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

Prospect is a media entity. It's a magazine.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo,

Are you posting about Prospect in response to my seeking a media outlet that is keeping a running tally of total votes for each candidate or Nimh's chart about Hispanic demographics?

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

Cyclo,

Are you posting about Prospect in response to my seeking a media outlet that is keeping a running tally of total votes for each candidate or Nimh's chart about Hispanic demographics?

Total votes.

Did you mean a major media outlet?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Just any fairly reputible place with a running tally will do. If Prospect has that, could you give me a link? I just looked at their website and found nothing related to it on their homepage.

0 Replies

The problem is, it's not really that simple. Because you have those caucuses, and for a number of caucuses - Iowa for one - they never registered the actual number of individual caucusers, or how many of them exactly caucused for each candidate in the first round or second round. All they registered is the number of delegates allocated by each precinct to the state total.

So if you go to the MSNBC Primary Results page, what you see is for most states the raw number of actual votes, but for Iowa and Nevada (and judging on the numbers Alaska too), only the number of delegates. So there's no way to get a complete total national tally of individual votes, I guess..

For what it's worth, I did just add up all the numbers on the MSNBC page (well, pasted it into Excel and had it calculate them) - so the number of votes in most states, and the number of delegates for the two or three others - and got this:

Including Michigan and Florida:

Code:



Obama	      8,394,386   45.5%



Clinton       8,919,966   48.4%



Edwards         806,547    4.4%



Other/Uncomm    315,972    1.7%



             18,436,871

Excluding Michigan and Florida:

Code:



Obama	      7,825,345   48.4%



Clinton       7,734,607   47.8%



Edwards         557,943    3.5%



Other/Uncomm     50,286    0.3%



             16,168,181

0 Replies

Following up on the overview of Hispanic/Latino votes by state, here is a table illustrating how African-Americans have voted so far. A state-by-state overview of what percentage of them went for Obama and Hillary, respectively:

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/9165/blacksdemsqo5.png

The states in the South are still in red/orange font, but as you see there is no pattern there, those are all over.

Aside from the obvious ones - NY (and by extension CT) and AR are Hillary's home states, and Florida was a case by itself - Hillary succeeded by far the best in keeping some black support in Massachusetts. Which is a bit surprising, especially since Patrick Deval endorsed Obama. But since blacks made up only 6% of the electorate there, we must be talking a small sample.

Otherwise, the only state Clinton even barely kept over one-fifth of the Afro-American vote was Tennessee. Not, by the way, in New Jersey, despite that also being in her backyard.

Aside from his home state Illinois, Obama did best in attracting massive black support in Georgia and Delaware, followed closely by Missouri, Nevada, Alabama and New Jersey. Bit of a grab bag there - three Southern states, two in the Northeast.

It does look like it's been easier for Obama to mobilise the black vote in states with a larger black community. His top 7 results are all states where Afro-Americans made up a double-digit share of the electorate, while the states with single-digit black votes, AZ, CA, CT and MA, were all in the bottom 9.

0 Replies

Continuing on the theme I've been posting about....

It is beginning to look like the only fair way to let this whole thing settle out by itself without any super delegate deal making is to allow Florida and Michigan to have a vote redo that then permits their delegates to count for the convention.

The two big problems standing in the way of that are the contests between the states over who gets to be "first" and the fact that if Florida and Michigan people get a vote redo, how fair is that to the people in other states who supported candidates no longer in contention who are not allowed vote redos.

And, the problem doesn't really resolve itself by using the running tally of populous votes because of the lack of causus votes to tally.

This is really turning into a huge mess that will only be resolved by someone agreeing to withdraw. The problem with that is the supporters of the one who withdraws will be very angry and will probably not cast votes for the remaining candidate.

Anyone see a way out of this mess that still gets a democrat in the White House?

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

It is beginning to look like the only fair way to let this whole thing settle out by itself without any super delegate deal making is to allow Florida and Michigan to have a vote redo that then permits their delegates to count for the convention.

The two big problems standing in the way of that are the contests between the states over who gets to be "first" and the fact that if Florida and Michigan people get a vote redo, how fair is that to the people in other states who supported candidates no longer in contention who are not allowed vote redos.

And, the problem doesn't really resolve itself by using the running tally of populous votes because of the lack of causus votes to tally.

This is really turning into a huge mess that will only be resolved by someone agreeing to withdraw. The problem with that is the supporters of the one who withdraws will be very angry and will probably not cast votes for the remaining candidate.

Anyone see a way out of this mess that still gets a democrat in the White House?

Let Obama win. The vast majority of states carried by Hillary are going to go Dem one way or the other.

The DNC will not even consider this issue until June... unless a deal is struck by the candidates first, and I doubt there will be. Hillary will agree to no deal that calls for a re-vote b/c she wouldn't do near as well in either state, and it would be crushing for her to be repudiated in such a fashion late in the game.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

Anyone see a way out of this mess that still gets a democrat in the White House?

Yep, both candidates telling their followers what Noddy often tells us:

HOLD YOUR DOMINION!

0 Replies

Nihm, is there any data about the Asian-American vote in California and elsewhere?

0 Replies

Well done, nimh. I was searching a couple of other media outlets to try to get cumulative raw votes.

I heard an interesting comment today about McCain, who I reckon we can asssume will be the Repub nominee. He has a core group of supporters plus a goodly number of independents plus conservatives who, despite Coulter or Limbaugh, will eventually come out and VOTE for him.
But where is he going to find the FOOT-SOLDIERS? The folks who wave the signs beside the road, man the phone banks, lick the stamps,

I today got my 1st phone call re Tuesday's primary here in VA. There will be more.

0 Replies

Two things come to my mind after going through nimh's charts.

1. The gap between candidates in the African-American vote is, by far, the largest. Larger than by gender; larger than among the Latinos or Whites (shouldn't they be called "pinks"?).

2. The watchable trend among Latinos does not define their leanings according to nationality of origin.
In Illinois, New Mexico, Arizona and California the majority is of Mexican origin.
In Florida, the majority is of Cuban origin.
In New York and New Jersey, the plurality is Portorican, but there are also important Mexican-American and Cuban-American communities.

0 Replies

And Dominican (NY and NJ).

0 Replies

The latino data reminded me of a hallucinating blog linked by butrflynet, and commented by Sozobe with a "Whooa", which portraited Mexicans and Central Americans as anti-black racists and stressed the importance of "Afro-Latinos".

The writer says she was dedicated to Obatalá, and that related her to the African-American community, rather than the "latino" or "hispanic" concept.
Jeez. Just about every descendant from a Caribbean family is dedicated to an Orisha (I myself am dedicated to Changó)... and I bet 99% of African-Americans don't even know what Orishas are.
The fact that she was dedicated to Obatalá relates her to her cultural origins. To OUR origins. To candombe and guagancó, not to gospel and blues.
And this should have nothing to do with Obama, his stand on issues and his promises of change.

Let me just point out that the freaking blog and comments made me very angry.

--

Now, if we go by numbers -we're talking elections here- and keep on with the US American obsession with race, here are some numbers.
Demographics, mere demographics:

* Hispanic or Latino of any race: 14.8% or about 44.3 million.
o White Hispanic - 23,154,516
o Afro Hispanic - 616,953
o American Indian Native - 333,880
o Asian Hispanic - 154,694
o Some other race - 18,238,347
o Two or more races - 1,714,924

0 Replies

Quote:

I today got my 1st phone call re Tuesday's primary here in VA. There will be more.

My sympathies.

Btw, if you happen to get one of those push-poll calls, please try to determine the name of the polling entity they say they represent and post it here please. Also, if you can get away with it during the conversation, ask if they will be publishing the results of their survey on a website somewhere and ask for the url.

0 Replies

Quote:

Let me just point out that the freaking blog and comments made me very angry.

Really?

I'll re-read it from that perspective, but I thought her overriding point was actually about the diversity within the Latino community, and that blaming the lack of Latino support for Obama on Latino racism was silly, not least because many Latinos ARE also black.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Quote:
Let me just point out that the freaking blog and comments made me very angry.

Really?

I'll re-read it from that perspective, but I thought her overriding point was actually about the diversity within the Latino community, and that blaming the lack of Latino support for Obama on Latino racism was silly, not least because many Latinos ARE also black.

That was the impression I got from it too and that of several of the people who forwarded it to me.

The demographics you cite validate the contention of that blog entry where she was saying that the trumped-up media idea of Latino/Black racism is unfounded and that populations of Latinos and Blacks are not monolithic.

0 Replies

Butterflynet: Thanks for the heads up on the calls. I will watch for what you caution to look for.

Fbaezer: Welcome to this thread and for your most recent post pointing out that our media's lumping together a whole bunch of people from different backgrounds into one category - "Hispanic/Latino" is pretty naive.
You made mention of the "U.S. obsession with race." I'm mulling that over and will comment at some point. Anyone else is welcome to take a swing at it.
johnboy

0 Replies

NPR is currently talking about all the variations in reporting of the delegate totals among all the media.

They are saying that many of the caucuses that have occurred were electing delegates to THEIR state conventions and not delegates for the national democratic convention and that those national delegates have not yet been voted on yet.

So, this thing may not be in as much flux as we think it is at the moment.

0 Replies

I heard the exact same report 3 hours ago and came to the opposite conclusion. Things are in a state of flux. And where is the state of flux by the way and when is their primary?

realjohnboy wrote:

Yes, sozobe, figuring out the democratic delegate count is frustrating. NPR has a story that this evening on "All Things Considered." According to the report:
NBC has Clinton at 834 and Obama 838;
CNN: Clinton 823, Obama 741;
CBS: Clinton 1063, Obama 986;
AP: Clinton 1045, Obama 960.
(NPR notes that they use the AP numbers in their reporting).

The two big variables are (1) the super-delegates. Some of the media are more aggressive then others in chasing down those folks and trying to poll them on whom they are leaning towards and (2) delegates selected in the caucus states. In the example cited, those folks select delegates to county conventions and from there to the state convention and then to the national convention. Apparently this can result in differences in the Obama-Clinton delegates, but I can't explain why.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know