2008 Polling

[criddic3]

His remarks were condescending because he had been to Middle America states just prior to that, and was entering the Pennyslvannia primary just after that, but made the statement in private in San Franscisco. Essentially, he went around praising Middle America and asking for their votes and then turned around when he thought the mics were off to say something completely different about them. That's condescending.

From a sociological stand point, what he said was true. You won't find many people who will say that the reason the way they are is because of their environment, but instead use a scapegoat. A small town or rural area will cling to such things because they have no other way to explain what's going on around them and need justification for the way they act. If you grow up in an all white town, most of the populus will probably be racist or homophobic when another race or difference in martial relations moves in because they've grown to be a certain way. They never had to accommodate anyone different from themselves and as a natural reaction, become distressed from the situation which usually translates to anger or fear.

Besides, all politicians are liars.

That is such an oversimplification that it is baffling. We, and they, don't live in the Stone Age. This is the 21st Century, with the internet and 24/7 Cable News. Most of these people understand that there are people out in the world who are different then them, and that they share similarities with those same people. You made the same mistake that many do, in assuming that because these Middle Americans hunt and fish and mine etc. that they are oblivious to the world around them. Just because they hold some values not shared by San Fransicans doesn't make them dumb or ignorant.

This is not to say that there isn't racism in some of these places. There is racism everywhere, if you look for it. But I reject the assumption that if a white person doesn't live and work side-by-side every day with a black person that he will necessarily be afraid if that were to change.

Now it is true that people can overreact to the things they do not fully understand. We have been talking on other threads about gay marraige. That is a good example. I think people have to be taught intolerance. I don't think it's a natural instinct to disciminate. Sometimes this teaching is direct and sometimes indirect, but I do not believe that people in this time are so clueless about the world around them that they "cling to guns and religion" as a way to confront people who are different from them for fear that they may encounter harm. I believe that most of these people accept these things in a more positive light. Hunting, fishing and religion have been around a long time, and not all the history associated to any of them is bad. When I think of guns and religion I do not immediately think of rascism and hatred, athough I think the old idea is true that it's not the guns that kill ...

__
Mister Tee:

Even after reading the "full" statement, I don't see how that changes the context of what people responded to. Being asked about why people vote a certain way or whatever, doesn't change how he responded. He chose to respond by ridiculing their life-style. Instead of saying, well they do what they do because such things give them comfort and moral purpose, and that as a candidate he would have to work hard to earn their respect and votes. Or by saying that Republicans over the years have been able to get their votes by campaigning on issues they care about in a way they reacted to favorably, and that perhaps his party would have to find a better way to address them. That would not have been controversial and it would have been true. Instead he portrayed them as people who are so downbeat that they become stupid and susceptible to brainwashing. It doesn't help his cause and it sure doesn't sound right to the people he was referring to.



Edited By criddic3 on 1222391990

[Mister Tee]

Okay, I'll probably regret responding to anything criddic wrote -- his posts are regurgitated GOP talking points barely touched by his own thought process -- but I feel a need to step in on the "bitter" comments. What is appalling about the constant use of this string of sentences is the way people deliberately omit the set-up, making it appear Obama just out of thin air decided to say something derogatory about small town folk.

Here's what actually happened: He was asked why he thought voters -- often less-educated/less economically advantaged -- voted on cultural issues rather than their economic interests. (The thesis of Thomas Frank's famous What's the Matter with Kansas?) His answer was that, over recent decades (the decades of GOP dominance, one might add) people had grown wary of expecting their economic circumstances to improve as a result of their vote -- given that even during the Clinton administration (the lower and middle classes' best years since the 60s, though that's not saying much) there seemed excessive deference given to Wall Street over the common folk. He said, considering that fact, dubious anyone would do better for them -- and being "bitter" about this -- it wasn't surprising people chose to use their votes instead as a way to affirm their cultural allegiances: "clinging" (obviously a poor choice of words, for which he's been punished well in excess of the crime) to their religion or right to bear arms as the only things to which they felt the government (certainly the GOP) would actually attend.

You can argue this proves the old political maxim, that no politician should ever engage in punditry. And you can question Barack's usage of various loaded words. But reducing it to "he was showing contempt for common people" is an act of complete dishonesty -- something with which Hillary, and now the Republicans, have no problem whatsoever.

[Penelope]

Study: Omitting cell phone users may affect polls
By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 15 minutes ago

People with only cell phones may differ enough from those with landline telephones that excluding the growing population of cell-only users from public opinion polls may slightly skew the results, a study has concluded.

The finding, in a report this week by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, may increase pressure on polling organizations to include people who use only cell phones in their surveys. While many major polls including The Associated Press-GfK Poll already interview cell phone users, some do not, largely because doing so is more expensive.

Earlier studies — including a joint Pew-AP report two years ago — concluded that cell and landline users had similar enough views that not calling cell users had no major impact on poll findings. The new report concludes that "this assumption is increasingly questionable," especially for young people, who use cells heavily.

Combining polls it conducted in August and September, Pew found that of people under age 30 with only cell phones, 62 percent were Democrats and 28 percent Republicans. Among landline users the same age that gap was narrower: 54 percent Democrats, 36 percent GOP.

Similarly, young cell users preferred Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama over Republican nominee John McCain by 35 percentage points. For young landline users, it was a smaller 13-point Obama edge.

Scott Keeter, Pew's director of survey research, said he believed this was because young cell-only users are less likely to own homes and be married than young people with landlines.

"Those are two variables that are associated with being somewhat more conservative and more Republican," he said.

The report released Tuesday said that in Pew presidential polls from June, August and September, Obama's lead was 2 or 3 percentage points smaller when cell users were omitted. Though such small discrepancies are usually within a poll's margin of error and not statistically significant, this suggests some bias could exist by omitting cell users, which could be crucial in studying a race as close as this year's presidential race.

It has long been known cell users are likelier to be younger, lower income and minorities. Pollsters routinely weight, or adjust, their data so it accurately reflects the age, race and other demographic features of the entire population.

According to federal figures, 16 percent of households had only cell phones during the second half of 2007, and another 13 percent had cell phones and landlines but seldom used the landlines to take calls. Cell-only households have been growing by 1 or 2 percentage points every half year.

[Zahveed]

His remarks were condescending because he had been to Middle America states just prior to that, and was entering the Pennyslvannia primary just after that, but made the statement in private in San Franscisco. Essentially, he went around praising Middle America and asking for their votes and then turned around when he thought the mics were off to say something completely different about them. That's condescending.

From a sociological stand point, what he said was true. You won't find many people who will say that the reason the way they are is because of their environment, but instead use a scapegoat. A small town or rural area will cling to such things because they have no other way to explain what's going on around them and need justification for the way they act. If you grow up in an all white town, most of the populus will probably be racist or homophobic when another race or difference in martial relations moves in because they've grown to be a certain way. They never had to accommodate anyone different from themselves and as a natural reaction, become distressed from the situation which usually translates to anger or fear.

Besides, all politicians are liars.

[criddic3]

He condescends to people behind their back. He chose a VP who misspeaks at every turn.

1: Do you have a source for a behind-their-back condescension from Obama.

2: At least Biden dind't blithely talk about going to war with Russia in his first major TV interview and say today that the U.S. could be heading into another Great Depression.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26872350/

Sarah Palin did not call for war with Russia. She said that if Georgia was in NATO, its NATO allies would have to be prepared to help it if it needed help.

GIBSON: You favor putting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine definitely yes. Yes. And Georgia. Putin thinks otherwise, obviously he thinks otherwise.

GIBSON: Under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. That is the agreement. When you are a NATO ally, is, if another country is attacked, you are going to be expected to be called upon and help.

She didn't say "let's go to war with Russia over Georgia." She said we, as part of NATO, would have to "help." But she left the option on the table by saying "perhaps so" to the question of war.

Now, you have to have been under a rock during the Democratic Primaries to not have heard this:

"it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy towards people who aren't like them... as a way to explain their frustrations."

"Pennsylvanians don't need a President who looks down on them. They need a President who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families," Hillary Clinton said at the time.

His remarks were condescending because he had been to Middle America states just prior to that, and was entering the Pennyslvannia primary just after that, but made the statement in private in San Franscisco. Essentially, he went around praising Middle America and asking for their votes and then turned around when he thought the mics were off to say something completely different about them. That's condescending.



Edited By criddic3 on 1222320988

[Greg]

He condescends to people behind their back. He chose a VP who misspeaks at every turn.

1: Do you have a source for a behind-their-back condescension from Obama.

2: At least Biden dind't blithely talk about going to war with Russia in his first major TV interview and say today that the U.S. could be heading into another Great Depression.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26872350/

[criddic3]

The whole "there only for the rich" thing is about as stale as year-old soda. Republicans are not the elitists and Obama comes from an elite attitude as much as any politician. The Republicans cut taxes, they worry about the taxpayer. The Democrats like to raise taxes. To me that's a simple equation. But they also have moral differences, too. Obama voted against a bill that would have helped Live Birth babies. That may not make him a "murderer," but it sure makes him clueless, since he was the only one against it.

This isn't about race for most people. It certainly isn't for me. Obama is completely attractive and an interesting person, but he just doesn't cut it. In the polls the only two people seen as "ready" to be president are John McCain and Joe Biden. Biden isn't someone I would put into the Oval Office, but there you have it. Obama isn't ready. He over-analyzes every situation, and still can't come up with a straight answer to issues. (See his quote in the bottom of my post box). He condescends to people behind their back. He chose a VP who misspeaks at every turn. That's not leadership.

[Big Magilla]

To me, it's simple. The choices are almost as simple as the choice between good and evil, greed and charity.

I can understand why some people making over $250,000 per year would want to vote for McCain-Palin out of their own self-interest, and why those depending on the Republicans staying in power for their livelihood might want to vote for them, but the rest of the country? It's either stupidity or prejudice or both.

It's understandable that the majority of African-Americans would want to vote for Obama, not just because he's black, but because he shares their values and concerns. You wouldn't see the same level of support if it were Clarence Thomas or Jesse Jackson running.

How anyone, white, black, or otherwise, would think that uber-rich, uber-big business, McCain would be more inclined to look out for their interests is a puzzlement. Even scarier, though, is what would happen if McCain were to suddenly drop dead and the one season hockey mom and her secessionist leaning dude were to take over the country.

[criddic3]

Haha. Well, I'm not sure that it will be quite that simple, but in an odd way the election may come down to that percentage of people who actually do think that way.

[Zahveed]

I've met former Clinton supporters that love Palin. Is it just because she's a woman or is there some eerie connection I'm not grasping? This election comes down to those who are voting for a woman because she is a woman and those voting for a black man because he is black. Will this country be racist or sexist? Stay tuned!

[kaytodd]

You guys may be interested to see new polling that suggests that Obama is still having trouble connecting with Hillary's voters.

I would be surprised if a significant number of people who supported Hillary for the nomination will vote for McCain, especially since he chose that right-wing extremist Palin as his running mate. Hillary's people will vote for Obama. They are hesitant now, given his young age and the bitter primary campaign. But I have a hard time picturing people who supported Hillary voting for people like McCain and Palin. Doesn't make any sense. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!

[criddic3]

You guys may be interested to see new polling that suggests that Obama is still having trouble connecting with Hillary's voters.

[criddic3]

Number-crunching pollster sees decisive Obama win Wed Sep 10, 7:26 PM ET



A pollster whose mathematical model has correctly predicted every winner of the White House popular vote since 1988 is banking on a decisive victory for Democrat Barack Obama in November.

Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz said Wednesday that according to his "time for change" model, Obama would secure 54.3 percent of the popular vote against 45.7 percent for Republican John McCain.

That margin would virtually guarantee a crushing victory for the Democrat in the state-by-state electoral college that actually selects the next president, Abramowitz said.

He said unknown variables, such as the nation's bitter partisan divide and resistance to Obama's African-American race among some white voters, may result in a slightly smaller popular vote margin for the Democratic nominee.

But, "the combination of an unpopular Republican incumbent in the White House, a weak economy and a second-term election make a Democratic victory in November all but certain," he writes in the October issue of the journal "PS: Political Science and Politics."

"The good news for Democrats is that 2008, unlike 2004, is a time-for-change election -- one in which the president's party has controlled the White House for two or more terms," Abramowitz said.

His model evaluated Republican President George W. Bush's dismal approval ratings, the change in economic output in the second quarter of the election year, and above all an anti-incumbency mood against the White House party.

"Regardless of the popularity of the president or the state of the economy, it is simply much more difficult for the president's party to retain its hold on the White House," the pollster said.

Abramowitz said his model had correctly forecast the popular vote winner within two percentage points or less in every presidential election since 1988.

That includes the 2000 election, when Democrat Al Gore carried the popular vote. But Bush came ahead in the electoral college after his Supreme Court-mandated win in Florida.

And the model faces a complication this year with the wild-card presence of two third-party candidates, independent Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr, on the ballot for the November 4 election.

Under normal circumstances, he would be correct. But Obama has been running behind the generic ballot all year long and McCain has been running ahead of it. Take a look at the generic polling data and see that the gap has narrowed considerably since the race began with the primaries. The lead at times was as much as 20% for Democrats, and now that lead has dwindled to 4%. People are not as hostile towards the idea of voting for Republicans as they were at the start of the year.

Among friends, I often refer to this election year as comparable with 1976. Gerald Ford ran against long odds that year. Two years prior to that, voters lashed out at Republicans for Watergate. They lost badly in 1974. By 1976, voters were still angry about the pardon of Nixon, but overall that anger began to subside as the campaign wore on. At the start of the election Ford was 30 points behind Jimmy Carter, but by the end of election night he was behind by only 2 points. I think he was hurt by his prolonged battle for his party's nomination against Ronald Reagan and a bit by his pardoning of Nixon.

What is similar this time is that 2 years ago, voters had the opportunity to vent their frustrations against Republicans by giving the majority to Democrats. But in that time, Democrats have done even less than the previous majority and are less popular. It may very well be that many voters feel that neither party is doing so great, but that perhaps Republicans got the message in 2006. In addition, people have many doubts about Obama, and may have found the new McCain-Palin ticket exciting. So McCain now has a lead (I know, that can change), and the generic ballot isn't as strongly in favor of the Democrats anymore. Obama's electoral college lead has also been dropping somewhat in recent weeks. He was ahead by over 60 electoral votes a few weeks ago, now it is much less. In RCP map, it shows Obama ahead 273 to McCain at 265 without toss-ups, and they are virtually tied with toss ups at 105, making it 217 to 216. Flip Colorado in favor of McCain, and he wins. Flip Michigan, McCain wins. But flip Florida, and Obama is virtually unbeatable unless McCain gets Pennsylvania.

What is different about this year is that there is no incumbent, though Democrats are trying desperately to make McCain into Bush the 3rd. It won't work. People see that they are different. Yes, McCain voted much of the time with Bush, but on key issues, he was at odds with Bush. Actually many Democrats have been voting with Bush all these years, including Obama. Medicare, FISA, etc. These are things Democrats had argued against the administration on publicly, but eventually voted on their side anyway. So that's a wash. People are going to see that mantra for what it is. With no incumbent running, voters will pull the lever for the person that they identify with as someone who can get things done. Right now, McCain is gaining in several important areas. The added factor is Obama's condescension towards Middle America, something reflected here on this board sometimes, and I think that is a powerful factor this year. Don't underestimate it.

[OscarGuy]

Since we seem to be seeing a lot of polling data, I think it is necessary to pull that stuff out into its own topic. Nothing in the original 2008 Campaign discussion thread has been removed, but to discuss polls and polling statistics, this is a better spot.

Here is an interesting commentary from electoral-votes.com regarding polling and how they take numbers. It's an interesting read and make a very firm point that polls may not be as effective as they should if they don't sample correctly.

Polling and Partisan Identification

A series of recent polls have shown John McCain gaining ground on Barack Obama. No doubt part of that is real due to the Republican convention and especially the speeches by Sarah Palin and McCain himself. But there is also a troubling issue here relating to partisan identification about which pollsters themselves strongly disagree. There are two schools of thought. Gallup, SurveyUSA, and many others say in effect: "If we sample 1000 people and 500 are Republicans and 500 are Democrats, that's the way it is." They just report the raw numbers--say 50% McCain and 50% Obama. Other pollsters, such as Rasmussen say: "I know there 42 million registered Democrats and 31 million Republicans in the country. Furthermore my own samples over the past 3 months show (for example) that 55% percent of the people I've called are Democrats and 45% are Republicans. So if I happen to get a 50-50 sample one day, I am going to weight the 500 Democrats as if they were 550 and I am going to weight the 500 Republicans as if they were 450. Thus even though the raw data said Obama 50% McCain 50% I am going to report that as 55% to 45%."

The argument for the first approach is that you are not fudging the numbers, just reporting what you measured. The argument for the second one is that apparently today we had a bad sample and pretending that half the country is Republican doesn't make it so. The argument about some of the recent national polls is that the number of people calling themselves Republicans is far higher than in previous months. A good Republican convention may cause more Republicans to plan on voting and may sway independents and even a few Democrats, but it almost never changes partisan composition. Polls that don't correct for partisan identification may thus undersample or oversample either party. Correcting for it eliminates this problem but introduces the problem of knowing when to change the partisan weighting. Rasmussen uses long-term averages over months to change the weighting.

If you are wondering about what's going on with these recent polls, here is an article from Seth Coulter about this subject and here is a reaction to the article from Nate Silver. Brian Schaffner has yet another article on the subject, this one applied to the recent SurveyUSA poll in North Carolina (where the partisan breakdown was 40-41 compared to 46-33 in August).

A different but related subject is dealing with the partisan pollsters. Firms like Gallup and SurveyUSA make their money by running polls for newspapers, TV stations, businesses, and others who want to know what the public is thinking. However, there are other firms that are basically consultants, generally to only one party, and whose job is helping to elect its clients' candidates. They may shade or manipulate the results, use biased questions, or selectively publish results (such as only those favorable to their clients). In general, they are best ignored. That is why we consistently omit certain pollsters here, such as Strategic Vision ® and PPP (D).