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

Holy explosion of opinion polls, Batman!

For a whole rundown of all the New Hampshire polls, check here for the Dems and here for the Reps. There's a LOT Razz

There you can also check what the pollster.com trendlines look like.

Meanwhile, here's my graphs of averages, with the end point of the graph representing the average of the polls that have appeared this month.

(When it comes to the tracking polls, I'm just copying their procedure "to avoid including data based on overlapping samples".)

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/2783/nhdemsonlymine080108bw2.png

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/3171/nhrepsonlymine080108cx4.png

Interesting parallel between the two graphs, eh?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Interesting parallel between the two graphs, eh?

It is quite interesting. The gamblers market shows Obama with a far more pronounced advantage. Like 15 to 1 for Obama... Vs only about 3 to 1 for McCain.

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/8798/gobama7zc0.jpg

Amazingly; Hillary is still tanking badly in the race for the nomination... now nearly a 3 to 1 underdog.

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/336/gobama6dt0.jpg

In Pollster.com-terms; you could consider this the super-duper sensitive poll. :wink:

0 Replies

I'd like to take a moment to publicly apologize to O'Bill. After looking back at it and chewing on it for awhile, my characterizations of him over the last couple of days were not warranted.

O'Bill I apologize for accusing you of saying things you did not say, and for insulting you on the basis purely of your race and gender. It is something I would not stand for had it been done to me, and it is something I should not have done to you.

0 Replies

Again? Very cool. I repeat: That is very big of you, Snood. You are a better man than most and of course your apology is accepted. Sorry I responded in kind, rather than attempt to clarify the situation. Peace and GObama!

0 Replies

OBAMARAMA

UNITY SPIRIT

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

About damned time. These threads were starting to look like the National Enquire's website with all the extra large fonts for emphasis. :wink:

I'd send you both an ecard to honor this Hallmark moment but I don't have your email addresses so this will have to do:

Group Hug!

Now let's go watch the NH vote results tomorrow...

0 Replies

Good on you, Snood.

Observations on what those Iowa entrance polls showed about the candidates - The Republicans

In my post about how the polls did regarding the Democratic race, I talked about the "entrance poll" that were done. You can find the data for those on CNN and MSNBC (Democrats, Republicans). They've been posted here and there on A2K threads already as well, so I wont bother posting a table or the like. But here are some observations, first about the Republican primary:

Born-again and evangelical Christians constituted the majority of the Republican primary voters, and Huckabee's victory depended entirely on them. He got 46% among the born-again and evangelical; and just 14% among the rest! That means he was positively trounced by Romney among the non-evangelical/born-again, and passed even by McCain and Thompson.

Ron Paul's support, surprisingly, was even among the born-again/evangelical and others.
Huckabee beat Romney decisively and left Thompson and McCain in the dust among self-identified Republicans. But among the much smaller number of independents, McCain narrowly outdid both Romney and Huckabee.
McCain was not the number 1 in that category though; that honour went to Ron Paul, who got just 7% of the Republican vote but as much as 29% among indies.
When supporters for each individual Republican candidate are divided by which problem they consider the most pressing - the war, terrorism, the economy, or immigration - the one candidate whose support is most unevenly distributed is John McCain. He is the national security candidate, doing considerably better among those who think the war or terrorism is the most important problem (25% and 22%, resp.) than among those who focus on the economy or immigration (11% and 4%).

So if the general elections do focus, as it seems right now, on domestic issues rather than foreign policy, that's a weakness for him.
Surprisingly, Ron Paul's highest support is not among those who think the war is the most important thing (12%), but among those who think the economy is the prime issue (16%).
Huckabee, the bible thumper who believes that "a wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ", did notably better among women voters (40%) than among males (29%). Thompson did much better among males (16% vs 10%).
Who are the candidates of the young - of the future, if you will? Huckabee did best of all among 17-24 year olds (38%) and 30-44 year-olds (39%). And Ron Paul excelled among the teens and twenty-somethings of course, getting 20% of them.
Romney did better the more urban the environment, actually beating Huckabee among city voters by 10 points. Huckabee did better the more rural the environment, beating Romney in small towns and suburbs and trouncing him in rural areas. The background of Huckabee's easy win is that half of the Republican caucusers were in rural areas.

Ron Paul, surprisingly, did better in rural areas and suburbs than in cities and towns.
Huckabee, as you would expect from the candidate of the rural and religious, did somewhat better among lower income groups than among those with higher income, though his support was fairly evenly spread. For Romney, the establishment candidate, the opposite predictably held true.

Ron Paul was overrepresented among lower-income voters, but that may just be a reflection of the relative youth of his voters.
When Republican voters were quizzed what personal quality they deemed most important - is he sincere, does he have the right values, does he have experience, is he electable - Huckabee trounces the others on values and wins easily on sincerity. But he is in turn trounced by Romney on electability and Romney and McCain on experience.

The decisive factor: far more voters thought sincerity and values were the most important thing than experience and electability.
Another possible weakness for McCain in a general elections run-off is that, in Iowa at least, those who voted for him are mostly only lukewarm about his candidacy. Among those who "strongly favor [their] candidate," McCain got just 9%; among those who "like [their] candidate but with reservations," he got all of 21%.
In terms of ideology, Romney's support is even across the moderate, conservative and very conservative. Huckabee's support is also relatively even, though slumps a bit in the small group of moderates. But Fred Thompson and John McCain's results mirror each other, Thompson's support rising drastically, and McCain's support falling equally drastically, the more conservative a voter was.
Remember Romney lashing out at Huckabee for daring to criticise Bush? How he said that it made Huckabee sound like a Democrat? Well, here's a surprise: Huckabee's support rose drastically the more enthusiastic a voter was about Bush, from 10% among those who were angry at Bush to 38% among those who were "enthusiastic".
Thompson was supposed to be running strongly in the state's Western area, also thanks to the endorsement of Congressman Steve King. But in effect his support was spread wholly evenly across the state.

0 Replies

Observations on what those Iowa entrance polls showed about the candidates - The Democrats

More observations about the details of those entrance polls in Iowa, now for the Democratic primary:

You all know about the age-based support of Obama and Hillary: Obama's support was lowest among the elderly (18% among the 65+) and rose inversely proportionally to age, up to an overwhelming 57% among the 17-29 year olds. For Hillary's support the opposite held - just 10% (!) among the 17-24 year olds, then incrementally up to 45% among the 65+ers. A stark contrast for sure.

Edwards' greatest strength was among the 45-64 year olds, the babyboomers. It was the only group in which he was roughly even with both Obama and Hillary. (Note that we're talking those whose first preference was Edwards, Hillary or Obama, hence how he trails both of them in total; he only overtook Hillary once most of the caucusers with a preference for a non-viable candidate regrouped behind him.)
Edwards easily beat both Obama and Hillary among those who thought that of a choice of four qualities, it was most important for a candidate to "care about people like me". Interestingly (and as I've argued here, fairly justifiably), he also scored best among voters who thought electability was the most important thing.

Unfortunately for him, those were the two smallest groups. Among the much larger group of voters who thought it was most important which candidate "can bring about the needed change", Obama won by a landslide, with over 50%.
Among those identifying themselves as Democrats, Obama and Hillary ran even in first preferences. As already mentioned often, Obama clearly won the smaller group of independents, and the sliver of self-identified Republicans.
This stands in noteworthy contrast with another finding: that Obama did best among the "very liberal", easily defeated his rivals among the "liberal", but ran neck-to-neck with Hillary among moderates and was defeated both by her and, easily, Edwards, among the sliver of self-identified conservatives.

A strange contradiction, there. Your explanations welcome!
John Edwards, the domestic policy candidate? Among voters who considered health care the most important issue he narowly trailed Obama and Hillary, and among those who were most concerned about the economy he trailed Obama by 10 points but was equal with Hillary. But among voters who though the war in Iraq is the most important issue, he was trounced, trailing Hillary by 9 points and Obama by 18.
As already often noted before, Obama supporters made up the largest group of first-time caucusers, something he can pride himself on; but they still only made up a plurality of 41%. More than half the first-time caucusers came to vote for, in ranking order, Hillary, Edwards, or Richardson.
Only half a gender gap: Hillary did considerably better among women (30%) than men (23%) - and women made up the majority of caucusers. But Obama's support was evenly divided, despite a string of earlier polls showing it to be concentrated among men. So he succesfully played catch-up there, and in fact ended up coming first in the women vote as well (with 35%).
Distribution by income did not actually show many stark contrasts. The exception is Hillary, who did clearly better among those earning up to $50,000 than among those who earned more than that.

Suprisingly, both Obama and Edwards did best among those earning the most, over $100,000, while Edwards contradictory enough got the lowest share among those earning less than $15,000. But in between those numbers, their support was evenly spread.
So, by the way, were the Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa themselves. The largest group of them earned between 50-75,000, but there was a significant share in each income group. In that sense the caucusgoers were different from among Democratic voters nationally.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

There are several post-Iowa polls in this graph he posted on the "does Iowa matter?" thread (from Pollster.com):

As in, sure seems like Iowa had an effect.

An update from Monday afternoon:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/01-07%20NH%20bump.jpg

The commentary that went with that:

Quote:

Across all of the polls that interviewed through Sunday night, Obama leads by an average of eight percentage points (37% to 29%), by slightly less (36% to 29%) if we also include the two polls that completed on Saturday. These averages are a near perfect match for our standard and sensitive estimates respectively. In terms of the Obama "bump," his support has gained an average of 8 percentage points; his net gain (Obama's gain minus Clinton's decline) averages 13 points.

Obviously, Obama's margin has expanded from what we reported yesterday. Add to that the obvious increase since last week and the large number of voters still uncertain about their choice (20% "still trying to make up their minds" on the CNN/WMUR/UNH survey), we should assume that Obama's advantages will likely continue to grow over the next 24 hours.

0 Replies

If Obama can bring snood and O'Bill together, there is hope for our country after all.

0 Replies

Amen!

0 Replies

Hat Tip Andrew Sullivan.

Who is the real Plutocrat in this race?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/08/candidates_net_wealth_small.jpg

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

If Obama can bring snood and O'Bill together, there is hope for our country after all.

0 Replies

This NH prof described, ahead of the results, what to watch out for in the results from town to town, city to city - in the Democratic race.

(He also has an overview for the Repubs, but thats irrelevant now already).

So how's it working out? Here's a page with some local results, so let's compare:

Quote:

Early on, watch the cities of Manchester and Keene.

Manchester still has significant pockets of working-class voters, and is a good bellwether for the Hillary Clinton blue-collar vote. If Clinton carries Manchester by a wide margin, expect the results to be closer than expected. If Obama keeps close in Manchester, expect him to win comfortably statewide.

And if Obama carries Manchester, well, whoa Nelly! The rout is on.

Results so far:

Clinton 6,095, Obama 4,168 in 8 of 12 Manchester wards

Quote:

Keene is located in the heart of Cheshire County, one of the most liberal counties in the state. If Clinton can carry Keene, she may pull a shocking upset. If Obama is winning statewide, he should carry this city comfortably.

Results so far:

Obama 2,048, Clinton 1,479 in 4 of 5 Keene wards

Quote:

Another good early bellwether is the town of Bow, just south of Concord. Lots of upscale, well-educated Democrats here. Again, if Clinton carries Bow, maybe it will be a longer night than expected. If Obama takes Bow comfortably, things are going as predicted for him.

Dont see results for Bow..

Quote:

Other key towns to watch: Rye and Exeter on the Seacoast; Bedford, Merrimack and Londonderry in the Interstate 93 corridor. All should be part of Obamaland if the polls are right.

Dont see any of those either..

0 Replies

OMG. Just hours ago; I could have bought Hillary-NH at 50 to 1 odds. Now she's a 73% favorite. What the hell happened?

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/6572/nobamabd1.jpg

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/6572/nobamabd1.cb0e6c9b8c.jpg

0 Replies

Probably a good time to buy Obama :wink:

Hillary's lead in the preliminary results has shrunk from 5 points to 2 now, with 42% of precincts reporting.

0 Replies

Quote:

Early on, watch the cities of Manchester and Keene.

Manchester still has significant pockets of working-class voters, and is a good bellwether for the Hillary Clinton blue-collar vote. If Clinton carries Manchester by a wide margin, expect the results to be closer than expected. If Obama keeps close in Manchester, expect him to win comfortably statewide.

And if Obama carries Manchester, well, whoa Nelly! The rout is on.

Update: Clinton 6,827, Obama 4,654 in 9 of 12 Manchester wards

Quote:

Another good early bellwether is the town of Bow, just south of Concord. Lots of upscale, well-educated Democrats here. Again, if Clinton carries Bow, maybe it will be a longer night than expected. If Obama takes Bow comfortably, things are going as predicted for him.

Obama 810, Clinton 701 in Bow

Quote:

Other key towns to watch: Rye and Exeter on the Seacoast; Bedford, Merrimack and Londonderry in the Interstate 93 corridor. All should be part of Obamaland if the polls are right.

Obama 713, Clinton 498 in Rye

Clinton: 40.72 %, Obama: 37.52 % in Londonderry (thanks OE)

0 Replies

I've traded stocks and forex... but I have never seen a chart that looks like this. Does seem to be leveling out, but the fluctuations are still insane.

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/2219/nobama2md1.jpg

0 Replies

John Judis at TNR just saved me a whole lot of typing.

Obama supporters take heed; the "wine track vs beer track" argument that placed Obama in the privileged and postmaterialist tradition of Bradley, Tsongas etc. might be heading for a come-back.

Quote:

What We Can Learn From The Democratic Exit Polls

I've looked at the current Democratic exit polls, which, incidentally, are adjusted later to fit the final results, so what I have to say here must taken as subject to revision. What they show is that the pattern that held up earlier in the year between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama - not in terms of the extent of their support, but in terms of who is supporting them - is holding up in New Hampshire. Clinton is still doing well among women (particularly older and married women), traditional Democrats, voters over 40, and among lower-middle income white voters without college degrees who are worried about the economy. Obama is doing fabulously among the young and very well among independents and upscale Independents. Both of these can also be important blocs for a Democrat to win in the fall.

Here are the groups in which Obama enjoyed a significant margin over Clinton: men, young voters (18-24), voters making more than $50,000, voters with post-graduate education (a good indication of professionals), independents, first time voters, voters without religious affiliation, men without children and single men, voters who said they were getting ahead financially, voters who thought the war in Iraq was the most important issue, who wanted change, and who wanted someone who could unite the country.

Here are Clinton's groups: women, particularly married women, voters over 40, voters making less than $50,000, voters without a college degree, union voters, Democrats, Catholics (an important constituency for the Democrats), people very worried about the economy, voters who thought the economy was most important, voters who valued experience, and voters who evaluated candidates on whether they "care about people like me."

[..] Clinton's support by 38 to 20 percent over Obama on the question of which "one of these candidates "cares about people like me" is [..] interesting, and suggests that Obama has a different kind of charisma than Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. This was, too, Edwards' strongest category - the only one where he won more support than his rivals.

What does this mean for the future? If one assumes that Obama is the more likely nominee, it means that he is going to find a way of reaching white working class voters. If he can't, he'll have trouble winning a lot of those Midwestern swing states. Clinton, meanwhile, has to suggest those independents and independently-minded Democrats who don't look back nostalgically on the '90s that she would make a better nominee and president.

--John B. Judis

0 Replies

As for Obama having trouble in "reaching white working class voters," two polls in South Carolina out this week provide some further evidence of that.

Obama, of course, has been surging in SC, largely thanks to the African-American population there, which should make up about half of the primary electorate, massively coming round to supporting him.

But among white voters, things look differently. A new Rasmussen poll has white voters "split fairly evenly between three candidates--it's Clinton 32%, Edwards 29%, and Obama 27%." That's up 13 points for Obama, but still a sharp contrast with the 42% he pulls overall.

A new Survey USA poll has Obama leading royally overall - 50% to 30%. But he's trailing among whites: 38% for Hillary, 29% for Obama and 28% for Edwards.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know