If Hillary wins I'm losing all faith in our political system.

Not that much was left.

That's a really small sample size. There's 25-35% in the unviable/dunno side that's going to filter elsewhere, wonder where? Zogby's poll this morning was more interesting IMO

And how about those 'pugs, WTF did Thompson come from?

I say this in every Iowa poll thread. Polls are not a very accurate barometer, because of the caucusing system. People who poll for candidate A prior to Jan. 3 enters the caucusing place, and in the span of a couple of hours of debate they all agree to vote for candidate B. A county may be split 33-33-33 for Obama, Hillary, and Edwards, but the caucus-goers could vote to partition 50-25-25.

Echoic: If Hillary wins I'm losing all faith in our political system.

Hillary was chosen by the Illuminati as the next president before she even ran for her Senate seat. Nothing can stop her, foolish mortal.

Everyone knows Ron Paul beats out even Democrats for the Iowa caucus.

/he's like the Chuck Norris of the US elections
//wait, what?

Another reason polls aren't accurate is that lots of folks these days don't have landlines (I've not had once since 1999). I'll never get called...

Statistical sampling 'works' when you can get a true random sample of the population. As soon as groups are missed in the selection process, the accuracy falls apart.

Richardson's back into double digits... first time I've seen that in a while.

Ron Paul / Timecube '08.

Echoic: If Hillary wins I'm losing all faith in our political system.

Not that much was left.

Why? Her corporate foundation is the same as Obama in a lot of cases, and in a lot of cases, it is precisely the same corporations funding Hillary and Obama whom provide the same amount of money to their republican counterparts: Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney. What makes a "big hitter" is, and has for awhile, been the same source, and we see virtually the same policies from each side as a result.

see for yourself (pops)

No surprises. Hillary is to Obama, as Hillary is to Romney, as Hillary is to Giuliani, as Giuliani is to Romney, Romney to Obama, so on and so forth. A Hillary victory signifies nothing out of the ordinary.

shaneo785: Echoic: If Hillary wins I'm losing all faith in our political system.

Not that much was left.

Why? Her corporate foundation is the same as Obama in a lot of cases, and in a lot of cases, it is precisely the same corporations funding Hillary and Obama whom provide the same amount of money to their republican counterparts: Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney. What makes a "big hitter" is, and has for awhile, been the same source, and we see virtually the same policies from each side as a result.

see for yourself (pops)

No surprises. Hillary is to Obama, as Hillary is to Romney, as Hillary is to Giuliani, as Giuliani is to Romney, Romney to Obama, so on and so forth. A Hillary victory signifies nothing out of the ordinary.

Except that she voted for the Iraq war (unlike Obama), refuses to admit it was a mistake (unlike Edwards), and that her healthcare plan is essentially a gift with a tremendous bow to the insurance companies (unlike either).

The redistributed numbers on this data set look like 33% Edwards, 26% Obama, 26% Clinton. Even this reasonably ardent Obama supporter will say thaat is not a tie.

shaneo785: Why? Her corporate foundation is the same as Obama in a lot of cases, and in a lot of cases, it is precisely the same corporations funding Hillary and Obama whom provide the same amount of money to their republican counterparts: Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney. What makes a "big hitter" is, and has for awhile, been the same source, and we see virtually the same policies from each side as a result.

This is one of the annoying things about Open Secrets. Any company or industry that employs a shiatload of people is going to show up this way for anyone that raises money from a shiatload of people.

"Employee of a Company/Industry" =/= "Company/Industry" and it's always been dishonest of OpenSecrets to imply it is.

People have to work somewhere. Are you going to rule out every candidate except for the one who's funded entirely by the unemployed?

Let's put it another way: you have 1000 Wal-mart clerks giving $25 a month for a year - that would come to $300,000. You don't think it's disengenuous to portray that money as coming from Wal-Mart the corporation rather than from individuals who happen to work at Wal-Mart?

A better look would be at how much corporate *executives* give since they're the ones who actually direct corporate policy.

John Edwards.

/that is all

Aexia, I agree with your argument, but it leaves out the reality that many companies make donations in their employees' names as a way to get around campaign finance law. So in the end, it is the company, not the employee, making the donation. It's been done for decades.

carmody: Aexia, I agree with your argument, but it leaves out the reality that many companies make donations in their employees' names as a way to get around campaign finance law. So in the end, it is the company, not the employee, making the donation. It's been done for decades.

It's rather hard to generalize, it seems, whether it holds true for most cases that an employee is making donations on their own behalf, or if the employee is making a donation with accord to company advocacy. The diversity of wal-mart clerks, being a rather large class of individuals, might be a tricky place to sort the distinction out. But Goldman-Sachs, Shell, Boeing...we find interests to be a bit more specialized. Your argument, Aexia, is important to be mindful of. Yet I don't think it invalidates the information presented @ opensecrets, at least in terms of company funding (which is a separate issue from PAC money received), as carmody points out.

WFern: Except that she voted for the Iraq war (unlike Obama), refuses to admit it was a mistake (unlike Edwards), and that her healthcare plan is essentially a gift with a tremendous bow to the insurance companies (unlike either).

Of course. The stances on the policies is of course important, but my point is that many of the frontrunners might give lip-service to change, but their policies are loosely articulated enough such as leaving themselves open to the dictations of their financial base. Whatever be the case here, it is clear that Hillary's stance on Iraq is loose and non-committal. Leaving bases in operation and continuing special operations in Iraq is to advocate the continuation of the US occupation. Barack's stance differentiates himself from this possibility.
But Edwards, I think, stands apart from the rest in the strongest sense. He has made clear distinctions pertaining to "when" and "why" we should leave Iraq. I think his word is more trustworthy when we examine his financial base, and his articulation of why being judicious about such a base is such an important virtue for a political candidate. Therefore, his policies on health-care and the war, for example, are to be trusted moreover than the other front-runners.

I could have swore the media told me 2 months ago that Rudy vs Hillary was locked, and that this was all trivial.

JeffTL: The redistributed numbers on this data set look like 33% Edwards, 26% Obama, 26% Clinton. Even this reasonably ardent Obama supporter will say thaat is not a tie.

They're within 9 percentage points of each other. The margin of error is 5%. Statistically, it is a tie. In reality, probably not.

IOWA - Ladbrokes London

Ron Paul / Timecube Clockstar '08.

/FTFY

I don't understand the constant fluctuations in the polls. Do people vote for whoever talked to them last?

Speaking of Huckabee, he looked like a flip-flopping moron when he was confronted with his old-quotes / current positions on "Meet the Press" this morning.

When you think about it, only 1 of the 3 has ANY chance to win in the general election. Yes, I mean the white male.

Feel free, however, to vote for the brother or the woman if you want 4 more years of GOP rule.

Here are some of the actual poll results.
Please, raise your hand if you believe Ron Paul to have similar support from those below and above 50.
Now, everybody else raise your hand if you think that Ron Paul's supporters are about evenly split between their first caucus or not.

Does anybody at all have their hand raised?

bacccc: When you think about it, only 1 of the 3 has ANY chance to win in the general election. Yes, I mean the white male.

Feel free, however, to vote for the brother or the woman if you want 4 more years of GOP rule.

I'm pretty sure Obama is electable. Most of the people that hate the coloreds vote blindly for the GOP anyways.

OneBrightMonkey: I don't understand the constant fluctuations in the polls. Do people vote for whoever talked to them last?

It's insanely difficult to figure out who is actually going to caucus and even if you do manage to figure it out, all the weird sorts of caucus math (viability, rounding for delegates, 2nd choice, etc) will skew the results in ways polls can't predict.

None of the pollsters nailed it in 2004. Oh, they just barely picked up the Kerry and Edwards surges, but all but one vastly underestimated Kerry and Edwards' support and only one (DMR) got the order of finish right, and even then, just barely.

SharkUW: "Here are some of the actual poll results.
Please, raise your hand if you believe Ron Paul to have similar support from those below and above 50.
Now, everybody else raise your hand if you think that Ron Paul's supporters are about evenly split between their first caucus or not.

Does anybody at all have their hand raised?"

Wow, you base your vote on the way others vote/think? Wow.

bacccc: SharkUW: "Here are some of the actual poll results.
Please, raise your hand if you believe Ron Paul to have similar support from those below and above 50.
Now, everybody else raise your hand if you think that Ron Paul's supporters are about evenly split between their first caucus or not.

Does anybody at all have their hand raised?"

Wow, you base your vote on the way others vote/think? Wow.

I'm pointing out that the pool they polled is flawed, dippy. Pay attention.

When Mormons die they get to be gods over their own planet and thats a pretty good deal.

themindiswatching
/he's like the Chuck Norris of the US elections

woah! I totally said that like two or three days ago somewhere else! You're freakin' me out!

/NS, BAD clan server?

carmody: Hillary was chosen by the Illuminati as the next president before she even ran for her Senate seat. Nothing can stop her, foolish mortal.

Bilderberg Group (new window) actually.

OneBrightMonkey

I don't understand the constant fluctuations in the polls. Do people vote for whoever talked to them last?

Don't be silly. It's different people changing their minds at different times.

SharkUW: Here are some of the actual poll results.
Please, raise your hand if you believe Ron Paul to have similar support from those below and above 50.
Now, everybody else raise your hand if you think that Ron Paul's supporters are about evenly split between their first caucus or not.

Does anybody at all have their hand raised?

Actually I would think Paul's support in the 50+ group would be higher. Dementia is a biatch.

Saiga410: Actually I would think Paul's support in the 50+ group would be higher. Dementia is a biatch.

That's a good strategy. Get as many elderly persons as you can find, helpfully volunteer to take them to the caucus, and when you arrive, kindly remind them to stand in the "Ron Paul" corner. Also, provide them with Ensure and Lorna Doone cookies. If they get cranky, bring a TV/DVD player, and put in a Matlock tape.

McManus_brothers: Saiga410: Actually I would think Paul's support in the 50+ group would be higher. Dementia is a biatch.

That's a good strategy. Get as many elderly persons as you can find, helpfully volunteer to take them to the caucus, and when you arrive, kindly remind them to stand in the "Ron Paul" corner. Also, provide them with Ensure and Lorna Doone cookies. If they get cranky, bring a TV/DVD player, and put in a Matlock tape.

LOL

I think it is hilarious that the new national Rasmussen poll puts McCain on top now. The GOP race is like a game of Whack-a-mole, each candidate pops up for the lead and then gets whacked back down again.

Pretty interesting, right now there is only a 10% difference between last place and first place, according to the sacred, irrefutable, and forever accurate Rasmussen poll.

Jaykzo: I think it is hilarious that the new national Rasmussen poll puts McCain on top now. The GOP race is like a game of Whack-a-mole, each candidate pops up for the lead and then gets whacked back down again.

Pretty interesting, right now there is only a 10% difference between last place and first place, according to the sacred, irrefutable, and forever accurate Rasmussen poll.

Wasn't McCain's original problem during the summer was that he was leading in most polls, and his campaign almost collapsed? McCain is a much better underdog candidate than a front-runner.

SharkUW:
I'm pretty sure Obama is electable. Most of the people that hate the coloreds vote blindly for the GOP anyways.

THIS.

Look, John Kerry and Al Gore were two utterly unlikable candidates who ran godawful campaigns and each came within ONE state of winning the general election. Pull out the electoral map, and ask yourself what Obama would LOSE that Kerry or Gore won. I don't see much of value. Now, ask yourself what this Republican could lose that Bush won: Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, possibly Virginia if Woerner joined the ballot, and probably another state or few could be in play.

bacccc: When you think about it, only 1 3 of the 3 has ANY chance to win in the general election. Yes, I mean the white male.

More likely, although I'm not a Hillary fan.

McManus_brothers:
Wasn't McCain's original problem during the summer was that he was leading in most polls, and his campaign almost collapsed? McCain is a much better underdog candidate than a front-runner.


His campaign has been pretty quiet recently. My honest opinion is that he'll surpise us all by beating out Thompson, Giuliani, and Romney.

carmody: Echoic: If Hillary wins I'm losing all faith in our political system.

Hillary was chosen by the Illuminati as the next president before she even ran for her Senate seat. Nothing can stop her, foolish mortal.

i think this may be true.

bolzy: IOWA - Ladbrokes London

Wow, I wouldn't put money on Edwards at even odds, but 4:1...

Please don't compare Obama and Hillary. Hillary voted for the Iraq war, supports the patriot act, appears to be pushing towards a war in Iran, and wants to make flag burning a federal offense.

It's just sort of hilarious how terrible the Democratic party is at politics in general. Gore (robotic, no personality) following tremendous popularity held by Clinton, Kerry (robotic, no personality) following extreme failure of Bush, and now Hillary (robotic, no personality, hated by all non-supporters) following 8 years of Bush failure. I think it's beginning to be clear that Democrats don't even want to win.

Here we have Obama, who is immensely popular and inspiring and actually appears to be a human being, and Hillary, who has the highest disapproval rating of any democrat and is absolutely hated by all Republicans, and people are still deciding to vote for Hillary. W.T.F. If Democrats nominate her, they get what they deserve.

Jaykzo: His campaign has been pretty quiet recently. My honest opinion is that he'll surpise us all by beating out Thompson, Giuliani, and Romney.

I don't know if he'll beat Romney. I think it'll be:

1. Huckabee
2. Romney
T-3. Paul
T-3. McCain (not necessarily tied, but very close)
5. Thompson
6. Giuliani
7. Hunter

John McCain and Ron Paul will probably do better in NH, just because their maverick messages appeal more to NH small-govt-type conservatives than Iowa social consevatives.

And to be honest, in Iowa, there will probably be a pretty fair gap between Huckabee and Romney, and the rest.

I'm hoping either Edwards or Obama (hopefully and more likely Edwards) closes up shop after a couple 3rd place finishes and throws their support behind the other one to beat Hillary. It's pretty obvious that they would endorse each other, and I'd bet the vast majority of Edwards voters would go to Obama... It would be closer to an even split in terms of who Obama voters would go to I think, but I bet Edwards would still get the edge.

FuriousGeorge945: I'm hoping either Edwards or Obama (hopefully and more likely Edwards) closes up shop after a couple 3rd place finishes and throws their support behind the other one to beat Hillary. It's pretty obvious that they would endorse each other, and I'd bet the vast majority of Edwards voters would go to Obama... It would be closer to an even split in terms of who Obama voters would go to I think, but I bet Edwards would still get the edge.

Yep. Recent poll results show that Hillary is the second-choice among Obama/Edwards voters at a rate of about 5-8% while Obama and Edwards both boast 40%+. If Edwards or Obama were to disappear, the other one would have a huge boost.

SharkUW: bacccc: When you think about it, only 1 of the 3 has ANY chance to win in the general election. Yes, I mean the white male.

Feel free, however, to vote for the brother or the woman if you want 4 more years of GOP rule.

I'm pretty sure Obama is electable. Most of the people that hate the coloreds vote blindly for the GOP anyways.

SharkUW: bacccc: When you think about it, only 1 of the 3 has ANY chance to win in the general election. Yes, I mean the white male.

Feel free, however, to vote for the brother or the woman if you want 4 more years of GOP rule.

I'm pretty sure Obama is electable. Most of the people that hate the coloreds vote blindly for the GOP anyways.

Yeah, my family is a group of those farkers. I was at my grandmother's house for lunch today and my aunt said something to the effect of "I sure hope Obama doesn't get elected, I don't want somebody in office who would be soft on Islam". They think that because his name is Obama and Fox said he went to a "radical Islamic" school, that he is a Muslim and therefore, in their eyes, a supporter of terrorists.
or something like that

Echoic: If Edwards or Obama were to disappear, the other one would have a huge boost.

This is why Hillary is selective about attacking them. She doesn't want to crush either one. She wants to keep splitting the anti-Hillary Dem vote.

Number41: Richardson's back into double digits... first time I've seen that in a while.

It aint over till the obese female .....