Daily Kos

View Story | 12 comments

  •  What I'm finding a hard time understanding (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    MarkC

    is why everyone seems so ready to dismiss the Bradley Effect and willingly accept the other theories. People  believe that its more likely that undecided women watched Hillary Clinton get choked up and virtually all went out and voted for her (enough to cause a 10 point shift in 24 hours)? Or that something happened during the debate to cause a 10 point shift ...never mind the fact that no analyst immediately after seemed to believe anything that incredibly earth-shattering occurred during the debate. It's hard to look at the numbers (pre-election and exit polling) without really believing some people told the pollsters one thing and yet voted another.

    •  It's pretty simple why racial slippage isn't (0+ / 0-)

      compelling--the numbers were nailed other than for Hillary.  

      A story breaking right before a primary with a lot of undecideds might well lead to significant movement towards one candidate.  It's the simpler answer given that neither Obama or Edwards had any significantly different numbers from the last poll.  That's not a coincidence.

    •  That's exactly my point (0+ / 0-)

      in this diary, r.s. The counterarguments are not compelling.

      That Obama's numbers were right and Clinton's weren't is simply not proof that all undecideds went to Clinton.

      "Stare at the monster: remark/ How difficult it is to define just what/ Amounts to monstrosity in that/ Very ordinary appearance." - Ted Hughes

      by MarkC on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:05:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

View Story | 12 comments