« Hillary exaggerates primary victories | Main | The 1968 analogy »

March 05, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d25c69e200e550adf8138834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Updated Obama support graphs:

» NASA's popularity rises as vote nears from Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
In the countdown to Tuesday's Texas primary, the candidates still in the race are positioning themse [Read More]

Comments

I was under the impression that the winners of caucus systems generally did better than they would under primary systems. (Look at Romney's outsized wins in Wyoming and Nevada). The caucuses discard lower ranked candidates and reinforce higher ranked ones.

But I don't see that as an inherent advantage for Obama, especially since Clinton has greater support among party leaders and organizers.

In other words, if Clinton had bothered to campaign in Idaho or Alaska or Kansas or Minnesota or Maine she could have been the one to reap the benefits of landslide victories in small states or at least kept Obama's victories to a minimum.

But she and her team have told us repeatedly that those states don't count. She wasn't trying to win them and she isn't going to in the general election either. I think that explains her losses as well as anything else.

Uh, Brendan, pls check your graphs again. Is it really true in all cases that the y-axis represents the "white Obama+Hillary vote"? Because some graphs don't make much sense if they also include Clinton votes, especially the "Obama white support by Southern Baptist population"...
:-/

"But she and her team have told us repeatedly that those states don't count."

Actually, NO, Jinchi. she never said that, and not even her stafers did say that. What Mark Penn did say was thaqt it's important to win the significant states. Ok, of course this leaves the question, what are "significant states"? Well, thinking bad to 2000 and 2004, those are the swing states, and particularly Florida and Ohio. Any nominated Dem candidate needs to win some of them in order to become president. So, nothing real controversial in this remark. all the brouhaha about "some states don't count" is just a fabrication by Obama spinmasters. Always better to check the original quotes before mindlessly spreading such spin.

Gray, only the graph labeled as such represents the white vote (uses data from exit polls). All other y-axes are the overall Obama vote. In both cases, as it says, the dependent variable is Obama's proportion of the total Obama+Hillary vote.

The comments to this entry are closed.