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

Crossposting this from another thread:



Exit polls Democratic primary West Virginia

"In deciding your vote for president today, was the race of the candidate:

8% The single most important factor -- of these, 85% voted for Clinton, 10% for Obama

14% One of several important factors -- of these, 79% voted for Clinton, 14% for Obama

Shares of the electorate:

20% -- Whites who say race was a factor -- of these, 84% voted for Clinton, 10% for Obama
72% -- Whites who say race was not a factor -- of these, 62% voted for Clinton, 31% for Obama

1% -- Blacks who say race was a factor
3% -- Blacks who say race was not a factor

Comparisons with other states:





Looks like West-Virginia had a relatively high share of whites for whom race was a factor in their choice, and those for whom it was went for Hillary even more massively than usual.

So based on just this one piece of evidence, yes, racial prejudice played a stronger role in WV than in other states. Judging purely from voting patterns and exit polls so far, I would hazard a guess that this would hold true through the whole Appalachian region.

(I was expecting to see the PacMan pie chart.)

I don't know how "fired up" the Dems are, but I can tell you the Usual Suspects that I know personally--voting and active Republicans--are taking a powder this year. They'd rather let the Dems have it and excite the troops for the next cycle than vote McCain. I'm talking about adults and students I know at UGA. I've never seen such across the board distaste for the candidate.

I dont think that whether a candidate loses a primary to a competitive rival necessarily says much at all about whether he will lose it to the Republicans in November. That's not something that's been born out in history -- we mentioned this before. One anaylist who dug into the data found, surprisingly, that:

"In fact, the Democratic nominees since 1992 have fared better in states that they lost during the nomination campaign (winning 75% of those states in the general election) than they have in states that they won (winning 62% of those states)."

In short, no correlation there at all. Mostly because, whoever won the primary, in any remotely close election blue states will be blue states, and red states will be red states.

Even when you look at swing states, however, it doesnt matter much whether Hillary or Obama won the primary if the state's trending Democratic anyway, or alternatively, will respond at least as negatively to McCain as it does to the losing Democratic primary candidate. Eg, either Dem candidate would look good in Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico this time, regardless of who won the primaries. On the other hand, I dont think either would win West-Virginia against McCain, really.

That said, there's no doubt that Obama will lose West Virginia. No dispute about that. And sure, if a candidate gets such a drubbing as he did there, and there is enough evidence that they voted as much against him as for his opponent, that's no good sign. This is certainly true for Obama in WV: it's not just that he lost against a more popular Dem, it's that the exit polls show that race played a significant role, that many would be dissatisfied with him as candidate and/or would vote McCain over him, and that voters gave him tepid marks in questions about trust/honesty and values.

But that's West-Virginia, in the heart of the Appalachians. For a number of reasons probably the least friendly territory for him in the whole country. In swing states in general, on the other hand, he looks pretty good. Whether you look at polling or at signs of his popularity during the primary, he does great in the Upper Midwest, where there's a bunch of swing states (WI, MN, IA), surprisingly good (for a Democrat) in the plains and mountains states (looks like he's got a very good shot at CO and NV, and he only needs the slightest of swings from 2004 to get NM), and super in the Pacific Northwest (WA, OR). On the other side of the country, both the polls and the primary season showed signs that he is very popular in VA (and less relevantly, NC), and he does well in the swing states of New England too (ME, NH).

Pain points: the parts of the South away from the Atlantic - Hillary would have won Missouri and Arkansas I think, while I dont think Obama will make it there. He also wont get Florida, I dont think. And he'll need to put in a big effort in the lower Midwest - i.e, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Nimh, did you see that Edwards is endorsing Obama?

In less than an hour!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/edwards-to-endo.html

Soz, it just flashed up on my screen yeah!

I wonder why now?


The Pacman pie chart was very funny...

In Grand Rapids, Michigan, John Edwards is about to endorse Obama! And he's releasing his delegates (18) to do as they wish.

Wonder if his being in Michigan signals that a deal may also have been finalized re: MI and FLA.


First blog about it. Looking for the NBC article now for a second confirmation.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/14/171349/174/952/515694

The tide turned...Edwards waited to get some cheese for his endorsement...and Obama is getting tweaked by the "elitist" tag Hill stuck to his pants...Edwards brings a mob with blue collars to the hoe-down...

I'm wondering the same (we're talking about it on Obama '08).

My initial thought is just that it's an acknowledgment that Obama is the nominee and it's time to coalesce around him.

Someone (Butrflynet?) mentioned it's in MI and may have something to do with a MI/FL resolution.

Anyway can talk about it there.

Yay!

Oh, everyone showed up here while I was typing...

What kind of cheese do you have in mind, Lash?

Related to what I already said but more specific -- I think Edwards was holding out for a broker role, if one was needed, and now thinks it won't be necessary.

If he'd been angling for some top job wouldnt he have endorsed earlier? When it still would have been valuable enough to warrant some juicy promise from Obama?

It looks like he waited until it was sure to have minimum effect - i.e., after North Carolina, his home state, and all the other neighbouring states (including West-Virginia just now).

Maybe that was part of a deal he made with Elizabeth? It's pretty widely understood that she sympathised with Hillary and he with Obama - and he's devoted to her and listens a lot to her political opinions too - so maybe she made him promise not to endorse until after Hillary had her full chance of a run, including in his home state.

Y'all are free to assume the worst, though :wink:

It's on CNN Live streaming at the moment, Soz. If you want, I'll try to type it out here for you as it happens when it starts.

Thinking more about the fact that it is in Michigan, this may be a great strategy move to include Michigan Obama voters into the fold since he wasn't on the ballot there. Edwards has his 18 Michigan delegates and freeing them up to vote for Obama if they wish, gives a push back to the Clinton campaign's "not until all the people's voices are heard."

Allowing Edwards' delegates to vote for Obama at the delegation makes it easier for a fair deal with the DNC deal to be made to seat MI and FLA delegates at the convention.

Why John Edwards Endorsed Obama Today

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dawn-teo/why-john-edwards-endorsed_b_101787.html


A lot is being said right now to the effect of, "What took him so long?" Some people are criticizing John Edwards for not endorsing sooner. I happen to think that today is the perfect day for Edwards to endorse, not so much because we were trounced in West Virginia yesterday, but because of the current state of the race and because of past statements made by John Edwards and his top advisers.

John Edwards said that he would not make an endorsement until the race was over -- until the nominee was determined. Then, today, after Obama received a trouncing in West Virginia, he announces his endorsement.
Some have questioned this, asking why he is going back on his word and endorsing before the race is over. I don't think he is going back on his word at all. He is sending a message, and that message is, "The race is over."

John Edwards is saying, let's circle the wagons. Obama is our guy. The people have spoken. The race for Democratic presidential nominee is over.

Yesterday, I wrote a Daily Kos diary about an article that Joe Trippi wrote in Campaigns and Elections Magazine. He expressed regret that he had advised Edwards to follow his heart when asked for advice of whether to withdraw from the presidential race. He said he wished he had told him to stay in the race. But, he added (and this is important):

"The senator questioned why he'd be remaining in the race. Would he be grinding out delegates only to be in a position to cut a deal at the convention for his own gain? That wasn't why he had gotten into the race for president. He had entered it to push causes like ending poverty, championing health care for every American and fighting for working people, and it just wasn't him to turn it into a selfish quest. I really respect that, and it helps explain why I so fervently wanted John Edwards to become president. The man cared deeply about those causes, and he did not want to see them tarnished because of a string of embarrassing losses."

Trippi would not have written such an article without running it by Edwards first. They are reportedly close friends, and insiders say that Trippi is extremely loyal to Edwards. This seems to be a concerted message, "When it is clear you cannot win, staying in the race is for personal gain."

Trippi's admission that he wishes he had advised Edwards to stay in the race could be taken as a nod to Hillary Clinton that it's ok to stay in the race, but I don't think so. I think it was simply meant to soften the blow of these specific words:

"Would he be grinding out delegates only to be in a position to cut a deal at the convention for his own gain?"

Of course, Trippi will be on the media circuit over the next few days, answering questions about Edwards, and I'm sure this will come up. We'll see how it plays out, but I'm betting that he'll be asked about these words. I'm betting that he'll say over and over that Edwards exited the race for the good of the country -- this will be a hint to Clinton.
Of course, this also takes the wind out of Clinton's sails from her win yesterday.

Yes, the timing is perfect.

Obama is taking the podium now.

Obama: Thank you Grand Rapids. Thank you Michigan. Thank you! Thank you everybody. I am fired up. I'm fired up! I am fired up to be in Michigan. I'm fired up to be in Grand Rapids. Look at this crowd, it is unbelievable. I know that we didn't have a chance to campaign here during the primary. I felt bad about it. I didn't have a chance to talk to you about the issues, I felt guilty about not campaigning. As a consequence, I decided I would try to give you something special. I decided that on my first full day of campaigning in Michigan, I decided I wouldn't do the same thing. I decided that I'd bring out one of the greatest leaders we have in the democratic party, John Edwards.


Applause

Edwards: Thank you, thank you. So. So, the question is... what am I doing here?

You know, I promsied to get to you and I hadn't gotten to you yet. I am proud to be here with all of you in Grand Rapids.

During the course of this presidential campaign I've gotten to know the candidates very well. We've been out speaking about the causes that are near and dear to democrats.

Before I get too far, I want to take just a minute to say a word about your friend and mine, Senator Hillary Clinton.

In the past few months and weeks I've gotten to know Senator Clinton very well.

We've talked a lot about what you and I care about....health care, decent jobs, our own children and own families. What I've learned is that she believes with every fiber of her being that she believes that America can be a better place.

It is very hard to get up every day and do what she's done every day to get out there and fight for what we want. What she's shown is strength of character. ....


Going too fast for me to keep up...sorry. Soz.

Oh, no need, Butrflynet! Sorry, I didn't know you were doing this.

TV stuff is almost always captioned. Online stuff usually isn't, with rare exceptions.

This was all captioned though (on CNN).

Thanks for your efforts, that was nice!

I was wondering about Elizabeth too, nimh.

There was a lot of talking head speculation about stepping on the Hillary's WV-win news cycle, and I think there is something to that. Wolf Blitzer's big interview with her, with a big emotional tears moment, was in a small screen while the other side of the screen showed the giant Obama rally, waiting for Edwards and Obama to show up.

More info on delegates that were in the Edward's column. This is very interesting, it certainly takes the wind out of the sails on the Clinton side as they push for the MI and FLA delegates to be seated at the convention. Wonder if their tune will change at all now that there is the possibility of Edward's delegates being added to what Obama already has.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/

Somewhat belatedly...