[cross posted at NPR Check]

Yesterday, I heard for the first time on NPR about how the public option has "widespread public support." Here's Melissa Block on Tuesday's ATC:

Math is funny. It's a mystery to people like me, but one thing I know: when they "figure it out" they more or less, you know, figure it out. That is, while there may be 'other' ways to get to four than 2+2, it's still always true that 2+2 = 4. That's how I look at a lot of polling organizations. Did you make it to 4? Were you close? Not 'now,' but 'after,' when we can all see where they went, the trends and ideas you predicted were ascendant, and how succesful they turned out to be in truth. Haw, I love some comment I just read, "this is a reality-based community." Indeed, My Friends. So which of them are here with us in RealityLand?

In the spirit of spitting on reality, let me roll with my initial impressions as a mostly non-consumer of media product, as I reviewed these numbers. I think you old-timers call this 'stream of consciousness' blogging.

First, the non-corporate media projection sites updated counts:

Election Projection: Obama 364-174
Electoral-Vote.com: Obama 364, McCain 171, 3 tied
Fivethirtyeight: Obama 344-194 McCain
Pollster.com: Obama 313, McCain 157, Toss-up 68
Real Clear Politics: Obama 286, McCain 155, Toss-up 97

Ladies and Gentleman, please give a warm welcome to  Read more…

Real Clear Politics cites from the new Pew poll a couple figures: “69% of Hillary supporters back Obama; 17% say they will vote for McCain; and 12% are undecided.” And “55% of Democratic (and leaning) voters want to see Hillary as Obama's VP."

Digging deeper into the numbers...

**Only 38% said they DON'T want Hillary as VP. You mean the Cheeto doesn't speak for us all?? It’s especially significant that when asked “Would she make you more/less likely to vote” for Barack, it’s a bit of a wash for Republicans at 23/26, but makes a huge difference to capturing Democratic votes, by 34/9. Other factoids:

[Welcome Political Radar readers. This Memorial Day Weekend, try a round of Obama Golf! --lambert]

PART ONE: ALL VOTERS, GENDER, AND RACE

Ever since the media declared that Barack Obama was “inevitable” after February 19th, based on a two week period when an unprepared Hillary Clinton campaign suffered “10 straight losses”, rank and file Democratic voters have been sending a message. Rather than rally ‘round the “inevitable nominee” that message has been a consistent, loud, and clear message to the Democratic Party – DO NOT WANT.

In nearly every demographic category since February 19, Clinton's percentage of the vote has risen, while Obama’s has fallen. This includes Obama’s supposed “strong” demographic categories such as voters with college degrees post-graduate degrees and voters whose income is above the national median. And Clinton beat Obama in the primaries in March, April and May in most of the major categories.

On Super Tuesday, over 14% of voters in the Oklahoma Democratic Primary voted for neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama, despite their being the only two major Democratic candidates left in the race. This was nearly twice the percentage of “someone else” votes as the next highest state (Arizona, with 7.2% of “neither” votes), and four times greater than Super Tuesday primary states over all (3.74% “neither” votes).

John Edwards received the lion’ share (10.14% of the overall vote) of the ‘neither” vote, and his supporters represented a significant opportunity for both Clinton and Obama. By examining where Edwards did well, both candidates could try and appeal to these “neither Clinton nor Obama” voters.

A review of exit polling from West Virginia shows that Hillary Clinton took advantage of the opportunity to appeal to Edward’s voters, and it was her success among those voters that made the difference between her 24 point win over Obama in Oklahoma, and her 41 point margin over Obama in West Virginia. Obama not merely failed to attract the support of Edwards voters, he actually lost support in the demographic categories where Edwards did best.

Aka Obama’s Sour Apples to Apples, Part Four

Between late February and mid-April, voters in nine states that should/could be “Democratic” in the 2008 Presidential Election were exposed to a considerable amount of negative informative concerning both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The negative information had little impact on how Hillary Clinton was regarded when compared to John McCain. But it has had a major impact on their perception of Barack Obama, and on the perception of the relative merits of Obama and McCain.

Overall, the worst that can be said about Clinton is the negative press attention has resulted in more previously undecided voters in certain demographic categories expressing a preference for McCain rather than for Clinton. But Obama is not merely losing “undecided” voters in most demographic categories because of negative media coverage, a significant percentage of voters who had supported Obama over McCain have switched their preferences.

AKA OBAMA'S SOUR 'APPLES TO APPLES', PART THREE: INDEPENDENTS AND MODERATES

In the last six weeks, Barack Obama has been losing support in virtually every key demographic category when matched against John McCain, while Hillary Clinton has gained support. Perhaps most disturbing is Obama’s decline among Independent voters: Between late February and mid-April, in 9 key states for Democrats

· Obama lost an average 4.2% of his support among Independents
· While Obama was losing support among Independents to McCain, McCain was also picking up new support from previously undecided Independent voters, resulting in major decreases in Obama’s margins against McCain among Independents.
· In February, Obama led McCain among Independents in 5 of the 9 states, By mid-April, Obama was leading in only one state – by only 2%.
 Read more…

DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW, MALE AND FEMALE VOTERS

In the last six weeks, Barack Obama has been losing support in virtually every key demographic category when matched against John McCain, while Hillary Clinton has gained support. Obama has lost support among men, women, White voters, “Independents”, and “Moderates”, while Clinton has gained support in all those categories.

Obama’s margins against McCain have fallen significantly in all of these categories, while Clinton is “holding her own” in these key categories as previously undecided voters make up their minds.

Barack Obama is hemmorhaging support against John McCain in states where Democrats can/should win in November.

In the last six weeks, Barack Obama has been losing support, while Hillary Clinton has gained support, when matched against McCain. Much of Clinton’s additional support is from voters who were undecided in late February, and Clinton essentially “split” the “recent deciders” with McCain; as a result there is little change in her margins against McCain. But people who were undecided whether they preferred Obama or McCain are also making up their minds – and choosing McCain. As a result, Obama’s margins against McCain are looking much worse.

This is true among all major demographic categories that were available for comparison – if Obama improves in a category, Clinton has shown greater improvement in that category. And in categories where Clinton is not doing as well as she was in February, Obama is doing consistently worse.

Part 4 of Misogyny, Sexism, & the Gender Gap in the 2008 Election

In choosing a nominee, the Democratic Party will not merely be deciding who deserves to win, or who would make the best candidate. It will also be a decision about which poisoned landscape the Party wishes to compete upon --- one in which toxic wildflowers of misogyny and sexism are in full bloom, or one in which the poisonous weed of racism is a constant part of the environment, and needs the merest watering to completely despoil the land.

Survey USA, which has been the gold standard of polls this election season, just released their latest results for Pennsylvania.

Hillary leads Obama by 18 points. MyDD has more.

SUSA was the one that correctly predicted Hillary's 10 point win in California when many others showed it to be a close race or even had Obama ahead.

HOW THE GENDER GAP, SEXISM, AND MISOGYNY CHANGE THE OUTCOME IN INDIVIDUAL STATES

The gender gap in presidential elections is a well documented phenomenon. Almost without exception, women vote for Democratic candidates at a higher percentage than do men, while men vote for Republican candidates at a higher percentage than women. Moreover, men’s preference for Republican candidates is more pronounced than women’s preference for Democrats. In the 2004 election, nationally men gave Bush an 11 point lead (Bush 55%, Kerry 44%), while women gave Kerry a mere 3 point lead (Bush 48%, Kerry 51%).

Data from a recent (conducted Feb 26-28, released March 7) 50 state Survey USA (SUSA) poll of registered voters shows more than just a gender gap; it provides evidence that sexism and misogyny can have a profound impact in shaping electoral outcomes. The gender gap is nearly double the size when the matchup is John McCain vs. Hillary Clinton than when it is McCain
and Barack Obama. McCain/Clinton shows a 13.5% gap in registered voters and a 7% gap when it is McCain/Obama.

REGIONAL COMPARISONS & BEST AND WORST STATES

The individual state cross tables from the SUSA 50 state general election poll demonstrate how the gender gap determines the winner in a very large number of states. But there is considerable variation between states themselves and within regions. Much of the variation appears to be related to other factors, such as race and racism, and how liberal/conservative a state is.

[Welcome, Pollster.com readers!]

Misogyny, sexism, and the gender gap are alive and well in the American electorate.

Overall, men prefer McCain over either Democrat, while women prefer either Democrat over McCain. But the gender gap widens considerably when a woman is running. When McCain is matched with Obama, the gap is 13.9% (comprising 7% of voters), but when it is McCain versus Clinton, the gap nearly doubles to 26.9% (comprising 13.5% of voters.)

The expansion of the gender gap is due almost entirely to changes in how men vote. Only a few more women (1.6%, comprising 0.9% of all voters) prefer Clinton when matched with McCain than when Obama is matched with McCain—women pretty much stick with the Democrat regardless of whether its Clinton or Obama.  Read more…

UPDATE: I've created some new tables that show how much of the undecided vote the candidates need to win each state.

The lastest SUSA national poll provides a lot of food for thought in terms of how the general election campaign will shape up. While the polls both predict close electoral college victories for Clinton and Obama, there is a big difference between “too close to call” states (margin 3% or less), “swing” state (margin 4-6%), “battleground” states (margins 7-12%), and fairly “safe” states (margins 13% or more).

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. [scroll down]. Major thanks to Lambert for all his help with this piece!

Note: This study is based on exit polling data from primary states. With regard to Michigan, all "uncommitted" voters are treated as if they had voted for Barack Obama. "Swing states" consist of those states not identified as either "Safely Democratic" or "Safely Republican" as of 2/20/08 by Rasmussen Reports for which data is available (NH, AR, DE, FL, MI, MO, NJ, NM, WI, VA). ¹ There is an appendix that includes information regarding states that held primaries but for which exit polling data is not available (WA, DC), and data from caucus states where exit polling data is available (IA, NV).

INTRODUCTION
The media, and the Obama campaign, have endlessly hyped Barack Obama's appeal to "Independent" voters. A search of Google News at 8:00 AM EST on February 23 for "'Barack Obama', 'independent voters'" turns up 2490 hits for the last month, for "'Hillary Clinton', 'independent voters'" the number of hits is 1299. But almost no attention has been paid to the crucial "Moderate" voter demographic. A "'Barack Obama', 'moderate voters'" Google News search finds just 54 hits during the same month-long period, "'Hillary Clinton', 'moderate voters" also turns up 54 hits.

Yet exit polling data reveals that the "Moderate" demographic is much larger than "Independents". And there is no correlation between the voting patterns of "Independents" and "Moderates". And "Moderate" voter are the key constituency that will be crucial in swing states in November.

Just for giggles, I decided to look at the data from my "Count Whose Vote?" piece, from the perspective of the electoral college.

Basically, I took the popular vote gap from each primary, multiplied it by the electoral college vote in each state, and added the whole thing up.

Unsurprisingly, Clinton comes out well ahead -- 17.3% better without Michigan/Florida, and 27.5% better with Michigan/Florida.

Now, even I don't take these numbers too terribly seriously, but I do think that they show that Clinton has demonstrated more strength in terms of the electoral college map.

Heh, I guess the SCLM got their poor lil finners burned in NH. Nevada cries, What about us?

By Brian Eckhouse, Michael Mishak

National public opinion pollsters, fresh off a glaring failure to pick the winner in New Hampshire’s presidential primary, are now violently queasy about trying to predict a winner in Nevada.

In fact, for a variety of reasons, major news organizations are taking a pass on polling before Nevada’s Jan. 19 caucus.

The concerns stem from the New Hampshire mistake and from knowledge that Nevada has a large transient population not familiar with the workings of a big-time caucus.

Feh. That's way too generous. How about because they worry that whatever happens in NV, it won't fit their cut-and-dried she said, he said, two-way celebrity deathmatch narrative?

Interesting.

. Do you approve or disapprove of President Bush's handling of the economy?
Approve 46%
Disapprove 42%
Undecided 12%

7. Do you approve or disapprove of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq?
Approve 33%
Disapprove 52%
Undecided 15%

8. Do you approve or disapprove of President Bush's handling of the war on terrorism?
Approve 49%
Disapprove 39%
Undecided 12%

9. Do you favor an immediate withdrawal of the United States military forces from Iraq, within the six months?
Yes 44%
No 47%
Undecided 9%

10. Do you view President Bush as a conservative in the mode of Ronald Reagan? (Republicans only)
Yes 9%
No 78%
Undecided 13%

 Read more…

It's Saturday and I'm feeling conversational (too bad our numbers drop off on the weekend, eh LB?) Anyway, for those loyal readers out there, I've got a question: How are you feeling about the elections?

Here is one of many, many posts circulating about how Things are Looking Up for Democrats all over the country. At our party, I spoke with some informed folks who believed the outlier for Democratic gain is as high as forty seats. I also spoke with some informed people who believe the mess we saw in places like Maryland is only the merest foretaste, and that we should be prepared for some really "surprising" results.

So what do you think?

Hale's got a great piece up that I think we should all email to our Congresscritters. These aren't what you'd call "happy" numbers:

More than six in 10 Americans say the country is on the wrong track, according to a new Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll. More than half disapprove of Bush's handling of the economy, and 36 percent strongly disapprove. Almost half, 48 percent, say his policies have made the economy worse than it was when he became president; 19 percent say it's better.

``Gas prices are knocking us back into the dirt,'' said Burden, 31, one of the respondents in the poll. ``It seems like, since Bush took office, the government is burning up cash again, and things are getting worse.''

 Read more…

I've raged before about ignoring polls. Basically, I remember when I used to work with telemarketing firms. We lied, made stuff up, and got stoned on the job, a lot. I can't believe that's changed.

But my own experiences aside, I like to think that Billmon's post reinforces another belief of mine: that there are two sets of numbers in our political landscape:

 Read more…

Liz points us to an important reminder that it's not about being stupid, it's about being overworked, underpaid, harrassed by a hostile government, and lied to by a sycophantic media owned by neofeudal multinationals: