How West Virginia change Drastically during the 2008 election?

[JerryBrown2010]

October 16th CNN

Obama 50%

Mccain 42%

October 26th CNN

Mccain 50%

Obama 42%


How did West Virginia Drastically change?

[Lephead]

My recollection was that all of Obama's increase was from spillover television advertising from Ohio, Pennsyvlania and Virginia, and most likely the McCain campaign spent resources when that happened.

[DariusNJ]

I think there's 2 possible explanations for this

1) Nothing really changed. Both those polls show Obama getting 42% of the vote. He ended up with close to 43% on Election Day, in which case it is possible that WV independents broke heavily for McCain.

2) I think this is a place where McCain's "Obama hangs out with a terrorist, Bill Ayers" attack might have helped him a little bit.

[Franzl]

How did West Virginia Drastically change?

It didn't. It was never leaning towards Obama.

[JerryBrown2010]

How did West Virginia Drastically change?

It didn't. It was never leaning towards Obama.

Polls said he was leading from 4 - 8 points.

[Franzl]

How did West Virginia Drastically change?

It didn't. It was never leaning towards Obama.

Polls said he was leading from 4 - 8 points.

Polls also said that Obama had a serious shot in North Dakota. What's your point?

[Rowan]

CNN is a terrible pollster. That's what happened.

[Hash]

How did West Virginia Drastically change?

It didn't. It was never leaning towards Obama.

Polls said he was leading from 4 - 8 points.

omgz if The Pollz said it it must be rightz!!11!!

[JerryBrown2010]

How did West Virginia Drastically change?

It didn't. It was never leaning towards Obama.

Polls said he was leading from 4 - 8 points.

omgz if The Pollz said it it must be rightz!!11!!

I was just pointing out, you don't have to use sarcasm!

[??????????]

Obama is a black you see.

[Padfoot]

October 16th CNN

Obama 50%

Mccain 42%

October 26th CNN

Mccain 50%

Obama 42%


How did West Virginia Drastically change?

Where did you get this information?  I went back and checked the atlas poll database and there were no polls from CNN on either of those dates.  The only poll to ever show Obama ahead in West Virginia was an ARG poll on October 8th which gave him a 50-42 lead.  IIRC, ARG was panned throughout the election season for being way off the mark on nearly every occasion.

[hcallega]

I remember polls coming out that also showed an Obama trend. I too was initially surprised that Obama lost by such a large margin. I even read a Politico article saying that WVA was becoming more liberal.

But here are my reasons:
1-the shift in McCain's rhetoric towards the end (Bill Ayers, Terrorism, out of touch liberalism) was very effective in Appalachia. Voters here saw Obama as an outsider, but gave him a chance. When McCain gave them evidence to the contrary (even if it wasn't true) voters saw it as reason enough to go with the conservative, white, experienced, war-hero. Of course this rhetoric hurt him in the swing-states as it alienated moderate suburban voters.

2-Coal. Obama, unlike Hillary, was viewed as a real environmentalist. Of course he supports cap-and-tax, but despite saying he likes clean-coal it wasn't a big part of his campaign. McCain was the perfect candidate on energy for them: Energy independence rather than environmentalism. This reinforces the point that sometimes when the economy sucks SO MUCH, voters go with someone conservative (and thus not a good choice) because they are afraid to loose their jobs. By this I mean voters were so afraid to lose their coal jobs that they were not going to vote for the "clean-coal candidate".

3-Social issues. Like the rest of the south and mid-west, when voters go to the polls they often bolt to the conservative, whether it is out of fear or comfort. The fact is that this will not likely change, and that is why you don't see any social liberals (outside of Jay Rockefeller) representing West Virginia.

[JerryBrown2010]

October 16th CNN

Obama 50%

Mccain 42%

October 26th CNN

Mccain 50%

Obama 42%


How did West Virginia Drastically change?

Where did you get this information?  I went back and checked the atlas poll database and there were no polls from CNN on either of those dates.  The only poll to ever show Obama ahead in West Virginia was an ARG poll on October 8th which gave him a 50-42 lead.  IIRC, ARG was panned throughout the election season for being way off the mark on nearly every occasion.

Go here http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/map/polling/

Then click the tool bar on the top left of the map to CNN poll of polls then go to the time line at the bottom and place the button between October 26th and October 30th and check West Virginia's polls.

[Rob]

Obama is a black you see.

[Tender Branson]

This was only 1 poll, the majority had McCain leading.

But it is true in several other states, especially Missouri, that Obama was ahead by quite a bit in the first half of October (~3-5%) to fall back at the end of October, where all the polls indicated a tie. This also happened in Ohio (5-10%), Pennsylvania (was ahead by 15%) and Virginia (by 10%+).

[Padfoot]

October 16th CNN

Obama 50%

Mccain 42%

October 26th CNN

Mccain 50%

Obama 42%


How did West Virginia Drastically change?

Where did you get this information?  I went back and checked the atlas poll database and there were no polls from CNN on either of those dates.  The only poll to ever show Obama ahead in West Virginia was an ARG poll on October 8th which gave him a 50-42 lead.  IIRC, ARG was panned throughout the election season for being way off the mark on nearly every occasion.

Go here http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/map/polling/

Then click the tool bar on the top left of the map to CNN poll of polls then go to the time line at the bottom and place the button between October 26th and October 30th and check West Virginia's polls.

Now I see.  CNN's so called "poll of polls" is not really a poll.   It is merely a weak attempt to mimic our own atlas polls map.  I say weak because I think the dramatic swing you're referencing here has got to be some sort of data entry error on CNN's part which they have never corrected. 

According to their own website:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here are the results of these three polls according to the atlas:

Reuters/Zogby:
McCain:50%
Obama:40%
Undecided:9%

CNN/Time/ORC:
McCain: 53%
Obama: 44%
Undecided: 3%

NBC/Mason-Dixon:
McCain: 47%
Obama: 41%
Undecided: 12%


As you can see, Obama is not leading in any of these polls.  So, I'm not entirely sure where CNN's eight point Obama lead is coming from between the dates you identified.  Their map does not match up with the data they are supposedly using to arrive at that conclusion.

[HAnnA MArin County]

This was only 1 poll, the majority had McCain leading.

But it is true in several other states, especially Missouri, that Obama was ahead by quite a bit in the first half of October (~3-5%) to fall back at the end of October, where all the polls indicated a tie. This also happened in Ohio (5-10%), Pennsylvania (was ahead by 15%) and Virginia (by 10%+).

Bradley effect?

West Virginia really didn't change all that dramatically. I kept track of all the polls heading into the election and I showed McCain averaging an 8-10 point win in West Virginia on Election Night and he won by like a 13-point margin. Only possible reason I can think of is that independents in the state probably bought into McCain and Bailin' Palin's fear rhetoric of Obama palling around with terrorists (Bill Ayers) and I'm sure the 527s in the state put out massive ads saying how Obama was a Muslim, etc., and if you look at the exit polls, McCain got a large chunk of conservative/Reagan Democrats in the state. The voters in the state probably just felt more comfortable voting for someone who they were more familiar with - McCain: a white, experienced, tested "conservative" war hero; Obama: a black, inexperienced, big city "liberal" intellectual from Chicago, and insert the fear card here as well (terrorists, Muslims, etc.).

To be fair, though, had Hillary been the nominee, she would have carried West Virginia easily, and I'm sure independents would have swung the other with her on the top of the ticket. 

[President Mitt]

Obama is a black you see.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Obama is a black you see.

"Barack Obama is black. I'm John McCain and I approve this message"

Now seriously, Gore and Kerry are white and they lost WV anyway

You see, in 2000 WV for Bush seemes to be just a fluke. After all this was one of the most Democratic states. Even Carter in 1980 and Dukakis in 1988, both lost badly an election, but comfrotably carried WV.

WV of course remains very Democratic at the state level (congressional delegation, local authorities), but is now trending Republican in presidential election.

So, what's happen?

[hcallega]

Obama is a black you see.

"Barack Obama is black. I'm John McCain and I approve this message"

Now seriously, Gore and Kerry are white and they lost WV anyway

You see, in 2000 WV for Bush seemes to be just a fluke. After all this was one of the most Democratic states. Even Carter in 1980 and Dukakis in 1988, both lost badly an election, but comfrotably carried WV.

WV of course remains very Democratic at the state level (congressional delegation, local authorities), but is now trending Republican in presidential election.

So, what's happen?

WVA is a really neat state politically, but is also fairly simple, but only if you pay attention to local issues. My family owns a log cabin (no electricity, no water) and have some good family friends there, so I've payed attention, if only due to property taxes.

2000: Two issues: mountaintop removal and gun control. The mountaintop removal issue is really the modern coal-mining debate, and in this case the Clinton Administration really went all out to prevent the procedure from being legal. State Democrats, lead by Robert Byrd (a Clinton enemy) fought hard for it and there was even a court battle. Gore, as Clinton's heir and an environmentalist to boot lost a lot of support from labor voters that otherwise would have gone his way. Gun Control was also a big one, as the NRA targeted Clinton wins in the South where they wanted to defeat Gore. WVA was one of them, and it worked.

2004: The issues listed for 2000 plus social liberalism and foreign policy. Abortion and Gay Marriage were big issues in the campaign, and like I said before state Democrats are almost always social conservatives. Also foreign policy (terrorism, Iraq, 9/11) made Bush look strong and Kerry weak. Also Bush raised steel import tarriffs, appealing to the northern counties.

2008: 2004 and 2000 issues plus race, Bill Ayers, and coal mining in general. This has already been touched on.


In summation, it's been a buildup of issues. The reality is that WVA, like the South, is a state where the GOP being slow on the environment and socially conservative is actually a positive instead of the negative that it is in suburbia and formerly safe GOP areas. It's clear that someone like Mark Warner or another southern moderate would win in a landslide hear, simply because it has such a strong local state party. However someone like Hillary with her last name and strong union ties could also win, as could Biden or another paleoliberal. I honestly think that in 2012 Obama could win if the economy is doing better and he's facing Romney or Pawlenty. It's one of those states where I really want to see a Democrat win.

[Rob]

2000: Two issues: mountaintop removal and gun control.

Bush's extensive campaigning there was also a factor, as Gore largely ignored the state. Much like McCain assumed Indiana would vote for him regardless of events.

[Landslide Lyndon]

2000: Two issues: mountaintop removal and gun control.

Bush's extensive campaigning there was also a factor, as Gore largely ignored the state. Much like McCain assumed Indiana would vote for him regardless of events.

Chuck Todd made this exact comparison back in the summer of 2008 when McCain was still ahead by 5-6 points.

[hcallega]

Yeah I think on this forum in general we underestimate the importance of campaigning in a state. It isn't all race or one issue or another, although the real point is that the buildup of issues, plus the fact that to pander to WVA means loosing support in other areas (and it's EVs aren't worth it) and Obama dosen't fit there.

[Badger]

This was only 1 poll, the majority had McCain leading.

But it is true in several other states, especially Missouri, that Obama was ahead by quite a bit in the first half of October (~3-5%) to fall back at the end of October, where all the polls indicated a tie. This also happened in Ohio (5-10%), Pennsylvania (was ahead by 15%) and Virginia (by 10%+).

Bradley effect?

 The voters in the state probably just felt more comfortable voting for someone who they were more familiar with - McCain: a white, experienced, tested "conservative" war hero; Obama: a black, inexperienced, big city "liberal" intellectual from Chicago Boston, and insert the fear card here as well (terrorists, Muslims, etc.).

Take away the word "black", and there's nothing here that doesn't apply to Kerry. Or Gore for that matter. Maybe "inexperienced", but I submit that while the rest of the country shifted a full 6-7% Democratic despite Obama's "inexperience", WV shifted almost a quarter percent GOP, and damned little of that gap had to do with "experience".

[Hash]

As you can see, Obama is not leading in any of these polls.  So, I'm not entirely sure where CNN's eight point Obama lead is coming from between the dates you identified.  Their map does not match up with the data they are supposedly using to arrive at that conclusion.

One poll showed Obama ahead in WV, and that was... ARG. Their so-called 'poll' had him up 8 (while tied in Minnesota...). So, yeah.