How many Dems will stay home on election day if Clinton's the nominee? (polling data)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Any theories about this data? (Other than "The polls are fake") Leaving aside what people will actually do in 2008, why do they currently SAY this is what they will do.

These results are not what I would have expected/predicted.

If Clinton is the nominee:
...10% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents currently say they'll stay home or vote Republican
If Obama is the nominee:
...14% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents currently say they'll stay home or vote Republican
If Edwards is the nominee:
...16% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents currently say they'll stay home or vote Republican

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=29050
_______________
For comparison, if Rudy the nom 15% of pugs say they'll stay home or vote Dem. McCain-15% Thompson-16% Romney-21% (including 9% vote for the dem) http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=29035

[LSparkle]

1. My theory: It's KKKarl's "The Math"

Don't buy it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. You're Being Hoisted On Your Own Petard

When KKKRove was confronted with public surveys indicating the Rethuglicans were in serious trouble in 06 he rejected all of them and said his "private numbers" were better...

I see a lot of DUers doing the same thing for different purposes...

[bullimiami]

2. i dont think so. people that vote tend to vote and those that dont stay home.

how many of those people are from that kind of vote sometime crowd? probably many.
i dont believe it is a reliable thing to poll for without other considerations.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. Good point.

I edited the OP to emphasise that what's being measured is what people say today, not really what they will do in 2008.

[daninthemoon]

3. Nonsense. How could this legitimately mean anything?

:eyes:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. If your argument is "How could any poll on any topic mean anything"

it's consistent.

But if any polling data can have meaning, is this categorically different?

[Vincardog]

7. IT means nothing. Why not elect the candidate we want and Tell the CCM to STFU?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. Most polling is done by the campaigns, not the media.

If the candidates can know things about people's attitudes, why should the rest of us be in the dark?

[Vincardog]

75. HRC has a crooked a$$ pollster working for her campaign. The point is Why ask about the General

when the first Primary vote has yet to be cast? I still want to have a better (Progressive Populist) candidate then HRC. We do not need any more Corporatist.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

82. Pollsters poll on questions people want information about

Relative enthusiasm for different candidates is a reasonable thing to ask about.

Asking whether someone would vote for Obama or Guliani is asking about the genral election, and that's not silly. Especially when candidates make claims... like Guliani saying "I am the best to beat Clinton." It's reasonable to poll on whether that's true ot false.

[MethuenProgressive]

15. Means the DUism 'we'll stay home, & never vote for Clinton!' isn't Real.

Real, as in 'how the Real World' thinks.

[Old and In the Way]

5. Probably 1/2 of all of those "stay at home" votes reflect people

trying to push their preference in the primaries. Whoever is our nominee is going to have a pretty united Party going into the GE. Post convention can't get here soon enough.

[FiveGoodMen]

19. I know. They're just trying to get their way. You get the same thing with Obama, Kucinich, Dodd

Tons of people threaten not to vote if those candidates get the nod as well.

[BootinUp]

8. Add this poll result to

further evidence Edwards is not the most electable.

[SaveElmer]

9. I bet you every one of those 6% are DU members...nt

[Mojambo]

10. I will not be staying home in any event

But Senator Clinton has not earned my vote as of yet.

[Cameron27]

11. Very interesting,

thanks.

[MethuenProgressive]

12. More will stay home/vote GOP if Obama or Edwards is the nom.

That's real world data, not DU world noise.

[Adelante]

28. Clinton and Obama are very close on those

Probably within the MOE, no?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

31. Those are thin slices, so all are probably imprecise

Even if all three have the same numbers it would still tell an interesting tale. It's the "dog that doesn't bark"

I would have expected a detectable core of Hillary-hate in the figures that would be quite diffeent from the Obama or Edwards disaffection.

[durrrty libby]

13. Denial..Denial...Denial That's The DU MO

[OHdem10]

14. Every person should vote--If you must do not vote for President.

No one should miss voting. Other persons running for congress
need your vote. Simply leave the Presidential slot blank.

I of course do not recommend this. I plan to vote for whomever
wins.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. Amen to that

[Nedsdag]

18. That's what I plan to do.

I'm voting but not for Hillary. I'll vote for the down ticket because Lautenberg is up for re-election and he'll need all the help he can get.

[skipos]

20. I used to claim that HRC was the least electable

for a number of reasons. I have to admit though, lately the polls have been indicating otherwise. The relentless smears on DU (which is different than criticism) has lead me to defend her a lot the last few weeks, where I never did before. At all.
She won't get my primary vote regardless.

[skipos]

21. Has there been a Republican version of this by any pollster?

Trying to measure enthusiasm?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. They (gallup) looked into Repub enthusiasm also:

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=29035

______________

These comments are just about Rudy:

...the same internal measures in our most recent poll which look so good for Hillary don’t look nearly as good for Rudy Giuliani. As I wrote here, it’s modified good news for Giuliani that he is supported “enthusiastically” by a slight majority of Republicans, considerably more than support the candidacy of the other GOP candidates enthusiastically. But that 51% enthusiasm measure for a Giuliani candidacy pales beside the 67% enthusiastic support Democrats give a possible Hillary candidacy.

While the sample size of Republicans voting for Giuliani is small, the data show that only 45% of his voters say they are certain to vote for him, while the rest say they might change their minds or they don’t know. Again, that compares to almost two-thirds of Democrats voting for Hillary who say they are certain to vote for her.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/gallup/2007/10/where-things-st.html
_______________
For comparison, if Rudy the nom 15% of pugs say they'll stay home or vote Dem. McCain-15% Thompson-16% Romney-21% (including 9% vote for the dem) http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=29035

[robinlynne]

23. There are 13 months till then. Do we really have to debate this right now?

[Adelante]

25. Candidates are making electability arguments right now

Nothing wrong with talking about it.

[robinlynne]

you're right, nothing wrong with talking about it. But I wish people would take this

great big energy and use it to help stop the fisa bill, or something we can do NOW.
and also, the centrist democrats have a campaign here on DU to crucify anyone who says he/she wont vote for hillary, and this poll could be used for that.

[Adelante]

34. The crucify thing, frankly, I don't care

I've decided to let everybody else pull each other's hair out in the interest of my blood pressure level. I don't care who here will or won't vote for Hillary. I only know I am voting for Obama in the primary and I will vote for the nominee whoever that turns out to be. What anybody else does is not my business. And so far nobody's tried to crucify me, so I think it's the best approach for me.

But doing something NOW, I'm with you. In fact, I'm working on pressuring for the Webb amendment to get out of committee. Including pressuring all of the Senate, Harry Reid, and Clinton and every other candidate, since four of them are on the committee where it's stalled.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

38. Bless you! re: "working on pressuring for the Webb amendment to get out of committee"

[Adelante]

54. Anybody can join in to stop war on Iran

The amendment reads:

To prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.

(Introduced in Senate)

S 759 IS

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 759

To prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 5, 2007

Mr. WEBB introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

To prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS IN IRAN.

(a) Prohibition- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds appropriated or otherwise made available by any Act, including any Act enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act, may be obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above the territory of Iran, or within the territorial waters of Iran, except pursuant to a specific authorization of Congress enacted in a statute enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Exceptions- The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to military operations or activities as follows:

(1) Military operations or activities to directly repel an attack launched from within the territory of Iran.

(2) Military operations or activities to directly thwart an imminent attack to be launched from within the territory of Iran.

(3) Military operations or activities in hot pursuit of forces engaged outside the territory of Iran who thereafter enter into Iran.

(4) Military operations or activities connected with the intelligence or intelligence-related activities of the United States Government.

(c) Report- Not later than 24 hours after determining to utilize funds referred to in subsection (a) for purposes of a military operation described in subsection (b), the President shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the determination, including a justification for the determination.

(d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined- In this section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--

(1) the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Relations and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and

(2) the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.759:

Here is the note I sent to Clinton on her Senate site:

Dear Senator Clinton:

I am pleased that you are co-sponsoring Senator Webb's bill S. 759, reaffirming Congressional power to declare war and prohibiting the use of funds for military operations in Iran absent congressional authorization. I write to urge you to do more. Please apply your influence in the Senate to press for the Webb-Clinton amendment to be immediately addressed by the Foreign Relations Committee and convince your Senatorial colleagues to commit their votes to its passage. Thank you.

Biden, Dodd, Obama and Webb are all on the Foreign Relations Committee, so I wrote to all of them this morning and tomorrow plan to write to the rest of the committee and Harry Reid. The names of the committee members can be clicked to go to their own sites for the forms.

http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/about.html

After that, I will write to every single senator in the Senate and then start on letters to editors.

There have been several threads on this since March, but it's hard to get people interested in doing anything about it. Especially now, because electoral politics colors everything. But Democracy in Action has revived the issue and you can write to your own Senator here:

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/justforeignpolicy.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=11120


Aside from the Webb amendment, you can send a message to Bush from General Clark's Stop Iran War site:

http://stopiranwar.com/


So it's a little bit of work, but if DUers do what they can with it, we might get someplace.

[robinlynne]

58. what is the webb amendment? pardon my ignorance.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

61. Precluding use of military funds to attack Iran

[robinlynne]

63. oh ok. I have FISA on my mind.

[Adelante]

64. See post 54, robinlynne nt

[durrrty libby]

36. The poll is truth and proves how out of touch the nasty haters

from the DU have been

It validates so much

[Adelante]

24. Interesting

Clinton's got the strongest base and doesn't add any more significantly to a vote for the Republican than the other two. Edwards has the weakest base since almost half of his vote is going against the Republican rather than for him. And the white guy keeps more people not voting than the black guy or the woman. More and more I have to question the netroots judgment on these things.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

27. These are just Dems. The white guy might play better with pugs & inds

But it does look like Being black or female is not impediment within the party, so that's progress.

Apparantly there's a hardcore of Edwards hatred within the party thta is at least equal to the Hillary-hatred. I don't know what accounts for that. We don't see it because those folks are not at DU.

[Adelante]

33. The candidate-hate thing is an eye opener

But I think it is a trust matter more than hate. Too much change from one election to the next, leading to voter confusion. You know, like, where's that other guy?

[Bitwit1234]

26. If the do they should have their ass kicked. List em here we'll track em down

[lastliberalintexas]

30. Yes sir, Sen McCarthy, sir

I apologize up front if your post was sarcasm, but if not, :wtf:

[lastliberalintexas]

29. One important option is not included in the polling

If Clinton is our nominee, I will not vote for her or the republican, but I will still vote. I'll be the lone vote you see reported in the astonished Texas media for Segolene Royal. :)


And please, my vote hasn't mattered or counted in Texas for years, so spare me the flames.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

32. Yeah, I would have expected a third party option.

[Tejanocrat]

35. Isn't the more salient question how many Repubs will go to the polls who would have stayed home?

[Alexander]

37. Fewer people have heard of Obama and Edwards.

This poll should be accompanied by a favorability/opinion poll of the three candidates to judge how well the respondents knew each one.

[Adelante]

39. I don't think that still is true

From numbers I've seen. It started out that way, though.

[Alexander]

41. A lot of people have never even heard of Dick Cheney.

You'd be surprised. I think a lot of people, particularly with Obama, either don't know him or don't know enough to form an opinion.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

46. True, but if someone asked me "If Fred Squigawitz were the Democratic nominee..."

I would not answer "I would vote for the republican."

So those few responses are probably based on antipathy more than unfamiliarity.

The "not vote" are different.

Last I saw, Obama's name rcognition was above 90% among self-identified Dems. Even though Edwards ran as VP his name ID may be lower. (Or people mistake him for the psychic John Edwards)

[Alexander]

49. But this can affect the "Don't know" and "Vote against Republican" totals.

Both of which are higher for Edwards and Obama. Neither one was even heard of until 2004 except by a few political junkies.

I guarantee you Hillary Clinton's name recognition is close to 100%, among everybody. Her name has been well-known for 15 years.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

53. No Doubt. Highest name recognition in the race on either side.

I was just saying that in a poll of Dems (like this one) a few respondents would say they would vote for any dem, even if they weren't very familiar with him. So that would supress the factor somewhat.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the stay home/vote pug factor was actually the same for all three, adjusted for familiarity.

[Adelante]

56. Rinsd probably has the numbers

She's very diligent. But for a while now name recognition hasn't been playing into the polls, anyway. But I think probably you're right that even if people recognize Obama's name they may not be terribly informed on his positions. Edwards, too, since most of his name recognition probably refers to 2004.

[rinsd]

67. Thanks for the compliment.

Though I don't have the proper equipment to be considered a she ;-)

Gallup has done some work on this.

Here's support by education level since we're dealing with perceived informed vs uninformed voters



http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28414&pg=1

Here's name ID



& Familiarity levels



http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28486&pg=1

[Adelante]

69. Are you single?

:D

[rinsd]

71. ...

:blush:

Currently seeing someone.

But thanks, that put a bit of spring in my step!

[Adelante]

74. Good, I'm glad

:)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

70. The familiarity figures may be a little old

At this point there's a big difference between Aug and Oct because the national news has only recently started covering the primaries a lot.

So if we add 5-8% to the Obama and Edwards figures it's probably more up to date.

I recently saw an Obama favorability with less than 10% unfamiliar, which surprised me. But I don't watch Oprah. It\'s really no surprise at all, I guess.

[rinsd]

72. I wish gallup would update those data points.

Best I can do is no opinion on approval/disapproval polls

Obama is at 13% no opinion for Dems and Dem leaners and 19% for all Americans.

Edwards is at 17% no opinion for Dems and Dem leaners and 21% for all Americans.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=28957

Also of note is that Obama and Edwards respective negatives haven't risen much and Clinton's have remained fairly stable.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

73. For what it's worth...

The total responses on that chart are Clinton 96%, Edwards and Obama both 94%.

So the no opinion/never heard of might be getting pretty low, at least among dems and dem-leaners

[calteacherguy]

40. It's the WOMEN. The women in this country (most of them) are about to make herstory.

Right here, right now should be her campaign song.

It's going to be a landslide. The enthusiasm will come from an upwelling of young women and older women who have waited long enough. And hey, a good number of men (myself included) will enthusiastically vote for who as well. She knows how to get things done, and will accomplish a great deal for progressives in her eight year tenure. I'll be even more enthusisastic if she choses Clark as her VP. They will be an unstoppable team.

Her time is NOW.

Edit: As for the "conventional wisdom" on DU, I have two words: alternate. universe.

[TwilightZone]

42. I'd say that it makes pretty clear that DU conventional wisdom about our candidates is...

misguided, at best.

Looking at the data a little different way, here's the total "vote for" percentages:

Clinton: 86%
Obama: 80%
Edwards: 78%

So, the theory that Dems will stay home if Hillary is nominee is not only inaccurate, the opposite is true.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

50. I'd call it a wash.

Such little numbers are inherently imprecise, so I don't put much stock in 14% vs. 10% or whatever.

But what is significant is that there is no easily measurable Hillary-hate factor... whatever it is, it is small enough to be lost in the noise.

Some Dems hate Edwards. Some Dems hate Hillary. Some Dem leaning INDs are hardcore racists who would vote republican before voting for Obama.

But it's all just low level noise, not significant blocs of voters.

[TwilightZone]

57. Agreed.

Simply put, the attitude toward Hillary here on DU is not indicative of Democrats, in general. This poll is a pretty good example. Another recent Gallup poll showed that 81% of "liberal Democrats" and 80% of all Democrats had a favorable opinion of her.

[illinoisprogressive]

43. yesterday a story out that almost half dems will stay home if Hillary is nominee.

But, I am guessing this is the same poll as the one that Penn put out saying 22 percent of gop women will vote for Hillary.
bwahahahahahahaha

[calteacherguy]

45. LOL. In what, the National Enquirer?

:rofl:

Historically, U.S. elections have had low turnout. In 2008, that's going to turn around....or at least significantly improve.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. Before The Net A Person Could Just Make Shit Up

I can remember back in the day when you had a factual argument and you had to run to the library for verification...

Why somebody would make crap up on the net is beyond me...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

68. Bill James wrote something about how the first publication of The Baseball Encyclopedia screwed up a

lot of old guys who had been in the minors when they were young, but always told everyone they played "a few games" in the majors.

D'oh!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. You're Just Making Shit Up!

Why don't you link a published survey of randonly selected respondents that shows 50% of Democrats staying home if Clinton gets the nomination...


GAME


SET


MATCH

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

51. Do DU polls count?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. I Fixed It

TY

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

55. I would guess that Half of Dem-leaners have stayed home in every election ever held

We don't get universal turn-out in America and Dem-leaners always lag pugs. That's how a minority maintains power.

So in that sense, I can immagine a person dishonest enough to blog a story like that without mentioning that almost half of dems will also stay home for Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Kucicich or anyone else.

[calteacherguy]

59. My thoughts exactly. nt

[TwilightZone]

62. Good point.

Turnout = 50%.

Hillary = nominee

Therefore, half of Dems will stay home if Hillary is the nominee.

Only problem is that A = B and C = D, does not mean A = F.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

65. No, but mysteriously C- does equal B (At least in Econ101 at Yale.)

[TwilightZone]

66. Hehe....

Nice. Very nice.

[TwilightZone]

60. In your household, perhaps.

Link to the alleged poll, please.

[LoZoccolo]

78. Voter turnout is typically 50% in any case, isn't it? n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

79. Yes, because they don't like either party

If they were staying home because they thought the Dems were too liberal, they'd vote Republican.

This doesn't necessarily mean that they're "left," but it does mean that neither party is dealing with their concerns.

[Rhythm and Blue]

76. Wow. There goes another talking point. nt

[liberalpress]

77. This question has a very easy answer...

If on election day, you vote Democrat you're a Democrat. If you vote Republican, you're a Republican. If you stay home you're pretty much an asshole

[BenDavid]

80. I'm staying home! I vote absentee....HRC all the way

[Rosa Luxemburg]

81. People will be taking into account her husband Bill when they go out to vote

I think Bill Clinton will be a big pull to voters

people should vote for the party