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

Pollster.com notes that going on an update of exit poll tabulations, Philadelphia and its suburbs provided 34% of the primary voters.

This is the same proportion they made up of general election voters in 2004. Note that this is a comparison between a Democratic primary now, and a body of voters from both parties then. In a Democratic primary, you would have expected Philly and suburbs to constitute a greater share of the vote.

It's also lower, in as far as the rather broad categorisations can suggest, than what the polls had predicted. So better have given street money after all? :wink:

Mind, to put this in context: I'm sure that turnout in Philly and suburbs was up tremendously. There's no negating the enthusiasm that drew masses of new voters to the polls for Obama. Just that in the rest of the state, equally impressive masses of new voters must have trooped to the voting booth, many of them for Hillary.

There's no doubt that both candidates have proven themselves able to mobilise lots of voters who dont usually show up a primary, or at all. Obama seems to have won most of the newly registered Dems; I'm guessing Hillary pulled lots of Dem voters to the polls who normally dont bother anymore.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I think the real story here is Obama is failing to close the deal. As time passes, his luster becomes duller. That is normal for the celebrity status that he started with, as a virtual unknown. Clinton can now argue that she is much more electable.

Another important story, as this goes on, more and more Democrat voters say they will vote for McCain if their candidate loses.

The real story here is that Obama has the nomination locked up despite your regurgitation of Clintonista talking points. Hillary will need to win 80% of the remaining delegates. Pretty hard to do with no money.

0 Replies

nimh, enthusiasm can run wide, but it may not be very deep, and as the general comes around, alot of these voters may not show up. Voting based on excitement may wax quickly, but also can wane just as quickly.

Watching the pundits trying to figure out how Obama will knock Clinton out of the race, or how Clinton can win, or how either one will lose, or how anyone can solve this problem, is funny to say the least. This is one of the most enjoyable scenarios I could have ever witnessed. Never look a gift horse in the mouth. Sit back and enjoy the show, conservatives and Republicans.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

.....Clintonista talking points.[/size]

I never thought I would hear those words out of Roxi's mouth! Laughing

0 Replies

okie wrote:

As time passes, [Obama's] luster becomes duller. That is normal for the celebrity status that he started with, as a virtual unknown.

Your argument that Obama couldnt close seems fair enough, though you could also fairly raise the point whether it was ever a realistic possibility in a state so demographically tilted to Clinton's coalition. But this part? I dont know what numbers this analysis would be based on, exactly.

The eventual result in Pennsylvania (Hillary +10) was slightly larger than what the polls had been suggesting (Hillary +7/8, on average), for sure, but only marginally -- and previous primary results suggest that this is mostly a question of a "winner bonus". Whoever wins a primary, whether Hillary or Obama, tends to end up with a lead a few points larger than what the polls had been predicting.

In any case, when you're talking about Obama's luster becoming duller as time passes, it doesnt sound like you're talking about voters' last-day decisions, but about something that has progressively taken place. So on that count, dont forget that Obama still did come from behind, here. When the campaign in Pennsylvania started in earnest, he was behind some 15 points; earlier in the campaign still, he was yet further behind.

Moreover, this is Pennsylvania, a state much closer to, say, Ohio than to America as a whole. And nation-wide, Obama's luster hasnt exactly been dimming. I'm sure he'll have a momentary dip now after this primary, but overall his numbers over the past month have been higher than ever. And thats after Rev. Wright, and right through the bittergate flap.

If you look at the average of the Gallup and Rasmussen daily tracking polls, for example, Obama has been at 47-51% for all but one day for the past three and a half weeks. While throughout the month before, he'd been at 44-48%. It's all very stable, but if anything he's still actually gone up a bit compared with earlier in the campaign. No sign of dimming luster yet.

okie wrote:

Clinton can now argue that she is much more electable.

OK, now this is just spin. There is nothing in Hillary winning a closed Democratic primary in Pennsylvania that would show that she is more electable, even less "much more electable", in the general elections. There is just no correlation here. The Democratic primary electorate Not Equal

the general elections electorate.

In a piece quoted in this thread, Brian Schaffner illustrated this vividly. Looking at the data since 1992, he concludes that "In fact, the Democratic nominees since 1992 have fared better in states that they lost during the nomination campaign [..] than they have in states that they won [..]". Just to show how much there is no correlation there.

okie wrote:

Another important story, as this goes on, more and more Democrat voters say they will vote for McCain if their candidate loses.

Now there's a bona fide concern. I worry about that...

0 Replies

With 98% of precincts reporting, says the NYT, Hillary is leading Obama 54.7% to 45.3%; a lead of 9.4%.

Well, at least my bet (8-9% Hillary lead) was straight on target then...

0 Replies

Yes, I agree Obama is in the drivers seat, however I think my opinion about Obama losing his luster is more than a partisan opinion. I hear the same concerns being said in many different ways by Democrat leaning pundits on TV as they try to analyze all of this. It appears to me that Obama has pretty much tapped out the maximum that he can expect, and the only way for him to go now is down. Also, since much of his support has been based on the frenzy of the celebrity status, as the status cools, he stands to lose some of the support that he has. In contrast, Clinton has been fully aired out in all kinds of ways, and her support is pretty much set in stone. And all of this failure to close the deal by Obama is despite him rolling in the money. As he spends money on ads, he actually stands to lose support because his image was based on not being a typical politician, but ads only erode that image, which of course was wrong to begin with.

0 Replies

Obama suffers from race; Clinton benefits from gender

At least, that's what the preliminary Pennsylvanian exit polls suggest.

Gender

20% of Pennsylvania voters, according to the current exit poll data, said the gender of the candidate was an important factor in deciding their vote.

These voters overwhelmingly broke towards Hillary: 71% to 29%.

This is true both for the relatively small group of men who said gender was an important factor in their decision (they went to Clinton 58% to 42%) and for the larger group of women (about one in four) who said it was important (they went to Clinton by a whopping 77% to 23%).

Race

19% of Pennsylvania voters said the race of the candidate was an important factor in deciding their vote.

These voters largely also broke towards Hillary: 59% to 41%.

The reason why is how this group itself breaks down by race. Unsurprisingly, black voters who said race was an important factor in their choice overwhelmingly voted for Obama (91%). But they were outnumbered 2:3 by white voters who called race an important factor.

Unlike the men who considered the gender of the candidates an important factor and turned out to largely vote for Hillary, these white voters who considered race an important factor did not have solidarity on their mind. Three out of four of them voted for Clinton, or rather, perhaps, against Obama.

0 Replies

Couple of brief final observations from progresspittsburgh.net :

- "Clinton did exceptionally well in the Northeast, winning all three Congressional districts by large numbers, and winning delegates 10 to 4."

- "In the Southeast, I was surprised that Obama did not do better than 65% in Philadelphia. A lot will be made of that over the next few days."

- "In the collar counties [Philly's suburbs/exurbs], Obama did well in Chester and Delaware and Clinton won Montgomery and Bucks."

0 Replies

A take from Obama spokesperson Bill Burton aimed at pointy headed number geeks like us:

Quote:

Obama spokesperson Bill Burton argues, via instant messaging, that the exit polls show already that in Pennsylvania Obama is doing better among key groups than he did in Ohio, a state with similar demographic advantages for Hillary:

Significant improvements over Ohio, especially among white men and seniors overall. With voters over 60 in OH, Clinton won 69%, Obama got 28%. In PA, Obama earned 41% of the vote among voters over 60, and Clinton won 59%. The gap among seniors was cut by more than half, from 41 to 19. Among white men, in Ohio, Obama got 39%, in PA, 46%. Clinton was at 58% in OH and dropped to 53% in PA. The gap narrowed from 19% to 7%.

(Courtesy of TPM)

0 Replies

I still find it interesting and relevant that if the democratic primary/caucus delegates were awarded like the electorial votes are awarded (winner take all) that Clinton would be beating Obama.

The only reason Obama is in the lead is because of the proportional delegate allocation.

I wonder if the super delegates will take that into account, since 100% allocation is how the general election is determined.

0 Replies

OK. Getting caught up. Thanks everyone.

One thing -- is it a 10-pt lead or 9? CNN says "about 10" in its copy and says "10" in the numbers.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#PA

Andrew Sullivan says 9. Nimh says 9. I saw 9.4 someplace. Is it the ".4" that's throwing things off?

That's probably one of the most important distinctions that could be made between two close numbers -- single-digit or double-digit win.

Not what I was hoping for when I turned off the computer last night, but not a surprise.

The NYT editorial blasting Hillary for how she's conducting her campaign is well-timed, especially this part:

-------------->a-ha, when I went looking for that I saw the NYT numbers: 54.7 for Hillary, 45.3 for Obama. There's that 9.4 differential. That's not 10, that's 9! Don't these people (CNN) know how to round off numbers?

OK, the NYT editorial:

Quote:

By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don't like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23wed1.html

That's close to an un-endorsement; at least a threat of un-endorsement if she doesn't shape up.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

OK. Getting caught up. Thanks everyone.

One thing -- is it a 10-pt lead or 9? CNN says "about 10" in its copy and says "10" in the numbers.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#PA

Andrew Sullivan says 9. Nimh says 9. I saw 9.4 someplace. Is it the ".4" that's throwing things off?
...

You need to look at Fox News, where they show the percentages not rounded off which gives about a 9.4 advantage with 99% counted. It is 54.69 to 45.31. If you round each candidates percentage to a point, then it comes out 10.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

I still find it interesting and relevant that if the democratic primary/caucus delegates were awarded like the electorial votes are awarded (winner take all) that Clinton would be beating Obama.

The only reason Obama is in the lead is because of the proportional delegate allocation.

I wonder if the super delegates will take that into account, since 100% allocation is how the general election is determined.

It would only be relevant if there was a correlation between winning states within a contested primary and within the general elections. As I was just writing to Okie on the last page, there isnt any:

nimh wrote:

There is nothing in Hillary winning a closed Democratic primary in Pennsylvania that would show that she is more electable, even less "much more electable", in the general elections. There is just no correlation here. The Democratic primary electorate the general elections electorate.

In a piece quoted in this thread, Brian Schaffner illustrated this vividly. Looking at the data [for contested primaries] since 1992, he concludes that "In fact, the Democratic nominees since 1992 have fared better in states that they lost during the nomination campaign [..] than they have in states that they won [..]". Just to show how much there is no correlation there.

Who wins primary states says something about whom Democratic primary voters prefer. As the total number of votes cast and the total number of delegates assigned so far show, they prefer Obama, overall. Which of the top candidates is most electable in November, meanwhile, is a wholly different question, one that the primary results actually tell us very little about.

For that, I suppose, the imperfect but best available data indicators would be in the polls. Currently, the match-up polls show Hillary and Obama doing roughly equally well; in the campaign so far they have gone back and forth between showing Obama doing better and both doing equally well.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

You need to look at Fox News, where they show the percentages not rounded off which gives about a 9.4 advantage with 99% counted. It is 54.69 to 45.31. If you round each candidates percentage to a point, then it comes out 10.

Good catch!

0 Replies

Right, that's what I found on the NYT site too ^^^

I guess it depends on how you do the rounding. 54.7 --> 55. 45.3 --> 45. 55% to 45% --> 10-point differential.

BUT, if you round off the actual difference -- 9.4 -- that's 9.

Eh, whatever. It's annoying because I've seen comments about "if she wins by less than 10 pts she should drop out" and lots of stuff about single-digit win, but I can see either number being used.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

okie wrote:
You need to look at Fox News, where they show the percentages not rounded off which gives about a 9.4 advantage with 99% counted. It is 54.69 to 45.31. If you round each candidates percentage to a point, then it comes out 10.

Good catch!

nimh, I got close anyway when I said 10 or more. I've missed enough before. Several reasons, but one was when Obama increasingly said a close loss would be a victory, and then would point out Clinton had been ahead by 20 or 25, so I figured he was bracing for a loss of 10 or more, but certainly less than 15 or 20.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Right, that's what I found on the NYT site too ^^^

Yeah, but like you, my reaction to the 9.4 number was, "Don't these people (CNN) know how to round off numbers?"

I hadnt stopped to think about what Okie pointed out, what you've echoed now: that if you round each candidate's number off separately, the difference is 10 points. And that's of course exactly what they did. Good catch of Okie's, that.

0 Replies

Great maps from the New York Time showing the margin of victory - but in votes, not in percentages! - of Hillary and McCain. Where did the candidates rack up the votes?

(The McCain map is perhaps mostly of interest as very rough indicator of where most of the voters were, although of course the Republican map looks different from the Democratic one in that respect.)

http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/7650/nytpamarginvictoryue1.png

Hillary really racked up the margins in the blue-collar, urban or mixed Rust Belt areas in the northeast and southwest, as expected.

Obama racked up a big margin in Philly, but nothing like the kind that would have been needed to counter Hillary's margins in the post-industrial zones.

This might have to do with the 30-point lead he scored in Philly, which was roughly as much as any poll had predicted but still disappointed some sympathisers. But more likely, perhaps, it's because of turnout in Philly not overwhelming that elsewhere, like PPP (the one pollster that had Obama ahead) had predicted, or like what happened when Rendell was elected Governor.

More troublesome, perhaps, was Obama's failure to

a) Win sizable margins in Philly's suburbs, the way that Rendell did. In fact, overall he seems to have suffered a net loss there, mostly due to Hillary's impressive 71 to 43 thousand votes lead in Bucks County.

b) To neutralise Hillary's advantage in and around Lehigh County (Allentown). That region is white, blue-collar country (remember the song), but it's also economically and demographically on the move up, and Obama will have hoped for a tie there. He didnt make it.

c) To achieve a lead of his own in Lancaster and York Counties. This is equally much white, blue-collar country, but leans much more Republican politically - which with the exception of Rush Limbaugh voters normally favours Obama, as Republican counties tend to yield more cross-over voters.

Plus, or more importantly, it's also very much an area on the move up, moving more and more out of the "Alabama" part of Pennsylvania (as the area between Philly and Pittsburgh is sometimes labelled), and into the bustling, northeastern NYC-Philly-Washington DC corridor. Obama will have hoped for at least a modest lead here, but he lost by as much in York as he won in Lancaster.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

I hadnt stopped to think about what Okie pointed out, what you've echoed now: that if you round each candidate's number off separately, the difference is 10 points. And that's of course exactly what they did. Good catch of Okie's, that.

Gotcha.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know