MyDD :: Hillary ahead of O in May 15 National Gallup Poll! WAKE UP before it's too late!

Hillary ahead of O in May 15 National Gallup Poll! WAKE UP before it's too late!

by Clarkin08, Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:57:07 PM EST

If voters in Oregon and Kentucky show their good sense and pay no attention to the pundits, Hillary can still win the nomination; and she can lead the Democratic Party to victory in November! Despite every effort by the Obama campaign and the media to push Hillary out of this race, the people are not flocking to Obama. In fact, more and more of them are turning towards Hillary!

In spite of all his money, all of his endorsements, and all of his "hope", Obama cannot "close the deal" with long-time Democrats.

In spite of all the pressure for her to quit, all the media claims that she cannot win, and all the vicious attacks on her character and her family, according to ABC News, Hillary now holds the lead in the popular vote, and she has also moved ahead of Obama in the most recent daily Gallup Poll.

Gallup Poll Daily interviewing on Thursday, May 15 showed Clinton leading Obama by a few percentage points, after several days of Obama in the lead. The resulting slight narrowing of the race -- returning it to a statistical dead heat -- is typical of the way the contest has gone over the past several months, with neither candidate able to maintain a significant lead among national Democratic voters for very long....

Obama's spat with President Bush Thursday about U.S. diplomacy with Iran may have focused voters' attention on Obama's limited foreign policy credentials and could be a factor. However, media coverage of the campaign is conveying a growing sense of inevitability around Obama getting the nomination, and John Edward's endorsement of Obama on Wednesday seemed to prove it. With this kind of momentum in his favor, one might expect Obama to be stretching his lead over Clinton among national Democrats, not still struggling to surpass her.

According to many experienced political observers (such as Steve and Cokie Roberts) Hillary Clinton would be the stronger candidate against John McCain in Nov.

I sincerely hope that the remaining uncommitted Superdelegates are not asleep at the wheel; and that the DNC will come to its senses and realize that no Democrat will win in November unless we respect the people of Florida and Michigan, and set the "Magic Number" required to nominate at 2,210.

Contact the DNC & tell them how you feel @ http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact

Mailing Address:
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003
Main Phone Number:
202-863-8000

Tags: Barack Obama, Breaking Political News, Gallup Poll, Hillary Clinton, Superdelegates (all tags)

Permalink :: 167 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Hillary ahead of O in May 15 National (2.00 / 5)

You know, I really can't begin to imagine how many heads will explode when President Obama is sworn in.

Will you be demanding a recount?

by Reaper0Bot0 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:59:27 PM EST

Hell no! I'd like to be there for his swearing in (2.00 / 3)

in January of 2017!

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:16:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hell no! I'd like to be there for his swearin (none / 0)

Ahh. Herein lies your prejudice, exposed for all to see. You really don't have any problems with Obama, except that he has the audacity to interfere with Clinton's "turn". This is also evidenced by your grasping-at-straws attitude and method of evidence gathering.

Sorry, you deserve this:

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:27:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hell no! (2.00 / 3)

why do you guys continue being ugly. The poll is reported accurately, no one's dissing your guy, we're appreciating her momentum. I guess you need to prove that you haven't been sent to charm school? Really, you need to prove it?

by anna shane on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:35:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hell no! (2.00 / 0)

Sorry, anyone that says "Obama's great, but only if he runs in 2016 and lets Clinton have her turn" gets this treatment.

If, however, you give legitimate reasons for an Obama vs Clinton preference (like you have, Anna), then no problem. I'll address the facts there. This line of reasoning, however, is bunk.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:43:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not about turns, rage. (2.00 / 1)

Stop being so full of rage, and consider the possibility that your guy hasn't yet reached his prime.

I just happen to think that he and the country both would be better served if he had the judgment to hang up the hubris for a few years. In the meantime, we happen to have another great candidate who is ready. If he goes ahead and wins the nomination, I fear that the wax holding the feathers on his arms will melt under the searing heat of the right-wing attack machine.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:10:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not about turns, rage. (none / 0)

You keep on fearing, we will keep on winning...

I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!

by hootie4170 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:23:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A clever boast, hootie. (2.00 / 1)

When you stick up your ears and hoot proudly like that, you are indeed an impressive creature, hootie. Wise owls, however, don't boast. It's the fearful ones that do.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:35:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not about turns, rage. (none / 0)

Two terms in the Senate does not a seasoned candidate make.

by JJE on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:12:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree completely. If Hillary had no relevant (2.00 / 1)

experience other than having been a US Senator, I would not support her. But the fact is she has many, many years of relevant experience at both the Federal and State levels. Start at http://hillaryclinton.com/about/mom/ and work forward in time. There's quite a lot of relevant experience in her life.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:29:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am aware of it (none / 0)

but I don't think it amounts to a whole lot. Obama also has state-level experience. Clinton undoubtedly has more but not enough to make it a significant factor in my view.

The only experience that I find particularly relevant is executive experience, and neither have that.

by JJE on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:48:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fair enough. Others think differently, but (2.00 / 1)

like you, I think executive experience is of great importance in a Presidential candidate. Lacking that, I believe there is also value in being what Hillary was to Bill Clinton for many years, and that is a confidential adviser and executive assistant of sorts. You can learn a great deal in such positions, which is why they are so prized by people with the ambition to become executives.

by Clarkin08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:08:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It is possible (none / 0)

that being an aide or advisor would be valuable experience, but it depends on the level of involvement. Hillary Clinton was involved in Bill's administration, but there's little evidence suggesting her involvement was extensive or particularly influential. That's why I don't think she was wise to put so much emphasis on experience, as she was doing for a while.

by JJE on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:22:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Again and again, Obama has lied about IMPORTANT (1.00 / 1)

Again and again, Obama has lied about important issues such as healthcare and NAFTA - and his accomplishments.

And he never seems to get called on it.

There really is no comparison between the two. Clinton is by far the stronger candidate. That really is obvious when you wantch those debates, which is probably why Obama doesn't like them.

If Obama actually wins the GE, we will have to live with him for four years. Which would you rather have, a by all accounts very capable stateswoman who has defended Democratic causes for more than 20 years, or a very capable bullshit artist with a mediocre resume (for a Presidential candidate) who is intentionally deceiving millions of people with a healthcare plan that can't work that he claims is a viable option. (Any sixth grader could do the math to show it isn't)

His own economic advisor admits its impossible
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_pri nt/SB119681696156513818.html

Clinton explains how her premium cap would work
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/us/pol itics/28clinton.html

Universal healthcare IS a Democratic value
It's been defeated
Obama has the best $PIN that money can buy.

by architek on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:57:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Again and again, Obama has lied about IMPORTAN (none / 0)

This mindless repetition of your talking points in a comment thread where they are not relevant diminishes you.

by JJE on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:49:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

there is no momentum (none / 0)

in this primary. Everything has been demography and region. Indiana and NC put the final nail in the momentum meme's coffin.

by JJE on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:10:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is not a primary. (2.00 / 1)

This is a series of political events (many of which are primaries) leading to the eventual nomination of a Presidential candidate. O benefited early in this process from momentum that was impacted by the decision of the DNC to sanction only two of five states that broke the rules.

It remains to be seen if any candidate has momentum at this point. Clearly, O does not have the momentum he once had.

by Clarkin08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:13:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

pedantry aside (none / 0)

O benefited not from momentum, but by a bad strategic decision from his opponent not to seriously contest a series of unfortunate (for her) political events. One should not mistake running against weakened opposition with momentum.

by JJE on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:05:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hell no! I'd like to be there for his swearin (2.00 / 1)

What's with these meaningless creepy photos?

by mady on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:53:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the posting (2.00 / 1)

of these FAIL pictures by obama supporters is getting tired and old.

Did you guys all team up in making these? It sure seems like it.

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:55:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Prejudice? (2.00 / 2)

Sounds more like a considered judgment that Hillary is more electable--with no opposition to Obama as a potential president but an opinion that he will cost the Dems the WH in 2008. May be wrong but it hardly qualifies as prejudiced thinking (of any sort.

by Thaddeus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:58:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Better get to work (none / 0)

getting that amendment to the Constitution going. It's quite an arduous process. There's no time to waste.

by JJE on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:28:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A sense of humor! (2.00 / 1)

Excellent! Thanks. Still, I truly doubt that Democrats will be very happy, when all is said and done, if O gets the nomination in 2008. Cokie and Steve explain why he is likely to lose.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:13:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am unpersuaded (none / 0)

by quotes from Republican strategists with an obvious interest in undermining Obama. The Roberts' lose credibility when they say that the map has remained static based on a single data point. Obama hasn't attacked Clinton on any of the dirty character stuff that the GOP will, and she's already seen as untrustworthy with historically high negatives. And, of course, it is just as likely that Clinton would lose Wisconsin/Wash/Or/Minn in some combination rather than flip Ohio.

It's foolish to choose a candidate based on tenuous electability arguments 6 months out. That thinking brought us John Kerry.

by JJE on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:08:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cokie Roberts a Republican? Speaking of (2.00 / 1)

losing credibility, her Daddy would be ROTFLOL at that one if he were still alive. If what you allege were true, she would have to be the most liberal Republican who ever lived.

But you are correct that it is foolish to choose a candidate 6 months out. Let's go to Denver and decide there.

by Clarkin08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:24:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cokie Roberts (none / 0)

Anyone who has followed Cokie over these many years knows that she jumped the shark a long time ago. She's the child of greats, but she never lived up to the potential of the genes she inherited.

Listen to her carefully. You can tell that she knows it, too.

by xdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:11:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cokie Roberts a Republican? Speaking of (none / 0)

Their piece quoted several Republican strategists. That's what I was referring to. Hopefully Hale can now pull himself off the floor in Democratic heaven.

Allowing the nomination to go seriously contested until the convention in Denver is very risky for all involved. I doubt that Hillary Clinton will wish to do that.

by JJE on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:18:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary ahead of O in May 15 National (1.50 / 4)

we're prepared for party insiders to turn over the will of registered Democrats and give it to Obama in spite of her lead in certified votes, and her far better polling, and her more advanced planning for the job. Our heads won't explode, but some will leave the party, and I don't know if they'll come back. Barack has held back his 'negatives' and they're tricking out. I don't hold his negatives against him, I like most of what makes him weaker in the polls and against McCain, I hold Kerry and Kennedy and Daschel responsibile, they helped get us into the war and they're sinking our best chance to end it. It's not a personality contest, or it's not supposed to be, it's a job and the best qualified most electable one who's also ahead in the popular vote should get it, just like gore should have, over bush. Same old same old, only this time it's my own party. Let's hope the party isn't entirely overrun by hacks.

by anna shane on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:29:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary ahead of O in May 15 National (none / 0)

Okay. You can't make this complaint in one breath, and then hope the "supers" overrule Obama's insurmountable pledged delegate lead because of your calculation of popular vote (that awards 0 votes to Obama in MI -- a nonstarter that you all know is a nonstarter.)

It's called cognative dissonance. Or Chutzpah. Or hypocrisy. Pick one.

Fight the Smears!

by Lettuce on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:01:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Supers are supposed to exercise (2.00 / 1)

their best judgment.

Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, and Patrick Kennedy have done so. Would you prefer for them to instead follow the wishes of their constituents?

by Clarkin08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:26:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Supers are supposed to exercise (none / 0)

I'm not talking supers. If they took away Mass's pledged delegates for Hillary because of Kennedy's endorsement that would be wrong. But many here pushing for just that, essentially, by saying there should be a convention fight and planning it working out in their favor.

Fight the Smears!

by Lettuce on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:28:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary ahead of O in May 15 National (none / 0)

"I hold Kerry and Kennedy and Daschel responsibile, they helped get us into the war and they're sinking our best chance to end it."

Seriously?

Seriously??

You're going to criticize them for voting the exact same way on the exact same vote as Senator Clinton?

They're not "sinking" anything, anyway. Once this primary ugliness is behind us and our party has had months to heal, coalesce, and campaign, we will defeat John McCain in a landslide. It doesn't matter if we nominate Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or a sweet potato with a face drawn on it in Sharpie. Both candidates' numbers are being artificially held down by the other candidate's supporters saying "I'll never vote for him/her!" Nine out of ten of those people will forget they made that pledge when November rolls around, just like they did in 2004 after the nomination process wrapped up.

It doesn't matter how long this process goes on. Even if it goes to a fight on the convention floor in August, the Democratic nominee (who is, at this point, going to be Obama) is going to win in November.

The sooner this primary process ends, though, the better it will be for DOWN-TICKET races.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:12:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In truth, O might have voted the same way. (2.00 / 1)

He said so himself. And in his 2002 speech (as I recall), he says:

'You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to ensure that the inspectors get back into Iraq.'

Which, by the way, is the very reason Hillary said she was voting for the IWR - that O later said he might have voted for.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:18:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In truth, O might have voted the same way. (none / 0)

What he said was a disclaimer. I don't have access to the intelligence that the Senators saw... -- giving them the benefit of the doubt that maybe, just maybe, there was compelling evidence to be found. He then went on to say that in his opinion, the case for war had not been made.

And of course, it's turned out that there WAS no compelling evidence.

I understand that Senator Clinton says her vote for the IWR was "a vote for diplomacy," and she said so on the Senate floor. I also have no doubt that's what she meant. She wanted the inspectors back in, not war, and the President said he was going to use the war resolution as leverage to achieve that goal.

Her fundamental error in judgment was just that: taking the President at his word. She should have known, as many of us in the anti-war movement accurately predicted, that there was no attempt at diplomacy going on. That Bush was looking for any excuse to invade, and the IWR was the final key he needed.

Everyone else who voted for the resolution showed the same error in judgment, I am afraid, and that includes Senators Kerry and Edwards who I supported in 2004. However, they had already come out and in no uncertain terms called their votes a mistake. Clinton had to have an apology dragged out of her during the span of THIS campaign.

I could still forgive her, I'm not a one-issue voter, but that error in judgment and stubbornness in admitting the error is just one mark in a list of negative marks she's scored in my ledger.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:08:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I knew he was a liar also. I went to many (2.00 / 1)

anti-war events, wrote many anti-war letters, was even critical of Hillary and great numbers of Democrats for failing to criticize Bush and Impeach him immediately after Shock and Awe.

O, meanwhile, did nothing of the sort. But he struts around on stage saying he was against the war in 2002, against the war in 2003, against the war in 2004, against the war in 2005....and that Hillary was for the war. Such unadulterated BS I do not tolerate lightly in any politician. There is not a single iota of evidence that O did or said anything whatsoever against the war between his lucky speech in 2002 and another antiwar speech he made in November of 2005. (I know he asked Condi a few polite questions concerning how many Iraqis were trained in January of 2005 - but Hillary's statement that month is far more openly critical of the war than were his polite questions.) In fact, he even said his position on the war wasn't that different from Bush's position. The truth is that Hillary's record is very similar to O's record on the war, and I find it appalling that so many Democrats have allowed him to pull the wool over their eyes.

by Clarkin08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:37:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I knew he was a liar also. I went to many (2.00 / 0)

I hate to borrow this turn of phrase, ever so much, but... Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You can't say that "because there's no evidence of Obama actively opposing the war, he therefore did not oppose the war."

Obama did not have a national stage until late 2004. Up until the Democratic convention and his victory in the Senate race, he was as unknown to most people as you or I. In the same way, neither you nor I can provide evidence that we were against the war from the start, we can't point to rousing speeches or news clippings, because at the time we simply weren't news.

He was not a Senator until early 2005. Eleven days after being sworn in, he said this at the hearing with Dr. Rice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCiv1f3Da MA

That's a bit more than just "asking a few polite questions concerning how many Iraqis were trained."

Please don't make the mistake of assuming that we can't be forceful and meaningful while also being polite and respectful.

Judging from all the available evidence, Barack Obama shows a clear pattern of being against the war from the start. Sure, there's a bit of a "black hole" between 2002 and 2004, back when he was relatively unknown, but we can't assume that whatever evidence DOESN'T exist in that timeframe must necessarily contradict the evidence that DOES exist on either side of it.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:40:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary ahead of O in May 15 National (none / 0)

Try using some of this anger on McBush...it's refreshing it really is..

I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!

by hootie4170 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:25:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"the will of registered Democrats" (2.00 / 0)

The argument that the outcome of the Primary/Caucus season is illegitimate is silly and tiresome.

by xdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:18:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for the link! (none / 0)

I wrote and told them how pleased I was that the supers were finally consolidating around the candidate.

by Rorgg on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:11:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There are two candidates, not one. (2.00 / 1)

And you are welcome. Glad to help a fellow Democrat in need.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:20:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary ahead of O in May 15 National Gallup P (2.00 / 7)

There are some blatantly untrue statements in your diary:

she has also moved ahead of Obama in the most recent daily Gallup Poll

Check your own link: Obama leads by 4.

And with regard to the popular vote, that onyl is the case if you don't count 4-5 caucus states, count Florida and count Michigan and assign NO votes to Obama.

I expect corrections to be made to your diary.

United we stand, divided we fall.

by mefeck on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:59:34 PM EST

That is all I have claimed.

Don't be so quick to lie about what my diary says.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:03:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The statement is extremely misleading. Anyway, there is a reason that the daily tracking polls factor in multiple days.

United we stand, divided we fall.

by mefeck on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:06:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You have deliberately misinterpreted the poll (2.00 / 3)

Any single day's vote has a very small sample size, and thus a HUGE margin of error, which is why they average the last 3 days in the poll.

John McCain wants to make abortion illegal

by Lost Thought on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:08:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Holy criminy! Tell Gallup quick! (2.00 / 2)

No, the margin of error in a single daily Gallup poll is not "huge". They do use 3 day moving averages to smooth out brief spikes in voter sentiments - that's true. I have no problem with that. However, as I point out, Gallup went to the trouble to mention that Obama should be widening the gap, but he isn't. Why not?

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:21:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Holy criminy! Tell Gallup quick! (none / 0)

Maybe cause as Rasmussen pointed out the vast majority of voters have already cast their votes, so the national polls at this point are more a reflection of how people have voted than how they will vote.

It was one of the reasons Rasmussen said they would phase out their Hillary v. Obama polls, that contest has already been decided.

by Tatan on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:45:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When did Democrats agree to let Rasmussen (2.00 / 1)

pick our nominee?

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:22:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When did Democrats agree to let Rasmussen (none / 0)

Are you being willfully obtuse?

by Tatan on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:27:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not at all. What has Rasmussen got to do (2.00 / 1)

with deciding when the race is over? How many votes does he have?

by Clarkin08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:41:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Holy criminy! Tell Gallup quick! (none / 0)

Because Clinton won on Tuesday. And yes, the margin of error is huge because they only sample about 300-400 persons a day. It takes roughly 800-1000 persons to achieve a reasonable margin of error. Basically, I'm just saying take the 1 day results with a grain of salt.

Oh, and perhaps Gallup mentions that because they want to try and drum up interest in their tracking poll, particularly when their competition, Rasmussen, has stopped polling the head to head primary results.

John McCain wants to make abortion illegal

by Lost Thought on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:52:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Only 300-400? Mr. Gallup must be a liar then. (2.00 / 1)

Because he says: "For the Gallup Poll Daily tracking survey, Gallup is interviewing no fewer than 1,000 U.S. adults nationwide each day during 2008."

1,000 is even bigger than the 800 you say it takes to be accurate. I guess that's why Mr. Gallup's May 15 daily poll is accurate, unless you are correct and he's just a big fat liar.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:25:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only 300-400? Mr. Gallup must be a liar then. (none / 0)

The Gallup tracking poll reports a margin of error of 3%. I would interpret this as the margin of error for the 3 day average, but if your quote above is correct (link?), then it is the margin of error for the single day values. That means that out of every 20 polls, on average 1 will be off by at least 3 points in 1 direction or another. If you find a single day that differs substantially from its neighboring days, it is far more likely that you are looking at one of the outliers that it is a statistical certainty have occurred in the hundreds of days of polling than that you are looking at a sudden, transitory change in opinion.

by letterc on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:13:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

READ THE WHOLE GALLUP ARTICLE! (2.00 / 1)

The link you request is superfluous. I quoted directly from the bottom of the Gallup Poll article linked in my diary. I bet you can find it if you try.

But here's the link - again - for the lazy:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107323/Gallup -Daily-Obamas-Edge-Narrows-48-44.aspx

If posters here won't read, how do you expect to learn anything or even select a good candidate to back?

by Clarkin08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:48:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: READ THE WHOLE GALLUP ARTICLE! (none / 0)

Thanks for that substantive reply to my point.

by letterc on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:50:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only 300-400? Mr. Gallup must be a liar then. (none / 0)

I realize I have already been dismissive towards you, and declared that further discussion was pointless, but, in case your misreading was honest, I would like to point out that the paragraph immediately after the paragraph you quote states that the sample size for the three days for the Obama/Clinton question is 1237 people, so an average of around 400 people per day (although it could have been higher or lower on any given day).

The reason that this statement and the statement you quote can both be true is that the statement you quote refers to the total number of people surveyed, while the Obama/Clinton question is only asked of Democrats and Democratic leaning people, which is a subset of the 1000 per day. Only the people asked the question count for the purposes of determining the statistics for that question.

by letterc on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:20:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's untrue. I say she won May 15. She did. (2.00 / 2)

What happened to my previous reply to your nasty comment?

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:23:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Can you give a link (none / 0)

besides "abcnews.go.com"?

by Rorgg on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:15:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The original link in my diary works fine. (2.00 / 1)

It is still: http://abcnews.go.com/politics

Don't know why you got a different link.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:28:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The original link in my diary works fine. (none / 0)

Still not seeing where she leads in popular vote by any rational counting method. Please, specific story?

Or, just do the math here. How many popular votes did each get in Iowa?

by Rorgg on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:51:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ABC says she is ahead. Not me. Ask them to (2.00 / 2)

correct their numbers.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:25:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary ahead (none / 0)

Even if Hillary were ahead in a Gallup Poll, what possible influence could that have on the selection of the nominee? My dog barks at the screen when Hillary comes on TV. Should that be factored in as well?

Ridiculous.

by xdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:20:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

She can't win the general... (2.00 / 2)

...because she can't win the primary any more.

She's going to make a fantastic majority leader or maybe the governor of New York or a Senator for life if she so wishes.

by Lieber on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:00:31 PM EST

Primaries. It's a plural. Also the nomination is (2.00 / 1)

decided by the party. Not "the primary", as you so incorrectly assert.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:05:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Primaries. It's a plural. Also the nominatio (1.66 / 3)

Perhaps you can tell the blackmailers that then? Because they seem to be under the impression that "the party" has denied Hillary the nomination, when in fact it's the voters who have done that, and the party elites are her only lifeline.

But she can no longer win it democratically.

Everybody, do the Flowbee!

by Jess81 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:15:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am not in contact with O's blackmailers. (2.00 / 1)

Hillary can still win the nomination quite democratically. If you think the weird way the party allocates delegates is democratic, you must be arithmetically challenged. How many votes does a California delegate represent? How many does a Wyoming delegate represent?

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:28:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am not in contact with O's blackmailers. (2.00 / 0)

It is proportional to voters, not votes. You know how we complain about the electoral college? That is because it is not proportional to voters or population. The Democratic nomination system (largely) is.

by letterc on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:16:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So - then why do we rely on caucuses in so (2.00 / 1)

many states? Caucuses clearly fail to attract participants who fairly represent all of the voters.

Hence, caucuses are far less democratic than primaries.

Hence, the delegates selected at caucuses are a poor excuse for democratic representation due to both the relatively smaller numbers who elect them, and also the failure of that group to accurately represent a cross-section of the voters in that state.

by Clarkin08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:54:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So - then why do we rely on caucuses in so (none / 0)

We have caucuses because they are much cheaper to run than primaries. They also seem to be traditional in the Prairie States. They serve as a good test of one form of campaign organizing.

I ask this of everyone who is suddenly horrified by caucuses: were you against caucuses before Clinton lost them? Did you decry them in 2004 or 2000 or any previous election?

by letterc on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:56:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

why waste you time lying and spinning (2.00 / 1)

like this, you are not convincing anyone.

For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!

by TeresaInPa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:10:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why waste you time lying and spinning (none / 0)

It's probably true (not convincing anyone, not the lying part), but neither is the top level poster.

by letterc on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:17:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You've polled the readers of this diary? (2.00 / 1)

How can you possibly know who is being convinced?

by Clarkin08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:56:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You've polled the readers of this diary? (none / 0)

The same way Teresa can. You can ask her, I'll let her answer speak for both of us if she care to ask and she cares to answer.

Eh, this is pointless. Good bye.

by letterc on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:57:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, the denial!!! (none / 0)

It hurts! It hurts!

by PhilFR on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:01:26 PM EST

I feel your pain. (2.00 / 2)

Have some whisky. That usually helps.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:10:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary ahead of O in May 15 National (2.00 / 4)

I'm curious why you think we should nominate the candidate who has even less support than the guy you think doesn't have enough.

Amusing, no?

by Reaper0Bot0 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:01:40 PM EST

I think we should nominate the candidate who (2.00 / 1)

recieves at least 2210 votes at the Convention in Denver.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:12:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think we should nominate the candidate who (2.00 / 3)

I am sure that Senator Obama will wind up well in excess of that number.

I don't think that we should paralyze our presumptive nominee for three months just in case he happens to throw his back out or something and the understudy want to take over.

She won't win. She can't win. He can only lose by doing something phenomenally stupid, and I am sick and fucking tired of some of you folks hoping against hope that our presumptive nominee flames out.

Shame on you. You folks have (mostly) had your chance. You didn't win. There's no dishonor in that, so please stop acting like we don't know how this ends.

We do.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:15:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think we should nominate the candidate who (2.00 / 2)

Why the anger? It's not helpful to be so angry at Clinton supporters. If you are so certain that Obama will win, then why do you care what other people think? Don't you see that you are only going to polarize Clinton supporters?

John McCain vows to overturn Roe

by soccerandpolitics on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:30:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sanity. (2.00 / 1)

Thanks.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:01:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh mighty Rajah, please accept my humble (2.00 / 2)

apologies. I forgot that you possess the ability to see the future.

Did you buy that ability when you bought that hope and change package?

Obama supporters include quite a number of people who've been trying to push Hillary out for months now. So sorry. Their are just as many people who want her to continue. Deal with it.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:32:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it comes with the Hopium (2.00 / 2)

and the HopeBong

For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!

by TeresaInPa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:12:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hopium, Obamabots, etc. (none / 0)

Hillary's supporters are outraged at the attacks and name-calling that Obama's mean-spirited supporters heap upon them. They themselves would never stoop to such tactics because such uncouth behavior is exactly what differentiates them.

The name-calling and viciousness of the Obama supporters is often cited as one of the many reasons that they will never, ever vote for Obama.

In reality (remember that?), such attacks are mostly fictitious. What are called 'attacks' are mostly calls to 'play by the rules' or 'understand the math'. These calls for reasonability are answered with schoolyard taunts and childish tantrums.

I find this to be both fascinating and baffling.

by xdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:34:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

from your link... (2.00 / 2)

After leading Hillary Clinton for three days by a statistically significant six percentage point margin, Barack Obama now only has a 4-point advantage in national Democratic preferences, 48% to 44%, according to Gallup Poll Daily tracking from May 13-15.

"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell

by bored now on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:01:46 PM EST

True. Hillary won the most recent day, May 15. (1.66 / 3)

Thanks for helping those who have reading comprehension problems.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:13:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: True. Hillary won the most recent day, May 15 (2.00 / 1)

What is your problem? Open the Gallup Poll link in your diary, read it, return to your diary, open up the EDIT function, select all, and then press "delete".

by haystax calhoun on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:54:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm sorry, haystax. I can read. (1.50 / 2)

I know you think that's wrong, but I couldn't help myself. Please accept my deepest apologies for having offended thee so.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:59:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think a drop in the gallup poll is to be (none / 0)

expected after he loses a state. Um, will you be retracting you statement when the Gallup poll switches back after Oregon?

by The Distillery on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:02:28 PM EST

Re: I think a drop in the gallup poll is to be (2.00 / 4)

It doesn't have o switch back. Obama is ahead by 4.

United we stand, divided we fall.

by mefeck on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:03:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think a drop in the gallup poll is to be (none / 0)

I mean just for today's polling in which she was ahead. He was on a down trend from Tuesday. Whether or not her lead will stick over the course of a few days to register on the graph remains to be seen. I do think their numbers will be closer over the weekend, and then he'll pull away again after Tuesday.

by The Distillery on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:08:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Intelligent post. Thanks. (2.00 / 1)

Distillation is a clarifying process. Thanks again.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:56:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why would I retract a true statement? (2.00 / 1)

If he wins the next one, that doesn't negate the fact that she won the May 15 poll.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:14:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why would I retract a true statement? (2.00 / 1)

You don't "win" polls, you win contests.

by NewOaklandDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:19:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your point being? (2.00 / 1)

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:55:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary ahead of O in May 15 National Gallup P (none / 0)

DE-NI-AL!

Get over it!

I trust Barack Hussein Obama.

by spacemanspiff on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:05:19 PM EST

Good advice. You should heed it. (2.00 / 2)

But if you prefer to just hope, I will understand.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:54:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But if you prefer to just hope, I will understand. (none / 0)

I really think that the concept that 'Hillary can still win this' epitomizes what you might call 'audacious hope'.

Actually, it's more like 'bodacious'.... but I digress.

For such Hope-filled people to use the word 'hope' so derisively is ironic and a little sad.

by xdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:44:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary ahead of O in May 15 National Gallup (2.00 / 3)

Four states don't even bother reporting popular votes because the only relevant numbers are delegates. Everyone has their own popular vote count, it's a useless metric.

by Skaje on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:15:50 PM EST

If that is so, would you please tell your friend that democracy is useless.

No metric is perfect. However, none of them is "useless".

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:35:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This country does not and never has used popular vote as a metric for determining nationwide elections.

John McCain wants to make abortion illegal

by Lost Thought on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:57:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

At least in a general election, each state has completely open turnout. Anyone who wants to vote, can, regardless of party registration. And it all happens on the same day.

To nominate our candidate, we have caucuses which attract only the most committed activists, putting them at a much lower turnout than primaries. And primaries themselves have varying levels of turnout. Closed primary states (like New York) have much lower turnout than open primary states (like Texas). Check the numbers on those states.

by Skaje on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:04:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow! You mean we use the Electoral College votes, (2.00 / 1)

instead of the Democratic delegate count or the popular vote?

Holy Republic! Has anyone considered that? I mean, Hillary would be way ahead in this contest if we decided who our nominee was based upon the Electoral College votes of the states she and O have won!

That would even make some sense - assuming we wanted to win in November.

Thanks for your astute observation! You must have read Cokie and Steve's great article.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:35:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary ahead of O ? (none / 0)

Wow, you built an "alarm" diary around a single poll...which you misread. Obama is still up by 4 per your poll reference.
What are looking at?

by haystax calhoun on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:19:18 PM EST

Wow. You built a comment around a diary that (1.66 / 3)

you misread!

Read what Gallup said. Obama should be pulling ahead. Instead Hillary pulled ahead on May 15. That ought to be alarming.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:37:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow. You built a comment around a diary that (none / 0)

Per yor Gallup link:
"Barack Obama now only has a 4-point advantage in national Democratic preferences, 48% to 44%, according to Gallup Poll Daily tracking from May 13-15."

Show me where Gallup shows Clinton pulling ahead.

by haystax calhoun on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:47:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She pulled ahead on May 15. (1.66 / 3)

"Gallup Poll Daily interviewing on Thursday, May 15 showed Clinton leading Obama by a few percentage points,"

Don't confuse three day averages with daily results.

Gallup suggests that you really should be concerned about this. But, you don't have to be. You can rely on hope.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:52:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She pulled ahead on May 15. (none / 0)

This is silly. It's a very very close race, has been right along. However, even the closest races result in a winner and right now Obama seems positioned to win this, regardless of the fluctuations of the daily Gallup numbers.

It's a shame they both can't win, this really s a ridiculously even race and they both attract their own people, but they both can't and that's kind of that.

by mady on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:27:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right you are. I just hope the DNC isn't stupid (2.00 / 1)

enough to nominate someone who has fewer than 2,210 delegates on their side.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:53:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's been close... (2.00 / 3)

..the entire time. What did you expect with two fine candidates??

I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!

by hootie4170 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:19:42 PM EST

Just that the race would continue until one of (2.00 / 2)

them wins at least 2,210 votes - a majority (albeit a slim one) of the Democratic Party delegates sent to the Convention.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:39:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just that the race would continue until one of (none / 0)

It is continuing, about the number of delegates needed, we will find out May 31st...

I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!

by hootie4170 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:55:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you think it makes any sense to nominate a (2.00 / 1)

candidate whose delegate count represents less than half of the Democratic Party? Howard Dean and Donna Brazile might, but I sure don't. That's why I say all Democrats would be better served if we set the nomination bar at least to the level where our nominee can honestly say and feel that they have the support of at least half the party. That number of delegates is 2210.

So, if the committee comes up with some lesser number, we can presume that they really care less whether our nominee is backed by at least half the party. That would be very disappointing.

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:42:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary ahead of O in May 15 National Gallup P (1.50 / 2)

This is getting sick. We are not waiting for another THREE MONTHS before picking a nominee. 90% of the voters have spoken, and Hillary Clinton is not their choice.

If she steals the nomination via superdelegate, I won't like it, but I'll still vote for her. But taking this to the convention, just because the delegates technically don't vote until then, is insane. By that logic Chris Dodd and Joe Biden should go to the convention to. You never know - they could win the nomination.

Please stop holding my party hostage to your bruised feelings. We've all had our preferred candidates lose to nominees we considered not as good. We moved on. So should you. Hillary supporters aren't so special that they get to suspend the rules that everyone else lives by, and threaten a McCain presidency in the process, just because they can't deal with reality.

Everybody, do the Flowbee!

by Jess81 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:21:55 PM EST

90%? I don't think so. Our nominee will need at (2.00 / 1)

least 60 million votes to defeat John McCain in November. There very likely will be over 120 million votes cast. 34 million isn't even close to 90%. That's why we need to settle down and look at our two fine candidates objectively. One of them will certainly do better against him than will the other. The question is, which one.

So, tell me again why O should be the one. Did you even read the article by Cokie and Steve Roberts?

by Clarkin08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:43:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 90%? I don't think so. Our nominee will need (none / 0)

Last weekend Cokie Roberts said that the Democratic ticket should include a "Bible-thumping, gun-owning, white guy from a swing state." Cokie Roberts is seriously out of touch.

by grasshopper on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:35:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]