2008 Primaries Thread 2: THE QUICKENING

guys we can jerk off to the exit poll data as much as we want but there's simply no indication that all of the voters who said race was important were hillary supporters. it's perhaps just as likely that african american voters took race into account when voting for obama, isn't it?

20% agreed that 'race was a factor influencing their vote', of whom 75% were clinton voters

A good number of the African-American women I know and am close to support Hillary over Obama. This includes: my wife, my mother-in-law, my sister-in-law, my mom.

New haute game for disenfranchised Dems:

McCain Chicken!

"I'm SERIOUS! I really AM going to vote for McCain as a Democrat because of this!..... I will!..... Yeah?.... I will... uh huh!.... don't laugh guys, it's not funny"

btw huge portions of dem voters are crazy racist, i dont know how this can be surprising to anyone

OTM. The Civil Rights Act, busing, etc happened only 40 years ago.

I know I know it's just... disappointing

what i'm curious about: where on the net can one find a decent record of the advertising the candidates are doing

these two sites (along with others i'm sure) generally post the candidates ads along with info on when/where they go on the air:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

(they also post endless minutiae about the race, e.g. conference calls, press releases, poll data, etc)

I know a suprisingly large number of 45+ yr old middle class black guys who are HRC supporters, too, Dan. I think age skews the whole thing, too.

Besides the obvious nutjobs and racists, I think the way this pans out between the two camps on the race/gender front is who's turn is it? African-Americans or women? I've seen some pseudo-feminist special pleading in the letters to the editor recently but mostly the official HRC supporter line seems to be that she's got more experience, is less of a chimera, isn't making promises she can't keep, blah, blah, blah...

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/3/2008/03/thumb463x_AP080304031554-thumb.jpg

"going...down?"

http://media.canada.com/gallery/dose_10ferrell/060803ferrell8.jpg

you know cindy mccain has to get on top cowgirl style or take it from behind because of mccain's arm problems, right? so HOW CAN CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE WHO CANNOT ACHIEVE THE MISSIONARY POSITION?

/kenan

ugh

hey, kenan does not have a monopoly on crass sexual commentary, thank you very much

maybe he has some kind of harness oh jesus stop me stop me

that's right, you just imagined cindy mccain in a fuck-sling.

suffer.

no, actually i didn't.

now you suffer.

giving new meaning to the idea of a 100 year occupation

BEST-CASE: disenchanted Obama youth see Clintons steal nomination, help form actual liberal party

BEST-CASE: disenchanted Obama youth see Clintons steal nomination, help form actual liberal party

One pill makes you larger
And one pill makes you small
And the ones that mother gives you
Don't do anything at all
Go ask Alice
When she's ten feet tall.

hey as long as there's fuck slings, i'm there

20% agreed that 'race was a factor influencing their vote', of whom 75% were clinton voters

MSNBC exit poll also has 20% of voters saying race of candidate was "important", but of those they only went 57-43 to Clinton:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/the_crucial_racist_vote.php

'only'

there's a difference between "important" and "a factor influencing their vote," so the populations may be different even if the percentages are the same

we don't need exit polls, though. it's quite clear that white people in Ohio and other industrial or interior Southern states don't like Obama as much as white people in other states.

Well, the full question was:

"In deciding your vote for president today, the race of the candidate was (choose one):
-Important
-Not important"

Which is not that different than the AP phrasing.

or, industrial/Catholic. I think we can count MA and NH in this category as well.

the AP phrasing makes it more ok for the respondent to be racist

white people in Ohio and other industrial or interior Southern states

lolz racists be landlocked

Interestingly (or not) no one's complaining that she also got 60% of those who said the gender of the candidate was important.

and how did those people vote?

oh rite, i'm tired

how many of the voters thought Obama was a woman?

the AP phrasing makes it more ok for the respondent to be racist

If this is the case, why did the question yield 20% in both cases.

yeah, some tough guys seem to go for hillary because they figure they'll take the real woman over the fake one

i already addressed that above, xp

i mean, the presumption that the polls are identical has to break down on one of the sets of numbers

i'm just wondering when these fucking superdelegate endorsements are going to come out of the woodwork

i already addressed that above, xp

So the racists were more likely to agree that race was a "factor influencing their vote" but that at the same time it was "not important" to their decision-making process?

Or is that the non-racists who still thought race was "important" in their decision-making process did not find that race was a "factor influencing their vote"?

i mean, the presumption that the polls are identical has to break down on one of the sets of numbers

I think it shows you that these things have a wide margin of error.

284,228 = still enough to win her the state, no?

lol bajillion xps

oh shit naw it looks like she had 55,447 crucial nonracist votes

So the racists were more likely to agree that race was a "factor influencing their vote" but that at the same time it was "not important" to their decision-making process?

my proposition is that asking if race was a factor influencing the vote is value-neutral, and therefore more accepting of the notion that race could be a negative characteristic, while asking if it was important, a higher standard, puts more of a burden on the respondent, and also connects race to the notion of social importance. i think a racist respondent is more likely to admit that it was a 'factor' in their vote, while someone who is voting for Obama because they feel a sense of significance in helping a black man be elected is more likely to identify race as 'important' to their vote.

you're making the assumption that the same 20% responded positively on the race question in each survey, but that they answered differently when asked how they voted. i'm making the assumption that people answered the same as to how they voted, but a different, overlapping 20% responded positively on the race question. i think my assumption is more reasonable.

you're making the assumption that the same 20% responded positively on the race question in each survey, but that they answered differently when asked how they voted. i'm making the assumption that people answered the same as to how they voted, but a different, overlapping 20% responded positively on the race question. i think my assumption is more reasonable

Of course it wasn't the "same 20%" - ie., different people were asked in each poll. What were the sample sizes? Of those the follow-up question was only asked of 20% of the original, an even smaller sample. There are sound statistical reasons to think that this result has a high uncertainty associated with it.

value-neutral, and therefore more accepting of the notion that race could be a negative characteristic

and conversely less rewarding of race being a positive factor

did the exit polls reach the same overall candidate numbers?

you're assuming it was a follow-up question. i'm not.

i don't know the order the questions were asked, but i do know they didn't ask "are you a woman? ok, who did you vote for? how much dollars do you have? ok, who did you vote for? are you a racist? ok, who did you vote for?"