New Hampshire Race Watching
mannybolone
Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
Clinton 64,743 39%Obama 60,322 36 Edwards 27,578 17 Richardson 7,889 5 Kucinich 2,415 1 Gravel 230 0 McCain 49,925 37%Romney 42,288 31 Huckabee 15,382 11 Giuliani 11,709 9 Paul 10,654 8 Thompson 1,613 1 61% reporting
Comments
new comeback kid?
Meanwhile, Romney's 0-2 but we'll have to see how Rudy does once Florida rolls around.
Dude, if Obama doesn't win tonight his candidacy is fucked. Because so much of this process is perception and everyone was assuming he would take NH handily.
yeah, I'm not liking how it looks so far either. However, only 51 of 301 the precints have reported so far. Like an ebay auction in its final moments, I keep hitting refresh on the browser on the result page. maybe its gonna jump, ok, maybe its gonnna jump ..now.
http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/state.shtml?state=NH
saying - perception changes everyday. We're still at the front end of this race.
you guys are killing me. polls 2 weeks ago had Hillary winning. Polls right after Iowa had Obama winning by like around 5%. And polls Sunday & yesterday had him winning by like 11%.
nothing about what has transpired over the past 2 weeks strikes me as 'conventional wisdom'.
i think what you meant to say is "based off yesterdays polls, people thought Obama was going to win."
seriously....you guys are worse than the pundits some time.
he still got 8 delegates and, despite his crossover appeal, new hampshire got a hellof a lot of snowflakes. obama should benefit from south carolina and a black majority.
funny shit i read about the GOP race was that Romney'stwo second place finishes were "bitter losses" since he put millions of his dollars into the campaign and hoped to win one. HAHAHA fuck you bitch...money cant always buy victory and you are still a corny mormon robot vacillator. go suck an egg.
you're an idiot. a mere reference to conventional wisdom was to point out a seeming consensus opinion in the mainstream us press that had formed over the past few weeks that was obviously distorted.
Lots of Independents went to McCain, I guess.
They stopped meaning anything in the 2000 presidential election.
Polls aren't worthless but they aren't gospel either. Like any sampling, there's always a margin of error and more to today's point: what someone says yesterday but decides at the voting booth today are two different animals.
Personally, I like that things keep swinging. We shouldn't be crowning anyone the candidate in early January!
was gonna say... good way to exit after a damn good speech
Okay, I should have said, "The 2000 presidential election revealed the inherent limitations of exit polling."
The chair of the New Hampshire Republican Party (a 35-year-old guy) made an interesting point on CSPAN this morning that the primary method of polling (by telephone) is outdated, since most people our age don't have a land line.
I doubt these polls have a margin of error of 12 or 13 percent. Anyway, I was really hoping strongly for an Obama win tonight because it's my hunch that Hillary's strength is in some of the big Feb. 5 states. The states were she seemed most vulnerable happened to be these early states. If she's winning those as well I think Obama will have a real tough time regaining momentum.
Yeah, which is why I also pointed out that polling and voting are different beasts. I don't think polling is bullshit just b/c it's not always accurate.
Polling does not have to be 100% accurate, all the time, to be useful. If it were MOSTLY accurate, wouldn't that have a utility? I'm surprised anyone would demand that it be infallible.
Of course, some would argue that polling has always been a voodoo science. I leave that to statisticians to tussle over.
Hey, don't feel bad...I believe in astrology!