1) Cell phone users are not polled. That's missing a huge demo.

2) Bradley isn't even half of the problem. A second influence is the "Head of Household" effect, where many people out there don't think women are able to "lead" as well as men. This seems to "bradley effect" Clinton too. Combining these two, along with reverse of the both, and you have polls that are garbage.

3) Democrats don't like when you attack their candidate with personal attacks. Hillary has been highly assaulted over the last 3 weeks due to the aggresive attacks on obama. Guess whose numbers are diving, (it's not obama's). When Clinton was attacked over "crying" her numbers soared. Both of the candidates are equally matched, so it's easy to jump to the aid of one or the other depending on the day.

Re the Pew Research Center: Tracking the Race Factor on another post, and this post, it seems that this argument is the same one that the Clinton camp is making with Superdelegates, that is that Barack Obama cannot win, with the "wink wink" factor being that he's Black.

The Clintons have been making this argument since January of this year:

Interview with Bill Clinton January 2008

Question posed to Bill Clinton:

"What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?"

Bill Clinton chuckles, and then replies,

"That's just bait too. Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina twice, in '84 and '88."

And there's this blog comment from a Hillary supporter back in January of this year on Bill Clinton's comment re Obama's win in South Carolina.

From the comment section:

I am a Hillary fan all the way. American needs to WAKE UP! Why would any American want a President named "President Barac Obama"

There are those who believe that Obama being a "Black man" (although he's half "white") means that he can't win. I don't buy it. I agree with the final conclusion of the article in this link:

just five days before the New Hampshire primary, some of his supporters may have been pinpointed as likely voters by the pollsters, yet failed to cast a ballot.

Still, after all of this parsing, there remains one fact: Obama is doing better than Hillary Clinton.

One thing that I have learned during this primary season is that there are far more Democrats who are uncomfortable with Blacks than I was previously aware of and I have found that there many more Republicans who are more enlightened about race than I had previously believed there to be.

One thing that I have learned during this primary season is that there are far more Democrats who are uncomfortable with Blacks than I was previously aware of and I have found that there many more Republicans who are more enlightened about race than I had previously believed there to be.

I've noticed that, and the same thing about gender.

Magnolia:

1) Cell phone users are not polled. That's missing a huge demo.

This probably represents the youth vote. And then there's the fact that relatively older people are more likely to vote than younger voters. But then younger voters are not fully represented in the polls. How these two factors influence the polls is not yet known.

But then, we have facts instead of just relying on the polls. Obama is ahead in the popular vote and delegates (even including Superdelegates so far.. and it is Obama who has been winning more superdelegates, while Hillary Clinton has been losing superdelegates)

I have been wondering if Michigan and Florida were included, would Obama still be ahead? Most accounts still place Obama in the lead.

Hillary Clinton's only chance of beating Obama would be her beating Obama by huge margins in the remaining states (not likely) or Hillary's chance of convincing Superdelegates to crown her president despite the popular/delegate vote from those voters whose 'voice counts' from the elections. (Again, not likely)

I've noticed that, and the same thing about gender.

True. Perhaps this election will put an end to the race/gender war as concerns Republicans vs Democrats and we'll all realize that people's prejudices have nothing to do with which party they belong to.

True. Perhaps this election will put an end to the race/gender war as concerns Republicans vs Democrats and we'll all realize that people's prejudices have nothing to do with which party they belong to.

There are the obvious exceptions of evangelicals and the southern anti-Civil rights amendment crowd that are overwhelmingly republican.

This is why African Americans vote 90% democrat and will continue to.

I have been wondering if Michigan and Florida were included, would Obama still be ahead?

From everything i've heard, even with those votes counted as they were cast (without obama on either ballot), Obama is still ahead in popular vote.

I'm also wondering if this Rev. Wright business is helping Obama with the religious right?

Regardless of the sound bites, what's being said over and over again is that he has been a member of a church for a long time, sticks by that church and believes in god.

Coming from my own Catholic upbringing I suspect that most religious people are savvy to the notion of disagreeing with the pastor, yet still staying with the church. As well as accustom to the pastor saying and doing a lot of horrible things that one personally disagrees with.

Could this somehow cut into the religious right's support for McCain?

"This is why African Americans vote 90% democrat and will continue to."

I'm not so sure you'll be able to take them for granted anymore if Obama doesn't get the nomination.

Coming from my own Catholic upbringing I suspect that most religious people are savvy to the notion of disagreeing with the pastor, yet still staying with the church

Right. One example: Although the Catholic church is "pro-life", the fact remains that many catholics are "pro-choice".

And why do these Catholics not leave the church notwithstanding the fact that their own values oppose the values of the Catholic Church on this issue and other important issues?

I'm not so sure you'll be able to take them for granted anymore if Obama doesn't get the nomination.

Ya got that right.

I'm also wondering if this Rev. Wright business is helping Obama with the religious right?

Probably.

And a quick aside. Since the 40th anniversary of MLK's Assasination is during the next couple days, I'ver heard at least 3 people talk about MLK's "america is the greatest purveyor of violence" statements that he made about a year before he was shot in relation to Wright's "God Damn america. I've heard a couple people compare Wright to MLK and their outspoken defense and attack of america. I wonder if this will further push Obama's numbers up as we remember the history of civil rights and what kind of a person MLK really was, and not just his "I have a dream" speech, but everything he talked about for civil rights, around the world.

Cross anyone's mind?

I'm not so sure you'll be able to take them for granted anymore if Obama doesn't get the nomination

If Obama gets elected, then the Democratic party will not be able to take women for granted?

I don't think women rally behind Hillary the way the african-american community seems to be rallying around Obama.

I've even heard women use the B word in referring to her. (I hope Black Mamba didn't see that!)

Didn't Randy Rhodes say something nasty about Hillary recently?

don't think women rally behind Hillary the way the african-american community seems to be rallying around Obama

Actually, the opposite is true and I linked to Pew poll confirming this.

The latest Pew poll (if it is to be relied upon) demonstrates that Obama-supporting Blacks are more likely to vote for Hillary, than Hillary-supporting women are to vote for Obama..

Didn't Randy Rhodes say something nasty about Hillary recently?

Randy Rhodes saids all kinds of nasty things. Who cares what that flake has to say about anyone?

Pew Research Center

The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton.

How many times do I have to say this before Charles Lemos, Syngas and Norm believe me?

The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower

According to the Pew Research Center, Blacks say that they are more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton than women say that they are to vote for Barack Obama. Them are the facts folks!

"Cell phone users are not polled. That's missing a huge demo."

The question is whether cell phone users are a politically-relevant group that you can't correct for in other ways. Old people are more likely to be at home, and not have a cell phone. But you can make adjustments in the poll results to account for that if the sample is disproportionately old. Not every possible category of people who are missed by phone polls is politically relevant.

"Regardless of the sound bites, what's being said over and over again is that he has been a member of a church for a long time, sticks by that church and believes in god."

Religious people who are being fair will realize that. The people pumping the story are against Obama for ideological reasons or partisan reasons. So will it change people's minds who aren't alreacy against Obama? Yes, unfortunately I think it could, because hard feelings about race can trump whatever kind of understanding people have about what it means to belong to a church and be dedicated to it.

The saddest thing about the "black man can't get elected in the U.S." coming from Democrats is that it seems they don't even want to try. Happily most black Democrats are willing to try, despite the experiences they've had with racism, because they've seen that Obama can get white votes.

I wouldn't want to speak for Charles or Norm, but I don't think the 'defection' rate means anything at this point in the campaigns. People are too emotionally invested in their candidates to give an honest answer.

Having been on the other end of a few of those polls, I remember having at least 20 questions fired at me in quick succession. After about 5, you just answer with what ever pops in your head first. Not much time to think about the answers.

but I don't think the 'defection' rate means anything at this point in the campaigns

I agree, but that poll does refute this comment of yours:

I don't think women rally behind Hillary the way the african-american community seems to be rallying around Obama.

I'm a woman, I'm older (not white.. I'm a mix), and I don't fall into any box than any stupid poll might place me in.

To be blunt, I don't trust ANY state that votes with Deibold machines.

I take 'conspiracies' with a grain of salt, but the eveidence is starting to mount. Also a programmer in Florda said he was hired by a high level Republican to write application for the touch screen application. That program was dirt simple, if you press three unmarked 'button spots' on the screen, it would just swap votes for the two major candidates. Oddly in Florida hotly contested black districts (Bush v Gore), the exit polling indicated a 60% - 40% split, and the opposite was reported by the Diebold machines. This flipping effect was not seen in hand counted districts.

In the Clinton v Obama race in New Hampshire it gets freakier.

"Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton received 91,717 votes or 52.95% in precincts using Diebold Accuvote optical scan electronic voting machines and 20,889 votes or 47.05% of ballots from precincts using hand-counted votes.

Democratic Senator Barack Obama received the same 52.95% or 23,509 votes in hand-counted precincts and 47.05% or 81,495 votes in precincts using Diebold optical scanning tabulators, both according to analysts at the Election Defense Alliance (EDA) who used results from the New Hampshire Secretary of State website, raising questions as to how the percentage swap occurred. "

Hmmmm...

I don't think women rally behind Hillary the way the african-american community seems to be rallying around Obama.

Whatever women and Blacks might acutally do, there were more Obama supporters who responded to the poll who said that they'd vote for HIllary Clinton, than there were Clinton supporters who said that they'd vote for Obama.

And taking into consideration the polls, let's just stop with the crap that the majority of Obama supporters are a bunch of cultist idiots who won't vote for Hillary Clinton when in fact the oppostite may be true, and is true, according to the Pew Research Center. I say "may be true" because I don't trust polls. Anyway, no one really knows.

In the end, these cheap-shot comments about Hillary or Barack Obama supporters are really annoying!

"Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton received 91,717 votes or 52.95% in precincts using Diebold Accuvote optical scan electronic voting machines and 20,889 votes or 47.05% of ballots from precincts using hand-counted votes.

Democratic Senator Barack Obama received the same 52.95% or 23,509 votes in hand-counted precincts and 47.05% or 81,495 votes in precincts using Diebold optical scanning tabulators, both according to analysts at the Election Defense Alliance (EDA) who used results from the New Hampshire Secretary of State website, raising questions as to how the percentage swap occurred.

Robinson, You have a source for these numbers? Since Edwards and others collectively got more than 23% of the New Hampshire votes, these can't be right.

I believe the percentages do not reflect the total vote, but are just proportional between the two top candidates. Also, the above info recently got updated and they are no longer identical but inverted percentages. They are still very close however.

link: http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/newhampshire2008primaryanalysis

quote: "CORRECTED Statewide New Hampshire 2008 Democratic Primary Analysis See CORRECTION Note further below (jump link: Read More)

Clinton: statewide optical scan tally 95,843 52.73%

Obama: statewide optical scan tally 85,910 47.27%

Clinton: statewide hand-count tally 16,767 46.75%

Obama: hand count 19,097 53.25%

While the actual difference between Obama and Clinton hand count and optical scan margins are not a mirror image of each other to four decimal places as we had initially believed*, the undeniable fact that Obama appears to have carried the hand-counted tally statewide, while Clinton carried the optical scan statewide tally -- by almost exactly opposite margins -- remains a remarkable result. "

dang, the link is borked.

follow: http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/

and on the left sidebar click on "New Hampshire Primary Analysis"

Dig around on those numbers Robinson, they have been thoroughly debuked, and well within the margins of what they should have been (hand counted vs machine counted). I'm too damn lazy to pull up the analysis, but about a week after NH, a lot of people pointed to the math to account for the counts...

ANYWAY, back on topic. Anyone who says that they will vote for McCain over a democrat (if their democrat doesn't make it in) is LYING, or doesn't know anything about mccain yet. As much as I hope obama makes it, i'd have to be mentally damaged before i'd vote mccain instead! Think of how perposterous that is, to suggest that a person who wants Universal health care, withdrawl from Iraq, Corporate Regulation, and reversing the tax cuts to say, "Yeah, I'd vote Mccain". Bull*. Cognative Dissonance only goes so far.

Mag Elec Co.

I'd love to see the debunking. Could you please find a link?

I am still 100% against a paperless voting system and find it odd that in places where the polling doesn't match up with election results, there are Diebold machines. This was already the center of one (or two) presidential elections and is very MUCH on the topic of Pollsters trying to figure out Voters.

"Anyone who says that they will vote for McCain over a democrat...is LYING, or doesn't know anything about Mccain yet..."

Yes! Journalists assume that people are following the election for months and go back and forth incessantly. In actual fact they only tune in the weeks before the race. Guiliani led the GOP for months in polls. Then voters started paying attention and realized that the guy actually wasn't conservative and that he was corrupt. He never had a chance in hell, despite his great poll numbers early on.

McCain may be doing great, but come October, tens of millions of lights are going to go on where people ask, "So McCain actually is a hawkish person who wants to have a war with Iran. Who would have guessed?" All the Dems have to do is continue to inform people of his views and his poll numbers will go down.