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

You miss the point, Nimh - Obama has the ability to widen his base of support over time, whereas Clinton doesn't have as much of that ability.

She draws a lot of support from people who feel that she 'understands' them, i.e., women. Obama draws support from people who he inspires - and, yes, from his traditional base, black voters. But there aren't exactly a ton of black voters in IA, NH, and NV; and he did quite well there. In SC, there are as many women as there are black voters, and Hillary is getting clobbered in the early voting.

I think it shows the limitations of Hillary's campaign; the amount of older women isn't going to rise significantly, so how is she going to appeal to newer and different groups, for whom her 'understanding' isn't really evident? In fact, 'understanding' is just a code word for 'I'm a woman and I'm going to vote in another woman, no matter what her platform is.'

I agree that they are in balance, but only b/c Hillary's group of voters who base their votes on Identity politics is far larger then Obama's. And what does it say, that the more educated one is, the more they support Obama? Isn't that a significant knock on Hillary, that she appeals the most to those who are arguably the least well informed?

Cycloptichorn

If anything should be overarchingly clear, when this whole campaign is viewed in full context from its inception days to now (we could even use this thread as a sort of representative timeline), it is that nothing is as "obvious" or foregone as any so-called expert or pundit has tried to make his opinion sound.

Obama's appearance in the collective consciousness of the voting public was greeted differently across the board from the way that people perceive him now. Including myself in that - I have gone from being impressed by him personally but skeptical about the country's readiness for him, to impressed by him and humbled and enlightened by the country's reception.

So I take all the sniping about "doubts" and "electability" regarding his bid for the whitehouse with quite a more potent dose of salt these days. Everyone gets one vote, one opinion, one assh*le as far as I'm concerned...
and nothing is more guaranteed than that at this point.

But I'm sure hoping he wins
SC and people vote like they poll.

Well, nothing will be obvious until more of the votes are actually cast... and it's interesting to know that Jesse Jackson did succeed in appealing to the Latinos.

But Obama, so far, has not. Going on the results in Nevada, going on all the national polling out there, going on state polls for states with high Latino populations like Florida - Latinos are indeed a "firewall" constituency for Hillary, logging some of the worst scores for Obama of all demographic groups. So I dont know how relevant the example from 1988 is, here.



OK, I believe you. But again, I dont think that was the point here - that Hillary succesfully does these townhall meetings and Obama doesnt. What I see as the beef is how Hillary has so far succesfully secured the votes of the older people, women, people with lower education, with lower income, rural voters (white rural voters at least), etc. And how she's done it - no grand inspirational appeals, just hammering through the nitty gritty of material stuff - period.

There are of course exceptions - Obama highlighted having done well in a village in Nevada during the last debate - but the overall numbers are overwhelmingly on the side of Hillary (and to a lesser extent Edwards) on these groups.



I'm sure he successfully woos those who come to his townhall meetings. But so far, he's failing to match up to Hillary in the actual vote among these constituencies.

Aside from questions of electability, this is a sore point for me because I have for a long time now argued that, to find its way back, the Democratic Party must rediscover the identity of the Progressives early last century, and solidly become the party of blue-collar / lower middle class mainstream America again. By focusing on bread and butter issues and leaving the postmaterialist concerns of the upwardly mobile liberals on the coasts on the sidelines.

I've long sketched two ways to expand the appeal of the Dems: either they can focus primarily on extending further into the socially liberal, but economically libertarian-leaning upper middle classes, which are fed up with Bible-thumping Bush people who dont care about climate change; or they can focus primarily on extending (or rather returning) to the socially conservative, but economically populist-minded middle class voters in the small towns and cities of states from West-Virginia through Missouri to Montana. It's hard to combine both appeals, so there is a real choice here. The choice, say, between a Dukakis/Kerry liberalism and an old school LaFollette/FDR progressivism.

Now Hillary is problematic enough as representative of the latter - as President, her husband squarely landed on the Dukakis/Kerry end of the scale, after all. And Obama's program, if you dig into it, is in fact very progressive, especially to the standards of the last 10-20 years. But the priorities he keeps setting, and the framing he chooses in his tone and talking points, are on the lofty/centrist/postmaterialist end. He'll mention poverty, of course, at length even - but he'll mention lobbyists and the integrity of government first.

And this shows most clearly of all in his demographic appeal. Look at the core constituencies of the Obama movement, and it's the same groups who fuelled Gary Hart against Mondale, Bradley against Gore; it is epitomised, at its apex [sp?], by the "young people and graduates [..], the affluent and of society's winners, [who] drink latte macchiatos and read the New York Times." With the exception that he's got the blacks as core constituency as well.

(Obama's core support also overlaps with Howard Dean's constituency - another candidate who embodied the paradox of rallying mostly coastal upper classes with a platform that substantively was populist/progressive).

OK, I see what you're saying.

For me that goes back to winning the primary vs. winning the general election, though. My position is that I'm actually more concerned about him winning the primaries -- I don't know if he can, though I'm sure hoping -- than winning the general election. I think that all of these demographics mentioned as strengths for Hillary are demographics that he can pick up pretty handily if he is the Democratic nominee. Because while Hillary is in large part being more successful with those groups -- so far, and with exceptions, like Iowa -- I think Obama has a whole lot of potential there. I hope that he has a chance to fulfill that potential in the primaries, get people to know him well enough. But if he's it, Democratically-speaking -- if it's him vs. a Republican -- I'm much more optimistic about him being able to get that base and then also reach out to Independents.

That's a thesis - but what's the evidence for it? Hillary's unfavourables, of course - that's the first thing I'd cite. But then Hillary supporters will say that, trust me, Obama's unfavourables will be just as high once he's been through the wringer. What else?




And how is one quality more capable of "widening" the candidate's appeal as time passes than the other? Yes, Hillary draws support from people who feel that she 'understands' them - and that includes women, who make up a little over half the electorate; that's quite a pool of voters. But it also includes blue-collar voters who do feel "understood" by Hillary and not by Obama. Contrast that with the constituencies who feel "inspired" by Obama and not by Hillary, and how does one thing intrinsically limit a candidate more than the other?




So did Hillary - and again, I dont consider "black voters" as the core constituency of Obama's appeal, I see it as an auxiliary one. His core support are highly educated young people, especially the male ones. That core support and downwardly rippling shares of votes outward to other demographics got him about one third of the vote in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. Hillary's core support is among less educated older people, especially the women - with Latinos as auxiliary constituency the same way Obama 'has' the blacks. And that core support, and downwardly rippling shares of votes outward to other demographics, got her... about one third of the vote in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. So how does that prove that one is better able to grow his/her constituency over time into the future than the other?

Sorry, but all I see projected in that assertion is where you fit in the demographic map yourself. How does the way an older woman feels understood by Hillary provide more evidence of identity-based (and -limited) voting than the way you feel inspired by Obama?




And Obama is polling one-fifth of the white vote. One-fifth. Apparently, race plays a different role, and carries more baggage, in a Southern state split between significant black and white communities than it does in a race-neutral state like Iowa. How does that figure in seeing him as better able to "widen" his appeal than her?




Sorry, but that's largely nonsense. Her demographic appeal has so far proven stronger than Obama's among women, but also among older people (the guys too), among lower educated people, among union households, among those who consider "someone who cares about people like you" the most important quality in a candidate, among those who feel fearful about their financial position and the country's economy, among those with lower education, among Latinos - you want me to go on? :wink:

Any Obama supporter who tells himself, like that young Obama guy in the article I cited on the Obama thread in response to you a day or two ago, "Oh, the women," strongly underestimates Hillary's sociological appeal and Obama's challenges in that regard. As well as sounding vaguely disdainful, to be honest... Hillary gets the vote of women who see her as someone like them, yes, but she also loses the vote of men who see her as not like them, and one group is not more prey to identity politics than the other in the process.



If you believe that, you must also believe that the Democratic candidate in the Presidential elections is systematically shown failing to "appeal the most to those who are arguably the least well informed". Because the Republicans usually do better among the higher educated half of the population, and the Democrats better among the lower educated half.

It's a crazy little thing called "class"...

Foul! (Blows whistle loudly). In the general; "class" probably does supersede any conclusion that can be made about education factoring in... but how does that apply in this specific Primary comparison? Are you suggesting there is a sufficiently significant percentage of those polled, who recognize a significant economic difference between Hillary and Obama's platforms to divide them in the same fashion as Republicans and Democrats?

No way Nimh. One could easily be believed without the other... and I for one don't find the point completely meritless.

How exactly his this relevant, what Hillary's supporters say? I posit that there is no evidence whatsoever that Obama's negatives will be 'just as high,' no matter what they do.

1st, Obama's campaign, those who support him, are not doing so because he 'understands' them but because he gives them hope for the future of our country. This is echoed constantly in both his rhetoric and the words of those who support him. It is a message that can spread as it reaches larger audiences, and also transcends traditional identity politics. I haven't seen any evidence that Hillary's message is anywhere near as universal as his; therefore, his message has much more potential to widen the base of support over time.

2nd, Bill Clinton is really becoming a significant negative for Hillary. It's always a bad idea to muddy up the leadership, and that's exactly what they are doing.

3rd, I posit that there is no logical reason why blue collar, or union workers, should feel that Clinton 'understands' them more then Obama; instead, name recognition is what they understand. They know who she is and they know what Bill has done for them in the past, whereas they don't know these things about Obama. He has the potential to widen his base of support as more and more people hear his message.

4th, Hillary has almost complete and total saturation. There's no way to compare knowledge of her, amongst voters, with Obama; she is a known quality whereas he is largely unknown, especially if you don't follow politics. She literally has no room to move up in terms of name and position Rec. Obama does.

If she really was as strong, or as inevitable a candidate as she purports herself to be, she should be much farther ahead of Obama. But she isn't that strong a candidate. I've said it before, and it's still true: if she wasn't Bill's wife, she wouldn't even be considered for the job.

I think that you tend to massively and drastically overestimate the knowledge of positions and platforms held by the average voter. Time and time again it has been demonstrated that most voters cannot accurately identify their preferred candidates' position on issues. So it's really difficult for me to think that all these women who are voting for Hillary, or all these blacks who are voting for Obama, aren't doing so by gender/race reflex. And Hillary's base, who will vote by reflex, is huge. If it wasn't for the fact she was a woman, she wouldn't have a shot in hell of winning.

Cycloptichorn

Kucinich bows out. Unofficially today, formally tomorrow.

Interesting discussion.

I agree with the German journalist when he writes: "Obama personifies hopes for a modern America... But this isn't what America looks like." I am in Snood's stage 1: "impressed by him personally but skeptical about the country's readiness for him": my skepticism is fed by the polls.

A few weeks ago I said to myself: "Hey, this guy may win!", when I noticed several A2K middle-of-the-roaders as enthusiastic about him as some hard-core Democrats. These members gave me the key to understanding Kerry's loss 4 years ago, but I wasn't ready to consider them a minisample of the key swing vote, for one reason: education and "globalization". Both characteristics tend, in this election, to favor Obama. He may be overrepresented here (or may not, but I can't consider an A2k minisample in this election).

I disagree with Nimh's (eurocentric) appeal to class politics. It doesn't work that way in the US, where all candidates are burgoise in Marxist terms (that's why I think Edwards is a phony, BTW). As Gramsci stated decades ago, churches -not parties- make the real pluralization of the American society... that is also why issues that seem almost irrelevant in Europe and most of Latin America (related to private life and personal beliefs) become so important in the US elections.
The world is moving to post-modern values, and European countries like the Netherlands are on top... but the motor has been American culture... the way of life of it's affluent & liberal part.

---

On Jesse Jackson and Latinos.
I remember 1984. We really liked Jesse, and talked to us cadres of the Unified Socialist Party. He came to Mexico during his campaign and held a mass meeting (with very few US registered voters, I presume), had massive following to his press conferences, etcetera.
But there are several important differences. Jesse did not stand a chance, and we knew. He was talking about a MOVEMENT, not a bid for the presidency, a burgoise power position. The idea of the Rainbow Coalition struck upon us not as uniting the whole population of the US, but rather as an inter-racial alliance of the progressives (with the whites NOT at the helm, may I add).
Finally, we perceived Jesse as black. Night black. Black knight.

So, what's different now?
Firstly, in the last 20 years there has been a noticeable deterioration of black-hispanic social relationship in the US.
From this side, it is seen as some working class African-americans buying the right wing propaganda about alien invasion and "English only", out of the fear of losing low paid jobs and being surpassed in school admitance and average wage by Hispanics.
Then there has been this utterly ridiculous drive by some leaders of the Afro-American community to court what they call "Afro-latins". A drive made on a racial basis (with American standard races) not on cultural and historical basis.
(Opposite to American standard races, Latin American racism works the other way around. In the US, with a little African blood, you're black; in Latin America, with a little European blood, you're not black anymore: the result is as hard to understand for the Cuban-Dominican-Colombian-etc as for his American counterpart).

Then, we are not talking with Obama about a progressive movement that has the so-called minorities as a motor -I quote a friend from California-: "not a true political movement, but a hippie movement without hippies". I suppose he exagerates, but it may help get the idea of some worker organizers' skepticism. In any case, if Obama's concept is to shift the big axis of power in the US, the idea hasn't penetrated enough yet, while the Democratic party bureaucracy -backing Hillary and her promises- has.

(Great to read your takes on this, fbaezer.)

Not entirely sure I understand you.. no, I'm not suggesting that the difference between Obama's and Hillary's actual platforms plays a deciding role - there isnt all that much. There is a difference in the way the two candidates phrase and frame their platform and their appeals, though, and in the priorities and emphases they place.

I think both the tone and the emphases that Obama makes in his run are more likely to appeal to the young, confident and well-educated than to the old, insecure and lower-educated - well, I mean, we know that much, the polls show it. And I think that the reasons why Obama's run appeals more to the former than the latter have a lot to do with class.

I dont remember by heart which exit poll I was peering over that showed that Obama did much better among those who were optimistic about their own economic future, and Hillary better among those who felt fearful and insecure. That's largely a class difference, and I for one am not surprised about it. That doesnt need to have anything to do with the groups leaning to Hillary allegedly being "the least informed". It's to do with these groups, roughly based on their experience in life and position in society, veering towards either:

- the candidate who emphasises, for example, the hope that politics as such can be changed, an optimism about individuals' ability to effect influence together, a priority on more postmaterialist and moral issues, a belief that bipartisan cooperation for the common good is feasible, and an emphasis on personal responsibility;

- or for the candidate who confirms the perception that there are simply two camps in politics (and life?), that an ordinary individual has limited power and thus needs a strong leader who is willing to fight and "go to the mat" for his interests, and who realises that the fight's going to be dirty, who consistently talks first about bread and better issues and only then, if ever, about more lofty ambitions like improving the integrity of politics.

Now those are very sketchy outlines and there's a lot of stuff you can argue about - and it's all the more sketchy because there are no hard, big differences in actual policy proposals lying underneath, really. The mandates question in the health insurance debate is a rare example of an actual substantive policy difference that neatly illustrates the sketch above, but there's not all that many like it. Instead, such a sketch as the above is all about where first or extra emphasis is placed and the like - hard to quantify stuff - but I feel there's a clear and tangible difference in their respective appeals, and that the class gap that shows up in their polling is primarily an expression of that, rather than of one group simply being more ignorant than the other.

Well, I dont see what you so clearly envision. That is to say, I dont see why "inspiring hope" is necessarily a more transcending kind of appeal than giving people the feeling that you understand them.

Bill Clinton gave people the feeling that he understood them. Hillary is no Bill, for sure. But judging on the polls at least, she seems better able to give bluecollar Americans (just to use that as shorthand for the groups I described in my previous response) the feeling that she understands them - 'understands their pain,' is how Bill would have said it - than Obama.

Can Obama overcome that? Vice versa, can Hillary overcome the lack of inspiration she evokes among Obama's young and confident? I dunno. But I dont see evidence for your argument that one is just kind of by nature more likely than the other.




What kind of evidence would you require to see that Hillary's message is "anywhere near as universal as his"? (And just how "universal" is Obama's appeal, considering his so far pretty consistent problems appealing to, lets go for the shorthand again, blue-collar America?)

In the primary race itself, neither one seems to have succeeded in creating a broader appeal than the other so far. In the national match-up polls - arguably a better indication of how the population at large sees the two candidates - Obama does better than Hillary, but the difference is altogether moderate: Obama's lead against Republicans tends on average to be a couple percentage points larger. State-by-state match-up polls on the other hand appear to give Hillary the advantage, particularly in the South and Midwest. And while Hillary's negatives have grown to serious proportions over the years in the favourability ratings, her positives arent much behind Obama's (Obama's are at 55-63%, Hillary's at 50-58%).

So if there is evidence that Obama's appeal is "universal" and Hillary's is anything but, it's not in the polls.




She also has little room to move down - nothing can be said about her that hasnt been said 100 times before. So the difference with Obama cuts both ways.




I have several issues with this. First, you argue that, if Obama is failing to appeal to those constituencies, it must just be because they dont know him yet. After all, if they knew him (like you do :wink: ), they would like him! This strikes me as something of a circular argument. What if they did hear his message, and didn't feel attracted to it, despite your judgement that there is really "no logical reason" for them not to be? I dare say plenty of people in these groups have heard about his message, and are just not feeling it like you. Like, here on A2K for example, Bi-Polar Bear, or Rabel, or Edgar even.

Your premise here is that there is no logical reason why they shouldnt like him. No, there might well not be - at least not if you go purely on a rundown of his positions on policy issues. Or there might well be, if sceptics are right to suspect that he wouldnt be an effective fighter for 'working class' causes as President because of an overly naive perception of what open, bipartisan dialogues can achieve. There is "no logical reason" why they should not like Obama if one agrees with your point of view about Obama's political strategies being feasible and effective. If you disagree or are merely sceptical, like I am, there are plenty of rational reasons to be hesitant about him.

And finally, even if one would agree that there are no rational reasons for, say, a middle-aged "blue-collar" woman to remain untouched by Obama's appeal, well - there still can be plenty of irrational ones beyond just lack of name recognition. I talked about tone and emphasis in my post to O'Bill just now - there's plenty of ways in which the manner in which a politician frames and communicates his message can appeal more, or less, to different constituencies. And what about people who just think he's "too young"? An irrational belief if you reason that, well, look at JFK. But perhaps a wholly rational belief if you're of age and look with some concern upon the inspirational dreams and experiments of younger folk. Or go to the far end of irrationality - even just Obama's skin colour can still work deeply against him, as the polls at least seem to suggest, in a lot of states.

In short, if Obama fails to appeal to blue-collar folk now it could be because, you know, they just havent heard him speak often enough - or it could be because of a whole number of issues to do with what they do hear from him. In this last page or two, I've suggested a bunch of things that I can think of that could play a role when it comes to who Obama is (age, race, gender, whatever), how he frames his message and where he puts the emphasis (in ads and speeches etc), how he seems to envision what being a Democratic President is like - and all thats just from the top of my head, and I'm just an amateur observer from abroad.

Evidence? The only evidence we have is the numbers so far, and though they don't (and can't, at this point in time) prove that Obama would be a less successful general elections candidate than Hillary, they also dont particularly bear out that his appeal is more transcendental or "universal" than hers.




I have never said that the mass of voters vote on issues (beyond a couple of litmus test ones). I think I've actually said a couple of times that there isnt all that much major light between them, issue-wise.

What I have said is that there are many ways in which a candidate's appeal can hit home, or fail to hit home, with different constituencies, by race and gender and age, yes, but also by class and a myriad of more or less related identities. Many factors can determine whether a candidate "plays" well or not in a specific constituency, can determine whether the way he frames his message and appeal plays well or not.

That does not equate with people voting like robots for people like them. Instead, it involves the way that someone like you, for example, of your age and gender and education and place in life and society bla bla bla is more likely to fall under Obama's spell than y'r typical mum with kids. It's far too simplistic to say that Hillary's appeal must just be due to those darned women who only vote for her because she's a woman.



Again, I find the suggestion that women massively vote for Hillary purely "by reflex" - rather than, say, because they have rational enough reasons to think that a woman with Hillary's life experiences will understand their problems and concerns better than a younger man does - a little crass.

I also disagree that if Hillary weren't a woman, she wouldnt have a shot in hell. If she were a man, she would lose some women's votes, yes, but she would also win some men's votes from guys who have a "reflex" as well - away from a woman President. Her apparent success in appealing to blue-collar America much better than Obama would still be in place, after all - and arguably even be strengthened by her, well, not being a woman.

JC, that was long.

Back to the polls. Of course, the moment I decide to post an updated table and graph here, FIVE more polls are released on the same day. Well, four, plus there was a Rasmussen poll released a day or two ago I hadnt seen yet.

Let's go through four of them and see what they show. Clear advantage: each pollster has polled the state before this month - and even at roughly the same time too. So we can compare today's numbers with the previous ones, and compare apples and apples.

Democrats - South-Carolina

OVERALL RESULTS

Survey USA
Survey done on 22-23 Jan. Previous survey: 16-17 Jan.

45% (-1) Obama
29% (-7) Clinton
22% (+7) Edwards

4% (+1) Undecided

MSNBC/McClatchy/Mason-Dixon
Survey done on 22-23 Jan. Previous survey: 14-16 Jan.

38% (-2) Obama
30% (-1) Clinton
19% (+6) Edwards

13% (-2) Undecided

Rasmussen
Survey done on 21 Jan. (before debate!). Previous survey: 16 Jan.

43% (-1) Obama
28% (-3) Clinton
17% (+2) Edwards

12% (+2) Undecided

ARG
Survey done on 22-23 Jan. Previous survey: 17-18 Jan.

I'll feel so free as to warn that I don hold much of this pollster - perhaps the least of all national pollsters out there. Specifically, it tends to have Hillary significantly higher than concurrent polls.

45% (n.c.) Obama
36% (-3) Clinton
12% (+2) Edwards

6% (+1) Undecided

BLACK VOTERS

Survey USA

73% (-1) Obama
18% (-2) Clinton
6% (+3) Edwards

3% (n.c.) Undecided

MSNBC/McClatchy/Mason-Dixon

59% (+3) Obama
25% (n.c.) Clinton
4% (+2) Edwards

12% (-5) Undecided

Rasmussen

68% (+4) Obama
16% (-4) Clinton
6% (?) Edwards

10% (?) Undecided

ARG
Current numbers compared with poll from 15-16 Jan. (I have no breakdown by race for the 17-18 Jan. one)

71% (+7) Obama
17% (-7) Clinton
5% (?) Edwards

7% (?) Undecided

WHITE VOTERS

Survey USA

37% (-13) Clinton
34% (+8) Edwards
24% (+2) Obama

5% (+3) Undecided

MSNBC/McClatchy/Mason-Dixon

36% (-3) Clinton
40% (+12) Edwards
10% (-10) Obama

14% (+1) Undecided

Rasmussen

40% (-4) Clinton
27% (+1) Edwards
21% (+1) Obama

12% (+2) Undecided

ARG
No comparative data on racial breakdown of previous polls.

I think my warning about this pollster should be repeated with these numbers. The overall ARG numbers have Hillary 6-12% higher than all concurrent polls, and the reason why turns out to be hidden in this subset. All the six concurrent polls have Hillary doing at least 9% worse, and up to 21% worse, among white voters than this ARG poll does; and Edwards in between 11% and 24% higher. There is often talk of ARG being fishy, and this kind of fluke result sure seems to confirm suspicions.

52% Clinton
16% Edwards
24% Obama

8% Undecided

Finally, there's an odd poll out, the Palmetta Poll of Clemson University.

Its methodology or questions must push the respondent less hard for an answer, because it has a huge number of undecideds. That makes it hard to compare its results with those of other polls.

Overall

27% Obama
20% Clinton
17% Edwards

36% Undecided

Black voters

43% Obama
11% Clinton
2% Edwards

45% Undecided

White voters

31% Clinton
35% Edwards
7% Obama

27% Undecided

This poll is nevertheless interesting because it shows just how open this race still is; just how many people still have not really made up their mind. Consider this result:

Q1. Thinking about the 2008 presidential election, which of the following best describes your thoughts on this contest?

51% - You have a good idea about who you will support
40% - You are following the news, but have not decided
5% - You are not paying much attention to the news about it
4% - Don't know, no answer

That was followed by the 'horserace' question that yielded 36% Undecideds, including 45% of the African-American respondents. But a third question established that even of those who did express a preference, 26% said that they might still change their mind.

Lots of room for surprises still.

Nimh,



Why should Hillary 'understand' women voters better - if not for the fact that she is a woman?

It's ridiculous to say that - given that we both agree that the platforms of the various candidates are essentially the same - they are not preferring another woman for the fact that she is a woman. What else are the reasons? Her record is not significantly different then Obama's. No - I think the truth is much closer to a comment I saw someone make the other day here on A2K: women are voting in their self-interest. Everyone does it. You just don't want to admit that this is a primary driver for the large female turnout for Hillary, and I can't figure out why, other then the fact that no poll asks women, straight-up, if they are voting for Hillary b/c she's a woman and so are they. So there's no hard data, and there's nothing to be judged or weighed or measured - so it doesn't exist, from a technical standpoint.

I am surrounded by women in my life who like Hillary b/c she is a fellow woman. Honestly. This is the aspect more then anything else, that cannot be judged from overseas.

I also think you drastically underestimate name recognition. There are still many people who don't know who Obama is or what he is about. Now, when they do hear, are they all going to swoon for him? Hell no! But some probably will, and how many is it going to take for him to beat Hillary?

I also, and you may think I'm an elitist for saying this, I prefer a candidate who is backed by the educated. I think that leading voters who have less education is no badge of honor at all, but honestly should be viewed as a problem. Saying otherwise smacks of Republican 'Ivory-tower' comments. I believe that the more educated are generally better at choosing candidates then the less educated. It's hard to imagine what the argument against this could be; have you read the policy positions that are put out? If you aren't educated, if you don't have some basis of higher math, economics, history, or world politics, then there's little chance that you could even understand them. At the same time, this is the group which is most likely to be susceptible to false attacks and smears upon their opponents, many of which are only accurate in the most technical of senses. Come to think of it, that's exactly the strategy that Hillary has chosen to employ, and it's not honorable, though it may work.

Hillary may win by appealing to the uneducated but it isn't a signal that she is a superior candidate for President of the US. Not that it would be the first time in recent history that inferior candidates win by appealing to the uneducated. But I won't be a part of it.

Cycloptichorn

I wouldn't write any particular preference off to ignorance either. What I said was I don't think the point is completely without merit. Because it isn't. Watch:

Between Ignorant people and educated people, who do you think is more likely to:

a) Buy repeated falsehoods without fact-checking? b) Prefer fighting to cooperation? c) Allow skin color to influence their decision? d) Believe the past sins of drug use are important? e) Allow a Muslim name to affect their decision (let alone believe all the idiotic broadcast emails about his attending a [i]secular madrassa[/i] :roll: )

Seems clear to me that ignorance is against him. It seems equally clear that the Clinton's are deliberately attracting ignorant people by turning the focus to race, and creating cause for petty argument by way of repeating lies. I think its abundantly clear that the more education one has, the more likely they are to recognize these tactics.

Damn right Bill!



I posit that blue-collar Americans are the least likely of any polled group to be able to cogently discus issues. And the most likely to vote on name Rec. I haven't seen much evidence that she 'appeals' to them, as much as they simply know her name when they see it on the ballot.

Cycloptichorn

Hi Fbaezer - agreed with Soz that it's always good to read your take.

On this, however, I disagree:


This sounds good conceptually, but as long as US elections look like this, class remains a defining element of their outcome.

(The difference in voting preferences in 2004 between the richest category and the poorest one was far larger than that between Protestants and Catholics, and just as large as that between Protestants and those with no religion at all. It was also just as large as the difference between those who go to church more than once a week and those who never go.)

A few people have made this point, fbaezer first I think, but I do think it's important -- that Hillary is a known quantity, familiar in name and deeds. That her appeal to certain demographics may be less about what she DOES as a candidate than who she IS as a public figure.

That's why I made such a big deal about how Obama does the small groups (and connects with them), too. I think the article is making assumptions about cause and effect that aren't necessarily warranted. (As in, is Hillary's appeal because she talks about the hard work ahead with small groups? Or did Hillary already appeal to those people simply because of who she is, and that pre-existing appeal is then demonstrated in the small group?)

That's also connected to whether Obama can build on his current appeal. If he can't do the small groups and the listening, like Hillary -- if he can only do the big fired-up rallies -- then that would be a concern. But no, he does both. He's shown an ability to take people out of their comfort zone, win them over even though he's not the easier, safer candidate.

And a last implication -- while Hillary is the "safer" candidate in the primaries with these groups, any Democratic nominee will be "safer" than the Republican nominee. So people who might prefer to vote for Hillary in the primaries could fairly easily switch to voting for Obama in the general elections.