What The New Hampshire Primary really means:

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by BYU71

The spin from the Obama backers, Chrissy Mathews in particular, is that the polls were wrong because of racism. I didn't think they had such a thing in the intellectual northeast where most of the people in NH are independents.

The reason is that while they would say they were for Obama, when they got in the booth they voted for the white person.

There might have been some of that. How about also though people like to tell pollsters they are hip. Uh, ya, I am for that young, attractive, well spoken guy you media folks are in love with. I want change just like all the other folks you media people are hyping. They get in the booth and say, I think I will stick with the bitch (meaning bitchy, nasty, etc), who actually has a track record and some experience.

I haven't watched any of pundits since last night, but I was wondering if this was going to be the explanation. In Virginia, Douglas Wilder's actual results were always 5-10% below pre-election polling. Everyone chalked it up to enough white folks wanting to but unable to vote for a black person.

What about independents thinking Obama had it wrapped up so they went for McCain?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

What it really means is that some pollsters, pundits, and Cougarguard posters are unable to adjust to the "new" rules.

Reports are that the Obama campaign's internal polling showed him up by 14. Hillary's campaign's internals showed him up by 11. SU is in a corner somewhere muttering "Romney is dead after NH" to himself (cue the "Michigan last stand" posts), and McCain won, but not convincingly. Huckabee leads the national polls. (Yeah. Right.) Almost as many R's turned out as D's to vote, sticking a fork in the eye of those talking about GOP malaise.

The rules are different for the '08 race. Rewrite your models.

As for Romney's failed win-first strategy: the strategy appears to have failed. But as cheerleader Hewitt has pointed out, it was devised to defeat a front-running Guiliani, no longer front-running. In any other year, consecutive 2nds might have finished a candidate. But this race is still wide open.

Anybody who counts anybody else out, R or D, is fooling themselves. Well, ok. Count Ron Paul out.

Don't you love how Tex was not for Romney till Romney said all the right things to pass Tex's religious/socially conservative litmus test. Tex is a hideous microcosm.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The point was also made that in a caucus, your neighbors know who you are voting for, and those that are motivated by racism, might be less inclined to vote against Obama, with social pressure in play.

This has happened before, where the polls say a black candidate is doing well, but in the end, gets drilled. Meaning that people lied to pollsters about voting for the black candidate, but under the cover of anonymity, voted for the white candidate. Wilder in Virginia is an example of this.

I know, but some people pointed out states where that didn't happen. Does some of that happen, yes. I think there are a lot of other factors that also come into play and you can't always play the liberals favorite line, "you are racist."

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Don't you love how Tex was not for Romney till Romney said all the right things to pass Tex's religious/socially conservative litmus test. Tex is a hideous microcosm.

I'm right here, SU. You don't need to talk to me in the 3rd person. "George is gettin' angry!"

I'm a lukewarm Romney supporter. My preferences for the nomination never even made it out of 2006, unfortunately. He's certainly not perfect, but he's as close to a Reagan conservative as this crop of gents is going to get.

I'm not sure what litmus test you're talking about, by the way. Link?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

This has happened before, where the polls say a black candidate is doing well, but in the end, gets drilled. Meaning that people lied to pollsters about voting for the black candidate, but under the cover of anonymity, voted for the white candidate. Wilder in Virginia is an example of this.

This is a well known and accepted phenomenon. Almost every election the polls exagerrate support for a black candidate. I heard a detailed story on this on NPR about a month ago. Something similar may happen to Romney if it becomes shameful to say you won't vote for a Mormon.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm right here, SU. You don't need to talk to me in the 3rd person. "George is gettin' angry!"

I'm a lukewarm Romney supporter. My preferences for the nomination never even made it out of 2006, unfortunately. He's certainly not perfect, but he's as close to a Reagan conservative as this crop of gents is going to get.

I'm not sure what litmus test you're talking about, by the way. Link?

Was George Allen your candidate?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Was George Allen your candidate?

He was my first choice, yep. I also would've taken Rick Santorum in a heartbeat. Bill Frist was further down because he was so cadaverous, but he's a solid conservative.

All of them were out before you could say Go. Thus I came to Romney somewhat by default. I was hoping for (but not expecting) more from Fred Thompson. I have little problem switching to Guiliani if Romney truly bombs out. I can't stand McCain or Huckabee.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

He was my first choice, yep. I also would've taken Rick Santorum in a heartbeat. Bill Frist was further down because he was so cadaverous, but he's a solid conservative.

All of them were out before you could say Go. Thus I came to Romney somewhat by default. I was hoping for (but not expecting) more from Fred Thompson. I have little problem switching to Guiliani if Romney truly bombs out. I can't stand McCain or Huckabee.

Shame about George Allen. Did you try to conscript David Duke after that?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Shame about George Allen.

Truly. Had it not been for that one ill-advised comment and his terribly poor management of the aftermath, he'd be in the race today.

And were George Allen in the race, McCain would be sitting at home in a wife-beater eating pork rinds right about now.

And you'd still be whining.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I didn't realize how naive you are until now. Is that all you think it means?

Do you ever get bored by your own antics?

There is a huge amount of data on that page with which one can make and refute a myriad of arguments. Just what do you suppose I am naively assuming it means? Unless you have some supernatural ability to read minds which you never bothered to tell us about, I'd say you're full of crap.