Clinton now leads in Iowa, New Hamphire, Ohio...

[wyldwolf]

New Iowa numbers: http://americanresearchgroup.com/

[bullimiami]

1. what many dont like hearing. she is a political superstar.

i would like to see her take a populist for vp though. obama would be best.

hillary/obama would guarantee a democratic wh for at least 16 years. time enough to fix what asshole destroyed.

[Meshuga]

4. ...

[jobycom]

11. I'm curious about Obama and that "populist" label he's getting

I like him, don't get me wrong. But his voting record is about the same as Hillary's (he wasn't there for the IWR vote, of course), and he's made a lot of goofy compromise statements, like when he claimed the party should embrace its Evangelical Christian side, and went on to sound Evangelical himself.

Why is his reputation so populist, while Hillary is so (wrongly) demonized?

I like both candidates, and even if I didn't, I try not to attack Democrats, so I wouldn't say it. :) (Doesn't mean I won't argue one's strengths and weaknesses over another, just that I won't help the Repubs by calling our party candidates bad names).

[adigal]

81. We don't need a superstar

We need a leader, and Hillary is NO leader.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

92. She's not even a patriot.

She and Bill should sing like canaries...admit to all of America that Cheney planned to go into Iraq, Iran and then some, even before they stepped foot into the White House.

Hillary promises to end the war if she gets elected...What the hell is that? ...She should be stopping the war now!

[mzmolly]

2. In all honesty, her name makes that possible.

I would expect her to lead at first.

[wyldwolf]

6. actually, I subscribe to Chris Bowers' theory at Mydd that it isn't name recognition

[mzmolly]

14. I disagree. The MSM has promoted Hillary for years as a possible candidate.

Hillary and McCain, Hillary and McCain, Hill... you get the picture. ;) Though McCain hasn't been promoted as long as Hillary has. I have mixed feelings about her running, personally.

[wyldwolf]

17. that is selling short the voters in Ohio who are notoriously knowledgeable and fickle...

...when it comes to their candidates.

[mzmolly]

18. Ok, let it be said that I sold short the voters of Ohio.

:hi:

[wyldwolf]

19. Duly noted.

[mzmolly]

20. Thank you.

:)

[HughBeaumont]

28. More like notoriously moronic.

No faith in people who elect The Simian (or at least made it close enough to steal) TWICE and Repuke rubberstamp lemmings like Voinovich and DeWine for a decade.

On that same note, I'm surprised as shit that a progressive like Sherrod Brown is my senator now. I can see them voting Ted Strickland as my governor, because he's a genuine good guy that appeals to both parties competing against a giant, too-far-right-even-for-Republicans, pistachio bag like Ken Blackwell. But Sherrod Brown? Author of Myths of Free Trade and husband of way-Dem columnist Connie Schultz? I'm still blinking on that one.

I think it's all about the workers and Mike DeWine simply didn't care as much about their needs as he did the needs of his rich handlers and BFEE buddies.

[wyldwolf]

30. We are discussing the Iowa Dem caucus.

[HughBeaumont]

32. "Selling Ohio's voters short" is "discussing the Iowa Dem Caucus"?

You know, because scolding builds bridges.

[wyldwolf]

34. yeah, because in the context of this thread, the "voters" refers to the Iowa caucus

[mzmolly]

O c'mon. You mentioned Ohio specifically. However Iowa helped elect

Bush.

[wyldwolf]

94. oh, see, that's because in post 17 I typed "Ohio" but should have typed "Iowa."

[mzmolly]

96. Well, then let it be said that I sold the voters of "IOWA" short.

;)

[MGD]

77. All of my Buckeye buddies were absolutely fed up with Taft and Noe and Blackwell

and coingate, and worker's comp scandals, record foreclosures, outsourcings, factory closings, and all things Republican. On top of that, a large part of the Ohio Republican base couldn't bring themselves to vote for Dewine because of his anti-second amendment record which doesn't sit well with a state that is clearly hell bent on strengthening its concealed carry law to the maximum possible extent. This is why Sherrod Brown is your new senator. Most Ohioans didn't need to see anything more than the "D" beside his name.

[bullimiami]

63. but rightly so with hillary. she has a long history back to the nixon

impeachment and not just as the wife of a president.
and now with years in the senate.

[mzmolly]

84. We have other senators running along with Governor -Tom Vilsack.

However, I don't have a problem with her "promotion" I simply recognize that will give her an edge in the polls early on.

Here are our probable list of candidates:

http://www.politics1.com/p2008-dems.htm

[bullimiami]

101. i read the list. its hillary and obama unless gore jumps in.

the rest dont have a chance.

[Clark2008]

107. And HRC and Obama don't have a chance in the general election.

Sexism and racism are very alive in this country.

[Hippo_Tron]

103. I agree, although I think that name recognition certainly helps

But I honestly can't imagine Laura or Babs having a successful political career like Hillary has.

[Radical Activist]

3. Where is the sample size, margin of error

or any other details about how the poll was done? I keep clicking links but they don't appear to provide anything.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. It's there

For details, click on the R or D for each state in the column on the left under 2008 Presidential Polls.





for Iowa:

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/iadem8-702.shtml


for New Hampshire:

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/nhdem8-702.shtml




I don't see a specific Ohio poll.

[Meshuga]

5. Polls in February 2007 don't mean crap

The polls in December of 2003 didn't mean much with Kerry being in single digits.

[wyldwolf]

7. unless they say what you want them to say. : O

:)

[Meshuga]

9. True

:-)

[lojasmo]

108. No...they actually don't mean shit. EOM

[MonkeyFunk]

10. they mean only what

any poll means - that's how people feel today.

Nobody has ever claimed that these polls will predict what will happen next year.

[jobycom]

13. I don't know

I think they mean crap. :)

[MonkeyFunk]

12. wyldwolf..

where do you get the Ohio numbers? ARG doesn't seem to have a poll for Ohio.

[wyldwolf]

15. The Ohio numbers came at the end of last week

here is one article among several on it:

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070203/EDIT/702030305/1003

[MonkeyFunk]

16. ah thanks

[skipos]

21. Ugh to Hillary. And Vilsack needs to get out now

if that's the best he can do in his own state.

[KingofNewOrleans]

22. Don't know how Vilsack will do

until the actual caucus. I grant him permission to stay in.

[skipos]

26. And I grant him permission to save his time and money

If he can only get 13% of the people who know him best to support him for President. It is early, but I have never seen him do better than 4th place.

[wisteria]

23. LOL. What a joke! She is being forced on us by the media and some in our party.

She still will never get my vote.

[SaveElmer]

27. "Some in our Party"

Wouldn't that be called "expressing a preference"

What a ridiculous contention...you are criticizing fellow Democrats for supporting a Democrat.

[wisteria]

102. No, I am criticizing party leaders who are trying to make sure she remains the

front runner and the power brokers who are out to ensure her primary competition is weak. I have no problem with grassroots Dem's supporting her. I have a problem with the media hype the money backing and all the old Clinton cronies out in force. That is what I refer to as her being shove on us. And, I am shoving back. Go vote for her. I personally don't think she is worth, or up for the job. I will hold out for a truly deserving woman to be president on day.

[Ninja Jordan]

24. Hillary BARF

Go Edwards or Obama

[Tellurian]

41. Edwards is going to fade.. and fast!

His transformation is not altogether likable except to the M$M..as a darling!

[venable]

112. his transformation is likable to very many

especially progressives.

where are you getting this impression? From the slams on DU? Those are not at all representative of how the rest of the progressive community is receiving him.

His support is wide and deep. As is Obama's. As is Hillary's (though it is very small amongst progressives).

You may not like Edwards, but you can't stop others from doing so.

[JNelson6563]

25. Reminds me of Lieberman in 03

:toast:

And then it was Dean after that.

:toast:

[wyldwolf]

31. as Bowers explained at MyDD, a very different situation

[PresidentObama]

29. One poll a year out, sheesh who cares? n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

33. I guarantee

the people running care.

These numbers mean a lot when recruiting staff and fundraising.

I don't know why people dismiss polls. They are almost always accurate, and their purpose is NOT to predict what will happen in the future, but to gauge public opinion TODAY.

[PresidentObama]

44. They matter right now, yes.

But they change so much, that the general public shouldn't focus too much on them. And the media coverage they get certainly is laughable. Polls are great tools for candidates and campaigns to get a feel of the general direction of people, but do you know how much these numbers will change by 2008?

I'm not buying into polls, because it's too early.

[MonkeyFunk]

49. again

nobody has ever claimed that these polls reflect what will happen next year.

It would be an absurd claim, and that's why nobody has ever made such a claim.

I disagree that these polls get a lot of media coverage. They're mentioned - not emphasized. And that seems about right to me. They ARE important to those of us who follow such things.

[PresidentObama]

52. Depends on the media source. Cable news channels....

absolutely obsess about them. Which makes it hard for me to watch MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News (well, they were hard to watch before) because they are treating this like an three ring circus of Presidential politics. Polls are both important and unimportant to campaigns and candidates. They are relatively accurate measurements of the national appeal of each candidate. But I think every candidate knows and understands these numbers will not necessarily hold up, and just because you are last doesn't mean you won't be first and vice versa.

I'm sure Edwards campaign was happy with the poll showing him doing well in Iowa, and Clintons people love the stroking of the national polls. But it'll be interesting to see how these numbers change and flip around when the debate among the candidates begins.

[MonkeyFunk]

56. I disagree

The cable nets aren't "obsessed" with them. They do political analysis segments where they're discussed.

Bill Schneider on CNN discusses polls all the time - of all sorts. He's a regular - people know when he'll be on. There are some programs dedicated to discussing politics, and it seems to me perfectly reasonable to discuss polls during those programs.

If you count the actual number of minutes dedicated to stuff like this, it's probably a lot smaller percentage of time than you think it is.

[PresidentObama]

62. It seems the cable news media is all but obsessed about picking....

our candidates. Hillary and Obama. McCain and Rudy. They cover Hillary's every move and Obama's every move, while good candidates like Chris Dodd and others are barely mentioned. It was amazing, I was watching Chris Matthews a few weeks ago. It wasn't Hardball, he was just giving some analysis. He basically said something along the lines of it'll be amazing in a year to be there when Hillary wins the nomination, he basically called it for her on air. Joking or not, I don't like the news media creating their own story of who they want to lead the ticket of both parties.

This may be driven by polls, but the news media's job is to give the American people the full story. And when they are leaving other candidates in the single digits out in the cold, I find it really disrespectful and shows the lengths of the media to pick our candidates for us.

Hillary and Obama better not make any Dean screams, or else CNN will replay it 9989834 times :crazy:

News, HA!

[MonkeyFunk]

64. again

I disagree.

Some candidates really ARE more newsworthy than others. Clinton gets more coverage than Kucinich, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

There are heavy-hitters and there are wannabes. If a wannabe starts making progress (like Jimmy Carter did, or Bill Clinton did, or Howard Dean did) they start getting coverage. But they're not OWED coverage simply by virtue of filing papers.

[PresidentObama]

65. I have no problem with people getting more air time.

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are the lead candidates. Of course they are going to get air time, they are the lead stories in the 2008 horserace. But news is to give the full story, is it not? We don't get the full story. We eat what they feed us, and thats these three candidates. Only time you hear about certain candidates is when they fumble, or announce.

If you are a Presidential candidate thats on the radar, like Dodd and Richardson and others are, you deserve to be included in the news media coverage of the 2008 horserace. I will not eat what the media feeds me because they give us three candidates, and attempt to pick our candidate.

[MonkeyFunk]

66. Nope

nobody deserves to be included in the news media until they make news.

How do you make news? Start racking up numbers - start winning. The coverage will be there in spades, I assure you.

This isn't the Special Olympics - not every candidate deserves a ribbon.

[Larry in KC]

67. Wow, that reminds me of "Broadcast News"!

AARON: This story they won't cover. And if the network doesn't cover it -- it must not be important so why worry?


Are they really supposed to be in the business of self-fulfilling prophecies?

[MonkeyFunk]

98. If your candidate has no clue as to how to handle

the mnedia, he doesn't deserve to hold office.

[Larry in KC]

105. Do you think it's the most important qualification for the office?

[MonkeyFunk]

113. Nope

but it's quite important in GETTING the office.

[MGD]

79. That's what everyone losing in the polls says.

:P

[snowbear]

35. Wouldn't it be nice if we had ONE "poll thread" a month on here?

And I agree --- who gives a &^$# on this latest poll?

[MonkeyFunk]

58. no thanks

I understand what polls mean, and what they are good for and what they are not good for.

Just because others don't understand doesn't mean I should be limited in discussing them.

[DaveinMD]

36. ARG

has been a major outlier in Iowa.

[rinsd]

37. They do seem to be the outlier.

They have Clinton at 30%+ in nearly every state they have done polling in since Dec 2006.

While certainly a believer in Clinton draw power that strikes me as a bit much for this early in the game.

[zulchzulu]

38. Gephardt was kicking some ass in Feb. 2003 in Iowa

Polls are like crack at this point....

[rinsd]

54. Do you happen to have a link to that poll?

The only Iowa state polls I have seen have a 3 headed monster of Kerry, Dean and Gephardt at various points with various leads.

http://desmoinesregister.com/extras/politics/caucus2004/index.html

[zulchzulu]

78. Here's an interesting analysis regarding name recognition...

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/1/30/181044/219

I don't have time to find a poll of Gephardt in Feb.2003 (a few Googled links were dead), but here's an interesting analysis on name recognition way early in the race and how the race doesn't really begin until after the World Series (November) or even in early January of that election year.

Essentially, polls at this point are mostly for political junkies and don't really have any relevance until much later. While I don't particularly support Mrs. Clinton in the primary season so far, I would still have this opinion...if people in her camp want to get over-confident, I say go for it!

[rinsd]

82. We've actually been discussing Bower's analysis down thread.

Here's food for thought from Joe Trippi commenting on that Bowers article (1st comment)

"Chris -- Her numbers are more like Vice President Mondale's in 1984 or even Vice President Al Gore's before the 2000 primaries. It will be very difficult to stop Hillary Clinton from gaining the nomination -- it can be done -- but not by any candidate who wages a "paint by the numbers" campaign. Gary Hart challenged Mondale and almost defeated him -- but he did it with a bold -- "New ideas" unorthodox campaign. In the end the machinery of the Mondale candidacy (full disclosure - I worked for Mondale that cycle) was too much for the Hart insurgency. If Hillary Clinton is defeated it will be by a bold, new, insurgent campaign."

[snowbear]

39. Well.. I know Hillary isn't Wyldwolf's 1st choice, so I'll let this poll slide..

No more polls this week wolfster!!

[wyldwolf]

40. you're right but polls are newsworthy. I promise to post them even it your fav is leading

[snowbear]

45. 'Cept I don't really have a fav yet...

I mean.. I do... but I don't....

I'd have a favorite if he'd announce.. But he hasn't... so I don't...

...yet.

[wyldwolf]

46. mine is in single digits in the polls...

[PresidentObama]

47. Who is your favorite, wyldwolf?

If you don't mind me asking.

Mine is Clark and/or Gore. Honorable mentions to Obama and Edwards.

:hi:

[wyldwolf]

48. Richardson

[PresidentObama]

51. Hmmmm.....

I think he'll do alright. If anything, he'll be considered for VP positions. Keep your fingers crossed, I have a feeling he's going to be one of the surprise contenders.

[madfloridian]

42. That MyDD article you love...says Clinton does not have highest name recognition.

It then goes on to show Gore with 1 point higher, and Edwards 15 points behind. It is pure BS to say she does not have the highest name recognition...hubby was in the WH for 8 years.

http://dbnkr.mydd.com/story/2007/1/30/181044/219

National Name Recognition, November 2006--January 2007
Gore: 97% across two polls
Clinton: 96% across nine polls (1 behind)
Edwards: 80% across four polls (17 behind)
Obama: 63% across nine polls (34 behind)
Biden: 49% across three polls (48 behind)
Richardson: 35% across two polls (62 behind)
Kucinich: 27% across one poll (70 behind)
Dodd: 25% across two polls (72 behind)
Vilsack: 19% across one poll (78 behind)

There are currently no polls for either Wesley Clark or Mike Gravel. Even without their numbers, you can see that while well known, Clinton is not even the best known candidate in the field. Gore actually has slightly higher name recognition than Clinton, and Edwards is not far behind. Apart from the second tier, only Obama arguably faces a truly large name recognition gap on Clinton."

And I agree more with this comment from that thread, Hillary is playing the "inevitability factor" up big right now. I'm in to win and all that...but this post said it well.

"Also, I'd like to point out that Edwards and Obama have their own bases, not really predicated on people "leaning" that way, based upon my experiences with people so far. I don't think they'll lose much when a 2nd tier candidate makes a jump. What you will see is a loss from Hillary, as her narrative so far has been "The Inevitability Candidate." When that gets shaken a little and this campaign carries on, the diehards will stay with Edwards and Obama (although my gut says more of the former as I've found the Obama support to be more predicated on the "excitement" factor which will subside as he becomes more known and his candidacy more fleshed out), but Hillary will indeed go down."

Of course it is name recognition...she is by far the highest except for one who has not announced and may not. She was wife of the president for 8 years....and he wants to be the First Gent, as one website put it.

[wyldwolf]

43. yeah, so? I would say the way you're spinning it is, in your words, "pure BS"

Repeat after me: Hillary is #1 Hillary is #1 Hillary is #1!

[madfloridian]

55. Hillary is ...."inevitable". Repeat after me, ww. "Inevitable."

Give me an I for inevitable.

[wyldwolf]

57. I would agree at this point.

[MonkeyFunk]

60. The only place

I've ever seen the "Hillary is inevitable" point being tossed around is here on DU, by people who dislike her and disparage the idea.

If you have evidence that Clinton is NOT the front-runner, present it. Otherwise, it's just sour grapes when people bitch about the polls.

[ShortnFiery]

69. No, nothing is inevitable. Once she scores the nomination

those long knives will come out and politically rip her to shreds. Wake up and see the handwriting on the wall and push for someone else while there's still time? She can NOT win a general election. That's precisely why she's getting monies from the far right, i.e., they want her nominated because she can NOT win. No way, No how, not in this polarized nation. :(

Well, at least we will keep the Democratic Majority in The House and Senate. :shrug:

[madfloridian]

72. You think I am pushing for Hillary? No, I am not.

Definitely not. I am interested in Edwards and very much in Vilsack. I am beginning to be very impressed by Vilsack's call to defund the war and get them home. I really believe he left the DLC in a split over this, not just because he was running.

Hillary is running, and she is still one of the leaders.

[rinsd]

74. Yeah go Kucinich the 900lb gorrilla no one wants to take on

:eyes:

"Wake up and see the handwriting on the wall and push for someone else while there's still time? She can NOT win a general election. That's precisely why she's getting monies from the far right, i.e., they want her nominated because she can NOT win. No way, No how, not in this polarized nation."

This is true of every Democratic candidate. Do you think the others will somehow get a pass?

[rinsd]

50. The argument is over the impact of name recognition not whose highest

"It is pure BS to say she does not have the highest name recognition...hubby was in the WH for 8 years."

And Gore was VP for 8 years, a Presidential candidate and now a movie star.

The name recognition and Lieberman memes are exactly that, talking points that use evidence out of context.

[AtomicKitten]

53. A vote is a vote.

One can attack and try to marginalize, and they do it here frequently, the underlying cause for a candidate being ahead in the polls, be it name recognition, financial backing and the like, but when rubber meets the road, a vote cast has no such qualifiers. Support translates into votes and all the sniveling about why is moot.

[madfloridian]

59. Gore's not running yet or maybe never.

And he is only 1% above Hillary. Why did Chris consider that important?

And Chris says Edwards is only slightly behind....jeez...he is 15 points behind her and he was the VP nominee.

I often agree with Chris, but right now Hillary is name recognition and inevitability. She has a machine.

[Labors of Hercules]

61. don't you mean she IS a machine?

:)

[rinsd]

68. Read the article as to why he mentions Gore

http://dbnkr.mydd.com/story/2007/1/30/181044/219

"Considering that Gore is just as well known as Clinton, but is a whopping 23% behind in national trial heats, his deficit clearly has nothing to do with name recognition. Edwards also trails Clinton by more points in national trial heats (19%) than he trails by in terms of name recognition (16%). At this point in the campaign, he is further behind Clinton (19%) than Dean was behind Lieberman (18%), even though the name ID gap between Edwards and Clinton (16%) is just one-third of the name ID gap that separated Lieberman and Dean (48%). Of the "top tier," only Obama, who trials Clinton by an average of 13% in trial heats, and 33% in national name recognition, is much further behind in name ID than he is in national trial heats. Thus, right now it appears that only he is a position to catch Clinton in terms of name recognition alone.

By contrast to the current campaign, Kerry, Edwards and Dean all had Obama's opportunity to pass Lieberman in 2003 purely through higher name ID. Importantly, all eventually succeeded. Four years ago, among the candidates who at one time or another occupied the "top tier," only Gephardt trailed Lieberman by more in national trial heats than he trailed by in terms of name recognition. Instructively, unlike Kerry, Edwards and Dean, he never succeeded in clearly passing Lieberman in national trial heats. It is not a stretch to argue that candidates like Gore and Edwards face similar problems to Gephardt--actually worse--since their relative name ID / trial heat deficit is worse than Gephardt's (especially Gore's). And we all know how Gephardt's campaign turned out.

The lessons here should be clear. First, simple comparisons of Clinton's poll lead in early 2007 to Lieberman's lead in early 2003 do not hold up under scrutiny. Her lead in national trial heats in much larger than Lieberman's, despite a smaller advantage in name recognition (at least when compared to the so called "top-tier"). This means her lead is far more difficult to dismiss. Second, as I have indicated in the past, Obama is clearly in the best position to move up nationally, as he is in second place in national trial heats, despite being in last place among the "top tier" when it comes to name recognition. It also helps that he has a substantial netroots following, which will be a significant driving force behind any further upward movement on his part. Third, Clinton's recent rise corresponds not only with her announcement, but also with the continued downward trend for both Kerry and Gore. Her lead could thus grow even larger as she continues to draw soft supporters from other extremely high name recognition candidates"

MF - "I often agree with Chris, but right now Hillary is name recognition and inevitability"

Yes, damn all the evidence, I'm going with my gut.

C'mon now MF there's a huge dif between thinking Clinton should not be the nominee and denying the reality that she is the favorite at this point and its not all name recognition.

[madfloridian]

70. Gore has not announced. Period. Can't put him in polls.

Where did you get I was denying the reality of Hillary? I guess I stayed on board in 02 (we have to win..if we don't we're doomed..you know that stuff).

I stayed on board in 04 because I knew we had to win...if we didn't we were doomed. Remember that?

And now the frontrunner can not even take a clear stand on Iraq, refuses like all the others to stop sounding hawkish on Iraq....and I am supposed to stay on board again?????

Hillary is the reality. Bill is the reality. It is their party. Bill was just as much for our taking Saddam out as Georgy Peorgy was. He may not have actually invaded but he did not step up to stop it.

Neither is Hillary stepping in. None of our Democrats are.

Hillary is inevitable. Her machine has been building for years. Look up an article called Still Clinton's Party?...not gonna post it..got attacked too much when I did.

We have a chance to build our party again from the ground up....and we have a chance to fund our Democracy. Instead of tens of thousands of monthly donors to the party there should be hundreds of thousands. Instead we have been too busy donating thousands to candidates who are not even running, to candidates we know probably won't run.

We could fund it all if we would. But we won't. So Hillary's machine is large and in charge.

Big money still talks. Big time.

[wyldwolf]

71. he is in every poll.

[rinsd]

73. Gore is still polled about..

The polls are asking who one would prefer and/or vote for President. Clinton's name has been appearing in such polls since late 2002.

You may not wish to see him included but he is included. Would his numbers rise were he to formally campaign? I would certainly think so but as a possible candidate he should be included in polls until he formally annouces he will not run alah Kerry.

[madfloridian]

75. I love Gore. You totally missed my point. Thanks for that.

.

[rinsd]

80. You had a point?

You keep jumping off into tangents or changing the subject.

What is your point? That money talks?

But getting back to MY point, I think the "Clinton's lead is only name recognition" and "she's the same as Lieberman in 03" memes can be put to bed based on the work of Bowers and our discusssions here.

[madfloridian]

93. No, I am too ignorant to have a point.

Again, no, I could not have a point....I don't have the intelligence to have a point. I don't know to write and read well enough to even have a conversation.

See, that is how it has been done for years in our party. Put down anyone who tries to point things out.

Hey, it works.

[Placebo]

76. w00t!

She just has to keep getting out there and talking to people and her numbers will stay strong.

[NMDemDist2]

83. wow! an honest to goodness Hillary supporter

:yourock:

I'm not on the bandwagon, but you get kudos for standing up with a fairly unpopular opinion around here

[Placebo]

88. Tell me about it.

Ha!

[PresidentObama]

85. Placebo, I'd agree.

As long as you add the point, show herself as the lead candidate in the Democratic debates. If she does that, you're right!

[Placebo]

87. Yup, debates too.

I'm confident she can hold her own against some of the aggressive males. :)

[Czolgosz]

86. For fun, you should check out the polls from February 2003. It looked like

a close fight between Lieberman and Gephardt with Kerry far back in the pack followed by Edwards (Dean and Clark weren't even on the polling radar at that point).

Polls this early are strictly to sell newspapers, TV spots, and frontrunners who have an early lead based almost 100% on preexisting name ID.

[rinsd]

89. The name recognition, Lieberman memes are dead

http://dbnkr.mydd.com/story/2007/1/30/181044/219

[Czolgosz]

90. I think otherwise. You may want to read some 2003 archives. Here's one of many:

http://www.rogersimon.com/archive/2003_02.html

[rinsd]

91. Roger Simon? C'mon now.

[Czolgosz]

95. Read any February 2003 poll you want. Here's a Quinnipiac poll:

Lieberman 27%
Kerry 18
Gephardt 16
Edwards 14
Dean 3
Sharpton 6
DK/NA 16

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=382

Polls this early are like shiny objects to magpies.

[rinsd]

106. So basically you ignored the post about Chris Bowers' analysis

To continue the meme that Clinton = Lieberman.

[Czolgosz]

110. I didn't ignore it, I was unpersuaded by it. Also, I never said Hillary = Lieberman. I'm denigrating

the predictive value of polls at this stage; I'm not denigrating Hillary.

I think those who look at polls at this stage and conclude that Hillary will win are fooling themselves. Hillary will definitely be a top contender and this fact is established not by polls but by her fund-raising. None of Chris Bowers' analysis persuades me that those people who predict success for Hillary based on current polls are any less deluded than those who predicted success for Lieberman in February 2003 based on his polling at that stage. As far as I'm concerned, that's as far as you can take any comparison between Hillary and Lieberman.

In all fairness, I don't think the Hillary = Lieberman meme does either pol justice. Lieberman has always shown an honest and consistent bent toward moderation whereas Hillary's moderation seems to be a disingenuous and transparent effort at triangulation so the comparison is unfair to Lieberman. Hillary is much smarter and more exciting as a candidate than Lieberman so the comparison is unfair to Hillary.

[Clarkie1]

97. Wow, Edwards and Obama aren't even close to her today. nt

[TankLV]

99. The only problem I see with all these Clinton threads, is I immediately think of BILL

and my heart jumps a bit - then I realize it's about his wife and I don't care so much...

How I wish Bill were still President instead of the WAR CRMINALS we have now...

[oasis]

100. Hill power is gonna roll that Iowa snowball into the White House.

:bounce:

[robcon]

104. I've written it a dozen times on DU: Clinton will be our next president

She's got the votes.

[lojasmo]

109. We're talking about BILL Clinton, right?

It's all about name recognition at this point.

[wyldwolf]

111. as has been posted repeatedly in this thread and others, the name recognition meme...

... is BS.

[lojasmo]

115. According to YOU it is.

According to people who have proven their merits outside of a message board, name recogntion is EXACTLY what these early polls are.

[wyldwolf]

119. (snicker) Right...

According to people who have proven their merits outside of a message board, name recogntion is EXACTLY what these early polls are.

Like... who?

[Capn Sunshine]

114. ..but not California

and come next Feb 5, THAT is going to be where it's at. Also, remember a year out where John Kerry ranked : 1-4%.

although I don't know who leads here at the moment.

[wyldwolf]

118. If you don't know who leads in CA at the moment, how can you say with certainty it isn't Hillary?

[Zhade]

116. It's early. Remember, your boy lieberman once led 2004.

:rofl:

[wyldwolf]

117. three points for you, and you know what they are! LOL!

1. Lieberman wasn't my boy. Got a link showing that?
2. Bowers at myDD has debunked the comparisons between Clinton and Lieberman at this stage, as mentioned multiple times in this thread.
3. When are you going to prove you (ahem) factual inaccuracies regarding Clinton claiming to be a Republican and the DLC/PNAC sharing an office and phone number?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[mnhtnbb]

120. I gotta hope people come to their senses before the primaries