Solid versus soft support

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:16:13 GMT

What a pantload. We are parsing 1 poll. One single poll that may very well be an outlier.

"Obama might be stronger." Sheesh. I "might" be the man on the moon.

Why not put the polls side by side. Marist had a poll out yesterday as well. Lets look at ALL the polls. Lets look at all the polls over the past couple weeks. Why waste out time cherry picking one single poll?

Sometimes I think journos are rushing too quick to the bar or to find a tv camera somewhere to put their mug in front of to do a decent job anymore.

Solid versus soft support

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:26:11 GMT

Solid versus soft support

cms — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:35:45 GMT

Very interesting insight about polling, esp for a political junkie. Thanks. Wonder what pollster.com will say?

Solid versus soft support

Bee — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:35:58 GMT

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC,

Why don't you just relax? Like i have said in the past, the person that has the best strategy will win the nomination. No offense to Madame Clinton, her strategist is bogus at this point.

Solid versus soft support

Yiannis, Baltimore — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:46:58 GMT

Planted character attacks, doing anything to get elected just won't do in this election. Triangulating and poll-driven contradictory non-statements just won't do.

Polarizing the electorate by sending hate-mail in Iowa just won't do. We need a large majority to pass healthcare. Demonizing everyone who disagrees with you and returning to the partisan fights of the 1990s will send America backwards.

The Democrats have made the biggest changes in history, not by going with the safe candidate but by embracing bold new ideas, like Kennedy and Bill Clinton did. We need to fight the real axes of evil, that JFK outlines as tyranny, disease, poverty and war itself.

I'm looking forward to watching Obama become the leader of the free world.

Solid versus soft support

Sean — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:47:11 GMT

She has the establishment support - which goes a long way. Lot's of nominees have lost Iowa or NH.

Solid versus soft support

Jake — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:48:41 GMT

If you go to Real Clear Politics: Obama's in the lead in Iowa (they aggreage a number of polls) and the trend lines favor him there and in New Hampshire.

So there is real evidence that he has mommentum on his side with only a handful of days left to campaign til the Jan. 3rd cacuses. So it's not locked, but it's looking better and better his chances to win Iowa and walk in to New Hampshire with a good table to try and run the five days in between the cacus and primary.

Solid versus soft support

BIGOLDTEXAN, dallas,tx. — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:48:56 GMT

Ok now that HRC is loosing ground, they come out with all the reasons why`s, what`s, & when`s.
Boy if you people don`t get your act together we are just going to stop paying attention to you all.
This another attempt to play down the rising numbers that Obama is getting in the polls lately.

Come on guys stop dancing to HRC song and let the
candidates duke it out.

When HRC was in the lead I didn`t see any of the reasons that are stated in this post about her soft SOLID VERSUS SOFT SUPPORT.
What is this but more of the HRC trying to get us on her side.
It wont work, I`ll never vote for a clinton and especially HRC, she is not trust worthy and can`t keep a promise, a fraud.
15 years of dishonesty, scandal and divisiveness is enough if not too much for us to swallow anymore.

Obama 08'

Solid versus soft support

MK, Los Angeles, California — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:51:00 GMT

Dickie Flatts, The Abc Poll is not the only recent one from New Hampshire showing Clinton's lead slipping into single digits. A Rasmussen poll released within the past day or two put the margin between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama at seven (32 to 25). ABC's poll is not an "outlier" as it jives with the recent Rasmussen poll.

Solid versus soft support

MIke RC, Rockwall, Texas — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:52:07 GMT

The actual voting is the only "polling" that ultimately matters. I pray everyone votes for the candidate he or she truly believes in regardless of what the polls allegedly reflect. I pray that all the votes will be counted accurately. If those things occur, let the chips fall where they may and let the results speak for themselves.

Solid versus soft support

MK, Los Angeles, California — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:53:24 GMT

While we are speaking of recent polls --- Rasmussen released a poll today showing that Senator Clinton's once 13 point lead in South Carolina has slipped to just 2 points over Senator Obama(34 to 32), and Strategic Vision has released a poll today showing that Senator Obama has opened up a 7 point lead over Senator Clinton in Iowa (32 to 25).

Solid versus soft support

Al, KS — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:54:29 GMT

I always thought that Clinton had a ceiling. We may see what that ceiling is in the next couple of months as candidates drop out and undecided voters weigh in. Hillary may be left with core supporters and nothing more. I wonder if she can get 50%.

Solid versus soft support

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:55:30 GMT

Clinton leads Obama 37%-23% according to a just released Marist poll that ended on Dec. 2, I believe.

That is strong support ... for Clinton.

As I pointed out before this isn't the first time the ABC / WaPost poll has had some very good numbers for Obama that don't jive with other polls, or the polling averages.

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC

The reasons none of the polls match, is because ALL IOWA caucus polling, except those using the VAN (the list of 04 caucus goers), which only the campaigns have, are statistically invalid. When two polls are done at the same time by reputably polling companies, and the numbers for several candidates aren't even within the margin of error in the other poll, it's clear the polling is worthless.

Solid versus soft support

Lewis, Cincinnati, Ohio — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:00:33 GMT

Dickie, If First read has said Obama is awful and Hillary is great..then would you be happy?

Solid versus soft support

Ed M., Greenville, SC — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:01:12 GMT

This is a good article that shows various potential reasons for the polling. Why not cut the vitriolic responses. Just because an article isn't a glowing report on the person that you happen to back doesn't mean it is not worthwhile. Save the responses like that for when there is real bias shown in reports or mistakes have been made. Otherwise, it becomes like the boy who cried wolf (no joke about Blitzer intended).

Solid versus soft support

Bill C. — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:05:15 GMT

Lookie here it is again..hillaryclinton.com

Solid versus soft support

redshift, spokane wa — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:12:14 GMT

murray: why not just replace your picture on the side-bar with a "vote obama" poster and get it over with. unbiased journalism, what a laugh.

Solid versus soft support

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:19:30 GMT

Excellent analysis by an unaffiliated Democratic strategist.

(Followed by a worthless, biased analysis by a blithering partisan who posts the first two replies - seriously, why should any reader take the comments of posters like Dickie Flatts, Tuck, Susan, Chuck, and Pat seriously when they haven't been able to write a single comment on the primary that wasn't filled with pointed and vitriolic hatred towards Barack Obama; you guys are about as reliable a source on Obama as Dick Morris is on Hillary, and I just wonder how many of you will be on suicide watch should Obama win the nomination.)

Solid versus soft support

CJ — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:25:32 GMT

Does Thomas Riehle get paid to state the obvious? If not..I need his job.

Solid versus soft support

Tuck,Realityville, KS — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:26:18 GMT

redshirt, you noticed?

yesterday they did a full article on a typo by the Clinton campaign..

geez

Solid versus soft support

Sean — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:32:59 GMT

Solid versus soft support

Al, KS — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:33:30 GMT

I remember months and months of people here critisizing the media for being too pro-Clinton. (I was one of those by the way.) Now I hear that they are too pro-Obama. Sorry Chuck and Mark...I guess you can't please them all. I guess in the long run, you can't please anybody. My take is the critisizing just shows how this campaign is soooo important to the voters. At the very least, you give us an outlet to vent...and I thanks you for that.

Solid versus soft support

Dante — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:42:24 GMT

Chill out Dickie......

Obama Rocks!!! 08

BarackTheVote!!

Solid versus soft support

Brad, Salt Lake City, UT — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:44:27 GMT

I think Mark Penn's poll on going with the Kindergarten story was an "outlier".

Solid versus soft support

Sean — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:45:56 GMT

Off shore betting odds are still on Hill for the nomination
Hillary: 2 to 9
Obama: 10 to 3
...and for winning:
Hillary: 4 to 6
Rudi: 9 to 2
Oprahma: 9 to 2
Flip Romney: 8 to 1

Solid versus soft support

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:46:25 GMT

Solid versus soft support

ace p washington, d.c. — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:50:01 GMT

i just hope that the people in here that are serious about change and truly want to change the course of this country are intellectual and dedicated enough to support the winner so dem's and independent's will have a stronger majority in washington to effect change. i'm independent and undecided, but one thing i am not doing. i am not voting republican.

Solid versus soft support

cms — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:56:22 GMT

Solid versus soft support

Real Democrat, CA — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:58:39 GMT

Basically, they're saying that the race is very fluid and too close to call. People are starting to pay attention to the candidates more closely. Hillary's so-called inevitability is just garbage. Forget the "national polls", the early states will determine the nominee. It seems to me that Hillary and her supporters will live and die by the "polls".

Solid versus soft support

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:59:46 GMT

"Time will tell!", your breathless, panting, final line is the only thing worth taking from an interview with someone who knows as much about what he's talking/speculating/BSing about as anyone on the street. The one thing that is for certain is that this analysis will be rendered even more worthless with tomorrow's polling. How does that brilliant analysis explain Huckabee? His support didn't float in the limbo of undecided before going for him, they just SWITCHED. The, "expert", would need to have a wholly different rationale to explain the same phenomena, for the same RACE, which is why the only intelligent thing in your article is that, "Time will tell!"

Van

Solid versus soft support

MK,MO — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:59:49 GMT

instead of micro-analyzing mark penn's recently purchased poll numbers maybe we could mention some of the candidates plans, if they have any, but wait since edwards has the best plans it would tarnish the medias anointed novelty candidates, never mind, how silly of me, back to the mark penn poll numbers by all means

Solid versus soft support

MIke RC, Rockwall, Texas — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:05:12 GMT

Wonder if Ms. Psychic Mary has anything to say about this? Anyone heard from her lately? Seems like she quit posting just after the debate where former Senator Edwards pointed out Senator Clinton's inconsistent answers regarding the possibility of issuing DLs for aliens in the country illegally. Ms. Psychic Mary, do you have anything to add to this discussion?

Solid versus soft support

Real Democrat, CA — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:07:35 GMT

Lewis in Cincy --

I hate shoddy poll analysis. Turn on the tv open the paper it is everywhere. How often have to seen someone compare the results of one poll to another or totally blow the meaning of the MOE.

That is what gets me. Not the numbers. Sure I detest Obama, but its not that he trails by 6 points or 12 points that get be riled up. It is people who are paid to cover politics and who don't understand polling.
Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:46 PM)

---------------------------------------------------
Dickie...you can blame Mark Penn and the other Clinton-aligned pollsters for their unscientific, garbage push-polling data. From Day One of Hillary's campaign, Penn et al have tried to create a false sense of inevitability by conducting these "national polls". Yet, many respected political scientists have doubted these polls. You tell me, how can you have a true picture of who's leading with a sample size of 400 people ?

Solid versus soft support

Sean — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:12:54 GMT

cms - you are so right about the press wanting a dead heat. Even Jack Caffrety said last night on CNN that they love a good fight.

Solid versus soft support

Katie, St. Paul, MN — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:14:45 GMT

Has no one noticed that on the RCP poll composite a new poll in Iowa puts Obama at 32% and Clinton and Edwards at 25%? Isn't this beyond the margin of error? Why is this not getting any press? Is it because it's Strategic Vision? Just curious...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

Solid versus soft support

modernwoman, Anytown,USA — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:17:43 GMT

soft support,solid support......blah, blah, blah, blah

just another insignificant poll.

Let's just wait till the ACTUAL votes are counted!!!

Solid versus soft support

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:24:56 GMT

Shadow:

Why do you not include Sierra and Bee in that statement? You want to talk about "pointed and vitriolic hatred" you need look no further as they devote post after post to the same regarding Hillary.

Solid versus soft support

L.Flynt, La Ca — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:29:03 GMT

>> Lookie here it is again..hillaryclinton.com

I did look. Porn. Really, really bad porn.

Solid versus soft support

Bee — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:36:25 GMT

Bee, not sure you should be telling someone to relax. Your messages are so filled with vitriol. I am surprised you haven't noted that you are voting for Obama and that if he doesn't get the nomination you will vote for the republican

----------------------------------------------------

I was an independent before Obama enter the race and if he wins, I’ll be happy. But if he ends up not getting the nomination, I’ll remain an independent shopping again.

I know i don't see myself voting for Hillary Clinton.

Solid versus soft support

Eric M, Boise ID — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:46:23 GMT

Every time I look at Hillary, I get soft. Is that what you're talking about?

Solid versus soft support

Yiannis, Baltimore — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:56:43 GMT

MK, while Edwards might have the most detailed domestic plans, electing a president cannot be just about that. Obama offers a clear and fresh alternative. While Edwards's focus on poverty is admirable his focus is too narrow. He is a good guy who never followed the intellectual side of the law, never became interested in the underlying core backbone a president needs to have.

That's why his judgment has been suspect, when it came to the Iraq war, nuclear waste in the Yucca mountain, Alaska drilling and NAFTA.

Edwards lacks the deep understanding of a liberal core, he just engages in populist policy propositions. He is great but will remain a successful trial lawyer, not a person who can shape events or the law as such.

I hope Edwards's supporters aren't offended by this characterizations they aren't attacks. But I just don't buy the idea that he just somehow saw the light and realized that so many of his votes were on the wrong side of the issues.

What was his understanding of the world when he became W's poster child for the Iraq war? I don't want to hear that he made a mistake, I knew that then. Why did he decide like that?

Why did he decide to vote conservative in so many ways? Because he lacks understanding of the unified core principles of progressivism.

Solid versus soft support

diane — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:26:10 GMT

Political wire shows clinton and Obama tied with Obama now leading Clinton in african american support 51 to 27.
I'd say the whole trending is showing clinton sliding. She hit her ceiling and now voters are shifting around.
It did not help her that she has made some really dumb mistakes lately with Obama coming off as the more mature and presidential of the two.

Solid versus soft support

a.brocco,albuquerque,nm — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:28:27 GMT

Obama vs Clinton, Clinton vs Obama, Edwards vs Clinton, etc. Meanwhile, Shrewd Rudy is on the outside drooling while this goes on. He has to think to himself,'Go ahead you jerks, beat each other up day in and day out,the more you do this the less time you will spend trying to find out about me".

Solid versus soft support

S.K.M. Mass — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:39:37 GMT

TO CLINTON'S SUPPORTERS:
I have one question, and one question only.
Before the question, here is the preamble;
The Michigan Democratic Party moved their primary way ahead. We all know this. Every Democratic candidate vowed not to campaign there unless they stop their decision. Obama, Edwards, and Richardson all agree to pull their names off of the ballots.
The Michigan Democratic party goes ahead with their plans, and now has Hillary Clinton running practically by herself. Kucinich and Gravel don't count as opposition.

My question to all true supporters of Hillary Clinton, and please make an effort to answer this truthfully;
Why do you think Hillary Clinton refused to withdraw her name from the Michigan primary?

Solid versus soft support

John M, San Diego, CA — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:44:52 GMT

Dickie, I agree that you have to look at the aggregate. That aggregate (at RCP) shows Obama +2 in Iowa, and Hillary's lead in single digits in NH after having dropped 10% in the last few weeks.

Solid versus soft support

Jan Erik — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 01:11:39 GMT

it reminds me of the topic in the following lecture;

http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/forum.php?lecture_id=3740

Election '08: Media Report Card
Emily Rooney, host, Greater Boston
Tom Ashbrook, host, OnPoint
Jeff Greenfield, reporter, media critic
Barney Frank, congessman, D-MA

Twenty years ago on the eve of the 1988 election, PBS aired a series of programs on the role of the press in presidential politics. Noted politicians and members of the media debated what was being covered and why, and asked several key questions. What information about a candidate is relevant to a presidential run? Should personal information become public? What does the public have the right to know and why? The format was a roundtable discussion involving noted politicians and journalists. As we approach the 2008 presidential election, Greater Boston asks similar questions about how and what the media is covering. WGBH-TV and WBUR Radio, in partnership with Boston University, are combining their resources and expertise to evaluate media coverage of the '08 race. In doing so, they bring together an esteemed group of panelists, including some of the same people who appeared on that first PBS forum.

Solid versus soft support

Simon, IA — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 01:35:39 GMT

Al -- I actually think the press does deliberately switch from pro-Candidate A to pro-Candidate B. They are desperate for a close race. I'm an Obama supporter and all I could do was say Thanks when they went completely overboard about Clinton's Philly debate performance. I thought, finally, an opening for Obama (who had been beat up in the press for months, for equally specious reasons). Just watch, they won't let Huckabee skate for long, and Obama is sure to be in for a final hit or two from the media before the Iowa caucus. They want a dead heat on the morning of Jan 3.

cms (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:56 PM)

CMS - I understand what you are saying even though I am on the other side as a Hillary supporter.

I think what you said shows what is wrong with American journalists. They are useless paid people to fool simple minded people.

Look at Chris Matthews. Will he ever remorse that he is an irresponsible journalist? The way he picked on Al Gore on flimsy matters but praised Bush. Look what has happened to the country after that. Sensational journalism should be banned because they just live for their pockets.

I wonder how much money they will take to their grave.

Solid versus soft support

monica Cedar Rapids — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 02:03:55 GMT

She has the establishment support - which goes a long way. Lot's of nominees have lost Iowa or NH.

Sean

Actually few Democrats have lost both Iowa and New Hampshire. Other than Bill Clinton in 1992 I don't there is one, and 1992 was an * year, because Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin ran, and the entire field stayed out of Iowa, so really Clinton only lost NH.

Also, if being the establishment candidate meant squat Howard Dean would have been the nominee. How many states did he win?

Solid versus soft support

Jon, Manchester, NH — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:15:06 GMT

Thank God for vanreuter. So true! Never mind all the bickering between Obama and Clinton fans, that's exactly what I was thinking when reading this. I could write a pagelong BS article hypothesizing about twelve different things the numbers might mean too. Let me just throw in that Obama is the man (sorry, it couldn't be stopped)

Solid versus soft support

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:42:56 GMT

There's still a lot of time for things to happen. Wasn't it about this time four years ago that Kerry started climbing out of single digits in Iowa?

Iowa is very difficult to poll, and New Hampshire is moderately difficult because of the independents.

Plus the task of polling itself is more difficult than a few years ago, I think. Polling requires people on the other end of the landline. Maybe my situation is unusual, but I'd say about a quarter of the households I know, between adult friends and families of my kids' classmates, don't have that kind of phone anymore.

Trend lines are helpful, because they show direction of movement. But direction doesn't tell us everything when we don't know how accurate the baseline is.

Solid versus soft support

Angelo, Pittsburgh, PA — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:50:36 GMT

"King of Straw Polls"

Ron Paul's Head-to-Head Records (Win-Lose-Tie):
Ron Paul v. Rudy Giuliani 38-7-0
Ron Paul v. Mitt Romney 30-15-0
Ron Paul v. Fred Thompson 29-15-0
Ron Paul v. John McCain 39-5-0
Ron Paul v. Mike Huckabee 37-6-1
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

Solid versus soft support

John Alexander,Edinboro,PA — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 04:12:02 GMT

Polls change as people start looking at the candidates, some change as people change their minds, don't hold on to polls, they will mess your mind, like promises coming out of the Bush White house, they can only be believed for an hour.

Solid versus soft support

iReachable, San Jose, CA — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 05:00:00 GMT

please also check candidate/party leads at http://www.ireachable.com/vote opinion poll station too. It provides break down of votes by vote circles drawn by state/location, age, gender and more.

Also you can check opinion voting locations on google map.

Solid versus soft support

gohome — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 05:10:20 GMT

Bee, you work so hard, please go home and have a good sleep. When you wake up tomorrow, you may talk better or make some sense.

Solid versus soft support

Marilyn, Illinois — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 05:27:40 GMT

As far as I see they have all lied to us. No a one of them wants what best for the country. All they can think about is repaying favors they owe and screwing us over to line their own pockets. I am so disappointed in all of them.

Solid versus soft support

Marilyn, Illinois — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 05:32:06 GMT

As far as I see they have all lied to us. Not a one of them wants what best for the country. All they can think about is repaying favors they owe and screwing us over to line their own pockets. I am so disappointed in all of them.

Solid versus soft support

john polifronio — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 06:47:04 GMT

It's amusing to hear that Thomas Riehle, a democrat, is "not affiliated with any of the candidates." How the hell do we know this? Riehle told us, that's how. After we've been informed of Riehe's "objectivity," he proceeds through all manner of intellectual contortions to demonstrate that Hillary's support may not be as good, and Obama's support may be a lot better. Why the hell would he do that, and why should we be persuaded by such idle and silly speculations? Who cares? Well, come to think of it, if there are some dunderheads, trying to figure out who to vote for, and need help, maybe Riehe, with all his objectivity, can persuade them to move away from Hillary. He's already explained to us, that Obama's support may be stronger, and shouldn't that be reason enough to not vote for her? "But, don't get me wrong; I'm very objective, you know."

God damn. How the hell has Hillary managed to survive this incredible BS? The desperation of Hillary-haters, defies description! I've never seen anything to equal it.

Solid versus soft support

eNews Reference — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 09:28:14 GMT

Clinton's campaign got off to a rocky start because she assumed based on '06 results that Democrats want to battle...voters are savvy enought to want more out of politcs than just a fight and enjoy some years of peace and harmony

Solid versus soft support

Rick Edmond — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:23:05 GMT

SPeaking of an event that had the potential to shift polls in Iowa and elsewhere more favorably in Obama's favor.

I just saw over an Obama site that Harry Reid has scheduled an important Energy Vote on Saturday Morning about the same time Obama's Oprah Event in Iowa is scheduled. If true then what I said back in September during the vote on Kyl-Leiberman is FACT. Harry Reid is working on behalf of the Clinton Campaign. Back in September Reid announced the vote was put off indefinitely. Obama leaves for NH. Reid reschedules the vote the next day so Hillary can take her "General Election" vote because as we saw earlier in the year she has to vote the same as Obama to minimize distinctions between the two candidates. The site says that Reid has requested all four candidates return for the vote because supposedly the vote is supposed to be close. If this is true Obama should put aside Senatorial Decorum this time and go public on Reid if he pulls this crap.

Solid versus soft support

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:15:32 GMT

This proves what I've been saying all along.
Barrack Oprah-ma might attract some of the independents who voted for Bush, Nader, or Cobb in '04.'
But he would chase mainstream Democrats, like myself, away.
Hillary will energize "the base" of The Democratic Party.
That's the way ot should be too.
A party should always pick its' candidate based upon his or her appeal to the core of its' membership; not, according to what outsiders think, or what splinter group might be attracted to them come the general election.

Solid versus soft support

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:20:06 GMT

"...Excellent analysis by an unaffiliated Democratic strategist.
(Followed by a worthless, biased analysis by a blithering partisan who posts the first two replies - seriously, why should any reader take the comments of posters like Dickie Flatts, Tuck, Susan, Chuck, and Pat seriously when they haven't been able to write a single comment on the primary that wasn't filled with pointed and vitriolic hatred towards Barack Obama; you guys are about as reliable a source on Obama as Dick Morris is on Hillary, and I just wonder how many of you will be on suicide watch should Obama win the nomination.)
Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:19 PM)..."

And ah, of course your assessment of Hillary, and your statements to and about her supporters have always been civil and well mannered.
(rolling my eyes, and shaking my head)
Please!

Solid versus soft support

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:23:07 GMT

Barrack Oprah-ma is divisive to The Democratic Party, and bad for America.
We don't need a candidate who will attract independents.
But rather, we need a candidate who will energize "the base."

HILLARY 2008! ***experience counts!***

Solid versus soft support

Jose Alemar — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:52:13 GMT

One thing for sure that the Clinton campaign knows is that about 22% of those in the polls in favor of Obama are temporary or will not vote. While Clintons are solid. those that left Clinton are temporary shifters and you can't count on them.
So they way I see even if Clinton loose IOWA she is still the front runner for the nomination.
After IOWA NH there will be some that will bail out and guess what 75% will move to Hillary and those are solid voters. The picture looks good.
See ya!

Solid versus soft support

TOM TYSKIEWICZ, FOREST HILLS, PA — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:15:14 GMT

AS A LIFE-LONG DEMOCRAT(BORN 1945),ITS NOT THAT I CANT VOTE FOR CLINTON BECAUSE IT WOULD BE LIKE LISTENING TO MY MOTHER-IN-LAW FOR THE NEXT 4 OR 8 YEARS; ITS BECAUSE OF THIS SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT AMONG BABY BOOMERS THAT I RESENT! THE ICING ON THE CAKE IS THE BUSH-CLINTON-BUSH-CLINTON ARISTOCRACY. HAVE WE STOOPED SO LOW AS A PEOPLE, THAT WE CAN PERPETUATE THESE ARISTOS. KUCINICH, OBAMA, PAUL OR RICHARDSON, ARE ALL MORE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAN THE ARRAY OF DEMOCRATIC SENATORS RUNNING FOR CABINET POSTS.
AS FAR AS THE GOP, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF RON PAUL WHO IS MORE LIBERTIAN THAN REPUBLICAN, THIS IS THE MOST DANGEROUS GROUP OF CANDIDATES EVER PUT ON ONE STAGE IN HISTORY. WHETHER ITS RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM, OR CRIMINAL CUPABILITY, THESE IDIOTS WOULD FURTHER UNDERMINE OUR CONSTITUTION, AND CONTINUE THE POLICIES OF THE GREATEST DISASTER THAT HAS EVER BEFALLEN THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY. AMERICANS HAVE BEEN SERVED UP A "RED SCARE" TO THE TENTH-POWER, USED THE ALIEN-SEDITION ACTS AND SHREDDING OF HABAEUS CORPUS, UNDER THE GUISE OF A "PATRIOT ACT" TO SET AMERICANS AGAINST ONE ANOTHER, AND REWARD THEIR FELLOW-ARISTO-CORPORATE SPONSORS, AND DESTROY THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS!
THE TERM CRIMMINALLY INSANE, IS NOT TOO STRONG FOR THIS CURRENT GROUP OF OUTLAWS NOW INHABITING THE EXECUTUIVE BRANCH.

Solid versus soft support

ace p washington, d.c. — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:51:25 GMT

to j. merle-wow. just unbelievable reasoning and rationale. a true intellectual and factual researcher.

Solid versus soft support

Cornbread, San Antonio — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:55:28 GMT

I am a fairly emotional guy and was inmpressed with Romney's speech yesterday; however, he probably did little to impact the evangelical Christian's prejudice against Mormanism. Good political speech, but poor defense of the particular's of his faith around which the evangelicals and fundamentalists rally.

I saw Obama's latest commercial on Hardball and was taken away again. How good it would be to have not only a new presidential perspective, but to have an administration made up of leaders with new pespectives (I dream?). When I look at Hillary, she looks tired, lines on her face, weariness in he pacing around the stage, anxiety regarding her slipping popularity.

It will be very interesting to see if Oprah can make any impact in the woman vote. What she has to say could be crucial, especially for the post-New Hampshire vote.

I considered Hillary for a while; but I really don't want another Clinton administration. Too contentious. Too contrived.

Solid versus soft support

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:13:00 GMT

Monica:

Dean was the establishment candidate? Are you sure about that? I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to coverage of the 2004 nomination battle but I do seem to remember Dean being pegged as more of the outsider candidate - governor of a small state, not part of Washington. I would think Kerry and/or Gephardt would have been the establishment candidates in 04. Anyone else?

Solid versus soft support

BubbaDownSouth — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:32:28 GMT

SKM, MASS:
Obviously, Hillary did not have her name removed from the Mich. Democratic primary because she is a STRATEGIC THINKER. Superior intelligence goes a long way in becoming/being President.
Obama, Edwards and Richardson all made a serious error in withdrawing their names from the Mich. Democratic primary.
She gives herself every opportunity to WIN.

Solid versus soft support

Sean — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 00:08:43 GMT

Bee, trust me, we know who you are voting for and who you are not voting for. You've made that perfectly clear about a million times.

Solid versus soft support

Carl Brownbackson — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 00:58:03 GMT

to j. merle-wow. just unbelievable reasoning and rationale. a true intellectual and factual researcher.

His secret is sniffing glue 24/7.