MyDD :: June Straw Poll Results

June Straw Poll Results

by Chris Bowers, Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 07:52:01 PM EST

MyDD June Reader Straw Poll (6/13, 1,775 votes)

Candidate	1st Choice	2nd Choice	3rd Choice	4th Choice	Last Choice
Obama	33.1%	23.2%	15.5%	9.6%	1.6%
Edwards	30.4%	23.7%	14.3%	9.3%	3.0%
Richardson	12.6%	10.6%	13.9%	16.2%	2.3%
Clinton	6.3%	8.8%	14.3%	14.4%	9.1%
Dodd	2.8%	8.6%	14.8%	16.2%	1.3%
Biden	0.7%	5.0%	7.7%	8.3%	7.2%
Kucinich	1.4%	4.3%	4.9%	5.7%	10.6%
Gravel	0.7%	2.1%	3.0%	3.0%	20.9%
Other	9.4%	10.0%	6.7%	6.1%	--
Unsure	2.7%	3.8%	5.1%	11.1%	43.9%

First-choice trend

Candidate	June	May	April	March	February
Obama	33.1%	31.2%	34.3%	36.1%	41.3%
Edwards	30.1%	41.2%	43.2%	33.1%	37.0%
Richardson	12.6%	10.1%	7.9%	9.7%	8.8%
Clinton	6.3%	4.7%	3.8%	4.7%	5.4%
Dodd	2.8%	1.9%	0.7%	1.1%	0.7%
Kucinich	1.4%	1.5%	1.4%	2.0%	2.7%
Gravel	0.7%	1.3%	0.4%	0.3%	1.4%
Biden	0.7%	0.8%	0.5%	0.5%	0.5%
Other	9.4%	5.6%	5.9%	10.6%	NA
Unsure	2.7%	1.5%	2.0%	1.9%	NA

Looks like a pretty sharp drop for Edwards this month, as Obama leads the straw poll for the first time since March. Outside of Edwards and the Fox News trio (Biden, Kucinich, and Gravel), every other candidate, including "other" and "unsure," saw slight rises. To a certain extent, this mirrors the national situation, where Edwards has been somewhat struggling in the polls lately. More info on past straw poll results can be found here and here.

Reconstructing these results was a real challenge given the huge amount of stuffing. As always, I did my best to present the most accurate results possible. You can read my methodology on how I try to clean the data up here. Also, you can see the master data by clicking here, and using "mk4jcdo0" as a password. The final, "cleaned up" data I used to calculate these results can be found here.

Tags: Straw polls, President 2008, meta (all tags)

Permalink :: 96 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: June Straw Poll Results (none / 0)

The stuffing of these polls has always made them rediculous. See DailyKos for a better idea of where the blogosphere is since they have the ability to actually have a secure poll.

Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards

by philgoblue on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 07:58:27 PM EST

Re: June Straw Poll Results (none / 0)

really, I've seen comments where people say that they have voted more than once at Kos.

by parahammer on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:29:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June Straw Poll Results (none / 0)

I wouldn't know how to do that, I guess if you had a sockpuppet. But anyone who reads Chris' methodology on how he finds stuffers can pretty easily figure out how to stuff without getting caught.

Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards

by philgoblue on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:40:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June Straw Poll Results (none / 0)

Can you vote on the Kos poll without being logged on?

by parahammer on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:47:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June Straw Poll Results (none / 0)

Without a userid? I don't know. I've never tried to cheat.

Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards

by philgoblue on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:13:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June Straw Poll Results (none / 0)

So how do you know Kos is more secure?

by parahammer on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:19:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June Straw Poll Results (none / 0)

Because, I could vote 100 times in teh MyDD poll and not get caught and I honestly know little about my computer. I can't think how I could possibly vote more than once or twice on DK.

Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards

by philgoblue on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 10:51:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You've just admitted to cheating (3.00 / 0)

Because, I could vote 100 times in teh MyDD poll and not get caught

by philgoblue on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 10:51:56 PM EST

in myDD polls.

You've blanked out my previous comment pointing this out. That's coverup and troll rating abuse.

Fraudulent on two counts. Time for you to be banned

by NuevoLiberal on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 01:35:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You've just admitted to cheating (none / 0)

Well, there is a difference between

could vote 100 times in teh MyDD poll and not get caught

and

did vote 100 times in teh MyDD poll and did not get caught

accusing somebody of cheating on a quote like that is questionable.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Ernst on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:20:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How did he know he 'could' without having (none / 0)

tried it at least once?

by NuevoLiberal on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 11:19:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How did he know he 'could' without having (none / 0)

Probably because Chris himself says that that is possible. Every poll he mentions that stuffing is rampant. And that somebody voted a couple of hundred times.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Ernst on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 12:17:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How did he know he 'could' without having (none / 0)

So how is Kos more secure

by parahammer on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 02:31:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How did he know he 'could' without having (none / 0)

Really haven't got a clue. I'm not a kossack. Perhaps they let IPs vote only once?

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Ernst on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 02:58:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June Straw Poll Results (none / 0)

Yes, you can, so I don't think it counts as cheating to vote without a userid because they don't ask you to sign in. Just saying.

by CNYAlison on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:44:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why the drop for Edwards? (none / 0)

That's actually sort of a surprise. Even speaking as an Obama supporter, I've actually kind of perceived a bit of disappointment in Obama and Obama's campaign lately since the debates started, whereas Edwards supporters seem as energized as ever.

And, of course, looking at the trends you gave, Obama's first-choice support only went up a little this time, about the same amount Richardsons' and Clintons' did.

Edwards' huge drop in support this month seems to have been the only real thing that changed between this poll and the last.

Why do you suppose the number of Edwards straw poll votes on MyDD have gone down so much in the last month?

by Silent sound on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 07:59:53 PM EST

Speak for yourself. (none / 0)

I have definitely not been disappointed with Obama's campaign since the debate.

Obama Citizen Ad Videos

by lovingj on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:15:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agree, Obama is doing most (none / 0)

things right. Hillary has had the momentum lately though. Edwards is falling through the floor.

The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

by Populism2008 on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 05:25:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Your perception is well founded (none / 0)

Hillary is running away from the rest of them.

by dpANDREWS on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:02:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why the drop for Edwards? (none / 0)

I voted Obama for the first time - I usually choose Edwards. I like them both, and my support of Edwards has softened, so I thought I would give Obama some love.

www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com

by LandStander on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:14:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think he has hit a plateau in the grassroots (none / 0)

Earlier this year I was meeting a lot more people who were moving toward Obama. I think he is holding steady now but not continuing to pick up support (at least not in Iowa).

There is plenty of time. Most people in the grassroots are still undecided.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:44:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why the drop for Edwards? (none / 0)

Well, his clean image is a bit under fire. But that's not always bad, Obama went up for me since the debates since I had doubts that he could play hardball if the need arises.

Since then I've heard some things that makes it likely for me that he could if needs be.
I found that reassuring and he went up a couple of places.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Ernst on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:24:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June Straw Poll Results (none / 0)

Interesting. I'm curious if the drop in Edwards support mirrors overall sagging polling numbers. The evidence is mixed on that. I'm also curious to see if the next Dkos straw poll will show this trend as well.

by Matt Stoller on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:09:42 PM EST

Well if the recs are any indication . . . (none / 0)

There seems to be less fawning about Edwards diaries over there. Maybe his support will drop there too.

Obama Citizen Ad Videos

by lovingj on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:20:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well if the recs are any indication . . . (none / 0)

I am glad you enjoy the positive news!

"Keep the Faith"

by blue south on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:57:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June Straw Poll Results (none / 0)

Its not Mudcat, I think people grow wearisome of Edwards continuing to throw rhetorical bombs from the left of the top-tier when, in the Senate, he was actually to the right of Clinton and Obama's current voting records.
I know the fact that he has morphed from a Clinton style New Democrat to Paul Wellestone in a matter of a couple years doesnt sit well with me. I actually like Clinton and Wellestone both (I'd say my views, though closer to Clinton, are in between both) but its this kind of political opportunism that gives Edwards that bad "used car salesman" rep.

by AC4508 on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 11:16:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June Straw Poll Results (none / 0)

AC, I'm from Minnesota. I lived with Paul Wellstone. Paul Wellstone was a friend (well, Senator) of mine. AC, John Edwards is no Paul Wellstone

(not that any of the other candidates or anyone currently serving in the House or Senate is...)

Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)

by Max Fletcher on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 01:52:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June Straw Poll Results (none / 0)

Interesting, given that Edwards really hasn't had any missteps (that I can think of) off the top of my head. His debate performance was pretty strong, I thought.

It could also be Mudcat's "I'm an idiot" moment that hurt as well.

by PsiFighter37 on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:25:34 PM EST

Re: June Straw Poll Results (none / 0)

But he was also a bit more agressive against other candidates then the rest. Some of the people who also like Obama (or Clinton) sould find that a bit offputting. Being an activator/agressor in a crowded field is very risky. You get things moving, but people tend not to like you for it.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Ernst on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:31:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June Straw Poll Results (none / 0)

very true. he had to do something, but maybe it was a little too early. He's had a sharp drop since the debate, but most people not named Hillary have been at least stagnant.

Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)

by Max Fletcher on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 01:54:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

here's what I think (none / 0)

people are starting to realize Hillary's an extremely strong primary candidate even if she is a weak general election choice, the only dem barring Gore that has a realistic chance to stop her is Obama, Edwards is going to be outraised by the big 2 by maybe 3-1 when all is said and done and only Obama's massive crowds and volunteers can even hope to spot the HRC media induced inevitability campaign, she has most of the politician and the interest groups and the right wing part of the media is holding it's fire till the general, we can debate whehter she's our weakest choice but the Republicans I speak to think she's thier only chance of winning with W at 29% ect... Edward's supporters atleast some of them may be starting to read the handwriting on the wall.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:27:36 PM EST

Re: here's what I think (3.00 / 1)

I will not support Hillary until (god forbid) she wins the nomination at the convention.

"Keep the Faith"

by blue south on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:58:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's what I think (none / 0)

The Hillary supporters are now putting down the netroots because she does so poorly in these polls,they do seem to have quite a few posters for the amount of v,tes they get in these polls, I wonder why.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:17:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's what I think (none / 0)

It's keyed into the demographics of her support I think. She tends to miss the middle ground in polls as well. A lot of strong support, a small amount of medium support and a large amount of leaners.

The strong supporters vote. Her lack of medium supporters makes that the rest of the mayor candidates get into a comfertable lead. And the short time the poll is up makes that the leaners don't get to vote.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Ernst on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:43:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is the anti-Hillary (3.00 / 1)

I think you're right - at least that seems to be Obama's strategy. He is already "faking right" to bleed off some Clinton supporters, pundits, and moneybags as well as laying groundwork for the general. He's going to need all the tricks in the non-offensiveness book to teflon himself against the unavoidable blackmuslimghettoorganizer-boating by the VRWC...

If the primary comes down to him against Clinton, he knows that he can afford to somewhat annoy the purity trollish borderline naderite blogosphere commentariat, they'll still vote for him against Billary.

Just hoping he remembers to "veer left" once elected! (Obama's left-handed basketball moves were described as "fake right, veer left" recently).

by kvenlander on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:58:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is the anti-Hillary (none / 0)

but he needs people on the left to choose him over Edwards in Iowa (and get Kucinich supporters to pick him second as they get eliminated in the local caucuses, something Edwards did a good job of last time around)

like fladem's diary says, everything changes after Iowa

Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)

by Max Fletcher on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 01:59:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's what I think (1.00 / 1)

oh honestly, shut up. You're just making yourself look like an idiot.

Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards

by philgoblue on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 10:53:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June Straw Poll Results (3.00 / 1)

Jeeze..it is only JUNE! ...Few are really paying attention...How many Candidate signs are in your neighborhood? Do you have a candidate sign up yet?
I visit here about every other day...
by the time I visited..it was closed...

Now early November...that is when folks will be paying attention...a lot of folks are simply not committed yet...by November it will be clear Gore will not be a candidate..by early November people will have a commitment...
But these are still fun...

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud" ...Arlo Guthrie

by DenverD on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:39:04 PM EST

Re: June Straw Poll Results (none / 0)

no sign. but i have a John Edwards bumper sticker ;)

I put it right next to the Larry Kissell sticker I never took off after last year.

"Keep the Faith"

by blue south on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 08:59:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June Straw Poll Results (none / 0)

If you say "Jeeze" now, you must have completely flipped out when they were doing straw polls here six months ago! And yeah, it is fun :)

www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com

by LandStander on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:20:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Disconnect (none / 0)

This really shows the disconnect between Democrats who may not regulary read or post to blogs and those who do. Hillary is walking away with the nomination but you wouldn't know it if you surfed the net.

by dpANDREWS on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:01:52 PM EST

Re: The Disconnect (none / 0)

hey you and Caroline zhang or Bryandem or whatevr name you by I'm tired of the shit you spew, now you're calling bloggers Naderites ect....because we do't support your queen of inevitability, well yeah you have your low info backers in the polls,but if she's just walking away with the nomination why is a first term senater drawing 5 times the amount of people at his rallies and probably will outraise the Hillary machine,so it's not just the fucking blogosphere, and congrats half the country thinks Hillary is not honest and trustworthy I wonder why with supporters like you.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:14:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nadarites? (none / 0)

Where?

Get 'em!

by dpANDREWS on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 01:12:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Disconnect (none / 0)

I understand why you would say that, but I disagree. I think that you can't look at it on absolute terms. the fact is that Hillary began in a stronger position than she currently is in. Obama has made progress and Hillary has lost ground, all as voters get to know the candidates. Considering that they still have 10 months to get to know Hillary and Obama, and assuming current trends hold, I would say that the "Hillary is a steamroller" story will fall apart.

Obama is a much stronger candidate because he is more in line with his party, and he is more likely to win a general election. So, he satisfies both the desire for ideological purity and the desire for electibility - I would certainly not discount this. He has yet to play his Iraq card as loudly as he could.

This brings me to another point. Despite the fact that his campaign is doing well, I think that it has not been run in the best possible way, and assuming that his people learn during the campaign, you can expect a much more robust Obama challenge in the future. I think that if he ran ads for a solid month reminding voters that HRC and Edwards supported the war in 2002 when it was popular but he did not, I think the numbers would shift dramatically. Remember that most people still don't know him beyond being some charming guy running for office - if his campaign shapes up a little and goes on the offensive, this will change.

by alipi on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:17:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

could you ever give any reason (3.00 / 2)

to support Hillary? Your posts always claim she is winning, she is the inevitable winner, she is leading the polls. It's not very inspiring as a selling point. Kind of like the Borg: you will be assimilated, resistance is futile.

By the way, I am still searching to find a single Clinton supporter in my precinct. I'm sure there are some there, but I haven't found any yet. Iowans are not going to pay attention to national polls.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:36:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: could you ever give any reason (none / 0)

I'd vote for the Borg.

by Baldrick on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 11:49:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is easy for me at this point (none / 0)

No other candidate is as smart, as competent, or as able, as Hillary Clinton.

No other candidate has the political skill needed to win and to govern as Hillary has.

No other candidate can take a Republican punch like Hillary can, and none can deliver the counter punch that she can.

None of the other leading candidates are as experienced as Hillary.

As for the stand on the issues, she is a true blue Democrat who is right on many of the most important issues of the day. I agree with her more often than not, as I think is the case with the majority of Democrats.

In short she is the best candidate in the field. Hands down. That makes it easy for me to support her at this time. If Gore gets in I'll have some thinking to do.

by dpANDREWS on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 01:18:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Does Electability Matter To You? (none / 0)

Does anyone care that Rasmussen updated their numbers for Edwards today (vs. Giuliani and Thompson) and once again he has the highest favorable number, the lowest unfavorable, he doubled his lead over Giuliani, and he beats every Republican that Obama and Clinton beat by far more than either of them?

Does it matter to Obama and Clinton supporters that they both have lost virtually their entire lead over Fred Thompson while Edwards has him beat by 13%? Does it bother Obama fans that he went from having a 59-33 fav/unfav to a 50/44 fav/unfav over the course of two months. Sure Edwards has lost some support as well but he's still at 52/38 and he outperformed Obama in head to head match ups even when Obama had better fav/unfav ratings.

Does it matter to Clinton supporters that she is still stuck in 47/51 land and that even against the weakes Republicans she cannot cross 50%? Sam Brownback is catching up to her. You heard me right - Sam Brownback.

I cannot see how "high-information" voters can look at this race without seeing that only one candidate has shown the bold progressive leadership that our party and our country need.

That candidate has also outperformed the other Democrats in the bulk of 2008 general election polling.

Don't beleive me? Go to...

http://teamedwards08.blogspot.com/

...and see the new Rasmussen numbers before skipping down to "2008 Polling - Updated'

Our party has a lot of choices it can make now that are both best in line with it's values and politically advantageous. Deciding to nominate John Edwards would be one of them.

As far as the sraw poll goes...

I'm not saying that this happened for anyone else, in fact I rarely miss straw poll votes on here. I probably haven't missed one in 4 months. But I didn't even know that it happened yesterday and I came here. I always thought they happened around the 15th. Just speaking for me. I am not saying that it was a phenomenon.

It does look like Edwards experienced a down turn in natioal polling (the new Marist poll has him almost back to normal) but considering how irrelevant national polling is, especially at this point and especially when it includes Al Gore it's not THAT big of a deal. National polling that largely reflects name ID doesn't scare me half as much as a likely loss in Iowa should scare Obama and Clinton supporters. And if I am so wrong about them losing in Iowa why was there a need for either side to produce "Iowa memos" that, at least in one case and probably in the other, advise backing out.

In 2004 the party followed Iowa and Iowa followed the electability trail. Sure they were off on who the most electable candidate was but there is enough consistent polling to make it clear this time. If it all leads back to electability again, which it could, then both Clinton and Obama could face some real problems come caucus time.

I think that they are already facing real problems come caucus time. The problem is that only some of their staff are willing to admit it, at least to their faces, and their supporters aren't going to admit it until they concede.

What's worse for Clinton and Obama is that they have come and gone and haven't shaken Edwards' lead, unless you count polls done by American Research Group, but we all know about them and Iowa.

If Iowa Democrats were going to jump they would have probably jumped already. They saw Clinton. They saw Obama. No change. If their first ad blitz doesn't budge the numbers then nothing will.

I think we all should ask outselves...Who can beat Giuliani? Who can beat Thompson? Sure McCain isn't looking too good right now but throw him in for good measure. Same with Romney.

Speaking of Romney, he's another example of why national polling is not THAT important. He's all over the place in national polling, often doing far worse than Edwards, and he is ahead in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

Like I was saying...

Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, Romney.

Can your candidate really beat all of them?

For the first time in a long time the Democrat who best represents our values is also the most electable. Join Team Edwards - http://teamedwards08.blogspot.com/

by Team Edwards on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:17:17 PM EST

Re: Does Electability Matter To You? (none / 0)

it matters to me but Edwards has to start to raise more money and generate more enthusiasm on the campaign trail or else it will start to look like Obama is the only chance (barring Gore) to stop Hillary.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:19:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does Electability Matter To You? (none / 0)

Agreed - I'm worried this Q will hurt him - at a time when he can't afford to be hurt. And it will probably bolster Obama, which will bring this dangerously close to a two candidate shut out (for the time being, of course).

www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com

by LandStander on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:23:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does Electability Matter To You? (none / 0)

look Edwards is not going to be able to change his poll #s considerably before Iowa and that's not that bad becuase his campaigned is predicated on winning that state but the truth is he's not even drawing Clinton sized crowds and looks like he's going to get crushed in the 2nd quarter report, It's one thing to be behind, it's another to be behind without the money and infrastructure to catch up.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:45:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think you're wrong about the crowds (none / 0)

I don't think Clinton is drawing bigger crowds in Iowa than Edwards is, which is remarkable, given how many times he has been here compared to Hillary--most of the time she shows up somewhere, it's the locals' first chance to see her in person.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 11:20:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Where do uou get this information? (none / 0)

According to Edwards, he will be able to compete in Iowa, and he has his own strategy that is not intended to be like Clinton or Obama.

You seem to know better, however, but all you really seem to be is some bullshitter making comments on a blog, trying to sound like an expert.

by citizen53 on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 11:32:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your insight on fundraising for Edwards (none / 0)

where does that come from?

Edwards is the only one to announce chairs in all 99 Iowa coutiees. That hardly seems like an organizational problem.

by okamichan13 on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 12:14:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

it is very early (3.00 / 2)

Edwards was still in single digits in Iowa polls even in November 2003. He has plenty of time, and he will have plenty of money to compete in early states. He will not be able to match Clinton and Obama dollar for dollar, but Dean was also way ahead of Kerry and Edwards in the money race last cycle.

Edwards is generating plenty of enthusiasm on the campaign trail. I was just talking to an Edwards leaner in my neighborhood who was an Obama leaner until she went to an Edwards event in Des Moines a few weeks ago.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:42:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it is very early (none / 0)

ok demoines I have a question do you worry a little if national polls in January are something like 35 Hillary 30 Obama 10 Edwards going into caucus night, at some point even Iowa caucus goers may start thinking this is a 2 person race, wer'e not there yet but from what I'm hearing the 2nd quarter numbers are not going to be good for him compared to HRC and Obama.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:50:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

do you remember 2004? (none / 0)

Dean was crushing Kerry and Edwards was barely registering in national polls in January 2004.

I'm reposting a comment I put in icebergslim's diary earlier today, on how Iowans do not pay attention to national polls:

We proved it in 2004, and I suspect we will prove it again. People are not limiting their options to whoever the MSM declares to be a candidate with a real chance.

Today I was talking with a retired teacher I know and haven't seen in a while. I know he has attended caucuses in the past, so without mentioning who I am supporting, I asked him what he was thinking.

Well, he isn't interested in any of the GOP candidates (he was a lifelong Republican until 2000).

He is seriously looking at several of the Democrats. He mentioned "Christopher Dodd--he seems to have a lot of good ideas. And that fellow from New Mexico--he seems to have a lot of skills." He thinks Hillary is too divisive for the country and thinks Obama lacks experience. He didn't mention Edwards, Biden or Gore.

He is not an isolated case. I have talked to plenty of people who mention second or third-tier candidates among those they are giving serious consideration.

Dodd and Richardson are on the air in Iowa, which could be why this retired teacher is considering them now. But I think the more important point is that Iowans are not going to take their cue from national polls or the national media. They will evaluate all the options and make their choice.

No one can take any level of support in Iowa for granted, and that includes Edwards, who I still think will win the caucuses in the end.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 10:12:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

regarding the second quarter numbers (3.00 / 2)

Edwards will not be able to match Hillary and Obama dollar for dollar, but he will raise enough to compete in the early states.

Richardson only raised half of what Edwards raised in the first quarter, but he's been on tv in Iowa and NH and his numbers have moved a little. It doesn't take that much money to compete in these early states.

So obviously, I would love for Edwards to raise more than $10 million in the second quarter, but I think that he will be able to compete in the early states even on less than that.

Edwards has a big volunteer army working for him already in Iowa--county chairs and rural outreach chairs assigned in all 99 counties.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 10:15:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: regarding the second quarter numbers (none / 0)

National polling is largely irrelevant. Edwards is at 14 or 15 in the last 2 polls I've seen. He is well ahead in every credible Iowa poll and you all forget that the race becomes more about electability as things progress. Edwards just went through hell over these last few months and he is still outperforming Obama and Clinton by far.

Obama on the other hand has crashed, going from 59 to 50 on his fav and from 33 to 44 on his unfav. Seriously, look at the numbers. Don't you think donors are doing to start to worry as we now reach another month with Edwards clearly being the most electable.

Clinton and Obama donors do not want to back a loser. It's much easier for Edwards to win Iowa, as he probably will, and find himself all of a sudden the front runner and the person who just beat Clinton then it is for Obama or Clinton to all of a sudden be able to win.

Why has a portion the netroots become obsessed with national polling and the fundraising numbers. These are the hollow indicators that the media inflates the importance of so they can act like they know what is going on.

Why do you think pundits are starting to say "ignore national polling until after Iowa because it's all about name recognition and ignore state wide polling untile a couple weeks out unless it is consistent." Mike Murphy, Candy Crowley, Lynn Sweet and Chuck Todd have all said that in the past few weeks.

And Obama and Clinton have to stay this visible without having their already high negatives go highter.

Look at the Rasmussen numbers, look at how long they have been that way and then consider, if you were a donor, how nervous would it make you knowing that the 2 "frontrunners" cannot seem to seal the deal with any of the top GOP candidates. Hell, Obama lost all of his lead on Giuliani and now trails by 11%. He barely bests McCain and has turned a 20% plus lead on Thompson into a 3% MoE draw. He's lost half of his lead on Romney as well. Meanwhile Edwards still has Thompson by 13% and Romney by 26%.

If these numbers keep up Edwards is going to cement himself as the "electable" one.

And if I am wrong about national polls then why do you think the media just began taking Romney really seriously after he pulled ahead in Iowa?

Edwards will have more than enough to compete in the first states. And face it, that is where this is going to be won anyway.

If Clinton wins Iowa are you really going to tell me that it isn't over?

Same with Obama. If he wins Iowa he cruises onto either NV or NH and then uses that to win in SC.

If Edwards wins Iowa do you really think that the Hillary bubble isn't going to burst. If Nevada is still second Edwards is going to have "big mo" heading into another caucus situatuion where the one of the biggest forces in the party will be behind him.

But this isn't so much about what will happen, it's about what should happen.

Why should any portion of the netroots jump on the bandwagon of either Clinton or Obama? They both have showed no leaderhip. They both play it safe. And neither looks like they can win. Why not back the candidate who we like on the issues and can win? I hope the party that I love thinks this through.

Otherwise we let unreliable national polling and the same fundraising numbers that most of us despise (and in Clinton and Obama's case have came directly from lobbyists or their spouses)become a self fulfilling prophecy. And that would be stupid.

So Obama can win over Wall Street. Are we taking that as a good sign? Do they share our priorities? And more importantly, why was Obama so quiet about that war vote. Sure, he was right at the start but what made him think that got him a free ride until the war is over?

It sucks to not see Edwards win on one of my favorite blogs but the numbers in both this and the DKos poll have been pretty fluid.

What I'm trying to say is that a doomsday scenario of Edwards being stuck at 10, even after union endorsements and ads that are on their way, and that moving Iowa dramatically is laughable at best.

If you get to assign Edwards' national polling numbers do I get to say that Obama keeps tanking this bad in general election polls? If he has another couple months like the last two his rating will be, literally - 41% to 55% come mid August.

For the first time in a long time the Democrat who best represents our values is also the most electable. Join Team Edwards - http://teamedwards08.blogspot.com/

by Team Edwards on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 11:29:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: regarding the second quarter numbers (none / 0)

Edwards has already ran ads in Iowa, so i dont see anywhere but down to go for Edwards in Iowa....I think he's in big trouble..His national polls are showing himexiting the fir tier quickly becoming irrelevant..Even richardson is now catching up to him...If you're an edwards fan, you gotta be scare now.

Obama has now taken over the MYDD website...Next will be DailyKos...Once we lock up the netroot, we will start taking over the Edwards netroots.

by JaeHood on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 09:16:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What you are hearing? (none / 0)

Care to share your sources?

by citizen53 on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 11:34:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What polls have you seen? (none / 0)

The Marist Poll out TODAY has Clinton at 39 Obama at 25 and Edwards at 15. Considering how much these things are about name ID that gives Edwards plenty of time, especially with Iowa to over take Clinton. ARG who does shitty Iowa polling that is always off so take this with a grain of salt...or how about a pound of salt...has Edwards at 14% and Obama at 17%.

My point is that saying that if I were you I would be a lot more worried about the general election polling. It is much harder to recover in those.

If you are a Hillary supporter then how do you explain away her terrible perforamance?

If you are an Obama supporter why did he just go 16% in the wrong direction (lost 9% on his fav and gained 7% on his unfav) in 2 months? And why does he stand no chance against Giuliani all of a sudden. So now we just hope that the GOP doesn't nominate him. But he is leading their national polls. So according to your own logic we're fucked if we nominate Obama.

If you are an Edwards supporter might I compliment you on your excellent taste.

For the first time in a long time the Democrat who best represents our values is also the most electable. Join Team Edwards - http://teamedwards08.blogspot.com/

by Team Edwards on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 11:46:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Name ID? (none / 0)

Edwards was on a national ticket against Bush not that long ago. You can't argue that people have not heard of his name. With the media obsessed with Obama and Clinton, unless Edwards can beat the expectation on Q2 fundraising, he's just not going to be able to generate much buzz.

by PhillyGuy on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 12:13:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Name ID? (none / 0)

Come on, that was in 2004 and you know as well as I do that people have, especially recently, heard the names "Hillary" and "Obama" a lot more than "Edwards". Buzz? You forget that the buzz that matters most is the electability buzz that happens before caucus time. Winning Iowa gives you the ultimate buzz and I would like to see someone even as allergic to reality as yourself argue that Obama or Hillary is going to win Iowa. It's anyone's game right now as far as the nomination goes but when you throw out the ARG polls that have been consistently far off you see that John Edwards has won every credible Iowa poll that has been released. Even the media is starting to point out how he is by far our party's best chance at actually, you know, winning the presidency. Isn't that what the game is all about.

You have fallen into the same trap that most of the netroots seems to hate the media elite for. You fail to realize that they are desperate to produce any kind of indicator of how the race is going so they inflate the importance of two things that can be twisted to look like clear indiactors. One is national polling that is unreliable and features, on both sides, candidates that aren't likely to run (Gore and Gingrich). It also includes far too many casual Ds or Rs that aren't likely to vote in a primary let alone caucus. The other false indicator, especially in this cycle, is the fundraising numbers. Frankly, it is unlikely that this race won't be decided in the first 5 states. Like I said before...If Clinton wins Iowa it seems like that alone would cement her "inevitability", at least in the eyes of the media. Obama might be able to mount a challenge in some states but a win in Iowa would probably be a death blow. If Obama wins the media will want to crown him the winner. If Edwards wins he, and his electability, will be in the spotlight. The calendar seems tailor made for him to sweep. He is within striking distance, that is what matters.

Fundraising matters but they all are going to have enough to compete in the opening states. And if, and I believe this will happen and an argument that it won't happen is hard to make, Edwards wins Iowa the money will come pouring in. Even Clinton affiliated strategists have admitted that.

You are also forgetting that last time 7 million was considered a staggering amount for the first quarter. Money cannot buy support as easily as you think it can. They all will have enough to get their message out and then some. You are also forgetting about HOW they are raising this money. Edwards doesn't take money from lobbyitsts or their spouses. Obama's own campaign said that his no lobbyists pledge was "symbolic". Hmmm...it's interesting that he didn't find a way to work the word "hope" at least once into that sentence. Here, I will sum up the Obama campaign by telling you what they wanted to write...

" On one hand our pledge to not take money from lobbyists is largely symbolic. On the other hand the hope that this campaign has often spoke of, the new kind of politics, the getting rid of the small politics, and the old politics, and the small and old politics is not symbolic. The hope that we have for America is that the symbolism of our pledge will give them the hope that only a new kind of politics can provide. But on the other hand..."

You want me to do the Clinton campaign?

"Senator Clinton may be a slave to corporate interests but unlike the other candidates she has experience. For decades she has been a slave to corporate intersts. She is a bigger corporate whore than Barack Obama could ever hope to be. Senator Clinton is in it to win it. She is ready to lead. This country is ready for change. It is ready to undo the damage of this last six years under George Bush. Senator Clinton is not George Bush! She says mean things about him so you need to believe that she is opposite of him. It doesn't matter that a lot of Bush donors have invested in Senator Clinton's campaign. She is willing to say right now that George Bush is a bad bad man. And that is all that should matter. Hillary Clinton...better than Bush. Forget about the differences between the Democrats, there are no differences between the Democrats. This is about the slight differences between a Hillary Democrat and a Republican. And it doesn't matter that she cannot win, she is in to win so that will change everything. Now please excuse me while I go and pray that Democrats never realize that you can't raise this much money without selling out. Oh, actually I have to go come up with a new strategy to fuck with unions. By the way, Hillary is a big SEIU supporter!"

And then there is John Edwards.

He has run a VERY bold and progressive campaign. He has offtered substantive detailed plans for everything from Universal Health Care to Energy to Rural Recovery to Fighting terrorism. Obama gave one speech on foreign policy and then patted himself on the back for a week. Edwards is giving 5 speeches to outline his foreign policy. 5. He is covering everything and then taking questions from the fucking CFR, which is not exactly a friendly crowd when it comes to the ideas he is talking about. He has given our party a prototype ("progressive populism") of how to stand up for our convictions and win.

But then again why should we want to actually, you know, stand for something.

And why, in the name of Bob Shrum would we want to...you know...win the election?

Beats me.

For the first time in a long time the Democrat who best represents our values is also the most electable. Join Team Edwards - http://teamedwards08.blogspot.com/

by Team Edwards on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 01:42:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does Electability Matter To You? (3.00 / 1)

No. We voted on which candidate was most "electable" last time and it didnt work out so well for the party. Screw the polls, lets vote with our hearts and then rally behind the winner.

by AC4508 on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 11:20:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It matters but (none / 0)

most of it comes down to low info voters belief that Edwards is the conservative Democratic candidate. When people start tune in and listen to Edwards anno 2006 his numbers will drop dramatically, I think.

The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

by Populism2008 on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 05:32:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It matters but (none / 0)

I wonder if thats why his NC poll numbers are trending lower.

by parahammer on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 06:43:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It matters but (none / 0)

Oh come on. That is so stupid. All of the news coverage of him is about how he is calling Bush out on the "War on Terror" or how he has "moved left". You have bought into the bullshit myth that progressive = unelectable. If that is true then how come Ted Strickland and Sherrod Brown, two candidates who were talked about as running on an "Edwards like" platform did very well in Ohio. Save that shit for the DLC.

And by the way, comparing someone to Ronald Reagan is not a compliment.

For the first time in a long time the Democrat who best represents our values is also the most electable. Join Team Edwards - http://teamedwards08.blogspot.com/

by Team Edwards on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 01:45:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Those match ups don't mean much to me (none / 0)

1) I can cherry pick polls that say Hillary is beating Rudy in Ohio, or she is beating Rudy nationally, etc. You or anyone else can do the same, as the numbers are all over.

2) Call me a cynic, but I don't think this election is going to be different. I think it is going to come down to a battle of undecided voters in a few key states, and to base turnout. Just like '00 and '04. So these early head to heads don't get much of my attention.

by dpANDREWS on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 01:20:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those match ups don't mean much to me (none / 0)

I would agree if they were not so consistent. Yes Obama and Hillary have their moments in the sun but if you look at the totality of polling a pattern becomes very clear. This is especially true in the recent months when the public has learned more about each candidate. We've seen in Survey USA polls, time and time again that it WILL come down to a few key states. Here's the differnece.

Hillary can compete in NM and maybe IA, and NV. To win she has to wither win all of those and then send the election to the house which would give her all of the mandate of Bush before 9/11. She can try to pull off a win in OH or Fl but even if she wins one of thos she is not doing well in WI and MN. It's not that hard to have called that she was going to have problems in the upper midwest.

Obama is in better shape. It looks like he'll be able to flip NM and probably IA. He has a far better shot in OH, MO, NV, FL, and CO than Clinton does. But once again he is in trouble in MN and WI. There is also something strange about some Northeastern voters that makes them hostile to minorities. I'm not saying that he is going to lose a state in the northeast but I am saying that resources could be drained there. I think Obama has a chance to win. it's just too much of a risk. Why even risk it at all when there is...

Edwards, who appears to be very competive in a lot of states. IA flips for sure. MO doesn't appear to be far behind. Game over. He wins. New Presient. Did I mentionn his leads in OH and how stable he is in WI, and MN, the two top GOP targets. Even if the GOP VP is Pawlenty they won't be able to take MN from Edwards. He is also the strongest in the cactus corner and in WV and VA. He has a huge lead in KY. Sure, he doesn't win in his home state but that is kind of like asking Romney to win Massachusetts. Voting for governor or senate is a lot different that president and MA is far more progressive than the rest of the country just like NC is far more conservative than the rest of the country.

Even the Republican Governor of Missouri said that Edwards would turn his state blue, and is the only Democrat who could do so. It's not a stretch at all to say that Edwards could win IA, MO, OH, WV, VA, FL, NM, NV, CO and compete and possibly win in KY, and AR. If you think that Hillary can really win in Arkansas you are on something. She is not Lincoln or Pryor and this is not a senate race.

Of course a non-Edwards supporter would want to dismiss these polls but they have been very consistent for GE polls. It's hard to just wish them all away. I'm not trying to say that national polls don't matter. They do when it comes to getting attention to the media. But they aren't a good indicator. General Election polling might not always be 100% reliable but when it is this consistent it's far more reliable than national polling because far more people vote in the general. The national primary polls contain too many non-participants to make them reliable.

Think about it. Which ticket do you think is our best chance to win and help the down ticket candidates.

Clinton/Bayh, Clinton/Salazar, Clinton/Vilsack, Clinton/Beebe, Clinton/Ford Jr., Clinton/Bredesen
Clinton/Richardson, Clinton/Warner

Obama/Sebelius, Obama/Clark, Obama/Richardson, Obama/Warner, Obama/Kaine, Obama/Graham

Edwards/Graham, Edwards/Strickland, Edwards/Webb, Edwards/Clark

Who is going to govern the best?
Who has the best chance of winning re-election in 2012 when the new electoral college is in play.

The answer to all of those questions starts with Edwards.

For the first time in a long time the Democrat who best represents our values is also the most electable. Join Team Edwards - http://teamedwards08.blogspot.com/

by Team Edwards on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 02:08:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Public will continue to learn (none / 0)

Learning Rudy is not a hero but instead is an angry clown.

They will learn that Thompson isn't a Reagan clone as he is being made out to be.

They will continue to learn that Hillary is warm and bright and the most Presidential of the Democratic candidates - as those who watched the debate in New Hampshire saw.

by dpANDREWS on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 02:23:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does Electability Matter To You? (none / 0)

National head-to-head polls don't mean much right now because only political junkies are currently paying attention to the campaign. I highly doubt that most Americans even know who Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney is. These polls aren't relevant until the primaries start.

"The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country." - Robert F. Kennedy

by dmfox on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 12:27:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June Straw Poll Results (none / 0)

1/3rd Obama, the same. Other (Gore) and Richardson the big movers.

by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:18:01 PM EST

Re: June Straw Poll Results (none / 0)

And HRC having her strongest showing yet. :)

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Ernst on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:54:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June Straw Poll Results (none / 0)

I strongly believe that Edwards will start leaking in Iowa..He's taken such a huge hit that it's going to show up in the next Iowa polls.

by JaeHood on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 10:26:36 PM EST

Hit from what? (none / 0)

and btw, Edwwards is back in Iowa on Sunday.

by okamichan13 on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 12:17:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

actually, he's in Iowa all weekend (3.00 / 1)

Friday, John Edwards will be in Des Moines, Marshalltown and Tama.

Saturday, John and Elizabeth Edwards will be in Grinnell, Coralville, Iowa City, West Branch, Tipton, and Clinton.

Sunday, John and Elizabeth Edwards will be in northwest Iowa: Sioux City, Le Mars, Cherokee, Storm Lake, Sac City and Carroll.

Busy weekend!

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 12:33:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dang no kidding (none / 0)

Maybe he's out to win this thing? :)

by okamichan13 on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 08:42:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June Straw Poll Results (none / 0)

Even without stuffing if you dont control for the people coming in you get a similar result

If you want to get a good poll with good controls I would look at the google invite method. That way you can control who comes in and if you suspect problems you can cut off that person and everyone down their invite list.

plus you can then track individuals and say "these votes changed for real" etc.

by sterra on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 10:34:58 PM EST

That's gotta burn for Dodd (none / 0)

Lefty to the nth degree on Iraq, more than Hillary or Obama, and he still can't crack 3% among activists. If that won't do it, nothing will. He should just get out now.

And for those of you who ranked Biden as your second choice...um, to each his/her own.

ProgressiveHistorians: History For Our Future

by Nonpartisan on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 11:23:03 PM EST

Re: June Straw Poll Results (none / 0)

Why not just force people to log in to vote, and only allow people to vote who had an account for at least a month prior to the poll?

by Lex on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 01:34:51 AM EST

Re: June Straw Poll Results (none / 0)

I have a hard time believing that there was an actual dip in support of Edwards and a rise in Obama's support. Whenever i voted (and only one time), I saw how ridiculously stuffed and destroyed the poll was by that point (richardson had like 50% at the time or something). Despite your best efforts of destuffing, Chris, I still have a hard time believing that these poll results reflect accurately the opinions of Mydd readers.

by KainIIIC on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 01:58:51 AM EST

Re: June Straw Poll Results (none / 0)

I voted for Edwards in first and Obama in second and after I confirmed my vote, the result said that I had voted for Obama. Was there a glitch? If so, maybe that is why Edwards dropped so much.

by prince myshkin on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 04:17:07 AM EST

Straw polls (none / 0)

I just want to say that it's a STRAW POLL, a totally unscientific ONLINE POLL and no matter what you do, people will figure out a way to cheat if they really want to. It's on the internet, therefore, it will never be 100% secure.

So if y'all are able to reconstruct the results and filter obviously stuffed votes to a pretty good degree, then oh my god, that's awesome, and I'm glad that someone is putting the effort into doing so. yeah it's June! but yeah, these are fun! and it worked out fairly well in the end -- ppl were freaking out about Richardson stuffing all day, but that was all resolved, obviously. What more can you ask for??

I think this was a well-run straw poll, and thank you for doing it.

Richardson for President!

by CNYAlison on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:48:17 AM EST

BetterPolls.com breakdown (none / 0)

here: http://betterpolls.com/mydd/mydd200706.h tml

Includes histograms of how people voted, and "people who picked _ as 1st choice picked _ as 2nd", and tallies by IRV and other election methods.

It shows lots of mutual support between Edwards and Obama supporters, and substantially Richardson too.

Start Running Better Polls

by bolson on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 02:45:21 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.