by notverybright, Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 09:57:01 AM EST
Who knows who you can believe in anymore with polls? Take this for whatever it's worth.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in South Carolina shows Barack Obama continuing to hold a double digit-lead over Hillary Clinton in the January 26th Primary Election. The survey, conducted the night after Clinton's stunning victory in New Hampshire, shows no bounce for the victor. In fact, there is virtually no change in the numbers at all. It's Obama 42% Clinton 30%. John Edwards attracts 15% of the vote, Bill Richardson picked up 2% and 10% were not sure. Richardson has since dropped out of the race for the White House.
And Insider Advantage
- Democratic Likely Voters:
(Sample 393, weighted for age, race, gender, political affiliation. Margin of error plus or minus 5 percent.)
No Opinion: 7%
Update: I changed the title of this post in response to comments that I believe were suggesting that the word "New" in the original title was misleading. So that's fixed.
In any event, they both show essentially the same numbers, and the Rasmussen poll was taken after NH. Together, they show no bounce for Clinton.
by kevin22262, Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 06:05:34 PM EDT
Why do I hear NOTHING from the OCE crowd (obama clinton edwards) when We The People are being fucked over once again.
Working to kill unions on LABOR Day Weekend! This should be a FUCKING HUGE story! This story and Our Actions should have legs... Running Loud Stomping Legs!
Kill The Unions!
Yep.. that is EXACTLY what they are trying to do! If you can not outsource the work to another country, then out source the labor within Our Own Country!
Mexico trucks to roll on U.S. highways
This WILL Kill Union trucking! PERIOD!
What are WE going to do about this?
Why are we not screaming about this?!
by areyouready, Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:02:26 PM EDT
Just a random thought. I have a gut feeling that the MSM may start to have a little bit Obama/Clinton fatigue. On heels of a rare frontpage coverage of Elizabeth Edwards yesterday, NYT has just put up a long article, 'Edwards's Campaign Tries to Harness Internet', detailing Edwards campaign's heavy use of internet to try to break through the MSM. Yes, you are right, this time it is not about hair.
Most presidential campaigns mark their progress by how they are doing in the polls and how much money they are raising.
John Edwards's campaign has another barometer of success: a 90-day calendar that tracks, in a jumble of red, green and black numbers, the spikes and dips in traffic to the campaign's Web site. The calendar is taped on the wall of Joe Trippi, a senior campaign adviser, who can connect each spike to some effort to stir voters, including the video Mr. Edwards showed at a Democratic debate mocking the media for writing about his $400 haircut, and the time Elizabeth Edwards confronted the conservative commentator Ann Coulter on television.
After running a decidedly traditional race for the White House in 2004 and in the early stages of this contest, Mr. Edwards has quietly overhauled his campaign with one central goal: to harness the Internet and the political energy that liberal Democrats are sending coursing through it. In a slow but striking power shift, advisers who champion the political power of the Web have eclipsed the coterie of advisers who long dominated Mr. Edwards's inner circle, both reflecting and intensifying his transformation into a more populist, aggressive candidate.
I have a funny feeling that the media will take a second look at Edwards in the next month or so. They may also want to take a lookg at Richardson.
There's only so much you can write about Obama and Clinton, and I definitley feel there's a little bit fatigue in the air. I chatted with a couple of folks who're not particularly political on this race. I just don't feel the buzz towards either Clinton or Obama as permeated among punditry and blogsphere. It is definitely a quite different world if you crawl out of the liberal blog cocoon.