US 2008 Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread - Part 9 - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-22-2008, 02:10 AM   #106
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Lila64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ♥Set List Lane♥
Posts: 52,710
Local Time: 03:59 PM
Did anyone watch 60 Minutes?
__________________

__________________
Lila64 is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 02:32 AM   #107
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:59 PM
I caught about 34 minutes.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 08:43 AM   #108
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2Fanatic4ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: nowhere..........man
Posts: 20,254
Local Time: 06:59 PM
i missed it.. how was it?
__________________
U2Fanatic4ever is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 08:59 AM   #109
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Utoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lovetown
Posts: 8,343
Local Time: 06:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Since Barack Obama is the "Change Candidate", I thought he wouldn't mind mixing things up a bit.
Well, he's also not interested in riding a pogo stick to work.


__________________
Utoo is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 10:29 AM   #110
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,488
Local Time: 05:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Yeah, I know that, but he's a teenage boy of prime macho-posturing age, and I'm pretty sure Tim Wise recognizes that too. My point (to deep) was that Wise was suggesting that a black teenage father saying comparable things wouldn't get as much of a 'boys-will-be-boys' pass from the public, as Levi Johnston did. I don't think Wise, himself, was suggesting that Johnston SHOULD be deemed a thug.


ah, yes, this was precisely what i was thinking -- i might have read too quickly.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-22-2008, 10:30 AM   #111
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,488
Local Time: 05:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utoo View Post


__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-22-2008, 11:04 AM   #112
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,488
Local Time: 05:59 PM
some really fascinating research/insight from what i swear is the best electoral website out there, FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right

Quote:
Allocating the Undecideds

Heretofore, I've simply been allocating undecided voters 50:50. That is certainly the most neutral assumption to make. But this site isn't about making the most neutral assumption, it's about making the most predictive one.

So what I'm going to do instead is tie the undecided allocation to the extent to which Barack Obama overperformed or underperformed his polls in particular types of states in the Democratic primaries. If you compare the actual results in the primaries to the final RCP or Pollster.com averages, you'll notice some fairly systematic differences.

Specifically, Obama overperformed:

1. In states with high African-American populations;
2. In states that share a border with Illinois (no, Kentucky doesn't count);
3. In states with highly educated electorates;
4. To a lesser extent, in the South (as indicated by the number of evangelicals), even after accounting for the above variables.

Meanwhile, he underperformed his polls:

1. In the Appalachian states (as indicated by the number of respondents who identify their ancestry as 'American', a practice concentrated in the Appalachian region);
2. In states with low education levels;
3. And in states with a high number of Catholics.

This can all be ferreted out via regression analysis, taking the factors I describe above as the independent variables, and Obama's performance vis--vis his polls as the dependent variable. The R-squared on this regression is .72, which is quite high -- it means that it was rather predictable when the polls were wrong, and in which direction.

To get a little ahead of myself: does this mean that there was in fact a Bradley Effect during the primaries? It's not clear. What is actually quite clear -- and I'm going to present some research on this over the next several days -- is that the polls did a rather poor job of accounting for the black vote. Not only did essentially every "undecided" African-American voter wind up voting for Obama, but some of those who told pollsters they were going to vote for Hillary also wound up voting for Obama. The reverse Bradley Effect, in other words, was fairly manifest.

It's also clear that there were some patterns in the way that undecided white voters behaved. Number one, a majority of them -- probably somewhere between 60 and 65 percent -- wound up voting for Clinton. This is perhaps not so remarkable, considering that about 60 percent of white voters in the primaries voted for Clinton period. But, this figure was higher in regions like the Appalachians, and among groups like Catholics, and lower in places where you had a lot of WASPy, educated voters. So whether or not you label this a Bradley Effect, I don't know -- but the behavior of undecided voters has been predictable to a certain extent.

Now, it does not necessarily follow that the patterns exhibited by undecided voters in the primaries will match those in the general election. But based both on my research and on what I've been hearing from people on the ground, it's apparent that the public polling in general is not terrific, and that if we have an instinct about where the polls are more likely to come in high or low, we probably ought to follow it.

So what I've done is to transform the results of the regression analysis that I described above into an undecided voter allocation for each state. The allocation is "rigged" such that neither candidate will gain or lose ground in the national popular vote as a result, and such that the range of allocations runs from about .35 to .65. That is, in some states we'll allocate as much as 65% of the undecided vote to John McCain (and just 35% to Barack Obama) and in others we'll allocate as much as 65% to Obama (and just 35% to McCain).

The specific allocations follow. Remember, these are based on the extent to which Obama over- or underperformed his polls in various states during the primaries:

Percent of Undecided Votes Allocated to Barack Obama
DC 64.4%
MS 64.4%
GA 63.0%
MD 61.5%
SC 61.1%
AL 60.9%
NC 58.0%
VA 57.8%
IN 57.8%
IA 56.9%
AR 56.8%
OK 56.5%
WI 56.5%
DE 53.7%
AK 53.4%
WA 52.7%
FL 52.4%
TN 52.3%
CO 51.8%
MO 51.6%
MI 51.5%
KS 51.4%
OR 51.0%
LA 50.7%
UT 50.6%
HI 50.5%
MN 50.2%
NE 49.8%
TX 48.3%
IL 48.3%
MT 48.0%
OH 47.2%
NV 46.7%
WY 46.6%
SD 46.4%
AZ 46.0%
ND 45.5%
ID 45.4%
NJ 45.0%
PA 44.8%
CT 44.6%
NY 44.6%
VT 43.7%
KY 43.4%
CA 42.9%
ME 42.6%
NH 42.2%
MA 41.0%
NM 40.0%
WV 38.6%
RI 35.0%

At this point in the election, the number of undecideds is fairly low: generally between 4 and 6 points in each state, once we've gotten done assigning a point or two to third party candidates. As such, these allocations do not make a great deal of difference -- at the most, a swing of maybe a point or a point-and-a-half.

Still, you can see some impacts at the margins. Take a state like West Virginia, where the polling has been reasonably close but where there are also high numbers of undecided voters. Those undecideds aren't the type of undecideds who are liable to side with Barack Obama when pushed to a decision, and so the state is not quite as promising for him as it looks on paper. There are also a fairly high number of undecideds in Ohio, a state where we think the undecided vote is liable to break slightly for John McCain. On the other hand, a state like Virginia, where Obama overperformed his polls during the primaries and where some polling has had a relatively generous (and probably false) number of African-American votes going to John McCain, might be just a smidgen stronger for Obama than it appears.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-22-2008, 01:23 PM   #113
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:59 PM
Here are realclearpolitics predictions for the 2004 election:

Electoral College:

RealClear Politics - Polls

Just off by one state Wisconsin which actually went Blue, but was very very close to going Red.


If the 2008 election were held today, this how realclearpolitics projects things would turn out in the electoral college:

RealClearPolitics - Electoral Map

Very close, could go either way.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 02:28 PM   #114
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Looking at that map

if McCain picked up NH we would have a tie 269-269


or

if he picked up either CO or NM
McCain wins.



I really hope one candidate wins with around 5 % over the other candidate
and around 300 electoral college votes.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 02:39 PM   #115
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,488
Local Time: 05:59 PM
keep your eye on NC.

it's changed dramatically over the past 8 years, much like VA.

McCain is now moving resources there, suggesting that it's in play.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-22-2008, 02:52 PM   #116
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
keep your eye on NC.

it's changed dramatically over the past 8 years, much like VA.

McCain is now moving resources there, suggesting that it's in play.
there may be movement
but is it really in play?


E. Dole race is tightening up a bit

McCain is using RNC money, so not surprising it is going to NC
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 02:57 PM   #117
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,488
Local Time: 05:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
there may be movement
but is it really in play?


E. Dole race is tightening up a bit

McCain is using RNC money, so not surprising it is going to NC




we'll see. from FirstRead:


Quote:
*** Three states to watch: But we have our eyes on three “Lean” states that we could move back to the Toss-up column. The first is Pennsylvania, where a new TODAY Show/NBC/Mason-Dixon poll shows Obama with a two-point advantage, 46%-44%. And the other two are Florida and North Carolina, where polls show Obama closing in on McCain. For now, because all three states show the same leader in polls that we trust, we're leaving them in their lean status. But do note that many a Democrat believes North Carolina is a state where the electorate really may have changed. It's a fascinating state this cycle, actually -- not a single white male Democrat is in the top three races on the state's ballot.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-22-2008, 03:04 PM   #118
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:59 PM
I will go on the record and say I expect Obama to win PA

and McCain to win FL and NC

( and this is based on just way too much information I have been ingesting over many years form too many sources to cite )

of course in a three contest prediction - the odds should be against me hitting a tri-fecta
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 03:20 PM   #119
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,488
Local Time: 05:59 PM
it will depend if this is an election about issues,

or cultural identity.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-22-2008, 04:34 PM   #120
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:59 PM
Quote:
Exclusive: McCain closes huge gap on key question for women

David Paul Kuhn
Mon Sep 22, 6:15 AM ET



Since picking Sarah Palin as his running mate, John McCain has obliterated what had been a 34-percentage-point deficit in a poll of likely women voters on the question of which candidate has a “better understanding of women and what is important” to them.

The two are now effectively tied, with McCain's 44 to 42 percentage lead within the margin of error of the most recent poll conducted by pollsters Kellyanne Conway and Celinda Lake for Lifetime Television. In Lifetime's July poll, women preferred Barack Obama on the same question by nearly three-to-one— 52 to 18 percent.

In this latest poll, conducted Sept. 11-15, age remained a key determinant in response to the question about women’s concerns. Young women, ages 18-34, chose the Obama/Biden ticket as more empathetic to their needs, while women aged 35-64 went for McCain/Palin. Unlike black and Hispanic women, White women saw McCain and Palin as most understanding of their concerns.

About one in four women who supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the primaries now said McCain and Palin have a better grasp of women’s needs than Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden.

The Lifetime poll reveals a diversity of women’s views on several issues, with many of those differences related to a respondent’s race, party identity, marital status and generation.

However, those demographic differences faded when it came to the Democrats’ strongest showing in the poll, on a question regarding the economy. The women polled favored the Obama/Biden ticket 57 to 32 percent on which candidate “will help middle class families the most.” Polling has shown all year that the economy tops voters' concerns.

The survey comes as women overall favor the Democratic ticket, 48 to 44 percent, according to the weekly summaries of Gallup polling. That marks a wider margin than Democrats enjoyed in 2004 on Election Day, but less than in 2000.

That Democratic drop-off with women since 2000, Gallup polling shows, is tied to Obama’s recent downtick in white support among women and men alike. All summer Obama had roughly similar support among white women as Al Gore did in 2000.

Gallup finds McCain now leads with white women 51 to 40 percent, a wider gap than the GOP enjoyed among white women eight years ago.

However, it appears that Obama’s message of “change” has struck a chord with women, who in the Lifetime poll gave the Obama/Biden ticket a 14-point advantage on the question, 51 to 37 percent over the McCain/Palin ticket.

Overall, women said Obama and Biden would best “reform the way Washington, D.C. does business” by 47 to 40 percent. But white women narrowly favored the McCain/Palin ticket on that count.

And, independent women gave the GOP ticket an 8-point advantage on the change issue.

When women were asked which ticket could better “win” the war in Iraq, white, Hispanic and independent women, as well as women of every age group, voiced more confidence in McCain/Palin.

But when these women were asked which candidates can most likely “end” the war in Iraq, Obama/Biden earned significantly more support. Women under age 55, Hispanic women, and independent women had more trust in the Democrats. Yet white women voiced more confidence in McCain/Palin to end the war.

Women overall did say the Republican ticket was more ready to lead, though Latinas and black women sided with Democrats. Democrats have a narrow advantage overall, 47 to 40 percent, as more capable reformers of government, though female independents and whites sided with the GOP.

The Lifetime Television/Every Woman Counts campaign poll of 534 American women likely to vote was conducted September 11 to 15, and has a margin of error of 4.4 percent.


Exclusive: McCain closes huge gap on key question for women - Yahoo! News

McCain already has the male vote locked up.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com