If you have "no place to go," come here!

Loud black woman speaks for me, and a lot of other voters, on McCain and Palin

bringiton's picture

Ladies and Gentleman, please give a warm welcome to

Wanda Sykes.

Where's that Democratic base among women? Gallup says it is right where it has been for quite a while.

Poll results from the first of August until last week encompassing an aggregate of more than 23,000 respondents, Obama's strength among Hispanic, black and Asian women is overwhelming. These are core Democrats, those who did not wander off after Republican pipe dreams and fall for their lies, and they are sticking with the Democrats again in this election.


But what about the claimed Hockey Mom Bubble, the supposed rush of PUMAs and women in general to embrace the newly woman-friendly Republican ticket lead by the long-time dedicated feminist John McCain and his exciting inspiring sidekick, the staunch advocate of women's pay equality and reproductive freedom, Sarah Palin? Does that explain the lead McCain has among white women?

Well no, actually; in this table covering four surveys capturing the opinions of more than 47,000 voters from the middle of August through last week, it is clear that little has been altered. McCain's support among white women is unchanged over that period and while Obama's has fluctuated he is now six points higher among all white women than he was five weeks ago.


The deficit Obama had among non-Hispanic white women has been there for many weeks, and while his numbers flattened for a while he is now in a statistical tie for this demographic. McCain, on the other hand, has stayed constant among all white women combined; there was no bounce with women from Palin, and what ever PUMA voters have shifted to McCain they are in such small numbers they do not appear to have had a measurable effect.

From a temporal association standpoint, Palin may have actually benefited Obama. Certainly the trend post-convention, after voters had a chance to take a good look at both tickets in their entirety, is away from McCain and toward Obama.

Xenophon's fondness for xeno-demographic agitation not withstanding, Obama's problem is not with white women but with white men where he trails McCain 56% to 35%. This is the grouping Obama needs to crack, and it is the reason Joe Biden is his running mate. Somehow, Obama needs to find validation with white male voters and sexism being as pervasive in this society as it is, for many of these men (not all, but many) only another white male will be able to persuade them that Obama is acceptable.

Over all, these numbers are very close to the final tallies for Gore v. Bush and Kerry v. Bush; As a whole, dedicated Democratic and Republican voters have settled in along partisan lines and Independents are starting to break as they have in the past several elections. If Obama can expand his appeal to generally conservative, conventionally religious Independent white males, 16% of whom say they are still persuadable, he will be able to extend his current overall lead and achieve a comfortable victory. If not, then this election will be another real nail-biter.

No votes yet


Submitted by hipparchia on

honed her comedic talents while working as a procurement officer for the nsa. got to be a lesson in there somewhere.

what percentage of the electorate is 'generally conservative, conventionally religious, independent white males'? and is 16% of that group going to make up for the loss of the white women who would have voted for an obama/clinton ticket?

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Don't have all the latest breakdowns, but as of last week on Gallup they had 33% of registered voters as Independent. Historically roughly 3/4 are white and a little more than half of those are male. Call it 13% of the electorate m/l, with the available undecideds then amounting to about 2% of the electorate. Sounds small, but with only 7% of the electorate undecided total these white male independents are 28% of available voters and the largest still-available specific demographic.

My interpretation, and I'll write later on about the existing bias in current polls, is that it appears Gallup and several others are behind the curve in their sample weighting. It is as though one part of the operation doesn't talk to the other, or even read the company blog. The pollsters are using old numbers, such that the sample demographic is about even between D and R while the actual electorate shows Ds at 10% higher than Rs. Reweighted, Obama should be at about a 5% lead over McCain and that is near to a lock on a solid win. A 6% national lead translates to 300 electoral votes for the leader, so another 1% on top of what Obama has now will make for a "mandate" at least by Bushian terminology.

Alternatively, instead of all these numbers and fussing about, we could just go with the electoral demographics map developed by gaybipolarguy. Probably equaly as meaningful.

Submitted by hipparchia on

thanks. found some cool stuff at that blog too.

i saw something at cheetopia on the bias in pennsylvania[?] polls, how the pollsters were apparently not keeping up with shifting demographics when they weighted their sampling. doesn't surprise me, and wouldn't surprise me to find that they're all too lazy or inept to keep up.

lost the links, but there was some kind of 'enthusiasm rating' poll [or aggregation of polls, i forget] back sometime in early june-ish, obama vs mccain. obama was a tad behind or barely ahead or wavering back and forth, so i took the data, applied the hipparchia magic modeling to it [after calibrating to clinton vs bush 1992] and voila! based on this little bit of fluffiness alone, i project obama will wipe the electoral college floor with mccain, although i'm going to moderate that a bit now that they've made their vp choices [biden doesn't help obama, palin does help mccain].

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

These are core Democrats, those who did not wander off after Republican pipe dreams and fall for their lies, and they are sticking with the Democrats again in this election.

That's more than you can say for Obama.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

of the majority of registered Democratic voters. The great progressive acts of the 30's and 60's were aberrations in terms of sweeping actions. Most registered Democrats are incrementalists and while they favor, generally, the same values Progressives hold they differ on certain specifics and definitely in the rate at which change should take place. When Obama speaks about some of these issues, such as gay rights and abortion, he does so in a way that is grating to Progressive ears but reassuring to Conservative and Populist Democrats.

There isn't a unified lock-step everybody thinks the same Democratic affiliation; Obama represents the values and attitudes of the majority of them, and is more in tune with Progressive values that the arch-reactionary theocratic criminal gang that controls the Republican Party.

Obama is very much a Democrat, just not a Progressive one.

Submitted by lambert on

The Democrat Party as an institution doesn't support my interests or principles and it doesn't value me, nor does it support the interests and principles of people like me, or value them -- a message I got from the OFB over and over again during a primary where, as it turned out, the candidate who won the majority of Democratic votes was not the standard bearer.

Which, my friends, is why I am a DINO. The Party is solely there to be used, and hopefully discarded.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

The Democratic Party, defined as the legal institution and not the voters who affiliate in such an endearingly hopeful fashion, doesn't give a rat's ass about you or me or anyone like us; all they care about as an institution is gaining and perpetuating their own political power.

Think of The Party today as a great, powerful ravening beast of sharp instincts and little intellect; it will support and serve you as long as you meet its needs, and turn on you and devour you the moment you do not. It is foolish, and heartbreaking, and dangerous, to develop an emotional attachment; The Party, assuredly, has no such attachment to you.

I remain convinced, however, that The Democratic Party can be tamed. That is, it can be semi-domesticated and put to good purpose if kept on a short leash and constantly reinforced as to who is the master/mistress. That will take time, and can only be accomplished if we have the time. Elect a Democrat this cycle and we may be able to pull it off. Elect a Republican and in my estimation we are doomed, to a general and rapid demise leading to a violent and unpredictable revolution.

I don't give a damn about Obama. I do care about avoiding complete socioeconomic collapse and uncontrolled armed conflict, and the chances of that coming to pass are in my view much, much greater under a Republican regime. I'm not backing the Democrats because I like The Party, although there are some decent people in it; I'm backing them because I am convinced it is the only way we can survive.

Submitted by lambert on

I "got it" a long time ago, thank you, despite your willingness to play Henry Higgins to my Eliza -- though much more slowly than I should have, since to my great regret I was a proponent of the "half a shit sandwich" theory.

I think that, at this point, the D vs R choice simply cannot be said to have the apocalyptic consequences that you think it does; both sides, as Obama has shown (FISA) are equally willing to betray, and though the Ds are somewhat less competent at it, I'm sure that, given power, they'll show themselves to be quick learners. The two parties are, in any case, morphing into each other, as this latest "crisis" has shown. Clusterfuckalypse now, therefore, won't happen because of party choices, but will all come down to "Events, dear boy, events". That leaves me free to vote principles, since there's simply no rational pragmatic call that supports my values and interests. Right now, since Obama will probably win, I'll try to deny him a mandate by voting the top of the ticket, or Green. I prefer the Ds and Rs feuding rather than getting together to fuck me (as in the "crisis").

UPDATE Incidentally, parties do tend to take account of their base, even at a marginal level. But now I, and many more like me, are not part of the base at all. There's your apocalypse right there, brewing. "And we get?" Your answer is "Not apocalype." To which my response -- not being part of the base, and therefore not in line for whatever marginal relief (HOLC) one might have at one point expected the Democrat party to offer -- would be "That 'changes' what, exactly?"

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

I note the all-too-typical and weird tactic of the Obama supporter seeking agreement and/or a vote: Condescension (Henry Higgins to Eliza), and insult/infantilization ("bicker"). Don't take it personally; I blame Obama and the political culture he created, even more toxic than what came before, who knew. Definition of insanity, written here in little in a comment thread. It's sad. See, I didn't think I was bickering; I though I was responding. A shame.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

I'm sorry to read that you have taken the exchange personally. I have not. I am not even distressed at your mischaracterizing me here as a stereotypical ObamaBot, an assertion which you know for a fact to be untrue but apparently think is necessary to buttress your, ah, response. Puzzling, the deliberate use of an obvious falsehood in support of an argument; you are normally so very careful to avoid such a practice. It is so egregious an error I see no need to take offense; the act itself contains its own rebuke.

I am also distressed to read you took the very commonly used Shaw phraseology as a personal insult; a failure on my part, to be sure, in thinking you had long since recognized that you are held in much esteem and would not be troubled or affronted by what was intended as light humor. My mistake, surely, on both accounts; please forgive me. I shall endeavor to remain entirely humorless in our exchanges henceforth.

The difference between bickering and responding may well be unclear, and open to varying degrees of interpretation. I started this post with as cold, detached and calculated a tone as I can muster. Now the thread has become an exchange tainted with personal animosity, for which I can see no reason related to anything I have said here; your accusations of condescension, insult, infantilization and insanity are far out of proportion to anything I have expressed and certainly counter to any intent on my part. I suspect some other, unexpressed issue is the cause. If you have something to say to me, please do so plainly; either here, in public, or privately, as you think best.

For me this descent has indeed entered the realm of bicker, with you in two consecutive comments having misrepresented what I have been consistently arguing here from my first presence, and I would prefer that it end. If you have something to communicate regarding the actual content of my post, I will gladly - as always - respond. If you are solely concerned with casting unfounded aspersions and fomenting a personal confrontation, I suggest - with all due respect - that we would both be better served if you were to take your broad brush and go swipe it elsewhere.

Submitted by lambert on

I said it wasn't personal; I blame Obama. Many Hillary supporters are familiar, I am sure, with the twin tactics of insult/infantilization so clear from what you write; and the reaction I get when I call bullshit on them is hardly my problem.

Shorter bringiton: [stuck piq squeals]. Again, not personal; happens all the time.

NOTE I forgot: Higgins/Eliza is really a two-fer: Not only am I to assume the position of a student, I'm feminized as well! Well done! This, again, is a tactic very familiar to Hillary supporters; and, again, I blame Obama, not the person using the tactics his campaign propagated. Lie down with dogs, get up with their toxic discourse.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Shorter lambert [pissed off over something but unwilling to deal directly] A shame.

Stuck pig squeals can of course be used against anyone who objects, regardless of the validity of the original assault or the defense. Cheap trick, evidence again of lack of substance on your part. Try it on someone less confident of themselves.

L: the reaction I get when I call bullshit on them is hardly my problem Yet, as I am beginning to suspect, when I call bullshit on some of the crap being slung around here the reaction of the shit slingers is somehow supposed to be my problem. So much so that apparently the poor delicate creatures had to go get the Big Guy to try and beat me up a little, and you’ve agreed to do so without ever actually expressing your displeasure directly. Are we all on a level playing field here, or are some people getting a special measure of protection when they can’t defend their own flawed positions?

Pygmalion. NOTE I forgot: Higgins/Eliza is really a two-fer: Not only am I to assume the position of a student,
Symbolic analysis, if you insist.

Perhaps it is time for you to re-read Shaw’s play. The thrust is not that Higgins dominates Eliza but rather that she is the teacher and he the unwitting student. It is Higgins who must humble himself, who is ignorant, who is blinded by his own pride to his own limitations, and Eliza whose wisdom in choosing humility and purity of intent are her greatest strengths. Shaw elevates Eliza above Higgins, not the other way around, in one of the greatest paeans to humanism ever penned (the advocacy for feminism is strong but secondary).

It is a complete misconstruction of the work to consider Higgins as in any way superior to Eliza; your claim that you are diminished from this simple jest fails, on the face of the meaning of the work from which it is drawn. The humor, flat as it may have been, was clearly two-edged; to assert otherwise does you no credit from any standpoint.

I’m feminized as well! Well done!
And here we see revealed the real face of hidden sexism. In what way is being “feminized” a derogatory? By all means, please explain that one. Certainly it would not be in the mind of anyone who considers the genders to be equal, as I do; never occurred to me that anyone would see a feminine association as derogatory.

Only someone who fundamentally feels that the feminine/female is somehow inherently subordinate or deficient would object to such an association, especially one as poorly conjectured as you have made here. If you want to cleanse the world of discriminatory antifeminism, look to your own imperfect constructs before you try to castigate others.

Yet you persist in unsubstantiated, false and derogatory misrepresentations of my intent and my character; one can only speculate as to why, until you are willing to be open about what is troubling you. Again, I invite that discussion; keeping your frustrations bottled up will do no one any good, nor will allowing them out in this sort of misdirection.

Lie down with dogs, get up with their toxic discourse.
Well, yes; exactly so:

Lambert, You Really Are Too Kind.
Submitted by DamonMI on Thu, 2008-09-25 23:58.
And, it’s kind of maddening. ;)

Fleas are merely a nuisance; it is the plague they carry you should fear.

Submitted by lambert on

Let it go, guy. You're making your candidate look bad. And if I weren't so tender-hearted, I wouldn't even be pointing that out.

It's a simple explication du texte -- a text that I've been read over and over again by many Obama supporters, like many [not Obama] supporters, many of whom will also see themselves in me here. It's not you. It's the words that you wrote.

If you want to think it's personal, all I can tell you is "Be my guest!"

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

When false accusations are directed at me, as they have been here, trying to hide them under a blanket of "not about you" when they so clearly are focused at me fools no one.

We've been down this road here before. I simply won't back down or walk away when I'm falsely accused - by anyone.

When you’re ready to talk with me about whatever it is that’s bothering you, please get in touch.

Submitted by lambert on

I'm perfectly confident in my ability to read and interpret a text -- including yours.

Cease, or not cease. I'm not asking you to do either.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

tartu's picture
Submitted by tartu on

about the Democratic Party in this thread.
I have lumbered under the misapprehension of the Great Fair (furthest away from Soviet government) Protect-the-Innocent Democratic Party as Hillary defined it in her convention speach [via Aglachel], but BIO's posts made me question this assumption and look back at the history of the party. He is correct, what I believed in was "Clinton Democratic Party" which is not one and the same as the actual Democratic Party. I arrived in this country just as Bush I reign begun, therefore my vision of the Democratic Party was filtered through the "New Democrat" prism. [At least that's my excuse]

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

BTW, how many Dems really "fell for Republican pipe dreams?" It's been my anecdotal observation that the Dems that have left Obama have hardly fallen in love with the GOP or McCain or Palin, but that they are largely protest "Nobama" voters. I see some are still using the old but trusty "they were never really Democrats, anyyway" OFB talking point.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Following the civil rights legislation of the late 60's, perhaps 25% of the pre-existing Democratic coalition switched to the Republican Party - dominantly male, perhaps 3:2, and exclusively whites. This shift stabilized under Nixon and was sustained through the first Reagan term, when it began to be overtaken by an opposite trend wherein largely urban voters, generally still socially conservative, began to shift in affiliation towards the Democrats predominantly on grounds of economic populism. This second great shift has been most pronounced in the Northeast, Great Lakes and West Coast regions, giving us the closely divided national electorate and sharply defined Electoral College demographic we have today.

It was that first great shift, those who gave allegiance to Republicans promising to protect white privilege, political dominance and economic prosperity, to which I was referring. Not everything politically important happened in the last six months.

Your "anecdotal evidence" is just that, and charming to hear but largely worthless in terms of trying to understand broad political changes either historically or in the near term. We all of us exist in a sort of echo chamber, a self-selected construct of affirmation and reinforcement that leads us to believe there are many more people who think like us than actually are. It is a very human thing to do.

Perhaps that's what has persuaded you to believe that some significant number of people have "left Obama." I don't see any evidence of that; those who favored Obama through the primaries have stayed with him, and he has picked up support from the vast majority of those who initially favored other candidates.

The number of switch voters, D to R and vice versa, is slightly higher this year in both directions for a large number of reasons, but most of the drivers for that were in place long before the Democratic primary was finished. A different fragment of R-to-D voters have moved in response to Obama than would have with Hillary, but that reflects largely the distribution of their bigotries.

For D-to-R voters, there are surely many motivations; those who have done so on what are for them purely ethical matters are too small in number and for their purposes of protest disadvantageously distributed; they will have no effect on the Electoral College outcome, and from a strategic standpoint Obama has no need to appeal to them. His key to the White House is in other hands.

elixir's picture
Submitted by elixir on

machine give Obama a swift kick to the nuts. Now, I would like to see Obama grow a new pair and take this election in November. Times a wasting and all the polls in the world can't capture the dismay of the voters who supported the superior candidate watch the theft of the primaries.

Let's do a pie chart about the bias in the polls. Got another table?

I love this job!

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

What I'm seeing is a Republican Party largely in disarray, recycling themes of fear and divisiveness that are getting rather shopworn and appear to not be working nearly as well as they did just four years ago. As far as their attacks on Obama they have't laid a glove on him much less managed your charmingly sexist nut-kicking. Obama is where I predicted four months ago that he would be, and actually doing a bit better.

If you're waiting for Obama to change, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. Over time, as the economy worsens and pressure builds for a populist revival, I do expect that Obama's malleable nature will respond and we can drive him in that direction. In the short term though he is going to continue to be who he is, and that is a calm and unflappable slightly conservative centrist.

If you like fireworks, though, watch for the debates. One of the tactical things Obama should do is try to get under McCain's skin. McCain is ugly when he gets angry, he loses control and says awful things. Obama should needle him, especially on matters of what McCain sees as honor, in hopes of triggering a nasty outburst.

Glad you like the data; so do I. I find it has a beneficial calming effect, especially with those who are all opinion and no fact.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

And, another thread is brought to its inglorious end by the same miserable provocateur like clockwork. It's not me; it's you.

Submitted by lambert on

The time-honored and time-tested way to deal with, er, provacateurs is not to give them the attention they crave. I suggest that you try it; I plan to.

(Of course, sometimes it's necessary to get a clear diagnosis... )

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.