targeting female voters in the closing hours before primary votes, as she is doing in Pennsylvania.

Clinton's campaign says undecided voters realize in the end that they trust the New York senator more to keep the country safe and turn the economy around. [..]

Making a similar case Tuesday at a campaign stop in Easton, Pa., however, Bill Clinton overstated his wife's success among late- deciding voters.

The former president said that despite Obama's success in a slew of February contests, Hillary Clinton was "normally" winning voters - even by a "60-40" margin - who made up their minds at the end because they thought hard about who would be the "best president."

In fact, in the four contests between Super Tuesday on Feb. 5 and March 4 in which voters were asked when they had made up their minds - Louisiana, Maryland, Virginia, and Wisconsin - Clinton beat Obama among voters who decided on the last day only in Maryland, and she won them 48 percent to 41 percent.

Although Clinton tends to dominate among voters who decide on the final day, Obama does slightly better than Clinton among the approximately one-third of voters who make their pick during the full week before primaries and caucuses, a median of 49 percent to 47 percent.

At times, Obama has performed better in states among voters who decided in the last week than he did in those states overall - beating Clinton, for example, 38 percent to 35 percent among this group in New Hampshire, even though she won the primary there.[..]

"Our challenge is trying to compete with decades the Clintons have spent campaigning and getting to know the people of many of these states," Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in an e-mail. "But the bad news for the Clinton campaign is that the more people get to know Barack Obama, the more they prefer him as the choice to face John McCain." [..]

Paul Manuel, executive director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm College, said that many voters believe that Obama could bring huge change and has lots of potential, but are struggling with whether his relative inexperience makes him a riskier choice. [..]


So, so far Obama tends to do best in the last week, but Clinton does best on the last day. Keep that in mind when reading the polls: basically, polls conducted up to today would have the top score for Obama, and the real result might fall short of that a couple of points.

(Mind: the reporter records an average 7-point lead for Clinton among the on average 13% of last-moment deciders; that would make for an advantage of just 1%. I'd say it's more likely a bit more, as I would guess that fewer people admit to exit pollsters that they only decided on the last day than actually do, and that undecideds in Pennsylvania are more likely to break toward Hillary than in your average state.)
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 06:20 pm
Quote:
So, so far Obama tends to do best in the last week, but Clinton does best on the last day.


Yep, that makes sense.

I wonder if it's different in close contests though -- in the blowouts it seems like the differential has been bigger than expected? I don't remember for sure. If so, could be that because he has such a big lead in polls he becomes the safe option -- what everyone else is doing, ya know.

I'm NOT expecting a win.

I could believe Obama can come within 5 points but would be very surprised.

5-10 seems most likely.*

Over 10 would be depressing but not that surprising.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 07:54 pm
nimh wrote:
Another flurry of polls has been conducted in Pennsylvania in the first ten days of this month. This was before the latest flap about Obama's remarks about many Pennsylvanians being "bitter".

Code:
PENNSYLVANIA

Clinton Obama Clinton lead

Zogby/Newsmax 4/9-10 47% 43% + 4
InsiderAdvantage 4/8 48% 38% +10
PPP 4/7-8 46% 43% + 3
Rasmussen 4/7 48% 43% + 5
SurveyUSA 4/5-7 56% 38% +18
ARG 4/5-6 45% 45% ~ 0
Strategic Vision 4/4-6 47% 42% + 5
Quinnipiac 4/3-6 50% 44% + 6
TIME 4/2-6 49% 41% + 8
Temple 3/27-4/9 47% 41% + 6



*********

Time for an update:

Code:
(Last poll,
Clinton Obama Clinton lead same pollster)
Trend

ARG 4/17-19 54% 41% +13 DWN (+20, 4/11-13)
Mason-Dixon 4/17-18 48% 43% + 5
Rasmussen 4/17 47% 44% + 3 DWN (+ 9, 4/14)

PPP 4/14-15 42% 45% - 3 DWN (+ 3, 4/7-8)
Rasmussen 4/14 50% 41% + 9 UP (+ 5, 4/7)
SurveyUSA 4/12-14 54% 40% +14 DWN (+18, 4/5-7)

Times/Bloomberg 4/10-14 46% 41% + 5
ARG 4/11-13 57% 37% +20 UP (~ 0, 4/5-6)
Strategic Vision 4/11-13 49% 40% + 9 UP (+ 5, 4/4-6)

Quinnipiac 4/9-13 50% 44% + 6 (+ 6, 4/3-6)
Franklin/Marshall 4/8-13 49% 42% + 7 (+16, 3/11-16)
Susquehanna 4/6-10 40% 37% + 3 (+14, 3/5-10)

****

Daily tracking (two-day overlap)

Zogby/Newsmax 4/18-19 46% 43% + 3
Zogby/Newsmax 4/17-18 47% 42% + 5
Zogby/Newsmax 4/16-17 47% 43% + 4
Zogby/Newsmax 4/15-16 45% 44% + 1 (+ 4, 4/9-10)



So, among the recent polls (Strategic Vision onward), we have:

- ARG and Survey USA seeing a 13-14 point lead for Hillary;
- Strategic Vision, a week ago, seeing a 9 point lead for Hillary;
- Rasmussen, Zogby, Mason-Dixon and, a week ago, the LA Times seeing a 3-5 point lead for Hillary;
- PPP seeing a 3-point lead for Obama.

Quite a spread, huh? The main division, then, is between SUSA and ARG on the one hand, which have a solid double-digit Hillary lead; and Rasmussen, Zogby, Mason-Dixon on the other, which have a narrow lead in the lower single digits. Who will look silly this time?

I wish there were more prestigious pollsters with a solid reputation in this list.. it seems all very much up in the air. Except, well, that Hillary will win, but that was pretty much a given.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 08:05 pm
Considering that Obama's numbers are pretty consistent through all these polls, at 40-45%, while Hillary's numbers are all over the place at 42-54%, I lean toward the pessimistic. Cause it makes it look like Hillary's got the potential of winning over those last undecideds, while it's hard to see Obama breaking through that 45% ceiling - there hasnt been a single opinion poll out on Pennsylvania in which he has over 45%! And if that is all he gets, that means an 8-9% Hillary lead.

But then, I always lean toward the pessimistic.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 09:20 am
Thanks, nimh!

The latest from SUSA = Clinton 50, Obama 44!

http://www.nbc10.com/politics/15943088/detail.html

Quote:
A large shift of support occurred in the Philadelphia area and other parts of Southeast Pennsylvania, which includes most of the state's African-American population. The poll found that Obama finished strongly, ahead of Clinton by 14 points within that demographic. Among liberals, Obama began 18 points behind Clinton but finished 11 points ahead of Clinton. Among those who have not graduated from college, Clinton led by 28 points last week, but by 15 points Monday.

Among voters under age 50, Clinton had led by 8 points last week and trailed by 8 Monday.


Lookit that 29 pt swing in liberals! Wow.

(Negative stuff too, women still for Clinton, etc., but SUSA was one of the two outliers and ARG is the other... gettin' the teeniest bit more hopeful... just a teeny bit though...)
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 09:36 am
Quinnipiac is at 51-44, up 1 for Hillary from a week or so ago. They are considered very reliable for PA due to the large sample size, if I recall correctly.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1171

Quote:
"Pennsylvania voters apparently made up their minds a couple of weeks ago and nothing has happened since to change them. An extraordinary turnout effort by Sen. Barack Obama's campaign could snatch this victory from Sen. Hillary Clinton, but that does not appear likely," said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "Sen. Obama got off message after his 'bitter' remarks and never regained his momentum, giving Sen. Clinton the opening to fight another day in Indiana and North Carolina. She wins in Western Pennsylvania; he wins in the East. She gets Catholics, white women and blue-collar labor vote. He captures men, blacks and college grads - and enough delegates to keep his edge in the number that counts most." From April 18 - 20, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,027 Pennsylvania likely Democratic primary voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points. The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio and the nation as a public service and for research.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 10:11 am
nimh wrote:
So, so far Obama tends to do best in the last week, but Clinton does best on the last day.


I'm curious about when this started to happen. In earlier primaries, the word seemed to be that Clinton got the early deciders, and that voters who decided later went to Obama.

Quote:
Florida - January

ahh, maybe I found my own answer (or part of it)

Quote:
Clinton does well with voters who decide early. Obama then does very well, but Clinton slowly closes the margin.


realclear February

That whole realclear post is an interesting one. Funny, in light of the purpose of the blog overall, and entertaining.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 10:12 am
Hmm.

Drudge says Hillary internal polling shows an 11-pt win. Could believe it.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashpa.htm
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 10:14 am
(Hadn't seen beth's post, was hmming at the Quinnipiac poll...)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 10:14 am
Yep, Quinnipiac and Survey USA, and there's another couple of fresh ones out too:

Code:
(Last poll,
Clinton Obama Clinton lead same pollster)
Trend

Rasmussen 4/20 49% 44% + 5 UP (+ 3, 4/17)
PPP 4/19-20 46% 49% - 3 NC (- 3, 4/14-15)
Suffolk 4/19-20 52% 42% +10
Zogby/Newsmax 4/19-20 48% 42% + 6 UP (+ 3, 4/18-19)
SurveyUSA 4/18-20 50% 44% + 6 DWN (+14, 4/12-14)
Quinnipiac 4/18-20 51% 44% + 7 UP (+ 6, 4/9-13)
Strategic Vision 4/18-20 48% 41% + 7 DWN (+ 9, 4/11-13)



Observations:
  • The numbers seem to be converging, with the pollsters that had the smallest Hillary leads seeing it up a little and pollsters that had big ones seeing it down a little.
  • Obama is steady at 41-44% in all these polls except for PPP (which remains the sole pollster showing him ahead).
  • Clinton's numbers more varied at 46-52%, with the numbers pretty evenly spread through that range.
  • Except for Zogby and SV, the number of undecideds is now down to 5-7%
But the big story here, as Soz pointed out, is the Survey USA result.

Survey USA was the only pollster aside from the less-than-dependable ARG to have Hillary's lead well into the double digits, while the bulk of polls had it at 3-7%.

It was one of those situations where you're thinking, someone is going to look quite silly on the day after. And considering how SUSA was all off on its own in California too and turned out to be right back then, that was kinda troubling.

So to see SUSA fall in line with Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, Strategic Vision and Mason-Dixon in seeing a mere 5-7% Hillary lead is good news.

Nevertheless, considering how Obama's numbers are stable across the range and Hillary seems to have more upward potential in the variance - and with the Bradley effect at the back of my mind, considering how strong a role race turns out to play in PA - I'd still expect to see a 10-point Hillary lead sooner than a 5-point one. But SUSA's poll reassures me somewhat about the prospect of a surprise 15-point Hillary's victory.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 10:17 am
ehBeth wrote:
I'm curious about when this started to happen. In earlier primaries, the word seemed to be that Clinton got the early deciders, and that voters who decided later went to Obama.

Yes, generally the trend has been that Clinton starts out with by far the larger core support; then as the campaign goes on Obama catches up more and more, culminating in the last week or two before the campaign; but those who have waited to decide until the very last day or two break to Clinton again. That's a pattern that's shown up again and again, throughout the season.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 10:36 am
nimh wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
I'm curious about when this started to happen. In earlier primaries, the word seemed to be that Clinton got the early deciders, and that voters who decided later went to Obama.

Yes, generally the trend has been that Clinton starts out with by far the larger core support; then as the campaign goes on Obama catches up more and more, culminating in the last week or two before the campaign; but those who have waited to decide until the very last day or two break to Clinton again. That's a pattern that's shown up again and again, throughout the season.


The pattern showed up, but it seems the reporting didn't seem to catch it (or maybe didn't comment on it) initially. I've been re-reading a number of old threads here - and direct media sources - recently.

The scent of "voters who are smart/follow campaigns vote Obama" vs "voters without a clue vote Clinton" seems to be getting stronger. Maybe it's somehow attached to the "elite" issue.

(I'm going back to reading v posting in this forum for a while again)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 08:40:24