Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 11:34 AM Mar 2016

Hillary's Surge Protector: Early Voting and the Sanders Campaign

So far analysts covering the Clinton - Sanders fight for the Democratic nomination have poured a lot of effort into viewing the race through some now standard prisms in an attempt to explain both candidate’s shifting fortunes. Patterns that emerge are used to forecast likely outcomes in upcoming primaries and caucuses. Some of those patterns have held up better than others. Once it was said that Bernie Sanders only performed well in states that were small, rural, and overwhelmingly white. That prognosis now has been battered. Washington and Michigan are neither small nor rural, for example, nor are they overwhelmingly white. Alaska and Hawaii are among the most racially diverse states in the nation in fact, with whites accounting for less than 22% of the Hawaiian population. While the Hispanic vote has favored Clinton overall, Sanders has come out ahead in that demographic on a number of occasions, so Clinton's advantage there has not yet proven decisive. Her strong showing with African Americans to date however has been pronounced and constant, even though Sanders has cut into her margin with that group somewhat in northern states.

So the presence of large numbers of Black voters in a state does indicate a clear advantage to Hillary Clinton as we move forward on the election calendar. Clinton has also been dominant in the South, but the bulk of Southern contests are behind us. Sanders has done well in the West, with California and Oregon still yet to come. First though loom a slew of states that don't allow early voting. Why that is significant I'll explore more below.

Basic election variables that have gotten close attention lately focus on how varying states select their convention delegates. Most notably whether that occurs through primaries or caucuses, and whether those contests are open or closed. Many have correctly noted that Hillary Clinton tends to do better in closed contests where only registered Democrats participate, while Sanders gains an advantage when Independents are able to take part too. Hillary Clinton has also run up a pretty good track record of victories in primaries, and Bernie Sanders has done the same in caucuses.

The election variable that seldom if ever gets much analysis is whether a State makes it easy or hard for voters to vote early, rather than wait for election day. All caucuses, it should be noted, are essentially election day only voting contests. The reason why the early voting variable matters so much for Democrats in choosing a candidate during the 2016 primary season can be boiled down to a pair of critical dynamics and the natural interplay between them: Voter Familiarity and Momentum.

Hillary Clinton has been a dominant force on the national political stage for decades now. She occupied the White House for eight years and is now campaigning in her fourth presidential election - twice for her husband and twice for herself. This is a first for Bernie Sanders however, who previously was known as the little known Democratic Socialist Senator from the small state of Vermont: A David vs Goliath type match up if ever there was one. For the whole campaign Sanders has been playing catch up with Hillary Clinton. In every contest in every state, be it a primary or caucus, Bernie has started out far behind. And in every state that he has seriously contested (with New Hampshire, and to a lesser extent Iowa, being the only exceptions) it has taken Sanders until the last week or so to significantly close that gap with Clinton, and in some cases actually surge ahead, in the final waning days and hours.

A hallmark of a long shot underdog insurgency candidacy is a difficulty in being taken seriously, first by the media and then by the voters. It's a cause and effect lethal dance that dooms most such efforts to failure. The only way out of that viscous circle runs through two long retail politics slogs. The fore mentioned Iowa and New Hampshire stand out as being unique, not just because of their rural white demographics, but also because for up to a year they are the only election games in “town” preceding the commencement of actual voting. Sanders was able to devote almost his full attention to those two states for months, and thereby break through a virtual media blockade against him through scores of personal appearances.

Bernie Sanders needed strong early showings in his race for President not only for the delegates they netted him, but also for the credibility they won him. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Sanders had no firewall to count on if the media narrative and perceived momentum turned strongly against him after New Hampshire. Fortunately for Bernie, he virtually tied in Iowa and won resoundingly in New Hampshire. Unfortunately for him though he would no longer have the luxury of ample time to introduce himself to voters in upcoming states before their own election days came due.

Lets look at what happened subsequently, when the pace of the elections began to accelerate rapidly. Nevada was up next, a caucus state where Clinton was always strongly favored. Though there was little early polling for Nevada, whatever polling there had been before the Iowa and New Hampshire contests put Clinton up by strong double digits. With his attention freed to devote to the Nevada caucus, plus some positive momentum behind him, Sanders closed that gap, ultimately losing Nevada by only five and a half points - after Clinton got a last second tactical assist there from Harry Reid. Sanders contested Nevada hard until the caucuses closed their doors. There was no early voting to help Clinton bank an early lead there fully weeks in advance. But with his narrow Nevada loss, most of Sander's momentum was blunted heading into South Carolina and the Super Tuesday multi-state marathon that followed, terrain that was always more favorable to Clinton.

Sanders concentrated on five states that day where he thought he stood a chance. He didn't have the resources, with time being the most precious of them, to stretch further than that. Bernie ultimately won four contests; three caucuses and the primary in his home state of Vermont. Sanders lost the Massachusetts primary by a whisker. Some questioned why Sanders didn't try harder to narrow Clinton's margin of victory in the Southern states that she swept, if for no other reason than to deny her some delegates. The answer to me is obvious. At that point his viability as a candidate depended on being able to put some W's on the board. Sanders emerged from Super Tuesday stronger, having won four states, than he would have with an extra 25 delegates gained through more strenuous losing efforts in the South, if winning those added delegates came at the expense of two or three of his victories that night.

Momentum is a critical and frequently underestimated aspect of this Democratic primary season. It is anything but intangible, it is as concrete as it gets. Momentum for Bernie Sanders is an ability to show that he can defeat Hillary Clinton, one on one, in elections. When it starts to seem like he can't, virtually all serious media interest in him starts to dry up immediately. When he shows that he can, Sanders lives to fight on for another week in the media mind. And when a previously virtually unknown politician attempts to overtake the most famous woman in the world in 50 states, over a concentrated few months time span, then being taken seriously by the media, at least nominally, is an important aspect of that. Adding extra Town Hall meetings just will no longer cut it. Here is an example of how momentum works:

8:21 AM. PDT March 29, 2016
“NBC NEWS POLL: Bernie Sanders closing gap on Clinton

Fresh off three victories on Western state caucuses over the weekend, an NBC News National Poll of Democratic voters shows Bernie Sanders closer than ever to Hillary Clinton.

The poll shows Clinton at 49% support nationally while Sanders has risen to 43%. The 6% gap between the two candidates is half of what the difference was just a week ago, when Clinton had a 53%-41% lead nationally, according to the poll.

The NBC News/Survey Monkey poll surveyed over 6,500 adults nationally from March 21 to 27.”
http://www.king5.com/news/politics/national/nbc-news-poll-bernie-sanders-closing-gap-on-clinton/108356836

Some might note that the polling period indicated above included just 3 days that followed the 3 Saturday contests referenced, but it is important to also note that Bernie Sanders also won three of the four contests held the previous week as well, netting more total delegates than Hillary Clinton during that week also. Perhaps more important than the literal polling period though is the changing media narrative here on display. While this story goes on to mention that Clinton still holds a “huge” overall lead in delegates at this stage in the race, that message is buried below a Sanders friendly lead, and the descriptive term “nearly insurmountable” is nowhere to be found.

The media attention that Bernie Sanders received after the March 1st Super Tuesday was not anywhere near as positive as that above. Just one week later though, Sands pulled off probably the biggest upset of the year so far in the primary state of Michigan, where he campaigned strenuously up until the vote, overcoming a strong double digit deficit in the process. Fortunately for Bernie Sanders there were just two contests up that week, and he ignored the one in Mississippi so that he could spend more of his time in Michigan. Fortunately too for Sanders, Michigan didn't allow for early voting. If it did he would have lost that primary too and with it any remaining chance to win the nomination. Bernie was able to generate a very late surge in Michigan that narrowly carried him across the finish line. Virtually all of Michigan's voters voted on election day.

So what happened the next week when five more states came up in the rotation? Sanders lost all of them, though two of them only narrowly. Sanders entered that week polling far behind in each, prior to reaping some momentum rewards from his surprising showing in Michigan. Of those five states however just one of them did not allow early voting; Missouri, where Sanders only lost by one fifth of a percentage point. In OH, voting began 28 days before election day, in IL and FL it was 15 days prior, and in NC twelve. Voting was already going on in those states when the national media was filled with reports of Clinton victories and Sanders losses, before Sanders had a chance to campaign inside of them in earnest . Think that didn't matter? Think again.

Consistently Bernie Sanders outperforms expectations among voters who experience the full campaign inside their states before voting on Election Day itself. Hillary Clinton only won North Carolina among voters who voted on election day by four points – she won that state overall by almost 14 points. The same pattern held true in Arizona. Bernie Sanders came out ahead there with election day voters (those who managed to have their votes cast and counted in all of that confusion), while losing by 17 and a half percent overall – because of early voting. There are other examples but those sufficiently make the point: Sanders closes strong. Where Hillary Clinton eked out her narrowest victories they were in states, with the sole exception of Illinois, that don't allow early voting: the Nevada and Iowa caucuses and the Missouri and Massachusetts primaries.

Where does all this leave us now? When viewed though the prism of momentum and early voting the next phase of the struggle between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party presidential nomination begins to look more favorable to Senator Sanders than most analysts have previously recognized. The Wisconsin primary falls a full 10 day after the Western Saturday caucus states that Bernie Sanders swept in massive landslides, after he had won three of the four contests in the week prior. For only the third week this year momentum now is clearly favoring Sanders (the others being the short one week windows after his New Hampshire and Michigan primary wins). So although Wisconsin allows for early voting, that does not work against Sanders in the same way that it has in prior contests.

Perhaps of greater significance though the primary calendar has suddenly become less frantic. Only Wisconsin will be doling out delegates on Tuesday April 5tth. Wyoming follows with a caucus on Saturday April 9th which should be favorable to Sanders, and no other states will vote again until Tuesday April 19th when New Yorkers will be the only ones going to the polls. That means that Bernie Sanders won't have to constantly hop scotch from one state to another in the run up to the Wisconsin and New York primaries like he had to during the crowded Super Tuesdays that happened in March. Bernie can more narrowly target his campaigning now to each state next up on the calendar – and that is when he always surges.

New York does not allow for early voting (though like virtually all states it maintains specific provisions for absentee balloting). Of the states that vote a week later on April 26th, neither do CT, DE, RI and PA. Only Maryland allows early voting for its primary held on that date. It begins on April 14th well after the Wisconsin results are in. But even though it's likely momentum will favor Sanders during the first days of early voting in Maryland, it still means voters will begin casting ballots there before Sanders finds much time to campaign in their state. Which is why it overall still favors Bernie Sanders that, aside from Wisconsin and Maryland, all of the contests in April are ones that are decided on Election Day only. If Bernie soundly beats current expectations in New York, the surge will be on. Just when Hillary's surge protector will largely be disabled.

27 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hillary's Surge Protector: Early Voting and the Sanders Campaign (Original Post) Tom Rinaldo Mar 2016 OP
People who vote early are usually the most dedicated supporters of a candidate. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #1
On a level playing field that may be true Tom Rinaldo Mar 2016 #2
it was true for the Obama campaign in the 2008 primary--they actually pushed early geek tragedy Mar 2016 #7
Obama had a special appeal to African American voters in North Carolina Tom Rinaldo Mar 2016 #8
Obama also had a very strong campaign organization. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #11
I agree with all you wrote here... Tom Rinaldo Mar 2016 #12
it will be a very interesting month ahead of us geek tragedy Mar 2016 #13
P.S. One of the reasons why my OP is as long as it is (other than me simply being wordy)... Tom Rinaldo Mar 2016 #3
Momentum in sports and politics=who scored or won last. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #9
Not true paulthompson Mar 2016 #15
Your post left out one important factor Gwhittey Mar 2016 #4
Unfortunately yes... Tom Rinaldo Mar 2016 #5
Excellent analysis! paulthompson Mar 2016 #6
I wish I had seen your post before I wrote the OP! Tom Rinaldo Mar 2016 #14
Numbers paulthompson Mar 2016 #16
Yes, we crossposted. I belatedly caught that it was compiled by you Tom Rinaldo Mar 2016 #17
Sure paulthompson Mar 2016 #18
It is one of the most important under analyzed aspects of this race Tom Rinaldo Mar 2016 #19
Favorabililty paulthompson Mar 2016 #21
That all makes sense. On top of the media falling all over themselves for Trump... Tom Rinaldo Mar 2016 #22
K&R! 🎶 Stardust Mar 2016 #10
How do you get that little musical note thingie into your subject line? Tom Rinaldo Mar 2016 #20
From my iPad. I was hoping they would display correctly on a non-Apple device. 🤓 Stardust Mar 2016 #24
I wondered if that is why they pulled out of WI. But are those early votes real? In OH, the Skwmom Mar 2016 #23
In the words of Nate Silver in 2008: Tom Rinaldo Mar 2016 #25
Recommend KoKo Mar 2016 #26
Paul Thompson's posts are definately a must read here - I agree Tom Rinaldo Mar 2016 #27
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
1. People who vote early are usually the most dedicated supporters of a candidate.
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:04 PM
Mar 2016

I think Bernie supporters are placing too much weight in that metric. When campaigns do GOTV, they make sure their most loyal, likely to vote people vote early--that way they can concentrate their GOTV efforts on less reliable voters. So, the vast majority of early voters would vote for their candidate on election day if there were no early voting.

Also, Sanders has now run out of caucus states. And he's also starting to hit a bunch of states where there are closed primaries--a big disadvantage to a candidate who's lost registered Democrats by double-digits in just about every primary.

I will repeat this again and again: Unless the discussion is of physics, momentum is a bullshit concept. It's bullshit in sports, and it's generally bullshit in politics. Clinton supposedly had the momentum coming out of her massive wins on Super Tuesday, laid an egg in Michigan. Sanders supposedly had momentum after Michigan, laid an egg in Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, and North Carolina. Clinton supposedly had huge momentum coming out of those states, has laid a bunch of eggs afterwards.

Beating expectations in New York and Pennsylvania and Maryland and Delaware and Connecticut isn't good enough for Sanders. He needs to win those states or at the very worst achieve a draw in delegates. Losing each state by 10-12 points would put his delegate deficit back near 300, which would be good night Irene.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
2. On a level playing field that may be true
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:16 PM
Mar 2016

But not when one candidate starts out extremely well known with scores of supporters already in place, and in many cases, already entered into a data bank from, for example, the last time Hillary ran for President. Us political junkies my already know a lot about both candidates regardless of where we live in the country or whether or not both candidates have had time to campaign in our state much already, but that is not true of the bulk of voters. Often Bernie's most enthusiastic voters are the ones walking away from one of his campaign events, ready now to give him their whole hearted support.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
7. it was true for the Obama campaign in the 2008 primary--they actually pushed early
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:41 PM
Mar 2016

voting. they blew Clinton out in early voting in North Carolina.

Only 10% of the vote in Ohio was early voting this year. IIRC the margins in Florida for same-day voting were the same for the early voting.

Obama was the clear frontrunner and had the wind at his back in 2008 when he went into Ohio and Pennsylvania. Clinton kicked his ass in both places.

The inability of independents to vote in NY and PA and MD and CT and DE primaries would tend to cancel out any benefit Sanders would realize from same-day voting. Even in Michigan, Sanders lost registered Democrats.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
8. Obama had a special appeal to African American voters in North Carolina
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:49 PM
Mar 2016

...and the entire South after he proved himself viable in Iowa. He was already being covered by the media as a Rock Star before that. As our first African American candidate with a strong chance of being elected President there were unique dynamics in play that cycle with the African American community in particular, and they were strongly represented among primary voters once the race left New Hampshire.

We will see how the inability of independents to vote in some upcoming states will play out vs the other variables - I did acknowledge that variable in my OP as in play. However the media has already been all over that aspect of the race: open and closed primaries. I focused here on something I believe is important that is mostly being overlooked.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
11. Obama also had a very strong campaign organization.
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:57 PM
Mar 2016

the best that's been assembled in generations

The Mid-Atlantic states each pose different challenges for Sanders aside from closed primaries--NY is Clinton's home turf and has a lot of black voters (Clinton still wins 2/3 to 3/4 of black voters in non-Southern states) and Pennsylvania it's age, Maryland is very heavily African-American and Donna Edwards is on the ballot for the Senate race there.

Sanders has a massive challenge ahead of him, and if he can pull it off then hats off to him, he's achieved his revolution.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
3. P.S. One of the reasons why my OP is as long as it is (other than me simply being wordy)...
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:23 PM
Mar 2016

...is because I went into some depth regarding the interplay of key variables. Momentum may be bullshit is sports where the performance of a player or players is not dependent on the amount and/or type of media coverage received prior to an event - but that is not the case in politics which is not a spectator sport. Media effects voters and momentum effects media, which loves to cover the hose race aspect of politics if nothing else.

I'm not going to repeat what I already wrote about in the OP but please note that early voting was underway in Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, and North Carolina BEFORE Sanders won Michigan, etc.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
9. Momentum in sports and politics=who scored or won last.
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:54 PM
Mar 2016

It does affect media coverage and excitement level amongst commentators and partisans, but it's not been observed to have any affect on actual vote totals.

Sanders lost same-day voting in Ohio and lost it in Florida by the same margin as early voting.

Pennsylvania is particularly challenging because the population there is very old, in addition to being registered Democrats only.

From 2008:

37% 45-59
33% 60+

And he's limited in how much time he can spend there because he has so much work ahead of him in New York, where Clinton starts out with massive advantages.

paulthompson

(2,398 posts)
15. Not true
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:19 PM
Mar 2016

"Sanders lost same-day voting in Ohio and lost it in Florida by the same margin as early voting."

Let's look at some actual numbers in Florida.

1.Clinton won among the 82 percent who made up their minds on March 7th or before by a count of 68 percent to 32 percent — a 36-point edge.
2.Clinton won the overall Florida primary vote by more than 31 points.
3.Among those Florida voters who decided who to vote for in the final week before Election Day, Clinton won by just 13.4 points — 56.7 percent to 43.3 percent.


And here's some more numbers from that same article:

Certainly, we know that pre-election polling predicted that Hillary would win North Carolina by 24 points, and on Election Day she only beat Sanders 52 percent to 48 percent. We know that, in Arizona, early voting put Clinton up by more than 25 points, and she then lost Election Day voting 52 percent to 48 percent. We know that she was leading in Illinois by 42 points a week before Election Day there — according to polling — and ended up winning the state by 1.8 percent. We know she was predicted to win Ohio by 31 points, and indeed led in the month-long early voting there by more than 30 points, but won the final vote by only 13.8 percent — meaning that she only won Election Day voting by single-digits, and possibly the low single-digits. We know Sanders won Election Day voting in Massachusetts as well.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/hard-proof-that-hillary-clinton-has-been-losing-to-bernie-sanders-for-a-month-now_b_9567212.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Is a pattern starting to become clear?

And by the way, yes, momentum does matter. Not in the sense of wins one week strongly affecting wins the next week, but Sanders has to keep the perception that he's a viable candidate. The mainstream media would love to say the primary race is over and it's time for everyone to rally behind Clinton (and in fact they've already tried to do that). That perception matters greatly.
 

Gwhittey

(1,377 posts)
4. Your post left out one important factor
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:26 PM
Mar 2016

Rat-Fuckery as All the Presidents Men has shown me rat-fuckery is not something to be ignored.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
5. Unfortunately yes...
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:36 PM
Mar 2016

But I chose to concentrate on under reported variables favorable to Sanders in this OP

paulthompson

(2,398 posts)
6. Excellent analysis!
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:40 PM
Mar 2016

Very impressive analysis, Tom.

I didn't know that so many of the upcoming states don't have early voting. That's encouraging for a Sanders supporter like me. Of course, most of those states have closed primaries, something that favors Clinton, so it's still an uphill battle.

For those who say it doesn't matter because early voters will vote the same anyway, I disagree. The polling data shows overwhelming numbers for Clinton when it comes to early voting. Some of that is because senior citizens do a lot of early voting, and they favor Clinton by 80 to 20 in many states. But also, Clinton has massive name recognition and establishment support. If you look at poll results, in state after state, the numbers have shifted dramatically once Sanders started making personal appearances, town halls, debates, running ads, and so forth. The more people get to know Sanders, the more they vote for him.

Here are some numbers from another post of mine in another thread, what I call the Sanders late surge trend. It's only taken place outside the South, but the South is done with their primaries.

Here's a look at all the non-South results, in order of election date. (Note that most of the data comes from Real Clear Politics, including their final poll averages.)

Iowa - Sanders virtually tied after being down by about 20 points a month earlier.

New Hampshire - he beat the final poll average by about ten points.

Nevada - he lost by five points, but he did 18 points better than the one poll from a month and a half earlier.

Colorado - he beat the one prior poll by over 40 points!

Minnesota - he beat the latest poll by 50 points!

Massachusetts - he lost, but he beat the final poll average by five points.

Oklahoma - he beat the final poll average by 12 points.

Vermont - his support in his home state was already basically maxed out - he won the state with 86% of the vote. But even so, that was seven points better than the one poll from a week earlier.

Kansas - he beat the one poll from a week earlier by 45 points!

Nebraska - apparently, no polls were done at all.

Maine - he bettered the one poll by 15 points.

Michigan - he beat the final poll average by 20 points!

Illinois - he lost by two points, which was in line with the last three polls. But the two polls from a few days prior to those had him down by 40 points!

Missouri - two polls had Clinton leading by five points and seven points respectively. One late poll had Sanders leading by one point, and the state ended up a virtual tie, with Clinton winning by less than a thousand votes.

Ohio - this is a bit of an anomaly. Clinton won by 14 points, which is six points better than the average of the last polls. But still, Sanders did ten points better than the average of the three polls from the week prior to that.

Idaho - he beat the one prior poll by 54 points!

Utah - he beat the last poll by 51 points! Plus, two poll prior to that one were off by 15 more points.

Arizona - he lost by 18 points, but that was still 12 points better than the final poll average.

Washington - no polls.

Hawaii - no polls.

Alaska - the lone poll from January showed Clinton winning by three points. In the actual election, Sanders had a 63 point victory margin!


Those numbers are truly extraordinary, probably unprecedented in US election history. That's why having early voting or not makes such a big difference.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
14. I wish I had seen your post before I wrote the OP!
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:17 PM
Mar 2016

I worked on this OP on and off for several days, mostly because it required so much research in order to make the argument I was advancing:

"Those numbers are truly extraordinary, probably unprecedented in US election history. That's why having early voting or not makes such a big difference."

I couldn't agree more!

paulthompson

(2,398 posts)
16. Numbers
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:29 PM
Mar 2016

Actually, it was my post. From this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511576753

In my opinion, it's remarkable how unnoticed this late surge trend has been. For instance, the 538 website hasn't written a single article on it this primary season, even though it's probably the most striking statistical trend of the entire season. As a result, they're continually surprised by how well Sanders does, week after week.

And the reason is clear, which I discussed in the other thread. Most people don't like Clinton very much. She has a like/dislike rating of about -20. Whereas people like Sanders a lot. He has a like/dislike rating of at least +10. So I think a lot of voters are planning on voting for Clinton as a sort of default loyal Democrat thing to do, until they learn about Sanders.

The differences in those like/dislike numbers are also extraordinary. Clinton's numbers are worse than any major presidential candidate since pollsters started polling favorability ratings decades ago. The only one who is slightly worse is Trump.

So, ironically, the two major parties may end up nominating the two most disliked candidates in decades!

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
17. Yes, we crossposted. I belatedly caught that it was compiled by you
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:32 PM
Mar 2016

I think you know how impressed I am by what you did there. I have this same OP posted at Daily Kos and I just copied you above post into the comments section there - giving you full credit. May I link there to your full DU thread also? (I'm heading off now to read your full OP)

paulthompson

(2,398 posts)
18. Sure
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:45 PM
Mar 2016

Sure, no problem. Also check out the numbers from the Huffington Post article in my post #15 from this thread.

And what do you think about those like/dislike statistics?

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
19. It is one of the most important under analyzed aspects of this race
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:53 PM
Mar 2016

Admittedly, I do see it mentioned from time to time, but the implications of it are seldom delved into. There is almost never any historical context provided for how low approval numbers play out in a presidential election foe example. And when you couple that with the difficulty Hillary might face in turning out the youth vote, it can be alarming. I hate being forced to count on the Republican candidate being even less liked.

paulthompson

(2,398 posts)
21. Favorabililty
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 03:59 PM
Mar 2016

I think that, if given enough time and exposure, the national polls would keep moving until they closely resembled the like/dislike ratings. Because why would someone vote for someone they dislike over someone they like? But Sanders kind of got screwed, because so many people voted on Super Tuesday and other early primaries before they had a chance to know much about him.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
22. That all makes sense. On top of the media falling all over themselves for Trump...
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:40 PM
Mar 2016

Bernie has always been treated as an after thought at most by the media this election year unless he does something unexpectedly impressive, then they might squeeze in a few mentions of him. . This upcoming slew of primaries is probably his last chance to do so. And very little early voting to get i the way of his momentum. His favorabilities have remained high throughout all this as more and more people are introduced to Bernie.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
20. How do you get that little musical note thingie into your subject line?
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 03:51 PM
Mar 2016

I just noticed it. Don't remember seeing that one before! Cool.

Skwmom

(12,685 posts)
23. I wondered if that is why they pulled out of WI. But are those early votes real? In OH, the
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:43 PM
Mar 2016

Bernie/Clinton breakdown in an overwhelming number of counties before one precinct was reported was a very similar split. It just seemed odd.... Bernie needs to keep the peddle to the medal in WI.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
25. In the words of Nate Silver in 2008:
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 08:55 AM
Mar 2016

This was posted as a comment to my identical Diary at Daily Kos so I thought I would add it here also because it is worth seeing in today's context:

“What you heard on television was, Hillary was inevitable, she’s up 20 points,” he said. “She’s up 20 points because people had heard of her. They hadn’t heard of Obama.”

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
27. Paul Thompson's posts are definately a must read here - I agree
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 09:59 AM
Mar 2016

And I'll use this as a chance to thank everyone who actually had the patience to read all the way through a very long OP. How very un-Twitter like of you all

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Hillary's Surge Protector...