• on a comment on WI Thread over 6 years ago

    sure.  Probably when it is fully resolved makes the most sense, as it should be.  

  • comment on a post WI Thread over 6 years ago

    If Clinton can keep it reasonably close in WI things might get a lot better from here on out, with giants OH and TX right around the corner.  

  • on a comment on That Invisible Asterisk over 6 years ago

    The DNC decided to remove ALL delegates, so that is the current status quo, which the op-ed you mention discusses.  That does not change the fact that until the DNC changed its tune the states were looking at HALF of all delegates lost.  

  • on a comment on That Invisible Asterisk over 6 years ago

    That is not true.  The rules WERE that rogue states stood to lose HALF the delegates.  Just because the DNC decided to go nuclear after the fact (and change the rules) does not mean that you are correctly making your case here.  The rules WERE different, after all.  

  • on a comment on Why is HRC ahead only at MyDD? over 6 years ago

    Well, it looks like Obama may be losing the biggies Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, which, if it stays that way, will turn this thing around in a hurry.  

  • on a comment on That Invisible Asterisk over 6 years ago

    You are wrong.  The RULE CHANGE was conducted by the DNC.  The rules all states were asked to abide by stated that any state disregarding the date rules would be faced with a loss of HALF their delegates.  HALF.   So, FL and MI were faced with losing HALF their delegates.   The DNC suddenly decided to cut ALL delegates out, breaking their own rules.  Guess who had their fingers and entire paws in this one?   The strong recommendation to break their OWN RULES midstream came from Donna Brazille, an Obama surrogate.   We are in this ridiculous situation because of the prodding undertaken by Obama's camp, not whatever you are fantasizing about.  

  • comment on a post BREAKING POLL--Hillary over Obama in TX 54-38 over 6 years ago

    Should Hillary win TX, OH and PA, she will probably be the popular vote winner, overall (unless the result comes out as a razorsharp win, within a couple of points.)   That should make the biggest difference of all in negotiations, since she would have won the popular vote count, almost ALL big states, FL and MI are still out there to be dealt with, etc.  

    If she loses Ohio or Texas, then it is over.  I think she can win all 3, and with that the nomination.

  • Even more amazing is that Clinton still holds national leads everywhere - Gallup Tracking, Rasmussen, AP-Ipsos, Time.   It may change more towards Obama after VA, but if Clinton can put away the monsters OH and TX, she will probably be back on top in a hurry.  

  • She leads in RI as of today:


    I would not give RI to Obama just yet.

  • comment on a post Breaking: Clinton Firewall rock solid in Ohio over 6 years ago

    Clinton has always been strong in Ohio.  It will be very hard for Obama to overcome.  Same is true with TX.  If Clinton wins both of these, the advantage goes back over to her, and it will all depend on which way the Super Delegates go.  

  • We'll see.  Seems to me that with polls tied last week and Obama with that major momentum of his, it would be impossible for Hillary to suddenly jump to 6% leads again.  That would logically mean that that momentum did not elevate Obama from a tied position into a lead, quite obviously.  

  • on a comment on MyDD on the Rise over 6 years ago

    Complete baloney.  There are plenty of Hillary bash diaries on this page, why don't you do me a favor and show where someone uses the term "mysogonist" in ANY of them?  Or go back a week, if you wish.  

    This is the site where any questioning of her purported '35 years experience' automatically gets a troll rating.

    More baloney.  Those issues are discussed (and questioned) all the time, without as much as a peep, let alone a troll rating.  You could not be more wrong.

    BTW, John wrote that the Obama critics are XENOPHOBES.  He is right on?  Really?  If that is the case I highly doubt you even know what XENOPHOBIA is.  

  • on a comment on MyDD on the Rise over 6 years ago

    "If youre going to accuse Obama supporters of xenophobia, false aspersions and misleading data, how about you substantiate those claims with actual facts like I did. You know, links, etc."

    This is rich.  He just turned your idiotic quote around on you.  So, the question is:  Do YOU even know what xenophobia is?  

    Here is what you wrote:

    Seems to me, all the Obama-bashers have nothing in their arsenal except xenophobia, false aspersions, misleading data.  

    So, unless you have any links to prove that it is XENOPHOBIA that is guiding the Obama critiques, your input is laughable.  

    I'll be waiting.......

  • Point is that head-to-head polling this far out is "almost" worthless.  I agree that they give us some pointers for the work ahead for each candidate.  Of course, the significance of current head-to-head polls between Clinton and Obama shows Obama's problem with the Democratic base.  He simply can't surge ahead of Clinton amongst Democratic voters.  That tells me that he has weaknesses with the base that could be a very serious matter in a potential GE season.  I am not talking a revolt of the base against a candidate, but many simply don't have a lot of use for the guy, believe that he lacks substance.  While it is true that some will come around (and considering the SC, will vote the right way, regardless) others may not care enough to come out FOR Obama.  There is definitely the potential for an excitement gap amongst rank-and-file Democrats, and many who are coming out in droves for Hillary today (women, Hispanics) may simply remove themselves from the available voter pool again if Obama wins.    Again, I am seeing the point that Hillary has to work to make inroads into the Independent vote, but too many forget that Obama as of now has a problem with the Democratic base (many polls have him at favorable ratings only in the 60s and unfavorables into the 30s, way too high.)

  • on a comment on Clinton Leads in WI - BUT... over 6 years ago

    LMAO.  You roundly dismissed Survey USA's California polls and were gleeful about ZOGBY'S 13% California poll.  Amazing for you to write such a ridiculous post now, since YOU were touting the WORST. POLL. EVER.

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/4/2318/ 69663

    Zobgy: Obama widens lead in CA, MO, tied in NJ

    The latest Zogby poll shows Obama widen his lead over rival Hillary in California and Missouri. They are tied in NJ with each at 43%.

    This poll shows huge momentum for Obama:

    Pollster John Zogby: "A very big single day for Obama in California (49%-32% over Clinton) and Missouri (49%-39% single day).In California,Obama had a four-point lead over Clinton among white voters, with 45%  of their support to her 41% support. Black voters liked him four-to-one over Clinton (72% to 16%), while Hispanics preferred the former first lady, giving her 55% support to his 36%

    Clearly, the Kennedy endorsement and campaigning had an effect as Obama is making inroad in the Hispanic community. He now gets 36% of that group. Interesting fact, Obama leads Hillary among white voters too.

    Obama leapfrogged over Clinton in Missouri, gaining four points while she dropped two points to end the tracking period with 47% support to her 42%. Clinton continued to lead among white voters with 48% of their support to Obama's 40%, while Obama had a four-to-one margin over Clinton with African American voters, with 72% of their support to her 18% support

    It's very hard for me now to see how Obama loses California. He leads among white voters and beat Clinton 4 to 1 among black and he's making inroad with Hispanics in the state. Missouri has ominous sign for Hillary too.

    If you are going to crap all over someone's diary, take lumps for your own fawning over the WORST. POLL. EVER.  

    Oh, yeah, and a couple of days later you dismissed Survey USA's poll in FAVOR of THE. WORST. POLL. EVER.  

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/5/12494 58728

    Who's right? My take on it.

    According to Survey USA own report card released yersterday, Zogby scored wayy better than they did. Check report card here:http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/ 02/04/2008-pollster-report-card-through- 020408

    Survey USA always underestimated Obama's support. Check their previous polls at RCP.com

    Survey USA say 27% of Hispanics will turn out. This number seems too high and an expert doubt it would be that high. Check his article here:http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=365

    Survey USA shows Obama leading among young people between the age of 18-34 by just 4 pts. This, I won't believe it even if exit poll says so later tonight. Check their crosstab here:http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rt.aspx?g=820141bb-aa0f-4e2d-b13b-44384b 69f1f4

    Survey USA shows too much a margin for Clinton among early voters. The field poll, the gold standard in California, shows Obama  and Clinton essentially tied among those voters. Here's what they said:

    For those who have surmised that Obama may have a steep road to go up because of early vote by mail voters, consider this: Amongst all mail ballot voters who have or are expected to vote, the results are 32% Obama and 31% Clinton--hardly decisive at all
    . Read the full report here at http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/ 2008/02/analysis_of_cal.html
    Zogby nailed all the Democratic results in previous primaries except for NH which everyone gets wrong. As the report card by Survey USA shows, he been very accurate. See link above

    Zogby has a 16% turnout for Latino this is much closer to what the expert from California reasoned. See above

    I don't expect Obama to win by 13 % but he will win around 5-8%

    So, the gold standard is being bashed (because it did not show the best numbers for Obama) in favor of THE. WORST. POLL. EVER?

     UN. BE. LIE. VA. BLE.  


Advertise Blogads