Debunking the CW: Obama won Dems, women; Edwards won among conservatives, lost union households

[jefferson_dem]

More Entrance Poll findings from Iowa here --- http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#IADEM

[SaveElmer]

1. Not only did Edwards lose Union households to Obama...

He lost them to Hillary too...

[Inspired]

6. But he did narrowly beat Hillary.

No spin can change that result.

[SaveElmer]

8. Point to exactly where I spun this as a Hillary victory...

It seems the only answer Edwards supporters have to the fact that he is done...is that he beat Hillary by a few hundred votes in Iowa....

Whatever gets you through the pain I guess...

[jefferson_dem]

14. Defensive much?

That is not spin. That is reality. Edwards did worse among union households than did Hillary.

[Inspired]

15. Maybe a little defensive. So what?

[midnight]

2. I'm down loading this site you note. I would love to hear

what Omahasteve has to say about this result.

[aquart]

3. Interesting. Reality never intrudes on perception.

Did they let 17 year olds caucus?

Obama projects youth and vigor. Nobody can touch him there. But change?

[frazzled]

4. Very interesting stuff

The only categories Edwards won in were:

(1) Those who thought events in Pakistan were not very important
(2) Conservatives
(3) Previous caucus goers (e.g., status quo)
(4) Cares about people and electability -- these might sound positive, but only 19% and 8% of the caucus goers, respectively, thought that these were important qualities in a candidate
(5) People who decided last week (tie with Clinton)
(6) Middle-agers (45-64)

This makes me understand why I was not an Edwards supporter: except for being middle aged, this does not fit my profile at all.

Interestingly, he lost the rural vote, even though that has been his huge emphasis. (Clinton 33%, Edwards 25%, Obama 31%)

[Duncan]

28. Wha?

You understand yourself better because of a pole?
I don't fit this at all (except being middle aged) and I am an Edwards supporter.
And as far as the conservative bullshit, Ted Rall and Michael Moore (and liberal old me) support Edwards.
My only explanation for why Obama beat Edwards is that folks are letting the media direct them to the candidates who promise to uphold the status quo while simultaneously promising big change, and for some inexplicable reason are neglecting to actually listen to Edwards. Could have something to do with the corporate cash Obama and Clinton have at their disposal I suppose.

[Occam Bandage]

5. K&R for fact-finding.

[readmoreoften]

7. There is no fucking way this is true. It's just CNN garbage.

Edwards is the strongest union candidate in decades. It's just bullshit.

[Exultant Democracy]

9. Durn facts always changing about reality all will nilly. (It happend it's true, sorry)

[SteppingRazor]

11. So, numbers lie? n/t

[jefferson_dem]

12. Yeah...sure.

It's one big conspiratorial pile of bs, 'readmoreoften'. :eyes:

[incapsulated]

13. Or...

This meme that he is the "strongest union candidate" is what is bullshit.

[frazzled]

19. Maybe you should read more often?

Just sayin'.

Look, according to these entrance polls, only 22% of the voters there were from union households (that's a higher number than the nation at large, I suspect). Of those, 30% walked in with their first choice as Clinton, 30% walked in for Obama, 24% walked in for Edwards. No one knows how that broke down after the realignments on second counts.

Regrettably, unions represent a smaller and smaller percentage of the voting public. And union households don't necessarily listen to the union endorsements: they vote like everyone else in the population.

To think that union support in today's America is a way to gain the Democratic nomination is to cling to the past. This is why Obama won, on an organizational level: he is thinking of what has to happen on the ground in today's America, not the America of 1960. This is a generational shift. It calls for a generationally different campaign strategy. Now, that doesn't mean that all three candidates don't support labor or want to strengthen unions: I'm talking about strategy on the ground. Obama won the strategy on the ground.

[MGKrebs]

34. It's not only that. Edwards tried to get union support, but not their money.

The national unions generally didn't endorse, and even when they did, he wouldn't take their money. What kind of message does that send to the rank and file? It's been getting harder to herd them all together lately anyway, but when different locals are even endorsing different candidates the rand and file won't be a "block".

[mrreowwr_kittty]

20. If all union members were as politically aware as you, Edwards would have done much better.

50% of union members in my state are Republican!

[Occam Bandage]

26. Yeah, fuck reality. Why doesn't it mesh with my preconceptions more?

[PATRICK]

27. Yes but endorsements

clout and money from union leadership has been most heavily given to Hillary. It would make more of a difference in big union states so the important thing in Iowa is just to physically win and give unions an excuse to say enough. The statistics in Iowa are like some whole life poll where real people in meetings, not reluctant phone answerers give an intense local sampling.

What really happened is what Edwards had to dare. To let them come in, organize new legions of caucus go-ers to swamp Edwards traditional attendee advantage, and try to out campaign them on the ground. This ironically might have been the better alternative, however it works out that if the other two had simply ignored Iowa and left Edwards with a media shrug and a vulnerability to ANY damage done by "absent" rivals because of the overall national media filling people up on the other two night and day.

It could have been worse if they managed to marshall more people by hook and crook to disappear Edwards or conceivably if Obama faltered to third. There is a big fight against predestination in which the only miracle that can happen is when voters make up their own minds. The country may not be ready for revolt instead of fuzzy change, but it should be. What we are is what we will get and settling down in any sort of fog or sidestepping means ever more danger of losing what fragile remains of democracy we have.

So Iowa has been a steep step up for everyone concerned about progress and national restoration. The right direction overall.

[incapsulated]

10. Very interesting

Thanks.

[OHdem10]

16. Barnes Fox News, Some GOPers voted for Obama to stop

HRC, They will vote for Republican in GE

Cnn reported last night Edwards and Hilary got the Dems.

[Renew Deal]

18. And you believe them?

What does that say?

[Adelante]

21. Obama and Hillary got the Dems

There weren't a whole lot of Republicans, but Edwards took 32% of that group and Hillary only 10%.


(76%) Democratic - Obama 32% (Clinton 31%; Edwards 23%)
(03%) Republican - Obama 44% (Edwards 32%; Clinton 10%)
(20%) Independent - Obama 41% (Edwards 23%; Clinton 17%)


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#val=IADEM

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. 32% of 3% is 1%.

If the data is true, the effect is small.

That said, the data is suspect.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

24. WE'RE DOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!1!!1!

[Renew Deal]

17. Makes sense. Edwards has the most conservative voting record of all the candidates.

Not a big surprise.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

22. Fascinating. Here's the neatest part:

Vote by Age Biden Clinton Dodd Edwards Gravel Kucinich Obama Richardson
17-29 (22%) 3% 11% 2% 14% 0% 2% 57% 10%
30-44 (18%) 3% 23% 1% 21% 0% 1% 42% 6%
45-64 (38%) 5% 28% 2% 31% 0% 1% 27% 6%
65 and Older (22%) 6% 45% 1% 22% 0% 0% 18% 7%

The percentage of the young folks equaled that of 65 and over!


:bounce:

[jefferson_dem]

23. That's a truly wonderful sight!

It's their future. I'm glad they are making a difference. To hell with the nay-sayers.

[Adelante]

25. I didn't notice that

What a myth-breaker. The kids are okay! :)

[jakem]

29. ls also interesting, that Obama beat Clinton with liberals...

despite the Hillar-ious attempt to paint Obama a secret winger.


:rofl:

[itsrobert]

30. Edwards won the "Cares about People" vote!!!!! 44 Percent

Not even close!!!! People who care about people vote for Edwards. Thanks. Try to spin that!!!!!!!!

[JI7]

31. kick

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. Odd data.

Sometimes information crosses a line and goes from "interesting" to "confusing".

Why, when aggregating the data, do they split the responses between married women and "men + single women"? In what way are "men and single women" a useful demographic?