Mark Coffey inadvisably advises the Democrats on their 2008 presidential choice. Why, Mark, why? Hillary is the man to beat! New Yorkers are firmly behind her for the presidency. Well, some of them:
Six in 10 New York voters believe Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is planning to run for president in 2008, but only about a third of her home-state voters say they would back her if she did so, a statewide poll reported Thursday.Go Hillary!
9 comments:
Oh yes, oh yes, oh yes! New York may have gone for Kerry over Bush 59-40%, with a margin of more than 1.4 million votes. And the epicenter of terrorism panic, NYC, were so impressed by the GOP that they went 81-19% for Kerry. But next year, they won't vote for Hillary Clinton.
Whew, that was fun! Now, put away your drool cup and come back home to Planet Earth.
Hey, wvwv, neat strategy - just ignore the polls you don't like - Planet Eath, you say?...
Whoops - or maybe...
Planet Earth, you say?
As you can see, when I present economic data showing job growth but disregard a drop in home sales (after a white hot market), I'm biased.
But when a majority of New Yorkers are tepid about Hillary, I'm rebutted with 2004 election data. That's totally kosher.
It's all about who's ox is being Al Gored.
Two separate things. I must have missed the part where economic data analysis is the equivalent of opinion polling.
One similarity is that both measure a particular angle of a situation, but often with little or no larger context. It is often foolhardy to whoop it up, or sink into depression, over a single result. Given the accuracy of the exit polls in November 2004, you might want to put a little salt on a 2008 poll conducted in early 2006.
I also missed the part where a particular poll trumps the actual voting history of a state. NY hasn't gone Republican since 1984. Hillary Clinton won the state by a larger margin than Schumer did. And that 81-19% margin against Bush in New York City (which reelected the leftist Rudy Guiliani by a 58-42% margin) looks like a misprint. It would be hard to shape a poll question that could get 81%, let alone a physical election. But we're supposed to believe this poll at face value. Like I said, I prefer the atmosphere on my home planet.
I'm not saying Hillary Clinton is our next President. I am saying that if she runs, and receives just 33% of the vote in New York, I will eat the Statue of Liberty. Even if Guiliani's the GOP candidate, and Bin Laden is Hillary's running mate. The poll has all the validity of a Clinton promise.
Will you give it a rest already?
Most people understand that these polls and reports are just a snapshot in time. When I report unemployment is low, I don't mean it will always be low, now and forever. And I don't understand how you extrapolate soft numbers for Hillary in New York as a claim that she'll lose the state in a Presidential election. Talk about setting up a straw man.
If I say it's sunny today, will you castigate me for failing to report rain last week? Or that weather trends indicate that most Saturdays in March are rainy? Chill out already.
Sorry, but when I see laughable weakness, I can't help putting on my bully hat. I would have made a good Republican.
And I don't understand how you extrapolate soft numbers for Hillary in New York as a claim that she'll lose the state in a Presidential election. Talk about setting up a straw man.
I didn't link to a completely unpredictive poll, you did. And I didn't boldface "only about a third of her home-state voters say they would back her" like it was some kind of money shot, you did. Straw man? What's the item on your page for then, o pure one? The poll is about Hillary allegedly not getting support from the same base state she's going to win handily in 6 months. What do you suggest we "extrapolate" instead, that "soft numbers for Hillary in New York" mean she'll lose Missouri?
I'd even like to meet these "40%" of New York voters who don't know she's running for President.
Most people understand that these polls and reports are just a snapshot in time.
And others understand that some snapshots have been Photoshopped.
Drudge has news from the SRLC straw poll, which was a runaway win for Bill Frist. Frist? Heh heh! Can you say "Madame President"?
Most people understand that these polls and reports are just a snapshot in time.
"And others understand that some snapshots have been Photoshopped."
wvwv--Would you say the same about the recent Zogby poll of soldiers in Iraq?
Or perhaps of exit polls in Ohio?
Just curious.
Post a Comment