A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

So the polls had Obama taking a significant bump from Iowa to a large New Hampshire victory over Clinton, and there was only supposed to be a hair of difference between McCain and Romney.

Were the polls crazy?

No.  I don't think so.  How?  Here's a pretty simple theory.

New Hampshire's independent voters ostensibly preferred Obama among the Democrats and McCain among the Republicans.  These independents were waiting until the day of the primary election to decide which candidate to turn out for.

Given that the polls looked so much stronger for Obama's victory, many of these independents (who were polling in support of Obama) decided that, with Obama's New Hampshire victory looking so secure, they might as well use their vote to make sure McCain bested Romney.  Only, so many of these independent voters thought the same thing that it shifted Obama's comfortable margin of victory to McCain.

So what should the pollsters and the media do?  Instead of analyzing how Clinton beat Obama, they should check in with McCain-voting independents who decided in the last couple days to vote in the Republican primary for McCain, and I'll bet you that a good chunk of them saw Obama comfortably winning so they gave their vote to McCain - and that the polls were accurate in terms of gauging their support - they just weren't accurate in gauging whether they'd vote in the Democratic or Republican primaries.

That's my theory anyway.

Tags: 2008 election, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Mitt Romney, polling, Presidential Race (all tags)

Comments

74 Comments

Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

Its a good theory

I'm just so down I need  a vacation..

by crackityjones 2008-01-08 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

I figured this might be an excuse for Obama and sure some may have thought this, but I don't thnik it was enough to change THAT big a %....the women factor was a BIG factor.

by werd2406 2008-01-08 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

I think it might be a bit of both.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-01-08 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

I agree. The woman factor was much more of a factor than any other factor.

by Pravin 2008-01-08 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

Do the numbers on Independents support that theory?

by cmpnwtr 2008-01-08 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

There has been no mathematical or precise separation of the demographics that allow us to come to premature conclusions about Indie voters.

They have always been unreliable, hard to predict, and often vote because of regional, or subjective [personal style] as we saw in Bush's second election 2004.

The only thing other than accepting hard to predict Indie behavior is that Hillary Clinton learned a great deal in N.H.  It was a campaign changing experience and if she learns from this she will be the nominee.

Obama is indeed untested, pluffy with oratory and words, but where's the substance?  He's made troubling votes on a number of issues he hasn't ecplained, and needs to be heavily vetted.

The next President will have the most complex and dangerous set of issues before him/she.

Experience should be critical for America in what is really a crisis for America.

Obama can't just float on words, and much in his background needs careful vetting and explanation if he thinks he's ready for this job.

Beyond focus groups and polls, there are events that are out of anyone's control to be considered. If Hillary meets the press, listens and answers her constituents, and appeals more to younger voters she can win.

The pundits were all wrong and the explanations given here are guess work.  

by morris1030 2008-01-08 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

Well, it's a theory...but how about some numbers?

Are there any numbers that show how many independent NH voters voted Democratic versus Republican? If the split is similar to the 60-40 split that was expected, I'm not sure how much this theory holds water, because it would not show an indy shift towards the Republican ballot.

by Hoyapaul 2008-01-08 06:47PM | 0 recs
With all due respect to the diarist,

I think that's exactly what WE as political animals/junkies would do.

But i think that theory is WAY too sophisticated for the average voter.

I think the more likely reason is that Obama won in Iowa because the polls showed it would be a tight race so the college kids got to the caucuses to push for "change".

Obama lost in New Hampshire because the polls showed he was way ahead so the college kids decided to stay home and get wasted.

You live by the slacker. You die by the slacker.

by jgarcia 2008-01-08 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

well - that would make more sense if the numbers for the candidates were closer.

HRC has 21000 more votes than McCain

Obama has 15000 more votes than McCain.

thats 36,000 votes alone.

If Obama's support was mainly from independents, you could say another 35-40K came from independents.

thats now 71-76K votes (not Dems) that did not go to McCain.

Then if SOOOOO MANY decided to vote for McCain, you could say 20% went for McCain... seing that he is at 77K, that would be somewhere between 14 and 15K (conservative estimate i'd say for his share of votes)

by sepulvedaj3 2008-01-08 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

well either way, stop making excuses, accept the loss.  

by sepulvedaj3 2008-01-08 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

Right because in no way should we think about why it happened. We should just accept THAT it happened and feel secure that people like you know best? Get a grip.

by JDF 2008-01-08 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

there is a difference between trying to figure out what happened, and making excuses like this thread does.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-01-08 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

um, could you put it more simply?

cliff note version?

by jgarcia 2008-01-08 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

There was huge indie turn out, and a hell of a lot more voted in the dem side than the repug side, so simply put, the "simple theory" is "simple" to disprove.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-01-08 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

um, okay, got it.  i think.

by jgarcia 2008-01-08 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

This seems like an easy theory to prove or disprove based on the evidence we already have.  Polls have crosstabs, after all.  We ought to be able to figure out if Hillary outpolled her expected number among registered Dems.

by Steve M 2008-01-08 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

i was thinking the same thing.

can we also talk about how contrary people from new hampshire are?  i think there were two major factors that polls are going to pick up here:

the independents who love that their vote decides elections who decided that their vote was more valuable in the repub primary

and

the stubborn people who didn't vote for obama b/c they didn't want to be "told what to do" by iowa and the media

by bluedavid 2008-01-08 06:52PM | 0 recs
often NH does go against IA

2004 was more the exception than the rule.

by desmoinesdem 2008-01-08 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: often NH does go against IA

8 of 11 non-incumbent elections since 1980, Iowa and NH have picked different winners.

by msn1 2008-01-08 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: often NH does go against IA

i think we've all forgotten a bit how unusual the 2004 cycle was.  in many ways this year is more typical.  we're just all so frayed from 8 years of bush that the instability gives us the jitters...

by bluedavid 2008-01-08 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

that's not to say that obama has no fault here.  i think his show in nh was lackluster and he didn't bring it like he got to comfortable in "frontrunner" status

by bluedavid 2008-01-08 06:53PM | 0 recs
Agreed

I think his campaign got overconfident and already had the votes counted.

by okamichan13 2008-01-08 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

I'm an Obama supporter and I think bluedavid has a point.  He was starting to coast too soon.  He got rid of lines like "anyone with a name like Barack Obama is always an underdog" way too soon, and started talking like he was already the nominee.  

If he is to win the nomination and the GE, he has to fight for it and earn it.  If he had won again today and coasted to the nomination, he would not have been as battle-tested as he now will be, should he win.  The Repubs would have then creamed him.  We have a real race now.  Hope it doesn't devolve into a circular firing squad before the GE, like the Repubs are doing.  

by Contrabass 2008-01-08 07:01PM | 0 recs
He presented himself as the frontrunner

you could tell this in his speeches and in the debate. Would have been better to present himself as the underdog and also not keep expectations so high.

They did nothing at all to tamp down expectations and even did their best to build them up.

by okamichan13 2008-01-08 07:04PM | 0 recs
Its not just independents

they seemed to split more towards the Dems. And it surely wouldn't be enough to make up for ammount the pollsters thought Obama was ahead by.

The polls are crap. The last few days registered NH voters were getting doezens of calls daily from pollsters, canvassers, etc.

People stopped answering their phones.

by okamichan13 2008-01-08 06:55PM | 0 recs
The polls left out UNDECIDED counts

The diary before this one showed all the %s.  Each row added to between 89-92 %.  That means that between 7-11 % were left out.

Another blogger noted that all proportions for Edwards, Obama, Richardson, were on the money within  1-2 %.

What happened, it seems, is that the UNDECIDED broke  for Hillary en masse.  

by dataguy 2008-01-08 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

I think it was a combination of many things. One: evidently, many people didn't make up their mind until yesterday, and Ezra floated his hunch that this benifits tried-and-true candidates like Clinton over riskier candidates like Obama. Second: Hillary's emotional moment. I feared a significant shift to her among women especially the moment I saw that. Despite the polls, I didn't feel confident for a second after that. Third, there is probably something to the idea that Obama lost some turnout due to the projected landslide in his favor. I don't think many went to McCain, but I think some of his younger voters didn't show up. Finally, women and older votes exceeded expected turnout.

That all adds up to a surprise shift, I am thinking. Congrats to Clinton for her keeping her show going despite the premature obituaries.

But, more importantly, it's time for Obama supporters to show the same comeback spirit. Fired up . . .

by DPW 2008-01-08 07:00PM | 0 recs
ready to go ... let's go change the world.

It's all good.

:)))))

by misscee 2008-01-08 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

That's the best explanation I've heard all night about why what happend, happend.

by mecarr 2008-01-08 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

I think the polls were wrong because they did not take into account what people were thinking yesterday. The emotional moment for her yesterday probably helped her.

by mecarr 2008-01-08 07:02PM | 0 recs
Also one big hole in your theory

Obama supporters would be very unlikely to go for McCain to prevent Romney from winning.

Every dem does much better vs. Romney than McCain. McCain will be much stronger a Repub candidate than Romney and I think most people know this.

You might have a point about overconfidence from Obama-leaning independents but I doubt it. I think the overconfidence if anything came from the Obama campaign - they assumed a win long before the votes were counted.

by okamichan13 2008-01-08 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Also one big hole in your theory

actually, there were a lot of independents trying to decide between mccain and obama.  there was a story on it nytimes either today or yesterday.  

doesn't make any sense to me, as they're so far apart on the issues.  but people in nh are weird... (and independents too)

by bluedavid 2008-01-08 07:05PM | 0 recs
I agree with that

I just don't buy they went to McCain solely because they thought Obama had it in the bag.

by okamichan13 2008-01-08 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

71%-5% win for HRC from "experience" voters. Obama had more votes then the GOP winner.

by ND1979 2008-01-08 07:05PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

I still beleive that the Iowa women's vote was tilted because of the students, who were 20% of the total voters.  Don't get me wrong, Obama is responsible for bringing these persons out, but I continue to beleive that women will overwhelmingly support her.

by CVDem 2008-01-08 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

i really think this will depend on region.  I feel that women in the northeast will be more likely to support hillary based purely on her gender b/c identity/ethnic politics has a long history here.  There are still "italian politicians" "puerto rican politicians" etc.  People in the northeast (and i say this as a new yorker) are more used to machine and identity politics.  

i don't think this is as true in other parts of the country (with the exception of some urban areas)

by bluedavid 2008-01-08 07:09PM | 0 recs
Not in CA or FL

Are you kidding me.

by ottovbvs 2008-01-08 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Not in CA or FL

Not at all.  The way politics works on the ground is dramatically different around the country.  I grew up in a small Louisiana city, but have lived in nyc for years.  I can't tell you how fundamentally different everything is about the two political systems and the way people approach voting.

I really can't imagine many women from my hometown backing hillary for purely gender reasons.  However, I know female nyers who are.  

Just my personal observations based on subjective experience.  Could be totally wrong...

by bluedavid 2008-01-08 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

There is no such thing as an Independent voter. They either vote one way or the other 90% of the time. John McCain doesn't equal Barack Obama. Women came back home and men didn't turn out. Period. NO excuses.

by ND1979 2008-01-08 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

The lazyass in me is really thinking "Damn!  Now i'm going to have to work my ass off for the NY primary."

Fricking persnickety new englanders!

by bluedavid 2008-01-08 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

If that's true, that would really suck.  Because an Obama/Romney matchup is much better for us that Clinton/McCain I think.

I don't say that from anti-Clinton bias.  I just don't think Clinton matches up well against McCain.  His unfavorables are too low and the whole campaign would be about glossing over his record and beliefs.  

Romney's also slippery, but much easier to expose.  Plus I just think that campaign would be a lot of fun.

by tunesmith 2008-01-08 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

Obama vs McCain would be difficult also. Clinton vs. Romney would be just as easy as Obama vs. Romney.

by werd2406 2008-01-08 07:18PM | 0 recs
Umm
So Indies did NOT vote 2-1 in the Dem primary?
by Big Tent Democrat 2008-01-08 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney
Did you see the McCain speech tonight? He's not going to be the nominee. The GOP hierarchy hates him.
As a HRC supporter, my fear is that she brings out the fruit-loops (who don't always show up) and they then vote against our down ticket candidates in the New Mexico, Minnesota, New Hampshire senate races. The south House seats held by Barrow, Collins, Mahoney, and Shular would be lost, I fear. Space and Lampson are also hoping for an Obama win. But perhaps a few women who los in '04 (Madrid, Duckworth, etc..) could see their numbers go up due to a Hillary campaign. Man, this is fun.
by ND1979 2008-01-08 07:26PM | 0 recs
Clinton haters: Set in stone at 45 %

Say what you like about Barack, we KNOW what the Clinton haters are - 45 % of the electorate.  That's where she starts - 45 % are never under any circumstances ever going to vote for her.  She is what the Repukes have been planning for all along.

by dataguy 2008-01-08 07:33PM | 0 recs
45% yes - stone no

That anti-Hillary crap is a mile wide and an inch deep.  Why?  Because it's all based on a made-up fantasy of the evil Klintoon witch.  She never was what she was made out to be, and at least personality-wise, she's even less so now.

by Trickster 2008-01-08 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: 45% yes - stone no

Just because you say it doesn't make it so.  

There are many people for whom the clintons are anathema.  They just won't even consider voting for them.  Other democrats wouldn't have that structural problem from the outset in building a winning coalition.

by bluedavid 2008-01-08 07:44PM | 0 recs
The truth IS what is presented

You are not very savvy about PR.  I don't know her.  Like millions of Americans, I read and see the hype, not the person.  She is her hype.

you hillary-bots are in love with her, and do not see the antipathy that many hold for her.  I will vote for her if I must, but pray that I do not have to.

by dataguy 2008-01-08 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton haters: Set in stone at 45 %

No problem. That leaves 55% who will vote for her.

by LakersFan 2008-01-08 10:29PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

Youre damn right about our down ticket candidates.  Hillary will be absolute poison to our candidates in Conservative districts, exactly the ones we need if our Democratic President is going to get anything passed in Congress.  

by Toddwell 2008-01-08 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

I think a number of factors contributed to Obama's loss.  Hillary went negative on Obama (e.g. his votes on abortion)and it depressed his turnout while her teary moment provided her with overwhelming sympathy from women voters.

by afr114 2008-01-08 07:31PM | 0 recs
McCain and independents

My take on why the independent vote nearly split 50/50 was that a lot of independents saw the debates also, and decided that McCain was a better choice than Obama.

The one big problem for Democrats in this election is going to be the independent vote.  If it's Hillary vs. McCain she's going to need a huge turnout among women.  That's the only chance--but Obama vs. McCain would be worse.

And the Democrats are going to have to separate the presidential race from rest of the election.

by mikelow1885 2008-01-08 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: McCain and independents

I think Obama McCain is the biggest mismatch because of the experience issue and because Republicans can paint it as the liberal vs the maverick. Hillary would match better to McCain I think.

But could Obama maybe be a better matchup for running against someone like Huckabee? Who knows. I don't think there's necessarily one more electable Democrat, but I just don't like Obama vs McCain matchup. Obama can still win, but it could be another 2000 or 2004, one state deciding everything.

by Christopher Lib 2008-01-08 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: McCain and independents

Hillary will lose independents by a very wide margin to McCain, while Obama would not.  

by Toddwell 2008-01-08 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

She was not negative. Pointing out that a "head in sand" process gave us an untested John Kerry, which led to the Swift Boat attacks, that Obama has two years on the national scene, that he can't change anything if he doesn't have the trust needed to lead aren't example of "going negative." Remember that she was accused of being the "status quo" although the GOP hates her and they are the party in the White House. That he said we needed to fix things that "lingered long before Bush" is as good as he has recieved.

by ND1979 2008-01-08 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

on blahblahblah... even her own campaign was discussing the mailers (and the commercials they opted not to run due to the short time frame) as "going negative"

by bluedavid 2008-01-08 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory . . .

Interesting theory, but it would hold a bit more water if McCain had done better than expected.  He didn't.  He won by 5%, which exactly equalled his polling (pollster.com sensitive average +5.3 McCain).

by Trickster 2008-01-08 07:47PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

So...the decisive first two contests of the season have depended not only on the particular preferences of a small, atypical group of voters, but also on their highly peculiar voting systems designed to deliver unpredictable results?

Future historians will cite this year when describing the downfall of our civilization. "Yeah, they essentially left the selection of their most powerful leader up to random chance."

I was feeling really bad for Hillary yesterday, and I like her more than most people here (and don't have much particular affection for Obama), but this is just ridiculous. I was ready to start looking forward to the general, because the primary has bloody well left me exhausted.

I also have very little remaining faith in anyone whatsoever as prognosticators. And that disturbs me, because I need hopeful, realistic analyses to sleep at night. Tonight there will instead be beer, in quantity.

by epenthesis 2008-01-08 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

You have to be kidding me? Did they talk about his sexuality? If he has a real marriage? If he has led a more quality life (Elizabeth Edwards)? Pointing out that BO has said one thing and did another, on a host of issues, is not dirty. That Edwards can't demand change and have it fall in his lap is not dirty. My God.

by ND1979 2008-01-08 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

there's a difference between "dirty" and negative.  for a long time when she was "inevitable", clinton was loath to criticize any of the other democrats.  it was only when she started to slip that she became more aggressive in the debates.  Then, it was only after losing iowa (with her own internal polling showing she was set to lose nh as well) that her campaign decided the inevitability campaign was destined for the trashbin and they had nothing left to lose in going negative.

by bluedavid 2008-01-08 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

I don't know if you saw Obama has 100 percent with the Illinois Planned Parenthood.  

Hillary delibratly knew that was the case but chose to lie about his positon on the women's right to choose in NH. And about Hillary's experience what has she done that points to her being so qualified for being president?

What bills has she passed in the Senate on:

Iraq? Healthcare? Immigration? Social Security?

by afr114 2008-01-08 08:17PM | 0 recs
Clinton/Obama Obama/Clinton

Either way you put it would be a powerhouse. In the end, each one needs eachother.

by werd2406 2008-01-08 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton/Obama Obama/Clinton

Why would Hillary pick Obama as her V.P. She's a calculating politican.  She wants to win the midwest and/or the south.  Forget about Obama being V.P. That won't happen

by afr114 2008-01-08 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton/Obama Obama/Clinton

Hillary needs Obama for the youth/new voters vote. Hillary doesn't NEED the Midwest. She needs one more state than Kerry got. Not specifically in the Midwest. With Clinton's ideas and leadership, and Obama's speaking abilities and personality...it would be a powerhouse ticket. Obama would be a fool to not take it because no matter how it goes, it works for him. Lose in '08, he runs in '12. Gets elected he no longer has the "not enough experience" issue since he's the goddamn vice president.

by werd2406 2008-01-08 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton/Obama Obama/Clinton

Hillary needs one more BIG state than Kerry, either Ohio or Florida, which would both be doubtful against McCain as would Pennsylvania.  

by Toddwell 2008-01-08 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton/Obama Obama/Clinton

Well frankly McCain vs anyone would be a tough election...so far at least. Like i said before, elections can change like that and with the right ad you can go from golden boy to trash...to make it a little easier, let's hope Romney gets the nod :)

by werd2406 2008-01-08 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton/Obama Obama/Clinton

no way would either of them pick the other for VP.  

My guess is that hillary picks a hispanic (male) from the west and obama picks a white southerner.  i feel that they will probably be pressured to "balance" the historic nature of both their candidacies.  (not that i necessarily agree with that...)

by bluedavid 2008-01-08 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

Remeber the Wilder affect?  In every elction Doug Wilder ran in Virginia he polled much higher than he did in the election. Likewise Harvey Gantt when he ran against Jesse Helms.  People don't want to appear rascist so they say they'll vote for a black candidate but inside the voting boothe they express their prjudice. Also you can't ignore the womens vote. 57% of the voters were women and they broke heavily for Hillary

by scot1323 2008-01-08 08:33PM | 0 recs
Not significant

This profile of voter only helps in states with primaries open to independents.  Those states are not the rule.  If anything it shows that one candidate NEEDS independents to win a primary...

by Rooktoven 2008-01-08 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

It's an attractive theory, but the numbers don't bear it out.  The polls actually had Obama about right -- he finished with 37% and the three average models at pollster.com range from 36.7 to 39.0.  The problem with the polls is that they misread Clinton by 8-10 points, and a huge chunk of the voters who said they decided in the last day voted for her.  McCain beat his average by a few points, but those few didn't come out of Obama's pocket.

by aaronetc 2008-01-08 08:52PM | 0 recs
Your Logic bares out.
Obama got the percentage of the New Hampshire vote that the polls said he would. I also note that Edwards, Richardson, and the other Democrats on the ballot did worse than they polled. Obviously Clinton, not Obama, picked up the Democratic candidate supporting cast offs that now saw the New Hampshire primary as a two candidate race between Clinton and Obama.
From here on out I hope all Democrats and independents see the Democratic presidential nomination as a two candidate race between Senators Clinton and Obama, so that that way we will really get a true picture as to who is more popular; Clinton or Obama?
At this point we should admit the fact that Edwards, Richardson, and the rest are no longer viable candidates, and instead focus entirely upon Obama and Clinton.
by fetboy 2008-01-08 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

Polls have notoriously underestimated Clinton's true support in New York, where her actual results in both Senate elections came in about 7% to 10% higher than previous polls suggested.  I am not sure why Iowa did not show that, perhaps the nature of a caucus vs. an open primary, but this result seems to confirm that there is a hidden Hillary vote, at least when one can vote without anyone looking over their shoulders, in a private booth.  

by georgep 2008-01-08 11:13PM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

welcome back

by sepulvedaj3 2008-01-09 05:14AM | 0 recs
Re: A Theory on Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney

Lots of interesting comments and analysis.  I wonder if we will ever really understand the dynamics of this race.  For now, it is on to NV & SC - where Obama should have a stronger base of support.

I believe Clinton would be our weakest nominee and Obama the next worst for our chances in November.  My hope is that the GOP nominates Huckabee and guarantees a Democratic win no matter how bad we screw up this golden opportunity.

If they could win, I think both Clinton & Obama would do a good job as President, so I am not writing this as a hater.

by Francis Vecellio 2008-01-09 07:37AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads