January 11, 2008

CONSERVATIVE EDITORIALS

LIBERAL EDITORIALS

POLITICAL BLOGS

Photo Attributions

Click Here for Photo Attributions

 

 

 

Google

 
Huckabee Leads by 1.6%
Huckabee
 21.3
McCain
 19.7
Giuliani
 16.7
Romney
 13.0
Thompson
 10.3
Paul
 3.7
See All Polls
Clinton Leads by 7.0%
Clinton
 37.7
Obama
 30.7
Edwards
 16.3
See All Polls
STATE PRIMARY LEADERS
(EARLY STATES)
Huckabee +7.8%
Obama +13.0%
McCain +2.5%
Clinton Running Unopposed
Huckabee +1.5%
Clinton +10.0%
Romney +3.5%
Clinton +17.5%
Clinton
 48.5
Giuliani
 45.5
Clinton
 47.0
Thompson
 42.0
Clinton
 45.0
McCain
 48.5
Clinton
 49.8
Romney
 44.3
Clinton
 51.3
Huckabee
 42.0
See All Head-to-Head Polls

Why the Ref's Poll Averages Are Superior

The Ref's Calls

MEDIA NEEDS REALITY CHECK: Romney Not Out if He Loses Michigan Despite Media Predictions

The pundits declared Iowa and New Hampshire must win states for Romney. He won neither state yet he is the delegate leader. 

Delegate leader? Yes, delegate leader. In a race for delegates, delegates are what matter, not the number of wins a candidate amasses.  One would think many of the pundits do not know this basic fact.   

Romney has made it clear that he will not drop out of the race. He will run in all fifty states. He does not need the media to prop him up to raise money because he already has more money than any other candidate has or will have.

Why does the media continue to predict Romney's demise? Perhaps the fact that the conservative establishment supports him represents the reason. 

Regardless of the reason the predictions will be premature until February 5th at the earliest no matter what happens in Michigan. Bottom line, if Romney leads in delegates or is somewhere near the top after February 5th he is very much in the game.

Pundits that say candidates are finished after one, two, or even five states this year fail to account for the open nature of the Republican race. News channels' need to fill a great deal of time does not justify the incompetent political analysis we have seen lately. We have seen far too much of it this year.  The Ref - Jan. 9, 2008 

First Evidence of Faux Support for a Black Candidate in This Race

One of the consistent problems in polling on a black candidate are respondents who say they will vote for a black candidate but fail to when in the privacy of the voting booth. Some strange force seems to grasp some respondents that compels them to voice support for a black candidate when they do not intend to vote for him or her.

Certainly the polls have not been supremely accurate during this election cycle, but no polls have been so uniformly wrong than those that predicted a large Obama victory in New Hampshire. 

The force that compels the false response seems to rely on a lurking desire to please the pollster. Perhaps the high profile of polling in US politics is to blame. Even those who shun politics and only hear political conversations secondhand in bars or restaurants have heard the familiar refrain, "I don't know who they're polling. I've never been called." 

It is true. Very few potential voters actually receive calls from pollsters. So when one receives a call from a pollster who will report these results nationwide there might be a bit of nervousness that arises built on the desire not to look foolish or backward. 

Perhaps this is the reason that so many who said they would vote for Obama apparently did not. Maybe when they entered the voting booth without any desire to please another, but with only a sense of duty to do what they think is right, they voted for Hillary instead of Obama. 

These people are not racists but merely human. When so much attention is paid by the media to the wonder of a black man seriously contending for the presidential nomination, it is not surprising that some poll respondents respond in a way that they assume the pollster wants them to.  

Certainly other explanations may account for some of the disparity between the polls and the actual result, but some voters who told pollsters they would vote for Obama did not and probably never intended to.  The Ref - Jan. 8, 2008

Pundits Show Remarkable Shortsightedness

One cannot tune into a news channel or read a newspaper without finding predictions of Hillary's complete demise if she loses New Hampshire.  Unfortunately for Hillary haters, the conventional rules for the early primaries do not apply.

Pundits may very well be more concerned with ratings and circulation than reality, but their conclusion that Obama can finish Hillary off by winning the first three states ignores reality.  Here is reality.

The Clinton machine is massive and powerful.  In 1992 Bill Clinton did not win until Georgia and they have that built in narrative to fall back on.  Clinton leads in every state but the first three by sizable margins.  Finally, the first three primaries will have much less impact on the rest of the nation because they take place over a much shorter period of time than ever before.

While pundits rush to declare Obama the victor, Clinton waits for the day when they declare her back from the dead.  What better way to redefine yourself than by coming back from the dead?  Make no mistake about it, Hillary Clinton, even if she loses New Hampshire and South Carolina, will be very much alive.  If you doubt that simply refer to the Ref's National Poll Averages.     

Do not misread me.  I have no desire for Hillary or any other candidate to win.  But to declare her dead after three primaries simply ignores reality, this year at least.  The Ref - Jan. 6, 2008

 

The Ref's Daily Political Brief

Obama Receives an Establishment Endorsement

Hillary Holds Back Negative Ads, Conservative Novak Predicts Nasty Campaign

Primaries in General

McCain

Huckabee

Romney

Giuliani