No fundraising bounce for Obama yet

by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:03:40 AM EST

Bowers posted the cash on hand from 2Q ending: 
Obama: $34M
Clinton: $33M
Edwards: $12M
Richardson: $7.1M
Dodd: $6.4M
Biden: $2.8M
Kucinich: $221K

In Gallup polling, Obama moved into a 30-29 lead at the beginning of June (with Gore), but since then, Gallup has shown the trend reversing and moving away from Obama. There was a lot of hope by Obama supporters that Obama would get a bounce of his fundraising totals, but the latest Gallup national poll (without Gore) shows Clinton's lead increasing from last month, and that Clinton leads Obama by 16% regardless of if Gore is in the race.




With Gore, it's a race for second place:

Clinton 37
Obama   21
Gore    16
Edwards 13
And the reason why pollsters include Gore in the race, is because at somepoint this fall Gore is going to make a decision and until then it's a possibility. But still, the story as far as the national polling goes is that the status quo is still firmly holding, and given that Gallup shows 42% of "extremely likely" primary voters saying they will support Clinton it is still Clinton's race to lose.




Tags: 2008 nomination (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 60 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (none / 0)

The next des moine register poll is really the main poll to look for as far as i'm concern.

There are way too many people not paying attention yet on the national level and rightly so since the presidential campaign has started so early.

Even in Iowa,people are shocked that campaign fever as hit their state so early and those folks are used to kick off those presidential event.

There is a reason why national poll usually starts making their move after labor day.


by JaeHood on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:26:27 AM EST

June poll (3.00 / 1)

Wasn't the June Gallup poll with Obama in the lead universally recognized as an outlier?
In most other Gallup polls he has maintained around 26%, plus over minus a couple points. This is in keeping with other pollsters. No other pollster had such a jump for June. Isn't the graph flat instead of "trending away" from Obama?
Chris Bowers just posted on Open Left last week about the incredible stability of this race, noting that the Pollster.com graph registered hardly any shifts at all in the last several months.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:43:22 AM EST

Re: June poll (none / 0)

Chris Bowers just posted on Open Left last week about the incredible stability of this race, noting that the Pollster.com graph registered hardly any shifts at all in the last several months.

This could be just because the vast majority of voters haven't started paying attention yet.


by Will Graham on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:35:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June poll (none / 0)

The graph is clearly trending away from Obama.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ charts/?poll_id=191

While it is true that Obama's line is pretty flat, only slightly sloping down, Clinton's numbers cause her graph line to show a steady and rapid increase, which accounts for the current big difference (biggest since Obama entered the race) between Clinton's showing and Obama's.  


by georgep on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:49:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June poll (none / 0)

Read Chris Bowers' post on OpenLeft about the RCP graph having a very range of variation and being mostly statistical noise:

http://www.openleft.com/userDiary.do?per sonId=9  

I posted the highlights down this discussion thread in response to your other comment.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:23:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June poll (none / 0)

narrow range of variation, of course


One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:23:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June poll (none / 0)

Come on.  You're using a right-wing source (RCP).  It's obvious that the right wants Hillary to be the nominee.  That way they can turn the 08 election into a circus and not about the issues that are important.  Is Hillary's so far away, why does she keep having those lousy "Hell NO! I aint voting for her" numbers?


Can you say with a straight face that Hillary has been a strong leader in the Senate?
by AnthonyMason2k6 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:58:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (none / 0)

Whether the June poll is an outlier or not, it's clear that Obama has peaked on a national level, at least for the time being.

I know that many people don't want to pay too much attention to the national polls, but I think they are more than just name recognition or popularity contests. We have had 3 televised debates/forums now, so people have had a chance to look at the candidates and listen to their positions on issues.

I personally don't think Gore will run, and when he is taken out of the polling, we'll get a truer picture of the race.

It is extremely stable right now except for the fact that Obama apparently has not connected very much beyond his donor base.


by SF Bay on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 05:58:02 AM EST

Peaked? (none / 0)

Couldn't you just as easily say that Clinton and Edwards have also "peaked"? None of the candidates are showing much movement right now.
Here's what I think is interesting: Maybe the same crowd of extremely active activists are the only ones paying attention to this election?
Here are the numbers from the June Pew Research Center poll:
Some 36% have given little (20%) or no (16%) thought to presidential candidates so far. Just 29% have given a lot of thought.

Clinton - 99%
Edwards - 87%
Obama - 85%
And here's an interesting article from Gallup noting at the end of May that although the campaign has been very heated, voter identification numbers haven't changed at all, which indicates that there are a lot of people excited about the primary, but there are still a lot of people who haven't started paying attention yet:
Clinton - 98%
Edwards - 81%
Obama - 75%

By this February, Obama's name ID had shot up to 72%, but has not been much higher since, despite the intense news coverage given to him as he has engaged in active campaigning. His current name identification, 75%, is roughly the same as in February.

Gallup also provides a chart of voter id numbers since January. The lines are all pretty much flat.
Thanks to jacortina for posting these links on an earlier thread.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 06:38:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Peaked? (none / 0)

Of note, you point out that Obama's name recognition barely moved since Feb. He spent some $16 million in the 2nd quarter. I would think he would have gotten more for his money.

About peaking, I suppose your right. At this point all of the numbers are static. That would be good news for Hillary and not for the others.


by SF Bay on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:34:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Peaked? (none / 0)

Although none of the things he's so far spent his money on would have much impact on nation-wide name recognition.

He has TV ads on the air in Iowa and motivated supporters are turning out to the rallies, but for the most part the costs involve building up his website, Camp Obama, $3 million for travel, etc.

There are going to be people who, no matter how much money you spend, are just all but unreachable and won't make a decision until much closer to election day.  The idea is to save up the funds for the final push, and Obama has done that well so far.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:19:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Peaked? (none / 0)

Couldn't you just as easily say that Clinton and Edwards have also "peaked"? None of the candidates are showing much movement right now.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ charts/?poll_id=191

I don't see how you can say that when looking at the data graph of national polling.  There has been a lot of upward movement in Clinton's numbers for over a month now, as you can clearly see.


by georgep on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:53:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Peaked? (none / 0)

Your RCP graph basically shows Clinton hovering within plus or minus two points of around 37%.

Here's Chris Bower's analysis that I referred to above:

Real Clear Politics, due to their different methodology, shows a bit more movement. Even then, however, the range of movement has been narrow. Since late February, Real Clear Politics shows Clinton's national average varying from 32.7%--38.9%, Obama's varying from 22.0%--25.8%, and Edwards varying from 10.3%--17.8%. None of these ranges are particularly wide, especially Clinton's and Obama's. As the Pollster.com chart shows, the slight variations from time to time in the Real Clear Politics average are almost certainly statistical noise, depending on little more than margin of error and which polling firms where included in the averages at any given point in time. Actual movement was probably, at most, one or two points in either direction.

http://www.openleft.com/userDiary.do?per sonId=9
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:21:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Peaked? (3.00 / 1)

I have to differ.  The Clinton graph varies from 32.7% to 38.9%, which is actually quite substantial a movement (over 6%.)  Obama's movement is narrower, yes.   Now, if you look at the numbers, Clinton is now at her high point whereas Obama is now at his absolute low point within those "varying" ranges?   Come on.

The whole exercise becomes even less sensical when one realizes that when you aggregate polls, you take Margin of Error out of the equation, which is the point of aggregating polls.   Margin of error comes into play when one looks at one poll (for instance, with a MoE of 4% Gallup's 16% margin between Obama and Clinton could as easily be 20% as it could be 12%.  When you aggregate polls you take MoE considerations out of the equation, as over time, aggregated, the "spray" evens out in either direction.  

The aggregates shows the picture without margin of error considerations, and it so happens that Clinton is at her very high point of her "variations" while Obama is at the very low point of his "variations," which really means in the aggregate that there has been obvious movement towards Clinton.    While I like Chris' analysis many times, he made a mistake here referring to MoE when poll aggregates are investigated.  


by georgep on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:38:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Peaked? (none / 0)

Poll aggregates couldn't possibly take the margin of error out of the equation.  Just look at your RCP: it's full of little dips and ripples --- what do you think these are?
Regardless, plus or minus three points for Clinton (a range of six) is actually really narrow.
Clinton happening to be at the top of her range at the moment might mean nothing or it might (most probably) mean that she has picked up a point or two --- it's not evidence for major momentum.
What poll aggregates are for is to minimize polls that are clear outliers: such as the Gallup poll in early June that had Obama way up.  Polls have bad hair days.  Or to point out when pollsters are regularly skewed off the average (as ARG, for example, most often shows much larger leads for Clinton or, say, InsiderAdvantage tends to show slight leads for Obama).  Poll aggregates can correct for clear outliers, but they're going to register plenty of statistical noise.
Bowers' second point, equally important, is also that you have a range of different pollsters who run occasional polls.  For example, there might be pollsters running weekly polls like Rasmussen and others running monthly polls like Gallup or Pew --- and all of these pollsters have different methodologies (automated, live-interview, online) and different ways of selecting their pools (number of independents, young people, racial mix, etc.).  This is also going to create dips and valleys.  It's a problem trying to balance those pollsters against each other.  For example, if ARG always publishes their polls monthly at the beginning of each month and, say, Mason-Dixon publishes in the middle, this messes with your chart of week-by-week poll numbers.
The safest way to deal with poll averages is to really see if results sustain themselves over time, instead of trying to identify little peaks and valleys on a week-to-week basis, and to see if there are actual long-term trends (look at Pollster.com's long decline of McCain for an example).  This is what pollster.com's charts come in: and they show all three leading Democrats (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) trending slightly downward.

[As for the example, as best I understand it, wouldn't a 16% lead with a 4% MOE actually mean a possible range of 24% to 8% --- since the margin of error applies to both candidates?]


One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:22:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Peaked? (none / 0)

The pollster.com graph is that way (showing slight dips for all 3 top-tier candidates) because Gore came up stronger in the last 6 weeks.  If you take Gore out of the equation the curves would be very similar to RCPs graph, a slight dip in Obama's and Edwards' support and a somewhat substantial increase in Clinton's support (I consider a greater than 6% increase from 5 weeks ago a rather substantial uptick.)


by georgep on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:01:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Peaked? (none / 0)

"Just 29% have given a lot of thought."

That's probably just a little bit under the percentage that will vote in the primary/caucuses for most states.


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:40:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (3.00 / 1)

For what it's worth, the July 2003 Gallup poll results were as follows:

  1. Joe Lieberman (20%)
  2. John Kerry (16%)
  3. Dick Gephardt (14%)
  4. Howard Dean (10%)
  5. John Edwards (6%)
  6. Carol Moseley Braun (6%)
  7. Al Sharpton (5%)
  8. Bob Graham (5%)

I know the 2004 and 2008 presidential races are different in many ways, but it's important to remember that things can change quickly.  John Edwards was polling in Carol Moseley Braun/Al Sharpton territory at this point in the last election cycle and competed hard with John Kerry right up to the end.  Dick Gephardt finished a miserable, distant 4th in the Iowa caucuses and then immediately quit the race.

Also remember that the only poll that matters is Iowa.  Whoever wins there, or has an unexpectedly strong showing, will receive about $100 million in free, earned media coverage overnight.  This will assuredly have a drastic effect on the primaries that follow.  And since the early contests are all so close together, there is almost no time for a losing Iowa candidate to turn it around.

Forget national polls.  They are meaningless.


by Will Graham on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:33:18 AM EST

Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (none / 0)

I would disagree that the only poll that matters is Iowa. With all the primaries just after Iowa and NH, I don't think there will be nearly the bounce. The first two will go by in a flash and on to the next 1/3 of the states.


by SF Bay on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:37:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (none / 0)

Everyone always talks about how independent those New Hampshire voters are, but I remember in 2004 they voted for the candidate Iowa told them to vote for: John Kerry.  (The same guy they didn't like very much a few weeks prior.)

The point is, I think more than anything people want to be a part of a winning, or surging, campaign.  Whoever's name and smiling face appears on the front page--above the fold--of every newspaper in the country the morning after the Iowa caucuses, in my opinion, will be the Democrats' nominee.  


by Will Graham on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:44:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (none / 0)

You might be right. Time will tell. This election cycle is different though with all the primaies coming up in the week or so after Iowa and NH.

You could also go back a few election cycles and find a dem presidental candidate who didn't win either Iowa or NH - I think the name was Clinton :)


by SF Bay on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:48:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (none / 0)

Dean's numbers in New Hampshire were falling apart BEFORE the Iowa caucuses.  Polling a week before the Iowa caucuses conducted in New Hampshire showed Dean's lead melting away and the race getting close, pitting Dean, Clark and Kerry against each other.   So, this idea that New Hampshire was taking its cue from Iowa is incorrect.  Dean was already being re-evaluated in the nation and and states everywhere because people found him simply too inexperienced (in comparison) and temperamentally not suited for the presidency.


by georgep on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:22:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Apples vs. Oranges (none / 0)

Different race, ,different cycle, different candidates.

In '03 you had three major factors that allowed Dean to rocket from nowhere to the the top of the polls in the fall.

First, voters were not happy with the field they were given.  The top two choices, Gore and Hillary Clinton didn't run.  

Two, recall the pundits said Bush was basically inbeatable in the spring / summer of '03 and even most DC Democrats had tucked tail and talked about how they had to be careful not to attack the President, he being so popular and it being a time of war (gag me).  Howard Dean was the first candidate, way ahead of the rest to say B.S. and go after Bush.

Three, Dean outraised his competition by a large margain heading into the primaries.

This time around you have people much happier with their candidates.  The environment is totally different.  The money is also not an issue (all the candidates are doing well here).


by dpANDREWS on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:33:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (none / 0)

I'm so not worried.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:18:24 AM EST

Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (none / 0)

What's the point?


by rapcetera on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:36:11 AM EST

Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (none / 0)

I would think that fundraising power would translate into voter approval in polls, state or national. You don't?


by SF Bay on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:46:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (none / 0)

Not when certain demographics are intentionally left out of the polling. These polls are a joke,. There's no way that a bunch of old people who only have a land line phone are going to determine this election. Those days are over. Likely voters, adults, whatever. Not everyone is being contacted. Cell phone users are not being polled and the number of  Americans who only use a cell phone are dramatically increasing. These polls are nothing.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 08:57:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (none / 0)

Big Money helps (Clinton has a lot of it herself) but money can't buy votes, as Obama has to find out in this cycle.   Clinton is very well liked amongst Democrats, more so than either Obama or Edwards.  That is the difference maker.  Obama could have made $60 Million in fundraising, and it would not change the dynamics.  


by georgep on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:18:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (none / 0)

Didn't this come up four years ago re: Dean's numbers?


by SF Bay on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:10:22 AM EST

Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (none / 0)

Obama outspends Clinton every quarter, this one being no different (Obama spent $16.5 Million vs. Clinton's $12 Million.)   So, Clinton's cash seems to go a lot further than Obama's cash.  She is also already building an impressive general election war chest no candidate (Democrat or Republican) comes close to matching.

There was no fundraising bounce whatsoever, which shows that money is not all that important to people.  Both will have plenty of money to do whatever it is they want to do, and then some, so money makes no difference whatsoever between Clinton and Obama, as the COH numbers with these two "blessed" (with money riches) candidates shows.   It therefore comes down to who Democrats trust more with their representation when all pros and cons are evaluated.    


by georgep on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:28:26 AM EST

$ Doesn't Equal Votes (3.00 / 1)

For those who wonder why Obama's excellent fundraising isn't translating into poll numbers, the answer is really simple: there are voters who simply do not contribute money to campaigns.

My parents are in their late 70's.  They have never missed a primary or general election.   They're of a generation who regularly give to their church.  Their family is their priority.  They will never vote Republican.  

And, while they will enthusiastically support a politician at the polls, they wouldn't dream of giving them a dime.  NOT.  A.   DIME.  

Never have, never will.


by BigBoyBlue on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:32:14 AM EST

Re: $ Doesn't Equal Votes (none / 0)

I never have either. I never gave money to a party or a candidate, until this time. I gave Obama some bucks. He's the first and maybe the last politician who gets free money from me.


by Pope Jeremy on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:00:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (none / 0)

Jerome:

If Hillary wins the nomination what are the chances of her choosing Mark Warner as the V.P? I really think he would be a really good pick as V.P for her.


by rakk12 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:47:46 AM EST

Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (none / 0)

If hillary wins the Nomination, I'll be voting for Nader.


Can you say with a straight face that Hillary has been a strong leader in the Senate?
by AnthonyMason2k6 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:03:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (none / 0)

Nobody asked you. This is a free country. You can vote for whomever you want.


by rakk12 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:11:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (none / 0)

People with your attitude are the reason Bush was elected in the first place.


by DoIT on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:16:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (none / 0)

you mean you'll be voting republican


by world dictator on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:44:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (none / 0)

Why not just vote directly for the GOP nominee since that is what you really want.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 12:32:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He's too tall (none / 0)

My guess is no; he's not close to Clinton, moreso to Obama recently, and that's where a lot of his funders went. Here's my choice for the VP's:

Clinton-Clark
Obama-Warner
Edwards-Richardson

I think all three of those are winning tickets.


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:43:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (none / 0)


by rakk12 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:47:50 AM EST

Even when the numbers looked better for O (none / 0)

I was still skeptical of the value of the polling. Its way too earlier, and personally I'd rather my guy made his move and hit his peak around December and January rather than July. Lot of campaigning left to do.


by mihan on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:52:31 AM EST

Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (none / 0)

"And the reason why pollsters include Gore in the race, is because at somepoint this fall Gore is going to make a decision and until then it's a possibility"

If you have a source for that, I'd love to see it. The only thing I've heard him say over and over is that he's not running, not thinking of running, and probably never running for any public office ever again.

I'll be pleasantly surprised if you can show me a source.


by Pope Jeremy on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:59:11 AM EST

Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (none / 0)

Al Gore Not Planning To Run, Not Ruling it Out

Asked what it would take for him to run, Gore said, "I can't say because I'm not looking for it. But I guess I would know it if I saw it. I haven't ruled it out. But I don't think it's likely to happen."

Until Gore gives a Sherman-esque statement and rules out a run completely, like he did in 2002 when he clearly said he wouldn't be a candidate in 2004, he's a potential candidate.

Although most polls do measure his support incorrectly, by lumping his name in with the announced candidates. Many people don't choose his name because he's not running, but would if he were an announced candidate like Obama and Clinton.


by Kal on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:46:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No fundraising bounce for Obama yet (3.00 / 1)

None of these numbers surprise me and my family. Hillary is not only the most competent and ready to lead from day one, but her record and her personable and effective campaigning style have convinced the majority of Dems, to the extent that those who favored her are now more certain than ever, and many who were unsure are now convinced of this.

I predict clear sailing for Hillary through Summer and Fall.  She must keep her focus on Iowa and N.H. and continue to inform the voters, at every opportunity, of her extensive experience.

I am also glad to finally see the money Hillary has raised for the general election being considered a plus and not a minus.  I also like that she is managing her money well and spending less than Obama - this plays into her ongoing refrain of fiscal responsibility when she is President.


The Facts: Please Read
by Regan on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:32:05 AM EST

Bounce (3.00 / 1)

Not showing up in this Gallup national poll, but in most states that have June and July polls from the same pollster, Obama is about 5 points higher in July. The one exception - SUSA has a Cal poll which shows Obama down 4 points from early June, but that includes two days in June and only July 1, so few respondents would have known his results when they were polled.


by IVR Polls on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 12:04:24 PM EST

Another Obama hit by MyDD (3.00 / 1)

Once again the lead on this entry demonstrates the MyDD assault on Obama. Setting up an expectation and then using it as an attack. How many Dems outside of the activist circle really even know about the fundraising duel or the second quarter results? A very small minority. Does it affect allegiance and polling at this stage? Not much I imagine. How many primary voters have made up their mind defnitively, probably not many beyond what Gallup reported a couple of weeks ago, 8%. MyDD is repeating history once again.


by cmpnwtr on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 12:04:49 PM EST

Re: Another Obama hit by MyDD (none / 0)

Yup - and look who keeps writing these hits.


by dansac on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 12:50:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No use complaining. (none / 0)

Jerome has frontposting rights and he can do as he wishes. I just wish he write a full diary explaining his disdain for Obama as oppose to every other democrat in the race he rarely devotes a critique to.
Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:44:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This Obama supporter... (none / 0)

...didn't hope for a national polling bump following his impressive Q2 fundraising announcement.

This Obama supporter really put in any polling until about a month before the Iowa caucus.


What's the Point?
by Vermonter on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 12:15:03 PM EST

Incredible Endorsement for Hillary - Breaking News (none / 0)

Ambassador Joseph Wilson has just endorsed Hillary.

WOO HOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.hillaryhub.com
http://www.taylormarsh.com


The Facts: Please Read
by Regan on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:29:24 PM EST

The Wilson Endorsement Bounce (none / 0)

I'm sure this Wilson endorsement will mean a huge, and I mean HUGE, bounce for Hillary. And if it doesn't happen, that's a real downer, an omen of a sinking Clinton candidacy!!


by cmpnwtr on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 04:12:10 PM EST

Are Obama's small donor numbers inflated? (none / 0)

It's alleged that people who buy merchandise from Obama  campaign are counted as donors:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 707/Obamas_small_dollars.html
Bill Richardson: "Get out now. Get all our troops out now. It is the only right and responsible choice."
by Stephen Cassidy on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:45:34 AM 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.

Login
Username:

Password: