US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[chemisttree]

Hillary the swift boater. That's hill-arious! Hillary the republican... that's priceless.

 

[Gokul43201]

He took 1.5 million dollars?

No, he didn't take 1.5 million from lobbyists. He took that money from people that work in companies that happen to be headed by lobbyists.

 

[turbo]

Hillary the swift boater. That's hill-arious! Hillary the republican... that's priceless.

You should know that Hillary was a Young Republican in college and worked for a rabidly anti-union law firm in Arkansas that was working very hard to keep any union influence out of Wal-Mart. She is a Democrat in name only, and when her husband was wondering how to approach working-class Southern Democrats, she said "Screw 'em!" Her membership on the Wal Mart board should show that she is not too concerned about the welfare of lower-class workers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html

 

[Gokul43201]

From chemisttree's link (also quoted above):

Hillary Clinton raised $88.5 million from 320 bundlers
Barack Obama: $78.9 million from 354 bundlers
Rudy Giuliani: $46.5 million from 218 bundlers
Mitt Romney: $44 million from 346 bundlers
John McCain: $31.4 million from 442 bundlers
John Edwards: $29.9 million from 666 bundlers

This is a shameless misrepresentation of the data they got from the their source (whitehouseforsale.org). When the article was written (Dec 2007), Hillary had not raised "$88.5 million from 320 bundlers" and whitehouseforsale does not make this claim. All they say is that she had raised a total of $88.5 million, and had used 320 bundlers. There is no claim of how much of that $88.5 million came from the efforts of those 320 bundlers. And to say that all of it was due to bundlers is obviously a lie.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Well, if you take the limit where the number of small donations -> 0, then it becomes true.

 

[chemisttree]

From chemisttree's link (also quoted above):


This is a shameless misrepresentation of the data they got from the their source (whitehouseforsale.org). When the article was written (Dec 2007), Hillary had not raised "$88.5 million from 320 bundlers" and whitehouseforsale does not make this claim. All they say is that she had raised a total of $88.5 million, and had used 320 bundlers. There is no claim of how much of that $88.5 million came from the efforts of those 320 bundlers. And to say that all of it was due to bundlers is obviously a lie.

Be careful, Gokul. Read the Whitehouseforsale.org data http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/candidate.cfm?CandidateID=C0008" . These are "Hillraisers". They each collected at least $100,000... that's $32.2 million if they raised the minimum $100,000 required. Hillary's own FEC statement is the source of the data. Hillary isn't disclosing the names of anyone that hasn't reached the $100,000 threshold and she isn't required by law to release the non-lobbyist names that she has were she were to employ the crafty numbering system.

There is more in a http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obama_N.htm" . This is NOT a shameless misrepresentation of data. It is truth. It is time you come to realize who our three candidates really are...

 

[chemisttree]

You should know that Hillary was a Young Republican in college and worked for a rabidly anti-union law firm in Arkansas that was working very hard to keep any union influence out of Wal-Mart. She is a Democrat in name only, and when her husband was wondering how to approach working-class Southern Democrats, she said "Screw 'em!" Her membership on the Wal Mart board should show that she is not too concerned about the welfare of lower-class workers.

Right... And during the summer of '69 she worked at the most lefist law firm in the country. Two partners were either current or former members of the Communist Party! While there the firm was representing members of the Black Panthers accused of murdering an Oakland police officer and for an armed invasion of the state legislature.

Yeah, that's Republican...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hillary the swift boater.

I was thinking more of people on this forum and those getting camera time, but Hillary fights dirty as well.

 

[turbo]

Robert Reich (Clinton Sec'y of Labor) has endorsed Obama.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-for-president.html

 

[Gokul43201]

Be careful, Gokul. Read the Whitehouseforsale.org data http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/candidate.cfm?CandidateID=C0008" . These are "Hillraisers". They each collected at least $100,000... that's $32.2 million if they raised the minimum $100,000 required. Hillary's own FEC statement is the source of the data. Hillary isn't disclosing the names of anyone that hasn't reached the $100,000 threshold and she isn't required by law to release the non-lobbyist names that she has were she were to employ the crafty numbering system.

$32 million is about 20% of her total current intake - though, as you point out, that's only the minimum possible amount raised by bundlers, and the real number could be much bigger, even twice or thrice as big. I'm not disputing that a lot of money is raised by bundlers, but the first site you linked claimed that the entire amount raised by each candidate was raised by bundlers (they don't overtly state that but it's what you find out when you compare their claim with the total "earnings" at the time). That's patently false. It was in the news a few months ago that Obama raised over 40% of his money off internet donations from his website, and Clinton raised close to 20% from hers. That's clearly money not coming from bundlers - there's no way to tag an internet donation with a bundler's label.

But this still leaves us with a lot of money being raised with help from bundlers. Now, I agree that this poses the potential for individual cronyism, but I don't see that as nearly as bad as the effects of industry lobbyists. I don't know very much about the business of bundling, but it doesn't look like bundlers are, by default, powerful representatives of special interest groups in the kind of way Federal Lobbyists are. Many bundlers are not even employed by any industry - looking at Hillary's list you see dozens that are homemakers/self employed/unemployed/retired. Others appear to be employed in essentially every kind of job out there.

Should novelists expect to get a special tax break because John Grisham is a bundler for Clinton?

 

[chemisttree]

$32 million is about 20% of her total current intake - though, as you point out, that's only the minimum possible amount raised by bundlers, and the real number could be much bigger, even twice or thrice as big. I'm not disputing that a lot of money is raised by bundlers, but the first site you linked claimed that the entire amount raised by each candidate was raised by bundlers (they don't overtly state that but it's what you find out when you compare their claim with the total "earnings" at the time). That's patently false. It was in the news a few months ago that Obama raised over 40% of his money off internet donations from his website, and Clinton raised close to 20% from hers. That's clearly money not coming from bundlers - there's no way to tag an internet donation with a bundler's label.

But this still leaves us with a lot of money being raised with help from bundlers. Now, I agree that this poses the potential for individual cronyism, but I don't see that as nearly as bad as the effects of industry lobbyists. I don't know very much about the business of bundling, but it doesn't look like bundlers are, by default, powerful representatives of special interest groups in the kind of way Federal Lobbyists are. Many bundlers are not even employed by any industry - looking at Hillary's list you see dozens that are homemakers/self employed/unemployed/retired. Others appear to be employed in essentially every kind of job out there.

Should novelists expect to get a special tax break because John Grisham is a bundler for Clinton?

Gokul, what it means is that John Grisham now fills the niche once occupied by lobbyists. We don't know who he raised the money from or why. We don't know if he has met with the candidate and passed along his own and his donor's 'message of hope'. That's the reality of it with the new law. You shouldn't be so naive to think that someone could raise millions of dollars without some quid pro quo.

Did you know that John Grisham is a former member of Mississippi's House of Representatives? This is typical activity of politicians. Leave public office (in disgrace in Grisham's case) and lobby. Thanks for that perfect example to make my point.

 

[Astronuc]

Ongoing nomination fight hurting Clinton more than Obama
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-gains
By CHARLES BABINGTON and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a dramatic reversal, an Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll found that a clear majority of Democratic voters now say Sen. Barack Obama has a better chance of defeating Republican Sen. John McCain in November than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

While Obama and Clinton are both sustaining dents and dings from their lengthy presidential fight, the former first lady is clearly suffering more. Democratic voters no longer see her as the party's strongest contender for the White House.

Voters of all types have gotten a better sense of Obama, who was an obscure Illinois legislator just four years ago. As more people moved from the "I don't know him" category in the AP-Yahoo! News poll, more rated Obama as inexperienced, unethical and dishonest. And 15 percent erroneously think he's a Muslim, thanks in part to disinformation widely spread on the Internet.

But Obama's positive ratings have climbed as well, while Clinton — widely known since the early 1990s — has been less able to change people's views of her. And when those views have shifted, it has hurt her more than helped.

The New York senator's ratings for being honest, likable, ethical and refreshing have fallen since January, and Obama scores higher than she does in all those categories.. . . .

The survey of 1,844 adults was conducted April 2-14 and had an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. Included were interviews with 863 Democrats, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.3 points, and 668 Republicans, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.8 points.

. . . .

I wonder if the media will ever give up trying analyze the US (population 300 million) with samples of ~2000.


Of course, that was before Obama scratched his cheek.

 

[lisab]

Of course, that was before Obama scratched his cheek.

Just occurred to me...we could get a third term of Bush's policies because of an itch. Damn those mosquitoes!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I wonder if the media will ever give up trying analyze the US (population 300 million) with samples of ~2000.

On Nov. 4, they'll use a larger sample. I assume that the margin of error that these surveys come with is based on the sample size and that there's real science behind it. You think maybe not?

 

[Gokul43201]

Gokul, what it means is that John Grisham now fills the niche once occupied by lobbyists. We don't know who he raised the money from or why. We don't know if he has met with the candidate and passed along his own and his donor's 'message of hope'. That's the reality of it with the new law. You shouldn't be so naive to think that someone could raise millions of dollars without some quid pro quo.

Did you know that John Grisham is a former member of Mississippi's House of Representatives? This is typical activity of politicians. Leave public office (in disgrace in Grisham's case) and lobby. Thanks for that perfect example to make my point.

So you're saying that we don't yet know what kind of influence an individual bundler (who has typically helped raised a lot less than a million dollars) may enjoy, but that it would be naive to expect that s/he enjoys none.

I agree with that. But I also believe that any individual favors granted to bundlers will pale in comparison to the influence wielded by big industry lobbyists. I doubt, for instance, that the dozen or so homemakers that are Clinton's bundlers will divert Government spending towards the homemaker caucus as successfully as energy lobbyists have been in securing tax incentives.

 

[Gokul43201]

Ongoing nomination fight hurting Clinton more than Obama
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-gains
By CHARLES BABINGTON and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers


I wonder if the media will ever give up trying analyze the US (population 300 million) with samples of ~2000.

It doesn't matter if the population is 300 thousand or 300 trillion. A sample of 2000 respondents, if carefully chosen, can give you a pretty good picture of the average opinion of the entire population, particularly if the opinions are distributed unimodally.

 

[turbo]

It doesn't matter if the population is 300 thousand or 300 trillion. A sample of 2000 respondents, if carefully chosen, can give you a pretty good picture of the average opinion of the entire population, particularly if the opinions are distributed unimodally.

There is a problem with this type of polling, though. Most of these polls are phone-based, and the calls are made to people with land-lines, skewing the sample to older voters. There is a whole generation of young voters who communicate primarily with cell phones and they will be under-represented. This group includes college students, who may be politically active, and may support more progressive candidates.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

There is a problem with this type of polling, though. Most of these polls are phone-based, and the calls are made to people with land-lines, skewing the sample to older voters.

Sample bias is a serious problem for polls. Do you know which ones are doing this?

 

[Gokul43201]

There is a problem with this type of polling, though. Most of these polls are phone-based, and the calls are made to people with land-lines, skewing the sample to older voters.

There is more than just one problem, though that's one of the big ones. That's why I stated that the sample must be carefully chosen. The biggest errors appear not from the sample size, but due to the method of sample selection.

 

[turbo]

Sample bias is a serious problem for polls. Do you know which ones are doing this?

I think the methodology is widely used. Rasmussen Reports is an often cited source for polling data, and their last telephone poll was conducted on Thursday evening, with a sample of only 730 "likely Democratic voters". I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama pull out a narrow win in PA if these polls are biased against the inclusion of young people.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080418/pl_rasmussen/pademprimary20080418;_ylt=Arwgv9PcQ_494Yg5dL7TC7Ks0NUE

 

[Gokul43201]

I think the methodology is widely used. Rasmussen Reports is an often cited source for polling data, and their last telephone poll was conducted on Thursday evening, with a sample of only 730 "likely Democratic voters". I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama pull out a narrow win in PA if these polls are biased against the inclusion of young people.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080418/pl_rasmussen/pademprimary20080418;_ylt=Arwgv9PcQ_494Yg5dL7TC7Ks0NUE

Do they just report the raw numbers or do they weight the data based on some inside demographic knowledge?

Note that Rasmussen was also calling a Clinton win in Ohio by 6% the day before the primary. She won by 10%.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Yes, there's this thing called a "margin of error", though.

 

[Gokul43201]

For typical sample sizes, the margin is about +/- 3 or 4%. So the Ohio results squeaked in near the tail of the distribution. The point I'm making is that Rasmussen did not overestimate Clinton's support in Ohio, and I believe they used telephone polling there as well.

 

[Astronuc]

It doesn't matter if the population is 300 thousand or 300 trillion. A sample of 2000 respondents, if carefully chosen, can give you a pretty good picture of the average opinion of the entire population, particularly if the opinions are distributed unimodally.

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-methodology;_ylt=AsLqHOcfPFPSkOdOPx_EtCvLUpF4 for the AP poll cited on Yahoo.


Meanwhile - Critics claim McCain oversimplifies Al Qaida and insurgency in Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/us/politics/19threat.html

As he campaigns with the weight of a deeply unpopular war on his shoulders, Senator John McCain of Arizona frequently uses the shorthand “Al Qaeda” to describe the enemy in Iraq in pressing to stay the course in the war there.

“Al Qaeda is on the run, but they’re not defeated” is his standard line on how things are going in Iraq. When chiding the Democrats for wanting to withdraw troops, he has been known to warn that “Al Qaeda will then have won.” In an attack this winter on Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic front-runner, Mr. McCain went further, warning that if American forces withdrew, Al Qaeda would be “taking a country.”

Critics say that in framing the war that way at rallies or in sound bites, Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is oversimplifying the hydra-headed nature of the insurgency in Iraq in a way that exploits the emotions that have been aroused by the name “Al Qaeda” since the Sept. 11 attacks.

There has been heated debate since the start of the war about the nature of the threat in Iraq. The Bush administration has long portrayed the fight as part of a broader battle against Islamic terrorists. Opponents of the war accuse the administration of deliberately blurring the distinction between the Sept. 11 attackers and anti-American forces in Iraq.

So, does McCain have a realistic perspective on Al Qaida, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the ME, . . . ? Does he even understand the state of the world and the global dynamic? Same applies to Obama and Clinton.

and Trailing in Pennsylvania, Obama Sharpens Tone
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/us/politics/21dems.html

READING, Pa. — Senator Barack Obama sharpened his tone against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday as the six-week Pennsylvania primary contest raced to a close, with the rivals marshaling extensive resources in a battle for undecided voters and delegates that could determine whether the Democratic nominating fight carries on.

In television commercials and in appearances before crowded rallies, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, cast his opponent in one of the most negative lights of the entire 16-month campaign, calling her a compromised Washington insider. Mrs. Clinton, of New York, responded by suggesting that Mr. Obama’s message of hope had given way to old-style politics and asked Democrats to take a harder look at him.

The fresh skirmishing unfolded across one of the most complicated battlegrounds in the race for the Democratic nomination. Both campaigns deployed thousands of paid workers, volunteers and surrogates to strategic points across the state.

Mr. Obama, seeking to lock up the nomination, was outspending Mrs. Clinton two-to-one on television advertising in the state, with a barrage of commercials assailing her health care plan and suggesting that she was captive to special interests. Mrs. Clinton fired back on Sunday, criticizing his health care plan and saying he was going negative to mask his poor performance in last week’s debate.

Message to Clinton, Obama and McCain:

Don't waste our time and the resources bashing each other. Instead discuss the issues, the problems facing the US and the world, and the proposed solutions that will enhance the peace, security, standard of living and justice for all.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I think the methodology is widely used. Rasmussen Reports is an often cited source for polling data, and their last telephone poll was conducted on Thursday evening, with a sample of only 730 "likely Democratic voters". I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama pull out a narrow win in PA if these polls are biased against the inclusion of young people.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080418/pl_rasmussen/pademprimary20080418;_ylt=Arwgv9PcQ_494Yg5dL7TC7Ks0NUE

That's a pretty long-winded "I don't know". Are there any polls taken by land-line telephone calls which exclude cell phones?

 

[turbo]

Look at the top link in Astronuc's post. The AP-Yahoo poll samples land-line owners only - no cells.

 

[Gokul43201]

Look at the top link in Astronuc's post. The AP-Yahoo poll samples land-line owners only - no cells.

But the AP site says that the raw data is weighted using demographic factors. Perhaps the age distribution of cellphone users is one such.

 

[turbo]

But the AP site says that the raw data is weighted using demographic factors. Perhaps the age distribution of cellphone users is one such.

I don't see how they can weight the responses of people from whom they don't talk to, and who were never asked for their responses. That would be a pretty lame "fudge factor", wouldn't it?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

But the AP site says that the raw data is weighted using demographic factors. Perhaps the age distribution of cellphone users is one such.

By restricting the sample to those with landlines, they end up with sample bias. With a good weighting algorithm they can overcome some of the problems associated with such bias. However, the can only catch the problems they think of. Perhaps they have some way of knowing that the bias does not cause a significant problem. After all, problem is not that some people have cellphones, the problem is that some people don't have a landline. But how many voters don't have a landline?

 

[turbo]

But how many voters don't have a landline?

I would bet that most college students are reachable by cell as opposed to land-line. They are not traditionally as reliable a voter-pool as the older folks, but Obama's organization has been able to motivate young people...

 

[lisab]

Most people I know under 25 don't have a land line. The one guy that does only has it because the home alarm company requires it.

 

[turbo]

Most people I know under 25 don't have a land line. The one guy that does only has it because the home alarm company requires it.

That fits well with what I see in my own family, and it's not just people under 25. I've got nephews in their 30s with no land-lines. My brother is in his 30s and he has an unlisted land-line primarily so his step-daughter can have Internet access. When I call him, it's always on his cell.

 

[BobG]

I'm well over 30 and I've debated about how worthwhile it is to have a landline (in spite of being in favor of making cell phone usage in vehicles illegal). I'm getting tired of having to list 3 phone numbers for everything I do and the hours that each one is good for. I also get tired of answering more calls for my son than for myself - especially when they call our home number because he wouldn't answer his cell phone.

 

[turbo]

I'm 56, and the only reason that I have a land-line is that I need DSL (there is no cable 'way out here, so that's not a connectivity option). I wonder about the demographics of people who give up their land-lines... could the decision to go wireless correlate with income, education, age, etc?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm well over 30 and I've debated about how worthwhile it is to have a landline (in spite of being in favor of making cell phone usage in vehicles illegal).

I'm in favor of making landline usage in vehicles illegal too.