January 9, 2008

CONSERVATIVE EDITORIALS

LIBERAL EDITORIALS

POLITICAL BLOGS

Photo Attributions

Click Here for Photo Attributions

 

 

 


 powered by FreeFind
Huckabee Leads by 0.7%
Huckabee 20.7
McCain
 20.0
Giuliani 19.0
Romney 12.0
Thompson 10.7
Paul 3.7
See All Polls
Clinton Leads by 8.0%
Clinton 37.3
Obama 29.3
Edwards 18.0
See All Polls
STATE PRIMARY LEADERS
(EARLY STATES)
South Carolina
Huckabee +13.0%
Obama +16.0%
Michigan
Romney +0.5%
Clinton +31.0% No Delegates
Florida
Giuliani +2.0%
Clinton +23.7%
Nevada
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

Romney Not Out if He Loses Michigan

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

Regardless of the reason, however, 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.

Do not listen to pundits that say candidates are finished after one, two, or even five states this year. Their arguments simply do not have a leg to stand on. 

Just because news channels have to fill a great deal of time does not mean they should continue to air incompetent political analysis. 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

Thanks to FreeFind for providing the search technology for this website.  

 

The Ref's Daily Political Brief

Romney's Money, Positions and Support Keeps Him a Contender Even if He Loses Michigan

A Full New Hampshire Post-Mortem

New Hampshire Results

Democratic Nomination
Candidate
%
Clinton
39
Obama
37
Edwards
17
100% Reporting
j
Republican Nomination
McCain
37
Romney
32
Huckabee
11
Giuliani
9
Paul
8
100% Reporting
 

 

South Carolina Primary

Republicans Gear Up for Obama