Is Hillary done for? ... All Polls point to Yes

[JackORoses]

http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/iowa_poll_120607.htm">She's trailing in Iowa,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071206/pl_nm/usa_politics_clinton_dc">her New Hampshire lead has been cut to single digits,
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2008_south_carolina_democratic_primary">her lead in South Carolina has disappeared

and now in the National Polling, where she has led by a wide margin for most of the season,
her lead is finally vanishing.

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Barack Obama within seven points of Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. It’s Clinton 33%, Obama 26%, Edwards 15%, and Bill Richardson at 6%."
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Look at the recent trend: (11/29/07 is the first date Clinton fell below 40% since polling started)

-----------Clinton------Obama------Edwards
11/27/07-----41%---------17%---------13%--
11/28/07-----40%---------18%---------13%--
11/29/07-----38%---------24%---------13%--
11/30/07-----37%---------27%---------13%--
12/01/07-----36%---------27%---------14%--
12/02/07-----37%---------24%---------15%--
12/03/07-----37%---------24%---------15%--
12/04/07-----35%---------23%---------17%--
12/05/07-----34%---------24%---------16%--
12/06/07-----33%---------26%---------15%--

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history

***

What does this all mean?

America is getting a good look at Hillary and deciding she is not the right choice for President.

It's about time.

[GreenArrow]

1. Return of "The Comeback Kid"

anyone?

[Colobo]

5. That's Obama. He's coming from behind to win the nomination.

[GreenArrow]

30. maybe this time

But it was hubby Bill way back when. Will the Clinton "magic" strike again?

[earthlover]

123. But hillary is not Bill! Need I point this out?

Bill's comeback was from early accusations about a sexual encounter. Wow, how prophetic! He came in 2nd in nH but that was better than getting creamed.

Seems like Hillary came into the primary battles, not as a new face from Arkansaa like her hubby, but as an old establishment politician, and the prohibitive favorite.

Come back kid? Hey...don't you Hillary supporters have anything more original than that?

In any case, NH will be Hillary's firewall that gave way. She will lose.

[ripple]

129. I hope you're right about NH

That would be a HUGE win for Obama.

[zanne]

163. We're trying. nt

[sendero]

165. I think a lot of HRC..

... supporters think of her as another Bill. She's not. Their governing styles would probably be similar, but on the campaign trail, you can't help but like Bill and you can't help but be suspicious of HRC. She just doesn't have that warmth, that charisma that carried Bill to victory.

And you cannot learn that, you cannot buy it, you either have it or you don't.

[tblue37]

192. Her name recognition skewed the polls before people

started paying closer attention. At one point, Joe Lieberman's name recognition put him ahead of his competitors in the primary race for the 2004 presidential election.

[GreenArrow]

199. hey, I'm not a Hillary supporter

I'm a Kucinich supporter! I know he isn't going to win, but I don't know what to think about Hillary. Initially, I thought she would be a stalking horse for some other candidate, then I thought she was going to run wild and leave all of them in the dust, and now I'm wondering if she isn't a stalking horse again. But if she had a big lead, squandered it, and then came back to win in the end, I think it would qualify her as a "comeback" kid. We'll be getting some answers before we know it.

[kenfrequed]

77. Uhm... no

You are both all wet.

Yes Hillary is dropping, but during her biggest drops Edwards and Obama are stagnating, if you want to see the beneficiaries check out the second tier. Both Kucinich and Biden are picking up votes.

[leftynyc]

148. Then we will lose the election

I wish this country was ready to elect a black man but it isn't

I wish this were a country that could elect a man with Huessin as a middle name but it isn't

I wish I was wrong, but I'm not. I'll happily vote for Obama as I think he's a wonderful man who would make a great president but I know this country will spit him out - there are just too many stupid, uninformed, bigoted, redneck assholes out there. I wish it weren't true, but it is.

[JeanGrey]

152. I think that is total nonsense. People will vote for a black

man. I live in a red, southern state and many of my friends will vote for Obama if he gets the nod, and they can't stand Hillary. Many of my republican friends would too - although they'd prefer she gets the nod because they view her as easy to beat.

[rodeodance]

154. a sizable chuck will not vote for a Black--about 5 % more than those who

say they will never vote for a woman.

[earthlover]

157. And all of them are Republicans anyway, so what is the big deal?

What we SHOULD be worried about is the about 50% of Americans who say they will never vote for HILLARY. It is not because she is a woman. It is because she is HILLARY. Lots of people, left and right, simply don't trust her. I think a lot of this is misguided, but it is what it is. She cannot win the general election.

[JeanGrey]

202. I just don't believe that, sorry. I think the majority of people

view this election as a first - possibly the first black, or the first woman. As I said I don't know one person who has said they would not vote for him because he is black. Some are concerned about his experience but they like him a lot more than Hillary. I'm in that group myself. Although Biden is my favorite, but it looks like that is going nowhere..............

[zanne]

212. Maybe we'l surprise ourselves.....

And realize we've come out of our caves after all!

[leftynyc]

156. I just know that many races

that show a black man/woman ahead wind up being much closer than the polls show and even have the black person losing. Many people will tell pollsters that they will vote them in but when push comes to shove, this country is still horridly racist. I wish I were wrong about that but in 47 years of living, I've seen it over and over again. I have no faith in rednecks and even people that seem progressive on all issues have a dark place in their heart.

[JeanGrey]

203. Well if we truly believe that what's the point?

We won't ever get beyond it then. And I don't believe that.

[Carrieyazel]

Both Clinton and Obama are easy prey in a general election.

This is the only thing the Repukes have left. They want us to nominate a female or a black male, and then they think they'll be home free.

[JeanGrey]

204. The republicans I know want Hillary in there, that's for sure.

They believe she is beatable. Not so much Obama - he is quite liked. I really believe the ones that are the sickest and most racist generally are the nasty ones who bitch and moan but never vote.

[Carrieyazel]

186. Both Clinton and Obama are huge risks in a general.

This is the only thing the Repukes have left. They want us to nominate a female or a black male, and then they think they'll be home free.

[Yurovsky]

200. The GOP will lose this election in any event ...

and it would be a landslide of record proportions if it weren't for the shenanigans the GOP plays with the vote tallys. Hopefully there will be sufficient poll watchers and international observers to minimize the GOPs ability to steal this election.

While I would like to see DK win the nomination & election, I think any DEM candidate would be a vast improvement over the current chimp, or any of the GOP chimps-in-waiting. Sadly, I think Hillary would be the most likely DEM to continue W's policies. She's already green-lit an attacks on Iraq & Iran (regardless of how she tries to backpedal). I can't trust someone who thought invading a sovereign nation that had not attacked us first was a good idea. I seriously question her judgement, and her trustworthiness (for her attempts to paint her past actions as something other than what they in fact were).

[JeanGrey]

205. Why do you think a dem win for us is "in the bag"? If Hillary

runs, you still believe this? Look at how Huckabee has come on. I'm afraid of him and I think he could take Hillary, and possibly Obama. Now a Hillary/Obama ticket might be amazing!! Or Hillary/Edwards.

I don't think Huckabee has a good second. But I'm not letting my guard down and saying "oh it's in the bag" for one minute. Look what happened with Bush.

[Yurovsky]

207. Well, if Hillary is the nominee...

I still think the GOP loses, but it would be close, perhaps even close enough to be stolen a la Florida 2000 or Ohio 2004. My reasoning? Simple. It's the level of devotion by the base. The true bedrock of the modern Democrat party is the progressive wing. Hillary is the least appealing to this portion of the party. Peggy Noonan, probably the best writer for the far right, termed W's voters "broken glass Republicans" in 2000, meaning they were so filled with hatred for Bill Clinton and Democrats in general (and feeling as though their pastors had sent them on a holy mission to vote GOP) that they would walk over broken glass to vote for W. Take those people out of the equation (and Diebold & the GOP SCOTUS) and you have a Gore landslide in 2000. Similarly in 2008, if a progressive is nominated (Obama, Edwards, or even my personal favorite, Dennis Kucinich) I think the "broken glass Democrats" turn out in DROVES alongside moderates and even rational conservatives (oxymoron, I know) to pull the lever for the Democrat ticket.

As far as Huckabee is concerned, I believe he is simply an example that the Moral Majority still holds significant sway in the GOP, which can't be good news for Rudy or Romney. A lapsed Catholic or a Mormon? The snake handlers aren't going to accept that. The good news is, IMO, Huckabee would be the least appealing to swing voters, and would guarantee a Dem victory (a "slam dunk" as Slick Dick Cheney would say). A lot can happen in the primaries, and due to the compressed nature of this year's schedule, it should happen very quickly.

I'm hoping for DK (a long shot, I realize) but an Obama or Edwards candidacy is something I could get behind. As for Hillary, I'd probably vote for her, especially if it looks like a close election vs. Huckabee (who still won't acknowledge EVOLUTION for crying out loud). I just think the Dems would lose a ton of swing voters and solid progressives if Hillary were the nominee, making a Dem win iffy.

[Clark2008]

190. Then you live in a blue bubble of a red state.

I'm also in a Southern red state and, short of the black community, I have not seen much support for him (or any of the Dems, to be honest).

I'm not defending HRC or panning Obama - I don't have a candidate. I'm just saying I don't see what you do.

[JeanGrey]

206. I live in the suburbs of Atlanta and this isn't blue.

I still see confederate flags on trailer's here, but those people rarely vote.

[Yurovsky]

208. Be thankful for small miracles ...

I don't think those people have identified with any candidate since George Wallace. Well, maybe David Duke, but he never got the favorable media treatment Wallace got. Hard to believe when Wallace was shot that he was actually the FRONT RUNNER for the Democrat party nomination. Scarey. Just goes to show how far the party has come in a generation.

The GOP, on the other hand, has gone the other way. Nixon was the first to aggresively court the racist vote, and the GOP has been discreetly working that angle ever since.

[Carrieyazel]

185. I'm afraid you're right on. Obama for all of his great qualities can' t win nationally in racist US

It isn't going to happen next year. Obama should bide his time, and it could possibly happen in 12-16 years.

[Renew Deal]

28. I don't think Bill was ever ahead in any early polling

IIRC

[GreenArrow]

37. no, but

If Hillary were to drop from first to say, third, in Iowa, and then come back and win NH, and eventually, the nomination, then she could qualify for the nickname too.

[earthlover]

125. It would be more like The Miracle Worker!

Bill pretty much didn't compete in iowa. He looked promising, than people started talking about a skirt he chased, and he came in 2nd in nH instead of getting creamed. So, Bill took defeat in nh...a 2nd place finish...to turn it around by caling himself the comback kid.

Let's recall that Bill was NOT the prohibitive favorite in the fashion that Hillary has been...up until now. If Hillary is deposed, it will be more like kerry winning in iowa and then on to nh/

[surfermaw]

99. Sort of like what is reported on Edwards

reporting doesn't always come true.

[Catherine Vincent]

2. Whatever, dude. nt

[Colobo]

3. Let's hope the trend continues.

[AtomicKitten]

10. vote by vote, state by state

:thumbsup:

[Kucinich4America]

4. From your keyboard to God's ears

Let us pray..... (I think I might even get an "Amen" from some atheists on this one)

[OHdem10]

6. Even if she has dropped in some polls, she is still the frontrunner

[Colobo]

7. Hopefully, that'll change after Jan. 3rd.

[Beacool]

64. Hopefully NOT!!! n/t

[emilyg]

111. Not. Nyet. Non.

[JackORoses]

9. give it a few days... It's all about the Trend, friend.

[earthlover]

169. Who is front runner is meaningless when there IS NO FRONT RUNNER!

The race is in flux. Hillary is a Used-To-Be Has-Been Front Runner.

Now she is down and Obama is up in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and in national polls.

If the trends continue, Obama could be the clear front runner within a short time and he appears poised to do just that.

Hillary is tanking, and could very well come in third in Iowa.

Nobody can say how long the current trend will continue. Maybe it will reverse itself, who knows?

But to call Hillary the front runner right now is ridiculous. Has-Been-Front-Runner is more like it. Or has-been for short.

[cali]

8. only fools see her either as inevitable or done for

guess you just wanted to join that not so august company.

[JackORoses]

15. the answer my friend, is blowing in the Trend, the answer is blowing in the Trend

unless Obama collapses or Hillary has an Immaculate Conception,
we will continue to see the same pattern emerge.

[AtomicKitten]

31. "... the answer is blowing in the Trend."

:thumbsup:

[cali]

51. trends are exploded regularly in politics. In fact, that's the norm

in presidential primaries. Howard Dean ring a bell?

[JackORoses]

66. granted, but do you accept that unless this trend blows, Hill is toast

[cali]

70. Personally, I've always doubted that she'll get the nomination

but that's my gut speaking, and maybe some wishful thinking. I've been a political observer long enough to know that you can't make predictions.

[arizonateddybear]

79. Just curious if you live in a blue state?

I live in a red one who just happens to like her a lot.

[cali]

81. I live in the bluest state

vermont. And I don't dislike Clinton at all. I'd vote for her without hesitation if she's the nominee. I do, however, have a number of reason for preferring she she not be the nominee.

[TwilightGardener]

11. Races always tighten in the end--it's happening on both sides.

Either Obama or Hillary have a good shot.

[pauldg0]

132. John's got it.

You can keep cutting each other's throats for all we care!!

John Edwards 08

[arizonateddybear]

12. Done for? She's finally caught on here in Arizona.

The other day I saw a bunch of Hillary lawn signs the other day, and in Scottsdale, AZ of all places.

Should I knock on their doors and give the bad news in person?

[boricua79]

14. nah...

let them hear it the day she loses the nomination.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boricua79]

22. don't even go there

I'm not a freeper, and I got good reason to discredit Hillary.

1) Whitewater
2) "if I knew then what i knew now" bullshit dodge about voting for the War in Iraq
3) planting aides at conferences and rallies for softball questions
4) I'm not for a DLC-elitist centrist. I believe that we need progressive candidates who will restore the Constitution and confront this President and his Republican ilk in Congress with a strong spine. I don't think Hillary has that spine. She'll do whatever is politically beneficial for her and whatever economic interests have lobbied her.

I could go on.

I'm a progressive who has good reasons for not supporting Hillary. You can take your condescending atittude and GIT!

[mitchtv]

29. but Whitewater?

sure sounds freeperish. Don't bother going on if that is your reason.FYI I do not support her candidacy.

[boricua79]

43. oh wow...

so it's impossible to bring up dirty laundry on Mrs. Clinton becuase...gulp...I could be a freeper.

Just because I'm a progressive doesn't mean I look at the dirty dealings of Democratic officials and turn my head.

You guys got to turn off the radar/filter that you have installed regarding freepers.

and i gave other reasons why I don't support her.

[rinsd]

54. Then surely you are aware that a $40M by GOP turned up diddly squat on Whitewater

"Just because I'm a progressive doesn't mean I look at the dirty dealings of Democratic officials and turn my head."

So you mention something that has been thoroughly investigated vindicating the Democratic official as doing nothing wrong?

Any thoughts on Vince Foster?

[boricua79]

58. whatever. I have my thoughts on it

and what about planting aides at rallies. Or "not knowing then what I knew now". Or how about refusing to offer a comprehensive renewal energy plan that truly weans us off Oil. Or how about a truly universal, single-payer, government run health care system.

Plenty of reasons to not support Mrs. Clinton.

your Empress has no clothes.

[rinsd]

69. Planting aides?

An aide asked some to ask her a question but she has not been questioned by her aides at rallies.

"whatever. I have my thoughts on it"

Really? So what are your thoughts? Do you disagree with the Starr Report's findings?

So who is the candidate you are feigning support for to stir up shit here?

[laugle]

128. The "Starr report," that's funny, I didn't expect you

would get an answer on that one!! I bought about 6 copies of that damn thing, I figured it would be a collector's item some day! I never did read the whole thing. Kenneth Starr is a pervert!!! LOL

[0007]

180. That's almost as funny as telling someone you're voting for Gus Hall

[boricua79]

134. my mistake

it's all good when it's just an aide ASKING another person to ask a question. That makes it all right, correct? (keep stretching there...)

Bottom line is that it displays that the Clinton campaign has no integrity when they stoop to the same tactics the Bush administration uses to propagandize to the American people. I want to vote for a candidate who shows me he won't stoop to that (Kucinich?)

If I had my way, I'd vote Kucinich, Dodd, or Richardson. Given the major three candidates that seem electable, I'd rate my vote Obama, then Edwards, and ultimately Clinton (if I had no choice left).

No feigning needed. My support for REAL progressive candidates is as genuine as it will come. No DLC-elitist centrists who are trying to continue a political dynasty for me.

[mitchtv]

124. there's no there, there

there are better criticisms
as in her recent Iran vote, But 70 million dollars of investigations and extortion by the pukes came up with nothing.And you, my dear bought a pig in a poke. Please take yesterday's lies and dump them.I hate to be in the position of defending Snator Clinton, but I am a Democrat, and I react to yesterday's tired republic lies.

[boricua79]

135. hey, get her on what you can

get her on the Iran vote
get her on her Iraq War vote
get her on not having a single-payer universal health care plan
get her on not having a comprehensive renewable energy investment plan
and frankly, her personality doesn't sit well with me. She seems opportunistic and "finger in the wind" for me. I want someone that I can feel will actually stand up for his positions. John Edwards...Dennis Kucinich...both of those give me a more stable feeling of trust and respect.

[laugle]

127. LOL....freeperish......that's hilarious.....I thought the

same thing......whitewater......wasn't that her husband....that other Clinton....LOL.......

[rinsd]

35. Whitewater? You slip is showing....

:eyes:

"I'm not a freeper"

Did someone call you one? Or was that Freudian?

[boricua79]

44. you ponder that for a while

I sure won't waste my time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. Whst Happened At Whitewater Beside The Clinton's Losing $27,000.00?

Pray Tell

[boricua79]

56. don't even have the time to go through it thoroughly

but, pray tell, what about planting aides at rallies or "not knowing then what I knew now".

That's all crap I made up? Pray tell?

[leftynyc]

149. So you know something that a multi-million

dollar investigation didn't find? Is that what you're saying. Special prosecutors and every newspaper in the country investigated and found nothing but you have the truth? Do tell us about it.

[boricua79]

161. dodged my questions, there buddy

I'm not going to waste my time explaining WhiteWater. For what...for a petty victory over you on DU? No time. I'm a full time teacher and I got a side business and hobbies. And a girlfriend. That takes time too. :)

Take care there.

[leftynyc]

162. I understand Whitewater perfectly

When you decide to back up your absurd claims, get back to us. By the way, you sound like a child who has been caught in a lie.

[boricua79]

168. if you say so, granny.

You want to spank this child too?

:spank: :rofl:

[leftynyc]

175. No thanks

and conversing with children bores me. I've had enough of you already.

[boricua79]

176. great

buzz off then.

[paulk]

73. no, you're not a freeper, you're just ignorant

whitewater?

what exactly did HRC do wrong in regards to whitewater?

c'mon, spit it out...

[boricua79]

131. whatever floats your boat, honey.

curious that nobody addresses her planting aides at rallies or her "if I knew then what I know now" statements. Does do not exist in her past, right?

[paulk]

136. you can do better than that, sweetheart

you made the accusation - back it up.

[boricua79]

139. like I have the time to spend

my Thursday night arguing this point with you. :eyes:

My female's calling, and she's a lot more fun than discussing Mrs. Clinton's real estate deals on DU.

I bring it up, AND I decide when to argue it as well. Enjoy your evening!

[paulk]

140. you've made a fool of yourself

with your Whitwater accusations -

own up.

[boricua79]

158. keep baiting

it won't get you anywhere.

:rofl:

[paulk]

172. baiting? You made accusations - right wing ones at that,

and now you want to hide behind a smilie?

Laugh all you want - you've been exposed. Your credibility is shit.

[boricua79]

209. yawn...

[earthlover]

171. all the Reps have to do is one thing....among many....to derail Hillary

They have to get someone to accuse Bill of sexual harrassment. It doesn't have to be true. It could be 100% made up.

Fact is, as much as the Clintons would deny it, it would be believable.

This would shave a few points off the Dem column in the general election guaranteed.

Then, of course, there is a mile-long list of other "issues" that could be raised by the Rep dirt machine.

And again they will be believable because of all the previous mud that has been thrown at the Clintons.

Heck, maybe they won't even bother throwing mud at the Clintons. 50% of the voters would not consider voting for Hillary anyway. Maybe they could save their energy and coast to victory anyway.

But, if they need to, they have smorgasboard of things they could bring up with the Clintons.

We would of course scream like bloody murder that they are untrue, and that is terrible to do this stuff. Well, that's about all we could do.

The difference between Hillary and the rest of the Dems is that people already have suspicions about her already, and new scandals would just confirm existing doubts. With the others, they would of course try to swift boat, but they would have to start from scratch, and they could be more easily fought against.

[JackORoses]

23. do you really think post count has anything to do with the quality of your posts?

I would rather read 1 post by someone who makes valid points than a thousand made by an idiot.

Don't you know that most of the people on DU actually do not prefer Hillary?

[boricua79]

26. thanks for the support jack

but some people are still under the Clinton spell.

[mitchtv]

126. and some are under Newt's spell

hell, Whitewater id his era, and the idiots that fell for it hook line and sinker are apparently still around.

[laugle]

130. You know better than to make such a broad

generalization, you cannot back up! There are many supporters of HC here at DU, they just don't care to get involved in some of the heated debates.

Sometimes, life gets in the way......

[arizonateddybear]

20. Sorry, but it's an amazing feat to have any Democratic nominee with lawn signs in Arizona.

Bush was the heavy sign carrier in 2000 and 2004. I have yet to see another Democratic nominee with lawn signs in this area.

In case you forgot, Arizona is a red state. Seeing any pro Democratic nominee lawn sign warms my heart.

[boricua79]

25. conversely,

you can read it as meaning that Hillary is the only Democrat that appeals to Republicans.

I don't want a candidate that appeals to Republicans. And I could care less what the desert red-staters of Arizona think. Their thoughts are about as important to me as the thoughts of Siberians are to Moscovites. Every country has its rural folks, who are susceptible to religious appeals and easy propagandizing.

[arizonateddybear]

27. It's a huge deal to have any Democratic support here in Arizona!

We're pretty Conservative here in Arizona, but many of us have taken a fancy to Senator Clinton.

When was the last time a Democrat carried this state?

[boricua79]

39. i'm sorry..

i don't hate all you guys. :hug:

But, in all honesty...being that I've lived in the more industrialized parts of this country, it's just a fact that a lot that seems incredibly DUMB to me, passes as true knowledge in a lot of backwards areas of this country, and time and time again, it's some Mormon moron in Utah, or some hick in Kansas, or some desert dweller in Arizona. East Coasters and West Coastes have reached their patience with having to co-exist with absolute morons (you are not included) who keep wanting to force the rest of us to have to adopt their MORON ways as law.

Because of that, I have a sore spot for being patient with "backlanders". And if they like Clinton, more reason (on top of a whole laundry list) to not support her.

But you're cool, man...you're cool.:hug:

[maddiejoan]

141. Many of us New Yorkers

also like Hillary.

But we're also a dumb backwater lot.

We'd also like a candidate that can actually win this election and continue with her 35 years of devotion to Progressive causes.

[boricua79]

160. no, you're a different kind

My take on the backlanders is that they easily swayed by propagandistic appeals. marx used to say that you can't escape your society, or your socialization in your society. If you're socialization is church on sundays and the rest of your life revolves around Wheat fields or a desert, well...chances are your intellectual ability won't be up to par with someone who has traveled the world, or lived in a cosmopolitan city where they've been exposed to a lot more than some Smallville type. That's how you get people like the Phelps, or Robertson, or anyone else whose voted for them or for President Bush. It boggles the mind of people who've had elementary education on things how some people can actually think cavemen rode on dinosaurs. It boggles the mind how 33% of the nation STILL will support this president (it may be lower now). But then again, where do you think those 33% are? Mostly concentrated in the backlands. That's why the blue states revolve around areas of higher industrial development and the cities.

As for New Yorkers who like Clinton, they may have their opinions formed by what she did as a Senator in the state. By all accounts, she seemed to do a pretty good job being a SENATOR. But that does mean I'd like her for PRESIDENT. And I have serious doubts about her spinal cord, rectitude, and principles when it comes to some major issues in this country. I also believe that, if there was a Democratic candidate beholden to moneyed interests, it's her. One only needs to see how she's caved on healthcare after her experience fighting the health care companies, and after she's accepted donations from them for her campaign. She's used goods and she's bought and paid for. Add to that the fact that her aides prodded people to ask dummy questions at rallies, or her no infamous "if I knew then what I know now" cowardly dodge, and it paints a picture of a person whose soul is up for sale. Maybe she was once a child of the idealistic 60s...she's now a child of whomever gives her campaign contributions.

So, I've got my reasons to discredit backlanders supporting Clinton. I also have my reasons to debate her candidacy with metropolitans as well.

[Beacool]

179. You're not alone

Many of us in NJ also like Hillary. She's quite popular in this part of the country, but what's more important, these states have plenty of electorate votes.

[boricua79]

210. progressive causes like

"if I knew what I know now, I wouldn't have voted the War In Iraq".

Or how about progressive causes like having her aides plant questins at conferences and rallies.

Not very progressive to me...and her policies pale in comparison to the policies of other candidates in the field. Therefore, I'm not supporting Clinton.

[maddiejoan]

214. Sorry

I don't waste my time on ignorance.

I have a Madame President to help campaign for.

[boricua79]

215. haha...DODGE!

Say hello to Madame President when you see her. And please do tell her that we still don't buy her cowardly "if I knew then what I know now" excuse.

Bye bye.

[maddiejoan]

216. Okay.

Have fun with that.

[NoPasaran]

82. Clinton, in 1996

Before that, Harry Truman in 1948

[juajen]

146. Hey Pal,

Bullshit is usually found in The Lounge.

[boricua79]

211. so what are you doing posting in GD: Politics? :)

[progressivebydesign]

17. LOL, great post! I've been seeing Hillary stickers all over Seattle...

More than any others of either party. Maybe we should rent a skywriter to get the message across to everyone here, too?

[Truth2Tell]

55. I've seen more Obama stickers in Seattle. n/t

[arizonateddybear]

59. Forgive me, but isn't Washington mostly a blue state?

I only brought up Arizona because it's normally a Red state.

[boricua79]

13. Thank the Gods/Goddess

I'm so happy to see that the DLC-elitist establishment Democrat candidate is losing ground. The country needs a change. we don't need someone who is prone to make these statements.

"if they knew then what they knew now".

Whatever, liar. She went with the political winds at the time and had no courage when it mattered.

[progressivebydesign]

16. I'm voting for Hillary, and don't know ONE person that's changed their mind.

What is it on DU that people spend all their time attacking Senator Clinton? Oh how I'd love to have the dirt on the new posters on DU that seem so hellbent on destroying her. Perhaps many of them are sitting in the offices, paid by the Republicans or maybe even other Democratic Candidates, paid to join sites like DU to discredit her?

If y'all think she's not liberal enough for you, or are claiming she's losing democratic support because she's too conservatative, then guess what? SHe'll win just the way Bill did -- by appealing to the moderates (those are the ones without grow lights in their basements).

[JackORoses]

19. yeah, we're all paid by Repukes, that's the ticket

We are not just 'claiming' she is losing ground.
She actually is.

See for yourself, buddy.

by the way, I'm not voting for Hillary and don't know anyone who is. ;)

[Yurovsky]

201. Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy ...

or is it the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy???

Or is it just the messboys eating the strawberries again? Sorry, I just can't take the whole tenor/demeanor of the Hillary campaign. They are petty and vindictive, and believe that whatever rules are in place apply to everyone but Saint Hillary. The degree of spite and contempt directed at FELLOW DEMOCRATS who don't fall in line reminds me of the worst elements of LBJ & Tricky Dick. I think I'll pass.

I've been a supporter of DK since he announced, but the more I see of Obama, the more I like what I hear and feel as though I could support him if DK leaves the race (and it seems as though he can't get break into double digits to save his life). I hate having to look for my second choice before ANYONE has even cast a vote, but I may not even get to cast a meaningful vote in the primary anyway regardless.

[Imagevision]

24. Quite obviously many voters have changed their mind on Hillary or is it

merely that Obama's numbers are growing?!?...

[boricua79]

34. i'm sure she may

and then we'll be treated to more planted aides at rallies and more "oh geez golly...if I knew then what I knew now...I would have voted for universal, single payer health care"...or "oh geez, i'm so clumsy...if I knew then what I knew now, I would have voted for renewal energy, instead of supporting established companies who paid my campaign coffers some hefty funds".

But of course, I'm making ALL of this up.

Repeat after me, drones! - "Hillary Clinton is the most liberal candidate ever. nobody can protect the Constitution better than she can. She can do no wrong. :sarcasm:

[Catherine Vincent]

36. They not only want her to fall but fall hard.

How progressive.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. Don't Let Them Intimidate You

Hillary is not going to lose...

[ronnykmarshall]

40. self delete

[sniffa]

60. you shouldn't be proud of that

[rinsd]

21. You say "All the polls" and then you cherry pick polls to support your argument.

I guess honesty is not you forte.

Here's a actual look at ALL the recent polls

National

Poll	                  Date	  Sample	Clinton	Obama	Edwards	Richardson Biden Spread
RCP Average	        11/13 - 12/03	-	41.2	23.8	12.8	4.0	2.7	Clinton +17.4
LA Times/Bloomberg	11/30 - 12/03	529 LV	45	21	11	3	3	Clinton +24.0
USA Today/Gallup	11/30 - 12/02	494 A	39	24	15	4	4	Clinton +15.0
AP-Pew	                11/20 - 11/26	467 LV	48	22	11	3	3	Clinton +26.0
Reuters/Zogby	        11/14 - 11/17	545 LV	38	27	13	3	2	Clinton +11.0
FOX News	        11/13 - 11/14	397 RV	44	23	12	5	1	Clinton +21.0
Rasmussen (Daily)	/ - /	750 LV	33	26	15	6	3	Clinton +7.0

Iowa

Poll	                  Date	  Sample	Obama	Clinton	Edwards	Richardson Biden Spread
RCP Average	        11/25 - 12/02	-	27.2	25.8	23.2	6.8	5.6	Obama +1.4
Strategic Vision (R)	11/30 - 12/02	600 LV	32	25	25	3	5	Obama +7.0
Zogby	                11/29 - 12/01	514 LV	24	27	21	8	5	Clinton +3.0
American Res. Group	11/26 - 11/29	600 LV	27	25	23	4	8	Obama +2.0
Des Moines Register	11/25 - 11/28	500 LV	28	25	23	9	6	Obama +3.0
Rasmussen	        11/26 - 11/27	1156 LV	25	27	24	10	4	Clinton +2.0 

New Hampshire

Poll	          Date	  Sample	Clinton	Obama	Edwards	Richardson  Spread
RCP Average	11/25 - 12/03	-	33.6	24.0	16.4	9.1	Clinton +9.6
Zogby	        12/01 - 12/03	502 LV	32	21	16	6	Clinton +11.0
ABC/Wash Post	11/29 - 12/03	592 LV	35	29	17	10	Clinton +6.0
Marist	        11/28 - 12/02	604 LV	37	24	18	8	Clinton +13.0
Rasmussen	11/29 - 11/29	959 LV	33	26	15	9	Clinton +7.0
FOX News	11/27 - 11/29	LV	30	23	17	12	Clinton +7.0
ARG             11/26 - 11/29	600 LV	34	23	17	10	Clinton +11.0
Suffolk/WHDH	11/25 - 11/27	300 LV	34	22	15	9	Clinton +12.0 

South Carolina

Poll	          Date	   Sample	Clinton	Obama	Edwards	Spread
RCP Average	11/07 - 12/04	-	36.3	25.8	11.8	Clinton +10.5
Rasmussen	12/03 - 12/04	407 LV	36	34	13	Clinton +2.0
ARG             11/26 - 11/29	600 LV	45	21	12	Clinton +24.0
Clemson	        11/14 - 11/27	450 LV	19	17	12	Clinton +2.0
AP-Pew	        11/07 - 11/25	373 LV	45	31	10	Clinton +14.0

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Cherry Picking Polls Is Always The Weakest Of Sauces

And Obama is not within twenty points or twenty five points of Hillary Clinton in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania... There are more people south of Stuart, Florida than there are in all of Iowa and New Hampshire...

[JackORoses]

41. you know those leads will vanish as soon as Obama wins Iowa,

but at least it gives you some little hope to cling to.

It's is not cherry picking when all the stats quoted above display the same Trend that I am describing in the OP.

Good Luck with all that, Hillarites!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. And Then You Woke Up

Do you know the last time the winner of the Iowa Democratic primary won the presidency?

I'll give you a hint... Muhammad Ali was the heavyweight champion, John Travalota was Vinnie Barbarino, and Bob Seger was singing "Night Moves"...

Sounds like you're suffering from premature celebration... Don't worry... With experience it gets better; for some folks at least...

[Nedsdag]

61. Ah, yes!

The Hillary talking points.

No surprise.

[JackORoses]

62. so the Iowa Primary has no effect on how people vote in the later primaries?

I think you are blowing smoke there. People want to vote for a winner. They aren't going to stick with Hilly as she flounders.

If your choice of candidate is evidence of your 'experience', I think I'll pass.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. Winning The IA Primary

Winning the IA primary (sure) propelled Carter (80), Mondale (84) Dick Gephardt (88), Tom Harkin (92) , Al Gore (00), John Kerry (04) to the presidency

One can make the case that they have succeeded in sabotaging the party...

[Kucinich4America]

121. Look at your list again.

Harkin is FROM Iowa. Gephardt was from a neighboring state. It's not that unusual that they would win Iowa, yet lose elsewhere. Carter, Mondale, Gore, and Kerry all became the nominee. Gore (and arguably Kerry) won the general election.

Based on that sampling, I'd say the winner of Iowa is a reasonably accurate indicator of the party nominee. All the more reason why one state should not have that honor in every election.

[tkmorris]

117. Didn't Clinton win there in 1996?

The Dem nominee has gone on to win the (first term) presidency only twice since 1964 so your data set is a wee bit small.

[earthlover]

173. in 1996 Clinton was running for re-election

[rinsd]

49. Title of your op is "Is Hillary done for....All polls say yes."

"It's is not cherry picking when all the stats quoted above display the same Trend that I am describing in the OP"

It is when you do not include all the polls.

The trend is that she has lost ground.

To claim she is done for is just as stupid as declaring the race over a month ago.

Basically in your zeal for hyperbole you undermined your argument.

[JackORoses]

65. if those polls prove the trend as well as the latest, then why post all of them

They all demonstrate the same thing.

If I really included all the polls taken in the past year, you would see the trend even more clearly.

Hillary's graph going down, Obama's going up.

She is done for because unless something outrageous happens,
she does not have enough time to reverse this Trend before the Primaries begin.

I stand by my OP.

[rinsd]

67. But they don't all demostrate the same thing

SV and Zogby put out poll with similar time frames for their sample.

Hillary leads in one, Obama in the other.

"If I really included all the polls taken in the past year, you would see the trend even more clearly."

What you would see is a tightening race.

Obama has some momentum now. Whether he can carry it for the whole month remains to be seen.

"She is done for because unless something outrageous happens, she does not have enough time to reverse this Trend before the Primaries begin."

If anything the polls are going to be more volatile in this last month leading up to IA. As it has been said many many times here, caucus polling is difficult at best.

"I stand by my OP."

Really? Because you seemed to have backtracked quite a bit.

[JackORoses]

83. I haven't backtracked one bit. Hillary is still done for based on a Major trend present in All Polls

"SV and Zogby put out poll with similar time frames for their sample.
Hillary leads in one, Obama in the other. "

Why are you still talking about individual polls. I am talking about a poll-wide trend.

"What you would see is a tightening race."

That's what you see. I see Hillary bleeding support and no sign of it stopping.

"If anything the polls are going to be more volatile in this last month leading up to IA."

You're right, she'll probably lose more ground.
I am willing to bet this trend will continue. Any takers?

I wholeheartedly stand by my OP.

[rinsd]

85. Sure you did. You went from all the polls to the very latest.

"Why are you still talking about individual polls. I am talking about a poll-wide trend."

Poll wide trend says Iowa is a 3 way statistical tie. Poll wide trend has said that since Sept.

"That's what you see. I see Hillary bleeding support and no sign of it stopping."

You obviously see what you want to see, actual evidence matters little.

"I wholeheartedly stand by my OP."

Keep saying that to yourself. Everyone can see what happened in the thread.

[JackORoses]

87. wrong again, friend

I said all polls demonstrate the Trend.
You said, "But you haven't included all the polls there are" and posted additional polls.
I said all of those polls still demonstrate the very same trend.
So in the end I'm sticking with "All polls point to yes".
You just think I needed to post more data, but if I really wanted to do that i would have to post every poll from the last year which isn't feasible.
Admit it, you didn't even post all the polls, did you?
You can't see the Forest for the Trees.

"Poll wide trend says Iowa is a 3 way statistical tie."

Absolutely incorrect. That is what current polls show.
The poll-wide trend is Hillary's numbers are decreasing while Obama and Edwards' numbers increase.
Look at Iowa polls from 6 months ago up until now and you will witness this fact.

[rinsd]

92. Response

"I said all polls demonstrate the Trend.
You said, "But you haven't posted all the polls there are" and posted additional polls."

Yes what a scoundrel I am providing all relevant data vs just the data I wanted to show. :eyes:

"I said all of those polls still demonstrate the very same trend.
So in the end I'm sticking with "All polls point to yes"."

Except they don't.

"You just think I needed to post more data, but if I really wanted to do that i would have to post every poll from the last year which isn't feasible.
Admit it, you didn't even post all the polls, did you?
You can't see the Forest for the Trees."

No, I posted the polls from the last month. Most of which were taken during similar time frames as the polls you posted. Its called giving all information available. You did not want to do that because it conflicted with the black and white thinking of your OP.

"Absolutely incorrect. That is what current polls show."
The poll-wide trend is Hillary's numbers are decreasing while Obama and Edwards' numbers increase.
Look at Iowa polls from 6 months ago up until now and you will witness this fact. "

6 months ago, Edwards was winning IA with Hillary 3rd in some polls. See it helps to actually check things out before making declarations.

Since Sept, in poll wide trends, the diff between 1st and 3rd has hardly been outside the MOE with the various candidates changing positions. Even when Clinton had a small "lead" during Sept & Oct, Hillary was still statistically tied with Obama & Edwards.

[JackORoses]

102. you Hillarites don't give up easily, I give you that

"Yes what a scoundrel I am providing all relevant data vs just the data I wanted to show."

But you didn't post ALL relevant data. You only posted what you wanted in an effort to disprove me.

"No, I posted the polls from the last month."

But thats not really All Polls is it?
See how stupid nitpicking is?

"Most of which were taken during similar time frames as the polls you posted."

Except for those taken a month before...

"6 months ago, Edwards was winning IA with Hillary 3rd in some polls. See it helps to actually check things out before making declarations."

Edwards was winning some polls then. But in the overwhelming majority of polls conducted in the last 6 months, Hillary has been shown as the leader, though gradually losing her margin.
These polls also show Obama gradually gaining ground until in the past 2 weeks he has emerged as the new leader in Iowa. The very latest poll shows him continuing to rise (32%) and her continuing to sink (25%)

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

What, pray tell, will change this Trend?

[rinsd]

109. Some polls? Edwards was the leader for half the polls between May and Aug.

"But in the overwhelming majority of polls conducted in the last 6 months, Hillary has been shown as the leader, though gradually losing her margin."

In the last 3 months Hillary has led in most polls though her lead rarely exceeded the MOE.

"No, I posted the polls from the last month."

But thats not really All Polls is it?
See how stupid nitpicking is?

"Most of which were taken during similar time frames as the polls you posted."

Except for those taken a month before...

Yes. And people can use that data to come to their own conclusions about trends.

"These polls also show Obama gradually gaining ground until in the past 2 weeks he has emerged as the new leader in Iowa."

Obama has been making steady gains since early Nov. His lead in IA now is statistically insignificant. Much like Hillary's has been for some months now.

"The very latest poll shows him continuing to rise (32%) and her continuing to sink (25%)"

Again the curious designation of "very latest poll" when a poll taken in nearly the same time frame shows a different result. So if the very latest poll (which will liekly come out in a few days) shows Obama no longer leading does that mean his campaign is imploding? Ya know according the JackORoses school of poll trend predictions?

"But you didn't post ALL relevant data. You only posted what you wanted in an effort to disprove me."

No, I included what you had posted.

"What, pray tell, will change this Trend?"

Lots of things. People are still undecided.

[JackORoses]

144. you still haven't disproved the trend or given any evidence it is going to end

"Obama has been making steady gains since early Nov. His lead in IA now is statistically insignificant."

The significant thing is that he is now in the lead and Hillary has lost support. That is obvious.

"Again the curious designation of "very latest poll" when a poll taken in nearly the same time frame shows a different result."

By very latest poll, I mean the new one that came out today as opposed to the one you mention which was taken days ago. Days ago is not the very latest. Someone as careful about wording as you should know this.

"So if the very latest poll (which will liekly come out in a few days) shows Obama no longer leading does that mean his campaign is imploding?"

Or what if the Trend that I have demonstrated continues and your candidate loses more ground. What will she do then?

"People are still undecided."

This is not in Hillary's favor. She has been losing people who thought they were going to vote for her before. She is definitely not making any inroads with Independents.

[rinsd]

191. But I have disproved that the trend is as dire as you portrayed it.

"By very latest poll, I mean the new one that came out today as opposed to the one you mention which was taken days ago. Days ago is not the very latest. Someone as careful about wording as you should know this."

They were released on the same day with the Zogby 3 day sample time line a single day ahead of SV's.

"This is not in Hillary's favor. She has been losing people who thought they were going to vote for her before. She is definitely not making any inroads with Independents."

The polls continue to show her with more core supporters than any other Democrat.

[laugle]

133. Excellent and fair analysis....losing ground, but far from out!! nt

[calteacherguy]

98. My understanding is the Florida delegates will not count...is this true?

It's all name recognition there. There has been no campaigning.

[rinsd]

112. It does not matter.

The delegates may not get seated and none of the candidates are campaigning there but the press will still cover the election.

[tkmorris]

116. Won't help her get the nomination

Our delegates will not be counted. And by the way, I support the DNC for doing that and am furious with my state "Dems".

[JackORoses]

33. so you deny the Trend that she is losing ground?

Your stats actually support this thesis.

Her National poll lead is dropping.
She is losing Iowa.
Her lead in NH is cut to single digits.

And as for your South Carolina polls, the average is skewed mightily by the older polls you quote.
Wait for a few new polls there and get back to me on that.

*

Face it your candidate is in a Downward Spiral.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. She's Leading By 17.2% In The Poll Of Polls

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primaries.html

She has leads of twenty five points or more in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida:

These Democratic primary numbers are a good indication that despite the tight three-way race in Iowa, the fight for the nomination is not very close and that Sen. Clinton's lead remains very large and deep," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.


http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1125

[JackORoses]

47. you are still not addressing the trend

so the poll of polls says she leads by 17% right now

but a week before it said she led by more, and the week before that more still

What do you want to bet that by next week that 17% will be a distant memory?

You can parse the numbers all you like, but it does not change the fact that her overall numbers are consistently falling.

[earthlover]

174. Rasmussen has her only 7 points ahead nationally as of 12/6

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history

She was ahead by 24 points on 11/27 which is a very short time period that a 17 point shift in the polls nationally has occurred. Phenomenol, actually.


I wonder if she will slip even more today?

If Rasmussen is accurate, I think if Obama wins Iowa he will be poised to run away with this race. Lots of people are apparently shifting their allegiance away from Hillary. An Obama win would accelerate this shift. Just a while ago, people were passing off Obama as someone who did not have much of a chance since Hillary was so far out front. A win in Iowa will give Obama a TON of new attention. At this point, he would be the candidate to beat.
Iowa would easily make a 7-10 point shift in the winner's favor. Which would bring NH into range. Then another victory in NH would add even more to the momentum. Obama already is almost tied in SC.

[rinsd]

46. Losing ground vs. done for.

She's had a rough couple of weeks but she is still in very good position to take the nomination.

In IA, Hillary is in a good position, Edwards and Obama will cancel each other out and Hillary does extremely well amongst Biden and Richardson voters.

NH was bound to tighten up as the undecideds there have been quite high leading up to the last month. SC is tough because polls have been kind of all over the place.

"And as for your South Carolina polls, the average is skewed mightily by the older polls you quote."

LOL. You're complaining about me including all the SC polls in the last month vs doing your cherry pick act?

I did so because you can see how erratic the SC polls have been.

[JackORoses]

53. Please tell me how stating the very latest polls is cherry picking.

All the statement I made above were corroborated by your poll averages except in South Carolina and this is likely due to the older polls. Do you deny this?

Keep telling yourself how good her position is as her descent continues. May it bring you comfort in the dark hours ahead.

[rinsd]

63. You stated all the polls. Now you claim the very latest.

Which isn't accurate since there's Zogby & Marist NH polls and a Zogby IA poll taken at nearly the same time.

"All the statement I made above were corroborated by your poll averages except in South Carolina and this is likely due to the older polls. Do you deny this?"

You claimed she is done for based on all the polls. I demonstrated that is not true.

One of the SC polls is all of 3 days older than the Rasmussen.

"Keep telling yourself how good her position is as her descent continues."

You're denying that she is still in good position to win the nomination? Still leading in most early states? Still leading in most Sooper-Dooper Tuesday states? Having access to a huge warchest?

Is this your first election? :shrug:

[JackORoses]

71. I claimed she is done based on the Trend in the polls, i know you understand this

"Still leading in most early states? Still leading in most Sooper-Dooper Tuesday states?"

You know this is drastically affected by the outcome of Iowa and NH. Don't kid yourself.

"Having access to a huge warchest?"

This means nothing at this point. You can't change peoples' opinions with cash alone.

*

You accept the Major Trend and then ignore it to nitpick my wording.
Look again, it's all there in the tea leaves.

[rinsd]

74. I understand it. What I am saying it is ridiculous to claim she is done for based on a 2 week trend

"You know this is drastically affected by the outcome of Iowa and NH. Don't kid yourself."

Yes and if Clinton can finish in the top 3 in IA, win NV and come in 2nd or better in NH & SC she will be in great position for Sooper Dooper Tuesday. If she wins Iowa, NV then NH the race could be over.

"Having access to a huge warchest?"

"This means nothing at this point. You can't change peoples' opinions with cash alone."

Money in a campaign means nothing? Really, is this your first campaign?

Having the cash to get your message out in ways from phone banks, to fliers to tv/radio commercials to say nothing of retail politicing across the nation is a very important part of any campaign.

"You accept the Major Trend and then ignore it to nitpick my wording."

Umm your wording was the key component of your post that needed cherry picked polls to "prove" it.

[JackORoses]

90. it's much more than a 2 week trend

if she loses in IA and NH she's done and you know it.

Obama and Clinton both have millions to throw around. She is not going to win by outspending anyone.

You still deny that all those polls you posted still demonstrate the Trend?

You still call quoting the 3 most recent polls cherry picking? I would think quoting month old polls would be more akin to that. But who would do that? oh right... Hillarites

Just because the polls happen to support my claim doesn't mean they are cherry picked.

[rinsd]

95. "You still call quoting the 3 most recent polls cherry picking"

When there are polls with similar time frames with different results. Yes that is cherry picking.

"I would think quoting month old polls would be more akin to that. But who would do that?"

Except I didn't quote just old polls. I provided all polling from the last month.

"Just because the polls happen to support my claim doesn't mean they are cherry picked."

When you omit similar time frame polls that show different results, they are.

"if she loses in IA and NH she's done and you know it."

That would depend on the margin of loss and her final position. But that is true of Obama as well. Edwards would have a tougher time without a single victory.

Perhaps you can name me another candidate that could lose both IA and NH and be in a good position to win the nomination.

[JackORoses]

107. show me any poll that doesn't demonstrate Hillary's lead going down recently

"When there are polls with similar time frames with different results. Yes that is cherry picking. "

Even the polls with different results show her lead decreasing. Admit this and you make your first step on the road to recovery.

[rinsd]

110. See this is where the cherry pikcking comes in.

You posted a poll showing Hillary losing quite a bit from her last poll. Which would seem disastrous except she has not has as dramatic a loss in other polling. For example in IA, her Rasmussen number dropped 2 and her Zogby number dropped 1 since their previous IA polls. Her polling from Marist in NH dropped 1 pt since their last poll (Obama has dropped 2). Her NH rasmussen number dropped a single pt. since their last poll.

"Even the polls with different results show her lead decreasing"

Have I claimed that Hillary's numbers are rising? I am arguing that your assertion that she is done for is not supported by the data.

[Dancing_Dave]

45. Hillary isn't done for yet.

And to paraphrase Churchill, this isn't the beginning of the end, but it may be the end of the beginning.

I also wouldn't bet on Obama being the nominee yet.

I hope we're headed for one of those lively old Democratic conventions where you went in not knowing who the ticket would be, and there was plenty of coalition building for the final result.

Hillary is going to lose some major primaries, particularly in red and swing states, where her weakness as a national candidate will be better understood.

But she might still walk into the convention with a plurality, which would make it pretty sure she's gonna make it on to the ticket somehow.

Also, Obama's political team are more likely to deal with Hillary than with Edwards or Kucinich.

[jgraz]

50. The poll that matters is Jan 3rd

I'll breath a lot easier once she loses Iowa.

[sniffa]

57. if Xenu is a decent and loving alien master

then yes, she's done for. :bounce:

[zulchzulu]

72. Sorry, but I'm acting like Obama is 20 points behind

Keep the train rolling down the tracks...

:thumbsup:

[kenfrequed]

75. The devil is in the details

Tracking form the 1st of December to the present we see Hillary losing and Edwards and Obama stagnating. I imagine that some of those numbers must be flowing to the "2nd tier candidates" that are curiously omitted.

[Capn Sunshine]

76. Interesting spin

By all accounts, Hillary's lead is declining everywhere, but it's still a LEAD. Thos of you who work for other campaigns, such as Obama supporters, do not for a second think your job is done. My experience with members of her campaign is this is when they become the most dangerous. Some actually believe that if their candidate won't win, then they should ALL be destroyed.

[JackORoses]

84. That her lead is declining everywhere is the whole point!

Some people can look at trends in numbers and make accurate predictions of the future,
others can only see what's right in front of them,
still others can only see what Hillary told them is there.

[rinsd]

96. "Some people can look at trends in numbers and make accurate predictions of the future"

:rofl:

this gets funnier and funnier.

[JackORoses]

104. laughter is good for you, especially in traumatic situations such as the loss of a Queen

[rinsd]

115. There are perhaps a dozen poll junkies that hang in GDP

Some are Obama supporters, some edwards, some biden, some unaffiliated.

Not a single one would pretend to make concrete predictions based upon polls or trends.

And even then its with huge caveats.

Capt Sunshine who would rather crawl thru broken glass than defend Hillary even felt the need to say something.

[FrenchieCat]

78. The race is tightening........which is what the media wants....which is why the media

has been slamming Clinton as hard as possible; to get her back in line with what they hope; a two person race, at the least.

I pray Obama can win.....but I'm not holding my breath.

The polling is rarely correct till the last few days....when the media decides who will win based on the spin they chose the week before.

Iowa is nearly here....and so, we will soon know.....and all of these discussions and predictions here on DU will not have meant a damn doggone thing. :shrug:

[paulk]

138. bingo!

The msm doesn't want hillary running away with this thing - and they are going to get their wish, one way or another...

[IA_Seth]

80. What kills me is...

The way the haters discounted the polling when it showed Hillary up. It was the damn right wing polling, the tricky corporate lackeys, whatever the excuse du jour was..

Now the polls show a tightening of the race (duh, it's that time of year) and the polls are gospel, alluding to the demise of the she-devil herself.

Which is it exactly?

[JackORoses]

86. anything to add regarding the actual poll numbers?

didn't think so.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. I Guess He Didn't Wait Around Thirty Seven Minutes To See If You Would Respond

The "didn't think so." has a nice Clint Eastwood or Chuck Norris ring to it though...

HeeHawHee

[JackORoses]

103. anything to add regarding the actual poll numbers? didn't think so.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

105. We Already Discussed Them, Clint

Are you going to tell me to "Make my (your) day."


HeeHawHee

[JackORoses]

113. all you had to say was, "but, but she'll win all the big states, Iowa doesn't matter"

Are you gonna pull those pistols or whistle Dixie? ;)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

114. I'm Just Not Willing To Call It A Race For Anybody (Yet)

I saw Ronald Reagan come back from the political dead in 76 to make a race of it... I saw Ted Kennedy come back from the political dead in 80 to make a race of it ... I saw Mondale come back from the political dead in 84 to win his party's nomination... I saw Bill Clinton come back from the political dead in 92 to win the presidency... I saw Bush* come back from the political dead in 00 to win the presidency... HRC is in nowhere near as bad as shape now as any of those "gentlemen"...

[laugle]

137. Well....please don't let it kill you....LOL, it's business as

usual around here................"the more things change--the more they stay the same"......................

[loveangelc]

88. how did this happen..?

I dont understand, I thought Hillary did excellent on her last debate. Why is her lead slipping? Not that I have a problem with it but I wnoder what happened.

[suston96]

91. All polls point to what?

http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php


<img src="" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

[DemocratSinceBirth]

94. Please Fix Your Link...I'd Like To See It

DSB

[asdjrocky]

93. I don't think so at all-

Those numbers aren't great, but I think her national numbers are still strong.

I'm just hoping for the first time, Super Tuesday means something.

Boy, that would be exciting.

[JackORoses]

108. the numbers I posted are her National numbers

[calteacherguy]

97. What happened between 11/27 and 11/30....

trying to recall what was in the news cycle then. Obama needs another boost like that. The floor is falling out from Hillary.

[surfermaw]

100. No she isn't done for, she will come in second to Edwards in Iowa

And first in NH , with Edwards second. You know republicans can put money in our race, but they can't vote.

[ClarkUSA]

101. Thanks for the refreshingly informative fact-based OP. The trends speaks for itself.

I agree 100%. What other deduction can one make?

[Sancho]

106. Are these the polls you refer to?

Election 2008 Latest Polls
Email this page to a Friend

- 12/03 529 LV 45 21 11 3 3 Clinton +24.0
USA Today/Gallup 11/30 - 12/02 494 A 39 24 15 4 4 Clinton +15.0
AP-Pew 11/20 - 11/26 467 LV 48 22 11 3 3 Clinton +26.0
Reuters/Zogby 11/14 - 11/17 545 LV 38 27 13 3 2 Clinton +11.0
FOX News 11/13 - 11/14 397 RV 44 23 12 5 1 Clinton +21.0
Rasmussen (Daily) / - / 750 LV 33 26 15 6 3 Clinton +7.0

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

[suston96]

118. Here is another one that shows that Hillary "is done"

http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/NH/NHPZ071205.htm

This Marist College Institute for Public Opinion poll reports:
Democratic Presidential Primary 2008

· Hillary Clinton holds her own in New Hampshire among likely Democratic primary voters: After a considerable drop in support in last month’s poll, Hillary Clinton’s lead over her Democratic rivals for the 2008 New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary has steadied. Last month, Clinton saw her lead cut in half against her nearest competitor, Barack Obama. But, in this current poll, there is little difference between her support now and a month ago. In fact, the gap between the two top contenders is statistically unchanged. 37% of likely Democratic presidential primary voters currently support Senator Clinton followed by 23% for Senator Obama. Former Senator John Edwards receives 18%. The remaining candidates, Governor Bill Richardson, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Senator Joe Biden, Senator Chris Dodd, and former Senator Mike Gravel trail with single digit support.

[bonito]

119. She's out and she knows it n/t

[suston96]

120. Then there is this little gem........

http://www.star-telegram.com/464/v-print/story/345607.html

Among Hispanics who are registered Democrats, 59 percent said they want Hillary Rodham Clinton to be their party's presidential candidate, followed by 15 percent who prefer Barack Obama. Among Hispanic Republicans, Rudy Giuliani leads Fred Thompson, 35 percent to 13 percent.

[Disturbed]

122. If the Dems were half way wise they would nominate Edwards.

Why? He can win in the General & he is Progressive.

[BenDavid]

142. Excuse me but lets agree HRC leads in all those polling dates.

[calteacherguy]

143. No we cannot agree on that she is not leading in Iowa.

And significantly, there is no National Primary.

[JackORoses]

145. can you not see her lead dwindling by the day as Obama's numbers grow

let's agree on that.

[goodgd_yall]

147. In your dreams

People are looking more at the other candidates and considering someone now other than the familiar name. Hillary's points by which she leads will lessen, but she will remain a strong contender and our nominee, most likely.

[rodeodance]

155. I think I agree with you.

[JackORoses]

189. "and considering someone now other than the familiar name" that's really bad for Hill

Hillary Rodham won't be nominated.

[goodgd_yall]

197. We'll see n/t

[Radical Activist]

150. The only question is if she'll scream after finishing third in Iowa.

Yeeeeaaaahhhh!!!!

[karynnj]

159. No - her scream will be NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

not Yeeeeeeeaaaaaahhhhhh!

[JackORoses]

177. hers could be 'Obaaaaaama!!' reminiscent of Kirk's 'Khaaaaan!!!!'

[Carrieyazel]

187. She could finish as low as fourth.

If Richardson does well.

[Nimrod2005]

151. Almost always, the front runners early on DO NOT WIN!

[Perry Logan]

153. You can count on Edwards and Obama to screw things up before long.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

164. She's Sinking Like A Stone -Please Click

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3803993

[sundancekid]

166. trend lines are what matter most in polling - the answer is clearly YES - she's on downslide

[Progress And Change]

167. Done? She is leading in most polls

[Tarc]

170. Wait. You're saying that leads get NARROWER...

...the closer we get to the primaries? Please keep an eye on your mailbox, there is surely a Nobel prize en route for such a stunning and never-before-seen discovery.

[JackORoses]

178. No, I'm saying she's done. I'm saying the lead is not only going, in places it's gone already.

Look at Iowa and South Carolina.

[Tarc]

181. You are getting this all wrong. Completely.

In every election cycle, the lead of the frontrunner(s) narrows as the vote draws near. You are trying to paint this otherwise common occurrence as proof of people are "waking up" and deciding that they dislike Clinton. That is just simply a wrong assessment of the situation.

[JackORoses]

188. No, I've got it right

If the change in numbers had been a result of undecided Independents going to Obama, that would be one thing.

But the change in these numbers is a result of Hillary losing voters.
People who once chose her have changed their minds.

That is an honest assessment.

[suston96]

182. The leader in a poll(s) going into an election - or caucus - doesn't always win.

What's that they say: peaking too early?

[Carrieyazel]

183. Hillary is in free fall, I agree. But if you're ahead in Iowa in any poll, that's a bad omen too.

Obama has pulled ahead in a couple of polls. But the "front-running curse" could become reality. Iowans love to surprise. And Edwards and Richardson could pull off an upset.

[formernaderite]

184. American democrats are getting a good look

at her...and that should be quite upsetting to her camp. I never understood from the get go how someone with stratospheric negatives was the presumptive nominee.

[suston96]

193. Better take a closer look.......

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primaries.html

Rasmussen is way out there. Wonder why?

Like in South Carolina:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primaries.html

[suston96]

194. Try this......

If we compare the average support for each candidate on the average of the ten other NH polls released this month (including Marist, which was released after the ABC/Post poll), we get see the following:



Clinton's support on the ABC/Post poll (35%) is exactly the same as her average on the other surveys, but support for Obama is seven points higher on ABC/Post (29%) than the others (22%). This difference may be another indirect indicator of an upward Obama trend. More voters appear to be in what Riehle would call a "way station"* between undecided and support for Obama than for other candidates.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/a_rising_tide_means_more_soft.php

[BigDDem]

195. Are you out of your mind?

.....All posts point to Yes

[drexel dave]

196. thank goodness

it's time for the corporatists to move to another country and plunder there.

[Bumblebee]

198. Yes. And Kucinich will win! And I just saw a UFO!

:sarcasm:

[Onlooker]

213. Is Obama done for? Hillary's lead is back up!

From the same source, her lead went from 33% on the 6th to 36% today, and Obama's fell 1%.