Also interesting was the note that the Republican leading the national polls after the NH primary, has won every nomination since 1972.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

Lower as in?

 

His attraction with Liberals is why I think he'd have a chance against Obama as long as Republicans would support him.

 

His support dropped with every level of higher education.

His support dropped with every level of higher education.

 

Not true from "high school" (26%) to "some college" (29%), but yes, it did drop the next two levels: college grad (21%), postgrad (16%).

 

Huntsman the only one showing a rising trend with that stat: 11%, 14%, 18%, 23%.

Not true from "high school" (26%) to "some college" (29%), but yes, it did drop the next two levels: college grad (21%), postgrad (16%).

 

Huntsman the only one showing a rising trend with that stat: 11%, 14%, 18%, 23%.

 

I started with college, as I don't really consider HS "higher" education.

I started with college, as I don't really consider HS "higher" education.

 

Ah, I didn't see the word "higher". My bad.

I started with college, as I don't really consider HS "higher" education.

 

that wouldn't capture going from "no higher education" to "some higher education"

NH and Iowa primaries were just warm ups, SC is a Republican base state, much different perspective than Iowa or NH. If Romney can win SC, he should be well on his way.

Lower as in?

 

His attraction with Liberals is why I think he'd have a chance against Obama as long as Republicans would support him.

Problem is, the liberals who like Paul are the ones on the far left. Yes they are disaoppointed with Obama, but I don't see them voting for any GOP candidate over Obama when it comes to it.

 

I've said before, the support game for the GOP is pretty simple. They don't need to worry much about the base, because the base is in it to get Obama out, and they won't care much who the GOP candidate is (unless it is Paul, who will scare away some base Republicans, which is another reason why he isn't electable). Their main worry is the moderates, the swing voters if you will. Whomever wins the nomination will have to swing back towards center to get a cut of that.

 

Also, the electoral numbers right now still look awfully good for Obama. He's got a big advantage right now.

 

I've said before, the support game for the GOP is pretty simple. They don't need to worry much about the base, because the base is in it to get Obama out, and they won't care much who the GOP candidate is (unless it is Paul, who will scare away some base Republicans, which is another reason why he isn't electable). Their main worry is the moderates, the swing voters if you will. Whomever wins the nomination will have to swing back towards center to get a cut of that.

And I've disagreed...this election, just like the last dozen or so, will be driven by "Base turnout and enthusiasm." The few people who are actually moderates are going to split, probably somewhere in the 60-40 range or closer, like they always do, and that won't offset what the bases do.

And I've disagreed...this election, just like the last dozen or so, will be driven by "Base turnout and enthusiasm." The few people who are actually moderates are going to split, probably somewhere in the 60-40 range or closer, like they always do, and that won't offset what the bases do.

And I've shown you that your statistical interperatations are flawed.

 

Do you disagree that the prime motivation of the GOP base right now is ousting Obama, versus finding their ideal candidate?

 

And I've shown you that your statistical interperatations are flawed.

 

Do you disagree that the prime motivation of the GOP base right now is ousting Obama, versus finding their ideal candidate?

And I've responded that your statistical interpretations are flawed. As have a number of other surveys. But hey, we can both play that game, so here's an answer to your other question.

 

Yes, but a similar comparison works for John Kerry in 2004, and that was perhaps the best example I can give in the last 20 years of an election won entirely by effective base-turnout operations on one side and a less than motivated base on the other.

And I've shown you that your statistical interperatations are flawed.

Do you disagree that the prime motivation of the GOP base right now is ousting Obama, versus finding their ideal candidate?

 

Especially if they are half as radical as the left wingers claim they are.

Well, Nate had an update a little while later:

 

 

 

Note that, like the Iowa caucuses, there was a lower percentage of self-identified Republicans voting in the GOP caucuses than in 2008. So even if turnout was even or slightly higher, there would still be less Republicans.

 

 

Looks like Romney got 39.4% of the vote with a total of 95669 votes, meaning ~242k people voted in the GOP primary and it was a record-setter by a slim margin of overall votes. But Republican turnout was still lower.

 

NH turnout dropped 18% among Republicans despite record overall turnout.

 

I'm still hedging against this being a direct indication of a lack of enthusiasm for the 2012 election that will translate into an unmotivated base that doesn't turn out in strong numbers. It's still an indirect measure, and the base could rally strongly behind "anyone but Obama." But, as we saw in 2004, that isn't exactly a winning electoral strategy.

The GOP race is over. It's time for the real fun to start Obama vs Romney..

 

I see the Democrats being in charge of the White House for the next 8 years, 4 more years of Obama than 4 years of Hillary.

NH turnout dropped 18% among Republicans despite record overall turnout.

 

I'm still hedging against this being a direct indication of a lack of enthusiasm for the 2012 election that will translate into an unmotivated base that doesn't turn out in strong numbers. It's still an indirect measure, and the base could rally strongly behind "anyone but Obama." But, as we saw in 2004, that isn't exactly a winning electoral strategy.

 

 

I read Obama received less votes last night in NH than W did in 2004. 53k+ for W vs. a reported 49k+ for BO. Not sure if that is a harbinger of things to come though.

I read Obama received less votes last night in NH than W did in 2004. 53k+ for W vs. a reported 49k+ for BO. Not sure if that is a harbinger of things to come though.

 

There seemed to be a decent amount of cross-over of dems and independents. Did that hold true in 2004 as well?

 

It's very possible that both bases are unmotivated right now.

There seemed to be a decent amount of cross-over of dems and independents. Did that hold true in 2004 as well?

 

It's very possible that both bases are unmotivated right now.

 

 

Seems like that could be true right now. Have to think it will change as election nears, though.

There seemed to be a decent amount of cross-over of dems and independents. Did that hold true in 2004 as well?

 

It's very possible that both bases are unmotivated right now.

There's probably also a big demographic difference muddying the waters. If Democratic voters are more typically working class (true) while Republican voters are more upper class or retired (also true), then it's easier for Republican voters to turn out to vote in elections that really don't matter than it is for people who are working.

 

Really hard to draw a trend line from that number, but worth keeping track of.

There's probably also a big demographic difference muddying the waters. If Democratic voters are more typically working class (true) while Republican voters are more upper class or retired (also true), then it's easier for Republican voters to turn out to vote in elections that really don't matter than it is for people who are working.

 

Really hard to draw a trend line from that number, but worth keeping track of.

 

only if they're in unions.

 

working class people who aren't in unions are much more likely to be republican. (that damn religion/social issues thing, even they're voting AGAINST themselves economically)

 

but the point you're making is generally correct

Edited January 12, 201214 yr by Reddy

only if they're in unions.

 

working class people who aren't in unions are much more likely to be republican. (that damn religion/social issues thing, even they're voting AGAINST themselves economically)

 

but the point you're making is generally correct

Working class was me being more polite than saying "Poor as sin".

Working class was me being more polite than saying "Poor as sin".

hahaha fair enough.

Newt's 1/2 hour anti-Mittens attack ad is now on the Youtubes.

 

Newt (and to a lesser extent, Perry) is appropriating #OWS capitalism criticism rhetoric. I'm having trouble comprehending this.

Newt (and to a lesser extent, Perry) is appropriating #OWS capitalism criticism rhetoric. I'm having trouble comprehending this.

 

Almost as good as this going around facebook for the teamsters. Sounds like they are stealing from the 1% playbook. What happened to "fair share"?

 

I am a union employee. I am not the problem. We are not the enemy. If you are jealous of our benefits, then fight for your own. Don't fight against ours. The rich who created this crisis are putting middle class families against each others. We live here, pay taxes, and work hard to support our families.

That's actually not hypocritical or ironic at all, it's the entire point of uniting the "99%" against our capitalist overlords.