home

Tsunami Tuesday: Media, Exit Polls and Pollsters

Here's a thread to vent about the media coverage of today's vote -- and to discuss the exit polls and pollsters. Are the pollsters as wrong as they were in New Hampshire or are they getting it right?

What network has the most neutral coverage? The most informative? Who are you muting today?

< Tsunami Tuesday: Republican Results | Live-Blogging My Colorado Caucus >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Agreeing to Fox debate (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by magster on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:12:29 PM EST
    and Barack as VP talk portends trouble for Clinton.

    And Howard Dean is great on Hardball right now, and told Matthews that all the "blab blab blab" of the pundits really detracts from the process.

    I don't understand (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:20:40 PM EST
    how a Fox debate and talk of Obama as VP both mean bad things.  Why would you talk about a VP pick unless you thought you'd win?

    Besides, both candidates have been talking to Fox.  I think Obama started it.  I think Clinton folks want more debates because Obama does so badly during them.  I also think she wants a chance to ask him straight up: what problem do you have with my health plan? and to go point by point on why he is wrong, since obviously he does not understand it.

    Parent

    You only demand a debate when (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by scribe on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:30:42 PM EST
    you perceive yourself as needing to get on the same stage as the other candidate, i.e., your self-perception is that you are behind.

    A Democrat goes on Fox ... well, never, in my book.  It's the Republican Propaganda Network, and you will convert exactly zero of its viewers to vote for you.  Mostly, it will provide you with lots of loaded, leading questions which cannot be answered without either (a) making the Democrats into the stereotype Republican propaganda makes of them or (b) compromising away all your principles.

    Parent

    It is certainly true. . . (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:34:19 PM EST
    that it's generally the long-shot challenger that demands as many debates as possible, for the face time.

    What's motivating the Clinton campaign?  I think what seems to be the general consensus that she does better than Obama in debates may be part of it.

    But I wouldn't overlook the January fund raising reports.  Weekly debates means weekly free coverage.

    Parent

    Either that, or some masterful expectations (none / 0) (#28)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:46:24 PM EST
    gaming.

    Parent
    I don't follow. (none / 0) (#34)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:54:47 PM EST
    If they were gaming expectations they'd act as if they didn't want debates (assuming they thought Clinton would win them) to be able to spin the wins.

    I think they just want the debates because they figure that they will help Clinton and don't particularly care about the venue.

    Parent

    There may be more to this (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by standingup on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:41:05 PM EST
    than meets the eye or at least what we have seen so far.  Matt Stoller just added the following update to his earlier post excoriating Clinton for her decision:

    UPDATE:  Considering Obama's been all over Fox News this past month and that he promised to go on O'Reilly after the primaries, and that Moveon screwed over Clinton after she voted against the censure when Obama did not, I am inclined to cut her some slack here.  That would change of course were Obama to make a forceful denunciation of Fox News.  I doubt he will do so.


    Parent
    I don't agree (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:46:48 PM EST
    with your debate demand explanation.  I think the theory might hold true if Hillary weren't such a strong debater.  What she has proven again and again in these debates is that she is a stronger candidate, so it is only to her benefit.

    As far as Faux news, aren't these the folks Obama is trying to unite the democratic party with?  He says he wants to reach out.  Does that stop at Fox?

    Doesn't really align with his overall message of unity.

    Parent

    HRC Is The Uniter Here (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:56:25 PM EST
    Wonder if Murdoch has called in her debt to him, or some other lobby reminded her that she owes them.

    Or she knows that after the viscous misrepresentation the laid on Obama that he would refuse, so she could accept, look good and in the end not have to appear.

    Parent

    It could be as simple as wanting (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by felizarte on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:13:46 PM EST
    to reach fox viewers directly without the pundit filter;and not allowing CNN and MSNBC to have an exclusive on democratic debates, considering that they have not been exactly "fair and balances to her campaign.

    Obama cannot afford Not to debate.  A refusal can be subject to all sorts of spin.

    Parent

    spin (none / 0) (#44)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:15:25 PM EST
    from whom?  Who is going to say anything bad about Obama?

    "He's too busy campaigning so he can beat the Clinton machine!"

    Parent

    it's like uniting with the Pat Robertson/Dobson (none / 0) (#108)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:12:32 PM EST
    wing of the far right. What next? An in-depth interview conducted by Ann Coulter? A foreign policy on air discussion with William Kristol?
    How about Charles Krauthammer?
    Basta.

    Parent
    you forgot one thing (none / 0) (#19)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:37:31 PM EST
    you are talking about the Clintons.  They didn't get where they are without the masterful use of political jujitsu, reverse psychology, and emotion management.

    Parent
    VP sounds weak to me (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by magster on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:35:49 PM EST
    because it sounds like a "why vote for him if you can have both with me" argument. Kind of like a last ditch effort to stem undecideds from voting for Obama.

    And the FOX thing, Barack should not agree to a debate until FOX apologizes prominently for Madrassa smear, and constant use of his middle name when referring to him.  Actually, Barack should just tell FOX to f-off, and challenge Clinton to debate on AAR or a Talk Left podcast.

    That Nat'l Review leak elsewhere in this thread is another harbinger of doom for Clinton.

    And I'm fully prepared to eat crow if/when Clinton kicks butt tonight.

    Parent

    Obama on FOX (none / 0) (#42)
    by wasabi on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:11:34 PM EST
    He's been spending a whole lot of time on FOX News lately.  I didn't see him ask for an apology any of the times I saw him.  Clinton has been showing up there too.

    Parent
    FOX Is (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:42:22 PM EST
    Exploitive for profit, in this context. A Dem debate there, it may as well be mudwrestling in g-strings.

    Parent
    At least it's upfront in its biases (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:48:41 PM EST
    for us -- unlike being blindsided this season by MSNBC.  (I still want ALL of the debates to go back to being in the hands of the League of Women Voters, not media -- and to be broadcast on PBS.)

    Parent
    Sigh. To be clear, its biases (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:50:33 PM EST
    are against us libruls, of course.  I meant it's upfront in its biases for us to be prepared, not blindsided. . . .

    Parent
    They want Obamapublicans (none / 0) (#13)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:30:33 PM EST
    to see him for themselves -- not the legend, but the real person.

    Parent
    I've decided that I'm not turning on the TV (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:47:25 PM EST
    tonight unless someone mentions something really interesting here. No need for the inane banter.

    That would be the smart move though I (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:00:25 PM EST
    don't have the will power. I am already mad and it hasn't even started.

    Parent
    so far i haven't either. (none / 0) (#175)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:29:40 PM EST
    TV Watching (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by kmblue on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:57:58 PM EST
    I don't do it.  Joe Klein has an awful post up at Swampland trying to tell people how to watch tonight.
    I posted a comment saying I get results on my computer, and that way I don't have to listen to gasbags like Joe Klein.

    Check this youtube video: Superwoman (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ghost2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:15:45 PM EST


    Marvelous. Love those Wellesley photos (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:39:08 PM EST
    every time I see them.  I was a geeky girl, too. :-)

    Parent
    I imagined you a male for some reason :) (none / 0) (#114)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:17:29 PM EST
    I guess since your screen name is gender neutral, I just figured: male.
    silly internets.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#115)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:19:39 PM EST
    it's just an old nickname for my beloved city.

    But yep, I did pick it to be gender-neutral on the 'Net.  It does make for some fun and insights.:-)

    Parent

    Hopefully, this would work! (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ghost2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:18:09 PM EST
    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:47:51 PM EST
    Russert didn't call Hillary the anti-Christ, so I think it's not as bad for us Hillary folks as some might think.  Reminds me of NH night when they were being very careful about which candidate they boosted.

    Most telling, Russert said (something like): you have to win the nomination before you can unite the party.

    Wow, I feel like I'm in high school again trying to figure out whether or not a crush is mutual.  

    Do you like me?
    _ yes
    _ no
    ___maybe
    (check one)

    this is good (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:30:38 PM EST
    Marc Ambinder:

    Fellow journalists and pundits. I have the same data you have... and I would just remind all of you that the first wave of exit poll data is not reportable or reported for a simple reason: the sample sizes are not large enough to accurately tell us much of anything, unless one candidate is getting, like, 80% of the vote.

    I do feel (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:34:50 PM EST
    it does a dis-service to the states that haven't closed voting to release the early exit polls.  

    Anyone read any analysis of the confirmed exit polls out of GA?  But I guess it wouldn't be fair to focus on that considering my argument above :)

    you know (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:43:59 PM EST
    That's what I was thinking about--Dublin and Sumter and Tift and Valdosta and all these counties that are far away from Atlanta, Savannah, and Macon--how did they get exit polling there?  How can they do a break-down based on communities that, unlike metro Atlanta, are predominantly white?  And, not to go all Deliverance on y'all, but there were folks living around the Okeefenokee who shoot first and ask later.  You think they're going to talk to pollsters?

    I could just be in denial, one of the first stages of grief, but I really don't understand the aggregate.  No votes have been counted.  We've got over 9 million people here.

    Perhaps my cub reportership will be revoked, but you heard it here first, folks.

    Parent

    Very interesting comments from one who knows (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:51:33 PM EST
    the state.  Now that you mention it, thinking of my state (very Northern, borders Canada), it also has such a split, red and blue, from urban to rural far from the big cities . . . I can't imagine that every one of these outfits hires sufficient numbers of people to really randomly sample such a large state.

    Maybe they figure on sampling some rural sorts to predict all rural sorts, but it's just more complex than that.  (Rural near the big cities is really white-flight ex-urban, quite different from rural elsewhere in my state, from what I can see.)

    Parent

    holy crap (none / 0) (#90)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:57:12 PM EST
    Folks, this ain't over.  They haven't even counted Fulton and DeKalb yet:

    County by county results.

    C: 43.5
    O: 50.1

    Parent

    Hmm, the "Embarrassed Voter" factor? (none / 0) (#97)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:05:17 PM EST
    One explanation of polls being so wrong -- see it on pollster.com -- is that with the factors of race and gender, a greater than usual number of voters are simply reluctant to say for whom they voted.  To say it to a stranger, to say it in front of a spouse, etc.

    Parent
    That's not the only place (none / 0) (#107)
    by blogtopus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:12:08 PM EST
    My wife confessed to me after voting that she voted for Obama because a mutual friend put a seed of doubt into her head about the corruption factor. When I showed her the details of both Obama and Hillary's corporate records, she almost cried; she felt used by our friend.

    There's nothing to forgive, though. That's democracy; that's my wife who I love. I just have a feeling that once people see Obama for who he really is, my wife's reaction might be a common thing.

    I told her it was okay to vote for whomever you want. I still feel that way, I just disagree with people who spread lies like it was truth in order to confuse / spin the uneducated. I think they're called politicians. :-)

    Parent

    If I had to guess (none / 0) (#124)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:24:05 PM EST
    Fulton for Obama, Dekalb may be for HRC, but it will be close.

    (I used to live in VA Highlands and L5P)

    Parent

    Looks like Obama is getting his bump from (none / 0) (#126)
    by ding7777 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:25:19 PM EST
    exits were off.... (none / 0) (#78)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:37:35 PM EST
    so far anyway.....i think.  Exits had obama at 75%, he's at about 66% now.  But I guess it's still too early to even analyze whether the exits were accurate or not.

    Parent
    Not even the MSM (none / 0) (#80)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:42:51 PM EST
    has released exit polls -- but the Obamablogs have.  This just shows that as bad as the MSM is, the blogosphere is WORSE.

    This election is definitely about change -- it really IS time for a blogger ethics panel.

    Parent

    so did hillary's blogs (none / 0) (#82)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:44:07 PM EST
    read: taylor marsh

    Parent
    not true (none / 0) (#84)
    by english teacher on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:47:10 PM EST
    what are you talking about? (none / 0) (#85)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:49:01 PM EST
    Taylor Marsh has had them up for a couple hours.  Post title: Grain of Salt exit polls.

    True - at least for TaylorMarsh.com  Maybe not for others....

    Parent

    Hillary didnt campaign in GA....so those (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:49:53 PM EST
    numbers are interesting

    it's the older demographic (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by english teacher on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:11:27 PM EST
    she is brilliant.

    now she will pivot on obama and fox and defy them to give her the opportunity to use their network to compare herself to obama in front of a captive audience of anxious seniors.

    when she is finished, not one single senior citizen in this country will do anything other than vote for hillary clinton.

    they will never vote for barack obama.  she will make his lack of experience show for all it is worth.  

    which candidate will speak out more forcefully and knowledgeably about polices that effect our seniors than hillary clinton?

    which candidate will expose bush's prescription drug policy as the sham it was, or talk about long term care?

    which one has a plan that ensures the grandchildren can afford to go to college?

    this would be a huge set back for obama among a key demographic.  it would also set up his complete lack of viability against mccain in this demographic for a general election.  

    obama has been in the senate for three years.  that is not enough experience to be commander in chief in the eyes of most fox watchers.  

    but hillary would beat mccain on competence and protection of such programs as medicare and social security.  

    checkmate hillary.

    don't know about everyone else (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:31:03 PM EST
    but keep on posting--all opinions welcomed!  It helps to feel connected while we're all so nervous, regardless of who comes out on top.

    Who ever it is, Go Democrats!!!

    I like watching Wolf Blitzer (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:11:34 PM EST
    And "The Situation Room" on CNN. I think they're by no means "unbiased", but there is a lot of information thrown out there via exit polls. It's better than watching Olbermann/Mathews at MSNBC. I'd usually watch MSNBC on non-election years, but this year, they're very blatantly pro-Obama, and little substantiative info is given. And of course, I don't watch FOX.

    Better graphics (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:13:25 PM EST
    are they going to start announcing?  I hate that.  Here out in Calif....it stinks when they do that.

    Parent
    George W Bush is proof that (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:17:24 PM EST
    those who announce should be fired from journalism for the rest of their lives and I don't care if it turns out that they were right or wrong.  Be a journalist.......report the news and stop creating it!

    Parent
    Yes, I love those graphics (none / 0) (#186)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:12:34 PM EST
    Sometimes I can do Wolf (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:22:02 PM EST
    Today I did the floors instead.  Nuts all day is just too much nuts ;)

    Parent
    I'm watching CNN more, MSNBC much less (none / 0) (#12)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:29:34 PM EST
    with the appalling coverage from MSNBC so far -- its pundits (even co-opting KO), its refusal to run Dem returns from Florida, etc.

    And I like John King's graphics on CNN . . . although he just bothered me with his map of where and when results will roll in, from east to west -- and he swung from the Northeast states to the Southeast states, then to Missouri and then straight west.  That almost entirely ignores the Midwest (Minnesota, Illinois, the Dakotas), as Missouri is put in the Midwest by the Census Bureau but is so arguably not Midwestern, with its history.

    And that just seemed odd, and unwise, as so many analyses suggest the significance of the Midwest as the swing-state area of purple states in recent elections.  Maybe it's because Illinois is a given, maybe it's because the Dakotas have so comparatively few delegates, maybe it's because Minnesota is a caucus state . . . but he ought to have explained it, if so.  (And Minnesota actually could be the site of some surprises tonight.)

    Parent

    Yeah, I don't DVR Keith anymore (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:37:00 PM EST
    This primary has changed my whole way of thinking.

    You get fairer assesments from Blankley and Buchanan than from any 'liberal' pundit.

    I used to think that 'liberal' meant that a person could see how two sides  OF THE SAME PARTY might have merit, especially when talking from the standpoint of a blog FPer or whatever.  But it's all bias, all the time.  

    I started this primary season thinking I don't really care how things go.  Hillary/Obama, pretty much the same.  The process and the personalities have literally DRIVEN me toward Hillary. It's like a centrifugal force that I can't stop.  And it's driven me completely from things I used to trust -- like Keith.  When he had 3 Obama supporters and nothing even close to neutral (not even Tony Blankley! LOL) I realized I can't watch him anymore.

    Besides, he's a snooty snob, never liked him personally anyway.

    Parent

    Minnesota? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:32:09 PM EST
    What surprises?

    Parent
    Not much in the way of polling, and (none / 0) (#27)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:46:24 PM EST
    it's a caucus . . . although more like a mini-primary (I think I like the restricted hours of those even less than the crazy caucus system seen so far, and their limitations in access to people working different shifts, people with disabilities, etc.).  And Minnesota does have a secret ballot.

    About the only recent poll, and that was a week ago, showed Clinton ahead by 7 -- but it's a state that elected a Republican governor now, after all.

    Weather may be a factor, as ever in the upper Midwest at this time of year.  I think Minnesota is not getting hit by the foot of snow starting now for some of us in the upper Midwest, but Minnesota may be getting some of the yukky stuff always on the margins of major storms. . . .

    (This storm is coming into the upper Great Lakes from the southwest, for a change -- but some of it hit a bit of Missouri, I saw, so it may be a factor there today, too.  But it was bypassing St. Louis, and seemed to be more toward its other large city to the west.)

    Parent

    Ohhhh... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:50:15 PM EST
    I see.  Thanks for the explanation!

    Parent
    Don't Feel Bad (none / 0) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:02:44 PM EST
    TPM left Missouri completely off it's state by state listing.

    Parent
    Email them (none / 0) (#187)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:25:06 PM EST
    and tell them you have stopped watching and why. They do pay attention. I urge everyone to be as objective as possible. It is not OK for them to be biased against any candidate. What a lot of people missed was that MSNBC was one of the media outlets that was very biased against Gore in 2000 and treated him like a joke. Chris Matthews was particularly bad, as Bob Somerby kept trying to explain to everyone. (dailyhowler.com) We are all paying a huge price now for that irresponsible behavior.
    NBC also needs to be inundated with complaints for their egregious, unprofessional behavior. Tim Russert has not been much better than Matthews and Carlson. Even KO has been taken in. Only Dan Abrams seems able to think objectively, but then he was trained as a lawyer, not a journalist.

    Parent
    Any webstreams available? (none / 0) (#4)
    by phat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:16:00 PM EST
    I still don't have cable.

    Or should I just put up with Katie Couric?

    phat

    I think cable news stinks anymore! (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:20:19 PM EST
    If you have internet access to cable news use it when it's good to you and for you.  I have cable mostly because I had to watch the Sopranos and Six Feet Under and now I could miss a mini series or something and Bill Maher can usually make me laugh instead of cry.

    Parent
    West Virginia (none / 0) (#6)
    by magster on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:20:17 PM EST
    Is there an agreement for Huckabee to be McCain's VP?  Huckabee is killing Romney today, and Huck might bring the Dobson's of this world back on McCain's bandwagon.

    Seeing what happened today in WV and Dobson, Huck as VP makes a lot of sense.

    1st leaked exit polling: (none / 0) (#10)
    by mike in dc on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:23:42 PM EST
    source: national review(!)

    quote:
    My first word of exit poll results says that the first two waves of results in Massachusetts show a "dead heat" between Hillary and Obama, and a 20-point margin for Romney among Republicans.

    Is there any place to find neutral coverage? (none / 0) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:29:24 PM EST
    Won't find it on blogs, won't find it on TV.

    Is there a place to find it?  I guess I'll have to link to each and every state democratic party page?

    CNN.com for numbers (none / 0) (#24)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:42:45 PM EST
    They've done a good job so far this year of reporting the vote tallies as they come in.

    Take their numbers, then create your own spin :-)

    Parent
    Exit polls also show that undecideds (none / 0) (#20)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:38:30 PM EST
    nationally are breaking evenly.  

    That's good for Clinton.

    What is your info source for (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:41:19 PM EST
    exit polls?

    Parent
    Blitzer on CNN. n/t (none / 0) (#26)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:45:47 PM EST
    that would match up with tracking polls (none / 0) (#39)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:01:43 PM EST
    Both Gallup and Rasmussen daily polls showed practically no movement for the last 2 days for either candidate.  

    I am feeling very nervous though.  I am sensing the Obama wave.

    Parent

    you are sensing (none / 0) (#92)
    by english teacher on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:57:43 PM EST
    people like josh and kos using juiced numbers in order to generate hits.

    hillary's support has never wavered.  her numbers will not go down.  

    trust me.  


    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#100)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:08:14 PM EST
    That's a pretty vicious accusation. Is your passion for your candidate so strong it compels you to think that those two would compromise their integrity by using false numbers?

    Parent
    It is pretty much accepted (none / 0) (#106)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:11:52 PM EST
    that many of us came to Talk Left because of the vehement anti-Hillary bias in other blogs.

    I think that we are all human beings, and our bias paints how we look at information.  I freely admit that I only want to believe polls that say my candidate (Hillary Clinton-heard of her?) is winning.

    I think when you insist that you don't have a bias, yet consistently spin information so that it shows your favored candidate is better than the other, that you are certainly showing a compromised sense of integrity.

    For a real world example, contrast BTD, an Obama supporter, with any of them.  Not that I am holding him up as a non-partisan example, but he certainly admits that he has a favored candidate, yet often is an equal opportunity reporter on either candidates missteps.

    Parent

    yeah, but he's a "tepid "supporter. :) (none / 0) (#117)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:20:27 PM EST
    point blank (none / 0) (#122)
    by english teacher on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:22:37 PM EST
    i am questioning their integrity here.  

    i speak for no one else, but they have proven themselves less than honest brokers when it comes to representing all democrats fairly.  

    if you deny that observation is grounded in legitimate concerns about their hyping of obama and repackaging right wing smears of the clintons, then i question your integrity as well.  

    Parent

    Is that consistent (none / 0) (#25)
    by standingup on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:43:40 PM EST
    with SurveyUSA's polling?  I know they had fewer "undecideds" in their polling than any of the others but not sure of how they were allotting them between the two candidates.  

    Parent
    AP exit polls (none / 0) (#41)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:11:28 PM EST
    "In the Democratic races, Barack Obama led among black voters and Hillary Rodham Clinton led among Hispanic voters. Obama led among white men, while Clinton led among white women. Overall, Obama led among men and Clinton led among women, although her advantage among women appeared smaller than was seen in early primary states."

    Parent
    Did they say specific areas or just overall? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:17:38 PM EST
    not very specific (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:23:11 PM EST
    Still interesting though. So far, 1 in 10 (none / 0) (#49)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:30:39 PM EST
    voters are under thirty while one in 5 are over 65. That's good for Clinton. She wins Latinos he wins blacks, she wins women, he wins men. Women are voting at a higher percentage but Obama is winning men at a higher percentage than Hillary is winning women.

    I would guess that older voters tend to vote early and younger voters late so I guess these could change a lot.

    Parent

    the Fox debate (none / 0) (#38)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:01:15 PM EST
    first, how can they be worse than CNN and MSNBC? Really?  If anything they'll put more pressure on BO.

    And, doesn't this put BO in the corner as he is the unity/attracting Repubs candidate?

     

    A study about media coverage (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:10:14 PM EST
    Faux is actually covering news, NBC is being hardest on Hillary.

    http://www.cmpa.com/index.html

    I'm thinking that she, like me, has developed a whole new mindset about who provides balanced assessments and who doesn't.

    Parent

    Unofficial state by state exit polling (none / 0) (#50)
    by magster on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:32:14 PM EST
    at MyDD.

    Advantage Obama if true.

    this is strange (none / 0) (#53)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:44:38 PM EST
    Not asked about economy?

    Change: 53 percent
    Experience: 22 percent
    Cares About Me: 14 percent
    Electable: 9 percent


    Parent

    If those polls are true (none / 0) (#60)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:02:38 PM EST
    It's completely over for Hillary.  Wow.  That was fast.

    I hope they enjoy their candidate.

    Parent

    Take heart (none / 0) (#61)
    by stillife on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:03:50 PM EST
    They're just exit polls and the polls aren't even closed yet.

    But I'm getting scared.

    Parent

    I am nervous (none / 0) (#62)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:06:49 PM EST
    but not yet scared.

    CNN called GA for Obama, but later admitted that was not based on any votes being counted, so we don't know how close it is.  They must have felt comfortable enough making the call based on exit polling.

    I may be saying that popular vote matters more by the end of the night, but right now I'm saying: delegates!

    Parent

    I think they're pretty sure about (none / 0) (#64)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:09:28 PM EST
    these exit polls then, huh. ;-).

    Like I've said, let Obama win the primary.  He won't win the general.

    Parent

    relax (none / 0) (#88)
    by english teacher on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:53:37 PM EST
    responsible people cannot discount long term data that completely belies these results.

    this is hype that will give them something to talk about and generate viewers.

    tomorrow the story will be why all the polling was wrong again.

    but it's all hype.  they just have to have a story.

    they are in the denial phase of seeing the media cash cow known as obama preparing to bite the dust.  

    tomorrow they will revise the "how were we so wrong" meme, so they won't have to report "hillary landslide".  they are pathetic.

    trust the numbers that have come from the long term surveys and the primaries we've had so far.  clinton's support has been solid.  obama may have gained, but he won't cut into hillary's numbers.  

    that is the responsible analysis, imho.

    Parent

    Think positive (none / 0) (#65)
    by stillife on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:11:22 PM EST
    None of the Dem states are winner take all.

    GA polls close early, at 7 p.m.  The exit poll I saw had something like 75 Obama, 25 Clinton, so I guess that's why they called it.  

    I'm biting my nails here.

    Parent

    Read comments there; very biased (none / 0) (#63)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:09:06 PM EST
    exit pollsters, apparently.  

    So to balance with bias the other way, comments also include leaked exit polls from the Clinton campaign.

    It's probably somewhere in between. :-)

    Parent

    Consider the source but this is a TPM exit poll (none / 0) (#68)
    by stillife on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:14:50 PM EST
    GA: C- 25.5, O - 75

    CT: C - 45, O - 52.2

    IL: C - 29.1, O - 69.6

    AL: C - 37, O - 59.6

    DE: C - 41.9, O - 55.6

    MA: C - 47.3, O - 49.8

    MO: C - 45.1, O - 49.8

    TN: C - 51.6, O - 41.1

    NY: C - 55.6, O - 42.2

    NJ: C - 47, O - 52.2

    AR: C - 71.2, O - 25.5

    OK: C - 60.5, O - 30.4

    AZ: C - 44.8, O - 50.5

    Parent

    ABC for Results (none / 0) (#52)
    by Salt on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:41:37 PM EST

    MSNBC never again they are on permanent mute, CNN is just silly, I am going to watch ABC but not until really late tonight after Calif polls close.


    CNN's latest on exit polls includes information (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:52:10 PM EST
    that people voting Dem. who made up their minds w/i the last couple days are divided almost eventy between Obama and Clinton.  

    GA polls (none / 0) (#57)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:57:06 PM EST
    close at 7.  I have the local news on as well as national to see if they say anything about exit polling.

    Kathy, cub reporter

    Parent

    CNN has a red check mark re Georgia for Obama, (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:14:00 PM EST
    the first "called for" on the Dem. side of the ledger.

    Cathy, cub reporter:  sounds like Clara Barton, nurse.  Orange binding, right?

    Parent

    hehn? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:22:31 PM EST
    Orange binding?

    Parent
    All those bios of famous women (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:28:58 PM EST
    had orange library binding when I was growing up.  Before your time.

    Parent
    First state...Georgia. I'll go out on a limb and (none / 0) (#56)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:56:42 PM EST
    say Obama takes it.

    NBC calls GA for Obama 14 minutes . . . (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by IndependantThinker on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:31:16 PM EST
    after polls close. What possible motivation could they have other than to affect voting in States where the polls haven't closed yet. I didn't see the % of returns counted but in 14 minutes how many could there be.

    Parent
    I'm in the Detroit airport (none / 0) (#58)
    by hitchhiker on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:57:30 PM EST
    waiting to board a flight for Seattle.  It takes off before the first returns will be coming in, and lands probably after the last races have been called.

    Media blackout for me for the entire evening, and to be honest I'm looking forward to it . . . no stupid commentators, no oversized maps with bar charts showing delegate counts, not a single annoying smirk to witness.  I can deal with that.  

    That's what happened to me on NY day: (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:15:54 PM EST
    half time score Gators 0, Wolverines 0.  I was in the Denver airport.  When I got to my car in CA, Wolverines had won without any effort on my part.

    Parent
    Georgia (none / 0) (#59)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:00:30 PM EST
    "Critical state" (I'm trying not to take that personally...)

    I think the black/white breakout is going to be key here.  We have a larger aa population than most other states.  Fortunately, we disenfranchise a lot of them with our new voter registration laws.

    Obama gets it based on exit polls

    Georgia (none / 0) (#116)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:19:53 PM EST
    Obama  was ALWAYS   gonna  win Georgia;  Hillary  didn't  even campaign there.   It  is the  state  with the  largest   Black  population out of  tonight's  states.  

    Obama  won with 88% of  the Black vote.  

    No  surprise.  

    Parent

    excuse me (none / 0) (#140)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:33:43 PM EST
    she did rallies and fundraisers here (Atlanta), as did Bill.  I don't think her campaign believed they would take the sweeping aa vote away from Obama, but she is going to be looking better delegate-wise than people think, I think.

    Then again, as I keep saying--and to make this totally clear: I want her to win, so take whatever I say with a grain of salt.


    Parent

    d*mn early exit polls! (none / 0) (#66)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:11:58 PM EST
    but something seems fishy about MA and especially BO up by 5 in AK?  I don't know, but that seeing those #'s were quite a buzz kill.  

    Let's stay positive, or at the very least wait until the actual votes are counted!

    Must check. What does Wonkette say re (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:17:01 PM EST
    exit polls.

    Parent
    why (none / 0) (#71)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:18:10 PM EST
    were you surprised to see obama up by 5 in Alaska?

    Parent
    "It's a divisional divide," said MSNBC (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:28:21 PM EST
    commentator just now re Latino/a voters.

    She meant a generational divide.

    I'm heading back to CNN.

    Obama DEMOLISHES Clinton in Georgia! (none / 0) (#79)
    by Aaron on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:38:22 PM EST
    And Obama-rama begins

    40-59-year-olds -- 49% of the vote

    43% of the White vote

    86% of the Black vote

    Obama 08, VICTORY IS OURS!!!  


    Aaron (none / 0) (#83)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:45:33 PM EST
    don't jinx us.  :)

    Parent
    Well...now I believe (none / 0) (#109)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:12:48 PM EST
    You will win, you will win, you will win...

    Parent
    What motivates you to post this here? (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:56:32 PM EST
    yeah, hush. (none / 0) (#119)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:21:35 PM EST
    and no matter how this comes out (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:22:29 PM EST
    we work to support our nominee and this doesn't help.

    Parent
    did it (none / 0) (#93)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:57:52 PM EST
    just become a 10 point race with GA?  Only 2% in but this is interesting, no?

    Eight and a half points. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:05:43 PM EST
    C: 40
    O: 48.5

    (putting a time on this so all the Obama supporters can laugh at me later: 8:05pm)

    Parent

    careful (none / 0) (#105)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:11:47 PM EST
    With so few results in it's probably because the urban areas haven't been tallied yet. Obama's camp is already out there touting numbers, not even the most foolish of campaigns would do this unless they knew it was very solid.

    Parent
    I am certainly (none / 0) (#133)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:30:04 PM EST
    not calling it one way or the other, but neither do I think it will be the trouncing that folks predicted before a single vote was counted.

    I have lived in Georgia all my life and I know the counties and their demographics.  Clayton, DeKalb, Fulton, etc are the big urban areas.  They haven't been counted yet.  I'm interested in how close the numbers were in areas around Emory University and Agnes Scott College.  As I have said all along, I freely admit that I could be wrong.


    Parent

    Oklahoma is OK (none / 0) (#95)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:02:59 PM EST
    Yeah

    He'll win big in GA. Maybe less than exit (none / 0) (#96)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:04:40 PM EST
    polls say though. I thought they might call TN early but not so far.

    Anyone know (none / 0) (#99)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:06:02 PM EST
    why Oklahoma is tilted so heavily towards Hillary?

    Chief Wilma Mankiller's endorsement (none / 0) (#113)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:16:27 PM EST
    may have helped; further, it may suggest that it was reflecting the sentiment of the Native nations there.  (Many, many were pushed there, when it was called Indian Territory, by the Indian Removal Act of 1830; most notably, her Cherokee people pushed there in 1838-39 on the infamous Trail of Tears.  Interestingly, many came from their homeland of Georgia . . . so maybe Oklahomans still just like to do whatever is the opposite of what Georgia does.:-)

    There are, of course, many other racial/ethnic groups there -- the home of Anita Hill, as I recall -- but its heritage as Indian Territory is important.  And I know that from a non-Native friend from there.

    Parent

    demographics widely in her favor (none / 0) (#128)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:25:50 PM EST
    Today's voters:

    83% white
    62% no college degree
    80% over 40

    Parent

    the first clinton (none / 0) (#132)
    by english teacher on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:27:43 PM EST
    administration's farm policy duh!

    Parent
    I really want Georgia (none / 0) (#101)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:08:35 PM EST
    to do as best as it can for her.

    Demographically, GA is Obama's kind of town (none / 0) (#145)
    by ding7777 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:37:20 PM EST
    Georgia has less than the National average of people aged 65 and over and a far greater percentage of the Black population than the National average.

    Parent
    my neighbor (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:39:17 PM EST
    is 101 years old (no joke!) she started crying so hard at the polling place today that they had to get a chair for her.  She kept shaking her head, saying, "I can't believe I lived to see this day where I could vote for a woman as president."

    Parent
    Off to caucus in CO (none / 0) (#102)
    by magster on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:09:09 PM EST
    Fired up and ready to go...

    b/c HRC is so vilified by the MSM (none / 0) (#104)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:11:33 PM EST
    I think it might be possible people would lie about voting for her.  I mean, it is possible, especially among women who just don't want to fight about it.

    The GA numbers are proving interesting...

    Now it's a (none / 0) (#110)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:14:40 PM EST
    16 point spread in GA--man this is driving me crazy, but posting seems to keep me busy.  It's going to be a roller coaster kinda night, regardless of what happens.

    Keith is gone full creep mode (none / 0) (#111)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:15:06 PM EST


    Things are looking amazing right now (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:26:11 PM EST
    Kinda wow.

    But yeah, Keith has thrown himself under the creep bus.

    Yet another "change" that this campaign has brought....the change that he isn't on my DVR list anymore.  Just another biased creep.

    Parent

    A tie (none / 0) (#112)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:16:19 PM EST
    What happens if it's basically a tie tonight.  Where obama and hillary split almost even wins and California is won 49 to 51 or something like that.

    Could a real tie and a perceived tie exist?  Or in the event of a tie would one be considered a winner?

    Ok...it's not over (none / 0) (#118)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:21:01 PM EST
    Remember it's not over till the fat lady sings.

    or huckabee :) (none / 0) (#120)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:22:15 PM EST
    NJ exit polls on CNN.com (none / 0) (#123)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:23:00 PM EST
    Women were 58% of the vote. That has to help HC. If Obama wins NJ against those odds, I'll have to hand it to him (with a media assist thrown in there).

    did they break down (none / 0) (#125)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:24:37 PM EST
    by age?  If the majority were women over 40 I would say hillary takes it.  If majority under 40 then Obama.

    Parent
    36% 45-59, 24% over 60, (none / 0) (#130)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:26:40 PM EST
    that's of women? (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:30:50 PM EST
    or all voters?

    Parent
    all, I'm a nitwit with a headache. (none / 0) (#139)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:33:18 PM EST
    Conn. 59% women. Go check out their (none / 0) (#134)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:30:50 PM EST
    page. It was women/men by age for every state.

    Parent
    crap, andreww, the ages are for all voters (none / 0) (#137)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:32:06 PM EST
    not just women. Sorry.

    Parent
    Cspan (none / 0) (#127)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:25:34 PM EST
    Not all that sports imagery and lower key.  

    Tennessee (none / 0) (#131)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:27:11 PM EST
    Hillary

    can someone (none / 0) (#141)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:34:33 PM EST
    who is better at math than me compare exit polls to what we are getting in now?

    it's too hard (none / 0) (#143)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:36:49 PM EST
    because the numbers we are seeing now are precinct by precinct whereas exits are a collection from all.  

    In order to accurately analyze the exits almost all the precincts have to report.

    Parent

    NJ and Conneticut (none / 0) (#142)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:35:22 PM EST
    are very interesting.  If obama takes those, it'll be a very good sign for him.  Not that those on here don't know this.

    I know wins matter, but it is noteworthy that Obama has closed the gap so heavily in these states.

    By the way, for those who think MSNBC always leans Obama, they are showing FL and MI as wins for hillary even though they "didn't count"

    wow (none / 0) (#148)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:42:47 PM EST
    I can't believe they're showing FL and MI.  I am going to read that as a good sign (because I can) that exit polling is showing good things for Hillary.

    I wish we knew the criteria for calling these states, too.  Something tells me it is "fuzzy math."

    My dad can remember working the Carter campaign for dem party of GA on election night, and folks calling from Valdosta or wherever to report the official vote and saying, "We got 2500 registered voters.  How many can we give to Jimmy without getting into trouble?"

    You didn't hear that from me.

    Parent

    That is a beautiful story. (none / 0) (#163)
    by phat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:06:05 PM EST
    I love it.

    phat

    Parent

    is anyone else (none / 0) (#144)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:37:15 PM EST
    curious what the qualifications are for CNN (yes, that's what I'm watching) to call a state?  I mean, things are changing all over the place, but NJ looks solid for HRC but they won't call it.  What is the media's criteria?  Don't we have the right to know?

    Not sure. (none / 0) (#149)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:43:13 PM EST
    but only 1% of precincts in and exits show it close so they'll be careful.

    Parent
    CNN explanation (none / 0) (#152)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:44:52 PM EST
    They actually have a pretty exhaustive answer here

    Parent
    May not be as bad as I'd thought (none / 0) (#147)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:40:29 PM EST
    Even the states that have already been called for Obama are trending lower for him than the exit polls showed.

    It will be interesting at least.

    Mass exit polls... (none / 0) (#150)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:43:17 PM EST
    HC getting 56% of female vote (57% of all voters, and Obama getting 58% of male vote (43% of all voters).

    I don't see how those earlier exit polls on MYDD and TPM could be right. Am I that bad at math?

    Does this make sense? (none / 0) (#153)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:50:19 PM EST
    mass:

    56% of 57 = 31.9
    58% of 43 = 24.9

    Explain to me how HC could lose Mass? I am an accountant not a statistics person so I could be way off but is this in the ballpark assuming CNN's exit polls are decent?

    Parent

    lol, I'll quit the math now and start drinkin. (none / 0) (#154)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:54:16 PM EST
    My theory above assumed all women voted for HC and all men for BO. I'll leave the math to the experts. :)

    Parent
    oh jeez (none / 0) (#157)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:02:47 PM EST
    i think i did the same thing below.....something seems wrong to me with my math.

    Parent
    hmm...maybe my math is correct... (none / 0) (#159)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:04:47 PM EST
    Not sure.  The 50 50 split seems weird...hmm

    Parent
    I have a feeling (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:05:24 PM EST
    there are a lot of English majors here.

    Just taking a wild guess...

    Parent

    lol. I'm a statisical moron. I'll quit now. (none / 0) (#169)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:11:51 PM EST
    sort of (none / 0) (#155)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:00:10 PM EST
    You're final total needs to equal 100 though.  So, lets say 100 voters.  57 women 43 men.

    Of the 57 women, 56% go to Hillary which is 32, so then 25 go to Obama.

    Of the 43 men, obama gets 25, hillary gets 18.

    so your totals would be:

    Hillary - 50
    Obama - 50

    but, msnbc just called mass for hillary.  :)

    Parent

    andreww..this poster on DKos just (none / 0) (#162)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:05:57 PM EST
    weighted them for us. So close I can't believe it. Partially Impartial

    Parent
    ha! (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:09:23 PM EST
    that's funny....glad to see my logic wasn't far off.

    :)

    Parent

    msnbc showing a good (none / 0) (#151)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:44:39 PM EST
    delegate analysis now.  I like chuck todd...

    CNN (none / 0) (#156)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:01:15 PM EST
    Just  called   New York  State  for  Hillary.  

    That  makes  NY, OK,  AK,  and  TN!!

    what were (none / 0) (#158)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:04:33 PM EST
    the 3 states George Snuffaluffagus was talking about that Obama had to win at least 2 of?  California, NJ and MO, wasn't it?

    Parent
    probably. (none / 0) (#164)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:06:50 PM EST
    CA, NJ, CN seem to be the ones that will determine who "wins" tonight.  Obama should be picking up some other states out west though so the state count will likely look even.

    Parent
    except Clinton was always way ahead in (none / 0) (#166)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:09:17 PM EST
    those states.

    Parent
    NY (none / 0) (#170)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:14:32 PM EST
    Not  sure  about  ole  Snuffalupagos.   LOL

    Clinton  now  has  OK,   AK  TN,  NY,  AMerican  Samoa,   and  Massachusets  (MSNBC  called).  

    Not  tomention   the previous:  NH, MI, Florida.  

    Obama:    GA,  Illinois,  Delaware.  Previously,  Iowa  and  SC.    

    She's leading  20  percent  in Missouri.  

    She's  kicking his  a**!!!!

    The  Massachusetts win is  HUGE,  given the Kennedy /Kerry support  for  Obama.  

    Parent

    someone said (none / 0) (#171)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:18:41 PM EST
    it would be a "slap in the face" to Kennedy if Hillary won MA.

    Well, sir, does your  cheek sting?!

    Parent

    Mass (none / 0) (#173)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:26:59 PM EST
    I  always  thought  a  Teddy Kennedy endorsement  would  be  the kiss of death for  Obama.  

    The ultra   leftwing of our party  NEVER wins  presidential  elections.  JFK  wasn't  even  as  liberal as  Teddy;   JFK ran to the  right of Nixon on the missile  issue  just  to win.

    Parent

    ps: (none / 0) (#160)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:04:57 PM EST
    Jeralyn started a live blog from her caucus on the front page.

    Wow. (none / 0) (#165)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:07:21 PM EST
    I didn't think Obama would win Deleware. And maybe Connecticut too? Wow.

    link (none / 0) (#168)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:10:21 PM EST
    ABC (none / 0) (#172)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:24:54 PM EST
    ABC   calling  NewJersey  for  Hillary  Clinton.  

    WOW  WOW WOW

    WOOHOOO!!! (5.00 / 0) (#174)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:28:43 PM EST
    MSNBC is, too!

    I found the George Snuffaluffagus states where he said Obama had to win two out of three: California, MO and NJ.

    One down, one looks likely to be checked off soon for Hillary...

    (of course, none of the MSM seems to have Tivo because they totally forget what they said the night before.  It's like every freakin' date I had in college...but, that's another story.)

    Parent

    MO (none / 0) (#180)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:39:52 PM EST
    Hillary's  leading  in Missouri   by    close to  20%.      

    And  if  the  Delaware  win  is  because of    the  Black vote,   it  means  Obama  is  really only  carrying ,  except  for  Iowa,    the states  with   a  large  Black  vote.  

    Why is   that if  white women  vote  for  Hillary,  according  to MSNBC, they're  "racists,"  but  if  Blacks  vote  overwhelmingly  for  Obama ,  they're  NOT  racists?  

    Amazing......

    Parent

    auntmo (none / 0) (#182)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:42:04 PM EST
    because sexism is accepted and understood to be the white male media's god-given right to tout.

    Parent
    utah, north dakota, (none / 0) (#190)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:47:55 PM EST
    Connecticut, kansas, delaware are 5 states he won without the "black vote"  gimme a break - Obama is winning on a lot of fronts.  Including but not limited to the black vote.  

    Parent
    DE (none / 0) (#178)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:35:48 PM EST
    that isn't good at all.  Everyone was saying that if the SC statistics played out across the nation, Obama would be screwed.  

    It's still early days.  Let's just see how this goes.  If race is the only issue the media wins on tonight, then we have all lost.

    what's up (none / 0) (#179)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:38:46 PM EST
    with Kansas?  Why does O have such a big lead there?

    Kansas (none / 0) (#181)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:41:48 PM EST
    That's  the  state  his  white  mother  is  from.  

    Not  that  he  ever  lived  there long,  but  it  is  the home  state of  his  mother's  family.

    Parent

    BO's mother's side (none / 0) (#183)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:43:12 PM EST
    is from Kansas--so that explains it, I guess.

    Can you believe the excitement, and CA hasn't even closed yet! Late night for us on EST :)

    ABC (none / 0) (#184)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:45:31 PM EST
    Calling     Alabama  for   Obama.

    But again,   due  to  high  Black  vote.    

    That's   SC,  GA,  and  AL  that he  won due  to  Black  votes.  

    oh my! (none / 0) (#189)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:43:50 PM EST
    A black candidate that brought in the black vote in states that have a lot of black people.  How horrible!  Must mean he can't win.  Oh, wait, he's gotten over 40% of the white vote tonight.  He won Utah, he won Connecticut, he won Kansas, He won North Dakota.

    I understand we all have candidates we're rooting for, but auntmo, to suggest Obama winning only because of the black vote simply doesn't jive with the numbers we are seeing tonight.

    Parent

    oh my! (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:48:20 PM EST
    Don't  get your  panties  in a  wad, andrew.

    After all, Michelle  Obama  recruited  the  Black  vote in  South  Carolina  by   yelling,  "It's  our  turn!!!!"

    So  did  Oprah  Winfrey,  with all due  respect.

    Parent

    andrewww (none / 0) (#192)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:48:48 PM EST
    do not read racism where it does not exist.  What you are taking offense over exactly mimics what was being said on CNN.  I suggest if you have a problem, you should give them a call.

    Parent
    Oh my (none / 0) (#193)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:51:34 PM EST
    Thanks,  kathy.  

    Nothing  I need  less  than   a  young  Obamanaut   playing  holier  than  thou. :):)

    Parent

    by the way... (none / 0) (#195)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:59:40 PM EST
    you know nothing about me yet you call me a "young obama nut".

    how open of you - you're really showing how Hillary supporters are so morally superior to us crazy, sexist, young, nuts.

    Parent

    I didn't say anything (none / 0) (#194)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:58:10 PM EST
    about racism.  I was disagreeing with auntmo's claim that obama has only won states due to the black vote and then named four he won and not mentioned on any networks as winning due to the "black vote."

    Now add Idaho and Minnesota to the list.  Did he win those due to the black vote too?

    Parent

    does anyone know (none / 0) (#188)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:41:49 PM EST
    if when they start projecting CA at 11pm EST if they begin with the absentee or early voting, or those who voted today, or a combo?  Should be interesting to see the fluctuation depending on how they come in (and who gets the most votes, of course).