Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Nevada Results: Was Obama the Real Winner?

Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet at 4:05 AM on January 19, 2008.


Obama may have won the most delegates in Saturday's Nevada Caucus, even though Clinton bested his statewide turnout by about six points.
gcvr080119hillary21p.grid5x3

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Election 2008 in your
mailbox!

 

Update: Ari Melber, writing on The Nation's blog:

Barack Obama may have won the most delegates in Saturday's Nevada Caucus, even though Hillary Clinton bested his statewide turnout by about six points.

A source with knowledge of the Nevada Democratic Party's projections told The Nation that under the arcane weighting system, Obama would win 13 national convention delegates and Clinton would win 12 delegates. The state party has not released an official count yet.

[Snip]

UPDATE: The Obama Campaign is now pushing hard to promote this delegate victory. The campaign is convening a post-caucus conference call for reporters -- something that only winning campaigns usually do -- and circulating numerous Clinton quotes about how delegates are the only thing that matter.

There's an added layer of complexity: similar to Iowa's caucus system, there's a labyrinthine process -- with county caucuses coming up -- before Nevada's 25 actual delegates to the Democratic convention are officially determined sometime in April.

Nevada also has 8 "super-delegates" -- Dem party officials and other insiders who can remain uncommitted until the convention.

Those super-delegates, by the way, will be about 20 percent of the total at the convention in Denver. They're important -- we wouldn't want voters having too much say over the nominating process. Last I heard, Clinton was leading among committed Democratic super-delegates by about 2-1 nationwide, but that was before Iowa, and about half of the total said at the time that they weren't yet supporting any candidate.

***

With 74 percent of caucuses reporting, CNN has called Nevada for Hillary:

Clinton 51%
Obama 45%
Edwards 4%

According to the entrance polls, the vote was very much divided by race:

Whites: Clinton 52%, Obama 34%
African Americans: Clinton 14%, Obama 83%
Latinos: Clinton 64%, Obama 26%

And by gender, but to a lesser degree:

Men: Clinton 43%, Obama 45%
Women: Clinton 51%, Obama 38%

We also saw a split by age similar to that seen in Iowa and New Hampshire, with Clinton winning voters over 45 by a healthy margin and Obama winning by a similar margin among younger voters.

The polls were off again -- the one conducted by Zogby for Reuters and C-Span (which was the latest poll in the field) came closest; others weren't even in the right neighborhood. I wonder if we're at the end of an era in terms of political polling.

There's a lot that can be said about the state of the polling industry. To some extent I think what's happening is that those little snapshots of voters' sentiments at a given point in time are less valuable in the context of today's 24-second news cycle. A news story can reach and move a large number of voters in that environment, and blogs, social networking sites and other new forms of communication are allowing people to influence each other in a way that we didn't see in past generations. I think we may have a lot of surprising results before pollsters come up with some new models that might capture those kinds of swings better than their established methods have done recently.

Digg!

Tagged as: obama, clinton, nevada, election08

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.


Is Palin a Step Backwards for Women in Power?
Sarah Palin is a milestone, for we achieve true gender equality when an incompetent woman goes as far as an incompetent man.
Post by Suzanne Braun Levine. September 5, 2008.
Fox News: 'McCain's TV Commercials Contain ... Out-Right Lies'
Wait, we're seriously talking about Fox News? The Fox News?
Post by Steve Benen. September 5, 2008.
Van Halen, Heart, Others to GOP: Stop Using Our Songs!
GOP ignores copyrights, raises ire of multiple recording artists.
Post by Dave Burdick. September 5, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Polling - Create doubt
Posted by: KitCarson on Jan 19, 2008 3:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The goal of variances in the polling is to discredit and create doubts about polling. Although exit polls and other polling in the past has been accurate the time has come to "create dis-information and thus doubt".

Then we can trust the $5,500 per unit piece of junk electronic voting machine.

All the better to throw elections in the future. Get your brains out; they need to be washed by corporate media for the Brave New World.

KitCarson

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Validity of Polls
Posted by: efrainstacy on Jan 19, 2008 4:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just like a maker of, say, hamburger patties has to rely on sampling to judge the taste quality of their product (because a bite cannot be taken out of every patty they make) so must we rely on polls to try to predict primary election winners (because we cannot ask every voter about their choice). If the patty manufacturing process is such that the morning patties are of much better quality than the afternoon patties and the manufacturer samples only once in the morning, then the manufacturer will overestimate the amount of good-quality patties they are producing. A better way of sampling in this case would be to take several samples equally distributed throughout the day. This form of sampling makes it possible to capture the essence of the variability of the hamburger quality.

The same concept explained above applies to primary election votes. The difference from the above example is that the variability comes not from time but from differences of voters' inclinations. A pollster must make a guess as to what is the most representative cross-section of the voter population to give the best approximation to the voting results. Since the pool of candidates this year is very different from those of the past, it is highly likely that the pollsters are struggling to get this cross-section right. By not using an optimal cross-section, pollsters introduce unmeasurable error in their poll results.

The +/- percentage points that are quoted on poll results only represent the known error, which is based on the size of the sampling and not on its cross-section.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Validity of Polls Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Validity of Polls Posted by: cwilsondrum
» RE: Validity of Polls Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Adding .... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Adding .... Posted by: efrainstacy
Polling doesn't work anymore because ...
Posted by: johnclark on Jan 19, 2008 9:51 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
nobody answers their telephone.

Most of us have our cell on us 24/7, are always close to our email account, but let the machine answer our land line. With so many telemarketers calling, why would we pick it up? The polling organizations are treated like any other spam call these days.

When Jon asked Zogby how many calls it takes to get 850 responses, he said about 6000! That is a big hole in the survey. The weights the polling orgs. have used to read the results don't work anymore. The magic calculations of Gallup, Zogby, ... have lost said magic. Most of us have stopped talking to them, and those that do will talk to anybody.

I am glad Obama won one more delegate, though. I'm not ready to work for McKinney, yet. SC next Sat. We don't vote until Feb 12th (super the inside the beltway tuesday). Maybe MD/DC/VA will decide it after all and launch 1001 conspiracy theories...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You might want to look at the historical polls
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 20, 2008 12:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For example, we need someone to go back to say, 1970 and start comparing the results of those historical polls to the votes.

What's the spread between pre-election polls, vote counts, and exit polls in the pre-electronic voting world?

Also, who is carrying out the polls? The corporate media conglomerates?

"What is the National Election Pool?

"ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, Fox, and NBC, have created the National Election Pool to provide tabulated vote counts and exit poll surveys for the 2004 major presidential primaries and the November general election.

These six major news organization, in a joint decision, have appointed Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International as the sole provider of exit polls for the most important political races of 2004. The AP will tally the vote."


However, there is some very murky business going on with the exit polling these days - see this study (pdf file) on the 2004 vote:

"Calibrated and Uncalibrated Exit Poll Data

Part of the reason the issue went away for the media – and simultaneously raised suspicion on the web – is secrecy and confusion about the data and what exactly is being characterized as the exit poll. If you go to the CNN website or any other website on which 2004 exit poll data are available, you’ll see numbers very different from those released on election day. This is because the survey results originally collected and presented to subscribers were subsequently “corrected” to conform to official tallies."


Why should anyone trust the corporate media anymore? They're running their own push-polling campaign, after all (the "national debates" hosted at NBC and ABC).

Before we decide that "polling no longer works", we might want to think a bit more about corruption in corporate media and in the privatized voting industy - now managed and run by the likes of ChoicePoint, Diebold and Sequoia Voting Systems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sexist?
Posted by: Joe on Jan 20, 2008 3:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Men: Clinton 43%, Obama 45%
Women: Clinton 51%, Obama 38%.

if the numbers were switched we'd see a male-bashing story on alternet in a couple days.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let us fool ourselves, again...
Posted by: Ydotheyhateus on Jan 20, 2008 11:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We know that at the end, the establishment's candidate is going to win the Whitehouse.
The cadidates need to convince the establishment that they are the ideal candidate to maintain the status quo.

So it is going to be Romney, McCain, or Clinton. Obama hasn't proven himself trustworthy yet. May be next time around he might have a chance.

Meanwhile, let us pretend we live in a democracy and go through the frivolous civic exercise of voting...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Let us fool ourselves, again... Posted by: alternetrose
Another anti-Hillary message
Posted by: johnp on Jan 21, 2008 12:16 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet must be searching for anything they can find, to discredit Hillary. Would Alternet have published this nonsense about whether Hillary "actually" won, and whether Obama "actually" lost, because of a dispute over a single delegate, if Obama had been the winner of the popular vote?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another anti-Hillary message Posted by: Joshua Holland
Ydotheyhateus writes:
Posted by: Astroboy on Jan 21, 2008 1:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"We know that at the end, the establishment's candidate is going to win the Whitehouse.
The cadidates need to convince the establishment that they are the ideal candidate to maintain the status quo.

So it is going to be Romney, McCain, or Clinton. Obama hasn't proven himself trustworthy yet. May be next time around he might have a chance.

Meanwhile, let us pretend we live in a democracy and go through the frivolous civic exercise of voting... "

*******************

How in HELL are we going to change a fucking lightbulb if we succumb to this sense of powerlessness!

In the present state of our country WE DON'T HAVE THE FUCKING LUXURY!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]