MyDD :: Gallup: Clinton almost at 50%, calls race Clinton's to lose

Gallup: Clinton almost at 50%, calls race Clinton's to lose

by georgep, Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:03:51 PM EST

Video from GALLUPPOLL

The poll

Clinton 48%

Obama 25%

Edwards 13%

Kucinich 2%

Richardson 2%

Trendlines

07/06 - 07/08 Clinton 37% Obama 21% Edwards 13% Richardson 2%

07/12 - 07/15 Clinton 34% Obama 25% Edwards 9% Richardson 4%

08/03 - 08/05 Clinton 42% Obama 19% Edwards 1%0 Richardson 3%

Gallup analysis

Clinton Maintains Expanded Lead for Democratic Nomination

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll finds New York Senator Hillary Clinton's strengthened frontrunner status in the Democratic field for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination holding firm, following an early August survey in which she stretched her mid-July 12-point lead over Illinois Senator Barack Obama to 22 points. The latest Gallup Poll, conducted Aug. 13-16, 2007, finds public support for the Democratic nomination at 48% for Clinton and 25% for Obama, giving Clinton a 23-point lead.

Support for former North Carolina senator John Edwards, in third place with 13%, is similar to what he has received since May. However, support for the bottom tier of candidates appears to be dropping off compared with June and July. At 2%, support for New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is not lower by a statistically significant margin than the 4% he received in early August, but it is lower than his readings of 5% in June and July. Similarly, Deleware Senator Joe Biden's current 1% is his weakest showing of the year, and below his high of 4% in July. Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich and Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd remain mired in the 1%-2% range.

My analysis

Clinton is now very close to the 50% mark, which I for one think is a remarkable support number in an 8-man race which features no less than FOUR strong candidates. In the video Gallup's Frank Newport raises a very good point about the importance of these national polls: While it is true that state polls are more important than national polls, per se, a national lead THIS large is significant and it is hard to see, without some major dramatic shift, how another candidate can beat Clinton for the nomination. Gallup is now calling this race "Clinton's to lose."

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards (all tags)

Permalink :: 79 Comments :: Post a Comment

karl rove (none / 0)

George, Can you update Gallup's article which debunks Karl Rove's spins on Clinton...

also rolled out an article, which thoroughly debunked Karl Rove's assertion on Hillary's negativity. It's definitely worth reading...
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28 477

Gallup Poll Review: Karl Rove's Assertions About Hillary Clinton
High unfavorables unusual, but not necessarily a fatal flaw

Conclusion

A review of Gallup poll data suggests that Hillary Clinton's current high unfavorable ratings are not unprecedented. Other candidates have had similarly high unfavorable ratings at various points in presidential election campaigns in previous years. Two of these candidates -- George W. Bush in 2004 and Bill Clinton in 1992 -- went on to win the election.

Additionally, Rove's assumptions that Hillary Clinton's candidacy is "fatally flawed" run counter to the historical finding that candidates' images often change, sometimes dramatically, as the campaign progresses. In other words, Clinton's ultimate electability will likely be determined more by what happens in the next 15 months while she campaigns than by what Americans think of her now. It is clear that Americans have been willing to revise their opinions of Clinton over time in response to current events, just as they have of other presidential candidates historically.

Typically, a winning presidential candidate's favorable rating is only slightly more positive than negative on the eve of the election. Clinton would only need to boost her positives a few points to achieve that position.

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:07:29 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Clinton almost at 50%, calls race Clin (none / 0)

That article was the most important read to me not the polls , I wish someone would diary that analysis alone , thats worth a discussion.

It totally shreds that ass . It was as if Gallup was like Oh yeah you keep dropping our names out there right using it to justify your garbage , will shine a light on what you are saying and prove you never know what you are talking about.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:14:03 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Clinton almost at 50%, calls race Clin (none / 0)

What I found significant is that for the first time now Gallup is CALLING THE RACE for Clinton, which is what "The race is Clinton's to lose" really means. Yes, it comes with the caveat that something extremely dramatic might still happen to shake up the race (a major scandal or an illness, major car accident) but barring a major dramatic turn (which is unlikely) they claim they see any way for Clinton not to win the nomination.

Scott Rasmussen had published his "This race is Clinton's to lose" article about a month ago, Zogby was before that. This is the first time we have seen this sentiment expressed by Gallup. Yes, it is early, which makes it so the more significant. These pollsters are going out on a limb, but they are seeing the leads (and the movement) and are making these predictions based on many years of polling experience.

by georgep on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:48:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's great! The early states LOVES (none / 0)

when the media decides who the candidate will be for them! Yay!

It's an election, not an auction.

by cosbo on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:51:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's great! The early states LOVES (none / 0)

Actually, we see early states showing Clinton some love, but I have seen that you reject those polls as well.

by georgep on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:53:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's great! The early states LOVES (none / 0)

Hillary will lose the nomination. She's running on air. It's only a matter of time before gravity takes effect and lands on her on the ground where MOST people that I even mention Hillary to, make up their faces in distaste and go..."Ick, I'm sick of Bushes & Clintons. Next."

It's an election, not an auction.

by cosbo on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:22:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Clinton almost at 50%, calls race Clin (none / 0)

Clinton is now very close to the 50% mark, which I for one think is a remarkable support number in an 8-man race which features no less than FOUR strong candidates.

An 8-person race, you pig! Although I'm not entirely convinced all 8 are human, come to think of 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 Steve M on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:14:06 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Clinton almost at 50%, calls race Clin (none / 0)

LMAO. Sometimes I think of H. Clinton as "another one of the guys," so technically I was somewhat correct. :-)

by georgep on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:18:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Clinton almost at 50%, calls race Clin (none / 0)

No. No. No.

Hillary is our girl!

by hwc on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:36:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Clinton almost at 50%, calls the (none / 0)

Really i'll like to see that.

39 is not going down , its statistical noise.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:15:10 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Clinton almost at 50%, calls the (3.00 / 1)

Touting daily tracking poll results is garbage. Her number was at 20% margin two days ago. It is silly to compare DAILY TRACKING POLL numbers from Rasmussen (with all its ups and downs.)

Of course, if a gap of "ONLY" 24% is all you got for Edwards, I can see where the grasping for straws thing comes in.

by georgep on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:17:16 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Clinton almost at 50%, calls the (none / 0)

Michigan state senate just approved the bill to move to Jan 15 , its done.

Is Clinton ahead in Michigan.

What happens to the calendar.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:17:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

George - (none / 0)

It shouldn't be "remarkable" to you that Hillary is "ahead" in corporate polls when the corporate media is obsessed with her winning - and mischaracterizing Edwards 24/7.

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 11:43:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton blesses the surge (3.00 / 1)

Is this supposed to be bandwagon psychology? I don't put much stock on this. Clinton is going to sink like a stone with the fall-out from her VFW speech blessing the surge. She can't get over her support for the Iraq occupation I guess. Still talking about tactics and strategy and how she might have done it all better than W. Sheesh.. I really expected better.

by cmpnwtr on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:18:48 PM EST

Re: Clinton blesses the surge (none / 0)

Laughable. The theme "she is going to sink like a rock," "really, any day now, trust me," is the ultimate in bandwaggon psychology. No underlying analysis or sound reasoning, just the desire driving the pablum.

Ok, instead of trying this meme out on the readership here, how about underlining it with sound reasoning that stands up to scrutiny instead of just throwing out stuff?

by georgep on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:28:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They'll be screaming "its still early!" (none / 0)

The day before Iowa.

Some people don't want to see. I say let them be.

by dpANDREWS on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:38:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You guys will be screaming.... (none / 0)

"What Happened to Hillary!" the day after.

It's an election, not an auction.

by cosbo on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:33:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why bother with elections when (3.00 / 1)

we can just buy polls?

I think the voters will have a say about this.

by TomP on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:26:17 PM EST

Re: Why bother with elections when (none / 0)

Tom, who has "bought" polls? I don't see where you are coming from with this.

Think about it: These ARE the voters speaking here. They ARE having their say via polls. We can scream and yell and pontificate on blogs all we want, at the end none of that matters. What matters is what the AVERAGE VOTER prefers, and they are showing it to us.

by georgep on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:30:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Some fairly big assumptions... (none / 0)

1) You're assuming voters are committed to their choices and won't change their minds in the next 6 months.

2) What's interesting to me is that Hillary's extension of the lead isn't really due to a loss of support from any of the top 3 candidates...in other words, Obama and Edwards are pretty much where they've been most of the spring/summer...Obama in the mid 20s and Edwards in the low teens. So, Hillary appears to be gathering support from "undecided" and from the various second tier candidates (she's gone from high 30s to high 40s). Why is that important? It means that new supporters aren't leaking from the main challengers...they're voters who have just started to wake up and look at the race for the first time.

3) It's hard to see how Hillary's numbers could go much higher. While she certainly has a formidable lead, you want to peak in January, not August. As the numbers contract (as they inevitably will), the "Hillary's collapsing" stories practically write themselves. A big deal? Maybe not, but the media love a horserace.

4) Hillary must win every primary and caucus. It's the expectation game...if you're the prohibitive frontrunner, you've got to win everywhere. That raises the impact of a loss (or even a "close second").

The closest historical analogy to this race is probably the 1984 Dem primary. (Don't believe me? Mark Penn mentioned it in his email on the race a few months back). Mondale had absolutely huge leads in the national polling (30+ points, he was near 50%) and then lost to Hart in New Hampshire. After that, the national polls flipped. Mondale eventually won anyway, but that was due in no small part to Hart's lack of money and organizational support. The cautionary note to Hillary...Obama (or Edwards) won't have that problem. If anything, Obama will probably outraise her for the year...he's already ahead in Cash on Hand.

by rashomon on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:38:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some fairly big assumptions... (none / 0)

The thing about Clinton is that she has the highest base of support (about 60% of Clinton supporters won't change their vote) among any candidate, Democrat or Republican. So, chances are, even if Clinton were to "bottom out," her bottom is around 15%-25%, enough to pick up some delegates and in a three-man race, it could be enough to throw the nomination into the Convention.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 02:55:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why bother with elections when (3.00 / 1)

They will have a final say. But the early states from polls is early. Anyone can have a lead with huge name recognition. Start going to all these states, campaigning, throwing up ads, then the numbers change. People are not going to let polls or the media tell them who is going to be our candidate. And these early states, if you do not have your grassroots org together, boots on the ground, forget it. This race will be won that way. I know too many people who are fence sitters, who will not vote for Clinton, and are just waiting. I don't know what for, but just waiting and watching. Look at the Iowa Debate on Sunday. That was a listening, skeptical audience who did not fall for sound bites, but wanted information. Coming this fall, no more vacumns or sound bites, people will want to know detailed information on their plans in major areas.

And if these polls are so accurate, why is Clinton not blowing folks away by 20 points in these early states? I don't think these folks are buying it.

by iamready on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:23:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why bother with elections when (3.00 / 1)

And if these polls are so accurate, why is Clinton not blowing folks away by 20 points in these early states? I don't think these folks are buying it.

by iamready on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:24:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I haven't bothered to comment on the spin yet (none / 0)

But I will now.

Saying Hillary hearts Bush's surge is nonsense. it is weak. It is desperate. It is dishonest.

From what I saw Hillary was getting out ahead of the report that is coming, and acknowleding what we all know, that in some small pockets where we have injected more troops and kept them there, the security situation has gotten better. That is just one small fact.

She then, from the clips I saw, hit Bush over and over on his policy and his conduct, and spoke of the need to change course and get out of Iraq. Because as we all know these pockets are an illusion. The bad guys have moved elsewhere in some cases, laid low in others, and can move back in when we leave because the Iraqis are not doing their job.

by dpANDREWS on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:44:33 PM EST

Obama struck a similar note (none / 0)

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2007/08/21/obama_clinton_both_cite_iraq _p.html

"Asked about his rival's comments, Obama, in a conference call with reporters today said "I didn't see the actual transcript of Senator Clinton's speech, but my assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our troops into Baghdad, that's going to quell some of the violence in the short term. I don't think there's any doubt that as long as U.S. troops are present that they are going to be doing outstanding work."

by dpANDREWS on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:47:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama struck a similar note (none / 0)

Actually, this comment in today's NYTimes is more telling:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/22/us/pol itics/22vets.html?ref=politics

Senator Barack Obama said Tuesday that even if the military escalation in Iraq was showing limited signs of progress, efforts to stabilize the country had been a "complete failure" and American troops should not be entangled in the sectarian strife.

How is stating that the surge is "showing limited signs of progress" different than what Clinton said?

by georgep on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:52:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It isn't really... (none / 0)

but since when is political spin truthful? The problem was the phrasing, IMHO...the "years too late" part of the comment, which implies the surge would have been okay several years ago. Not really a big deal (and probably what she believes anyway), but not the best phrasing.

Obama's phrasing is better here...sure our military can do the job, but that's pointless if Iraqis don't get the political act together. This construction doesn't include the "it would have worked if we'd done things right before" thoughtline.

by rashomon on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:18:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It isn't really... (none / 0)

Yeah I agree She should have phrased it better.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:21:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It isn't really... (none / 0)

the thing is that if the Bushies actually listened to military commanders from the start who said he had too few troops, he might not be in the same predicament that he is in now.

vote blue in 2008

by sepulvedaj3 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 02:05:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Another poll, another diary - blah, blah, blah (3.00 / 1)

Oh wait - another poll. Let's post a diary about it! I wish just one poll - favoring any candidate - could go by without needing a diary about it.

What if we were to agree to a hiaitus for 1-2 months on poll diaries? Focus even more of our time on backing our candidates and then, in October, see what the polls have to say?

I'm not usually cycnical - it just seems as if people are so desperate to prove that their candidate is the best and use the polls affirm their belief publicly.

Typically it goes like this:

georgep finds a poll and posts it.
areyouready cheers to say how inevitable Hillary is.
lori chimes in by attacking the post of anyone who raises a question about the poll.

And a similar pattern for other candidates' supporters too.

This is the last poll diary I'm looking at for months - and I hope others do the same.

Be a Jan fan! Schakowsky for US Senate.

by passionateprogressive on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:55:11 PM EST

Re: Another poll, another diary - blah, blah, blah (none / 0)

C'mon passionateprogressive , I actually have advocated what you just said about a moratorium on polls but I have since given up on that thought.

And I don't attack everyone that raises a question about the poll , maybe some who make comments I think is not based on reality .

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:03:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another poll, another diary - blah, blah, blah (3.00 / 1)

why did you give up on the goal of reducing polls?

by bruh21 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:16:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another poll, another diary - blah, blah, blah (none / 0)

No one listened to me , i.e. mostly Clinton supporters.

I got frustrated with polls because of the conflicting polls that come out.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:26:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another poll, another diary - blah, blah, blah (none / 0)

Polls are find if they are kept in perspective. The problem here is that they are used as a weapon rather than an opportunity for analysis. When Bowers was here, he used polls for greater analysis. For example, FL Dem did the same the other day by giving really indepth analysis and then providing the limitations of his own perspective, etc. That's rarely seen here these days.

by bruh21 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:35:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another poll, another diary - blah, blah, blah (none / 0)

bruh, i find your "analysis" highly flawed. all you write anymore are combative posts which smack of bias beyond the reasonable.

by georgep on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:46:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another poll, another diary - blah, blah, blah (none / 0)

Polls are a weapon in a primary race...on a number of levels.

A dominant front runner clearly has an impact on voters' perceptions of the candidates. For example, even among Democrats who support Kucinich's lefty views, nobody supports him because polls tell them he can't win.

On a second level, polls have a huge impact on party operatives, elected officials, and donors. At some point, Democratic Party apparatchiks have to start considering whether they want to be in good with the next President or on the outs because they jumped on a losing bandwagon. This is particularly relevant calculation as Hillary builds a commanding lead because guessing wrong could put you on the outs with two Democratic Presidents of the United States -- not really a good place to be for any political hack dependent on Democratic party support. This calculation is further heightened by the fact that the Democratic nominee is the favorite in 2008.

Given these political realities, I don't know how it would be possible to ignore the polls. Maybe in some fantasty land of hope, but certainly not in the real world of major league politics.

by hwc on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:49:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another poll, another diary - blah, blah, blah (none / 0)

not sure who you are responding to with the whole "ignore polls" line, but clearly not to anything I said. The problem many of you Clintonites face is that I was visiting mydd back when Bowers was around. I know the quality of his analysis versus yours. I also know visit sites like pollster.com. Again, the quality of the analysis versus yours. People used to say mydd was a process site, but it has become candidate advocacy site., which by the way is the only way one can view polls as a weapon as a legitate approach to analysis here. Big Tent Democrat pointed out something similar, and i got to admit when he was saying it, I didn't understand. But the more people taut polls the more I understand what he means.

by bruh21 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 02:05:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another poll, another diary - blah, blah, blah (none / 0)

I'm making a "process" point.

If I'm a Democratic party apparachnik in August 2007, I'm looking for the next gig. A position on the national campaign. After that, maybe a deputy administrator in the Department of Energy in a Democratic administration, or whatever. Or, if I'm a big fundraiser, maybe I'm looking to be the next Ambassador to Lichtenstein.

None of those things are going to happen if my wagon is hitched to a losing horse. So, when I read today's Gallup Poll, I can't help but factor the polls into my political calculations.

Primary campaigns are a bit like marathon versions of musical chairs. Early on, there are a million candidates and chairs for everyone. Then, the chairs start getting removed. As the game unfolds, the odds increase of being caught without a place to sit when the music stops.

by hwc on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 02:23:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another poll, another diary - blah, blah, blah (none / 0)

you are making a career advancement point. i get those. i have a gop friend, and yes i do know many, who has had to make the same career advancement point. that's not an objective point about process. but i think you know that.

instead of responding to the real concern- that is objectivity- you glorify it as a virtue. given that you did the same of how her vote was good because it meant she would become president, i can't say i am surprised. however, for the readers of mydd, and lori included apparently, the idea that you are coming here for your career advancement isn't a virtue or objective discussion of the polls such as one might have had with bowers.

by bruh21 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 02:30:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another poll, another diary - blah, blah, blah (3.00 / 1)

I'm not a Democratic party appartchnik. Heck, I'm not even a registered Democrat, so my thoughts here are hardly with a view of career advancement.

You complain about a lack of historical perspective in the discussion, but that's exactly what I'm bringing to the table. Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the history of the politics knows that the two parties have always been patronage operations. Or, as I like to put it, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours."

It is impossible to ignore this aspect of politics. Let me give you an example. The Human Rights Council that sponsored the LBGT debate two weeks ago is an advocacy group. To advance their agenda, access to a Democratic administration is a huge plus. Who do they endorse? Same thing for the cuilinary union in Las Vegas. Who do they endorse? Is it unreasonable to think that polls won't impact those calculations? Do they want to show up in Washington in January 2009 and say, "Listen, I know we endorsed John Edwards, but...."

by hwc on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 02:43:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another poll, another diary - blah, blah, blah (3.00 / 1)

by the way- this inability to recognize history is a common thread here. the pretense that history began with this election cycle.

by bruh21 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 02:10:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another poll, another diary - blah, blah, blah (none / 0)

The cutting hypocrisy comes in when biased posters like bruh, who bring very little substance to the table on a regular basis, don't use the same complaints when other poll diaries are published. He has anointed himself to the board police, which is rather comical.

by georgep on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:08:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another poll, another diary - blah, blah, blah (none / 0)

by the way- here is an example of good polling coverage. he doesn't just provide data, he provides context for those of us out here to understand their meaning. he doesn't pretend to know which candidate will win, or use exagerate titles like this diary uses. I am writing to you rather than continue to waste time with hwc because I think its good for all of us to have a comparison to how this site used to work versus now;

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=893

by bruh21 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 04:10:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another poll, another diary - blah, blah, blah (none / 0)

This diary does not use "exaggerated titles." It is the exact wording from GALLUP, which, given that they basically are "calling the race" with it, is a big deal.

The problem is that you have proven yourself to be one of the most biased haters on this board, and with that your "analysis" is typically flawed and virtually worthless. If you can't stand a certain diary, overlook it. The constancy of your complaints is what makes your posts shrill, droning. Get over it. Let others write diaries any way they wish. You are NOT my guide or my steward. I don't even respect your posts, usually. So, why should I "take your advice" here? This seems desperate somehow.

by georgep on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:13:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another poll, another diary - blah, blah, blah (none / 0)

i trust people to read the other diary and make up their mind. something you are also good at. okay no so much.

by bruh21 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 06:53:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another poll, another diary - blah, blah, blah (none / 0)

Don't read the poll diary. Just skim by it. THEN you don't have to read it. That can't be too hard, can it? I believe it is you who comes across as desperate, mightily so.

Once again, the salient advice: DON'T READ A POLL DIARY IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEM. How often does it have to be said? With that in mind, your post is absolutely unnecessary and senseless.

by georgep on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:04:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another poll, another diary - blah, blah, blah (none / 0)

I read precious few of these poll diaries, but when they are so often promoted to the recommend section, they are not easy to miss so I do look at them from time to time. Just because I think they're useless doesn't mean I read all of them.

Of course I could avoid them - you're missing the point, which is...

- do the poll diaries further our substantive conversation about candidates?

do they help us discuss issues in a productive manner?
do they help us strengthen our candidates position in the real world?

Of course people will continue to post them, but it just generally seems much less important than many of the other substance/issue-based posts.

And you missed the point about my use of "desperate". I used some frequent posters as an example, but said the example applied across candidates.

Be a Jan fan! Schakowsky for US Senate.

by passionateprogressive on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 07:16:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another poll, another diary - blah, blah, blah (none / 0)

Funny how you are silent about the many diaries that don't fulfill your objective. Must be because they target a pol you dislike that they are a-ok with you. At least polls tell us what the person on the street thinks about all of this, rather than the blather we are getting from pundits or us bloggers. This site, if anything, is very atuned to polls. If you are basically saying that poll diaries don't further discussion, then this site may not be for you, as polls are a major focus of this site. Not reporting on them (because it would negatively impact someone's sensibilities) would be silly.

Here is the thing: Most people making the biggest noise about this are the first to go crazy over a poll that shows their candidate in a good light. That's what all this is about: Some are upset because their guy does not come out on top, so they incessantly bash. I am used to it, so I have no problem with it (consider the source.)

by georgep on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 08:10:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another poll, another diary - blah, blah, blah (none / 0)

To your points:

- I'm silent often because I'm not sitting in front of my PC all day responding to diaries. Most of my political time is spent volunteering.

This site is atuned to polls because, well, people post them.
"negatively impact someone's sensibilities" - this is really where you lose credibility, george. My skin is thick - what i said was we could spend our time focused on issues and substance not polls. You're right - not posting due to "sensibilities" would be silly. In my case that's not the reason.
again you miss the point about your "candidate" comment - i made the comment about polling posts from ALL candidates' supporters, not just one. Perhaps you skipped this sentence in my post? You never see me post to a diary when a candidate I prefer has a positive poll - check my record. Though, it would conveniently fit your theory - too bad it's wrong.

By the way, where did you go to school? Did they teach you to read? It's as if you just hear what you want in your head and ignore what's in writing. Sounds like a politician I know.

Be a Jan fan! Schakowsky for US Senate.

by passionateprogressive on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 08:21:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Those trendlines are showing a big win for (none / 0)

Edwards could be in the works. If he wins the Iowa caucus the effect of a marginilize "nobody" beating Hillary will be a shocker for the populace...and if she loses the first contest she then becomes...a loser.

It's an election, not an auction.

by cosbo on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:32:13 PM EST

I'll say it again (none / 0)

The compressed schedule is going to make generating momentum and hopping from one early state to the next impossible.

You are going to have to be in all the states early, because they are going to go boom boom boom.

What do we see from Edwards? He is actually pulling out of early states - look at Nevada. I don't think he has an operation in Florida either.

You are not going to get up and running in a state in 5 days.

by dpANDREWS on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 02:10:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards is not pulling out of Nevada... (none / 0)

he probably just shifted a few to Michigan. They moved up their primary remember. But you can count out Edwards if you wish. Ignore him completely if that makes you happy.

It's an election, not an auction.

by cosbo on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 04:53:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Clinton almost at 50%, calls the (none / 0)

rssrai, you are grasping at straws and sour grapes. the only person that si going down and IS down is obama. get used to it.

by terrondt on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:36:44 PM EST

FYI- (none / 0)

rssrai is an Edwards supporter, but I suppose your comment still works with that substitution.

by rashomon on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:41:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

alexro (none / 0)

Dumping moustache Alexro(?) should be the step forward for obama.

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:38:00 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Clinton almost at 50%, (none / 0)

Just another day with more great news for Hillary.

Same old same old.

Thanks georgep.

by samueldem on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:39:47 PM EST

Clinton's race to lose? (none / 0)

Duh! It's not that I don't like Clinton, but to me she's not the best.

If the Obama mania had not occurred, but it was Edwards battling Clinton for the attention, the race would be much closer.

I just hope that enough people will not be swept away and accept what we are being fed by the media and the power brokers who dumb down this truly important process in such an American way.

I see the way the campaign is presented as no different than the attempts to sell a drug for restless leg syndrome or the latest reality show. Vacuous, yet we buy it. This goes for Democratic voters, too, the ones who so easily ridiculed the other side for swallowing the sale of Bush.

by citizen53 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 02:41:40 PM EST

Re: Clinton's race to lose? (none / 0)

Why do you assume that the voters can only support Clinton if they have been somehow "duped" by the "media" and "power brokers"? Why do you assume that these are "dumbed down" voters?

To me, that is really the root of the unpleasantness in American politics today...the notion that somehow anyone who happens to have a different opinion must be a complete idiot.

I don't think Obama and Edwards supporters are idiots. I don't even think Republican voters (for the most part) are idiots. They just happen to have different (although perfectly valid) political views than I do. Doesn't make them bad people or "dumbed down" or anything else. Doesn't mean that I probably can find a lot of things we do agree about.

by hwc on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 02:48:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's race to lose? (3.00 / 2)

Gllups numbers:

Are of all adults not registered voter's Thus name recognition

Un-decided's at 6 percent Thus he must have pushed respondents for an answer.

Gallup has recently the last couple of cycles has had a poor track record.

2004 they called the race even at 49 to 49

At least 10 other pollster's called the win for Bush by a pt or two.

Gallup is getting by because of it's reputation of years ago, but today it's accuracy is not even in the top 5 of all pollsters. It's state poll's are even worse.

However my take is that Clinton is leading on a national basis more by name recognition and these national poll's are worth less.

If Obama or Edwards win's the IA caucus then these number's will change dramatically.

by BDM on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 03:35:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's race to lose? (none / 0)

You are hurting your credibility by dismissing EVERY single poll that shows a Clinton lead. I never heard of BDM in my life, but I sure have heard and respect Gallup, Zogby, Quinnipiac, Rasmussen, all of who have stated over the last 45 days that this race is "Clinton's to lose" and that something very dramatic has to happen to shift this race, something that is said to be an unlikely occurence. The same sentiment has been echoed here by Jerome Armstrong, Chris Bowers, etc. I'll go with all of those folks over someone who intensely disliked Clinton and wishes her to lose.

by georgep on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 04:58:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right... (none / 0)

the millions of people who voted for Bush were not idiots. They knew the facts and how candid he was being with them. They were not swayed by his manipulation.

Reading your reply is depressing. Ask most people about where the candidates stand on the issues and you will get a blank stare or a response that confirms what I have said. Keep telling yourself that the whole process is not manipulated and controlled. Keep swallowing if you like.

by citizen53 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 03:43:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right... (none / 0)

The truth is the truth. For many Clinton appears to be the most authentic, the one we like the best of the candidates running. I also happen to like her on the issues. If you don't like it, tough. Don't question OUR intelligence or OUR political knowledge just because you don't understand or don't want to hear it.

by georgep on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:00:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I can question ANYTHING I want... (none / 0)

tough shit.

Maybe you should read the comments. People in the blogosphere are a tiny fraction of the whole, and I am entitled to my belief that many are uniformed on the issues, even if that does not satisfy you.

by citizen53 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:58:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Clinton almost at 50%, calls the (none / 0)

She made a "mistake?" I was not aware of that. Here I thought she was speaking her mind, informing the voters, being honest. Here I thought that's what members of my Party wanted. I guess I was wrong.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 02:42:26 PM EST

I'd say she is peaking early (3.00 / 1)

She'll have to go in the well and talk up magical September. So will Obama, although I'm sure they won't be eye to eye. Meanwhile, Edwards will critique from the sidelines, chipping at Clinton, Obama, Bush, Congress if they capitulate and of course how Bush's veto's are dealt with. The Fall is huge, the numbers will change.
ok, I'm an Edwards supporter and hope for an Edwards/Obama ticket but there's alot of shit yet to hit the fan. Alot of shit. and freedom watch is spending $15million to spin us on the success in Iraq. Long times ahead.

by gasperc on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 04:17:09 PM EST

Re: I'd say she is peaking early (none / 0)

I am not saying it is impossible, but with Obama and Edwards actually "enjoying" less popularity and more unpopularity than Clinton amongst Democrats, it is hard to make a case for them to win. I would put a non-win for Clinton at about 10% at this point. Something drastic has to happen, and whatever it is that is wished for here does not seem likely at all.

by georgep on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 04:55:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Clinton almost at 50% (3.00 / 1)

We'll see what happens in Iowa and other early states.

I'm betting on a dramatic upset, despite what the polls are saying.

by Namtrix on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:01:36 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Clinton almost at 50% (none / 0)

Even a dramatic upset in Iowa would do little to change the course of the race.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 08:09:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Clinton almost at 50% (none / 0)

Her aura of inevitability would be severely damaged. Those national numbers would change quickly.

Defeating Hillary would be a dig deal for the candidates that manages to pull it off. They'll get huge momentum.

by Namtrix on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 08:57:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Clinton almost at 50% (none / 0)

Could not disagree more.

1. Iowa is Edwards' in the CW. The DesMoinesRegister has stated numerous times that Edwards has "practically lived in the state since 2001," and that has spread across the country. So, if Edwards wins, it will not be that big a deal, because most expect it right now. I disagree with the CW, I think Clinton has an excellent chance of winning IA (based on the internals I have seen in the polls,) but that is the current meme.

2. Iowa has not been a big kingmaker, in fact, it has been quite ho-hum in that regard. New Hampshire has had more impact over the years. A loss in Iowa is not going to change preferences in Florida or California. That is wishful thinking of the highest order. It would make an impact if it is accompanied by a massive movement away from the frontrunner nationally, not by itself.

3. Iowa is looking to be moving forward, to somewhere between end of Dec. and beginning of January. Due to the time gap that creates between it and the other contests it will end up losing a lot of its impact. Kos considers the new schedule as transforming the Iowa caucus into a "glorified straw poll."

by georgep on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 09:41:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Clinton almost at 50% (none / 0)

I agree with you on the first point. Edwards wouldn't get anything from winning Iowa because the conventional wisdom is that he should win the state. If he loses, he's out of the race, and if he wins, he doesn't have much to gain. I really don't think Edwards is a threat to Hillary.

In my opinion, Obama or Richardson have the most to gain against Hillary if they win. They don't have the handicap that John Edwards has -- less is expected of them. And Obama actually has the money to compete long-term.

Hillary can (and most likely will, if it happens) survive a loss in Iowa and still remain the front-runner (unless she somehow comes in forth, which probably won't happen). But because of her huge lead nationally, if she loses in the first state that actually votes (to someone other than Edwards), it proves she's not unstoppable. Beating Hillary in Iowa would be a big story because it damages her "inevitable" aura, and the person who manages to defeat her would gain a lot of momentum heading into the later states (which count for a lot more). She'll remain on top, but in a weakened position, with a greater chance for someone to knock her down.

You're right about Iowa not being a big kingmaker, but I think this time around it will be very important. If Hillary wins, she's unstoppable. If she loses, the person (assuming she only comes in second) who defeats her might have a shot.

by Namtrix on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 10:42:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Clinton almost at 50% (none / 0)

I think Iowa is shaping up to be favorable to Clinton and Richardson and unfavorable to Edwards and Obama. If Edwards finishes in second place his campaign is over and if Obama finishes in fourth place his campaign will be seriously damaged. A third place by Richardson will give him momentum going into New Hampshire and he could outdistance Edwards or Obama or even both.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 01:53:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Clinton almost at 50%, calls race Clin (none / 0)

I'm sorry but this poll is inaccurate.

Obama is actually leading the polls. Clinton's numbers are inflated because of name recognition.

If the poll doesn't show that Obama is ahead, it is not accurate. I really don't have anything to base this on but this is what I believe.

Obama FanBoy

by dailyroad on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 07:33:24 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Clinton almost at 50%, calls race Clin (none / 0)

LMAO. Now THAT was funny. :-)

by georgep on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 07:55:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup: Clinton almost at 50%, calls race Clin (none / 0)

Obama 08!

by 100 PCT on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 08:21:53 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Clinton almost at 50%, (none / 0)

This is great news, it looks like Hillary is heading to victory.

And please, all these "poll" complainers, they don't want anyone to see any evidence that Hillary is leading so the "Hillary is unelectable" diaries can swamp the board. When their candidate wins a poll, a diary is up IMMEDIATELY.

by reasonwarrior on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 08:36:12 PM EST

Re: Gallup: Clinton almost at 50%, calls race Clin (none / 0)

Hillary's support across the board is phenomenal.

by DoIT on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 10:08:12 PM EST

Clinton almost at 50% (none / 0)

Yep. Hillary is "catching on" all across our great country.

by samueldem on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 10:31:24 PM EST

HILLARY R CLINTON (none / 0)

WE'RE LOVE DEAR SENATOR CLINTON
SHE IS THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF US

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnR-SLnbz hc

HİLLARY R. CLİNTON PRESİDENT OF U.S.

by cenarsystems on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:28:34 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.