Who Does Better Among Moderates?

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:28:02 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Paul Lukasiak continues his number crunching analysis at Corrente Wire today, and concludes,

Based on available exit polling from states that held primary elections, while Obama dominates the “Independent” voter, Hillary Clinton actually does slightly better among “Moderate” voters— and this is even more true in crucial swing states. The data suggests that a more comprehensive review of all such “electability” factors is required.

Paul's prior analysis on the vote is detailed here and explained here.

< Mukasey Refuses Federal Death Penalty Prosecution | Gail Collins Is Funny >

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2024. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

Who Does Better Among Moderates? | 84 comments (84 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Obama supporters do not have an open mind (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by desmoinesdem on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:33:59 PM EST

on the electability issue. They seem incapable of understanding that while Obama does better among independents, there are large voting blocs that favor Clinton.

NPR Healthcare Poll Good News for Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:00:14 AM EST

******************
A new NPR poll shows that 59% of those surveyed support Clinton-style HEALTHCARE MANDATES inclusive of employer contributions and government subsidies.

See it here:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87783148

Parent

: The Healthcare Poll includes data on (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:07:31 AM EST

specific levels of support among various demographics, Dems, Indies, Repubs etc.

Parent
: So I expect Obama to support mandates... (none / 0) (#45)
by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:16:33 AM EST

.....if he secures the nomination.

Parent

I would not go that far. (none / 0) (#3)
by halstoon on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:38:53 PM EST

I personally understand quite well that Hillary has a very large and very loyal bloc. I also understand, however, that Obama is clearly winning this race at the moment.

Parent

I personally think (none / 0) (#10)
by sara seattle on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:06:42 AM EST

That Obama might not be the best person to be the next President

Parent

I respect that. (none / 0) (#16)
by halstoon on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:46:28 AM EST

I disagree, but I respect that.

Parent

Off topic (none / 0) (#20)
by sara seattle on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:14:36 AM EST

but did you ever watch "The life of Brian"??

Parent

: No, but obviously I would put you in (none / 0) (#62)
by halstoon on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:36:04 AM EST

Brian's camp, if that's your metaphor.

Parent

that is a fact! (none / 0) (#57)
by hellothere on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:22:43 AM EST

Parent

Remember that Bush also won (none / 0) (#21)
by sara seattle on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:20:14 AM EST

Bush also was the Uniter
Bush also had a terrific following
Bush also - and still has people devoted to him

and I still do not think that he was a good choice for America

Parent

I think alot will depend on who McCain choses to (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by athyrio on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:41:22 PM EST

be his Vice President....If it is a moderate that really might throw a monkey wrench into the mix...

I read something interesting/worrying the (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by tigercourse on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:53:21 PM EST

other day. One possible VP choice for McCain is former Pennsylvania Governor and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, who was apparently pretty popular in his home state. He's a moderate, pro choice even, so he won't be popular amongst the conservatives. But he could give a big electoral boost to McCain.

Parent

: No pro-choicer (none / 0) (#12)
by MKS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:10:10 AM EST

will ever grace the Republican ticket.....McCain has to mend fences with the conservatives....

Parent
: i don't want ole huck for sure. (none / 0) (#58)
by hellothere on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:23:36 AM EST

Parent

Link to a Lanny Davis article (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:48:46 PM EST

talking about electability:

Link to Lanny at Huffington

IMHO, the money quote:

First, recent national data shows the surprising, even shocking, fact that Senator Obama runs weaker among Democrats vs. Senator McCain than does Senator Clinton. For example, in the last three national Gallup polls (January, early February and late February,) Senator McCain wins more Democrats in a race against Senator Obama than he does in a race against Senator Clinton - i.e., Senator McCain wins an average of 17%-19% of Democrats against Senator Obama, but only 10%-12-% average Democrats running against Senator Clinton.

Hope everyone is having a nice evening.

those numbers appear to be from the Pew poll (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:47:12 AM EST

that came out a day or two ago.

Y'know, the one that showed Obama beating McCain by 7, Hillary beating him by 5.

Given that 6 months of campaigning without opposition from within the party, and holding the convention, and the looming spectre of McCain, I have no doubt that the Dems will rally around either candidate to the same extent as always.

Parent

: Hate to disagree but (none / 0) (#66)
by catfish on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:27:21 AM EST

I disagree. I was enamored with Obama all summer and talked him up to friends. But something has taken a wrong turn between me and him and I fled to Hillary. He just doesn't wear well.

Parent
: The same extent as always (none / 0) (#73)
by Cream City on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:16:50 PM EST

was, thanks for reminding us, not enough to take back the country in 2004. If "I can do as well as Kerry did" is Obama's new slogan, we're in serious trouble.

Parent

It's been a rather quiet night (none / 0) (#13)
by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:10:11 AM EST

in the blogoshphere...how long do you think it will last?

Parent

It's nice (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:49:57 AM EST

to have a quiet night, but it almost feels like the calm before the storm.

Parent

Not so quiet on the Clinton Ad Threads (none / 0) (#23)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:38:11 AM EST

Take a look - lots of snark, unfortunately.

Parent

Jeralyn, have self-identified independents (none / 0) (#27)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:11:07 AM EST

generally tacked to the right in prior elections?
Has that been true, to a lesser extent, for self-identified moderates?

Parent

: based on exit polling data from 2004 (none / 0) (#38)
by p lukasiak on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:06:54 AM EST

moderates tacked toward Kerry both overall, and in the last election in key swing states, and was a huge share of the electorate
Kerry percentages
Nationally: All Voters-48% Moderates-54%
Ohio: All Voters-49% Moderates-59%
Pennsylvania: All Voters-51% Moderates-57%
Michigan: All Voters-51% Moderates-56%
Florida: All Voters-47% Moderates-56%
Moderates as a % of the electorate
Nationally 45%
Ohio 50%
Pennsylvania 48%
Michigan 44%
Florida 47%
In 2004, Conservatives made up 34% of the electorate, but with the Conservative "brand" in such disrepute, I expect there to be a lot of people who called themselves "conservative" four years ago who will describe themselves as "moderate" this year -- and that the moderate demographic will expand. But we'll also probably see an equivalent falloff in self-identified Republicans...

Parent
: based on exit polling data from 2004 II (none / 0) (#39)
by p lukasiak on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:27:06 AM EST

Independents made up a smaller part of the electorate, and were to the right of moderates overall and but were 'all over the map' in swing states
Kerry percentages
Nationally: All Voters-48% Independents-49%
Ohio: All Voters-49% Independents-59%
Pennsylvania: All Voters-51% Independents-58%
Michigan: All Voters-51% Independents-49%
Florida: All Voters-47% Independents-57%
Independents as a % of the electorate
Nationally 26%
Ohio 25%
Pennsylvania 20%
Michigan 27%
Florida 23%
Just a theory, but it looks to me, based on this limited data, that "independent" may have defined themselves to some extent by their feelings toward the prevailing state party -- but that's just a theory....

Parent
: i am a registered independent. (none / 0) (#59)
by hellothere on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:26:30 AM EST

i supported edwards and now hillary. this election is not the same as past elections. there is nothing valid to track right for these days. the bush fiasco saw to that. but considering how divided this campaign has become, expect more a movement toward the right. that is unfortunate.
the so called cross over of repubs in the ge is not going to happen. ever!

Parent

Teresa, I'm having a better evening now. (none / 0) (#24)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:59:46 AM EST

Thanks for the reality check. Is this proof of what you've sensed all along? It is for me.

Be well.

Parent

Independents, Moderates not the same? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by catfish on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:02:08 AM EST

Yet exit polling data reveals that the "Moderate" demographic is much larger than "Independents". And there is no correlation between the voting patterns of "Independents" and "Moderates". And "Moderate" voter are the key constituency that will be crucial in swing states in November.

Guess not. Explains a lot - I always thought Hillary had a better chance in the general, but a tougher time in the primary. But friends would say Obama's attracting Independents. And I couldn't disagree.

Catfish, you nailed it. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:12:12 AM EST

Parent

so which is it? (none / 0) (#30)
by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:25:18 AM EST

I've been hearing the constant drum beat around here that Obama is too moderate, that Hillary is the true progressive. So why do you think Hillary is more attractive to moderates?

Parent

Hillary and moderates (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by p lukasiak on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:31:03 AM EST

I'd say its because she's been positioning herself to run as a moderate for the last seven years, and/or because "moderates" by their nature tend to be risk-adverse, and prefer known quantities to "the latest thing".

but that's just a theory

Parent

: He's Risk-Averse (none / 0) (#65)
by catfish on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:25:06 AM EST

I think it's because she got more done than he has ever gotten done, and he's coming from outside the system.
She's worked within the system, and people find that both moderate and risk-averse. But I wouldn't say she hasn't taken risks, because I find him to be risk-averse when it comes to policy.

Parent

Don't know, but I'd agree with that (none / 0) (#64)
by catfish on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:02:42 AM EST

I've been hearing the constant drum beat around here that Obama is too moderate, that Hillary is the true progressive. So why do you think Hillary is more attractive to moderates?

She's more partisan, but she's also more moderate. I hear some people on talk radio call in and say he's for too much change, like he's a revolutionary. These tend to be folks that immigrated here from places like China, etc.

Parent

The hours I've wasted (5.00 / 3) (#22)
by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:33:40 AM EST

Trying to convince people on other blogs that there's a difference between moderates and independents, oh man, I wish I had them back.

It's good to see others can make such rudimentary distinctions.

: Edgar08, I hear you here. (none / 0) (#26)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:05:13 AM EST

Parent

How nice of you to (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by RalphB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:41:47 AM EST

bring back the discredited "scandals" of the '90s. May as well post a link to the Starr Report while you're at it.

: All that's missing (none / 0) (#55)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:52:01 AM EST

is the Clinton body count! Or maybe it's there. I stopped reading pretty quickly.
This stuff would be a huge laugher, except I know how many people don't realize that it's just right wing spew.

Parent

I love nerdy/wonky details as much as the (none / 0) (#2)
by halstoon on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:36:12 PM EST

next guy, but how about judging things on the
23-11 election contest record? Also, after Tuesday, I think it will be pretty clear who should lead us. Bill C.'s standards seem right to me. She wins OH/TX, she's it. She doesn't, we go with the new guy. We'll know late Tuesday.

As for "electable," either should beat John McCain. If they fail, it will be disastrous for Democrats, as they are not likely to have this much enthusiasm in their electorate for a while.

I am concerned (5.00 / 4) (#9)
by sara seattle on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:05:21 AM EST

McCain is going to be a tougher nut than for sure the Obamanites are thinking. Their views are not exactly realistic - on so many levels -

They think that just because they want Obama to win -- then voila - he will win.

However - every day the Obomanites are turning off a huge percentage of Democratic voters - those of us supporting Hillary -- and to them it is not a problem at all - actually the more they manage to totally tick off Hillary supporters the happier they are.

In their world that is OK because - as they say - they will pick up lots of Republican voters along the way to make up for it.

I doubt it.....

Parent

That would be sad. (none / 0) (#15)
by halstoon on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:42:48 AM EST

I don't see it as a voila kind of thing. I do think it will be a lot of work, but I also believe this is the year people are actually going to be willing to do it.

I'm sorry if you've been turned off by so-called Obamanites. I know some Clintonites infuriate me, but I will vote for her in spite of them should she win the nomination.

Parent

: Losing side's supporters' attitudes are key to GE (none / 0) (#44)
by cymro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:01:34 AM EST

I'm sorry if you've been turned off by so-called Obamanites. I know some Clintonites infuriate me, but I will vote for her in spite of them should she win the nomination.
This is good to hear. I worry about how Obama supporters will react if Clinton is the candidate, and vice versa. I expect there to be some defections to McCain from the losing side, regardless of who wins the primary. But my gut feel (with absolutely no statistical analysis to support it, I admit) is that Clinton supporters, who comprise a larger percentage of traditional Democrats, will be less likely to defect.
If this is the case, then the best way to win the GE is to have Obama on the ticket in one of the two slots. In my view, a Clinton/Obama ticket would be the best combination to achieve the twin goals of electability and doing a good job afterwards.
A primary situation like this is EXACTLY why the Party added superdelegates to the selection process. So I'm hoping that the superdelegates will eventually come to the same conclusion, after more careful analysis of the electorate.

Parent

realistic? (none / 0) (#19)
by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:51:37 AM EST

You think Obama came out of nowhere to beat the powerful and inevitable Hillary Clinton just by "wishing"?

You think that Hillary and her supporters are not turning off at least as many Obama supporters, day by day, than the inverse?

Have you found very many Clinton supporters round here who have any hesitation about insulting and seeming to take joy in putting down Obama supporters?

And they dont even have the hope of picking up some Repubs to make up the difference.

Parent

: No, he had a brilliant (5.00 / 3) (#52)
by sancho on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:10:18 AM EST

stratey of bullrushing the meaningless caucus states, creating the "story" of momentum, while playing to the MSM's anti-Clinton and misogynist biases (a powerful combo). He also brilliantly played the race card and pointed repeatedly and self-righteously to his completely meaningless anti-war speech from '02 which pleased those dem. liberals intent on putting another mcgovern forward as our new nominee.
Thinking that effective primary strategy translates into a GE victory is "wishing."

Parent

Sara, good point. (none / 0) (#32)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:41:10 AM EST

A couple of days ago there was a TEXAS MEMO urging Republicans to vote for Obama - for a day - in the Texas Democratic open primary. And then to vote for McCain in the General Election. It's a full-blown campaign. The original link is no longer functional - but I made a pdf file - for posterity. It doesn't have the full impact of the full page full color original, but here's what it said. Beware, a slew of Obama supporters will go ape-s*it when they see this again.

The following is the full text as it appeared on the 'Republicans for Obama' website:
-------------------------------------------------

E-mail to send to all your Republican friends
Sat, 02/16/2008 - 10:41pm -- afnighthawk

(This post was neither authored nor approved by the leadership of Republicans for Obama. It is simply a posting in a public forum.)

Attention All Texas Republicans and Independents!!

On March 4th, Texas Republicans and Independents will have an opportunity to end Hillary Clinton's (and Bill's) presidential ambitions once and for all!

Since Texas has on open primary, Republicans and Independents should sign in at their polling place and request a Democratic ballot. They should then vote for Barack Obama. Even James Carville admits that if Hillary loses Texas, "she's done!" Republicans can help make this a reality!!! Just think, no more Clintons in the White House!

Voting Democratic this one time will have NO effect on your ability to vote in the next Republican primary or obviously on your vote in November. Since John McCain has the Republican nomination locked up, voting for McCain or Huckabee at this point will have no effect on the outcome on the Republican side.

After you vote during early voting or on March 4th, you ARE NOT done! Report back to your regular polling place at 7PM on March 4th to sign the Barack Obama list for caucus delegates. In a little known Texas voting quirk, 67 delegates to the Democratic convention will be seated because of these caucuses. This is a full one-third of the total number of Texas delegates. For Hillary to lose, she has to lose the primary votes AND the caucus votes. I urge you to vote against Hillary Clinton by voting for Barack Obama.

Please forward this e-mail to all your Republican and Independent friends so that we can help ensure the Clinton's defeat on March 4th!!!

--------------------------------------------------

Parent

I know plenty of people (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by sancho on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:15:15 AM EST

in Dallas and near Dallas who plan to vote for Obama "just for the fun knocking that *** Clinton out" and can't wait to vote for McCain in Nov. My knowledge of these people does not prove anything definitive and polling them will be tricky b/c they plan to lie if asked. But I lived most of my life in Texas and it sounds typical and thus likely widespread to me. Obama will get a sizeable number of phantom Repub. votes Tueasday in Texas--as he did in WI too.

Parent

how many times will you post this and refuse (none / 0) (#35)
by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:21:58 AM EST

to acknowledge that this is a site that is advocating voting for Obama in November.

I can understand making a mistake one time, but you have been told four times already. Now it is getting to the point of being blatant dishonesty.

Parent

: I can read (none / 0) (#46)
by cymro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:20:07 AM EST

If I'm a Republican voter, and I receive an email that says ...

Voting Democratic this one time will have NO effect on your ability to vote in the next Republican primary or obviously on your vote in November.
... then the fact that it was a Web site ...

advocating voting for Obama in November

... that encouraged an Obama supporter to send me that email is totally irrelevant. It's the content of the email that matters, not the position of the site, because someone reading the email has no idea about what was on that site.
Isn't this obvious? How can you possibly try to argue otherwise?

Parent

Obama's campaign circulated fliers.... (none / 0) (#36)
by Josey on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:57:11 AM EST

"be a Dem for a day" - encouraging voters to vote for Obama in primaries/caucuses.

Parent

Got link? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:39:21 AM EST

Anything to back this claim up?

Parent

: go to the media! (none / 0) (#60)
by hellothere on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:32:33 AM EST

Parent
: This one is not from the campaign (none / 0) (#76)
by Josey on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:30:08 PM EST

http://tinyurl.com/yqgp2y --
but there were articles last summer re Iowa about Obama's campaign encouraging "Dem for a day."

Parent

23-11 record? (none / 0) (#42)
by p lukasiak on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:27:03 AM EST

I assume you are talking about states here.

and, in very real terms, that is simply an absurd argument.

The general election winner is determined by electoral college vote, and 'all states are not created equal' there. California's 55 EC votes are 5 greater than the combined totals of all 10 of Obama's caucus states (ID, ND, MN, IA, ME, NE, KS, CO, AK, and HI.)

Nor should we forget that 8 of Obama's wins were in states that Democrats can't even pose a credible challenge (UT, ID, ND, NE, KS, SC, GA, AK-- 49 combined EC votes) Hillary has won two "forget about it" state, AZ & OK, with a combined 17 EC votes. (i'd also like to note that AZ was not a 'forget about it' state unlike McCain became inevitable on SuperTuesday -- were Romney the nominee, AZ would have been highly competitive.)

Parent

Absurd arguments (none / 0) (#49)
by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:52:34 AM EST

Mr. Lukasiak,

It is ironic that you speak of absurd arguments when you continually try to make grand observations based on selective sets of data.

I understand that you can only evaluate based on the data you have. But I do not find it reasonable to make assertions when you clearly do not have a complete data set. You feel that since caucuses are not accurate predictors of voter sentiment, a dubious proposition in this context, you simply discard them.

Even ignoring that your list of swing states seems highly suspect...

NH, AR, DE, FL, MI, MO, NJ, NM, WI, VA

While you can argue that Arkansas is a swing state for Hillary it is not likely to go for Obama, unless Obama wins really big. As such this state skews the results. Michigan is completely useless as a data set. NJ as a swing simply defies logic and reason. NJ hasn't vote GOP in a President or Senate race in 20 years.

So basically while your analysis is fun to read it is utterly meaningless as an analytical tool. It is quite good, however, as a tool to fire up the Clinton supporters.

Parent

data set not selective (none / 0) (#50)
by p lukasiak on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:36:38 AM EST

1) the main data set I used included all states that held primaries and had exit polls. I also supplemented the data set from states that had primaries but no exit polls, and caucuses that had exit polls. Neither supplemental data set changed the results in any significant fashion.

I did not try an do anything with the data from caucus states without exit polls, and for very good reasons. That being said, a recent estimate of total individuals participating in caucus states (which i cannot vouch for - but is consistent for those states I do know about) came to 907k. Subtract the Iowa and Nevada numbers (which I included in my supplemental data sets), and your left with 551K participants -- a number too small to make much impact on my final totals (which are based on over 21.9 million 'polled primary' voters overall, and 8.5 million moderates from polled primaries.)

As for my list of "swing states", that list is (as noted in my piece) from Rasmussen reports. I'm not 'arguing' anything -- I simply used a third party source to determine what states were potentially in play at the time I wrote the piece.

I also note in my piece that there is a distinction between "swing states" and "battleground" states -- the latter include 'safe' state which the party that won't win there competes anyway; rather than allowing the opposition to focus all it resources on swing states.

(finally, it should also be noted that states like AX and possibly MA would be considered 'swing' had Romney, and not McCain, won big on SuperTuesday, and was the presumptive nominee).

Parent

As I said (none / 0) (#51)
by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:52:07 AM EST

I understand why you used the data you did. My POINT was that because the data set is so incomplete you can't really draw anything from them.

Parent

Never in the history of .... (none / 0) (#56)
by Alvord on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:08:03 AM EST

....the universe has there ever been a complete data set. If you look close enough you will find every data set wanting. Every day people in the real world draw conclusions from incomplete data sets.

Parent

: That is a silly statement (none / 0) (#83)
by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:25:20 AM EST

Of course there are complete data sets.
When a baseball season ends there is a complete data set to analyze. When a fiscal budget ends you have a complete data set regarding spending to analyze.
The analysis may not be complete but the data sets often are.

Parent

Nerds don't ignore the details (none / 0) (#48)
by cymro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:40:07 AM EST

Your argument contains a logical contradiction. If you are really a nerd, you pay attention to the details of how things work, as your statement suggests. In which case, you know that elections are not won and lost by counting states, or by counting the popular vote. Only electoral votes matter.

If you didn't know about the electoral college, then you should not be offering opinions about "who should lead us" into the General Election before you do some more research.

If, on the other hand, you do know about electoral votes, then:

-- Are you falsely claiming to be a nerd when actually you're not? Or, ...

-- Are you actually a nerd, but making an argument which you know to be illogical?

Which is it?

Parent

Last I checked, we don't pick the nominee (none / 0) (#63)
by halstoon on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:52:16 AM EST

based on an EC map, but by delegates, and....let me check...oh, yes, Sen. Obama has won 150+ more of those than the worthy Sen. Clinton. That is really my only point.

If the Democratic party wishes to simply write of IA,ID,GA,SC,AL,MS,TN,CO,NE, etc., perhaps they should cease holding nominating contests there. You see, the detail that Democrats live in those states and have thus been rendered a voice in this process seems to escape those who wish for only the "big states" to count. And, when Obama wins a "big state" in TX on Tuesday, it will be rendered void b/c of all the "Dem for a Day" talk, when in actuality Limbaugh et. al. are pushing the exact same thing in favor of Sen. Clinton!

Now, are you making an illogical argument that blue states like NY,CA,NJ, CT,MA, OR, etc. will somehow be red in November unless Sen. Clinton is the Democrat nominee? Because that would really require a suspension of logic, sense those are deep blue states very likely to remain blue with Sen. Obama as the nominee.

You should also learn to read more closely. I said I liked nerdy details, not that I am a nerd. Simply more evidence that you simply see what you wish to see rather than what is actually presented to you.

Parent

Caucuses disfavor the elderly (none / 0) (#68)
by catfish on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:32:03 AM EST

But caucuses really do disfavor the elderly, and that's a group that could jump to McCain, especially since he's talked about preserving Social Security and Medicare.

Parent

Does your 150+ for Obama (none / 0) (#69)
by katiebird on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:36:27 PM EST

Take FL & MI into account?

Because I think the delegates from those states should be included in the delegate estimates.

Parent

The DNC at the moment disagrees, (none / 0) (#70)
by halstoon on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:13:44 PM EST

so I do not count them. Those states (especially MI) will have to hold another primary before the delegates are seated in a contested election. Of course, if either Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton quits the race, they will be seated once they have no effect on the outcome.

Parent

Link re decision on another primary? (none / 0) (#75)
by Cream City on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:25:38 PM EST

I never have seen it stated as certain -- until yours. So you must have the story that said so.

Parent

No, just opinion, but (none / 0) (#78)
by halstoon on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:50:52 PM EST

according the Miami Herald, "Florida Democrats are torn over how to resolve the dispute over the state's early primary date, though most don't buy Hillary Clinton's argument that her victory should count toward delegates that would let her catch up to Barack Obama, a new poll shows."

So it would seem that her chances of having the delegation seated as is are slim.

Parent

Then please learn to state as opinion (none / 0) (#79)
by Cream City on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:21:03 PM EST

what is opinion. That has been asked of you before -- well, of both of you, with your split personalities here?

Parent

: Yes, Mommy Dearest.... (none / 0) (#81)
by halstoon on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:34:44 PM EST

I'll be watching you too....

Parent

More arguments that miss the point (none / 0) (#72)
by cymro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:05:24 PM EST

Last I checked, we don't pick the nominee based on an EC map, but by delegates

But the discussion in this thread has been about electability in the GE, and not about primary delegates.

As you point out, you like nerdy details, but you are not a nerd. This may explain your inability to actually focus on understanding how those details are crucial to the discussion. So why even try to participate in a discussion that requires a grasp of those details? I like professional basketball, but I'd be foolish to try to coach or play in a game.

Parent

Primary or GE, it doesn't matter. (none / 0) (#77)
by halstoon on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:44:02 PM EST

He's outperforming her at both.

GE Poll as of now-so if we voted today which Dem would actually be preferred over McCain and which would not? Hmmm...looks like Barack would win, but not her.

According to LA Times, a nat'l paper in a big state the HC won, Obama is within the MoE, she is not.

Politifact says "Clinton's negatives are higher than Obama's."

10 of Obama's primary victories came with at least 55% of the vote.

Only 5 of Hillary's did.

Oh, and like I said, there's his whole 155 pledged delegate lead, 110 total delegate lead, ~7 point lead nationally, ~1 million vote popular lead (600k+ w/FL), etc. That says to me Democrats think he's got a better shot in the fall. After all, we vote on who we think can actually be president, right?

One last thing: those oh-so special superdelegates, the ones Sen. Clinton is counting on to deliver for her? Yeah, well, as of now that ain't happenin'. In fact, Obama has picked up a couple dozen, while she's actually down a few. Fancy that. The people whose main concern is in fact electability, well, they seem to be settling on Sen. Obama.

Now, what was your point, again? That Sen. Clinton won NY,CA,MA,NJ: states that will be blue basically no matter what?? Yeah, very convincing.

Seems you know as much about politics as you do about basketball...

Parent

This is your funniest yet! (none / 0) (#80)
by Cream City on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:22:23 PM EST

You think he already "outperformed" in and won the GE. Do you know what month it is, what day it is today? (First test given to . . . well, we'll leave it at that.)

Parent

Your argument is so incredibly weak (none / 0) (#82)
by halstoon on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:37:07 PM EST

that you literally grasp at straws, just like your candidate. No surprise, when you lose up and down, no other response would be expected.

Parent

Your argument that the GE already occurred (none / 0) (#84)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:05:19 PM EST

is not just weak. It's, well, weird.

Parent

: Why is it that when you lose an argument, (none / 0) (#85)
by halstoon on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:11:06 PM EST

you just lie about what your opponent said?
You know good and well that I did not argue the GE already happened. I argued that Obama does better in GE polling than Hillary. But you know this. You just like to live in lala land so that you don't have to actually make a case for yourself.

Parent

Primary or GE are the same?! (none / 0) (#86)
by cymro on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:40:29 PM EST

Really?

-- Having a different opponent makes no difference?
-- There being a different way of counting the votes makes no difference?
-- Do you know that there are no superdelegates in the GE, so why are you talking about the count of superdelegates?

Do you know what the discussion in this thread is about? Or are you just here to root for Obama, and interfere with rational discussion?

Parent

Because it's a delegate race (none / 0) (#67)
by catfish on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:30:09 AM EST

It's not who won the most states lately, it's a delegate race. Vote totals:

Candidate Delegates Votes
----------------------------------------
Clinton 1275 10,720,918
Obama 1384 11,041,918

Delegates needed to win: 2,025

Parent

This is a (none / 0) (#14)
by muffie on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:29:19 AM EST

pretty weak argument for electibility.

Party identification has one of the highest correlations to voter preference. For instance, in 2004 it went 89% Democrats for Kerry and 93% for Bush. This is higher than the 85% liberals for Kerry and 84% conservatives for Bush. The numbers are even more divergent in 2004.

So if you're going to try to make a prediction based on polls, you're obviously better off starting with the Dem/Rep split, because

There's a better corrolation between the two parties and voting patterns.
The number of independents is smaller than the number of moderates, so there's less indeterminacy.

But if we have to play these sorts of games with moderates, let's see how it goes. I conjecture that there are relatively few people who identify as "liberal independents". This would mean that Obama is winning among "moderate independents", and losing among "moderate Democrats". For the general election, I would rather assume that the moderate Dems are more likely to come home to the Democratic party than the independents.

In short, if the election were held tomorrow, I really don't buy into these attempts to slice and dice the polls to be more favorable to Clinton.

Unfortunately, the election is not held tomorrow.

: liberals and moderates (none / 0) (#41)
by p lukasiak on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:58:56 AM EST

okay, this is based on a limited set of states (because I can't find the file where I kept all the state data on this--these seem to be the most 'closely contested' primary states, i.e. those whose margings were 10% or less.) The states are MO, CA, TN, NM, NJ, DE, CT & NH, and the numbers are avergages of state percentages, rather than aggregate vote totals.
very liberal (19% of voters): Clinton-44% Obama-50%
somewhat liberal (31% of voters): Clinton-48% Obama-47%
moderate (40% of voters): Clinton-50% Obama-44%
somewhat conservative (8% of voters): Clinton-42% Obama-49%
This limited data set suggests that Clinton is, in fact, the preferred candidate of the Democratic Party mainstream -- while Obama's greatest appeal is on the 'non-mainstream' part of the party.
(and this is news to me...it might be worthwhile running findin my big file and seeing if this bears out in less competitive states as well!)

Parent

Chisoxy, the link is malfunctioning. (none / 0) (#29)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:14:25 AM EST

Thanks though.

dont paste in URLs (none / 0) (#31)
by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:27:32 AM EST

just type out a word, like LINK, or use some passage of text you want linked, then highlight it, then click on the 4th button right above the box you are typing in. Then paste the URL there.

Long links mess up the spacing on the page.

Try this link (none / 0) (#33)
by muffie on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:44:06 AM EST

to the summary.

In short, the favorable/unfavorable splits are:
McCain: 53/43
Obama: 51/46
Clinton: 46/53

I agree that to a very large extent, this reflects the portrayal of the three candidates in the media.

thank you, sorry (none / 0) (#34)
by Chisoxy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:49:23 AM EST

Im new on here, Ill remember for next time.

So is that not an unreasonably unfavorable rating for Obama? I guess I just assumed he wouldve been in the 30s at most given the coverage and how the election is going.

Parent

: A recent Rasmussen ... (none / 0) (#37)
by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:45:11 AM EST

poll also showed Obama with negatives quite close to Clinton's 43/46 and McCain with much lower negatives, 33.
I think a lot people are seeing Obama's GE chances through rose-tinted glasses. It's going to be a tough fight whoever we choose.
However, I think Clinton is more likely to hold all of Kerry's states and add at least OH, than Obama is.

Parent

you need to hussle yourself over to (none / 0) (#61)
by hellothere on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:35:43 AM EST

red state. i think you'd be happier there.

Way, way off topic (none / 0) (#71)
by cymro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:45:53 PM EST

A first-time commenter (none / 0) (#74)
by Cream City on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:20:54 PM EST

and what a stunning debut this was. Oh, do come back and take up a screen or two with . . . whatever this is. But I bet it oughta be in quotation marks.

Who Does Better Among Moderates? | 84 comments (84 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment