Polling

 

 It is obvious that the Pennsylvania primary solved nothing for the Demoncrats. All of the arguments from before the primary are re-circulating. But a fair portion of the analysis and the arguments are tissue thin. There is no weight to arguments about who is better positioned to stand against McCain, because that is all too far off and too unpredictable. The polls now are simply not stark enough to bear any weight. After all, if polls eight months in advance of events were good predicators, there would be no contest in the Demoncratic party – Clinton would be the nominee. Hasn’t worked that way. And has not historically – polls this far in advance of elections are not much help. So we should ignore that line of argument. Similarly, it is very hard to know whether and the extent of defections from Clinton or Obama to McCain (or home with a beer). It is foolish to make much of anything of those sorts of poll results this far from the event. To harp on a favorite of mine, Carter lost because of Khomeini. The polling, up until shortly before the election, did not show Reagan winning.  Tea leaves. The one with the most votes? Well, okay, but do we really mean to say that people who attend caucuses don’t count, or count less?  Why should that oddity of delegate selection make a difference? The point is that these are short term debating points, not matters of principle.

Last week - Thursday I believe - The Daily Show did a very funny and biting piece on Clinton's changing views on what justifies her nomination.  Sometimes it is voting, sometimes it is support of people who are Deoncrats and sometimes those not Demoncrats.  Sometimes it is the party regulars and stalwarts, and sometimes it is anyone but.

Too bad she could not bother to read the Intelligence Estimate before she voted for war.  But that would confuse the issue with facts.