Like Daniel Finkelstein I’m not buying the idea Hillary got game coz she blubbed. Politics Fembot activates tears programme? Persuasive? Not nine-point persuasive. (So in answer to my previous post… er, no.)
On Sky News (no link) Frank Luntz figured the reason for her bouncing so well was that the majority of news networks cut back to studio after 27 seconds – after she blubbed but before she launched into Obama.
Had people seen mud-slinging politics at play would they have considered her emotion genuine? Would there have been such a last-minute surge?
Staff at Bobballs think voters going gooey over Hills turning on the tap is too neat an explanation to describe what happened in NH… and how the collective genius of the world’s pollsters got it wrong. It’s just a watered down, low-cal explanation that’s perfect for broadcast media.
Of course Hillary’s excellent result comes from a combinaiton of factors. While The Slate offers a pretty shrewd overview, this too focuses on the emotional. What if that ain’t it? What if the answer lies within the technical?
ABC did some anxious soul searching after failing to spot Hillary’s late, late surge. Gary Langer asks the questions and Prof Jon Krosnick attempts to answer them. The order of where candidates’ names appear on the ballot could have had an effect – the higher up the ballot the greater the tendency toward receiving a first preference.
Staff at Bobballs are enjoying all the media Blubballs that’s doing the rounds. But what if the media’s getting it wrong about the reasons behind why they were getting it wrong?
Krosnick’s Ballotballs is great – if for nothing else but for uniqueness. Clinton baffled the media consensus in the winning and Krosnick is baffling the media consensus in the explaining. Why ever not?
[But then there’s the theory that got away. Does this account for the, erm, Hillary flourish?]