Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

Mississippi Results Thread

Topics: 2008 , Associated Press , Barack Obama , CBS , CNN , Exit Polls , Hillary Clinton , Mark Mellman , MSNBC

Official exit poll tabulations will be posted momentarily (as the polls close) at these links:

I'll live blog to the extent that news seems relevant in reverse chronological order, all times Eastern:

12:36 - Our comments section featured some speculation early this evening about the early exit poll estimates being wrong. The estimates were off slightly but with 99% of the precincts reporting, it looks like they were off in Clinton's favor. The current count shows Obama winning by a 22-point margin (60% to 38%) and more than 401,000 votes cast.

Two things I notice in the current exit poll tabulation (which may still update again by morning). First, make of it what you will, but Obama's 26% of the white vote was comparable to what he received from white voters in Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina and Tennessee. Among the Southern states, only Georgia gave Obama more than 30% of the white vote.

03-10 exit poll white.jpg

Second, the open Mississippi Democratic primary -- the first to be held after John McCain secured his nomination -- included 2-3 times as many Republicans (12%) as the other states. And those Republicans supported Clinton by a 3-to-1 margin, far more than Republicans in any of the other Southern states.

03-10 exit poll reps.jpg

11:07 - An update on turnout: I can't find a better source online, but this MyDD post from earlier today quotes a CNN story that put the total vote in the 1988 Mississippi Democratic presidential primary at "more than 359,000." The current Clinton-Obama vote total, according to CNN, is over 366,000 with 9% of the precincts uncounted (and Thatcher is ahead of me on this in the comments).

10:32 - In the comments, Thatcher notes:

all day long, they were saying that turn-out was light-to-moderate ... about 100K-150K voting ... yet we are over 240,000 now. No, it won't hit 1988 numbers - but what's up with the majorly wrong turnout prediction?

A quick Googling turns up an AP story that had the Mississippi Secretary of State, as of last night, "predicting a light to moderate turnout" of 125,000 to 150,000 today (emphasis added). So we are talking about a pre-election prediction, not an estimate based on actual turnout. What are these sorts of estimates based on? Who knows, but in my experience, this is not the first time that a Secretary of State's early prediction turns out to be wrong.

10:23 - An update in the exit poll tabulations shows the current vote estimate (which should by now be based mostly on random sample of actual results from randomly selected precincts) shows a margin of 56% Obama, 41% Clinton. That's pretty close to the current actual vote count (57% Clinton, 41% Obama with two-thirds of the precincts counted).

8:33 - 6% for Paul, not 62%. My bad.

8:30 - I just want to take a moment to apologize, again, for the comment posting bug that has frustrated everyone over the last month or so with error messages and caused inadvertent double (and sometimes) posts. In an effort to identify the bug, we made one small and very temporary change this afternoon that will allow most posts to go through without an error message (but unfortunately, only after a long delay of 60 seconds or more).

However some of you will get an error message saying your comment was not posted because of "too many comments submitted from you in too short a time." That message is in error - no one has been blocked! However if you see this message you will most likely need to repost your comment. I can't apologize for this enough. Please bear with us for a few more days and we'll get this ironed out (I promise...or your money back).

8:24 - The exit poll tabulations just updated. Mark Lindeman's extrapolations show no overall change in the estimated Obama lead (59% to 41%).

8:19 - MSNBC just called the state for Obama. Note that the networks did not call the race for Obama even though the estimate used to weight the official exit poll tabulations showed Obama with a 19 point lead. Looks like the decision makers at the networks felt they needed to see some actual count (or perhaps a more complete set of exit poll interviews) to increase their confidence before making a call.

8:15 - The initial racial composition numbers in the tabulations are 49% white, 48% black. The latter percentage is a 5-7 points lower in the five pre-election polls released over the last week. The preliminary estimate of vote by race shows Clinton leading 72% to 27%, while Obama leads among African Americans, 91% to 9%.

8:03 - As the first tabulations go up, our friend Mark Lindeman emails the overall estimates extrapolated from the tables: 59% Obama, 41% Clinton for the Democrats and 76% McCain, 13% Huckabee, 6% Paul for the Republicans.

Click here for the usual caveats on how these numbers are derived and how they improve over the course of the evening. Click here from my National Journal column last week on how the estimates at this point in the evening have sometimes been off in Obama's favor (although not in either Georgia or Tennessee).

 

Comments
Mark Lindeman:

Woohoo, here we go again!

Obama currently shows 27% of the white vote. We will see if this tab changes....

____________________

Zach:

62% for Ron Paul? Good job buddy!

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

There was a quick update which didn't change much on the aggregates, but interestingly it opened up a gender gap on the Democratic side. The splits had been Obama +19 among men, +17 among women. Now they are Obama +22 among men, +15 among women. Here I was wondering why there was no gender gap, and hey presto! there it was.

____________________

Mark W:

Whites will be called racists for voting for Clinton. Blacks will get a pass for going 9-1 in favor of Obama.

One day night will be day and black will be white. Truth is a lie. Facts are fiction.

Good showing by Clinton if she stays above 40%. Record turnout was 359,000 in 1988 I heard on Airhead America driving home. Wonder if they will surpass that? Anyone know about turnout?

____________________

Zach2:

Republicans made up 13% of the contest and went 77% for Clinton.

Smells fishy.

____________________

Daniel H.:

You know, looking at the exit polls on CNN's site, I note that Clinton did worse among persons who answered "Yes" to the question "Was Gender of Candidate Important to You" than she did among those who answered "No." This is a turnaround from, I believe, every other exit poll that's had this question. In all the other cases (someone may need to check me on this, as I'm going from memory), she's done better among the gender-is-important folks. Is her gender working against her among this bloc only in Mississippi? It seems odd that it would happen here and nowhere else (assuming I am remembering right).

Now I'll go look at old exit polls and see if I'm right.

____________________

Eponymous Coward:

Wow hugely disappointing night for Obama. He may win by just 15-20 in a state with 50% blacks and a 91-9 margin among them? WOW! Turnout was said to be very low Mark W. About 150,000 were predicted. That means he nets a measly 30,000 votes from tonight even if he wins by 20. Given that Americans want by a 2-1 margin the winner to be determined by the popular vote, not a mere pledged delegate lead since the required delegates will not be obtained without supers, this is a horrendous set back for Obama. In two contests after Mar 4, he will have gained a total of maybe 35,000 votes on Clinton to pad his lead. New SUSA poll in PA shows him fading really bad there. If she wins by 10 in PA, not the 19 shown in SUSA, she nets about 250,000 votes with a OH turnout. Wow. Very disappointing night for the Obama camp. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/57_say_candidate_with_most_votes_should_get_nomination

____________________

Eponymous Coward:

Another note is that I don't think Obama wants the narrative to be that he won 91-9 among blacks but lost 73-26 among whites moving forward to PA. That will brand him the "black" candidate in another very backward and racist hell hole like PA. Even the Governor there, rendel is a big racist. They love him for it! This is bad news. Damnit!

____________________

s.b.:

Are you people watching the returns???

I had a feeling the exit polls might be wrong in Mississippi.

____________________

Jimmy Quinn:

Wrong how? We're killing her down there!?!#$

____________________

billy:

Hillary much, much stronger then anticipated

____________________

billy:

hillary much, much, stronger than expected

____________________

hanksf:

The exit polls continue to be extremely ominous for Obama. The election in the south and border states has become an almost complete black/white split. While it currently helps Obama it will be disastrous for the Democrats in the general election. Current national polls also show this trend spreading to other areas, i.e., Pennsylvannia and New Jersey. This is an election trend that needs to be discussed intelligently otherwise democrats may not be celebrating in November.

____________________

Thatcher:

Eponymous -

He will do as expected (or slightly better) in MS. He will come out with 30k more votes than Clinton, to expand his popular vote lead to around 635,000 votes (that's not counting the actual voter count in the caucus states of Maine, Washington, Nevada, Iowa). If you extrapolate those 4 states to a popular vote count - that adds about 110,000 votes .... or a total of almost 750,000 votes.

So, if you are correct with PA - he is still ahead by 500,000 votes.Even if she wins FL and MI with same as OH for spread of votes - he is still ahead by 50,000 votes. And this is before talking about him winning North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota (with WV, KY, and maybe IN going to Clinton). PR is a caucus, but they have asked to become a primary ... so we'll see.

However - the popular vote is almost as out of reach from Clinton as is the pledged delegate count.

____________________

hanksf:

The exit polls continue to be extremely ominous for Obama. The election in the south and border states has become an almost complete black/white split. While it currently helps Obama it will be disastrous for the Democrats in the general election. Current national polls also show this trend spreading to other areas, i.e., Pennsylvannia and New Jersey. This is an election trend that needs to be discussed intelligently otherwise democrats may not be celebrating in November.

____________________

Daniel H.:

In case anyone was on the edge of their seat about my last comment, I have since gone through the exit polls and made a spreadsheet:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pS_7uDYj8qZFP47AeULeDDw

Voters who say that the gender of the candidate is important have made up a sizeable chunk of the electorate in all the primaries so far (or, at least, the ones where exit polls asked the question), frequently over 20%. In all but two cases, those who say yes have been more likely to vote for Clinton than those who say no. In fact, they frequently go for her by double-digit margins over those who say gender was not important in their choice. The only exceptions are Alabama (where the difference in her vote among Yes and No voters was 1%, hardly significant) and Mississippi, where the gap is a whopping 13% against her...this is highly unusual and I have no idea what might be going on. Thoughts, anyone?

____________________

Thatcher:

s.b. and billy -

only 8% of the vote is in - and one big area not turning in numbers yet is Jackson. If I remember correctly, at this time last Tuesday in Texas, we saw Obama leading by a much larger margin in the returns - but in the end of the night, Clinton won the primary by 3.5%.

Let's wait and see.

____________________

Thatcher:

BTW - as a side note about the site's comment issues - I've noticed that I get a better response in posting comments using Microsoft IE over FireFox (don't know why - and I am definitely not endorsing IE in any way - I'm a FireFox user 98% of the time).

____________________

richard pollara:

Looked at in a larger context this seems to be a very bad night for Obama. I am not sure which is worse, the 27% of the white vote he received or the 91% AA vote. Paradoxically, he would have been better off winning 75-80 of the AA vote. I am really surprised at how low his numbers are with white voters in Mississippi. Perhaps it is Republicans crossing over but if he is losing white Democrats at this rate his viability as a general election candidate is suspect.

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

Yes, the vote from Hinds Co. (Jackson) is sort of crawling in, and Obama should do quite well there, as well as in the counties north of Jackson near the Mississippi.

____________________

s.b.:

Hinds county could only swing the vote 2-3% in his favour. With 25% reporting Clinton is only down by 7%. I think it's fair to say that exit polls showing Obama winning by 18% were skewed yet again.

I think blacks that support Clinton don't answer the exit polls and that her support in this community is actually higher than projected from exit polls.


____________________

Thatcher:

now with 29% reporting - 14% spread. Let's just wait and see. You may be right - I'm not saying you are wrong - we just personally don't know the demographics, turnout, etc of those precincts not reporting yet.

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

And with 31% reporting, she is down 12. Thanks, I'll keep my powder dry.

____________________

s.b.:

12% vs 18% would be a failure of exit polling yet again. It's also too consistent for there not to be a reason. Its' not just a fluke

____________________

Zach3:

I think the margin will widen. Hinds county is only 1/3 reporting, it's got the highest turnout in the state, and O is scoring 82% there.

____________________

Thatcher:

s.b. - 2/3 of Hinds still hasn't reported.

____________________

jo:

Obama leading by 16 points now, exit polls pretty accurate.

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

s.b. -- well, there's Hinds. We'll see where things end up.

Supposing the exits are off again, I still don't see the evidence that it's because blacks are concealing their support for Clinton. Do you have county-level analysis from some state to support that?

____________________

J.D Winterbottom:

Well, so far (42% in), it looks like a great showing for Hillary - she's performing way above expectations - in the delegate count, a virtual tie.


Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates
Obama 79,872 54% 6
Clinton 63,942 44% 5

____________________

Thatcher:

What is now interesting to me is that all day long, they were saying that turn-out was light-to-moderate ... about 100K-150K voting ... yet we are over 240,000 now. No, it won't hit 1988 numbers - but what's up with the majorly wrong turnout prediction?

____________________

Eponymous Coward:

Tonight was the night for Obama to run up the score on the popular vote, but he didn't do that. Now he's going to lose the popular vote if he doesnt lose by less than 10 in PA.

Tough night due to racist whites and poor turnout due to weather and apathetic voters. Sad.

____________________

Eponymous Coward:

Tonight was the night for Obama to run up the score on the popular vote, but he didn't do that. Now he's going to lose the popular vote if he doesnt lose by less than 10 in PA.

Tough night due to racist whites and poor turnout due to weather and apathetic voters. Sad.

____________________

Thatcher:

J.D - yeah, that is the statwewide right now ... 6-5 - but right now, Obama has picked up every extra delegate in the CD proportions (and maybe more in CD 2 - it has 7 delegates, he may take 5 there to her 2).

So, right now, he has a minimum of 19 to her 14 and it could end up 20-13 depending upon CD 2's actual breakdown.

____________________

Anonymous:

Eponymous: umm...the margin for Obama is pretty good, 18 points or 52k with 73% reporting. Your 30k estimate was way off, it'll be more than double that.

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:

A person is a racist because they dont vote for Obama, is that right COWARD ?

____________________

Thatcher:

Eponymous -

That puts him, right now, 655,000 above Clinton, overal. Again, that's not counting the results of 4 caucus states (since they don't release those count breakdowns) ... but they are estimated at another 110,000 vote spread.

He's got the popular vote run pretty well sewn up, as well.

____________________

Anonymous:

I have to agree with Coward. You cannot add on caucus votes when no official totals are known. That's ridiculous. We can only go off the official vote tallies and it looks like Clinton can more than make up the vote difference in MI, PA, KY, WV, and PR (which is a primary and will go HUGE!! for Clinton). Right now Obama is only leading by single digits in NC and that's before his major loss in PA. It's a dark night folks.

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:


Coward - it was the best turn out since 1988.
your right about one thing though - No BIG PUNCH TONIGHT IN MISS for Obama. Now a 30 day break and on to PENN ! that will be the beginning of the end for Obama.

____________________

Anonymous:

SUSA-- Clinton increases lead to 19 points in PA!

WOW.

He was only down 4 there.

Ouch. he's toast in the swing states.

____________________

Anonymous:

SUSA-- Clinton increases lead to 19 points in PA!

WOW.

He was only down 4 there.

Ouch. he's toast in the swing states.

____________________

jo:

I don't see Clinton winning IN or a potential MI redo either, OR and NC will go to Obama anyways. There's no way she'll catch up in pledged delegates, concerning the popular vote, she would have to take PA, PR and FL redo hugely to even come close. Margin in MS right now 20 points or 66k, very good night for Obama!

____________________

:

Thatcher - Will the popular vote totals of the 4 caucus you mentioned ever be released? This is an important point if the popular vote is going to matter.

____________________

jo:

I don't see Clinton winning IN or a potential MI redo either, OR and NC will go to Obama anyways. There's no way she'll catch up in pledged delegates, concerning the popular vote, she would have to take PA, PR and FL redo hugely to even come close. Margin in MS right now 20 points or 68k, very good night for Obama!

____________________

Thatcher:

Hinds still has 22% out ... now 20 point spread. Man - they are going to be close to 1988's turnout - they are over 330,000 now.

____________________

Thatcher:

Hinds still has 22% out ... now 20 point spread. Man - they are going to be close to 1988's turnout - they are over 330,000 now.

____________________

:

If the popular vote is going to be the basis of choosing the nominee then all states should be counted. The people of Iowa, Washington, Nevada and Maine would be the new Michigan and Florida.

____________________

Thatcher:

About the popular vote in the 4 caucus states - probably not publicly. however, you could always use the popular vote of the Washington Primary as a gauge.

However, I would say that within the upper echelon of the DNC - they will get those numbers and let it be known to "those who need to know" if Clinton does get close in the popular vote. From my primitive extrapolation of the numbers - it's 110,000 that he leads by from those 4 states.

____________________

Thatcher:

Hinds still 13% out (statewide - 11% out) and Mississippi just broke the 1988 record - over 360,000 voted in Democratic primary.

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:

Keep this in mind Thatch,

Obama won the caucus in Wash by 24 pts - but only won the Primary by 5 pts ! If the delegates are adjusted to the actual vote in Wash, then Hillary should pick up more delegates in Wash. How bout them Wash Apples?

Also keep in mind, Obama only won Iowa by ONE Delegate.

____________________

Thatcher:

John in Spokane - OMG - you guys won't stop will you?

I'm just saying using the primary count in Washington as a guideline for the popular count if they can't get the caucus breakdown! Not changing the rules in mid-stream.

Also, yes, Obama did win Iowa by only 1 delegate. However, Clinton, by percentage, was in 3rd place behind Edwards. The only reason why she got the extra delegate to move her into second (by delegates) over Edwards was because she won more in the 5th Congressional District of Iowa. Obama won 37.1% to Clinton's 29.9% in Iowa, overall.

The congressman in the 5th CD is Steve King - you know the guy who came out this week saying if Obama won the General Election Al Qiada would be dancing in the streets? The guy who call the acts at abu grahib similar to "fraternity hazing". Yeah - that district.

____________________

illinoisindie:

As far as a florida redo- you guys gotta keep up, the house knocked that idea out cold... and no way are they going to seat the delegates as is. So no catch up for HRC with a florida redo. By the way on the popular vote if we gave Clinton and Obama their Florida votes (since he was on the ballot-we can argue about how that would change with a real election later), Obama leads by 385,000 votes otherwise without FL he leads by 675,000. Polls now have Michigan a tie in the event of a redo. So unless she puts down a beating in PA, she will not catch him in the popular vote nor in delegates. Anyway, what is up with everyone changing the rules midtream... now Puerto Rico.
As for Obama only winning by 20pts as some people try to un-necessarily demean his accomplishment, Clinton won by similar margins in the deep south with the same identity politics that shapes the southern state voters can you say Arkansas. Anyway,if OBAMA can keep PA within 7pts he is in great shape. The current average pollster spread is about 13pts. So he has some work to do over the next 4 weeks.

____________________

speakstruth:

if you ask me...voting for Obama just 'cause he is black is no different that not votig for him 'cause he is black

____________________

Thatcher:

speakstruth - I agree. Same with voting for Clinton just because she is a woman is no different than voting against her because she's a woman.

____________________

JMS:

illinoisindie,
I'm interested in your reasoning behind Obama holding PA to a 7% margin or less as a standard of success. My friends and I have come to a similar conclusion, but it's really just based on our gut feeling and the delegate count. Am I reading you correctly to say that the popular vote may ultimately decide this thing? Is that because you anticipate Obama coming into the convention with a pledged (and probably overall) delegate lead, but one that is small enough that a small but unquestionable popular vote lead would be Hillary's only trump card? All this talk of the popular vote intrigues me because, heretofore, all of my compatriots and I had been solely focusing on the delegate count.

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:

As far as the Florida revote - its a matter of how, not IF.

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:

JMS & Illinoisindi

Its amazing how you guys are so hip on the rules but if neither candidate reaches the required amount, your ready to throw the rulebook in the trash and go with the popular vote ? Remember, the ultimate goal of the Party is to win the White House.

____________________

matt:

About the WA primary, don't think it is all that meaningful when it didn't matter and coming after the caucus that did matter. Who knows how turnout was affected.

____________________

Thatcher:

John in Spokane -

You are the one that appears to be throwing out the rulebook.

At the end of tonight:

1) Obama will have the pledged delegate lead - even if FL and MI are counted as they stand right now (which would be against the rulebook). Right now, including FL and MI, he still leads in over 50 pledged delegates

2) Unless Clinton gets a miracle, Obama will have the popular vote lead. Even counting FL and MI as they stand right now, he leads her by over 75,000 votes counting MS. And he is favored to win 6-7 of the next 10

3) Obama has won more states than Clinton

The only area he isn't winning in is "super delegates" - which he has picked up many more in the past month than Clinton - and is only 36 away from her (according to Real Clear Politics) - with 338 still left to decide. Even if the rest break at the same percentage as they have so far - he will have the required total delegates to win the nomination when adding in the projected pledged delegates in the coming contests.

It is CLINTON'S campaign that has tried to push this "popular vote" message that could give them the leverage with "super delegates" NOT Obama or his supporters. It is the CLINTON campaign that is wanting to find a back door to win - because if we follow the rules as they stand right now - Obama will be the victor.

____________________

JMS:


"Its amazing how you guys are so hip on the rules but if neither candidate reaches the required amount, your ready to throw the rulebook in the trash and go with the popular vote ? Remember, the ultimate goal of the Party is to win the White House.

Posted by: John"

John, you seem to be intent on starting a food fight, and I know I shouldn't respond to that sort of post, but I will address the question buried within your taunt. I do not want to throw out the rules at all. My discussion with Illinoisindie was about what the de facto process will be rather than an attempt to restructure it de jure. Personally, I would like to see Obama win the nomination. But I would like to believe that even if I did not I would still think that the MI and FL delegations should not be seated. A re-vote not only removes the deterrent effect that was the original intent of the delegate stripping, but actually rewards those two states for their rule breaking with extra influence. For the party, MI is more problematic than FL both because it did not even have the semblance of an actual election, and because it is a must win state that the Dems have only just held in the last two Presidential elections. McCain will win FL barring a landslide of unforeseen proportions. Be that as it may, as a resident of Virginia, where we have played by the rules, and fully expected our primary to once again be meaningless, I'm enraged to see other states game the process and get rewarded.
And, John, just so you know, I actually tend to be more temperate and cautious while posting on sites like this one than I would be if I were debating you in person.

____________________

Thatcher:

Mark and Mark -

Interesting tabs on the "deep south" and the racial divide in the vote. So, what is being said is - Mississippi is essentially following similar patterns as other states in proximity, except that more Republicans crossed over and voted for Clinton (to try to push her numbers up?).

Doing the math - MS saw about 8% more Republicans voting than the other states in the Deep South. That's about 32,000 votes ... she beat him 3-1 in that category - a marign of about 16,000 votes (Obama 8,000 to Clinton 24,000).

If you take out that Clinton margin of 16,000 - He would have won Mississippi 64-35. Obama would have won 22 delegates (or maybe even 23) to Clintons 10 or 11.

However, it looks like when it is all said and done tonight:

Obama Clinton
CD-1 3 2
CD-2 5 2
CD-3 3 2
CD-4 3 2

At-L 4 3
PLEO 3 2

Or 20-13. So, Republicans turning out higher and in higher numbers for Clinton than precedence appears to have affected the delegate race in the state tonight.

____________________

Of course, speakstruth, Thatcher et al, you do realize that there is no evidence (as far as I know) that ANY person is voting for their candidate "just because" of their identity. These numbers do not show cause-and-effect.

In fact, given the large percentage of voters who say they would be happy with either or both candidate(s), unless someone can come up with some specific data there is no reason to infer that African Americans are voting for Obama "just because" he's black or that white women are voting for Clinton "just because" she's a woman. Nor is their evidence that the people who say race or gender is important to them are deciding whom to support exclusively on that criteria.

Example: I'm sure you can find a female voter who says she thinks it would be great to have a woman in the White House, but is voting for Obama for other reasons. I believe this describes Katha Politt etc. Just because she says gender is important and she is voting for the man does not indicate that she is sexist.

Likewise, a white woman such as myself might say race is important - that it would make a positive difference in this country to have a mixed-race person as president and that it would be a significant achievement - but prefer Hillary for other reasons. The fact that I think race is important and I voted for the white candidate does not indicate I'm racist.

By your logic, not only are some women voting for Hillary "just because" she's a woman and African Americans voting for Barack "just because" he's African American - white men who voted for John Edwards over Clinton and Obama did so "just because" he's a white man. Now, do you really think that was the case?

The most you can say on the identity issue so far is that voters tend to prefer candidates with whom they feel an affinity - that he or she is "someone like us" who "understands the needs of people like me." Some African American and some Democratic women voters are making an educated guess about which candidate is more likely to be responsive to particular issues of their concern; which candidate will make those issues a priority or put them on a back burner. There is nothing sinister or stupid about it.

And - one more time - Democratic African American voters did not flock to Alan Keyes, even though he is black. Democratic women voters did not rally around Elizabeth Dole, even though she's a woman. And I think its safe to say that both groups would find a Condaleeza Rice candidacy repellent.

This whole "its reverse racism" / "its reverse sexism" thing really toasts my muffins.

____________________

Of course, speakstruth, Thatcher et al, you do realize that there is no evidence (as far as I know) that ANY person is voting for their candidate "just because" of their identity. These numbers do not show cause-and-effect.

In fact, given the large percentage of voters who say they would be happy with either or both candidate(s), unless someone can come up with some specific data there is no reason to infer that African Americans are voting for Obama "just because" he's black or that white women are voting for Clinton "just because" she's a woman. Nor is their evidence that the people who say race or gender is important to them are deciding whom to support exclusively on that criteria.

Example: I'm sure you can find a female voter who says she thinks it would be great to have a woman in the White House, but is voting for Obama for other reasons. I believe this describes Katha Politt etc. Just because she says gender is important and she is voting for the man does not indicate that she is sexist.

Likewise, a white woman such as myself might say race is important - that it would make a positive difference in this country to have a mixed-race person as president and that it would be a significant achievement - but prefer Hillary for other reasons. The fact that I think race is important and I voted for the white candidate does not indicate I'm racist.

By your logic, not only are some women voting for Hillary "just because" she's a woman and African Americans voting for Barack "just because" he's African American - white men who voted for John Edwards over Clinton and Obama did so "just because" he's a white man. Now, do you really think that was the case?

The most you can say on the identity issue so far is that voters tend to prefer candidates with whom they feel an affinity - that he or she is "someone like us" who "understands the needs of people like me." Some African American and some Democratic women voters are making an educated guess about which candidate is more likely to be responsive to particular issues of their concern; which candidate will make those issues a priority or put them on a back burner. There is nothing sinister or stupid about it.

And - one more time - Democratic African American voters did not flock to Alan Keyes, even though he is black. Democratic women voters did not rally around Elizabeth Dole, even though she's a woman. And I think its safe to say that both groups would find a Condaleeza Rice candidacy repellent.

This whole "its reverse racism" / "its reverse sexism" thing really toasts my muffins.

____________________

Damn! did it again. Sorry.

____________________

Thatcher:

My bad - Clinton appears she probably wins CD 1 tonight. so O 19 - C 14.

Ciccina - I didn't say there were a lot of people doing that ... I just said that the application of that idea is wrong. There are a small number of voters who do vote for people who "look like themselves". But, it's kind of like the "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch" colloquilism.

____________________

I don't understand the exit poll numbers for Democratic voters based on religion / religious service attendance.

Clinton wins among Protestants who attend weekly or less often, but Obama wins big among "All Others," which is 56% of the vote. What is "All Others"? Protestants who attend services daily? Protestants who live in a church? A bumper crop of athiests? Who are these people?

____________________

michael:

Ciccina,

Can you name a single policy difference between Clinton and Obama that would explain a 90-10 split?

____________________

Thatcher:

Ciccina - the short answer to all your questions is "Yes".

Interesting set of crosstabs are:

Opinion of John McCain:
Favorable: Clinton 57%
Unfavorable: Obama 73%

Opinion of John McCain:
Strongly Fav (13% of the vote): Clinton 70% - Obama 25%

Note that the Strongly Favorable category closely resembles the 12% Republican percentage that turned out in the Dem Primary and also the breakdown between the two candidates is close to that same breakdown.

Again:
Has Clear Plan for Country's Problems:
Neither (16% of vote): Clinton 65% - Obama 28%

Another:
Who is Honest and Trustworthy:
Neither (15% of the vote): Clinton 77% - Obama 13%

And again:
Who inspires you about future of Country:
Neither (11% of the vote): Clinton 76% - Obama 9%

Final one:
Would you be satisfied (if Clinton or Obama wins nomination):
Dissat with both (7% of vote): Clinton 74% - Obama 10%

____________________

Thatcher:

michael - can you explain one policy difference that would explain a 70-26 split in whites in favor of Clinton?

(BTW - before anyone asks - I am white, male, 30-39, HH income between 50-100K, some college, protestant - rarely attend, liberal, not too worried about family's financial situation)

____________________

George G:

You guys are just going to duke it out while the REAL hero in this race, and the real uniter, John McCain is out golfing until you morons pick a sacrificial lamb from your party.

It's ironic that your lame ass party will send a person to the general election who could not even unite the Dumbocrat party! How is that person going to unite the country if they cannot even unite the party?

>>before anyone asks - I am white, male, 30-39, HH income between 50-100K, some college, protestant - rarely attend, liberal, not too worried about family's financial situation)

WHO GIVES A FLYING ****?

____________________

Patrick:

"2) Unless Clinton gets a miracle, Obama will have the popular vote lead. Even counting FL and MI as they stand right now, he leads her by over 75,000 votes counting MS. And he is favored to win 6-7 of the next 10"

Her wins in PA, WY, KY, PR will net her about 500,000 votes. She has a 300,000 vote lead in FL. Even if they revote, that will remain at least 200,000. So, adding FL, as it stands or in a revote, makes her NET gain 700,000-800,000 votes. A MI revote COULD add 50,000-200,000 votes to her total given plauisble outcomes. In total, those states could net her 750,000-1,000,000 more votes than Obama.

For Obama, he wins, for sure:

NC by 8-12: net gain of 150,000 votes
OR by 14: net gain of 125,000 votes
MT and SD each by 20: net gain of 35,000 votes

Add those all up and you get a net of 310,000 votes for Obama.

That leaves Clinton with a net 450,000-700,000 vote advantage over the next contests, without Indiana, which they are 50/50 split according to intrade markets.

She is currently down by about 700,000. It is not implausible, by any stretch, that she could catch him in the popular vote, as I used conservative wins and turnout for her in the states she wins. I think I used rather liberal turnout and wins (based on current polls) for the states he wins. I projected 1.2-1.3 million turning out for NC and gave him a 12 point win. That's a huge turnout and a larger margin than he currently enjoys in NC.

In summary, she certainly can win the popular vote. It's not likely, I'll grant you, but it's not a ridiculous long shot. Especially if he tanks in PA, which is what SUSA is showing right now. Save the "but his numbers go up" speech, as there's only SO much truth to that (e.g. Ohio, lost by 10). He will lose big in PA, but how much? That could affect perceptions in NC and IN just two short weeks later. Anything can happen and it's far from over.

Though, Obama is trying to run out the clock on FL and MI revotes, per stories on mydd.com So we know he is stalling there. Of course, if it was VA and GA up for grabs, he would be doing everything the way Clinton is.

____________________

Rasmus:

You used CONSERVATIVE numbers?
Michigan is a Toss-Up and you let her gain "50,000-200,000" votes. I don�t think it will be more than 50,000. Pennsylvania maybe 250,000, Puerto Rico never more than 100,000, the same with Kentucky and Wyoming, maybe 150,000 out of here.
So I think 550,000 out of PA, PR, KY, WY and MI is correct. Then you can add 250,000 for Florida, thats 800,000 for her.
I agree with you about the Obama states, SC maybe a bit lower, Oregon a bit higher (Margin of Victory), same with SD and MT.

So it would be fair to give her a net gain of 550,000 votes in the next contests. THese are neither conservative nor liberal numbers, they are realistic.

Referring to RealClearPolitics, Obama is up with exactly 700,391 votes (maybe there are still 1-2 Mississippi precincts not in it, but that should be pretty correct).
So, from where do you get the 150,000 other votes Clinton needs to win the Popular vote count?

And when you give MI and FL ALL their delegates back, you had to revote IA, SC, NH, NV too- all Obama wins with greater margins than he had before. I am sure he could win Iowa by 15-20, NH by 7-10, NV by 10 and SC by 25 percentage points...

PS: The 700,000 Obama PV margin is WITHOUT Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Wahington.
Add another 100,000 for him when these numbers come in.

____________________

Anonymous:

"So, from where do you get the 150,000 other votes Clinton needs to win the Popular vote count?"

Out the one of Spitzers prostitute's asses?

____________________

Anonymous:

St Patty did say Michigan could net more. who knows? Probably won't vote again.

Same with Florida.

BTW, Clinton won NV and NH. So what's with the "NH, NV too- all Obama wins with greater margins than he had before?"

Otherwise, good discussion

____________________

Anonymous:

St Patty did say Michigan could net more. who knows? Probably won't vote again.

Same with Florida.

BTW, Clinton won NV and NH. So what's with the "NH, NV too- all Obama wins with greater margins than he had before?"

Otherwise, good discussion

____________________

Anonymous:

If Clinton won Nevada, how does that add to Obama's vote total?

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

Wow, that was a pretty brutal night for the exit poll models. Assuming these current returns are accurate, the turnout model can hardly be faulted for struggling with turnout of over 400,000 voters (most of whom were self-identified Democrats) in the Democratic primary.

Right before I crashed last night around 10:30, I crunched the latest tab available at that point, in which Obama's margin was revised downward to about 15 points. So I get up this morning and see he won by 24, with almost a 100,000-vote margin.

The pollsters know how accurate or inaccurate their results were at the precinct level, but I'm guessing that the turnout surprises would swamp the precinct-level variation.

Obama shows 26% of the white vote in the current tab, but the current tab doesn't match the current vote count, and I don't have a lot of confidence in the ability of the reweights to get the demographics right.

____________________

illinoisindie:

JMS: I am an Obamacan (now that that is out of the way). My only mention of the popular vote is to counteract the Clinton argument of "well I lead in the popular vote so give me the nomination". I was simply pointing out what a gargantuan task that would be with BOs current lead at 700K. Many Clinton supporters on here seem to think that re-do's in Florida and Michigan catapult her somehow into the D lead and hence the premise for their argument (even though what they are really saying is change the rules midstream because we think it disproportionately favors our candidate)

@John... I am not throwing the rulebooks in the trash and neither is the DNC (hence why the house just said NO to a FL primary re-vote). This has and will always be about delegates and BO has more pledged Ds and continues to narrow her SD lead, he netted 7 more since OH&TX and by the way she just lost another with the spitzer debacle.

Bottom line BO DEFINITELY ends up at the convention with more pledged delegates (even if you give HRC 55-45 for all remaining contests which is improbable) and LIKELY the popular vote lead. At the end of the day the popular vote should be nothing more than watercooler talk ...*Ahem Gore v Bush* just like the General Election the game is electoral votes not the raw vote totals or who won more states. If I may paraphrase Steve King.."...you gotta rack up the delegates where the people are and Obama is doing that..."

____________________

David :


ILLINOIS INDIE


- Don't fret my friend. Trying to explain math, statistics and probability to some people here is like trying to teach calculus to a retarded chimp.

____________________

Bree:

A little angry , but still well said Mary!

____________________

Joe:

******************************************

"And your "argument" about "big states" is phenomenonally absurd. It doesn't matter that Clinton won NY or CA - those will never go Republican - ever. If your retarded gay uncle was the nominee, they would STILL go blue. So, STFU about that, ok? You sound like an effing retard. You might as well say, "Well, Hillary looks better in a pink sweater!" That makes more sense than the "she can win the big states" nonsense."
*********************************************


- Nice post lady! You crack me up. I get a good laugh when I hear the talking heads go on about her big state BS. Too funny.

____________________

Thatcher,

Very interesting stuff. But do I understand correctly that you are suggesting that the 12% of voters who have a very favorable view of McCain are basically the same 12-ish% who are are dissatisfied with both candidates and the same 12-ish% who are Republican - and more than 2/3rds of them voted against Obama? Because that would fly in the face of the oft-repeated line that Republicans will come out of the woodwork just to vote against her. Actually, given my math skills I'm pretty sure I didn't understand.

The numbers for "which candidate has a plan" are not far off from the national numbers in the Pew study, I believe -

"A majority of voters (56%) say that Obama has not provided enough information about his policies and plans for the country. By comparison, just 28% say that Clinton has said too little about her plans and policies, while 37% say that about McCain.

Perceptions that Obama has not provided enough information about his positions are especially apparent among Republicans (71%), but a solid majority of independents (60%) and a considerable minority of Democratic voters (43%) share this concern.

Among Democratic voters, a solid majority of Obama supporters (70%) believes that he has provided sufficient information about his policy plans, but just 28% of Clinton supporters agree. By contrast, 72% of Obama supporters and 87% of Clinton supporters believe that Clinton has provided enough information about her plans and policies. "

Further, I have to wonder if the Ferraro story affected late-deciders and contributed to the racially polarized result. Probably not, but still.

I think the decision to pick on Ferraro was a poor one in light of the racial polarity situation. The move seems tailor made to antagonize the white ethnic vote. The first thing I thought when I saw the story was, "great. now he's going to stir things up between the blacks and the italians." Unflattering, but true; I instantly switched my frame of reference from the current election back to white ethnic NYC - what I call "West Side Story" mode.

This sort of thing runs directly counter to Barack's "great unifier" bringing-everyone-together theme. And the campaign doesn't seem inclined to let the story die. Its almost like Obama did a hit piece on himself with the intention of exacerbating racial polarity to make Pennsylvania more difficult. It played well in South Carolina, but its counter-productive for Penn.

Then again, that election is still a long ways off, the polarity might have been a mere blip, and Obama will probably pull back on labeling Clinton supporters "racist" until, say, May 2nd or 3rd.

____________________

Certh:


Wow Ciccina, way to lie about Obama ...AGAIN!


Show me a link right now where Obama has called anyone in Clinton's campaign "racist".


Waiting.....still waiting.........


And by the way, I'm still trying to find examples of Obama being a misogynist or sexist or the like as you have claimed. Send me a link to that to please. Or did you just make that up too?

____________________

Certh:

Wow Ciccina, way to lie about Obama ...AGAIN!


Show me a link right now where Obama has called anyone in Clinton's campaign "racist".


Waiting.....still waiting.........


And by the way, I'm still trying to find examples of Obama being a misogynist or sexist or the like as you have claimed. Send me a link to that to please. Or did you just make that up too?

____________________

Todd:

Who's picking on Ferraro?????

THE MEDIA!

All Obama said was that those sorts of comments do not belong in a political race....period. He didn't go on and on about it.

I like how you blatantly LIE, Ciccina. Taking what the media is doing and superimposing it on Obama is garbage, and YOU KNOW IT!

____________________

Certh:

Ciccina,

How was Clinton so woefully "mistreated" by the media/society/voters/Obama/bigfoot again??

Who are these misogynists and sexists out there? Are they part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy"? And how is "the most liberal senator in the US" (Obama) part of this right-wing group? Do they have secret meetings every other Wednesday night?

I'm still looking for examples of sexism.....

____________________

Andrew S. in California:

I've just stopped reading Ciccina posts. Never have I seen someone so invested in sweeping logic that is 3 pages in length. I know I'm biased towards Obama and my objectivism can be effected as such but I feel like Ciccina is James Carville in blogging form. How you spin this Ferraro controversy as Obama calling Clinton racist would put Bill O'Riely to shame.

____________________

Sheila T:

I agree Ciccina - give it a rest already. Hillary lost. You can spin and groan all you want but the votes are the votes.

Obama has 30 states so far, and will end up with close to 40. He will have the popular and delegate lead and the SDs will fall in line with him. Clinton is looking like a desperate, do anything say anything crazy person now, with all sorts of bogus crazy talk coming out of her campaign.

Ciccina, there is no misogyny or sexism here. People just like Obama better. You make yourself look so foolish claiming otherwise.


____________________

Sheila T:

I agree Ciccina - give it a rest already. Hillary lost. You can spin and groan all you want but the votes are the votes.

Obama has 30 states so far, and will end up with close to 40. He will have the popular and delegate lead and the SDs will fall in line with him. Clinton is looking like a desperate, do anything say anything crazy person now, with all sorts of bogus crazy talk coming out of her campaign.

Ciccina, there is no misogyny or sexism here. People just like Obama better. You make yourself look so foolish claiming otherwise.


____________________

Greg:

I agree with Sheila and Andrew above. Can we just stick to the polls and leave the bias out. I know Ciccina and John from Spokane like to blather incessantly about Hillary and her campaign. Doesn't that belong on Hillary's blog?

Mark, I think you should erase blatant partisan posts like Ciccina's that just take polls and spin, spin, and spin some more into obvious lies.

Ciccina, just post on hillaryclinton.com please. Thanks.

____________________

Geoff:

Great analysis by KOS debunking the "big state" myth:

http://www.dailykos.com/

____________________

Joan:

That is a great link to Kos's analysis, geoff. He takes into account all the polls too. Great stuff.

____________________

Mark Blumenthal:

I deleted the post from "Mary from Iowa," a response from Ciccinna and a few others because they violate the one and only rule we've tried to establish here: Be civil or take it somewhere else.

I have have no interest in policing the content of comments or trying to draw a line between "analysis" and "spin." However pure name calling -- e.g."you are a stupid, stupid woman" to name one -- will get your comment deleted.

____________________

Richard Pollara:

Mark: I was wondering if you could comment upon the reliabilty of exit polls. Do they have the same margin of error as pre-election polls? Is it possible to see the same sort of split amongst exit polls that we saw in Californias (23 points I think between Zogby and Survey USA)? Are they more reliable on some things (race, gender and age) and less trustworthy on others (right track/wrong track)? I know that it is possible that you have already commented upon this. If so, a link would be great. Thanks.

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:

Its amazing that some of you automatically assume that somehow there is a rule that says if the required delegates are not acheived then the popular vote gets it ! And to also suggest that voters in Mich & Florida should not be able to exercise their Constitutional rights because some failed State level Party members screwed it up the process is not only un-democratic but un-American. You dont penalize people that had nothing to do with the problem - But I guess if thats what it takes to get your candidate nominated, why not huh ?
If the required number of delegates are not met, then becomes a Brokered convention - that IS the process. And by the way, there is NO rule that says a State cannot revote a primary, only that the first vote would not be considered.

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:

Its amazing that some of you automatically assume that somehow there is a rule that says if the required delegates are not acheived then the popular vote gets it ! And to also suggest that voters in Mich & Florida should not be able to exercise their Constitutional rights because some failed State level Party members screwed it up the process is not only un-democratic but un-American. You dont penalize people that had nothing to do with the problem - But I guess if thats what it takes to get your candidate nominated, why not huh ?
If the required number of delegates are not met, then becomes a Brokered convention - that IS the process. And by the way, there is NO rule that says a State cannot revote a primary, only that the first vote would not be considered.

____________________

Thatcher:

John in Spokane -

Again, it is NOT Obama supporters or his campaign or even himself that brought up the "popular vote" option. It is HRC and her campaign. Please understand - she cannot surpass him in pledged delegates, nor in states won - so HER campaign believes she can woo over more of the super delegates to her to put her over the top by using the "popular vote" option.

As for Florida and Michigan - I don't hold it against the voters and I hope that this gets settled. However - the Supreme Court has upheld that the Political Parties have the control in selecting their nominee - not the states and not the people - The Parties.

The only constitutional right you have to vote for president is in the General Election in November. The nominees used to be decided by smoke-filled room meetings. Today it is done by the vote of the people. The way it should be.

The DNC set up the rules that set the earliest possible date (Feb 5) that most states had to adhere to with Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina allowed to be earlier. It was agreed upon by representatives of all the states' democratic parties, including Michigan and Florida. Then 2 states moved their votes earlier - Michigan and Florida - knowing that they would be penalized because of the rules. However, what they thought was is they could muscle the DNC into seating their delegates from the non-complying elections. They played chicken with the votes of the people of their own states and it looks like they will lose.

So, the end result is - the Democratic party leaders in those two states FAILED their people. THEY failed to abide by the rules THEY agreed upon. And people in those two states should hold their state party leaders responsible for this.

For those that say that Republicans were responsible for Florida's date. This is a lie. It was Democratic State Senator Jeremy Ring that introduced the amendment to the bill that passed 37-2 and 118-1 in the Florida Legislature that moved the vote up. The Florida Democratic Party Executive Director stated in a press conference on Thursday that she supported the amendment to have Florida go against the rules they agreed to and move the date to earlier in the process.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR