I'm hearing big Hispanic turnout in Texas (good for Clinton) and a huge Clinton edge among late-deciders (obviously good for Clinton).
« Crossovers | Main | Big Mo »
Rumors, Exit Polls
04 Mar 2008 06:13 pm
Comments (45)
It would be really depressing if Clinton came back from the brink due to demagoguery on national security.
I have put up with the Democratic party disappointment after disappointment. But I don't know if I can take it if a war-mongering mediocrity wins the nomination.
Still would vote for Clinton (what else is there to do?), but a Clinton victory would prove, for me, that we live in an irrevocably broken political culture.
That certainly fits with the feeling that Clinton, working along with McCain to weaken Obama, has been on the offensive for several days; while Obama has continued to run his "let's all work together" ads in Ohio. And the late decider part sounds a lot like the dynamic in New Hampshire.
By the way, I haven't had the opportunity lately to thank New Hampshire for their role in dragging this thing out. Idiots. I hate your turnpike, too.
Sorry PTS, but I don't support your point of view. If the Democratic party is dumb enough to put Clinton up after the kind of campaign she's run, they deserve to have McCain in the White House. And they'll get it.
Well actually a lot of sites are reporting Tx, OH and RI are all dead even (even RI).
I think that's good news for O !
I live near a polling place in Houston, and I've been around a lot today waiting for a stove to get delivered. When I went to vote, there were 5 or 6 people passing out Obama literature, and they'd clearly been there all day. Nobody was pushing for Hillary votes. Just an anecdote... can't wait to caucus tonight.
Relax -- she can't make up the delegate difference. And don't be so sure Hispanic turnout will be too good for Clinton. Obama will do better than he did in California, for instance.
These were states she was supposed to have won by 10 points each, remember. Anything within that margin is gravy for Obama. And with the races likely to be close in delegates, the only state that's going to net too wide of a gap is Vermont, which could net Obama 7 or 8.
Would be great to win Ohio and Texas, but don't forget that these are Hillary's states to lose people.
This just in from the AP:
Early exit polls show independents are a sizable chunk of the electorate in presidential primaries in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont.
In all those states except Rhode Island, Tuesday's primaries were ``open,'' meaning all voters could choose which party's contest to vote in. In Rhode Island, only registered independents could choose between parties.
"The surveys for The Associated Press and television networks found self-described independents were about one in five voters in Ohio's Democratic primary, one in four in Texas, a third in Rhode Island and four in 10 in Vermont.
Exit poll results for Republican primaries were available only in Ohio and Texas. In Ohio, independents were about one in seven GOP voters, in Texas one in five."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7357779
Link to exit polls:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/4/18735/88678
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/
a Clinton victory would prove, for me, that we live in an irrevocably broken political culture.
Have to partially agree with SDinIA. It's the Democrats who are broken. The GOP has 'de-linked' us from political sanity, but rather than fight it, which is what an opposition party is supposed to do, Dems have drifted right along with them. Pretty pathetic.
HRC is hardly homefree here, but...leave it to the moronic Democratic Party to use their moment of maximum leverage to get tangled in their own leash. No way can I support Nader, but I do wish there were a party I *could* support without holding my nose. The dems need Obama for, if nothing else, shaking things up in a big way.
i live in san antonio. the lines for early voting last week were the longest i have ever seen here. i pass three different polling place leaving work and picking up my kids from school and daycare; all three were mobbed each night. when i voted today, there were more people in my precinct than i have seen there in any other three elections. i wanted edwards to win, so one can't reject me as a starry-eyed obama voter, (though obviously as an obama voter i don't count), when i say that i just find it hard to believe that these lines are for clinton. i think obama will win texas
Huffington post early exits:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/04/ohio-texas-vermont-rho_n_89741.html
First Exit Polls:
VT Obama - 67, Clinton - 33
OH Obama - 51, Clinton - 49
TX Obama - 50, Clinton - 49
RI Obama - 49, Clinton - 49
I don't understand the claim that the "Democrats" are broken. The GOP has gone completely round the bend. If the GOP is crazy, the Democrats are broken, and the media is an accomplice, then what remains of our political culture?
Haven't the early exits tended to overestimate the Obama vote? I recall that being the case on Super Tuesday.
I cannot imagine voting for a newly hawkish Clinton, even if she should gain the nomination. I was willing to compromise if Obama lost while I thought Clinton had finally learned and changed but she has not changed or learned. She is a hawk.
I will only support and vote for Obama.
"and a huge Clinton edge among late-deciders (obviously good for Clinton)."
Lorne Michaels saves the Republic?
"No way can I support Nader, but I do wish there were a party I *could* support without holding my nose."
Let's get 'em both to two thousand and ten delegates, and then Edwards can win by acclamation on the second ballot.
Lorne Michaels saves the Republic?
More like concerned Canuckian meddling in U.S. domestic affairs. This aggression will not stand.
"This aggression will not stand."
Man.
I cannot imagine voting for a newly hawkish Clinton, even if she should gain the nomination. I was willing to compromise if Obama lost while I thought Clinton had finally learned and changed but she has not changed or learned. She is a hawk.
Compared to John McCain, she is Mahatma Gandhi.
I don't understand the claim that the "Democrats" are broken. The GOP has gone completely round the bend. If the GOP is crazy, the Democrats are broken, and the media is an accomplice, then what remains of our political culture?
i dunno. this is a pretty f-ed up country you guys have. on the one hand, as a country you re-elected bush, so no sympathy for what you suffer under him. on the other hand, why does the rest of the world have to suffer so much because a bunch of you are fascist nimwits.
"Well, blame Canada.
Blame Canada.
It seems that everything's gone wrong
Since Canada came along.
Blame Canada.
Blame Canada.
They're not even a real country anyway."
why does the rest of the world have to suffer so much because a bunch of you are fascist nimwits.
Well, if you just *gave* us the oil there would be a lot less suffering.
Stuck living in America, huh? I'd love to hear the reason for that.
"why does the rest of the world have to suffer so much because a bunch of you are fascist nimwits."
If the rest of the world cares so much, they should just become states. We don't bomb our own states. It would cost votes.
As you can see, the system works.
Wow, Petey's back.
To what extent can/should exit polls be trusted in states that offer early voting and where it was heavy --er, in TX and OH, in other words?
why does the rest of the world have to suffer so much because a bunch of you are fascist nimwits
Look, I'm sorry, but there's nothing we can do about our fascists. The liberals are just here to stay.
Whatever happens, I will always be able to think of the pain little Petey suffered when John Edwards came third in Iowa and his own state, and got no votes anywhere else, except for a few confused elderly cracker gentlemen. It won't make up for Edwards' dismal performance against Cheney back in 2004, but it helps ease the pain.
"Whatever happens, I will always be able to think of the pain little Petey suffered when John Edwards came third in Iowa"
Scratch an Obama supporter, and find a Republican.
You can attack universal healthcare all you like Pithlord. You only diminish yourself.
I second Benniefly2's post. Goddamn Canadians.
Scratch an Obama supporter, and find a Republican.
We're all Republicans now? Who knew! I must've been confused when I voted for Gore in 2000, or Clark in the 2004 primaries and Kerry in the general.
Shit, if all of Obama's supporters are misguided Republicans, then we had better give him the nomination or McCain will win in a landslide.
Too late for the blame game - AIM HIGH - GO COWBOYS! In the end us amigos we'll get what we deserve...the politics of personal destruction...history recycled into 21st century new truth...Personal Finance 101...NOT - we got 'Sub Prime' - look how many flunked - but it's the bankers fault / R/E brokers / Mortgage Brokers / Waall Street - - blah blah! Greed is really sick when the party is over!
At least people are voting - in droves - I'm a progressive consevative in Up State NY - I am willing to "releave" my Jr. Senator for the main event - the Mac Attack - I'm just loving it. g
"We're all Republicans now? Who knew! I must've been confused when I voted for Gore in 2000, or Clark in the 2004 primaries and Kerry in the general."
Not all, of course. Some Obama supporters are perfectly well-intentioned fellow travelers.
But a bizarrely high percentage of Obama supporters seem to loathe universal healthcare when they let their guard down.
Oh, yeah, hey Petey. Did you follow your scriptwriter switching campaigns, or did you have to find a new one?
"Did you follow your scriptwriter switching campaigns, or did you have to find a new one?"
Since Clinton adopted Edwards' universal healthcare plan while Obama attacked it, I was able to keep the same scriptwriter.
And that's good because she's got a family to support and needs to be on my healthcare plan. It would've been a shame if I'd had to let her go. Her kid has lumbago, y'know.
Petey,
I put my liberal credentials up against yours any day of the week.
Anyway, like so many claims coming from Petey, the claim that a "bizarrely high" percentage "loath" universal healthcare is light on evidence and heavy on rhetoric.
Besides, it isn't a claim that can really be verified. What is a "bizarrely high" percentage? How does it compare to the "bizarrely high" percentage of Clinton supporters that saber-rattle vis a vis Iran (like, say, her foreign policy cadre?)
And what constitutes loathing of healthcare? Is it a difference in tactics? A difference in theories of political change or mandates? A genuine opposition, in principle, to Petey's specific favored plan? Etc etc.
Petey, as usual, is light on substance and heavy on the rhetoric. Par for the course.
It is simply bullshit, as defined by Frankfurt. Petey isn't really lying; it's just that he doesn't really care if he tells the truth.
Once again Petey, universal health coverage is not the same as universal health care. Many people, including my mother, get denied necessary care even though they had coverage.
"Many people, including my mother, get denied necessary care even though they had coverage."
A universal system can be regulated in a way that the current patchwork system can't be, which is why the healthcare wonks universally recognize that universality is essential for any serious improvement of the system.
"Petey isn't really lying; it's just that he doesn't really care if he tells the truth."
I'm in favor of the candidate who's in favor of universal healthcare.
And I'm opposed to the candidate who's opposed to universal healthcare.
But I do try to take care to only say things I'm pretty sure are true.
Note that, once again, you don't actually address the substance of my claim, which is your assertion was made with no evidence and parsed in terms that make it impossible for anyone to actually evaluate the claim.
And your response is simply a non-sequitur about universal healthcare, probably designed to move the terms of the discussion onto whether Obama's plan constitutes "universal healthcare."
Standard Petey: unsubstantiated pronouncements that are "defended" by appeal to shiny but irrelevant distractions.
As I said, bullshit.
"and parsed in terms that make it impossible for anyone to actually evaluate the claim."
Just because you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer doesn't mean that the rest of the class doesn't have decent reading comprehension skills.
Don't ruin it for everyone else, PTS.
I choose my words carefully, but I'm also careful to try to say things I'm pretty sure are true.
Just caucused in Texas 237, West Austin. Big turnout at the Highland Park Baptist Church, 300-400. 2-1 Obama or better. Pretty much everyone a newbie caucuser. This is a pretty upscale neighborhood where the Kerry/Edwards signs blossomed late in the campaign in '04. Everyone thought their neighbors were Republicans.
Now, ad hominems. Predictable, I suppose, but sad.
I pointed out that "bizarre percentage" and "loathing universal healthcare" were fuzzy concepts designed to leave weasle room.
Your response is, "PTS is teh stoopid." Good job.
Again...bullshit. You might believe you make true utterances, but it doesn't really matter to you if they are true or false. The reason you say things has nothing to do with their truth value.
(See, your response. Do you believe I am of below average intelligence? Probably, but it isn't like the truth of the claim is the reason you made it. Bullshit)
Comments closed March 18, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
So does this mean that Texas and Ohio will, in fact, count?
Posted by SDinIA | March 4, 2008 6:20 PM