« Hillary Clinton: Bitterness Towards Her Campaign (and why) | Nathan Donarum's Blog | The End (For Hillary Clinton) »
Are the expectations overexaggerated?
There's something interesting that I've noticed in recent weeks. A complete tendency to overstate the support that Obama has in a given state (or territory). Let me explain myself...
After Obama won Guam, I immediately saw numerous bloggers make the statement that "Obama was expected to have won the state by 10 or even 20%!"
Where did this come from? When was Obama ever expected to win Guam by such a huge margin? I can find no poll or research conducted to suggest that he'd even win, let alone win by such a large margin.
But it's not just with Guam. Am I the only one who's heard a constant talk that Obama is supposed to win Indiana? That it's Obama's to lose? When was it ever? When was Obama consistently polling better than Hillary in the state.
http://www.pollster.com/08-IN-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Pollster shows that Clinton has been consistently polling better in the state. In fact, some of Obama's best polling is the recent polling by Zogby, which puts the state in a statistical dead heat. but Obama is still behind by a couple points. So tell me, how is it Obama's to lose, and not Hillary's?
Again, we have North Carolina. People are seeing polls that show Obama with a smaller lead than he had had. People keep saying that he had a huge lead in the state, but I'm not sure. I will admit that he's lost some ground in NC, but not really by as much of a margin as some people seem to think. Pollster.com averages him at a little over 10 points ahead of her. He's currently polling around 9-11 points ahead of her.
I can't gelp but wonder if the MSM and many conservative or Hillary supporters want to make it out that Obama is supposed to win Indiana (so if he loses, it's a bigger deal and Hillary really has made a huge come-back), and if he win NC by less than 20 points it's a loss for him.
This couldn't be further from the truth. Obama is not expecetd to win IN, so a win for him there would be huge. And he is expected to win NC, but not by such a huge margin. Let's be realistic here.
I guess in the end, though, it doesn't matter. Even if Hillary did win both states she still couldn't win the nomination. It would just keep her in the race longer. But how about we defy the actual reality and push Obama to a win in Indiana, and a huge landslide in North Carolina? Get out there and vote, tell your friends, neighbors and family. End this race on Tuesday. Hand the nomination to the man who so sorely needs it, and who deserves it.
After Obama won Guam, I immediately saw numerous bloggers make the statement that "Obama was expected to have won the state by 10 or even 20%!"
Where did this come from? When was Obama ever expected to win Guam by such a huge margin? I can find no poll or research conducted to suggest that he'd even win, let alone win by such a large margin.
But it's not just with Guam. Am I the only one who's heard a constant talk that Obama is supposed to win Indiana? That it's Obama's to lose? When was it ever? When was Obama consistently polling better than Hillary in the state.
http://www.pollster.com/08-IN-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Pollster shows that Clinton has been consistently polling better in the state. In fact, some of Obama's best polling is the recent polling by Zogby, which puts the state in a statistical dead heat. but Obama is still behind by a couple points. So tell me, how is it Obama's to lose, and not Hillary's?
Again, we have North Carolina. People are seeing polls that show Obama with a smaller lead than he had had. People keep saying that he had a huge lead in the state, but I'm not sure. I will admit that he's lost some ground in NC, but not really by as much of a margin as some people seem to think. Pollster.com averages him at a little over 10 points ahead of her. He's currently polling around 9-11 points ahead of her.
I can't gelp but wonder if the MSM and many conservative or Hillary supporters want to make it out that Obama is supposed to win Indiana (so if he loses, it's a bigger deal and Hillary really has made a huge come-back), and if he win NC by less than 20 points it's a loss for him.
This couldn't be further from the truth. Obama is not expecetd to win IN, so a win for him there would be huge. And he is expected to win NC, but not by such a huge margin. Let's be realistic here.
I guess in the end, though, it doesn't matter. Even if Hillary did win both states she still couldn't win the nomination. It would just keep her in the race longer. But how about we defy the actual reality and push Obama to a win in Indiana, and a huge landslide in North Carolina? Get out there and vote, tell your friends, neighbors and family. End this race on Tuesday. Hand the nomination to the man who so sorely needs it, and who deserves it.
Advertisement
It's not you but it's not Hillary supporters, either. From what I've seen on this site, it's the Obama supporters who are hyperpredictive.
May 5, 2008 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not the Obama supporters making the claims I stated in my post. Case closed.
May 5, 2008 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I'll try again: Obama supporters on this site post blogs announcing the MSM claims you list in your post. Those claims then get repeated and reposted ad infinitum throughout every comment thread at TPM. If you hang out in echo chambers, you get a one-sided view of the race.
Furthermore, there are many more Obama supporters who populate the MSM, starting with the entire staff at MSNBC.
I don't know who you mean by "Hillary supporters." Who supports Hillary in the MSM? Not even FOX supports Hillary, they are just anti-Obama.
If you are trying to say that Hillary somehow controls the media, you're nuts. If you aren't trying to say that, you haven't made your point clear.
Finally, if you are rude to people, don't be surprised when they are rude back!
May 5, 2008 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
You clearly misread my post. I never said the MSM were Hillary supporters. And by Hillary supporters I meant bloggers that support Hillary and people I've talked to that support Hillary. Even a child could have made this distinction. Your accusation that I claim Hillary controls the media is outlandish and laughable at best. Try better next time. My suggestion: clearly read posts before responding to them.
May 5, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
My suggestion: Don't write. It's not your strong suit.
May 6, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of this comes from the Clinton campaign downplaying their expectations. For example, on Sunday during a stump speech Hillary said “We came from so far behind in Indiana. We’re still the underdog. But we are moving forward.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/clinton-says--1.html
As you pointed out above with your link to pollster this is not at all true. Spin, or outright lie? Or perhaps both?
May 5, 2008 4:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's keep things in perspective: unless Clinton wins both IN and NC by at least 70%-30%, it's irrelevant anyway.
May 5, 2008 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
My guess is that Clinton is much better at playing the expectations game than Obama; however, to be fair, I'm not sure what his team's actual expectations are.
For some reason, I don't seem to read as many direct quotations from them as I do from Clinton's team. Clinton team calls seem to be reported as articles in themselves in at least a couple of places.
May 5, 2008 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah the Guam thing I never heard till post-Guam. I had looked and looked for polls there to no avail, so that one seems like a crapshoot.
Indiana, the Obama campaign had predicted as a win back in their spreadsheet. Likely because it's a neighboring state to Illinois. Even back then though I wondered, as it's demographics seems more tailored to Clinton. But then I keep hearing that Indiana's demographics aren't so easy to pin down, that it doesn't really resemble Ohio and PA as I thought it had.
In any event, I'm just waiting till Tuesday to find out.
May 5, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink