John Edwards.
I fully admit that my reason for doing so is probably stupid, but it’s mine and I’ll stick to it. The reason I’m pulling for Edwards is because when the WGA had a rally in Washington Square Park a few weeks ago, Edwards was the only presidential candidate who actually showed up to address us (as he had in a similar gathering on the West Coast.)
By contrast, Hillary and Obama merely sent letters of support…letters that, as it happened, had grammatical errors. Never a good idea, sending letters with grammatical errors to a gathering of cranky writers.
And by the way, considering how much of a hullabaloo the media made over his $400 haircuts, I have to say…dámņ, the man has good hair.
In any event, my simplistic view is that if he took the time to support us, then it’s the least I can do in return.
So John Edwards gets my vote come the Democratic primary.
PAD
• 
Jason wrote: “Okay, here’s a theory. Maybe sometimes they know that it’s going to be a speech that they don’t intend to air. Maybe they send the cameras to those speeches just in case some kind of train wreck happens.”
There may be more to your theory than you realize. I guarantee that if something controversial HAD happened, all the tape shot would have aired not only locally, but nationally as well.
To be fair to the TV stations, however, a large portion of news footage routinely filmed never gets aired. It just gets aced out during the segment vetting process by stuff that the producer feels is “more timely or compelling.”
I’ve been involved with segments that a film crew and announcer said were a lock to air on the news get bumped suddenly by a big local fire somehwere. It’s the nature of the business.
Still, the cynic in me also knows the old editor’s adage: “News is what I say it is.”
R. Maheras,
Political bøøbërÿ? You call the high crimes, not misdemeanors, of this administration “political bøøbërÿ”?
Tell that to the fatherless children and grieving widows and other family members of the deceased and permanently maimed war veterans who were sent to the slaughter in the name of power and money and corruption wrought by this administration.
Try to explain the concept of “political bøøbërÿ” to the families of the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and those who have been tortured because this administration has decided that the Geneva Convention, which, by the way was good enough for my fellow Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen during my career in the Air Force as law, in the hopes that if captured, we would not be tortured and treated at least somewhat humanely because every country, however barbaric, was expected to respect The Geneva Convention. Now that The Geneva Convention has been cast aside as merely “quaint”, what is to keep “The Enemy” from treating our military the way we treat theirs? It is a disgrace, and makes me ashamed to be put in the same American boat as these neocon fanatics.
Is the veritable police state that we Americans find ourselves living in the result of “political bøøbërÿ”? No, it is the result of calculating backroom deals in the halls of the lawmakers whose only objective is to make the rich richer and the powerful even more so, which disgusts me.
Believe me, R., I want to be proud to be an American again, but these bášŧárdš have made it very difficult.
I was willing to give my life for my country, not power and greed, which seems to be what America stands for these days. Ask any citizen of the world. America used to be a shining beacon of hope, but now that beacon has been overshadowed and dimmed by this administration.
Sorry about the soapbox, kids, but just don’t get me started…
Chuck (USAF Retired, by the way)
Posted by Drew at January 6, 2008 12:04 AM
>I, too, think Edwards is the best person for the >job; I hope he pulls something out in NH here. I >would much prefer to see an Edwards/Obama ticket >rather than an Obama/Edwards ticket.
I agree, I just don’t think Obama has enough experience to run the country. Sadly, I also think that, as someone else stated here, there are still large numbers of people in this country who will not vote for a black man for president.
As for Hillary, I think she’d do a great job, but there are too many people who really hate her, and I don’t think she’ll get elected.
Wait a minute….
As of right now, 37% of the NH precincts are reporting in and saying that Clinton has 39% of the vote, Obama has 36% of the vote and Edwards has 17% of the vote. Clinton is edging out Obama and stomping a mud hole in the Bad Úš and walking it dry?
But, but, but… She’s been shoved out of the race entirely. I know I read that somewhere. Well, Edwards still has a chance to maybe break the 20% mark as the remainder of the vote comes in. Hëll, he might even, with an absolute miracle, make a second place finish again over the candidate that he so masterfully shoved completely out of the race last week. But, somehow, I don’t see it happening.
Politics, like I said before, is a tricky business to predict. Only an absolute fool would make an absolute prediction this early for this three way horserace.
Sorry everybody (else). I just couldn’t resist. I’m weak that way sometimes.
~8?P
Whoa, is anyone else following the results from New Hampshire? Hillary is holding a slight lead (only 3% at the moment) over Obama! At one point she was ahead by around 6 so maybe the late reporting counties are shifting his way–the networks called the Republican race a long time ago (for McCain) but are not doing so for the Democrats.
The Bad-Úš has parlayed his second place finish in Iowa into a distant third place finish in NH.
Pretty exciting stuff. Boy, has the media EVER been as bad at reading these things as they’ve been this year? Right up to when the voting started they were openly wondering if Obama would win by double digits or by double digits starting with the number 2. Now, at the very least, it’s going to be close, enabling Hillary to claim Comeback Kid 2 status. Incredible, quite frankly, given the missteps of the last few days. I had a female colleague today tell me that he tears were faked and that they would help her win votes. I disagreed with both points but maybe she was right about the second one.
Clinton’s tears may have been fake, but I suspect that didn’t matter—they were truly representative of how she felt the country was being screwed over.
Some folks have also opined that voters reacted to the rather sexist way the press handled that show of emotion—and no mistaking that this was pretty sexist of the press.
Bill Mulligan: ” I had a female colleague today tell me that he tears were faked and that they would help her win votes. I disagreed with both points but maybe she was right about the second one.”
I would have disagreed about Clinton’s “tears” (I put that in quotes as, despite the common press talking point, she never actually shed any tears) from the other day, but I had a hunch that it would sway the female voters in NH and some of the airheads that were supporting Obama. There’s been a lot of airtime given to Obama supporters in NH the last few days and some of them have been embarrassingly stupid. I saw a number of on the spot, live, man on the street bits with Obama supporter and most of them couldn’t tell the reporters the first thing about any of Obama’s actual positions. They were saying that they were supporting him because he talks about hope, inspiration and change. That’s it.
While Obama has some solid supporters, I had a hunch this morning that those airheads would break ranks and go Clinton after her “breakdown” the other day. We can’t know for sure now, but I’ll be interested in seeing the voter breakdowns tomorrow for the female and “independent” votes.
The bad-ášš’s 16% cut of the primary so far far outstrips the 4% lead Hillary is enjoying — before the progressive districts finish reporting in. That plus the reports that they have to turn voters away because they’re running out of ballots tells me NH is still going to Obama, and a close race simply puts more pressure on him to seduce Edwards to the ticket.
Oh hey Jerry, should have known you’d be watching too! 🙂
Clinton’s lead is down to 2 but it keeps shifting by a few points. It hasn’t yet been tied at any point, I don’t think. Edwards is holding steady at 17% which, if you’re dyslexic is almost 3/4 of the vote!
The bad-ášš must think he’s in some kind of freaking Jason movie. I say he sticks it out until the South Carolina primary hoping for some kind of miracle, then bows out…then again, what else has he got to do? Clinton and Obama both have their Senate jobs to fall back on if things don’t work out.
As predictably as rain, now some of the nutroots are claiming voter fraud–Deibold just looooves Hillary, don’t you know.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×2633384
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×2633377
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×3999201
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×2633521
These guys see Karl Rove under every bed.
The repartee here is MUCH more amusing than the media…
I can actually see Obama coming back for a tie or even a 1% lead here. But this is now a completely different ballgame even if Obama wins it tonight. Hillary’s image was hurt in Iowa and she was being written off by the pundits and, to a lesser degree, Obama and Edwards. The predictions for tonight were Obama by 10% on the low end and 20% on the high end. Hillary and crew can and will spin an Obama win that’s anything less then 5% as a victory for her.
Mike, I think you’re using faulty logic here. You’re assuming that all of Edwards’ supporters will go with him to Obama. That may not be the case. Of the Edwards supporters that I know, they’re split about 50/50 on which their second choice would be (if deciding between just Obama and Clinton) and maybe even leaning a bit more towards Hillary. Granted, that’s purely anecdotal evidence on my part, but I would love to know what everyone else is hearing from the Edwards supporters in their circle of friends.
Watching? Hëll, Bill, I’m such a geek that, if I was at my place right now, I’d have a big bowl of popcorn and a soda in front of me. I’m such a geek that I actually find nights like this fun.
Yeah, I need help.
Already some of the hard core kooks at democraticunderground.com are claiming that Deibold is behind the close race in NH. Because Karl Rove just loooooves Hillary, I guess.
Well, as long as you don’t get INTO politics, you’re fine….
Nah, this is fascinating…A lesson in not taking the conventional wisdom from the media, and possibly a bigger lesson (which won’t be learned, of course) about injecting themselves into the news story….
Well, given the whining at Red State, we all know that any computer literate hackers can’t possibly be Republican….
The few Edwards voters I know don’t like Obama because they blame him for splitting the ant-Hillary vote that they wanted their guy to represent. But when I ask them they say their second choice is usually Kucinich or Ron Paul so I think they need time to sober up from whatever it is they’ve been mainlining…
Nothing I’ve said depends on that being the case.
Well, 63% of the precincts are in and the totals are still 39%, 36% & 17%. At this rate, these may well be the final numbers. I think Obama has a chance to surge when the college heavy precincts come in, but I’m not seeing him coming up enough to win.
You almost have to admire the mental gymnastics required to spin, even to one’s self, that there is somehow a way in which 17% is greater than 39%…
Could be, could be…
Clinton was clearly knocked down, but not out. Neither the media nor Obama’s camp should have assumed otherwise….
Mike: “Nothing I’ve said depends on that being the case.”
Actually, it really does. You’re point has been that Obama and Edwards joining forces would stomp Clinton. You even pointed out that Edwards’ total vote % outstripped Clinton’s lead over Obama. Well, the only logical reading of your stance tonight and last week on the possible Obama/Edwards ticket is that you believe that their vote totals can be combined to trump Clinton. If that’s not what you’ve been saying, then your entire argument about Obama wooing “Bad Úš” Edwards to his ticket really doesn’t mean a whole lot of sense.
Think about it.
And with 66% of the vote in, NBC just called it for Hillary.
Ah. AP has called it for Clinton…
Ðámņ, apparently Hillary Clinton is like Sebastian Shaw — the harder you beat on her, the stronger she gets. I think I wanna run for president.
I’ve been saying Obama should think about inviting Edwards to the ticket to prevent Hillary from teaming up with him against Obama. Not the same thing.
The kid gloves are gonna come off now. If the last few days is any indication, it could get pretty ugly.
Happiest man tonight? Mark Penn.
I wonder if the voters in NH, notoriously independent minded, disliked being told that it was all but over. Not yet, it ain’t. Unless you’re John Edwards.
Hillary won big among women, union members, seniors and the poor.
Obama won among men and had a huge advantage among younger voters.
Just yesterday there was a lot of talk about Hillary’s big money supporters jumping ship. My guess is that they are going to think long and hard about that now. And man, if Hillary goes all the way for the win will there be some major payback for the folks who were kicking her when she was down.
What a great race this is becoming. Super Tuesday looks more exciting than Cloverfield.
Ok, I’ll accept that, Mike. I still think it’s wrong in its either/or nature. Obama’s camp likely thinks that the votes would be split no matter what and I still think that Obama would tap a relative unknown as his VP. Anyone who’s seen as an insider, and Edwards is by many, would only damage his “CHANGE” platform. A qualified governor without a huge public record might work better for him. But, hey, I could be wrong here. This stuff is, as I’ve been saying, extremely tricky to accurately predict.
Bill Mulligan: “What a great race this is becoming. Super Tuesday looks more exciting than Cloverfield.”
Oh yeah. I might even have to call in sick that night just to make sure that I can enjoy that popcorn and soda.
Only an absolute fool would make an absolute prediction this early for this three way horserace.
Agreed. This doesn’t surprise me at all, regardless of whatever the early polling said. I know there’s supposed to be a method to the madness, but everybody just read the polls as if they were tea leaves… but apparently they weren’t actually talking to New Hampshoners themselves, it seems.
Still, Clinton will claim some grand victory, but I’d imagine the margin is too thin to call comfortable.
She has been getting underdog coverage since Thursday. The trick for her will be to have something to say other than, “I’m not supposed to be here!” because she campaigned in 2007 as the inevitable party winner. If she can find it, sure. But talk of payback? Underdogs value simple pleasure, which is something payback is not.
I very much doubt Hillary will talk of payback.
Favorite headline so far:from Wonkette: John Edwards Still Losing, Kind of a Ðìçk
…In an effort to stave off the criticism that he was too egotistical in his first (of many) concession speeches, Edwards stole a page from Obama’s Iowa speech and told the crowd that it was not about him, but about the “voices that are not heard” in America. He wants to get those silent, imaginary voices heard, because then maybe they’ll vote for him.
Also, from ScrappleFace:
Tight Democrat Primary Sparks Fraud Allegations
In the wake of the unexpected outcome of the New Hampshire Democrat primary Tuesday, sources at the Democrat National Committee (DNC) said they’re still trying to figure out whom to sue amid a flurry of allegations of fraud, malfunctioning electronic voting machines and voter intimidation.
“It’s a forgone conclusion that if the race outcome defies the pollster predictions, there must have been corruption,” said an unnamed DNC source. “Just because it’s an intra-party contest, doesn’t mean we’ll subject the results to less scrutiny.”
The DNC source added that “Americans need to have faith in the electoral process, but the New Hampshire Democrat primary has the smell of Bush-Gore 2000 all over it. We’re determined to follow the facts where they lead.”
All kidding aside, you have to love an election with a little drama in it, some twists and turns.
Heh. Last week I mentioned over on my blog that Hannity was likely on suicide watch over the showing of his boy Rudy in Iowa. I can only imagine the spinning that he’ll be doing tomorrow over the NH Republican results and the “Stop Hillary Express” jumping its track. I wish I could see that right now rather then just hearing it. Hannity has to be close to having a full on heart attack right now.
~8?)
We wouldn’t even be talking about payback if you hadn’t brought it up in the first place. With support like that, what’s not to dread?
We wouldn’t even be talking about payback if you hadn’t brought it up in the first place. With support like that, what’s not to dread?
???
Stick to spinning the bad-ášš’s amazing third place finish to the woman he had “shoved” “out of the race”.
k8tdad wrote quite a bit about how this current administration should make us all ashamed to be Americans.
But I don’t buy into all that. Almost every argument you made could be made about every presidential administration in the history of the United States. Such as thousands or tens of thousands died because this action WAS taken too rashly or that action WAS NOT taken due to timorousness or an inability to make a timely decision. Every presidential administration has made huge mistakes that were stupid or embarrassing, and every administration has had its share of corruption and scandals.
In short, if you are embarrassed because of this administration, then you probably should be embarrassed by them all. But not me. I don’t by into that self-loathing stuff.
This is a historically flawed country, but it is also a historically great country. It is a country that is the sum total of all of its people — people with different backgrounds, cultures, beliefs and value systems. Over the years I’ve seen people of all colors, cultures and walks of life do wonderful things for each other, and things that were unspeakably cruel.
Take Abu Ghraib, for example. Being a veteran, you should have known as well as I did in the days after the story broke that it was an abberration and not part of some widespread top-down Pentagon policy for the troops. I immediately suspected there was a breakdown in enlisted leadership at the prison and lower officer command levels, and I was right. And I knew this because of my NCO training and years of experience working with the other branches of service. I know dámņ well that if I had been the NCO in charge at that prison, I would not have tolerated any of that crap. And if some “higher up” would have tried to coerce or force me to allow something I believed was unlawful to take place, I would have demanded the order in writing and immediately run my complaint up the chain of command through JAG and/or the IG. I assume you would have done the same, am I right? But the sad fact is, despite what we are taught in NCO leadership school, deep down, not everyone has the same moral values.
And despite all of the hollaring about this administration’s “high crimes” regarding starting the war in Iraq, everything I’ve read indicates that that the administration did follow a valid legal framework — albeit one that involved several instances of interpreting legalese differently than its political opponents.
And in retrospect, the “lies” used to justify the war were exactly what I thought they were when weapons of mass destruction were not found: Bad intel and arrogant hubris. But face it, if hubrisness were a crime, there wouldn’t be a partisan politician from either side of the aisle left in this country.
No, In regards to this country, I view it through the lens as half full — not half empty.
Hillary Clinton would make a good fake president.
Probably the fakest president ever!
Bill Clinton Ruinned the economy NAFTA and CAFTA he messed up and so will Hillary with her large eyeballs.
Cory, there is such a thing as decaf.
An underreported element of all this is the startling fact that Tom Laughlin, yes, BILLY JACK himself, only got a mere 45 votes. 45! Yeah, you tell me there was no voter fraud!
Bill, I gather Fred Thompson also had a miserable showing. Makes one wonder what gave these people the idea to run when they clearly have no support to speak of.
As for what happened with Billary vs Obama, I heard a report that stated a lot of older people turned out to vote this time. Another report stated Billary’s support was higher in the older age categories. Maybe that explains it. Next place, Obama will have to work harder at getting the younger vote turning out to make up for it.
Personally, I hope Edwards wins South Carolina just so I can watch everyone’s head explode.
Hillary won big among women, union members, seniors and the poor.
Obama won among men and had a huge advantage among younger voters.
************
SER: That’s not surprising — Obama beat Clinton in Iowa because women deserted her. She can most likely win the nomination if she holds onto women.
Seniors are also a reliable and strong vote. The poor is not as consistent about voting in elections, though.
Demographically, this doesn’t surprise me.
What I do find intriguing is that although NH and Iowa has about the same ratio of blacks versus whites, Obama won Iowa, which went to Bush in 2004, and Clinton won NH, which went to Kerry in 2004.
If Obama does well in SC, it would be intriguing to see that he is faring better in red states.
I must say, having voted for the first time in 1992 as a college freshman, it’s strange to see a Clinton handed victory from seniors and clearly not getting the younger vote. What a difference 16 years makes.
Looking toward the general election, my ultimate concern is that these demographics are not encouraging for a victory against a Republican candidate. Especially since Obama did better among *single women* while Clinton did better with married older women, a group that traditionally votes Republican.
In a McCain/Clinton matchup, we could be in a situation in which young people either just sit out the election (which always hands it to the Republicans) or they vote for McCain because he’s perceived as a maverick and he’s much closer to a change candidate than Sen. Clinton.
Honestly, I would probably vote for McCain versus Clinton. I have no big issue with the Clintons, but I voted for them twice, and I sort of feel like the father who can’t watch THE INCREDIBLES with his 4-year-old for the bazillionith time.
Something is critically wrong with our democratic process if the same two families are in the White House for a quarter century. GWB was at least a generation removed from his father, but the first lady of a former administration running eight years after her husband left office truly stretches ever conceivable definition of “term limit.” Especially since she’s basically taking advantage of the whole “incumbent” wave. Obama is the only real “fresh face” (Edwards is the former VP nominee). And so basically Dodd, Richardson, and Biden never had a chance or were given a shot, but maybe they would have been perfectly qualified and solid nominees?
Diversity, new perspectives… is that a terrible thing to ask?
Cory, there is such a thing as decaf.
Lies, all lies! The substance called “decaf” by its evil proponents is a mockery of true coffee, foisted upon us by the unAmerican anti-consciousness lobby!!
Don’t be fooled, true Americans! Hold your Folgers high and say, “I’m awake this morning, and I’m not going to take it any more!!”
Bill, you seem to be citing text not mentioning Edwards as evidence I’ve mentioned him. There is no defense against your relentlessness.
Hillary benefitted from 4 days of coverage as the underdog since Thursday. I can only imagine if she loses the smaller states and somehow portray them as devastating, she can actively sustain this. Otherwise it seems out of her control. I’m not acquainted enough with the schedule to oknow if that’s manageable.
This seems to be an inversion of Hillary’s underdog problem. After wins, Obama supporters are more likely to stay home.
Bill, you seem to be citing text not mentioning Edwards as evidence I’ve mentioned him. There is no defense against your relentlessness.
No, I just opined that you might prefer to stick to statements that are foolish but understandable. As for “relentless” well, maybe we’ve beaten the “bad-ášš” jokes into the ground…but hey, it’s just so ridiculous. John Edwards: The Bad Úš. Funny, funny stuff.
Hillary benefitted from 4 days of coverage as the underdog since Thursday. I can only imagine if she loses the smaller states and somehow portray them as devastating, she can actively sustain this. Otherwise it seems out of her control.
You seem to display a curious need to portray the sole woman candidate as helpless, winning or losing due to forces beyond her control. This underestimation may be her most potent weapon. While most of us, myself included, thought that the Clinton team’s actions over the last few days were the last gasps of a sinking ship, it’s obvious that they played their hand smart and won.
If Hillary really benefited from the press that portrayed her as a losing underdog why hasn’t Edwards been able to capitalize on the same coverage. He is, after all, genuinely a losing underdog. Somehow, the bad ášš has not been able to turn that into a vote getting strategy the same way that woman he “shoved” “out of the race”.
Here’s an exit poll bit I would not have expected– Hillary got the lion’s share of support of voters who had “positive feelings” about the Bush administration: 42% to Obama’s 27%.
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/fox-news-new-hampshire-democratic-exit-polls/
Hmmm, maybe those folks claiming the evil Diebold pro-Hillary conspiracy are on to something!
Hillary won among Democrats, Obama among independents. That would mean that Obama would be easier to elect president but it might keep him from getting the nomination; not all states allow independents to vote in the primaries.
A clue to how things will go may come in the next few days–will nay of the superdelegates bolt from Hillary to Obama? A few days ago I would have said yes, now…
Hillary won among Democrats, Obama among independents. That would mean that Obama would be easier to elect president but it might keep him from getting the nomination; not all states allow independents to vote in the primaries.
***********
SER: The GOP tends to follow the strategy of “energize the base” — forget about the independents. This is I am not sanguine about McCain’s chances. After all, he’s only accomplished what he did in 2000 — only to lose because conservatives don’t believe he’s the “real deal.” I would wager that Huckabee might have a better shot in South Carolina than McCain. Though, if McCain wins the state that pretty much ended his 2000 hopes, that would be a great story.
Anyway, the Republican strategy of “focus on the base” is that they only lose if people who are inclined to vote Democratic, along with the majority of independents, turn out in great numbers. If these people stay home, the Republicans win.
So, I don’t see a real success story for the Democrats at this point. Yes, it’s a change election, but both parties are pushing for it, and it’s hard to position Clinton as a “change” candidate. Also, does she energize the base? Does she get the swing voters? Hard to say. Disaffected Democratic voters spelled the doom of Gore and Kerry. If Kerry couldn’t move them enough to actively *defeat* Bush, there’s always the chance that many Democrats will just be content that Bush is *gone* — forget whoever replaces him, Democrat or Republican. Anyone is better.
Here’s an exit poll bit I would not have expected– Hillary got the lion’s share of support of voters who had “positive feelings” about the Bush administration: 42% to Obama’s 27%.
************
SER: That doesn’t surprise me. Among Democrats who had positive feelings about the Bush administration, she is the most likely to not alienate them with her rhetoric, as the other candidates (especially Obama and Edwards).
The exit poll results are interesting. The gender breakdown was expected. And if Obama is wise, he’ll crank up the Oprah factor to sway more female voters his way. If she gets more female appeal when she’s down and on the ropes, then this could be sort of see-saw primary.
The other information, though, is a bit unsettling: Older, poorer, less educated voters favored Clinton to Obama. Could that speak to a possible latent race issue?
Oh, and having read these results, I’m not sure if the polls make it clear that more Independents favor Obama than Democrats. It just asks you for your identity. I consider myself an independent but nothing is stopping me from registering as a Democrat in order to vote in the New York primary. I would still not identify as a Democrat in this poll, though.
One final note about the polls: Has there ever been a case in which the polling data for Republicans and Democrats was so off? I mean, I’m looking back at the numbers and McCain was consistently called as the winner and with around the exact amount of the vote (33%).
Hmmm, maybe those folks claiming the evil Diebold pro-Hillary conspiracy are on to something!
Well, yeah… I mean, who in their right mind has positive feelings about Bush by this point? 😉
Has there ever been a case in which the polling data for Republicans and Democrats was so off?
The 2000 or 2004 election? The thing is, the data was only horribly bad in the last day before the NH primary. Earlier than that, and it still had Clinton ahead of Obama.
Speaking of primaries, I went looking for information for the state of Colorado on the Precinct Caucus election, which is on Super Tuesday. I did get the impression, from the information given, that since I am registered Independent (or, for the state’s legal definition, ‘unaffiliated’), I won’t get to vote in any Primary election in August. However, there was no info on the site about the Precinct Caucus election at all.
So I e-mail them, telling them I’m an unaffiliated voter who’s looking for info. They responded telling me to contact my political party. *sigh*
The 2000 or 2004 election? The thing is, the data was only horribly bad in the last day before the NH primary. Earlier than that, and it still had Clinton ahead of Obama.
**********
SER: Yes, I recall that the Zogby poll changed once it started polling people after Iowa. Yet, it didn’t seem to take into account the number of people who had made up their mind already — pre-Iowa — a significant number.
I work in Research, so it just seems that a lot of the pollsters made critical mistakes in methodology. The whole “crying thing” didn’t factor into it because, again, the majority of people had decided before Iowa.
There’s always the classic “Bradley effect” which claims that people will tell pollsters they are more likely to support a minority candidate than they really are.
In this case that would seem to be limited only to women who voted in the democratic primary–the result from men was pretty much as the polls had said.
Though all this must be taken with a grain of salt. The pollsters come up with all kinds of reasons why the results are so different from the predictions when the obvious possibility is that the predictions were just plain wrong.
If you do a text-search for this page, you will see that you literally introduced the word “payback” to it. Your failure to comprehend this seems to say more about your comprehension skills rather than the comprehensibility to what I say.
You seem to be suffering from an inability to reconcile Hillary having the most qualifying experience, her outspending Edwards by about five or six, and her losing to Edwards in Iowa. The solution is simple: as things stand now she simply isn’t going to be the democratic candidate for president for 2008. If you don’t like it, that isn’t my problem, and I don’t owe you an alternate explanation.
Also, I don’t know which is creepier:
Your Charlie Daniels reference in the Mary Jane thread would have exceeded the hilarity of the entire scrappleface archive if you had somehow managed to post it there in its full context. Anyone can go over there and see for themselves that is the case. Your post treating scrappleface as some kind of cultural packleader is a demonstration how whatever talents you have are wasted on you. You don’t have to live in the shadow of the pretense of invulnerability, Bill; you can choose to measure strength by something other than dominance.
Considering Hillary was portrayed as on the ropes for the 4 days between Iowa and NH, my need you refer to is simply a fidelity to accuracy.
All stories are founded on someone wanting something. Everyone knows Hillary and her antagonist, the Oprah-backed Obama. To the news, Edwards is known only by his epic agenda to be president, and doesn’t make as good a story. To say Edwards has been receiving the same coverage Hillary has capitalized on demonstrates your detachment from reality.