Sorry, I had just corrected it as you typed your reply.
My point really is that we shouldn't ignore this evidence because of the MOE although the smaller the subsample (and the higher the resultion 95% MOE) the less reliable the result. But my (corrected) conclusions still stand and should be a cause of some concern until other evidence indicates otherwise.
Not sure why everyone's suddenly concerned to debunk this finding. Most of the sub-samples e.g. AAs, Latinos, age 18-35 etc have a similar MOE but the results (e.g. from exit polls) have been taken previously as gospel.
The fact that we have 44-38 vs 52-33 is indeed significant. I'm not sure the Huff Po poster understands how MOE works when they say Obama's 38 percent figure "could rise as high as 47 percent". It could be as high at 77%. The MOE they usually quote is based on a probability of 95%. It doesn't mean the error can't be more than 9.34%. But it also doesn't mean it's anywhere nearly as likely to be as much as 9.34% wrong as, say, 1% wrong. So from what we know Mccain is very likely to be leading Obama with white suburban women and almost certain to be significantly ahead of him with women overall.
The spirit of generosity you display by giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt knows no bounds, considering all the damage the Clintons have done to America over the years compared to all the good that Obama has done for us.
Can you show me the data? I believe the opposite is true. When someone is announced by the media as the certain nominee the voters line up behind them, as we saw with Mccain, Kerry and other recent primaries.
And I wouldn't take MSNBC's word on anything to do with Obama for obvious reasons.
This is the kind of thing I mean. Of course they've been calling for her to drop out, just listen to them or read the blogs. Even on MYDD, although this blogs is much more civilized that Huff Po, Kos, TPM et al. As though a couple of weeks can make a difference between now and November!
As for Rove-like negative attacks, that's your opinion. Whatever attacks there were by the campaign itself have been explicit, based on things like experience and fitness, not the character assassination of both Clintons as racists, corrupt Washington manipulators etc. And this all started before Clinton had raised anything negative, from the time of the "driver's licence debate" before which Edwards and Obama uggested they were going to hit her as a calculating triangulating manipulator (which they did).
And the veiled attacks by Obama on the Clinton presidency, perhaps the most stupid tactic when this is the only Democratic administration since JFK that could be widely accepted as successful. In any other country, after such a failure by a current administration, the opposition would be contrasting what things were like when they last held power rather than attack their own record.
Worse than Republican attacks (which HRC has always had to endure and by now is largely impervious to, is the maedia mantra that the game is over. Obama only got to a consistent lead in the tracking polls after this was called as a result of NC and IN primaries. How else could one explain the shift that happened. Usually the effect is even more pronounced as there is a tendency to rally around a presumptive nominee, as we say with Mccain , Kerry and all previous candidates. The fact that this has only happened to a small extent is in itself telling.
When we all know there's only a week or so before all the polling finishes, it's very telling that Obama's supporters have upped their chorus for Hillary to drop out in the last few days. If they really believed it was over, why not wait? Of course, it's the realization that the results from Puerto Rico and a lead in the popular vote could still give her the nomination.
This attempt to win by default is damaging any chance of party unity. If this were a sporting event and the side that was ahead were screaming for the other side to give up before the final whistle, how would that go down with the fans and the media? In this case, the media just adds to the pile-on.
If we lose in November it's the unprecedented vitriol and contempt that has been displayed to Hillary and her supporters by the Obama fanatics that will have been responsible.
This is complete nonsense. If Obama wins and writes his autobiography he'll probably say he wrapped it up a long way before June, given that everyone on the Obama side have been saying "it's over" for months now. What Hillary meant was Bill didn't actually "wrap it up" until June and no-one was haranguing Tsongas before he himself was ready to step out.
Most likely Obama will be the nominee but this attempt to win by default before the contest is over will remain a stain on his campaigning principles and will make achieving unity for Novemeber much more difficult.
Why are the Obama supporters put in so much energy trying to get Hillary to bow out before June 3? Especially when maintain "it's over". Is it that the extra 3 weeks is going to make the difference to the GE in November? Of course not. It's a fear that she does have a realistic chance, maybe she takes th elead in the popular vote, that FL and MI get counted, that something about BO turns and blows his chances. And if the latter, they want BO to already be the nominee instead of letting the party decide on a more electable candidate.
I find this clamor to get her our really disreputable and it will blow chances of party unity. It's like a Wimbledon final where the number one seed down 4-0 in the fifth set against an up and coming but surprise finalist by . There have been a lot of bigger comebacks than this and the chances for Hillary vs Obama are probably not so different. What would you think if the supporters of the guy who's winning, afraid of a comeback, were booing the other guy to get them to give up?
Of course she should fight on, it's way not over. If the polls hold up, she'll regain the pop vote lead after WV and KY, assuming same turnout we've seen in PA, IN and NC (in each case more dems voting than came out for Kerry in 2004). This is, of course, counting Florida and Michigan but also using the estimate for the 4 caucus states that didn't officially report pop vote.
It then comes down to Oregon and Puerto Rico (Montana and S Dakota are very few voters). If more people voted for her than Obama and she would have won on any other deployed voting method (electoral votes, Republican winner-takes-all, both of which she already leads comfortable) it is difficult to see how denying her won't be seen as unfair. This would then lead to pressure to count Florada and Michigan, to give BO a chance to make up the missing Michigan votes.
Another factor is based on exit polls, she's averaged around 62-37 with white voters (she did better with them in NC than IN, despite results).
If you extrapolate over the entire country, she would be winning handily if these demographics prevail. For the GE, the effect of the AA vote is less pronounced as they are a smaller percentage of the voters and his near monopoly of the AA vote won't serve him anywhere near as well.
This is just one of the factors that make BO a better primary candidate than a GE candidate. Others are:
1. He's got where he is with the MSM solidly behind him ( MSNBC, CNN, Wash Po,...). This won't hold with McCain in the picture.
2. He'll have the full weight of the republican attack machine against him. I think there's more to be made of the Ayers issue and even Rezko (eg emails showing he colluded with Rezko to buy his house at a discount could surface). Plus lots we don't know about coming out and being blown up, fairly or not.
3. The public will have tired of his change rhetoric my November
4.Voters will be less inclined to hand over the keys of the White House to a charismatic but inexperienced candidate than hand him the nomination. You see that in European elections (eg UK) where voters vote very differently in by-elections in favor of more radical opposition parties but when the general comes revert back to the devil they know best, the incumbents.
And the real issue most dems care about is not who is better out of BO and HRC (they're both fine) but avoiding the glorious defeat that the dems are renowned for.
No question Clinton has been ahead the last few days in the Gallup, MOE notwithstanding. There is nothing sacrosanct about MOE, it means there is a 95% probability that a number less than 3% out (in Gallu's case). The 95% is a fairly arbitrary cutoff point although widely used. So even a 2% lead by Clinton means she's more liklely to be ahead than behind (or level). When you have a sequence of say, four days of her ahead, the likehood she is only level is very small indeed.
And as Obama was around 10% up a few days earlier, there has indeed been a significant change. Whether it lasts is another matter and the Tuesday primaries will have a noticeable effect one way or the other.
Mathematically impossible? Intrade says around 25%. If you don't believe this you can get a 33% return on your money in a few weeks. And I didn't expect him to drop out, nor should anyone expect Hillary to while she has a fair chance, better than his way prior to Iowa.
That's not how the system is meant to work, rightly or wrongly. If they just ratified the pledged delegate count, there would be no point in having the superdels. In fact, I think specifically they should pay less attention to the pledged delegate count compared to other factors (popular vote, electability etc) otherwise the process would be double-counting the effect of pledged delegates.