WHAT TROUBLE? CLINTON HAS EARLY LOCK ON IOWA CAUCUS, QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY POLL FINDS

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Last edited Thu May 7, 2015, 09:38 AM - Edit history (1)

With 60 percent of the vote among Iowa likely Democratic Caucus participants, former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton has an early lock on the first-in-the-nation presidential test, apparently
undamaged by a nationwide flood of negative publicity, according to a Quinnipiac University
poll released today.
This compares to a 61 percent Clinton showing in Iowa in a February 26 survey by the
independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has 15 percent among Democrats, with 11 percent
for Vice President Joseph Biden and 3 percent each for former U.S. Sen. James Webb of
Virginia and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley. Another 7 percent are undecided.
Clinton and Biden each get 7 percent on the “no way” list when likely Democratic Caucus
participants name a candidate they would “definitely not support.” Sanders gets 6 percent.
Iowa Democrats say 76 – 17 percent that Clinton is honest and trustworthy, with Biden
at 84 – 10 percent.
“One thing is obvious about Iowa Democratic Caucus participants: They are loyal as the
day is long, at least when it comes to Hillary Clinton,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of
the Quinnipiac University Poll. “The former secretary of state has taken a major pounding in the
news media and from her political opponents over her e-mail and family foundation. So far
these criticisms have had absolutely no effect on her standing among Iowa Democrats.




http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ia/ia05072015_Igrwf25.pdf


BTW-I regret the caps but I copied the text and the headline verbatim. I wasn't about to mess with somebody else's work product nor take the time to rewrite it.

[Thinkingabout]

1. Perhaps for the record of the past of non scandals it is just another chapter in the list

of non scandals, it is oblivious a double standard pasted on the Clintons we just look and listen and then continue on our paths. Again, if there is a candidate others wants to promote who can top Hillary's record and experience then put it out, trying to tear down Hillary doesn't put any feathers in the caps of other candidates. When it gets to who do I want as president, it is someone capable of the job. We have had our turn living under the worst presidents during my life, I do not wish to relive the same nightmare.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. The press might be taking a respite from beating up on Hillary./NT

[yallerdawg]

19. We've seen this before.

Hillary gets bashed, bashed, bashed - the challenger gets a pass.

It may be true these potential challengers really have nothing in their record to dig deep into. Ever seen "Being There?"

We really found out more about Obama after the primary and after elected president. At least the kind of stuff we hear about Hillary everyday for 3 decades!

Wouldn't it be amazing if finally the American people woke up and said I won't be manipulated and handled by the system this time?

So far, polls indicate we have seen this before, and we aren't falling for it this time!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Loved "Being There"

Yeah, the press often acts as an auxiliary of the Republican party when it comes to the Clintons.

[karynnj]

47. It is always the FRONTRUNNER who gets bashed

Whether HRC, whether Dean, whether Gore, whether Kerry, whether Obama -- at the time someone becomes the frontrunner, they get bashed usually by the other opponents, their supporters and the media.

Not to mention, I think Clinton/the State Department controlled when the email story came out. It is good that it came out long before the primaries and AFTER the State Department received the emails. This story coming out was not "bashing". At worst, Clinton got caught at a point where standards were changing towards transparency and she had actually moved in the opposite direction. (It may be that the strongest consequences were to the current State Department having to prepare 55000 pages of email for public viewing -- a huge task that - no matter how conscientiously they do will be said to have taken too long and they risk missing some things that should have been redacted. The consequences to HRC appear to be a few weeks of bad PR that she easily has overcome. )

As to the Clinton cash stories, the fact that the book has a right wing writer actually inoculates her to some degree from any charges that she did not live by her agreement to Obama.

Both these issues have some real roots - and they may have both come out at a time and in ways that minimizes their impact. This is not huge parts of the media intentionally misinterpreting to make a candidate look egomaniacal or a liar - like they did to Gore, whose committee in the House did fund the ARPA net that became the internet. This was not the media condoning a character assassination for months while the public record was 100% in the nominee's favor - as happened to John Kerry.

[yallerdawg]

61. Bash away!

It's OK to bash Hillary with innuendo and speculation - get in all the most recent highlights - she's just the FRONTRUNNER.

And our strongest leading Democratic candidate. Never mind that.

[karynnj]

80. Nothing I said was innuendo or speculation

1) She did use her own server and made no effort on her own to give the State Department pertinent email to archive.

2) She did not 100% follow what she and Bill Clinton agreed to on contributions to the foundation. The fact is that very agreement would have protected her from any of these questions.

Both of these things are NOT speculation. I COULD list a long list of things that are speculation relating to these, which you are kind of daring me to do, but THAT would be the wrong thing to do.

She is a very strong candidate and NOTHING I wrote here hurts her in the least. What potentially could hurt her - in the general election unfortunately -- would be if these things THAT SHE DID are seen as part of a pattern of ignoring rules. (Fortunately for use none of the dozens of Republican possibilities are likely clean enough to use this and none are particularly appealing.)

That said it is pretty unseemly for HRC fans here to be whining when anything not positive is said of HRC.

[yallerdawg]

86. Way to double down, karrynVT!

Keep bashing!

Got in that old right-wing fiction of "pattern of ignoring rules." Those special rules that only apply to the Clintons.

You sure stay on task! 30 years of innuendo and speculation should make it easy to bash more, I do understand. It makes me sad and mad, but you go ahead and call it whining.

[karynnj]

87. Sorry, but I will criticize actions I think are wrong -- and I think she should have abided

by the agreement she made with Obama and I think that her use of a server that was at the Clinton's home was not a good move. Do you think it was either necessary or smart?

The problem now is that the State Department can't go beyond the answer given this week - that Hillary said she gave them all the email.

These are both problems of her own making. They may amount to nothing, but they did happen.

I prefer transparency and avoiding even the appearance of conflict of interest. I don't really have a 2016 candidate, but I would make the same comments on ANY government official that did what she did.

(That goes for the politician I most admire - he and Teresa made agreements when he became SoS, I would have just as much problem if they blew off the agreements made and did anything that could have damaged the Obama administration.)

[ucrdem]

3. I don't see Sanders catching on in Iowa.

Last edited Fri May 8, 2015, 05:58 AM - Edit history (2)

But since I don't live there I'll leave it to others to prognosticate. Thanks MAdem, Karyn and others for the feedback.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. That sounds as if you are saying Iowa which voted for Obama would not vote for a Jewish candidate.

'All American types'. Care to elucidate as to how exactly a United States Senator who has been in the Congress since the early 90's is somehow less than 'all-American'? I wish that you would, but I bet that you won't.

[ucrdem]

16. I didn't realize Obama was Jewish.

Thank you for pointing that out. And you don't seem to know much about Kerry.

[FourScore]

24. The real question is why YOU would equate the words "All American types" with being non-Jewish

I remember when I was younger and worked in a very popular North Beach (San Francisco) restaurant. A man who worked across the street often ordered a hamburger from us. One evening he came by, ordered one and said he'd come back in 20 minutes to pick it up. As usual that evening there was a line going out the door, when another man (African American) walked in and also ordered a hamburger. About 15 minutes later, the first guy came in and asked for his hamburger. He had to wait a few minutes, then we wrapped it up, gave it to him, he paid and left. The African American guy started railing us for being racist. He just went off about how he had been waiting longer and had ordered first. Finally, he paused long enough for me to explain to him the ACTUAL order of events. He humbly apologized. I commiserated that there is definitely racism in this world, and I could see how he had misunderstood the situation...

Sometimes though, it ain't what you think at first glance.

[MADem]

72. "Sometimes though, it ain't what you think at first glance."

I came into this conversation after "All American" was changed to "athletic" and I think you might be trying too hard to make an inference of religious bigotry when that wasn't the intent.

Senator Sanders looks like a bookish academic, a guy who might be more comfortable in a classroom than in a corn field. I can't picture him in jeans (mom or otherwise) or a barn coat. I can't imagine him in a pair of sneakers or wellies. He wears loafers.

Despite the fact that VT has lots of farms and he represents farmers, I've never seen him not wearing a suit. He might take off the jacket on a hot day, even remove the tie, but even in his "casual" photos, he's wearing a dress shirt, often button down, and dress pants and those loafers. I've also never seen him toting a gun, and those are the kinds of things that they like to see in Iowa, especially in the male candidates that run around at that way (remember Kerry going pheasant hunting? Obama in his "mom" jeans doing target practice?). Women do seem to get a pass if they want one (Palin gleefully did not--not that it helped her ticket in the big picture), sexual stereotyping is alive and well, apparently.




HRC has been to Iowa a lot. She listens to people when they talk to her. She's a known quantity. She has a solid organization on the ground there. She's got a husband who looks like he fits in with those folks (and, let's be clear--by "those folks" I mean "those folks who live in a predominantly RURAL state). I think she's got a barn coat in the back of her closet, too.

?quality=65&strip=color&w=1500

[FourScore]

91. Although, I appreciate your post MADem, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

I was just wondering why the poster above was suggesting that "All-American" should exclude the Jewish. I do understand what they were inferring, but I wanted to challenge it. Thus my little story about the hamburger.

[MADem]

92. I don't think he meant to exclude "the Jewish."

That was the point of my post.

I think he meant to exclude bookish, academic-looking types. People who don't look like they slopped hogs, baled hay, played football, or did the lindy hop at the sock hop. Sen. Sanders does look like he could play the mean law professor Charles Kingsfield in a revival of The Paper Chase and he might even be appropriately cast as the lead in an American version of Goodbye Mr. Chips, but he does not convey an impression of "vigor" and that is what the term "All American" implies. It doesn't imply that one is from the "wrong" ethnic background, because "All Americans" --particularly in the context of sports -- are quite often immigrants. The dictionary definition leans heavily on sports imagery to define the term, in actual fact. There are a load of Jewish "All American" types--Senator Sanders is just not one of them.

As someone who is all-too-familiar with discrimination on a first-hand basis, I tend to know it when I see it. I just don't see any intent in those remarks--certainly not of the POINT-POINT-Oh-He's-Jewish!!!! variety.

[FourScore]

94. You do realize I was responding to this comment from Bluenorthwest:

"That sounds as if you are saying Iowa which voted for Obama would not vote for a Jewish candidate.
'All American types'. Care to elucidate as to how exactly a United States Senator who has been in the Congress since the early 90's is somehow less than 'all-American'? I wish that you would, but I bet that you won't. "

I wasn't responding to ucrdem's comment.

[MADem]

95. Yes, I believe we are on the same side with regard to this matter.

Sometimes things are not what they seem...

[FourScore]

96. Yes. I thought it seemed we were agreeing vehemently.

Just making sure.

[merrily]

27. Kerry is part Jewish--half, IIRC.

[karynnj]

81. The confusion is that Jewish refers to a religion as well as a heritage (unlike say "Irish")

Kerry was baptized as a baby, as his father was before him. However, both his paternal grandparents were Jews, who converted to become Catholic.

So, as far as religion goes, he was a Catholic raised by a Protestant mother (Rosemary Forbes Kerry) and a Catholic father (Richard Kerry). Neither he, or his brother, Cam, who converted to Judaism, knew that side of the family had Jewish roots until shortly before he ran for President.

Yet (obviously) half his genes go back to that Jewish side.

[merrily]

90. There is no confusion and never was. We can all access wiki and we

we all know there are ethnic Jews and observant Jews. "Part" Jewish, half Jewish obviously refer to genes, not how religiously observant a person is or is not.

Kerry's Jewishness is entirely irrelevant Sanders' being contrasted with Kerry had to do with Sanders' Judaism. If so, on that count, there is not much of a contrast. That is my only point.

This thread is not about Kerry. However, I think I know what you are trying to negate by claiming confusion. Without making a big deal of it, as someone from Boston, I can say confidently that you are mistaken. However, there is no need to make this about Kerry. Leaving it at that would be a good thing.

[cyberswede]

31. How is Sanders not All-American?

Curious what you mean. I'm in Iowa.

[ucrdem]

33. It means athletic.

Sanders might be a great guy but an all-American athlete he is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-America

p.s. I replaced the term.

[karynnj]

85. Neither is Hillary Clinton - or O'Malley, better known for playing a guitar. nt

[MADem]

93. Clinton looks like a former cheerleader. The "rules," too, are still being written for women.

They don't have a publicly defined persona, yet, because the public hasn't let them into the arena in any great number. About all we know about women in public office is that the hair can't be "too" long, the outfit has to be closer to Angela Merkel than Sofia Vergara, and the make-up shouldn't be too clownish (though this rule isn't univerally applied on the GOP side--e.g. Bachmann, Palin, et. al.).

You don't actually have to BE an athlete, you just have to look like one. Or a former one. I have no clue as to O'Malley's background in this regard, but he knows how to fake it:



George W. Bush was a cheerleader, as was Trent Lott. Chris Christie was apparently a decent baseball player. It's not an absolute requirement that males be regarded as athletic, or former athletes, but apparently it conveys an advantage-- the electorate likes people who have demonstrated an ability to engage in team sports.

[karynnj]

83. Hillary did far worse in Iowa than expected in 2008

She lost not just to Obama, but to Edwards. From all I have ever heard, it comes down to retail politics - responding one to one with the people interested in caucusing.

If it was "athletic" or the earlier "All American", why didn't Edwards win it hands down - in either year? As to John Kerry, I think it might have been more important that he was a vet and a large group of MA vets, who supported him for decades, went to Iowa to support him. That and he had very strong support from the firemen for things he had done for them. On top of that, he was willing to talk to people for hours - staying until he answered all their questions. That likely made a difference over time. (As to athletic, he is, but that likely was his weakest time as he was recovering from cancer surgery in 2003.)

[leftofcool]

4. Excellent news!

[catnhatnh]

5. Why is a 2 1/2 month old poll an indicator of current trends???

Hint-Sanders drew a quarter as much support without running...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. What do you mean?

From April 25 – May 4, Quinnipiac University surveyed 692 likely Iowa Democratic
Caucus participants with a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percentage points. Live interviewers call
land lines and cell phones.

[catnhatnh]

9. The 2nd paragraph of the PDF...

...clearly dates the data as being from February 26th.

[sufrommich]

10. It's citing the February poll as a comparison. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. What do you mean?

With 60 percent of the vote among Iowa likely Democratic Caucus participants, former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton has an early lock on the first-in-the-nation presidential test, apparently
undamaged by a nationwide flood of negative publicity, according to a Quinnipiac University
poll released today.
This compares to a 61 percent Clinton showing in Iowa in a February 26 survey by the
independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ia/ia05072015_Igrwf25.pdf

From April 25 – May 4, Quinnipiac University surveyed 692 likely Iowa Democratic
Caucus participants with a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percentage points. Live interviewers call
land lines and cell phones.

There is nothing incongruous or contradictory about Quinnipiac's description of their findings.

[catnhatnh]

14. You are correct...

and I apologize.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. No apology required.../NT

[Tarheel_Dem]

79. At least you apologized. That doesn't happen here very often. That's a start.

[Cha]

97. Really!

Tarheel

[Tarheel_Dem]

98. It's a rare occurrence indeed, my dear Cha.

[Cha]

100. So gracious..

[NCTraveler]

6. She is in a very good position.

It also looks like her campaign is getting off to a great start. Nice and steady.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. I might be wrong but I don't believe HRC ever led in IA in 08.

[cali]

11. HILLARY'S TROUBLES ARE IN POLLS THAT SHOW HER LOSING TO

WALKER AND BUSH IN NH AND TIED WOTJ BUSH IN VA. BOTH STATES WE NEED. ALSO POLLS INDICATING THAT HER UNFAVORABLES ARE EITHER TIED WITH HER FAVORABLE RATING OR UNDERWATER.

(just yelling 'cuz you did

I honestly believe that this insistence for over a decade that Hillary be the nominee, has been bad for the party.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. I didn't yell...

I copied the poll heading verbatim

WHAT TROUBLE? CLINTON HAS EARLY LOCK ON IOWA CAUCUS,
QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY POLL FINDS;
SANDERS, BIDEN ARE ONLY DEMS OVER 3%

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ia/ia05072015_Igrwf25.pdf

I wasn't about to take the time to change someone else's headline , especially when I would have had to rewrite the whole thing.






"HILLARY'S TROUBLES ARE IN POLLS THAT SHOW HER LOSING TO
View profile
WALKER AND BUSH IN NH AND TIED WOTJ BUSH IN VA. BOTH STATES WE NEED. ALSO POLLS INDICATING THAT HER UNFAVORABLES ARE EITHER TIED WITH HER FAVORABLE RATING OR UNDERWATER. "


Link to all VA, NH, and NAT'L polls for truthiness:

NH


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_bush_vs_clinton-4114.html#polls

National


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html


VA

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/va/virginia_bush_vs_clinton-4003.html

FAVORABILITY


http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

When we look at all the research the research suggests she leads all her Republican opponents in national polls, in key swing states, and has the highest favorable/unfavorable ratios.

[bunnies]

37. Calis correct re: NH

Latest polls show her losing to Walker and Bush.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/241189-poll-walker-and-bush-lead-clinton-in-new-hampshire

Shes also underwater regarding favorability in every poll Ive seen. Example:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NH_42115.pdf

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. Again.

Here is a link to all general election New Hampshire general election polls:




http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_bush_vs_clinton-4114.html#polls


Here is a link to all of Secretary of State Clinton's favorability polls:



http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating


Her favorability/unfavorability ratings are better than all her challengers:








http://election.princeton.edu/2015/04/13/the-real-problem-with-that-chart/

[bunnies]

51. Which does not include the poll I linked to.

She's losing ground in NH. Doesnt bother me if you want to ignore it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. The poll you cited was the first poll

The poll you cited was the first poll included in the link I cited:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_bush_vs_clinton-4114.html#polls.


If twelve marchers are marching south and one marcher is marching north maybe the marcher who is marching north is out of step.

[bunnies]

60. The poll I cited is from 05/06.

Its not there. This is silly. Shes also down in NH in the poll Steven Lesser just posted. I guess the one marcher has a friend? Either way, polls this early dont mean squat, IMHO.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. The Dartmouth poll you and Steve Lesser are citing is the first poll in the link

It's contradicted by the dozen other polls in the same link.

[bunnies]

64. I give up.

If you see a poll from yesterday on the RCP link then youre seeing something Im not. On *my* computer, the latest poll is 04/30.

edit:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/241189-poll-walker-and-bush-lead-clinton-in-new-hampshire

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. From the link in The Hill

From the link in the Hill:

http://rockefeller.dartmouth.edu/library/2015nhstatepoll.pdf


Real Clear Politics Polls from New Hampshire:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_bush_vs_clinton-4114.html#polls.


Please click on the first poll in the link:


http://rockefeller.dartmouth.edu/library/2015nhstatepoll.pdf

It's the same exact poll...The 4/30 is not the release date...It's the last day the pollster was out in the field.


My point is it is contradicted by every other NH poll:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_bush_vs_clinton-4114.html#polls.

[bunnies]

67. .

Sweet Geebus. Youre correct. I must be thick in the head today. My apologies.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. No apology required...

Have a great rest of the day.

[KingCharlemagne]

18. Why just a couple weeks ago, people were mocking Sanders as the

Kucinich candidate with only 1-2% in the polls. He now has 15%? By my math that's a 1500% increase in just two weeks. Let's see what happens to the numbers after the campaigning begins in earnest.

[ieoeja]

25. Does that mean Sanders is polling better than Obama in May 2007?

I couldn't find any 2007 polls from that far back.

[sufrommich]

26. From Wikipedia:

All opinion polls in April 2007 showed Clinton as the Democratic frontrunner, however with different margins: Obama was listed in third place nationwide with 17% and John Edwards in second place with 19% behind Clinton with 41% [14] according to an Angus-Reid poll, whereas Clinton was listed in first place with 34% and Obama in second place with 29%, ahead of Edwards with only 15% in a Rasmussen-Reports poll.[15] By May 2007, polls were showing the race even tighter, with Rasmussen Reports showing Obama pulling ahead of Clinton 32% to 30%.[16] But on May 24, 2007, a CBS News/NY Times poll showed Clinton, with 46%, 22 points ahead of Obama, with 24%, and 32 points ahead of Edwards, with 14%. Clinton held her lead over the summer; in September a CNN poll showed her leading Obama 46% to 23%,[17] and in October the same poll showed her commanding majority Democratic support, with 51% compared to Obama's 21% and Edwards' 15%.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_presidential_primary_campaign,_2008

[KingCharlemagne]

28. I don't have ready access to that polling data, but IIRC someone posted it here

a couple weeks ago. At this point in 2007, Obama was polling in the vicinity of 30%, still behind Hillary but gaining on her fast. Compared to Sanders, Obama's prospects were far brighter. Still, Sanders' hill is not insurmountable and a week is a lifetime in American politics.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. The largest lead Secretary of State Clinton had in any 08 IA poll was 17%...

The largest lead Secretary of State Clinton had in any IA poll was 17% and she trailed in more polls than she led, ergo:



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


This year she enjoys a 45% lead in IA polls:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html

[jeff47]

39. Ya might wanna review post 26.

Since it says the exact opposite of what you say.

Also, in your own 2008 link, Clinton leads in more polls than any other candidate. She led in 41 polls. Edwards and Obama split the remaining half.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. I was specifically referring to Iowa...

I was specifically referring to Iowa since the topic of this thread is Iowa.

[jeff47]

41. So does your link that shows she was ahead in 41 polls in IA.

The remaining polls split between Obama and Edwards. Meaning Clinton was ahead in more polls than any other candidate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. I didn't bother to count them, one by one, but my statement is factually correct:

I didn't bother to count them, one by one, but my statement is factually correct:

The largest lead Secretary of State Clinton had in any IA poll was 17% and she trailed in more polls than she led.

unless the laws of mathematics have been repealed and 41 is more than 42.

[jeff47]

43. Yes, just like the statement that Giuliani was going to beat Clinton in 2008 is factually correct.

But like most political bullshit, it is primarily used to deceive. You are trying to claim Clinton had lousy support in 2008 polling, when in fact she did better than every other candidate in polling, and then came in 3rd.

As for the laws of mathematics, 42/2 < 41.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Moving the goal posts, ey...

If you believe is 41 is greater than 42 there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion...

[jeff47]

49. Nope, I'm not. I'm pointing out your claim is intentionally deceptive.

Again, you are trying to claim Clinton was polling poorly in 2008 in IA. By claiming she was ahead in only 49% of the polls. Your claim heavily implies one other candidate was ahead in the other 51%.

Except that wasn't the case. Obama and Edwards split the other 51%, each doing far worse in polling than Clinton.

The only way to make your claim true is to pretend Clinton was running against a single, Obama-Edwards combined entity.

You wouldn't get "four pinocchios" or "pants on fire" for your story. But you also wouldn't be labeled "true". You're attempting to deceive by poorly phrasing a technically accurate statement in order to suit your desired goal.

In other words, you'd do great on a staff position for any "third-way"-style Democrat.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. IA was always problematic for HRC.

That doesn't seem to be the case this time...

Things appear to be going swimmingly... I am already pondering whether I should order Pizza Hut, Papa Johns, Dominos, or an independent pizza parlor to celebrate her impending victory on 11/8/16.


Or maybe I will be the plebeian I am and throw a DiGiornos in the oven.

[Omaha Steve]

20. Incoming...

People complain when I copy titles that are all caps too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. You are in the right for not tampering with someone else's work product.

Plus that'a a long title to entirely rewrite.

[workinclasszero]

23. CLINTON HAS EARLY LOCK ON IOWA CAUCUS

Woohoo! GO HILLARY!!

[merrily]

29. Polls this far out are worthless and this one is especially so, given that

Bernie has not even officially rolled out yet.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. I admire your enthusiasm./NT

[merrily]

34. I see no reason to be enthusiastic (or pessimistic) about a poll that means nothing.

We haven't even had a single debate yet.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. I paid you a compliment./NT

[merrily]

36. Tip: Lack of enthusiasm is not usually perceived as a compliment.

My comment reflected no enthusiasm.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. That's why I implied you had it in abundance./NT

[Orsino]

46. Worthless? Maybe.

Meaningless? Yeah, more or less by definition.

Poll tells us that the only likely candidate from a few weeks back is still ahead of the candidate who just announced and whom she hadn't even debated. We knew that already.

These are the lullabies our MSM use to put us to sleep.

[MoonRiver]

48. Well, I'm sure if your candidate were as far ahead, you'd be doing this

[Orsino]

54. It would be fucking amazing if my fave were ahead right out of the gate.

Wouldn't mean much, even so.

[merrily]

50. Do you see a difference between a poll that is worthless and a

poll that is meaningless? (This question is sincere, not sarcastic.)

[Orsino]

56. They may be the same thing when we already know the answer in advance.

Pollsters are doubtless measuring such things all the time, and would probably snicker if we assigned any weight to this one.

[merrily]

58. Thanks.

[Gothmog]

52. Iowa requires a strong ground game

The people who ran the Obama Iowa operations are now working for HRC

[workinclasszero]

55. The MSM controlled by right wing big business

can smear and lie all they want to about Hillary. It ain't workin assholes!

They only go after her and ignore Bernie for obvious reasons.

(Bernie is a non-factor in the 2016 election)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. No other candidate could withstand this scrutiny.

Hillary has the spirit a prizefighter...

[kentuck]

62. NH is Bernie's best shot

Although I would look for a surprise somewhere down the line.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. In 1968, LBJ beat Eugene McCarthy by 49% to 42%....LBJ dropped out.

I'm hoping for a repeat.

[workinclasszero]

69. And then the criminal Nixon was elected! And you are hoping for a repeat of that?

Let me get this straight...So you are hoping Bernie damages Hillary enough that Cruz/Walker/Bush gets elected!?!?!?!?!

WTF!?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. I didn't vote for Nixon. Did you?

I'm hoping that Bernie makes a good show in New Hampshire and Hillary drops out. And, is replaced by a liberal to run against Cruz/Walker/Bush. And, get my vote.

[workinclasszero]

71. So now you are saying Hillary is not a liberal?

LOL

Hillary Clinton Was The 11th Most Liberal Senator

By Susie Madrak
4/01/15 12:00pm

Interesting piece from Daily Kos today, showing Hillary Clinton as one of the most liberal senators. I really don't know where progressives get this idea of Clinton as some raging conservative.

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/04/hillary-clinton-was-11th-most-liberal

Oh and you hope she drops out so a sure loser like Bernie gets Cruz elected president and packs the SCOTUS with wild eyed crazy teahaddists for a generation?

Oh hell no!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. Yes. And, certainly not as left as Bernie.

Nor do I think that voting to have 100s of thousands killed is very "liberal". Do you?

[riderinthestorm]

74. Very impressive! I believe Obama had the lead in IA at this point in his first candidacy

in 2007 but not with this kind of lead.

Pretty amazing!

[Doctor_J]

75. yippee. four more years of appeasement, corporatism, and turd way bullshit

Say hello to tpp, pipelines, profitized education, more drilling, h1b expansion, cuts to Medicare, and more Mic spending. But you can still get an abortion!

BTW, ARE THE HILLARIANS GOING TO TYPE IN ALL CAPS UNTIL THE CONVENTION?

[hrmjustin]

76. Good. The numbers will change but it is a good sign.

[L0oniX]

77. Alt: What trouble? Wall Street has early lock on 2016 POTUS

[AtomicKitten]

78. OMGRSVRPWTFBBQROTFLRTFM!!ELEVENS!!!!

... and Bernie jumps to second place. Not too shabby for having just declared his candidacy.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-07/poll-hillary-clinton-dominates-in-iowa-bernie-sanders-second

[DemocratSinceBirth]

88. I admire your enthusiasm

[Exilednight]

82. I heard the same thing in 2007. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. DSB is going to help you become richer than you ever imagined

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/democrat-candidate


You can keep the money or give it away to the needy.

[AgingAmerican]

84. It's almost a year away

Jumping the gun a bit

[Ken Burch]

99. Emphasis on "early".

We're nine months away from Iowa.