Submitted by rossl on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 5:02pm
Submitted by bringiton on Tue, 04/29/2008 - 7:33pm
This Obama phenomenon is a puzzle. Why him, why now? I have thoughts, but still more questions than answers.
I don’t want to get caught up in the “sheeple” thing, that’s a shallow and ultimately meaningless term, but bear with me for a moment on the concept of a bellwether. Not in the common political sense of a district that has had a voting pattern the same as the national outcome, but in the Old English sense of a lead sheep that the rest of the flock will follow out of instinct, the need to do so transcending rational thought or consequence. Read below the fold...
Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on Thu, 02/28/2008 - 2:23pm
ABSTRACT: Based on available exit polling from states that held primary
elections, while Obama dominates the "Independent" voter, Hillary
Clinton actually does slightly better among "Moderate" voters—
and this is even more true in crucial swing states. The data suggests that a more comprehensive
review of all such "electability" factors is required.
Data tables and an explanation of the methodology employed can be found Here.
* * * Read below the fold...
Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 9:00am
Much has been written and said about the ability of Barack Obama to “attract Independents”, and how that translates into good news for his electability in November. But no one ever mentions that there is a huge difference between “Independents” and “Moderates”. Independents, as defined by the exits polls, are all over the map in terms of ideology, and include not just people who are “moderates” (that is, those who think that Democrats are too liberal and Republicans too conservative), but also “third” parties (Greens, Libertarians), individuals who are disaffected from the political system, and those on the ideological fringes who think the Democrats and Republicans are too “centrist.” Read below the fold...