DMR Poll: Majority of Obama Support Not From Democrats

[boston bean]

In a comment, Anonymous Liberal states:

While it's certainly true that Obama's strategy is geared around getting more votes from independents than his rivals, it's still true that he's counting on the vast majority of his votes coming from Democrats. . . . It's very different than Liebermanism.
I do not know what Obama is trying to do but I do know what the DMR Poll is purporting - to wit, that the majority of Obama's support is from NON-Democrats:

Clinton remains the favorite of the party faithful, with support from a third of self-described Democrats. However, Obama is the clear choice of caucusgoers who affiliate with neither the Democrat or Republican parties, with roughly 40 percent of them backing him in the survey. The support from non-Democrats is significant because a whopping 40 percent of those planning to attend described themselves as independent and another 5 percent as Republican.
So Obama gets 40% from 45% (assuming he gets at least 40% of GOP "Dem" caucus goers) and 27% of the 55% Dem Dem caucusgoers. Let's do the math:

0.4 × 0.45 = 18. 0.27 × 0.55 = 14.8.

Ergo, the MAJORITY of Obama's support in Iowa does NOT come from Democratic voters. It comes from Republicans and Independents. That is what the DMR poll tells us.


http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/1/154659/4951



This is a very interesting conversation over there, is it true. I need my DU statisticians to confirm or debunk.

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. I know. So, the democrats are not picking our candidate!

[TwilightZone]

5. Hey, wait a minute. I thought that the media was choosing our candidate?

Now, it's the Republicans and the independents?

Joking aside, I think that the DMR is significantly overestimating the percentage of crossover voters in Iowa.

[DemKR]

2. the obamites love the idea of repubs infultrating the primary n/t

[jenmito]

I love the idea of the most AMERICANS wanting Obama to win. Iowa caucus rules allow anyone

who wants to caucus for someone to register as a Dem. to do so. I see no problem with that.

[surfermaw]

3. Is that a suprise?

[boston bean]

4. I am sorry to say I did not know that in Iowa that republicans can participate in the dem caucus. nt

[calteacherguy]

6. The majority of his support is from Americans. nt

[Herman Munster]

8. republican leaning Americans

[calteacherguy]

12. There is no Republican America, there is no Democratic America

There is one America.

[TwilightZone]

16. Not according to John Edwards.

Nice talking point, by the way. Amazing how quickly "unity" became the theme of the campaign.

[jenmito]

17. That's why he's going to lose. n/t

[calteacherguy]

21. "Nice talking point"

You'll be hearing a lot of that one in the General Election, preceeding the landslide victory.

[comradebillyboy]

35. in your dreams nt

[jaxx]

15. I take issue with that.

I've been independent for most of my adult life. Only twice have I voted pub. This thing about dissing the independents is a big question mark as to why.

[TwilightZone]

14. All of it, I'd say. Just like every other candidate.

[peacebird]

7. so neither Clinton nor Obama has a majority of the Dems supporting them.

Clinton has a third Dems, and Obama has just shy of that. To win, they both need support from Indies. If Obama gets more support from Indies, and from Repubs would that not mean he has a broader base of support for the GE?

:shrug:

[Catch22Dem]

10. Don't go trying to make SENSE!!!

This is GD: Politics damnit! ;)

[jaxx]

9. Are you saying the dems don't want the independent vote?

40% of the sounds good to me. That's 40% the pubs won't have.

[boston bean]

11. I'm not saying anything. I am asking a question.

Do you wonder why a republican would vote for a "liberal" democrat.

Does it occur to you that they may be voting for him to help him win the general, because they know they can beat him?

[jaxx]

18. Who says they can beat him? The republican playbook?

At first it was Hillary the pubs wanted because they could beat her. This is mind games.

[calteacherguy]

19. Your assertion is ludicrous.

To suggest that a significant number of folks are going to go out on a cold winter night to stand around for hours so they can somehow conspire to nominate someone they have no intention of voting for is the general election is a fantasy.

People change political parties like they change hats, and most Americans don't belong to any political party. It's all about the candidate, not the party for most folks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. I don't think that's the case

You are not going to get many folks to pretend they are a Dem so they can caucus with a bunch of Dems to elect somebody they think they can beat because they are really shills for his opponent...

Best to look at the efficacy of the model in that case...

Would you register as a Republican to vote for The Huckster because you think he would be easy to beat and lose the chance to vote for the Democratic candidate of your choice?

[boston bean]

22. If I had that field, maybe. lol

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Maybe In A Primary

I don't think I could pretend to be a Republican, hang out with a bunch of them for a couple of hours and stand up and make a speech,(that's what you have to do in a caucus!) and say I'm for The Huckster...

[Mass]

26. The DMR article does not say for whom the 5 % of Republicans would vote.

(see my post lower). So, the supposition is baseless.

What it shows though is that Obama brings a lot more independant than Clinton, Edwards being in the middle, and that he is in the middle for Democrats.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. If Indys Are Becoming Dems That's A Good Thing

According to Ms. Selzer's model only 55% of those participating in the Democratic caucus are registered Democrats...40% of them are Indys...And 5% are Republicans...

This is a great departure from past caucuses but she could be right (or) wrong...

[DemKR]

23. i hope shes wrong. I want Democrats voting! n/t

[Mass]

24. HE still gets more Democrats voting for him than Edwards

Among Democrats
Clinton 33 %
Obama 27 %
Edwards 25 %

Sure, he gets less democrats than Clinton, but she is the one who attracts the least independent. However, do we really want a candidate that cannot go further than the party.

[indimuse]

27. this seems sooo wrong.

:puke:

[Mass]

28. What is exactly wrong? Because the Talkleft article is absolutely baseless.

[babylonsister]

29. The highlighted part below was left out of your OP...??

And this is from a link in the OP you provided...

http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2008/1/1/111754/4274/8#8

I think you're misstating Axelrod's strategy (none / 0) (#8)

by Anonymous Liberal on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:48:24 AM EST

While it's certainly true that Obama's strategy is geared around getting more votes from independents than his rivals, it's still true that he's counting on the vast majority of his votes coming from Democrats. In other words, he's not trying to appeal predominantly to independents at the expense of rank-and-file Democratic voters, but rather to appeal to both groups simultaneously. It's very different than Liebermanism. Obama is using inclusive rhetoric to attract independents but he's not taking centrist policy positions. His policy positions are unquestionably mainstream Democratic. Indeed, on foreign policy, he's a little to the "left" of Clinton.

Furthermore, I think you're wrong in suggesting that Axelrod's strategy is primarily about the primary race. It's not. It's a general election strategy. Obama is trying to preserve his appeal among indepedents because he thinks it will help him win decisively in a general election. He's hoping to get the nomination without alienating independents.

[boston bean]

31. I did not purposely leave that out I used a different page than you. nt

[babylonsister]

34. OK, thanks. Just wondering. nt

[sandnsea]

36. Right, he brings the middle to him n/t

[frazzled]

30. What was it Howard Dean said in 2003/4?

That he wanted to be the candidate for "guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks." Everybody loved that. (Except for people that hated that.) It was stupendously poorly said, but what he meant is that he wanted to be a progressive Democrat who got traditional Republicans to see that the issues he was promoting were good for them.

What was it that Thomas Frank was saying in What's the Matter With Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America--that people in the heartland were voting against their own interests ... and the Republicans won them over but the Democrats should be the ones getting them.

Now, I doubt Obama's Independent and Republican supporters are "guys with confederate flags." They are those suburbanites, soccer moms, and others who have been voting against their own interests since Reagan, out of habit and Republican wiles. They have finally had it.

Isn't it about time that someone reversed the Reagan flight from the Democratic party and lured all these folks back into the fold? Isn't it about time that we don't have to worry about winning an election 51-49, or 50.6 to 50.4?

If you have a problem with the Iowa Democratic caucus allowing anyone to vote in it, then you should address your beefs to the Iowa Democratic Party, not Obama.

Personally, I think it's a great thing that people want to come out to support a progressive Democrat who have not done that before.

[babylonsister]

32. Whoa. Your post needs its own thread. Many will disagree, but I don't. nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

33. Independents can be Democrats but not registered as such