The biggest "poll" we've done - means a landslide

[Tara Emory]

I've looked at some numbers, the sorts of numbers apparently no one is looking at when trying to figure out who might win the election.

I'm talking about the heavy voter turnout and actual numbers of the first and second place winners of the primaries, which for some reason no one ever seems to compare the Democratic numbers with the Republican numbers. So I did this, as I first noticed that North Carolina isn't even a battleground state.. If the same people who voted in the primaries voted in the election, it would solidly be Obama territory.

So let's look at NC
Obama wins at 887,391 Hillary Clinton is second at 657,669
McCain wins at 383,085 Huckabee is second at 63,018

That's amazing- THE PERSON IN SECOND PLACE of the Dems got about twice as much as the WINNER of the GOP.

I mean, screw those polls where they poll 1000 random people and they say, "well, it's kinda close".. We've already had a pretty large sampling of the population say that the person we like 2nd on the Dems is still twice as good as the person we like the most in the GOP.

Let's try another 2 Battleground states. And forgive me if I'm not exact with the numbers- I averaged a bit.

Pennsylvania -
McCain, 594,061 Ron Paul - 129,246
Clinton 1,273,000 Obama 1,059,000


Ohio:
McCain 656,000 Huckabee 335,000
Clinton 1,259,000 Obama 1,055,000

As you can see, Obama in SECOND place, had about twice the amounts of votes as McCain in FIRST. Now, if only McCain could snare in those Hillary voters then he'd have something.. Still think he picked Palin for any other reason?

We see similar numbers in another so called "battleground state" New Hampshire

Clinton 112,404 Obama 104,815
McCain 88,571 Romney 75,546

Now lets look at a real shocker - TEXAS, probably the reddest of the red states:

McCain 697,000 Huckabee (or Romney, I didn't write it down) 518,000
Clinton 1,462,000 Obama 1,362,000

By even this definition, Texas is a total shoe-in for Obama (or Clinton if she was the nominee).

I'm not sure what to say in conclusion, but there is one thing I did consider- In 2000, I myself registered as a Republican so I could vote for McCain against Bush in the Massachusetts primaries.. I admit that it was a tactic, and something I was suggested I do, since Bush was gaining momentum and the Democrats were really unhappy with him..

Now you can look at these numbers and say, well, maybe a lot of these people were really Republicans and they were voting for someone they didn't like, becuase they wanted them to be up against the GOP nominee becuase "they're so bad, they would lose".. Doesn't make any sense since in most cases, the 2nd place Dem person won way more than the first place GOP winner. If there was some sort of pattern here, I can't find it.

And another thing about primaries. People don't really bother to rig primaries. They don't have voter fraud in primaries. I mean, who would bother? The stakes aren't nearly as high as a general election.

-Tara

[Tiffany Anne]

I must say when I saw there was a post from you about a big poll, I was hoping for something else

I'm not really sure how valid Primary stats are when applied to the General.

Given, as you point out, the fluidity of the electorate, plus the time is different (spring vs fall) plus the different methods in different states (primaries vs caucuses), but it is interesting.

I've been watching http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ The guy who does it is one of those math genius baseball stat guys who can look at a bunch of numbers and tell you who'll win any baseball game. I'm not smart enough to understand how he calculates it all (and I've heard him explain it) but he has Obama at a 95.7% chance to win, so I find that encouraging

[qeuqheeg222]

the early voting going on at the lemon city library here in miami is very heavy..lines every day for the last week...a lot of new voters are going to be coming into the mix this election...

[Deege]

I don't think as many republicans voted in the primaries as they will in the general. It was almost a no-contest, so nobody showed up to vote for/against McCain. Whereas, Hillary/Barrack was a big bitter battle, and more Democrats showed up to vote.

[chefmike]

I must say when I saw there was a post from you about a big poll, I was hoping for something else

I'm not really sure how valid Primary stats are when applied to the General.

Given, as you point out, the fluidity of the electorate, plus the time is different (spring vs fall) plus the different methods in different states (primaries vs caucuses), but it is interesting.

I've been watching http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ The guy who does it is one of those math genius baseball stat guys who can look at a bunch of numbers and tell you who'll win any baseball game. I'm not smart enough to understand how he calculates it all (and I've heard him explain it) but he has Obama at a 95.7% chance to win, so I find that encouraging

There's a lot of buzz about that website, I heard it mentioned on MSNBC the other day.

[Tara Emory]

I don't think as many republicans voted in the primaries as they will in the general. It was almost a no-contest, so nobody showed up to vote for/against McCain. Whereas, Hillary/Barrack was a big bitter battle, and more Democrats showed up to vote.

yeah, I kind of figured that too.. I'd have to compare the amounts of people who voted in the primaries with the amount who vote in the general election.. I did look at 2004 for texas, where is says that about 7 million people voted. In the 2008 primaries, Obama and Clinton together got about 3 million votes. If everybody who didnt vote in the primaries voted for mcCain, then that's like 4 million votes for him vs potential 3 million for the dems.. but since the remaining 4 million non-primary voters are probably split 60/40 (leaning GOP), then still still suggests that the Dems might have an advantage.

-Tara

[Deege]

Well all I know is, I hope the polls are all correct.