Odd Polling Results (Democratic Primary)

[sterlingice]

I was just reading through the demographic stats on CNN and surveys say the most intersting things. Here's just some random stats, some surprising and some expected.

From South Carolina
* Howard Dean scored pretty well in the young demographic (13% in 18-29) but miserable with older voters (4-5% in other ages)
* Very few people in the state responded as something other than "White" or "African American"- only 2% claimed other ethinicity
* 9% of South Carolinians make over $100K per year?!? Then I remembered this is just voters.
* Clark had 2 sets of stats the caught my eye: voters that are more educated and more liberal voted increasingly for him. His greatest support comes from educated liberals (no jokes, please).
* Unions loved Al Sharpton: 15% of union household members voted for him. His other large support base, not surprisingly, was African Americans, of which 17% voted for him. Does that mean we can assume there are a lot of African American union members in South Carolina?
* Kerry played slightly better to veteran households, but Clark actually fared worse.
* The blip on the Republican voting radar is that 11% like Lieberman versus less than 5% of others.
* Only 7% of people in South Carolina describe themselves as having "no religion".
* Those with no religions like Dean much more than others while dislike Edwards much more. I'm not sure that's useful, tho, as I don't see anyone rushing to the presses with an "Athiests for Dean" or "Zealots for Edwards" bumper sticker.
* Of voters who made up their minds in the "last 3 days" versus "before that", Kerry saw an 11 point bump whereas Edwards lost 8 percent.
* On "why you voted", Kerry and Edwards tied on "can beat Bush" but Edwards won 48-22 on issues.
* No one said the economy was "excellent" and only 10% rated it "good". Those who said the economy was "good" or "excellent" voted 9% for Lieberman while those not on planet "I'm not paying attention" only gave him 2%. Make me think the Republican support he gets also think the economy is "good" or "excellent".
* For most important issue, 47% said "jobs and the economy". Another 20% said "health care".
* Edwards had some very high marks for "top canidate quality". "Cared about people", "understands my state", and "positive message" all got over 50%. Kerry's above 50's were "can beat Bush" and "right experience". No one else got above 15% on anything except Clark "right experience" and Sharpton "stands for my beliefs".

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Don't be too surprised about the income figure, or at least don't write it off as something skewed by the voting issue.

The 2000 census showed 8.1% of all SC households had income of $100k or more. And 13% of all married couple households were at/above that level.

I suspect you're forgetting about areas like Charleston, where over 16% of all families have incomes of $100k or more.

The ethnicity question also mirrors the population on the whole, with 97.9% claiming white or black, either alone or in some combination, on the 2000 Census.

Just some odds & ends from a guy who kinda lives with this demographic stuff everyday :)

[CamEdwards]

I also saw some surprising statistics (for me anyway) from both SC and Oklahoma.

In SC, only 2% of those voting in the Democratic primary saw national security as the top issue. In Oklahoma, that number was 6% (still 6th out of 6 issues).

Also, the electibility concerns about John Edwards. Among those who think the ability to beat Bush is the most important quality for a candidate, Edwards fairs poorly (21% in Oklahoma, 29% in SC) compared to Kerry (55% in Oklahoma, 58% in SC). I think in the long run, Edwards would prove to be more electable than Kerry.

[Easy Mac]

I concur with the findings of Jon and Cam.

And the jobs issue is huge here and if they pushed the message, I think SC could swing against Bush. Of course, Kerry said he is going to ignore the South, so he is missing what I think good be a very good and important grab for the Dems.

However, I'm not sure what jobs anyone could bring here. Unfortunately, most of the jobs lost here are manufacturing/textile. These jobs aren't coming back here regardless, not when the work can be done cheaper elsewhere. that means that we have a lot of poorly educated, underskilled people living here, and the jobs being created in America aren't the kind of jobs that most of the unemployed here are qualified for. Its more or less a no win situation here.

[clintl]

Actually, I disagree with you about the relative electability of Kerry vs. Edwards, for two reasons. One, Edwards is very vulnerable on his relative lack of experience. Two, Kerry has shown the ability to fight back when attacked, and I'm not sure Edwards has that in him yet. If he does, I haven't seen it. And I think that will be an important skill in the general election.

[Easy Mac]

I just like what Edwards said when a Fox announcer asked him if he would run on a ticket with John Kerry. Edwards asked if Kerry would want to be his vice president.

[sterlingice]

I also saw some surprising statistics (for me anyway) from both SC and Oklahoma.

In SC, only 2% of those voting in the Democratic primary saw national security as the top issue. In Oklahoma, that number was 6% (still 6th out of 6 issues). This one didn't surprise me at all. I can't speak for Carolina, but in the midwest, we're bored of "the sky is falling" message. Back over the holidays, when there was a terror alert of mauve or whatever, you saw a lot more joking about it than anything. No one takes it seriously any more: it's been shoved down our throat so much and we all think it's a coastal problem, part of that media "there are the important people on the coasts and then a country of yokels between them" metality. We're back to the ignorant bliss of "nothing can happen to us" even though OKC was barely 10 years ago. There are just so many more important things to worry about like not having any jobs.

SI

[CamEdwards]

This one didn't surprise me at all. I can't speak for Carolina, but in the midwest, we're bored of "the sky is falling" message. Back over the holidays, when there was a terror alert of mauve or whatever, you saw a lot more joking about it than anything. No one takes it seriously any more: it's been shoved down our throat so much and we all think it's a coastal problem, part of that media "there are the important people on the coasts and then a country of yokels between them" metality. We're back to the ignorant bliss of "nothing can happen to us" even though OKC was barely 10 years ago. There are just so many more important things to worry about like not having any jobs.

SI

I have to say this attitude never fails to drive me nuts.

[CamEdwards]

Actually, I disagree with you about the relative electability of Kerry vs. Edwards, for two reasons. One, Edwards is very vulnerable on his relative lack of experience. Two, Kerry has shown the ability to fight back when attacked, and I'm not sure Edwards has that in him yet. If he does, I haven't seen it. And I think that will be an important skill in the general election.

First off, a lack of experience didn't exactly hurt Dubya (or Clinton, for that matter). It just means there's less of a rap sheet for Republicans to use against him.

Secondly, it would be very poor form for Bush to go on the attack against Edwards, considering the relatively positive campaign he's run to this point. I think the civility between the candidates (not necessarily the parties) would be remarkable if Edwards were the candidate. Conversely, if Kerry gets the nomination... it's gonna get ugggglllllyyyy.

[WussGawd]

First off, a lack of experience didn't exactly hurt Dubya (or Clinton, for that matter). It just means there's less of a rap sheet for Republicans to use against him.

Secondly, it would be very poor form for Bush to go on the attack against Edwards, considering the relatively positive campaign he's run to this point. I think the civility between the candidates (not necessarily the parties) would be remarkable if Edwards were the candidate. Conversely, if Kerry gets the nomination... it's gonna get ugggglllllyyyy.

Karl Rove is around. It'd be ugly if Dubya were running against Gandhi.

[kcchief19]

Nobody votes on defense and security. People vote their pocketbook and this election will be no different. If the economy is significantly stronger six months from now than it is today, Bush wins. If the markets are off 5 to 10 percent, the jobs market hasn't improved and tax revenues don't increase to offset massive budget shortfalls at all levels of government, the Democrats will likely win.

I still don't believe the contention that Edwards is more electable than Kerry. Edwards has got a lot of weak spots that haven't been exploited. They haven't been exploited because no one is campaigning against him. Kerry seems to be looking to Edwards as his prime VP candidate, and he doesn't want to tear him down in the primaries. Come one -- how odd was it to see Bush on the ticket after he campaigned against Reagan's voo-doo economics?

Al Gore was a southerner and he didn't even win his own freakin' state. In the south, you have Republicans, Democrats and Southern Democrats, who are in fact actually Republicans. Democrats haven't won a majority in the south since 1960. Carter didn't win the south. Clinton won a total of 3 Deep South states each time for an average of 35 electoral votes, which did nothing but pad the final margin.

Times have changed. Once upon a time a Democrat had to win in the south because they weren't going to win a lick west of the Mississippi. States which have gone Democratic the last four elections total 99 electoral votes. The next group of states that have gone Democratic in three of the last four elections total 161, and that includes California, Illinois, Michigan New Jersey and Pennsylvania (119). A viable Democratic candidate will have won almost 220 electoral votes by just showing up and a viable candidate running a good campaign has 260 without winning squat in the south. Win swingstates Ohio, Tennessee or Missouri, and you've just won the election. Win all three and it's a cakewalk with more than 300 Electoral votes, and not a signle one out of the South.

The catch is that while a southerner like Edwards might pick off up to 3 or 4 southern states, a southerner who isn't Bill Clinton is going to have a harder time winning in some traditional northern Democratic strongholds. Now you've got to campaign to win some states you shouldn't have to work at.

Today's South votes Republican more than ever before. If you can add a southerner to the ticket to win a state or two, that's great. But even a full southern ticket like Clinton/Gore didn't win the Deep South, and they still won handily.

[kcchief19]

First off, a lack of experience didn't exactly hurt Dubya (or Clinton, for that matter). It just means there's less of a rap sheet for Republicans to use against him.

Secondly, it would be very poor form for Bush to go on the attack against Edwards, considering the relatively positive campaign he's run to this point. I think the civility between the candidates (not necessarily the parties) would be remarkable if Edwards were the candidate. Conversely, if Kerry gets the nomination... it's gonna get ugggglllllyyyy.I think you need to go back to 1988. Dukakis ran a relatively positive campaign and didn't get down in the dirt. Daddy Bush threw more mud at Dukakis than in any recent presidential compaign. Of course, it helped that the dolt Dukakis stood there and took it and didn't respond. If Dukakis had just once told Bush to shove Willie Horton up his ass, he wouldn't have lost that 17-point lead.

Edwards' problem is that he's got skeletons -- what trial lawyer doesn't? He has no experience -- Bush the first was the only non-governor elected since 1964. He's also running a lightweight campaign. The Two America's theme is catchy, but it's way too superficial. I think when the mud flies -- and it will with Rove around -- I think Kerry is more likely to take it and sling back effectively than Edwards would.

[BishopMVP]

Nobody votes on defense and security.Except in time of war. And we are in a semi-war state right now. Back in '92, Iraq was over before the election. Now, that situation is ongoing as well as the 'War' on terror. I still think the economy will be the biggest issue (and I disagree in a sense with SterlingIce - I'm tired of the Sky is Falling message when it comes to the economy, not defense), but National Security is going to be a big factor in the election.

The catch is that while a southerner like Edwards might pick off up to 3 or 4 southern states, a southerner who isn't Bill Clinton is going to have a harder time winning in some traditional northern Democratic strongholds. Now you've got to campaign to win some states you shouldn't have to work at.The country seems more polarized than ever. I didn't understand the amount of animosity towards Clinton and I don't understand the amount towards Bush in parts of the country. But unless you're considering a state like Pennsylvania a "traditional Democratic strongholds," neither Kerry or Edwards will have any trouble winning them.

[Desnudo]

A bomb gets lit off and that 2% jumps to 90%. People are fickle and live in the moment, see George I. Who's to say what will be the hot button issue in six months? Although it won't be foreign policy based.

My personal primary concern is for national security. The problem is that when the job gets done right, you never hear about it.

[sterlingice]

I have to say this attitude never fails to drive me nuts.
Except in time of war. And we are in a semi-war state right now. Back in '92, Iraq was over before the election. Now, that situation is ongoing as well as the 'War' on terror. I still think the economy will be the biggest issue (and I disagree in a sense with SterlingIce - I'm tired of the Sky is Falling message when it comes to the economy, not defense), but National Security is going to be a big factor in the election.
Do I need to point out that you two just helped prove my point. As I said, I'm in the midwest and the fact that you two from the coasts jumped on the message just goes to illustrate what I said.

This is NIMBY at it's pinnacle- no one is their right mind is going to put a terrorist attack out on the midwest when the media will jump on donut sugar found in a New York cop car as a possible terrorist attack. Back when the anthrax scare was going around in late 2001, KC had a couple of reports of it but you never heard about it on the national news. I'm guessing terrorists see this, too.

So, the majority of us yokels worry about other important things like putting food our their plates (or in my case, my job prospects for when I graduate in 10 months), which, as of late, hasn't gone too well. I bet people in Illinois are tired about seeing the stat that they've lost 20% of their manufacturing jobs in the last couple of years since it was in the paper almost daily when I was there for Christmas. However, which is more of a concern: the 1 in 5 chance of losing your job or the 1 in 1 billion chance you end up in a terrorist attack? My odds of being in a fatal car accident here in Lawrence, Kansas are probably thousands of times worse than being in a terrorist attack yet I still drive to class every day. So, by that token, which would you rather have your political canidate spend money on?

SI

[Ryche]

A major terrorist attack would be a blow to everyone's pocketbook, no matter where in the country it happened. 911 is probably at least partially responsible for half the economic problems in the past couple of years.

And don't get too comfy here in the middle of the U.S. It may have been domestic terrorism, but the largest terrorist attack before 911 was in Oklahoma.

[Tasan]

Do I need to point out that you two just helped prove my point. As I said, I'm in the midwest and the fact that you two from the coasts jumped on the message just goes to illustrate what I said.
Cam's from Oklahoma if I'm not mistaken.....

[gstelmack]

I didn't understand the amount of animosity towards Clinton
Really? The guy shuts down LAX for 2 hours to get a haircut (one example) and you don't understand why there was so much animosity towards him? When you spend your entire Presidency acting like you're better than everyone else and have a right to be treated like royalty, well, animosity is what you'll get.

Policy differences make me dislike candidates, attitudes like this generate animosity.

[Desnudo]

"Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" could have just as easily been about him. My issue was with his character. They didn't call him "Slick Willy" because he greased up his hair.

[Easy Mac]

Except in time of war. And we are in a semi-war state right now. Back in '92, Iraq was over before the election. Now, that situation is ongoing as well as the 'War' on terror. I still think the economy will be the biggest issue (and I disagree in a sense with SterlingIce - I'm tired of the Sky is Falling message when it comes to the economy, not defense), but National Security is going to be a big factor in the election.
And Bush takes a negative hit every day we spend in Iraq. The war is over (He said mission completed) in many people's minds, and now we have people dying over there after the fact. His dad may have gotten out too soon and killed his poll numbers, but I think the son is suffering from the opposite. He's been in there too long, and its hurting him in the way it hurt his dad.

[Castlerock]

However, which is more of a concern: the 1 in 5 chance of losing your job or the 1 in 1 billion chance you end up in a terrorist attack? My odds of being in a fatal car accident here in Lawrence, Kansas are probably thousands of times worse than being in a terrorist attack yet I still drive to class every day. So, by that token, which would you rather have your political canidate spend money on?
I am not personally worried about being killed in a terrorist attack. What DOES worry me is the economic destruction one would cause. And this is not limited to the site of the attack. Lawrence, Kasas is not insulated from an attack thousands of miles away. What also worries me is the loss of personal liberties. We have seen an erosion of personal liberties already and that's nothing compared to what would happen if attacks became more common.

[sterlingice]

I am not personally worried about being killed in a terrorist attack. What DOES worry me is the economic destruction one would cause. And this is not limited to the site of the attack. Lawrence, Kasas is not insulated from an attack thousands of miles away. What also worries me is the loss of personal liberties. We have seen an erosion of personal liberties already and that's nothing compared to what would happen if attacks became more common.
This, I will certainly agree to. I've gone from being thought of as a social conservative to social liberal in 3 years time without doing a thing. And, I am being a glib with my claims, but the fact remains, most people think it's a lot more likely they will be affected by a slow economy rather than a terrorist attack just because the odds of a terrorist attack are much lower.

SI

[BishopMVP]

So, the majority of us yokels worry about other important things like putting food our their plates (or in my case, my job prospects for when I graduate in 10 months), which, as of late, hasn't gone too well. I bet people in Illinois are tired about seeing the stat that they've lost 20% of their manufacturing jobs in the last couple of years since it was in the paper almost daily when I was there for Christmas. However, which is more of a concern: the 1 in 5 chance of losing your job or the 1 in 1 billion chance you end up in a terrorist attack? My odds of being in a fatal car accident here in Lawrence, Kansas are probably thousands of times worse than being in a terrorist attack yet I still drive to class every day. So, by that token, which would you rather have your political canidate spend money on?Sorry this is abbreviated from a longer post I had that got erased by accident. (EDIT - actually upon finishing and looking at it, it's much longer, but oh well.) I have no fear of being injured or killed in a terrorist attack. Not to be cold, but 5,000 out of 300 million is not a big percentage statistically. Even if I'm on an airplane, I'm not worried, so I don't think I fall into the sky is falling category.

When it comes to the economy, we have had arguments on conservative (market-based) versus liberal (higher taxes and more regulation) ideology, and the only real consensus that comes out is that it is a very complex situation where the administration has little effect in the short-term. I believe the economy is recovering now, and job growth is always the last indicator to arrive. If there is significant job growth in the 2nd/3rd Quarters of this year, Bush will likely win in an electoral landslide. If job growth waits until the 1st/2nd Quarters of next year, (assuming he's the nominee) Kerry could win and look like a financial genius in the eyes of many. If I really believed that Kerry had an economic policy that would greatly improve the country I might be willing to overlook his foreign policy faults. But I don't think that either Bush's policies are detrimental in the long-term, that Kerry would institute a better system or that the administration really has any noticeable effect on the economy in the short-term, and the differing economic policies would almost certainly have no effect on me and my job prospects.

In addition to the economic effects of a terrorist attack pointed out already, I want to add in my thoughts regarding foreign policy. I believe strongly in the power and sovereignty of the United States over the United Nations, which I view as a corrupt club filled mostly with dictators and countries looking out only for their interests. I believe we have done and are doing great things in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and that we can't afford to stop there and withdraw our forces now. If we adopted an isolationist policy (which is what relying on everyone agreeing with our actions would become) the steady flow of progress would stagnate in much of the world. The US is by no means perfect when it comes to foreign policy, but I believe in helping out those less fortunate to the extent of providing freedom and the base for democracy/capitalism, and if we did not stand up for these beliefs nobody else would, whether because of self-interest (France, Russia, etc.) or the inability to do so (Australia, Great Britain, etc.)

So when it comes to the election, I don't agree with the Sky is Falling message regarding the economy or national security, but when the main differences are on the economy, a much more complex situation with no clear answer, and foreign policy where I believe strongly in one side and against the other, that's what I'll be basing my vote on. Most people probably disagree with this, but I don't think I'm alone out there, and so dismissing national security as an election issue if foolish.

Really? The guy shuts down LAX for 2 hours to get a haircut (one example) and you don't understand why there was so much animosity towards him? When you spend your entire Presidency acting like you're better than everyone else and have a right to be treated like royalty, well, animosity is what you'll get.

Policy differences make me dislike candidates, attitudes like this generate animosity.I can understand why an attitude like that would make you dislike him, but I was referring to the people who hate Clinton or Bush more than any other person in the country and would vote for anyone to get them out of office. It seems like there are a fair amount of people, especially around here at UMass, that just know they hate Bush and want him out of office, but actually have no reasons whatsoever to back up the statement when called on it.

And Bush takes a negative hit every day we spend in Iraq. The war is over (He said mission completed) in many people's minds, and now we have people dying over there after the fact. His dad may have gotten out too soon and killed his poll numbers, but I think the son is suffering from the opposite. He's been in there too long, and its hurting him in the way it hurt his dad.If foreign policy actually does matter in the election, Bush would take a much bigger hit by pulling out before we finished the job than by staying in there.

[John Galt]

I am not personally worried about being killed in a terrorist attack. What DOES worry me is the economic destruction one would cause. And this is not limited to the site of the attack. Lawrence, Kasas is not insulated from an attack thousands of miles away. What also worries me is the loss of personal liberties. We have seen an erosion of personal liberties already and that's nothing compared to what would happen if attacks became more common.

I for one AM worried about being killed by a terrorist attack. Of course, a lot of that comes from living in NYC. With that being said, that is the primary reason (if I voted) I would never, ever vote for Bush. I think his continued presidency all but assures NYC will be hit with another major attack. Of course, the democrats all suck too. Oh well. Time to move.

[kcchief19]

When it comes to the economy, we have had arguments on conservative (market-based) versus liberal (higher taxes and more regulation) ideologyI can't think of a more grievous generalization. Economic conservatives who claim to love the free market economy rarely practice free market policies, choosing to artificially alter markets through a number of means, primarily tax policy. And I don't know ANY liberal who favors higher taxes and more regulation simply for the sake of higher taxes and more regulation -- the liberals I know favor a balanced budget and regulations that protect the American people and the environment.

If foreign policy actually does matter in the election, Bush would take a much bigger hit by pulling out before we finished the job than by staying in there.There are two times in the 20th century when national security/war played a major role in an election: 1916, when McKinley ran on the "He kept us out of war" platform; and 1968, when Nixon ran on his still-secret plan to get out of Vietnam. Today's situation doesn't compare. And foreign policy registers even less than national security.

This election as always will be about the economy.

[BishopMVP]

I can't think of a more grievous generalization.
Tell that to my macroeconomics professor. I just had to summarize a 30 page paper and give my personal opinion on the three styles of economics - conservative, radical and liberal. Conservative was defined as favoring no government regulation, radicalism as completely against capitalism and liberal as everything in between. I told him (in more words) that the paper was a piece of crap and that these were terrible definitions which would lead to 95% of the class falling into the liberal category, but in general it seems that 'conservative' thought is more free-market and liberal thought includes more government regulation and services, which are achieved through higher taxes (or deficits;) .)

Economic conservatives who claim to love the free market economy rarely practice free market policies, choosing to artificially alter markets through a number of means, primarily tax policy. And I don't know ANY liberal who favors higher taxes and more regulation simply for the sake of higher taxes and more regulation -- the liberals I know favor a balanced budget and regulations that protect the American people and the environment.
All the things you list for liberals are just more socially acceptable euphemisms for more regulations/taxes. This doesn't mean I don't think there shouldn't be any taxes or regulation, but call a spade a spade. And if you want to argue that most people are hyprocrites who don't practice what they preach, that's different than defining the schools of thought.

[CamEdwards]

Do I need to point out that you two just helped prove my point. As I said, I'm in the midwest and the fact that you two from the coasts jumped on the message just goes to illustrate what I said.

This is NIMBY at it's pinnacle- no one is their right mind is going to put a terrorist attack out on the midwest when the media will jump on donut sugar found in a New York cop car as a possible terrorist attack. Back when the anthrax scare was going around in late 2001, KC had a couple of reports of it but you never heard about it on the national news. I'm guessing terrorists see this, too.

So, the majority of us yokels worry about other important things like putting food our their plates (or in my case, my job prospects for when I graduate in 10 months), which, as of late, hasn't gone too well. I bet people in Illinois are tired about seeing the stat that they've lost 20% of their manufacturing jobs in the last couple of years since it was in the paper almost daily when I was there for Christmas. However, which is more of a concern: the 1 in 5 chance of losing your job or the 1 in 1 billion chance you end up in a terrorist attack? My odds of being in a fatal car accident here in Lawrence, Kansas are probably thousands of times worse than being in a terrorist attack yet I still drive to class every day. So, by that token, which would you rather have your political canidate spend money on?

SI

Sterling,

Yeah, I'm in flyover country as well. Maybe national security is important to me because I believe that without a secure nation, all else is secondary. What would another terrorist attack do to the economy? It could have a devastating impact, and by all indications, Kerry's response would be to raise taxes (probably for a week or so, at which time he'd waffle and decide to lower taxes). I'm not going to vote for that. I'm also not going to vote for a guy who's big job plan was originally to put millions of Americans on the government teat. We don't need another New Deal, we don't need a revisiting of a WPA program when the unemployment rate is 5.7% and the projected deficit is lower (in terms of a percentage of the GDP) than roughly half of the 1980's.

[CamEdwards]

I can't think of a more grievous generalization. Economic conservatives who claim to love the free market economy rarely practice free market policies, choosing to artificially alter markets through a number of means, primarily tax policy. And I don't know ANY liberal who favors higher taxes and more regulation simply for the sake of higher taxes and more regulation -- the liberals I know favor a balanced budget and regulations that protect the American people and the environment.

There are two times in the 20th century when national security/war played a major role in an election: 1916, when McKinley ran on the "He kept us out of war" platform; and 1968, when Nixon ran on his still-secret plan to get out of Vietnam. Today's situation doesn't compare. And foreign policy registers even less than national security.

This election as always will be about the economy.

You wouldn't the 1944 election in your summary?