« April 21, 2008 | Main | April 23, 2008 »
By Brendan Loy
That's all from me, kiddies. I gotta go to work early tomorrow, so I'm turning off the TV, shutting down the computer, and getting ready for bed. Thanks for all the traffic, and by all means, feel free to keep commenting as the candidates make their speeches, and as the results -- and the spin -- continue to roll in.
By Brendan Loy
With the race now moving on to Indiana and North Carolina on May 6 -- and probably West Virginia (May 13) and Oregon and Kentucky (May 20) -- here's my question: will Clinton and/or Obama attend the Kentucky Derby? It's on May 3.
I posed this question to Becky yesterday, and she responded with an even better question: "Where would they sit?" Hmm... perhaps the "elitist" Obama would sit in the grandstand, sipping a mint julep (with Michelle wearing one of those giant hats), while Clinton would mingle with the bitter, clingy, drunken plebians on the infield! :)
And then there would be the question of which horse they would each pick. Whose favorite would do better? It would take the concept of the political "horse race" to a whole new level!
In similarly silly election-related commentary, don't miss the debate about puppies in the open thread.
On a more serious note -- well, sort of -- Josh Marshall writes, "I'm not sure I've ever heard a higher proportion of hypothetical spin on both sides in the absence of voting numbers. At the moment Tim Russert is going back and forth making each campaign's arguments based on various hypothetical vote spread." Heh.
Meanwhile, InstaPundit links to the drunkblogging Stephen Green, who notes, "If the Democrats ran a winner-take-all system like the Republicans and the Electoral College do, she’d have this thing clinched — and Obama would look like a regional candidate who can’t win much outside the South and his home state of Illinois." Well, yes, but no. If the Democrats ran a winner-take-all system, both candidates would have had vastly different strategies. Obama would have spent less time, energy and money in caucus states where he knew he could rack up big delegate margins, and focused more on the "big states." Among other things, it's entirely possible he would have won Texas (since he would have been paying zero attention to Ohio or Rhode Island under this scenario).
You can't divorce the results from the process. And anyway, the process is what it is. The Democrats don't have a winner-take-all system like the Republicans and the Electoral College do. They have a proportional system, because they decided to have a proportional system. You don't change the rules in the middle of the game -- or spin them into some alternate reality. They are what they are. And Obama's gonna win.
By CNN
Sen. Hillary Clinton will win the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, CNN projects.
By Brendan Loy
Per Talking Points Memo.
No call yet on CNN, which is what I'm watching. Can't get enough of Wolfie doin' a heckvua job. :)
As an aside, this may be my last chance to watch Wolf Blitzer "call" a race -- complete with his (as I've put it before) rambling run-on sentences, senseless repetition of people's names and other random words, redundant recitation of the same facts over and over again, odd choices of verbal emphasis, constant talk about everything being "important" and "historic," endless self-referential comments, unnecessary references to "right now," "standing by," etc., etc. -- until November, because Becky and I are thinking about canceling our cable due to a budget crunch and our Comcast problems (and the fact that, during the interregnum between college basketball and college football seasons, we really don't need it).
UPDATE: CNN calls it! Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, is the winner right now in the very important state of Pennsylvania right now, according to our exit polls, right now. Hillary Clinton will win, will win, Pennsylvania, right now. (Not a direct quote.)
UPDATE 2: Is this Rush Limbaugh's doing?
By Brendan Loy
CNN analyst Bill Schneider just slipped when talked about Hillary Clinton's 60% support among seniors (which is less than her 72% support in Ohio), and basically admitted -- catching himself too late -- that she's "leading" overall (according to his interpretation of the exit polls) in what the network is officially calling a "competitive" race with Obama:
"She's not doing as well among seniors, but there are a lot more of them in Pennsylvania, and that's why she's still lead-- er, very competitive."
I'll finish the sentence for you, Bill: "That's why she's still leading."
Meanwhile, the earliest of early returns are trickling in, and so far, predictions of Obama jumping out to an early lead are not materializing.
By Brendan Loy
But, unsurprisingly, no "call" yet from Wolf Blitzer, Wolf Blitzer. He says, "We can characterize this race right now as very competitive. We cannot project a winner based on the exit poll numbers alone." I'm shocked, shocked.
Remember, folks: the fact that it's "competitive based on the exit polls" doesn't mean it'll actually be close in the end. It's probably fair to say that it won't be a mega-blowout (like, 15 points or more), but beyond that, this alleged "competitiveness" means very little. CNN initially characterized Ohio as "competitive," too, based on the exit polls.
P.S. More meaningful than leaked exit poll numbers or CNN projections of "competitiveness": my wardrobe choice! I'm wearing my lucky Obama shirt tonight. I've worn it on every election night from Super Tuesday on, except March 4, when I forgot to wear it. So, if the shirt's luck holds, maybe those leaked numbers are right, after all! :)
Incidentally, in a brilliant bit of strategery :), I've positioned myself so that, no matter what happens tonight, I predicted it! If Hillary performs up to expectations or better, I was right with my widely linked "don't trust the exit polls" posts. On the other hand, if Obama exceeds expectations, I was right with my Sullylanched "backlash" post! I can't lose! Heh.
By Brendan Loy
The polls close in an hour. Go nuts.
UPDATE: Holy cow. I leave work, drive home, eat dinner, put the baby to bed, and by the time I finally get to my computer at just before 7:30 PM (this post was created in advance and published automatically at 7:00), I've had almost 7,500 hits in an hour-and-a-half, thanks to link-love for my "don't trust the exit polls" post from Real Clear Politics, the Huffington Post, the National Review, the New Republic, Mickey Kaus, Daily Kos, Free Republic and Democratic Underground, among others. (Talk about a motley ideological crew!)
Craziness!! Admittedly, I did link-whore the post to a bunch of people before leaving work, but I never expected this kind of success. :) Anyway, welcome, new readers! I'll be live-blogging the election results tonight, so stay tuned!
By Brendan Loy
As expected:
Deep breaths, people. Deep breaths. Repeat after me: Obama always does well in the leaked, unweighted exit polls. He then does worse in the actual results than in the exit polls. This has happened over and over and over again. We should no longer be surprised by it. These numbers are therefore completely meaningless. They ought not alter the "expectations game" one iota. If Hillary wins by around 10 points, it will not be a "comeback." It will not be a "surprise." It will be the expected result. These numbers do not change that fact. At. All.
Are you listening, media punditry? Or will you fall into the same trap you did on Super Tuesday (when exit polls had Obama winning New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Arizona -- all of which he lost handily -- and in a dead heat in California) and on March 4 (when exit polls had Obama winning Texas and Ohio), of giving Hillary Clinton undue credit for fully-expected victories?
THESE NUMBERS MEAN NOTHING.
UPDATE: National Review's Campaign Spot has Obama ahead by 5 points, 52-47.
Again: meaningless! The only reasonable assumption, based on past experience, is still that Hillary will win by a wide margin.
Also remember Politico's Pennsylvania-specific cautionary note about the actual results, once those start trickling in: "Don’t be fooled by early results. The cities and suburbs usually report their returns first, which gives the candidate favored in those areas a quick –- and sometimes fleeting –- lead. The conservative-leaning small towns through the center of the state usually filter in much later in the evening. ... So Obama could show a lead in the early results, but it might be short-lived."
Again, deep breaths, people.
By Brendan Loy
1. What will tonight's Pennsylvania percentages be?
2. On what date will Hillary Clinton drop out of the race?
After the jump, some important dates that might influence people's answers to question #2.
By Brendan Loy
Will Hillary Clinton be forced to drop out due to a lack of money if she doesn't win big -- nay, huge -- tonight? I'm not hopeful, but apparently her financial situation is somewhat dire. More here.
By Brendan Loy
Turn out Barack Obama is just as indefensibly ignorant as John McCain of the science surrounding vaccines and autism. Ugh. He should read Mike's comment from a few weeks back. Or, you know, anything written by anyone with the remotest idea of what they're talking about -- which would not include Jenny McCarthy, CNN's unfortunate editorial judgment to the contrary.
P.S. I sympathize with McCarthy's parental plight, and I'm sure she genuinely believes the provably false (indeed, proven false) things that she says. The same is probably true, in most cases, of 9/11 Truthers, Flat Earth Society members, etc. But genuine emotional grief and honest-but-discredited beliefs are no excuse for using a national platform to ignorantly spout nonsense.
And as for Obama and McCain? They have even less of an excuse.
UPDATE: Clinton, too!
(Hat tip: Aaron, who quips, "all tremble before the mighty Israel gun union defense autism lobby." Indeed. *sigh*)
By Brendan Loy
As I mentioned earlier, Hillary Clinton released a TV ad yesterday implying that Barack Obama isn't "ready" to deal with such unpredictable events as a stock market crash, a world war, a cold war, a gas shortage crisis, the fall of the Berlin Wall (wait, wasn't that a good thing?), or a devastating hurricane, nor to contend with such unsavory characters as Fidel Castro and Osama bin Laden.
It's an interesting argument, but Senator Clinton is clearly leaving some things out. For instance, as I wrote this morning, the appearance of unexplained light formations over Florida and Arizona obviously leaves Obama vulnerable to the charge that he's not ready to protect Americans from UFOs. (Alas, if only Kucinich were still in the race! This could be his moment!)
But that's not all. Jimmy Kimmel, apparently taking a brief break from f***ing Ben Affleck, helpfully points out some other possible calamities that could befall America:
Is Barack Obama READY to protect Cleveland from Bigfoot???
By Brendan Loy
I, for one, welcome our new unexplained light formation overlords. (See also here.)
As does Matt Drudge, apparently:
Heh. EVERYBODY PANIC!!!
P.S. Suggested new Hillary Clinton attack ad: "Is Barack Obama READY to protect us from UFOs???"
By Brendan Loy
[UPDATE, 8:12 PM: Welcome, new readers! The scenario I predicted in this post is now happening. Some leaked exit poll numbers show Obama winning, others Clinton leading by a slight margin. Regardless, it's all meaningless. Likewise, CNN's statement that the race is "competitive based on the exit polls" should be not taken as predictive of the final outcome. CNN initially said Ohio was "competitive," too.
Anyway, I'm liveblogging the results on my homepage.]
Following up on a point I made yesterday -- in a post that just got Instalanched -- as we political junkies giddily await the first hints of what's happening in Pennsylvania today (finally, another primary!! election results tonight!! exit polls!!! colorful maps!!! whee!!!!), it's very important for us, and even moreso the media, to remember that Obama almost always does well in the leaked, unweighted exit polls, and almost always does less well in the final results. For instance:
Averaging all those numbers together -- and I recognize that this is very unscientific -- you get an average discrepancy of 7 to 8 points. That is to say, Obama generally does 7-8 points worse in the actual results than he did in the leaked, unweighted exit polls.
This is crucially important, because it has the potential to significantly affect the post-primary "spin." That's exactly what happened on Super Tuesday, when Clinton was able to initially spin a "victory" out of her lukewarm performance, largely because the media was expecting Obama to win some "big states" based on those early, favorable numbers. Likewise on March 4, Hillary was able to claim "success" for her Texas and Ohio "firewall," even though she really needed much larger margins to make meaningful delegate progress, in part because the leaked exit polls again conned the punditry into expecting better showings by Obama, possibly including a win in one or both states.
It'll be a travesty and a farce if that happens again. Hillary Clinton needs to win big -- like, double digits big -- and make significant delegate gains in order to claim any kind of a meaningful victory in Pennsylvania tonight. That basic fact will not change one iota if Drudge and The Corner and Talking Points Memo and the Huffington Post (and, er, the Irish Trojan) publish initial, meaningless numbers this afternoon that show a "OMG A DEAD HEAT IN PENNSYLVANIA!!1!" and then Hillary "pulls away" and wins by 6 or 8 points or whatever.
It's important to remember that these leaked exit polls do not actually represent any version of reality; they are not something that a candidate can "come back" from. In those instances where they differ from the actual numbers, they are, and always were, simply wrong. The exit-poll-fueled "seven-hour presidency of John Kerry," for instance, was always an illusion; Kerry was never "ahead," and Bush never mounted a "comeback." That's all pure perception, and has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. Same thing here. If Hillary, yet again, does substantially better than the exit polls suggest, nobody should be surprised, and still less should she get favorable, "expectations"-based spin as a result. Obama's early "lead," in that event, will have been (again) a complete chimera. So please, for heaven's sake, let's not get all excited if history repeats itself again.
As I said yesterday: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 21 times, shame on me.
P.S. Politico adds an additional cautionary note, referring to actual returns rather than exit polls:
Don’t be fooled by early results. The cities and suburbs usually report their returns first, which gives the candidate favored in those areas a quick – and sometimes fleeting – lead. The conservative-leaning small towns through the center of the state usually filter in much later in the evening.
This tendency has wreaked havoc in past elections: A Democrat goes to bed thinking he or she is the winner, but wakes up the loser. The last time it happened was 2004, when the Associated Press called the state attorney general race for Democrat James Eisenhower and retracted it later in the night as the numbers closed. Some newspapers went to print with the wrong results.
So Obama could show a lead in the early results, but it might be short-lived. If Clinton is ahead at the start, she may never lose it.
By Brendan Loy
My other sites