Funny you should mention amnesia. John Kerry was the "establishment" candidate in 2004. A long-term senator from a liberal state. Yet in 2008, you've got your money on the "establishment" candidate, a long-term senator from a liberal state. This is too hilarious. You can't write stuff this good.
What is your problem Jerome? These are parts of what made Dean, Dean. He wouldn't have had such fluent fundraising if he didn't have a strong appeal to small donors. If he didn't have a strong appeal to small donors, he never would have had a serious run for the white house. If he didn't have big crowds, how would his campaign flex the energy and keep people on their feet with excitement? A campaign that's purely substance is determined to lose.
If you think the Obama campaign has left out substance, I'd be happy to hear what campaign you're watching. You're the guy posting on the frontpage criticizing his Health Care Plan. How can you criticize a plan if he has no substance? Please, bring the conversation ABOVE a 2nd grader status. Quit the petty arguments and bring something real.
Dean was the candidate of small donors. By the end of the year, he had around 260K? 280K donors? Obama is sitting at 459,975 Unique donors. Obama has outdeaned Dean.
Dean was also the candidate of big crowds. Dean had crowds around what size? While Obama has had a crowd of 28K in Columbia, SC - 23K in New York City, NY - 20K in Austin, TX - 10K in Oakland, CA. Obama has outdeaned Dean.
People keep trying to compare the two, when in reality, Obama is something different.
There's one seat they could add to this list. Tom Davis is likely to retire and we have a strong challenger lining up for the seat. (VA-11 former congresswoman Leslie Byrne) We made some gains in that district for the 2007 legislative races.
Attacked and attacks are two different words. One implies past tense, one is present tense.
Second, this has already been diaried.
Third, there's a difference between saying "We need to call everyone to vote against this bill" and an attack. Granted, Obama used harsh language, but he wasn't attacking Ted Kennedy. He was implying people need to call even the most liberal senators and representatives.
If you think Medicare Part D was a good thing, then you can argue against what Obama said.
What aggregates are you reading? Pollingreport was always lower than RCP, and RCP never got over 3.5. But way to not address my point and brush my response off completely. Thank you for telling me I completely wasted my time trying to convey a message to you.
OR you can use the trendlines from the SV polling, and say, "wow, Obama lost some of his lead, but he's still leading according to Strategic Vision"
That's exactly what I said. Where's the "Nice Spin" in that? Obama lost 5 points according to SV. He lost some momentum. Again, where's the nice spin? That's exactly what I said.
If you're referring to this:
Conspiracy just posted a new poll. By your strategy, of using all the polls as one polling firm, we could say Clinton fell within the last 20 minutes and now Obama is leading again.
I was mocking how you are using the polls, but you must have missed that, since this poll didn't fit your narrative of Hillary leading, you didn't see I was mocking how you are using all the polls as one timeline as if they are all from the same polling firm.
He was comparing them in a "This is poll 1 and this is poll 2" You are comparing it like "This was poll one, two, and three, since then we have poll four and five" You're comparing them as if they are all the same in one big timeline, and they aren't. Todd compared them by distinction, two differrent results from one similar timeline.
Conspiracy just posted a new poll. By your strategy, of using all the polls as one polling firm, we could say Clinton fell within the last 20 minutes and now Obama is leading again. OR you can use the trendlines from the SV polling, and say, "wow, Obama lost some of his lead, but he's still leading according to Strategic Vision"
Yes, it's an uptick from different polling firms, different screens, etc. You can't compare different polling firms and say you have a trend, especially in the clusterf*** state of Iowa. You've ridden me over this before, I would appreciate some consistency.
You want to talk about trends? The last CNN poll was Clinton+3, this one was Clinton+4. There was movement completely within the MoE, it was marginal. There was no serious uptrend from that POLLING FIRM. Again, comparing polls within one polling firm when you can! Instead of treating all the polls like one polling firm.