J. J.'s Rules

[J. J.]

Most of the commentators on MSNBC; 72 hours before the election.

Well, OK, the MSNBC commentators are idiots.

But I hardly remember this as being widespread, and I don't remember the Obama campaign floating it.  That kind of claim, wherein Obama would have slaughtered, is not exactly the sort of thing the campaign would have put out.  It would have turned independents off voting Dem.  I have trouble believing they did, but I'm open to evidence to the contrary.

I think it was at least some sources in the campaign.  They were expecting a big win; I think the premise that Obama would attract independent votes was part of that.

[Sam Spade]

Theoretically, I have tossed around in my head a couple of times since NH, the fact that what may have been going on in the polling there is the classic example of over-enthused Obama voters (driven by the victory in IA) over-responding to polls, whereas the under-enthused Hillary voters under-responded. 

Because Hillary had the premiere ground game in NH, her voters showed up in droves, much greater than their poll numbers indicated, while Obama's people (who had the lesser ground game) were relying on the Independents, who, as JJ mentioned, went right back over to the Republican side where they normally voted.

If so, that is the likely validation of the second rule, I suspect.  Or maybe ground games really do count. 

[J. J.]

I actually mentioned the wishful thinking aspect in the paper, which is now shorter than this thread.