« Before Getting $3 Million Loan, McCain Had to Buy Life Insurance | Home | Poll: Al Franken Ahead In Minnesota Senate Race! »
Do Exit Polls Show That Bill Damaged Hillary's Candidacy?
Today's New York Times takes a look at the exits and concludes that they show Bill contributed greatly to Hillary's South Carolina loss. I say that the picture is far more complex than this.
Separately, please take a moment to register to comment by clicking on "create an account" in the upper right corner -- there are lots of goodies awaiting you if you do. It should work, though we're still ironing out some last minute kinks. Thanks for your patience.
Advertisement
Eager to re-register with my TPMCafe handle, but the link isn't on yet.
You'll let us know when that link is live, right?
February 1, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely will, sorry about the trouble. Should be ready later today.
February 1, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Complex yes.. First and foremost is the "Obama Phenomenon." He is striking a chord with the public tired of the old conflicts, engaged by the charisma that Obama brings forth as a leader. Second is that Bill Clinton's presence and his erratic and combative behavior was a reminder that a Clinton co-presidency is not what we want and undermines Hillary's claim to be her own candidate and the first woman president. As a former supporter of the Clintons back to their first campaign I was completely disgusted with both of them.
February 1, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this thing working. Who's bright idea was it to mess with the site sofware right before super tuesday? Why could you not have waited until there was a lull in the political activity, right after the primaries were over!
February 1, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bad timing on rearranging a site right before a major debate.
February 1, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone?
February 1, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
it's a pleasure to see how TPM has developed over the past couple of years
re the Democratic race, someone needs to get the polling data out there with respect to Hillary Clinton's "negatives": the numbers can't have gone down, given what's happened these past weeks. I wonder how high they are now. If I heard right, they were already around 50% months ago. This seems to me a virtually insuperable problem for her candidacy. Look, I'm no McCain supporter, but he'll toast her in November.
February 1, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't McCain married to a very rich Heiress. Why are they not using some of her Beer fortune? Then again, perhaps she is just a cheapskate; after all she did get busted for stealing prescription drugs from poor patients, to support her addiction. At least The Big Fat PillBilly was willing to pay for his habit.
February 1, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Folks, this is a very confusing process here. I may need to open a window for people driven nuts by the process!
I urge people to use the "forgot your password" link because this is working a bit for me... though I can't change the "string of nonsense" as a password, nor does it seem to work reliably as a password.
Yikes!
February 1, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
**okay, I'm gonna bitch a lil bit**
Who decided it was a good idea to change over the site during the middle of the day (yesterday)??
Where are the comments from yesterday, did they get eaten?
Sometimes, trying to keep up with the Joneses isn't what it's cracked up to be.
Registering for comments now?
**okay, I'm done**
Oh, no I'm not.
Error trying to submit my comment?
Look...I'll step up and help maintain the site gratis?
**tries to submit again**
February 1, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell are you guys thinking doing a site overhaul the day of the huge debate and 4 days before Feb 5? Honestly, it has been beyond painful getting back in here.
Are you done yet, or am I going to have re-register AGAIN?
February 1, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, well, we can forgive them. Besides, in two months, we'll have completely forgotten about the problems we are experiencing now.
Josh did a pretty good job last night on Olbermann. Well done!
February 1, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Plus not a single warning this was going to happen. Bad idea.
February 1, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
My comment has still not appeared here, though I can see it if I click on my name.
The top of the site recognizes me at The Muck, but then if I try to comment, it fails to recognize me.
I may be typing this to no avail....
I agree that the middle of the campaign... just before Super Tuesday is the wrong time to have done this.
February 1, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you email me with this stuff TheraP so I can pass it along to our tech folks?
February 1, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg:
I really think you're off base here. After all, Hillary's core supporters are also the most likely to voice positive opinions of Bill Clinton when asked. You would expect that she would do better among those who like Clinton (and his campaigning) than among those who don't. Any other result would be puzzling. Conversely, you would expect that most voters weren't swayed by Bill would be backing one of Hillary's rivals. And that's what you find - virtually every voter in SC who didn't care one way or the other about Clinton voted for Obama.
We are, after all, talking about the Democratic primary electorate. A month ago, Bill Clinton's approval ratings among likely voters were astronomically high. That half of those who found his campaigning important to their decision voted against his wife is a shocking result.
There's one other factor to consider here, and that's the abrupt shift in support. A month before the primary, Hillary dominated in South Carolina. She grabbed the bulk of voters. Something made a great many of those voters change their minds, and vote for Obama instead. And when you look at the exit polls, you find something interesting. A great many voters found Bill influential in making their decision, and about half of them voted for Obama. It's actually quite reasonable to use that result ot explain the shift.
Seelye should have spelled all of this out. But it's simply not the case that both readings are equally valid.
February 1, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with cmpnwtr, but I think Bill undeniably damaged Hillary's candidacy in two significant ways (and not just in SC):
1) The amount of bad press he stirred up that week just as most people were really starting to tune in to the election likely didn't help win over any undecideds.
2) Considering SC was expected to be a much closer race than it turned out to be, the 62-25-13 spread for those who said Bill was unimportant could be looked at as a lost opportunity; people Hillary might have been able to win over on a more level playing field but were hardened against her because of his campaigning.
February 1, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey all, many, many thanks for your patience, and believe me, I agree with you about the timing.
and in response to this comment:
A great many voters found Bill influential in making their decision, and about half of them voted for Obama. It's actually quite reasonable to use that result ot explain the shift.
I agree that it's possible that this number is meaningful. But it's also quite possible, when viewed in the larger context of all the numbers, that it isn't.
After all, if Hillary did better among voters who viewed Bill as important to their decision than she did among voters overall, why decide that Seelye's interpretation is right? I'm just not seeing that this is conclusive, which is my main point.
February 1, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
This change over is really frustrating.
you simply cannot get back in with your old name and password.
Andrew the system keeps saying I have the wrong password...I do NOT.
whiterosebuddy
February 1, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
White Rose. can you email Andrew at andrew@talkingpointsmemo.com?
February 1, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liam: Where did you get this, about Cindy McCain? after all she did get busted for stealing prescription drugs from poor patients, to support her addiction That's just not true! Perhaps you are confusing her with Jeb Bush's daughter?
As for the Bill Clinton issue, I think he knew exactly what he was doing when he compared Obama to Jesse Jackson. By tying them together, he pegged Obama as the "black candidate," and that characterization will stick with a lot of voters. Then the next day the Kennedys pile on, thereby branding Obama as the candidate of the far left.
That leaves Hillary as the centrist, just in time for Super Tuesday, with its far-wider range of voters and viewpoints.
I am sure that Bill Clinton was very happy to play the heavy in South Carolina -- which they'd probably written off already anyway -- and then fade into the background. He'll reappear later, when the coast is clear, or when Hillary needs him.
February 1, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink