Forget the polls. Listen to the punditologists.
Kari Chisholm
As you know, I've once again organized a Punditology Challenge - this time for the caucuses and primaries during this opening January.
Along with being a fun no-money predictions contest, it's also interesting how the collective wisdom of the group (this year, 563 participants) does an amazing job predicting the winners.
Were you surprised by the outcome in New Hampshire? If you read the polls, or read the blogs, or watched the cable-TV bobbleheads, maybe you were...
But not if you looked at the conventional wisdom of the punditologists in my little contest.
In New Hampshire, we nailed it. 53% of us correctly picked Clinton as the winner, and the most popular choice for top-three (38%) was Clinton/Obama/Edwards. 54% of us correctly picked McCain, and the most popular choice for top-three (22%) was McCain, Romney, Huckabee.
How about that?
Iowa wasn't quite as successful. We were a bit off for the Democrats -- 45% thought Edwards would win, while 34% were right about Obama. Only 16% of us correctly projected the top-three order (the fourth most common choice.)
We were right about the Republican winner in Iowa, with 59% picking Huckabee. However, only 4% correctly picked the top-three as Huckabee/Romney/Thompson. Of course, only 345 votes in Iowa separated Thompson from McCain - and a plurality of 40% of us picked Huckabee/Romney/McCain.
Stay tuned. Looks to be a fun season ahead.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jan 9, '08
Hillary Lies: Obama said Edwards is unelectable Obama flip-flopped on Iraq by funding the war. And a comment in 2004 * Obama is spreading false hope
The Actual Truth: Obama said he is more electable than Hillary and Edwards Obama said that we should not invade Iraq, but once we're there, we could not abandon the soldiers there without funding. In 2004, Obama was been a good party-man by not criticizing the 2004 nominees that voted for the war.
Jan 9, '08
Now would be a perfect time to address the ever-growing cancer on this and other progressive blogs: the over-the-top, venemous shredding of Hillary Clinton. Now that she has stunned us all with a near-biblical comeback in New Hampshire, I know the temptation to flail away at her like never before will be powerful.
This near-constant character assasination is dishonest and wrong. Edwards, Obama, and Clinton have all cast votes that upset us and momentarily shake our confidence in their progressive values. I can't think of a politician in this state or any other -- even the ones we admire the most -- who haven't cast votes that alarm and infuriate their base. Having at them when you think they screw up is healthy. Attempting to turn them into a crooked, neo-con monster is not.
Liberals/progressives would be extraordinarily well-served with any of the three candidates left standing, and the race will be over months before Oregon votes in May. Root for your candidates, criticize their opponents when you disagree with them, but please don't make it any harder for our eventual nominee to win in Oregon in November.
A recent history reminder: In 2000, there was similar hatred in liberal quarters for Al Gore in this state. Many of us had to kill ourselves that Fall to produce a wobbly 6,000 vote win in Oregon. We can debate the race and make the case for our candidates without villifying the others beyond all proportion.
p.s. I'm for Hillary because she is a brilliant woman and dedicated progressive who understands the complexities of the presidency far better than any other candidate in this race (except for maybe, McCain, who is a far-right conservative). And I would be proud to work for Edwards or Obama if they happen to prevail.
8:05 a.m.
Jan 9, '08
Of course, we filled out the punditology challenge BEFORE Iowa. I don't know that we were any smarter--we were just conforming to earlier conventional, poll-based wisdom.
8:24 a.m.
Jan 9, '08
OK. Let's stipulate that Clinton is a decent person, loves her daughter, is smart and tough.
We can note that Edwards' verbal attack on her during the debate generated sympathy for her.
Her strategy of loosening up, taking extended questions from the crowds, and incorporating some of Edwards' anti-corporate rhetoric again demonstrated her intelligence and skill.
We can also note that The Teary Moment on Monday afternoon was genuine and very effective. Analysis on The Teary Moment was mean spirited enough that My favoritist pundit in The World Dr. Maddow had to come to her rescue.
That such piling on made Clinton a more sympathetic candidate, and probably caused a lot of people to switch their votes in protest.
She's still a moderate Republican as far as her policy positions go.
In terms of how the country would be governed, I don't see her as being much to the left of McCain or Romney in terms of her financial and foreign policy positions.
<hr/>It'll be barrels of laughs to find out why all of the polls, including those of the respective campaigns got it utterly wrong. I got it utterly wrong too of course, but that hasn't changed my opinion on the relative merits of the candidates.
Jan 9, '08
Well congratulations to the junior Senator from New York for winning a close contest in New Hampshire.
Us Obamaniacs are still fired up and moving on to the Nevada caucus where Senator Obama just picked up important union endorsements from the culinary workers and SEIU. This will help his already strong organization in place there working out of 11 offices, everywhere from Pahrump to Winnemuca to Lake Tahoe, Reno, Elko, etc.
Hang on folks, its going to be a wild ride!
And Hillary supporter, I think your comments about "character assasination" are a overblown. I haven't seen any of that here, or from the Obama campaign. And by the way, congratulations on New Hampshire and best of luck to you and your candidate.
8:43 a.m.
Jan 9, '08
if all that supposed venom against Hillary actually got her to ditch the advice of people like Mark Penn and start acting like a human instead of DLC-Tron edition 20.08, it was well worth it. I think tv Beltway Boys are still thinking in their own worlds and terms. All us junkies saw the debates and the tear, but Clinton made her win with low income women. They're not watching Harball; they're WORKING.
If the tear was genuine, however, so was the hypocritical attack she launched into some moments after the tear. She was pretty ugly herself after Iowa.
9:33 a.m.
Jan 9, '08
Sorry Pat, but that's not even close. NONE of our candidates are anywhere near the Republicans policy-wise, "moderate" or not. Her actual voting record and in numerous "issue score card" ratings she is more liberal/democratic than Russ Feingold, who is close to the gold standard and online hero when it comes to standing strong for Democratic positions and policy, and Obama is even more to the left than Clinton in his voting record.
Anyone who knows me or has read what I yack about when it comes to our candidate, knows she is a distant third choice for me, for a host of reasons. But she is not a moderate Republican at all, and I will gladly support and work to get her elected if she becomes our parties nominee.
9:36 a.m.
Jan 9, '08
Ugh,
SHould read:
9:41 a.m.
Jan 9, '08
Oh.. as for the actual topic of this thread, I happily claim to be one of the 16% who nailed Iowa, but was off in NH in the order of Clinton and Obama (got snookered by the universally wrong polling which was staggeringly off the mark across the board, no pollsters had it right including Clinton's own internal polling which showed Obama ahead by 14%), but pretty close to the mark on the percentages and position otherwise, and nailed the GOP with the exception of Guiliani squeaking ahead of Paul near the bottom of their barrel.
9:45 a.m.
Jan 9, '08
Now would be a perfect time to address the ever-growing cancer on this and other progressive blogs: the over-the-top, venemous shredding of Hillary Clinton.
This looks like a cut-and-paste comment being dropped all over the blogosphere.
Because I haven't seen any "over-the-top, venemous shredding" of Hillary here. People have their critiques, but that doesn't describe commentary here at BlueOregon.
Jan 9, '08
"She's still a moderate Republican as far as her policy positions go.
In terms of how the country would be governed, I don't see her as being much to the left of McCain or Romney in terms of her financial and foreign policy positions."
I'm not going to get into a protracted debate on the matter, particularly with such skilled assasins as Pat and torridjoe, but I think Pat's statement above is an excellent example of what we should try to avoid. Any reasonably objective partisan would admit that Hillary has a record in Congress that aligns her far more squarely with progressives than with "moderate Republicans."
Her financial postiions? She fought Bush's tax cuts. Fought to raise the minimum wage. Fought for card check. Foreign policy? She cast the same bad vote on Iraq that Edwards did (and Obama likely would have), but I don't for a minute believe President Hillary Clinton would have led the country into war with Iraq. Nor do I believe the vote is indicative of where she would be on foreign policy as President. And I don't believe you, at the core of your Hillary-hating heart, Pat, truly believe that either.
Jan 9, '08
So exit polls in NH seem to indicate that Obama did not do well among hard-core Democrats. In Iowa his strength was among independents and he was tied (I think) with Clinton for Dems. But he seems to have gotten almost an anti-bump from Iowa among Democrats, particularly women, who went strongly for Clinton.
Any insights as to why? NH voters tend to be contrarian, so maybe that's the whole reason.
Is Hillary's win going to dissipate in Nevada and SC? Or is this just the start of the Clinton machine, and after February 5th Hillary will have a significant lead over Obama? I can reasonably see this race going in either direction.
Jan 9, '08
"please don't make it any harder for our eventual nominee to win in Oregon in November."
So when Bill Clinton --the man whose personal behavior in the White House lowered the bar enough so that a doofus like George W. Bush looked like a reasonable alternative-- goes on Charlie Rose and tells the audience that putting Obama in the White House would be "a roll of the dice," what are we to make of that?
Maybe you should get in touch with the Clinton campaign and give them the don't-make-it-any-harder advice.
Jan 9, '08
Now that she has stunned us all with a near-biblical comeback in New Hampshire, I know the temptation to flail away at her like never before will be powerful.
As a woman, all I can say is:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
biblical?
:lol:
10:06 a.m.
Jan 9, '08
One thing I, and most everyone else it seems, overlooked was the undecided Democratic voter bloc going into election day. It was pegged at close to 8-16% depending on the polling (IIRC) and all it took was that undecided swing block of Democrats to break Clinton's way, along with all the other factors that might have tipped it this way or that (the emoting and the attacks for it, NH contrarian streak, the inflation of the Iowa bounce, the snowballing expectation which Obama's camp inflamed instead of tamped down, the Clinton's camp doing the opposite, etc.) and that gets the results we seem to have gotten in NH.
It is a real race now, and it will (s long as no campaign goes nuclear) get us a stronger set of candidates and a stronger nominee (whoever it ends up being).
10:34 a.m.
Jan 9, '08
Her financial postiions?
Big Bidness vs organized labor
2000
-June - Sen. Gramm introduces the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which includes language to deregulate energy trading.
-Dec. 21 - Clinton signs the appropriations bill, along with Sen. Gramm’s measure that allows Enron to operate its own unregulated trading auction.
<hr/>The insurance industry
NYT, 7/12/06
Separate analyses by the Center for Responsive Politics, an independent group that tracks campaign finance, and by The New York Times show that Senator Clinton has received $854,462 from the health care industry in 2005-6, a larger amount than any candidate except Senator Santorum, with $977,354.
<hr/>NAFTA
And yeah Clinton really hearts labor Z-Mag Chomsky 1994
President Clinton denounced the "naked pressure" and "real roughshod, muscle-bound tactics" of organized labor, "the raw muscle, the sort of naked pressure that the labor forces have put on." They even resorted to "pleading...based on friendship" and "threatening...based on money and work in the campaign" when they approached their elected representatives. Never would a corporate lobbyist sink that low; those who believe otherwise merely reveal themselves to be "Marxists" or "conspiracy theorists," terms that are the cultivated equivalent of four-letter words or a punch in the nose, a last resort when you can't think of an argument. Front-page stories featured the President's call to Congress "to resist the hardball politics" of the "powerful labor interests."
She fought Bush's tax cuts. Fought to raise the minimum wage. Fought for card check.
Good for her. I have never asserted that she's suicidal or stupid. The above examples mix her record with that of her husband.
Maybe she'll be very different. Evidence so far seems to be that she will not.
Foreign policy? She cast the same bad vote on Iraq that Edwards did (and Obama likely would have), but I don't for a minute believe President Hillary Clinton would have led the country into war with Iraq.
I agree that she would not, but my standard for behavior relates to what she's actually done.
Nor do I believe the vote is indicative of where she would be on foreign policy as President.
Nope. We know already know that her positions on the middle east are in lockstep with AIPAC and the Likud Party in Israel.
"The Jewish Daily" Forward 12/4/07
Clinton is known for her strong record on issues relating to Israel and for her close ties with Jewish and pro-Israel activists. She has appeared several times at Aipac events and has established a reputation for leading the Democratic Party’s hawkish wing on Iran.
And so on.......
Jan 9, '08
Pat Ryan, you meanie! How dare you post HRC's positions and history on issues of importance to the progressive community! Unfair personal attacks! Just stop it right now!
Jan 9, '08
As a participant in the punditology challenge I'm not going to betting on the horses anytime soon!
Jan 9, '08
but I don't for a minute believe President Hillary Clinton would have led the country into war with Iraq.
Well, I do...hell, her initial support for the war was pretty unwavering and even when other prominent Democrats began the "I made a mistake on war authorization" refrain, she held out for months. Remember 6-12 months ago? It was McCain and Clinton as the war supporters. In my book, she's a Johnny come lately to the mea culpa crowd. Now she's attempting to board the Obama "change" train too. It's too little too late. I see Obama as a leader...someone who walks with and ahead of the people, providing a vision for what America will be under his leadership...while Hillary is bringing up the back of the crowd yelling, "ME TOO!". I like my leaders in the front of the crowd, providing vision and encouragement...not in the back grousing, "I'm for change too." I think that Edwards' "attack" in the NH debate was right on...sometimes the emperor has no clothes, and it ain't pretty. TJ-I agree that she might have a chance if she dumps Penn, but she would have had a better shot if she dumped him months ago.
biblical You can't be serious...right? A 2% margin is hardly biblical. Is she back in it? Yes. Was it a "biblical" comeback? LOL, hardly. We all know that the Clinton machine is large, powerful and the last thing anyone should do is count Hillary out. And I, for one, have yet to read any personal or dirty attacks on Hillary from this blog...so grab a glass of ice water and stop drinking the kool-aid.
11:04 a.m.
Jan 9, '08
"Remember 6-12 months ago? It was McCain and Clinton as the war supporters."
One of the more interesting theories I heard yesterday was that NH is defense industry country, and voters may have tended to support their economic self-interest by selecting the most war-friendly candidate in each party.
I agree calling it a "comeback" presumes the polling accurately indicated the lay of the land. More likely is that she led NH before Iowa, and led less afterwards--and that's where we are.
Jan 9, '08
The Clinton haters and Obamaphiles just can't help themselves can they. That's the basic problem with this crowd who bear an uncanny resemblance to their Clinton hating brethren on the far right. They are simply so obsessed with this woman that it completely clouds their emotions. Well I think they are going to have a miserable year. Strategically she is in a dominant position heading into mostly closed caucuses where she is the overwhelming favorite of trad Democrats and trade unionists. In the couple of major states with open primaries, notably CA, she is a shoo in because of the womens vote. I'd say she's a certainty for the nomination and almost certainty for the presidency.
11:59 a.m.
Jan 9, '08
Sorry, since we are calling bullshit on false crap, let's not do it by pushing false crap. The ONLY thing you have to hang your hat in in such BS speculation about what Obama "probably would have voted" is a single statement parsed to not include the next sentence which I really don't think you want to open up if you are a Hillary supporter.
12:05 p.m.
Jan 9, '08
Pot meet kettle.
BTW, more than a few railing against Clinton here are Edwards supporters. Each candidates supporters are a well armed militia in the circular firing squad that is the Democratic Party (and allied NAVs). Seems the Clinton Clappers can't help themselves either, so spare us this feigned high-ground.
Jan 9, '08
"They are simply so obsessed with this woman that it completely clouds their emotions."
Aah, this one brings back memories of the good ol' days when reasoned opposition to the war in Iraq was derided as simple "Bush hatred."
More Rovian tactics co-opted by the Clinton machine!
Jan 9, '08
A few minor facts and you can feel free to call me "negative" just for fun. Please note that Senator Obama's votes pretty much are lock step w/ Senator Clinton's since he's been in office. The exception was the Iran Republican Guard when he was campaigning and didn't make the vote because, in his words, one can't always anticipate when votes will come up. We won't go into the "present" votes in IL because that would be WAY too negative. But those many votes were enough to have Illinois NOW NOT endorse him. And as far as John Edwards in a smackdown w/ corporate America and bundling finance folks? That sounds great until you ask him about his hedge fund job and the $167,000 they bundled for him.
And as far as Hillary Supporter's comment about some Oregonians' hatred of Hillary? If you were at last night's primary watch party, it was quite evident. When the AP announced HRC had won, several people boo'ed and hissed. Feelin' the love here? Definitely!
2:38 p.m.
Jan 10, '08
Right on Sue! You know I began this campaign season with a very open mind, looking at all candidates and feeling good about them, and the way that Obama and Edwards -immediately- starting character-assassinating Hillary without cause really made me root for her.
People who have allowed their brains to be slowly washed by baseless right-wing attacks on Hillary for years didn't even notice when Obama started dropping subtle digs about her character and Edwards started pontificating about corporate interests, but it was clear to me what they were doing: adopting politics-as-usual and ganging up on the woman because they know a woman can't fight back without being "shrill", "hysterical", "ice queen" and all that nonsense. Imagine if Hillary gave one speech with that disigenuous angry millionaire's voice of Obama's, how much grief she'd get.
Erica Jong has an awesome article on huffingtonpost.com that calls out what we've seen. I can't believe people are so weak-minded and conspiracy-theorist-baited that they look for all these excuses as to why New Hampshire rallied for Hillary.
It's simple formula: 1. WORKING-CLASS DEMOCRATS LOVE HILLARY! 2. WOMEN ARE SICK OF THE MISOGYNY, THE DOUBLE STANDARDS, AND THE ABUSE!
Are our GRANDDAUGHTERS going to be old ladies before America is finally ready to give them a female President? The time is now!!!
Hillary has my heart... and my vote!
Jan 10, '08
I have read that Hillary only won the towns in NH where the voting machines were Diebolt or what ever their new name is. If you reversed the Hillary and Obama votes they would match what the polls predicted. Why is everyone so quick to assume that the scientific polling was wrong? Don't we believe in science anymore?
Hillary is being backed by the by the corporations. She has consistently supported occupation and empire and the "free trade" that is sucking away all our good jobs and the ability to support ourselves. Rupert Murdoch is one of her supporters. I'm convinced that she is getting support from the righties because she has the least chance of the top dems to beat a republican in Nov. and even if she does she's basically one of them.
Voting for her because she is a woman is as shallow as deciding against her for the same reason.
6:16 p.m.
Jan 10, '08
And yet in Iowa more women voted for Obama as well as more people in low, middle and high income brackets.
You still can't get your mind around the fact that your negative attacks on others turn more people off for your candidate in a primary, particularly when they are innuendo laden, and/or factoids which amount to gross distortions of the facts and stripped of their legitimate context.
I agree that many on the left have slowly been swayed (unfairly) against the Clinton's (Hillary in particular) and I will gladly defend her against baseless crap. But stop parroting the tear your opponent down by any means necessary approach when we are all Democrats fighting for the same general goals even though we might have different opinions on who will best serve our party, and our nation as our candidate and elected officials (obviously President in this case).
Jan 11, '08
Let me tell ya about Iowa. Yes - more women may have CAUCUSED for Sen. Obama. I saw and talked to the women who DIDN'T. They didn't caucus because they couldn't caucus. The 84 year-old woman in a wheel chair who was recovering from pneumonia and thought it was too cold to go out. The 50 year-old woman who couldn't leave her husband, suffering from Parkinson's, because he might hurt himself. The 25 year-old single working Hispanic woman w/ four kids living in a one-bedroom apartment in the WORST section of Waterloo. She couldn't find a babysitter and even if she could find one willing to go into that area of town, she couldn't afford it.
I froze several body parts off canvassing in 3 degree temps on New Years Day in Iowa. To get to the caucus site I staffed, I had to park 1/2 mile away and make my way down a snow and ice-packed hilly road that hadn't been plowed. It was pitch dark and I got there at 5:30. If I was 65 and working on my second set of hips, I wouldn't have caucused either.
I SAW the invisible folks HRC talks about. I stood in their living rooms and sipped their hot chocolates. I saw Dixie Lee and her velvet Elvis. I saw Burdette and his walker; I believe both were held together w/ duct tape. Most of these folks didn't care that Hillary was a woman. They wanted someone to CHANGE things, to HELP them and they believe she's the only one who can do that. So do I.
But the wheeling and dealing of the caucus goers convinced me this is NOT the way to set the tone for picking a president. "I'll stand for your guy if you use that new John Deere of yours to plow my driveway for the rest of the season...we'll give you one of our guys to make your guy viable if you join us when your guy drops out...I'll let you use my power auger next time you go ice fishing if you stand with us..." Was this prom king or president?
And if I have grossly distorted factoids, feel free to put them in the proper context for my edification. I will send a link-laden post, if you'd like, verifying senate votes, FEC contributor reports, you tube clips. I'll do that if you can show me one vote that the freshman senator from NY made that demonstrates how a corporate donor swayed that vote.
Off to Nevada now for another caucus. At one caucus site in Cedar Rapids, the caucus chair pee'ed his pants and had to go home so the HRC volunteer wound up running the show. God help us!