U.S. Presidential Elections 2008

[bush_cheney2004]

....I agree except for the "very close" bit. It'll be close for readers of Newsweek and the NYT who will wake up in November and be shocked to discover that it wasn't close at all.

Some of the Democrats still think they are running against George Bush! If they don't snap out of it, McCain is not only looking at victory, but a Reaganesque landslide.

Edited February 8, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[BubberMiley]

For the past 40 years or so (or at least since the Boll Weevils became Republicans), the default party in US federal politics has been the Republicans.

And the graph I provided shows that has changed. You can deny objective reality and continue with your wishful thinking, but in November, like in November 2006, you may well be waking up on Wednesday morning lamenting the impotence of your bold declarations.

[gc1765]

Reagan Democrats are people who identify with the Democrats but vote Republican. Bill Clinton got those voters back. At present, some of them are voting for Hillary but few are going to Obama.

I disagree. Here's the latest polls:

Clinton tops McCain 50 percent to 47 percent

Obama beats McCain 52 percent to 44 percent

Link

Obama captured 48% of the vote in the theoretical match-up against McCain's 41%, the TIME poll reported, while Clinton and McCain would deadlock at 46% of the vote each.

Link

Also a bunch: Here

[jbg]

I disagree. Here's the latest polls:

Link

Link

Also a bunch: Here

There are a few problems with those analyses:

1. The first is a dark side of American politics. Some people don't want to admit to a pollster that they won't vote for a black or female candidate, but in the privacy of the voting booth they will pull the lever for McCain; and
   
2. The second is that at least with Obama his support is likely concentrated where minorities are concentrated so there is a very good chance that certain urbanized states would go for Obama, but the Electoral College, weighted towards smaller states, would go for McCain.
   

[gc1765]

The first is a dark side of American politics. Some people don't want to admit to a pollster that they won't vote for a black or female candidate, but in the privacy of the voting booth they will pull the lever for McCain;

Well, I hate to say it but most of the people who would not vote for someone because they are half-black live in states that the Democrats have no chance of winning, and most of them vote Republican anyway. Besides, you mentioned earlier that minorities don't vote in huge numbers, but if they finally have the chance to vote for a black man, maybe voter turnout will increase. That could more than make up for people who say they will vote for Obama, but don't. Besides, I don't understand why anyone would tell a pollster that they would vote for a black man because they feel ashamed to admit that they are going to vote for a white man It's not as if they haven't voted for a white man in every other election...

The second is that at least with Obama his support is likely concentrated where minorities are concentrated so there is a very good chance that certain urbanized states would go for Obama, but the Electoral College, weighted towards smaller states, would go for McCain.

Well, the point is Obama has a better chance of winning than Clinton. Clinton's support is mainly from democrats who would vote democrat no matter what. The fact that Obama has an extra few percent up on Clinton proves that he is better able to win votes from Republicans and independents - which is key to winning an election.

Secondly, we've had this debate about electoral college votes favouring smaller states, and I think we both agreed that it is very hard for a president to win the election without winning the popular vote.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, the point is Obama has a better chance of winning than Clinton. Clinton's support is mainly from democrats who would vote democrat no matter what. The fact that Obama has an extra few percent up on Clinton proves that he is better able to win votes from Republicans and independents - which is key to winning an election.

You may be right (again - see McCain prediction), but for the wrong reason. Clinton is doing better with the older, more educated demographic and women.

I like to track the counts and buzz for both parties here:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Feb09.html

Edited February 9, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Carinthia]

Nice clean sweep in the primaries tonight for Obama.

[BubberMiley]

I like to track the counts and buzz for both parties here:

Interesting site. I hadn't come across that one before.

I like the political betting sites, because they often provide unadulterated insight into the political colimate. With them, the only bias is money-making.

Those who feel McCain is a sure thing in November might want to buy now and make an investment in their intuition, though I imagine his stock was much lower in December. Obama stock is getting pricey.

https://www.intrade.com/aav2/trading/tradin...wExpired=false#

[August1991]

And the graph I provided shows that has changed. You can deny objective reality and continue with your wishful thinking, but in November, like in November 2006, you may well be waking up on Wednesday morning lamenting the impotence of your bold declarations.

The graph changed in the past few years and hardly shows a radical change in political opinion in America. Americans don't like foreign wars and that's what Bush is known for. I'm not surprised that he's at around 30% in support.

Moreover, the Democrats (and Republicans) have both shifted right in the past 20 years or so. On that note, watch out. Obama is on the left of the Democratic spectrum.

There are a few problems with those analyses:

1. The first is a dark side of American politics. Some people don't want to admit to a pollster that they won't vote for a black or female candidate, but in the privacy of the voting booth they will pull the lever for McCain; and
   
2. The second is that at least with Obama his support is likely concentrated where minorities are concentrated so there is a very good chance that certain urbanized states would go for Obama, but the Electoral College, weighted towards smaller states, would go for McCain.
   

In addition, a poll now for an election in November is basically meaningless. You can ask Hillary Clinton what good polls six months ago are now.

Well, the point is Obama has a better chance of winning than Clinton. Clinton's support is mainly from democrats who would vote democrat no matter what. The fact that Obama has an extra few percent up on Clinton proves that he is better able to win votes from Republicans and independents - which is key to winning an election.

That's the $64 question for the Democrats. Who is more likely to beat McCain? (The Democrats have the advantage of knowing who their opponent is.)

I think Clinton is a tougher campaigner in the trenches and she's also better placed ideologically. Obama OTOH has charisma and he'd be a risky proposition - which is both good and bad. He could be a total disaster or he might swing it. I don't think he can though because Americans go with the known quantity when choosing a president.

Nice clean sweep in the primaries tonight for Obama.

Louisana was a foregone conclusion. Washington State and Nebraska held caucuses where Obama always does well - his fanatical base can control the process.

This week, Clinton will get Maine, Obama will get DC and Virginia. Maryland will likely go for Obama.

The real test will be in March for Texas and Ohio. Here, Obama has to do well if he has any hope of winning the nomination. First, because he'll need the delegates. Second, because he has to show that he can win a mainstream primary in a large NE state.

I'd like to think that the Democratic race will be settled then but the way this quadrennial is going, we'll still be discussing this in June.

[BubberMiley]

This week, Clinton will get Maine, Obama will get DC and Virginia. Maryland will likely go for Obama.

I think Obama is already well on his way to taking Maine.

But that Washington State vote yesterday was beyond weird. It's looking like they're trying to prevent the remaining 13% of votes from being counted in order to maintain McCain's lead?

Man, I thought the Dems tore each other apart with the infighting. This might take it to a whole new level.

Edited February 10, 2008 by BubberMiley

[bush_cheney2004]

I think Obama is already well on his way to taking Maine.

Looks that way, and Clinton is shuffling some campaign managers while making sure that Bill keeps his mouth in check. Obama should sweep the Potomac primaries on Tuesday as well.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1

Edited February 11, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

I see Maine's caucus is today.

With 70% of Maine's precincts reporting, Obama, D-Ill., had won 1,564 delegates to the party's state convention while Clinton, D-N.Y., had 1,122, Associated Press reported. Those delegates will decide how Maine's 24 delegates to the Democratic National Convention are apportioned.

Link

Obama always does well in caucuses but I thought Clinton would get Maine. (Nebraska and Washington State were caucuses.)

The next one where she better do well is Wisconsin. Polls show that she's behind in MD and Va (these are both primaries, not caucuses but Obama shoudl get them - Va moreso). If she loses by alot in those two, and she loses in Wisconsin, then I'd say she won't get the nomination.

[August1991]

But that Washington State vote yesterday was beyond weird. It's looking like they're trying to prevent the remaining 13% of votes from being counted in order to maintain McCain's lead?

I don't know if I would draw that conclusion. It's politics as usual in the US of A.

Take a look at these numbers:

McCain won 25.5 percent of the vote, to Huckabee's 23.7 percent, according to a statement released by Washington officials, which also said only 87 percent of the precincts had been counted. Huckabee officials now argue that the former governor can close the margin if the rest of the votes are counted.

"It is very unfortunate that the Washington State Party Chairman, Luke Esser, chose to call the race for John McCain after only 87 percent of the vote was counted," Huckabee campaign chairman Ed Rollins said in a statement. According to CNN, the difference between Senator McCain and Governor Huckabee is a mere 242 votes, out of more than 12,000 votes counted -- with another 1500 or so votes, apparently, not counted. That is an outrage."

Washington Post

Look how small the numbers are. This is why it is easy for a dedicated group to dominate caucuses. The system works well for people Huckabee, Obama, Paul (and Romney if there are Mormons in the area).

[Visionseeker]

Obama has completely dominated caucus states. Unless you believe in coincidence, this is clearly a fulfillment of a well executed strategy by his campaign. When the dust settles, it will be interesting to learn how they proved so successful in such states compared to the Clinton camp. Then again, it could speak more to a Giuliani-esque error on the part of the Clinton campaign; neglecting the small states in favour of the bigger prizes.

Obama looks like he’ll continue with his winning streak and take the Potomac and will likely take the lead in committed delegates. More importantly, with more of his support coming from pledged delegates as opposed to declared “super delegates”, he will come out of the races as the favoured choice of the party membership.

Clinton is clearly taking on water. But the ship ain’t sunk… yet.

[gc1765]

I think Clinton is a tougher campaigner in the trenches and she's also better placed ideologically. Obama OTOH has charisma and he'd be a risky proposition - which is both good and bad. He could be a total disaster or he might swing it. I don't think he can though because Americans go with the known quantity when choosing a president.

I disagree that Clinton is a tougher campaigner. Just look at Obama's rise and Hillary's drop in the polls over the course of the campaign.

[Drea]

60 minutes had brief interviews with Obama and Clinton last night.

I think he's got Clinton running scared.

[August1991]

Obama has completely dominated caucus states. Unless you believe in coincidence, this is clearly a fulfillment of a well executed strategy by his campaign.

I don't know if it's evidence of a well executed strategy or rather evidence that a small number of activists can determine the outcome of caucus selection.

Obama has alot of young white kids who think he's cool and they're willing to drop out of school for a few months to go and work for him. (Paul had similar - but lazier - kids working Internet polls.) Indeed, Obama has a curious coalition. Blacks, white college kids and rich limousine liberals to pay for it all. I guess that coalition will win caucus primaries and states where several blacks dominate the Democratic party but I wonder whether it's good enough in a fall campaign.

I disagree that Clinton is a tougher campaigner. Just look at Obama's rise and Hillary's drop in the polls over the course of the campaign.

Bill Clinton had a point. The media has protrayed Obama in fantasyland colours. I can understand how frustrating that is for a traditional politician. Obama arrives on the stage and he's everyone's darling. The problem is that he's only been on the stage for a few short weeks and one wonders whether he'll receive the same glorification until November.

Fame is subject to the fickle finger of fate.

60 minutes had brief interviews with Obama and Clinton last night.

I think he's got Clinton running scared.

Scared?

She's about to lose the nomination to someone who breezed in and effortlessly took the prize. I don't know if I would use the adjective "scared" to describe her feelings right now.

-----

In a curious way (they both used cocaine), Obama reminds me of André Boisclair. They speak in similar grave but gracious tones and they were both considered to be younger iconoclasts who would bring a new generation into the political struggle. Like Obama, Boisclair defeated an older woman to lead a party and at the time, many thought it was the new guard coming to power. Boisclair seemed like the golden kid, darling of the media, who could do no wrong.

To his credit, Boisclair occasionally said something of substance but all I hear from Obama are glib slogans - and that he never supported the war in Iraq. Obama was the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review so I guess he must have something to say of substance.

Edited February 11, 2008 by August1991

[BubberMiley]

I don't know if it's evidence of a well executed strategy or rather evidence that a small number of activists can determine the outcome of caucus selection.

Do you consider over 7 million a small number when compared with the 3 million who showed up for McCain on Super Tuesday?

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/02...st_interes.html

The reality is Obama has managed to attract more votes than any other candidate and almost as many votes as the entire Republican party combined. That's not a small number of activists; that's a groundswell of popular support.

Edited February 12, 2008 by BubberMiley

[August1991]

Do you consider over 7 million a small number when compared with the 3 million who showed up for McCain on Super Tuesday?

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/02...st_interes.html

The reality is Obama has managed to attract more votes than any other candidate and more votes than the entire Republican party combined. That's not a small number of activists; that's a groundswell of popular support.

If you read the comments to that blog, you'll realize how misleading those numbers (if not simply wrong). For example, what happened to Ron Paul's votes? I suspect the Republican stats are underestimated.

In addition, California (a big player on Super Tuesday and the stats) was open for Democrats but closed for Republicans. Not surprisingly, the overall Dem numbers are much higher than the Republican numbers.

I'm also surprised to learn that there were 3 million absentee ballots in the Dem primary in California. (WTF?)

And finally, the most important point, caucuses are not like primaries in terms of voter participation. In a caucus selection, (a relatively small number of) party activists meet and choose delegates to a state convention. In a primary, individuals cast a ballot.

In general, Clinton has been more succesful in primaries and Obama in caucuses. (And you're wrong to say Obama has won the most votes. According to the suspect data presented, Hillary has albeit marginally.)

----

Bubbler, don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that Clinton is doing well and Obama is not. On the contrary, Obama has done exceptionally well in this campaign. His success, as often in politics, is a mix of timing, luck and talent.

1. (Timing) After Bush Snr, Bill Clinton and Bush Jnr, people don't want another Clinton.

2. (Luck) Obama has made no false steps yet and he's got the sympathy of the MSM.

3. (Talent) Obama is a good speaker - as he showed in 2004 at the convention.

I still think Clinton will win the nomination (her husband isn't called the comeback kid for nothing) and I still think that either Clinton or Obama will go down to utter defeat in November.

----

PS. Best line I saw today - Obama on McCain: "I respect his half century of service to his country... "

Edited February 12, 2008 by August1991

[BubberMiley]

And finally, the most important point, caucuses are not like primaries in terms of voter participation. In a caucus selection, (a relatively small number of) party activists meet and choose delegates to a state convention. In a primary, individuals cast a ballot.

But these caucuses have been notable for the incredible participation on the Democrat side. Many have expressed the same reservations as you that Obama hasn't proven his ability to attract proportional support from the general population, including Josh Marshall in today's Talkingpointsmemo.com.

However, he did note: "The counter to this argument is that a lot of these caucuses have had historically high turnouts, even unprecedented ones. And that suggests that many more people are showing up than the normal mix of committed activists and party regulars."

[gc1765]

I don't know if it's evidence of a well executed strategy or rather evidence that a small number of activists can determine the outcome of caucus selection.

I heard Hillary give this sort of argument about caucuses vs. primaries, and I must say she's full of it...unless of course she is willing to give up all those "superdelegates" that are currently putting her in the lead...

[jbg]

If you read the comments to that blog, you'll realize how misleading those numbers (if not simply wrong). For example, what happened to Ron Paul's votes? I suspect the Republican stats are underestimated.

Remember also, Republicans have more caucus states and fewer primary states. Even in the GOP primary states primary voting is relatively new, so their membership is not as acculturated. By this logic, Mondale and McGovern rather than Reagan and Nixon would have been Presidents.

[BubberMiley]

Looking at tonight's results in the Virginia primary, Obama seems to be running away with the nomination. Most notable was how many independents he managed to attract as well--double those of McCain. Exit polls say his support ran wide across the demographic spectrum too. So much for theories that his support was based on a few college students and black activists who took over the caucuses.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/12/dem...ref=mpstoryview

[August1991]

Looking at tonight's results in the Virginia primary, Obama seems to be running away with the nomination. Most notable was how many independents he managed to attract as well--double those of McCain. Exit polls say his support ran wide across the demographic spectrum too. So much for theories that his support was based on a few college students and black activists who took over the caucuses.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/12/dem...ref=mpstoryview

Obama was going to win well in DC and Va. Only a few precincts in Md are reporting yet but it looks like Obama will do very well there. Of the three, this is the one that hurts Clinton the most not because she lost but because she appears to be losing by so much - 60 to 30. Ugh.

The real test for Clinton will be Wisconsin (latest poll shows Obama leading) however and then of course Texas and Ohio (Clinton still ahead in polls).

In 1968, Robert Kennedy had the buzz/momentum going into the convention but he was far from guaranteed of a win. (Kennedy won California. Obama didn't.)

----

Bubbler, don't confuse a primary win with an election win. You can't compare popular vote totals.

By this logic, Mondale and McGovern rather than Reagan and Nixon would have been Presidents.

Exactly.

For example, there was a referendum on property taxes simultaneously with the Florida primary and this shifts voter turnout. At present, voter turnout is obviously higher for the Dems than for the Republicans.

Edited February 13, 2008 by August1991

[BubberMiley]

In 1968, Robert Kennedy had the buzz/momentum going into the convention but he was far from guaranteed of a win.

Ouch!

Bubbler, don't confuse a primary win with an election win. You can't compare popular vote totals.

Of course. It's also a long time between February and November. But Obama got more votes tonight than McCain and Huckabee combined. What does that say for Republican turnout in a general election?

Edited February 13, 2008 by BubberMiley