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

@blatham,

I guess that categorizes me fairly well also.

Oh-- but I was never a Hillary supporter. Far from it.

1 Reply

@JPB,

Oh yes. I had you spotted a long time ago. And I've been keeping track of everything you've said about nuns.

0 Replies

nimh
I expect you'll like this discussion. A stat that popped immediately for me...

Quote:

Gore carried young voters by two points. Kerry carried them by about nine points. Obama carried them by 34 points.

That's damned encouraging in that we tend to retain allegiance to the party we support when young.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/24200780/how_obama_won/print

0 Replies

Quote:

Predictive Theories: How Did They Grade Out?
Note: this item was originally published on November 10, 2008

As we all sort through various theories for what happened on November 4, and what it all means, Mark Schmitt of The American Prospect performs a public service by looking back at some of the predictive theories bruited about during the campaign season, and grading their eventual accuracy.

He gives his highest grade to the model advanced back in 2002 by TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira and The New Republic's John Judis in their book, The Emerging Democratic Majority, which, as Schmitt notes, made "predictions [that] were close to an exact map of the Obama demographic."

more here http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/

0 Replies

Thanks for the links, Blatham!

I've been putting together a new blog post of my own at Observationalism:

The red and blue states of white America in 2008: Southern whites constitute the real McCain Belt

Summary:

The NYT map of electoral shifts suggests that the Appalachians and the Highland South were at the centre of a phenomenon where white voters bucked the trend and moved toward McCain. Splicing the exit poll data by race, however, debunks this impression.

The maps in this post illustrate how whites in the Deep South were the most likely to further move to McCain, and Appalachian voters merely presented a fainter echo of the same trend. This suggests that some of the theories that had emerged about the phenomenon might need to be revisited.

The maps showing the white vote state by state, and its change from 2004 to now, also highlight that the focal point of Obama's persuasion power among white voters was rooted in so-called "Greater New England", a cultural region stretching out from New England proper to Michigan, Minnesota, Montana and the Pacific Northwest.

1 Reply

@nimh,

Here is how Obama got elected:

BY DUMB VOTERS OR ILL INFORMED VOTERS, pointing to another problem, MEDIA MALPRACTICE.
http://howobamagotelected.com/

Watch the videos.

The obvious conclusion is:
"On November 4th, 2008 millions of Americans were shocked that a man of Barack Obama's limited experience, extreme liberal positions and radical political alliances could be elected President of the United States. For many of these Americans, the explanation was rather simple... the news media, completely enamored with Obama, simply refused to do their job."

No wonder the Democrats would love to shut down freedom of the press, because they like uninformed voters that they can indoctrinate and control, by using only portions of the press that support them.

2 Replies

@okie,

And then read the article from fivethirtyeight.com's Nate Silver about the interesting conversation with the guy behind these interviews and survey. As requested by the guy, Nate posted a transcript of their conversation on the website.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/interview-with-john-ziegler-on-zogby.html

1 Reply

@Butrflynet,

Nate Silver, butrfly, you can't be serious?

I could have told you Obama voters were much more ignorant of facts, based just on the people I know. It isn't complicated. Anybody could tell you this if they were honest.

1 Reply

@okie,

Didn't read it, eh Okie?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Here is how Obama got elected:

BY DUMB VOTERS OR ILL INFORMED VOTERS, pointing to another problem, MEDIA MALPRACTICE.
http://howobamagotelected.com/

Watch the videos.

The obvious conclusion is:

God you're gullible. You'll buy any propaganda that reinforces your prejudices.

Do read that Nate Silver post after all.

2 Replies

@nimh,

Loved that phone interview transcript.

Nimh
Would you take a look at this Real Clear Politics piece and tell me what you think. I don't know how to evaluate their methodology but the results match my knowledge and intuitions.

I'm particularly interested in the two periods of strong increase in polarization. The first looks correlate with the civil rights movement and subsequent legal/legislative moves (Viet nam build up was later). The second is correlate with nothing I can think of other than the dismantling of the Fairness Doctrine in 86 and then the burgeoning of conservative talk radio that followed, slowly at first then kaboom. This thesis seems to me to fit the third geographic analysis too, the populist south, midwest.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/11/polarization_continues_under_o.html

0 Replies

@nimh,

Typical, Nate Silver is all of you koolaid drinkers cookie cutter answer. No thanks.

It is obvious you could have gone to any Obama change rally and you would have found mostly ignorant voters. Not all, but a very high percentage.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Typical, Nate Silver is all of you koolaid drinkers cookie cutter answer. No thanks.

That's because he's a super-intelligent guy who basically called the election accurately months early. Much more so than any Republican guesser or news source.

On the other hand, the idiot putting forth the 'obama voters r dumbz' line has displayed no real intelligence, predicted nothing, and is a pundit, not an analyst.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

If he is that intelligent, he wouldn't be drinking Obama koolaid.

0 Replies

@Butrflynet,

I looked at it butrfly, but concluded it wasn't worth reading the details. If the sun is shining outside, I am not going to waste my time reading somebody's analysis as to why it isn't shining.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

I looked at it butrfly, but concluded it wasn't worth reading the details. If the sun is shining outside, I am not going to waste my time reading somebody's analysis as to why it isn't shining.

You are displaying idiocy with this post, Okie. You've already decided Obama voters are dumb, even though you know that many of us here on this site are in fact the exact opposite; and you don't want to look at anything that challenges that, b/c your mind is already made up. Then, you chide others for daring to challenge your opinion.

Asinine. Are you really happy with the quality of your arguments these days?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

A small percentage of Obama people are very informed, as yourself, but you are a very small percentage. I consider you a good example of an idealogue pushing for socialism and whatever your agenda is, thus you see Obama your ticket to success, but the vast majority of Obama voters are very uninformed. I stick by that. In fact, the Democratic Party wants dumbed down voters. In fact, the vast majority of spoiled ballots, questionable ballots, were submitted by Demcratic voters, this is a known fact, because they are more likely to not even know how to mark the ballots, etc.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

A small percentage of Obama people are very informed, as yourself, but you are a very small percentage.

Assertion with no evidence to back it up. I challenge you to provide any sort of evidence that this is true - and naturally, the hack in question who won't release the info about his fake poll and stupid video doesn't count Laughing

Quote:

I consider you a good example of an idealogue pushing for socialism and whatever your agenda is, thus you see Obama your ticket to success, but the vast majority of Obama voters are very uninformed. I stick by that.

I stick by the fact that you are uninformed as to the intelligence level and information level of the vast majority of Obama supporters. You certainly have provided no evidence.

Quote:

In fact, the Democratic Party wants dumbed down voters.

Yeah, that's why we're always pushing for more money for education, b/c we want people dumber. Another bald assertion countered by the cold knife of Reality.

Quote:

In fact, the vast majority of spoiled ballots, questionable ballots, were submitted by Demcratic voters, this is a known fact, because they are more likely to not even know how to mark the ballots, etc.

Prove it. I challenge that this is a 'known fact.' Provide even a shred of evidence that this is true.

One assertion after another from you, Okie. It's proving something, but not what you are hoping to prove, I think.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I'm surprised you haven't read the news, I saw it, Democrats decidedly gain when disputed or questionable ballots are deciphered. I read that on a major site not long ago as a news story but I can't find it now, but they probably expunged it by now because it wasn't a good commentary on Democratic voters.

2 Replies

@okie,

To follow up on the Zogby poll, he refuses to run the same poll on Republicans.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15829.html

And for anyone questioning the poll:
"John Zogby said in a statement defending the poll: “We reject the notion that this was a push poll because it very simply wasn't. … In this case, the respondents were given a full range of responses and were not pressured or influenced to respond in one way or another. This poll was not designed to hurt anyone, which is obvious as it was conducted after the election.”"

Dems just don't like the results so they get their pundits to try to spin the results as if the results were not accurate. Can't do it, people.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know