Game on. Bitches need to check the Hillary realness from yesterday. Girl Talk for real. She should have exited to KATG "Ladies Night" cause they brought it home for her. KVH you need to light some dudes up who were clowning baby girl. This is gonna get real interesting if Hillary can connect with woman. I still prefer Barack in the national contest.
You mean Clinton? She was never that far down; Iowa was an exception to how her national polling has gone. Obama's looking good though. Edwards...not so much so far.
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.
You mean Clinton? She was never that far down; Iowa was an exception to how her national polling has gone. Obama's looking good though. Edwards...not so much so far.
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.
was gonna say... good way to exit after a damn good speech
it was a great speech...not at all spontaneous, but the tv viewers couldn't see the teleprompters. he brings democrats to their feet, but when you get into the debates its game over. hillary is king. the new hampshire voters watched saturday's debate where obama, like in all the debates, is far from the dynamic figure he is when its just him and his followers.
the fact that mccain won is a little scary. obama or clinton will stomp any of the other gop candidates, its not even a question. mccain, like tonight, could grab a lot of independents. he will suck in the debates and obama and clinton are much brighter, but he's likeable, especially among independents, because he just doesn't give a f*ck.
You mean Clinton? She was never that far down; Iowa was an exception to how her national polling has gone. Obama's looking good though. Edwards...not so much so far.
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.
With headlines and reporting like this you'd think that after Iowa Hilary had no chance at ever coming back. All this rollercoaster coverage is such a joke.
Barack Obama was supposed to win New Hampshire big. The polls going into Tuesday's New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary had him running ahead of Hillary Clinton by seven points, eight points, nine points, even thirteen points. Yet, when the returns came in on Tuesday night, Obama lost by three points to fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Were the polls flawed?
Was there a dramatic shift at the last moment?
Or was it just another instance of "The Bradley Effect"?
The Bradley Effect refers to an electoral phenomenon first identified in the 1982 California gubernatorial election.
Tom Bradley, the popular mayor of Los Angeles, was the Democratic nominee for governor. Polls showed the African-American Democrat running well ahead of white Republican candidate George Deukmejian. Yet, when the votes were counted, Bradley lost by more than 50,000 votes.
The result made no sense. The gubernatorial election was one of the few Democratic losses in what was a good year for the party. Bradley was an able politician with a smooth style and a sound record. Analysts took a new look at the polls, which seemed sound.
It was then that they hit on the notion that white voters, not wanting to be thought to be prejudiced against an African-American candidate, had told pollsters they were for Bradley when they had always planned to vote for Deukmejian.
The phenomenon came to be referred to as "The Bradley Effect."
"The Bradley Effect" was seen again in 1989, when Virginians were electing a new governor. African-American Democrat Doug Wilder held a solid lead over white Republican Marshall Coleman ??? nine points in some polls. Yet, on election night, results showed him winning by less than one point.
In 1990, when African-American Democrat Harvey Gantt challenged white Republican incumbent Jesse Helms for a North Carolina Senate seat, polls had Gantt ahead by four- to six-percentage points. On election night, however, Helms won by four points.
Again and again, in elections in the north and south, "The Bradley Effect" has come into play.
But there was no Bradley effect in last week's Iowa caucuses. Obama led in the polls and he led on election night. But, in Iowa, it was a public caucus where neighbors saw who neighbors backed.
In New Hampshire, as in California in 1982, in Virginia in 1989 and North Carolina in 1990, the presidential primary voting took place in private ??? behind the curtain of a voting booth. It was possible for voters who had said they were for Obama to cast their ballots for Clinton.
That's how "The Bradley Effect" works.
And if "The Bradley Effect" was in play in New Hampshire, then Barack Obama may face a greater struggle to bridge the often-unmentioned gaps that remain in a nation that has long been divided along lines of race and class.
It is not merely Obama's struggle, however. It is America's struggle, as well.
But there was no Bradley effect in last week's Iowa caucuses. Obama led in the polls and he led on election night. But, in Iowa, it was a public caucus where neighbors saw who neighbors backed.
this makes sense and there is no doubt that there will be a lot more white folks who say they support Obama than actually vote for him, but Hillary won in New Hampshire because she nailed the woman vote. also, lets not forget that a) this is a DEMOCRATIC primary not the national election where the GOP and independents would fit the mold more so than your typical liberal/moderate Democrat, b) Bill Clinton got more black votes than any other dems and c) hillary also led among black voters across the country as of a month ago.
I'm not so sure there is any weird "Bradley Effect" this time around for those who voted D(at least not to a significant extent), primarily because the 'other' choice is a minority* as well.
*minority with respect to your normal presidential candidate.
i dont buy the bradley effect in this circumstance either, and think reading about it is more likely to make otherwise-sympathetic folks throw up their hands and back a 'winner' than if such a 'phenomenon' did not exist already
Barack Obama was supposed to win New Hampshire big. The polls going into Tuesday's New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary had him running ahead of Hillary Clinton by seven points, eight points, nine points, even thirteen points. Yet, when the returns came in on Tuesday night, Obama lost by three points to fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Were the polls flawed?
Was there a dramatic shift at the last moment?
Or was it just another instance of "The Bradley Effect"?
The Bradley Effect refers to an electoral phenomenon first identified in the 1982 California gubernatorial election.
Tom Bradley, the popular mayor of Los Angeles, was the Democratic nominee for governor. Polls showed the African-American Democrat running well ahead of white Republican candidate George Deukmejian. Yet, when the votes were counted, Bradley lost by more than 50,000 votes.
The result made no sense. The gubernatorial election was one of the few Democratic losses in what was a good year for the party. Bradley was an able politician with a smooth style and a sound record. Analysts took a new look at the polls, which seemed sound.
It was then that they hit on the notion that white voters, not wanting to be thought to be prejudiced against an African-American candidate, had told pollsters they were for Bradley when they had always planned to vote for Deukmejian.
The phenomenon came to be referred to as "The Bradley Effect."
"The Bradley Effect" was seen again in 1989, when Virginians were electing a new governor. African-American Democrat Doug Wilder held a solid lead over white Republican Marshall Coleman ??? nine points in some polls. Yet, on election night, results showed him winning by less than one point.
In 1990, when African-American Democrat Harvey Gantt challenged white Republican incumbent Jesse Helms for a North Carolina Senate seat, polls had Gantt ahead by four- to six-percentage points. On election night, however, Helms won by four points.
Again and again, in elections in the north and south, "The Bradley Effect" has come into play.
But there was no Bradley effect in last week's Iowa caucuses. Obama led in the polls and he led on election night. But, in Iowa, it was a public caucus where neighbors saw who neighbors backed.
In New Hampshire, as in California in 1982, in Virginia in 1989 and North Carolina in 1990, the presidential primary voting took place in private ??? behind the curtain of a voting booth. It was possible for voters who had said they were for Obama to cast their ballots for Clinton.
That's how "The Bradley Effect" works.
And if "The Bradley Effect" was in play in New Hampshire, then Barack Obama may face a greater struggle to bridge the often-unmentioned gaps that remain in a nation that has long been divided along lines of race and class.
It is not merely Obama's struggle, however. It is America's struggle, as well.
in addition, the polls matched the results so this doesnt even make sense
I don't know about the Bradley effect either, there have been plenty of black politicians unaffected by it. Most polls ended Sunday so perhaps they were generally correct, but NH changed it's mind by Tuesday.
here's another set of theories. some seem more far fetched than others
What the Hell Happened Last Night? by: Chris Bowers Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 15:29:21 PM EST
Was it massive polling error? Were women motivated by a double standard imposed on Clinton for showing emotion? Was it the Wilder / Bradley effect, where white voters lie about supporting African-American candidates to pollsters out of perceived social pressure? Was it something else? Twelve public polling organizations were in the field in New Hampshire entirely after the Iowa caucuses. One of these organizations concluded interviews on Saturday, January 5th. Seven concluded interviews on Sunday, January 6th. Four concluded interviews on Monday, January 7th.. The average of the final results from these pollsters is as follows:
Now, compare this to the results, with only one precinct outstanding Clinton: 38.99% (+9.07, +30.3%) Obama: 36.39% (-0.86, -2.3%) Edwards: 16.91% (-2.01, -10.6%) Richardson: 4.60% (-1.15, -20.0%)
While Obama and Richardson both saw their support drop from the final polling average, Edwards saw his drop as much as Obama and Richardson combined. It is possible that Edwards saw his numbers drop for a different reason than Obama or Richardson, or even that all three saw their numbers drop for different reasons. However, given Obama's numbers dropped the least, both in overall terms and in percentage terms, I am not convinced of a "Wilder effect here at all. Or, at least, I am not convinced that the "Wilder effect" was the only dynamic in play. It seems equally plausible that Edwards and Richardson saw their support drop much the way third-party support always drops from the polls to the final results. The lower the perceived chance a third-party candidate has the win, the larger their expected drop from the polls to the final results. It would appear that those voters broke toward Clinton.
Here is what I think happened, in chronological order: Chris Bowers :: What The Hell Happened Last Night? First, Clinton probably had a superior absentee voter program, which gave her a small boost. Likely voters are not guaranteed voters, but those who have already voted are. Before they were rebalanced, the exit polls showed Obama narrowly ahead of Clinton, 39%-38%. Absentee voters were not included in the exit poll, and a successful and strong absentee voter program can indeed account for a 3-4% net swing, especially since Clinton held a commanding 48%--31% lead among voters who had their minds made up the longest. This is also, for example, is why Brian Bilbray outperformed Francine Busby in final polls in CA-50.
Second, the polls were somewhat wrong, probably due both to a very mild "Wilder effect" and to improper weighting of the electorate / measurement of likely voters. However, the polls don't have to be more than 1% wrong in order to make this scenario work (although the more wrong the polls were, the easier this scenario works). Given that Rasmussen, a polling firm that utilizes the automated, IVR methodology, showed the campaign to be a little closer than other pollsters who used live interviews, there probably was a mild "Wilder effect" of about two percent or so. IVR polls should eliminate the Wilder effect altogether, and so it is useful to look to them as a baseline when determining the presence of a Wilder effect.
Third, there was a break toward Clinton on Election Day itself, when no polls were taken. A survey of 2004 and 2000 polls taken between Iowa and New Hampshire shows there is a tendency for Iowa bounces to begin to recede after three to five days, meaning that by Election Day Clinton should have been pulling back on Obama anyway, with or without a sympathy vote. Exit polls back this up. Among voters who decided who to vote for in the last week, Obama led Clinton 43%-28%, probably due to a huge surge in the two days after Iowa. Among voters who decided in the three days before the election, Obama still led by a smaller amount, 37%--34%. Among those who made up their minds on Election Day itself, the bounce had faded entirely, and Clinton pulled into a 39%-36% lead. That accounts for at least another half of a percent. Of course, the sympathy vote probably didn't hurt.
Fourth, Edwards and Richardson supporters who favored Clinton as a second choice disproportionately broke away and choose Clinton, since the narrative implied both that she was the only other candidate who could win and that she needed help to do so. We all saw this, for example, in 2000, when Nader was a factor and Gore was in a position similar to Clinton. In the end, Nader underperformed his final polls by 1.2%, and Gore outperformed his final polls by 2.0%, providing Gore enough of a boost to win the popular vote. By way of contrast, Edwards and Richardson supporters who favored Obama as a second choice probably didn't think Obama needed any help. This could have added as much as 3% to Clinton's total.
Fifth, Clinton was assisted by the ballot order, probably to the tune of about 3%. Clinton was at the top of the ballot, and it is a well-known long and long-studied phenomenon in politics that placement at the top of the ballot provides a not insignificant edge to any given candidate. This is a "perfect storm" scenario that requires no significant polling error, no significant Wilder effect, and no significant sympathy effect for Clinton. The top of the ballot, a superior absentee voter program, a naturally fading bounce, and an also somewhat typical "third party effect" from Edwards and Richardson supporters can, in and of itself, account for the ten-point swing from Obama to Clinton. However, that it requires all of these less than mysterious pieces to fall into place makes it somewhat dubious. The most likely scenario is that the four reasons I provide all played a role, but less than the amounts I suggested here. Further, the three most common reasons being given, Wilder effect, sympathy effect, massive polling error, all also probably played a role, but less than is being trumpeted by others. It was probably just a perfect storm for Clinton incorporating all seven rationales.
Still, this result should give real pause to anyone like me who believes pre-election final poll averages are almost always a very accurate predictor of final results. If a whole host of factors fall into place, clearly it is possible to bust up final averages by as much as 10%. Clinton got a perfect storm, drawing on as many as seven different factors It will take a long time to sort this out with any certainty, and even then certainty may never come. The future performance of polls in predicting final results will now be watched much more closer than ever. I guess they are "on notice."
A word on polling. Obama did not lead in NH until after IA.
The polls include people who are undecided. If they are a significant number they can greatly impact the outcome.
A really good poll has an error rate of 4%+-. Clinton 30%, Obama 38% would be within the margin of error. In other words it could end Clinton 34% and Obama 34% and the poll would have been accurate since it has a built in 4%+-. Given the error rate and the undecideds, Clinton's crying and independants going for McCain and the polls were not the far off. People who think the polls are gospel are always far off.
Clinton leads and has lead nationally because people have heard of her. People are just starting to hear about Obama. As he becomes better known his numbers will improve. SC is more likely to go for Clinton than Obama I am guessing. Bill connects with Black voters in SC very well. Barak is still trying to make that connection. FL could also be strong for Clinton because of the NY connection. IL should be all Obama dispite it being Clinton's home state and a traditional Dem power structure that should be to her advantage. I think Obama has the edge in the West. If he can win California that would be huge.
A word on polling. Obama did not lead in NH until after IA.
The polls include people who are undecided. If they are a significant number they can greatly impact the outcome.
A really good poll has an error rate of 4%+-. Clinton 30%, Obama 38% would be within the margin of error. In other words it could end Clinton 34% and Obama 34% and the poll would have been accurate since it has a built in 4%+-. Given the error rate and the undecideds, Clinton's crying and independants going for McCain and the polls were not the far off. People who think the polls are gospel are always far off.
Clinton leads and has lead nationally because people have heard of her. People are just starting to hear about Obama. As he becomes better known his numbers will improve. SC is more likely to go for Clinton than Obama I am guessing. Bill connects with Black voters in SC very well. Barak is still trying to make that connection. FL could also be strong for Clinton because of the NY connection. IL should be all Obama dispite it being Clinton's home state and a traditional Dem power structure that should be to her advantage. I think Obama has the edge in the West. If he can win California that would be huge.
i can tell you now IL is and has been Obama country for a long time; he was voted in a landslide against alan keyes but he had folks voting for him all the way downstate, in normally republican strongholds. the polls - well before iowa - had him beating hillary 2-1 in illinois
One theory I heard was that independents who might have voted for Obama felt that they didn't need to because the polls had him winning easily. So they voted for McCain in an effort to have their vote "count" more than it would if they were part of Obama's 10 point victory. Might have some merit.
Another thing I read, I think on Salon (sorry no footnotes sabadadoodoohead), was that the polls accurately depicted Obama's support, but they underestimated Hillary's considerably.
At the end of the day, it was a very close race for the top 2 spots, and no one else came close. Who thinks that Edwards will drop out after a fair-to-middling showing in S. Carolina? And if he does, which way will he encourage his supporters to go? I think they would naturally drift towards Sen. Obama.
Richardson is done Thursday. Edwards will have to get out soon, he has no chance anymore but he is the only one that doesn't realize that. You'd think SC = his last stand. I think most of his supporters will go to Obama. I've read some of the left-wing blogs (mostly Edwards camp) and see very little Clinton support.
Despite a +1 advantage in state delegates, Obama is 105 delegates behind because of superdelegates -- elected democrats who get to independently vote as delegates. So he'd lose if they tied for the rest of the primaries or he wins states by small margins. (Although, he is lucky that Florida & Michigan will not count against him.)
Comments
It gives CNN something to report back on every 2 1/2 minutes when they have nothing new to say.
Polling can only predict landslides. Everything else is a crapshoot.
^^^
truthspeak
this is nonsense.
why?
it was a great speech...not at all spontaneous, but the tv viewers couldn't see the teleprompters. he brings democrats to their feet, but when you get into the debates its game over. hillary is king. the new hampshire voters watched saturday's debate where obama, like in all the debates, is far from the dynamic figure he is when its just him and his followers.
the fact that mccain won is a little scary. obama or clinton will stomp any of the other gop candidates, its not even a question. mccain, like tonight, could grab a lot of independents. he will suck in the debates and obama and clinton are much brighter, but he's likeable, especially among independents, because he just doesn't give a f*ck.
With headlines and reporting like this you'd think that after Iowa Hilary had no chance at ever coming back. All this rollercoaster coverage is such a joke.
Barack Obama was supposed to win New Hampshire big. The polls going into Tuesday's New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary had him running ahead of Hillary Clinton by seven points, eight points, nine points, even thirteen points.
Yet, when the returns came in on Tuesday night, Obama lost by three points to fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Were the polls flawed?
Was there a dramatic shift at the last moment?
Or was it just another instance of "The Bradley Effect"?
The Bradley Effect refers to an electoral phenomenon first identified in the 1982 California gubernatorial election.
Tom Bradley, the popular mayor of Los Angeles, was the Democratic nominee for governor. Polls showed the African-American Democrat running well ahead of white Republican candidate George Deukmejian. Yet, when the votes were counted, Bradley lost by more than 50,000 votes.
The result made no sense. The gubernatorial election was one of the few Democratic losses in what was a good year for the party. Bradley was an able politician with a smooth style and a sound record. Analysts took a new look at the polls, which seemed sound.
It was then that they hit on the notion that white voters, not wanting to be thought to be prejudiced against an African-American candidate, had told pollsters they were for Bradley when they had always planned to vote for Deukmejian.
The phenomenon came to be referred to as "The Bradley Effect."
"The Bradley Effect" was seen again in 1989, when Virginians were electing a new governor. African-American Democrat Doug Wilder held a solid lead over white Republican Marshall Coleman ??? nine points in some polls. Yet, on election night, results showed him winning by less than one point.
In 1990, when African-American Democrat Harvey Gantt challenged white Republican incumbent Jesse Helms for a North Carolina Senate seat, polls had Gantt ahead by four- to six-percentage points. On election night, however, Helms won by four points.
Again and again, in elections in the north and south, "The Bradley Effect" has come into play.
But there was no Bradley effect in last week's Iowa caucuses. Obama led in the polls and he led on election night. But, in Iowa, it was a public caucus where neighbors saw who neighbors backed.
In New Hampshire, as in California in 1982, in Virginia in 1989 and North Carolina in 1990, the presidential primary voting took place in private ??? behind the curtain of a voting booth. It was possible for voters who had said they were for Obama to cast their ballots for Clinton.
That's how "The Bradley Effect" works.
And if "The Bradley Effect" was in play in New Hampshire, then Barack Obama may face a greater struggle to bridge the often-unmentioned gaps that remain in a nation that has long been divided along lines of race and class.
It is not merely Obama's struggle, however. It is America's struggle, as well.
this makes sense and there is no doubt that there will be a lot more white folks who say they support Obama than actually vote for him, but Hillary won in New Hampshire because she nailed the woman vote. also, lets not forget that a) this is a DEMOCRATIC primary not the national election where the GOP and independents would fit the mold more so than your typical liberal/moderate Democrat, b) Bill Clinton got more black votes than any other dems and c) hillary also led among black voters across the country as of a month ago.
man...i read the headline and my brain was about to explode as i thought it was about to suggest that Bill Bradley's nod to Obama affected the polls.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/07/bradley_voters_find_new_champi.html
I'm not so sure there is any weird "Bradley Effect" this time around for those who voted D(at least not to a significant extent), primarily because the 'other' choice is a minority* as well.
*minority with respect to your normal presidential candidate.
in addition, the polls matched the results so this doesnt even make sense
For the record, Romney did grab Wyoming, for his first victory in this election season.
Conspiracy theorist time.
So the powers that be want to see a white woman as president?
Maybe the powers that be know she doesn't stand a chance in November.
you cant buy an election
Why wouldn't the powers that be just fix the Nov election like they did in 2000
The Illusion must be that of a Complete Illusion
The polls include people who are undecided. If they are a significant number they can greatly impact the outcome.
A really good poll has an error rate of 4%+-. Clinton 30%, Obama 38% would be within the margin of error. In other words it could end Clinton 34% and Obama 34% and the poll would have been accurate since it has a built in 4%+-. Given the error rate and the undecideds, Clinton's crying and independants going for McCain and the polls were not the far off. People who think the polls are gospel are always far off.
Clinton leads and has lead nationally because people have heard of her. People are just starting to hear about Obama. As he becomes better known his numbers will improve. SC is more likely to go for Clinton than Obama I am guessing. Bill connects with Black voters in SC very well. Barak is still trying to make that connection. FL could also be strong for Clinton because of the NY connection. IL should be all Obama dispite it being Clinton's home state and a traditional Dem power structure that should be to her advantage. I think Obama has the edge in the West. If he can win California that would be huge.
i can tell you now IL is and has been Obama country for a long time; he was voted in a landslide against alan keyes but he had folks voting for him all the way downstate, in normally republican strongholds. the polls - well before iowa - had him beating hillary 2-1 in illinois
Another thing I read, I think on Salon (sorry no footnotes sabadadoodoohead), was that the polls accurately depicted Obama's support, but they underestimated Hillary's considerably.
At the end of the day, it was a very close race for the top 2 spots, and no one else came close. Who thinks that Edwards will drop out after a fair-to-middling showing in S. Carolina? And if he does, which way will he encourage his supporters to go? I think they would naturally drift towards Sen. Obama.
In other news...what happened to Mayor Giuliani?
Despite a +1 advantage in state delegates, Obama is 105 delegates behind because of superdelegates -- elected democrats who get to independently vote as delegates. So he'd lose if they tied for the rest of the primaries or he wins states by small margins. (Although, he is lucky that Florida & Michigan will not count against him.)