US 08 Presidential Campaign General Discussion Thread #8

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by phillyfan26

Agreed. The voter registration stats are much more telling, especially since it's actual stats and not just samples like these polls.

Just because someone registers as a Democrat does not mean they will actually end up voting for the Democratic candidate. Most people look at polling in order to try to predict election results.

[anitram]

I don't really think any national poll is worth anything, not when Obama is up by 10 or down by 10 or they are tied. Just ask Al Gore how far the popular vote got him.

The state polls I think do have some importance if it's a decent pollster with a pretty good historical record. There are also a lot of new polling outfits and you really don't know what to make of them yet. But I think there is a caveat here, with respect to cell phones (most people I know don't own a home phone; I certainly haven't owned one in 3 years), the huge changes in voter affiliation which have NOT yet been properly accounted for, the under-representation of African American voters which pretty much every reasonable person knows will show up in increased numbers, etc. So while I think state polls are better, I don't believe that relying on 2004-era methodology is necessarily very accurate here. I'd be interested in comparing the polls in the last week before the election with the final outcome.

[VintagePunk]

Originally Posted by anitram

But I think there is a caveat here, with respect to cell phones (most people I know don't own a home phone; I certainly haven't owned one in 3 years), the huge changes in voter affiliation which have NOT yet been properly accounted for, the under-representation of African American voters which pretty much every reasonable person knows will show up in increased numbers, etc. So while I think state polls are better, I don't believe that relying on 2004-era methodology is necessarily very accurate here. I'd be interested in comparing the polls in the last week before the election with the final outcome.

I've been thinking the same thing, with regard to both the polls, and the overblown claims that there should be some importance attached to the number of viewers that watched each respective national convention. Obama's demographic tends to be younger. Therefore, more of them are not the heads of households, more of them are cell phone users, and more of them would tend not to sit around watching conventions, especially during the last week of summer.

[namkcuR]

Originally Posted by VintagePunk

I've been thinking the same thing, with regard to both the polls, and the overblown claims that there should be some importance attached to the number of viewers that watched each respective national convention. Obama's demographic tends to be younger. Therefore, more of them are not the heads of households, more of them are cell phone users, and more of them would tend not to sit around watching conventions, especially during the last week of summer.

I'm 23, and I did

[A_Wanderer]

If Obama wins by electoral college but looses the popular vote I am going to enjoy watching the American left backtrack.

[TheEdge U2JT]

Originally Posted by martha

Multiple punctuation marks aren't helping, nor is your defensive attitude. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, due to actually knowing you, but proving my point in your response to my friendly admonishment leaves you on your own in here. Good luck.

That did not strike me as a "friendly admonishment" hence a defensive attitude.
I'll believe you because you said it and I have no reason to doubt you, but that is not how it came across.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by A_Wanderer

If Obama wins by electoral college but looses the popular vote I am going to enjoy watching the American left backtrack.

Are you going to enjoy the slaughter in Iran, or is that something you foresee happening anyway?

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by anitram

the under-representation of African American voters which pretty much every reasonable person knows will show up in increased numbers, etc. .

I really hope you're right.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by anitram

But I think there is a caveat here, with respect to cell phones (most people I know don't own a home phone; I certainly haven't owned one in 3 years), the huge changes in voter affiliation which have NOT yet been properly accounted for, the under-representation of African American voters which pretty much every reasonable person knows will show up in increased numbers, etc. .

The situation of people owning cell phones but not having a home phone already existed in 2004. Your party registration is not necessarily how you will vote on election day, the person may not even vote. African Americans primarily live in states where even if they had 100% turnout, the state would still be going red. The African American vote is unlikely to win you states like Ohio and Pennsylvania as Obama found out in the Primaries. Clinton crushed Obama in those states.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by financeguy

I really hope you're right.

If you look at the primaries, the AA participation really increased once it became clear that Obama had a very good shot at winning. So I have little doubt that these voters will show up in increased numbers. The question is how high will the numbers be?

McCain will be lucky to get 2-3% of the black vote. But for all the talk of Obama's problem with women/Hillary voters/evangelicals/southerners/Catholic Pennsylvanians/rural voters, etc, seems like nobody cares that McCain has a major problem with black voters.

[VintagePunk]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

The situation of people owning cell phones but not having a home phone already existed in 2004.

Obama wasn't running in '04. Despite the Rock The Vote effort, Kerry didn't have nearly the appeal to that demographic that Obama has. Hence, it wasn't as much of a factor in '04 as it will be this election.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

The situation of people owning cell phones but not having a home phone already existed in 2004. Your party registration is not necessarily how you will vote on election day, the person may not even vote. African Americans primarily live in states where even if they had 100% turnout, the state would still be going red. The African American vote is unlikely to win you states like Ohio and Pennsylvania as Obama found out in the Primaries. Clinton crushed Obama in those states.

The cell phone situation was not as widespread in 2004. I, for one, had a phone line back then, and I don't think I'm unique. Party registration isn't necessarily indicative, but all those thousands of people who actually dropped their Republican affiliation - well they went to the trouble, seems to me they aren't McCain voting. You think that the huge voter registration is going to net no new votes? I think that's insanity and nonsense. The Obama people are not counting on anywhere near 1:1 voting, but they don't need it. A modest increase would be enough in some states. As for AA voters - in Florida alone there were over 600,000 registered AA voters who did not bother voting in 2004. Add to that the tens of thousands registered this time. Add to that the huge energy of the AA community and ask yourself how scary would it be if even a third of these voters turned out on November 4?

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by anitram

If you look at the primaries, the AA participation really increased once it became clear that Obama had a very good shot at winning. So I have little doubt that these voters will show up in increased numbers. The question is how high will the numbers be?

McCain will be lucky to get 2-3% of the black vote. But for all the talk of Obama's problem with women/Hillary voters/evangelicals/southerners/Catholic Pennsylvanians/rural voters, etc, seems like nobody cares that McCain has a major problem with black voters.

African Americans are only 13% of the population and live primarily in deep red states of the Bible Belt that will stay red no matter how many African Americans vote. Women make up roughly 50% of the population and are evenly distributed through out the country.

McCain has already won the male vote in the country. He leads Obama 48% to 42% among men before the conventions. He is 10 points behind with women, but certainly is pick of Palin will narrow that gap.

[anitram]

1. Women make up more than 50% of the population.

2. Women vote in higher proportion than men.

3. Some polls have Obama up by as much as 15% among women.

4. Even if that deficit is magically erased by Palin to say 7-8%, still does not bode well for McCain.

5. That is to say nothing of the group that is the biggest X factor - college students. If they can replicate Iowa across college campuses, this election will be over early that evening. Unfortunately, having to rely on this unreliable group is not ideal.

[WildHoneyAlways]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

He is 10 points behind with women, but certainly is pick of Palin will narrow that gap.

And this is based on what? Did something similar happen with the pick of Geraldine Ferraro?

[Utoo]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

The African American vote is unlikely to win you states like Ohio and Pennsylvania as Obama found out in the Primaries. Clinton crushed Obama in those states.

So are you saying that Obama will lose because white people in those states won't vote for him?

That's what you seem to imply. The implication, of course, being that in states like Ohio & PA, non-AA people who voted for Clinton are not going to vote for Obama---for, if we are to assume that the majority (yes, "majority," not "all") of Clinton voters have no issue with color and stick with party to vote Obama in the election, then you don't really have an argument--he'd have a very nice voting bloc. You make it sound like Obama's only supporters in those states were (are) black, and that the whites who voted Clinton won't show support.

[deep]

Originally Posted by anitram

. That is to say nothing of the group that is the biggest X factor - college students. If they can replicate Iowa across college campuses, this election will be over early that evening. Unfortunately, having to rely on this unreliable group is not ideal.

Going to the polls on a Tuesday by yourself is not very exciting.

If they could schedule some kind of large gathering where people could get together and shout

"Yes We Can"
"Yes We Can"
"Yes We Can"

and get their votes counted
then we might have something.

[2861U2]

Only semi-election related, but this is just now appearing on Drudge:

MSNBC drops Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews from anchor chair... David Gregory will anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night.... Developing...

Viewer complaints of obvious bias, perhaps? Who knows, but I'm sure Olbermann isn't happy.

Carry on, while I celebrate.

[anitram]

I'm beginning to think you're almost as fixated with Olbermann as Olbermann is.

[WildHoneyAlways]

Originally Posted by deep

Going to the polls on a Tuesday by yourself is not very exciting.

If they could schedule some kind of large gathering where people could get together and shout

"Yes We Can"
"Yes We Can"
"Yes We Can"

and get their votes counted
then we might have something.

Hey, I voted by absentee ballot in college so I could go out with other people and stuff.