Where's the 15% bump that Hillary had yesterday... oh well I guess it is already gone.

Code_Archeologist: Where's the 15% bump that Hillary had yesterday... oh well I guess it is already gone.

It was aborted.

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.

Man, really desperate to fill up the politics tab, aren't we? Any poll taken over the last two weeks can be thrown out.

Any caucus poll that doesn't include second choices is worthless.

mrjared: Any caucus poll that doesn't include second choices is worthless.

Exactly.

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.

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.

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.

Fred leading John just barely and with Huck and Mitt attacking each other... this might just work out for my candidate of choice, yeaaaaahh.

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.

I predict Ron Paul supporters really coming out and putting up some big numbers for him.

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.

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.

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

I like the sound of "President Obama".

I take solace in the fact that I did not see Guiliani.

The Romans once like the sound of Emperor Nero.

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.

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?)

I like the sound of "President Uncommitted"

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.

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.

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:

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

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.

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.

Mosey

Your newsletter, let you show me it.

hillary4real

Unconvincing - 2/10

Let's go Joe!

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).

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

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

Good catch!