Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jan W who wrote (234534)	1/12/2008 9:58:55 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794488

Hi Jan..Thought you'd enjoy a UK's take on this: Case closed: Why Hillary won January 10, 2008 timesonline.typepad.com More on why Hillary won when the polls said that she wouldn't. My two leading theories were the Bradley Effect (people say they are going to support a black candidate then don't) and the Spiral of Silence (people are embarrassed to tell a pollster they really supported Hillary not Obama). Both of these had arguments in their favour, but both had this problem - the exit polls. Surely if either of these effects was important they would have made the exit polls wrong. And yet the exit polls seemed, looking at them the morning after the night before, to be right. Now I've spoken to one of the best polling gurus in the business, Andrew Cooper of Populus, and I think I understand. The correctness of the exit polls is an illusion. When I first saw the exit polls (at 1AM Wednesday morning UK time) they showed a 39-34 per cent advantage for Obama. When I woke up at 7AM they seemed to be totally in line with the result. The reason? The exit polls are reweighted as the night goes on to incorporate the results as they are counted. And the original polls disappear from the website. This is very important indeed in gaining an understanding of the Hillary victory. It means that any explanation of her victory must explain that voters told exit pollsters after they had voted that they were not for Hillary even though they had just voted for her. This means that the polls were wrong because people weren't telling the truth to pollsters and not because of a last minute change of heart. So you can dismiss, for instance, the crying as an explanation because even if it didn't turn up in last minute opinion polls it surely would have done in an exit poll. We really are just left with the Bradley Effect and the Spiral of Silence. So which is it? The Spiral of Silence. How can I be so sure? Because of this graph from Matt Yglesias's site. As you can see Obama's vote came in on the money. Hillary's didn't, not by miles. People voted for her who didn't tell pollsters that they would. And they kept it to themselves even after they had done so. The wikipedia entry is particularly good at explaining how something like Obama's incredible media coverage post-Iowa might make people unwilling to admit they were actually for Hillary. Case solved. Posted by Daniel Finkelstein on January 10, 2008 in Hillary Clinton \| Permalink \| Comments (68) \| TrackBack (0) \| Email this post

To: Jan W who wrote (234534)	1/13/2008 1:41:42 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794488

Jan i have to disagree with you. oil is a big issue and heating oil is a bigger issue to new england. 75% of the fuel is burned there. is some lock in although for me to pre buy it is money up front.. no budget, i have no idea what percent lock in. i do know we have seen interviews here in philly out of Manchester with oil companies saying customers cannot afford heating oil and are ordering in 100 gallon quantities, the examples with small cape cod homes. It is a serious question, not a silly one. Ask those people who do not have the spendable income now because of another $1.00 a gallon increase in heating oil. I would find it interesting to hear what hillary and others propose to do about it. Hillary response is bush administration's fault, no energy policy. If people of new hampshire let that get bye then i would feel they were duped. Bush tried for both terms to pass an energy policy only it was blocked by democrats. Oh, i was a new englander, north of boston. i feel most people in Ma just go along with democrat machine vs think for them selves. I find it amazing that the people who depend on oil and natural gas year after year refuse expansion of refineries, tank farms, lng, pipelines and off shore drilling. Yet expect a source of energy. In Mass they didn't even fight kennedy and kerry who got wind power off nantucket turn down. so i do repeat myself. i find it questionable that no energy questions came up at those meetings.

To: Jan W who wrote (234534)	1/13/2008 2:18:25 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 794488

jan seems edwards approached the problem in his booklet and discussed heating oil at several locations. In Rochester and again at another town hall meeting in Meredith, Edwards opened by outlining his new plan to help people afford their high heating oil bills and ensure affordable prices in the future. Noting that home heating oil prices in New Hampshire have surpassed $3 a gallon, Edwards called on Congress to release some of the nation's home heating oil and crude oil reserves and to fully fund the federal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Earlier this month, President Bush vetoed a Democratic health and education spending bill that included $2.4 billion for heating subsidies for the poor, $480 million more than Bush requested. "It's no wonder people are worried and concerned and in some cases having to choose between paying their rent, paying for food or paying to keep their place warm," Edwards said. He also said he would double the budget of a program that helps people weatherize their homes to $500 million a year and would help states and nonprofit groups administer low- or no-interest emergency loans to people struggling to pay their heating bills. Upgrading home furnaces, ducts, windows and insulation can cut energy bills by about 30 percent, he said, but the program reaches only about 100,000 of the 28 million homes that could be eligible. He also proposes helping states and nonprofit groups administer low- or no-interest emergency loans to people struggling to pay their heating bills. His plan for longer-term relief from high home heating prices involves asking the Justice Department to investigate the massive mergers of oil companies in recent decades and modernizing antitrust laws to target oil and gas companies that take unilateral action to withhold supplies in order to raise prices. Under current law, companies can't be charged for those actions unless they are working with other companies, Edwards said. Edwards also proposes repealing tax breaks for the oil industry and reinvesting the savings in renewable energy projects.