Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Dave, Tn — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:44:15 GMT

" Her popularity, the poll suggests, is being driven by her strength on key issues and a growing perception among voters that she would best represent change."

That's proof that all this fake outrage, and bitching out of democrats the last 7 years as all been one big sad LIE!!!!

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

vanreuter, NY NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:46:06 GMT

She has crossed the 50 percent line. She's seen as the most electable. She is seen as best able to quell partisanship tensions.

"Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, 53 percent support Clinton, compared with 20 percent for Obama and 13 percent for former senator John Edwards (N.C.).

Despite rivals' efforts to portray her as too polarizing to win the general election, a clear majority of those surveyed, 57 percent, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate with the best chance on Nov. 4, 2008. The percentage saying Clinton has the best shot at winning is up 14 points since June. By contrast, 20 percent think Edwards is most electable and 16 percent think Obama is, numbers that represent a huge blow to the "electability" argument rivals have sought to use against her.

One of the central claims of Obama's campaign is that he is best suited to lower partisan tensions in Washington. But, in this poll, more see Clinton as best able to reduce partisanship."

The polls are moving...

Van

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Brad, Dallas, TX — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:47:16 GMT

LIES LIES LIES> Enough already with BS>We all are not as stupid as you think we are.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:48:12 GMT

It should be noted that the ABC/Washington Post poll was not of likely voters, not of registered voters, but of adults - which is as wide a screen as you can get. You look at the Cook poll for registered voters and the Obama is over twenty points closer to Clinton, and the Reuters poll for likely voters also tells the same story. This mirrors the phenomenon in Iowa where Clinton leads by six points among all Democrats but trails Obama by eight points among likely caucus voters first and second choice; the people who will decide this race are going in the opposite direction of the national polls (which is what almost always happens in the Democratic race anyway, so no one should be surprised.)

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Ashe, SF CA — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:48:44 GMT

First Read...who are you trying to fool with the polling garbage. It's irresponsible to project Hillary's inevitability with sample size of 592 democratic voters.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Brian, Las Vegas — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:49:28 GMT

Man, this site really is a Clinton shill!

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

csh, IL — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:51:04 GMT

The momentum continues for Hillary. A record breaking third quarter and now a 33 point lead over Obama.

This is all a reflection of the stellar campaign she has run, particularly her strong performances in the televised debates. Also, with more exposure, democrats can see that Obama does not have the experience or stature to compete against Hillary.

President Hillary Rodham Clinton – sounds good to me!

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

vanreuter, NY NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:52:29 GMT

They TRUST her more...

"On major issues, Democrats are far more likely to trust her than her main competitors -- 52 percent trust her most on Iraq, compared with 22 percent who trust Obama most on the war and 17 percent who trust Edwards most. On health care, 66 percent trust her most to handle the issue, compared with 15 percent for Obama and 14 percent for Edwards. Half see Clinton as the candidate who best reflects the "core values" of the Democratic Party."

She best reflects the core values of the democratic party.

"Democrats remain roughly evenly divided over whether they want a candidate of change or of experience, the dichotomy that has been widely used to sum up the party's race so far. Fifty percent said they prefer a candidate who emphasizes a new direction, and 42 percent said they want a proven, steady leader.

In both cases, support for Clinton has grown. Two months ago, 51 percent of voters seeking a candidate of "strength and experience" picked Clinton as their favorite. Now 62 percent of voters in this category support Clinton."

She is seen as having strength AND experience. No one else is even close.

Van

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

jerry/corpus christi texas — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:54:36 GMT

Wasn't a very good day for Liberals yesterday....

Harry Reid looking like a total fool yesterday, all at the expense of media matters, founded by Hillary Clinton......

Tom "top Gun" Harkin (call name Stupid) talking about Rush Limbaugh when in fact he was found out to be a liar when he said he flew combat missions over North Vietnam. See what happens Top Gun when you listen to media matters, founded by Hillary Clinton?

Did Media matters, founded by Hillary Clinton, give the results of the poll to ABC or did ABC call a bunch of people in New York again.

Newt Gingrich could not run for President and be the head of his organization at the same time. Does this rule also include the Clinton's. I would think that an investigation of Media matters, founded by Hillary Clinton, would be warranted in this matter, to see if the Senator from New York may have broken the law.

Is there a different standard for women or do women need this advantage to overcome their ineptness?

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

ZTL — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:54:57 GMT

These polls are getting ridiculous! Wake up America, don't let MSM shove "more of the same" down your throat!

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

juan,ft lauderdale, fl — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:58:06 GMT

What makes Biden believe that the people of Iraq will go along with partitioning their country? They are against it.Granted, they have resorted to their own cleansing of their neighborhoods for purposes of survival. Now their's strictly Sunni, Shia and Kurd neighborhoods. I do not believe they will allow and/or accept George Bush and neocons to dictate to them the outcome of their country. Iraq was carved out and created by the British and I seriously doubt that 21 century American colonialism will ever be accepted. The civil war will continue surge or no surge regardless of temporary lull/decrease in the killings (whether you are shot in the forehead or back of your head).

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

vanreuter, NY NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:59:41 GMT

Who do people see as the candidate of, "change"?

"Among those looking for a "new direction and new ideas," Clinton now has an edge, with support from 45 percent -- compared with 31 percent for Obama. Previously, these "change voters" were split evenly between Clinton and Obama."

She is now seen as the, "change", candidate, by more people.

"Overall, support for Clinton exceeds 50 percent for the FIRST TIME in the campaign. In five previous Post-ABC polls this year, she hovered in the low to mid-40s."

Someone here said she would NEVER get over 50%. Are they here today?

"Support for Obama, now at 20 percent, has softened since early September and stands at its LOWEST POINT since he entered the race in February. Support for Edwards has remained essentially stable. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.), Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio), and former senator Mike Gravel (Alaska) all registered in the low single digits."

Even her detractors have to admit that her campaign has done a masterful job of separating her from the rest of the field in the first month of serious competition.

Van

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

loyal Democrat, SC — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:02:27 GMT

Yes we all question polls ...but a poll of 520 democrats out of 150 million roughly seems questionable to me. What did they ask 5 per state

One follow up thought to the new Washington Post/ABC News poll. If you remember, three weeks ago the Washington Post created a stir with its last survey, citing a nine-point drop for Rudy Giuliani as evidence that he was suffering a "dramatic erosion in his support."

At the time, John pointed out what an overly dramatic assertion this was given the rest of the available polling data.

So now that Giuliani has bounced back 6 points in its new survey to 34%, is the Post reporting a "dramatic resurgence of support" for Rudy? Well, not quite:

Other notables for the Dems: Clinton beats Obama across the board in every additional measurement taken in this poll, including a couple of results that look questionable. For example, Clinton beats Obama by 22 points (42-20) on the question of who will be "best able to reduce the partisanship in Washington." She also beats him by 4 points (41-37) when respondents were asked who they think is "the most inspiring." Lastly, among the 50% of adults who said a "new idirection and new ideas" were more important to them in a presidential candidate than "strength and experience", Clinton beat Obama by 14 points, 45 to 31.

http://www.time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/

I will concede that perception is everything and they have down a good job. Think about it the latter half of Sept. was all Clinton all time on the TV...more surprising would have been iof they had not spiked. That being said it is time for the other candidates to make their play or perish...just my thoughts.

In case you wonder who I support ...its not Hillary. I could not take that voice in my home for 4 years. Sorry if it sounds sexist but it is true. She maybe smart but I fundamentally don't like her. As for the others I could support any of the other top 4 except maybe Richardson

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

vanreuter, NY NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:03:59 GMT

She leads among men and women;

"In the new poll, Clinton has gained among both women and men. She leads Obama in the race for the Democratic nomination by 22 percentage points among men, and by 42 points among women. Fully 57 percent of women said they would support Clinton in a primary, compared with 15 percent for Obama and 13 percent for Edwards."

The argument that independents will flock to the other side is losing credibility too...

"Since early September, Clinton has picked up support both among Democrats (up 9 percentage points) and independents who lean toward Democrats (up 16 points). For the FIRST TIME, a majority of married women, 56 percent, back Clinton. There is little difference between people who are tracking the campaign closely and those who are paying scant attention: Majorities in both groups said they would vote for Clinton if the election were held today."

The argument that her lead is partly due to people not paying attention to politics so early is losing credibility too...

Van

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

juan,ft lauderdale, fl — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:11:38 GMT

Dave- <<Fake outrage and bitching out of democrats the last 7 years as all been one big sad lie.....SAY WHAT? You been living under what rock? What does the the Shrub and the ass kissing, toe tapping, lying Republicans have to do to you personally that they have done to millions of Americans. What do you think the 06 elections was about?DUH! accountability, real check and balances, tax cuts for everyone (not the measly $ 300 bucks I got 6 years ago and LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES about Iraq from Republicans who care only about party loyalty.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

vanreuter, NY NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:13:01 GMT

She leads among white and non-white voters...

"Clinton also has a wide lead among whites, besting both Obama and Edwards by a 3 to 1 ratio. She has a narrower edge among African Americans: 51 percent support Clinton, compared with 38 percent for Obama.

Whether she can continue to consolidate support will be the test over the next three months, as the contenders head into the first primary contests in early January. The poll indicates that, at least right now, she is well positioned to do so."

Some will again try to compare her to Howard Dean in 2004. Dean's lead was large, but he was relatively unknown, and his support was soft. Clinton is not Howard Dean;

"Clinton's backers remain firmly behind her candidacy. Sixty-one percent of those who said they would vote for her support her "strongly." In another sign that Clinton has neutralized skepticism of her acceptability as a candidate, about three-quarters ranked her as a first or second choice. Half rate Obama in the top two; a third do so of Edwards."

Her support is strong. She is either the first or second choice of two-thirds of those polled.

Van

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

DCJoe — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:16:47 GMT

I agree with you whining Obamaphiles that the ABC News/WashPost poll, standing alone, wouldn't mean much. But the fact that it mirrors virtually every other poll taken, at least insofar as it indicates a building trend towards Sen. Clinton, would be viewed by any statistician worth his or her salt as significant. Of course, I guess its possible that the statisticians, along with the poll takers,the media, and prominent black politicians like Ron Dellums, are part of the world wide conspiracy to deny Saint Barack his rightful place on the throne. I mean, anything's possible.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Straight //az — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:17:09 GMT

Clintons again set America up. The have such a track record to be involved with scandal at every turn. She A DUMB puppet behind his coat tail. Nothing is realy new, your being duped by both of these professional liars, their self serving agenda. Promises which hold no water. A professional Washington Paper Hanger, How do you spell Perverted? made a mockey of the Oval Office, Total contempt of law, deception, both master liars.

America has been driven to the gutter. It has been a long time sense common sense and leadership was sent to Washington.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

vanreuter, NY NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:19:25 GMT

"After Clinton outraised Obama in the third quarter, her advisers worked to maximize the news. The campaign stayed silent on Monday as Obama announced his $19 million fundraising total, then released its total yesterday morning, just as Obama was poised to begin a major speech about the war in Iraq."

Taking the news cycle away from him in yet another example of what an experienced, professional, disciplined campaign is supposed to do...

"For the first time since Clinton launched her campaign in January, her financial success appears to have turned much more directly on the support of SMALL DONORS -- a domain that Obama and, to a lesser extent, Edwards had dominated in the first six months of the year. Clinton reported receiving money from 100,000 new donors this quarter -- double the number she recruited during the first three months of the campaign."

And more than anyone else this quarter. Howard Dean and Joe Trippi, "invented", the netroots, small event, small donor strategy, Obama improved on it, now Clinton will perfect it.

Van

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Mike K, Denver — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:21:57 GMT

1) I trust no financial numbers from Clinton given her history of taking money from anyone with an extra dollar in their pocket, even if they're wanted criminals.

2) I wish that this site would stop already crowning her as the Democratic nominee. There hasn't been one ballot cast anywhere in the country.

3) The sample size of this poll is so small as to be negligible. It also isn't of likely voters or even just Democrats. I think as we go forward, the thinking will emerge that, by next year, we'll have hit the 20 year mark of either a Bush or a Clinton being in office. While the 8 years of Clinton were markedly better than the 12 by anyone with the last name Bush, we're at a point where something different is drastically needed. At least I hope people pull their heads out of their rectums long enough to realize this.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

juan, ft lauderdale,fl — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:22:48 GMT

Simply put we Americans were hell of alot better off economically, socially, and geopolitically during Clinton's term than the Shrub. Maybe that is why an increasing number of people are ignoring the fear mongering right.....It does not work anymore! Hillery will be our next president. Get over it. You Theocrats, Oligarcy, neo-cons, rednecks, rascists, homophobes, military industrial complex and right ring noise machine had your chances and YOU BLEW IT!

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Jim B., Towanda, PA — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:23:46 GMT

Jerry, I would be made at you if you weren't telling the truth; but, I must say your read on the Left-wing of my Party is right on.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

vanreuter, NY NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:25:18 GMT

So while Shadow doesn't, "support", any candidate, they are clearly NOT supporting one in particular. It's okay to be anti-Clinton, but at least toss off that threadbare cape of impartiality you claim.

Van

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

jerry/corpus christi texas — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:25:24 GMT

I've only met one person that backs Hillary in the real world and I tore her to shreds in the debate.

Sort of the way her debates are going to go when she debates the GOP nominee.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Mike K, Denver — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:27:49 GMT

Hey Van:

How much is Clinton paying you for all these posts? Or is she paying you like Monica did Bill?

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

max minnesota — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:27:59 GMT

Edwards must continue his frontal attacks on Clinton to have a chance to win the nomination. If he and Obama pound away at her this Fall she will wither. The cackle is the first small crack in the dike of her inevitability.

Watch the "cackle-ometer" closely. She is staring to break face. The mask will be down this Winter and Edwards, who is one tough trial lawyer, will make the case to voters that, on the Democratic side, he is best suited to stare down our enemies and forge pragmatic alliances with our friends.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Mike K, Denver — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:30:32 GMT

Jerry;

That's one more person supporting her than I've met. Everyone I know that is a Democrat anyway, is supporting Obama.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

jerry/corpus christi texas — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:31:54 GMT

Juan: must have been all those fortune cookies Bill rad back in the 90's.

If that's the best your left wing side of the party can do, you guys are in for a long year in 2008.

Attacking Rush was probably the worst thing you could have done. He exposed Tom Harkin as a liar and if he any ambition of running for President, he crashed his chances yesterday and exposed himself as a moron and a liar.

I'm still waiting for him to regale us about his exploits flying over North Vietnam.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

vanreuter, NY NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:32:16 GMT

"First Read...who are you trying to fool with the polling garbage. It's irresponsible to project Hillary's inevitability with sample size of 592 democratic voters.

Ashe, SF CA (Sent Wednesday, October 03, 2007 9:48 AM)"

"The Post-ABC poll was conducted by telephone Sept. 27 to 30, among a national random sample of 1,114 adults, including interviews with 592 self-identified Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. The margin of sampling error for the Democratic sample is plus or minus four percentage points.

Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta and staff writer Matthew Mosk contributed to this report."

It's a poll, and it says what it says. The sample size is average for this kind of poll.
How you react to stuff like this is based on who you support. Blaming the poll and attacking the pollsters, the sample size, the methodology etc., is becoming old and reeks of the stench of sour grapes.

Those who shoot at the polls are always quick to cite ones that favor their candidate, despite their criticisms.

Van

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:33:30 GMT

.........."Is there a different standard for women or do women need this advantage to overcome their ineptness?
jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Wednesday, October 03, 2007 9:54 AM)..............."

There ya' have it folks! The G.O.P.'s agenda for Woman's rights in 2008!
Thank you jerry for CONFIRMING what we've always known.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:35:42 GMT

dream on Jerry your obsessive hate of Hillery is pretty scary as well as is your rapture and love of the shrub.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

jerry/corpus christi texas — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:39:05 GMT

I wouldn't mind being paid like Bill did.....
Monica had a nice smile.....
but I always had a thing for brunettes anyway.

The question is Van, did ABC stay in New York state and get the polling or did Media matters, founded by Hillary Clinton, give them the numbers?

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Mike K, Denver — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:39:28 GMT

It isn't that I don't support or read the polls, but I question their truthfulness when they tell me that one person is leading by such a huge margin and not a single person I discuss political matters with (and they're people from all walks of life and registered as Democrats, Republicans, and Independents) says they either support Hillary Clinton or see her being able to win the Presidency is the Democrats are f---ing stupid enough to give her the nomination.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Tuck, Realityville, Kansas — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:42:08 GMT

well, the gopee-ers here and the obamaites are throwing a fit for a poll being reported.

Yet the same gopee-ers were touting polls when bush's ratings were up after 911, and the obamaites were thrilled with the polls when it looked like obama might catch Clinton.

seems like gopee-ers and obamaites are cut from the same cloth

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Bee — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:42:42 GMT

Van, now i know you're so ridiculous. How could you fall for the polls. Majority of people that were polls don't even understand what the issues are. Until ABC release what questions where asked in the poll i don't buy it for a seconds

If you're that confident with this poll, how about betting all your money on Clinton? If you can do that i'll support your candidate if she win the nomination.

To tell you how ridiculous this poll is; Clinton rank highest as the most inspired person. Do you really buy that? She is very inspiring...lol...Keep telling us what the polls are.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

vanreuter, NY NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:44:25 GMT

"Hey Van:

How much is Clinton paying you for all these posts? Or is she paying you like Monica did Bill?

Mike K, Denver (Sent Wednesday, October 03, 2007 10:27 AM)"

I hope that your, "retort", has made you feel clever, and that you feel better soon.

Clinton supporters are becoming impervious to attacks by those with nothing but invective and insult in their quiver. You have your anger and insults, we have the next President of the United States. It's a fair bargain and I accept it.

I wouldn't mind getting paid, but I do what I do out of support for senator Clinton.

Van

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:46:37 GMT

So Hillary is ahead in a poll of Democrats. It won't be Democrats or Republicans who elect the next President; it will be Independents. Hillary does not fare so well with us. I actually believe she does worse among Independents than Obama or Edwards. Her negative ratings are higher than Rush Limbaugh's at a femi-Nazi convention (Van, please do not try to a statistic to match the simile). Hillary may win but she'll drag down the party ticket and allow more gridlock in Washington.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

vanreuter, NY NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:49:54 GMT

The republican who's all over every democratic post here is strangely absent from most of the republican ones.
Is it that it's so much easier to criticize others than it is to shine a light into their own wormy little can, or is it just that your party is so corrupt and devoid of honor that even you are ashamed to be associated with your fellow members of the party of Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, and (drumroll please!) LARRY CRAIG!

Why don't you go and help get your party in order for the big defeat in 2008? Is it that they don't want you either?

Van

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

vanreuter, NY NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:54:30 GMT

"Van, now i know you're so ridiculous...
...To tell you how ridiculous this poll is..."
Bee (Sent Wednesday, October 03, 2007 10:42 AM)

Congratulations on being able to spell,"ridiculous", correctly two times in a row.

Van

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Sierra, SF — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:01:13 GMT

Mike Murphy: 'National polls are meaningless until AFTER IOWA'

The hyped up polls are meaningless, because nobody's paying attention to the election, now.

The only people paying real attention to the election (besides political junkies) are in Iowa, New Hampshire (and to a lesser extent South Carolina and Nevada).

Let's look at thos polls.....
I think they'll show a different story.

As the primaries approach, Democrats will start to realize that Bill Clinton NEVER RECEIVED A MAJORITY OF VOTES IN HIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS!!

Bill won with a plurality of votes in '92 and '96 because Ross Perot was in both races.
He couldn't get to 50% !

Bill's crooked wife ISN'T GOING TO GET A MAJORITY OF VOTES IN 2008 !!

When Democrats realize that, they'll vote for an electable candidate !!

Sorry, Clinton cultists..... you'll have to wait for Bobo Clinton, Hillary's illegimate son with Dick Cheney !!

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

jerry/corpus christi texas — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:02:03 GMT

well Van I could bring up Jack Abramoff and his relationship with Senate majority leader Harry Reid, but I think that old fool made a total fool out of himself yesterday going after Rush.

I support everything my side is doing.....

Are you really looking at the poll numbers or were they supplied to you by media matters/founded by Hillary Clinton?

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

vanreuter, NY NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:02:53 GMT

"So Hillary is ahead in a poll of Democrats. It won't be Democrats or Republicans who elect the next President; it will be Independents. Hillary does not fare so well with us."
Robert Catalano, Salem, OR (Sent Wednesday, October 03, 2007 10:46 AM)

You're not an independent, you're another anti-Clintonite posing as an Independent, Robert.

Why do you think you speak more for independents than this poll, which you have perhaps failed to read prior to commenting? While this is an opinion blog, the poll represents the opinions of many, rather than the pronouncements of one person.

The argument that independents will flock to the other side is losing credibility too...

"Since early September, Clinton has picked up support both among Democrats (up 9 percentage points) and INDEPENDENTS who lean toward Democrats (up 16 points). For the FIRST TIME, a majority of married women, 56 percent, back Clinton. There is little difference between people who are tracking the campaign closely and those who are paying scant attention: Majorities in both groups said they would vote for Clinton if the election were held today."

Van

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:04:32 GMT

jerry- I guess you must be confused about who the moron and lier is....The Shrub's response to Australia's Prime minister...thanks for sending the Austrian troops and this is my favorite..."Is are children learning" Finally, since us liberals(socialists); as you say; are to blame for all of our problems throughout our history I suggest you forgo medicare and social security. If you are not 65 yet and independently wlthy you may need to get off your ass and work at publix to supplement your income. Thankfully, your Shrub failed to privitize social security but he did squander our surplus that was left for us. Now we are in debt to Japan and China.....Maybe Hillery and Bill can use their so-called influence to reduce it?

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Gary, Des Moines, IA — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:06:24 GMT

I like how you make it sound like Iowa City has one gym. That's funny.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Bee — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:06:35 GMT

Van,

I guess this is an English class. You are so full of crap. Let me educate you for a second, in politics polls are meaningless until the final 2 weeks of the election. What matter most is the ground organization of each candidate.

After looking at the charts presented by ABC News, i realized they used the candidates' last name rather than their full name for the whole survey. This alone tells me that people choose Clinton because of the name recognition. Bill Clinton is the most popular politician of this time and that name rings bell when pollster ask question regarding the name "Clinton".

However, if her full name was used in the survey, the result will be different. Even the dummest of the dummy knows the name Clinton. But when you spell out the whole name "Hillary R. Clinton" the polls number will be different.

Thus, i'll sugest you stop touting polls because they are meaningless.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Clinton HATER USA — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:10:49 GMT

COME ON HILLARY "the cackler". The Repubs want you!!!! MoveOn will not save that broad ass of yours when the general election comes and MSNBC will be left holding the bag of LIES LMAO

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:11:18 GMT

Dave, Jerry ,Straight and Ms. Bee...HAW HAW!!Losers!!

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

nuanced — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:12:43 GMT

jerry, it is not too late to throw your hat into the ring. With Alan Keyes now in the race you would appear reasonable in comparison. You could really shake things up especially when you turn your guns on Rudy, Mitt & Fred. Go jerry!

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Lek — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:16:33 GMT

I am a student of statistics and i can tell you one thing, polls result are what the pollster want it to be. The result depends on the manner of asking the questions.

I have listen to the candidates and i can tell you this, the most inspiring is Ibama and Edward. How come Clinton score highest in the most inspiring category? The simple answer is this; either the folks answering the question didn't have a knowledge of Obama and Edward or they took Bill clinton as Hillary Clinton.

Bottom line, the name Clinton is the defacto name for the democrats. As the electiondraw closer, the real people will start paying attention.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Dave, Tn — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:17:16 GMT

Hey Jaun if I'm such a freaking racist why do I want every kid no matter what color they are to have government money attached to them so they can pick the school they want? You Stupid Uncle Tom Socialist Race baiting Lackie

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

jerry/corpus christi texas — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:18:16 GMT

Juan:

After listening to Tom "top gun" Harkin and Harry "slug" Reid yesterday, I can tell pretty much who the liars are....

All we using information supplied to them by media matters, founded by Hillary Clinton.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:22:08 GMT

Van - You interpret my analysis above of the Democratic race as a signal of an anti-Clinton bias, but it is just a recitation of polls and history with no shots taken at any candidates. It is simply a fact that nine times out of ten, non-incumbent national frontrunners lose the Democratic nomination, and yet every time the news media tells the story as if they have amnesia. I have to admit, I fell for it myself with Howard Dean in 2004, but I don't intend to fall for it twice whether I agree with the particular candidate's views or not; Dean led in the national polls for months and put his sizeable warchest into consolidating that national lead, as opposed to his main financial rival John Kerry, who despite trailing in the polls by double digits, focused his money on early states like Iowa. Sound familiar?

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

HMT-MI — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:24:19 GMT

Are there no republicans running for president?If there are why is there noconversation of support for at least one?I do read about Ron Paul---like him but would not vote for him---but golly gee are there no republicans on this site?They should be touting their white guy that is running as fast as they can.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Tim, NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:25:01 GMT

Did they really just use the last name Clinton in the poll? Well this is as about as bogus a poll as you can get. talk about losing credibility if they did.

I can believe most democrats might say Bill Clinton but I can't believe it if it is Hillary. Now this is reall trying to rig the game if they did that

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Scott in South Texas — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:25:11 GMT

jerry, Media Matters was founded by David Brock in 2004. While Brock and many others involved in the creation of Media Matters have close ties to Hillary Clinton, and Hillary Clinton was an advisor to Media Matters, it is not true that Media Matters was "founded by Hillary Clinton", as you have stated eight or nine times on today's posts (four times in one post above).

You might think this to be a slight distinction, but it makes the difference between a true statement and a false statement. Of course, the difference between true and false matters nothing to your heroes Limbaugh, Hannity, ad nauseum, and you have adopted their tactic of repeating it over and over in hopes it will be believed.

Today, like in the past, all of your comments are scripted by what is currently being spewed by these right wing talk show people. The talking point du jour is worked into every comment on every subject, regardless of relevance to the topic at hand.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

vanreuter, NY NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:32:26 GMT

Bee (Sent Wednesday, October 03, 2007 11:06 AM)

The polls are meaningless and I'm full of crap. Thanks for the analysis and forgive me if I again comment on your atrocious grammar.

Where did you do your graduate work in statistical analysis? Would you like to post your dissertation? Like several others here, you seem to know so much about polling that you must have some background in the field. You can argue with a single poll, but there are dozens that mirror the results of this one.

I don't think you are full of crap, just upset that things aren't going your way and lashing out in your frustration. That's not going to change, and it's not my fault.

Van

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

vanreuter, NY NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:45:58 GMT

No, it doesn't sound familiar. Shadow, you are rooting too hard against Hillary in all of your posts to pretend that you aren't actively against her here.

Dean was a chimera and his support was soft, Clinton is among the best known people in the country and her support, as evidenced by every measure available, is STRONG. Hillary could lose a few primaries and still easily take the nomination, as her supporters won't flock to Edwards if he takes Iowa.

Do you see Edwards winning in Florida based on a win in Iowa? You would be alone in that vision. The Dean argument is much more applicable to senator Obama, who is a relative unknown with soft support, by those same measures. A third place finish in Iowa could end his candidacy (even his own camp alludes to this.), whereas a (highly unlikely) third place finish for Clinton would be nothing more than a bump in the road.

Despite you protestations, the anti-Clinton slant to your posts does indicate that, even if you do not claim a preference, you are not exactly impartial in your assessments.

Van

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Susan, Miami — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:49:00 GMT

You are awesome Van, keep it up! Lots and lots of very angry frustrated republicans, huh?

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:57:02 GMT

Jerry stop pretending your straight, we know you are not at this point.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

jerry/corpus christi texas — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:14:06 GMT

Scott in South texas:

Obviously you have not watching the news lately:

At the DailyKOS convention, Hillary Clinton told the crowd that she is the founder of Media Matters. It is available on youtube, people having been playing video and audio of her saying this all week.

Are you saying that Hillary Clinton is a Liar?
Just like Tom Harkin?
Then her and Harkin need to run as a team.....
They can be known as LIAR LIAR.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

c.godfrey, ny, ny — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:16:12 GMT

"As the primaries approach, Democrats will start to realize that Bill Clinton NEVER RECEIVED A MAJORITY OF VOTES IN HIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS!!"

For the record, neither did Bush in 2000, and that didn't prevent him from being appointed anyway.

"Clintons again set America up. The have such a track record to be involved with scandal at every turn... A DUMB puppet behind his coat tail.... Perverted? made a mockey of the Oval Office..."

Substitute the above "Clintons" w/ "Bush" and "his" w/ "Cheney" and you have the last six years - only many times multiplied - and w/o the benefit of a great economy w/ no kids dying for imagined causes in the meantime.

"Newt Gingrich could not run for President and be the head of his organization at the same time."

Newt Gingrinch could not run for president because no one thinks he's worth raising $30 million in one year, let alone the one month he expected and the little fact that he has more skeletons in his closet than all the present dem and repub contenders put together!

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

nuanced — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:19:55 GMT

HMT-MI (Sent Wednesday, October 03, 2007 11:24 AM)

I have also wondered why there are so few Republicans touting the virtues of their candidates. I think it is in the nature of the right wingers to criticize and tear down rather than praise and build-up. It is easier for sure. Any fool can make war, destroy countries and break the government so it doesn't work. It takes effort and intelligence to secure peace, prosperity and make the government work for the people.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:20:12 GMT

Hey DAVE- That's funny calling me an Uncle Tom considering I am a white Hispanic and German. You must be confusing me with your buddy Clarence Thomas. You Idiot Right Wing Fascist Jerk

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

BionicWoman, Tucson, Arizona — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:21:22 GMT

Hillary is running a great campaign. She is using Bill very well. How many times have you seen him holding a black child?

She published her contribution numbers on the day that Obama was rolling out a new campaign in Iowa and stole his thunder. She has Obama where she wants him - holding back all the candidates while they self-destruct or are ignored.

It doesn't matter whether she is liked, is honest, is open - she knows what she is doing and she knows how to win.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:22:01 GMT

Van - I don't claim to be an impartial journalist; I'm a citizen and a voter who bases my views on what I've observed. However, there's a big difference between that and someone who is actively shilling for or against a particular candidate, which is what you're accusing me of doing. I again refer you to the politico comment I posted on Ben Smith's blog where I argued with him in defense of Hillary Clinton's comments about Hispanics. It is true I don't think she is the best candidate for the nomination for a number of valid reasons, but I don't think she should be treated unfairly either, because I don't think ANYONE should be treated unfairly; it's bad for the process. I will continue to demand fair coverage of all the candidates, and if you read the posts I have written, you will not find a single lie or distortion that I use to denigrate any candidate.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Molly, Iowa City — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:22:19 GMT

Shadow, Hamden, CT

You're right to take notice that Hillary is the only candidate in the Newsweek poll whose support drops when the poll sample is narrowed from registered democrat to "likely caucus goer". It drops 22.5% (from 31% to 24%)

The subset of "likely caucus goers" is statistically flawed and invalid, because it relies 100% on participant self reporting, which prevents it from being a statistically valid sample/poll. Princeton Survey research recognized the poll sample problem by increasing its + or - margin of error from 5 among all Dem's to 7 among "likely caucus goers"

In any event, while the poll is meaningless regarding the candidates actual level of support, the fact that Clinton's support drops 22.5% among self identified "likely caucus goers", and all other candidates support increases or remains the same when the poll is narrowed to this group indicates Clinton has a problem in Iowa. This is not news to her campaign.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

nuanced — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:24:06 GMT

Dave said "why do I want every kid no matter what color they are to have government money attached to them so they can pick the school they want?"

I've no idea why you want it since I can't read minds but I do know many people who want it so they can put their kids in private/parochial schools to keep their kids from mixing with "undesireables" of other races and religious beliefs.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Chris, penn — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:25:40 GMT

The polls are what people that read them, want them to be. Oh my, it looks like Mrs Clinton is waaayy ahead. Guess that means she kicking ass on election day. Go Hillary!

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

vanreuter, NY NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:32:36 GMT

Shadow-

I will read your posts in hopes that your contention is true. Perhaps as an open Clinton supporter, I have mis-read your attempts to provide the balance you claim and lumped them together with the majority of Clinton bashing that makes up this board.

Van

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Molly, Iowa City — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:34:58 GMT

Gary, Des Moines, - That is funny. And we know they had to be U of I college student's, because they were young and in Iowa City, and of course all young people in Iowa City attend U of I (even though there is also a community college with a Iowa City campus, and people who merely live and work there). And no one other than students or alum wear Hawkeye clothes. So the Iowa/Hawkeye t-shirt gave them away.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

jjg, ms — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:45:38 GMT

jerry - highly doubt that you won any debate over any individual. You are so obvious in the way that you are fearful of even answering questions. Your 'attack the messenger' style is very pathetic.

I was not entirely sure, but were you trying to get us to remember that Hillary founded media matters? Such a simpleton.

jerry the plant.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

jjg, ms — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:48:57 GMT

By the way, dishonest jerry, Hillary is not the founder of Media Matters - David Brock is.

Amazing how dishonest you are. And, in most posts today, you tied media matters to Hillary by claiming her to be the founder. Just like other R tactics - repeat it enough, and others will begin to believe it (along the lines of the much repeated BS on Iraq being associated with 9/11).

jerry is a plant.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Dave, Tn — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:50:14 GMT

Cuban/German/Socialist and you're calling me a fascist? Now that's funny :-)

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:59:53 GMT

Thank you, Van, I appreciate it.

I honestly do believe in standing up to all cheap shots (even against neocon candidates I despise - despite the taste it leaves in my mouth) because otherwise, I will have absolutely no right to complain in the future when I pick a candidate to endorse and they get cheap shotted.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Rufus Gibbons, DC — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:00:56 GMT

What worries republicans is that many of those elderly women who want to see a woman in the white house may be republicans. Maybe they should have run Condi.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

MK,MO — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:01:37 GMT

BionicWoman, Tucson, Arizona declares /

'It doesn't matter whether she is liked, is honest, is open - she knows what she is doing and she knows how to win.'

if she is not liked, is dishonest, and is secretive,
why on earth do you think she should be president?

could it be that the only reason you have is her possession of a vagina?

me thinks so, how pathetic

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:04:45 GMT

So glad you devoted so much space to Sen. Biden's editorial in the Washington Post.

"BIDEN: He has a new op-ed he co-writes with Leslie Gelb defending his proposed political solution that he takes pains NOT to call "partition."

I'm thrilled you were able to devote 24 words, one complete sentence to an issue far more important than the paragraph upon paragraph devoted to your analysis of the horse race.

Why does Biden take pains NOT to call his and Gelb's Iraq plan a partition? Could it be because despite the fact that the plan he and Leslie Gelb first publicly released almost a year and a half ago, clear states it is a federal form of government (which the Iraq constitution calls for)with strong local control, and it's not a plan to split up, or partition Iraq into three separate countries, most of the media refers to the Biden-Gelb plan as a partition plan. At each debate, and every interview I've seen Sen. Biden corrects the partition reference, but unfortunately old habits die hard, and most in the media still misrepresent the plan. Maybe instead of devoting 24 words to the Washington Post editorial, and doing so in a snarky manner, and putting your sentence in with 14 paragraphs devoted to Hillary, and a few more to Obama, and Edwards and Dodd. You could read the full plan, read the editorial, and then report on it factual. Who knows, just maybe there might be a meaningful discussion on something that really is important. At least something a bit more important than what Hillary is wearing on the cover of New York magazine, or the Clinton laugh.....

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Juan, ft lauderdale,fl — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:11:37 GMT

Dave- you think fascism is related to Italy and/or Germany WW2. Go look it up in the dictionary or take a course in civic class.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Molly, Iowa City — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:14:29 GMT

BionicWoman "It doesn't matter whether she is liked, is honest, is open - she knows what she is doing and she knows how to win."

Actually it does in the general, almost always the candidate who most general election voters would prefer to have a beer with (sorry Mitt- you're out) wins the general election. It is a sad commentary on the electorate, but the winner of the general election almost always is the one who polled highest on this issue. So yes BionicWoman the fact that before the general election has started close to 50 % of the country don't like her, and a candidate's unfavorable number has never shrunk in the general (both nominees unfavorables go up during the general)Hillary's unfavorable is almost certain to exceed 50% by November 08, which is why the GOP wants her to be our nominee. Close your eyes to reality, but reality won't change merely because you refuse to face it.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

csh, IL — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:31:22 GMT

Van – Thanks for all your valid points and arguments. Nice to see someone with common sense and logic posting on this site.

And what a day it’s been – the Clinton haters are out in full force all agitated that Hillary drew a crowd of 14,000 in Oakland, CA, raised more money than Obama for the third quarter and now leads the Dem field by an amazing 33%.

Sierra must be on suicide watch!

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Kristian O, Miami, FL — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:35:34 GMT

So I am to believe that 53 out of every 100 Democrats want any candidate, in particular Hillary Clinton, to be our Democratic Presidential nominee with a field as deep and as qualified as this? Thank God I went and got me an education because if I relied on the media for guidance, I'd be dead. Later Ya'll.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Nicholas, Minneaps, MN — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:51:14 GMT

H.R. Clinton is so inevitable to become the 44th president of the United States, her supporters don't even need to vote!

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

squintz, philly, pa — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:02:20 GMT

Van, newsflash, the election is not being held today.

Didn't the "polls" say Kerry would win? Including exit polls the DAY of the election? Now, I'd love to say Bushie cheated, and maybe he did, but all that noise certainly made me question the validity of the polls. Not to mention, their usefulness.

Do you really think a 1,000 person sample is that much better than 500? And I must say, in that you post on EVERY thread ALL DAY LONG, it sure does seem like you're being paid by someone to do so. I'd love to know what you actually do for a living that gives you so much free time!

Why the animosity, anyway, when your gal is in the lead? You should take some time off, you deserve it!

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

vanreuter, NY NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:15:04 GMT

squintz, philly, pa (Sent Wednesday, October 03, 2007 2:02 PM)

Thanks for the advice. You must be very busy too.

Van

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

pat, huntington, ny — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:30:19 GMT

Jerry's comments are clearly being made for one reason and one reason only - he's lonely. He needs attention. So he spends all day with one hand on his computer and the other on his ...oh no, there goes lunch!

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Kristian O — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:48:32 GMT

Howard Dean lead John Kerry in New Hampshire in an October 24, 2003 Zogby Poll 40%-17%. On Primary Day Kerry "waxxed dat arse" 39%-26% and we all know what happened from that point on. Now I know that Hillary ain't Howie, but my point is a 36 point swing occured over 1 90 day period. I just laugh at how folks buy into all these polls when the voting country aren't really paying attention to the election like they will come the beginning of the year. Oh well. We'll See.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:16:44 GMT

Van knows that these polls are meaningless at this point in time but will continue to tout them as they are the only thing that he can refer when spouting Hillary's virtues (which are few at this time). Howard Fineman's article yesterday said that only 17% of NH voters are sure about their choice. Obama leads in Iowa among likely caucus attendees (although truly assessing a poll in a caucus state like Iowa is difficult because of the how they allot their 3000 delegates - it's really an incredible process that tries to assess trends in voter patterns and the state-wide appeal of candidates-those famers are pretty intellegent).

The Hillary of the 1970's, who Van loves, has long departed, having sold out to special interests and to the triangulation politics of Dick Morris. What idealism she once held was brutally damaged by her life's trials (in no small part due to her association with the former president). Her supposed great experience (at least to me) hasn't yielded a product worth bragging about since the vote on the war and subsequent actions are acts of which to be ashamed.

And Van he is a charicature of what I resent about the Clinton sense of entitlement. If you don't agree with them, they try to take away your credentials for having any right to speak. It's no different than the present Bush/Rove (ah the latter's spirit still lurks) aura that basically practices that if you can't beat them honestly, try to destroy them by every means at your disposal.

Which is why (I have to end these rants with a plug for my candidate) I support Obama. He does want to turn the page and raise the level of discourse to something more than pigs rolling in the mud. On top of that he is honest and exhibits great judgment. I would be proud to have him as my president because he manifests a compelling story and has kept true to his principles. Finally, I'll end with what Chris Matthews said on WNYC this AM, "I'd love it if Obama would win." (although he thinks it'll be a long shot). Me?, I don't think it's such a long shot. I think as the people get beyond the name recognition level (as they have been in Iowa) they will speak against the status quo and Obama will lead the new American political movement.
Obama '08

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Bee — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:24:26 GMT

Van,

I'll sugest you go back to school and take a statistics class. Obviously, you have no clue about the polls you keep touting. If you so much believe in the polls, what is the degreee of it's reliability.

If you can answer this question, then i'll pay attention to your post.

I can point to 1000 reasons why these poll numbers are not reliable. What is the number of people that were polled? Do they poll the same person over and over again? Why can't the media release the full report of the survey? I need detail not just percentage. I know i cannot be fool by the washington media that on the pay roll of the Clintons.

These polls are too shady.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Bee — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:24:27 GMT

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Dave, Tn — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:25:07 GMT

Socialist trying to build a Utopian Society through the force of government, and taking control of all Industry. Sounds like American Liberals to me. Hell you even got the "Jews are to blame" thing going for you. Let's not forget who used a military tank to kill Americans :-)

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

class Warrior, D.C. — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:38:39 GMT

STUPID DEMOCRPS!! The Repubs are going to smear her beyond sanity and she's going to LOSE!!! Doesn't anyone get that?!?

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Delaware Republican — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:18:02 GMT

Biden should partition Delaware and see how his liberal constituents like it. Idiot!

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:31:16 GMT

Kristian O

The poll numbers in Iowa were even more off. On 11/9/03 Kerry was in 4th, the only poll that had him ahead prior to the caucus was the Registers 1/17/04 poll, two days before the caucus. That poll had Kerry at 26% Edwards at 23% Dean at 20% and Gephardt at 18%. During the Sunday talk shows the Washington experts considered the Register poll a fluke, and still believed Iowa was between Dean and Gephardt. The Register poll was correct regarding the order of caucus winners, but because it was of random registered Democrats, and not of verified caucus goers ( a very small subset of registered Democrats), the candidate percents were still way off. Kerry won Iowa with 37.6%, Edwards was at 31.9%, Dean was close to his pre-caucus poll amount at 18%, and Gephardt received 10.6%.

On Dec. 18th Professor Squire, of Univ. of Iowa is quoted as saying that he has seen no evidence of Kerry increasing his support, and that there is no reason to think undecided would break towards one candidate. Those of us that were on the ground were seeing the surge.

As late as the USA Today poll released on 1/16/04 Kerry was in 3rd place (behind Dean and Edwards, and just 1% above Gephardt). Zogby's January 10th 2004 poll. 9 days before the caucus had Kerry at 15% and Dean at 25% (and Gephardt at 23%).

All these polling companies conduct fine general and primary election polls, because these polls lend them to a scientifically valid poll. But because caucus polling relies on the participants response regarding the likelihood of caucus attendance, because the polling companies don't have access to the caucus attendance lists, caucus polling is notoriously poor.

What is amazing is that the media hasn't leaned from their embarrassment in 04.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

squintz, philly, pa — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:33:14 GMT

Van - Ha ha, how right you are, my friend. Please, continue to enlighten us with your brilliant posts. We're not worthy.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go home and watch the Phils lose. Do you post this much after 5 or do you have something else to do with your time?

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

MK,MO — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:42:34 GMT

Dave, Tn proclaims / 'Socialist trying to build a Utopian Society through the force of government, and taking control of all Industry. Sounds like American Liberals to me.'

the system of government you are trying to portray as somehow negative is indeed utopian when compared to the uncontrolled capitalism being endured by american citizens currently

and you my friend are not intelligent enough to recognize that

isn't it time for your daily polishing of the regan bust prominently displayed above your fireplace?

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

JV BYARS, ASHEVILLE, NC — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:43:07 GMT

IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE, MSNBC, HOW MUCH YOU LEFF-WINGED-NIT-WITTED-NEW-AGE-LIBERAL-LOONIES SAY ABOUT SENATOR FRED DALTON THOMPSON...HE IS THE BEST CHOICE OUT THERE FOR POTUS, NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!!! YOU HAVE A BLUE GUM MUSLIM AND A PSYCHOTIC ARKANSAS RAZORBACK WHO HAS A NYMPHOHUBBY - YOUR CHOICES ARE THE ABSOLUTE WORST EVER!!! YOU SNUB YOUR LOW-CLASS NOSES AT DECENCY AND HAVE NOT PLANS - ALL YOU WANT IS IN!!! YOU ARE ALL LOSERS AND DIM-WITTED DUMMY-DEMONCRITICS!!!

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Dave, Z — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:15:27 GMT

Dave in TN, Uncle Tom is a derogatory term direted towards African Americans based on a character from Harriet Beecher Stowe's book Uncle Tom's Cabin. If you knew anything about popular culture and American literature, you would have known that. This shows how truly ignorant you are.

By the way, it is spelled lackey. Try a spelling course also.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Scott in South Texas — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:17:48 GMT

People, I give you JV Byars, our republican of the month. This is the kind of people that gave us george w bush, twice.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

vanreuter, NY NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:14:22 GMT

Van,

I'll sugest you go back to school and take a statistics class.

If you can answer this question, then i'll pay attention to your post.
(note to Bee: your response to my post is a clear indicator that you paid attention to it.)

It is so gratifying to be offered advice and help from so many kind souls. I hope I can offer something, in the way of comfort and sympathy, in return in January and February.

You can curse the polls. You can curse at me FOR the polls. You can demand to see the construction, meet those who were polled and those who did the polling. You can say that the polls don't matter.You can even say that they only count when YOU say they do.

The only thing you can't do is change them because you don't like what they say. And let's be honest, that's what you really want to do, explain them away.

I will keep posting them and you will continue to try to minimize them and explain them away.
Before you know it, it will be time for the primaries.
There will be a lot less of this kind of talk then.

There's this early Elvis Presley greatest hits compilation called, "50,000,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong".
One poll can be wrong. Two or three polls can be wrong. Hundreds of polls, on the state and national level, taken over the course of months and updated periodically, can't all be wrong.
It's been over 30 years since I studied statistics, so I may be a little rusty on the fine points, but I don't think that ALL the polls can be wrong, and I don't think the people who are desperately trying to deny them do either.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Stacy S., Medford OR — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 23:04:11 GMT

Why do we even bother to have these elections? The media can just take their polls and tell us who they think is the winner.

In fact, why not just have a national call-in television show where each candidate (candidate being anyone who can pay the media company hosting the show enough money in advertising fees) can give a 2 minute speech (plenty of time to determine who should lead the most powerful nation on the planet) and we can all call in and cast our vote. Be sure to factor in who is the best dressed! Oh, and call as often as you like!

We voted like morons in the last two elections and we got what we deserved.

So, feel free to continue calling each other names and concluding that whoever has the most money MUST be the best candidate. Whoever the media tells you is going to win surely deserves your vote. Keep telling yourself that. And enjoy what you get.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

NS, Dallas, TX — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 03:18:32 GMT

It does not matter what anyone says here. Hillary has it locked up. I predicted it 2 years ago, before anyone even knew who the candidates would be. 57% of ALL women support her, and 8 million more women than men voted in 2006. That math is not hard. I personally think that 8 years of Hillary followed by 8 years of Obama will be a great thing for the USA, particularly compared to the last 8, but then again it does not matter what I say. It is a done deal.

Oh-eight (D): Ha!

Celia Thaxter, New York, New York — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:14:04 GMT

Why is the 22nd amendment not under discussion? Bill Clinton is running. If Mrs. Clinton wins, it will be as a wife. To be sure this is not in "legal" violation of the 22nd amendment, but in spirit it certainly is. Unfortunately the Clintons are always playing this game.