Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gallup Daily: Obama Maintains Solid Democratic Lead

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
ckramer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-13-08 05:58 PM
Original message
Gallup Daily: Obama Maintains Solid Democratic Lead
Edited on Sun Apr-13-08 05:59 PM by ckramer
Source: G

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking for April 10-12 shows Barack Obama continuing to hold a solid lead over Hillary Clinton in national Democratic voters' support for the presidential nomination, 50% to 41%.

The latest news in the campaign focuses on remarks Obama made, first reported on Friday, about working class and rural voters being "bitter" about the economy. Clinton and John McCain have seized on the remarks.

Initial indications are that the controversial remarks has not yet hurt Obama -- his 9-percentage point lead in the current results (based on March 10-12 polling) is right in line with the average 8.5-point lead he held in the prior six days' tracking results. Also, his lead in the current results shows a slight improvement from his 7-point advantage in March 9-11 polling. As the story gains momentum in the press, the coming days' tracking results will measure its ultimate impact.

Read more: http://www.gallup.com/poll/106435/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Maintains-Solid-Democratic-Lead-50-41.aspx



It's bitter, it's sweet!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Aviation Pro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-13-08 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. Time to pack it in Senator Clinton.....
....you've run a tough, courageous race and it's time for you to put personal ambition aside and move to the common goal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ckramer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-13-08 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. Hillary, please don't be bitter

It's okay to be a loser.

You picked that route yourself when you voted for the Iraqi killing war.

Bill and you have got Iraqis' blood in your hand.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
workoholic Donating Member (13 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-13-08 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I don't think voting for Iraq is what made her lose
The attacks to the effect that she and Bill were racist were the events that made her plunge in the polls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-13-08 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. That, and her proven repeated lies.
She's been caught in too many of them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ckramer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-13-08 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846_pf.html

There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.

Some people will scoff at that number, but we've done the math. Senior Bush administration aides certainly pooh-poohed worrisome estimates in the run-up to the war. Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey reckoned that the conflict would cost $100 billion to $200 billion; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld later called his estimate "baloney." Administration officials insisted that the costs would be more like $50 billion to $60 billion. In April 2003, Andrew S. Natsios, the thoughtful head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said on "Nightline" that reconstructing Iraq would cost the American taxpayer just $1.7 billion. Ted Koppel, in disbelief, pressed Natsios on the question, but Natsios stuck to his guns. Others in the administration, such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, hoped that U.S. partners would chip in, as they had in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, or that Iraq's oil would pay for the damages.

The end result of all this wishful thinking? As we approach the fifth anniversary of the invasion, Iraq is not only the second longest war in U.S. history (after Vietnam), it is also the second most costly -- surpassed only by World War II.

Why doesn't the public understand the staggering scale of our expenditures? In part because the administration talks only about the upfront costs, which are mostly handled by emergency appropriations. (Iraq funding is apparently still an emergency five years after the war began.) These costs, by our calculations, are now running at $12 billion a month -- $16 billion if you include Afghanistan. By the time you add in the costs hidden in the defense budget, the money we'll have to spend to help future veterans, and money to refurbish a military whose equipment and materiel have been greatly depleted, the total tab to the federal government will almost surely exceed $1.5 trillion.

But the costs to our society and economy are far greater. When a young soldier is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, his or her family will receive a U.S. government check for just $500,000 (combining life insurance with a "death gratuity") -- far less than the typical amount paid by insurance companies for the death of a young person in a car accident. The stark "budgetary cost" of $500,000 is clearly only a fraction of the total cost society pays for the loss of life -- and no one can ever really compensate the families. Moreover, disability pay seldom provides adequate compensation for wounded troops or their families. Indeed, in one out of five cases of seriously injured soldiers, someone in their family has to give up a job to take care of them.

But beyond this is the cost to the already sputtering U.S. economy. All told, the bill for the Iraq war is likely to top $3 trillion. And that's a conservative estimate.

President Bush tried to sell the American people on the idea that we could have a war with little or no economic sacrifice. Even after the United States went to war, Bush and Congress cut taxes, especially on the rich -- even though the United States already had a massive deficit. So the war had to be funded by more borrowing. By the end of the Bush administration, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the cumulative interest on the increased borrowing used to fund them, will have added about $1 trillion to the national debt.

The long-term burden of paying for the conflicts will curtail the country's ability to tackle other urgent problems, no matter who wins the presidency in November. Our vast and growing indebtedness inevitably makes it harder to afford new health-care plans, make large-scale repairs to crumbling roads and bridges, or build better-equipped schools. Already, the escalating cost of the wars has crowded out spending on virtually all other discretionary federal programs, including the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and federal aid to states and cities, all of which have been scaled back significantly since the invasion of Iraq.

To make matters worse, the U.S. economy is facing a recession. But our ability to implement a truly effective economic-stimulus package is crimped by expenditures of close to $200 billion on the two wars this year alone and by a skyrocketing national debt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yorkiemommie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-13-08 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Great Article
Will it wake up my co-workers who think the war isn't hurting us here at home???? Probably not!

:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-13-08 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
3. Obama leads for 3 straight weeks!!!
Go, Obama! Seal the deal in PA!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frank Booth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-13-08 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
5. Hillary lost a while ago. She has the right, of course, to keep running.
But she shouldn't be taking the party down in the process, which appears to be her MO.

If she can't control her destructive tendencies she needs to be forced out by the party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZ Criminal JD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-13-08 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
6. In the Rasmussen poll Obama has gone from 10 points up to one point down.
This has occurred in a period of six days. http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_democratic_presidential_primary_tracking_polling_history I know, since the poll shows Clinton is ahead it is an "outlier" or "right-wing" or "out-dated polling methods."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhoran Donating Member (289 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-13-08 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
17. There are always short-term fluctuations in poll numbers...
...related to transitory events. Whatever the particular furor du jour, when things level out again, Obama continues to hold a sizable lead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZ Criminal JD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. A new excuse by the Obamabots. I love it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-13-08 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
9. Did They Start Any General Election Polling Yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muryan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-13-08 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Some
the data is largely irrelevant though. McCain got a boost when he won the nod and Obama hasnt sealed the deal yet so im not putting any emphasis on those polls
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ckramer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-13-08 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
10. Weapons Industry Dumps Republicans, Backs Hillary
The U.S. arms industry has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party and is putting their money on Hillary Clinton.

The U.S. arms industry is backing Hillary Clinton for President and has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party. Mrs Clinton has also emerged as Wall Street's favourite. Investment bankers have opened their wallets in unprecedented numbers for the New York senator over the past three months and, in the process, dumped their earlier favourite, Barack Obama.

Mrs. Clinton's wooing of the defence industry is all the more remarkable given the frosty relations between Bill Clinton and the military during his presidency. An analysis of campaign contributions shows senior defence industry employees are pouring money into her war chest in the belief that their generosity will be repaid many times over with future defence contracts.

Employees of the top five U.S. arms manufacturers -- Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon -- gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to the Republicans. "The contributions clearly suggest the arms industry has reached the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed," said Thomas Edsall, an academic at Columbia University in New York.

http://www.alternet.org/story/65869/


Democrats should take the opposite action - dump Hillary, the warmonger!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pberq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #10
20. important story
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smiley_glad_hands Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-13-08 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
11. To the hill supporter and lurking freeper, this only emboldens them.
She will not drop out. She will see this party in shambles before someone else takes her crown away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-13-08 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
12. WOOT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SleeplessinSoCal Donating Member (710 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-13-08 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
14. Feigning outrage isn't the way to go Hillary....
Supporting the rebuilding of the Democratic Party with Obama as it's leader would be a wise and helpful move Sen. Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evolvingsteve Donating Member (130 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-13-08 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
16. grrrrrrr
I refuse to watch the news for the next week, I will strictly just log on to DU for my political news fix, So whatever "momentum" is going to start like this article is claiming.....well, I won't be taking it all in....I'll be happy analyzing just from DU, thank you very much....



:puke: :hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CANDO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-13-08 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
18. The 'bitter" working class gets it
What Barack says in other words is that the working people have been fed a steady stream of "wedge issue" political messages having nothing to do with their economic plight. What have the pukes done so effectively? They've focused on "gun rights", "family values", "pro-life", and anything else that diverts the spotlight away from holding the economic elites accountable for their war on the middle class. I can't believe Hillary and McSame are so out of touch with this simple truth. On the other hand, yes I can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
agincourt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-13-08 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
19. The poll I want to see,
is Obama double-digit ahead of McCain. The last thing we need is a coherent version of Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC