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

realjohnboy wrote:

Good evening to yall. Nimh, you may have commented on this, but why is ARG so far off target so often? Are they biased (in which case they aren't pollsters but hucksters) or is there something in there polling methodology that is flawed? RJB

I dont know. It has apparently been the subject of some pointed debate.

One of those links points to an analysis of how back in last summer, ARG was polling Hillary a lot higher relative to Edwards in Iowa (at the time those were the two frontrunners there). It concluded that a methodological reason could have been that ARG included a much larger share of first-time (prospective) caucusers. Since Hillary at the time did better among those and Edwards relied more on voters who had caucused before, including more first-timers in your sample would tilt the balance towards Hillary.

That sounded good at the time, but come the caucuses five months later, the dynamic had changed of course. By then it turned out to be Obama who ran especially strongly among first-time caucusers. So if the same methodological features held, you would have expected that ARG polls would have favoured his numbers by then. But instead, the ARG poll right before the caucuses had Obama 10% lower than he performed, and Hillary 7% higher. It was the single worst off.

So yeah.

If you really want to dig into conspiracy theory grounds on the dark identity behind ARG and its director Dick Bennett, this is an entertaining read :wink:

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

I am looking pretty smart right now. Notice the turnout amongst male Repubs vs female Repubs. I wonder if that means something.

Since I'm again linking to Pollster.com anyway, they published an interesting (and potentially encouraging) item on this question today:

Quote:

Missing: Republican Women Primary Voters

Although it hasn't stopped folks from trying, it's a little too early to tell how people will vote in the November general election. But primary turnout so far suggests that the gender gap is poised to increase.

The gender gap, which is the difference across gender in the vote for the winner, has existed in every presidential race since 1980. It was a high of 11 points in 1996, and a low of 4 points in 1992 (when Ross Perot was a viable 3rd party candidate). A good one-pager on the gender gap is here.

So far, in every single primary, women made up a much higher percentage of Democratic primary voters than Republican primary voters. As the table below shows, in South Carolina, 61% of Democratic primary voters were women. In the early Democratic contests, women were 57%.

By comparison, only in South Carolina (where apparently women love to vote!) did women make up about half of the Republican primary electorate. In most contests, women were clearly a smaller part of their process.

Further, I don't think this simply reflects Clinton encouraging new women voters (although that may be happening). For example, Florida, which is a closed primary state, showed one of the biggest dropoffs on the Republican side. Also, South Carolina, a state that Obama won decisively, had the highest female turnout of all the Democratic contests.

What should really concern Republicans is that in nearly every contest, the percentage of women participating in the primary dropped from 2000, the last time no incumbent was running. We don't have as many 2000 figures for the Democratic contests, but a trend seems to be emerging on the Republican side. Women are becoming even less likely to vote in Republican primary contests.

Does this mean that women will be even more likely to vote Democratic this November? Perhaps too early to say, but certainly turning out in a Democratic primary, or sitting out the Republican contest, are good first steps. We'll keep track of this metric, and report back if things change.

-- Margie Omero

0 Replies

Here's a hopeful polling result for Obama from the lion's den:

New York

PPP
1/29/2008

45% Clinton
33% Obama
10% Edwards

The pollster, PPP, has not done any poll in NY before, so there's no direct comparison. But it's worth noting that the 45% for Clinton is the lowest she's polled at in almost two months, with nine preceding polls putting her anywhere between 47% (Zogby last week) and 56% (Gallup a couple of days ago).

Likewise, Obama's 33% in this poll is higher than anything he's polled in two months. Two polls last week (pre-SC) had him at 23% and 28%.

EDIT: the crosstabs show

Hillary beating Obama among women by 21 points and just 2 points among men;
beating Obama among Hispanics by 33 points and among whites by 15, but losing among African-Americans by 12;
being tied with Obama among the youngest voters and beating him by 19 points among the oldest;
beating Obama by 21 points among those who think "the economy and jobs" are the most pressing issue and by a whopping 34 points among those who choose health care;
but being beaten by Obama by 6 points among those who think education is the most important issue, by 1 point among those who say the war in Iraq is, and by 16 points among those who cite "moral and family values" (no indication of how large a group that was).

0 Replies

Added crosstabs info to the post above.

In other interesting news - especially for those arguing that Obama is more electable than Hillary - a new Rasmussen poll shows:

Hillary losing to McCain in a general election match-up by 8 points;
but Obama hardly doing any better, trailing McCain by 6 points

Last week, two other polls agreed that neither candidate had an edge when matched up against McCain:

An NBC/WSJ poll had Hillary losing against McCain by 2, and Obama tied;
An LA Times poll had Hillary beating McCain by 4, and Obama losing by 1.

0 Replies

Obama will beat McCain, easily. For a few reasons:

First, Obama is youthful and energetic and inspiring. McCain is going to look ancient up on stage next to him.

Second, and this one to me is far more important, Obama's based is just about as fired up as you can possibly get. Can't say the same with the Republican base, no way.

Third, and most importantly, is that McCain is not going to be able to effectively counter Obama's attacks against him during the campaign and the debates. The reason why? He's not going to be able to satisfy his own base and the independents at the same time. Obama can constantly attack McCain from both the left AND the middle.

McCain's 'straight-talk express' campaign opens him up to a lot of criticism every time he changes his position. For a guy who supposedly tells the truth, he's been pretty duplicitous on some issues, for example immigration, where he has basically changed his stance completely. How is he going to satisfy the conservative base - EITHER side of the conservative base, actually - while attempting to look sensible at the same time?

Hard to see it happening...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I may have to rethink this after some mulling, but the big sucking sound you hear this evening after Edward's "suspended" his campaign comes from southern Dems switching to McCain in November.
The stars seem to me to be not aligning well.

0 Replies

Um, yeah. I don't really see much actual evidence that this is going to happen.

When push comes to shove most dems are going to vote dem and most Reps are going to vote Rep.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Good evening, Cyclo. I actually tried to delete that last post for further mulling. Too late. It probably was a stupid comment. But I will put it in my file folder labeled "(October)."

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

Good evening, Cyclo. I actually tried to delete that last post for further mulling. Too late. It probably was a stupid comment. But I will put it in my file folder labeled (October)."

Haha, sorry.

Well, McCain might be okay on some issues to Edwards supporters but he's nowhere on universal health care, on tax policy, and on international trade that even resembles where Edwards is. If people were following him for the populist reasons which were outlined in his campaign, it's difficult to see why they would flip right over to a guy who is explicitly against many of the key concepts.

Not to mention that Edwards was anti-war in Iraq; couldn't get more opposite.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

But he is a white male, a veteran, a patriot, who is perceived as not being too extreme right. A lot of southern Dems could be comfortable with him.
Feel free to add a comment, but then we should get back on topic. -rjb

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

But he is a white male, a veteran, a patriot, who is perceived as not being too extreme right. A lot of southern Dems could be comfortable with him.
Feel free to add a comment, but then we should get back on topic. -rjb

Agreed; I'll finish by saying that once again, it's a question of whether or not people are going to vote on identity politics or issues. But if men are going to identify with other men, yay for Obama.

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Realjohnboy wrote:

Good evening, Cyclo. I actually tried to delete that last post for further mulling. Too late. It probably was a stupid comment. But I will put it in my file folder labeled "(October)."

No, rjb, it wasnt a stupid comment at all. You're definitely on to something - see my next post.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, McCain might be okay on some issues to Edwards supporters but he's nowhere on universal health care, on tax policy, and on international trade that even resembles where Edwards is. [..] Not to mention that Edwards was anti-war in Iraq; couldn't get more opposite.

I think you greatly overestimate the degree to which people (and perhaps Edwards voters in particular) vote on the basis of policies and issues. Again, see below.

Oh, and this is totally on topic! By all means, discuss.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Um, yeah. I don't really see much actual evidence that this is going to happen.

What about those South Carolina exit polls that found that 40% of Edwards voters there would be dissatisfied if Obama were to be the nominee - 16% even "very dissatisfied"? And that 38% of Edwards supporters would be dissatisfied if Hillary were to be the nominee - 18% even "very dissatisfied"?

Thats one piece of evidence, anyway.

Moreover, the same question was asked in the Florida exit polls, I just saw. There, Edwards got 14% of the vote (he got 18% In South Carolina) - and the sentiments of his voters about the rival candidates were even more negative (which surprised me a bit, to be honest). And again, they were practically as negative about Obama as about Hillary.

No less than half of Edwards supporters in Florida said they would be dissatisfied if Obama were to be the nominee - and a quarter said they would be "very dissatisfied". 54% of them would be dissatisfied about Hillary - 29% "very dissatisfied".

Lets put it in a table (or two)..

No matter how you voted today, how would you feel if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination?

Code:



                     ALL DEM PRIMARY   EDWARDS

                         VOTERS         VOTERS    





SOUTH CAROLINA



Very satisfied             40             20

Somewhat satisfied         37             41



Somewhat dissatisfied      13             20

Very dissatisfied          10             18





FLORIDA



Very satisfied             54             12

Somewhat satisfied         26             35



Somewhat dissatisfied       9             25

Very dissatisfied          11             29

No matter how you voted today, how would you feel if Barack Obama wins the nomination:

Code:



                     ALL DEM PRIMARY   EDWARDS

                         VOTERS         VOTERS    





SOUTH CAROLINA



Very satisfied             61             22

Somewhat satisfied         22             37



Somewhat dissatisfied      10             24

Very dissatisfied           7             16





FLORIDA



Very satisfied             41             20

Somewhat satisfied         29             28



Somewhat dissatisfied      14             26

Very dissatisfied          15             26

Sounds to me like Realjohnboy has a point. Those who would be "somewhat dissatisfied" would probably fall in (party) line come the general elections. But those who would be "very dissatisfied"?

Consider that in both states, two thirds of Edwards voters described themselves as "moderate" or "conservative", rather than "liberal", according to the same exit polls. In South Carolina, 51% of Edwards voters described themselves as moderate, and another 16% as conservative. In Florida, they leaned more conservative still: 40% of them described themselves as moderate, and another 25% as conservative.

In that light, a cross-over vote for McCain seems probable enough for "very dissatisfied" Edwards primary voters, especially since those are probably found exactly among those conservative-leaning Democrats supporting him.

0 Replies

Oy - somehing else caught my eye. Disturbing because it is so counter to the media narrative, which always makes for a warning flag.

In South Carolina, 23% of all Dem primary voters said they would be at least somewhat dissatisfied with Hillary as nominee, while 17% would be at least somewhat dissatisfied with Barack.

Considering that Hill was supposed to have angered lots and lots of Democrats and especially African-Americans in the state, that is a surprisingly even balance.

Now look at Florida. 20% of all Dem primary voters would be at least somewhat dissatisfied with Hillary, but 29% would be at least somewhat dissatisfied with Barack. Hm. Apparently the bad blood in Florida over delegates outweighed the bad blood in SC over race.

Dont know what to make of that really. Except that the numbers overall - about how even in SC three-quarters of primary voters would be satisfied with Hillary as nominee - confirm my belief that the anger at Hillary that many progressive bloggers and Obamaites see spreading like some kind of wildfire is in fact fairly limited "on the ground". So it would be risky as Obama supporter to count on any particular advantage there.

Might be a good reason for Obama to avoid at all costs looking like he's unfairly attacking Hillary in the debate, especially considering how infuriatingly adept Hillary has proven to be at playing the victim card.

0 Replies

Nimh, imagine something for me.

Imagine that you are a passionate supporter of a candidate and you finally go the chance to vote for him. You proudly pull the lever, push the button or whatever. You walk out, into the sunshine, thinking to yourself, 'I did good. I did the right thing and I hope my guy wins.'

You get asked to do an exit poll, and in order to be helpful, you do it. And one of the questions is 'how dissatisfied would you be if xx candidate won, instead of the person you just voted for?'

How do you think that would make you feel?

The truth is that there may be some utility in judging which candidate people would be more or less dissatisfied about; but in general it is my thought that this question massively over-estimates people's true feelings. I find it very difficult to believe that committed voters wouldn't have at least some resentment in their hearts towards the other candidates on the day that they vote; the question is not really compatible with the thought that your preferred candidate is going to win and therefore people will react more negatively then they would later on.

So it may be that more Edwards supporters would go to Hillary then Obama; fair enough, there's plenty of reasons that this might be true. But to McCain?

C'mon. The general election is 7 months from now and the dissatisfaction towards other primary candidates is likely to go down in many cases.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

OK, that doesnt make sense to me.

Overall, three quarters of Dem primary voters in both primaries answered that they'd be satisfied with one of their main rivals becoming the nominee.

If the sentiment you describe would really play such a strong role, that wouldnt be true. If it were a question of it only being human to feel resentful at that moment on that question, you would see a larger number of people answering "dissatisfied" period.

Moreover, if that were the simple explanation, you would see the same feeling on the part of each candidate's voters. Obama's voters would be just as dissatisfied at the prospect of Hillary as nominee as Edwards' voters, for example. Hell, after the acrimony between them, they'd be justified in being even more dissatisfied at the thought.

And yet, as noted before, only 29% of Obama voters in SC said they'd be dissatisfied with Hillary as nominee - and 38% of Edwards supporters. Only 32% of Hillary supporters said they'd be dissatisfied with Obama - and 40% of Edwards voters. This despite that neither frontrunner had attacked Edwards much, whereas they'd pretty much slaughtered each other.

So that argument just doesnt work. What's going on here is that Edwards voters were substantively more likely to say they'd be dissatisfied with either of their rivals than Hillary or Obama voters were. Combine that with Edwards voters in the state leaning strongly toward the conservative end of the Democratic spectrum in both states and being largely white and male, and I dont see why they might not opt for McCain instead.

If the numbers are all too abstractified, imagine instead what Jack will feel like come November:

Quote:

By outing me as an intruder - and, consequently, as a member of the media -- she gave me an opening to talk to two guys in the line behind me, one sporting a John Edwards sticker and the other a Barack Obama pin. They both looked to be in their late-50s to early-60s, both white men. And when they opened their mouths, there was no question where they were from either.

"Born and raised right here in South Carolina," the man with the Edwards sticker, Jack, said. "Just like John Edwards."

Jack voted for Edwards here in 2004, when the former North Carolina senator beat John Kerry by taking 45% of the vote. [..] "Good family man, good all-around guy," Jack continued. "He knows what it's like for the little people. He comes from a working-class family and worked his way through college in our textile plants. He gets us, he's not just swooping in here and asking us, oh, vote for me now so I can move on to the next one."

I asked Jack if that "swooping" in, he was referring to Hillary Clinton's campaign. [..] "It's not just Hillary," Jack replied. "It's the whole lot of 'em. I know they have to make time for Iowa and New Hampshire and whatnot, but that's why I appreciate John Edwards. He knows our state."

After Monday's nasty debate, many wondered if Edwards might see an uptick in support from voters sick of the bickering between frontrunners Clinton and Obama. [..] I asked Jack's friend, Briggs, if his decision to support Obama was made before or after the Myrtle Beach showdown, and if he might change his mind before he casts his vote.

"I'm not, ever, voting for Hillary, if that's what you're asking," he replied, with a laugh.

Not Hillary, for sure. Now Jack might still be convinced by his friend to take Obama. But judging on what the polls and exit polls say, a lot of guys like him dont like either of em much.

0 Replies

Cyclop threw out the phrase "identity politics or issues." I think that in 2008 the election will not be decided on issues but rather on the voters' perception of the candidates' personalities. I wrote a little essay on this topic on the Obama thread but it got swamped by other postings. So it goes.
The gist of it: I am 61 years old. I remember JFK. Young and smart and able to inspire.
Obama? Similar
Clinton? Similar
McCain? Older but similar.
I listen to the folks around my store talk politics, and they care not a bit about what anyone promises to do re health care, education reform, Iraq etc. Nothing will probably happen or if it does it will be done slowly. A cynicism is descending on campaign promises like a dark cloud.
So instead, folks are looking for an inspirational leader. A JFK or an FDR.

If I am correct about this, Cyclop, it matters little that Edwards and McCain differ on many issues. Issues are not, um, the issue.
The voters on the right end of the Dem party-we were talking about in the south-could comfortably go to McCain. -rjb

0 Replies

Alright Nimh, you win Laughing

In happier news

Rasmussen

Quote:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in California shows Hillary Clinton with a very narrow three-percentage point lead over Barack Obama. The survey was conducted in the hours immediately following Florida's Presidential Primary and before John Edwards dropped out of the race.

Two weeks ago, Clinton led Obama by five percentage points in California.

The survey found Edwards with 9% of the vote while 4% said they would vote for some other candidate and another 4% were not sure.

Obama had a narrow 43% to 41% advantage among the party's liberal voters while Clinton held a 45% to 35% edge among moderate voters.

Obama held a three-point lead among white voters in the state while Clinton had a twenty-seven point lead among Hispanic voters.

With Edwards out, it could go either way.

But I like seeing Obama ahead amongst whites.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Although, CA results probably won't be in until the next morning.

Interesting - the pundits will have a field day over that one.

http://www.nbc11.com/news/15178240/detail.html

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know