Hillary's not too popular in my state (Vermont)

[cali]

Ok, this is not a Hillary bashing thread. If she's the nominee, I'll absolutely vote for her, but I do think it's interesting how little traction she's gaining in my state. Not that it really matters how teensy little Vermont votes.


Senator Barack Obama topped the poll, taking 36 percent of the votes. Senator John Edwards followed in second with just under 30 percent of the vote. Senator Hillary Clinton and Governor Bill Richardson came in third and fourth respectively, each garnering about 10 percent of the approximately 800 votes cast.

Full Results
1 Sen. Obama 36%
2 Sen. Edwards 29.2%
3 Sen. Clinton 10.2%
4 Gov. Richardson
5 Rep. Kucinich 8.2%
6 Sen. Biden 3.7%
7 Sen. Gravel 1%
8 Sen.Dodd 0.3%
http://www.vtdemocrats.org/index.php?id=1323

[Double T]

1. Vermonters are smart people, looks like there is still hope..........

for changing our train wreck course of inaction.

[Hepburn]

2. Yeah, I do have to agree.

Hillary as the nominee is a sure defeat.

[DURHAM D]

3. Looks like a good poll - online and all...

[cali]

5. It may not be a "good" poll but

it's certainly accurate to say that Obama enjoys far greater support her than HIllary. He's raised well over 10x as much money here as she has. Here's a snip about Obama's recent visit to VT:

Obama’s take from the gala exceeded the original goal of $250,000 “considerably,” says Bill Stetson. When heaped atop the $121,779 the senator had already raised in the state, Sunday’s earnings catapult his Vermont fundraising campaign well beyond the competition. According to July figures from the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is a distant second with21,150 Green Mountain greenbacks.

In addition to the outpouring of funds from Vermont voters, the state’s federal lawmakers also spoke in support of Obama, with senior Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) stopping just short of an official endorsement. Speaking in the Stetsons’ driveway, Leahy maintained that he and his congressional colleagues don’t take “formal positions” on presidential candidates at such an early stage in the race, but conceded, “Half of my campaign staff is working for him.”

Vermont’s two other congressmen also expressed glowing admiration for Obama. Congressman Peter Welch (D-VT), for instance, said the Illinois senator “represents hope and change.” Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) called him “a wonderful guy and a great speaker.”

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/nc/columns/local-matters-news/2007/obamas-vermont-appearance-raises-hopes-and-more-than-250000.html

[patrice]

14. Of course it is a good poll, just not "good" by the criteria

for identification of population and selection of sample as prescribed by the standards of empirical research, which are, indeed, also good, just good by a different definition of that word.

One thing I think about when I hear more qualitative data or anecdotal evidence, such as this, de-valued by those with more strictly quantitative assumptions is the undeniable effects upon quantitative data of the limited assumptions that they reinforce. I'm referring here to what happens to people who predominately decide based upon the desire not to be associated with "a loser", when they hear "Vote for Hillary because she can win and we know she can win because we have (own) these polls." The circularity of these effects upon the numbers makes the data look like something that it is not necessarily and that is support based upon specifically informed decisions about one set of policies compared to other sets of policies.

NGU!

[patrice]

4. There is nothing "small" right now . . .

If critical mass has indeed been reached in some dimensions, there is nothing teensy at this moment in Human History.

I think about a line in something written by Peter Russell who wrote The Global Brain, where he observes that "Affairs are now soul size":

The human heart can go to the lengths of God.
Dark and cold we may be, but this
Is no winter now. The frozen misery
Of centuries breaks, cracks, begins to move,
The thunder is the thunder of the floes,
The thaw, the flood, the upstart Spring.
Thank God our time is now when wrong
Comes up to face us everywhere,
Never to leave us till we take
The longest stride of soul men ever took.
Affairs are now soul size.
The enterprise
Is exploration into God.
Where are you going? It takes
So many thousand years to wake,
But will you wake for pity's sake?

(The only thing I would add to that is quotation marks around the word "God".)

P.S. "God(s)" bless Vermont, the place/culture that saved the life of one of my beloved nieces!

[Colobo]

6. Vermont is supporting the right man!

[janx]

7. Hey.

Where's BIDEN? :rofl:

[MaineDem]

8. An online poll isn't accurate

All those people who don't know the poll is there don't vote. Neither do those without internet access or limited access.

I know Vermonters make good choices and this is certainly a plus for Obama. I wouldn't read too much into this yet, however.

(Not trying to rain on the parade. This is good for Obama; just don't get your hopes up. I think Clinton is leading in state-wide polls.)

[Windy]

9. In telephone polls where only people without caller ID pick up

Certainly a flawed sampling and not a true cross section of the electorate.

[MaineDem]

10. That's true

But no more than an online one, no?

[ruggerson]

13. Obama may be leading in Vermont

but this poll proves nothing. And it's not an online vs telephone construct, it's non-scientific (where people self select if they participate in a poll) vs scientific, where statisticians and pollsters attempt to look at a representative, chosen slice of the electorate, and report fairly accurate snapshots of information, within a statistical margin of error.

Online polls are not even "polls." They are just like threads on a discussion board. Statistically, they are utterly worthless.

[cali]

11. Well, again

Obama's raised more than 10x the amount of money that Hillary's raised in Vermont. As for Hillary leading in state wide polls, I haven't seen any that show that Hillary's leading here, but I didn't exactly do an exhaustive search. The straw poll was a Vt. State dem party poll, and the people responding were almost certainly dem activists, so it's true that it's hardly an accurate survey. The money thing, however, is certainly indicative of a lack of enthusiasm for Clinton. She's raised twenty-one grand, and he's rasised something like 300 grand. In any case, I'm actually not an Obama supporter.

[ruggerson]

12. Uh this poll is worthless - it's not scientific

it's an online poll. Has about as much credibility as if one of us unilaterally proclaimed someone the winner. In other words, none.

[cali]

15. Fine.

(although it a state party poll, and frankly I don't believe that all online polls are worthless) but how do you respond to the fact that Hillary has raised $21,000 in Vermont compared to the approx. $300,000 raised by Obama? Surely that says something about their relative popularity here. And anecdotally, I can tell you, I know of very few dems supporting her. The majority of activists I know are not enthused about her candidacy. As the artile I posted in #5 states, Senator Leahy came damn close to endorsing Obama.

[ruggerson]

17. I'm sure Obama IS leading in Vt

it would make total sense to me, as Vt represents the demographic to which Obama seems to appeal. It's just that THIS particular piece of information does nothing to lend credible evidence to that supposition.

[patrice]

16. And your background in qualitative research is?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the nature of proof.

[ruggerson]

18. Anyone with a brainstem

knows that online polls, being self selected, have no inherent statistical worth whatsoever.

You see right here, all the time, how people spam online polls. You can change the results just by starting a thread to say "hey, go here and vote for X."

Scientific polls, obviously, are not always accurate, but using a rigorously selected sample, they at least attempt to approach a reasonable approximation of an accurate snapshot within a margin of error.

[patrice]

20. I am completely familiar with the criteria for good quantitative Science. nt

[ruggerson]

23. Good, then we agree

your red herring questions, apparently designed to show your blinding genius in the field of statistical research, notwithstanding.

If you disagree with my remarks, say so and elucidate. Homey don't play the red herring game.

[patrice]

24. Perhaps homey regards it as a "red herring game" because

homey can't answer any of the questions.

If you don't recognize the issues associated with corelational, and quantitative and qualitative research, the nature of proof, and how samples can be engineered by means of data-mining for the ***paying customer***, I suggest you start by reading the book I recommended. Ignorance is not justification for the "red herring" label. But then perhaps you don't recognize these issues about what constitutes the facts because you have a vested interest of some sort in not doing so.

Just how free are you?

[ruggerson]

25. You don't seem to get it

I can tell you that something is blue if it is indeed blue. You then can ask me if I"m a professor of semiotics and have I read "The Color Semiotics of Power."

Which of course has nothing to do with my ability to recognize the color blue.

The inaccuracies of online polling do not require an advanced degree in statistical analysis to recognize. Hell, they just require common sense.

And, since you still haven't disagreed with anything I've posted, despite my request that you do so, it only lends credence to my earlier observations that your remarks are only designed to obfuscate the subject of this thread with red herrings about your illustrious background as a statistical sage.

Nice try.

[patrice]

26. I do not deny the "realities" of quantitative research.

I just don't claim, like $ome people do, that it's the whole truth. The truth also consists of qualitative phenomena and anyone who says it doesn't is invalid.

The truth is that even if you DID construct that perfect poll (and there are NO absolutes, so perfection is an illusion) it wouldn't mean what people seem to want to claim it means. We are not talking about anything as objective as the color blue here; we are talking about how and what people think and the relationships between that and what they do. Something not quite so absolute as $$$$ome people want us to think it is.

[ruggerson]

28. I have no argument

with you that "scientific" polling can be constructed, with a prior agenda, to lead to a more or less desired outcome.

But the subject of this thread was an assertion that an online "poll" demonstrated that Hillary was not popular in Vermont. As I've written upthread, I don't think it demonstrates anything at all. Hillary may very well NOT be popular in Vermont, but an online poll does not offer any authentic statistical evidence, one way or the other, to support that conclusion.

[patrice]

27. Have you ever wondered if in fact . . .

You could just possibly be the one who just "doesn't seem to get it", because if you haven't, then, you don't actually get it and, btw, as a real liberal, I live with this fact constantly and that allows me to relate to other truths, such as yours. Can you say the same?

The truth is bigger than we are, that is, unless you have the powers of what some people refer to as "God". This is also one of the reasons why we should refrain from manipulating the minds of others.

[patrice]

21. I asked you what your practical background in these issues is.

Please describe your own experiences in the application of the principals of research.

[patrice]

22. And - Please don't ignore my question about "the nature of proof" nt

[patrice]

19. Have you ever read a book called "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"

by a Scientific Historian named Thomas R. Kuhn?

Would you care to comment on the relationships of corelational forms of research, such as surveys, to the identification causes and effects, such as what causes a person to answer a poll or vote as s/he does?

[dkf]

29. I wish Vermont was voting 1st intead of Iowa.