Does anyone hate the devisive post-primary analysis?

What I mean is when pundits anaylyse who got the white vote, who got the latino vote, who got the male vote, who got the female vote.

I understand that there can be trends within different groups, but I just feel as if it's overanalysing and simplyfying the process.

I don't want my vote to be a pure statistic.  Did I vote that way because I'm caucasian, because I'm a male, because I'm a homosexual, or because I'm a progressive?

I probably am making a bigger deal out of this then it really is, it's just that it's seems so... fake.

•  Tips

  by Notus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:59:14 PM PDT

•  The corporate media's

  role in the process is 100% dysfunctional. Everything is analyzed like a horse race, rather than discussing ideas and policies ... we get infinitely more coverage of "how are so-and-so's consultants and staffers gonna react to X, Y, and Z?"

  Plus the corporate media profit from all the advertising so they're not even impartial. John Edwards' editorial coverage was roughly proportional to his ad spending, which was less than the frontrunners. If you cannot figure out why there is a strong correlation between ad spending and editorial coverage, I've got this bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to interest you in buying...

  by tiggers thotful spot on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:03:00 PM PDT

  •  That's also why those who don't support massive

    corporate welfare and tax breaks get the blackout treatment.  Edwards and Paul for example.

    by SuperCameron on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:22:48 PM PDT

•  Fake, and yet, accurate

  We're individuals, but we're also part of groups -- and different groups vote in greater numbers for one or the other.  By the way, there is no such word as devisive -- nor anaylyse (I'll let you get away the "s" as that's a British spelling, nut not the extra "y")

  by FischFry on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:06:23 PM PDT

  •  My spelling is kind of wonky

    I was in a hurry, and didn't spell check.  I apologize >.>

    by Notus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:08:52 PM PDT

•  It's absurd

  There are far more important factors which influence people's votes nowadays.

  Do they ever talk about who got the progressive vote?  Or is it forbidding to mention one even exists?

  How about who got the environmentalist vote? the civil libertarian vote? the anti-war vote? the activist vote?

  Even in states where race and gender clearly weren't a significant factor, they fall back to discussing it because they are at a loss for what else to turn to. It's sad really how baffled most of these analysts are about what is actually going on some of the time.

  by acerimusdux on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:15:40 PM PDT

•  Trends can tell you things...sometimes....

  If there are races I was interested in I go back and look at the CNN exit polls to see if there are any interesting trends. I would imagine a lot of people on this site do the same thing.

  It's how people interpret the data that probably causes the most annoyance, but I like hearing the data--or looking it up.

  For example in California, 39% of the respondents said they made up their minds a month or more before the election date--and 67% of those went to Clinton. Those are pretty significant numbers--does that reflect early voters? Does it mean that Obama's campaign was not as effective at changing people's minds?

  In Illinois, 98% of African Americans aged 45-59 voted for Obama. That number kind of jumps out at you.

  I think it's interesting.

  by Azdak on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:25:07 PM PDT

•  Meh...

  They're viable statistics for predicting outcomes since demographics vary greatly in different districts.

  What is a legitimate concern is the media hyping conflict between the candidates. Conflicts makes for better television, thus, they create the hype.

  by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:27:24 PM PDT

•  It was interesting for a while

  but now it is getting really annoying.  

  I was watching the Maine results tonight and on CNN the "pundits" were going on about how the racial breakdowns in ME, NE, LA and WA were predictive of what is going to happen Tuesday.  

  It's getting really stupid out there.

  by jaf49 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:54:43 PM PDT

•  Not fake, just simplistic.

  I think these analyses are useful, but not the overanalyses, which is what we get.

  I think by now it's pretty clear that a lot of women are voting for Hillary and a lot of blacks and younger people are voting for Obama. I don't think it bears repeating by every pundit out there after every primary. The only thing that would be newsworthy at this point would be a shift in these demographics.  Not that the pundits have any idea what "newsworthy" means.

  by Free Spirit on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:00:04 PM PDT

•  hopefully, someday it will show that this white,

  40-something, upper-middle class female voted for barack obama..

  yeah, it's oversimplistic.  and EVEN WHEN THE RESULTS aren't as assumed, campaign operatives and certain media skew the results anyway.  i think that's the bigger offense.

  by jj24 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:04:59 PM PDT

•  Got to "identify" the "politics", yo. n/t

  by valion on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:19:23 PM PDT

•  Yeah, it's repulsive.

  by ogre on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:50:10 PM PDT

•  Dear God Yes!!!

  It annoys me to no end!  Especially since Obama wins amongst all demographics...One state he struggled with latinos and now Lationos wont vote for him.  Or he's only win because blacks are for him or whatever.  Its all nonsense and so annoying.  

  Its bad enough we have politicians dividing us we really don't need the Press to divide the people.  

  by michlawa2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:53:28 PM PDT

•  YES!

  I am sick of it and I am sick of people who keep posting what the pundits wrote as if it's true based on a stupid Exit Poll. I just want to slap these fools across their faces.

  It really pissed me off!

  by WeBetterWinThisTime on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:51:35 PM PDT