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

Huckabee has enjoyed a flurry of popularity because of his sudden rise. Sort of an underdog popularity, but he is still very poorly known in terms of what his policies and beliefs are. You will continue to see big changes in his numbers, I think, as this process continues. True, Romney has always been around, campaigning, mainly in the beginning states with primaries, but he remains fairly unknown. Not alot of people are actually paying alot of attention to the primaries, until they reach their state, and then not much compared to the general election.

I commend you on your polls, but in reality you can't make them mean any more than they mean, which isn't alot yet. They are only applicable in the last race and the next one, sort of like the baseball player's last game and his next one.

Fair enough.

With 80% of the vote, Romney 39 to 30, pretty impressive victory considering the predicted tossup. I think Romney plans on concentrating on Florida next, rather than SC.

Michigan's Ominous Message for Hillary Clinton

John Nichols
Tue Jan 15, 10:59 PM ET



The Nation -- DETROIT -- The question in Tuesday's Michigan Democratic primary was not whether Hillary Clinton could beat anybody.

The question was whether Clinton could beat nobody.

As the only leading Democratic contender to keep her name on the ballot after Michigan officials moved their primary ahead of the opening date scheduled by the Democratic National Committee, Clinton was perfectly positioned. She had no serious opposition. She also had the strong support of top Michigan Democrats such as Governor Jennifer Granholm and U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow.

Usually, a prominent presidential contender running a primary campaign without serious opposition and with strong in-state support from party leaders can count on winning 90 percent or more of the vote. That's how it went for George Bush when he was running without serious opposition in Republican primaries in 2004, and for Bill Clinton when he was essentially unopposed in the Democratic primaries in 1996.

But Hillary Clinton got nowhere near 90 percent of the vote in Tuesday's Michigan primary.

With most of the ballots counted, the New York senator was winning uninspiring 55 percent of the Democratic primary vote.

A remarkable 40 percent of Michiganders who participated in the primary voted for nobody, marking the "Uncommitted" option on their ballots. Another 4 percent backed Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who brought his anti-war, anti-corporate campaign to Michigan and made some inroads among Muslim voters in the Detroit area and liberals in Washtenaw County -- where he was taking almost 10 percent.

But "Uncommitted" was Clinton's most serious challenger in Michigan.

"Uncommitted" was actually beating Clinton in some counties and holding her below 50 percent in others, including Detroit's Wayne County.

Ominously for the Clinton camp, the former First Lady was losing the African-American vote -- in Wayne County and statewide -- to "Uncommitted." African-American leaders such as Detroit Congressman John Conyers, who backs Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, had urged an "Uncommitted" vote. And the message seemed to connect. Exits polls showed "Uncommitted" winning by a 70-26 margin among African-Americans. (Had Michigan voters been allowed to choose between all the serious contenders for the Democratic nod, CNN's exit poll found, Obama would have won the African-American vote by a 73-22 margin over Clinton.)

"Uncommitted" also beat Clinton among independent voters who participated in the Democratic primary, and among young voters.

The message from Michigan, suggests veteran Detroit Free Press columnist Stephen Henderson, is that if Clinton is the Democratic nominee she'll "have a real challenge building an electoral coalition that can win in November."

"(A) Democrat won't win without carrying a significant slice of the African-American vote or reaching out to independents," explained Henderson.

It is hard to argue with that assessment.

It is harder still to believe that Clinton will get very far claiming Michigan handed her a meaningful victory Tuesday night. When two out of every five voters choose nobody rather than a prominent candidate who is running with little or no opposition, that candidate's got no reason to celebrate.

Interesting, thanks!

Yay I win!

There's a second poll out and it again has Edwards doing surprisingly strongly, but nevertheless still in third place:

Nevada
Democratic caucuses

American Research Group
conducted 1/9 through 1/14

35% Clinton
32% Obama
25% Edwards
0% Gravel
0% Kucinich
8% Undecided

As for the Republican race, this ARG poll has Romney in first place, McCain in second and Fred Thompson (he's aliiive!) in third; while the Research 2000 poll (that was actually conducted around the same time) had McCain in first, Giuliani in second and Huckabee in third. Confusion reigns!

What do I know? I'm just a dumb redneck from Virginia.

I was off on the result and way off on the margin between Romney and McCain. Not too far off on Huckabee.

I expected more Dems and Independents to cross over and play in the Repub game, creating a bit of a surge for McCain.

Instead, a lot of folks took the time to go to the polls and they voted "uncommited" vs Clinton's 55%.

That surprised me.

Hell, I get it wrong at least as often as I get it right... quite a bit more often, actually..

nimh, do you have an opinion on which polling company is doing the best so far?

Well done. I would ask that we have a deadline in the future, though, if bragging rights will be on the line. (The money line changed considerably between my pick and yours :wink:)

ob, has it occurred to you that you could be just as wrong on immigration as you were the election?

I hate the little smiley faces, but I use it here to show the spirit in which the comment is made.

Fair enough! But hey, to make up for waiting till the last minute I took a stab at the whole top 4, that should count for something no?

nimh

Smart young guy, Klein. One of the wonderful things I've noticed in this election cycle is the rise of a whole pack of bright, young political writers.

I saw Jeff Toobin a day or two ago discussing the comments by the black Hillary supporter who said the foolish and destructive "what obama was doing in the neighborhood" line. Toobin argued pretty forcefully that the comment would have arisen independent from any campaign strategy. As you know, that's my assumption as well at this point.

Both spheres, race and gender, are packed with landmines. As I said elsewhere, what the dems are attempting here with a black and a woman likely to be their candidate, is very brave. But that word only make sense within the context of those landmines and the unpredictability of consequences...the stuff that perhaps seethes below visibility in our individual psyches and in the group-mind (pardon that expression).

We see shifting strategies in the republican campaigns (they are all now candidates of 'change' for god's sakes!) in response to primaries and caucuses and all the polls. Likewise we see shifts in strategies from the dems. But I think for the dems, the race and gender factors make strategizing magnitudes more difficult because those elements tend to work at levels very difficult to measure accurately.

A fundamental reason I'd like to see an obama/clinton ticket (or converse) is to get both ceilings cracked in one go. Plus, I think together they could be a splendid and really ground-breaking team. I don't have a lot of company in this hope, but you can't win 'em all.

I heartily recommend this inteview with Shelby Steele and Bill Moyers (snood, if you are kicking about here, for you too)
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01112008/profile2.html

Hey. Snooty poll guy. Did you see this data?

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/polarizing.php

Link to pdf there.

At this point, I really don't think that saying that someone is more popular than Bush says much...!

Good news re: independents in that poll.

Obama, "somewhat favorable"(41) + "strongly favorable"(25) among independents= 66%
Clinton, "somewhat favorable"(36) + "strongly favorable"(16) among independents= 52%

Obama, "strongly unfavorable" (14) + "unfavorable"(12) among independents= 26%
Clinton, "strongly unfavorable" (31) + "unfavorable" (11) among independents= 42%

Besides, the "polarizing" point is not just what voters think about her -- obviously, if she gets elected, she will have gotten more votes than her opponent, whomever that may be (twice over, in the primaries and in the general election). The concerns about polarization are also about what kind of government she would lead, what it would and wouldn't be able to accomplish.

For those who didnt think Blatham was talking to them, the link says that the latest Diageo/Hotline poll has opinions of Hillary Clinton at 56% favourable, 41% unfavourable.

For comparison's sake, this is what other recent polls have found:

USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 10-13

50% Favourable
4% Unsure
46% Unfavourable

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Jan. 9-12

58% Favourable
2% Unsure
40% Unfavourable

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Jan. 9-10

53% Favourable
7% Unsure
39% Unfavourable

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Dec. 14-17

42% Favourable
13% Neutral
44% Unfavourable

(This NBC poll allowed for a "neutral" option, which the others didnt, which makes the numbers a little hard to compare.)

Rather diverging results here.

Hillary's favourables are at 50-58% in the first four polls and at 42% in the NBC poll. Her unfavourables are at 39-46%, including the NBC poll.

For comparison's sake, looking at the same polls:

Edwards' favourables are at 47-57% in the first four polls, and at 38% in the NBC one;
his unfavourables are at 33-37% in the four, 31% in NBC.

Obama's favourables are at 55-63% in the first four polls, and at 46% in the NBC one;
his unfavourables are at 28-32% in the four, 26% in NBC.

McCain's favourables are at 54-60% in the first four polls (no NBC number);
his unfavourables are at 24-30% in the four.

And it puts her numbers up against Bush's numbers. Apparently with a straight face.

Yeah...

I think the more relevant comparison is with the numbers of the other candidates, so I thought to dig those up as well. :wink:

And because a graph is always better than mere text, let's take the average favourability and unfavourability score from the five polls I listed above for each of these candidates and compare them in a graph...:

Graphs rock.