Buyers Remorse Quantified. Dems reject Obama

[Iceburg]

Paul Lukasiak of Corrente Wire has published a rigorous statistical analysis of primary results.
This is a must read for all dataholics and dare I say -- all of the Superdelegates too.

Buyers' Remorse: How Rank & File Democrats Rejected Obama Once He Was Declared The "Inevitable" Nominee

by Paul_Lukasiak
Sat, 2008-05-24 19:36

http://www.correntewire.com/buyers_remorse_how_rank_file_democrats_rejected_obama_once_he_was_declared_the_inevitable_nominee

PART ONE: ALL VOTERS, GENDER, AND RACE

Ever since the media declared that Barack Obama was “inevitable” after February 19th, based on a two week period when an unprepared Hillary Clinton campaign suffered “10 straight losses”, rank and file Democratic voters have been sending a message. Rather than rally ‘round the “inevitable nominee” that message has been a consistent, loud, and clear message to the Democratic Party – DO NOT WANT.

In nearly every demographic category since February 19, Clinton’s percentage of the vote has risen, while Obama’s has fallen. This includes Obama’s supposed “strong” demographic categories such as voters with college degrees post-graduate degrees and voters whose income is above the national median. And Clinton beat Obama in the primaries in March, April and May in most of the major categories.

...

ALL VOTERS, GENDER, RACE—CHANGES BETWEEN FEBRUARY and MARCH- MAY PRIMARIES

Once voters realized that Obama would be the nominee, his support within most demographic categories declined, and declined significantly in most cases. Obama’s support declined overall by 2.3%

· Obama’s support among men declined by 2%,
· Obama’s support declined among women by 1.2%,
· Obama’s support declined among White voters by 4.8%,
· Obama’s support declined among Hispanic/Latino voters by 3.2%,
· Obama’s support declined among White males by 6.7%, and
· Obama’s support declined among White females by 3.6%.

...

Clinton’s overall support, on the other hand, increased by 4.7%

· Clinton’s support increased among Males by 6.0%,
· Clinton’s support increased among Females by 3.1%,
· Clinton’s support increased among White voters by 6.2%,
· Clinton’s support increased among Hispanic/Latino voters by 2.6%,
· Clinton’s support increased among White males by 10.8%, and
· Clinton’s support increased among White females by 6.0%.

...

ADJUSTED MARCH-MAY RACIAL/ETHNIC DATA --
2004 GENERAL ELECTION DISTRIBUTION
CLINTON OBAMA
WHITE March - May Primaries 39.5% 24.5%
WHITE General Election adjusted 46.8% 29.0%
BLACK March - May Primaries 2.1% 16.5%
BLACK General Election adjusted 1.2% 9.7%
HISPANIC March - May Primaries 8.0% 3.9%
HISPANIC Gen. Election adjusted 5.3% 2.6%
TOTAL March - May Primaries 49.6% 44.8%
TOTAL General Election adjusted 53.3% 41.2%

much more at the

[CJCRANE]

1. Once he was inevitable the MSM

attacked him more heavily that's all.

[nichomachus]

2. Keep posting this -- I can cancel my Ambien prescription

[AllentownJake]

3. I'm sorry

We have primaries in 50 states. We don't take the results of Appalachia and than choose a nominee.

[madmom]

21. Then why did Obama supporters want Clinton to drop out before all 50 primaries were held?

[AllentownJake]

The Obama campaign

Had been organizing in PA, NC, IN, and Oregon long before anyone ever called for her to drop out. I got my first call from the campaign in February concerning the PA primary. He also made stops in MT and SD dating back to April.

Just because some supporters on a message board say something doesn't mean the campaign says something.

[Gore1FL]

31. Because it saddens us to see her make a fool of herself?

[Arugula Latte]

37. Why did Clinton say it would be over Feb. 5th?

[The Doctor.]

47. To retain her dignity.

Honestly, some of us still really thought well of her when she was still viable.

[msallied]

51. Gee, why didn't all of the candidates stay in for all 50 primaries?

[Window]

52. Obama supporters give less than a shit about when Hillary drops out.

We just wanted her to stop her bitter, sore loser crap against Sen. Obama and to act like a Democrat. You flatter yourself, as do Hillary and the rest of her supporters.

[madmom]

94. Just how do I flatter myself? If you read any of my past post you would see that as a

former Edwards supporter who then supported Clinton and then became quite disillusioned with both current candidates. So maybe when you talk of self flattering, you should look in the mirror.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. Because we've had a nominee by March at the latest for the past 3 election cycles

And in the post McCain-Feingold era when our party has a fundraising advantage, it's important to get as much time where we can spend unlimited money against McCain as possible.

BTW I haven't called for Hillary to drop out any sooner than early June. But after that it gets to the point where it hurts our chances in November. The modern election cycle isn't designed for a brokered convention.

[Heather MC]

81. it's not so uncommon for loser to leave or suspend their campaign

Also Hillary keeps eluding to fighting this out on the Convention floor, historically that is never a good plan for the Dem's. Besides look how ugly this has gotten. If she had gotten sooner, she would not be suffering from a terminal case of Foot in Mouth Disease.

[roguevalley]

82. why did Obama pick up delegates from Hawaii and increase his

lead in Alaska? I realize that we are not appalachia but we have hicks and hard cases. Some of us don't even have teeth. I think we should carry the same weight as WV and Kentucky. spin that. :P

[hokies4ever]

86. Why did Hillary supporters want Obama to drop out before all 50 primaries were held?

The same sentiment as you wrote, even if it's factually incorrect: We have 50 states, not 50 primaries.

[madmom]

96. To all those who answered my post, I don't have answers to any of your questions, I was just asking

poster above me who was emphatic about having 50 primaries why do some want to end them before everyone gets to vote.

[Drunken Irishman]

4. That means Clinton should easily win Montana, South Dakota and PR, right?

If she doesn't win every one of those primaries, she should bow out, since clearly Obama is tanking and there is no excuse for not winning ALL these primaries, eh?

[AZ Criminal JD]

27. Nope. But she will get the most votes when those 3 are added together.

But I know, this is the Democratic party and votes don't count.

[Drunken Irishman]

46. Oh?

If Obama is tanking and she's surging, there's no reason she can't win all 3 primaries, right?

[AZ Criminal JD]

55. She is winning most of them even though she is being out spent

by margins of 3 to 1 and 4 to 1. People never win every primary because different candidates have strength in different parts of the country. But when everyone in the media is saying Obama is the nominee the people are saying no way.

[Drunken Irishman]

56. Winning most of what?

If Obama is tanking, she should have no trouble raising money and winning Montana (a state her husband carried) and South Dakota. We ain't talkin' big states here. If she's surging and Obama is tanking, Clinton better seal the deal with the final three primaries. If she can't, she's a loser and doesn't deserve the nomination and won't have any case for the nomination.

Dems the facts!

[Kittycat]

64. Seriously - hasn't he won around 2x the number of contests she has?

with a majority of blowouts?

[Drunken Irishman]

67. Don't you get it, the states that count are every post-Wisconsin state.

That's their new argument, she's winning states that voted post-Wisconsin.

Ok, well then she should have no problem winning Montana and South Dakota then, right?

[Kittycat]

63. She's being outspent, because her support is tanking - and Obama out-campaigned her.

She ran a crappy campaign, which is a good indication of how she would run her administration.

[Spider Jerusalem]

66. She's being outspent because her fundraising efforts have been lacklustre in comparison.

She's being outspent because she relied heavily on large donors who are all maxed out, instead of making an effort to get smaller donations as Obama has done. Whining about how she's 'being outspent' is silly, because if she's far behind in fundraising, it's because she's obviously losing, and because her campaign has been one of the great cock-ups in modern American politics.

[liberalhistorian]

68. Well, I'm in South Dakota and I can tell you that

Obama has a very strong chance of winning here. Not to mention the fact that our lone state congress critter, Democrat Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, our Democratic senator Tim Johnson, and our former Democratic senators Tom Daschle and George McGovern have ALL strongly endorsed Obama. In fact, Daschle heavily encouraged Obama to run in the first place, and his former chief of staff is now a higher-up in Obama's campaign.

[Drunken Irishman]

70. But, but, but, he's tanking!

[anonymous171]

5. Make her queen of appalachia then.

[davidpdx]

90. Not a bad idea

She can take her pitchfork and poke people with it while pretending she's a leader.

[davhill]

6. Clinton and McCain

Have done a superb job in tearing down the threat to their concept of politics as usual.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Fuck "correntewire"..........

and your pushing this bullshit here.

Are you even a Democrat? I've never gotten that impression.

[Iceburg]

11. Does math make you bitter Frenchie?

[FrenchieCat]

15. No, it makes Hillary a liar.

[Maraya1969]

54. I just did the math from the DailyKos site and what everyone is saying

is true. There is no way in God's green earth that Clinton can win. Obama only needs about 18% of the remaining 290 delegates. Clinton needs 85%

If the total delegate left were 10 then it could possibly be said that she could win 2 and win but the number left is 290. There is no way. She needs 247 of them. No way.


http://dailykos.com/

[grasswire]

71. are you insane?

ARE YOU INSANE?????

Paul Lukasiak is an American hero. If you don't know who and what he is, then I suggest you educate yourself.

Damn it all to hell. You Obamans are truly, truly nuts.

The world has been turned upside down.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

8. Correntewire = Taylor Marsh for Pseudo-Intellectuals

[Cheap_Trick]

9. what a load of horseshit

from a hillary shilling website. nice try, but

[Iceburg]

14. No ...its called math! I understand ...its tooooo haaard!

[FrenchieCat]

16. You wouldn't know what math was if it hit you upside the head.

[FredScuttle]

18. Here's some simple math you can understand....

1,973>1,779

[Cheap_Trick]

23. forget it

iceburg is too fucking dim to understand that 1+1=2, let alone that hillary is toast.

[Hawkeye-X]

76. Update..

:hi:

[jsmirman]

19. For some reason, that last graphic of yours made me

:rofl:

[Cheap_Trick]

22. ty. here's another one...

[jsmirman]

48. gotta go with campaign implosion, still

:party:

[democrattotheend]

10. If there's a clear case of buyers' remorse, wouldn't she be leading national polls?

[Higher Standard]

12. "Buyer's remorse" is a term I'll be happy to see go away

I mean, taken to it's extreme, one could say that since Hillary started in the polls with a heavy lead on all the other Democratic candidates, that she fell victim to "buyer's remorse" immediately. Then there was buyer's remorse to Obama in New Hampshire, followed by more buyer's remorse over Clinton in South Carolina. Nationally, Hillary suffered buyer's remorse, then Obama, and now Hillary is suffering buyer's remorse again.

It makes even less sense when applied to states that had not voted yet. How could there be buyer's remorse over Obama in Kentucky, for example, when nobody in Kentucky had "bought" (voted) either of them as yet?

[AZ Criminal JD]

28. Hillary has won 5 out of the last 7 primaries.

This is after Obama has been declared by his supporters to be the "presumptive nominee". I guess the actual voters aren't buying it.

[Higher Standard]

32. You miss the point

Buyer's remorse is something you get after you buy something. If they haven't bought it, how can they have buyer's remorse?

[hfojvt]

35. I get four out of the last 7. She lost Guam, NC, and Oregon

Won West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Indiana

Indiana was very close, and she lost ground in Pennsylvania throughout the six weeks of campaigning even with the Governor in her corner.

[AZ Criminal JD]

45. Oh yeah, I forgot she lost Guam by seven whole votes.

Delegates were split 2-2.

[gmudem]

42. And those are more important than the previous ones?

How about when Hillary lost 12 in a row? She's had no chance of winning since Wisconsin.

[TLM]

59. ANd how many of those were in Appalachia?

She won, 5 of the last 7... and lost what, 12 in a row prior to that?


Doesn't matter how close she is in the last lap... she's already two laps behind.

[AZ Criminal JD]

93. You mean states we need to win to win a general?

States that Bill won in 92 and 96 the last time we won a general election the last time I looked.

[wileedog]

97. SO why didn't she drop out when she was getting 'obliterated' in February?

[Liberal Veteran]

13. You don't say? Where have heard this before? Oh, yeah!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6119641

[anigbrowl]

17. Ah, LOL...there's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Perhaps CorrenteWire can quantify the Rush factor and so on as well. It looks impressive but it's ultimately shallow, assuming that various demographics work as a homogenous bloc across the country, irrespective of geography.

[JFN1]

20. If Dems are rejecting Obama, how come he's still raising so much money?

Hmmm...?

[JimGinPA]

24. And Yet The Superdelegates Keep Moving To Obama...

Odd.

[Perry Logan]

25. Cruisin for a bruisin, cruisin for a bruisin...

[movonne]

38. Iceburg stole your material...

[Iceburg]

40. I pulled an Obama :-) ... PerryLogan and I have the same campaign manager.

[Vinca]

26. I believe one of your minions already posted this once today.

It didn't make sense then, either.

[Iceburg]

29. Did you read the essay? /nt

[RainDog]

30. these numbers don't seem to match up with things like 1 million plus donors

and Hillary winning IN most likely b/c of Rush voters... the prediction was 8%, iirc, yet she squeaked by with a 1% advantage.

As of mid-May,

Gallup polls show Obama ahead of Clinton among all democrats 52% to 44%

May 19th Obama had a 16 point lead over Clinton

Obama increased his lead among all female democratic voters 49% to 45% in May, and, according to Gallup reports, lead in ALL voter categories over Clinton.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107407/Obama-Surge-Fairly-BroadBased.aspx

So you're claiming that people have buyers remorse, even tho, for this entire month, for instance, his lead over Hillary has increased? hmmmm.

[RainDog]

39. why are the Gallup Polls so different than the ones you're posting?

is the methodology the same? both are claiming to represent DEMOCRATIC voters, right?

so how can two different polls that look at the same ppl be different?

the Gallup polls show that Obama has GAINED among female voters, for instance. What's the difference?

[bhikkhu]

33. Cooked numbers from a junk site

follow the links, if you have nothing better to do.

[Duder]

34. So Hillary's a liar?

Sen. Clinton said the polls show that "more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman to vote for an African American."

[smiley_glad_hands]

36. Even a monkey can pull shit out his ass. eom

[skipos]

41. So this "buyer's remorse" will lead to Clinton victories in SD, MT and PR

and that will lead to a pledged delegate lead!!!
:woohoo:
Hillary/Baghdad Bob 08!!!

[vincenzoesq]

43. In your dreams, dearie.

Your thinking is flawed, and so are your numbers. Keep trying. You are going to wake up in November with a hangover. Poor baby!

[1776Forever]

44. You know this made me think of someone - Hmmmm oh ya its George W. Bush!!!

Yeah - that's the ticket! Georgie boy is just like the Hillary camp! When things don't add up their way there is always the George W. Bush/Hillary Clinton mathematical school of thinking! Get it! 1 + 1 = 3!



"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

— George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

[blonndee]

49. Probably a good number of "protest votes" & lower turnout among Obama-leaners who felt he had it

locked up. Either way, it doesn't mean a damned thing in the end when it comes to the nom. Poor, poor pitiful Hillary.

[cliffordu]

50. Maybe you should pay your way around here and stop wasting my

innernet tubes....

Other than that: Specious bullshit

[quaker bill]

53. Your stats don't explain this

very well at all. You might want to check the math. Note the trendline and how Hillary Clinton peaks at about 46 to 47, well before Iowa.

Also note that the marked shift to Obama, the point of inflection, first occurs in 2007. A further observation is that Hillary rarely cracked 40 during the entire "inevitability" period, and she has been on a shallow downslope since late 2007.

The effects of your reported decline in support are not observed in this data, which is a compilation of all major national polls.

[kwenu]

57. A waste of time. Obama is the nominee.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

58. Looks like anytime a candidate is called "inevitable" it's blood in the water for the media.

Especially when it's a Democrat.

[Stephanie]

61. correntewire.com is "the media" ?

Has anyone ever heard of this site before?

[grasswire]

74. Stef, you know I adore you.

Don't do this. Don't trash our own. Let whatever will be, will be, but please don't participate in the bottom feeding.

[Stephanie]

75. I'll edit

But WTF is he up to?

[grasswire]

78. last I heard, Americans were allowed to support any candidate...

...and to speak freely about politics. That's all I know. If we are past the point where we cannot disagree freely, then....I don't know what then.

[Stephanie]

80. Speaking our opinions freely, absolutely.

Manipulating statistics to undermine our nominee, not so much.

[Iceburg]

92. Perhaps Steph you would like to explain via mathematical proof or by equivalent rational

your assertion that the data and or its end product -- the statistics, have been manipulated.

[Stephanie]

60. check the rest of his blog

I used to know Paul at Salon/TableTalk when he was analyzing the FL/Volusia Cty data. I admired the work he was doing then. I wonder what's happened to him.


http://www.correntewire.com/blog/paul_lukasiak

For instance:

"I Did Not... “Have Sex With That Woman”/”Hear That Specific Statement”
Or Why Jeremiah Wright is Obama’s Monica"

"Gangbangers for Obama (a parody)"

"Sitting out November
Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on Wed, 2008-05-07 10:06.

Dem on Dem Violence 2008 non-election
I finally realized why I was having such a hard time saying that I’d vote for Obama if he is the nominee."

[Donna Zen]

72. Salon and Lukasiak

Watching "Recount" on HBO tonight, I thought about those two subjects. It was Paul with his spread sheets who first discovered the connection with the over-votes in Duval.

Lukasiak is good with spread sheets and a long-time Hillary supporter. These numbers are purely speculative because so many factors are missing.

[Stephanie]

77. So nice to see you, Donna!

:hi:

I don't get it - what is he trying to prove?

[Donna Zen]

83. My guess?

Hey, I'm from one one of the caucus states that doesn't figure in his data. We read the rules as saying that we needed to elect delegates...hey, what did we know about Paul's spread sheets.

[SoonerPride]

62. OBAMA IS OUR NOMINEE. PERIOD.

Hillary is an also ran.

[Stephanie]

65. Corection:

She is the LOSER.

[madrchsod]

69. oh no it`s going to be a disaster for the party and our country!

what are we going to do,oh my,what are we going to do?

oh well, i guess we will just have to accept our fate.

[Douglas Carpenter]

79. Gallup: Key Clinton voters are shifting to Obama // Average National poll Obama 51.2/Clinton 41.0

_____________________________

AVERAGE POLL: Obama 51.2/Clinton 41

This is average of polls from Gallup, Rasmussen, Newsweek, Reuters/Zogby,
Quinnipiac and ABC News/Washington Post

link:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

--------------------------

----------------------------------------

Average of National Polls - General Election:

Obama 46.9/McCain 44.0 = Obama + 2.9

Clinton 46.1/McCain 44.9 = Clinton + 1.2

The general election polls averages the latest polls from Gallup Tracking, Rasmussen Tracking, Quinnipiac,ABC News/Wash Post, Democracy Corp, LA Times/Bloomberg, IDBB/TIPP, Battleground

links:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html

---------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------

Rasmussen Markets data gives Sen. Obama a 62.0% chance of winning the White House in November:


"New polling from Minnesota was released today showing Obama retaining a double digit lead over McCain. Polling released Friday showed Obama with the advantage in both Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. In both states, McCain had the edge a month ago (see summary of recent state-by-state results).

The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows Democrats leading in states with 200 Electoral Votes while the GOP has the advantage in states with 189. When “leaners” are included, the Democrats enjoy a 260-240 Electoral College lead. Rasmussen Markets data gives Democrats a 62.0% chance of winning the White House in November (results are updated on a 24/7 basis by market participants). "

"Rasmussen Reports believes the race is over and that Barack Obama will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. We will stop tracking the Democratic race in the near future to focus exclusively on the Obama-McCain match-up.

link:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

[GoesTo11]

84. Totally invalid. Appalachian voters reject rest of country's choice

That's exactly what caused the statistics you cite.

If West Virginia votes to reject Maryland's choice, this is not buyer's remorse. This is different states having different results.

It would be buyer's remorse if Maryland wanted to now reject its own choice. Of course that election never happens, but according to national polls, more people support Obama now than did in February.

Logic can be tough when you're on the wrong side of it.

[ecdab]

91. spot on. this OP is just more misrepresentation of math.

Hillary is clearly the choice of Appalachians when matched up against Obama. But that has nothing to do with the rest of the country that has clearly been moving toward Obama according to the polls.

[OneBlueSky]

85. total BS . . . and that's all I have to say about that . . . n/t

[HuffleClaw]

87. all the FACTS in the world isn't gonna change the mind of the 'converted'

but its nice to see some facts for a change

some have realized that obama's 'success' is largely a media-driven myth. but its too late imo.

[haymakeragain]

95. Obama will be the nominee, vote McSame and

shut the fuck up, whiner.

[rucky]

88. Farmer Hillary's seeds of doubt are sprouting.

Just in time to be too late.

[and-justice-for-all]

89. I do not recall Obama stating that he was the nominee...

you should be bitching about the M$M instead...and as far as I can tell, he is in fact who majority of the people want.

I just left Correntewire, that person has decided to part ways with DU..A blog should be taken lightly, it is just one persons perspective.