98 replies to this topic

[drainyou]

http://www.usatoday....interview_N.htm

Hmm...

I ...

Hmmm.......:cool:

[drainyou]

And here is what everyone's favorite radio host said prior to Hillary Diane Clinton's comments:   "Barack Obama has shown he cannot get the votes Democrats need to win -- blue-collar, working-class people," Limbaugh said. "He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that."

Hmmm..:cool:

[bizaleth]

Hmmm.... I heard about her comment this morning on the radio. They summed it up as the feeling of, "My supporters won't vote for you but your supporters will vote for me" more than anything else.

A friend of mine is a poli sci professor and he keeps regular stats on Obama voters. He posted something a couple of days ago looking at the overall white vote for Obama (he does this state by state). And there were some areas where Obama's support among whites was really low. If I remember correctly, the white support was lower in states with a higher black support, like Mississippi. But, if you look at that closer: Mississippi is a very conservative state, yet it has the highest black population of any state in the nation. And in Mississippi the black population is more likely to register as Democrats than the white population. So there may not be high white support of Obama in Mississippi, but the majority of whites in Mississippi are Republican.

Then again, my friend posted another map of stats looking at the self-described liberal support of Obama and it was pretty high overall. The states where he didn't have the majority of support was New York and Arkansas: Clinton's two home states.

What am I getting at? Well, in the end, right now do we really know who will vote for Obama versus Clinton. Or hell, Clinton or Obama versus McCain? No.

[drainyou]

Hillary Diane Clinton voters have also been proven to be less educated than Obama supporters.
:eek:

[Red Frog]

drainyou said:

Hillary Diane Clinton voters have also been proven to be less educated than Obama supporters.
:eek:

Not less educated per voter though.

[drainyou]

Red Frog said:

Not less educated per voter though.

I don't understand... would you elaborate?

[Red Frog]

drainyou said:

I don't understand... would you elaborate?

Your wording could be construed as meaning that each Clinton voter is less educated than each Obama voter, when in fact it is just that Obama has gotten more votes from those with college degrees (by about 8% I think).

Not explained terribly well, but most of my posts aren't.

[drainyou]

Red Frog said:

Your wording could be construed as meaning that each Clinton voter is less educated than each Obama voter, when in fact it is just that Obama has gotten more votes from those with college degrees (by about 8% I think).

Not explained terribly well, but most of my posts aren't.

LOL - no.. I didn't intend to imply that they gave IQ tests at the polls...

But hey..that might not be a bad idea.. as long as they do it on the way IN..
:cool:

[drainyou]

YES! After all the exchanges about Republicans being racist - and the double standards that exist..

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED!!!

A big prize to ANYONE that can tell me WHY I think this is fucking hilarious..

(aside from the jokes I am setting myself up for...)  :cool:

http://thecaucus.blo...-white-support/

Are you paying attention, Mr. Attorney at large?
I ve gotta go get my popcorn...

[bizaleth]

Are you saying that because stats on support for Obama based on race and political ideology have been gathered that we're racist? My friend who gathers the stats is black. But he is also a political scientist, and gathering stats like this is what he does for a living. He also has stats on how Obama does among self-described independents (okay) and self-described conservatives (not bad, better than those whe consider themselves independent, oddly enough). Just as an FYI, the data he gathers are based on exit polls in Democratic primary states.

Actually, what my friend has seen based on stats, is that Hillary isn't that far off with some of her comments. Obama, based on exit poll data, doesn't have across-the-board support within the Democratic party. And, in order to be electable, he needs to secure that. But, of course, we wont know how those who voted for Clinton in the primaries will vote in the general election. (Just to add to this, my friend, in addition to being black and a political scientist, is an Obama supporter.)

What I see Hillary implying with her comments is that her supporters--the ones she claimed didn't vote for Kerry in 2004 but are supporting her now--is that they won't vote for Obama in a general election because they voted for her in the primaries. But... that those who voted for Obama would vote for her in the general election.

[drainyou]

bizaleth said:

Are you saying that because stats on support for Obama based on race and political ideology have been gathered that we're racist? .

Not at all.. but thank you for playing..;)

Interesting info though..

[bizaleth]

drainyou said:

Not at all.. but thank you for playing..;)

Interesting info though..

Okay. It was a serious question, because I couldn't figure out what you were asking or implying with your last post.

I find the stats completely intriguing. Most stats are merely a snapshot and part of me wonders how accurate they are in the long run. But it is just that--a snapshot of what people are thinking at a specific time.

[drainyou]

bizaleth said:

Okay. It was a serious question, because I couldn't figure out what you were asking or implying with your last post.

I find the stats completely intriguing. Most stats are merely a snapshot and part of me wonders how accurate they are in the long run. But it is just that--a snapshot of what people are thinking at a specific time.

Shocker - I am going to disagree sorta..

I don't really know if they are a reflection of what one is thinking honestly -or what they WANT the person asking the question to think they are thinking..

Ex. - One is at heart a racist - he/she knows to be true to their heart they would never/could never vote for a black man. Just couldn't do it - in the booth, they are brave in their racism and don't vote for the black candidate..
BUT when polled on the way out, and the light is shined at them - how many of those people do you think would answer honestly?

Poorly worded I guess.. but follow the logic?:cool:

[bizaleth]

drainyou said:

Shocker - I am going to disagree sorta..

I don't really know if they are a reflection of what one is thinking honestly -or what they WANT the person asking the question to think they are thinking..

Ex. - One is at heart a racist - he/she knows to be true to their heart they would never/could never vote for a black man. Just couldn't do it - in the booth, they are brave in their racism and don't vote for the black candidate..
BUT when polled on the way out, and the light is shined at them - how many of those people do you think would answer honestly?

Poorly worded I guess.. but follow the logic?:cool:

No, I think there is some validity to what you said. Another reason why I find the stats fascinating.

[bizaleth]

Someone help me out on this--my mind is fuzzy. There is a name given to pre-election polls--it's the idea that people wil say wone thing because they think it is what people will want to hear, but in the election booth, they do the opposite. The example or name used to describe it is that of a previous election--but I forget what it was.

Of course, that is different from exit polss... But I remember som saying this is what happened during the New Hampshire Primaries and why the predictions were so off. Predictions were based on polls and some said the those interviewed said they would vote for Obama because that is what people would want to hear, but they did the opposite in the booth.

[drainyou]

bizaleth said:

Someone help me out on this--my mind is fuzzy. There is a name given to pre-election polls--it's the idea that people wil say wone thing because they think it is what people will want to hear, but in the election booth, they do the opposite. The example or name used to describe it is that of a previous election--but I forget what it was.

Of course, that is different from exit polss... But I remember som saying this is what happened during the New Hampshire Primaries and why the predictions were so off. Predictions were based on polls and some said the those interviewed said they would vote for Obama because that is what people would want to hear, but they did the opposite in the booth.

That would be the Bradley effect. Sorry.. should have referenced it in the original post.. didn't know if anyone would know the term. I think the actual technical term is response biases..

[bizaleth]

drainyou said:

That would be the Bradley effect.

Right! Mayoral race in LA.

I'm not sure I buy it. I think that some people will say one thing because it is what they think people want to hear. But I think there are enough people sho simply change their mind.

[pebbles]

bizaleth said:

Someone help me out on this--my mind is fuzzy. There is a name given to pre-election polls--it's the idea that people wil say wone thing because they think it is what people will want to hear, but in the election booth, they do the opposite. The example or name used to describe it is that of a previous election--but I forget what it was.

Of course, that is different from exit polss... But I remember som saying this is what happened during the New Hampshire Primaries and why the predictions were so off. Predictions were based on polls and some said the those interviewed said they would vote for Obama because that is what people would want to hear, but they did the opposite in the booth.

I remember that, and I was very upset and disturbed by that explanation.  Some experts and pollsters were saying that people had over-stated their willingness to vote for a Black person for president.  I still really hope that's not an accurate portrayal of the hearts and minds of many american voters.  I couldn't believe that being "black" is really that big of a deal in who to vote for.  That the colour of someone's skin would mean someone would automatically not vote for them.

[pebbles]

bizaleth said:

Right! Mayoral race in LA.

I'm not sure I buy it. I think that some people will say one thing because it is what they think people want to hear. But I think there are enough people sho simply change their mind.

Given how close the race has been so far, I think that's a reasonable conclusion.

[drainyou]

pebbles said:

I remember that, and I was very upset and disturbed by that explanation.  Some experts and pollsters were saying that people had over-stated their willingness to vote for a Black person for president.  I still really hope that's not an accurate portrayal of the hearts and minds of many american voters.  I couldn't believe that being "black" is really that big of a deal in who to vote for.  That the colour of someone's skin would mean someone would automatically not vote for them.

If you look at my post yesterday about the "big secret" to Obama not being electable, that is one of my contentions... racism still exists in America big time.. it may not be as flagrant and out in the open, but its there under the skin and that is when I think it's most dangerous..and those people would probably rather eat a turd than vote for a black man. Sad but true.

But, there is always the phenomena of white guilt that might offset it also...:cool: