from pollster.com

Just a reminder: The methodology of the previous U. of I. poll was unusual in a few respects: they asked an open-ended vote question (that asks respondents to volunteer their choice without prompting), they sampled from a directory of listed telephone households (rather than from registered voter lists or via random digit dial or voting list) and used a screen that was wider than other polls.

actually the poll specifically states that the difference between Edwards and the frontrunners will disappear when you take into account that the Edwards supporters are much more likely to caucus.

It is an impartial poll, and this does not change just because you dislike the results.

What you've quoted here and what you quoted below are all anyone needs to know: Their voter screen was so loose they pulled random names out of the phonebook. That's not those who have caucused before and state they will for sure caucus again this time, that's not any sort of likely caucus goers, that's NOT even registered voters. Anyone that wants to use those numbers to say anything about how those very likely to caucus feel right now would have to be pretty silly.

Even if you want to ignore all that oh so silly likely caucus goer screen stuff, you can't really ignore the pollsters saying that Edwards' has 20%+ margin over Hillary and Obama amongst those who attended the 2004 caucus and that considering just those most likely to caucus (which ends up being those who caucus) that he erases their leads and is "clearly ahead."

This isn't a poll that a Hillary supporter should be trumpeting at all.

Ok, Tom.  Well, those comments were hidden. This is not a scummy comment.  Play fair.

Her comment was a good point- he's falling in the polls- his negativity could possibly be a big reason for that.  What's scummy is someone hiding a comment that doesn't deserve it and shouldn't be hidden according to the rules.

frankly, your comments have turned me off as well

EVERY comment a user you dislike makes will be zeroed, regardless of comment content?

That is shameful abuse of the ratings system, an obvious violation of this site's rules, and a bully mentality that is without equal.   Disgusting.   RATE THE COMMENT, for cripes sakes.  That is how it is supposed to work.  The ratings are not your personal playground to express dislike of a poster.  

YOU are the one who should be banned- some of you people think rules are for everyone else except yourselves.

You should be banned. Hypocrite!

I agree.  In another thread, a commenter said he(I think) didn't think of Hillary as male or female, just Hillary, and that is crucial for her to getting the male vote.   Hillary is not going to play the female victim card now by saying John Edwards is picking on her because she is a girl, that would undermine all that she has achieved in male support. She is going to neutralize him another way (so far ignoring him).   As they step up the attacks, I think she is going to play the bad Democrats card against Obama and Edwards for their negativity.  She will probably say that Democrats have a common enemy in the Repubs and Bush, yet her campaign opponents can only find mean things to say about her, while giving the Repubs a pass.

Your objection is inane, as is your threat of "total cyber warfare". What exactly does that entail? And why do you feel that it is appropriate to threaten somebody in order to force your will on them?

areyouready is a republican troll who seems to hate all things Democratic. Which pretty much explains the fervent support for Hillary.

If a republican can't win then Hillary is the next best thing. - inside areyouready's head

At the time the campaign was unveiled I recall many of Obama's supporters express apprehension at the theme, claiming that it could well hurt and hamstring him later on.  That is what is happening.  I was impressed with the tone and theme myself, but wondered if it could be maintained throughout for the most part.  That is a virtually impossible task, and it has not been possible for Obama to maintain the high road throughout.  Not at all surprising, given the hustle and bustle a political campaign comes with, but the change has been somewhat severe and large.  It seems like it went from one thing to an entirely different thing virtually overnight, which gave a lot of people a bit of a shock.  

In a way the theme that was struck early on helped Obama get ahead of Edwards, but it has also created an expectation that just could not be maintained.

But Gore is not running. So if Edwards is not making much of a move nationally, most of his support will shift to Obama.  This is because both of them are bashing Hillary and still retaining their current support at the moment. So if at all their is a shift before the primary it might move from Edwards to Obama. So, Edwards could end up fading before the 2008 caucus the way Dean did in 2004. The biggest beneficiary would be Obama.

Just when I thought Clinton supporters here couldn't get any more "low-info" they go and do something even stupider.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/1 0/29/romney_way_ahead_in_iowa_democratic _race_close.html

Haven't you ever heard of "It's the economy, stupid!"

Surprising since you are all stuck in the 90's.

And many outlets release polls for media related reasons, not because they are experts.

Look at the national polls.

Only 10% take part in primaries tops.

But they let in any Dem.

And casual non-voting Dems love HRC.

Do the math.  Or is that going to make your head hurt?