If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Fark SearchWeb Fark

         more options... Create account

(Political Wire) Interesting Sneak peek at new Iowa poll shows both Democratic and Republican races tied   (politicalwire.com) divider line 37
More: Interesting  
•       •       •

834 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Dec 2007 at 7:18 PM   |  Make this a Fark FavoriteFavorite    |   share: Share on OMGTWITTER WEB2.0share on StumbleUponshare on Facebook  more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!

37 Comments   (+0 »)


Fark.com's  Political Inclination Thermometric Analyzer:
Neutral 2.48% Fascist
Archived thread
 
Code_Archeologist [TotalFark] 2007-12-27 05:15:15 PM  
Where's the 15% bump that Hillary had yesterday... oh well I guess it is already gone.

 
Car_Ramrod 2007-12-27 05:21:48 PM  
Code_Archeologist: Where's the 15% bump that Hillary had yesterday... oh well I guess it is already gone.

It was aborted.

 
Three Crooked Squirrels [TotalFark] 2007-12-27 05:48:21 PM  
I would assume that when they say that it was "taken over the last two days", that would not include today. So they polled on Christmas and the day after Christmas? Maybe it includes today.

 
flaEsq [TotalFark] 2007-12-27 06:00:46 PM  
Man, really desperate to fill up the politics tab, aren't we? Any poll taken over the last two weeks can be thrown out.

 
barneyfifesbullet 2007-12-27 07:26:48 PM  
i240.photobucket.com

 
mrjared 2007-12-27 07:31:30 PM  
Any caucus poll that doesn't include second choices is worthless.

 
inFARKshun 2007-12-27 07:33:50 PM  
mrjared: Any caucus poll that doesn't include second choices is worthless.

Exactly.

 
KramericaWallet 2007-12-27 07:43:05 PM  
I saw this thing on CNN about the caucus rules. Apparently the democrats have this
"viable candidate" thing, which makes second-choices important when suckers like Rudy and Paul can't make the cut.

Sounds totally lame, like some kind of charades party for people who are into politics.

 
mrjared 2007-12-27 07:46:29 PM  
KramericaWallet: I saw this thing on CNN about the caucus rules. Apparently the democrats have this
"viable candidate" thing, which makes second-choices important when suckers like Rudy and Paul can't make the cut.

Sounds totally lame, like some kind of charades party for people who are into politics.


It's not the democrats rule, it's how a farking caucus works. It's actually one of the few good things about a caucus. Instant run-offs should be the norm.

 
Arnold T Pants 2007-12-27 07:48:30 PM  
KramericaWallet: I saw this thing on CNN about the caucus rules. Apparently the democrats have this
"viable candidate" thing, which makes second-choices important when suckers like Rudy and Paul can't make the cut.

Sounds totally lame, like some kind of charades party for people who are into politics.


Rudy and Paul aren't Democrats, and the Republican caucus isn't like that. And Paul will be in the top 3 in Iowa.

 
Saiga410 2007-12-27 07:56:20 PM  
Fred leading John just barely and with Huck and Mitt attacking each other... this might just work out for my candidate of choice, yeaaaaahh.

socialnet.fred08.com

 
itchyvelour 2007-12-27 07:56:26 PM  
The interesting thing (to me) is the ground Edwards has made up in the last 2 weeks. He went from somewhere around 11% to 2% behind the leader - and I'm thinking he's going to pick up a lot more of the Kucinich/Gravel votes than Hilly.

Heh. Edwards vs Huckabee in '08 would be funny as half the Republican party'd vote Democrat.

 
Gary Busey on a Rampage 2007-12-27 08:09:11 PM  
I predict Ron Paul supporters really coming out and putting up some big numbers for him.

 
KramericaWallet 2007-12-27 08:14:54 PM  
jared

No, the republicans don't have the same rules.

arnold

Yes, I'm an idiot. Let's replace Rudy and Paul with Richardson and Biden.

 
itchyvelour 2007-12-27 08:15:57 PM  
Gary Busey on a Rampage: I predict Ron Paul supporters really coming out and putting up some big numbers for him.

And I predict a race of cuddly-snuggamuffalins will come down in space-ships made of ice cream and bring smiles and sunshine to everyone for the New Year! Oh, that and a bunch of really sad and confused dorks on the internet (actually - that one comes true no matter what every day) by the time March rolls around.

 
mrjared 2007-12-27 08:21:04 PM  
KramericaWallet: jared

No, the republicans don't have the same rules.

arnold

Yes, I'm an idiot. Let's replace Rudy and Paul with Richardson and Biden.


I just checked and you are right. I'm an idiot. I assumed that the caucus worked the same for both parties. Weird.

Here are some previous caucus results...interesting cast of characters.
Democrats

* January 19, 2004 - John Kerry (38%), John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), Richard Gephardt (11%) and Dennis Kucinich (1%)
* January 24, 2000 - Al Gore (63%), Bill Bradley (37%)
* February 12, 1996 - Bill Clinton* (unopposed)
* February 10, 1992 - Tom Harkin (76%), "Uncommitted" (12%), Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton* (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%) and Jerry Brown (2%)
* February 8, 1988 - Richard Gephardt (31%), Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%) and Bruce Babbitt (6%)
* February 20, 1984 - Walter Mondale (49%), Gary Hart (17%), George McGovern (10%), Alan Cranston (7%), John Glenn (4%), Reubin Askew (3%) and Jesse Jackson (2%)
* January 21, 1980 - Jimmy Carter (59%), Ted Kennedy (31%)
* January 19, 1976 - "Uncommitted" (37%), Jimmy Carter* (28%) Birch Bayh (13%), Fred R. Harris (10%), Morris Udall (6%), Sargent Shriver (3%) and Henry M. Jackson (1%)
* January 24, 1972 - "Uncommitted" (36%) and Edmund Muskie (36%), George McGovern (23%), Hubert Humphrey (2%), Eugene McCarthy (1%), Shirley Chisholm (1%) and Henry M. Jackson (1%) [3]

[edit] Republicans

* 2004- George W. Bush* (unopposed)
* 2000- George W. Bush* (41%), Steve Forbes (30%), Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%) and Orrin Hatch (1%)
* 1996- Bob Dole (26%), Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%) and Morry Taylor (1%)
* 1992- George H. W. Bush (unopposed)
* 1988- Bob Dole (37%), Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush* (19%), Jack Kemp (11%) and Pete DuPont (7%)
* 1984- Ronald Reagan* (unopposed)
* 1980- George H. W. Bush (32%), Ronald Reagan* (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%) and Bob Dole (2%)
* 1976- Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan

 
Craptastic 2007-12-27 08:21:54 PM  
I like the sound of "President Obama".

 
GoodasGold 2007-12-27 08:38:31 PM  
I take solace in the fact that I did not see Guiliani.

 
GoodasGold 2007-12-27 08:43:47 PM  
The Romans once like the sound of Emperor Nero.

 
Bag of Hammers [recently expired TotalFark] 2007-12-27 09:15:46 PM  
Meaningless. Show me the polls in September and I'll give a shiat, until then it's all just partisan party masturbation for the benefit of free publicity and a lazy and news starved media.

 
Mosey 2007-12-27 09:20:01 PM  
I take solace in the fact that I did not see Guiliani.

Clinton didn't crack 5% in Iowa in 1992.

What looks interesting from the past is that GW Bush is the only guy who won Iowa and the Presidency (without being unopposed).

Carter won the nomination and the Presidency in 1976 and lost to "uncommited."

Keep in mind that seems like a bad sign. (what is uncommited polling at now?)

 
quietbs [TotalFark] 2007-12-27 09:28:45 PM  
I like the sound of "President Uncommitted"

 
The Fourth Karamazov [TotalFark] 2007-12-27 09:33:07 PM  
itchyvelour: Gary Busey on a Rampage: I predict Ron Paul supporters really coming out and putting up some big numbers for him.

And I predict a race of cuddly-snuggamuffalins will come down in space-ships made of ice cream and bring smiles and sunshine to everyone for the New Year! Oh, that and a bunch of really sad and confused dorks on the internet (actually - that one comes true no matter what every day) by the time March rolls around.


Good, one of you will be right.

Hint...not you.

 
Mosey 2007-12-27 09:35:18 PM  
I like the sound of "President Uncommitted"
dubyad40.com

 
mrjared 2007-12-27 09:36:06 PM  
Bag of Hammers
Meaningless. Show me the polls in September and I'll give a shiat, until then it's all just partisan party masturbation for the benefit of free publicity and a lazy and news starved media.

Well, since the Iowa caucus is a week from today, I guess I'm more interested in polls from now.

 
Aexia 2007-12-27 09:47:12 PM  
Mosey: Clinton didn't crack 5% in Iowa in 1992.

No one competed in Iowa in 1992 because Iowa Senator Tom Harkin was running.

 
vdantev 2007-12-27 09:53:05 PM  
Code_Archeologist [TotalFark] Quote 2007-12-27 05:15:15 PM
Where's the 15% bump that Hillary had yesterday... oh well I guess it is already gone.


Yeah because we all know once a rapidly fluctuating and heated campaign is written of in the press, the results are suddenly set in stone.

 
Hang On Voltaire [TotalFark] 2007-12-27 09:56:37 PM  
vdantev:

Yeah because we all know once a rapidly fluctuating and heated campaign is written of in the press, the results are suddenly set in stone.


Agrees

crotchetyoldbastard.com

 
burndtdan 2007-12-27 09:56:52 PM  
mrjared: Bag of Hammers
Meaningless. Show me the polls in September and I'll give a shiat, until then it's all just partisan party masturbation for the benefit of free publicity and a lazy and news starved media.

Well, since the Iowa caucus is a week from today, I guess I'm more interested in polls from now.


nah see... i'm more interested in the polls a week from today. when it's over.

i live in florida, we fix elections, not primaries. until then, i'll just be watching.

 
hillary4real 2007-12-27 10:53:33 PM  
Hillary has it in the bag.
Why any other dems even bother is beyond me.
Obama has no experience, unless you count running for president as the kind of experience necessary to be president (I for one do not) and Edwards is just a worthless 2-bit corporate lawyer with expensive hair.
I'm a liberal and there is no way I would vote for anyone besides Hillary, regardless of these polls, most of us feel that way, and the polls in iowa will be proven wrong once again.

 
noneoftheabove 2007-12-28 12:22:43 AM  
Mosey

Your newsletter, let you show me it.

 
noneoftheabove 2007-12-28 12:24:09 AM  
hillary4real

Unconvincing - 2/10

 
soj4life 2007-12-28 12:39:00 AM  
www.gop.com

Let's go Joe!

 
JoJoTheIdiotMonkeyBoy [TotalFark] 2007-12-28 01:36:58 AM  
img265.imageshack.us

 
RanDomino 2007-12-28 02:30:06 AM  
I demand a Tetrarchy followed by a bitter and protracted civil war that eliminates two of them and most of their fanatical supporters, and then we stab the last one a bunch (and then don't let their seemingly-defeated but brilliant lieutenant give the eulogy).

 
Crazy_horce [TotalFark] 2007-12-28 10:43:36 AM  
From the Poll:

2. Do you see President George W. Bush as a conservative Republican in the mode of Ronald Reagan? (Republicans Only)
Yes 7%
No 72%
Undecided 21%

3. How important is it for the Republican presidential candidate to be a conservative Republican in the mode of Ronald Reagan, very important, somewhat important, not very important, not important, or undecided? (Republicans Only)
Very Important 56%
Somewhat Important 12%
Not Very Important 7%
Not Important 10%
Undecided 15%


Can someone explain the obsession with Ronald Regan this year? He wasn't even a real conservative. He presided over the transformation of the Republican party into the Neoconservative nightmare that it is today. How can that be viewed as a good thing?
The Republicans need REAL conservatives or they're going to get their asses handed to them in the elections. (Presidental AND Senate)

\NO he didn't win the cold war anymore that Clinton created the DotCom boom

 
Mosey 2007-12-28 04:24:45 PM  
Aexia: No one competed in Iowa in 1992 because Iowa Senator Tom Harkin was running.

Good catch!

 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments


[Continue Farking]