Does being the only woman as a Democratic candidate skew the polls?

[harlinchi]

Many folks are referring to the inevitability of Sen. Clinton's campaign achieving success. Might there be a skewing of numbers resulting from her being the sole female candidate? It could be that she is a fall-back answer given to pollsters by women. I submit Sen. Clinton's poll numbers would be adversely impacted by the existence of another female candidate, and that talk of her inevitability as a nominee would fall by the wayside.

There's enough slamming of various candidates here and on other boards without my adding to the pile. I will support the Democratic nominee. Period. I am not attempting to disparage Sen. Clinton. If she is our nominee, she'll get my vote.

I am, however, a little put off by the support for Sen. Clinton by Mr. Murdoch, by the Iran 'your military is a terrorist organization' vote, by the amount of bucks she allegedly is receiving from defense industries and other corporate entities and by her apparent willingness to attempt to appease the hawkish among us by the statements she makes. BTW, I have concerns about the other candidates for other reasons, too.

I am sure, though, that Sen. Clinton would be better than any GOP candidate. It seems to me, though, that Mr. Edwards would be better for the country than she.

[peace13]

1. No the poll skews the poll.

Exit poll = Kerry lose. Why do we even look at them?

[pnwmom]

3. The exit polls actually showed Kerry ahead, until they were "adjusted"

to conform to the reported election results.

[peace13]

10. My point. If you can adjust a poll what good is it?

[pnwmom]

12. I don't think they should be adjusting the exit polls. Unadjusted exit polls

are a good way to screen for election fraud. When there is a significant discrepancy, there should be a hand-count.

[harlinchi]

4. I admit I do look at them.

I don't trust them but I look. Hearing that, i.e., 52% of those polled in the US support military action in Iran makes me question the validity of published polls, even those by Zogby, a formerly highly regarded polling organization.

[Basileus Basileon]

7. Because phone polls aren't exit polls.

Pre-election polling in 2004 showed a narrow Bush popular vote win. Guess what happened?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Unadjusted Exit Polls Also Showed Dukakis Beating Bush Pere

I don't think anybody thought that election was stolen...

[robcon]

2. yes, it does.

Just as Obama's being the only black person skews the results.

Next question.

[harlinchi]

8. Your condescension overwhelms me!

I thought it was a reasonable question to ask, given the talk of inevitability which surrounds her campaign. If it is self-evident, as your 'next question' implies, why does no one mention it? Why do the pundits, honorable and intelligent men and women, all, act as if her poll numbers and money equal nomination?

I agree about Obama to the extent that Blacks are actually supporting him; I do not.

I don't actually mind condescension when it is justified; it was here!

[robcon]

14. Are you kidding me?????

You wrote "If it is self-evident, as your 'next question' implies, why does no one mention it? Why do the pundits, honorable and intelligent men and women, all, act as if her poll numbers and money equal nomination?"

What is the connection between the fact that Clinton is the first major candidate to be a woman, and the idea that the "pundits" (all of them???? I don't think so) think her poll numbers=nomination? Are you trying to say that if she wasn't a woman, the pundits (all of them?) would think her poll numbers and money meant that her nomination status would be in trouble????

My post remarked how obvious it is that a woman candidate - with the pluses and minuses of that situation with the electorate - "skews" the nomination/election process, i.e., she gets support/criticism from different sectors of the electorate than other candidates because of her sex. The same is true with Obama, the first major black candidate - with the pluses and minuses of that status. That also "skews" his nomination support from the electorate because of his race.

I think your OP was simplistic and obvious. Your response to my post was puzzling, with its implication that when pundits think the polls indicate a win for Clinton, that is somehow tied in, not to research or the polls, but to her sex. Twisted logic much?

[harlinchi]

19. I was trying to say that I thought that Sen. Clinton's poll numbers are not...

...indicative of her actual support, not as a function of her gender but because she is the only woman in the race. My secondary point is that her support will wane as others drop out and their former supporters are distributed among the remaining candidates.

It is simplistic and obvious. I wonder then why no mention of it has been made. There has been no disclaimer. Sen. Clinton's poll number reflect the fact that she is the only female candidate. Allowing ourselves to get caught up in her numbers as indicative of the inevitability of her success distorts reality, in my view.

Tied to her sex? Only her poll numbers. Mis-conclude much?

[robcon]

27. Illogic on parade.

"Sen. Clinton's poll numbers are not indicative of her actual support, not as a function of her gender but because she is the only woman in the race."

Huh? Are we supposed to assume that Clinton will change her sex before the primaries, or that another woman will enter? :wtf: The support she has now, barring any collapse of her campaign (certainly that's possible) will continue to be partly due to the fact that "she is the only woman in the race." Is that going to change between now and the convention? Are you saying her "actual support" and her support in the polls and in the voting booths of the primaries are different phenomena?

"Sen. Clinton's poll number reflect the fact that she is the only female candidate. Allowing ourselves to get caught up in her numbers as indicative of the inevitability of her success distorts reality, in my view."

Ah, that well-worn strawman argument... Clinton's nomination is the result of the "inevitability of her success." I don't know of any pundits who think Clinton can't lose. Do you?

The arguments about inevitability, on DU at least, come almost exclusively from Clinton detractors, not her supporters, and are used as a strawman argument (claiming her supporters think her nomination is inevitable) against her nomination.

"My secondary point is that her support will wane as others drop out and their former supporters are distributed among the remaining candidates."

Are you saying that Clinton will pick up "none" or "almost none" of the Richardson, Dodd, or Biden voters when/if they drop out? I don't doubt that she will pick up a disproportionate percent of women voters among those supporters, but do you think that these candidates, who currently poll at about 5% of Democratic voters, will be decisive, even if she obtains less than proportional support when they drop out?? Even granting that argument, if she can, for example, only gain 1 or 2 points from those candidates - what's the problem?

Clinton currently has voting intentions of 37-47% of Democrats in the last ten polls, and her lead is from 14 to 26 points, according to http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

She can lose, and we've seen campaigns collapse before. But your argument that she will shed support as the minor candidates fall out, IMO, is sophistry in desperate need of facts or evidence to support your "feeling" or "wish" that she will not win.

[Captain Hilts]

11. Just as Edwards as the only Southerner skews 'em. No, subjects of polls don't skew them. nt

[pnwmom]

5. Maybe. It could also skew the election, since 54% of the electorate are women.

In New York, Hillary got 75% of the women's vote, doing well in both the blue and red areas of the state. She wouldn't need such a high percentage nationally to win by a comfortable majority.

[OKNancy]

6. Sure it does.

She is the very first woman who actually has a chance to win. For many women this is a thrilling thing. Just think about how liberating it is to see it finally happen.

Let me take on the familiar DU/blogosphere meme about some of the other things mentioned in your post.

I am, however, a little put off by the support for Sen. Clinton by Mr. Murdoch, by the Iran 'your military is a terrorist organization' vote, by the amount of bucks she allegedly is receiving from defense industries and other corporate entities and by her apparent willingness to attempt to appease the hawkish among us by the statements she makes. BTW, I have concerns about the other candidates for other reasons, too

Mr Murdoch's money is not going to make Sen Clinton love the right wing or give him and Fox any break.
If he wants to try to get in good with her, fine.. let him give her money. Same with any other industry or group. Hillary Clinton is smart...get the Republican money before the REPUBLICANS can. Don't just take some of their money, take ALL of their money. If they are stupid enough to give it, more power to her. Also, she says over and over that there should be no war with Iran and diplomacy is the way to go...but good grief, even Russ Feingold said Iran is a threat and shouldn't have nukes.

All our candidates are great IMO, and since Hillary is doing such a great job in the primary and looks really good for the nomination, I'm not sweating it one little bit.

[harlinchi]

9. As the kids say, I'm feelin' you!

Figuratively speaking, of course! I would take great pride in voting for a female candidate who actually wins the presidency. I just wish it could occur in an election that was not as crucial so that the iffy-ness of electing a woman did not come into play during this election which may just determine the 'soul' of America! A similar sentiment is involved in my lack of support for Sen. Obama.

[pnwmom]

13. I'm afraid all elections for the foreseeable future will be this crucial --

since Bush & Co. have put us into such a huge hole.

[illinoisprogressive]

15. it could be a number of things.

One is that alot of women are excited about a woman running. Whether they follow through or actually vote in the primaries is another story.
the other is that the press has given her a totally easy ride to now. that accounts for her supporters to somewhat over react to the debate the other night. Hillary has not faced much in tough questions or the even from the other candidates. So, you get a very long honeymoon with the press, the other candidates have been ignored or have alot of negative press and a daily dose of praising Hillary all the time and it sets things up for skewing the polls alot.
Hillary also has alot of connections within the polling world.

[wyldwolf]

16. Does being the only African American or Hispanic as a Democratic candidate skew the polls?

[harlinchi]

20. Of course! n/t

[gorekerrydreamticket]

17. Does being a famous celebrity skew the polls? nm

[harlinchi]

21. Ronald Reagan and Fred Thompson would say yes! n/t

[jmp]

18. No. The media acting as if no one but Hillary can win ...

... skews the polls.

[harlinchi]

23. But which came first, the chicken or the egg? n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. Does being the only black candidate skew polls for Obama?

[harlinchi]

24. No doubt!

Although I'd imagine Blacks are hesitant to support Sen. Obama in numbers, worrying about wasting their vote. So far, I'm an Edwards supporter.

Blacks are what, 12% of the population? White women are about 36% of the country's population. I think more 'skewing' might be occurring with Sen. Clinton than with Sen. Obama.

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. A good portion of this white women are Republicans. Not many blacks are Republicans

[harlinchi]

28. The 1st mention in support of my position came from Newsweek's Alter.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/68541

The first thing to understand is that Hillary's wide lead among Democrats in the national polls is mostly the result of her support among women. With women making up more than 50 percent of voters in every state (in some states it could go as high as 60 percent), that's one hell of a base.


I simply wanted to point out the fact that since she is the only female, she probably gets the support of a lot of women. I thought polls should state that fact, just as newspaper articles about the federal budget deficit (yearly) or the federal debt (running total) should mention that SS funds are used to offset both or that the Iraq war is NOT included. Both have been mentioned; neither are mentioned enough. Let's be clear what the numbers mean.