Strawpoll

For eons, liberals have dreamed of a straw poll whose meaninglessness could equal that achieved by the Ames Straw Poll on the GOP side. The Politico/Take Back America straw poll doesn't quite reach those lofty heights, but it's the best we've got. At any rate, Barack Obama eked out a narrow victory, though it would be interesting to know how many people got tickets through Obama's TBA Facebook giveaway.

I'd also like to know what proportion of registrants actually voted in the straw poll. Nobody I spoke to at the event seemed to actually be voting, so I think the survey may be meaningless even as a sample of people who attended the conference.

Comments

It looks like your dream has come true, as Bill Richardson has solidified his place as the top non-Hillary-non-Edwards-non-Obama candidate.

What good Richardson will get out of that remains to be seen.

Posted by Cryptic Ned | June 20, 2007 4:43 PM

Hillary Clinton is the "Senator from Punjab," but Barack Obama is no better.

Both Clinton and Obama support the third-world (i.e. cheap labor) invasion of the U.S., and thus both are arch-enemies of the American Middle Class.

Big business is using legal and illegal immigration to drive down American wages.

The worst thing to happen to the American worker is the marriage of big business and multiculturalism. Liberals like Obama and Clinton can completely screw over the middle class but then justify it by saying it's "multicultural."

They are both in league with big business. And as Harvard labor economist George Borjas says, big business is using legal and illegal immigration to drive down American wages.

Has the Democratic Party declared war upon the American Middle Class?

I'd vote Republican before I'd vote for a Democrat weak on immigration.

Blue Dog Democrats Discussion Group
http://www.bluedogdemocrats.us/

.

Posted by David T. | June 20, 2007 4:44 PM

What I want to know is how *any* group of people, answering the questions honestly, could have almost the same distribution of answers to those two questions. I suspect that almost everyone who was polled disregarded the actual question and simply answered their favorite candidate both times.

Posted by DavidS | June 20, 2007 4:57 PM

No, you couldn't double-vote. It was done on computers and once you voted a new screen came up asking for your second choice and not listing the person you voted for as your first choice.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | June 20, 2007 5:24 PM

I was wondering similarly to DavidS: the distribution of second-place choices is oddly similar to the first-choicers. What does this reflect?
One possibility is that the first graph is a fairly accurate reflection of the leanings of respondants, such that after their own first choices are eliminated they still respond to give a similar profile.

Posted by Warren Terra | June 20, 2007 5:34 PM

Seems pretty clear, consider the audience, Obama voters pick Edwards as 2nd choice, Edwards voters vice versa. Most of the lefty candidates voters break for Obama and Edwards and the centrist ones break for Clinton.

The Clinton voters go to all the centrists.

Posted by Eric | June 20, 2007 5:55 PM

The Politico?

Who gives a shit?

Posted by Brautigan | June 20, 2007 7:30 PM

I imagine that most voters didn't accept the hypothetical and ignored Al Gore as a candidate. I think the nomination is his, if he wants it.

Posted by bill | June 20, 2007 11:01 PM

liberals elect B.Hussein Obama. That's the LGF Righty headline.

Posted by dan | June 21, 2007 1:55 AM