Or perhaps, just perhaps, one day's polling is nothing more than statistical noise. Any pollster would put that caveat on any result from a single day's poll that is at variance with what those results have been for days on end. And please for the love of everything that is good, stop citing ARG polls, they proven themselves to be the worst pollster this election cycle bar none.
Having watched Countdown tonight I can honestly say that Todd's thought that "this whole thing is over" narrative is gone does not comport with what was said during Keith Olbermann's broadcast. All they talked about was when Clinton conceded, not whether there was a real contest left.
I think the diarist here overlooks a number of things. Should we condemn people over the age of 65 block voting for Clinton. If you took out her 70 to 30 win of the over 65 group in Indiana, she would have lost Indiana by a significant margin. My analogy to the senior "block vote" applies equally to the results in PA, Ohio, etc.,. I do not see the wisdom in questioning or disparging "block voting" or trying to call into question the legtimacy of election results simply because the diarist does not share the views or perhaps thinks a certain block voting group is foolish.
I think he is only presuming that to be the case. There is no objective indicator demonstrating what exactly motivated people on the day of voting to vote one way or the other, it could be almost anything.
The argument about the Chicago media market also fails to take into consideration that Clinton and Obama basically tied one another in Evansville, Indiana, in the southwestern part of the state, a location where she was expected to do much better than she did.
With all due respect to Jerome his comment that "Given all that, Clinton did make a somewhat surprising win in a state that she was behind" is simply not based in fact. The SUSA poll released just a couple days before May 6 showed Clinton with a TEN point lead. Similarly, the InsiderAdvantage poll showed her with a 4 point lead. Instead of winning Indiana by 6 to 8 points, she only won by one percent (50.5 to 49.5). The expectations that Jerome is talking about were based on her performance in state wide polls conducted just before the election, an election she fared far worse in terms of performance than those polls indicated would occurr.
Georgerep you fail to consider one thing --- cross-tabulation. When you say the women vote is going for Clinton and the Hispanic vote is going for Clinton you fail to grasp that perhaps that the one (women) comprise a larger subset of the second (the Hispanic vote). That is to say, the Hispanic vote is going to Clinton because Hispanic women are showing up in larger numbers than Hispanic men. This could be significant come November if Clinton is nominated because it could suggest that her support amongst Hispanics in general will drop as a share of the vote than that she is gaining in the primaries. By that I mean to say perhaps more Hispanic men will show up in the general in greater numbers thereby diluting Clinton's share of the Hispanic vote that she is currently enjoying in the primaries. Moreover, I DID show where your analysis was woefully mistaken -- rural voters. And you say that the exit poll was within the margin of error on that one! Come on georgerep outside of Vegas she lost most of Nevada and from my review of the county-by-county returns the results were not very close (Obama winning by five to ten points in those counties). Please at least admit that Clinton is following the failed demographic base that Gore and Kerry followed in the general election.
Your wrong. The percentage of women voters you are speaking of is in the Democratic primaries. Come general election time, the percentage of women voters is typically 52 to 53 percent (and oh a number of them are Republican and Independents).
The problem I have with georgep's analysis is that it is based entirely on exit poll analysis. The problem with the focus on the exit polls is that they were proven wrong by the results. The most notable example being rural votes. According to the exit polls in Nevada, Clinton won slightly the rural vote, but when the results came in, the opposite was true: Obama won the rural areas. Of the 17 counties in Nevada, Obama won in 11 of them. Indeed, outside of Vegas, Clinton's base of support with thin and shallow. It is for this reason that in terms of national delegates Obama won more in Nevada than Clinton. The demographics of Clinton's support base are carbon copies of those Gore and Kerry had in the general election --- primarily women and concentrated in urban areas. If Clinton's base of support remains like this then she will lose the general election (if she is nominated) in much the same manner as Gore and Kerry did.