Powered by TypePad

« Fauxbama - Kiss The Elderly White Women (Goodbye) | Main | Obama -"Typical White" Reacts Badly To Blacks »

March 20, 2008



There's been criticism of polls in the past for the Bradley effect (white people saying they'll vote for the black guy because they don't want to look racist). I bet Obama's not getting any of that anymore.


Really, he's just pissed off all the white and black people who consider themselves further along the road of racial reconciliation than Obama himself is.

And, I'll bet his grandmother is not as racist as she has been portrayed. I'd bet big money. This guy is a mess.


The bottom line is that he is trying to drag us back into the past. Demagoguery in a purified form. God damn Obama.


I'm no statistician but I think Rasmussen is good at trend spotting ..


Personal hang-up (not with Tom, but rather with how the poll results are generally interpreted): The margin of error reflects the statistical uncertainty of the estimated level of a candidate's support. In this case, the pollsters are 95% confident that Obama is supported by between 40% and 48% of the sampled population, with comparable figures on Hillary being 39% to 47%. In our horserace setting, we are more interested in the gap between the candidate's levels of support, and the margin for error on *that* is typically twice as large as the reported +/- figure. With usual sample sizes, a lead is not statistically significant with 95% confidence until it exceeds 8 percentage points.


I expect a majority of the super-delegates to put their collective finders up in the air as the convention in Denver begins and choose based on who looks like they have the best chance to win in November.

They have a bigger investment in having the party take the White House, than in any one candidate.


Well while we are explaining stat theory lets go whole hog. 95% confidence means that the results of 95 out 100 samples so taken will fall with the margin of error. Or in other words 5 out of 100 of the best taken surveys are absolute unadulterated horse poop. Then when you introduce survey design error, and failure of the survey takers to follow design you end up with other perversions.


It's been clear for a long time that many Dem insiders detest the Clintons and would be happy to have an alternative. Unfortunately for Obama's chances, he has been busily transforming himself into the strongest remaining argument for a Hillary candidacy--from a Dem perspective. Her arguments to the super delegates that Obama is unelectable are looking stronger all the time.

Other Tom

"Obama exposed as phony."

Now the superdelegates have all the reason in the world to dump him. Will they do it?


Just in case you forgot with the conventions are like.
A primer for the convention in Denver.


I actually think if this freefall continues the party will force the superdelegates to vote early.

OT Isn't it funny how Paterson is getting a pass on using govt funds for his hookers? I guess he has Obama to thank.


McCain aide suspended for promoting
blatantly racist video.

Will the Old Man throw him under the bus with permanent tread marks on his carcass?http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0308/AntiObama_video_crafted_by_talk_radio_producer.html

hit and run

These pollsters are excited to report that Clinton is "closing in on Obama" in North Carolina.

OK, reproducing the email I sent to Geraghty yesterday...


Hot damn!!!

OK, let's get down to business. Let's put NC in focus. I'm on the ground. I'm your man. Let me give you the inside skinny on my now home state of North Carolina.

It's like this…


I have no idea about the politics here in my now home state of NC.

Well, I know my Congressman. And I live in the most Republican district in the state, based on the 2006 elections.

Other than that?

Well, my leg's been tingling all day because Obama's down in Fayetteville.


I got nothin.


Dems focus on mucking things up, while Reps annoyingly offer good advice. A person should treat the other party differently then his own ... but you know the story of the frog and the scorpion.

Tom Maguire

In our horserace setting, we are more interested in the gap between the candidate's levels of support, and the margin for error on *that* is typically twice as large as the reported +/- figure.

I can see that in a horse race but after five seconds reflection I am wondering if that applies to what are effectively binary propositions, such as Hillary versus Obama (I am dissing "Undecided" here).


That advice from Reps thing is paradoxical, though of course it's done across the spectrum. The talking heads have an interest in their predictions being reliable and more insightful than just "common sense" would allow. So is Karl Rove really telling Hillary and Obama what is in their best interests from his proffessional viewpoint? I think probably so. Certainly he doesn't want them or any Dem elected but here is the beauty; in analyzing the situation Karl or whoever works on the presumption of Good Faith, the norm in our politics. But if the object acutally IS hiding something worse or nurturing an obsolete deception the advice is lethal while NOT doing what seems the more rational course of action makes folks ask why. And of course the punditi know that. Ah, Karl. Karl.


I don't endorse Hillary at all, but she was right. Obama has not been fully vetted and now the Dems have a mess on their hands.
The only reason he won early: nobody knew what he really thought.
Does anyone really believe that he can win a general election saying things like "typical white person."
The Democratic leadership assuredly knows this, they know they are knee deep in it, and they must have that deep sick feeling that they will lose in November, no matter what.
This makes a popular governor with extensive managerial experience (i.e. Bill Richardson or Phil Bredesen) look really attractive.
Sorry, too late.

Doug Santo

As an earth scientist, I can say that I have no expertise in predicting national elections.

As a typical white person, I can say that O'Bama lost the election the day the Rev. Wright story broke.

The margin of the loss may be big.

Doug Santo
Pasadena, CA

Thomas Collins

Doug Santo stated:

"As a typical white person, I can say that O'Bama lost the election the day the Rev. Wright story broke."

Unless they are clueless (or listen exclusively to NPR and read exclusively the New York Times), Dem superdelegates must understand what Doug Santo has wrote. So the issue for the superdelegates is how to extract themselves from the Obama swamp without having a significant portion of African-American voters sit out the election or switch to McCain.

I'll bet HRC's folks are vetting Harold Ford right now for the VP slot!

The Richardson endorsement? Won't help B_O in Pennsylvania, which is where the "Obama inevitability factor" is going to be squashed.


No--she's got her heart set on Birch Bayh.


***Forgive my old head--I meant, of course, Evan Bayh, Birch's son.****

Fat Man

"Isn't it funny how Paterson is getting a pass on using govt funds for his hookers?"

I thought that Spitzer was the only man in Albany who had to pay for it.


Man! How much would McCain's lucky penny go for on eBay long about now?

M. Simon

The bottom line is that he is trying to drag us back into the past. Demagoguery in a purified putrified form. God damn Obama.


M. Simon

Obama is the nominee.

With all the Dem inspired racism out there the back of the bus is not going to cut it.


BTW Clarice - excellent set of posts today on AT. News you can use - if you blog.

M. Simon

What is most interesting is that the RW's numbers are falling in parallel with Obama's.

I think people are abandoning the Dems altogether.


I can hurl platitudes with the best of them: It's not that people are abandoning the Dems, but that the Dems have abandoned the people.

It's the same selfish, power-hungry political gang trying to pass as the party of the people.


I have a level-headed liberal (in the real sense) friend who I warned about the Wright connection back in November or so. She dismissed it. Last week I reminded her again just after ABCNews got on the story. She claimed it would blow over and was not important. By Tuesday she agreed it wouldn't blow over, but claimed that it wouldn't hurt Obama much due to his "wonderful" speech on race. By Wednesday she admitted that the speech wasn't moving those who didn't already support Obama much, but she claimed the 'undecideds' and 'Reagan Democrats' weren't really paying attention and it wouldn't hurt him with them.

Well, I'm visiting for Easter back in Illinois, and both my in-laws (who are Cook County Dems, basically) and my blood relatives (who are hardrock Baptists and 'Reagan Democrats' who voted for Reagan *once*) are already saying they'll never vote for Obama, based on his unwillingness to abandon his connection to Wright.

I think Obama has perhaps already lost some 10% of those white, lower-middle class, church-going, non-nanagerial Democratic voters. I have been hearing similar stories from my union neighbors in suburban Detroit.

I am going to be flabbergasted if it hasn't hurt him this much. What has happened is not only has he insulted and scared a certain portion of Dem voters, he has given many people a 'principled' reason to oppose him that they didn't have before.


I give the nod to TC's Ford, over Clarice's Bayh. Although, Obama might be thinking about it...

Indiana is one of the most racist states I've ever lived in.

Ohio went 54-44 for Clinton, pre Wright/Speech. The downside for Obama is the danger of falling below the (very psychological) number of 40%.

Forget delegates won/lost-

Obama loses PA or IN worse than Ohio and he won't escape the 'unelectable' category on exit polls.


JorgXMcKie - yes, and that is among Dems who have actually heard about Wright, which is by no means all. As the story gets more play, Obama's numbers will fall even further.



I did somewhat the same thing months back. My liberal friend picked up the phone and called the Trinty C of C and asked if they would allow white people to attend church there. Satified with their "gracious" answer he announced the results to me as if that was an obvious end of the discussion. I simply told him then that of course they were going to say that. I also told him he was only fooling himself, and that if it were a white racist he would be much more skeptical and look for code words and other signs. I also suggested that he would not feel comfortable inside that church and that if he did choose to go, I would suggest sitting in the very back near the exit just in case some exuberant follower decided that the devil had indeed shown up.

I did remind him of the conversation last week pre speech and he said he had not heard of the latest ( big CNN and NPR listener ). I assured him that ABC was wall to wall with it and it would penetrate at some point. He seemed mystified. I have not circled back post speech yet, cuz I wanted enough polling post speech to support my hunch that the speech was lognum, the user assumed it had medicinal properties but it was in fact just a narcotic. And that is what the initial results seem to support.

Liberals just need to get out more...

john yelle

You sure are a hateful S.O.B. aren't you Tommy MAC


The hate could be in your heart--john yelle.

And it really should Tommy MAG.

The comments to this entry are closed.