Here is how I actually characterize Andrew Kohut’s argument. I quote from my article: Kohut's argument goes as follows: Clinton did much better in the final count than Obama among poorer, less educated voters. These voters "have more unfavorable views of blacks" than wealthier, more educated voters. Kohut doesn't accuse these voters of lying. Instead, he argues that the voters who have unfavorable views of blacks tend to be underrepresented in polling samples, because they "do not respond" to pollsters--thus accounting for the inaccurate readings of support for Clinton and Obama.
Pollsters--along with nearly everyone else on earth--failed to predict the result of the New Hampshire Democratic primary. According to Real Clear Politics, they estimated that Barack Obama would defeat Hillary Clinton by an average of eight percent. She won by three, and eleven percent is an awful lot for pollsters to be wrong by--well beyond the margin of error.
Arizona Sen. John McCain defeated former Gov. Mitt Romney to win the New Hampshire Republican primary.
I've looked at the current Democratic exit polls, which, incidentally, are adjusted later to fit the final results, so what I have to say here must taken as subject to revision.
My friend Jon Cohn has asked me to respond to his posting about the Des Moines Register poll, and I will try to oblige. What Jon discovers in Clinton and Obama's totals have shown up in other polls as well: Obama does well among independents and less well among voters without a college degree; Clinton does poorly among independents, but better among voters without a college degree. What this shows is that both candidates have glaring weaknesses that an effective Republican campaign could exploit in the fall. Obama is going to have a lot of trouble with the white working class.
Hillary Clinton was once thought to have had the Democratic nomination sewn up, but if current polls are any indication, she could conceivably lose not only the Iowa caucus, but also the primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Since these states became the major test of presidential aspirations, no Democrat or Republican has ever gotten the nomination after losing all three. But even if she fails to win any of those three critical early states, Hillary Clinton still has a chance. That’s because of her strength among Hispanic voters.
INDEPENDENCE, MISSOURI “As much as we would all like to believe the General Assembly is a ‘Mr. Smith’ kind of entity, the reality is that these institutions are far more like a tug of war,” says State Senator Chris Koster, as we sit over coffee at the Courtyard Exchange. “If you are going to go down there, you have to get on one side of the rope or the other, and I realized I was on the wrong side of the rope.” Koster was elected a state senator in 2004 as part of a swing to the Republican Party in Missouri.
After the first Democratic debate, at the end of April, when Hillary Clinton made her main rivals seems small and insignificant, I expected that Barack Obama would fade from contention even before the Iowa Caucus. And in the months that followed, Obama seemed to be doing just that. But <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 />Clinton’s recent missteps, amplified by John Edwards’ strident attacks upon her, provided Obama with an opening--and in a stirring speech before the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Des Moines November 10, Obama took it.
Lexington, Kentucky Kentucky, Fred Barnes declared on Fox News in November 2003, "is a realignment state." He and other jubilant Republicans certainly had reason to think so. What had once been a Democratic stronghold--Bill Clinton carried the state in 1992 and 1996, and Democrats controlled the governor's mansion for more than a generation--seemed to be slipping into Republican hands. Both of Kentucky's senators were Republicans, as were five of its six House members. George W. Bush had won the state by a solid margin in 2000.