Florida, gender gaps, Hillary, and all that

One of the reasons I like Tom Jensen at Public Policy Polling is that he seems more genuinely interested in pursuing the implications of the numbers rather than trying to make ideological point.

In the case of PPP's most recent Florida numbers (McCain up 47-44), here's Tom's take:

John McCain has retaken the lead in Florida after trailing Barack Obama by a small margin last month. The candidates split the independent vote, while McCain receives 84% support from Republicans and Obama gets 76% support from Democrats. The Democrats crossing over to support McCain are disproportionately older white females, an indication that Hillary Clinton's base may not be completely behind Obama in the Sunshine State.

Obama has slipped with Hispanic voters in the last month, leading among them just 48-45 after holding a 51-37 advantage in PPP's previous Florida poll. The numbers show an unusual gender gap, with McCain leading by 11 points among women while trailing by 5 points with men. Last month's results similarly showed Obama doing eight points better with men than women, a trend PPP has not seen in any of its other state by state polling.

Obama has a large lead among young voters, McCain has a big one with senior citizens, and the candidates are virtually tied with those in between.

This is not conventional wisdom regarding Obama's perceived hold on women and Hispanics, and it also raises some intriguing questions about what's going to happen to those numbers when Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney get added into the questions. Only Zogby is currently using Barr and Nader, placing them at 6% and 2% respectively, but that poll is now going stale (data from late June). Where the PPP poll is interesting is that it shows a significantly larger undecided number (8% as opposed to 5-6% in polls throughout July) than previous estimates.

I'm waiting to see what will happen with the next Zogby poll.

Comments

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

Search This Blog