2008 Primaries Thread

Alex Cockburn and David Duke united! - http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/09/quot-the-duke-s-quot-campaign-advice.aspx

What the Hell Happened Last Night?
by: Chris Bowers
Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 15:29:21 PM EST

Was it massive polling error? Were women motivated by a double standard imposed on Clinton for showing emotion? Was it the Wilder / Bradley effect, where white voters lie about supporting African-American candidates to pollsters out of perceived social pressure? Was it something else? Twelve public polling organizations were in the field in New Hampshire entirely after the Iowa caucuses. One of these organizations concluded interviews on Saturday, January 5th. Seven concluded interviews on Sunday, January 6th. Four concluded interviews on Monday, January 7th.. The average of the final results from these pollsters is as follows:

Obama: 37.25%
Clinton: 29.92%
Edwards: 18.92%
Richardson: 5.75%

Now, compare this to the results, with only one precinct outstanding
Clinton: 38.99% (+9.07, +30.3%)
Obama: 36.39% (-0.86, -2.3%)
Edwards: 16.91% (-2.01, -10.6%)
Richardson: 4.60% (-1.15, -20.0%)

While Obama and Richardson both saw their support drop from the final polling average, Edwards saw his drop as much as Obama and Richardson combined. It is possible that Edwards saw his numbers drop for a different reason than Obama or Richardson, or even that all three saw their numbers drop for different reasons. However, given Obama's numbers dropped the least, both in overall terms and in percentage terms, I am not convinced of a "Wilder effect here at all. Or, at least, I am not convinced that the "Wilder effect" was the only dynamic in play. It seems equally plausible that Edwards and Richardson saw their support drop much the way third-party support always drops from the polls to the final results. The lower the perceived chance a third-party candidate has the win, the larger their expected drop from the polls to the final results. It would appear that those voters broke toward Clinton.

Here is what I think happened, in chronological order:
Chris Bowers :: What The Hell Happened Last Night?
First, Clinton probably had a superior absentee voter program, which gave her a small boost. Likely voters are not guaranteed voters, but those who have already voted are. Before they were rebalanced, the exit polls showed Obama narrowly ahead of Clinton, 39%-38%. Absentee voters were not included in the exit poll, and a successful and strong absentee voter program can indeed account for a 3-4% net swing, especially since Clinton held a commanding 48%--31% lead among voters who had their minds made up the longest. This is also, for example, is why Brian Bilbray outperformed Francine Busby in final polls in CA-50.

Second, the polls were somewhat wrong, probably due both to a very mild "Wilder effect" and to improper weighting of the electorate / measurement of likely voters. However, the polls don't have to be more than 1% wrong in order to make this scenario work (although the more wrong the polls were, the easier this scenario works). Given that Rasmussen, a polling firm that utilizes the automated, IVR methodology, showed the campaign to be a little closer than other pollsters who used live interviews, there probably was a mild "Wilder effect" of about two percent or so. IVR polls should eliminate the Wilder effect altogether, and so it is useful to look to them as a baseline when determining the presence of a Wilder effect.

Third, there was a break toward Clinton on Election Day itself, when no polls were taken. A survey of 2004 and 2000 polls taken between Iowa and New Hampshire shows there is a tendency for Iowa bounces to begin to recede after three to five days, meaning that by Election Day Clinton should have been pulling back on Obama anyway, with or without a sympathy vote. Exit polls back this up. Among voters who decided who to vote for in the last week, Obama led Clinton 43%-28%, probably due to a huge surge in the two days after Iowa. Among voters who decided in the three days before the election, Obama still led by a smaller amount, 37%--34%. Among those who made up their minds on Election Day itself, the bounce had faded entirely, and Clinton pulled into a 39%-36% lead. That accounts for at least another half of a percent. Of course, the sympathy vote probably didn't hurt.

Fourth, Edwards and Richardson supporters who favored Clinton as a second choice disproportionately broke away and choose Clinton, since the narrative implied both that she was the only other candidate who could win and that she needed help to do so. We all saw this, for example, in 2000, when Nader was a factor and Gore was in a position similar to Clinton. In the end, Nader underperformed his final polls by 1.2%, and Gore outperformed his final polls by 2.0%, providing Gore enough of a boost to win the popular vote. By way of contrast, Edwards and Richardson supporters who favored Obama as a second choice probably didn't think Obama needed any help. This could have added as much as 3% to Clinton's total.

Fifth, Clinton was assisted by the ballot order, probably to the tune of about 3%. Clinton was at the top of the ballot, and it is a well-known long and long-studied phenomenon in politics that placement at the top of the ballot provides a not insignificant edge to any given candidate.
This is a "perfect storm" scenario that requires no significant polling error, no significant Wilder effect, and no significant sympathy effect for Clinton. The top of the ballot, a superior absentee voter program, a naturally fading bounce, and an also somewhat typical "third party effect" from Edwards and Richardson supporters can, in and of itself, account for the ten-point swing from Obama to Clinton. However, that it requires all of these less than mysterious pieces to fall into place makes it somewhat dubious. The most likely scenario is that the four reasons I provide all played a role, but less than the amounts I suggested here. Further, the three most common reasons being given, Wilder effect, sympathy effect, massive polling error, all also probably played a role, but less than is being trumpeted by others. It was probably just a perfect storm for Clinton incorporating all seven rationales.

Still, this result should give real pause to anyone like me who believes pre-election final poll averages are almost always a very accurate predictor of final results. If a whole host of factors fall into place, clearly it is possible to bust up final averages by as much as 10%. Clinton got a perfect storm, drawing on as many as seven different factors It will take a long time to sort this out with any certainty, and even then certainty may never come. The future performance of polls in predicting final results will now be watched much more closer than ever. I guess they are "on notice."

you guys i have been reading this thread for 2.5 hours and it has not stopped

it is happening... again

Romney puts it all on Michigan - http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/09/565494.aspx

Richardson out - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110/ap_on_el_pr/richardson

will he endorse O? helping him take NV?

Welcome back Richardson! To NM.

Clinton/Bush-Legacy campaign continues - http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200801/POL20080109e.html

The agent of the candidate for change:

"But those tears also have to be analyzed. They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45% of African-Americans who participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama."

run jesse(s) run! for the love of god just run.

I've gotta vote for Obama over Kucinich in the primary, in the event that it's still a race.

this is me. i doubt california's coming into play.

daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn xxp

That interview with Obama's manager is not where Obama should go, despite my wanting him to show he's capable of throwing hard punches. That kind of talk plays into HRC's hands.

Absolutely.

Did she cry when Obama lost NH? Then she does not represent the black voters of SC.

Jeff Chang:

HRC will sound more liberal and more concerned with racial justice than she ever will again this election season in the days before South Carolina. And you can bet that a lot of dedicated young activists in the Clinton and Obama campaigns are about to be tapped for the ride of their lives.

Because of the hard work of what might now be seen as a vanguard group of activists at the University of Iowa, Iowa State, and other college campuses in the Hawkeye, Democratic candidates are more interested than they've ever been in what you're going to be doing on the day their little election comes to your state. So if you're a left-leaning college student, know that for the next several weeks, you will be the most courted young person in the history of American politics.

Not in the Mountain time zone, I bet. :(

Hain't none comin' round to court this maid.

shouldn't al sharpton be derailing democrats right around now? can't believe he's letting the jesses steal his thunder here.

Sharpton's dealing with the Feds now.

I can't stand Karl Rove, but what he says in the article Gabbneb links isn't wrong. And it goes beyond a bad moment for Obama; it struck a blow against his entire image (for reasons I set forth above, which -- in fairness -- Alfred disagrees with for reasons I understand).

From now on, I think Obama should be ultra-serious (as he is in his stump speeches), get more policy detailed fast (which he certainly can do) and use humor in a gentle, self-depricating way (he's done this to great effect when he talks about his wife (e.g., how she reacted to pundits saying Obama is a political savior)).

yeah that bitter bill c. 'fairytale' comment is this close to sticking if obama doesn't meet his starfuckers halfway with some policy meat

Clinton was at the top of the ballot, and it is a well-known long and long-studied phenomenon in politics that placement at the top of the ballot provides a not insignificant edge to any given candidate.

I hate that Romney is pulling his ads in Florida; it seems to open up even more room for a Giuliani win in Florida. And as much of a buffoon as I think Giuliani is (and, therefore, a good matchup in the GE), I'd prefer him not to lead the delegate count after "Tsunami Tuesday" (tho I'd greatly prefer him to McCain).

Rosa Brooks (LA Times) on Bloggingheads.tv: "If the Republican attack machine tries to portray Obama as the 'scary black guy' or the 'scary Muslim guy,' it won't work. We're moving to a place where that's just not attractive to people. The average American is better than that at this point. There has been a cultural sea change in the nation on issues of race."

LOL. Silly pundit. Were it only true.

yeah i think the candidates would do well to (appear to) work under the assumption that race and sex don't matter but the average american is still a dipshit, fuck all that noise. talk radio alone could bury several campaigns under several tons of freeflung shit without even trying.

Daniel, I think that tactic would definitely work for some significant of the population. The question is how much - Obama doesn't need everyone's vote.

"Political scientists have proposed various theories aimed at salvaging some dignity for the democratic process. One is that elections are decided by the ten per cent or so of the electorate who are informed and have coherent political views. In this theory, the votes of the uninformed cancel each other out, since their choices are effectively random: they are flipping a coin. So candidates pitch their appeals to the informed voters, who decide on the merits, and this makes the outcome of an election politically meaningful."

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/07/09/070709crbo_books_menand?currentPage=2

I don't know if this is true, but it has obvious implications for race + sex during the election.

That's obviously a nonsensical theory, and it isn't even the main theory addressed by that article you linked to, it's just used as an example of a theory.

Who the fuck are "the informed" and "the uninformed?" No one knows anything.

Of course that's nowhere near as insulting and arbitrary as the main theory being reviewed in that piece.

it's a huge false assumption that "the uninformed" vote randomly

There was a nice article a couple of months ago – its name and publisher escapes me – that refuted Surowiecki’s “The Wisdom of Crowds” concept on the basis of some new findings. Does anyone remember it? I would love to read it again.

I mean I'm college-educated and read a good amount of campaign coverage from just about every imaginable part of the political spectrum and I try to make sure I have a basic grasp of current foreign policy and economic and social issues, and the fuck if I feel like I'm truly "informed" - especially when it comes to predicting what kind of president a candidate might make.

I really have no idea (about the validity of the article, the theories, etc).

The article does a fine job of taking the "Myth of the Rational Voter" theory apart.

The theory itself is just a typical conservative economist confusing his ideology for objective realtiy.

Bit po'faced to shuffle your feet and call yourself uninformed, Hurting. The standard for being 'informed' is hardly perfect clarity and an ability to predict the future.

If 10% of the voters are informed, that means that 1 in every 10 voters fits the criteria. Probably knowing the different candidates, and understanding their basic policies (etc) would qualify you as informed. Otherwise only 1% of the voterbase would probably be "informed."

xpost Maybe. But also with the use of "informed" there's an assumption of a rational standard - that idea that if voters just knew what I know they'd make they choice I make because that's the rational choice.

the same writer reviewed a book in 2004 that explores the 'shortcut' model more positively

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/08/30/040830crat_atlarge

I guess it's "uninformed" to think you like Ron Paul because of his views on the war while having no idea what he stands for in terms of economic policy and immigration. At the same time, not knowing the specific difference between Obama's and Clinton's healthcare proposals (I'm not sure I do), but I'm not convinced that voting for one or the other nonetheless because of gut feelings about their character is necessarily a bad way to choose.

sorry, last sentence came out garbled but I think it's clear what I meant.

"I like this person better" is not necessarily a worse way to choose a president than "I like this platform better," in other words, and it's certainly not "flipping a coin" in any case.

Hurting, the New Yorker piece wasn't even suggesting that some choices should be privileged over others. Voting for someone because of their welfare platform, while ignoring other policies, is a valid decision. The problem is that only 30% even named an issue to explain their vote, and only 1/5th didn't contradict themselves. (The New Yorker contradiction example is: Anti welfare, but pro the government giving assistance to the poor -- though I don't know why this is a contradiction, you could be pro assistance and anti the current methodology... ANYHOW).

Maybe that's a bit extreme - I just mean the first is a bit underrated and the second a bit overrated. (xpost to self)

I think one of the problems with "I like that person better" is that you rely on MSM to evaluate the person's personality. What % of people are actually watching speeches? With policy, ideally, you can take the quotes that people have said and analyze them. Personalities are so touch and go, tho.

Fair point. I need to fucking go to bed. Night all.

xp yeah i'm not sure how much even the 'shortcut' model controls for whatever media filters contribute to building a given voter's impressions on candidates. perhaps i should read the book.

Is HRC still promising new spelling rules and jobs?

http://images.google.com/images?q=%22new+jobs+for+tommorrow%22&

We made up a great Democratic National Debates Drinking Game -

Every time a candidate says the word "change," take a shot. Every time Bill Richardson says the words "I'm the only one up here who..." take two shots.

You'll be rip roaring drunk in ten minutes.