Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Where's the Outrage?!?! | What's A Bunga? »

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

On the Radio

posted by on March 5 at 10:20 AM

I’ll be on KUOW’s The Conversation this afternoon, starting at 1 p.m., to talk about the results in Ohio and Texas, and to help parse all the exit poll data.

That’s 94.9 in the FM.

Want to pre-spin me? Drop what you think are the most interesting exit poll data points into this comment thread and maybe I’ll mention your prized piece of exit poll proof on the show.

RSS icon Comments


I wonder how long the Democrats can keep going on like this before they sacrafice the White House in November. The two "children" need to make amends and broker a deal before Pennsylvania; and preferably this week.

The only one's who profit are cable news and the GOP. The rest of us loose.

Posted by Andrew | March 5, 2008 10:18 AM

The biggest thing, and the one the MSM never ever ever talks about is that in all four states, the Dem turnout was so high that even the 2nd place Dem got MORE votes than the total combined GOP voter turnout.

Even in conservative Rhode Island.

In some states, like Rhode Island, in fact, Obama got three (3) times as many voters as all the GOP votes - and Clinton got five (5) times as many voters as all the GOP votes.

The big unreported story is nobody with a Red Bushie (R) after their name has a chance in November.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 5, 2008 10:19 AM

Discuss whether Rush's lemmings affected the results. It's being discussed on many blogs, dumb-ass FOX News, Air America, Dallas Morning News, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Posted by Fitz | March 5, 2008 10:24 AM

I have to Agree with #3,

Those numbers of "Democrats" seem really too high to be believable. The right WANTS HRC to win this.

Posted by Uh yeah | March 5, 2008 10:29 AM

1. Still half an eternity until the general election. Plenty of time for fortunes to be won, lost, and regained. Keep clam.

2. How long have you lived in and studied the great states of Ohio and Texas?

Posted by umvue | March 5, 2008 10:31 AM

Talk about whether political pundits would pontificate about poll results better if they took a stats class.

Posted by elenchos | March 5, 2008 10:33 AM

note: 90% lifted from Penn and Ickes today:

1. HRC can win the fall election by carrying the big battleground states like OH FL PA MI. That's what D's need to win.Recent presidents all won 2 of 3 of FL OH PA -- lining up for HRC. Het other wins in most of the big states in media driven races show she can win the media driven general election.

Obama? Lots of caucus wins. Do not translate to the general election.

Claim is he can win deep red states like those he won in primaries -- Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana. But these aren't going Democratic, that's a pipe dream.

John Kerry lost each of these states by fifteen points or more

2. vetting of Obama has just begun. The press has only begun to scrutinize Senator Obama and the corruption trial of Tony Rezko, Obama blew it with the NAFTA double talk issue, no one even knows what he actually did as a community organizer --- get inspired and talk a lot, kumbaya, or actually change anything?
Late deciding voters in TX and OH went with Clinton because Clinton raised his lack of experience and NAFTA double talk so although OUTSPENDING HILLARY TWO TO ONE OBAMA LOST THESE BIG MEDIA DRIVEN RACES.

How's he going to win OH MI (only went D by 3 pts. last time) FL (currently D's ten points behind) PA etc. against the GOP if he can't deal with HRC's patty cake ads?

3. 28 million votes have been counted, the popular vote contest in the Democratic primary is within one-tenth of one percent BHO to HRC. Let the convesrsation continue, that's what the process is for. That's what conventions are for. Let the superdelegates use their best judgment, that is what they are for.

Posted by unPC | March 5, 2008 10:42 AM

Talk about that trial balloon of a "unity ticket" that Hillary is already floating today.. and if Obama's presence as VP can counter Hillary's high negatives (and the rallying effect it will have on the GOP and the Right).

Or talk about the fact that with 5 cable channels with 24-hrs-a-day each to fill, if the coverage can't be simply a presentation of information, but inevitably turns into "narrative" about the "race"--and all narratives need a "protagonist" and an "antagonist," depending on a particular channel's political orientation.

Posted by Andy Niable | March 5, 2008 10:43 AM

i know it's fun to speculate about the polls BUT they rarely take into account class, which confounds most other factors...however, the most striking result of the recent polls is the youth vs. elder vote...also, if there is any way you can avoid invoking andrew sullivan and implying fellow democrats who vote for hillary clinton are racist, stupid, and/or homophobic...that would be awesome...

Posted by uhmmm | March 5, 2008 10:47 AM

If we accept a tiny state like Vermont giving a five delegate swing shouldn't we also accept that the super delegates can vote how they think is best at convention time no matter how their state voted or caucused.

Posted by McG | March 5, 2008 11:03 AM

Decided Today (12%) Clinton54% Obama43%
I think this shows that last minute attack ads (the red phone/Daisy type) sway what we think of as the traditional "swing" or undecided voters. The question is is Obama will turn his Chicago machine loose to ratchet up the heat in the continuing tantrum raised by Hillary.

And is response to unPC- Ohio and Florida "decide" races for republicans only bewcause the swath of of "red" states are lost and taken for such by the mainstream Hillary style Dems. Your argument that the delegate math is pointless ignores that the popular vote is just that; a popularity contest. In nominations (delegates) and generals (electoral delegates) it IS the small math that counts.
Obama has shown that he can grow the base and win back what the Hillaries have lost and given up on.

Posted by JMR | March 5, 2008 11:03 AM

JMR - national polling shows O a couple points head of Mc before any significant negative advertising. where are all the new dems, inds and repubos?

O has not grown the base he has brought out a bigger percentage of his supporters to the caucus states and he targeted "red" states that are won every year by a democrat in the primary and lost in the general. that gets delegates but doesn't mean red is turning blue.

hrc made a big misstake by working for the general from day one by working swing states like ohio, florida (before the ban), penn and nh but those are the states that need to be won in november

Posted by McG | March 5, 2008 11:15 AM

Why hasn't Clinton released her tax returns?

Posted by Michael | March 5, 2008 11:16 AM

Here you go Eli..

Clinton got lucky in several districts, just barely meeting thresholds to gain an additional delegate. The vote totals will likely change enough to surrender some of those delegates back to Obama (especially in the Texas caucuses). But for now, the current results, before the Texas caucuses are fully tallied, are Clinton 191, Obama 178 -- a better showing than last night's single delegate lead.

So the stark reality remains -- even in this best-case scenario, Clinton only chipped Obama's pledged delegate lead from 159 to 148. Yet last night offered more than 1/3rd of remaining delegates, 370. Only about 560 remain in the contest.

If Obama can show he's not collapsing under the weight of Clinton's assault, there will be no reason for the super delegates to overturn the will of the voters (in both pledged delegates and the popular vote).

Posted by Reality Check | March 5, 2008 11:27 AM

Yay! Usually I find that show infuriatingly vapid with its blowhard populist callers. But I always enjoy your eloquent commentary - thanks for the heads up!

Posted by katrat | March 5, 2008 11:34 AM

How many Canadian legislative aides will lose their jobs for Karl Rove setting up the conservative Prime Minister of Canada to phone Obama's campaign aide, and why did Sen Clinton use that obvious GOP ploy for her own attack ad?

Oh, and why is McCain so short and old?

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 5, 2008 11:48 AM

One thing that would be nice to see is someone calling bullshit on the idea that if one or the other candidate -- particularly among the Dems following Ohio and Texas -- didn't win that state outright via popular vote, that they can't win that state in the general election. In most every primary and caucus so far, it seems like the Dems are having much higher turnouts in proportion to Republicans, and that that should be considered in whether or not they can beat the opposing party in the general. Let me explain - in Texas, it looks like Clinton won with 1,450,000+ votes to Obama's 1,300,000+. So Obama has lost, yes. But McCain only got 700,000 -- about half of what either Clinton or Obama got. Even if you add in all of Huckabee's 500,000+ votes as general election GOP votes (a fairly unlikely amount), either Clinton or Obama still beats him. And then you have to consider that there will be an amount of folks that voted either Obama or Clinton in the primary that would shift over to whomever is the eventual nominee. To me, proportional turnout appears to be key in this election.

Posted by bookworm | March 5, 2008 12:23 PM

Yes, please ask NPR why they chose to make fun of the two towns in Vermont that passed ordinances that they will arrest Bush or Cheney for war crimes if they ever set foot in their towns. Oh yeah, ha ha, hee hee. Fucking NPR should be giving them fucking medals, not poking fun at them.
This is why I DONT listen to NPR(I used to but since they became a mouthpiece for corporate America, I switched to Air America and am cringing through the commercials to hear the fucking truth)

Posted by Christianflkr | March 5, 2008 12:26 PM

Clinton is the new Nader.

Posted by Anon | March 5, 2008 1:25 PM

I am a fence sitter and when you throw this out(see below for quote) you are forgetting she had 20 point leads in both TX and OH 2 weeks ago. So really Obama eliminated a huge chunk of that. OS you could argue that given another week, he would have swayed enough to win it.

"Late deciding voters in TX and OH went with Clinton because Clinton raised his lack of experience and NAFTA double talk so although OUTSPENDING HILLARY TWO TO ONE OBAMA LOST THESE BIG MEDIA DRIVEN RACES."

Posted by Common'tator | March 5, 2008 2:28 PM

@18 - I agree, my Dad was one of those Vermont voters.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 5, 2008 2:39 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).