Comments on The New Math

I’m not so sure you can translate Democratic primary tallies into accurate predictions of how a contest between a Democrat and a Republican will go in the general

Of course you can't. How many electoral votes' worth of states did John Kerry win?

Clinton cannot win Florida and Ohio without the black vote. If she is the nominee, blacks will stay home in droves. Obama can't win the Hispanic & conservative white and women voters. Dems won't win. Let's prepare for 2012.

Oh and I guess Shrillary coming out and lauding McCain for his experience vs. Obama's mere speeches is going to help the party in the fall.

Josh,

Why do you and Eli keep linking to Real Clear Politics?

They're a right-wing, Republican party propaganda site with about as much credibility as Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity.

Michigan?

"RealClearPolitics is the first web site I check every morning. It's an invaluable tool for anybody interested in politics or public affairs." - David Brooks, The New York Times

"I check RealClearPolitics every day. It is the best collection of political commentary on the web." - Brit Hume, FOX News

"Never miss it - that's the second biggest compliment I'd give to RealClearPolitics.com. The first is that it has become indispensable to anyone, in or outside of journalism, who's interested in politics, policy, or world affairs." - Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard

Yeah, this is pretty crap analysis.

Dear liberals,

If we had the election today, John McCain would win, so you should vote for Hillary.

xoxo,

the GOP

Originial Andrew, they have the best way of tracking cumulitive poll results. the site isnt just Op/Ed you know.

And just because they dont have credibility with you doesnt mean shit, does it?

The new favorite way Hillary wants to claim she's winning seems to be by claiming the popular vote. This method seems to disenfranchise voters here who did not vote in the Primary because those votes did not actually count for anything.

Just another way of Hillary trying to win by any means necessary.

and i've already made the case that due to the high voter turnout by democrats there is no way you could claim that the primaries will be indicative of november results, especially if you're just speculating using your gut and not actual statistical models.

I've seen a lot of meaningless analysis trying to spin a new storyline this election season, but this is among the most meaningless. :-)

Not sure Democratic primary tallies translate to the general? NOT SURE?

So like, since McCain lost Kansas to Huckabee, how sure are you that Kansas is going blue this year? McCain lost Alabama too. Is Alabama going Democratic this year?

Retarded.

The superdelegates would have a difficult time convincing Democrats that it is more important to consider hypothetical votes in the future than actual votes from an epic primary campaign.

Josh,

The election is now over. Here's who we've decided upon for the Democratic ticket for President and Vice-President.

Guaranteed to score with the women voters. Be sure and tell ECB!

This is the type of thinking that will cause Dems to lose in the general election yet again. The idea that "red" States are and will be forever red States is the type of old school thinking that Clinton eptimozes. Obama clearly galvanizes electorates in a manner that no Democratic candidate has in decades, and this changes the equation. Given the opportunity, he will win all the aforementioned "blue" states that have gone for Clinton in the primary, and will also make the necessary inroads into "red" states to swing enough of them to take the general election. If, on the other hand, Clinton is the nominee, rest assured that the old math about red and blue States will hold, leading to another unthinkable loss for the Democrats...

there isn't a single state that Kerry won that Obama or Clinton won't win. period.

the question is, who can broaden the playing field. and the answer is Obama. Clinton could win NM (Obama would win Richardson on the ticket) but Obama can much more easily (than Clinton) win CO, WV, IA, MO and might even bring GA, NC and SC into play.

OH will be a toss up for either, but Clinton could win more easily, likely. FL will not be in play for either candidate.

Spin
Spin
Spin
Repeat

After a while, you'd think they'd clue in it's not working with us anymore.

Hillary ran best in the bluest states, so she'll kick ass in the reddest states? I don't think so. Obama has appeal in the red states, and can be assumed to pick up the blue states by virtue of being the Dems nominee.

Bellevue Ave @ 8:

Real Clear Politics has the best way of tracking cumulitive (sic) poll results? How do we know this is true? Because YOU say so? I am so NOT impressed.

It's bad enough that Josh posts their crap uncritically. How oh-so-EDGY of him.

oh, and @4 and @6 are right.

Ivan, i'm not going to preface everything i say with "imho". that is just a given.

also, they keep a running average of all polls in all states, which you can't argue is laden with bias. I havent found any other site that does that an easy to follow format like RCP.

Shit, this article is going to make unPC think that he makes sense.

Polls mean dick in the first place. Just because something is easy to follow for YOU does not make it valid.

None of these fucking pundits will ever admit that it is all guesswork even with some data to draw on. Because then who would need THEM? Any schmuck on the street, even you and I, can venture a guess.

So quit pretending that this shit means anything. My experience, for the very little that it is worth, tells me that boots on the ground win elections, and not gazing at somebody's dumb fucking poll.

ivan, the problem of polling is the extrapolation of data gathered, methodology of gathering data. are polls completely accurate? is there a way to make them more accurate? do people interpert polls to their own liking?

if you think polls aren't worth anything to begin with, then there is no point in answering the questions. if you dont want another tool in your skillset, then I can't help you.

It is ridiculous to count Michigan as a victory when she barely eeked out a "win" running against "Uncommitted" since Obama and Edwards were not on the ballot.

tells me that boots on the ground win elections, and not gazing at somebody's dumb fucking poll.

Which Democratic candidate is going to be poll gazing up until November?

and the reason to use polling data is to gather an idea of where to devote resources to put boots on the ground so you get the most effective ROI.

Josh is such an unbelievable idiot.

re: pols and analysis I agree with bellevue. I also think its pie in the sky to imagine that so many red states will be in play. It seems that many Obama supporters on this thread have lost sight of the last bunch of elections, and scoff at data that contradicts their preconceptions. Further, statements such as "blacks will stay home in droves. Obama can't win the Hispanic & conservative white and women voters" foster a defeatist attitude and close of possibilities. It may very well be true, but if it is then it is our responsibility to build bridges between Obama and HRC supporters and get off the " my way or the highway" attitude. What's really depressing is that this set of attitudes is what could tip the election instead of the republican machine. I've said it before: get over yourselves, stop with the name calling, divisive bull.

I don't understand how you can post this garbage, Josh. This "electoral vote" nonsense has been blown out of the water so thoroughly it makes me question your sincerity.

Bellevue Ave @ 27 says:

and the reason to use polling data is to gather an idea of where to devote resources to put boots on the ground so you get the most effective ROI.

Sounds plausible in some vague academic context, but in practical political terms, it's bullshit, and it proves that you're a poseur.

I sneer and fling poo at this bullshit argument. There is better, harder data out there for campaigns to use -- like DUH! actual VOTING data!

I know this is true because I use it myself. The state parties collect it, enough voters volunteer it freely to make it viable, and polling need be used only as a check.

Anybody who uses polling in this day and age as the prime determinant of where to put boots on the ground will lose, and lose big.

That knowledge is gained by building political relationships. Obama has done it in this campaign and the Clinton campaign lags far behind, if WA is any example at all.

At least Obama didn't drunk dial the PM of Canada like Sen Clinton did and say "I lied about NAFTA" and then get the same PM of Canada to do a sneak phone call to an Obama aide to be used for an attack ad right before an election ...

Oh.

actual voting data doesnt yield any better result depending on how the actual voting data is collected and a comparison to plausible general election models.

you think polls are just random walks? then thats your ignorance showing.

Here's how Obama wins over Catholics in the general election: talk about McCain's good buddy Hagee and his "apostate Church, anti-Christ, Great Whore" rap.

Here's how Obama wins over Hispanics in the general election: talk about Republicans and their wall. McCain's a friend of immigrants but he's surrounded on all sides by people who aren't.

Here's how Obama wins over blue-collar voters: talk about McCain's campaign as Bush's third term, about who, exactly, is dying in Iraq, and why; about where their jobs went and how far their paycheck goes.

Suggesting that all of these people are going to fade into the woodwork if they can't vote for Clinton is silly.