home

DMR Poll: Majority of Obama Support Not From Democrats

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:46:59 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

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.

< New Year's Day - College Football Feast Open Thread | Iowa: A Mitt Romney House Party >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    DMR Poll: Majority of Obama Support Not From Democrats | 78 comments (78 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Independents (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by diogenes on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:34:16 PM EST
    The Democrats have two candidates, Obama and Hillary, neither of whom are running as leftists.  Obama gets a lot more independent support, and that is considered a "bad thing" (regardless of the implications for the general election).  No wonder people think that the Democrats have a death wish in presidential politics.

    whats funny (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:44:58 PM EST
    is that he takes liberal positions, but because independents like him in spite of that, he is evil.  The reason John Edwards has to run left is because that is the only place there was space left.  The reason he has had to go so far left is because Obaam has defined that center as so far left.

    Parent
    Since I started this all . . . (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Anonymous Liberal on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:04:00 PM EST
    ...allow me to clarify two things.  

    First, my point wasn't Iowa specific.  Regardless of what happens in Iowa, Obama will still have to win many other Democratic primaries to get the nomination.  His message IS geared primarily toward Democratic primary voters. He cannot possibly ride the votes of independent and Republican voters all the way to the nomination and his campaign knows this.  

    People who are saying that Obama is running a Lieberman-like campaign really need to step back and take a deep breath. Obama is running a campaign with a central theme of change.  He's promising universal health care, an end to the war in Iraq, and backing every other mainstream liberal position.  A few rhetorical missteps does not equal Lieberman 2.0.  Obama's message is clearly geared primarily toward Democratic/liberal voters and it is beyond silly to suggest otherwise.

    Finally, a technical point. The DMR poll says that 40% of its projected caucus goers are unaffiliated. I suspect it is very misleading to label these folks "indepedents."  I suspect that many (maybe most?) of these people are left-leaning first-time participants. In other words, they're liberal/Democratic-leaning folks who don't normally bother to caucus.

    There's a big difference between inspiring normally apathetic folks to show up and luring legions of voters from the other side.  

    Now who's not being fair? (none / 0) (#60)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:44:56 PM EST
    I would expect that you'd know the difference between a) policy positions; b) political strategy; and c) political rhetoric. You've instead conflated them all to dismiss the Connecticut for Lieberman comparison.

    Parent
    I'm not sure I follow (none / 0) (#62)
    by Anonymous Liberal on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:03:44 AM EST
    To go back to my original point from the prior thread.  Obama's policy positions, both foreign and domestic, are straight down the board Democratic mainstream positions.  In fact, he's much more of an orthodox liberal than Bill Clinton was (remember Clinton ran as a third-way "New Democrat" in 1992 and adopted/co-opted a number of Republican positions and the talking points that went with them).  

    It is only with his rhetoric (about unity, transcending partisanship, etc.) that Obama tries to appeal to independents and conservatives. And I think he's doing that largely for general election purposes, not primary purposes.

    The Democratic nominee will always try to reach out to independents and Republicans (because you need swing votes to win elections). Personally, I'd rather have a candidate who tries to reach out to independents and Republicans with inclusive rhetoric as opposed to someone who adopts "centrist" policy positions.  I think that's what Obama and Axelrod are trying to do.  

    Parent

    This comment demonstrates (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:19:43 AM EST
    you have never ever read me on the subject or simply never understood my points.

    I am not surpsied then that you take such umbrage.

    This has been a discussion of YEARS amongst many of us, including Paul Krugman and you are not even at stage 1 of it.

    Parent

    He has his policy positions, (none / 0) (#63)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:10:11 AM EST
    which are mostly fine, and he has his political style, which involves attacking Democrats, Democratic constituencies, and the Democratic brand. I think there's a serious problem with doing that.

    The David Broders of the world love that he attacks as he does, but what happens when Obama can no longer be the candidate?  The brand, the constituencies, and Democrats are discredited, and the Republicans can win.

    What's most offensive is the reason this strategy is likely to work: Obama is trying to win an already undemocratic Democratic caucus by inviting Independents and Republicans to choose the Democratic nominee.

    This all may be good for Obama in the very short term, but I do not see how it can possibly be a good idea in the long run.

    Parent

    Forget it (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:20:53 AM EST
    He is walking in at the tail end of this very long discussion of years.

    I will not waste any more time with AL.

    I am a little offended with him frankly.

    Parent

    It's depressing (none / 0) (#70)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:35:35 AM EST
    I beginning to feel that, even if Obama wins, Democrats lose.

    You think he can learn partisanship on the job; I am not optimistic.

    He seems the very antidote to Elliot Spitzer, an article about whom appears in this month's vanity fair, and which you must read.

    Parent

    excuse me (none / 0) (#77)
    by Anonymous Liberal on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:41:04 PM EST
    BTD,

    I'm sorry I bothered to comment.  Since this post quoted a comment of mine, I thought I'd try to clarify what I meant. I'm sorry that I'm apparently not arguing on a sophisticated enough level for you.

    Parent

    Any evidence of GOP sabotage? (3.00 / 2) (#14)
    by MarkL on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:50:31 PM EST
    If a significant portion of Obama's support is from Republicans, you have to wonder if the GOP is trying to game the caucuses to their advantage.

    This is the best argument (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 04:59:03 PM EST
    for a closed primary. That we allow two essentially open primary states to determine our nominee is outrageous.

    Parent
    Joementum (none / 0) (#1)
    by horseloverfat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:59:25 PM EST
    Support from GOP people is not a good sign.

    Case in point:  Joementum

    Yep (none / 0) (#15)
    by manys on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 04:16:12 PM EST
    Ha ha, that's the first thing I thought of too: which of the candidates is the Lieberman?

    Parent
    You're great at law (none / 0) (#2)
    by pontificator on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:04:45 PM EST
    but terrible at math.

    You're calculations assume that the total Dem voters and the total non-Dem voters are equal.  The total number of Dem voters are going to be much higher than the (previous) non-Dem voters, and therefore the total number of Obama Dem voters is going to be higher than the Obama non-Dem voters.

    You seem to not comprehend well (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:07:09 PM EST
    I accepted the DMR MATH!!!!

    You want to quarrel withthe DMR poll, that is up to you.

    I am TELLING YOU what the math is if the DMR poll is correct.

    What is it that you do not understand?

    Parent

    No, (none / 0) (#4)
    by pontificator on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:10:33 PM EST
    you are wrong.

    WHere in the DMR poll does it say that 50% of total caucus voters will be Dems and 50% will be former Repubs and Independents.  What is the assumption you are bringing to your calculation that more than 50% of Obama's voters will be non-Dem.

    If you take a deep breath and step back you will see that I am right and you are wrong, and this is not a matter of opinion.

    Parent

    Ok (none / 0) (#5)
    by pontificator on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:15:48 PM EST
    Reading the DMR article, it looks like 45% of caucus voters are non dem, and 55% are Dem

    That mean you need to take your Dem number and multiple it by 0.55, and your non-Dem number and multi0ple it by 0.45, and that will give you the right comparison.

    Parent

    That's what he did. (none / 0) (#6)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:17:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh frick (none / 0) (#8)
    by pontificator on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:20:19 PM EST
    You're right.  My apologies.  And apologies to A.  I read over his post too quickly, and it does appear he did the math correctly.  A is right that the numbers show more Non-Dem voters than Dem voters.

    Parent
    And finishing up the math (none / 0) (#7)
    by pontificator on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:18:28 PM EST
    it appears that the Dem number is 8.14, and the non-Dem number is 8.1, so Obama has more Dem voters than non-Dems, albeit only a slim amount more.

    SO there.  Nyah nyah nyah.

    Parent

    Nevermind (none / 0) (#9)
    by pontificator on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:20:45 PM EST
    Apologies, I read A's initial post too quickly.  He actually did do the math correctly.

    Parent
    that is PRECISELY what I did (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:24:46 PM EST


    Parent
    Did you NOT read the post? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:24:13 PM EST
    From the Des Moines Register:
    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.

    40 + 5 = 45.

    Leaving 55 for Dems.

    If you read the DMR Poll, you will see that it reports that Obama gets 27% of Dem registered caucusgoers and 40% of Independents. The ONLY guesswork I do is to assign 40% of Republicans to Obama. Do you think he gets ZERO PERCENT of them?

    After that, the math obvious.

    0.4 X 0.45 = 0.18

    0.27 x 0.55 = 0.148.

    Total 32.8%. Which is Obama's total according to the DMR poll.

    What part do you not understand?

    Parent

    I read the post too quickly (none / 0) (#12)
    by pontificator on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:27:04 PM EST
    You did do the math correctly, and your numbers are correct.  I apologize for the mistake.

    Parent
    No problem (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:28:15 PM EST


    Parent
    that's lovely math. (none / 0) (#17)
    by cpinva on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 05:28:26 PM EST
    however, it still doesn't prove the DMR poll to be any more, or less, accurate than either zogby or cnn, unless you have some data showing the makeup of those poll's respondents being different from DMR's.

    with that in mind, as well as the fact that the DMR poll is the only one that shows obama ahead, i'll take my statistical chances, and bet DMR is wrong.

    Different point (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 05:41:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Math anyone? (none / 0) (#18)
    by koshembos on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 05:31:56 PM EST
    Even if you change the basic assumptions of the calculation, Obama is still losing with Democrats.

    More significant is the fact that Obama attracts independents and the anyone but Hillary lefties. The first can be explained by the bipartisanship pipe dream and him being the most right wing of the Democratic candidates. The second is obvious.

    Driving earlier today I heard Obama promising under his regime:health care (which he clearly didn't fully offer), better wages (Ah? since when a president does that) and pensions (I don't think he ever talked about it before). He sounds to me very much as used cars salesman. Independent like it, the not Hillary find in him the second coming (even some Jews).

    All this doesn't imply that he will be a bad president. He has an average plus intelligence, dedication, knowledge of our society and can assemble a good team. One thing for sure, however, he is not a progressive, doesn't resemble one and will not consider progressive ideas even when offered.

    Let wait for Thursday.

    so non dems support Barack (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 05:57:23 PM EST
    and you have a post on another poll, that has him with high negatives?  These seem to contradict each other.

    Only if you believe the GOP (none / 0) (#21)
    by MarkL on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:05:11 PM EST
    support for Obama is genuine.

    Parent
    Non-Dem != GOP (none / 0) (#22)
    by Al on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:11:49 PM EST
    The article says that of the 45% non-Democrats planning to attend, 40% are independents, and only 5% are Republicans. So the bulk of Obama's non-Democrat support comes from independents.

    Actually your math is wrong (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:19:58 PM EST
    You have data on 3 groups versus 2 and combined them with no evidence that they should be combined.

    IT says he has 39 percent of independents, not 39 percent of independents and republicans combined.

    So it is
    .39 X 40 = 15.6
    .27 X 55 = 14.9

    So they are even

    then for repubs it is
    ? X 5 = ?

    Huh? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:27:33 PM EST
    Actually DMR says 40% of Indys support Obama.

    It does not say what percentage of Republicas ad I think I charitably attribute the same 40% support whe it is likely higher for Obama.

    So 40% of 45% ad 27% of 55%.

    My math is accurate.

    I do not know what you are talking about actually.  

    Parent

    It says (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:38:15 PM EST
    The article says it is
    dem 55
    ind 40
    repub 5

    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

    in the chart it says he has 27 percent of dems and 39 percent of ind. no data on republican support.

    yet you combine repubs and ind for your math


    So 40% of 45% ad 27% of 55%.

    it should be 39% of 40 % v. 27% of 55%

    YOUR MATH IS WRONG

    Parent

    40 of 40 27 0f 55 (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:59:08 PM EST
    and, according to you, ZERO of 5.

    Your insane belief that Obama gets ZERO support from the GOP crossovers is simply stupid.

    Go bother someone else.

    Parent

    Further from the text of the article (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:51:18 PM EST
    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.

    meaning 40 percent of independents not 40 percent of independents and republicans support Obama. which we see belows means it is 40% of %40, and if you look at the chart in the article it is actually 39 percent not for

    so 40 percent of 45 is wrong. his support more like 50/50 dem/independent


    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. Only registered Democrats can participate in the caucuses, although rules allow participants to change their party registration on their way in to the caucuses.

    Any how point of this you aren't a pollster, and no actual pollster would ever try to make these conclusions from the limited data available on this poll. This post is ridiculous.

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:57:57 PM EST
    You believe ZERO percent of the Republican crossovers are for Obama?

    Okay, what ever you say,

    I am not wasting my time with you on this bit.

    You are being absurdly ridiculous.

    Parent

    I dont know (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:01:37 PM EST
    You believe ZERO percent of the Republican crossovers are for Obama?

    my point is there is no data on it.    your post may be correct hey may have vastly more republican and ind support then dem.  YOU and i don't have the data to make an argument either way.

    Parent

    But you believe it is wrong of me (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:06:13 PM EST
    to assume even say 20% of the GOP support is for Obama? I think you are nuts to argue this point.

    And frankly, I will not argue it with you.

    I find it supremely stupid.

    You are on your own now.

    Parent

    i really dont think you should assume (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:23:54 PM EST
    you don't even know the criteria they used for party id.  that is the problem with this post its about 80 percent assumption

    Parent
    Actually I DO KNOW the criteria (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:25:54 AM EST
    Self identified as in all telephone polls.

    You really are very ignorant.

    Parent

    Definition of Independent? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:22:42 PM EST
    Does  the 45% include 1st time voters who've not yet registered a preference? How about voters registered Green or Libertarian?

    Iowa info (none / 0) (#51)
    by joejoejoe on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:35:49 PM EST
    The IA Sec. of State gives a total of 30% GOP, 31% DEM, and 39% IND with no breakdown of the IND figures. According the Green Party/IA January 1, 2008 was the first day you could declare as Green Party in Iowa. Past elections have had Libertarian, Green, and Socialist Workers Party candidates for Gov. but I'm not sure how it works for voter registration.

    The deadline to register to vote before the IA caucus was 10 days prior to election day so all the voters polled by DMR would have already declared a preference on their voter registration form. Iowa doesn't have same-day voter registration but they allow voters to make caucus-day party changes with a simple declaration.

    Parent

    TalkCrazy (none / 0) (#30)
    by joejoejoe on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:00:10 PM EST
    1. Obama flat gets more existing Dem votes than Edwards in the DMR poll.

    2. These so-called independents and Republicans must change their affiliation to the Democratic Party in order to participate. 100% of the votes Obama receives in the Iowa caucus will be registered Democratic votes.

    3. If former Republican and independent voters are unwelcome in the Democratic Party go tell it to Goldwater Girl Hillary Clinton, Reagan Republican Markos Moulitsas, and Virginia Senator James Webb. Why not January 3rd?


    Why indeed? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:03:46 PM EST
    Hell, why even ask for party affiliation?

    Let everyone vote in the Dem primaries!

    Why have a Democratic Party at all?

    This is the post-partisan politics you favor no doubt.

    It is at the heart of my disagreement with Obama's political style.

    You like it. I do not.

    You want the Dem Party to grow into a Moderate Republican Party.

    I want voters to become DEMOCRATS! Not moderate Republicans fans of Obama.

    I do not like Cults, even if they help a candidate from my Party.

    Parent

    talkcrazy is right (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:13:28 PM EST
    You want the Dem Party to grow into a Moderate Republican Party.

    Obama is to the left of HRC, and to the left of any of our past presidential candidates that we have had in a while.  Just because he doesn't frame every thing in partisan tones doesn't mean he wants to be republican light.

    I want voters to become DEMOCRATS! Not moderate Republicans fans of Obama.

    I do not like Cults, even if they help a candidate from my Party.

    Usually the first step in that conversion is voting for a dem candidate, you know like Reagan democrats, who stayed with the repubs.

    That is the fallacy that the blogosphere loves to repeat, if it isn't framed a partisan matter it is republican, or republican sympathetic.

    I think a bigger problem is when the Clinton's take a centrist position and call it the democratic one.  It shifts the entire dialog right.


    Parent

    Ronald Reagan (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:15:38 PM EST
    ran against the Republican Party? No kidding?

    You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

    Please, I am in no mood for this.

    Indeed, I am signing off now before I start insulting people in this thread.


    Parent

    Now Obama (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:21:03 PM EST
    is running against the democratic party? huh? please give me an example?  

    Parent
    I'll Give You Several (none / 0) (#46)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:59:10 PM EST
    Barack Obama in campaigning for president has:

    1.  repeatedly claimed social security is in crisis;
    2.  attacked healthcare mandates from the right, claiming they force people to pay for insurance they can't afford (never mind that his own plan includes at least one mandate);
    3.  criticized the political participation of unions, a core democratic constituency that he has previously courted;
    4. criticized "trial lawyers" another core democratic constituency that, while far from perfect, includes folks who work to enforce labor laws, civil rights laws, medical malpractice laws and other consumer and citizen rights;
    5. criticized Al Gore (a man who had twice been elected to national office of Vice President and won the popular vote in 2000) and John Kerry (who was nominated primarily because he was viewed as electable based on his Vietnam heroics) as divisive political figures BEFORE they even campaigned for the presidency;
    6. put out an oppo document on Paul Krugman,
    7. complained that Democrats don't respect faith;
    8. skipped vote on MoveOn; and
    9. basically endorsed at every opportunity the Republican spin that politics is so divisive these days as much because of Democrats as it is Republicans.

    And I'm sure that's not all, but there's only so much crap I'm willing to re-read.  

    Contrast that with the person you consider to be "less progressive" Hillary Clinton:

    1.  A voting record rated as progressive, if not more so, than Barack Obama's;
    2.  sent spokesman onto Bill O'Reilly to defend YearlyKos;
    3. her folks helped kill the California electoral college initiative that would have been disastrous for the democratic nominee; and
    4. she voted against provision to censure MoveOn.

    And previously, the Clintons and their supporters have helped start a number of left and center-left organizations like the Center for American Progress to help combat the voices of institutions like the AEI.  Hillary Clinton was also more supportive of Ned Lamont than Barack Obama was (although her husband was less so).

    There are things about Clinton I don't like, but she understands the importance of being partisan.  Building a progressive movement is about more than having progressive positions or building a following for one man.  Clinton and Edwards seem to understand that, Obama does not.  He has happily run against the democratic party if he thinks it will help him win.  That may be good for him, but I'm not so sure it's good for democrats.  

    You can say that Obama is the better progressive all you want, it doesn't make it true.  All three candidates are flawed.  Obama's flaw is that he fricking loves using rightwing talking points against his own party.  Now maybe other candidates' flaws outweigh that one for some voters, but they don't for me.  Framing and narrative matters.  If I've learned nothing more from the rise of the neocons, I've learned that.

    Parent

    so (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:20:33 PM EST
    what you mean by this is he has criticized his democratic opponents.

    your circular argument is I'm sure that they are the democratic position because he has more independant support?

     

    attacked healthcare mandates from the right, claiming they force people to pay for insurance they can't afford (never mind that his own plan includes at least one mandate);

    Mandates are not from the right or left. Some Unions oppose them. some republicans want them, insurance companies who are def more republican than dem want them.  If you read Krugmans crap column you would realize that he was making a hypothetical argument that he assumed Obama was making.  If you read his blog today he is now ok with Obama's position (which ironically is the same it has always been)


    put out an oppo document on Paul Krugman,

    which was proved true by his latest blog, plus Paul Krugman is not a spokesperson for the democratic party, he is a columnist.


    criticized Al Gore (a man who had twice been elected to national office of Vice President and won the popular vote in 2000) and John Kerry (who was nominated primarily because he was viewed as electable based on his Vietnam heroics) as divisive political figures BEFORE they even campaigned for the presidency;

    If you bothered to read the quote that this claim is based on you would see how dumb a statement it is.

    basically endorsed at every opportunity the Republican spin that politics is so divisive these days as much because of Democrats as it is Republicans.

    he has never said that, but i guess when you are in cult of clinton thats how you interpret everything.


     criticized the political participation of unions, a core democratic constituency that he has previously courted;

    Actually he pointed out that JE is hypocritical about his claims on 527.  He never said they shouldn't participate, he pointed out that their participation on edwards behalf goes against what edwards states his views are.  Nice spin though

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:24:11 AM EST
    He mean he has criticized the Democratic PArty GENERALLLY.

    You simply do not know what you are talking about.

    None of you defending Obama in this thread seem to.

    It is heartily depressing.

    Parent

    he can't speak for himself? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:56:52 AM EST
    i'm making perfect sense you keep making dumb characterizations about Obama that aren't supported by fact.

    I know it is a requirement to attack Obama if you write on this blog.  But come on when, you don't have anything refrain from making it up.

    You previous posts don't even match each other.  First he has high negatives, now he is winning with a coalition of democrats republicans and independents.

    It doesn't matter what the news is on Obama you are going to look for something to make it negative.

    Certainly Obama isn't perfect, but neither are any of the other candidates.  There is obsession on this site with attacking him.  

    Parent

    You want the right to change your mind (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by joejoejoe on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:05:31 PM EST
    ...but deny the right to anyone else in America. Is Markos forever suspect because he was a Republican? A young Hillary Clinton? Wes Clark voted for Reagan and he wasn't any damn green kid like Markos when he did it either.

    Why do you assume the worst of VOTERS who are motivated to participate and change their affiliation because of Obama's message? Liberal voting rules are one of the MOST progressive tools available. How is same day affiliation change any different than the same-day registration championed by Paul Wellstone, Russ Feingold and scores of other progressive heros?

    Obama is flipping new voters into the Democratic Party without changing his positions. Obama's a moderate Republican? Moderate my ass. I'm not a fan of scorecards but Obama's Progressive Punch score 90%, his ADA score is 97.5%, his AFL-CIO score is 96%. You want to know what a moderate Republican looks like? Olympia Snowe's Progressive Punch score is 35%.

    You confuse style and substance. You don't like Obama, it's a free country. You go around telling people he's a moderate Republican, I'm going to follow you around and tell the same people you're full of crap.

    Parent

    I confuse style and substance? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:01:56 AM EST
    Just shut up.

    That is simply a lie.

    If you have read me even once on tis yopu would not write that.

    I am done discussing this with you.

    Parent

    It's the Connecticut for Lieberman strategy (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:10:33 PM EST
    Except that this time, it's being used in a primary.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:14:09 PM EST
    The more the Obamaniacs get upset with the Lieberman comparison, the more THEY make it!

    Parent
    the more the facts (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:27:29 PM EST
    show Obama is ahead the more Cult of Clinton, Edwards is the perfect democrat crazies, will make up facts to say the opposite

    Parent
    That would be a comment worht responding to (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:24:52 AM EST
    If you know a blessed thing about the subject.

    Since you do not, it is not.

    Parent

    Obamaniacs (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:45:29 PM EST
    Nice word, right on the money.

    Parent
    After Iowa (none / 0) (#32)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:03:14 PM EST
    If the DMR poll is right and Obama wins Iowa with mostly non-Dems, how does that play in the subsequent contests?  Will Edwards or Clinton try to use that against him, at least after NH (which also has a large independent pool of voters)?  Has he angered unions and made them want to work harder against him in states like Nevada where they are strong?

    Obama will not win Michigan, he is not on the ballot.  Clinton is and will likely take the state (and I don't believe its delegates won't count).  If Edwards comes in third in Iowa, he's probably done, although he'll probably limp through at least until South Carolina.  Will Democrats, who he is currently splitting with Clinton in a lot of these states, move to her instead of Obama?  Or will momentum from the early wins be enough to convince Democrats to back Obama?  I tend to think momentum will be enough, but if it comes from non-Dems, then there might be an opening if a candidate can come up with a way to use it.

    If he wins by 7 (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:04:37 PM EST
    He wins NH and South Carolina and I believe the nomination.

    Parent
    Each registered Iowa voter (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:42:15 PM EST
    is limited to attending and voting a one caucus, right?  Can't vote in Dem caucus and then run across town and vote in Republican contest?

    I believe (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by illissius on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:25:21 PM EST
    you have to be there at 6:30 prompt. So unless you have teleportation and time travel capabilities... it's going to be difficult.

    Parent
    I believe that's right (none / 0) (#47)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:01:55 PM EST
    In fact, you have to register as a democrat (change your registration) prior to caucusing.  Of course, later you are free to change it back or vote any way you want.

    Parent
    The math used by Big Tent Liberal is wrong (none / 0) (#50)
    by truthseeker77 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:32:10 PM EST
    With all due respect, according to my math, Big Tent's claim and calculations are wrong, because he at no point used totals.
    Let's see.
    DMR polled 800 likely voters, broken down as follows:

    400 Democrats   (55%)
    320 Independents (40%)
    40 Republicans    (5%)

    Obama gets 27% of the Democratic vote= 130 Dems
    Obama gets 39% of the Independent vote=100 Ind.

    As you can see, in order for the claim that most Obama's supportrs are non-Democrats to be true, 100% of the Republicans would have to have chosen Obama as their favorite in this poll. (The poll did not publish the share of Republicans supporting candidate).

    Assuming the very likely scenario that not all Republicans chose Obama, we are left with the conclusion that most of Obama's supporters are Democrats, though by a modest margin.

    What? (none / 0) (#53)
    by illissius on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:29:08 PM EST
    400 * 0.27 = 108 (D)
    320 * 0.39 = 124.8 (I)

    And 400 + 320 + 40 = 760 < 800, but I'm not sure where that disparity originates.

    Parent

    Where do you get the "400" from? (none / 0) (#54)
    by truthseeker77 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:38:06 PM EST
    The poll was conducted among 800 likely Democratic voters. We are told that 40% of those are independents, and 5% of all respondents are Republicans, then 55% of all respondents are Democrats.

    0.55 x 800=440 Democrats
    and 27% of 440 Democrats equals 119

    Parent

    400 is what you wrote. (none / 0) (#55)
    by illissius on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:49:52 PM EST
    So that solves the 760 + missing 40 = 800 equation, at least.

    And 440 * 0.27 is indeed 118.8, but then where the heck did 130 come from?

    Parent

    My 130 was a mistake (none / 0) (#56)
    by truthseeker77 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:57:02 PM EST
    Before we continue, can we both then agree that the number of Democrats who participated in the poll  is 440, and that 119 is the number of Democrats who supported Obama?

    Again, my 130 figure was wrong, because 55% of 800 Likely voters is 440, and 27% of 440 is 119.


    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#59)
    by illissius on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:33:36 PM EST
    That's the math.

    And 320 * 0.39 is still, checks, 124.8, or round up to 125.

    Parent

    This is simply absolutely wrong (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:21:49 AM EST
    You can not even do the basic math here.

    Parent
    This thread is really humorous (none / 0) (#58)
    by Maryb2004 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:27:47 PM EST
    in it's own geeky way.  

    Lawyer blogs shouldn't do math.  Leave it to the accountant blogs.

    you say that like it's a bad thing! (none / 0) (#72)
    by cpinva on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:16:46 AM EST
    Leave it to the accountant blogs.

    i am an accountant (a cpa). as i read this whole thread, i alternately laughed and cried. i was reminded, repeatedly, of the old saw "there's lies, damn lies, and statistics"

    with regards to BTD's initial computations, they are technically correct, given his assumption that obama gets 40% of the 5% self-identified republicans. where BTD fell off the analysis board was failing, initially, to identify that as his assumption, since the DMR poll itself never made that clear.

    whether it's a valid assumption or not, i have no clue, but as long as you openly identify it as such, no one can argue your math.

    actually, as i understand the caucus requirements, the DMR poll is wholly wrong, in its basic premise: because all caucusers must be registered dems (or repubs), all of the respondents who actually do the dem caucus will be (at least for a brief, magical moment in time) self-identified dems.

    why a fair hunk of these newly enfranchised, formerly (however briefly) independent & republican caucusers support sen. obama remains yet a mystery. nothing i've seen here, or anywhere else, has provided a clear-cut answer.

    maybe they're all secret oprah fans, and are simply following her lead. let's face it, we're talking iowa here, not exactly known as the "excitement state", what else do these people have to do with their off time?

    Parent

    I did identify it as my assumption (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:12:01 AM EST
    Do people NOT read anymore?

    Parent
    HEre (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:13:08 AM EST
    Quoting myself:

    "(assuming he gets at least 40% of GOP "Dem" caucus goers"

    Parent

    yes you did, (none / 0) (#78)
    by cpinva on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:10:19 PM EST
    my apologies. i think i got down so far in this thread, i totally forgot that. scratch that part.

    the rest still applies.

    i am sort of curious though: what did you base that assumption on?

    Parent

    No! (none / 0) (#75)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:43:02 AM EST
    I meant it as a good thing!  

    Parent
    DMR Poll: Majority of Obama Support Not From Democrats | 78 comments (78 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment