MyDD :: Only Edwards gets the nationwide bounce from Iowa?

Only Edwards gets the nationwide bounce from Iowa?

by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:28:51 AM EST

Here's some poll numbers (I put this post, and the last post on polls, with a '?' because they are weekend polls) that will make you go huh. According to the national tracking poll out of Rasmussen:


          12/29   12/30    1/3     1/4     1/5     1/6

Clinton   43      42       41      38      38      36 
Obama     24      23       24      26      25      25
Edwards   14      16       17      18      20      23

Chris Bowers has a post on it:

...many commenters expressed skepticism at my assertion that Clinton would still be competitive after Obama wins New Hampshire. Certainly, if Obama received the historic average of a double Iowa and New Hampshire win, he would gain a net of 33% on Clinton nationally, thus turning a 19-point national deficit into a solid 14-point national lead. With a 14-point national lead, there would be no stopping Obama. An advantage like that would allow him to clean up in both Nevada and South Carolina, and probably take even Florida as he cruised toward a crushing victory on February 5th. However, in the only data we currently have available, it just doesn't seem like Obama has secured much national momentum from his Iowa victory. Sure, Clinton has dropped, but surprisingly most of that support has gone to Edwards.

Here's a cardinal rule of presidential nominations: don't look to the last election to determine how the current one will play out. Everyone learned the same lesson, and there's a new one in store. I predict that this years lesson is going to be about how Iowa doesn't decide it all in the short run, and about delegates (more on this soon) in the long run.

But back to Edwards, what is this about? The MSM, like conservative George Will, have told us that Edwards is history and it's all about Obama now:

Barack Obama, who might be mercifully closing the Clinton parenthesis in presidential history, is refreshingly cerebral amid this recrudescence of the paranoid style in American politics. He is the un-Edwards and un-Huckabee — an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic “fights” against fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country.

Are Democratic voters not listening to the pundits? Maybe not, from this poll at least, it looks like about 75% of the Democrats are not quite standing with George Will yet next to Obama.

Obama has a great 4 state strategy in place, in places where he's able to capitalize on Independent voters. That doesn't describe many of the places that are voting in Democratic primaries beyond these first initial contests. Let's wait and see if this is confirmed by other polls or not; right now, this looks very much like a three-way race. People know it's a long way till November, and there's no hurry to get a nominee before the process is over. My hunch is that if both Edwards and Clinton are saying this, and Obama doesn't overtake the lead nationally, that his campaign will not be able to do anything about the process continuing.

Update [2008-1-7 1:8:25 by Jerome Armstrong]: And 'soon' is here. As you can see, we have a handy delegate counter for the nominations now in the left hand column. MyDD is only counting the state-elected delegates at this point, and not the super-delegates that has endorsed one candidate or another-- at least for now.

If you have a blog or website, and you want to put embed this delegate counter on it, the script is here.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Permalink :: 69 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Only Edwards gets the nationwide bounce from I (2.00 / 1)

That's a good point, and I think the Edwards strategy realizes it too.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:17:40 AM EST

Re: Only Edwards gets the nationwide bounce from I (none / 0)

I'm pretty sure that you'll see a sizable Obama bounce post-NH.

Edwards will be too far behind Clinton to remain part of the conversation.

by Louverture on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:27:10 AM EST

Re: Only Edwards gets the nationwide bounce from I (none / 0)

I think this makes a pretty good point.

I think when Obama wins these states it will be because of superior campaigning than momentum.

by sterra on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:30:57 AM EST

this makes me nervous (2.00 / 1)

Let's face it, New Hampshire is not likely to be a receptive environment for the Edwards message. It is one of the wealthiest states in the country, and he has far less establishment support there than Obama and Hillary.

I hope he will be able to crack 20 percent there, but I am nervous.

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

by desmoinesdem on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:35:23 AM EST

U should be nervous (2.00 / 1)

Because, we have a real message that is totally geared to the new people that Obama bring to the table. And while it looks like triangulation, it is consistent with our message all along. I am not surprised at all...that as Hillarys support bleeds, most go to Edwards. And as Obama brings new stuff in, Johns message is right on track. It is a pure 3 way, and I suggest everyone sit back, rally...but, enjoy this ride!

by msnstd on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:53:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: U should be nervous (none / 0)

I think you are putting way too much faith in one daily tracking poll with a high MOE. We need some real polls out to see exactly how Iowa and NH affect this race. According to polling in NH (and yes I know a lot are tracking polls as well, but they all seem to be consistent and thye cover a smaller area than the whole country) Clinton and Edwards are both losing support to Obama. And if CNN's poll is too be believe, they predict a 10 point victory with only a 50% indie turnout for Dems. If Obama turns out MORE than 50%, that number may very well go higher.

I just think its way too early for Jeromes predictions until we see some more polls Nationally with Iowa and NH factored in. And if Obama takes Florida, despite the threats of non-seated delegates, I think he rolls to victory on Feb 5, getting all but 2 or 3 states... unfortunately 1 of those is NY, but hey its her Home State. Now she starts trailing in NY (something I doubt will happen, FTR) then we may see her go nuclear, although for the good of the party I hope she
'd avoid that.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:58:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed - one poll is not enough (none / 0)

You'd think somebody besides Pew (and the Rasmussen tracker) would have done a nationwide poll since December 19.

All the pollsters have gone absolutely nuts, focusing on Iowa and now NH. Six polls were released last night and this morning showing the state of both party's races in NH through yesterday. Yep, six. Meanwhile, excepting what I've already mentioned, nothing has been polled since December 19.

by RT on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:24:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Agreed - one poll is not enough (none / 0)

I'm guessing its because of the compressed timeframe... I've heard Weekend polls aren't usually as accurate because they don't get as many young people or something like that... but I might be mistaken on that as well... I think with 5 days in between that is why it is happening. I think we will see polls right before Nevada happens.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:11:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards Up 10% vs. Last Six RCP Nat'l Polls (2.00 / 3)

For more in-depth on this issue see:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1 /6/15010/65546/485/431742

NATIONAL AVERAGE: For the national race, Edwards's improvement in the Rasmussen polling represents a +10.0% increase over the last six December polls averaged previously by Real Clear Politics. That same comparison shows Barack Obama with a -.75% decrease and Hillary Clinton with a -8.25% decrease in her national average--so, per Rasmussen, ALL of the national bounce is heading Edwards's direction!)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/national-primary.html

by Hoomai29 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:36:14 AM EST

Re: Edwards Up 10% vs. Last Six RCP Nat'l Polls (none / 0)

I didn't mention it, but the interesting thing might be that, since this is a 4 day tracking poll, that Obama has actually fell to 3rd nationally in Rasmussen polling.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:52:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

let's wait and see (none / 0)

if that is just statistical noise. I don't see why Obama would be falling nationally with the fawning media coverage he's been getting.

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

by desmoinesdem on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:01:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

this is a story you won't see (none / 0)

on MSNBC, not by any of the frat boy pundits at least.
I'm going to have to stop saying it's over for Edwards. But in any case it will be nice to see a primary that plays out over more than two states.
Wouldn't it be amazing if my vote actually counted one of these times!

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:31:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only Edwards gets the nationwide bounce from I (2.00 / 1)

G. Will is a goof ball. Where does he pull this shit out of?

I agree with pretty much all of what you have laid out.

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:38:39 AM EST

I've got a pretty good vocabulary (2.00 / 2)

but "recrudescence"?

That reminded me of a story I once heard about William F. Buckley. The editorial board of some newspaper decided that they would drop his syndicated column if he ever used a word none of them had ever heard of. He did, and they dropped his column. I can't remember what the wacky word was, though!

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

by desmoinesdem on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:52:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Goofball?baseball (2.00 / 1)

George Will always represents his constituecy, which is decidedly and publishedy...not Edwards. Will always goes to the Reagan ideal, and actually detests most of his parties players. However, if he is talking baseball...do not listen, because he is heavily invested in the business of baseball. I think he is going for either Ron Paul...or to his credit, Will wuz talkin against much of Bushwax policies...early on. I think he will actualyl vote for Obama. As conservative as he is, I dont think he is racist, like most of his Repug colleagues.

by msnstd on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:02:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

question (none / 0)

How trustworthy are these numbers considering many people probably still are not paying a whole lot of attention to these early primaries?

Gas is around $3.30 around here, and I'm willing to bet that the average voter probably can't tell me the difference between Obama and Hillary's health care plans.

by highgrade on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:43:44 AM EST

Reliable!!! with a grain of salt (none / 0)

But there is no $ now, that Obama is soaring, Hillary is tanking, and John Edwards is earning his due.

by msnstd on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:04:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only Edwards gets the nationwide bounce from I (2.00 / 1)

This does give my heart hope -- I can't imagine who benefits (other than the eventual candidate) by having a nominee chosen by 2 states. Democracy (and Democrats) are better served by a nominating process that involves, oh I don't know -- the rest of us?!

I think it's also important to point out that Edwards is managing this with a double handicap -- he has considerably less money, and the MSM is basically ignoring him because they've already decided he's out of the race. But he is proving, as he says, that he's a fighter.

Bitch is the New Black

by Iphie on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:52:11 AM EST

Re: Only Edwards gets the nationwide bounce from I (none / 0)

U R wrong. Edwards is gaining big time...at Hillarys expense. Obama is bringing new folks to the table.

by msnstd on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:07:15 AM EST

Re: Only Edwards gets the nationwide bounce from I (none / 0)

The new CNN/WMUR poll conducted yesterday and today has Edwards down 4 pts.

My blog. Read it.

by fabooj on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:27:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only Edwards gets the nationwide bounce (none / 0)

"[M]ercifully closing the Clinton parenthesis in presidential history"? George Will is such an ass. Clearly Bill Clinton should never have been allowed to be president. We must ignore his eight years of peace and prosperity. Our natural and entitled national leaders are people like Bush the First and Bush the Lesser. Will is long overdue for pensioning off.

by Zeno on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:09:15 AM EST

Will is one of those ridiculous huffy men (none / 0)

who make me want to yank his toupee off and hit him in the face with a pie. Sorry, I can't help it. I can not stand prissiness from men or women. That horrible roamance novel style speech writer for Reagan effects me the same way, what's her name? Oh yeah, Peggy Noonan. The breathlessness makes me gag.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:36:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only Edwards gets the (2.00 / 0)

The main point out of this post to me is one thing. Lets everybody chill out. We are going to have a three-way race after the first four states. When states that don't let independents and (gasps) Republicans vote in their Democratic Primary, Obama will not be able to get a huge bounce from them.

Also on Iowa, Obama's home state of IL is right next door, so it was much easier to get people from his home state shipped in to volunteer. Lets wait this out a little longer.

Look at the delegate count on the left. Everybody is pretty much even and they all have a long way to go.

by RDemocrat on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:14:13 AM EST

Re: Only Edwards gets the (none / 0)

I think you may be underestimating Obama's representation in other states. There is plenty of buzz from all over the country among volunteers and organisers. Obama has HQ's in some pretty unlikely states already.

I've always counted on Obama to mobilise untapped Democrats as well as independents. This narrative that he is getting elected by the other party or disinterested bystanders is not accurate.

by Shaun Appleby on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:30:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only Edwards gets the nationwide bounce from I (none / 0)

Hooray for the delegate counter.

by Shaun Appleby on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:17:44 AM EST

Re: Only Edwards gets the nationwide bounce from I (none / 0)

I love the delegate counter but...sniff...it won't run on my WordPress.com blogsite..sniff....Help!

by Pericles on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:21:28 AM EST

Re: Only Edwards gets the nationwide bounce from I (none / 0)

Maybe Luigi will help see why.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:28:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's no good on my blogspot site either (none / 0)

See, you can check it here. Not pretty is it?

But I do like how yours looks and you guys have saved me the trouble of finding a non-MSM widget or creating my own. Now make it pretty! ;)

My blog. Read it.

by fabooj on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:32:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's no good on my blogspot site either (none / 0)

Here's the problem... the code that embeds the widget is getting scrambled on Blogspot sites: for some reason it's changing the order of the parameters in the embed tag, and (unfortunately) they're order dependent.

The order of attributes in the "embed" tag is important with regard to two attributes that are set: one tells it that it shouldn't try to change the scale of the widget when drawn at different heights (scale="noborder"), and the other tells it to draw the widget starting at the top left (salign="lt").

The problem is that for some reason, Flash only sees the "salign" parameter when it is set AFTER the "scale" parameter.

The embed code provided for the widget has the parameters in the right order... but Blogspot (and perhaps WordPress) is scrambling them. If you can coerce Blogspot to shuffle the code so that the attributes are in the correct order, it should work!

by Malacandra on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:50:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

English motherfucker! Can you speak it? (none / 0)

Thanks Malacandra...do you realize that whenever you help me with techie html-y stuff...I feel like a complete idiot? Can't you just fly down here and fix it for me? This is the code I have in that module:

<object width="175" height="308"><param value="http://assets.mydd.com/delegatesD.swf" name="movie"><param value="transparent" name="wmode"><param value="noborder" name="scale"><param value="lt" name="salign"><embed width="175" src="http://assets.mydd.com/delegatesD.swf" salign="lt" wmode="transparent" height="308" scale="noborder" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object>

It looks like to me exactly what the original said. Am I supposed to bracket out some of those parameters (I make up my only html lingo, so bracket out mean <>)?

My blog. Read it.

by fabooj on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:18:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: English motherfucker! Can you speak it? (none / 0)

Hey, I was a fucking English Major, believe it or not. Long story, short: in the embed tag, scale needs to come before salign: So: You got:

<object width="175" height="308"><param value="http://assets.mydd.com/delegatesD .swf" name="movie"><param value="transparent" name="wmode"><param value="noborder" name="scale"><param value="lt" name="salign"><embed width="175" src="http://assets.mydd.com/delegatesD.s wf" salign="lt" wmode="transparent" height="308" scale="noborder" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" E;</embed></object>

You need it to be:

<object width="175" height="308"><param value="http://assets.mydd.com/delegatesD .swf" name="movie"><param value="transparent" name="wmode"><param value="noborder" name="scale"><param value="lt" name="salign"><embed width="175" src="http://assets.mydd.com/delegatesD.s wf" wmode="transparent" height="308" scale="noborder" salign="lt" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" E;</embed></object>

Theoretically, the order of this stuff shouldn't ever break things. But the difference between "theory" and "practice" is that, in theory, there is no difference... but in practice, there is.

by Malacandra on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:24:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you! (none / 0)

But it didn't work. :( It just made the entire box disappear. See?

BTW, yes I can totally believe you were an English major. You had used a word or two that just stumped high acidity and me. And we both said, "English major".

My blog. Read it.

by fabooj on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:32:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you! (none / 0)

I emailed you on why it disappeared. A space somehow got lodged in the filename for the component. Needless to say, that breaks things.

And for anyone else following this, the embed code now should Just Work. We simplified the code.

by Malacandra on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:03:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks again (none / 0)

The counters are working and look great!

My blog. Read it.

by fabooj on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:13:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards (2.00 / 1)

I wonder where Edwards is doing best. Could he do what Dean did and head West? I could see his message being receptive in a lot of those states and it wouldn't require as much money if the other candidates ignore them. Or should he stick to the midwest and south, where he might be able to connect well? There certainly are a few choices and the better he does in NH, the better he'll be able to do later. If he could pull out the culinary endorsement over Obama in Nevada, that would obviously be huge. I think Edwards is doing quite a good job right now though keeping some attention considering the money and media stacked against him.

by Progressive America on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:23:17 AM EST

Iowa? (none / 0)

I think Edwards currently has one more delegate than Hillary. But that's not what the counter shows.

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:34:28 AM EST

Re: Iowa? (none / 0)

Yea, I don't know exactly why, but Clinton got one more.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:42:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa? (none / 0)

The counter is right. Hillary received 1 more delegate from Iowa than Edwards did.

by Tove on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:43:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa? (none / 0)

Probably due to her strongest rural pull.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:53:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome (none / 0)

I tried to embed your delegate script and it render badly. The blue box if full size but the info is raised half way up so it cuts off half the info.

Any ideas?

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:38:06 AM EST

Re: Jerome (none / 0)

I'm not sure, I'll have Miles take a look at your site.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:40:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome (none / 0)

I do not have it up right now. I am trying to include it on my gf's site.

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:53:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome (none / 0)

which is on Blogger.

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:54:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You might want to try again (none / 0)

The code's been updated.

by Malacandra on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:04:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Delegate counter (none / 0)

very cool. I wonder, given your conviction that MI and FL delegates will be seated--eventually-- whether that means you will include them in the count?

To me, there is an intractable problem: the DNC is trying to punish the state parties for not playing by the rules that all states agreed to. But if you--and everyone else--include the delegates in your count, that will have the effect of punishing some candidates and rewarding others. Since they're prohibited from campaigning in those states, they won't have a chance to earn the delegates fairly. What are your thoughts?

by along on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:05:51 AM EST

Re: Delegate counter (none / 0)

My thoughts are that Democrats don't disenfranchise Democrats. Dean set himself up to fail, especially given that MI and FL are swing states.

by souvarine on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:50:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegate counter (none / 0)

My thoughts are that Democrats need to hold Democrats to the rules agreed to by Democrats.

Dean didn't fail. MI and FL failed their Democratic voters by trying to butt to the front of the line.

by Malacandra on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:52:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegate counter (none / 0)

I agree... Dean stays tough, and THIS crap doesn't happen again...

The best scenario here is for whomever the nominee is to say FL and MI NEED to be seated... and Howard to refuse. The nominee looks good for standing up for the rights of those states and Dean remains tough and keeps this crap from happening again.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:14:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegate counter (none / 0)

I believe this gets decided by some sort of vote, not a unilateral decision by Howard Dean.

"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 Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:34:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delegate counter (none / 0)

Yes, I will, I'll explain why when we get there.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:53:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Reality Check (2.00 / 2)

First Reality Check- 48% (57% including Illinois in Obama's column) of all the delegates for the February 5 contests are in open or semi-open States and 52% (43% without Illinois) of all delegates are in closed States:

OPEN- 2/5 STATES

Alabama- 60 delegates
Arkansas- 47 delegates
California- 441 delegates (Independents OK, no Republicans)
Georgia- 103 delegates
Idaho- 23 delegates
Minnesota- 88 delegates
Missouri- 88 delegates
North Dakota- 21 delegates
Tennessee- 85 delegates
Utah- 29 delegates (Independents OK, no Republicans)

Total Open- 985 delegates

CLOSED- 2/5 STATES

Alaska- 18 delegates
Arizona- 67 delegates
Colorado- 71 delegates
Connecticut- 60 delegates
Delaware- 23 delegates
Illinois- 185 delegates
Kansas- 40 delegates
Massachusetts- 121 delegates
New Jersey- 127 delegates
New Mexico- 38 delegates
New York- 280 delegates
Oklahoma- 47 delegates

Total Closed- 1,077 delegates

Second Reality Check- you need a lot of money to compete on 2/5.

Our Moment Is Now

by mboehm on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:00:55 AM EST

Re:Clinton Home Base (none / 0)

Assuming she wins Arkansas... and if CT was such a lock, wouldn't NH be as well... so I wouldn't go counting that as a win for her... NY and NJ... yeah those go Clinton.

Now, I'm not sure how closed works in other states. In Illinois, you don't have to be registered or if you do, you aren't asked to prove it. I have never registered to the best of my knowledge as a Dem (not sure really how one does it)... when i go to the Primary Polls, they ask if you want a GOP or DEM ballot, you pick and vote. That simple... sounds pretty open to me... I'm curious to hear ACTUAL anecdotals from people voting in other states... do you have to prove party registration?

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:36:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:Clinton Home Base (none / 0)

How is CT her home state?

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:38:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:Clinton Home Base (none / 0)

You keep assuming that obama's support is from Rich Liberal whites... Iowa isn't filled with Rich Liberal Whites... Southern Illinois, where Obama did well in both the primaries AND obviously the GE isn't filled with Rich White Liberals... Heck, much of the collar suburbs of Chicago are generally Blue Collar moderates, Latinos, etc.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:40:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reality Check (2.00 / 1)

New Jersey is only "semi-closed" at best. You don't have to register for a party when you register to vote in New Jersey, and if you're not registered for a party, you can come to the polls on primary day and declare an affiliation right there and vote in that primary. Since NJ Presidential primaries historically were always long after Super Tuesday and therefore inconsequential, I believe that there are probably many, many party-leaning voters who are registered non-affiliated (like myself) because there was never a primary worth voting in yet who will show up at the polls on 2/5 and vote in one of the primaries, just like independents in an open state.

I know I am planning to do that. I haven't decided for sure whether to register Dem and vote for Obama or GOP to protest vote for Ron Paul. I was leaning Paul when Clinton had a 25 point national lead and a 40 point lead in NJ, but now that the Democratic landscape has changed significantly, I'm definitely rethinking that decision. If the Dem primary is going down to the wire, I'll certainly be voting in that.

NJ Hussein Independent

by NJIndependent on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:45:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Baloney (2.00 / 1)

$105,000,000 raised (estimated)/510,000 donors (estimated) = $206 average per donor

Our Moment Is Now

by mboehm on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:24:29 AM EST

Re: Only Edwards gets the nationwide bounce from I (none / 0)

I thought that Edwards' latching himself onto the Obama surge, as he did in the NH debate, was an excellant strategy, because in the end, Hillary is the candidate to beat. Still it is surprising that Obama isn't moving up in the national polls, yet. That will likely change as Feb 5 approaches, but by how much?

Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.

by shergald on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:18:47 AM EST

OBAMA SURGES NATIONALLY!!! (none / 0)

RASMUSSEN: Clinton's lead in national polling collapse... now Clinton 33 Obama 29; Before Iowa showed Clinton 41 Obama 24... Developing...

better luck next universe

by thenew on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:33:12 AM EST

Re: OBAMA SURGES NATIONALLY!!! (none / 0)

I guess Jerome posted too early or it took a few days for the bounce to occur.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:41:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA SURGES NATIONALLY!!! (none / 0)

So they are statistically tied, given the 4% MOE.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:42:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA SURGES NATIONALLY!!! (none / 0)

One measure highlighting the magnitude of the changed dynamics can be found in data from the Rasmussen Markets. Closing prices the day before Iowa implied that Clinton had a 65% chance of winning the nomination and Obama was given a 29% chance. At 9:00 a.m. Eastern on the day before New Hampshire, those numbers have reversed--Obama is given a 63% chance of winning while Clinton's prospects have dwindled to 34% (current prices: Obama 100.0%, Clinton 0.0%). - From Rasmussen Reports.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/2008_democratic_presid ential_primary

Damn He better win NH.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:44:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only Edwards gets the nationwide bounce from I (none / 0)

2003-4 and moving into 2006 was the movement to bring about change in our Party.
No matter the results this is happening more.
Obama and Edwards both understand it is the DLC that must go first...
Obama IS bringing in more young, that is not what the DLC want.

Just as there was a backlash against Clinton "the inevitable" this can very well happen to Obama.

I truly hope that Harry and Nancy see what is going on.."get out of the way if you can't lend a hand."

Edwards get's it...that's why he announced in NOLA
Music to warm NH up ..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShHe7nh5m kc

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

by nogo war on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:34:44 AM EST

Re: Only Edwards gets the nationwide bounce from I (none / 0)

The DLC don't want more young in the Democratic party? Where did you get that idea? Everyone wants more young in the party.

I would prefer that they were more bought in to liberal ideas like unions, but I'm sure the DLC is thrilled that young people are less committed to liberal orthodoxy.

by souvarine on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:11:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only Edwards gets the nationwide bounce from I (none / 0)

How about this Caveat... The DLC wants youths to vote, but 1) to their ideals and 2) not as politically active as the millenials appear to be.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:48:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe Obama only works in person? (none / 0)

From every report we see it would appear that when Obama walks into a room it is like he has captured lightning in a bottle. But how does that translate in states like California and New York where by the very nature of things only a tiny fraction of the electorate will ever be in the same room? Can he deliver that same electricity via a 30 second TV spot?

I don't know. But since I have been wrong about just about everything since Thursday night I'll just leave it in the form of a question. But just given the set of numbers cited it would appear that once you take 'inevitable' off the table voters are gravitating towards a 'take on the corporate bastards' stance vs 'change through sweet reason and compromise'. Which from my perspective is all to the good.

PollKatz: Bush Approval in 15 polls

by Bruce Webb on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:52:08 AM EST

Re: Latest Rasmussen numbers (none / 0)

Rasmussen daily tracking poll today(1/7)
Clinton 33
Obama 29
Edwards 20

Tommorow's tracking poll, I predict will show Obama IN THE LEAD.

by BDM on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:24:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton's national lead collapses (none / 0)

The title of this post is already obsolete. Rassmussen has Clinton's lead collapsing. She's gone down to only 4% and still dropping like a stone. A few more days and Obama will have the lead in their tracking poll. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/daily_presidential_tra cking_poll

by cmpnwtr on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:36:53 AM EST

Re: Only Edwards gets the nationwide bounce from I (none / 0)

Are the delegate counters in the left margin of this site correct? The totals look like the pre-penalty totals. Are you going to add Michigan and Florida delegates, even though they don't get to vote at the convention?

by Lex on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:09:01 PM EST

Re: Only Edwards gets the nationwide bounce from I (none / 0)

Of course when I said DLC doesn't want new young voters it was simply an opinion.

I based it on the DLC response to Dean as a candidate..bringing in young new voters, and
the battle for DNC chair...which he won

If you need to be reminded of the DLC
go here and look at their "Leadership"

http://www.dlc.org/

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

by nogo war on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:17:05 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.