Exit Polls: Half of Clinton Voters Will Not Support Obama

[jreeves]

Wait, I thought that only the swing states mattered? Now you are saying 100% matters? Make up your mind.



Which is why Cuban Americans represent a tiny fraction of the population, but get pandered too because Florida has been a swing state for a while, and they can swing any election?

Seriously? You really don't get how demographics can change the election? Not everyones vote is worth the same amount. I voted in Cali in 2004, my vote was worth essentially nothing. Someone who voted in Florida or Ohio or PA had a much more important vote.

But you know all of this, since you mentioned swing states before. Your just doing anything you can to pretend that Obama can't win. Even stealing stuff from the Hillary playbook.

I stated that 100% of the population determines an election. That doesn't change the fact that the swing states will determine the election. That's not contradictory, doesn't each state contain 100% of that state's population? Well it's that 100% that is going to determine who wins that state, not 13%.
Demographics can change an election but it's the majority that wins. If Obama gets 13% and MCcain gets 87%, its going to be a landslide. Obama has proven he has trouble getting the majority vote, so it should be very interesting in the general election.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wait....so you mean in 2000, it wasn't Florida that determined the difference between Bush and Gore? Approximately 16 million people lived there in 2000. 290 million in America or so. You do the math.

Elections in this country aren't won or lost by who decides to vote for who, they are won or lost on who comes out to vote. Democrats have a candidate that 13% of this country will vote for and turn out in droves for, all around the country and that are populous in states that have never been Democratic before. This election is going to shake up the electoral map.

Never been democratic before? You may want to check your historical facts there Mensa boy. And you are now agreeing that "swing" States are important.

And I will believe the "shake up" when I see it. As I recall we were all regaled how 2004 was going to be a "wake up" call and that Kerry was a shoe in. That the Dems were gonna walk away with the Congress and the Whitehouse that year.

Oh wait, I forgot, Bush waved his magic wand and "stole" that election.

 

[ReillyT]

Never been democratic before? You may want to check your historical facts there Mensa boy. And you are now agreeing that "swing" States are important.

And I will believe the "shake up" when I see it. As I recall we were all regaled how 2004 was going to be a "wake up" call and that Kerry was a shoe in. That the Dems were gonna walk away with the Congress and the Whitehouse that year.

Oh wait, I forgot, Bush waved his magic wand and "stole" that election.

I worked with the Kerry campaign and I don't remember many people thinking it was a shoe-in. Of course, democrats hoped for that, but every party hopes for that.

As for swing states, these are just states of moderate to large size that could go either way in the election. Changing demographics and candidates mean that swing states will differ from election to election. History can suggest what states will be swing states, but nothing is definite. Certainly, this year we will have demographic changes (esp. in the West) and two unusual candidates. I don't see it as difficult to believe that new states will factor as important in this election than in prior elections.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I worked with the Kerry campaign and I don't remember many people thinking it was a shoe-in. Of course, democrats hoped for that, but every party hopes for that.

As for swing states, these are just states of moderate to large size that could go either way in the election. Changing demographics and candidates mean that swing states will differ from election to election. History can suggest what states will be swing states, but nothing is definite. Certainly, this year we will have demographic changes (esp. in the West) and two unusual candidates. I don't see it as difficult to believe that new states will factor as important in this election than in prior elections.

I suggest you read Mensa retards posts. Take off the rose colored glasses and pay attention.

 

[ReillyT]

I suggest you read Mensa retards posts. Take off the rose colored glasses and pay attention.

What did Larkin say other than that swing states change and Obama has the opportunity to put states into play that have not been in play in previous elections? That seems obvious to me. It may or may not happen, but it is certainly possible.

 

[Larkinn]

I stated that 100% of the population determines an election. That doesn't change the fact that the swing states will determine the election.

Bullshit. You said 13% which is the population of African Americans nationally not per state.

That's not contradictory, doesn't each state contain 100% of that state's population? Well it's that 100% that is going to determine who wins that state, not 13%.

Even if you want to continue with that line of tripe, your still wrong. Lets look at a state like North Carolina. Usually only 50% of people (at most) vote for the presidential. North Carolina is 22% black so that would be 11% (or less, actually, but we'll assume 11%). So now suddenly, say, 20% is voting in the presidential all for one guy. If you don't think that massive shift is going to turn this election upside down, your naive as all hell.

Demographics can change an election but it's the majority that wins. If Obama gets 13% and MCcain gets 87%, its going to be a landslide. Obama has proven he has trouble getting the majority vote, so it should be very interesting in the general election.

Right, because everyone white is going to vote for McCain

 

[Larkinn]

Never been democratic before? You may want to check your historical facts there Mensa boy. And you are now agreeing that "swing" States are important.

Sure they are. But in this electoral map the swing states are going to be very different than any other election.

And I will believe the "shake up" when I see it.

Look at the polls. Its happening already.

As I recall we were all regaled how 2004 was going to be a "wake up" call and that Kerry was a shoe in. That the Dems were gonna walk away with the Congress and the Whitehouse that year.

Wtf? I don't remember that at all. I thought he had a chance, but he was never a "shoe in". Bush was a sitting president in the middle of a war, obviously thats not an easy thing to overcome.

 

[Anguille]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/06/primaries.change/index.html

It's around the 10th paragraph down. There was another article with more exit polls, but I can't find it. I'll provide those links as soon as I find them.

Here's all the exit poll results:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

I find it comical that so many said they won't vote for Obama if he wins the nomination, yet 54% still think he can win it. Moral of the story: voters are confused as to what the hell is going on.

"According to early exit polls, half of Clinton's supporters in Indiana would not vote for Obama in a general election matchup with Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee."
"In all, 1,738 voters were polled."

These polls are only indicative of a tiny number of Clinton supporters in suburban Indiana.

I support Clinton, but if Obama wins the nomination, he'll get my vote. It baffles me why anyone, even a conservative Republican would consider voting for that loose cannon, McCain.

 

[hanford78]

I don't know. Honestly, I don't know that much about Ron Paul.

I vote issues, too. I have yet to see a Dem who shares my views on them. I can handle Hillary. I think Obama would take us headlong into disaster on so many fronts it's insane.

So I'd consider Hillary over Paul, if he's just so out there I couldn't stomach him. Hillary's a known evil, and she's smart enough to learn from her mistakes. And there's always the hope that now that she's got more money than God she might actually use the office of the presidency for something other than personal gain.

I find it funny that all the people who voted for Bush in the last election are telling us that Obama would be a bad president.

 

[busara]

isnt it possible that the clinton supporters are simply saying that in the polls to try and make her appear more electable in the general election? if they make people think that a significant portion of dems wont vote for obama maybe it will scare the supers into going with hillary.

i would be very surprised if a significant portion of dems actually vote mccain in the general. that would be stupid and really hurt their party

 

[Gunny]

I find it funny that all the people who voted for Bush in the last election are telling us that Obama would be a bad president.

What's one got to do with the other? A lot of people voted for Bush last election because Kerry would be a bad President.

A good number of conservatives on this board don't like McCain, but guess what ... they'll vote for him if it's McCain vs Obama.

See how that works?

Nothing funny about it really. It's pathetic that two bottom feeders like McCain and Obama are the best this country has to offer.

 

[jreeves]

Bullshit. You said 13% which is the population of African Americans nationally not per state.



Even if you want to continue with that line of tripe, your still wrong. Lets look at a state like North Carolina. Usually only 50% of people (at most) vote for the presidential. North Carolina is 22% black so that would be 11% (or less, actually, but we'll assume 11%). So now suddenly, say, 20% is voting in the presidential all for one guy. If you don't think that massive shift is going to turn this election upside down, your naive as all hell.



Right, because everyone white is going to vote for McCain

Dumbass, I'm not going to post each state's black population....so that's the reason I stated 13%.


Right, blacks are going to turnout more than any other racial demographic, that's just plain idiotic. Guaranteed, whites as well as blacks will be energized in the general election.

No I was stating the obvious that 87% influences the election more than 13 percent.

 

[Larkinn]

Dumbass, I'm not going to post each state's black population....so that's the reason I stated 13%.

Accuracy isn't that important to you, is it?

Right, blacks are going to turnout more than any other racial demographic, that's just plain idiotic. Guaranteed, whites as well as blacks will be energized in the general election.

North Carolina black turnout was something like 35% of the electorate. They are 22% of the states population.

But somehow blacks will just lose all their desire to come out in the general?

No I was stating the obvious that 87% influences the election more than 13 percent.

You are incredibly politically naive.

 

[JimH52]

All this is very interesting. I do hope the Democrats (Obama) are not setting the GOP up for bush2, but I am not sure about Obama's chance against McCain. He will get the nomination. It is a matter of time.

I don't know how McCain can defend his stance with Iraq? I don't know how he can answer concerns about the Ecomony when he has stated his ignorance on the matter?

It is going to be an interesting fall.

 

[Jon]

All this is very interesting. I do hope the Democrats (Obama) are not setting the GOP up for bush2, but I am not sure about Obama's chance against McCain. He will get the nomination. It is a matter of time.

I don't know how McCain can defend his stance with Iraq? I don't know how he can answer concerns about the Ecomony when he has stated his ignorance on the matter?

It is going to be an interesting fall.

McCain, unlike Clinton, hopefully will call Obama out on the things that he should be called out on. His ties to Wright, his time served at Trinity church, his complete disregard for American tradition, his lack of patriotism. McCain will go to town on Obama, and I hope the American people finally fucking listen.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Accuracy isn't that important to you, is it?



North Carolina black turnout was something like 35% of the electorate. They are 22% of the states population.

But somehow blacks will just lose all their desire to come out in the general?



You are incredibly politically naive.

You are aware that most of North Carolinians vote Republican in National Elections? So crowing about how many blacks voted in a democratic primary does little good. Republicans only needed to vote if local matters were on the ballot or in my case to try and get rid of odious Republicans from running in November.

By the way I voted for Allen Keyes not McCain.

 

[ReillyT]

You are aware that most of North Carolinians vote Republican in National Elections?

I wasn't aware that this couldn't change. Does seem to make the democratic process a bit hollow, doesn't it?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I wasn't aware that this couldn't change. Does seem to make the democratic process a bit hollow, doesn't it?

It means comparing the number of Democrats that voted in a contested primary to the number of Republicans that did not vote because the primary was decided long ago is idiotic.

Further the rural democrats probably will not vote for Obama in the general, whether they stay home or vote for McCain remains to be seen.

 

[Jon]

You are aware that most of North Carolinians vote Republican in National Elections?

You are aware that people are registering to vote Democratic in droves, right? I think some of these states the Republicans are taking for granted may come back to bite them in the ass.

In the 2000 primaries, 780,000 Democrats voted in the Texas primary, and 1.1 million Republicans voted.

In the 2008 primaries, over 2.8 million Democrats voted in the Texas primary, and only 1.2 million voted Republican.

The Republican voters did not change much, while the Democratic voters grew by more than 300%.

Am I claiming that Democrats can win Texas in November? Not at all. But, I don't think it will be the landslide victory Republicans are used to seeing, ESPECIALLY if Clinton voters do vote Obama.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are aware that people are registering to vote Democratic in droves, right? I think some of these states the Republicans are taking for granted may come back to bite them in the ass.

In the 2000 primaries, 780,000 Democrats voted in the Texas primary, and 1.1 million Republicans voted.

In the 2008 primaries, over 2.8 million Democrats voted in the Texas primary, and only 1.2 million voted Republican.

The Republican voters did not change much, while the Democratic voters grew by more than 300%.

Am I claiming that Democrats can win Texas in November? Not at all. But, I don't think it will be the landslide victory Republicans are used to seeing, ESPECIALLY if Clinton voters do vote Obama.

You are aware that in at least some of those cases dumb shits are changing party affiliation simply to vote for Hillary or Obama depending on whether the retard thinks they will lose in November?

A party affiliation is needed to vote in a primary but has no effect in the General election except you can not vote straight party ticket for a Republican if you are registered as a Democrat.