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

I had a sort of moment of clarity while just watching the returns on the SC Primary.

It occured to me, sitting there watching all the pie charts broken into "black women", "white men", etc. - how obvious it would be to anyone who could somehow view this objectively how truly far we are from having a truly equal society. There would be no need for anything except winning and losing numbers.

I know its not a particularly profound thing to all of us who are so worldly and wise... it just struck me as damn sad for some reason.

Anyway - YIPPEEEEE!!!!

0 Replies

Exit poll data as they stand now

(From what I understand they are adjusted to reflect the actual results as those come in!)

Recalculating the results by gender, I come to the following overall result:

55% Barack Obama
27% Hillary Clinton
18% John Edwards

Thats a pretty stunning result Exclamation

Compare it with the average scores the three candidates had gotten in the 8 polls that were conducted wholly after the debate:

Code:

             CURRENT DATA      LAST 8 

              EXIT POLLS     POLLS OUT   DIFFERENCE

        

Obama             55            42          +13



Hillary           27            30          - 3



Edwards           18            20          - 2

This is beginning to be an awfully familiar pattern. The polls get the results for the numbers 2, 3 and down pretty well; but they fiercely underestimate the result for the winner, who gets much more than expected. Same as in Iowa, same as in New Hampshire.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

I had a sort of moment of clarity while just watching the returns on the SC Primary.

It occured to me, sitting there watching all the pie charts broken into "black women", "white men", etc. - how obvious it would be to anyone who could somehow view this objectively how truly far we are from having a truly equal society. There would be no need for anything except winning and losing numbers.

I know its not a particularly profound thing to all of us who are so worldly and wise... it just struck me as damn sad for some reason.

Very true....

Quote:

Anyway - YIPPEEEEE!!!!

Congratulations!! Very Happy

0 Replies

The breakdown, from the exit polls:

African-Americans

Obama 81%
Clinton 17%
Edwards 1%

African-American Women

Obama 82%
Clinton 17%
Edwards 0%

Whites

Edwards 39%
Clinton 36%
Obama 24%

At the end of the day, AA women went with Obama.

Good ol' identity politics Laughing

CNN sez second place is too close to call... but it'll end up being clinton.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

More interesting stuff from the exit polls data as they stand at this moment:

Women outnumbered men 3:2 among the voters
Blacks overwhelmingly voted for Obama -- far more overwhelmingly than any poll had suggested.

The post-debate polls had on average put the black vote at about 65% for Obama, 19% for Hillary, 6% for Edwards, and 10% undecided. The undecideds massively broke for Obama, and so did some of those who had (presumably out of disgust with the bickering) temporarily veered to Edwards after the debate. The exit poll says: Obama 80%, Hillary 18%, Edwards 2%.
Edwards and Clinton neck-and-neck among whites.

The post-debate polls on average had the white vote at Clinton 37%, Edwards 35%, Obama 18%, and 10% undecided. The exit poll says, at the moment: Clinton 38%, Edwards 38%, Obama 24%.

0 Replies

It is really too bad that Edwards isn't coming in second. That would be the most fitting reward for the Clintons' brand of campaigning.

0 Replies

And more interesting stuff still from the exit polls data as they stand now:

Huge differences between men and women - among whites - but not among blacks

Among white women, Hillary thumped her rivals, 44% against 34% for Edwards and 22% for Obama.

But among white men, Edwards thumped his rivals in the same way; he gets 43% versus 29% for Hillary and 27% for Obama.

Black men and women voted roughly similarly: 82% and 79% for Obama, respectively. Considering polls had Obama's score notably lower among black women than men, it's black women who must have broken towards him at the last moment especially.
Huge differences between young and old - among whites - but not among blacks

Same story! Hillary had been expected to do better among older African-Americans, as she was supported by most of the local community establishment in councils and churches. But in the end, the old and the young swung to Obama in similar fashion. He got about 80% in all age groups.

Should be interesting to see what the impact of this has on relations of authority and influence within the local black communities over time... sure would like to see some in-depth reporting about that in, say, half a year's or a year's time.

Young whites go for Obama

Among whites, the age difference is stark!

Among whites aged over 60, Clinton and Edwards each get some 40%; Obama gets just 15%. In the two age groups between 30-60, Clinton and Edwards both get 35-40%, while Obama gets 25% in each.

But among those aged 18-29, Obama wins half of the vote! Clinton is at 28%, Edwards at 20%.

In a state like South Carolina, Obama may not quite be the postracial candidate - getting just a quarter of the white vote even as he romps home overall. I know that some here dont agree, but this confirms my suspicions, based on other polls, that Obama faces a problem in the South. But this particular data point seems to suggest that what we are seeing is a postracial generation! In South Carolina too, young whites have no hesitations voting for Obama en masse - isnt that a hopeful sign!

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

It is really too bad that Edwards isn't coming in second. That would be the most fitting reward for the Clintons' brand of campaigning.

True, but at least the exit polls suggest that she has now failed to come first among either blacks or whites. So much for being the inevitable, electable candidate...

0 Replies

More interesting stuff still from the exit polls data as they stand now:

Hillary gets white Democrats, Edwards gets white Independents/Republicans

The exit poll says that 72% of voters were self-descibed Democrats; 28% were Independents or Republicans.

Among blacks, almost all voters were Democrats and anyway Obama had a landslide in either group.

But among non-blacks, Indies/Reps made up two/fifths of the electorate. And here there was a distinct difference.

Clinton got almost half of the white Dems, and less than a third of the Indies/Reps. Obama, who normally scores among the Independents, did roughly equally well in both groups, getting about a quarter of the vote among both. But Edwards did much better among Indies and cross-over voters, getting almost half of them and just a third of Dems.
The debate helped Edwards, but those who only decided to vote today swung to Obama

It's interesting to see that each phase of the campaign benefited a specific candidate.

Hillary benefited most from people who had their mind made up from the start. She did best among those who made up their mind last year already, getting 35% of them.

Obama benefited from winning the Iowa caucuses and therewith establishing himself as a can-win candidate. That must have helped persuade sympathisers who were afraid he couldnt win, because he did best among those who made up their mind in the last month, but before last week. He got 62% of those.

Edwards benefited from the contentious debate, where Hillary and Obama bickered so much that he came away looking like the wiser party. He did best among those who decided sometime last week (29%) or in the last three days (32%), in both cases far outpolling Hillary.

But even then there were still many undecideds. About one in ten voters said they only made up their mind today. And among those, Edwards did worse than Hillary again, as the two got 21% and 23% respectively. Obama's fate however took a new upturn. While his numbers drop from 62% of those who decided in the last month to 46% of those who decided in the last three days, it went up to 56% of those who only decided today again.

Of course with this particular question you're going on how people themselves define when they made up their mind -- and I'm guessing there's a bunch of people who made up their mind only today but would say that they did so, oh, well, a while ago... So I think this last-day upswing for Obama can explain quite a bit about the way he seems to have outdone the expectations, more so than just a calculation of the above numbers would indicate..
Obama "can bring about change", Edwards "cares about people like me" and Hillary "has the right experience". But far more people looked for change than for experience.

No surprises in the exit poll data about who does best on which score. Three-quarters of the people who most wanted a candidate who could "bring about change" went for Obama. Five in six voters who most wanted a candidate with "the right experience" went for Hillary.

Finally, third-ranking candidate Edwards was the top choice of those who most wanted a candidate who "cares about people like me": he got 42%, Obama 40%, and Hillary 17%. No data by race, but it suggests that black voters who had this at the forefront of their mind massively opted for Obama over Hillary, while white voters who wanted this kind of candidate massively opted for Edwards over Clinton.

So why did Obama apparently win so massively? Because the people who thought change was the most important thing far outnumbered those who cited experience, affinity or electability. Over half of the respondents said they most wanted a candidate who could bring about change, while a quarter was looking most for someone who cared about them, and just 15% cited experience as the most important thing.
A quarter of voters would feel "dissatisfied" if Hillary Clinton were to win the nomination: but more of Edwards' supporters would than of Obama's.

The question was: "No matter how you voted today, how would you feel if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination?" Despite the recent acerbity of the campaign, over three quarters of respondents said it would be satisfied or "somewhat satisfied". Almost one quarter, however, would not be.

It takes some recalculating of the numbers to find out, but the share of primary voters who would be at least somewhat dissatisfied rises to 29% of Obama voters - and 38% of Edwards supporters. So despite the immediate rancour of the campaign having focused on the rivalry between Barack and Hillary, it's the Edwards voters who would be unhappiest with a Hillary nomination. Explanation? Despite the recent infighting, Hillary is still very popular among blacks - and thus among most Obama voters in the state.
One in six voters would feel "dissatisfied" if Barack Obama were to win the nomination: resistance again centred among Edwards supporters (read: whites).

Overall, 9% of the interviewed primary voters here said they'd be somewhat dissatisfied if Obama were to be the Democratic nominee; another 7% said they'd be "very dissatisfied". Not much fewer than if Hillary won - I guess it's safe to say that Democratic primary voters in South Carolina have little in common with A2K posters.

Recalculation shows that 32% of Hillary voters and a disturbing 40% of Edwards supporters would be dissatisfied if Obama were to be the nominee. So although Edwards voters dont like Hillary, they like Obama even less.

Not to hammer home my theory about the problems Obama will face among white males in a state like this.. but it's those who made up Edwards' base constituency here.

Looks like a bunch of people whom Edwards could (have) reached as nominee, would switch to the Republican over Hillary or Obama. I doubt, on the other hand, that many Hillary supporters would cross over to, say, John McCain if Edwards were to be the nominee.. so there's still an argument to be made here about Edwards being the more electable candidate. But thats just whistling past the graveyard now I guess.

0 Replies

Quote:

Looks like a bunch of people whom Edwards could (have) reached as nominee, would switch to the Republican over Hillary or Obama. I doubt, on the other hand, that many Hillary supporters would cross over to, say, John McCain if Edwards were to be the nominee.. so there's still an argument to be made here about Edwards being the more electable candidate. But thats just whistling past the graveyard now I guess.

That doesn't surprise me at all. That could be characterized as the last gasp of the white male struggling to hold on to their power.

0 Replies

A final tidbit:

Quote:

Did either of these candidates for president attack the other unfairly?

19% Only Hillary Clinton did
6% Only Barack Obama did
51% Both did
21% Neither did

Did either of these candidates for president attack the other unfairly?

70% Hillary Clinton did
27% Hillary Clinton did not

Did either of these candidates for president attack the other unfairly?

57% Barack Obama did
40% Barack Obama did not

Better clean up their acts...

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

Quote:
Looks like a bunch of people whom Edwards could (have) reached as nominee, would switch to the Republican over Hillary or Obama. I doubt, on the other hand, that many Hillary supporters would cross over to, say, John McCain if Edwards were to be the nominee.. so there's still an argument to be made here about Edwards being the more electable candidate. But thats just whistling past the graveyard now I guess.

That doesn't surprise me at all. That could be characterized as the last gasp of the white male struggling to hold on to their power.

Or more accurately be described as the imminently predictable behavior of the sexist bigot. No surprise there and frankly it's an indecent justification for promoting Edwards' viability.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

No surprise there and frankly it's an indecent justification for promoting Edwards' viability.

Easy for you to say. You would be perfectly happy with a McCain presidency too.

For someone who votes on policy rather than personality, there is a huge chasm between all the Democratic candidates on the one hand, and all the Republicans on the other. A President McCain would keep US troops in Iraq for "a hundred years". He would not implement anything like universal health care, and leave the many millions of uninsured, uninsured. He would leave the tax cuts for the richest in tact, draining funds that could otherwise have been put into improving education or helping middle class people. A Republican McCain administration stimulus package would prioritize better off people who would save the extra money, rather than the hardest off who would spend it and thus actually stimulate the economy. John McCain has "converted" to the proven BS that cutting taxes in the US now would actually increase revenues. A President McCain would impose his newly converted views on clamping down on immigration rather than providing illegal immigrants with a feasible legal path to citizenship. How much do I need to go on?

For a liberal or even moderate who actually considers a President's politics (even) more important than his personality, a Democratic win in the Presidentials of 2008 is crucial. So yes, excuse me while I actually worry about any sign that one or the other Democratic candidates has electability problems. The luxury of saying, "I would not want to win the elections anyway, if it means getting the votes of older whites who wouldnt vote for a black man" is easy to afford for someone who is OK with either an Obama or a McCain presidency anyway, but it's not halfway as available for someone who is passionate about achieving a return to compassionate politics.

0 Replies

Clinton, Obama and Edwards think we'll be in Iraq for a very long time, as well.

As for McCain's 'conversion' on immigration - he's merely listening to what the majority of Americans want. I think his words were (paraphrasing), "I got the message".

0 Replies

McCain has gotten the message many times before, but once elected, I don't trust him to remember it, nor do most conservative voters. He has burned them too many times.

If anyone thinks Bush is stubborn, they better worry more about McCain.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
No surprise there and frankly it's an indecent justification for promoting Edwards' viability.

Easy for you to say. You would be perfectly happy with a McCain presidency too.

Fair enough.

0 Replies

Obama's support, at least among white South Carolinans, was once again concentrated among the young, higher-education, and higher-income groups, notes the Washington Post:

Quote:

Overwhelming support from African American voters fueled Sen. Barack Obama's big win in yesterday's South Carolina Democratic primary, but he also continued to demonstrate broad appeal across racial lines, particularly among younger, better-educated and wealthier voters. [..]

As he has elsewhere, Obama scored better among younger white voters, and among those with higher incomes and more education. Half of white voters younger than 30 voted for Obama, as did about one-third of those with at least a college degree and a similar percentage of those with family incomes of $100,000 or more.

0 Replies

Carpetbagger Report sketches the size of the "good ol' fashioned thumpin'" Obama won here, and the sheer numbers it brought to the polls: "More Dems voted for Obama yesterday than voted in the entire 2004 South Carolina Democratic Primary."

Quote:

I think most political observers expected an Obama victory, but I'm hard pressed to think of anyone who thought he'd win by 29 points. He beat Clinton and Edwards combined. His vote totals were also more than John McCain and Mike Huckabee combined. More Dems voted for Obama yesterday than voted in the entire 2004 South Carolina Democratic Primary. Obama even had more votes that George W. Bush had when he beat McCain in 2000.

0 Replies

An analysis of the SC results on Politico is relatively unimpressed by talk of a "biracial majority". Channeling Cycloptichorn ( :wink: ), it posits that it's all identity politics so far:

Quote:

It's the demographics, stupid: The black candidate won the black vote. The white woman won white women. The white man won white men.

Iowa, where Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois won women and whites, seems a world away.

The Democratic coalition now seems to be split by little more than the color and gender of its voters. It has been decades since the political left has faced such crass intraparty demographic divides.

On the bright side, it does admit that:

Quote:

TNR commenter dcshungu is even less impressed, and makes an uncomfortable, but valid point:

Quote:

[The] numbers from the exit polls in Nevada will show why no matter how your read SC, you'll conclude that the large proportion of blacks in the electorate made [the] difference. SC is NV redux, except for the large black vote. Nothing has really changed regarding the underlying dynamics other than the good press coverage that this [..] predictable win would generate [..].

[There are] virtually no differences in the make up of his winning coalition in SC and his losing coalition in NV. He had, in fact, won a larger share of the white vote in NV (34%) than he did in SC. But his support among blacks was about the same in both states (~80%). The difference was that NV had only 15% blacks, whereas in SC, black turnout was more than 50% of total.

0 Replies

Along the same lines, the demographic challenges for Obama that were neatly summarised by Larry Sabato on the eve of the SC primaries here remain in place still:

Quote:

For now, though, the yawning gender, racial, and generational divides that are appearing in the exit polls are helping Hillary Clinton. Post-Iowa, Democratic women have rallied to her by large margins, encouraged by the Clinton campaign's direct and indirect appeals about gender. Men are supporting Obama by substantial margins, but women dominate Democratic contests, often supplying up to 60 percent of the votes cast. The young (male and female) have enthusiastically rallied to Obama, who they view as "the future"--as opposed to Clinton as "part of the past". Yet older voters, especially those over 60, usually comprise a disproportionate share of the Democratic electorate--advantage, Hillary. Obama also does especially well among white high-income, high-education voters, but Clinton's downscale white voters out-vote Obama's categories. Obama has overcome the early African-American backing for Clinton, and is winning huge margins among blacks, but Clinton is winning whites and, by an impressive majority, Hispanics. If these patterns remain unaltered, Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. If Obama can scramble them on Super Tuesday, he can still win--but the primary burden is now on Obama.

That sounds about right. Sabato had an equally sobering message for those already celebrating John McCain as likely nominee - and for the Republican Party overall:

Quote:

On the Republican side, McCain's minimal victories in New Hampshire (37 percent) and South Carolina (33 percent) have combined to make him every inch the GOP's Comeback Kid. What irony--McCain received 42 percent in the Palmetto State in his 2000 contest with George W. Bush, and 93,000 more votes back then than he garnered last Saturday. But that showing killed his presidential candidacy, while a far inferior proportion of the vote in 2008 has McCain riding high now. His mere third of the voters in South Carolina last Saturday means that, once again, he failed to carry Republicans or conservatives. Mike Huckabee won those groups. Independents propelled him to victory, just as they did in New Hampshire. [..] It should also be a warning sign to Republicans that 130,000 fewer South Carolinians voted Saturday than in the 2000 contest between Bush and McCain.

Amazingly, even though McCain is loathed by much of the activist corps of the GOP, he could easily end up the party's nominee in a weak field, where every other candidate also has prominent drawbacks. Still, McCain has lost Michigan, Nevada, and Wyoming to Romney, and Iowa to Huckabee. This is not a party genuflecting to McCain, and he has a stiff battle ahead. Romney is a certain combatant since he has the money and conservative backing to fight on. [..] The McCain-Romney showdown will be fascinating. They dislike each other intensely, and they could not be more different as people and candidates.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know