Let’s let South Carolina decide the fate of the free world. Why not?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
Let them secede. And may they take New Hampshire with them.
You know, honestly I’m sick of the sobriquet “leader of the free world” being applied to the United States. Shouldn’t it be FORMER leader of the free world? 😉
As for the election results, it was good to see Vermin Supreme got 36 votes in the Republican column – that just makes my entire day 🙂
Pax
Or worse, leader of the formerly free world? I fear that may be closer to the truth…
Hey, we count too. And we come before South Carolina.
Yeah – as a neighbor to Nevada I’ve been wondering why Nevada has been so ignored. I guess it’s because South Carolina is a weather vane state pointing the direction of the rest of the south, and Nevada isn’t really a harbinger of anything.
What’s the chronology of upcoming primaries, please? Any States having theirs on the same day as another State?
Thanks!!
why no one is looking at Edwards’ numbers, about double what CNN projected yesterday afternoon. That’s the answer. He’s stronger and stronger, and the anti-Clinton vote was ~55%.
Of course “can’t figure out” is a joke. Not a single corporate mouth is likely to tout how much the anti-corporate message is resonating. Edwards can broker this.
Even if Clinton wins it, this has to be a lesson. The widespread trashing of her old school advisors had to have reached her ears.
Actually, Rasmussen had him polling at 17% and he came in at 17% – the only anomaly was Hillary going from 30% to 39% in a matter of hours. I’m willing to bet that it doesn’t happen again sans electronic malfeasance…
It’s probably time to realize that the polls are a force in themselves. By telling the world Obama was a shoe-in, the pollsters pushed independents Republican.
So do the candidates hire/coerce their own pollsters?
With some part time academic background in statistics, I’ve spent a good deal of time reading this in the past few days.
Turns out that part of the problem was in translation: percentage of people who knew for whom they would vote compared to percentage of likely voters. Hillary went from 30% of those who knew how they would vote to 39% of those who voted. Those are two different numbers, and were transposed somewhere in the translation by MSM.
That still doesn’t preclude my theory, that corporate media was using the data as a sort of “push poll,” perhaps deliberately hyping it for their own reasons.
NH Randoms- emotions suck. Dying to see the vote breakdown. Why such a time gap between gooper reports and dem reports. Smells strange. FIX? Nah!!!! biggest losers- msm! Happiest feeling in years. Tweety took it up the ass. Bravo Kristol! Rudy wins- less than one percent ahead of paul! This country is dead! Have they chosen who will be the last one to turn off the last light?
So at what point does the Bradley Effect get to be renamed the Obama effect?
There are a lot of possible explanations for Hillary’s stunning win. But when the pundits say “Nothing like this has ever happened before” that’s not the truth.
I didn’t stay up for Obama’s concession and it is strangely hard to find.
If you missed it here it is, with all apologies to Bob the Builder
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/063176.php
And Edwards needs a new speech. He gave the same concession as he did in Iowa, only not as well.
I wrote up some thoughts about elections and stuff. No time to crosspost it at the moment, so for now, I’m just posting the link
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=20408