2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

First, you're sure there are precedents for the "frontrunner" to do twice as badly among Independents than among Democrats in the primaries - and yet go on to win them over for the general elections, after all?

[..] Wisconsin's was the closest to an approximation of the general election. The number of voters who participated--more than 800,000--is far more than any of the previous 16 contests. [A]ny registered voter could participate, and Edwards won the voters a Democrat will most need in November. Almost 30 percent of the voters were Republicans or independents, and Edwards won both groups by wide margins. But most importantly, in Wisconsin, Edwards won the demographic most important to the future of Democrats: white men. [..] Edwards won all the demographics that will provide the margin of victory for a successful Democrat in November.

Now that the race has turned into a two-man contest, the question going forward is which candidate has the greater potential to eat into the other's base of voters? Clearly, it's Edwards. He is in the unusual position of being a populist candidate attacking Kerry from the left on free trade, yet drawing the bulk of his support from conservative, high income, and non-union Democrats. [..] Kerry beat Edwards in the big cities and rural areas, while Edwards carried the suburbs.

In other words, the kind of Democrats who should have voted for a candidate like Edwards didn't. The reason? Electability. Kerry destroyed Edwards among the 48 percent of the electorate that said experience and the ability to beat Bush were their top priorities in a candidate. Voters who actually care more about the issues, especially the economy and jobs, supported Edwards.

But Kerry's electability argument is fragile. It's already been damaged by Edwards' strong showing. The more Edwards can prove that he's just as electable as Kerry, the more he can [..] start to peel off the rank-and-file Democrats [..] backing Kerry more with their heads than their hearts. A significant chunk of Kerry voters actually agree with Edwards more than Kerry. They just need to be convinced he can win.

The other potential source of support is Dean voters, now that their candidate is dropping out. The exit polls show that former Dean supporters split about evenly between Kerry and Edwards, but anecdotal evidence suggests that the remaining Dean voters out there are the Kool-Aid drinking core. These people hate Kerry [..]

In Wisconsin, Kerry had a chance to prove decisively that he was the most electable Democrat. He didn't do it.

I guess that what I was taking from the exit polls wasn't so much 'reading too much into it', as perhaps rather 'stating the obvious'.

nimh wrote:

First, you're sure there are precedents for the "frontrunner" to do twice as badly among Independents than among Democrats in the primaries - and yet go on to win them over for the general elections, after all?

I did not say that [..]

nimh wrote:

I guess that what I was taking from the exit polls wasn't so much 'reading too much into it', as perhaps rather 'stating the obvious'.

We'll have to agree to disagree if you think that. <shrugs>

Thing is, the whole long-winded point I'd been making was that the exit polls seem to confirm that Kerry is actually the less electable candidate - what, with Independents massively leaning against him and all.

You told me I was "reading too much into" that - after all, lots of frontrunners have the Independents going against them.

Now it's true, you "didn't say" that there were actually frontrunners who had that happen to them, but still went on to win, anyway. But yeh - otherwise, what was your point?

There may well have been frontrunners who had the Independents go against them in the primaries, won the nomination anyway, and then lost the general elections because they still couldnt win them over. That would only prove my point, though. <shrugs>

Actually neither would prove anything. That's why I say you read too much into the polling data.

I shall add that it looks as if your posts and conclussions could perfectly be made in Edwards' war-room.

1. Elections in countries with non-compulsory voting and weak party loyalty can be won two ways: by attracting a wide variety of voters (across gender, race, income and other lines) or by attracting a solid constituency (by making the people who simpathize with you actually make the effort to vote). So getting the white middle-age middle-class suburban male non Bush-hater into your field may or may not be crucial. This is not how electability is measured.

2. As I understand -correct me if I'm wrong- Wisconsin primaries are not among registered democrats. Anyone can vote.
This reminded me of November 1999. I voted in the PRI primary in Mexico. I wanted the PRI out of office. So I voted for the runner-up against the top candidate. To weaken them.
It turned out that 41% of those voting for the runner-up in those open primaries ended up voting for other parties in the general election.
Why can't it be the case in Wisconsin? [etc]

One possibility is that the Republicans who crossed over and voted in the Wisconsin primary are distorting the results. We know that Edwards did very well among Republicans last night (winning them 44-18), and we also know that Republicans tend to be relatively affluent. It's possible that all those affluent liberals I'm assuming supported John Edwards were actually Republicans in disguise. But I doubt it. Republicans made up only nine percent of yesterday's vote, while people making above $75,000 accounted for about 25 percent of the vote, and people making above $50,000 accounted for about 50 percent of the vote. It doesn't seem like Republicans could account for a large enough fraction of these categories to drive the trend we're seeing.
(link)

My own hunch is that what we're seeing is an important divide between less sophisticated voters and more sophisticated voters. Just about the only thing less sophisticated voters [..] know about John Kerry is that he's been winning, and possibly that he's a longtime Senator and a Vietnam veteran. On the other hand, more sophisticated voters [..] have probably paid attention to the campaign long enough to know that, in addition to these things, Kerry's from Massachusetts (not exactly a presidential breeding ground of late), tilts to the liberal end of the ideological spectrum, and tends to be kind of boring and long-winded. Which is to say, less affluent, less educated voters are looking at John Kerry's string of primary victories and concluding from them that he's electable. More affluent, better educated voters are actually watching debates and reading newspapers. And they're concluding from these things that Edwards--who is neither from Massachusetts nor a liberal nor boring--is actually more electable. (Particularly after many of these newspapers endorse Edwards, as the two biggest papers in Wisconsin recently did.)

Craven de Kere wrote:

Actually neither would prove anything. That's why I say you read too much into the polling data.

The election results - cause thats what we're talking about here, these are exit polls - are the only hard data we have to go on. Its just that and our own personal estimation and that of the punters.

But again, its not just the Independents. I think its fair to say that any Dem candidate whose electoral impact on white men, waverers, suburbians and independents is weak, is going to have a hard time getting elected in his own right.

Why is Kerry more electable than Edwards (or Clark, or Gephardt, for that matter), 'ccording to y'all? Sozobe had some elaborate things to say on this, but otherwise the responses have been overwhelmingly along the lines of platitudes like "ah, you cant trust polls" or "well, its easy to criticize the frontrunner" (or even, "you sound clueless about America").

Let me end on a provocative and arrogant note, and quote Scheiber again on an alternative explanation for why people share my doubts about Kerry:

Quote:

My own hunch is that what we're seeing is an important divide between less sophisticated voters and more sophisticated voters. Just about the only thing less sophisticated voters [..] know about John Kerry is that he's been winning, and possibly that he's a longtime Senator and a Vietnam veteran. On the other hand, more sophisticated voters [..] have probably paid attention to the campaign long enough to know that, in addition to these things, Kerry's from Massachusetts (not exactly a presidential breeding ground of late), tilts to the liberal end of the ideological spectrum, and tends to be kind of boring and long-winded. Which is to say, less affluent, less educated voters are looking at John Kerry's string of primary victories and concluding from them that he's electable. More affluent, better educated voters are actually watching debates and reading newspapers. And they're concluding from these things that Edwards--who is neither from Massachusetts nor a liberal nor boring--is actually more electable. (Particularly after many of these newspapers endorse Edwards, as the two biggest papers in Wisconsin recently did.)

But the "hard data" can be conflicting. Watch:

This is on the home page of pollingreport.com

[CBS News - General election trial heats]

So by this "hard data" Kerry would be the most electable. But I don't read that much into it. You are right to call it "hard data" and like any statistic it is the conclusions you draw from it that matter. I disagree with those conclusions.

The "independents" that are voting in primaries are not the same class of Americans that will be deciding the elections. The election will be among a less pollitically inclined group. [..] You are giving weight to the exit polls of one party. This is a very small segment of the population and such an isolated and atypical (remember that these are the most politically oriented people around) data sampling can be misleading.

Personally, I think the critical facts are obscured by all the data and polls. To me the critical fact is how the EC will break down. To me it's not just "swing voters" but "swing voters in swing states".

Then why is this the person who is leading most overall polls in a hypothetical matchup? If the groups you mention are so crucial (which I agree they are) why does this net a Kerry victory and an Edwards defeat? [..] The poll above among a breader spectrum (all registered voters) plainly contradicts the position that Kerry is the worst. And while I don't think the poll means much I will note that it does illustrate one thing that I think is a flaw in the poll readings.

She said that Edwards hasn't felt the fire. And yes you can say that Kerry hasn't yet seen it as well but either way, you can't tell what some possible weaknesses are until the person becomes a front runner. [..] Right now I see few holes in Edward's armour but if he were the frontrunner I bet there'd be a few twists and surprises. [..] To use jargon, no serious political capital has been used against Edwards yet.

This (the bold part) is actually the very notion what elicited the "clueless" retort.

If you think the election is decided by "more affluent, better educated voters" who "are actually watching debates and reading newspapers" I think there is a discrepancy between this image of America and what it is really like.

No, I dont actually (call this "hard data"). Exit polls, yes. These opinion polls, no. They're interesting and useful indicators - but not hard data. Exit polls more or less are.

Its nonsense to say, ah, they dont mean a thing, but they're no more than what they are: snapshots.

Two. The more specific a poll, the more value it has.

General national snapshots provide less clues than breakdowns by specific categories and states.

And because if you have a group-specific picture, you can extrapolate to some extent which way crucial voting blocks are trending - which will show up in the national, cover-all polls later.

Anyway. Main point here is that you're comparing different beasts. Polls measure fleeting voting intentions (e.g. "which candidate are you leaning to"), exit polls measure how people actually voted - post-fact. Of course some respondents can still lie, but they tend to be on-target. What exit polls measure is how the nebulous preferences expressed in opinion polls actually break down when decision time comes.

Thats an important distinction, and makes it a much more useful tool. Especially if it concerns Wisconsin, which, as a swing state, represents mainstream America much better than, say, WA or SC.

Actually, if any primary would have given a clue, it'd have been this one. Turnout was much higher than for the other Democratic primaries this year. It was an open primary.

In all, a quarter of the WI voting age population (VAP) went to the primaries. The REP primary turnout was bizarrely low, suggesting most solid Republicans didnt go - which means that on the part of the VAP that might actually vote Dem, turnout was significantly higher, still. I'd say at least half of the people who might vote Dem in the general elections, came out now.

You called this the "S.V.S.S. criteria". Well, here you have exit polls measuring how swing voters (measured as, for example, voters who are "satisfied, but not enthusiastic about Bush"), in a swing state, actually voted.[/color] And they broke overwhelmingly against Kerry. How is that irrelevant, according to your own criteria?

Now of course, if Bush fucks up badly enough, they could still opt for him over Bush come general election times. But Kerry apparently is not the candidate who excites them into an easy choice if they end up wavering.

Actually, we talked about this at length before. And the point to make here is this. These match-up polls are useful in measuring how the mood turns from or away Bush resp. the main Democratic candidate. But they are more problematic (not useless, just more problematic) in comparing how different Dem candidates perform.

That's because the frontrunner tends to do best, whoever he is. He is perceived as a winner, the competent one, the rallying point - and sometimes, he's the only one people know, and who's going to prefer a relative unknown against an incumbent president?

Note that even Dean at some point in time was the guy doing best against Bush among the Dem candidates, when he was destined to clench the nomination.

Not that there aren't any conclusions to be drawn here.

So Kerry is shown more "electable" than Dean. But Edwards, we just dont know, cause he hasnt had the chance yet to be projected on in this way.

Though, again, with a 20-year Congressional record, with all the position reversals that brings, representing a very liberal state, Kerry just has a longer potentially embarassing history to be shot at.

But thats why few Washington veterans make it into the Presidency. A relatively blank record can be a liability (lack of experience), but also a blessing. Personally, I think someone more experienced than Edwards, but with less of a track record than Kerry would have been a lot better ... <sighs>