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

Agreed - and thank you. I got some incoming for the line of data I laid out there (or at least I did in the previous iteration), but it's a pretty clear and continuing pattern, and it genuinely makes me feel uneasy.

For a whole lot of reasons - not just how he's currently polling in the South, a lot of other reasons, mostly nothing to do with polls - I just cant get over my doubts that Obama could win the generals. Counter to CW, I'm actually more comfortable about Hillary winning, at least against anyone but McCain. But there the problem has by now become that I dont feel she deserves to win. Now there's a dilemma.

Name your 2 or 3 most troublesome doubts about why Obama can't win the generals.

snood wrote:

Name your 2 or 3 most troublesome doubts about why Obama can't win the generals.

(I stated on the previous post that Obama is the candidate I'd like best to win the US Presidency).

1. Him not being able to carry key Southern states due to racism.
2. A mean religious-based campaign on his supposed "Muslim" background can cut in those and other states.

Obama dips, but still has South Carolina lead: poll

[..] Obama's lead dipped three points overnight to give him a 39 percent to 24 percent edge over Clinton in the rolling tracking poll. John Edwards climbed four points to reach 19 percent -- within striking distance of Clinton and second place. [..]

The shifts have occurred since Monday night's angry debate in Myrtle Beach, where Obama and Clinton traded harsh accusations about their records and Edwards chastised the pair for squabbling.

Since then, Obama and Clinton have cranked up their bitter fight for the Democratic nomination in November's election to succeed President George W. Bush. Both candidates prepared harsh radio ads in South Carolina on Wednesday attacking each other.

"Since the debate, Obama and Clinton have dropped and Edwards has been rising," said pollster John Zogby. "There is definitely some movement here."

Obama's dip came largely among black voters, who are expected to make up more than half of the Democratic primary electorate in South Carolina on Saturday.

Support for Obama, an Illinois senator who would be the first black U.S. president, fell from 65 percent to 56 percent among African-Americans, with Clinton climbing two points among blacks to 18 percent.

Edwards held a slight lead over Clinton among likely white voters at 35 percent to 32 percent. Obama had 19 percent.

EDWARDS CLIMBS

In the last of the three days of polling on Wednesday, Edwards led Clinton for second place and has been climbing steadily each day.

"If the trajectories continue, it's within the realm of possibility that Clinton could come in third," Zogby said.

About 13 percent of voters in Saturday's primary say they are still not sure who to support. "That's a lot for three candidates who are this well known," Zogby said.

"Edwards, meanwhile, has had his second good day since the Monday night CNN debate, in which he delivered a strong performance. He hit 19% support on Tuesday alone and then 27% support on Wednesday alone. And, on Wednesday alone, he pulled ahead of Clinton overall." [..]

[N]early one in five African Americans is now undecided with just three days to go until the election.

"Overall, Obama maintains the advantage, but change appears to be in the air here - there are a lot of undecideds for this late stage in the contest - and we are watching developments closely."

Democrat Barack Obama's big lead over rival Hillary Clinton slipped slightly but is still substantial two days before South Carolina's presidential primary, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Thursday.

The AP reports today that an analysis of the race for delegates in both contests shows that the "is so close in both parties that it is mathematically impossible for any candidate to lock up the nomination on Feb. 5," the new Super Tuesday. The AP adds, "There will be nearly 1,700 Democratic delegates at stake on Feb. 5, enough to put a candidate well on his or her way to the 2,025 needed to secure the nomination. But even if somehow either" Sen. Hillary Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama "won every single one of those delegates, it wouldn't be enough. And with two strong candidates, the delegates could be divided fairly evenly because the Democrats award their delegates proportionally -- not winner-take- all." Republican candidates "have a better chance to produce a clear front-runner because several states, including New York, New Jersey, Missouri and Arizona, award all their GOP delegates to the candidate who wins the popular statewide vote. But a Republican candidate would have to attract support across the country to build a formidable lead. ... There will be more than 1,000 Republican delegates at stake on Feb. 5, enough to give a candidate a substantial boost toward the 1,191 needed to win the nomination -- but only if one man emerges victorious in numerous states."

Super Tuesday Won't Decide Nominations
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER | Associated Press Writer
5:57 AM CST, January 24, 2008
WASHINGTON - Don't look to crown any presidential nominees on Super Tuesday. The race for delegates is so close in both parties that it is mathematically impossible for any candidate to lock up the nomination on Feb. 5, according to an Associated Press analysis of the states in play that day.

"A lot of people were predicting that this presidential election on both sides was going to be this massive sprint that ended on Feb. 5," said Jenny Backus, a Democratic consultant who is not affiliated with any candidate. Now it's looking as if the primaries after Super Tuesday -- including such big, delegate-rich states as Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- could grow in importance.

"Maybe some states were better off waiting," said Backus.

That doesn't mean Super Tuesday won't be super after all. Voters in more than 20 states will go to the polls on the biggest day of the primary campaign, and thousands of delegates will be at stake.

But it's possible Feb. 5 might not even produce clear front-runners.

Here's why:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton leads the race for delegates to the Democratic National Convention this summer. She has 236, including separately chosen party and elected officials known as superdelegates, giving her a 100-delegate lead over Sen. Barack Obama.

There will be nearly 1,700 Democratic delegates at stake on Feb. 5, enough to put a candidate well on his or her way to the 2,025 needed to secure the nomination. But even if somehow either Clinton or Obama won every single one of those delegates, it wouldn't be enough. And with two strong candidates, the delegates could be divided fairly evenly because the Democrats award their delegates proportional ly -- not winner-take- all.

The biggest prizes among the Democratic states are California (370 delegates), New York (232) and Illinois (153). All three states award Democratic delegates proportionally, with most delegates awarded according to the popular vote in individual congressional districts, and the rest based on the statewide vote.

The wild card for the Democrats involves the superdelegates, nearly 800 elected officials and members of the Democratic National Committee. They are free to support any candidate they choose at the national convention, regardless of the outcome of the primaries.

The AP has interviewed more than 90 percent of the superdelegates who have been identified by the party, and most have yet to endorse a candidate. Many say they will not make endorsements until after their states vote.

The Republicans have a better chance to produce a clear front-runner because several states, including New York, New Jersey, Missouri and Ari zona, award all their GOP delegates to the candidate who wins the popular statewide vote. But a Republican candidate would have to attract support across the country to build a formidable lead.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney leads the race for delegates to the Republican National Convention with 59. He is followed by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee with 40 and Arizona Sen. John McCain with 36.

There will be more than 1,000 Republican delegates at stake on Feb. 5, enough to give a candidate a substantial boost toward the 1,191 needed to win the nomination -- but only if one man emerges victorious in numerous states.

"I think you could have two or three viable (GOP) candidates" following Super Tuesday, said Ohio Republican Chairman Robert Bennett.

Ohio is waiting in the wings with its 85 Republican delegates a month later, on March 4, a date it shares with Texas, which will award 137 GOP delegates.

Other big states with later contests inclu de Maryland and Virginia on Feb. 12, Wisconsin on Feb. 19 and Pennsylvania on April 22.

Four years ago, Sen. John Kerry clinched the Democratic nomination on March 2 -- the earliest date in modern times -- with a string of Super Tuesday primary victories. In 2000, George W. Bush and Al Gore both clinched their parties' nominations on March 14, each sweeping a string of Southern primaries that day.

This year, Super Tuesday has grown to include more than 20 states, and it was moved up to Feb. 5 as states leapfrogged each other in an attempt to increase their influence in picking the nominees.

With so many states voting so early, the stage was set for a lengthy general election campaign after nominees were settled early in the year.

Some think that is still a good bet, especially if candidates who don't fare well on Feb. 5 decide to drop out.

"It may take a while for Obama or Clinton to get 50 percent plus one of the delegates. But if it d oes na rrow to a two-person race, then the Democratic nomination will be determined relatively soon," said David Rohde, a political science professor at Duke University.

Rohde said the nomination contests may drag all the way to the conventions this summer. But he added, "It is also possible for aliens from Mars to land tomorrow and interfere with the election."

The End of the Obama Revolution

[..] Barack Obama is suddenly looking [..] more like just another candidate. His message isn't hitting home with the three most important groups of voters: women, older Americans and blue-collar workers. [..]

<snipping the tendentious bits>

Obama's campaign appearances are still energy-packed events, and he still manages to draw large crowds of supporters who routinely greet his words with applause, cheers and even tears. But it's even more interesting to note the kinds of people who are absent from the Obama crowds.

He hasn't managed to attract a strong following among older people and blue-collar workers. The majority of women find him interesting, but they support Hillary Clinton. The overwhelming majority of Hispanics are opposed to Obama, partly because he is black. Even African-Americans are not united in their support for Obama.

The Illinois senator's strongest advocates are young people and graduates, both groups where enthusiasm for Obama runs high. He is the candidate of the affluent and of society's winners. His message of hope and change seems to thrive in environments where people drink latte macchiatos and read the New York Times.

His idealism is contagious among those who expect more from politics than yet another tax cut and the next half-hearted Middle East peace initiative. His supporters love what they call "the vision thing," and they dream of a presidential election that will truly lead to groundbreaking change, of a revolution at the ballot box -- or at least something like it.

Obama is the candidate of the idealists. Only once in every couple of decades does someone come along who has the ability to deeply inspire this group, who are perhaps the most discerning voters of all. That fact alone makes him remarkable.

Obama also happens to be the candidate of choice for the foreign press, which explains why European correspondents tend to greatly amplify American voters' enthusiasm for him in their dispatches. Many in Europe would like nothing more than a "European" America. A former community organizer from Chicago seems to be the ideal candidate for all countries, especially Germany, in which public servants shape politics. Obama personifies Europe's hopes for a modern America: black, socially minded and gentle.

But this isn't what America looks like. And the evidence from the primaries so far suggests that it won't be what it looks like after the elections in November. At the center of society, the place where elections are won or lost in every democracy, Obama the candidate has not triggered the kinds of earthquakes that would be necessary to topple the status quo. [..]

The deeper one penetrates into that all-important center [..], the cooler are people's reactions to Obama. In places where work is hard and pay keeps shrinking, where the costs of education are rising and the fear of job losses has taken hold, Americans pay attention to him but don't support him. He may be touching the souls of blue-collar workers, but he hasn't been able to inspire them.

Low-income Americans have been especially reluctant to warm up to Obama. Hillaryland starts at annual household incomes of $50,000 or less. Even the endorsement of the biggest union in Las Vegas wasn't enough to convince the majority of union members to support Obama. America's lower-income citizens apparently prefer cash to change. They find his attacks on "Washington lobbyists" appealing, but not sufficiently concrete. Hillary Clinton's promise of universal health insurance for everybody strikes a different note among the country's lower-income working classes.

Obama also has trouble appealing to older Americans. In Iowa, 45 percent of voters over 65 voted for Clinton, while less than half as many preferred Obama. He was even less successful among older voters in Nevada, where close to two-thirds of Democrats over 60 voted for Clinton. Pollsters have noted the same pattern of aloofness to Obama throughout the country. Clinton's support within America's older population is twice as strong as Obama's. In a country where the old clearly outnumber the young, this doesn't bode well for Obama.

Among Hispanics, who in some states make up a larger contingent of voters than African-Americans, Obama has encountered strident resistance. Sergio Bendixen, a pollster working with the Clinton campaign, recently told the New Yorker: "The Hispanic voter -- and I want to say this very carefully -- has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates." Based on this logic, an Obama victory in South Carolina, where every second Democratic voter is black, would be more than offset by an Obama defeat in California, a much larger state that is dominated by whites and Hispanics. Staffers within the Clinton campaign are referring to the Hispanics as their firewall.

Obama has come too early for America -- or perhaps too late. In the 1990s, when the economy was doing well and Islamist terrorists had not yet appeared on the world stage, a man like Obama probably would have had stronger prospects. But tough times are bad times for visionaries.

All it takes to understand Clinton's appeal is to observe the way people react when she speaks with voters in small groups, as she recently did in a lecture hall on the campus of the University of Nevada. Hardly any college students were in the audience, but about 100 middle-aged women, some of whom had even dragged along their husbands, sat around the candidate on folding chairs.

Clinton told her audience about the hard work waiting for her in the White House, about responsibility and about her view of herself as a problem-solver. No one cheered, no one jumped up from her seat and there were no choruses of approval. But the women nodded quietly in response to Clinton's words. They didn't seem fired up, but they did feel understood. [..]

The electoral college matters. We need to find out who does better in swing states. It is unlikely to be Hillary, but it wouuld be good to know some facts.

"Once the nomination contest is over, I will get the people who voted for her. Now, the question is, can she get the people who voted for me?"

Oof, going back and forth (between two threads). I thought the article was bad and sensationalistic enough that I didn't even want to respond. If you take it seriously, though...

Among Hispanics, who in some states make up a larger contingent of voters than African-Americans, Obama has encountered strident resistance. Sergio Bendixen, a pollster working with the Clinton campaign, recently told the New Yorker: "The Hispanic voter -- and I want to say this very carefully -- has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.

Never mind about the political amnesia about how the country's last black candidate of national stature - Jesse Jackson- defied the prevailing racial logic during the Presidential primaries of 1988, when his Rainbow Coalition secured almost 50 percent of the Latino vote in Latino-heavy New Mexico counties like Santa Fe and San Miguel and 36 percent of the Latino vote in the largest Latino state in the country: California.

Soz, I was very careful about pointing out that I disliked a chunk of the article, mostly at the beginning - and about leaving out the parts I didnt like in the copy/paste above.

All it takes to understand Clinton's appeal is to observe the way people react when she speaks with voters in small groups, as she recently did in a lecture hall on the campus of the University of Nevada. Hardly any college students were in the audience, but about 100 middle-aged women, some of whom had even dragged along their husbands, sat around the candidate on folding chairs.

Clinton told her audience about the hard work waiting for her in the White House, about responsibility and about her view of herself as a problem-solver. No one cheered, no one jumped up from her seat and there were no choruses of approval. But the women nodded quietly in response to Clinton's words. They didn't seem fired up, but they did feel understood. [..]

The argument about Hillary standing for trust, for example, which you address here, I did not include above - because it doesnt speak for me. (I mean, trust - and Hillary? After this week?)

If there was any direct comparison saying that Obama did not do Town hall meetings, I've missed it - it's not in my paste above, in any case. My impression was that the author merely used the example of Hillary's town hall meeting to illustrate her appeal to the demographic groups he defined at length before, and that's how i see it too.

Because that's the beef of the story: where he digs into the contrasting demographic appeals of both candidates.

The difference between Hillary and Obama, is that Obama transcends his traditional base of support. It isn't just Black men who are going for him, but white men, white women.

Hillary is getting the lion's share of her support from older women. There are a lot of them, so she is doing well. But it's limited in approach. It's limited in scope. It has nowhere to grow, b/c as the article posted above says, she can't fire people up. She can't spread hope and enthusiasm. Just appeal to the Clinton loyalists, and older women.