USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[melliedee]

Roni, I apologize. I'm out of sorts today and took it out on you. I usually enjoy your take on polls and politics in general. I didn't mean to come off so harsh.

[Seakony]

Originally Posted by StephenB

I know...and I'm sitting here feeling a little guilty in taking a little pleasure in watching you guys claw it out. This too shall pass!

I feel no guilt what so ever.

[STOGEY]

I don't know about this Hilary Clinton crying stuff. THis just reminds me of a woman who wants to get something her way. We guys have all seen this. I mean she wants you to buy her a new car or visit the inlaws. You try to put down you foot and say no. So she starts her crying routine and she gets her way.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by STOGEY

I don't know about this Hilary Clinton crying stuff. THis just reminds me of a woman who wants to get something her way. We guys have all seen this. I mean she wants you to buy her a new car or visit the inlaws. You try to put down you foot and say no. So she starts her crying routine and she gets her way.

Gawd, I just heard the pundits on the News Hour say almost the same thing.....what IS the world coming to?

[melliedee]

Richardson just withdrew. Who will he support?

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Richardson just withdrew. Who will he support?

For me the bigger question is, what are the probable combinations of Pres/VP out of this, on the Dems' side? I mean, probably we can relatively safely assume that either Clinton or Obama is going to win. Can either of them ask the other to be a running mate? Could either of them agree to be the other's running mate, if asked? Is Edwards a likely running mate for either of them? Is that (and future possibilities beyond that) lurking in the back of his mind as he goes through all this? And what of Richardson? Seems like a lot of experience and charisma there to just do nothing. Might he be the safest choice for running mate in terms of any discord between the top 3 and also given his ethnic background?

I'd like to know.

Steve

[sctx]

Originally Posted by ryberg

For me the bigger question is, what are the probable combinations of Pres/VP out of this, on the Dems' side?

probable combinations???......... O & O would be my guess

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

For me the bigger question is, what are the probable combinations of Pres/VP out of this, on the Dems' side? I mean, probably we can relatively safely assume that either Clinton or Obama is going to win. Can either of them ask the other to be a running mate? Could either of them agree to be the other's running mate, if asked? Is Edwards a likely running mate for either of them? Is that (and future possibilities beyond that) lurking in the back of his mind as he goes through all this? And what of Richardson? Seems like a lot of experience and charisma there to just do nothing. Might he be the safest choice for running mate in terms of any discord between the top 3 and also given his ethnic background?

I'd like to know.

Steve

I cannot see an Obama/Clinton ticket or the other way around.

I agree that Richardson is the "safest" running mate for either Clinton or Obama with great experience and he helps with votes. Plus he is out rather early which prevents him from further angering any of the potential nominees (I heard the Clintons' were upset with him in Iowa)

Edwards would not likely get a Clinton nod IMO after the weekend debate., but perhaps he could ally with Obama?....While Edwards might be able to help Obama in the South, I just don't think he would add enough synergistic operational strength to help Obama in the long run......

I am betting on Richardson as a strong potential VP candidate for either eventual candidate.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Gawd, I just heard the pundits on the News Hour say almost the same thing...

That was an interesting report, wasn't it? I mean an interesting discussion. Jim Lehrer just sits down with 4 of 'em and says, hey, you know what is your problem? how come you were all so wrong and the polls were all so wrong?

I love The News Hour, when I have time to watch it.

But while they ended with Shields saying that, and they started with a bunch of drain theories (basically that people saw how well Obama was doing and felt he didn't need their votes so much), and the gap between the last polls and the election was a big focus, especially with Clinton's tearing up bit and the idea that Edwards' comments may have looked like the boys were teaming up on her... they just seemed to ignore the key point brought up that exit polls of people who decided late did not in fact show any advantage for Clinton over Obama.

So no matter what you think of polls or how you slice it, either the lead-up polls were wrong or the exit polls were wrong.

It's starting to remind me of the weekly college hockey polls in the Frozen Four thread.

Steve

[MWC]

Originally Posted by roni

Okay, I am going to cry now.

I merely responded to Steve's post.

I feel like I am being unfairly attacked by you.

Can I make it better by assuring you that you are: "likeable enough" ?

[MWC]

Originally Posted by ryberg

That was an interesting report, wasn't it? I mean an interesting discussion. Jim Lehrer just sits down with 4 of 'em and says, hey, you know what is your problem? how come you were all so wrong and the polls were all so wrong?

I love The News Hour, when I have time to watch it.

But while they ended with Shields saying that, and they started with a bunch of drain theories (basically that people saw how well Obama was doing and felt he didn't need their votes so much), and the gap between the last polls and the election was a big focus, especially with Clinton's tearing up bit and the idea that Edwards' comments may have looked like the boys were teaming up on her... they just seemed to ignore the key point brought up that exit polls of people who decided late did not in fact show any advantage for Clinton over Obama.

So no matter what you think of polls or how you slice it, either the lead-up polls were wrong or the exit polls were wrong.

It's starting to remind me of the weekly college hockey polls in the Frozen Four thread.

Steve

This is why I need to get a job as a "talking head". I think that a lot of the NH independent vote that had expected itself to go for Obama at the time of the polling changed to McCain, thinking McCain could use the vote more than Obama could -- once the poll results were announced.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

That was an interesting report, wasn't it? I mean an interesting discussion. Jim Lehrer just sits down with 4 of 'em and says, hey, you know what is your problem? how come you were all so wrong and the polls were all so wrong?

I love The News Hour, when I have time to watch it.

But while they ended with Shields saying that, and they started with a bunch of drain theories (basically that people saw how well Obama was doing and felt he didn't need their votes so much), and the gap between the last polls and the election was a big focus, especially with Clinton's tearing up bit and the idea that Edwards' comments may have looked like the boys were teaming up on her... they just seemed to ignore the key point brought up that exit polls of people who decided late did not in fact show any advantage for Clinton over Obama.

So no matter what you think of polls or how you slice it, either the lead-up polls were wrong or the exit polls were wrong.

It's starting to remind me of the weekly college hockey polls in the Frozen Four thread.

Steve

Actually, I think David Brooks did bring that up as a concern with the drain theories...still, 9 polls all wrong doesn't make sense....something changed from the time the polls were done until the vote...it keeps coming back to the slight weep episode that got shown about 10,000 times AFTER the 9 lead up polls were done...this also seems to jive with the huge increase Clinton realized in the female vote as compared to Iowa....and as melliedee predicted, the students were just not dependable for Obama in Hanover.

The "ice queen" melts...the election was won?

[ryberg]

Yes., he did bring it up, I just meant that they seemed to ignore it later, especially ending on Shields' comment re the supposed breakdown. As Brooks said, the problem with all these theories is that the exit polls do not corroborate an advantage for Clinton among people who decided late, suggesting that there was not in fact some late change, in turn suggesting that the earlier polls were in fact wrong.

That or, like I said, that the exit polls were wrong, but either way, you end up with polls being wrong.

Steve

[ryberg]

Well it didn't work in one case with one key woman, anyway -- Obama outdoes Hillary with tears!

Voter who made Clinton teary picked Obama

Many political observers are crediting Democrat Hillary Clinton's surprise win in New Hampshire to the New York senator's rare display of emotion at a Portsmouth Coffee shop Monday morning.

But Clinton's tearful moment failed to win at least one Granite State voter — the very woman who prompted her response in the first place.

Marianne Pernold-Young told CNN Wednesday she ultimately picked Barack Obama in Tuesday night's primary because of the Illinois senator's performance at a recent rally she attended.

"I was moved to tears. Not once, but twice," she said. "And he has this enormous electricity. And I was just taken aback. And I just had to go with my feelings." . . .

Ahhhhhh... Nothin' quite like that feeling when people go right out there despite your best efforts at being objective and rational and open-minded and all that and just corroborate the stereotype right in front of your eyes.

It would be interesting to hear Clinton's response to this story, I think.

Steve

[roni]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Actually, I think David Brooks did bring that up as a concern with the drain theories...still, 9 polls all wrong doesn't make sense....something changed from the time the polls were done until the vote...it keeps coming back to the slight weep episode that got shown about 10,000 times AFTER the 9 lead up polls were done...this also seems to jive with the huge increase Clinton realized in the female vote as compared to Iowa....and as melliedee predicted, the students were just not dependable for Obama in Hanover.

The "ice queen" melts...the election was won?

The polls were right at the time they were taken. They were taken before the voting happened.

Late deciders did break for Hillary, according to reports I read. It is also the only reasonable explanation for all the polls taken the Sat-Sun-Mon before the election being in agreement and not being an accurate reflection of the voting that happened on Tuesday. I will be happy to entertain other reasonable explanations, but other survey/poll researchers I have communicated with point to that. There were too many polls in agreement - all done after Friday, to suggest otherwise.

It is interesting to note that the Mason-Dixon poll, finished on Friday, I believe, showed a much tighter race than did the polls done the weekend and Monday before the election.

Hillary did not weep - slightly or otherwise. She did get a bit emotional and her eyes did get a bit watery, but has anyone heard any credible reports of weeping or of tears leaving her eyes? Any photographic evidence (facts) to support that opinion?


Good night.