TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
05.05.2008
Of Expectations and Exit Polls

I spent some time watching MSNBC and CNN today to try and get a sense of the media's expectations for tomorrow, and how those expectations could be affected by early exit polls. The basic consensus seems to be what Noam outlines here:

I don't know precisely where that leaves us, but, qualitatively, I'd guess we're looking at a "solid, but not as big as it could have been" win for Hillary in Indiana, and a "closer-than-expected, but not super-close" win for Obama in North Carolina.

Based on what people were saying on television today, I'd say the CW is that Obama wins NC by 6-10 points and Hillary Clinton wins Indiana by 3-6 points. But the interesting question will be what the early exit polls say. If, as has been the case time-and-again, the early numbers show Obama with a double digit lead in North Carolina and perhaps a small edge in Indiana, the scenario outlined above may be reported as a disappointment for Obama. Remember, the night before Pennsylvania, many in the media were saying that a nine point Clinton win would not be so bad for Obama. Of course when the exit polls showed an even race at 5pm, all the pundits began to write Clinton off, only to later argue that Obama had disappointed. 

On the other hand, perhaps the early North Carolina voting Noam mentions (which has favored Obama), and the large concentration of African Americans in the state, will lead to exit polls showing Clinton close in NC. Of course in that scenario, Obama could wind up with a nine point win that the media reports as a blowout. 

Anyway, 6-10 and 3-6 percent in NC and Indiana, respectively, are the baselines. If the pundits tell you anything else late tomorrow night, the exit polls may be to blame. 

--Isaac Chotiner 

Posted: Monday, May 05, 2008 8:49 PM with 35 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

liberal reformer said:

That is just about what I predicted at the high end on another blog at TNR Online today. Surely, Mr. Chotiner is correct. The exit polls will be culpable if the results substantially diverge from these numbers.

May 5, 2008 9:25 PM

Rhubarbs said:

This is so stupid. The entire TV political pundit class needs to be exiled to Kamchatka and replaced with sports reporters. For all the faults with modern sports journalism, sports reporters at least understand simple math and the apparently too-sophisticated-for-poli-sci-grads concept of "winning" and "losing."

To a rational person, exit polls are akin to the score of a baseball game after three innings. If a team leads 3-2 after 3, it is not a "shocking upset" for that team to lose 5-4 after 9 innings. Only a political pundit could make that preadolescent mistake.

Rather, a sports reporter would look at the math of the situation, which is that if Hillary hopes to tie Obama in pledged delegates, she must win every remaining contest by a margin of at least 69-31. A win by any margin is a win, and that counts, but unless Hillary wins both NC and IN tomorrow night by 38 points, then she will have finished the day further from winning the nomination than she started the day. And a sports reporter, unlike a political pundit, would understand that falling further from the championship is not a good thing.

May 5, 2008 9:34 PM

dcshungu said:

The polls have not yet fully taken into account the late deciders, who have generally broken for Hillary. Also, I have a feeling that in the wake of Wrightmare, if we're going to see a "Bradley Effect" (or even the reverse effect) it is likely to happen tomorrow...

Stay tuned for some head-scratching...

May 5, 2008 9:38 PM

ralphnelle said:

On the subject of exit polls and non-sequitur analysis, let's pre-write the Judis/Cohn article about Obama's continuing struggles to win over white working class democrats ergo he can't get them in the fall--you know, the one that entirely ignores the fact that Hillary is winning 8-10% of the black vote. Or must we wait until tomorrow night or Wednesday morning to see the latest variation on that old saw?

May 5, 2008 10:08 PM

roidubouloi said:

dcshungu,

See rhubarbs, above.

May 5, 2008 10:14 PM

eharder2 said:

My prediction is that Obama gets screwed in the final spin due to erroneous exit polling...again.   Can't win the white blue collar's and more dumb sports metaphors about how he can't deliver the final knockout or hit his free throw's or make the first down and boy oh boy what a plucky little underdog that Hillary is....kind of like Rudy.  Send her in Knute...err America...she'll definately make that tackle!

May 5, 2008 10:43 PM

dcshungu said:

roidubouloi  said:

"See rhubarbs, above."

You mean see the ongoing head-in-the-sand "inevitability" argument that refuses to consider the real possibility that if Hillary wins both IN and NC and gets so much momentum that she wins all the remaining contests (see the latest posting at politico.com on the outlook for the remaining primaries), the superdels would get so worried about Obama's chances in the GE that they would have an excuse to either (a) refuse to put Obama over the top and let this thing go to the convention, where early delegate who did not know the real Obama when they'd gone for him would reconsider their choices, or (b) the superdels just decide that to nominate Obama would be a GE disaster in the making and flock to Hillary, putting her over the top?

Please make that "inevitability" argument some more. Each time it has been made, Hillary has come back  and done her Lazarus act. Even if they split IN and NC, which is the likely scenario, this thing won't be over by a long shot (do I hear for "Pastor Act III" right after May 6?)

May 5, 2008 10:55 PM

rozenson said:

"Even if they split IN and NC, which is the likely scenario, this thing won't be over by a long shot ."

That doesn't mean it ought not to be, though. Like was said above, Hillary will likely a zero-delegate advantage out of tomorrow if she's supremely lucky. And that means that with Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Indiana combined, she will have won back 12 delegates out of 160 she needs to catch Obama. Of course she'll stay in, because why not? Why not run as a third-party candidate? There are lots of people who like her, and nobody has a right to tell her not to run. So why not have her run as an independent? It doesn't matter if it hurts Obama -- she wants the presidency, damnit!

May 6, 2008 12:07 AM

JEFF FREY said:

Great post, Rhubarbs, except that Kamchatka is much too wonderful a place to send our political media there. The labor camps of the Kolyma, maybe.

I live in a far western time zone, so I truly don't understand why the media thinks expectations are set on the 6 o'clock news, eastern time. Your analogy of the game in the third inning is perfect here.

Another thing that the media ought to think about is the "Games Back" column in the agate page of the sports section. Late in the season, it just doesn't matter if the Rays are 9-1 in their last 10 games, because they are still 25 games back. Hillary is not so far out, but in the last week of the season the difference between 5 games out and 10 games out is irrelevant -- you will be watching the next round from home either way.

May 6, 2008 12:25 AM

stgla said:

In season, Kamchatka has mosquitos the size of birds, so I'm going with Rhubarbs.

May 6, 2008 1:33 AM

naomi88 said:

"You mean see the ongoing head-in-the-sand "inevitability" argument that refuses to consider the real possibility that if Hillary wins both IN and NC and gets so much momentum that she wins all the remaining contests (see the latest posting at politico.com on the outlook for the remaining primaries),"

dcshungu:

Oh yeah, as if there's been a lot of momentum built up by either Obama or Clinton based on previous results in this campaign.  There generally seems to be no connection from primary to primary.  And did you read the article you cite?  It says Clinton will win KY and WVa (as if we didn't already know she does well among rural and working-class whites), that she doesn't have  a prayer in Oregon (which is actually news to me, but I'll take it), that Puerto Rico isn't looking as good as it once did for her, and that Montana and South Dakota are doable because they aren't caucuses.  Never mind that Obama has cleaned up in every state anywhere near Montana and SD.

Bottom line, Hillary has to sweep tomorrow or she's done.  After tomorrow, 95% of the pledged delegates will have been chosen.  There is nothing left for her to win that will matter in any meaningful way. North Carolina is Last Call if she is to have even a sliver of hope of convincing the Supers that Obama will be DOA against McCain, which is about what it will take for them to overturn the pledged delegate vote..    

May 6, 2008 2:04 AM

dcshungu said:

rozenson sez:

"There are lots of people who like her, and nobody has a right to tell her not to run. So why not have her run as an independent? It doesn't matter if it hurts Obama -- she wants the presidency, damnit!"

Forgive me if I find such rant to be totally laughable, ludicrous and self-serving in view the following precedents: Reagan v Ford, Ted Kennedy v. Carter, Hart v. Mondale, Jerry Brown v. Bill Clinton, Reagan v. Ford, or Jesse Jackson v Jesse Jackson...

...Or do you despise Hillary so much that you're going to make her wanting to stay in the race an exception DESPITE THE FACT she actually has a more realistic  chance than any one of those previous boys, who hung around all the way to the convention without anyone spewing the sort of mindlessness that you and Jon Chait and 'ROIDS have been spewing on this board. Obama looks increasingly vulnerable and unsteady, now that he's finally been scrutinized rather than adored by the media. June 3 is still quite a ways off and there are serious doubt about the man now.Another "gaffe" like Wrightmare or 'bittergate' would be fatal, and, each day being like an eternity in politics, anything could happen between now and that very distant future date of June 3, 2008...

Tell me something that I can take seriously. The garbage above makes you sound like troll...

May 6, 2008 3:14 AM

dcshungu said:

naomi88  said:

"It says Clinton will win KY and WVa (as if we didn't already know she does well among rural and working-class whites), that she doesn't have  a prayer in Oregon (which is actually news to me, but I'll take it), that Puerto Rico isn't looking as good as it once did for her, and that Montana and South Dakota are doable because they aren't caucuses.  Never mind that Obama has cleaned up in every state anywhere near Montana and SD."

That is your positive spin on it, but that analysis did not take into account a Hillary shut out. Obama losing NC AND IN would throw him into the lion's den. The media would skewer him so relentlessly and so thoroughly that he'll be "toast" to the point that Hillary won't have to spend a dime to win the remaining states. Tomorrow is already today and the D-day is upon us. We'll find out soon enough...

From Toronto where I'll be this week, it all looks quite entertaining!

May 6, 2008 3:32 AM

Rhubarbs said:

dcshungu, I'm not saying Obama is inevitable. (Well, strictly speaking, I would say that Obama has already won the nomination, but that's not my argument here.) What I'm saying is that, contrary to the idiot TV pundits, the nomination will not be decided by mystical forces of "momentum" or "upsets." It will be decided by the cold, hard mathematics of actual delegates casting actual votes.

To win the nomination, Hillary will have to win the votes of more delegates than Obama. Among elected delegates who will form the core of any nomination victory, Hillary now trails by 155 delegates with 408 remaining to be elected. If Hillary wants to finish tied with Obama in elected delegates, she needs to win slightly more than 69 percent of all remaining elected delegates. After tonight, there will only be 200-some delegates left to elect, so if Hillary gains even a breathtaking net total of 30 delegates on Obama tonight, mathematically she will be further away from her goal of tying or beating Obama among elected delegates than at the start of the day. That's not an "inevitability" argument, that's simple arithmetic.

In the end, unelected delegates will provide the winning margin for either candidate. Every elected delegate by which Obama leads Hillary equals one additional unelected delegate Hillary must win. If Hillary fails to tie Obama's elected delegate total, she will need to win a daunting supermajority of all remaining unelected delegates. If Hillary finishes 150 or so behind among elected delegates, she would need the support of about 80 percent of all remaining unelected delegates to win the nomination, even though unelected delegates have been supporting Obama lately by a nearly 5-1 margin. Again, I'm not arguing "inevitability," I'm stating the simple arithmetic of the situation.

I don't expect Hillaristas to give a fig about real-world conditions and facts. But I do expect the TV newsmedia to care about, and report, real-world conditions and facts rather than telling meaningless stories about their own uninformed emotional states. Which is why I believe we would all be better served by replacing the entire TV political punditocracy with an equal number of sports reporters from the nation's largest newspapers.

May 6, 2008 7:43 AM

roidubouloi said:

Mindlessness, dcshungu?  Oh my, we are getting a little frustrated aren't we?

In classic tell any lie Hillarista fashion, you recreate the history of the last two months to suit your current altered version of reality.  At least since NH, the story has never been that Hillary is about to suffer imminent defeat.  No, to the contrary, the Hillarista story has consistently been that her great comeback is about to begin.  Remember how she was going to take control of the race on Super Tuesday?  But then she was further behind.  Remember "meet me in Texas" where she was going to take control of the race?  But she lost the delegate race in Texas.  At each turn of the screw, Hillary has barely eked out a couple of victories that enable the arithmetically challenged, such as you good self, to continue to claim that she has a chance, no, that her chances are even better than before, no, wait, that now she is winning!   At each turn, she has blown large leads in the polls in states where she was ahead and just hung on.  At each turn, she has underperformed according to the latest claim by Hillaristas about what she will do and must do to win.  Remember just a short time ago when she "needed to win by double digits in PA?"  Of course, that didn't happen, so y'all just claimed that it happened for a few days ("9 is the new 1o") so that the you could say "See, now she is winning" until attention wavered and Hillary could move her goalposts again, the need for a double-digit victory conveniently forgotten.  Meanwhile, back on earth, she had barely put a scratch in Obama's delegate lead, a scratch that is about to be erased, or nearly so.

With all of the frantic spinning, running, and Hillarista fantasy, she is further behind in total delegates today than she was before TX-OH-RI-VT.  What was inevitable then is only more clearly so today as the inevitable proceeded to happen.  In her own imagination, and that of the Hillaristas, Hillary continues to win by losing.

My own view is that Hillary has pretty much done all the damage that she can do so there is not much downside to her ongoing campaign to nowhere.  When the races are over and she has INEVITABLY lost because she has never been able to gain ground and you cannot in the real world win by losing (you can only spin by losing), there will be no ability to whine that she was cheated out of victory by nefarious whomevers (she will of course claim she was cheated anyway, but it won't have any traction).  The party will be sick of her and will understand why she would have been such a lousy candidate and president.  Just think, if she had withdrawn, we wouldn't have gotten to know Hillary the Lioness of Tuzla.  We wouldn't have had Hillary telling us to forget about the "elite opinions" or economists.  We would have missed so many Hillarious moments that we will savor for years to come.

Of the many fine points you make, dcshungu, the one that I like the best is the claim that, in the unlikely event that Obama loses both NC and IN today, his campaign is over.  Now, given the example of Hillary running when she has not a prayer and is far behind, why would Obama's campaign be over when he is still far ahead?  No reason I can think of.  It's not as if he is running out of money and cannot pay his bills, like Hillary.

So, Run Hillary, Run!  Spin, dcshungu, spin!  This has become a fantastic show, literally.

May 6, 2008 8:21 AM

bigfish said:

"Another "gaffe" like Wrightmare or 'bittergate' would be fatal."

dcshungu, I thought that those two "gaffs" you mentioned were supposed to be fatal.  Oh right.  It's the next one.  Wrightgate II?  No, that wasn't fatal.  The NEXT one will due Obama in.  The one we don't know about is going to be a mortal blow.  It's ever the next one.

May 6, 2008 8:48 AM

The Plank said:

Isaac mentions the roll early exit polls might play in the expectations game tonight, but let's not

May 6, 2008 9:33 AM

JackR said:

roid - much as I admire your savvy and engaging prose style (not to mention your candidate preference), I think you are whistling past the graveyard on your comments about the impact should Hillary take both Indiana and North Carolina.  I would be concerned that an upset in NC could cause a domino effect on the remaining primaries and that if Hillary were to run the table, the superdelegates would trim their sails accordingly based on momentum.  We would be in a situation which would transcend the math you cling to so tenaciously.  Actually, despite your cheery assurances to the contrary, I have a hard time believing that you're not concerned about this too.

May 6, 2008 9:52 AM

roidubouloi said:

Well, jack, it isn't going to happen so we are really just speculating.  

My point was not that it wouldn't be a grave challenge to Obama if he lost NC, but that the notion that Obama would just fold or that the race would instantly come to an end is pretty silly given the precedent of Hillary fighting to the end.  In the event of a loss in NC, the question would be whether Obama would then be willing to do what it takes to win anyway:

1.  Start trashing Hillary (not hard to do, you just have to be willing to do it)

2.  Use the members of the black congressional caucus to scare the living shit out of the insiders about what will happen to the black vote if Obama is denied the nomination despite winning more delegates so that they would even rather lose the presidency with Obama than all go down in flames with Hillary.

I really don't know whether Obama would be ready to do this, but I'm pretty sure it would work if he did.  Very raw, bare-knuckled politics that would be.  On the other hand, we are never going to know because the situation is not going to arise.

May 6, 2008 10:18 AM

bigfish said:

Ugh, that's what happens when I stay up late the night before and post the next morning without my mocha (read: I'm NOT a latte-sipping Obama supporter).  "The next one will DO Obama in."  Maybe I should learn how to spell two-letter words correctly.  At least I wasn't a oft-derided "wide-eyed young Obama supporter" this morning.  It's hard to be wide-eyed when you're hardly awake.

May 6, 2008 10:52 AM

dcshungu said:

Rhubarbs  said:

"dcshungu, I'm not saying Obama is inevitable. (Well, strictly speaking, I would say that Obama has already won the nomination, but that's not my argument here.) What I'm saying is that, contrary to the idiot TV pundits, the nomination will not be decided by mystical forces of "momentum" or "upsets." It will be decided by the cold, hard mathematics of actual delegates casting actual votes. "

LOL. Strictly speaking Obama has already won and you are not saying that he is "inevitable"? Do you see how those two points excluded each other?

You are saying that Obama is "inevitable" (and, well, strictly speaking, no one would say that Obama has already won, which seems to be the basis of all of your arguments) . Believe it or not  the nomination WILL BE decided by mystical forces of "momentum" or "upsets", just like the "idiot TV pundits" say, BECAUSE neither candidate will get to the required 2025 delegates, so that the superdels, who can be swayed by "upsets" and "momentum", would have to decide the nomination. The "idiot TV pundits" would make "upsets" and "momentum" the basis for the superdels to pick the nominee, and you know those "idiot TV pundits"...they always get their wish.

Obama had better not lose IN AND NC,or he'd be "toast", his pledged delegate margin notwithstanding...  

May 6, 2008 10:55 AM

blackton said:

shocker of shocker, I actually agree with dcshungu. If Obama does lose North Carolina and Indiana then the pressure will be on him to fall on his sword. And maybe he should. If he can't win in North Carolina than the roof has fallen in. Of course if he wins North Carolina it is over for Hillary. Obama will have won Guam and North Carolina and Clinton Indiana and Pa. It will be spun as 2-2. You can laugh about Guam, but it is another notch on his belt to be viewed at the end. But North Carolina is a must win for him.

I can't wait for today to be over with.

May 6, 2008 11:00 AM

blackton said:

bigfish, it is weird, in my mind I corrected unconsciously what you wrote and truly did not notice the due for do until you pointed it out.

May 6, 2008 11:05 AM

dcshungu said:

roidubouloi  said:

"Mindlessness, dcshungu?"

Quite certainly, as you subsequently amplified in your long screed that keeps repeating the same tired and worn out lines.

Hey, 'ROIDS, Obama is no longer the mystical figure who you went gaga over. He is just a politician now, and the press is now in on that secret too, which would spell trouble should he both IN and NC today. Keep your head where the "sun don't shine", if you wish, but do not claim that it is the "Hillaristas" who do. You're the one who's had blinders on  since you drank the kool-aid and saw the "messiah" in Obama. We never did and can be much more objective, especially now that he has been revealed to be just your garden variety politician with a paper-thin resume and nothing else.

May 6, 2008 11:06 AM

Daily Intelligencer - New York Magazine said:

What will likely matter after tonight is how hard Clinton is willing to fight, and of course, whatever is going on in the heads of the undeclared superdelegates.

May 6, 2008 11:15 AM

dcshungu said:

blackton  said:

"shocker of shocker, I actually agree with dcshungu. If Obama does lose North Carolina and Indiana then the pressure will be on him to fall on his sword. And maybe he should. If he can't win in North Carolina than the roof has fallen in. Of course if he wins North Carolina it is over for Hillary. Obama will have won Guam and North Carolina and Clinton Indiana and Pa. It will be spun as 2-2. You can laugh about Guam, but it is another notch on his belt to be viewed at the end. But North Carolina is a must win for him."

Shocker of shockers, he's finally crossed to the rational world! And when they have started to spin a mere 7-vote win in Guam as significant, you know there is real concern in CampObama...

May 6, 2008 11:22 AM

tomeg said:

Where's Vacentrist, the *real* authority in calling primaries. I can't wait to read..

May 6, 2008 12:26 PM

GSpinks said:

looks like the two campaigns are running about even; Hillary and Barack are neck and neck, with HIllary's recognition giving her an advantage in Hard Core Democrat demographics, and Barack reaching succesfully across the aisle to bolster his own ranks.

I have to denounce anyone claiming Hillary is gaining momentum because Barack has soundly trounced her "trouncings": she keeps going into new states with huge leads, anywhere from 10-33%, and either loses out or pulls in at under 10%. In balanced states, it tends to come out balanced: 3-8% either way. She has finally figured out that she can eat up some of Barack's advantage and not get pounded in Barack friendly states by spitting out some of his platform as her own. But, it may be too little, too late.

As for the superdelegates, these are mostly seasoned politicians, some of whom actually wrote the rules of the game in the first place, and know what they're doing; if you think they're swayed by anybody's spin, you are sadly out-of-touch.

May 6, 2008 12:27 PM

cspencef said:

Dang, Jeff Frey got to my "Games Back" analogy first.  (But you had to pick on the Rays, didn't you?)  Aside from Chuck Todd, who might as well be calculating the "magic number" to elimination every week, nobody in the pundrity seems to get this.  (Perhaps this explains why former ESPN guy Olbermann leans on Todd so much.)  

The problem, I fear, is that politics ain't baseball.  If, for example, by some miracle the aforementioned Rays were to be in the lead for the wild-card spot in September, keeping the perpetual favorite and ratings-grabber Yankees out of the playoffs, there wouldn't be a bleepin' thing that either Bud Selig or Fox Sports could do about it.  As long as the Rays won games--not even all their games, just enough to keep the Yankees or any other team from catching up -- the Rays would go to the playoffs and the world would be introduced to the wonders of B.J. Upton and Evan Longoria, no matter how poor the ratings and no matter how likely the ALDS defeat.

But in the Democratic Party, those superdelegate thingies have powers that Bud and Fox Sports don't.  They have the power to overturn (so to speak) caucus and primary results that have Obama in the lead, since neither Obama nor Clinton is going to win enough delegates to clinch the nomination without resorting to superdelegates.  The numbers game doesn't work so cleanly as it does in sports.  Hillary and her followers can plead, cajole, beg, make backroom deals, threaten, throw temper tantrums, be snide and hateful in TNR Talkback, threaten the party equivalent of nuclear annihilation, whatever it takes to pull in enough supers to get the nomination, and strictly speaking the Dems can't do diddly about it, particularly since it is clear that Clinton has decided that if the Democratic party won't nominate her, the Democratic Party can go to Hell.    

So in the end, as long as there is any chance of getting the nomination by any means necessary, no matter whether that chance is 50%, 5% or 0.05%, the Clinton campaign will continue to play the expectations card and the momentum card right up to whatever day the convention ends.  And in the end, no matter which way the results go (unless Obama loses both substantially, and shuts it down for whatever reason), today will probably decide very little.

May 6, 2008 12:43 PM

roidubouloi said:

dcshungu,

I simply cannot WAIT for the next installment of your fantasy oeuvre when the sun rises tomorrow and Hillary has lost NC.  First, you will tell us how now she is finally winning, then about her momentum, then about the next bizarre, even more improbable scenario under which she is going to win the nomination.  Then you will insult everyone who finds you risible.  Count me among them.  The more frustrated you get, the more ridiculous you beome.

Re-read Eve Fairbanks.  The supers don't even WANT to vote for Hillary (have you notice the 5-1 trend toward Obama?).  

Tomorrow, dude.  It can't come soon enough.

May 6, 2008 12:45 PM

bigfish said:

dcshungu, even though you told this to roid, I have to interject that it's a pretty large brush you're using to paint Obama supporters with.  I never went gaga over a mystical Obama.  I never thought he wasn't a politician.  The reason I'm supporting him is a combination of research about his record in the Senate and in Illinois, which I think are perfectly respectable for a Junior Senator, his obvious intelligence, and his genuine willingness to attempt to bring people of differing political stripes together.  The stupid black/white us-vs-them approach to politics is what has gotten us into a big mess in the first place, and I think Obama, more than Clinton or McCain, is able to treat his political opponents, no matter how much he disagrees with them, with respect.

May 6, 2008 12:46 PM

roidubouloi said:

cspencef,

There is not a shred of doubt that Hillary will continue to "fight" until the convention and beyond making whatever ridiculous claim du jour she thinks is to her advantage.  But, at some point, the media will no longer take seriously her claim that there is still a race to be won, the super-delegates will have made public commitments, and that will be that.  We are talking here about the perception that the race is over, not about whether it is really over.

Ask the pccostellos, dcshungus, etc. what kind of money they would be willing to bet and what kind of odds they would take that Hillary is going to win the nomination.

May 6, 2008 1:06 PM

dcshungu said:

roidubouloi  said:

"dcshungu, I simply cannot WAIT for the next installment of your fantasy oeuvre when the sun rises tomorrow and Hillary has lost NC."

'ROIDS, I have no such fantasies. All I have done was to caution you about taking yours too seriously. The deciders are the voters and not you or Jon "Hillary=toast" Chait.

I will live with the outcome because I have already said, repeatedly, that if Obama wins the nomination in the end, I would support him, with no illusions about the eventual outcome in the Fall, of course.

Button it up for a change and watch the returns. May Obama with NC or you'll be a very traumatized chap in the morning...

Cheers from Blue Jays land!

May 6, 2008 2:03 PM

tomeg said:

"Cheers from Blue Jays land!"

who are the Blue Jays? explain...

May 6, 2008 2:11 PM

naomi88 said:

He means the Toronto Blue Jays, probably in reference to the baseball sub-theme on this thread.  

May 6, 2008 5:17 PM