17
   

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

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 11:10 am
Oh they might be! Just hasnt caught my eye - all I keep seeing are these vast gender gaps that make me go Shocked .

But it does differ from state to state, and it could also be that they were even vaster in, say, early January when I wasnt paying much attention to these states yet..
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 11:36 am
sozobe wrote:
Two comments when I posted the "tears" thing, now there more than 90... the comments are just about exactly what you'd expect. I thought this was funny though:


You know, I never read these stupid little comments below these articles. I don't like how impersonal the posters are. I prefer an online type forum like this were you can gain some reputation, respect, etc.

BUT, since one of the other posters mentioned these posts, and you're referencing them in this email, I looked at the one's below this article.


It is some of the most disgusting, knee-jerk (or maybe tear-jerk), reprehensible, shyte I've ever had the displeasure of reading. For anyone questioning why some people are disgusted at Obamanics, read the comments below this article.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 11:41 am
maporsche wrote:
sozobe wrote:
Two comments when I posted the "tears" thing, now there more than 90... the comments are just about exactly what you'd expect. I thought this was funny though:


You know, I never read these stupid little comments below these articles. I don't like how impersonal the posters are. I prefer an online type forum like this were you can gain some reputation, respect, etc.

BUT, since one of the other posters mentioned these posts, and you're referencing them in this email, I looked at the one's below this article.


It is some of the most disgusting, knee-jerk (or maybe tear-jerk), reprehensible, shyte I've ever had the displeasure of reading. For anyone questioning why some people are disgusted at Obamanics, read the comments below this article.


Read the comments below some of the anti-Obama articles at places like Mydd, DKos and talkleft. It's the same.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 11:48 am
maporsche wrote:

It is some of the most disgusting, knee-jerk (or maybe tear-jerk), reprehensible, shyte I've ever had the displeasure of reading. For anyone questioning why some people are disgusted at Obamanics, read the comments below this article.


I find it's not obvious that the commenters are "Obamanics" (as opposed to Obadepressives). Some state their persuasion or it can be deduced, others make it hard to tell whether they are even Democrats (though some are dead giveaway Republicans, calling her "Klinton" for example). Is it just assumed that anti-Hillary comments come from Obama supporters?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 12:15 pm
Further evidence of my position.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/02/california_state_of_women.html

Quote:
February 4, 2008 12:18
California, State of Women?
Posted by Jay Newton-Small | Comments (5) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This

I was struck a few days ago by the blunt admission by Hillary's California field director to me in an interview that HRC focuses her outreach, not only in California but in most states, almost exclusively on women. Which explains Obama's feminine offensive yesterday with Michelle, Oprah, Caroline Kennedy and Maria Shriver, not to mention the estrogen-heavy commercials the Illinois senator has been running in state. It also highlights the growing importance of Michelle on the campaign trail as the campaign seeks to draw some of Hillary's base support.

Oprah yesterday laid how she sees out the choice many women will make in this election: she told the crowd in Los Angeles yesterday. "I was both surprised by that and insulted. Because I've been a woman my whole life because the truth is I'm a free woman, and being free means you get to think for yourself and you get to decide for yourself what to do. So I say I am not a traitor. No, I am just following my own truth and my truth has led me to Barack Obama."

Indeed, for California Democrats women are a powerful demographic, making up as much as 58% of the vote. Just look at their elected officials: first female Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein and 36% of California's 59 House Representatives.

Hillary has two advantages on the female front, aside from the obvious one of electing the first woman president. One, is that by tomorrow as many as two million people may have voted - half of the anticipated four million that are expected to participate in the California primary and, as of last week, more than 60% of the one million folks that have already voted were women. Second, HRC has led in polls up until this week and has much better name recognition than Obama who suffered the bad luck of having absentee ballots in the Golden State delivered the day he lost the New Hampshire primary.

In the latest polls Obama has whittled Hillary's once 28-point lead to just 0.6% in an average of California polls by Real Clear Politics. Obama guru David Axelrod told reporters this morning, "We've had good movement (in California) in the last two weeks but she's had an edge in the early vote, there's no doubt about that," Axelrod said on the Obama plane before taking off to New Jersey.

Hillary still leads polls of California women voters by five percentage points in the latest Rasmussen poll and 13 percentage points in the last Field poll, though it will be interesting to see if the Shriver endorsement as well as Michelle, Caroline Kennedy and Oprah's Golden State campaigning moves these numbers at all. Certainly, Axelrod thinks they're making headway - today he predicted that Obama and HRC would finish within 100 electoral votes of one another - hardly lowering expectations: 100 electoral votes is less than a half a percent difference of the 2,000+ electoral votes up for grabs tomorrow.


The New York NOW thing as well. There are a certain number of women who feel that voting against Hillary is betraying the gender. Now, why would they say that if they were policy-driven?

I'm not saying that it's all of them, not by a long shot. But it is a prime factor in her support, and her campaign admits targeting women almost exclusively.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 12:16 pm
Obama also now leads Clinton by a thin margin, 46%-44%, in Massachusetts, according to a 7NEWS (WHDH-TV/NBC Boston)/Suffolk University poll out today. Romney leads McCain 50%-37%.

Per Suffolk's release, 43% of people said Sen. Ted Kennedy was the most influential endorsement (Bill Clinton got 23%). The poll was taken Feb. 1-3 and has a margin of error +/- 4.9%.

---

This poll is an outlier, seriously

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 12:52 pm
There are definitely, definitely obnoxious Obama supporters out there. If that's the issue, no argument from me. (That was, in fact, the context of posting the article and comments -- "Oh no.")

I do agree with Cycloptichorn that there are plenty of obnoxious Hillary supporters too, though. And, complicating the issue, plenty of obnoxious Obama-detractors (who may or may not support Hillary) and plenty of obnoxious Hillary-detractors (who may or may not support Obama).

In short... plenty of obnoxiousness to go around.

I'll certainly try my best to avoid it here.

(They're talking about the tears on CNN... "enough already" is promising, but they're still talking about it....) (Discussion between David Gergen, Carl Bernstein, and Cheri Jacobs.)
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 12:53 pm
How many ballots have been cast in CA?

I saw 17% somewhere, CNN just said "as many as half."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 12:54 pm
sozobe wrote:
How many ballots have been cast in CA?

I saw 17% somewhere, CNN just said "as many as half."


Dunno the total. I'm sticking with hope in the Field poll.

Can't wait for the daily gallup to come out.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 01:21 pm
MASSACHUSETTS - DEMOCRATS

A new poll by Suffolk for 7 News, conducted Feb. 1-3, has Obama out ahead by a hairwidth: 46% to 44% for Clinton.

This is a majorly different take from that in polls for the state so far. Two polls out last week had Clinton leading by 6, 43% to 37% (Rasmussen) and 24, 57% to 33% (Survey USA). Looks like Survey USA is the outlier here, and the race will be unexpectedly close. Earlier this month, Hillary led here by anything between 12 and 37 points.


http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/9781/mapollsdsx7.png
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 01:25 pm
GEORGIA - DEMOCRATS

A new Rasmussen poll in Georgia (conducted 2/2) pretty much agrees with PPP and InsiderAdvantage polls conducted last Wednesday: in all three, Obama is at 51-52%, and Rasmussen puts Hillary at 37%, compared with 36% in the IA poll and 41% in the PPP poll.

A Mason-Dixon poll conducted 1/30-2/2 disagrees somewhat. It, too, puts Obama in the lead, but at 47% it has Obama's numbers 4-5 points lower than the three other polls do, and at 41%, it has Hillary's numbers where PPP has them too, but 4-5 points higher than what either IA and Rasmussen are saying. Still, all those polls are roughly in the same ballpark.

It's different with two successive editions of a Zogby daily tracking poll on behalf of Reuters and C-Span (conducted 1/31-2/2 and 2/1-3). Both have Obama at 48%, but Hillary's numbers cratering at a mere 28% and 31%, respectively, with a huge number of undecideds (24% and 21%). And this take is echoed in a Strategic Vision poll conducted 2/1-3, which has Obama at 49% and Hillary at a mere 27%, with a huge 24% undecided.


http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/6226/gapollsdio5.png


All in all, we are looking at an Obama lead at 6% (Mason-Dixon), 10% (PPP), 15-17% (Rasmussen, Insider Advantage, and the last Zogby poll), or 20-22% (Strategic Vision and the first Zogby poll).

The role of race in the race

This is also where race comes in. Obama continues to do relatively better among whites in Georgia than in Tennessee or Alabama, getting 31% of them in the Mason-Dxon poll (vs 54% for Hillary) and 30% in the Zogby poll (against 43% for Clinton). Meanwhile, he gets 68% of blacks in the Mason-Dixon poll (vs 23% for Clinton), and 67% in the Zogby poll (vs 18% for Clinton).

But the race question raises, perhaps for one last time, the notorious Bradley/Wilder effect - at least for those Zogby and Strategic Vision polls. Note that the Bradley/Wilder effect is not about overstating the support for the black candidate, but about understating the support for the white candidate. Note that the Zogby and SV polls are in line with the others on the level of Obama's support, but have Hillary close to 10 points lower than the other polls. And note that Zogby's numbers about the voting preferences among blacks line up neatly with those of other polls, but that it has Hillary's support among whites some 10 points lower than the other polls. I have no idea why only one or two pollsters out of several would encounter a Bradley/Wilder effect, but if Hillary gets over 35% tomorrow, Zogby might want to look into this.

Obama might lead, but Hillary is deemed equally likeable and electable

Other crosstabs are interesting too. Again, in contrast to the mood on forums and blogs, the rank and file Democratic primary voters in Georgia equally like Obama and Hillary, and see no difference between them when it comes to electability, according to the Rasmussen poll. The catch: while Hillary's favourable ratings are equal across constituencies at 78%, Obama's favourables are up at 96% among blacks and down at 66% among whites:

    "Obama is viewed favorably by 80% of Likely Primary Voters while Clinton earns favorably reviews from 77%. Among African-American voters, Obama is viewed favorably by 96%, Clinton by 78%. Among White Voters, Clinton is viewed favorably by 78%, Obama by 66%." "Seventy-seven percent (77%) believe Obama is at least somewhat likely to win the election if nominated. Seventy-six percent (76%) say the same about Clinton."
In the Mason-Dixon poll, Clinton and Obama both have unfavourable ratings of 16-17% among likely Democratic primary voters, but Obama's favourable rating is somewhat higher: 66% vs 60%.

A modest gender gap; instead, it's location and priorities that count

According to Mason-Dixon, Obama leads among men by 12, among women by 2; Zogby, too, says Obama leads among women here (and by a lot, too). A relatively modest gender gap here, then, but that is in line with other states with significant black populations (there isnt much of a gender gap among African-American primary voters).

The Mason-Dixon poll also shows Obama leading by 22 among those aged 49 and younger, but trailing by 5 among those aged 50 and older; leading by just 1 among self-defined Democrats but by 22 among others; leading by 15 in the Atlanta metropolitan area, but trailing by 5 in rural Georgia.

Obama leads among those citing Iraq as prime concern by a whopping 32, but trails among those listing health care by 10; and the latter make up a quarter of the voters while the former constitute just a tenth. Obama romps home among those primarily seeking a candidate who "represents change and a new approach" (by 73% to 14%) and who "is honest and trustworthy" (by 61% to 24%), but trails not just among those seeking someone with "the right experience" (by 6% to 79%) but also those who want a candidate who "cares about the issues I care about" (by 31% to 54%).
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 01:36 pm
Big MO

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/ADemSuperTuesday.gif

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 02:32 pm
Gallup and Rasmussen still disagree on the direction the race is going on, in their respective daily tracking polls - but both have reversed course compared to the directions they signalled yesterday Smile

Now Gallup has Hillary recovering some ground, and Rasmussen has Obama closing in.

<mutters: madhouse..>


http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/3407/galluprasmusdems3jx0.png


http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/8906/galluprasmusdemslead3lb1.png


Probable backgrounds:

1) Margin of errors
2) Rasmussen's is a four-day tracking poll, while Gallup's has a three-day average.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 02:33 pm
nimh wrote:
<mutters: madhouse..>


No kidding!!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 03:02 pm
Michael Crowley citing the WaPo on what will happen after Super Tuesday:

Quote:
2. If Hillary has a bad night tomorrow, a quick rebound may not be easy:

    If the overall outcome is a muddle, as both campaigns increasingly expect, Obama aides see a playing field heavily skewed in their favor in the next round of contests. Three states hold contests on Saturday: Louisiana, which has a large African American population, and Washington and Nebraska, which are both caucus states. Obama appears to hold the advantage in all of them, aides said, a point that Clinton advisers did not dispute. Obama also expects to win the Maine caucuses on Sunday, and his campaign anticipates that Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia will all break for him on Feb. 12. Clinton strategists plan on having her campaign in all of those contests but are banking on big victories on March 4 in Ohio and Texas. "She's going to have to sustain losses on four different days in February, over two weeks," said senior Obama adviser Steve Hildebrand. "That's not easy, whatever happens on Feb. 5." A Clinton adviser conceded: "We could be looking at what is a tough month for us."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 03:05 pm
nimh wrote:
Michael Crowley citing the WaPo on what will happen after Super Tuesday:

Quote:
2. If Hillary has a bad night tomorrow, a quick rebound may not be easy:

    If the overall outcome is a muddle, as both campaigns increasingly expect, Obama aides see a playing field heavily skewed in their favor in the next round of contests. Three states hold contests on Saturday: Louisiana, which has a large African American population, and Washington and Nebraska, which are both caucus states. Obama appears to hold the advantage in all of them, aides said, a point that Clinton advisers did not dispute. Obama also expects to win the Maine caucuses on Sunday, and his campaign anticipates that Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia will all break for him on Feb. 12. Clinton strategists plan on having her campaign in all of those contests but are banking on big victories on March 4 in Ohio and Texas. "She's going to have to sustain losses on four different days in February, over two weeks," said senior Obama adviser Steve Hildebrand. "That's not easy, whatever happens on Feb. 5." A Clinton adviser conceded: "We could be looking at what is a tough month for us."


Christ, she's going to do the Giuliani strategy part deux???? Bank on winning the big states later?

Jeebus really heard my prayers this time!!!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 03:16 pm
RealClearPolitics maintains running averages of both national polls and state-level polls, and they have nice graphs as well.

The ones on where the national polls stand really show some striking movement.

Here's the Democratic one:


http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/1469/rcpdemsxx0.png


See that Obama line go!

And here's the Republican one:


http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/2143/rcprepset6.png


See McCain go! Romney is finally picking up some traction as well, but sure looks like it's too little, too late.

Then again, it's in the states that the decisions are made..
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 03:22 pm
On TNR, also reviews the post-Super Tuesday schedule and concludes it's good news for Obama; but he adds the caveat that

"If Obama wins 45 percent of Tuesday's delegates, he'll be facing about a 200-delegate deficit. He probably needs to keep it closer to 100, which would mean winning about 47.5 percent of delegates."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 03:29 pm
nimh wrote:
On TNR, also reviews the post-Super Tuesday schedule and concludes it's good news for Obama; but he adds the caveat that

"If Obama wins 45 percent of Tuesday's delegates, he'll be facing about a 200-delegate deficit. He probably needs to keep it closer to 100, which would mean winning about 47.5 percent of delegates."


IF - and this is a big if - the poll averages today accurately predict Obama's and Hillary's totals, then Obama currently has more delegates then Hillary tomorrow.

IF the polls are off by as much as +2 hillary/ -2 Obama, he will still only be down by about 45. Good ol' proportional candidates! And he's already up by a couple to begin with, natural advantage there!

IF they are off by more then that, with Hillary on top, things don't look as good for Obama.

<nervous>

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 04:01 pm
And even after tomorrow.......you still have the super-delegates to deal with.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/19/2025 at 07:44:45