But.. (0.00 / 0)

but you have no personal investment as picking Edwards as VP. No, none at all.  

---

by: attorney at arms @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 13:47:56 PM CDT

And you have none at all in not having Edwards (4.00 / 3)

Just so others who happen by this diary -- your claimed as of last week was that you have no vested interest either way. but, every diary on the subject finds you posting disparaging remarks. You are also quite clearly someone not very interest in progressives despite what you say.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 13:53:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, I DON'T Have A Personal Investment (4.00 / 2)

For one thing, I have no idea if it would be a good thing for progressives for Edwards to accept.  He might well be totally frustrated in such a role.

My purposes here is to lay out the logic to the best of my abilities--and to clearly indicate the foundations of that logic.  What people do with that is up to them.

Believe me, if I was convinced that because of all the above then Edwards should be the VP, and that nothing else could advance the progressive agenda as well as that, then I would say so, flat out.

But I don't.  What I believe, right now, is that understanding is what best advances the progressive agenda.

The more we understand what's going on, what the possibilities are, what the alternative entail, etc., the better able we will be to act effectively together.

And, of course, so long as I can use this approach to shed some light on progressive possibilities, I'm likely to continue doing so.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 14:04:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Arrrrggggg (0.00 / 0)

Edwards is my favorite for VP. My comment is about something else.

Obama's FISA betrayal this week...

I'm extremely disappointed in Obama's cave in on FISA. I'm angry about it, but is every single ^%$#*@&^% post on every single ^%$#*@&^% progressive blog going to start off with

"Now that Obama has stabbed us in the back, here's my thoughts on global warming..."

or

"Today Senator Obama (who betrayed us like Brutus, remember? I told you so. Nya nya nya nya nya!) released his statement regarding Bush's policy on..."

---

by: Semblance @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 13:50:18 PM CDT

I Don't Know... (0.00 / 0)

Stay tuned to find out!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 13:55:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He won't pick Edwards or any progressive (4.00 / 3)

a) There is no political incentive to do so. Obama's support is mostly of the blind variety, that we are "tricking" the American public variety,  or the Mike Lux (I am smarter than you about politics) variety. There are other variants- none of them about accountability.

b) There is no incentive in the media

c) Most of the A list bloggers are centrist by another name.  Most, let's face it, are pretty much of the same background as the political insiders they claim are the problem or they want to be.

d) The power center in the party will be dominated by the conservatives because  many confuse Democrat with progressive. Rather than understanding the various axis at play (ie, conservative policies versus liberal politics)- they think there is only one. As I mentioned else where- this allows for the conservatives to hijack the party because the progressives are wasty resources on both conservatives and liberals. This is especially true as the GOP loses power. These people aren't just going to go away. THey are going to shift their power to a Corporate Democrat. So long as they have their thumb on the portion of the party that's in charge of the rest of us, then they don't have to worry about outcomes being different since as FISA shows- it won't be different. In fact, it can be worse- because no matter how extreme it can be labeled as "liberal." A little part of the chess came that's centrism.

e) The party mind set is still dominated by reactions to Reaganism. Most people are still dominated by that history.

f) The American people are asleep at the wheel, and reeling so much that they don't know how to deal with this. They are also deeply cynical about all of this. Jesus could come back and walk on water and they wouldn't believe it.

There are others, but this should give you a start.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 13:50:24 PM CDT

Wes Clark (4.00 / 1)

Given how cowed he now seems to be to national security issues, I'm starting to expect that he will pick Wes Clark.
 Which wouldn't be such a bad thing for progressives, as Matt has argued.

---

by: sb @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 14:23:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I expected him to choose someone who will not (0.00 / 0)

frighten the corporate interests since that seems to be the primary motivating force.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 14:48:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clark would be OK (0.00 / 0)

Edwards is a better because I think he might help more in November but Clark is still a solid progressive, so that's a good thing.  

---

by: Blue November @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 17:36:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would be fine with Clark, but I also think that he won't choose (0.00 / 0)

CLark for the same reason he won't choose Edwards. I am pretty sure at this point that if this is politics as usual that means centrism which is interested in corporate Democrats, not those who expouse returning fairness to the system.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 17:43:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But he is looking at Edwards & Clark (0.00 / 0)

And I think he's serious about both.  The "leak" by the CBC regarding Edwards and Nunn was about testing the response.  And Edwards backtracked from his definitive no to a "I'll consider it" for a reason. I don't know what Obama will do but I think he's got an open mind about this.  

---

by: Blue November @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 18:39:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We shall see (4.00 / 1)

I am as Rosenberg will tell you very cynical and skeptical about politicians.  

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 19:34:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Uh (4.00 / 1)

Obama's FISA betrayal this week puts a different spin on the strength that Edwards has shown as a VP candidate--it contrasts sharply with Edwards' performance as a progressive.

Now when you say "performance", do you mean performance, or rhetoric?

Come to think of it-- what do you mean at all? The worst we can say about Obama on his FISA issue is that he was with us during the primaries, but now that the issue is truly coming to a head during the general election he is nowhere to be found; since Obama opposes amnesty and will be voting against it whenever the Senators get their figleaf vote, his "betrayal" on amnesty consists only of not actively doing anything to stop it. Which, given that the active pressure of the nominee would be almost certainly enough to determine this bill's fate, is pretty damn bad.

But the same is true of Edwards: he was with us during the primaries, but now that we're in this post-primary malaise is doing nothing active to campaign against amnesty himself-- in fact correct me if I'm wrong but he hasn't even issued a toothless "I oppose the amnesty provisions of this bill" as Obama did. Given, since he is not a Senator and no longer has either the influence Obama has as nominee nor any particular access to the national microphone, there's absolutely no reason we would expect Edwards to be campaigning against or issuing statements on FISA at this point.

But still-- I do not see a lot of reason to take seriously the idea he takes this issue any more seriously than Obama. If Edwards was the nominee right now rather than Obama, how would Edwards act on FISA? The way that Edwards and Obama acted on FISA during the primaries, when they needed our attention and votes? Or the way that Obama is acting now, and Edwards acted before 2005?

John Edwards has a 50% lifetime rating from the ACLU, the lowest of any top-tier Democratic presidential candidate... During the 107th and 108th Congress, Edwards voted in alignment with the ACLU position 29% of the time, voted against the ACLU position 29% of the time, and was absent 42% of the time. This gave him a 50/50 rating from the ACLU, which is not particularly impressive for a Democratic candidate. On the other hand, it's worth bearing context in mind: Edwards served in the U.S. Senate from January 1999 to January 2005, during which most of the Bush administration's problematic counterterrorism bills were supported by the majority of senators of both parties. Edwards' biggest problem is that he simply wasn't present for six of the nine votes in 2004 on which the ACLU took a position. If he had been, his rating would probably be substantially higher.

---

by: mcc @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 14:03:19 PM CDT

What You're Doing Here (4.00 / 2)

is recapitulating the reasons that I and many other progressives on the blogs leaned toward Edwards for many of the things he said during the campaign, but remained largely uncommitted until very late in the game.  It was only after a long time that many folks became reasonably convinced that he really had changed in significant ways, and would make a better candidate and a better President.

But, rather obviously, given how late a significant chunk of the blogosphere came to support him, there is significant room to disagree.

However, the sort of analysis I'm doing here is very much dependent on broad public perceptions.  If I were passionately advocating for Edwards on the grounds of "who's the best", then that would be something quite different.  But I'm not.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 14:18:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree: Some perspective is needed (0.00 / 0)

when it comes to comparing Obama to Edwards and others who are supposedly more "progressive."

What evidence is there that Edwards would have taken a different tone or approach had he prevailed and become the nominee?  Who is the last nominee of either party who did not make an attempt to "move to the center" for the general election?

---

by: ThomasPaine @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 14:19:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, Jeez (4.00 / 5)

I could point to some of Edwards's better moments on civil liberties, his opposition to the flag burning amendment, for instance--he was one of only 2 redstate senators to oppose it--but I don't think we need a rehash of the do-we-trust Edwards argument.

Leaving aside O's and E's deepest feelings-which we can only guess at--it should've been clear that Edwards was eager to run as a progressive--a populist progressive, no less--and to identify with the progressive movement. Indeed, I supported Edwards not because I thought he was a better progressive in any pure sense but because he believed that the path to the White House ran relatively left and that he believed in partisanship. While it's probably true that he would've been more likely to run to the middle on an issue like FISA, as opposed to trade and other economic issues, he staked his campaign on combativeness, on fighting both the GOP and corporate power. What's more, maybe because he's a white man with a Southern accent who strikes some people as a cultural conservative, he would've felt very little need to cover his right flank. All adds up to the right position on FISA. God fucking knows he wouldn't have hired a Wall-Mart fan to run his economic policy shop.

In short, when trying to gauge how a pol with run. don't try to look into a his heart, try to see the landscape from his perspective.

Incidentally, as someone who about 30 blog posts urging the sphere to get behind Edwards, I view this criticism of Obama with a mixture of vindication, annoyance, and sadness.

---

by: david mizner @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 14:45:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Except That (0.00 / 0)

I never trusted Obama after he aligned himself with Lieberman. So this is not really new for me.  It's more re-renewed.

But I agree 100% with your line of argument.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 15:03:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I must say, (4.00 / 2)

seeing endless charts with, in every one of them, the highlighted line of the Obama-McCain baseline, and every single Edwards matchup below that line, and every single other matchup above that line, does have an effect. I have no idea what it is that Edwards has or how he has gained it, but it seems pretty significant. I wish they would also test some other candidates who are widely and well known outside of a state or two. I'm not sure who -- Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Howard Dean?* (I'd be particularly interested in Gore's numbers, even if it's unlikely he would accept). Edwards has definitely achieved something significant; what I'd like to know is how significant, and how much hope any of the other candidates would have of matching it once they becomes known at a national level. I do think that anyone who is outperformed by Edwards in their own state is essentially out of contention: this means Rendell, Strickland, Richardson, and McCaskill.

Also, it's striking (and troubling) that in nearly every state, adding a little-known VP candidate next to both Obama and McCain almost always causes Obama to lose ground and McCain to gain it. Anyone have an idea why this might be?

Anyways, I'm still wishing for Feingold; but Obama's FISA stand pretty surely takes that off the table, if it was ever on it.

* This does raise the question: is there any way to gain wide national attention besides running for President? (Maybe leading a chamber of Congress; but neither Pelosi nor Reid seem like good choices).

---

by: illissius @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 15:20:59 PM CDT

A conjecture: (4.00 / 4)

Also, it's striking (and troubling) that in nearly every state, adding a little-known VP candidate next to both Obama and McCain almost always causes Obama to lose ground and McCain to gain it. Anyone have an idea why this might be?

I have a conjecture:  The Republican primary ended long ago, and the wounds have pretty much healed from it.  The Democratic primary only ended this month, and was a fiercer and bloodier battle than the Republicans had.  

Clinton supporters from the primary who are still holding out hope for an Obama/Clinton ticket are expressing their disappointment to pollsters by giving their thumbs down to other match-ups.  Edwards supporters from the primary, meanwhile, were given the opportunity to thumbs-up their preferred candidate.

---

by: osterizer @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 15:45:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's a good theory. (4.00 / 1)

Quite plausible. Another reason why it would be to interesting see Hillary's name in the list (IIRC she was tested in a couple of states? but I can't remember what the results were).

I wonder where all those Edwards supporters who supported Obama in the primary but are defecting to the Republicans without him on the ticket would be coming from, though, so that part is not as plausible to me.

---

by: illissius @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 19:20:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lord, SUSA again? (4.00 / 2)

In that case, I'll repeat my objections to the way you're using this polling:  

1: SUSA is (with few exceptions) polling Edwards (who has run two national campaigns, and who has visited the states they're polling as a candidate) versus governors and senators who have not taken their message to the people of the states being polled.  This isn't just "name recognition"; it's message and personal recognition as well.  

For example, in Wisconsin, he's measured against a slew of people who've never visited Wisconsin in a political capacity, and who have never addressed Wisconsinites with their message.  Of course, Wisconsin is likely to prefer John Edwards to a bunch of non-entities.  

If SUSA had compared apples to apples, your interpretation of their results would be more credible.

2. You've discussed three of the exceptions that SUSA has polled in this diary:  Obama/Strickland in Ohio, Obama/McCaskill in Missouri, and Obama/Richardson in New Mexico.  Obama/Edwards outperforms Obama/Strickland; you and I both agree there.

You also claim that Obama/Edwards outperforms Obama/Richardson.  I dispute that claim:  

Obama/Edwards was polled in New Mexico on May 19; Obama/Richardson on June 24.  (You call these "Round 1" and "Round 2".)  In "Round 1", Obama/Edwards outpolls the generic match-up by 3-9% depending on John McCain's running mate; in "Round 2", Obama/Richardson outpolls the generic match-up by only 3-5%.

However, the partisan breakdown of the two polls were different.  In "Round 1", 52% of the sample were Democrats, and in "Round 2", only 48% of the sample were Democrats.  That 4% difference gobbles up the apparent 4% advantage that Edwards has over Richardson.  (Incidentally, so does the margin of error.)

(I'm encouraged that even with a less-Democratic sample, the generic Obama/McCain matchup in Round 2 outperforms the matchup in Round 1; that suggests there's some definite movement in that state.)

A similar situation occurs in Missouri, except that this time, the Democratic sample size remained the same in both surveys, but there's a 5% difference in the Republican/Independent balance.  

You neglected to mention the difference in samples chosen, and you also neglected to link to the actual polls so that readers could more easily verify this difference for themselves.  

3. In May, SUSA polled Kansas, asking about the Obama/Edwards and Obama/Sebelius matchups to the same sample.  In this poll, Edwards and Sebelius each "won" two of the matchups, leaving neither with an advantage over the other.  

4. If in May, I ask a class of junior high students who their favorite musician was, and then in June, I ask the same question to a group of senior citizens, I could claim a "Frank Sinatra bump", and anyone would see how absurd this claim was.

You've closed with a table, that I infer you've generated yourself, of an "Edwards Bump".  You've calculated this bump by taking a figure generated from the Round 1 data, and subtracting it from a figure generated from the Round 2 data.  Since these two sets of data came from different populations, and SUSA did not keep the party affilation constant between rounds, your table is flawed.  Not to the same degree as the "Frank Sinatra bump", but flawed in the same way.

---

by: osterizer @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 15:27:20 PM CDT

Asked And Answered, If You'd Bothered To READ What I Wrote (4.00 / 1)

SUSA's polling is disappointing, to say the least in its selection.  However there are enough examples of comparing Edwards to people who have campaigned in their various home states, including some who might be called institutions.  He wipes the floor with virtually all of them.

A noted exception being Sebelius, with whom he is merely tied, in a state that even they seem unlikely to turn blue.

So, he beats Richardson in New Mexico, Rendell in Pennsylvania, McCaskill in Missouri, and Strickland in Ohio.  Soundly.

You also claim that Obama/Edwards outperforms Obama/Richardson.  I dispute that claim:  

Obama/Edwards was polled in New Mexico on May 19; Obama/Richardson on June 24.  (You call these "Round 1" and "Round 2".)  In "Round 1", Obama/Edwards outpolls the generic match-up by 3-9% depending on John McCain's running mate; in "Round 2", Obama/Richardson outpolls the generic match-up by only 3-5%.

However, the partisan breakdown of the two polls were different.  In "Round 1", 52% of the sample were Democrats, and in "Round 2", only 48% of the sample were Democrats.  That 4% difference gobbles up the apparent 4% advantage that Edwards has over Richardson.

The last sentence (in bold) is so egreggiously wrong that I find it hard to believe you're a math teacher.  From a purely mathematical POV, it could only hold true if both men had 100% support among Democrats and 0% support among independents and Republicans.

Then there's the pollster's argument--that partisan ID is fluid, and generally should not be controlled for unless it is obviously out of whack, in which case, the poll itself is probably best regarded as an outlier and left at that.

3. In May, SUSA polled Kansas, asking about the Obama/Edwards and Obama/Sebelius matchups to the same sample.  In this poll, Edwards and Sebelius each "won" two of the matchups, leaving neither with an advantage over the other.

 

As I already noted above.  But Kansas is really not one of those states that Edwards has campaigned in much, had TV ads, etc.  So the fact that he's even with the most popular Democrat in the state in living memory hardly diminishes him.  In fact, the Iowa figures strongly suggest that if he had campaigned there as much as Sebelius had, he would have bested her by about 5 points.

You've closed with a table, that I infer you've generated yourself, of an "Edwards Bump".  You've calculated this bump by taking a figure generated from the Round 1 data, and subtracting it from a figure generated from the Round 2 data.

No, that's not what I've done.  Your reading and math skills are, apparently, equally flawed.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 16:34:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, lord, you're right. It's worse. (4.00 / 1)

You've closed with a table, that I infer you've generated yourself, of an "Edwards Bump".  You've calculated this bump by taking a figure generated from the Round 1 data, and subtracting it from a figure generated from the Round 2 data.

No, that's not what I've done.

Oh, lord, you're right.  What you've done is even worse.  For the benefit of other readers, let me explain your calculations, since you haven't fully done so:  

Column 1 is the state.  

---

Column 2 is labeled "Base".  The "Base" appears to be generated by taking the two running-mate-less matchups, one in Round 1, and one in Round 2, and averaging the results together.

For example, in Wisconsin, you took the figures of 6% and 9% for the two matchups, and averaged them to get a figure of +7.5 for Barack Obama.  This figure uses "Round 2" data.

In doing so:

(a) You have averaged figures obtained from two different surveys with different party breakdowns.  
(b) You have averaged a "registered voter" survey with a "likely voter" survey.  
(c) You have weighted each round 50/50, even though the number of people surveyed differed in each round.

(Washington state appears to be an exception to this rule; but could be explained if you inadvertently averaged 16 and 15 instead of 6 and 15.)

---

Column 7 is labeled "Edwards Bump"

This figure is taken exclusively from Round 1 data, by averaging the four "v. Head-to-Head" margins involving John Edwards.  

Still using Wisconsin as an example, you averaged (2 + 4 + 6 + 9)/4, the last four entries in the last column of the Round 1 table for that state.  The average, 5.25%, you rounded to 5.3 in the table.  

---

Column 6 is labeled "w/Edwards", and is the sum of the entries in Columns 2 and 7.  

So you've taken data that was composited from two surveys, and added to it data that was composited from one survey to generate that nice blue line that appears at the top of your graph that makes Edwards look so attractive.  

Yeah, that's real valid.   Thanks for the opportunity to correct point 4.

---

As for point 2, you write:

The last sentence (in bold) is so egreggiously wrong that I find it hard to believe you're a math teacher.  From a purely mathematical POV, it could only hold true if both men had 100% support among Democrats and 0% support among independents and Republicans.

Obviously false.  

That's one way it could hold true.  A different way it could hold true is that each man has support of a large enough number of Democrats that the remaining difference could be explained by rounding.  

Here's an example:  

In question 5 of poll 14036, 539 voters were asked whether they supported Obama/Richardson over McCain/Bloomberg, and SUSA reports that 51%/44% supported Obama/Richardson.  Since SUSA rounds to the nearest whole number, we can at best conclude that somewhere between 273 and 277 respondents said they supported Obama/Richardson over McCain/Bloomberg.  

SUSA then gives a party breakdown as follows:  48% of respondents (between 257 and 261) were Democrats, and 75% of them (between 191 and 197) preferred Obama/Richardson.  The uncertainty in the numbers is due to the fact that 48%, for example, represents a number in the range 47.5 <= x < 48.5.

If we alter the party breakdown to match the breakdown in Round 1, but we keep constant the other percentages (including the figure that 75%, not 100%, of them preferred Obama/Richardson), we discover that as many as 288 of the 539 respondents would have supported Obama/Richardson, changing the 51/44 7-point advantage to a 53/42 11-point advantage.  

In other words, the 4% shift in party affiliation can gobble up the 4% difference between Edwards and Richardson, even without the additional assumption that 100% of Democrats supported both candidates.

---

by: osterizer @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 18:41:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm Making The Best Use of Available Data (0.00 / 0)

And believe it or not, folks all over the intertubes--some of them even perfessors, like Charles Franklin of Political Arithmetik and Pollster.com--also average disparate polls together.  Some of them even (gasp!) by different pollsters! (Katie bar the door!)

You, however, prefer pure speculation:

Clinton supporters from the primary who are still holding out hope for an Obama/Clinton ticket are expressing their disappointment to pollsters by giving their thumbs down to other match-ups.  Edwards supporters from the primary, meanwhile, were given the opportunity to thumbs-up their preferred candidate.

So, are they getting their instructions via tinfoil hats?  Tooth fillings?  Lights in the sky?  Or MySpace?  And if the answer is MySpace, then why didn't those campaigns make such sophisticated use of it during the campaign?

Inquiring minds want to know!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 18:56:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's the difference: (0.00 / 0)

I know the difference between speculation and deduction; I stated that the Clinton-supporter theory was only a conjecture (you didn't quote that part, but I said it), in an attempt to form a reasonable explanation for the phenomenon illisius noted.  

I didn't manufacture evidence in an attempt to justify the conjecture (your "tinfoil hats/tooth fillings/etc." retort is more defensiveness on your part).  If I sought such evidence and the evidence didn't support the conjecture, I'd have said so.    

What you've done is formed a conjecture: that Barack Obama should choose John Edwards as his running mate, and then manufactured evidence to support that conjecture.  The "Obama 2-poll AVG w/VP Effects" table is a statistically unsound fabrication, yet rather than acknowledging that it's a bit of guesswork on your part, you write as if it were established, irrefutable fact:

• "we clearly see that..."
• "Edwards' strength in Iowa is clearly visible here..."
• "this shows, even more decisively..."
• "Edwards provides a solid, proven boost ..."

Words like "clearly", "decisively", and "proven" aren't fair descriptors for the statistical mish-mash you've come up with.  Now that you've been challenged, you claim it's simply the "best use of available data", but it's not even that; it's the misuse of available data by reshaping the data to support your hypothesis, rather than the other way around.  I say "reshaping" here, because you've combined the Column-6 data in a way that magnifies SUSA's results--by including Round 2 data in the base figure only despite having acknowledged that McCain's performance in Round 2 is weaker than that in Round 1:

Putting all these results together, we clearly see that the second candidates help more than the first round candidates--not that surprising, given the relative weakness of the field they face.

Charles Franklin, to whom you've explicitly compared yourself, never engages in the practice of citing composites as proof.  Consider his most recent column, linked here to Pollster, but crossposted to Political Arithmetik. While his graph includes a composite trendline, he doesn't quote exact numbers from the composite, but instead makes qualitative observations of it like, "What we see is a relatively stable Dem/Rep parity from 2000-2004, with Dem ID falling a bit around 2004 while Reps moved up slightly." When he does give numerical values, he gives them as approximations: "Dem ID rises from about 30% to nearly 40%." Finally, he doesn't claim that his analysis "decisively" proves anything, rather that it's "in line with what we see in the trends in the polls, though certainly not an exact match."

---

by: osterizer @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 19:29:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your Criticism Of My New Mexico Comparisons Was Pure Speculation--And WRONG! (0.00 / 0)

In fact, it would have been very easy to check your conjecture that the differences in weighting would have wiped out the differences in totals. But you didn't do that. You speculated.

Well, I just ran the numbers.  And--surprise! surprise!--you're wrong, as usual.

Using the round two weighting for both, Edwards bests Richardson by 2.0%.  Using the round one weighting for both, Edwards bests Richardson by 2.5%.

So, pure speculation--easily checked--that's 100% wrong.

You really should have taken my advice some time back, regarding the first law of holes.

p.s.

And, of course, Richardson was running against no-name candidates (although I'm sure some folks in Taos know who Bloomberg is), while Richardson was running against three candidates who had run national campaigns--Huckabee, Romney and Lieberman--and just one, Pawlenty, who had not.  So if national campaigning was so damn powerful for Edwards, it should have been powerful against him.

Only it wasn't.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 19:45:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I stand by my results, and share them with you. (0.00 / 0)

In fact, it would have been very easy to check your conjecture that the differences in weighting would have wiped out the differences in totals. But you didn't do that. You speculated.

Not at all.  I calculated a specific example, Question 5 of poll 14036, and cited the numbers that I got as a result of that calculation.

So, here are those calculations again, made explicit and "over the top", to rebuke the claim you've made that this was "speculation and WRONG":  

The data for Question 5 gives these values:  

• Total = 539 likely voters
• McCain = 44% who supported McCain/Bloomberg [0.445-0.455)
• Obama = 51% who supported Obama/Richardson [0.505-0.515)
• NS = 5% who were "Not Sure". [0.045-0.055)

Because of rounding to whole numbers, each of the percentages represents an uncertain value which lies in the interval given.

We have these additional values:

• Rep = 36% Republicans in the sample. [0.355-0.365)
• Dem = 48% Democrats in the sample. [0.475-0.485)
• Ind = 14% Independents in the sample. [0.135-0.145)

These respondents broke down as follows; I'm omitting the intervals for brevity:

• Republicans: 79% McCain, 16% Obama, 5% Not Sure
• Democrats: 20% McCain, 75% Obama, 5% Not Sure
• Independents: 35% McCain, 62% Obama, 3% Not Sure

These figures can be verified here.

If, instead, we use the party weightings from Round 1:

• Rep' = 36% Republicans in the sample. [0.355-0.365)
• Dem' = 52% Democrats in the sample. [0.515-0.525)
• Ind' = 12% Independents in the sample. [0.115-0.125)

we find that Richardson's maximal level of support is:

0.365 * 0.165 (Rep') + 0.525 * 0.755 (Dem') + 0.125 * 0.625 (Ind') = 0.535, or 53.5%

We could have calculated the whole number of respondents in each category instead by multiplying each component by T = 539 and dropping the fraction; this is more precise but more tedious, and results in a slightly smaller (53.2%) value for the upper end of the range of Richardson's support.  

When we perform the calculations to find the minimal level of John McCain's support under the new weighting, we get:

0.355 * 0.785 + 0.515 * 0.195 + 0.115 * 0.345 = 0.419 = (41.9%)

This is precisely the 53/42 11-point advantage I alluded to earlier.  If the Round 2 data were weighted to the same 4-point shift in party affiliation as the Round 1 data, we could have a 4-point shift in the outcome.  

Well, I just ran the numbers.  And--surprise! surprise!--you're wrong, as usual.

Using the round two weighting for both, Edwards bests Richardson by 2.0%.  Using the round one weighting for both, Edwards bests Richardson by 2.5%.

I made the claim that using the round 2 weighting versus the round 1 weighting could have resulted in a four-point difference in the results for Question 5 of poll 14036.  

You're making a different claim than I made, but I'll be happy to verify your claim as well.  Post your numbers.

---

by: osterizer @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 20:26:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

...what? (4.00 / 1)

They are getting their... "instructions"... from the fact that they support(ed) those candidates and like them very much. Some Hillary supporters are still peeved that she lost, and while they prefer Obama to McCain in a generic matchup, they would much prefer if she were on the ticket -- therefore, in the generic case where the possibility of her being on the ticket is left open, Obama gets more support from them than when the possibility is completely precluded by naming someone else as the VP. This is perfectly logical. Presumably there is a similar dynamic with Edwards, in reverse; though I find that possibility less convincing.

By the way, being obnoxious makes it harder to agree with you, even when you're right. I am not sure why you do it.

---

by: illissius @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 19:33:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In fairness (0.00 / 0)

O is being over the top in his response and overstating his or her position.  

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 19:38:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How so? (0.00 / 0)

I'm having to state my position forcefully and clearly because of refutations like the following:

The last sentence (in bold) is so egreggiously wrong that I find it hard to believe you're a math teacher.  From a purely mathematical POV, it could only hold true if both men had 100% support among Democrats and 0% support among independents and Republicans.

In this paragraph, Paul Rosenberg:

1. questions my credentials as a mathematician,
2. attacks my position as "egreggiously wrong" [sic], when it isn't.
3. refutes it using a "100% support" claim that is invalid.

Why do you see it as "over the top" to stand up to this sort of bullying?

---

by: osterizer @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 19:52:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bleah, that's what happens . . . (0.00 / 0)

. . . when the phone rings as I'm typing a comment.  

When I started this comment, you hadn't yet made the remarks you've made below this one, and I accept the point you've made down there.  

You write,

Right now, Paul is making arguments that are at least supportable by some evidence,

If Paul wrote that his conclusions had "some evidence" behind them, that'd be one thing.  He writes instead that his conclusions are "decisive" and "proven".

---

by: osterizer @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 19:58:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

FIRST LAW OF HOLES, DUDE! FIRST LAW OF HOLES! (0.00 / 0)

Sigh!

They never listen.

Never learn.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 20:14:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You keep using that phrase. (0.00 / 0)

The first law of holes is, "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."  

However, I'm in no hole.  My eyes are open, and my thoughts are clear.

---

by: osterizer @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 20:32:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm NOT Bullying You (0.00 / 0)

I'm ignoring you.

With an occassional line of snark thrown in here and there.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 22:55:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

to be clear (4.00 / 1)

the point is that its hard to argue from pure speculation, and then constantly as O does- criticize Paul for using the available data. It's nice as O says- that he knows the differnces, but in several diaries he seems to constantly act as if there is no way at all for Paul to reach any of the conclusions that he's reached. Paul keeps saying "it's based on the evidence we have now." How many times does he have to say this and why does O feel the need to keep pointing that out but at the same time engage in pure speculation? My professor used to talk about the difference between what's a logical argument and one that's proven. Right now, Paul is making arguments that are at least supportable by some evidence, but these arguments that people make to refute his position aren't back up by anything more than pure speculation.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 19:42:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Okay (4.00 / 1)

I don't know any of the history here, so I'm making no judgment about that. All I know is that asking whether people are getting their "instructions" to vote for someone they like from tinfoil hats or "tooth fillings" (??) was a tad outrageous.

---

by: illissius @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 19:56:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dude It Was SUPPOSED To Be Outrageous! (0.00 / 0)

It was snark!

Look, Mr. O floats this pure speculation about large masses of Clinton voters shifting their votes against Obama because of no-name VP candidates.

Why they would vote for Obama in a straight-up race with McCain, but then flock to McCain/Bloomberg against Obama/Kaine in Ohio--by a NINE point swing--this "theory" doesn't even begin to explain.  It's such sloppy speculation it doesn't even deserve to be called a theory.

And so, instead of trying to refute such an incoherent excrescence of verbage, I mock it.

With glee.

And abandon.

My method is simple. I ask myself, "What would Wordsworth do?"

And then I ask myself, "Heck with Wordsworth, what would Mark Twain do?"

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 20:11:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yeah but I think thats' the point (0.00 / 0)

honestly I am okay with that but then I live in NYC

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 20:36:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yeah but I think thats' the point (0.00 / 0)

honestly I am okay with that but then I live in NYC

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 20:36:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

See, illisius, (0.00 / 0)

Anything negative that Paul says becomes snark once someone questions it.  

---

by: osterizer @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 21:02:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let Me Explain Things A Bit From My POV, Okay (0.00 / 0)

Then make up your own mind.

From his first appearance here, osterizer has been in full-on attack dog mode.  Wants to make a name for himself taking on a frontpage poster.  His dog ran away with his best friend when he was a kid, whatever.

Right off, I got slightly amused by his terrier-like approach, and replied somewhat snarkily, which he then totally misrepresented as an ad hominem attack.

And, in fact, he refused to respond to my substantive argument because I'd hurt his feelings.

Which, of course, actually is an ad hominem attack, albeit in a somewhat unusual passive-aggressive variation.

So that's how things started off, and they've gone downhill ever since.  He makes a show of creating pseudo-sophisticated and overtly hostile critiques, and I mostly blow him off as a bad-faith poseur.

Every once in a while I train my guns on him to blow him off, just to show that I can, as I just did by actually analyzing the internals of the two polls to show that Edwards beats Richardson under both consistent scenarios.

But given his past bad faith acting, I regard him simply as a high-functioning (?) troll, and thus I only take him seriously within my frame of reference.

You may think I'm an asshole for doing this.  That's your right.  But I'm trying to do serious work here, and from my POV, he's just a would-be hornet at a picnic.  The best he can hope to do is sting once and die.

Only he's got no sting.

And I have an endless supply of snark.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 20:00:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll invite anyone who still cares at this point... (0.00 / 0)

to read my, and Paul's, previous comments and make up their own minds whether this is a fair assessment of the situation.  

They're found in this diary, this diary, and with a surprise appearance in this diary.

---

by: osterizer @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 20:39:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

dumb question (4.00 / 1)

Why are they not polling Clinton as a VP ?  
(I know, it would be horrible, she would wipe us out, she is a witch etc.)  but wouldn't some facts be useful ?

---

by: msobel @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 15:46:08 PM CDT

Other pollsters are asking this question. (0.00 / 0)

A Rasmussen poll from earlier this month, for example, but I'd like to see if her strong showing the week of her "speech-of-the-century" concession is holding up now that her moment in the spotlight is fading.

---

by: osterizer @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 15:54:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Only Thing Dumb Is Asking Me (0.00 / 0)

'cause I'm just as clueless, flummoxed, perplexed, hornswaggled, slack-jawed, buffaloed, bamboozled, bewitched, bothered and bewildered as you are.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 15:59:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Msobel, I'm sorry... (0.00 / 0)

I'm sorry that the guy who's trying to prove his case using a survey with such a glaring omission, thinks it's "dumb" of you to ask about the omission.  

<snark>In other news, SUSA reports that McCain beats Barr 72-24. He wins Republicans and independents, and is statistically tied among Democrats.</snark>

---

by: osterizer @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 19:38:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe they know something we don't (4.00 / 1)

Like that Clinton would never survive Obama's vetting process, so why bother?  Still, I would like to see Clinton polled and in the very same polls with Edwards.  The only one I saw was Michigan where every Democrat (even Clinton and Gore) cost Obama at least one point against McCain/Romney while Edwards gave him a plus one.

---

by: Blue November @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 20:35:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Paul, I think it's about white men (0.00 / 0)

I don't mean to judge by your name -- but I assume your a white man?  I would guess most of the folks supporting your series are white men because they instinctively understand Edwards unique appeal to white men and you're trying to find as scientific a way to explain it as possible.

Anyway let's look at Ohio.  This one state is important enough for Obama to consider Ted Strickland on his running mate.  If you had the time, I think we would all love a close look at Ohio.

Round 2
McCain vs Obama
Men: 58 vs 35 (JM +13)
Whites: 50 vs 43 (JM +7)

Let's look at Strickland, Kaine, McCaskill, Bloomberg and Webb's BEST showings and the difference to make Obama:

McCain/Fiorina vs Obama/Strickland
Men: 56 vs 35
Whites: 48 vs 41
+2 for men, no diff for Whites

McCain/Fiorina vs Obama/Bloomberg
Men: 57 vs 33
Whites: 46 vs 38
(-1) for men, (-1) for Whites

McCain/Fiorina vs Obama/Webb
Men: 57 vs 32
Whites: 47 vs 38
(-2) for men, (-2) for Whites

McCain/Jindal vs Obama/McCaskill
Men: 56 vs 33
Whites: 48 vs 37
no diff for men, (-4) for Whites

McCain/Fiorina vs Obama/Kaine
Men: 57 vs 32
Whites: 48 vs 37
(-2) for men, (-4) for Whites

Now let's look at Round 1.  Let's look at Edward's WORST showing (against Mike Huckabee, a far more popular figure than Fiorina or Jindal.)

McCain vs Obama
Men: 42 vs 45 (BO +3)
Whites: 41 vs 45 (BO +4)

McCain/Huckabee vs Obama/Edwards
Men: 41 vs 49
Whites: 42 vs 49
+5 for men, +3 for Whites

I use this example -- which is really unfair to Edwards because he would decimate Fiorina -- to show that Edwards is the only person who helps Obama with white men in Ohio.  And what has Obama been losing in the last month?  White men in Ohio.  

Paul, the only problem with your series is that you don't have access to polls with Clinton, Gore, etc. and you have to deal with different rounds.  (Obviously not your fault!) I wish Survey USA would do our country a service and put together some comprehensive polls. But I bet anything that your basic theory is right -- Obama/Edwards would be an unbeatable ticket.

---

by: Blue November @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 21:01:28 PM CDT

Yes, But... (the all-purpose subject line does it again!) (4.00 / 1)

(A) In the past those I've supported for President have included Martin Luther King in 1968 (he wasn't running, but I was one of many who wanted him to run, even though I couldn't vote at the time), Shirley Chisolm in 1972 and Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988.  So, race not really a factor for me. Gender neither.

(B) Many of the other folks being touted are also white men.  Webb, Nunn, Warner, etc.

(C) It's not that surprising that white men are a rich pickup opportunity.

As you say, the SUSA polls leave a lot to be desired on the selection side.  They also lack income cross-tabs.

But what's remarkable is that by now they've put out enough of them that I'm able to put together a very strong argument, based on the presence of figures like Richardson in New Mexico, Sebelius in Kansas, Strickland in Ohio, Rendell in Pennsylvania and McCaskill in Missouri.  Neither Kerry nor Gore is really credible as a candidate.

So that really only leaves Clinton.  And I think that there are very strong arguments aside from polling that she would not be good for the ticket.  (The first three such arguments are Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton, and Bill Clinton.)

So, in short, I think that the case for Edwards has become about as strong as one could possibly expect.  But the final pieces have come just at a time when Obama has confirmed our worst fears about him, and it's really not clear that it would be good for Edwards, or for the progressive movement as a whole for him to take the VP slot.  But I do think that it's incontrovertable that Edwards would basically put the election away for good. Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Colorado and Virginia would basically all become virtually impossible for McCain.  And he'd be fighting to hold onto North Carolina, Florida, and at least one or two other Southern states.  North Dakota and Mountana could go, too.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 22:48:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Paul, I hope I didn't offend (4.00 / 2)

I did not mean to imply that you were inclined to vote for a white man or even that white men are inclined to vote for white men.  What I meant to see that is that Edwards has a very specific and strong appeal to white men that other Democrats do not.  Hillary Clinton clearly has that appeal to white women --  we certainly can't imagine Kathleen Sebelius or Claire McCaskill becoming a feminist icon the way HRC has. IMO, every group in our society is facing certain anxieties, but African-Americans, Latinos and women have always felt economic anxiety more than white men. The last four years -- and especially the last few months at an accelerated pace -- have seen economic anxiety hit white men as well. IMO, since white men dominate the media, it's not until something happens to them and their friends that they begin to see it as a true societal problem. Because Edwards has a long-standing and deep brand as someone who speaks directly to these anxieties, he is in a unique position to sway maybe 10% of McCain voters (and about 5% of total voters) to vote Democrat. This same 10% might have inclined towards McCain because of the "Guns, Gays, and God" platform advocated by the GOP but are willing to cross over for Edwards because they think he's the real deal on the economy.

---

by: Blue November @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 23:16:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, You Didn't Offend (4.00 / 1)

It's just that I don't find white male candidates inherently attractive.  A certain small (not too small, tho!) percentage of the human race are wired to be xenophiles--people who attracted to, rather than fearful of--people who aren't like them, "strangers" if you will.  We like weird music, and strange food, too.  (I lucked out on both counts being born when and where I was.) It makes good genetic sense that there be a small fraction that's like this, as it keeps the gene pools open.  And I'm just one of those people.

But what you say about Edwards' appeal is certainly true. In fact, there's a discussion of how the imagery of the unemployed changes during hard times, from shady-looking blacks to a larger percentage of sympathetic whites, in the altogether excellent book, Why Americans Hate Welfare.  It talks about a study of photos in newsweeklies that spanned several decades.  So there's good solid research backing up what you say.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 00:02:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]