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

Hey, that's interesting.

0 Replies

On Hillary's ability to polarize (the former series of polls):

IF:
*A huge part of the sample considers they know Hillary Clinton (that is, if there is little or no room for her to lower the proportion of negative opinions by turning a "no opinion" into a positive one)
*The sample is rappresentative of probable voters (not citizens, not registered voters), and I have my doubts about it.
*The Republican candidate does not have the same level of negative opinions (which would be probable if the GOP does not elect an extremist)

THEN:
Hillary Clinton is unelectable

0 Replies

bm

0 Replies

Cool! Nimh's going to do most of our homework for us again this cycle. Thanks Nimh! (BM)

0 Replies

Nice to see ya Bill. Still backing Giuliani, IIRC?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cool! Nimh's going to do most of our homework for us again this cycle. Thanks Nimh! (BM)

And he's doing a fabulous job of it.

0 Replies

IIRC? (and good to see you too)

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

More indications of a budding resurgence of McCain?

Only just saw this. There's two new polls out for the Republican race in New Hampshire too, and there McCain is pretty clearly moving up. [..]

oth new polls - by ARG and Rasmussen - have him significantly higher than he's been doing previously. ARG has him equal with the long-time favourite, Mitt Romney, at 26%! Rasmussen has him just 4 points shy of Romney at 27% vs 31%.

The two polls before that, by CNN/WMUR/UNH and Fox, also had McCain in the twenties (22% and 20%). That was already a departure from earlier numbers: in the month before, McCain had scored 20% or more in just 2 out of 14 polls, and in the previous four months, in just 1 out of 19 polls. And now four times in a row.

His budding change in fortunes sort of shows up in apple-to-apple comparisons too

Add poll #3 showing McCain in a strikingly better position in New Hampshire than he's enoyed in over half a year. A new USA Today/Gallup poll has him at 27%. It has Romney 7 points ahead at 34%, and Rudy way down at 11%.

So that's three polls in a row that have McCain at 26-27% in NH -- when not a single poll between late May and last week had him over 21%. And when the rolling average on Real Clear Politics had him at 11-17% throughout from early July to last week. So, pretty interesting.

Unfortunately, USA Today/Gallup has not previously polled NH this cycle, so no apple-to-apple comparison on McCain's apparent rise for this one.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

IIRC?

"If I recall correctly".

Hiya Bill, and thank you for the kind words - and JPB, thank you too!

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Cool! Nimh's going to do most of our homework for us again this cycle. Thanks Nimh! (BM)

And he's doing a fabulous job of it.

He's incredible!

Doesn't even live in the US!

How does he do it?

0 Replies

Too much of an obsessive-compulsive, apparently :wink:

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Too much of an obsessive-compulsive, apparently :wink:

That is exactly what I was thinking, nimh!

Well, obsessive interest, anyway!

Keep up the excellent work!

0 Replies

Thanks for the translation, Nimh, and hiya back atcha.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Nice to see ya Bill. Still backing Giuliani, IIRC?

Cycloptichorn

Backing would be too strong of a description, but he'd probably get my vote were the election held tomorrow. His politics seem to blend rather nicely with mine, most of the time.

0 Replies

Bill, nimh posted a summary of independent voters as part of a larger post over on the Obama thread. It describes me almost perfectly, even as to the strength of my opinion (today) as compared to the percentages with a single difference (Edwards vs. Giuliani). Does this resonate with you on the various matchups?

Quote:

The performance of the Democratic candidates among independent voters is notable. For instance, Clinton trails Giuliani by one point (43% for Giuliani, 42% for Clinton among independents), but Obama leads Giuliani among independents by a huge 56% to 31% edge. Edwards leads Giuliani, 52% to 38% among independents. Clinton has similar trouble among independents against McCain, in that she trails with 37% support to his 46% support. In a prospective Obama versus McCain match-up among independent voters, Obama leads, 51% to 35%. Edwards and McCain are tied at 42% apiece among independents.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Thanks for the translation, Nimh, and hiya back atcha.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Nice to see ya Bill. Still backing Giuliani, IIRC?

Cycloptichorn
Backing would be too strong of a description, but he'd probably get my vote were the election held tomorrow. His politics seem to blend rather nicely with mine, most of the time.

Cool. Still think he's going to get the nod?

As always, I maintain that McCain will be the strongest candidate the Republicans could put forward - and the only one who has a shot of winning. The other two consistently get beaten by the Dem and Huckabee, man; I wish that he would get the nod, I really do, so that the Dem victory would be assured.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Voting by mail is becoming increasingly popular. I heard a couple of days ago that between 40-50% of votes in both the Repub and Dem primaries in CA will be done by mail. (NPR)
The ballots will be mailed out right after the IA caucuses and the NH primary and must be received back before the CA primaries in early Feb.

One effect of this could be that candidates will have to start actively campaigning in a state well before the primary. By "actively" I mean heavily with perhaps the loss of the luxury of keeping some powder dry until the last week or so.

And the candidates, while in IA or NH, have to be aware that there are people in CA who within a few days will have their ballots on their desks.

To tie this in to the topic of this thread, I wonder, Nimh or Cyclo or whomever, if there is any way to find out (by tally or by polling) how many ballots are returned immediately; or within say 15 days; or right before the date of the primaries. If it is the first case, then IA and NH become even more important because if X did well and Y didn't, the momentum factor spills over into CA very quickly.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

Bill, nimh posted a summary of independent voters as part of a larger post over on the Obama thread. It describes me almost perfectly, even as to the strength of my opinion (today) as compared to the percentages with a single difference (Edwards vs. Giuliani). Does this resonate with you on the various matchups?

Quote:
The performance of the Democratic candidates among independent voters is notable. For instance, Clinton trails Giuliani by one point (43% for Giuliani, 42% for Clinton among independents), but Obama leads Giuliani among independents by a huge 56% to 31% edge. Edwards leads Giuliani, 52% to 38% among independents. Clinton has similar trouble among independents against McCain, in that she trails with 37% support to his 46% support. In a prospective Obama versus McCain match-up among independent voters, Obama leads, 51% to 35%. Edwards and McCain are tied at 42% apiece among independents.

Resonates proportionately, yes, but I lean a little further to the right of average, I guess... and yes... Edwards is a scumbag, unworthy of my vote.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Cool. Still think he's going to get the nod?

Just yesterday, Nimh pointed out to me how badly Rudy's tanked (hadn't been paying attention)... so my answer here would be too much of a guess to be of much use. I do feel he has bounce back potential... but he'd better get to bouncing.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As always, I maintain that McCain will be the strongest candidate the Republicans could put forward - and the only one who has a shot of winning. The other two consistently get beaten by the Dem and Huckabee, man; I wish that he would get the nod, I really do, so that the Dem victory would be assured.

Huckabee is about as likely to get my vote as Edwards... so I see what you mean.

0 Replies

I am in no way a supporter of voting by mail, unless it is a necessity or a choice. Who can depend upon the Post Office anyway, so why add more uncertainty to an election?

0 Replies

Okie, the earth just moved under my feet! You and I may actually agree on something! Although perhaps for a different set of reasons. I don't like the vote-by mail idea, either.

I do feel though that the USPS is too severly maligned for inefficiency. We can all recall a package damaged or a card to Aunt Mary going astray. But most of the time the system works pretty well.

It is true that we have have an abyssmal voting participation in the U.S. amongst eligible citizens. And many of my fellow liberals wring their hands and say the poor can't take off from work to walk two miles, uphill each way, to vote. Or are too old and frail. Vote by mail will solve that, they say.

But participation by young people, by college kids, is equally as low.

I would like to see higher participation with accomodation for those unable to get to the polls. I am more interested in seeing the notion of an informed electorate, informed in the sense that they feel inspired to actually show up on voting day.

The alternative is Britney Spears for President!

0 Replies

Barack Obama, speaking on 20 December in New Hampshire:

Quote:

right now among all Democratic nominees or Democratic candidates I do better in a general election match ups than the other candidates.

This was apparently the firs time Obama specifically cited the polls in an electability argument. His argument already is made often by his supporters; here's a random example from the comments to a Marc Ambinder blog thread I was just reading:

Quote:

According to recent polls, Obama does much better against the republicans than Hillary does, so her electability point is out the window.

For the record: this is simply not true. Not just Obama's supporters, but Obama himself is wrong here - just flat-out wrong. Misinformed or deceitful? I'll leave that up to you. But he's wrong.

As far as I know, since 1 November there have been 17 polls matching up Hillary against Giuliani, and 13 matching up Obama with Giuliani. On average, Hillary led by 3.6%; Obama by 3.5%. Hillary wins, if by a hairwidth.

In the same period, there have been 12 polls matching up Hillary against Romney, and 10 matching up Obama with Romney. On average, Hillary led by 8.1%; Obama by 11.3%. Obama wins.

In the same period, there have been 8 polls matching up Hillary against Fred Thompson, and 6 matching up Obama with Fred. On average, Hillary led by 9.5%; Obama by 9.2%. Hillary wins.

Still in the same time frame, there have also been 8 polls matching up Hillary against McCain, and 6 matching up Obama with him. On average, Hillary led by 0.5%; Obama by 1.0%. Obama wins.

There is just one trend here, and that's both do pretty much equally well in these match-up polls. Obama used to have a clear advantage over Hillary in these polls, back in the summer, but his advantage had melted by September.

But let's not forget the kicker here. Now I just compared Obama with Hillary. But Obama said, "I do better in a general election match ups than the other candidates" - plural. But who really does best? John Edwards. He's the one who should be making Obama's claim.

There have been far fewer polls matching him up against the Republicans, but his average lead against Romney, Thompson and McCain is all substantially higher than what either Obama or Hillary is getting: 16.5%, 15.0% and 5.0%. Only versus Giuliani did he do worse than the other two (2.8%).

I only started tracking match-ups against Huckabee a couple of weeks ago, so my data are incomplete on that one, but FWIW, the 7 polls each I have for the period since Nov 1 for Obama's and Hillary's score against him, and the 4 I found that pitted Edwards against him, break down on average like this: Edwards +11.8; Obama +9.6; Hillary +5.6.

So, grr - Obama really stiffed Edwards in this one.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know