McCain by 6, Obama by 4?

Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner says "I'm hearing leaked exits that have McCain winning by six and Obama by 4. But I'm skeptical—polls aren't closed, etc. Meaningless." And she adds in an update, quoting from a friend's e-mail, "turnout numbers suggest these exits could be even more unreliable than their usual unreliability. they depend on accurate turnout modeling."

On the other hand, do we actually know that the turnout numbers will reach the much-hyped "record highs"? As I mentioned earlier, "Poll workers and election officials are often overly excitable when it comes to turnout projections (presidential elections only happen every four years, so it's easy to forget how much higher the turnout always is than in other elections)." The fact that some New Hampshire cities are running out of ballots could mean the turnout is "epic" -- or it could mean that New Hampshire's local election officials were sleeping on the job.

For what it's worth, The Page reports that ABC's exit-poll analysis shows that "independents are voting in 'substantial but customary numbers,' and so far there’s a spike in older voters, but not younger ones (though they tend to vote later)."

In any event, whatever the turnout, I agree with Lopez that the individual candidate exit-poll numbers ought not be trusted; remember "President Kerry." But if -- if -- Obama were to win by only 4 points, the "expectations game" would label that a win for Hillary, no?

UPDATE: Mark Steyn advises Lopez to "pay no attention to" the exit-poll numbers. "Nobody's started counting. And I find it hard to believe the various town offices that have had to order up extra Democratic ballots are doing it because Obama's going to eke out a four-point victory."

On the latter point, I just want to reiterate that we don't know what the turnout is, or for that matter, what the "extra ballots" mean. They could very well mean that a bunch of polling-place workers, who were expecting a high turnout after Iowa, saw a normal turnout and overreacted to it (as polling-place workers are prone to do in presidential elections), panicked, called the secretary of state, and said, "TURNOUT IS HIGH!! WE NEED MORE BALLOTS!!" In other words, the fact that extra ballots were requested in the early afternoon doesn't necessarily mean they were actually needed.

Look, I'm not predicting a lower-than-expected turnout (or a smaller-than-expected Obama margin), I'm just saying that neither would be altogether stunning. Stranger things have most definitely happened. Turnout isn't a perception, it isn't a feeling, it's a number, and it's notoriously difficult to come close to pinpointing that number based on people's armchair estimates at midday.

Comments

[HUSKER 94 95 97]

I just think it would mean that she's 0-2 in primaries I mean there are no moral victories here you either win the state or you dont

[Brendan Loy]

either win the state or you dont

Except that's not true. Democratic party rules do not allow states to allocate their delegates in a winner-take-all fashion.

[Sandy Underpants]

Another royal ass whoopin by Ron Paul as he layeth the smacketh down on Fred Thompson's wrinkled ass.

We're #5!!! We're #5!!!! We're #5!!!!!