17
   

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

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 May, 2008 07:43 pm
Last time, I added "a neat graph to illustrate the role of the education gap in the Democratic primary", and here's an update of it:


http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/7181/demsbyeducationgraph3zp8.png


In short: every red dot represents the result of Obama in one of the primary states (for which exit poll data are available). Every blue dot represents a Clinton result.

The further right a dot is located, the higher the percentage of the vote the candidate got among those without a college degree. The higher up a dot is located, the better the candidate did among college graduates. In short: dots near the top right represent very good states for the candidate, those near the bottom left very bad states.

Any dot 'southeast' to the diagonal life represents a state where the candidate did better among those without a college degree than among college graduates. This includes almost all of Hillary's primary results - only in Mississippi did she do equally well in both and in Maryland and now, by a hairwidth, North Carolina did she actually do better among college grads.

Any dot 'northwest' to the diagonal life represents a state where the candidate did better among college graduates than among those without a college degree. This includes almost all of Obama's primary results - only in South Carolina did he do equally well in both and in Maryland did he actually do better among those without college degree.

The further from the diagonal a dot is, the larger the 'education gap' was in that state's primary.

I havent included all state names of course, because it would become chaos, but the data is in the table in the previous post. I've only labelled the ones that were the furthest from the average one way or another. The latest three primaries are also marked, and have a slightly differently coloured dot. As you can see the education gap was relatively small to non-existent.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 May, 2008 09:21 am
Cool! Nice, informative graphs. Appreciated.

nimh wrote:
Re the old debate about whether Obama's initial disadvantage among working class voters was a question of his message not appealing to them or their being low-infomation voters who only caught on as the race became everpresent, this is something of a stalemate. He did caught on among non-college educated voters more as time went by, even when the brief mid-February surge faded, but still only closed the gap halfway. So a bit of both - plus, of course, Obama also adjusted his campaign focus and tone over time.


This last sentence touches on a pet peeve of mine. I remembered it because of this from the NYT today:

The Upside of Being Knocked Around
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/weekinreview/11leib.html

Quote:


I cannot tell you how many times this election cycle I've seen variations of the above -- an article noting that Obama is changing his message, finally rolling up his sleeves, finally doing small events, finally trying to connect with working-class voters. When he's been doing this from the beginning! These articles keep reporting it as news, but I've read one saying approximately the same thing -- wow, look, he's changing -- probably every month or so since late 2006. The New Yorker profile I've often talked about from 2004 went into how he was working to connect with blue-collar rural voters in Illinois -- and how he was succeeding. That was a big part of my earliest thinking that he could make a great presidential candidate.

A couple of months ago I went to an Obama event that had a (somewhat dated) DVD of Obama appearances playing in the background -- the DVD appeared to have been made about August 2007, and focused on that summer. It was almost all small events, town halls, taking questions. Lots of rural and working-class milieus. Lots of white faces.

The repeated news items about his "changing" focus and attempts to connect with certain voters seem to each be pushing back against the conventional wisdom rather than what he's actually been doing throughout. Conventional wisdom -- he's all about the big rallies and the uplifting speeches. Reality -- he's been about connecting with voters of all stripes, including working-class and rural voters, from the very beginning. And he's done a pretty good job of it (Iowa was the first major dividend).

There is one time I can think of where the conventional wisdom and reality did intersect -- after Iowa, and before New Hampshire, he decided to go with the big rallies and the inspiration more than the small stuff, and I think it cost him.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 May, 2008 09:53 am
(Well, not since late 2006, he hadn't even officially started campaigning yet -- I'll amend it to "at regular and pretty frequent intervals throughout the campaign...")
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 May, 2008 11:04 am
sozobe wrote:
I cannot tell you how many times this election cycle I've seen variations of the above -- an article noting that Obama is changing his message, finally rolling up his sleeves, finally doing small events, finally trying to connect with working-class voters. When he's been doing this from the beginning! [..] It was almost all small events, town halls, taking questions. Lots of rural and working-class milieus. Lots of white faces.

Well, I never said anything about him not having done small events or townhalls before, or not having taken questions, or not having attracted white faces.

But I do think, yes, that his rhetorical focus, the focus of his message, of his ads, has changed over time, in particular since the run-up to the Ohio race.

Are you saying you have seen no such shift in his campaign's tone, at all?

For random example, I think it's been a long way from "we are the people we've been waiting for" to the ads he broadcast in Pennsylvania. In terms of the message and what he's saying, but also - hell - he even donned a leather jacket for the occasion, while wandering abandoned factory grounds, hands in pockets.

(THis is where I was going to link in two striking examples that were available on the mediacurves.com websites, but they're no longer there, so I cant use 'em to illustrate what I'm talking about).

Not ridiculing him, I for one have been glad with this IMO long overdue adjustment. I see a pretty big change in tone and content between, say, the ads he put out in Iowa and the ones he put out in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana. Much less abstract, less about ideals and hope and belief and more about gas prices, getting by. As they should be, with the escalating panic about the economy - if he wasnt adjusting his message over time in the light of that, he'd be making a mistake.

You think all of that is just us not having 'gotten' Obama from the start, imagining something new that was there all along?
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 May, 2008 07:26 pm
I think it is a combination of both. He started out with mostly outlines for his speeches, position papers and ads, and he's been filling in the details with a little more clarity as each primary passes, adjusting the emphasis on details closely associated with the various regions of the country to keep up with the changing menu of issues on the kitchen tables. But, for the most part, he hasn't really veered off from what he wrote in his book.

I agree with you about his ads. I haven't been all that happy with any of the ones I've seen in the last year. I don't think they serve him very well and do very little to do anything more than match his photo with his name for the voters. But that's what had been needed because he was such an unknown to most of the country for so long. I've liked the more recent detailed, issue-oriented ads a lot better. Still think he can do a whole lot better with them though.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 May, 2008 09:10 am
Sorry for the delay in responding...

First, I was a bit sloppy. Your initial statement, that I quoted, stuck with me but I didn't comment on it. Then later I read the NYT thing I quoted and got annoyed by it. It related somewhat to your comment -- though I don't think your comment was nearly as bad as what I complain about in the NYT article. All of my comments after I quoted the NYT article are about the NYT article -- and the many similar ones I've read.

For example:

Mark Leibovich wrote:
In recent weeks, Mr. Obama started doing more retail events, talked more about his family's economic challenges growing up (to address a creeping rap of elitism, however ill-fitting that label is).


He's been talking about that throughout.

Quote:
He saw what played well (a tough-love opposition to the gas tax holiday) and what needed work (his bowling). He worked to escape the pigeonhole that he was a big arena rock star. He has recently done fewer big rallies and more one-of-you performances (pick-up hoops games in Indiana).


What do those sentences mean? This is supposed to be about how Hillary led him to the working class... he took the opposite side on the gas-tax holiday, and the side that was supposedly (according to Hillary and McCain) elitist.

How did the bowling lead to anything, one way or another? He's been shooting hoops with locals throughout.

How has he been "working to escape the pigeonhole that he was a big arena rock star" in a way that he hasn't been from the beginning? The 2004 keynote speech is the first thing that most people knew about him, and he's been combating it with small, personal events (mixed in with the big ones) for quite a while.

Quote:
He seemed to heed Mrs. Clinton's recurring criticism that Mr. Obama was all about "creating an atmosphere" and "giving great speeches." There have been fewer shots of a larger-than-life Mr. Obama at a podium, more of him face-to-face with workers (or waffles). More listening photo ops, in other words, and fewer talking ones.


Again, the listening photo ops have been there throughout. I don't think there have been significantly more. This is my own impression though, and hard to prove.

The ads thing may well be true -- of all aspects of the campaign, that's one that I'm paying least attention to, mostly because they're usually not accessible to me. So I'm happy to concede that point -- I don't know.

What I'm talking about mostly is articles like the one above, that keep reporting that Obama has shifted focus and is now doing more small, personal, working-class-or-rural-oriented events. That finally he's talking to these people, that he has a message for them, that the message resonates. At the non-soundbite level, he's been doing this from the very beginning. He's toggled between the big stuff and the small stuff, the rallies and the town halls, the generalized inspiration and the specific proposals to help working-class and rural people. It's been pretty consistent.

Where I'm talking to you (nimh) specifically is that, ads aside -- and I recognize that's a pretty big aside as many people get their info from ads -- I don't think that Obama's growing support among that demographic can really be attributed to his shifting message, that he's targeting them better. I think it's more that they're getting more access to the messages he's had from the beginning.

But maybe the ad thing contradicts that and torpedoes my thesis. I don't know.

I found this:

http://pcl.stanford.edu/campaigns/2008/

With scads of campaign ads, none captioned (of course, not surprising). Some have print as part of the ad. An early one (June 2007) from Obama has this on the screen:

Obama's Illinois achievements:

- Tougher ethics laws
- Welfare reform
- Health coverage for 154,000 uninsured
- Tax relief for low income workers

The first two are whatever, the last two seem to be squarely aimed at the demographic we're talking about.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 May, 2008 09:13 am
Meanwhile, this is cool!

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080507JewishGraph2_hfndk348da.gif
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 May, 2008 04:12 pm
Flashback to the Pennsylvania campaign

This is a great field report about how the Pennsylvania campaign was playing out in a town called Levittown:

Quote:
Change Makes a Call on Levittown

New York Times
April 6, 2008


Foremost, it's a moving, but honest little portrait of the town by a former native. The dark sides, such as its once fiery racism, are honestly revisited. But in the end what you have here is a [loving] portrait of a town whose development over the years in many ways illustrates the rise and decline of the white American working class - and the stunning reversal it has suffered as the economy was "modernised". It's a familiar story for Europeans too ...


Quote:
I was born the following year, the second of three children, and spent my entire childhood in that house. Nearly everything about Levittown seemed normal to me. Even the name of our street, Vulcan Road, seemed normal enough. [..]

In the early years, close to 30 percent of Levittown's population was under 5 years old. On summer nights, we played hide-and-seek in backyards and kick-the-can in the street. When the trees matured, we found that they produced pears, a fruit too exotic to appeal to most of the families [..], so we had great fun throwing them at one another.

Like every boy I knew in Levittown, I learned how to do manual labor and to value work, and workers, of all kinds. During my high-school summers, I cut grass in parks and on the medians of highways, unloaded trucks and walked beside road-paving equipment with a rake to smooth the hot asphalt along the curbs. During a long strike by the schoolteachers, I found a job in one of the area's small steel plants. Even for kids, there was good money to be made. My best friend took a year off from college to mix big vats of chemicals at the 3M plant, where an old-timer told him, "Remember, don't take all your money and buy a boat with it; buy property." When times were good at the steel mill and overtime was plentiful, it seemed as if half of Levittown had Winnebagos or other gargantuan recreational vehicles parked in their driveways. Land boats. [..]

My parents were deeply involved in local politics. They worked the polls every election, and my brother, sister and I stood alongside them, handing out literature and helping keep track of who voted and who needed to be reminded or picked up and delivered to the election site. When I turned 18, my mother instructed me on everything she believed I needed to know about voting. "Just pull the big lever," she said, by which she meant the Democratic lever that automatically cast votes for the party's entire ticket. [..]

The number of adults in Levittown with college degrees was 13 percent, according to the 2000 census, roughly half of the national figure. Its median income was $52,514, a little more than $10,000 above the national level then. Some of that money came in pension payments from old union jobs, and some people worked multiple jobs. "You've got four or five jobs in a household now," Carl LaVO, a longtime Levittown resident and an editor at The Bucks County Courier Times, told me. "The jobs are retail clerks, painters, warehouse clerks, truck drivers."

On one of my days in Levittown, I visited with Janet Keyser, a childhood friend from the next street over who is now chairwoman of the local Democratic Party and the director of the water and sewer authority. "There's not many $25-an-hour jobs anymore," she said. "It's very, very sad in Levittown right now. It's not like it was, where the father got his son a job in the mill, and then when the son got out of high school, he came into the mill full time. We get the list of foreclosures and sheriff's sales at the authority, and every month, it's more. And these aren't bums or people on drugs. They're good people."


Just to be clear, the racial parts were ugly indeed:


Quote:
And on matters of race Levittown has a particularly shameful history. It was billed as "the most perfectly planned community in America," and part of the plan was for it to be whites-only: 5,500 acres, stretching across three Pennsylvania townships and one borough, closed off to blacks. The first development of mass-produced homes by Levitt & Sons, Levittown, N.Y., on Long Island, which dates from 1947, had the same exclusionary policies. William Levitt weakly insisted that he would love to sell houses to black families but had "come to know that if we sell one house to a Negro family, then 90 to 95 percent of our white customers will not buy into the community. That is their attitude, not ours."

In 1957, when a black family, the Myers, finally did move into Levittown, Pa., after buying from an original owner, their home was besieged for several nights by a mob that numbered in the hundreds. Rocks were hurled through the windows. In seeking a court order to stop the harassment, Daisy Myers referred to "annoying practices," which included parades of cars rolling by her home as the occupants sang "Old Black Joe" and "Dixie."

That was a half-century ago. Still, by the numbers, Levittown is not much changed. According to the last U.S. Census, just 2 percent of its 54,000 residents are African-American; about an equal percentage are Hispanic. [..]

There were a


This is all just backdrop for the actual story at hand: how the local Obama campaigners, with whom the reporter joined up, fared over the course of the campaign. The local activists themselves were a diverse bunch, including a "41-year-old second-generation Levittowner who described himself as one of the last employees of U.S. Steel at Fairless Works", who supported Obama because "it's nice to hear a candidate talk about the blue-collar worker. We're the ones who built this country up."

It also nicely evokes the balance that the pros in the Obama campaign strike - taking up a modest, background role in organising the efforts, purposefully leaving much up to the locals who know the community best; but also bringing in a mass of volunteers from outside in the final stretch of the campaign.

But it's the backdrop I found most interesting. Because I love reading local portraits, but also of course because of how Levittown is a microcosm of a much broader reality - one that's easily recognizable for a Dutchman, too. The town reminds me of the neighbourhoods my grandparents moved to when they could afford leaving the cramped inner-city housing, and I sort of recognize the author's ambiguous identification (though I'm a generation, or maybe half a generation, further removed).

In terms of this thread, the portrait provides neat illustrations for competing takes we've discussed about the Obama campaign's difficulties in reaching working class whites. There is race, of course. There is the reluctance to try something new; when you're hard up - or perhaps more specifically, when you've seen the modest certainties and securities you enjoyed erode over time (as opposed to, for example, if you've been hard up all your life), you want to stick with what you know. And they know Hillary. But yes, there is also a clearly negative reaction to Obama's more soaring rhetorics.

Some excerpts to illustrate each:

- Race

Quote:
Ersula Cosby became the co-leader of Team No. 7.5 because she seemed to have energy and a talent for organizing. She had worked as a technical writer while attending Temple University's law school at night [..]. The only time that Cosby, a black woman raised in Pittsburgh, betrayed an awareness of the tough terrain they were stepping into was when she mentioned where she hoped to open a law practice. "People have advised me I definitely need to get north of Route 1," she told me, meaning out of Levittown and toward the middle part of Bucks County, which is perceived as being more socially tolerant.

Annunziata, the former council president, was probably the most politically astute of the volunteers. "It's silly to ignore it or pretend Obama's race isn't a factor, especially for some of the older people," he said. Annunziata lives in Levittown with his 78-year-old father, Carmine, but said he had not yet been able to make him an Obama voter. "I have to realize that this is a big change for him," he said. "So far, the best I've been able to do is move him from Hillary to undecided."


- Stability and familiarity

Quote:


- The soaring vs the grounded

Quote:
Obama's lofty rhetoric did not move these men, but neither did it go over their heads, exactly. They heard it, and it seemed to have the opposite of its intended effect. It bothered them. All insisted that his race had nothing to do with their coolness to him. "The guy does a lot of talking, but I haven't heard him say anything great yet," said Dennis Haines, a 38-year-old self-employed electrical contractor and a Democrat who thought he would vote for Clinton in the primary but probably for McCain in November.

The real language of Levittown is arithmetic. The hourly wage. The mortgage payment. How to make ends meet or, better yet, get ahead. Another of the men in the bar, Brian Foley, was a Teamsters truck driver. He explained to me the difficult math for a driver who owns his own rig: "Diesel fuel is up to $4.19 a gallon. Let's say you're fully loaded at 80,000 pounds. You get four miles a gallon, five max. You tell me how that works?" [..]

Steve Woods sat drinking a Coors Light and talking with his buddies. A Philadelphia Phillies spring-training game was on TV, and he glanced up at it every time the audio picked up the crack of the bat. I asked him if the presidential campaign interested him. "Absolutely," he said. Rapid fire, he told me the issues he cared about: "No. 1, gas prices. It's killing everybody. No. 2, immigrants. They should go back to Mexico. Three, guns. Everybody should have the right to bear arms. In fact, everyone should have a gun in this day and age."

I wondered if he was a Republican. "Are you kidding?" he said. "I'm a Democrat all the way. I hate Republicans."

Woods, who is 32, said that he had been trained at the local technical high school as a land surveyor but had been working only sporadically. He had been picking up "side jobs," a term I heard over and over again in Levittown. It refers to temporary labor: carpentry, landscaping, junk hauling.

Woods was for Hillary Clinton, and if Obama was the Democratic nominee, he said he would vote for the Republican, John McCain, in November. "Hillary all the way," he said. "We need Hillary. She knows the game. Obama has no experience. He talks about change, change, change. Everybody says he's new; he's refreshing; he's charismatic. I don't think he's got a clue."


On a concluding note: Levittown is in Bucks County, one of four suburban counties surrounding Philly. Much of this suburban zone has a relatively high number of college-educated, upwardly mobile voters, and Obama was expected to do well here. Apart from a blow-out win in Philly itself, it was these suburbs that Obama had to rely on to close the gap that Hillary would open up in "Pennsyltucky", the rural and industrial middle of the state.

But they didnt turn out for him. He did well in the suburban counties to Philly's West (Delaware, Chester), which roll over into the safely Republican rural and exurb counties around Harrisburg and Lancaster. But he suffered a blowout setback in Bucks County, which he lost 37% to 63% to Clinton.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 May, 2008 04:16 pm
The bit about the guy called Steve Woods made me laugh btw - 3rd & 4th para of the very last excerpt I quoted.. Smile
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 May, 2008 05:20 pm
All this talk about working class voters does always make me wonder - why the distinction by education? Why not by income? Isnt that at least as obvious an identifier of class?

My guess is that the reason you overwhelmingly see the numbers broken down by education rather than income is because, intriguingly, the contrast between Obama's and Hillary's appeal is clearly less distinct by income.

I maintained a parallel working sheet about income in my file with the exit poll data on education. State by state, what percentage of voters from households with an income of less than $50,000 went for Obama vs for Hillary? What percentage from the over $50k households went where?

The table is here, for who's interested:


http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/9798/demsbyincome3hy8.th.png


But I'll post the graph in full size. Compare it with the education graph, and there's a few things that'll strike you.


http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/3672/demsbyincomegraph2eu2.png


The most striking thing is how the differences are clearly smaller. While there were any number of states where Obama did significantly better among college grads than among non-college graduates, when it comes to income the majority of states hover near the big center line. Meaning that Obama's and Hillary's support among lower income voters was close to their support among higher income voters. In 14 out of the 33 states for which exit poll data is available, the difference in Obama's support was marginal, max 3% more or less among one group or the other.

In a further 3 states, Obama actually did significantly better among lower-income voters: North Carolina, South Carolina and especially Mississippi.

(The obvious explanation there is that those states included a lot of African-American voters, who voted en masse for Obama and were more likely to have a lower income. Except that there were just as many African-American voters in Georgia, Virginia, Louisiana and Alabama, and in those states this wasnt the case. There, Obama did as well or better among higher-income voters as among lower-income ones. I guess that for GA and VA, you can speculate that this was because the young professionals in Atlanta and the Raleigh Triangle who voted for Obama balanced out the low-income black vote. But why did Obama do so much better among lower-income than high-income voters in Mississippi, and was there no such difference at all in Alabama or Louisiana? When the racial make-up was the same? Answers on a postcard, please.)

Second observation: The placement of the last three primaries in this graph. In Indiana, Obama did exactly as well among lower-income voters as among higher-income ones. In both Pennsylvania and North Carolina, he actually did better among lower-income ones. That's a clear break in the trend, even taking into account that the differences were smaller with income than with education in the first place. Race probably played a major role in NC, but Obama outdoing Hillary among low-income voters, and losing out among high-income voters, in Pennsylvania? Had you expected that?

Mind, you can interpret that in two opposite ways. How come he's on the other side of the line now? Is it because he did relatively well among lower-income voters these times? Or because he did relatively badly among higher-income voters? (He did lose two of the three primaries after all).

For example, draw a straight vertical line up from the Indiana dot (which the two candidates share, since they divided up both parts of the electorate exactly 50/50), and you come to Utah. Eg, Obama did exactly as well among lower income voters in IN as in UT; but he did a full 10% worse among higher-income voters. But draw a straight horizontal line from Indiana to the left, and you come close to hitting Tennessee. Eg, Obama did exactly as well among higher-income voters in IN as in TN; but he did a full 10% better among lower-income voters. So, improvement or deterioration?

States are so unlike each other, it's hard to make direct comparisons. A relatively direct one is between Virginia and North Carolina - both Southern states with about a third of black voters and a booming upscale sector nestling in traditional lands. In the graph, one is directly underneath the other, meaning that Obama did equally well among lower-income voters in both states, but worse in North Carolina among higher-income voters - by about a full 10% or so. Which is not what I expected: I realised that higher-income voters simply made up a much lower share of the electorate in NC, but I wouldnt have expected their voting pattern to differ much. That is to say, I'd expected the Obama vote to be lower than it was in VA, which voted at the height of the Obama surge, but not to be 10% lower among higher-income voters and the same among lower-income voters.

Anyway, lots of intriguing details in here, that mostly I just can't quite get a grip on. Input very welcome.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 May, 2008 05:33 pm
Mind you, the education and income tables are also not that different (he said, belatedly pulling himself back a little). Keep the average numbers by state in mind:

  • Lower-education voters broke narrowly to Hillary by 50% to 45%, while higher-education voters easily went for Barack, 54% to 41%;

  • Lower-income voters broke evenly between Hillary and Barack 47% to 47%, while higher-income voters narrowly went for Barack, 50% to 44%.
This is how it stacks up by "round" of primaries:


http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/2425/demsbyincome3bpx4.png


Roughly, but not exactly the same picture as for education. It's halfway silly to compare "gains" and "losses" from round to round since very different states made up each round, but broadly the trends seem alike:

  • After the surge around the Potomac primaries in mid/late February, Obama fell back among higher-income voters to exactly the level he'd had on Super Tuesday - and stuck there. Just like he did with higher-education voters.

  • Meanwhile, Hillary's numbers among higher-income voters, as with higher-education voters, didn't just go back up where they'd been on Super Tuesday but were actually a little better still, as the remnant vote for third candidates dwindled.

  • Among lower-income voters Obama also fell back after the Potomac round, but not all the way to Super Tuesday levels. Here, he retained some of his gains. Hillary's share of the lower-income vote, as with the lower-education vote, went back up to Super Tuesday levels, but barely.

  • The result is that the class gap didn't open up again to where it had been before. In fact, while with the education divide the class gap did open back up part of the way, it disappeared altogether when it comes to income.
There's an interesting evaluation of the CW in the light of these numbers, when contrasted with the numbers by education, in here somewhere, but I can't get there right now.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 May, 2008 07:33 pm
Today in The Daily Tracking Polls...

Gallup has been a bit slow in catching up, but by now both tracking polls are really showing Obama opening up - hopefully for good. On Saturday both polls had Obama up by five points again - for the first time since April 24. Today, Rasmussen has him up by ten and Gallup by seven. That's the biggest average Obama lead since the day of the Pennsylvania primary.



http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/6387/galluprasmusdems17vv9.png



To complete the update, here's the graph that shows the development of Hillary's lead (or rather, pretty quickly, deficit) vis-a-vis Obama over time. With a polynomial trendline (order 6).



http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/4200/galluprasmusdemslead15su2.png



JPB pointed out earlier that a trendline this sensitive is pretty much useless in terms of predicting future trends, and this one certainly always overstates the latest development - as it does now too, as you can see.

But on the other hand, this trendline has been great in terms of teasing out the overall development of the race from the somewhat erratic day-to-day ups and downs. It's like a map of the campaign since mid-January.

Just track your finger down the line ...

After South Carolina, Hillary's lead over Obama rapidly disappeared, and Super Tuesday offered no respite. Obama's first high was in mid- through late February, as he won Louisiana, the Potomac states and Wisconsin. That's when he first got to hold a consistent lead over Hillary in both tracking polls.

Then came a one-two that knocked him off his stride. First the defeats on March 4; then the Wright affair (Mk.I) in mid-March. Hillary got to hold occasional leads again, twice breaking a 5% lead. But as he weathered that storm and the realisation that he had, in fact, pretty much already won the primary sunk in, he came to have his second high.

Throughout early and mid-April, he was almost continually in the lead in the daily tracking polls. As he started regularly breaking the 50% barrier for the first time, he recorded an average 10-point lead over Hillary on April 15.

But then came the terrible ABC tv-debate in Pennsylvania, quickly followed by Hillary's expected but convincing election victory there. Followed in turn by the Wright affair Mk.II, culminating with the man's National Press Club performance. May 1 was the worst day, when Hillary gained a lead in both daily tracking polls for the first time since directly after the Ohio & Texas primaries, almost two months before.

But no sooner was the Gallup trendline pushed back to break-even point or Obama's comfortable win in North Carolina and the near-tie in Indiana broke the tie. Decisively. A few days later, Rasmussen declared it would soon stop polling the race. We're just awaiting that now. West-Virginia might yield a final bounce for Hillary, but I dont expect it to be impressive.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 09:53 am
To be honest, I had thoughtlessly bought into the "Under Republican rules, Hillary would have won" meme. Didnt really think twice of it. I should have known better of course, as a link shows that Cyclo helpfully brought to the Obama thread:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
maporsche wrote:
I don't know if someone else has already replied to this, but what she means is that if the delegate allocation were 'winner take all' like the republican primaries, Clinton would have won and had a greater margin than Obama currently enjoys.

If there were no proportional delegate system, Clinton would be the winner.

Your analysis, sir, was not correct. Here is an extensively researched one. Obama wins under Republican rules as well.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/13/01832/3725/56/514556
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 10:00 am
(just wanted to let you know I'm reading and digesting your long posts... no interesting thoughts/ comments yet and may not be, still thinking...)
0 Replies
 
rjohn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 01:08 pm
..
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 09:59 pm
I guess Obama wasn't expected to win West Virginia, but he is getting seriously stomped big time. Not even getting 30% of the vote with more than 3/4 counted. Is this the sign of a winner in November?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 10:28 pm
okie wrote:
I guess Obama wasn't expected to win West Virginia, but he is getting seriously stomped big time. Not even getting 30% of the vote with more than 3/4 counted. Is this the sign of a winner in November?


Sure.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 04:58 am
okie wrote:
I guess Obama wasn't expected to win West Virginia, but he is getting seriously stomped big time. Not even getting 30% of the vote with more than 3/4 counted. Is this the sign of a winner in November?

I dont think anyone expects Obama to carry WV in November... but that wont really matter one way or another.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 11:55 am
But Obama didn't even get 30% of the vote. That is pretty bad, and demonstrates how bad he could lose in November, if he loses a number of swing states. The only problem the Republicans have is our candidate is running like a liberal on some issues, and so will our voters stay home? If they don't stay home, and if a significant portion of the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party votes McCain, it won't be pretty for Obama. And I think there could be more shoes to drop on Obama before November.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 12:22 pm
okie wrote:
But Obama didn't even get 30% of the vote. That is pretty bad, and demonstrates how bad he could lose in November, if he loses a number of swing states. The only problem the Republicans have is our candidate is running like a liberal on some issues, and so will our voters stay home? If they don't stay home, and if a significant portion of the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party votes McCain, it won't be pretty for Obama. And I think there could be more shoes to drop on Obama before November.


You're dreaming. McCain is leading a dispirited party, and the Dems are more fired up now then at any time that I can remember.

Obama has cruised into the lead in national head to heads with McCain, btw. He's been up in the last 6 polls taken.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 11/25/2024 at 12:36:35