Today on realclearpolitics.com Jay Cost’s article focuses on the Demographics of the Democratic Contest from Iowa through NH, NV and SC and, most interesting, to the Feb 5th states.
One thing is clear to anyone who can put their pom-poms and spin-o-meters down long enough just to consider a well researched and written article…the next month is going to be very, very interesting.
Take a look. Am interested in your take.
http://www.realclearpolitics.c…
Please share widely!
i like an author who admits to the limitations of their data. my pet peeve, which i’ve noted elsewhere, is that the categories analysts are putting people into are not mutually exclusive. race and sex are the two most obvious – we all inhabit both simultaneously.
<
p>i had never considered the degree of racial mixing in an area to be a factor. interesting idea. anyone else tested this?
<
p>gotv among hispanics/latinos always seems to be a problem. which campaign is working hardest on this?
<
p>and the wild card is in the last paragraph.
The numbers are interesting, and it’s hard to project how advertising budgets, the actiosn of campaign surrogates, and events beyond the control of the candidates will affect turnout and decisions by voters.
<
p>The lack of transparency in the caucus is what gets me. Why no vote totals? Why the strange allocation of delegates by district, then divisions within a district? Why did we have to put up with a last-minute lawsuit by the teachers trying to suppress turnout among the culinary workers?
<
p>If Nevada wants to be a big part of the up-front primary process, they really do need to mature their process and come up with something that is more relevant to the process as a whole. South Carolina has done this, Iowa has done this. Nevada got rushed into their early position by virtue of Harry Reid’s position and power, and I think that the caucus this year showed that they weren’t quite ready for the responsibility.
I was surprised to not see more on the urban/rural split. In NH, NV, and SC, Hillary did better among urban voters (regardless of color) than she did among rural voters. If that’s a GOTV issue as indicated by NH, that advantage will be diminished on MegaTuesday by having to run 22 separate GOTV campaigns. If instead it’s because she appeals to voters who live in urban areas, that bodes well for her.
<
p>The collapse of Edwards in NV certainly didn’t seem to push anybody one way or the other. Is there any poll out that asks each candidate’s supporters who their second choice is?
<
p>Interesting thing about Edwards — the only category in the SC exit polls where he did notably well was not based on income or lifestyle, but education. Edwards won among people with a doctorate degree or higher.
The guy can’t come to any conclusions superficially because he doesn’t have enough data, but more fundamentally because his fundamental assumption is flawed: people don’t seem to be voting primarily along racial lines in this election.
<
p>Anyway, is Obama even black? As was said in a different context, in Haiti everyone is white, because they follow the one-drop rule.
…when he’s trying to hail a cab in New York City, he’s black. From the apparent perspective of the participants in the process, the same rings true when you run for president.
I think this and many articles are missing one crucial demographic, which I think goes a long way to explaining these outcomes. It is clear Obama benefits greatly from young voters, who showed up at the polls in Iowa and SC, but didn’t in New Hampshire. You break the ‘white vote’ out by age and Obama succeeds where the younger voters show up. Its why he’ll do so poorly in Florida and therefore why Clinton is so shamelessly trying to make that state relevant when she pledged not to.
Today on NPR radio and on C-Span they interviewed Florida Democrats who expressed their frustration that even if they vote, the Democratic party does not think they count. They are being punished. Considering that this will be yet anothher close national election no matter who the nominees are, the Democrats are foolish to cut Florida and Michigan out of the process. (2 battleground and important states we NEED)
<
p>Everyone of the Democratic candidates should publicly chime in and demand that NO STATE be punished out of the process…all 3 should show some leadership here…Obama talks about inclusion, let’s start with his own party.
More than any individual candidate, it seems to me. Most specifically, Howard Dean, who I don’t see having taken much heat over this colossal damaging screw up. The whole thing just reeks of incompetent management, in my opinion.
Though it is far from my nature to be critical of Howard Dean, I can’t help wishing that this process had been better managed. The only ting holding my back from condemnation is unsurety about other ways to penalize states and the candidates who campaign within them other than stripping all delegates. What other sanction could they have used?
They should be punished. They were very clearly warned about the consequences of moving their primary up. If the party cannot show that it will stick to its guns, then we can expect an even more chaotic primary schedule next time around.
<
p>Despite all the whining, there is really absolutely no reason to believe that this will prevent anyone from voting in the general election when the time comes or that it is going to make people vote Republican because of this.
<
p>
I hate to see any group of voters disenfranchised, especially Florida’s after all they have gone through and their key electoral battleground status, but they knew exactly what they were getting themselves into – the party was clear with them and if the party is to mean anything than they have to follow through with this threat.
<
p>And believe me, if Clinton didn’t she advantage in this she wouldn’t be playing the “democracy” card. The primary process is all messed up we know, but can’t exactly change the rules this far into the game – unless of course you are the Clintons, who think the rules are subsidiary to their interests.
imo. i do think it can affect the general election by repelling primary voters who would otherwise go on to be volunteers
I don’t think so.
imo. do you have any counter evidence?
That puts the onus on you.
<
p>But one would think that FL voters are fully aware that their state is likely to serve an important role in the general election, as it has in past years, and would be willing to volunteer to help their favorite candidates their.
so what is the big deal…our candidates missed an opportunity to campaign all over the state while the GOP had the whole state (and state media outlets) to themselves. The GOP got a nationally televised debate on MSNBC, the Democrats had to cancel theirs…the candidate ads that would have helped let all Florida voters get to know our Dem. candidates better were not run…it’s nuts!
<
p>So WHO GOT PUNISHED? FLA or the Democratic Party.
<
p>We sure showed them a thing or two!
They unilaterally decided to go against party rules. They were warned not to, and did it anyway. I have zero sympathy.
<
p>I think it would hurt the party more to let states get away this than to tolerate it.
<
p>I don’t think the debate matters much. Few people are actually watching debates right now, and I don’t see how that gives the GOP any kind of advantage when the general election is so far away.
<
p>BTW, didn’t the Republican’s in FL lose half their delegates over this, or was that just Michigan?
<
p>
Who needs FL and MI in Nov. when we will have NH, NV and SC in the blue column (or will we?)
I never said that FL and MI don’t matter. In fact, my point was that I do not believe that this will in any way affect those state’s participation in the general election, and there is absolutely no evidence that losing their delegates will cause that to happen. Do you honestly believe that Democratic and Independent voters are going to vote for a Republican in the general election, just because some local Democratic party officials didn’t get to go to the national convention? I don’t see Democrats switching parties over this, nor do I see Independents caring when they don’t even belong to the party.
<
p>In any case, the damage has already been done. The candidates did not campaign in those states, nor did all the candidates even appear on the ballot, so the votes of those delegates is not very meaningful.