• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama wins SC

Hmm. I suppose that, if the pre-election day poll data can be looked at as accurate, it means that the vast majority of people who were "undecided" a few days ago ultimately went with Obama. (Or that whoever didn't was canceled out by people changing their minds.) New Hampshire and Iowa look like they can be interpreted similarly, although with New Hampshire there's a bit more error in the predictions of Edwards and Obama too. If that's the case, (looking at cnn.com there doesn't seem to be exit poll data on Iowa and New Hampshire regarding when people made up their minds so it's hard to confirm) then that could be an interesting dynamic. This might simply be a sort of reverse-Bradley effect where people lie and say they're undecided for whatever reason, (although the fact that Clinton got the undecided vote in New Hampshire discourages this) or it might meant that people are truly undecided and simply that the undecided are generally of a hivemind mentality.

(The Republicans don't follow this trend, though.)
 
Last edited:
The difference is presumably the demographics. In New Hampshire most voters were white. In South Carolina, 54% were black. So the "Bradley effect" would work to Obama's advantage (if it is the Bradley effect). The effect in each case seems to be that "undecideds" end up voting for their own race.

Of course this is just two data points, so my armchair theory is just that.
 
Republicans aren't much less undecided than Democrats, which sort of counts against the idea that people are disguising themselves as undecided, since they're not pushing up the numbers of undecided voters. Plus, the fact that the undecided bump came to Hillary in New Hampshire suggests that the mechanism isn't quite as simple as Obama being the sort of person people like to say they're undecided about.
 
Puppycow said:
The difference is presumably the demographics. In New Hampshire most voters were white. In South Carolina, 54% were black. So the "Bradley effect" would work to Obama's advantage (if it is the Bradley effect). The effect in each case seems to be that "undecideds" end up voting for their own race.

Of course this is just two data points, so my armchair theory is just that.
Click to expand...

Or it could be like I said. There may have been big busing efforts for strongholds of Obama voters. Is there anyway to confirm if this was the case or not?
 
corplinx said:
On your first point, I don't have a vested interest in which of Hillary/Edwards got the most of the white vote. But yes, I imagine that would be disappointing for the Clintons.

On your second point, I wouldn't read too much into turnout for the primaries at this point. The democrats have 2.5 energizing candidates with a bunch of also-rans. The GOP has had more viable candidates splitting interest, money, energy, etc.

The worst thing for the GOP would be an Obama win since Obama would most likely have a turnout on election day that is unbeatable. Obama is a phenomenon not unlike Reagan and running against a phenom is hard. People don't turn out in droves for a phenom for logical reasons. If you were capable of beating a phenom, you would be the phenom and not them.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if the large turnouts are based in Obama as a phenom or that people have finally realized that if they want something to change they have to go vote. The Government is not responsive to polls and only by voting can they directly effect change.


Record turnouts have occurred in every primary and caucus; Nevada had 9,000 democrats show up for the 2004 caucus. This year 120,000. New Hamphire voters showed up at a 3:1 rate from 2004. In South Carolina it was estimated 250,000 people would vote in the primary, the actual numbers were twice that, with Obama taking the predicted number of votes alone.


Phenom or not, record number of voters does not bode well for the Republicans.




Boo
 
Kennedy's niece, Caroline Kennedy, endorsed Obama today in a New York Times op-ed entitled, "A President Like My Father.
Click to expand...

Oh jeez, this JFK comparison stuff getting forced down our throats is frankly repulsive and now the Kennedy kids are helping it.
 
corplinx said:
Oh jeez, this JFK comparison stuff getting forced down our throats is frankly repulsive and now the Kennedy kids are helping it.
Click to expand...

If the Kennedys are lining up behind Obama, I might have to hold my nose and support him anyway.
 
corplinx said:
Oh jeez, this JFK comparison stuff getting forced down our throats is frankly repulsive and now the Kennedy kids are helping it.
Click to expand...

You don't think that if his daughter is saying it, there might be some truth in it?
 
corplinx said:
Or it could be like I said. There may have been big busing efforts for strongholds of Obama voters. Is there anyway to confirm if this was the case or not?
Click to expand...

George Will was saying that Obama refused to play the "bribe the minister game" that he says the Democrats have played in the past in South Carolina, and that Clinton tried to do this year. Of course, I only believe about %10 of what comes out of Will's mouth.

Daredelvis
 
The Atheist said:
You don't think that if his daughter is saying it, there might be some truth in it?
Click to expand...

Is this some sort of weak appeal to authority? JFK was a military veteran, was pro-growth, was pro-stimulus tax cuts, was pro-military intervention in both Iraq and Vietnam, and took the message against communism to the Berlin wall (was anti-appeasement).

He couldn't be less like Barack Obama except that they were inspiring speakers that lured some voters for irrational reasons to them.
 
corplinx said:
Oh jeez, this JFK comparison stuff getting forced down our throats is frankly repulsive and now the Kennedy kids are helping it.
Click to expand...


The comparison to JFK may be more real than we would like. I would be very concerned for the safety of the first black President. He could wind up just like JFK. His VP choice is very important.
 
The Painter said:
The comparison to JFK may be more real than we would like. I would be very concerned for the safety of the first black President. He could wind up just like JFK. His VP choice is very important.
Click to expand...

JFK wasn't killed for being Catholic. He was killed because he was anti-communist!
 
The Painter said:
The reasons may be different but the results could be the same.
Click to expand...

Someone could have assassinated LBJ because they opposed Vietnam. Someone could have assassinated Reagan for being anti-communist. Someone could gank Bush because they oppose Iraq.

Obama supporters are building this JFK meme and its just silly. JFK was catholic, Obama is black. Well hey, Mittens is a mormon. Hillary is a woman. HEY THEY ARE ALL LIKE JFK AS MUCH AS OBAMA. ZOMG, 3 JFKS!
 
corplinx said:
Someone could have assassinated LBJ because they opposed Vietnam. Someone could have assassinated Reagan for being anti-communist. Someone could gank Bush because they oppose Iraq.

Obama supporters are building this JFK meme and its just silly. JFK was catholic, Obama is black.
Click to expand...
JFK had a hot wife, Obama has a hot wife.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom