home

The Trouble With Polling, Part XXX

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:37:24 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

About a week ago, Kevin Drum wrote about a new book that discusses polling fallacies. Kevin quoted Taegan Goddard discussing "The Opinion Makers by David Moore:

The author — a former senior editor of the Gallup Poll — says that today's opinion polls misfire due to an intrinsic methodological problem: survey results don't differentiate between "those who express deeply held views and those who have hardly, if at all, thought about an issue."

I would have framed the issue differently. The problem with polls on issues is they rarely describe how intensely a respondent feels about an issue and how they will vote because of that issue. Case in point - today's Ras poll on Hillary as VP:

[A] new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 43% of Democrats still say Obama should not pick Clinton to be his vice presidential running mate, although nearly the same number (42%) think she should be on the ticket. When likely Obama voters are asked, 40% favor choosing her, but 46% are opposed. Voters overall say no to a Clinton vice presidential selection 50% to 31%.

Whether voters support or oppose in general terms having Clinton on the ticket is not the issue - the issue is how many voters will vote for Obama if Clinton is on the ticket and how many will not vote for him if she is on the ticket.

My strong sense is that the number of people who will NOT vote for him because she is on the ticket is virtually nil. Most of those who oppose her are either already committed Obama supporters or committed NON-Obama supporters. On the other hand, for many of those who favor her being on the ticket, their vote will very much depend on her being on the ticket.

Let me give you a hypothetical using Ras numbers on this question. Likely Obama voters constitute 47% of the electorate according to Rassmussen. Also according to Ras, 40% of Obama likely voters favor Clinton on the ticket and 46% oppose it. What percentage of that 40% is Obama putting at risk by not picking Clinton? What percentage of that 46% would Obama be risking by putting her on the ticket? I think the answer is obvious - Obama's risk comes with Clinton supporters, not Clinton opposers.

And this does not even touch the issue of undecideds. As the CBS poll I discussed last night demonstrated, Obama's underperformance with Democratic voters is largely due to reluctant Clinton supporters. Obama's performance with Clinton supporters (just a 55-15 advantage with 24% undecided) is incredibly weak.

This is where Obama can gain votes with his VP choice. I think it is obvious, as I have been saying for a while, WHEN Obama does not pick Clinton, his Democratic support will DROP. It is that simple.

Of course Obama is free to choose who he wants as his VP, but let's not blind ourselves to the consequences of his choice. The VP choice will NOT be a good moment for Obama politically for one reason, and one reason only, he will not pick Hillary Clinton.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Protesters Make Denver an Offer | Hillary Clinton Web Chat >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Trouble With Polling, Part XXX | 133 comments (133 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:44:14 AM EST
    I think Marlee Matlin made this point pretty conclusively on an episode of The West Wing.  Everyone was like "ahhhh, I suppose intensity DOES matter!"

    On any issue, you can't just say "oh, 60% of people feel this way about it, that's the side I should be on!"  The only question that really matters is how many people will cast their vote on that basis.

    Another one of my theories is that poll questions which ask respondents to go meta on themselves very rarely work.  These are questions of the type "would you be more likely to vote for the candidate if..."

    NEVER work (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:46:55 AM EST
    Those questions are absolutely useless.

    Parent
    Maybe, Maybe Not (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by TruthSayer on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:33:45 AM EST
    When one is talking about Public Polls the Law of Averages plays a big part as to the discussion of 'intensity' or put another way 'would you vote for Obama if Clinton was on the ticket'. So in public polling the question almost does not even have to be asked which is probably why it isn't. The Law of Averages sorts all that out in the end as accurately as is possible in a poll, which are never entirely accurate regardless of which questions are asked.

    But then we get to the polls that really count and dictate what a candidate is doing and that is the candidates Internal Polls which most likely ask much different questions than do Public Polls Unfortunately most of us are not privy to those but as someone who has worked on campaigns and was able to talk directly to people who were privy you can rest assured that most often much different question are asked in their polling and in focus groups. And that is where the rubber really meets the road.

    As for voting for Obama with Clinton on the ticket: I think I probably speak for many people in saying I would check the VP Box for Clinton and leave the Presidential box blank. Clinton on the ticket does not change who Obama is and long ago I learned not to buy the window dressing or the lipstick on a pig.

    Parent

    I do not want to vote for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by nycvoter on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:47:32 AM EST
    and being in NY, I feel that I can quite easily make that protest non vote (I will go to the polls just leave top of the ticket blank).  However, if Hillary were on the ticket (and I'm not one of her supporters pushing for it), I would be hard pressed not to support her effort and vote then for the ticket.

    (I'm not voting for McCain and my reasons for not voting for Obama is the whole race baiting issue and his silence on the Clintons being called racist)

    That's a great point (none / 0) (#9)
    by flashman on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:55:22 AM EST
    We've been getting on Obama for not condeming the rabid race baiting from his supporters and surrogates, but giving McCain a pass.  He has as much responsibility as anyone here.  I'll never get over how he condemed the gasbag that repeatedly used Obamam's middle name at a campaign event, but laughed when someone asked "How do we beat the bit*h"

    Parent
    that's because (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:34:25 AM EST
    racism is far more dangerous than sexism.  It must be based on what we have been hearing during this election cycle.

    I know many explained it away by saying it wasn't sexism, it was just anti-Hillaryism.  But. I'm not buying it.  There was nothing but laughter in the media over the "nut cracker".  Does anyone believe there would have been any laughter over an Obama lawn jockey being sold in airport stores?  If anyone tried to explain, it's not blacks, it's just "this" black, would anyone have said, Oh, well, OK then.

    racism is also mush more dangerous than homophbia.  How else to explain the acceptance of Rev McClurkin and Rev Meeks by the Obama campaign?  Well, other than blatant pandering to the church going crowd.

    Parent

    If Obama picks Sebelius, that's the (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:04:29 PM EST
    only way we will see if you are right, Tim.

    Parent
    or, (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:26:33 PM EST
    we could start selling lawn jockeys and see what happens

    Parent
    Heh... (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:27:50 PM EST


    Parent
    well, i mean as a test (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:42:26 PM EST
    we could start selling lawn jockeys made in the likeness of Oabama and see if the media treats it in the same joking manner they have treated the Hillary nut cracker.  Or, if we are immediately villified in every media outlet as hate mongers.

    Parent
    Maddow on Hillary as VP (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by Kate Stone on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:17:46 PM EST
    Rachel Maddow has consistently said that it is unfair to other qualified women politicians to state that if BO picks a woman it should be Hillary Clinton.  

    I disagree with her. Maddow fairly spits bile when she talks about Clinton.  But Clinton is a proven national vote getter.  The others have won their seats in a state and in the case of Sibelius, one that doesn't have a whole lot of people in it. I like Sibelius fine but it would be politically unwise to choose another women given what they know about Clinton's national draw.  

    I don't think BO will choose Clinton because she is powerful even in her loss to him. She has more power now than Bill Clinton. Nobody can ever say again she got her job because of his infidelities -- 18 million voters proved that lie wrong.  I think her power is the 800 pound gorilla in the room.  I don't think she will be passed over because of Bill's shadow in the background, or because of bad feelings between the two camps, or because the media polarizes her.  It is about power.  That is why I would prefer her to lead the Senate. BO would bury her as VP, shunt her off to funerals in Bora Bora, and have her head up a meaningless task force.  


    Parent

    Comments like this are devisive (2.00 / 1) (#90)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:28:02 PM EST


    Parent
    No, tactics that rely on (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:35:00 PM EST
    sexism, homophobia, nativism, anti-anyoneism are divisive.  Would you not agree?  If so, then tactics that rely on racializing identity politics, "us" vs. "them," are divisive, too.

    Parent
    instead of calling it divisive (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:39:03 PM EST
    why not counter it with why you think that sexism and homophbia in the country are viewed with as much disdain as racism is?

    Or, explain why you believe that racism should be considered more important than other forms of bigotry.

    the Rev McClurkin should not be treated any better than a member of the KKK.  The same goes for the Rev Meeks.

    The makers and sellers of the Hillary nut craker, shouldn't be treated with any more respect than anyone who would make or market an Obama lawn jockey.

    If you think sexist and anti-gay bigots should be treated better than racists, you should defend that position instead of just saying I shouldn't voice the opinion.  I thought we were supposed to be having a national discussion on race since Obama's speech in Philly.  I didn't say anything disrespecful and didn't condone racism in any way.  So, what is your problem?

    Parent

    I don't consider one more important then the next (1.50 / 2) (#99)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:44:46 PM EST
    BUT I will never sit back and listen to other's discount the effects of race in this country.  As I would never sit back and listen to someone discount the effects of gender and sexual orientation.  

    Parent
    please point out where I discounted (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:55:06 PM EST
    the effects of race?  I didn't.  I said quite clearly that I believe that racism is considered more important than either sexism or homophobia and cited examples for that opinion.

    The point I was making is that any occurance of sexism or homophobia should be attacked just as vigorously as any act of racism.  I certainly didn't imply that racism was treated TOO seriously.  Just taht the others aren't treated seriously enough.  Or, that the others are too often discounted as not being real.  Or, that people should just get over it because it was just a joke...

    You said that any discussion of the issue was divisive.

    Parent

    What I meant (though obviously n clearly written) (none / 0) (#102)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:01:17 PM EST
    Is that competing "isms" against each other or tear one down to prop up another(which is what I read your post to say) is divisive.  Discussing these issues is not divisive

    Parent
    ok, I give up (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:03:18 PM EST
    apparently asking that sexism and homophobia be treated equally with racism is what you consider to be competeing with or tearing down racism...

    Parent
    Well your first sentance (4.00 / 1) (#109)
    by flashman on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:10:22 PM EST
    racism is far more dangerous than sexism

    What shocking to me, and to some others apparently.  I was hoping you were kidding.  I think it was just awkardly worded, and some will take exception to it.

    Parent

    OK, that was a snark (none / 0) (#129)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:13:01 PM EST
    I should have said that is is "apparently" more dangerous based on the way the people who jump all over racism tend to minimize sexism and homophobia.

    i could have been more clear

    Parent

    Heh (4.00 / 1) (#130)
    by flashman on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:41:01 PM EST
    I finally figured that out, but I'm not sure everyone did.

    Parent
    Sometimes (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:04:50 PM EST
    the effect of comparing "isms" is not to argue that one is worse than another, but simply to make people realize that they aren't taking one of the "isms" as seriously as they should.

    For example, there are progressives who would be outraged if you compared Obama to O.J. Simpson, but think it's kind of cute to compare Hillary to Tonya Harding.  The point is simply to get them to acknowledge that hey, both are pretty bad.

    Parent

    Nobody is discounting racism (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by dianem on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:36:03 PM EST
    That's a straw man. What many feel is that people are discounting sexism and homophobia as less important than racism. They aren't either more important or less important. I've seen a lot of people deny that sexism exists in America. I've seen very few, well, actually, nobody, deny that racism exists.

    Parent
    Why Sexism and Homophbia in the U.S. (none / 0) (#127)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:38:27 PM EST
    are still winked at and tolerated more than racism:

    Respect for women and those who aren't heterosexual is comparatively a very new, generally accepted social standard.

    Just one possible explanation.

    Parent

    You're kidding. How long does it take (none / 0) (#134)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:57:26 PM EST
    for women to get respect.  Voting for 140 years in some parts of this country (and even earlier in a state at the start, but it took woman suffrage away).  Serving in state legislatures for well more than a century, serving in Congress for almost a century.  This is just the political side of it.

    And this is "new"?  Only to the wishfully ignorant of history.

    Parent

    Well, Yeah...New (none / 0) (#139)
    by daring grace on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 05:09:47 PM EST
    National women's suffrage was enacted just 35 years before I was born. Compared with when AA males (ostensibly) got the vote that's fairly new to me. And, how come a mere 19 years later, my state New York, still refused to ratify the ERA?

    Maybe 'new' is not the right word. But why do you think it took universal female suffrage until 1920?

    My point was that it has taken this country a long time to come around on race, even to the extent we have. And, given the nature of the gender tensions we have it wouldn't surprise me in the least that it may take another generation or two to 'overcome'. if that. THAT is probably wishful thinking on my part.

    I wrote a paper on the anti-suffragists a couple years ago. Do you realize that a lot of their rhetoric was word for word what the Schlaflys were successfully spouting a hundred years or even fifty years later in the anti-ERA fight? Almost everything else imaginable about day to day life in these United States changed in the meantime. Why was this silly, backwards nonsense still so powerfully effective?

    Too many people, including many women, are still uneasy with women advancing and routinely holding power. Why? I don't know. I was just musing around an analysis of the question. Not suggesting that it's fair or right that we are still immersed in these debates

    Parent

    Maybe I'm weird (none / 0) (#125)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:09:54 PM EST
    but I'm a Clinton supporter who liked the Clinton nutcracker.  I didn't see it as sexist at all.  (Many German manufactured nutcrackers are in the shape of men.)  

    I thought it showed that Hillary was tough enough to crack nuts.  ;-)  

    Parent

    I always find Ras polling beyond the toplines (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:47:32 AM EST
    to be suspicious. I just don't like the kinds of questions they ask.

    I think polling isn't very instructive here, because we already know from months of primaries that Hillary has a base of electoral support from people who have wavered on voting for Democratic Presidential candidates recently. If I were a downticket Democrat in Pennsylvania or Ohio, you can bet I'd want Hillary on the ticket.

    PS, polling "XXX"? heh. Unintentional I'm sure.

    The stupidest questions (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:51:24 AM EST
    are ALWAYS a Ras specialty. "Who would run better against McCasin?" What is the point of that? Just ridiculous. I think Ras a a crap pollster myself.

    Not as bad as Zogby, but pretty close. I just used this result as an illustration.

    Parent

    That's a great question (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by TruthSayer on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:40:41 AM EST
    if you want to see who the public perceives as the strongest candidate. People do not always vote for who they think will run the strongest so the question helps ferret out how many of the electorate are doing just that.

    Question may sometimes look stupid if you are looking at the question in a certain context. But looked at in another context the question becomes very significant.

    Parent

    Sure (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:42:02 AM EST
    And for what real-world purpose would you care who the public perceives as the strongest candidate?

    Parent
    I hope you are kidding (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by TruthSayer on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:51:31 AM EST
    But in case you are not there are multiple reasons that would be valuable information. To start with, and it is just scratching the surface, is to try to find out exactly what attributes or issue stances  that candidate has that makes them be perceived as a stronger candidate.

    Now to a lot in the public that would be interesting to think about but it would be particularly be useful to the candidate themselves so they can know their own strengths and weaknesses and those of their opponent in the publics perception. Perception is usually what the majority of voters vote on - not facts.

    Parent

    What they share with Zogby is that they (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:54:50 AM EST
    weight by party. I'm always wary of polls doing that.

    Parent
    Ras V Zog (none / 0) (#12)
    by Little Fish on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:05:41 AM EST
    I heard Scott Rasmussen and John Zogby being interviewed together once and while neither one displayed any sort of intelligent reasoning, Zogby made Rasmussen look like a GENIUS.

    Both of them said Kaine would be Obama's best VP choice, fwiw.

    Parent

    Worth less than nothing is what it's worth (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:07:21 AM EST


    Parent
    If you have an ego, polling seems (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:11:36 AM EST
    like not a bad business to be in these days. No idea how it pays, though.

    Parent
    What business does not (none / 0) (#48)
    by TruthSayer on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:53:49 AM EST
    require an ego?

    And ego is a healthy thing if channeled properly. We would not be human without an ego.

    Parent

    I have always disliked Zogby (none / 0) (#91)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:30:25 PM EST
    Since he hit on my girlfriend in College while I was in the waiting room (in what I was told by her was sorta over the top)

    Parent
    On the XXX thing... (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by apolitiko on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:54:02 AM EST
    ....thought the same thing.

    Personally, not to be seen as a deadender, I think not choosing Hillary could be on of the last things that helps to push Obama in the right direction. Hopefully, if he starts to drop amongst democrats it will force him to see what made Hillary so popular. You know, the boring stuff: how do I pay my bills yada yada yada yada.  Then he'll have to shift and become more substantial of a candidate..

    But that also assumes that fantasy lands exist and rainbows shoot out of the moon and ice cream cones are made from unicorn dust.

    Parent

    From The Beginning (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by flashman on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:51:09 AM EST
    Obama told us he doesn't need Hillary or her support to win.  Remember, "I'll get hers but she won't get mine?"  He sat the stage long ago to be the one who does it without any support from her camp.  That said, Politico shows that Obama's poll numbers have stalled.  Here's my take; as long as we are taling about his efforts being a "shoe in", something I have not been convinced of, he will not pick Hillary.  He's not interested in a landslide victory anyway.  He's much more interested in winning on his own.  But I think he would pick Hillary if that was the ONLY way he could win.  So far, I don't think he sees it that way.

    He doesn't. That's obvious. (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by lmv on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:40:09 AM EST
    He's convinced he doesn't need Clinton supporters because his new voters are going to make the difference.  This is a terrible case of hubris.

    There is nothing that will convince Obama to do the right thing for the Democratic Party - forget about winning - and make nice with the Clintons and their supporters.  

    There is nothing that will convince Obama to pick Hillary as VP even though he desperately needs to shore up his campaign.

    If there's even a slight Bradley effect, Obama is actually running behind McCain.  His only hope is to pick Hillary.

    But he won't.

    Parent

    For Those Who BuyInto the "Shoe In" (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by flashman on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:59:50 AM EST
    Take a look at this.  In the real world, there is no such thing as a shoe in.

    Parent
    Wow....that is quite an article. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Aqua Blue on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:14:48 PM EST
    Says it all, really.

    Thanks for posting the link.

    Parent

    Oh, great.... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:36:02 PM EST
    the Peloponnesian War.

    Choose up sides...Spartans or Athenians!

    McCain advisers paid close attention to the strong finish of a Clinton primary campaign that fell just short of defeating Mr. Obama. "The most important thing we learned is this: Hillary Clinton won 8 of the last 13 primaries," said Steve Schmidt, Mr. McCain's top strategist. "He is beatable."


    Parent

    The only phrase I object to in the (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:12:11 PM EST
    linked piece is whether we really know Obama's opinion on FISA.  We do.  He voted for it.  

    Query:  Salo, did you write that?  The author is an historizn.

    Parent

    I wonder... (none / 0) (#110)
    by pmj6 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:14:13 PM EST
    ...whether Obama's anti-Hillary stance is his own, personal attitude, or whether that was the price of getting the support and endorsements of Democratic Party heavyweights. He could well be only a tool in a larger power struggle between the two dominant factions of the Democratic Party.

    Personally, I tend to think it's the latter.

    Parent

    This statement says it all to me (none / 0) (#138)
    by Amiss on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:35:18 AM EST
    ABC News Polling Director Gary Langer asked, "If everything is so good for Barack Obama, why isn't everything so good for Barack Obama?"

    Parent
    The other unasked question (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:03:16 AM EST
    is "why don't you want Hillary on the ticket".

    To say, 50% don't want her on the ticket is misleading.

    My reasoning is that if she were his VP candidate, win or lose, it would be her dead end.  

    Instead, save her for a 2012 run if he loses....and IMHO, he isn't a shoe-in.  I can't really think of a Democrat right now who would be a stronger candidate than Sen Clinton.  She is the only Democrat I've ever seen who doesn't elicit a cringe factor from me in debates.

    And note my usual statement that a 68 year old WOMAN named Hillary running in 2016 after 8 years of Obama is ridiculous.  She might get 5% of the vote.

    New Coke marketing bombed (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:12:48 AM EST
    based on asking the wrong questions -- a classic in marketing history for how to go wrong, wrong, wrong.

    The solution?  Of course, it was to bring back "old Coke" -- and relabel it as "Classic Coke."

    Senator Clinton and I are not old now.  We will not be old in 2008.  We will not be old in 2016.

    We are and ever will be "Classics.":-)

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:14:51 AM EST
    They could rebrand Obama as "Barack Rodham Obama," I suppose.  Maybe it could help him on a couple different levels!

    Parent
    Hmm, how do ya like (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:46:47 AM EST
    "Hillary Hussein Clinton"?

    It's all the rage among the young 'uns to make his middle name theirs.  I'm tempted to put it on my syllabi to suck up for student evals. :-)

    Parent

    Not just the young 'uns (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CST on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:55:42 AM EST
    My Aunt did the same thing (on Facebook - yes she's actually on facebook).  Then wrote a post "Why I won't change my last name for my husband but I'll change my middle name for Obama"

    It was pretty funny actually.

    I bet that would be a very effective suck up.

    Parent

    Ouch! (none / 0) (#61)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:00:21 PM EST
    I figured it was my wife's decision whether or not she wanted to change her name but geez, that doesn't mean they have to rub it in!

    Parent
    Maybe she and Bill (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:47:11 AM EST
    could adopt him.

    Parent
    Good idea (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:55:21 AM EST
    Bill could be like that father he never had.

    Parent
    I think Clinton could come back in 2016 (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CST on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:20:21 AM EST
    Women live longer than men...

    And frankly, if people do think of her as "old", how will they feel beating up on Grandma...

    I think they will be much less harsh on a 68 year old woman.

    If the age issue does come up, they will look like the hypocritical mysoginists they are.

    Also, given the way this election played out, I think women will be looking for this stuff earlier and be much less tolerant of it, myself included.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Nadai on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:39:52 AM EST
    If the age issue does come up, they will look like the hypocritical mysoginists they are.

    And as this primary showed, people are just so worries about revealing their misogyny.

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#42)
    by CST on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:48:55 AM EST
    Which is why I think my last sentance sums it up.  We will be watching.  This time it happened too late, next time I don't think it will.

    Parent
    Earlier will help (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:53:21 AM EST
    but the misogyny was so widespread and overwhelming among those who should have known and acted better, I'm not sure it can move to a level playing field in just 4-8 years.

    Had it been coming primarily from Repulbicans, that would give me hope.  But it wasn't.

    I just kept getting that sinking Anita Hill hearings feeling over and over, and that was almost 20 years ago.

    Parent

    Yep. I'm not over the Hill-Thomas hearings (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:59:32 AM EST
    either.  And, btw, that was almost three decades ago now -- 1991.  And remember, that was followed by "the Year of the Woman" in politics, so said the media?  Uh huh.  As cynical li'l me pointed out even then . . . at least it was a leap year.  The guys gave us a whole extra day -- before it was over. :-)

    Parent
    Oops, my math was off, wasn't it? (none / 0) (#67)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:06:38 PM EST
    Honestly, there have been so many 'Year of the Woman's that I've lost count.  And yet, it never quite feels true.  Ah well.

    Parent
    Playing field (none / 0) (#62)
    by CST on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:00:41 PM EST
    Doesn't need to level.  It's not that there won't be misogyny, just that it won't work as well.  I mean, look at how bad it was this time, and she still tied Obama in the primary (I say tied because if I say lost people will argue about number of votes, and she obviously didn't win or she would be the nominee).

    Think about how much better Clinton did towards the end, if she started out that strong she would be the nominee.  I think next time, if there is a next time, she will start where she ended this time.

    Parent

    I agree it will be better (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:21:12 PM EST
    I guess the question is where is the line that defines better enough?  I'm pretty skeptical, because I've had this conversation so many times before, and better enough hasn't arrived yet.

    But I'm not unhopeful.  There are other factors as well -- some of the BO campaign strategies would only work once (small red state caucuses, DNC shell-gaming FL/MI) that could help.

    I'm a big fan of 'fight 'em 'til we can't' (thanks Battlestar) but sometimes it just seems pretty useless when you look around and realize nothing much has changed since you had the same discussions 20 decades ago.

    Parent

    *You* (none / 0) (#128)
    by Nadai on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:40:47 PM EST
    may be watching next time.  Those of us who were already watching will be doing so again.  But most of the so-called progressives?  Most of the pundits?  Most of the candidates who want to win against a female opponent?  It is to laugh.

    Parent
    Reasons for optimism/pessimism next time (none / 0) (#135)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:55:11 PM EST
    Pessimism:

    Same MSM pundits, same faux progressives, only now with the added massive permission to just let the misogyny rip on the internet, at work, at home, wherever.

    (If it was just 'that woman' and not 'any woman', they sure did a great job of hiding that).

    Optimism:

    A lot of organizing went on toward the end of the primaries that will already be in place next time.  Lots of people, like me, who realize the Democratic brand means a whole lot of nothing, and will be using their money and support much more carefully.

    The more virulent strains running through the netroots have lost credibility.  Not as much as I'd like, but there's a whole lot of smart, interesting folks who won't be fooled again.  The audience shrinks.

    There were a lot of wake-up calls this year -- with concomittant resolve to not allow it to go by again.

    Parent

    I have one word for you (none / 0) (#94)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:33:29 PM EST
    McOld.

    This country is sexist AND ageist.  Put the two together and she doesn't have a prayer.

    Parent

    I wonder (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:03:19 AM EST
    how many of the people who say they don't want Hillary on the ticket are Clinton supporters who want her kept far away from what they, and I, see as a sinking ship?

    I would vote for the ticket if he chose her, how could I not; and I think he should. But deep in my heart of hearts I don't want him to.

    That I think... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by apolitiko on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:13:19 AM EST
    ...is the single biggest issue that bothers Clinton supporters, like me. I believe she'll end up doing the lion's share of the work, receive no credit, and take all of the blame for him if his candidacy ends up going off the rails. Which a lot of us already see it as doing so, no matter what BTD (respectfully) says.

    I still couldn't vote for the ticket is he was on it. I just can't get past the under qualified man picking the qualified woman and possibly ruining her career if they win or lose.

    Because you know, if they lose then it will be her fault because eh was supposed to bring her supporters in line and add that extra boost to make it an easy win.

    Parent

    I know how you feel (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:55:51 AM EST
    re paragraphs one and two, but don't you see that in number three you are proving him right by not supporting Hillary if she's on the ticket?

    Then, too...if they won and he got double pneumonia...she'd be the president while he as in the oxygen tent...or worse...I forget the numbers/percentages but quite a few veeps have become president while in office.  Three by default in my lifetime:  Truman, LBJ, Ford.

    And one by followup...Bush I to Reagan...and some would add Al Gore to that list.

    So, being VP is undoubtedly an easier route to the presidency than any other.


    Parent

    It's a bit of a quandry (none / 0) (#136)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:03:32 PM EST
    If she's on the ticket and he loses, she'll be blamed.  Argues for voting for him.  But if he wins, she'll be relegated to the sidelines, and unable to effect real change or influence anyone to fight the good fight.

    The only plus scenario for Clinton is if she's VP, he wins, AND he turns out somehow to be a good president, turns the economy around, gets out of the war, etc.

    But that brings us to 2016.  Being VP even of a successful presidency isn't much of boost (Gore, Mondale).  The VP boost is primarily name recognition anyway, and Clinton certainly has that covered already.

    Very little upside, lots of downside.

    Parent

    Yes, none of the Clinton VP polls (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:24:32 AM EST
    (and there have been mighty few given how obvious the question is) try to differentiate on that point.

    I'm not saying it's a huge number -- I have no idea, that's why I'd like to see some stats on it.  Could be huge, could be tiny.

    Parent

    So many unreliable ways to poll.... (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:31:56 AM EST
    But they are what they are...

    link

    Here's the best quote:

    "Our politics has gotten so nasty. That's the word I was looking for -- but not just nasty, also cynical and manipulative," Obama has said.

    Does he even know that he has participated in that wholeheartedly?

    Parent

    And they just couldn't hold back, not even (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:50:02 AM EST
    for one single article:

    The fact that Obama is the first African-American in his position could be a big reason why some voters feel that he's unfamiliar or that he might hold different values, political observers said.


    Parent
    God - couldn't be that he is (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:05:14 PM EST
    unfamiliar because he has only been nationally known for about 4 years, could it?

    Think about that - 4 yrs, vs the decades that people like Ted Kennedy, McCain and the Clintons have been household names. Even Kerry, to a lesser extent.  Sometimes unfamiliar just means unfamiliar.

    Parent

    Valhalla....it seems to me there are many (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:31:14 PM EST
    trying to set race relations back about 30 years...blaming so many things on racism and calling people racists if they aren't in the tank for obama, is wearing very, very thin.  I reiterate...I am not voting obama because he does not have the experience to be president, imo, that is required.

    Parent
    I think that is a very good point (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:13:57 AM EST
    I don't want to get into the pick Hillary argument because I think it is beating a dead horse but I do think it speaks to the inherent flaws in polls, ESPECIALLY this early.

    It is why, IMO, the polls don't seem to reflect the almost universally held belief that the Democrats are in a all likelihood winning in November.  Democrats are motivates and passionate.  Republicans are deflated and almost indifferent.

    Dems are shoo ins (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:25:43 AM EST
    From Obama on down.

    Dems will gain 5 Senate seats and 10 House seats.

    What that will mean policy-wise is much less clear. My take now is not much at all.

    I am pretty disgusted with the Democratic Party right now.

    Parent

    Expanded S-CHIP (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:30:50 AM EST
     and maybe the EFCA. I don't think there's much else they'll all agree on.

    Parent
    Tax cuts (none / 0) (#25)
    by CST on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:32:35 AM EST
    Will expire.

    I hope...

    Parent

    Mebbe (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:34:54 AM EST
    Dems are unwilling to fight for just about anything. They let the assault weapons ban expire last year, and there was hardly a peep.

    If I were an anti-gun activist who had contributed a lot to Dems over the years, I would be pretty upset at that.

    Parent

    because it hasn't hurt them in the past (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:40:14 AM EST
    then, just as Obama is doing now, they have always been able to rely on "they have nowhere else to go".

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#29)
    by CST on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:37:43 AM EST
    But this isn't a fight, just letting them expire, which is why it might actually happen.  If the repubs try to make it a fight, the dems can just sit back and ignore them, kinda like the off-shore drilling issue.

    The assault weapon expiration is pretty disgracefull.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:41:20 AM EST
    The GOP is already calling it "the largest tax increase in history."  They're not just going to sit back and let us frame it as "oh, what's the big deal, we're just letting them expire."

    Parent
    You can bet that the Republicans (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:39:40 AM EST
    will try and get them renewed, even against the odds.

    Parent
    Well I agree (none / 0) (#41)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:47:18 AM EST
    that I'm terribly pleased with the Democratic Party.

    But they do rely on their excuse that they don't have 60 in the Senate or the White House.  I do think they are terrified of doing something really stupid, I think all their excuses will evaporate after November.

    They may not get 60 in the Senate but with a Dem in the White House it won't be so easy to filibuster every bill that comes down the pike.

    Chuck Schumer last night said that the GOP has filibustered 94 bills.  He claims that is some sort of record.  Not sure how accurate that is but that means they are filibustering about 2 bills a week.  That is an awful lot.  

    Parent

    They broke the record (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:58:48 AM EST
    for a 2-year session by the end of 2007.  It's completely unprecedented.

    Of course, given the weakness of the Democratic message machine, no one ever hears about this unless they happen to catch the right interview on the Daily Show.  Think about how important it is for the public to understand that the Republicans are the ones blocking Congress from doing anything useful, and then consider that even a high-information person like you didn't know this fact!  Democrats can govern but they'll never learn to campaign.

    Parent

    Amen to that Steve! (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:08:51 PM EST


    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#72)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:10:37 PM EST
    But the problem is that it is extremely difficult to get your message out when the opposition controls the White House.  

    The White House owns the bully pulpit.  Everyone else takes second fiddle.  

    Yet another reason why I have gone from Liberal/tepid Democrat to Yellow Dog Democrat in the past 8 years.  

    The Republicans are certainly better at Presidential campaigning.  However this year appears to be an exception.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:12:20 PM EST
    Newt Gingrich managed to get on the news every day during the 90s.

    You can also build your own institutions and media outlets that get around the filter, the way the right wing has done.  I mean, forget the public at large, the Democratic base should at least be familiar with the Democratic talking points!

    Parent

    I agree with that (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:23:38 PM EST
    Whenever I think about this subject I always think about the movie American President when Michael Douglas is doing a press conference and say. "Yes I am a member of the ACLU.  The ACLU is an organization whose sole job is to protect our civil rights.  The question shouldn't be why am I am member.  The question is why aren't you, Bob?"

    Democrats have never really recovered from the Reagan years.  

    That's one reason why I really am not a fan of the term Progressive.  It's a fine enough term but so was Liberal and I really hate the fact that the Republicans turned that into a 4 letter word.

    Parent

    I'm with you on that. (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:26:21 PM EST
    I've come to really dislike Progressive because I really don't know what it means.  If it means HuffPo blah blah, then sorry, I'm a Liberal, even if I'm the last one alive in the U.S.

    Parent
    So you live your (none / 0) (#133)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:59:10 PM EST
    fantasy in the movies.  Yeah, didn't it make us all stand up and cheer.

    It was a movie.  Even republicans can't get that kind of cheering in real life.

    Pathetic.

    People want heroes.  Don't look to those in DC.

    Parent

    Newt was selling what big business wanted... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Aqua Blue on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:17:20 PM EST
    therefore, he got access to media.   If he had been selling a progressive agenda, he would have found himself out in the cold.

    Parent
    regarding "talking points" (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:31:53 PM EST
    the reason the repugs are better at sticking to talking points is because they are much more unified in ideology than dems.  Even the moderate repugs don't go around back-stabbing the official talking points, they jsut kind of stay quiet and vote the party-line.

    Can you imagine the dems ever doing that?  There wouldn't be a Justice Alito if the dems could take a party position.  But, Feinstein and Schumer took care of that....

    Parent

    I think most of the positive ... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:33:36 PM EST
    changes will occur at the agency level, where subtle policy shifts can have profound effects.

    It's the primary reason I will probably vote for Obama.

    But it's such a wonky reason, I don't think even blogs are much interested in it.

    Parent

    Interesting thought (none / 0) (#137)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:11:39 PM EST
    I like your wonky reason.  But I'm not sure I agree.

    Agencies are big and slow to shift, and have weird and obstructive power relationships of their own.  It takes considerable and concerted effort to get them moving in a direction.  Rather than herding cats, they're like trying to herd elephants who've all decided they'd rather have a nice, long wallow at the watering hole.

    I have not seen that kind of strong, ideology-based leadership from Obama.  Best that could be achieved, I think, would be a sort of giant bureaucratic do-not-muchness as opposed to doing harm.  A net plus, but not a great one.

    Parent

    wouldn't the poll have been more useful (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:27:57 AM EST
    if they just asked "will you vote for Obama if Clinton is the VP?  Will you vote for Obama if Clinton is NOT the VP?  And be done with it.  Ask the actual question we want the answer to.  Maybe they are afraid of that one.

    "National" Poll of 1,000 Respondents (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by HenryFTP on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:40:36 AM EST
    says it all for me in a presidential campaign -- we don't elect presidents by national popular vote, but rather in 51 individual state contests. The vice presidential selection will frankly matter very little in reliably blue or red states, but could be an important factor in one or more battleground states.

    If Rasmussen were telling us about voter perceptions in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Colorado, Missouri and Virginia of the impact of vice presidential alternatives, I would pay close attention. The data from other states are just noise.

    Unless Obama thought that a vice presidential choice would damage the underticket in non-battleground states, his only focus should be on the veep's impact on the closely-fought states, once he's satisfied that a particular candidate is qualified.

    the other polling difference I always (none / 0) (#46)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:52:37 AM EST
    look for is whether it was registered voters or likely voters.  i apy little attention to polls of registered voters especially if the size of the poll was less than 1,000.  I don't see how anyone can generate a poll numbr with a sample size of less than 1000 and think it has anythign to do with the "national" feeling across 50 states and DC.  That gives you fewer than 20 people in each state.  What do they do, ask 3 people in WV and figure that's good enough to cover KY and western PA too?

    Parent
    It doesn't even give you every state (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:55:23 AM EST
    as I always wonder what the pollsters do with states like mine that don't require party registration.  They ask us what we call ourselves, I guess.  And that reduces even more the value of such structuring of such polls.

    Parent
    Statistical relevance might surprise you. (none / 0) (#82)
    by wurman on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:23:36 PM EST
    The significance of a nationwide poll can be based on a sampling of about 1,700 people who are properly selected.  The methodology is complex & takes 2 full semester or 3 full quarter classes in Statistics to learn, but that low number can be valid when things are set up properly--representative sampling, etc.

    What's odd, & seems inverted, is that it takes substantially larger percentages of respondents for lower numbers.  To poll all of CA may take about 800 respondents & all of WY may take 500, which seems totally out of proportion.

    To oversimplify: out of 3 people, how many do you have to poll for a valid survey?  Answer 2, or 67 percent of the group.  Out of a 1000 people, how many do you poll for a valid result?  Certainly not 667 of them, but more like 200 to 300, depending on the homogeneity of the group.

    Finally, the nature of the respondents is the key element.  Asking 600 Democrats & 400 GOoPerz about having Sen. Clinton as the Obama veep choice is too foolishly stupid to discuss.  Most likely, not one of the rethuglicans will vote for the ticket, so who cares what they think.  It's mindless.  But it's done.  Just depends on who picks up the phone.

    Parent

    well, since (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    you say you need about 1,700 for an accurate poll, now go to the RealClearPolitcs list of recent polls and see how many of the polls they report with national results actually have that many.  There are 2.  Gallup and Rasmussen's daily tracking polls.  Of the others there, one is around 1200 and the rest are around 800 - 900.

    Doesn't inspire much confidence.

    Parent

    Yup. Just statistical pablum. (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by wurman on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:57:08 PM EST
    I read the sampling summaries for a couple of them.  They'll poll about a 1000 people, randomly capture about 300 each of GOoPerz, Democrats, & Indies; then "weight the sample" by throwing out a lot of the GOoPerz & Indies to hit the "right" mix; then pretend the sample is both valid & relevant.

    The results are very likely cherry-picked.

    Those polls are probably "justified" to their buyers on the basis of being focused on registered voters, leaning voters, or certain voters.  Even so, they don't have enough people polled.

    Parent

    The poll on Clinton as VP that is needed (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:46:06 AM EST
    should be done at the individual state levels.  IT makes no difference at all how Cliton affects the ticket in CA, NY, TX or any of the solidly red or blue states.  That why I really try not to put much stock in national polls.

    Get me some results on this questoin from the "purple" states and I'll take it more seriously.  She if Clinton brings in WV, FL and AR, solidifies OH and PA and doesn't do any harm in NM, NV and CO.

    Tell me effects in MI and MO with and without Clinton.

    As I see the latest electoral polls right now Obama is relying on PA to win.  

    Take the numbers here  http://www.electoral-vote.com/
    give McCain VA and PA and McCain has the 270 needed to win

    The problem with polls is that pollsters (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by wurman on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:54:31 AM EST
    are lazy cheapskates.  Random phone calls in area or zip codes (now including cell phone #s) is a crappy methodology for anything more complex than "Do you or anyone in your family chew gum?"

    The polling companies want to generate, & get paid for, as many polls as possible in the shortest time period.  The most common buyers of the polls are lame stream media & they want polls that are quick, dirty, lame, & fit the prevailing narrative (as described by Somerby, if you will).

    A real poll would have some phone calls, some mailings, some mall intercepts, some in-home, & some focus groups in order to cover a complex range of opinions.  Obviously, that would take about a month per subject matter, cost a great deal, & provide data that would take weeks to analyze & evaluate.

    Contrary to politics, it's easy to compare the work of major marketers as they mix & match polling techniques to determine their strategies.  Even a well-run, though fairly simple, polling on which radio stations a person listens to will take about 15 minutes by phone & be supported with mall intercepts & focus groups as any specific medium attempts to assess its market presence.

    Some political campaigns do their internal polling using the best & most complete methods possible.

    The lame stream medium polling is just quick & dirty pablum for the talking heads to spoon up, drool & dribble all over themselves, & fling back & forth like a day care center food fight amongst 4-year olds--puree of drivel!

    What seems idiotic to me is that political junkies, information freakazoids, data miners, future forecasters, obsessive-compulsive statistics jugglers, etc., are constantly being fed steadily deteriorating forms of polling from the media.  None of them have access to the good polling by the campaigns.

    Absolutely agree that mixing methodologies (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:02:45 PM EST
    makes for far better results.  I've seen that over and over in my studies and in others I study.  

    Frankly, so many of the polls I see wouldn't pass muster for a master's thesis, much less a dissertation -- at least in solid social-science fields.  But we see it all the time in journalism studies.  So media use them to claim all sorts of things that aren't there, except in their heads.

    Parent

    LOL..... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:08:49 PM EST
    I initially read your statement
    "A real poll would have some phone calls, some mailings, some mall intercepts"

    as MAIL intercepts instead of MALL intercepts and immediately thought it must be the way Karl Rove would poll...by intercepting your personal mail...    LOL

    Parent

    High - larious! Mail intercepts by Bu$hInc. (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by wurman on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:26:01 PM EST


    Parent
    LOL - that would be an effective method (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:19:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Then they're skewing it ... (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by fctchekr on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:07:27 PM EST
    Sorry, if I'm repeating, I did not read all. If I understand BTD, he is really saying they skewed the poll by asking the question a certain way and or by not asking other questions?

    I don't think BTD is arguing skew, but stupidity (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:24:35 PM EST
    or bad/incomplete polling.

    Personally, I think presenting these results as an answer to the Clinton as VP question is where the skew comes in (or could come in).

    Parent

    Likert Scale (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:11:02 PM EST
    There is a common polling device to measure the level of agreement with an issue.  It's called the Likert scale.  This gets at the intensity issue.

    I'm sure everyone is familiar with this type of poll, you're usually offered the following choices:  Strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, strongly disagree.

    The problem with polls isn't the polls.  It's the way polls are interpreted.  

    Most people in the media know nothing about polling methodology.  Bloggers, generally, know less than nothing.

    Likert scale does not rule out bias... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Aqua Blue on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:25:46 PM EST
    The wording questions becomes all important.  (I learned this 1st hand from administering a national poll for my dissertation.)

    And, Robot, I find bloggers to be well informed on a variety of topics.


    Parent

    Bias is a different issue ... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:06:51 PM EST
    and I was referring to bloggers knowledge of polling interpretation and methodology.  Not their general knowledge.

    Parent
    fyi (none / 0) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:07:31 PM EST
    I am extremely knowledgeable on polling methodology.

    Parent
    BTD, if I was referring to you ... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:55:19 PM EST
    I would have called you out by name.

    Unless otherwise indicated the "present company accepted" rule is always implied.

    Parent

    Likert does not help at all on this question (none / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:07:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Maybe not ... (none / 0) (#121)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:22:50 PM EST
    but if you're looking for intensity of feelings, Likert is the common way to find them.

    And, I think, if the survey was properly treed, it would give you a number of data points to back up your general argument:

    that the number of people who will NOT vote for him because she is on the ticket is virtually nil.

    Either way, no biggie.  I'm not trying to start a fight.  

    Parent

    How about the Ras poll? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:20:16 PM EST
    Since the topic seems to be interpreting these polls, did anybody see the Ras poll from 8/5 showing that McCain is trusted more than Obama in 9 of 14 electoral categories? (My linking function doesn't seem to be working properly).

    If you go to the poll, the sentence that stands out for me is,

    "Perhaps the most interesting finding of these polls is that McCain has expanded his leads on nearly every issue he had previously had the advantage on, whle Obama's leads have diminished over the past two weeks."

    I wonder if this is playing into the Hillary as VP choice poll as well.

    Barely on topic (none / 0) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:06:31 PM EST
    Stick to the post topic please.

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#124)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:05:40 PM EST
    broadly interpreting poll results.

    Won't happen again.

    Parent

    A question (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by lentinel on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:31:16 PM EST
    The "poll" is supposedly among democrats.
    The general election depends on the votes of independents and republicans as well as democrats.
    Why just focus on democrats as to the preference of Clinton as VP?

    And then I ask, how do they even know they are talking to democrats? Do these people identify themselves as such? Do they show IDs? Do they represent themselves as having voted in the democrat primaries?

    And if they are "democrats", how committed are they to the party?
    Would they vote for a Lieberman over a Lamont?

    For me, the bottom line is that I smell a rat whenever I read the results of a poll. The phrasing always seems to embody an agenda.

    For example: the question as posed was, "Do you think that Obama should not choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate?"
    It seems to call for an "amen" as a response. Why not just ask folks whom they would like to see as Obama's VP pick? Seems simple enough.

    Clinton just answered a question about (none / 0) (#45)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:52:04 AM EST
    VP status during her webchat, going on right now. What she is saying and has said so far has been enlightening to one who can read between the lines.

    On VP:

    Questions #4:

    Hey Hillary you are such a great person I went to a rally of yours during the primary in New Hampshire & did some campaigning for you here in albany ny you put a smile on my face every time I saw you whether in person or on tv. You are a strong women don't give up keep fighting for whats right. I hope our country can take a new step in the right direction once Barack Obama is president. I want to say if he does ask you to be his VP you should and you would make a great vice president Mrs. Clinton:)
    God Bless
    Larry D.
    Albany ny

    by lawrenced78 at 8/7/2008 12:14:54 PM

    Answer:

    I have said repeatedly that I will do whatever Senator Obama asks me to do. I am really focused and enjoying being back in the Senate and working on behalf of my New York constituents. This is Senator Obama's decision and his alone and I am going to respect the privacy of that process by not discussing it.

    by Senator Clinton at 8/7/2008 12:38:11 PM

    Do you have a link to the chat? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:56:30 AM EST


    Parent
    For you...anything (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:58:18 AM EST
    LINK

    It started about an hour ago and she is 5 questions in. Like I said, fascinating for those who can read between the lines.

    Parent

    Polling itself is a propaganda tool... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Aqua Blue on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:54:18 AM EST
    Polling results are used as much to sway opinion as to report accurately honest opinions.

    The questions are slanted so that results will be biased.    Biased results can then be used to slant opinions.    Vicious circle of deceit.  

    Just who is buying the pollsters to do business this way.   That information needs to go public in a big way.

    (The Courts are systematically being bought, aren't they?)

    reading between the lines (none / 0) (#58)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:58:53 AM EST
    is something I wish people would get out of the habit of trying to do.  Who really does it well?

    the reading between the lines habit is what got us all the race-baiting charges against the Clintons form the media during the primary.  Pundits constantly stressed that everything a Clinton said MUST be parsed out and evaluated for what was REALLY being said in the CODED language.

    Reading between the lines is what has given us the analysis that McCain's Paris Hilton ad and "The One" video are filled with race-baiting.  Some pundits are so good at reading between the lines, they saw "between the lines" the leaning tower of pisa and washington monument is the Paris Hilton ad that wasn't even there.  That's some pretty good between the lines reading....

    Ummmm (none / 0) (#63)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:02:06 PM EST
    I am not talking about parsing what she says or trying to reinterpret it. I was simply referring to the fact that, IMHO, she clearly thinking she will not be given the VP nod and seems to be more concerned with working in the Senate and her future.

    Parent
    it was just a general (none / 0) (#68)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:06:43 PM EST
    statement and i didn't mean to apply it directly to you.  But, I don't see anywhere in her statement where she says that she clearly thinks she will NOT be asked.

    I do agree she says she is concerned about doing her work in the senate.  This is as it should be since that is her current job.

    Parent

    There are other answers she has given so far that (none / 0) (#73)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:11:01 PM EST
    seem to indicate she sees her future, at least for the next four years, as being in the senate. (four years being the time limit defined by a poster's question and reiterated by Hillary).

    Parent
    It would be a simple poll (none / 0) (#117)
    by dianem on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:42:40 PM EST
    "Do you plan on voting for Obama, McCain, or neither"

    then

    "If Obama chooses Clinton as his running mate, will you vote for Obama, McCain or neither".

    If you want to gage sentiment, ask "If there any possibility that you would change your vote or not vote during this election cycle".

    Period. End of poll. None of that "Somewhat, a little bit, sort of, likely, very likely" nonsense. I never know what to answer on those. How do I know if I'm "likely" or "very likely" to do something? It just drags out the poll. The last time I did a phone interview, it took nearly 30 minutes. The next time I simply told them I wasn't interested.

    The CBS Poll (none / 0) (#131)
    by facta non verba on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:04:38 PM EST
    Oversampled Democrats and undersampled Independents which is why Obama ended up with a six point lead as opposed to being tied as in the other polls. The CBS poll has a mix of 32% Republicans and 37% Democrats only 31% Independents.

    The Pew Poll looks at things differently:

    Obama Fatigue Sets In

    My guess would be that Clinton would favorably (none / 0) (#132)
    by jpete on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:07:50 PM EST
    affect turn out for Obama.  I'm trying to figure out whether those who turn out because of Clinton are just a subset - or the set - of those who would vote for Obama because of Clinton.  

    I'm going to find it very hard to get interested in any of the male candidates and some are definitely negative for me.

    The Trouble With Polling, Part XXX | 133 comments (133 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment