Clinton widens lead over Obama.. Clinton 46%...Obama 24%

[Tellurian]

IF THESE WERE THE CANDIDATES, WHO WOULD YOU WANT AS DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE?

(Among Democratic Primary Voters)

May 24 2007

Clinton...46%

Obama...24%

Edwards...14%

4/2007

Clinton...39%

Obama...24%

Edwards...21%

Clinton's support is 7 points higher than a month ago, while Obama's has remained steady and Edwards' has dropped 7 points.

But Among African-American voters, Obama now runs about even with Clinton. In the combined March and April polls, only one-third of African-American Democrats said they were backing Obama.

All three of the top contenders are viewed positively by the Democratic primary voters. Clinton is the best known of the three and has the highest favorable rating at 62 percent. This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1125 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone May 18-23, 2007. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/24/opinion/polls/main2848857.shtml

[Tellurian]

1. Amazing...in spite of all the negativity on DU..

Hillary is not only thriving...She's excelling and lengthening her lead!

[Brassballs]

6. Looks like Obama is toast !!

[Tellurian]

41. If you would indulge me for a moment..

sshhh! (It's bad luck to gloat prematurely!) :hi:

[Red Knight]

23. Hooray for the corporate wing of the party!

We will vote for a Republican one way or the other by God!

[flyarm]

2. EDWARDS IS LEADING ALL DEMS IN FLORIDA!!

Edwards, Giuliani Lead in Florida


http://www.datamar.net/pdf/floridademocraticpresidentialprimary.pdf

In Florida, a new Datamar survey shows John Edwards leading the Democratic presidential race with 25.7% of the vote, followed by Sen. Hillary Clinton at 24%, Sen. Barack Obama at 18.9% and all other candidates in single digits.

On the Republican side, the survey shows Rudy Giuliani leading with 27% support, trailed by Fred Thompson at 22.4%, Mitt Romney at 17.6% and John McCain at 11.9%.

[Tellurian]

3. Edwards is NOT Leading Hillary...it's a dead Heat! +/- 4.8% moe

You're joking, right? Or are you trying to pull a fast one with this push poll?


Sample size 413
+/- 4.8 percent sampling error
May 14 – 18, 2007

Here's their criteria for determining %'s:

Methodology: Findings are based on May 14 – 18, 2007 survey using a comprehensive predictive model of
“likely” voters, based on election cycles and other factors of voters in Florida. The survey was conducted
using an automated telephone dialer and the voice of a professional announcer. A Datamar proprietary
algorithm was used to generate random samples of voters for calling. The margin of error for the total sample
is +/- 4.8 percent at the 95 percent confidence level.

Where necessary, responses were weighted according to age, gender, and political party. (What does this mean "weighted'?) Skewed?

[Robbins]

4. Hillary

I guess you must be ready for President Rudy then.

[Tellurian]

5. In Florida Polls-- Hillary Leads Giulliani by 13 pts. Obama by 23 pts. Edwards by 30 pts

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/13/State/Clinton__Giuliani_lea.shtml

[flyarm]

8. the st pete numbers are from may 13th..the poll i posted are inside numbers and are from May 23rd

sent to me from Edwards finance director. May 23rd

yes it is a dead heat ..with Edwards up front..

i am only posting what was sent to me as an elected delegate in fla...take the numbers and twist them anyway you want..i am only posting what i recieved yesterday!

fly

[ElizabethDC]

10. It wasn't just sent to you

I received the same e-mail just because I happen to be on the Edwards mailing list and I guess they have my zip code and know that I live in FL.

All other FL polls thus far have shown Edwards running third. If this poll is indicative of a new trend, other polls in the coming weeks will back it up.

[flyarm]

20. i am sure they will..and i am sure it was sent to many others..eom

[flyarm]

7. this is who i got the poll from...

i will not post the guys name...and as i am a delegate in the state of fla they send me the numbers...
xxxxxxxx name removed..
Finance Director
John Edwards For President

the rest is what i posted..

fly

[Tellurian]

13. Someone was asking about Electoral votes...read here

Here is the latest info from Fla:

Consequences to the Candidates of Florida’s Earlier Primary

May 23, 2007

Florida signed a bill on Monday May 21, 2007 that moves its state primary to January 29, 2007 with South Carolina. By doing so, they leap frog over a handful of states that are holding their primaries on February 5, 2007. This means they will hold a bigger hand in who gets nominated. But what impact does it do in the race.

First, let’s look at the Democrats.

Hillary Clinton clearly gains a bit of an advantage here. She is doing the best of all the candidates in Florida. Her lead in Florida is much larger than the average lead she holds in all of the other states.

Barack Obama benefits as well but in a non-traditional way. Current polls suggest that Edwards is leading Iowa and New Hampshire. Most believe that winning those two states would guarantee him in South Carolina. That is 3 of 4 states heading into the February 5 so-called “National Primary”. Adding Florida at the top gives Obama one more state to compete in to boost his campaign heading into the big day.

John Edwards can not like this news. As stated above, Edwards is leading in Iowa and New Hampshire; would win South Carolina. He would be looking like the front runner heading into the Feb 5 national primary. But Florida is up in the air. If Clinton and Obama do well in the state, the race would be looking very well up for grabs. And you have got to believe that if Clinton wins Florida and California, that she would be the hands-down nominee. That is because New York is all but hers.

Bill Richardson should have mixed feelings. Like Obama, he benefits because it gives him one more state to compete in before the Feb 5 election. But having less money than all of the other candidates, he may not be able to compete in advertising. He has a lot of money saved up from his 2006 bid for New Mexico governor so he is not in as bad a shape as a Biden, Dodd, or Kucinich. And he also brags about being the toughest working campaigner so that is okay. But because Florida is such a large state, advertising is key to get the recognition you need. Florida has a large Spanish speaking population and the Richardson campaign will need to associate with that segment of the population.


Now, let’s look at the Republicans.

It is not so clear-cut who benefits right now. Giuliani is from New York. Romney is from Massachusetts. McCain is from Arizona. None of the top 3 has a clear advantage in Florida. We claimed an advantage for Clinton in Florida at this point because she is leading the polls. We do not do the same for the Republicans because a lot has changed. First, McCain was clearly the front runner. Then it became Giuliani. Now it seems like Romney might be the front runner. Too much has been going on.

John McCain, we feel, is the biggest loser because of this. He has less money than Romney and Giuliani. But the same would be true heading into the so-called National Primary on February 5, 2008.

Mitt Romney, we feel, could become the biggest winner. He has a clear advantage in Iowa and New Hampshire. If he were to win those states, the momentum for his campaign would become so strong that he does not mind more states to have their primaries earlier. February 5 would seem like ages since the New Hampshire primary and people would forget his success. Adding Florida to the mix increases the number of states to compete in earlier while momentum is on his side.

Rudy Giuliani probably does not benefit. His campaign is going into the toilet right now thanks to his poor performance at the first debate. And the lacks of enthusiasm people are having for his campaign. Romney is outclassing him. And McCain seems to know what he wants. At this point, Giuliani needs to worry about Iowa and New Hampshire, not when Florida takes place.

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/consequences-of-florida-moving-up-its-primary.html

...Both Hillary and Bill are seasoned campaigners. Don't think for a moment there isn't a strategy going on here. Just more chaos to confuse and confound her opposition.

[madfloridian]

9. Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary

Hillary.

[Tellurian]

31. MF... we have new buttons for Hillary if you're interested...

she's gonna win..and help us get out of this hole GWB put us in..

[calteacherguy]

46. Why do you think she is the best choice? nt

[Tellurian]

49. Your bait is really stinky smelly..

and I've got better things to do..

[calteacherguy]

61. Wow. What a great advocate you are for Senator Clinton.

Is she as full of herself as you?

[Tellurian]

64. The search feature is a wonderful tool at DU..

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. National polls are virtually meaningless because of the electoral college system.

Hillary is still winning those mainly because of name recognition. But the numbers could be very different in the important primary states by the time those elections take place. And those are the only numbers that will matter.

[Tellurian]

14. Well, then, why is Obama stagnating ?

Could be because he doesn't have command of the facts and is overwhelmed by his handlers?

[ripple]

19. You should consider a career as a fiction writer

After all, you're pretty good at making shit up. You might want to refine your composition style, though. ;-)

Most democrats, and particularly those with only a passing interest in politics, assume Hillary will be the nominee. That's pretty much what the party and the MSM has shoved down our throats since her husband left office. It's going to take a while for people to get to know Obama and perhaps even longer for people to realize that Hillary's nomination isn't exactly a foregone conclusion.

[Tellurian]

29. The thing is...Obama doesn't have the luxury of time.. per se..

I'm sure you can agree with that ripple. Simply put, Obama is in over his head. The Issues and their solutions are very complex at this stage of the game. Obama hasn't had time to test any ideas he may have for viable solutions. Hillary has, and it's just that simple. It is not incumbent on us to look for a fresh face to run the WH... what is incumbent on us is to destroy the remains of the cabal that got us to where we are in the first place.

I'm willing to bet Obama isn't even aware of who or what the cabal is or what it entails-

This election is Bill and Hillary Clintons' all the way!

[ripple]

39. Your last line is amusing, given that up until recently,

Hillary has made a pointed effort to keep Bill on the sidelines so that he doesn't overshadow her. It seems that Obama's rising popularity and potential for growing his support base has the Clinton team a bit nervous- enter Bill.

Obama is well aware of the 'cabal' we find ourselves faced with today. In fact, I would argue that he is in a much better position to take an objective look at the sort of institutionalized politics that brought us to this juncture in the road to begin with. Hillary does not have that advantage.

[Tellurian]

40. The flaw in your argument is... we do not want objectivity...

we want a complete fumigation of the WH and Congress; not an objective look at- "institutionalized" (you've got to be kidding using a traditional word like that for describing the second coming of a Hitleresque cabal taking over the World's (first) charter democracy.) politics brought to you by Right Wing Fundamentalists, intent on spreading their kind of "institutionalist" democracy throughout the World..

If you are speaking for Obama...then he hasn't a clue as to what most of want and need to set this country back on the right track. All Obama would be doing is extending his hand as Clinton did in the 90's, in an effort to cultivate bi-partisanship with political rouges who will do everything to supplant his presidency. One fatal mistake is enough for any of us to endure in this life time. What would be worse, is allowing another candidate too green, with an idealistic approach dealing with the human scum we are making every effort to be rid of from our government.

I, for one, will do everything in my power to prevent that from happening ever again- and why I stand with (Bill and) Hillary to complete the evisceration of the Bush White House.

[ripple]

45. Do you really think Hillary won't try to make nice with the GOP?

You lament the fact that Bill did that, yet you somehow think Hillary would be different? Other than her rhetoric lately (poll-tested ad nauseum, no doubt), what has she done as a US Senator that would make you think she would do anything different than Bill? Without even getting into the IWR, this is the same woman who has been attending Brownback's Wednesday morning prayer breakfasts to make nice with the fundies, for christ's sakes.

I appreciate and share your concern about the gravity of the situation and what is at stake in this election, but I have no faith whatsoever that Hillary would provide the sort of progressive leadership necessary to change the institutional structure of our political system. In fact, she would be the worst person to do such a thing, given the debts, paybacks, and favors still undoubtedly owed from her husband's administration, not to mention the promises she has made to the DLC. That's what I'm talking about when I mention institutionalized politics. The thugs in charge now have just taken the same sort of politics and used them to cross the abyss.

The only way we stand any chance of seeing any long-lasting, systemic change in our political structure and keep such corruption at bay (or at least expose it to the light of day) is to elect a leader that has not only taken a principled stance when it hasn't been poll-tested and deemed PC, but a leader that is able to come from outside of the vast network of dark room dealings and take an objective approach to the situation. Will Obama have debts to repay to his supporters? You bet he will, just as any other candidate with any hope at all of being elected. There isn't a chance in hell, though, that they could possibly compare to what Hillary has to repay, not just to her own handlers, but to her husband's as well.

I think we also differ in our opinion of what a victory means in 2008 and depending in the victor, what the long-term ramifications of that will be. Personally, I won't be at all satisfied with a narrow victory that promises more of the bitterness and hatred, not just on the Hill, but within our society as a whole. Perhaps the only area Bush and his cronies can truly claim success in is playing on fear and intolerance to such a degree that our nation is crippled with distrust (and genuine hatred) for one another. I also blame cable news and talk radio for that- after all they've been the messengers. Either way, if we enter another polarizing presidency, it's virtually assured that Congress will again flip and we will again be faced with a lame-duck executive branch that does little to further progressive ideas.

The only way we are ever going to be truly progressive as a society is to reclaim our best traits as a people, rather than the divide and conquer strategy that only leads to continued corruption and downright desperation from many of our so-called political leaders. Unfortunately for her (and all of us if she is the dem nominee), even if she were to repudiate her past political ties and work toward that goal, Hillary has already been so vilified and therefore, hated en masse that such an undertaking would be virtually impossible. After all, one doesn't put a peony plant in one's house to get rid of ants.

[Tellurian]

48. A compilation of interwoven cliches..

each paragraph of your post is emphasizing a RW nuanced talking point. Not one point backed by "fact" in your lengthy 5 paragraph reply.

I really don't think you have a grasp of the organization (I mean trusted people) it will take to cleanse the corruption from the system. Obama has no such organization in place. He's barely had time to assemble a team to run his Exploratory Campaign. He's a loner except for the cast offs he's picked up along the way from the Republicans and past Dem candidates. They are not his people by any stretch of the imagination.

There are posters here that know more about whats gone on within our political system/shadow government over the last 50 yrs more than you or Obama. I've done the homework over the last ten years, piecing things together before Bush was elected. Its only been within the last 7 yrs, that all we suspected about the past, the rise of this shadow government came to fruition after BushII's election.

Obama is interested in healing the Nation, I am not, not by a long shot. I'm interested in a huge purge of the PNAC players and all the systems associated with it. Theres no sense in healing a festered wound that will only fester again after a short time. If you're thinking in terms of peony plants and ants, I'm sure your grasp of whats at stake here is merely a cursory glance at past history relating to the present and our future. Hillary is no Peony plant and her adversaries are not ants. The Clintons are the only ones that have survived and successfully beaten back the savage attacks by the Republicans. The Republicans victimized Gore with the Supreme Court and victimized Kerry by stealing the votes ensuring his election. The Clintons are proven fighters. They not only will fight for what belongs to them but will recoup to our benefit what has been lost over the last 7 yrs and make our world a better place then it was when BC took office. They've learned their lesson and learned it well. For now, it is they that stand between us and the prospects of a complete take over by an Authoritarian regime.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

53. Obama's campaign has two rationales. One requires making nice with the GOP

The two rationales for his candidacy seem to be: 1) He was correct on the IWR five years ago. That trumps anything he has done or advocated since then. He was right on Iraq in 2002. Freeze time. He is *the* Iraq candidate (even though his record and plan for Iraq mirror HRC's). 2) He will "unite" the nation. The vague and specious goal of "unity"--something that has not existed in this nation since Lexington and Concord...requires him to make nice with GOP. This will also require him to avoid taking bold, er, "polarizing" positions on issues--which are necessary in order to achieve actual change. If he is serious about "unity", that will paralyze him in office as far as showing any leadership on the issues of the day is concerned. His thinking works fine as a legislator but not as an executive. Being a legislator requires mastery of the art of compromise; serving as an executive requires bold leadership that inevitably will step on others' toes.

If we want triangulation ("unity" is largely a cleverly dolled up version of the infamous triangulation strategy) that merely splits the difference between progressive and conservatives we might as well vote for the real McCoy, HRC.

[Tellurian]

57. In a roundabout fashion..What you're saying is:

If we want triangulation ("unity" is largely a cleverly dolled up version of the infamous triangulation strategy) that merely splits the difference between progressive and conservatives"we might as well vote for the real McCoy, HRC."

With that said as striken, we are in agreement!

[laugle]

54. "V" for Vendetta!!!!!!! I loved that movie!!

Resist the totalitarian government at all costs!!!


Throw all the bums out--then we can make nice..........LOL

Well......a little levity is good.....

Let's have a burial for PNAC!!!

Hill and Bill are going to KICK-ASS and I can't wait!!

[Tellurian]

58. ....

:toast:

2 :thumbsup:

[laugle]

59. Cheers to you too.......

Where do you get the patience......now get some zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz's.

[ripple]

63. When have you EVER backed your opinions and wild speculations with fact?

Hell, I was pleased when I thought we were finally able to have a conversation that included political philosophy and strategy. That certainly didn't last long, did it?

I'm not using RW talking points, nor do I have any interest in doing so. I understand and can relate to your passion for your candidate, but your almost insolent intolerance, your obvious disdain for other candidates and their supporters, your apparent inability to argue a point without attacking others, and your baseless accusations lead me to believe that you aren't interested in having a conversation at all.

It's unfortunate that you can't see beyond your own bias.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

50. self delete

[laugle]

42. Make that "Hill and Bill" the DYNAMIC DUO" because

we need 2 president's to clean-up the Bush mess!!!!!!!

You are right, Obama needs to get his message out now, no time to waste if he is to continue to be a front runner.

I've got a feeling Edwards will be passing him..............

[Tellurian]

52. laugle..

Big smiles for that one!

[Grandrose]

25. Well, then, why are you so scared?

It's one thing to be a competitor, but please tell, where the animosity, bitterness and down right nastiness come from?

I would expect the vitriol from the Repubs...from our own party, no.

I will not vote for Hillary, primary or general elections.

This life-long(60+ years) Democrat has had it and I for one will show you what...overwhelmed looks like!!!:mad:

[Tellurian]

32. A statement of what IS is not vitriol.. my friend.. it's fact..

Obama is fading in the distance. I'll tell you this. I'm not about to risk losing the WH again..are you?

[laugle]

55. Who you going to vote for Nader?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. Yawn, this is another celebrity-driven poll that is about as

meaningful to the actual concerns of the nation as American Idol.

Will you stop with the horse-race mentality already and seriously consider the nation's needs and who--male, female, black, white, whatever--has the best POLICIES to take care of the long and arduous business of recovering from the eight-year disaster of the Bushboy years and the insufficient clean-up from Reaganism done during the Clinton years?

[Tellurian]

15. Hillary has made it obvious to people who have been following politics for years..

She is the most politically informed candidate on the scene, besides her husband of course; that can expedite us from the war and the economical quagmire in which Bush has buried the country.. Bar None!

Whether you like it or not; it's TRUE!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. See, I was underwhelmed by her husband, who

squandered so many opportunities and was so quick to cave in to the Republicans, that I don't consider that a ringing endorsement.

He looks good only in comparison with the two Bushes he is sandwiched in between.

[paulk]

21. actually, Clinton looks good compared to any American

President, period.

http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/jobwelldone.html

Not that any of that is good enough for those on the extremes of the political spectrum...

[Tellurian]

22. Hillary and Bill have become seasoned politicians and are ready to take on the Republicans

The Clintons learned a hard lesson before they left the White House. And that lesson is, NEVER TRUST A REPUBLICAN!.

They left the WhiteHouse on Top. They were not beaten by a bunch of Republican Thugs representing a much meaner, covert cabal. It took the last six years to reveal who and how many are involved in the pnac cabal. All but a few have been outed. A Demo WH this next trip around will be the complete and total annihilation of the Republican Party. I can't see Obama or Edwards putting the final nail in the Republican coffin...The only ones capable of ending this stranglehold on America, now and forever, are the Clintons

[Nedsdag]

26. "The only ones capable of ending...."

You're kidding, right?

It came into bloom during the 1990s.

If they couldn't stop it then, what makes you think they can stop it in the future?

[Tellurian]

27. Haven't you noticed?

How many indictments have come down against the WH already? I believe the last count was up to 72 people that have been indicted. If I'm not mistaken, "underpants" has a complete list of names.

The creators of the PNAC have either been disbanded or neutered, like Gingrich...

Wolfewitz was a major player. He's destroyed himself. The 2 hands full of players left are on life support and it's only a matter of time.

[laugle]

56. Speaking of criminals, do you know when Delay's trial starts?

I haven't heard anything in a long time.......

I can't wait to see him behind bars!!

[TwilightGardener]

28. And yet they trust Poppy Bush. Republican patriarch. Hmmm.

[Tellurian]

34. Ah, I take it you've never seen the Godfather 1 2 3?

Where Michael states: "You keep your friends close, your enemys closer." Tell me you've never heard that truism before?

[calteacherguy]

47. "Never trust a Republican" is a horrible "lesson."

That's the whole problem with Hillary Clinton. She is perceived as too divisive and unwilling to move beyond partisanship to statemanship.

If that is truly the lesson they learned, then it's horrible and a HRC would not be good for America.

[Red Knight]

24. We can look forward to more fast track trade

With of course meaningless "side" agreements.

I don't see how those agreements lift Joe Average from any quagmire.

You know it's bad when Hershey Chocolate moves plants to Mexico. Milton Hershey is rolling in his grave.

Move jobs out--bring cheap labor in: the corporate agenda in Washington.

Why should I support that?

[Arugula Latte]

17. It's the state polls that matter.

Hillary ain't doing so hot in Iowa -- that counts more than this poll.

[DemDem07]

18. With 15 years in the spotlight, a famous well liked ex president

for a husband, 6 years in the senate, a war chest big enough to make anna nicole blush, 46% should be her LOW outlier numbers. Not her high number. If this is the best she can muster, given her worldwide iconic status, It's past time she pack it in and let soemone with a chance of actually winning get some of the fresh air her campaign is gulping.

[AJH032]

38. By that logic, everyone should drop out

because none of our candidates are polling that high.

[DemDem07]

66. That logic doesn't aply to anyone else.

Obama wasn't married to Bill CLinton was he? How about Edwards? ;)

[PresidentObama]

30. With all due respect, this poll seems iffy at best. Hillary is leading, but not by that match.

Does anyone have the poll numbers from other recent polls? I seriously doubt Obama is trailing this much in all the other major polls. Plus I'm more interested in the state by state polls, which Hillary is doing well in a lot of those as well. National polls are good indications of the pulse of the nation. But I like to see how the primary voters are feeling state by state.

Edwards is at the position I would want to be in going into the summer before the nominee is choosen. Third place. I think if he's banking on Iowa, he's got a smart and risky (educated risk) strategy in place. We'll see what happens. In any event, we've got a horse race on our hands...which is EXACTLY what I think we need.

[Tellurian]

35. See posts # 5 and # 13

Post #5 is the latest reliable poll I could find. It is well within the parameters of accuracy more than the OP's push poll. Post # 13 confirms the resulting numbers in post #5 with Hillary as the runaway front runner. And advises the reader of newer Fla primary changes.

[PresidentObama]

37. Well done. She is not my first choice, but she's in a very good position right now.

Kudos to the Hillary supporters. Personally, I would not throw a fit kicking and screaming if she got the nomination. I'd slap on the Hillary bumper sticker, place the yard sign in the front lawn, and head to the phone banks to call some voters. Same goes if it's my candidate or Senator Obama. Hell, even if it was Rep. Kucinich. But let's be realistic, that's not happening :evilgrin:

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our second quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[Tellurian]

36. Grov..

you'll need to bring a rubber hammer with you next time..

[draft_mario_cuomo]

43. Kerry was tied with Sharpton in the national polls in November of 2003

The national polls mean little until Super Duper Tuesday. What matters right now are the polls in Iowa and NH.

[PresidentObama]

44. It's anyones ballgame. But Hillary is in the lead, for sure.

She could increase her lead or lose the frontrunner status. Who knows. She could have someone else steal the spotlight, and have difficulty getting it back. It's a long horse race ahead. I agree about polls, but they're interesting to track the progess of candidates and their campaigns. But yes, I remember this time in 2003 very vividly. Kerry made his come back in 2004 after Dean started to tank, and went onto the nomination. I think Edwards is got a very smart strategy banking on Iowa. It's definitely a risk, but an educated one based on the poll numbers he's been generating there.

[illinoisprogressive]

51. According to Gallup, the name recognition has not changed since Jan.

Gallup says the name is what are driving polls right now and not the final choice of candidates. People are still going on recognition alone and don;t know about the others.
they said to not pay attention to national polling because of this right now and they are tracking and polling to see when people begin to pay attention.
In other words, don't count your chickens.

[Yukari Yakumo]

60. Looks like Hil's absorbing Ed's support in that poll.

Rasmussen's numbers:

5/21
35% Hil
25% Obama
18% Ed

5/14
35% Hil
33% Obama
14% Ed

5/07
34% Hil
26% Obama
16% Ed

4/30
30% Hil
32% Obama
17% Ed

4/23
32% Hil
32% Obama
17% Ed

3/19
35% Hil
30% Obama
11% Ed

2/19
28% Hil
24% Obama
11% Ed

1/22
31% Hil
24% Obama
12% Ed


If Hil does get the nom, who should be the running mate? Obama? He seems to appeal to a different set of voters than Hil, and that might be a good thing.

[Bullet1987]

62. Question: Is there a Dem National Caucus?

Answer: NO!!!

[robcon]

65. "Dem National Caucus" is a strawman.

No one has argued that there is a national caucus or primary for the party. Only that 35-25 is a very, very significant lead. Mathematically, if the current national lead holds up (unlikely - it'll get bigger or smaller of course) Hillary will win most of the states, and will be the nominee.

[Bullet1987]

67. It's not a strawman...

...it shows the fraudalent POV of taking polls of favorability on the national level when there will never be a national caucus. So the idea that Hillary has a WHOPPING lead in ALL of the states is erronous. As can be seen in how close Iowa (Clinton in 3rd) and New Hampshire are. She doesn't have NEARLY the level of lead as her supporters are erronously espousing. If she did, then she would be comfortably ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire.

[robcon]

68. Fraudulent is a hysterical take on the national poll.

The national poll is the best indicator of who will win the nomination.

Another strawman...

NO ONE on this board said or implied they believed that "Hillary has a WHOPPING lead in ALL of the states."

I think you should address substantive issues, Bullet1987, and drop your pose of attacking made-up positions that are held by no one.

[Bullet1987]

69. You DO imply it...

You imply it every time you post one of these polls and use it as if it's important. And no, NO poll this early will tell us who is getting the nomination. We haven't even had a damn caucus yet...and Clinton could lose BOTH of the first two. It's definently not outside the realm of possibility (if Edwards takes Iowa and Obama takes New Hampshire). And I wasn't saying the poll was fraudalent...I was saying the idea that it paints an accurate picture of how things will play out.

[robcon]

70. Again, bullet1987, you're making it up.

Strawmen seem to be your only argument.

I think 35% or so is NOT indicative of Hillary winning all the states - as you stated. That's never going to happen.

I think that national polling is indicative that Hillary will win the nomination, if the sentiment continues. Her polling could go up or down. That's what I said, implied and believe. The rest of your strawman is what YOU WISH I had said or believed.

And then you introduce a NEW strawman... defending yourself against a phantom accusation "And I wasn't saying the poll was fraudulent" Where, bullet1987, did anyone claim that you thought the poll was fraudulent? You said that my POV was fraudulent.

If you had a rational argument, you'd use it. Since you don't, you try to attack phantom arguments that neither I nor anyone else made or believe.