April 22, 2008

Hillary wins 55-45

Here's the exit poll.

I didn't pay that much attention to the Pennsylvania primary, but judging from the demographics of who voted for whom, it strikes me that they could have held this election six weeks ago and gotten the same results. This election is about identity, not about surface issues.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

And, judging by the exit polls there are a lot of people who say they vote for Obama, but actually don't.

William said...

55-45

Big enough to look impressive; not big enough to cause the Supers to back away from Obama.

The upside is that after Obama loses this fall we'll be finished with both of their presidential ambitions. If Hillary got the nomination Obama would have 5-6 more elections where he might run, probably as a "reformed" person.

And, IF Obama does win in the fall then the American people will get the worst president possible, which can't really hurt the conservative cause all that much.

Ben Franklin said...

Well, I watched Obama’s stump speech in Indiana and it struck me that his speech is essentially based on a conspiracy theory. Obama claims (incredibly) that for 30 years our politicians promised to stop outsourcing jobs, fix health care etc., but big money lobbyists prevented the promised solutions from being enacted. I don’t know which politicians Obama is talking about, but for my entire adult life I’ve been told we can’t stop the “global economy” and that protectionism, isolation and nativism were the specters haunting America. From what I can tell, Obama agrees with the same old line that lead us into the current mess. And I didn’t hear and haven’t heard any proposed solutions from Obama.

Just this week McCain told a citizen at a town hall meeting that NAFTA isn’t a four letter word (he said it is a five letter word) and that he thinks NAFTA has been great for us. And it was Al Gore who was the point man in 1994 advocating NAFTA be passed (by a Democrat majority congress).

Hillary was a little more populist in her victory speech, but hasn’t really been specific about how she will prevent outsourcing new “green” jobs.

headache said...

Here in Europe the press is going apeshit for Obama. Almost daily there are articles about how Clinton lied, and wants to nuke Iran etc., and about how excited everyone is about Obama. I have a feeling that the press here are just reiterating US outlets like Reuters or the NYT without thinking about things.

I have no clue about US politics but I'd say a 55:45 win is decisive. At least it makes the convention interesting. The thing I still do not understand is why the press is trying so hard to get Obama elected? And why they cannot make the connection between Obama, Kenya and Zimbabwe. These things are related, as Steve amongst others, has shown.

Cal said...

I've been saying that for two months. The Democrats have to decide if they annoy blacks and liberals (who will vote Dem anyway) or 60% of white Democrats, 2/3rds of Hispanics, and 80% of Asians.

That they are leaning towards Obama suggests that they've gotten really stupid.

simon newman said...

I get the impression that the whiterpeople liberal elite actively _doesn't want_ the votes of blue-collar whites, working class Reagan Democrats, blue dogs, Scots Irish Rednecks. The elite would much rather those people F.O.A.D.
This torpedoed John Kerry's campaign, it looks like it will torpedo Obama's. Clinton has some capacity to reach out to them, partly off her husband's reflected glory (Bill proved very good at straddling the whiterpeople/good ole boy divide in his own person); giving her a shot at beating McCain in November.

The weird thing is that November is even in issue given the disaster of the last 7 years and McCain's promise to continue those policies. That the Republicans have a strong shot at winning in what's close to a perfect storm for them underlines the fundamental weakness of the Democrat coalition when set against that of the Republicans.

rightsaidfred said...

I agree with Simon Newman's post.

>>>>The elite would much rather those people F.O.A.D.

There is something about the arrogance of power, where your policies get promulgated whether they work or not. See Stalin, Mao, Fidel, Hugo Chavez.

dearieme said...

"the American people will get the worst president possible": what, worse than Clinton I and Bush II?

Sideways said...

Headache: The thing I still do not understand is why the press is trying so hard to get Obama elected?

Simple: the press fits rather precisely the profile of an Obama voter.

Anonymous said...

Didn't I read somewhere, maybe here, that CNN does not actually release the real exit poll results anymore but massages the results to match the "offical" results?

TIberiusClaudius said...

That the Republicans have a strong shot at winning in what's close to a perfect storm for them underlines the fundamental weakness of the Democrat coalition when set against that of the Republicans.


I have to (like, totally) disagree. If the Dems weren't tearing themselves apart, a united Democrat base would proabbly wipe the floor w/ McCain.

Josh said...

ID politics is pretty simple,in this case:Obama hates WHITE men...Hillary hates white MEN. That people have only these two chuckleheads to vote foris pretty discouraging. (PS:HOW didi Hillary get the rep as the "experienced" one-and I am NOT referring to that weekend she was rumored to have spent with Jimi Hendrix back in the 70's. The media,especially female reporters,picture her as having the experience and competence and know-how...as opposed to Obama's whatever he has.NO! Obama has worked with some success in a legislative environment. Hillary just screws up these projects she gets handed to her. Remember the story about Hillary's education plan in Arkansas. Ark was 49th in ed. achievement. After Hillary's work in the field,that changed. Now it was 50th...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous: And, judging by the exit polls there are a lot of people who say they vote for Obama, but actually don't.

Which is why Obama leads in delegates in the first place - because of the caucus states.

Owing to the Bradley/Wilder effect & the pervasive terror at the though of being labelled with the "R" word, many people lack the strength of character to go into an open forum like a caucus and proclaim their opposition to "The Black Guy".

By contrast, Hillary's only hope for victory lies in the secrecy of the voting booth.

Without his Bradley/Wilder victories in the caucus states, Obama would be toast.

testing99 said...

Simon, Republicans are actually not that bad in foreign policy and national security compared to Dems.

Where Reps go bad is in following liberal, Democratic stuff. Like Condi forbidding the State Dept. use jihad or jihadi. Or kowtowing before the "whiter people" press on Gitmo, waterboarding, whatever. Like Al Gore said on Extraordinary Rendition: "Of course it's illegal. That's why it's covert. The guy's a terrorist. Go grab his ass."

Technology (proliferating nukes) means poor people and various terrorist groups (through deniable "donations") will shortly have the ability to nuke US cities with relative impunity "it wasn't us, it was those guys!"

This is why Hillary's Nuke Iran stuff worked. Middle/working class people have the most at risk. Rich white yuppies the least. This explains the national security divide between those who want appeasement and don't really care if cities are nuked: "whiterpeople" and those who lose "big time" aka the middle/working class.

NAFTA sucks. No candidate wants to do anything about outsourcing, H1-B's, etc. This is all driven by the "whiterpeople" group.

simon newman said...

testing99:
"Simon, Republicans are actually not that bad in foreign policy and national security compared to Dems."

Looking at it from a foreign country (UK), I have to respectfully disagree, Evil Neocon. :)

Republicans _used_ to be the go-to guys for foreign policy, back in the good old days - Nixon (China), Reagan (USSR), the excellent Bush 1administration (USSR, Iraq).

Bill Clinton never did any good foreign-policy-wise unless you like the GATT/WTO, but he didn't do very much harm - a bit of genocide on the Serbs, making sure they had no opportunity to fight back.

Bush 2 by contrast has given us Iraq and the worldwide collapse of US moral authority, not to mention economic stability, threatening to destroy the Anglosphere's hard won global domination. Four hundred years of hard work gone *pfft*.

desmond jones said...

The recent Mass polls are interesting.

While Hillary Clinton soundly beats McCain in Massachusetts in the new SurveyUSA poll, 56 percent to 41 percent, the Obama/McCain number is 48 percent to 46 percent, well within the margin of error.

A Democrat struggling here in 2008? An unpopular war, a collapsing housing market and $4 gas - if Britney Spears were running as a Democrat, she’d pull at least 50 percent of the Massachusetts vote.

Sixty percent if she kept her clothes on.

testing99 said...

Desmond -- Deval Patrick's incompetence and Obama friendliness (Patrick is an Obama crony and is Black also) has much to do with MA poll numbers.

Simon -- GWB certainly ran Iraq policy incompetently. But he's less a factor good or bad one way or another. America failed from the late 70's onward at least to respond to terrorism ever escalating, nuclear proliferation, Jihad, and Islam. No red lines were drawn by push-back with military action.

Dems as a coalition of rich white yuppies and angry black nationalists have fetishized weakness. Which is not responsive to post-Cold War era. Bush or not, with Clinton's failure to stop NK and Pakistan from going nuclear, everyone else was going to also. [CIA is rumored to testify that NK ran Syria's site that was bombed. It being a Plutonium weapons site.] Bush or not, China and India were going to suck up manufacturing and service jobs with cheap labor and cheap fuel (that may change now). Economic expansion in those nations would pump up oil prices, Bush or Gore as President. Bush and Iraq matters a whole lot less than anyone thinks.

America threw itself a decade long party like Britain did in the 1920's, paid for by disarmament in the face of rising dangers. Your own nation is basically on the road to Sharia, not even your the CoE believes in Christianity anymore and told Britons to "lay back and enjoy it."

The Anglosphere? Britons who can are emigrating to the US or Canada. Canada is just a free rider on US defense and larger economy. NZ is what exactly? Australia is small nation population wise. Britain of course is finished. Powell was right. Britons can't even fly their own flag anymore. PC killed it.

I'd agree that McCain has no real clue about how to handle lots of nations going nuclear that are aggregations of tribes, but he's at least willing to fight. Obama? Talk worked with Brezhnev.

But we don't face Brezhnev. Instead a bunch of tribes with nukes. None of whom are afraid of us at all. I'd rather not lose NYC. It seems Hillary's poll-tested lines on Iran agree.

Martin said...

"Anonymous said...

Anonymous: And, judging by the exit polls there are a lot of people who say they vote for Obama, but actually don't.

Which is why Obama leads in delegates in the first place - because of the caucus states."

That's undoubtedly true. Also, the fact that the democratic party will not seat the Michigan and Florida delegations - states that Hillary won - has helped Obama a lot.

Martin said...

"testing99 said...

This is why Hillary's Nuke Iran stuff worked. Middle/working class people have the most at risk."

Nonsense. If islamic terrorists detonate an atomic bomb in an American city, it will most likely be in New York City or Washington D.C. They need to do this because a large part of the audience for their terror are overseas, for whom those two cities are virtually synomous with America. It's people in N.Y.C. and D.C. who have the most to fear, not some guy in Peoria. That's why the government has gone to almost any length - no matter how inconvenient it is for the rest of us - to safeguard their own lives. Being the government of course, they're still ineffectual about it.

Anonymous said...

This is the most depressing election I have seen. All 3 of the leading candidates are bad news. It is guaranteed that the next president will be as bad as Bush, if not worse. The only person who will benefit is Bush, who now has a shot at looking good by comparison in a few years.

simon newman said...

testing99:
"Your own nation is basically on the road to Sharia"

This is unfortunately true, I see the signs every day. The Republicans certainly haven't done anything to help though (yes I know the responsibility is primarily with us Brits); both Democrat and Republican policies have promoted the spread of Islamic global domination.

William said...

This is the most depressing election I have seen. All 3 of the leading candidates are bad news. It is guaranteed that the next president will be as bad as Bush, if not worse.

Which is why we should all be a lot more willing to accept an Obama presidency. The election of the most far left possible candidate will do more than a GOP victory ever would to discredit that particularly deadly ideology.

Of course I'd rather not have to live through the mess he creates (and given the performance of leftists there's a good chance many of us won't), but it may finish it off more quickly and completely.