USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by tmc

With what you said being the case, does the fact that McCain is within hailing distance, at least, of Obama mean that perhaps Hillary is not totally out of the picture? Under present political circumstances the Democrat candidate should be a lead-pipe cinch, which Obama is clearly not, at least as of now. She has not yet released her delegates; could there be mischief in Denver?

I don't think so, on the latter point. I read for example that officially suspending as opposed to ending a campaign allows for continued donations, or something to that effect, and so there is a completely non-political (non-mischief) reason for Clinton, for example, to just suspend her campaign. I believe I read similar comments regarding the official "releasing" of delegates, but I cannot be sure. I just don't think Clinton is harboring ideas of something of that scale happening, still.

She might be harboring ideas of something like being the VP on the ticket, though I haven't particularly gotten that impression, either. I don't see it happening, myself. Just seems like it's fraught with too many problems.

That Obama would not be leading in the polls by more doesn't particularly surprise me, either. I think partly that's a function of the uncertainty of the situation and the tendency of polling to show a closer contest than may result, in the end (as we've seen at various times in this campaign). I think it's also partly a legitimate function of him being the option perceived as "riskier" (or whatever similar word you might want to put on it). Ironically one of McCain's biggest strengths might be precisely that he would be largely a continuation of current policies, because again, despite everybody's constant bellyaching about the state of our politics and government and why it can't be more effective and less of a quagmire of bickering and so forth, they continue to choose for office the people who make/keep it precisely that way, when it comes time to vote. The question remains, how serious are the voters about change, or how many of them are serious about change, serious enough to vote for it instead of going the familiar and "safe" route of sticking with what you know (even if it's the devil you know)?

And then there is the fact that, like every other president ever elected in this country's history, J. Sidney McCain is a white guy, and like almost all of them, he's an aging white guy, while Obama, like no other president ever elected in this country's history, is a black man, and like almost no other president ever elected in this country's history, is also young. At least until they're seen standing next to each other in debates or forums or whatever (and quite possibly beyond that), these are clearly strong aids to McCain that can only help boost him in the effort to diminish any lead Obama builds up.

Imo.

Steve

[tmc]

Originally Posted by beerbreath

I will bet the farm that if Newsweek had McBush up 15% points,you would have posted something completely different.

Anyhow,According to your numbers,smart people are going for Obama,cool.

I would think that any poll showing McCain up by 15 points, with as many holes in the methodology, would be just as worthy of a post, no?

As for your point that smart people are going for Obama, there is no way to discern that from the polling data; there is no breakdown of voting preferences along educational achievement lines. In fact, since the number of college-educated people are underrepresented in the Newsweek poll, in which Obama has a big lead, and most other polls show less of an Obama lead, a more reasonable interpretation may be just the opposite; that McCain leads among college-educated people (the reason he is so far behind in the Newsweek poll is that many of his college-educated supporters are not being queried). Food for thought...

[diogeron]

Obama Education Gap Extends to General Election
It is not accurate to say one can't "discern that from the polling data." Sure you can. Many polling organizations in their "internals" break down voting by educational data. According to Gallup, Obama has a sizeable lead over McCain by "a significant margin" among the better educated cohort. The link above to the Gallup poll is but one example, but the great god Google can give you plenty of other sources.
McCain is leading among white, non-college educated voters by 13 points, but Kerry lost that cohort by 26 points. Clinton is the only D who did better among this group.

[ryberg]

Yes, I was going to say that there must be such info available, as it was readily available during the primary campaign and came out prominently at one point. I commented on that in some post here, in fact...

Steve

[beerbreath]

Originally Posted by diogeron

Obama Education Gap Extends to General Election
It is not accurate to say one can't "discern that from the polling data." Sure you can. Many polling organizations in their "internals" break down voting by educational data and Obama does, indeed, have a sizeable lead among the better educated cohort as the Gallup poll above suggests saying Obama leads by a "significant margin" The link above is but one example, but the great god Google can give you plenty of other sources.
McCain is leading among white, non-college educated voters by 13 points, but Kerry lost that cohort by 26 points. Clinton is the only D who did better among this group.

See TMC,smart people are going for Obama.

[Los Sigmanes]

Wait...how does educated = smart? Because in my book...ya can't fix stupidity, only ignorance.

[ryberg]

Here ya go: info from a David Brooks column in the NYT on this point that I for one found very striking. From my post 11707:

Demography Is King

In state after state (Wisconsin being the outlier), Barack Obama has won densely populated, well-educated areas. Hillary Clinton has won less-populated, less-educated areas. For example, Obama has won roughly 70% of the most-educated counties in the primary states. Clinton has won 90% of the least-educated counties. In state after state, Obama has won a few urban and inner-ring suburban counties. Clinton has won nearly everywhere else . . .

Conservatives have gravitated toward the culture war narrative, dividing the country between the wholesome masses and the decadent cultural elites. Some liberals believe income inequality drives everything. They wait for an uprising of economic populism. Other liberals divide the country morally, between the enlightened urbanites and the racist rednecks who will never vote for a black man.

None of these theories really fit the facts. It’s more accurate to say that the country has simply drifted apart into different subcultures. There’s no great hostility between the cultures. Americans have a fuzzy sense of where the boundaries lie. But people in different niches have developed different unconscious maps of reality. They have developed different communal understandings of what constitutes a good leader, of what sort of world they live in. They have developed different communal definitions, which they can’t even articulate, of what they mean by liberty, security and virtue. Demographic groups have begun to function like tribes or cultures.

We can all play the parlor game of trying to figure out why Obama, a Harvard Law grad, resonates with the more educated while Clinton, a Yale Law grad, resonates with the less educated. I’d throw in that Obama’s offer of a secular crusade hits a nerve among his fellow bobos, while Clinton’s talk of fighting and resilience plays well down market...

It would be bizarre if that info were suddenly not available for the general election...

Steve

[diogeron]

http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_dow...on_pays_05.pdf
Well said.
Irrespective of political preference, these stats from the College Board on the correlation between education and a whole host of other variables suggests that, all things equal, more education is better than less as I suspect most would agree.
quote=Los Sigmanes;1149595]Wait...how does educated = smart? Because in my book...ya can't fix stupidity, only ignorance.[/quote]

[tmc]

Originally Posted by diogeron

Obama Education Gap Extends to General Election
It is not accurate to say one can't "discern that from the polling data." Sure you can. Many polling organizations in their "internals" break down voting by educational data. According to Gallup, Obama has a sizeable lead over McCain by "a significant margin" among the better educated cohort. The link above to the Gallup poll is but one example, but the great god Google can give you plenty of other sources.
McCain is leading among white, non-college educated voters by 13 points, but Kerry lost that cohort by 26 points. Clinton is the only D who did better among this group.

I was referring specifically to the Newsweek poll, as they did not break down the voting habits based upon education levels. If other polls breakdown by education levels that is one thing; Newsweek did not.

According to the link you supplied, the only cohort to show any real margin for Obama over McCain is that of post-graduate educated individuals, who represented 10.3% of the registered population in 2004, and about 11.3% of the voting public in that election (Census Bureau data). This translates into an Obama advantage of less than 1.5 million voters across the country (based on participation rates and absolute numbers from 2004); nothing to sneeze at, but it pales in comparison to McCain's edge in high-school-or-less-educated individuals of of 3.3 million for registered individuals, which is what Gallup claims to measure, and 2.7 million actual voters (based upon 2004 participation numbers). The data is a few months old in this Gallup poll, perhaps things have changed.

[diogeron]

Yes, I get that. I was talking generally about polling data, not the specific Newsweek poll.
Another issue that polling organizations are having to deal with is that a lot of younger adults don't have land line phones. Neither of our kids do and both are politically savvy and active and have never failed to vote in an election. They won't be on the polling list, so this cohort is under represented in polling, just like folks with no phones were under represented in the famous "Dewey beats Truman" race.

Originally Posted by tmc

I was referring specifically to the Newsweek poll, as they did not break down the voting habits based upon education levels. If other polls breakdown by education levels that is one thing; Newsweek did not.

[roni]

It is good to see some voices around here that are either new or have not been around for awhile

I was a charter member of Ph.D's for Hillary

[beerbreath]

Obama's numbers are going up,and they will go up more as more Hillary supports jump on-board.It was a sometimes bitter primary and for some it will take a little more time for them to say they support Obama.But I believe by November 98% or so of Hillary supporters will pull the lever for soon to be..President-elect Obama.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by diogeron

Yes, I get that. I was talking generally about polling data, not the specific Newsweek poll.
Another issue that polling organizations are having to deal with is that a lot of younger adults don't have land line phones. Neither of our kids do and both are politically savvy and active and have never failed to vote in an election. They won't be on the polling list, so this cohort is under represented in polling, just like folks with no phones were under represented in the famous "Dewey beats Truman" race.

The way you initially responded to my post did not make clear you appreciated the difference between some polls that account for education levels, and the Newsweek one that clearly did not.

According to the methodology of the Gallup poll you cited, they do take into account the use of land-lines and cell phones; they just don't describe how.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by tmc

I was referring specifically to the Newsweek poll, as they did not break down the voting habits based upon education levels. If other polls breakdown by education levels that is one thing; Newsweek did not.

According to the link you supplied, the only cohort to show any real margin for Obama over McCain is that of post-graduate educated individuals, who represented 10.3% of the registered population in 2004, and about 11.3% of the voting public in that election (Census Bureau data). This translates into an Obama advantage of less than 1.5 million voters across the country (based on participation rates and absolute numbers from 2004); nothing to sneeze at, but it pales in comparison to McCain's edge in high-school-or-less-educated individuals of of 3.3 million for registered individuals, which is what Gallup claims to measure, and 2.7 million actual voters (based upon 2004 participation numbers). The data is a few months old in this Gallup poll, perhaps things have changed.

FWIW, I also interpreted your remarks in the more general way Diogeron did, not just as being about that one poll.

Also it's worth noting that the overall tendency seems to underscored by the notable lead McCain has among the least educated.

Steve

[diogeron]

And I was a charter member of Ph.Ds for Obama.(Yes, I know that's a sentence frangment, so sue me.)
In fact, we have the district coordinator for the 9th district in Indiana living with us until election day. She's a Duke grad, so as an IU person, it's obvious to any sports fan how much I want Obama to win. The main point is that Obama has boots on the ground in Indiana and is putting $ into this state for the first time in my adult memory, if that's not a contradiction in terms at my age.

Originally Posted by roni

It is good to see some voices around here that are either new or have not been around for awhile

I was a charter member of Ph.D's for Hillary