Obama '08?

CNN has posted their entrance poll results from Iowa:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#val=IADEM

Obama beat Clinton among women 35% to 30%

Obama tied with Hillary and beat Edwards among voters in union households 30%-24%

Obama beat Clinton and Edwards among voters of almost every income level (Obama and Clinton tied among voters who make $15-30,000)

Obama beat Edwards and Clinton among voters who want change (51%-20%-19%)

Despite countless attacks and hundreds of thousands of dollars in negative mail, TV, and radio, Obama beat Clinton and Edwards (34%-30%-27%) among voters who say health care is the most important issue Obama won among those who said the economy was the most important issue (36%-26%-26%)

Obama won over Clinton and Edwards (35%-26%-17%) among those who said Iraq was the most important issue

Won across the ideological spectrum - winning among liberals and moderates. Edwards won among conservatives.

Clinton won among married people while Obama won among singles.

Clinton won among people 65 and older, Obama won among people younger than 45 and Edwards won among the 45-65 year olds.

0 Replies

Thanks for the link to that Peters article, Soz. I've passed it along to a few folks.

0 Replies

Please don't get snippety with me, Nimh. I do admire with awe your pretty charts. And your polls and the averaging of polls and all of that. But guess what, dude (sorry, I pledged to stop using that word in 2008), I am here on the ground in VA and I talk to folks in the South I know and the Obama candidacy has legs if he gets the nod. I see only luke-warm support for Clinton.

So I reckon we need to see new polls.

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/the_clinton_counter_attack.php

Quote:
The Clinton Counter Attack
04 Jan 2008 09:02 am

6. Run against the idea of John McCain as the Republican nominee; in other words, who's better to face McCain: Clinton or Obama?

I wouldnt go there if I were her.

Against Giuliani - sure, that worked. Against a notoriously tough, hostile and wholly unscrupulous fighter like him, Obama and Edwards looked somehow vulnerable and ill-prepared - the thinking could go, you need a Hillary against someone like that. It's what I was thinking, anyhow.

But McCain is a man who still retains, whether justified or not, a lot of his past image as a wizened and principled war hero and man of respect and integrity. Against him, Obama looks like an opponent of appropriate dignity, and Hillary looks crass, if you ask me.

Oh, and Penn is a creep.

Moreover, he's going to have a problem with this:

Quote:

Early this morning, Penn told Nicholas that he didn't believe Obama was positioned to win in New Hamsphire, which votes Tuesday. "The only thing Obama has going for him in New Hampshire," Penn added, "is some sense of momentum. Let's see whether or not that sustains itself ... when people really focus in on the choice of picking a president.''

Momentum can dissipate over time. But there is little time, just a few days. And negative campaigning works - but most of the time, it only works if the message is kept at a steady drip for a long time, until it's fully hammered home - see how Kerry's war hero past was turned against him in a slow but steady onslaught of negative info meant to sow doubts. But again, there's no time for any of that. Just a few days. To still reach the NH voters with new negative attacks, you'd need to go for massive publicity - and at this time that will just look like desperation.

OK off to bed..

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

Please don't get snippety with me, Nimh. I do admire with awe your pretty charts. And your polls and the averaging of polls and all of that.

Well yeah I do get snippety if I collect and collate hundreds of poll results about the issue, post them, get the response that they're "pretty but meaningless", but when I then describe what patterns actually emerge from the data, get as response, well I'd like to see the polls that show that. Um, I just posted them, at length.

Look, I mean no offense. And I certainly dont mind in the least if you disagree with my interpretations and conclusions - thats entirely your right. You live in VA, you have your take. You're welcome to it and I enjoy hearing about it. But to respond "I would like to see the polls that show that" to an argument based on a comprehensive collection of recent polls that was posted just before, yeah, got me snippety.

Quote:

But guess what, dude (sorry, I pledged to stop using that word in 2008), I am here on the ground in VA and I talk to folks in the South I know and the Obama candidacy has legs if he gets the nod. I see only luke-warm support for Clinton.

Yeah, and I already just mentioned myself that the polls do have VA as one of the three states where Obama does do especially well. Otherwise, I appreciate your take from on the ground. I will generally take systematically collected data over any individual impression, but you need both to get a good overall perspective.

0 Replies

I don't recall, Nimh, ever saying that the polls and charts were "pretty, but meaningless." I might have said that, and if I did, it was in this context:

Polls, in my mind, are a snapshot of a virtual instant in time. Once that instant, or that day, or that weekend has passed, those polls are totally obsolete, replaced with the need for new polls of a new instant, a new day.

I question whether the pollsters can keep up with the fast changing dynamics of a political race these days.

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

I don't recall, Nimh, ever saying that the polls and charts were "pretty, but meaningless." I might have said that, and if I did, it was in this context:

Polls, in my mind, are a snapshot of a virtual instant in time. Once that instant, or that day, or that weekend has passed, those polls are totally obsolete, replaced with the need for new polls of a new instant, a new day.

I question whether the pollsters can keep up with the fast changing dynamics of a political race these days.

Theoretically, polls with similar or identical questions can show a history of the change of opinion. Study of this change can show how certain events lead to changing opinion, or help understand changes before they happen.

If you are in to them, after a while they sort of dance for you in time. Like drawing a picture of an election.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

All they show are trends. We'll know better when it gets closer to election time who the leaders of the pack are.

0 Replies

The endless polls and the sniffy "interpretations" are tiresome.

In my opinion, of course - I didn't have a poll to substantiate.

0 Replies

Pay the ungrateful no mind, nimh. You know damn well most of the political junkies on both sides of the ball very much appreciate your tireless work.

0 Replies

I suppose New Hampshire is make-or-break for Hillary. Could she recover from a defeat there? The inevitability/invincibility has gone from her campaign. Everyone is shocked.

But I believe Bill Clinton was only fourth in Iowa on his way to the presidency.

So maybe it's very early days?

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

I suppose New Hampshire is make-or-break for Hillary. Could she recover from a defeat there? The inevitability/invincibility has gone from her campaign. Everyone is shocked.

But I believe Bill Clinton was only fourth in Iowa on his way to the presidency.

So maybe it's very early days?

I think Billary will be rocked to their core if they don't win New Hampshire. And although you're right about the tempestuous nature of the race and it being early yet - in this particular campaign Obama's winning the first two caucuses would be immeasurably huge.

0 Replies

Liberating American politics from the pernicious era of the Southern Strategy should be one the highest strategic priorities for left-of-center politics. Last night a powerful and thoughtful man emerged on the national stage who deeply understands - and is himself the embodiment of - the moral and political imperative of moving beyond this disappointing age. He appears to be summoning the courage, the vision, and the conviction to usher in a whole new - and better - era of politics for America. At its core this new politics will embrace diversity and difference rather than exploit it; at its core this new politics will be defined by hope and tolerance not fear and Tancredoism; at its core this new politics of tolerance is not just a requirement for a more just America here at home, but is a requirement if America is to reassert itself abroad in the much more globalized, multi-polar, interconnected, and open world of the 21st century.

And of course the arrival of this new post-Southern Strategy age of American politics will be accelerated by the extraordinary level of political participation of Millennials, the largest generation in American history, whose life experiences and values are much more Obama than Nixon.

Whatever happens in this campaign, the arrival of Barack Obama and his politics is a welcome development for our nation struggling to find its way in a new and challenging day.

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/movable_type/

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

I suppose New Hampshire is make-or-break for Hillary. Could she recover from a defeat there? The inevitability/invincibility has gone from her campaign. Everyone is shocked.

But I believe Bill Clinton was only fourth in Iowa on his way to the presidency.

So maybe it's very early days?

The difference is that Bill was running as the outsider at the time. The come-from-nowhere, fresh face, dare I say "Change" candidate. That's vs. how Hillary is running now, the whole experience, juggernaut, invincibility thing.

Which is not to say that I think Hillary will lose this time -- I don't know. I can see things going either way. (Iowa momentum + good organization in NH + lots of independents + lots of education = Obama; or NH loves Bill + lots of time and money in NH + they already made up their minds before Iowa and don't want to just go with the flow = Hillary.) (Or Edwards for that matter... unlikely but possible.)

0 Replies

Re: ingratitude and attitude, this is what I found in a quick search for "realjohnboy" and "pretty," though he may have said something else earlier:

realjohnboy wrote:

And, to add a thought, I vote for Nimh. His graphs are indeed pretty and his analysis is always interesting. He is now, compared to 2004, showing a more liberal (Democratic) tilt, in my mind. But he is still the keenest observer of our election process.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2976395#2976395

0 Replies

I put this in Bear's thread, but there's been a lot of discussion about Hillary here as well.

I heard this morning that Hillary said she is the best candidate to stand up against the Republicans in Washington. I don't know if she actually said that or if it was a Talking Head putting words in her mouth. I do know that it manifests why I will not be voting for Hillary. Bear -- I'm not a Democrat (or a Republican) so I stayed out of this thread. The LAST thing we need is someone who wants to continue the divide and Stand Up Against anyone. We need people who want to sit down together. So, no, I will not be voting for Hillary if she gets the nomination (unless she up against a fundy with a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning at election time).

0 Replies

I feel the same way, JPB. I know that not everyone does. Here is one place where I've talked about it.

0 Replies

(I feel the same way about "we need people who want to sit down together." I'd most likely vote for Hillary if she becomes the nominee, though.)

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

Nice of them to warn us they'll be doing more of the same....

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/the_clinton_counter_attack.php

Quote:
The Clinton Counter Attack
04 Jan 2008 09:02 am

"Hillary is pumped up," her campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, said on an internal conference call late last night. "She's ready to fight. We're ready to fight."

Channeling Howard Dean, perhaps intentionally, Solis Doyle said: "We're going to fight in New York, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, California. This is just the beginning."

Clinton's plane(s) -- two of them -- she does not not travel with her press corps -- landed here in New Hampshire at about 4 a.m.

Here is Clinton's game plan:

1. Swarm the state with surrogates; she has a deeper network in New Hampshire than any other state.

2. Two rallies a day; lots of retail events; lots of television interviews.

3. Find some way to go negative against Obama. Some Clinton advisers and aides say that the campaign have a storehouse of opposition research -- old and new -- that they'll use against Obama. In Iowa, being directly associated with negative attacks is seen as uncouth and un-Midwestern; in New Hampshire, rude remarks as as welcome as questions and answers.

4. Claim that Clinton never had a shot in Iowa because of the state's historical bias against women (it's only one of two to never have elected a woman as governor or member of Congress); that Edwards had cornered the Democratic vote and that Obama ran against the Democratic party and cornered the Democratic leading independents; that for a New Yorker to receive 25 percent of the vote or her is impressive (although.. I distinctly remember an HRC mailing calling her a Midwesterner).

By the way: Since 1972, four of nine Democratic nominees have finished second or worse in Iowa; but those four all finished first or second in New Hampshire; the calendar was much more drawn out in those cycles.

5. Point to Clinton's strength in New York, California and Florida; point out that Obama is bad in debates and that in contests that don't rely on retail politicking, she has an edge.

6. Run against the idea of John McCain as the Republican nominee; in other words, who's better to face McCain: Clinton or Obama?

7. Women, women, women. Playing the gender card again.

8. Have really, really good debate performances.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/on-second-thoug.html

Quote:

grrr... I love your candidate, Butrflynet, but this is deeply unfair.

Last night, like every night, Hannity repeated god knows how many times, "We know the Clintons. We know Hillary. We know they are going to get dirty."

This is a narrative and it is promoted by the Hannity types for obvious reasons and it is also forwarded by other less partisan outlets because...well, that's a good question.

But what substance is there in these pieces? Seriously look at that. Other than the implications and promises by these reporters that something nasty will be said/done, what meat is there in either piece? That the Hillary campaign will suggest Barrack is untested? That he has a past (the word 'record' is used) and there might be something relevant there? That we ought to consider that Bob Novak is operating as a non-partisan, citizen-helpful, truth-teller?

Of course her campaign is going to have to do something to try and gain the upper hand, as will the others.

But everything above forwards a narrative which, once again, is not justified by the content within the piece.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I feel the same way, JPB. I know that not everyone does. Here is one place where I've talked about it.

This is a tricky matter, in two ways. First, trying to understand what is really going on (how large or pervasive, dedicated, extremist, and funded is the republican attack machine) and second, given some answers to those questions, what ought a countering strategy to look like?

My reading suggests that we ought to be pessimistic. For example, Limbaugh and Ann Coulter won't turn nice and any dem candidate moving to reform medical delivery will be in the crosshairs of corporate structures who have enormous wealth and power and they will fight tooth and nail. This thread just started by snood tells of a small corner of the story... http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=109699

I don't know, frankly, if Hillary's claim here is correct, or if Obama's hope for a broad and vigorous realignment of values and strategies is correct. I guess we'll see. But the answer sure as hell ain't clear.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know