home

SUSA Polls, OR: Obama By 13; KY: Clinton By 31

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:49:42 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

SUSA on Oregon and Kentucky. In Oregon:

In the Oregon Democratic Primary, which is conducted entirely by mail-in ballot, Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton by 9 points among the 77% of likely voters who have already returned a ballot, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted for KATU-TV in Portland. When all likely voters are included, including those who say they will return a ballot before the window of opportunity closes, Obama defeats Clinton 55% to 42%.

In Kentucky, the FINAL SUSA poll:

Hillary Clinton remains 2:1 atop Barack Obama. . . . Today, it's Clinton 62%, Obama 31%, effectively unchanged from results over the past six weeks. Among African Americans, Obama leads 9:2; Clinton takes a majority of the votes in every other demographic group and in each region of the state.

< On The Popular Vote | Byrd Endorses Obama >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    SUSA Polls, OR: Obama By 13; KY: Clinton By 31 | 189 comments (189 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Edwards closed the deal! (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:50:59 PM EST


    Hahaha! (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:52:21 PM EST
    I love you, Stellaaa.

    Boy, I think it's pretty telling that the poll has not moved an inch over the last few weeks.  Don't they watch TV?  Don't they know it's time to move on from Wright and embrace the Post-Post World?

    Parent

    Token (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:54:50 PM EST
    white male.  Does Edwards get how much he diminished his brand?  He could have been somebody.  

    By the way, Howler, Somerby is awesome today.  Take a read.  

    Parent

    HA! (second notice) (none / 0) (#13)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:01:05 PM EST
    Just read it.  Thanks.

    I dunno about these polls--I'm not saying which way I don't know--but the one thing we have learned about polls is that people lie about what they have done and what they plan to do.

    That is why the integrity os KUSA is unimpeachable.  We do no polling whatsoever.  

    Parent

    So "don't ask, don't tell" (none / 0) (#130)
    by Cream City on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:07:17 PM EST
    is adapted to polling by KUSA.  Brilliant and oh-so-PC, too!  Plus, it frees up the phone. :-)


    Parent
    What is KUSA? (none / 0) (#140)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:14:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Kathy's Own Personal Poll (none / 0) (#143)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:18:29 PM EST
    Based on Kathy's select criteria, Hillary always wins.

    Parent
    Somerby (none / 0) (#180)
    by bridget on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:02:17 PM EST
    Just printing out while I type ;-)

    thanks goodness for the DailyHowler

    I learned to much from him re media, pols and pundits - his posts and archives are absolutely the best

    Parent

    Let's see... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:15:33 PM EST
    if the O camp comes up with some shenanigans to dismerit OUR DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE. South-side Chicago tactics... you never know...
    Hopefully he is SOOOOOO distracted with his self-appointed coronation and with his BIG BOY fight with McCain, that he will forget about us.
    There could be a surprise in the making though.
    This thing is far, far from over.
    CONVENTION CITY HERE WE COME!!!

    Parent
    <snark> you mean going to the convention and (none / 0) (#173)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:29:00 PM EST
    allowing the democratic process in a tight race won't sunder the party?

    wow, the C-class  uses rovian tactics?

    say it aint so.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#20)
    by chrisvee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:05:16 PM EST
    But Axelrove probably figures that there's plenty of time for Edwards to influence working class voters between now and the GE so KY doesn't matter.  And Obama will pick someone with perceived strength with either seniors or Hispanics as his VP.  All of this seems to be a strategy to get Clinton's core without having to have Clinton herself on the ticket. It's a very cynical ploy.  I wonder if it will work.  I myself don't tend to vote on anything other than the top of the ticket and likely Cabinet picks.  The VP or 'celebrity' endorsers (including other pols) are meaningless to me when push comes to shove.

    Parent
    I got the candidate (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:09:03 PM EST
    Charo...she is senior, woman and hispanic.  Go team.  Oh, and white men would love her.  

    Parent
    Dolly Parton (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:13:58 PM EST
    The only woman I can think of who manages to be incredibly successful without being painted as a screaming, hysterical harpy or a ball-breaking b*tch.

    She is old, but not in a gross, obvious way.  She's got a great sense of humor and a couple of more attributes that might appeal to male voters.

    And of course we all know that Obama's folks expect that any day now Geraldine Ferraro will see the light and throw her support to the good guys.

    I want to see the latest KY poll.  I just don't think Edwards can make a dent in Obama's working class problem.  These strawmen (and women, in the case of MO this morning) keep getting thrown out, as if, by virtue of their upbringing or sex, they can persuade others of their type to follow suit.  It's a bit insulting-and hilarious, because what simplistic thinking.

    Parent

    Kathy, I met Dolly Parton a couple of years ago (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by Angel on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:19:12 PM EST
    while working on a non-profit thing.  Long story short is that her road manager (Hey Don!) invited me to her band's waiting area, Dolly arrived and did her thing for me, and then she gave me a backstage pass and invited me to eat dinner with the crew, stay for her show, etc., etc.  Anyway, she is absolutely stunning in person.  Tiny and beautiful and just sparkles from head to toe, and I would say absolutely down to earth.  What a lady!

    Gerraldine Ferraro will not be going over to the other side....I just saw something about her saying Obama is sexist!  No way will she ever vote for him.  

    Parent

    Some people have backbone (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:20:54 PM EST


    Parent
    I am not surprised. I would love to meet her. (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:21:50 PM EST
    And I would probably be one of those silly women who bursts into tears upon meeting her (and I seldom cry--seriously).  Such an amazing woman.

    I wonder if she's endorsed anyone.  She certainly loves her some bluegrass.  She'd do an awesome job in KY!

    Parent

    Not sure if you meant this (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Cream City on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:09:44 PM EST
    about Ferraro or Parton, but I agree entirely re both of them -- want to meet 'em, probably would fall apart in admiration at doing so.

    Actually, my dream might be to do a drink with Ferraro but do a song with Parton. :-)

    Parent

    Met Ferraro during 1984 campaign. (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:17:56 PM EST
    During the 1984 campaign I was privileged to be part of a small group of volunteers here in Portland who got to spend a few minutes alone with her. Not surprisingly, she was very charming. She was also quite direct. She thanked us for our work on the campaign and we all shook her hand. I'll never forget it.

    Parent
    I think maybe (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:51:25 PM EST
    Dolly really grew up too poor to be compatible with the latte liberals.  I am sure there must be a country song about the city slicker and the country girl!

    I think I read once that the only thing my mountain ancestors ever bought ready made was shoes, but originally I'm sure they made moccasins.  And maybe they had to buy salt.  'Sugar' was cane syrup or honey, and there were 2 cash crops: 'sang and moonshine.  Now, you been edjycated 'nuff.

    Parent

    Hmm (none / 0) (#47)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:16:25 PM EST
    How about Betty White?  She is really funny.

    Parent
    Ferraro may not vote for Obama (none / 0) (#185)
    by AX10 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:20:39 PM EST
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/19/ferraro-suggests-she-may-not-vote-for-obama/

    Parent
    I Guess Calling Someone a Racist (none / 0) (#186)
    by BDB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:36:11 PM EST
    individually or collectively is not a good way to win his or her vote.  Hmmm, who would've known?

    Parent
    My favorite Dolly Parton quote. (none / 0) (#188)
    by Iphie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:19:22 PM EST
    When asked if it bothered her when people made dumb blonde jokes about her. "I'm not offended by dumb blonde jokes because I know that I'm not dumb. I also know I'm not blonde."

    Parent
    Geena Davis (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:27:52 PM EST
    she at least has as much experience as Obama.

    Parent
    Geena yes! (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:37:56 PM EST
    She's very intelligent.  She at least had experience acting as president.

    Parent
    Loved Geena As Commander-In-Chief!! (none / 0) (#105)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:40:05 PM EST


    Parent
    Very good choice! (none / 0) (#191)
    by splashy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:53:15 PM EST
    She's a winner, hands down.

    Parent
    Delores Huerta (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:11:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Naw (none / 0) (#44)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:14:35 PM EST
    too much of a bitter culture warrior.  


    Parent
    too aggressive (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:19:20 PM EST
    she needs to giggle more.  And smile--because she'd be so much prettier if she smiled.

    Parent
    Be nice. (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:20:43 PM EST


    Parent
    it was snark, my friend! (none / 0) (#62)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:23:19 PM EST
    And since when have I ever been nice?

    Parent
    Mine was also snark. (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:25:40 PM EST


    Parent
    I know you are (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:30:25 PM EST
    but what am I?

    The new KY poll, just posted, is interesting.  She wins just about every single group, including the ones Obama is supposed to shine in.  

    I have never understood why they include polling based on Obama and McCain's age.  What a strange metric.

    Parent

    Too Bad Carmen Miranda Isn't Still Alive :) (none / 0) (#87)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:32:32 PM EST


    Parent
    So will the MSM (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by abfabdem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:45:30 PM EST
    talk only of Oregon and pretend Kentucky did not happen?  Kind of how the NC results were trumpeted as a sign of his inevitability but WV was glossed over?

    Parent
    I Vote Top Of The Ticket And Endorsements Don't (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:51:51 PM EST
    mean squat to me. Since I already doubt that Obama is firmly committed to Choice, an anti-abortion VP would make me even more reluctant to vote for Obama. Other than that, it will be up to Obama himself to win me over and it will be an uphill climb. I doubt that Obama will chose Hillary for VP. I think he is expecting his surrogates (i.e. VP, Edwards etc.) to win over Clinton's supporters without doing the hard work himself. That strategy would not work with me and I'm not sure it will work with others. Might just be too late to repair the bridges he and his campaign has burned.

    Parent
    how many flag pins will it take? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Josey on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:25:09 PM EST
    for Obama to change the hearts and minds of the working class. I don't even think Obama sitting behind the wheel of a NASCAR would help.
    Wait until the GOP begins airing Obama's own bitter remarks about Dems being racists, clinging to their guns and religion. Ouch!
    And what was Obama clinging to while he sat in those pews for 20 years listening to Wright's racist rants?  It really causes me to wonder, considering all the race-baiting and false charges of racism from ObamaInc.


    Parent
    I Don't Think There Are Enuff Flag Pins In All (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:42:05 PM EST
    of China!!  O/T...hope we have all said a prayer for those poor people, and for the ones in burma.

    Parent
    I'm seeing a picture in my mind (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:04:01 PM EST
    of Obama entirely covered in flag pins.

    LOL.

    Parent

    A Flight Suit Made Of Flag Pins (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:23:22 PM EST
    Got to get Tweety's leg tingle to go so on overload that it shorts out.

    Parent
    Josey, unfortunately don't expect.... (none / 0) (#159)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:43:32 PM EST
    anyone to chastize him for anything. An info strip on CNN (yes, I know!)at 12:30pm read "THE DELEGATES GO TO OBAMA,THE VOTERS CHOOSE CLINTON"(highlight mine).
    I think it sums up the whole charade in a nut shell.
    The DNC keeps talking about "punishing FL.& MI for 'disobeying the RULES; WE NEED TO START DOLING OUT SOME PUNISHMENT TO THE DNC FOR ITS MISERABLE FAILURE AND IT'S COVERT/OVERT PREFERENCE FOR ONE CANDIDATE OVER THE OTHER!
    SUGGESTIONS, ANY ONE?

    BANANA REPUBLIC POLITICS AT THEIR BEST!!! To coin a Howard Dean expression:yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
    I didn't think I would ever see the day!

    Parent

    Looks right to me (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:51:31 PM EST
    Except, the Already voted/Likely to vote crosstabs for OR seem strange. Or not--maybe that's why Hillary isn't going back.

    If the likely voters of OR (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:01:08 PM EST
    are really as tertiary-educated as the OR newspaper claims, I guess SUSA is correct.  But I surely do wish they are wrong.  Did Clinton say she isn't returnig to OR?  

    Parent
    Not sure what the point would be of returning (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:04:23 PM EST
    because votes are pretty much cast.  Where is she campaigning today--KY?  She did some pretty big events in OR and put herself out there big-time.  She's never been one to write off a state, and her peeps on the ground are out burning shoe leather. (Man, I'm hip!)

    But, again, let's keep in mind how wrong polls can be.  And I mean that as in, "holy crap, it can go either way," not as in "it's tightening down for a blow-out."

    In short...we have been lied to before.

    Parent

    Both HRC and Bill are (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by liminal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:07:59 PM EST
    campaigning hard in Kentucky today.  It's a big state.  I hope the coalfields turn out for her!

    Parent
    I'd love to see another (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:35:39 PM EST
    40%+ win for her.

    I don't know how anyone yet to vote could possibly choose O with his effort to call it a "win" for himself without enough delegates to get the nomination, and at this stage where there's so little time left for the people to make their choice, and before MI and FL are resolved. There isn't anything more capable of saying, "this is about ME, not YOU".


    Parent

    Declaring a win for himself.... (none / 0) (#163)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:53:12 PM EST
    80,000 people to go see him; fighting with McCain, all electoral inevitability tactics.
    Campaigning in Montana this afternoon, he was promising UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD among other things that sounded VERY FAMILIAR, hmmm I wonder who I've heard them from before?

    Parent
    All demos! (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Fabian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:39:24 PM EST
    While getting the working class makes her look good vs Obama, nailing a wide demo makes her look good vs McCain.

    Parent
    Good point. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by liminal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:48:56 PM EST
    I'm going to Ashland for some campaign stuff tonight.  I have a few extra yard signs, too, to plant along the way.

    Parent
    Is Robert Byrd's endorsement (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:06:08 PM EST
    today aimed at KY voters formerly known as racists?  I wonder.

    Parent
    I have to restrain (none / 0) (#41)
    by magisterludi on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:13:30 PM EST
    myself from some good Robert Byrd jokes.

    Parent
    That just made my stomach turn (none / 0) (#50)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:18:16 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm thinking he gave his (none / 0) (#88)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:32:32 PM EST
    endorsement to Obama in exchange for his promise that he would put Hillary at the top of his short list for VP.

    Byrd doesn't need anything from Obama other than his promise to unite the party.

    Parent

    I love him for a lot, but he lied (none / 0) (#139)
    by Cream City on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:14:31 PM EST
    just like Edwards, as Byrd also recently said that he would not be endorsing anyone.

    Help me, Southern women here.  I thought the Southern code of chivalry and all that required that a man be reliable, be taken at his word.  What's with this saying one thing on Sunday and another thing on Monday with these guys?  Sounds like too many guys I dated, not like Southern men . . . at least, according to the mythology.

    Parent

    These guys are politicians. (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:17:07 PM EST


    Parent
    Ever hear of (none / 0) (#158)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:43:05 PM EST
    Rhett Butler?  Not really the steadiest of fellows.  Then there was the weak-kneed one Scarlet thought she loved.

    Parent
    Aha, of course. (none / 0) (#165)
    by Cream City on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:58:08 PM EST
    Much makes more sense when seen through the lens of Gone With the Wind.  Got it.  No different from Northern guys, just maybe better at constructing mythologies. :-)

    Parent
    Ashely, oh Ashely . . . (none / 0) (#181)
    by nycstray on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:06:41 PM EST
    {puts back of hand on forehead and swoons}

    Parent
    EEP! Ashley that is! lol!~ (none / 0) (#182)
    by nycstray on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:07:24 PM EST


    Parent
    I Would Love For HIllary To Win OR In A (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:36:34 PM EST
    squeaker, even.  Or at least keep her loss to around 5 points.  I was hoping that OR voters would vote for the most qualified candidate, not the supposed rock star/messiah.

    Parent
    at the town hall Hillary held in Oregon (none / 0) (#176)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:48:49 PM EST
    people said they were going to attend the huge Obama rally, the one that 70,000 attended, to decided who to vote for.

    Hopefully many of those decided in Hillary's favor.
    as the undecideds have been.

    Parent

    oops in a hurry again (none / 0) (#177)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:50:32 PM EST
    meant to say:

    Hopefully many of those undecideds go in Hillary's favor,as the undecideds have been.

    Parent

    That's what I'm hoping for, too. (none / 0) (#189)
    by Iphie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:24:17 PM EST
    Keep it close in OR, and really run up her numbers in KY -- give her a boost in popular vote totals.

    Parent
    The stated numbers seem out of whack. (none / 0) (#25)
    by wurman on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:07:06 PM EST
    1700 respondents.
    1539 registered voters
     627 have already voted

    Oddly, 161 of the group can't even vote.

    Only 40.7 percent of the registered have actually voted, so how can SUSA claim that "Obama leads Hillary Clinton by 9 points among the 77% of likely voters who have already returned a ballot."

    And yes, I looked at the tabs.

    Parent

    It's 627 who have either voted (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:07:56 PM EST
    or are likely to vote.

    Parent
    Obama getting 75% since their last poll (none / 0) (#79)
    by ineedalife on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:29:23 PM EST
    Their last poll had the actual vote tied. The ARG poll had that number too. Since then Obama has to be getting 75% of the vote to get to these numbers. Of course, things could be floating within the margin of error.

    Parent
    627 is not 77 percent of any number on the page. (none / 0) (#106)
    by wurman on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:40:29 PM EST
    "Of them, 627 were determined by SurveyUSA to have already mailed their ballot or to be likely to return a ballot . . . ."  Some unknown number have returned a ballot & another unknown number have promised they will return a ballot & those 2 unknowns equal 627.

    My point is that 627 is neither 77 percent of the number interviewed or the number of registered voters.

    Parent

    Seems Right To Me Too (none / 0) (#77)
    by BDB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:28:42 PM EST
    Oregon has never been Clinton country.  She's never topped 45% in polls and that's not a good sign.

    It will be interesting to see what comes out of the popular vote totals this evening.  That's the one metric Clinton is aiming for and Kentucky will help her, which is why I think she's spent so much time there - she needs to drive up turnout.  Most of Oregon has already voted.  How much KY will help her, of course, will depend on how many Obama gets back in Oregon.  Jay Cost has Kentucky with fewer voters than Oregon, but that may not be true.  He's basing it off Kerry's vote and Kerry got less than half of the registered democrats in KY to vote for him.  

    Parent

    I don't understand Obama's strength in OR (none / 0) (#190)
    by BostonIndependent on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:07:54 PM EST
    What's the analysis here? (None of the stuff that I've read makes much sense to me yet. CA migrant creative class types, active door-to-door campaigning, lingering Hillary/Bill antipathy from the 90's.. I guess I just don't get it. I'd have thought his vote for the Bush-Cheney energy bill, LNG issues compared with soccer moms and women/working class identifying with Hillary would have made this closer. I thought IN would turn out different too - but understandably machine politics had a hand in that outcome. What's making this difference in OR?)

    Parent
    Shrinking working class (none / 0) (#194)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:30:57 PM EST
    expanding business class.  Nike, Intel etc. corporate headquarters.  Universities, some excellent hospitals.  Small town main street in CA? think... appliance repair shops, fast food.  Small town main street in OR? think... boutique coffee shop and small art galleries, a lot of parks.

    Parent
    well, somebody is wrong (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Robert Oak on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:55:55 PM EST
    In OR but we'll see.  One thing is a lot of people use cell phones, on do not call lists too, although I suspect Obama will win by more than 13% in OR, mainly due to the GOTV effort by these people.  They are highly aggressive to the point where I live people have been outraged by their canvassing behavior.  

    Point of Info (none / 0) (#148)
    by Emma on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:23:47 PM EST
    Do not call lists do not apply to political campaigns.

    Parent
    do actually (none / 0) (#161)
    by Robert Oak on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:48:19 PM EST
    Both campaigns got into trouble in Oregon for doing robo calls.  It's state law.

    Parent
    wow, and I wonder how many people he buses (none / 0) (#178)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:53:01 PM EST
    to these states, tons probably.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:56:17 PM EST
    This looks more like what I would expect.

    I await many more comments about how Kentucky voters are a bunch of racists and Oregon is the face of the New Democratic Majority.

    more (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Robert Oak on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:00:36 PM EST
    Oregon is a true objective analysis media blackout.  Finding out any candidates position is a real deep dig.  I'm serious, I've never seen so much fluff in my life and for a supposedly highly active political state.  

    The local papers pretty much across the state, except for the Salem statesman journal just do not go into any real position or policy detail for a decision to be made on actual positions, votes.

    Parent

    Was hoping for mid-single digits in OR (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by davnee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:12:28 PM EST
    Oh well.  Maybe Suffolk will be right this time around.  Two ways to look at this result, if it holds:  One, he didn't build on his existing advantage despite the media inevitability meme and outspending her; or Two, she didn't erode his white base of latte sippers.

    My guess is that the media will do a happy dance on her grave no matter what the result is tomorrow.

    For me, I'm curious on turnout.  Will the Clinton romp in KY outpace the strong Obama victory in OR?  She needs some popular vote gravy tomorrow to keep her own momentum (such as it is) for PR.

    I'm also curious on exit poll results.  Which base is more hardened against the other Dem going into the fall?

    AAs won't be a chunk of those exit polls (none / 0) (#48)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:17:53 PM EST
    OR aa population is less than 2% last time I checked (haha, it crosses the 2% threshold when the campaigns are in town!).  KY is around 7.5%  (national average is closer to 13%)

    And, again from memory, I think OR's aa pop was even lower before they accepted Katrina refugees.

    Parent

    I'm curious about white voters (none / 0) (#93)
    by davnee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:34:23 PM EST
    What are the attitudes of working class whites versus the latte liberal class?  When thinking about electability in the Fall you have to take into consideration whether a primary preference is simply a preference or a veto statement.  That is very hard to gauge.  My gut tells me that white liberals are more likely expressing a preference and the white working class is more likely making a veto statement.  Like I said that is hard to gauge but terribly important to consider if getting a Dem elected POTUS is the actual goal here.

    What has been overlooked in places like PA and NC is that BO's white base in the suburbs and with indies is slipping.  Unfortunately, OR does not give us a good test of that particular subset of white voters.  And neither does KY for that matter.

    Parent

    Some of these latte drinkers are having to cut (none / 0) (#132)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:08:33 PM EST
    down on their latte consumption brought on by the state of the economy and the high price of gas.
    Let's assume they are distressed over that; so for whom would you vote?  It seems the best person to begin solving these problems is Hillary.
    It is time for people to get past shallow reasons for voting a candidate and get to the heart of the matter.

    Parent
    Latte/espresso (none / 0) (#157)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:38:39 PM EST
    Honestly though, Portland does have the best coffee roasting company for espresso, Stump Town.  If you ever do go there, have an espresso there.  So, the Portland folks are espresso and cap drinkers.  Which is much better in the aesthetic and taste department.  

    Parent
    Florida (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by glennmcgahee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:18:33 PM EST
    I was listening to Cspan this morning as they took calls regarding the primaries, etc. One of the callers said that she was from Florida and that she was an Obama supporter but that she didn't go vote that day because the DNC said the elction wouldn't matter. If that is the case, I wonder why she felt like she didn't need to vote on ANY of the state of Florida issues and local elections that were on the ballot. As a matter of fact, we had 5 or 6 state referendums that were on that ballot. My town had our mayoral and commissioners all on the ballot and it was the same all over the state. But she didn't vote because she couldn't support Obama? I'm calling her a liar. If these voters care only about that one race, they are no good for the party anyway.

    That would be called lying (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:23:27 PM EST


    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:23:29 PM EST
    This is one of the reasons the State Dems wanted to keep that date to get turnout.  Total lie.  No self respecting Dem would not have voted in that primary.  

    Parent
    Was her name Michelle or Donna? (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:52:50 PM EST


    Parent
    the FL primary wasn't promoted (none / 0) (#144)
    by Josey on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:19:57 PM EST
    by local radio and TV in various areas. That's why a zillion Floridians went to their precincts on 2/5 Super Tuesday.
    Supposedly, before the primary, Obama sent a memo that Florida didn't matter, but I haven't found it. Remember - after the primary, Al Sharpton and other AA leaders came to FL to protest that voters didn't know the date of the primary (Jan. 29).

    Hillary press release about Obama violating DNC rules by airing TV ads in Florida:

    Jan. 21, 2008
    >>>>Just last week the Obama campaign snubbed the people of Florida in a memo that stated that Florida did not matter in the nominating process. After consecutive losses in New Hampshire, Michigan and Nevada, they appear to be changing course.
    Senator Obama's flagrant disregard for the pledge that he signed is disturbing and calls the integrity of the pledge into question.

    Parent

    yeah and the democratic party could do without (none / 0) (#179)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:58:15 PM EST
    reformed Republicans. I'm actually sick of them. them and the so called C-class Xers.

    Parent
    Now I understand the rules: (5.00 / 6) (#99)
    by OrangeFur on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:37:23 PM EST
    Clinton wins the white vote by 20+ points in some states: Voters in those states must be racists.

    Obama win the male vote by 28 points in Oregon and a similar percentage in Wisconsin: Oregon and Wisconsin voters are high-information, educated, sophisticated voters.

    Perfect comment. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:41:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama never considers (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Josey on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:43:57 PM EST
    his white problem could be a result of his race-baiting and "bitter" remarks about white Dems being "racists."
    But when Hillary reports the exit polling data - she's a "racist."

    Parent
    Sigh. Not so in Wisconsin (none / 0) (#145)
    by Cream City on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:20:31 PM EST
    which is just at the median in all states in educational levels.  You're thinking of Madison.  It is not Wisconsin; we call Madison the 51st state.

    Your same "high-info" voters in Wisconsin went back to the polls only a couple of weeks after the primary and ran off the state supreme court our first AA justice, a fine man, owing to an entirely awful Willie Horton-like campaign here that put on the court an awful white guy.  And last year, your same "high-info" voters resoundingly elected to the high court here a lower-court judge censured for ethics code violations.  Etc., etc.

    I've gone into what happened in Wisconsin in the primary before here; search archives or jsonline.com.  But do not rely on it being an Obama state, and it might even be a red state this fall; polls now have Obama and Clinton tied but McCain ahead of both by several points in Wisconsin.

    Parent

    Does anybody know (none / 0) (#5)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:55:11 PM EST
    based on these stats, who will win the night in popular vote?

    I spent a wee bit of time (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by liminal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:05:18 PM EST
    looking up the numbers from 2004 Democratic primaries in both states.  Here are the vote totals:

    Oregon: 350,157
    Kentucky: 229,916

    I'm not sure whether Oregon was already voting by mail in 2004, or not, but I think that Oregon is likely to have a higher turnout of Democratic voters, though Clinton's Kentucky margin will probably cover the spread.

    Using those numbers above, a 13% margin should net Obama about 45,000 votes in Oregon, while a 30% margin in Kentucky should net Clinton about 70,000 votes in Kentucky. I'm sure that turnout will be greater in both primaries, but it's hard to tell by how much.  

    Parent

    The 2004 primary is not what to look at (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:08:46 PM EST
    you need to look at the 2004 vote for Kerry.

    Parent
    2004 primary results - Kentucky (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by liminal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:19:00 PM EST
    TOTAL VOTES CAST:   229,916  
    14.5% of registered voters  

    John F. Kerry     138,175  60.1%  
    John  Edwards      33,403  14.5%  
    Uncommitted        21,199   9.2%  
    Joe  Lieberman     11,062   4.8%
    Howard  Dean        8,222   3.6%  
    Wesley K. Clark     6,519   2.8%  
    Al  Sharpton        5,022   2.2%
    Dennis J. Kucinich  4,508   2.0%  
    Lyndon H. La Rouche 1,806   0.8%  

    Parent

    The 2004 PRIMARY is irrelevant (none / 0) (#66)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:23:46 PM EST
    It was essentially uncontested.

    Look at either Kerry's 2004 vote or the Gubernatorial primary from last year. 348,238 for the 2007 primary and 712,733 votes for Kerry.

    You can bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow will be between the two.

    Parent

    Sorry, I misunderstood. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by liminal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:35:40 PM EST
    For whatever reason, I thought you were referring to Kerry's primary vote totals.  

    Parent
    940,000 votes for Kerry in Or (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:29:26 PM EST
    712,000 votres for Kerry in Kentucky.

    If SUSA is right, 113k spread for Obama in Oregon.

    If Susa is right, 227k vote spread for clinton in Kentucky.

    Parent

    Yup. (none / 0) (#86)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:31:33 PM EST


    Parent
    2004 election: (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:49:46 PM EST
    I assume Kerry won OR.  Who won KY?  How any electoral college votes for each?

    Parent
    Bush won Kentucky (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by liminal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:00:13 PM EST
    By 20 points in 2004. Kerry won Oregon by 4%.

    Oregon has 7 electoral votes; Kentucky has 8 electoral votes.  

    Parent

    Margin of victory (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:24:50 PM EST


    Parent
    2004 primary results - Oregon (none / 0) (#61)
    by liminal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:22:50 PM EST
    John F. Kerry - 283,513  (78.63%)
    Dennis J. Kucinich - 58,282  (16.29%)
    Other - 10,150 (2.75%)
    Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. - 8,362 (2.33%)

    Parent
    Oh my... (none / 0) (#85)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:31:02 PM EST
    Kucinich took 16% of the vote?  This will be a very hard state for Hill.  BO should crack 20 points.

    Parent
    OR stats (none / 0) (#45)
    by Robert Oak on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:14:56 PM EST
    There are 871,922 registered Dems in OR.  Assuming a turnout like a general election of 70%, 620345 D ballots cast.  Assume 2% for "other" makes it 598139 total.

    So assume SUSA is right (13%):

    Obama   376827
    Clinton 221311
    Diff:  +155516 Obama

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:21:40 PM EST
    Kentucky has a whopping 1.6 million registered Democrats.

    Kerry only won 71% of the Democratic votes in the 2004 general election though.  The open question is how many of the Democrats who did not vote for Kerry would be open to voting for Hillary in November.

    I'm pretty sure Kentucky is not on Obama's electoral map in any scenario.

    Parent

    turnout (none / 0) (#164)
    by Robert Oak on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:56:38 PM EST
    vote by mail has a very high turnout and we'll see but the oregon elections on Friday already hit 30% and they are expecting 70% turnout.  See my other comment on expected turnout.

    If anything this should convince people vote by mail is the way to go.  I'm in Oregon and I love it...any candidate I don't know, ballot initiative I have weeks to research it all out before I vote.  No voting booth surprises.

    Parent

    KY stats (none / 0) (#156)
    by Robert Oak on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:36:51 PM EST
    There are 1,629,845 registered Democrats

    turnout is expected at 25%

    407,461 expected to vote

    Edwards:  24448

    383013 left over

    Clinton:  252626

    Obama:  122238

    +130387 Clinton

    Probably is now a vote for Edwards is a vote for Obama in essence.

    Edwards:  32597

    So, Oregon will put Obama ahead in the popular vote it appears unless they can increase KY turnout extensively above 25%.

    Parent

    Hm (none / 0) (#167)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:04:45 PM EST
    Only 25% turnout?

    I think if you check the numbers, you will find that in most states, 25% is roughly the number of TOTAL registered voters who have voted in the Democratic primary.

    Turnout this year has generally been over 50% of registered Democrats, depending on the state of course.

    Parent

    25% turnout (none / 0) (#175)
    by Robert Oak on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:46:47 PM EST
    I was pretty surprised but that's what the SoS was reporting as if that was a huge and unusual turn out and that was D voters.

    I sure as hell hope it's higher than that for that sure explains why that state is always red with that low of turnout.

    Anyway, that's where I got it from, SoS.

    Parent

    SUSA survey (none / 0) (#183)
    by ineedalife on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:09:26 PM EST
    has 43.3% of registered voters as likely voters in primary. So the number is probably close to 70% turnout amongst Democrats. That is probably too high but it will be much higher than 25%.

    Parent
    way off (none / 0) (#170)
    by Robert Oak on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:09:14 PM EST
    by Friday already 30% of the ballots were turned in.  
    It's turnout.  I did an analysis too and think it will hit 70% in Oregon and only 25% in KY.

    People, vote by mail is awesome because it makes it so much easier to vote but in this case, it's a real downside obviously.

    The oregon elections will probably update soon just how many ballots are turned in, but brace yourself for a very high turnout.  If anything people in KY should be reminded of this and get themselves to the polls to push it up past 25%.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#9)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:59:32 PM EST
    Kentucky is bigger than Oregon and appears to have many more registered Democrats.  It seems like a given that Hillary will win the night in terms of popular vote, since it is very difficult to imagine that her margin in Kentucky won't be bigger than his margin in Oregon.

    Parent
    Oh clinton almost certainly (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:59:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Excellent, won't Obama look (none / 0) (#12)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:00:45 PM EST
    silly then declaring victory of any kind?

    Parent
    According to Huff Post headline (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:03:31 PM EST
    he won't be declaring victory.  (I didn't read the article and the headline is frequently no reflective of the content of the article.)

    Parent
    No, he's gone meta (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by lambertstrether on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:23:30 PM EST
    here.

    And yes, the press will do his declaring for him.

    Parent

    'cause he leaves out the word "Victory" (none / 0) (#117)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:49:11 PM EST
    his followers will argue to the death that he did NOT say he won.

    I really had to laugh this morning when a pundit described the Iowa location and the announcement as a "celebration of having achieved the milestone of more than 50% of the delegates".

    When did anything that meaningless ever become reason to return to the place it started and party with a vengeance?!


    Parent

    Meta - what exactly does that mean? (none / 0) (#184)
    by bridget on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:09:26 PM EST
    He's gone meta?

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#28)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:08:04 PM EST
    The media will do it for him anyway.

    Parent
    plug in the numbers (none / 0) (#16)
    by jes on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:03:26 PM EST
    at the horseraceblog after fixing WV (add 110% expected turnout and a 41% win). That gives her about net 83K if turnout isn't modified.

    Parent
    Thank for the laugh Stellaaa :) (none / 0) (#8)
    by NJDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:59:16 PM EST
    Though I'm hesitant about SUSA now b/c of NC and IN, dang these polls...at least we'll know by tomorrow.

    late tomorrow, possibly into Wed (none / 0) (#15)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:02:11 PM EST
    for OR.  KY should be fairly quick.  I love KY.

    Parent
    Hicks you mean (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:06:04 PM EST
    can cast votes in one day and count em as well?  Well I never.  

    Parent
    they been using their toes to count (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:10:03 PM EST
    lo these many years, but I hear'd summa them got brand new shoes fer throwing their support to Obama!

    Parent
    These days (none / 0) (#40)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:13:18 PM EST
    I only listen to country western, I blasted out of my car driving down Berkeley.  The, Creative Class, of course only likes blue grass.  But I love country.  

    Parent
    Kentucky poll still not up? (none / 0) (#24)
    by jfung79 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:06:47 PM EST
    I thought SUSA was putting up a new Kentucky poll today.  The link in the post is to one from last Monday May 12th.  I am nervous they might be delaying because maybe Hillary's lead has shrunk dramatically and they want to check their numbers, or something like that.  

    You are right (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:09:40 PM EST
    that's the old one. Nothing new yet.

    Parent
    Yes there is (none / 0) (#68)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:25:00 PM EST
    right here.

    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by ajain on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:33:15 PM EST
    SUSA is overstating the black turnout (10%) at the same time giving Hillary Clinton 18% of the black vote.

    Nonetheless, looks good for her.

    Parent

    I think black turnout looks right (none / 0) (#100)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:37:48 PM EST
    But SUSA has gotten that wrong before. . .

    Parent
    thanks (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:34:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Wow. Smoking (none / 0) (#122)
    by ineedalife on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:53:57 PM EST
    And it looks like the turnout is going to be higher in KY than OR. So Obama will be a receding speck in the popular vote rear-view mirror at the end of the night.

    Parent
    I'm on the ground (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Eleanor A on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:08:35 PM EST
    in Kentucky.  The numbers HAVE NOT DROPPED.  If anything, they're going to be stratospheric.

    Anecdotes:

    • Many folks claiming votes for McCain if Hillary doesn't get nomination
    • Lots of younger white men on phone calls claiming will vote HRC
    • People realize HRC still in this, their vote carries influence...Clintons all over the ground here, barnstorming in E. KY today.  

    People are really, really adamant that they remember Clinton 1 and want the Clintons back in the White House, and that Obama is an out of touch elitist.  Turnout should not be a problem, if I had to guess.

    Keep working, everybody!

    Parent

    Obama has trashed the Clinton admin (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Josey on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:31:07 PM EST
    so many times!  but the working poor remember it differently.
    Would a Republican candidate repeatedly trash a former Republican president and his administration?
    Obama couldn't run on his own merits and had to resort to bashing the Clinton admin and falsely accusing the Clintons of racism.
    Empty. Suit.


    Parent
    Oh, and (none / 0) (#137)
    by Eleanor A on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:13:31 PM EST
    rumor is the robocalls have run out of numbers to dial, thanks to people from all over the country helping out.  I think they're rejiggering though...calls all GOTV today, very positive out of east KY...

    Parent
    Yay! (none / 0) (#168)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:08:20 PM EST
    Hurrah to the unsung phonebankers!  (who have managed to sing their own praises often enough, but never you mind)

    Parent
    I think her numbers may go up in the 18-34 And (none / 0) (#124)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:00:11 PM EST
    female categories.

    Parent
    Mail in voting is dumb... (none / 0) (#32)
    by citizen53 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:09:41 PM EST
    as events sometimes overtake the mail.

    This country needs a uniform election system.

    If one cares enough to vote, he/she should have to do so in person.

    This is not Publisher's Clearinghouse.

    Some people can't get to the polls easily (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by jfung79 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:22:19 PM EST
    My view is that mail-in voting is good because it increases turnout.  Elderly and disabled people, people without transporation, people who work different shifts, all are disenfranchised by having only a few hours in one day to vote.

    Parent
    low-wage employees, too (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:25:22 PM EST
    If you make $8/hr, and your boss is nice enough to let you off work to go vote, you could lose a lot of money, especially if you are used to taking home around $250 a week.

    Parent
    Counting on the Creative Class (none / 0) (#76)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:28:01 PM EST
    not knowing how to buy or stick stamps on to envelopes.  

    Parent
    The working class (none / 0) (#135)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:11:07 PM EST
    does the stamp licking.  Didn't you know?

    Parent
    I sympathize... (none / 0) (#90)
    by citizen53 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:33:07 PM EST
    and people should receive paid leave to vote.  There is always a remedy that can be determined.  The sad fact is that many of these people don't even vote by mail.

    Parent
    Yet we have had elections... (none / 0) (#74)
    by citizen53 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:27:19 PM EST
    since day one in this country.  It seems the process is completely corrupted.

    It's like cell phones.  We seemed to do just fine before they arrived.

    My polling place is blocks away.  If one cares, they can get there.

    The process should be uniform for federal elections.

    Parent

    Yes...And They Have Drop-Off Boxes All Over (none / 0) (#126)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:01:34 PM EST
    the state if you cannot mail-in your ballot.

    Parent
    We have a week, all day long (none / 0) (#192)
    by splashy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:50:39 PM EST
    In Arkansas, for every voting session. To me, that is the best way to do it. You can pick a nice day, that works for you, and a good time from 8:30 am to 6 PM or so. We love it.

    Parent
    Voting methods are up to the state legislatures. (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by wurman on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:12:27 PM EST
    First, some people in Far West states live more than 100 miles from a polling place.

    Second, many states had noticed that a very large percentage of their voters already sent in absentee ballots, so the move was to make it easy for everyone.

    Third, the cost reductions are enormous.

    Fourth, Diebold can't scam the results.

    Fifth, the GOoPerz at the tally tables can be closely observed by poll watchers.

    Parent

    But isn't the proportion of (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:29:32 PM EST
    people voting higher w/mail in ballots available?  In CA, you can do either:  mail in or go to the polling place.  Quite handy.

    Parent
    GA, too. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:33:22 PM EST
    I am a proponent of mail-in balloting.  I think it's just as subject to fraud as regular voting (which is to say, not a lot), plus, it doesn't disenfranchise large blocs of people.  And, you bypass those stupid voter ID laws, too.

    I wonder who pays for the stamp, though.  Does anyone know if it's free?  It might seem silly, but stamps are hovering around 50 cents right now.

    Parent

    In CA, the absentee ballot (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:40:35 PM EST
    doesn't arrive with pre-pd. postage.  We are projected to $20 billion in debt, ya know.

    Parent
    In Washington (none / 0) (#138)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:14:08 PM EST
    Mail-in isn't free...and if you aren't careful, you get whacked with an extra ounce charge -- a fact that people without postage scales might not realize until their ballot comes back to them with postage due a day after the election....

    The moral of the story is vote early! (and vote often, but only once per election, please;-)

    Parent

    Pay for your own stamp in Oregon (none / 0) (#174)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:30:13 PM EST
    Or, instead of mailing ballot, just take it to one of many ballot drop-off sites around the state. Drop-off sites a conveniently located. For example, there is a drop-off box at my branch library.

    Parent
    The point for me... (none / 0) (#95)
    by citizen53 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:35:14 PM EST
    is that this is a sacred right, but people are too lazy to go to the polls.

    So what happens when someone votes 30 days before the election and the world turns upside down?

    Why are we so lazy that we cannot just go to the polls on election day?

    Parent

    We aren't lazy (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:49:09 PM EST
    We aren't lazy.  It is to increase turnout.  There is no reason that people should have to deal with traffic, parking, tag-team daycare to go to the polls, standing in line, etc.  No reason.  Mail-in is inclusive.  Don't tell me I'm lazy for using mail-in.  

    Parent
    But for a sale at the mall... (none / 0) (#123)
    by citizen53 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:54:20 PM EST
    people will do just that.

    The opportunity to vote can be improved.

    Just because I said that too many are lazy, there is no need to defend yourself.

    That is the problem.  People take general statements as if it was directed to them personally.

    So what happens when you mail in your ballot and then find the day before the election that your candidate pulled a Larry Craig?

    Parent

    Who the h#ll does it apply (none / 0) (#146)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:22:11 PM EST
    to. Don't trot out generalizations and then not expect to get called on it.  These same generalizations are referring to people as uneducated, low knowledge etc.  By saying people will forego making an educated decision regarding who to vote for and are shallow and would rather spend time at a mall?  Who the h#ll are you referring to?  and... BTW....

    So what happens when you mail in your ballot and then find the day before the election that your candidate pulled a Larry Craig?

    uh... yeah, right... you stood in line which makes your vote count more?  Your candidate is just as likely to pull a Larry Craig the day after you voted.

    Parent

    Well.... (4.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Emma on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:30:28 PM EST
    Your candidate is just as likely to pull a Larry Craig the day after you voted

    more likely actually, given the need for either consolation or celebration.  /joke

    Parent

    Touchy... (none / 0) (#172)
    by citizen53 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:28:19 PM EST
    don't you think?

    If you think I said that everyone who votes by mail is lazy, then we have nothing much to discuss.

    Parent

    When I lived 12 country miles (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by Cream City on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:30:43 PM EST
    from my polling place, had two toddlers and a spouse who had to trek 25 miles to work and back so left home when polls opened and got home when polls closed . . . if the weather was bad or a kid was sick or I was, no way I could get to the polls.

    When I lived fewer miles from my polling place but was in grad school, with Tuesdays my longest day teaching and going to school 75 miles away so left home when polls opened and got back hours after they closed, I had to vote by absentee ballot.  But I was a broke single mom so moving often, so sometimes that screwed it up.

    Etc., etc.  Please do not say that people are lazy who are living complicated lives that a lot of others could not manage even for a day.  We make voting too difficult for some people at some points in their lives, period.

    Parent

    Lazy? What makes you think (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by splashy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:04:41 PM EST
    That our time is so cheap that we can stand around at the polls waiting to vote? If people had the opportunity to vote early, via mail in or by allowing people to do it over a week or so, then what happened when so many had to stand in the rain in line for hours would not have happened.

    Making it more convenient works on so many levels that it seems that characterizing those that don't go to the polls as lazy is just... well I don't know what it is, but it isn't good.

    Parent

    Elections are not sacred: they're secular. (none / 0) (#114)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:47:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Give me a break (none / 0) (#119)
    by citizen53 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:50:22 PM EST
    Talk about nitpicking.

    Parent
    It depends on your religion. (none / 0) (#141)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:16:25 PM EST


    Parent
    AZ too (none / 0) (#155)
    by befuddled on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:36:48 PM EST
    Plus, if you have buyer's remorse you can go to the polls on election day and tell them you want a new ballot. It's great.

    Parent
    OT: won't declare mission accomplished tomorrow (none / 0) (#34)
    by DandyTIger on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:11:14 PM EST
    I just heard that the Obama camp says they will not make any announcements tomorrow. Basically denying (or changing plans from) the earlier stories that they would announce they won.

    I guess they actually are paying attention. A lot of pro Hillary folks here have been hoping and dreaming that he would announce something similar to mission accomplished tomorrow, because of the likely backlash that would bring. OK Hillary supporters, we need to stop giving them good advice. :-) snark.

    Yes, that and the fact that Hillary said (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Angel on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:14:10 PM EST
    "It Isn't Over" til all the votes are counted.  What a novel idea!

    Parent
    Even odder... (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by OrangeFur on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:28:48 PM EST
    ... the idea of waiting until the votes are cast, let alone counted.

    Parent
    And She Said, "We Don't Have A Nominee (none / 0) (#129)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:04:59 PM EST
    Yet" which she addressed to obama, I believe.

    Parent
    obama, the backpedaler strikes again.... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:04:09 PM EST


    Parent
    Are they throwing IA under the bus then? (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:13:17 PM EST


    Parent
    He doesn't have to ... (none / 0) (#160)
    by dwmorris on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:43:55 PM EST
    the OMC (Obama/Media Complex) will do it for him.


    Parent
    I think the OR poll may overstate Obama's support (none / 0) (#36)
    by jfung79 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:12:14 PM EST
    I don't buy that he is getting 68% of Hispanics and 62% of Latinos and winning the vote of people who think health care is the most impportant issues by 54%-44%.

    Oops, typo (none / 0) (#38)
    by jfung79 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:12:34 PM EST
    Oops, I meant 62% of Asians.  

    Parent
    Sample too small (none / 0) (#82)
    by zebedee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:29:33 PM EST
    Hispanic and Asian numbers are irrelevant since they're only 4% and 6% of around 600 sample. With only around 25 people polled, any outcome is meaningless.

    Parent
    I don't know how to read those numbers (none / 0) (#57)
    by katiebird on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:21:18 PM EST
    Specifically the

    Could change mind: C-20 O-62
    Mind made up: C-38  O-61

    How could both of the number for Obama be true?

    I must be misunderstand the questions....

    Good point! (none / 0) (#71)
    by jfung79 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:25:22 PM EST
    I don't think you're reading it wrong.  Wouldn't those numbers, if true, mean Obama was getting 60% and not 55%?  Something seems to be off with the cross-tabs.

    Parent
    "be misunderstand" (none / 0) (#73)
    by katiebird on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:25:47 PM EST
    should have been "be misunderstanding"

    (sigh) I'm sorry.

    Parent

    No, you're right. (none / 0) (#89)
    by OrangeFur on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:32:42 PM EST
    That's mathematically impossible. Something is wrong with their data.

    Parent
    could be right (none / 0) (#112)
    by zebedee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:45:41 PM EST
    Not sure how you're reading this. The way I read it, those who  could change their mind split 62-20 for Obama-Clinton and those whose
    mind is made up split 61-38. It doesn't say that Obama's votes split 62-61.

    Also looks like this is only relevant for the 23% who haven't already voted, who split 62-34. This seems to tally.

    With only around 140 voters in the still-to-vote sample, I would think any subsetting of this is pretty meaningless. That's only around 30 voters who might change their minds so how they split is not to be trusted.

    Parent

    popular vote (none / 0) (#84)
    by cacamp on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:30:41 PM EST
    I'm wondering how the popular vote is calculated for caucus states? I've never heard anyone explain it but it seems they would need to be prorated statisticly to match primary states?

    Most states give popular vote totals for caucuses (none / 0) (#102)
    by jfung79 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:38:43 PM EST
    Most states kept track of how many people voted in their caucuses, and for who, not just of delegates won.

    For the few states that didn't keep track, such as Iowa, different news outfits give different estimates based on things like entrance polling and proportional allocation based on the number of delegates won.

    Not sure what you mean by prorating to statistically match primary states?  Caucus states have much lower turnout, that's why they are unfair and undemocratic.  So caucus states will contribute less to the popular vote, but that's a true reflection of the popular vote.  

    Parent

    Two biases ... (none / 0) (#149)
    by dwmorris on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:30:08 PM EST
    • less people vote in caucuses

    • the caucus votes are skewed to Obama

    You can't statistically correct for the former without exagerating the later.

    Clinton still has a good chance to win the popular vote, even though the vote is heavily biased against her.

    Obama will probably need to be apportioned Edwards' share of the uncommitted votes in MI to have any chance of holding on.

    Note to pollsters and statisticians: why hasn't someone used the Jan polling data from MI to fairly apportion the MI uncommitted votes between Obama and Edwards?

    Parent

    Nonsense, then prorate my state's primary (none / 0) (#154)
    by Cream City on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:35:40 PM EST
    turnout for better weather, since our primary was on a bitter day in a winter with record snow.  More elderly and disabled and parents and others would have turned out if it had been warmer, less snowy, less exhausting to get there, etc.  Same goes for caucuses, which discriminate against the same sorts of people.

    Ya get what ya pay for in this.  States that want a larger say in the popular vote can stop doing it on the cheap, since parties have to pay for caucuses, and such states can pay for primary elections.  

    Parent

    What happen tos Suffolk (none / 0) (#113)
    by Saul on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:46:24 PM EST
    that was previously posted.  Clinton 45  Obama 51?  6 point lead.  Which is more accurate?

    Looking at the KY cross-tabs... (none / 0) (#131)
    by mike in dc on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:07:38 PM EST
    ...is generally grim for Obama, but he does beat Clinton 50-46 among voters under 35 and is competitive in the Louisville region of the state, 46-50.  White voters over 65 in Kentucky are going for Clinton by 3:1.  

    Obama can win some cities but not hollers (none / 0) (#153)
    by Josey on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:35:05 PM EST


    Parent
    to what do you attribute (none / 0) (#169)
    by iago on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:09:11 PM EST
    To what do you attribute the 65+ white group going so strong for Hillary?

    Parent
    SUSA Polls, OR: Obama By 13; KY: Clinton By 31 | 189 comments (189 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment