Spare Me Your Exits Polls

Posted May 9, 2008 | 12:41 PM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

The sideshow of the '08 primary campaign has been the endless media vivisection of how each subset of the electorate has broken for a particular candidate. The urban vote. The second generation Hispanic vote. The rural white vote with non-secondary education. How are older Catholic women voting?

The numbers are picked over like a Beatles LP from back in the day by "experts" looking for any bit of hidden meaning which ultimately -- like Paul's death -- might not be genuine.

It has become an obsession, and as with any obsession it is unhealthy. The conclusions drawn from these excavations usually reflect the media's own bias. After the Georgia primary where Obama pulled well among white male voters there seemed to be in the news collective dismay that the good ole boys would vote for the colored man. This, never mind Atlanta had its first black mayor back in 1974. There was no reason except prejudice to assume Obama couldn't pull a good portion of the white vote.

But with each round of voting the media echo chamber tends to magnify the disparities of each subset. Again and again we are told the black vote has abandoned the Clintons, older white women don't connect with Obama. This repetition breeds resentment; how dare "those people" not support my candidate? In short order our own opinions about those who abandon and those who refuse to connect calcify into animosity, making it hard for us to see the "other" candidate as potentially "our" candidate. It makes it all the more difficult when each candidate is publicly pushed and prodded as to why they are failing among a certain class of voter, and their response is then loaded with an unfortunate adjective: bitter or clinging or hard working (as opposed to that other group that doesn't work so hard).

There's an argument to be made there is news value to the continual crunching of the numbers.

There's an argument to be made there's value to the endless reporting of with whose stolen coat Lindsay Lohan is trotting around.

Clearly the candidates and their operatives have to be cognizant of their strengths and weakness within segments of the electorate.

For the rest of us it's enough to know who's winning and who's losing.



Comments
112
Pending Comments
0
Post a Comment

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)

I don't want to sound 'age' biased towards these media guys/gals & even politicians, but some of them that are over 40 are living in the past when it comes to this issue. This country has become so diverse when it comes to race, class etc. Most communities in this country are ethnically diverse now. I wish they were more so and less "clanish". Maybe I'm just a PollyAnna, because I am of mixed racial descent and I don't see the color of a persons skin.

Anyway, Hillary was my candidate, but it wasn't because she's a woman like me. And its certainly has nothing to do with my race and or even financial earning power now; which is much higher. It's because of her 'experience' & policies for me. Yes, she was wrong on her vote for the authorization to go to war, but I wasn't reading the 'cooked' intelligence, so I can not hold that against her. John Kerry voted for it was well; and he's no war monger. I respect Obama's position on it; but what would he have done if he viewed the intelligence at the time basically a year after 9/11? I can tell you what he thought of Donald Rumsfeld & most Bush appointees in January 2001 when he wasn't even a U.S. Senator. We all make mistakes in terms of 'judgement'. He's no saint. See below:

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4216276

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:49 AM on 05/11/2008

How did we as a party allow this to happen to us? The Republicans stay on message, they don't allow the media to frame their message. Their message is fear, national security, no taxes. In this primary we have allowed them to separate us by race; they have knocked us off our most important message of being an inclusive party. And, sadly both candidates have allowed it to happen for the purpose of 'winning'.

Anyway, when I think of what it means to be 'blue-collar', I naturally think of the base of the party which my family belongs too (mom/dad); I think of all races which is comprised of the lower to middle class. My dad was a mechanic until he retired, he's not white. The 'blue collar' voters in this country are made up of all races; its about finances!!!

I'm not sure but I think the reference to 'collar' comes from the type of shirt one wears to work. "White" collar = White collar buttoned down shirts & ties. Blue Collar is a reference to what people used to wear to work in this country when it actually had a manufacturing base; i.e blue factory work shirts. I actually think that some of the old school pundits actually still believe that there is still a blue collar manufacturing base in this country (which they perceive still as soley white, which is a joke). When was the last time that was accurate; 40-50 years ago?

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:31 AM on 05/11/2008

Geez, Earl. I didn't see you arguing against polls(exit or otherwise) when they had your gal way out ahead.

Whassup with that?

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:01 AM on 05/11/2008

I oppose EXIT polls. Because they break them down into age, gender, race and religion. Polls I don't mind when they just give overall poll numbers and make NO mention of someone's religion, race etc.

The Democratic Party has allowed the media (which goes with which way the wind is blowing at the moment) to reframe their message from being an inclusive party and quite frankly have now painted it as a 'racist' party for their own greedy rating wars. Thats what I find despicable. That separates us.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:05 AM on 05/11/2008

Sorry--I meant John...

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:20 AM on 05/11/2008

John I saw you holding it down on Morning Joe. It was good to hear you speak with conviction and not cave in to Joe's opinions . I was touched by the story you shared in which your son turned to you and asked if the speaker on tv was Obama or Dr. King. WOW it sent chills down my spine, how beautiful!

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:44 PM on 05/10/2008

I get sick of the MSM's assumption that Hillary voters won't vote for a black guy. I like Obama, but I'm not going to assume that Hillary voters won't vote for the democrat because he is black, and I don't assume they are just voting for her because they are racist.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:33 PM on 05/10/2008

We need exit polls as the ONLY check on election fraud we have.

But all we need for that is the totals.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:15 PM on 05/10/2008

I'll second that.

Given the fraud in 2000 and 2004, we should be ready to take to the streets if results turn out vastly different from exit polls.......

The Democrats themselves are too damn spineless to protest clear and outright fraud.... what goes there? the NSA have enough dirt on everyone to blackmail them into silence?

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:02 PM on 05/10/2008

The media need exit polling data for their campaigns.

It helps them decide which candidates to oppose or marginalize, and how to do it.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:14 PM on 05/10/2008

Well, here's a quandary for you - Oregon votes exclusively by mail - No Exit polls!!!!!!!!! What will the cable news outfits do on the 20th? Betcha they'll fall all over themselves polling folks in Kentucky, and then say the same goes for Oregon. Not! We're mostly white working class, and going to take Obama over the top!

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:06 PM on 05/10/2008

mossy1,

I AGREE 100%!!

MY AUNT IS A White Working Class Lady in Oregon and SHE WILL BE VOTING FOR OBAMA!!

I HOPE THEY REPORT THIS Fairly!!

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:29 PM on 05/10/2008

November will be a BLOODBATH.

The arrogant Thugs won't know what hit them.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:02 AM on 05/11/2008

Uselessboy,

"marginalize' is the perfect word. Chris Matthew's and his sexist comments from 'day one' have 'marginalized' HIllary Clinton as a woman and as a candidate. He has always been a Clinton basher since the last ratings/ad dollar drama--Monica-gate. Olberman, used a sexist comment the other night in front of Rachel Maddow, regarding Hillary Clinton. It went something like this; 'will she be pulled out of this race scratching', etc. Maddow who is an Obama supporter who I respect, cringed and was visibly uncomfortable by Olberman's description. But, I guess I expected nothing more from Olberman an ex-FOX noise sportscaster.

Now, Matthew's who had a 'tingle' up his legs for Senator Obama and has sufficiently marginalized HIlary Clinton is starting to get a 'tingle' up his legs for John McCain --the war hero. There is no such thing as objectivity anymore at all in the media. It actually never existed. What a sham!

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:55 PM on 05/10/2008

BIG "Fip Flopper"

Chris Matthew's IS A FLIP FLOPPER, when Bitter Gate Broke on Obama shortly before the PA primary, Chris Matthws kept pounding Obama because he taught that the wheels would finally come off the Obama wagon! He kept sucking up to the Clintons!

The minute Obama emerge victorious from the lates rount of primaries, he jumps back on the Obama wagon and start to pound the Clintons!!

THE FACT IS Chris Matthew's IS GOING WITH Whoever seem like the winner!! HE IS A SUCK UP!!

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:24 PM on 05/10/2008

Although I don't agree with everything you just said, I respect it. But I just want 2 correct you on 1 thing. Keith Olbermann worked at ESPN & not Fox Sports.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:58 PM on 05/10/2008

Actually, Keith Olbermann worked both at ESPN and Fox Sports.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:39 PM on 05/10/2008

NOT FOX SPORT:


OLBERMANN Work, Previously, FOR ESPN "ONLY" !!

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:13 PM on 05/10/2008

Chris Matthews has always had a "tingle" for McCain. He's a "hero" worshipper; he fell all over himself for Rudy until his candidacy began to stink so bad he had to drop out.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:17 PM on 05/10/2008

Obsessions?
You mean like worrying about what year Chelsea will announce her candidacy?
Yes, some are truly obsessed.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:04 PM on 05/10/2008

For all the Obama surrogates that call the Clinton's racists on this website do your DD. Do you actually believe that the Clinton's are racists? Are you that far removed from reality? Have you ever seen the work that Bill Clinton's foundation does all over the world and especially in Africa? My GOD!

If the Bill & Hillary Clinton were racists than they would have just sat on their hands after leaving the Whitehouse and built his library in the backwoods of Arkansas. Instead they continued their work on behalf of the poor and disenfranchised all over the world! Look at the work they are doing at his foundation's website, tell me this does not reflect the basic principles of the Democratic Party and of humanity as a whole. You people are twisted. Your candidate has won, stop bashing the reputations of these good people. It's sickening and really reprehensible.

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/index.htm

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/cf-pgm-hs-ai-home.htm

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/cf-pgm-ee-uei-home.htm

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:03 PM on 05/10/2008

I think you miss the point Lucid,..Which is not that the Clinton's are racist..
In my humble opinion they are not,...

However,...

It's clear today, that the Clinton's do whatever it takes to win and hold onto power.

While they had votes of Americans of African descent, they would do just enough to hold onto that base.
However look what happened when they lost it,.. they have resorted to the same kinds of games, of the ultra-right wingers and known for, which is to mobilize and pit the middle class Americans of European descent against them, by playing on race misunderstandings and resentment.

If they were the golden people you seem to believe they are, their platform would be on projecting their goals and benefits to all Americans, not attempting to smear, spin and mislead against those of their own party to the detriment of us all, now and in the future.

We as democrats ignored the cries of foul from the Republican party in the 90s while the Clintons were on our side, but now we can see how far they go, and what their goals are, which is to win at all costs, no matter the damage to those they claim to represent.

If you call yourself a lucid thinker, you should be able to understand the rage against them, if not that, then at least be able to admit that the anger may have some basis in truth.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:21 PM on 05/10/2008

lucidthoughts. You comments put forth an excelent point. I have observed the Clintons for over 30 years. One of the first political campaigns I volunteered for was when Bill Clinton ran for Congress in 1974. There are a lot of things that can be said about the Clintons but racist is not one of them. Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have worked their whole lives to promote racial harmony and healing. They have worked tirelessly to to make a positve difference in the economic and social lives of African Americans. They have always, ALWAYS, opened their arms and hearts to people of color. That is the truth and everyone of you knows it!

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:22 PM on 05/10/2008

Which is what makes Hillary's recent comments even more inexcusable

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:48 PM on 05/10/2008

Well I guess someone has to spell it out to the Democratic party. Obama is going to have a tough time winning. period. Look, here is a man who spent less than 1 year in the senate and he's winning the nomination. Think about it. If he was white do you think he would have gotten this far? WHY? Because he won in more states than Clinton? He won in Alabama, North Carolina all over the south where a sizable African American population resides. Gee why are African Americans voting for him. Do you think is because he's black? Or is it because of all the great things he has done for the African American community fior the last 30 years? Yea right. Do you think he is going to win the south in the general election? Or Idaho, Montana ect.. Poor Hillary, she is just saying the obvious and now they want to label her a racist. She is crying in the wilderness and trying to stop a train wreck.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:04 PM on 05/10/2008

VERY well put and needed!

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:28 PM on 05/10/2008

And finally, Hillary Clinton and her husband, the ex-President, a great Democratic President that did so much of this country in the 1990's deserve some respect! They've battled their entire political and student lifetimes for the principles of the Democratic Party. Shame on the OLD school party elders like Ted Kennedy (who in fact created an uproar at the DNC in 1980- DAMN HYPOCRITE!!!), the media and others for treating them like garbage. Shame on all of you! Let them finish the primary season, there are only 6 left. Senator Clinton has said repeatedly that she would work for the nominee. And I think it would be wise for the Obama campaign not to pressure their surrogates all over the media to try to humiliate her into ending her campaign until its over on June 3rd. I think it would be wise for the Obama campaign to welcome the Clinton's support in the general election. Gore's biggest mistake in 2000 was keeping Bill Clinton off the campaign trail. He kept him off the campaign trail because he thought that the Lewinsky matter would ruin his chances. That was a joke. Clinton left office with the highest approval ratings ever. Al Gore lost the presidency and the rest is history.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:21 PM on 05/10/2008

Let her finish it by campaigning FOR HERSELF instead of AGAINST Obama and half of the party.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:15 PM on 05/10/2008

Uselessboy,

You call this a 'party"? I call it a bunch of political hacks in Washington deciding who will be the candidate without letting all the primaries finish. She's not hurting the party. She should fight as long as she wants too. HUCKABOO was behind by 700 delegates or something ridiculous like that; the Republican party didn't attack him for staying in the race and making his case heard because they knew HUCKABOO was out there campaigning against the Democratic Party and not John McCain per se; "all press is good press'. They didn't let the media manipulate their message, they didn't let the media unlike the Democratic Party turn this primary into a racially divisive mess!

Let her finish off her race. She's making the same case as Obama, on DEMOCRATIC values in this important race. If anything its more free press for Obama and the cause of the Democratic Party, healthcare, the economy etc. The same message is being spread against the Republicans. Think of the big picture!

The 'party' (run by hacks (Kennedy, Kerry etc) with back-room deals) is hurting itself. The obvious mistake by the Democratic party hacks was in last years decision not to compromise with the Florida and Michigan primary dates. The Republicans compromised, they weren't fools!

If ever there was a time in this country for a 3rd party, then this should be it!

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:13 PM on 05/10/2008

Huckaboo didn't say only he and Hillary Clinton were experienced enough to be president. Huckaboo didn't say states he lost don't count. Huckaboo didn't say things like Romney would never get the real Christian's votes. (equivalent of Obama can't get WHITE working class votes. She has definitely said things that the republicans can use against Obama. My wife and daughter were both in the Hillary camp until she started her Rovian kitchen sink tactics. They were shocked and disgusted. We all voted for Obama. She has only herself to blame.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:45 PM on 05/10/2008

Uh, Hillary was head of the college republicans in college, she was a "Goldwater girl". I don't really think that is battling for the "principles of the Democratic Party".

I can't believe you don't even know your own candidate's record.

Maybe you should do some research.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:42 PM on 05/10/2008

thebirdstheword,

She was 15 years old for Christ-sake when she was a 'goldwater' girl. Jeez, her dad was a REpublican. Give me a break. She also sat on the Committee to Impeach Richard Nixon when she was a young adult in hre 20's. How about the owner of this website that you frequent? Do you know anything at all about her political history?

You are just the type of person the media loves to bait!

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:55 PM on 05/10/2008

Hook, line, sinker, rod, reel and arm up to the elbow.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:58 PM on 05/10/2008