It's hard for me to remember an election where the trend of polling and the final poll results so failed to predict the actual vote. Certainly, there's no example I can remember of it happening in such a high profile contest.
Has he forgotten the exit polls of the presidential election of 2004 so soon?
Jon Krosnick, in an ABC article, says Clinton beat Obama because her name was at the top of the ballot, and if it hadn’t been, Obama might have won. “Who are you voting for, sir?” “I don’t know. It’s too hard to choose. I’ll just pick whoever’s at the top of the list.” Right.
On another note: Romney cracks me up. He’s the ultimate politician. And sailor, perhaps. Which way is the wind blowing? Tack. After the press picked up the drumbeat from the Democratic swell in Iowa (Change, Change, Change, Change), Romney starts throwing the word into his speeches. Suddenly, he’s the guy all about change. What meme can we start next to further test his agility?
Addendum: If I were a "conspiracy theorist", I can see that the Clinton win with the Obama-skewed polls could be a larger plot to put the Clintons back in the WH. Political campaigns have to be shrewd, you know. Rigged voting and phony presentations like creating a cowboy out of George Bush, phony ranch and all. Hillary's teary-eyed speech could have been coached. The whole thing could have been set up to let Obama win big and then make Hillary look like a real "come-back kid". Get people all excited. The Clinton camp doing the same thing the Romney camp does, only doing it at a much better level - a pro versus an amateur.
Well. It could be.
Update 1/10/08: The Daily Howler reports that the polls were also very wrong in 2000...in New Hampshire! We have such short memories.
Update 1/11/08: More machinery funny business?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. There may be some delay before your comment is published. It all depends on how much time M has in the day. But please comment!