Rassmussen Poll is meaningless folks - Pay NO attention to Hillary's Horn Tooters here

[ddeclue]

These polls are pointless and prove nothing. The only interesting thing about this national poll is the trend that Edwards moved up four points. Even that doesn't really mean much.

The only polls that matter are state by state polls of LIKELY voters in states where there are EARLY primaries and DO NOT include people (Gore) who aren't running: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina.

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com /

March 23, 2007 - Presidential Preferences

Democrats TX AR IA NH

Biden 4% 2% 2% 2%
Clark 4% 8% 2% 1%
Clinton 34% 49% 34% 37%
Dodd 1% - 1% 1%
Edwards 11% 12% 33% 20%
Gravel - - - -
Kucinich - - 1% 1%
Obama 32% 16% 16% 23%
Richardson 4% 2% 1% 2%
Undecided 10% 11% 10% 12%

My point is that in IA Clinton's lead is very small in IA (1% is meaningless) she is tied with Edwards there.

Meanwhile in NH, Edwards and Obama are within the M.O.E. for second place in NH, and there are still 10 to 12% undecided and plenty of "in the noise" candidates who will ultimately withdraw (Biden, Richardson, etc.) and then THEIR supporters will be back in circulation and looking for a new candidate for another 7 or 8% - so this thing is hardly decided and national polls like the Rassmussen are not meaningful.

They are just an excuse for MSM to engage in horserace talk and call Hillary a front runner when she's really not one.

I can't find a meaningful poll for NV or SC. That said, Edwards WON SC in 2004 with 45% of the vote beating John Kerry there. It was the only state that Kerry didn't win in the primaries and John Edwards is from NC next door. I think that most reasonable people will say that SC will be Edwards in 2008 again.

"Major campaign operations have not ended" Hillary supporters - so get over it.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL
Vote Edwards!

[MADem]

What a flame!! Why not say "Edwards trending well in early polling."

You don't boost your favored candidate by shitting on another.

It's not how you win.

That said, one debate can make it or break it...for ANY candidate.

[ddeclue]

5. I'm not flaming on another candidate

I just want to shut down those Hillaryites who won't admit that all these national polls mean NOTHING by pointing out the TRUTH.

You're the one who's doing the flaming here. Not me.

Doug D.

[MADem]

11. Yes you are.

And you don't understand the meaning of the word, apparently. Because I am NOT doing it.

Why "Shut down those Hillaryites" anyway? Why not debate them reasonably on the merits, and discuss the qualities of your candidate versus theirs, instead of using inflammatory language like that?

The smartass remarks about the Senator from NY do nothing to help your choice. You just come off poorly, and you don't convince people to come to your team in that fashion.

You also don't do your candidate any favors.

[ddeclue]

16. No I'm NOT...

I DID debate the ridiculous claim of the Rassmussen poll mattering by presenting contradictory evidence. You tried to shut that down by calling it "a flame"...apparently TOU don't know what flame means.

Doug D.

[MADem]

22. Yes, you ARE.

What part of this shit isn't a flame, pray tell? "Major campaign operations have not ended" Hillary supporters - so get over it.

You're the one alluding to 'horn tooters,' setting up the strawman and knocking it down with "so get over it" as though you are spoiling for a fight.

That's FLAMING, kiddo.

And you aren't even being subtle about it. Go fight somewhere else. Better still, go stuff envelopes for Edwards if you are rooting for him, rather than engaging in bullshit fights on the internets about early polls before a single debate has occurred.

[jobycom]

13. Bull. And you were flaming Hillary supporters, not just Hillary. nt.

[ddeclue]

17. Oh boo hoo...I was challenging their cheerleading echo chamber

with some FACTS.. Too bad you don't like it.

Doug D.

[jobycom]

21. No you weren't, you were bashing them. Grow up and admit to it. nt

[William769]

1. You so funny.

Pay no attention to the man (woman) behind the curtain.

:rofl:

[hedgehog]

2. Given that Iowa is a caucus state, not a primary state, why are we even

considering the results there as representative? Doesn't the caucus actually measure how well local party officials control their precincts and/or the campaigns' organizational abilities? In other words, Democrats in Iowa may overwhelmingly support Candidate A but Candidate B wins the caucus because most Democrats don't know how to participate in the caucus.

[MADem]

4. Which is why IOWA is being marginalized with this "Superprimary" business.

Say goodbye to the days of candidates humping through corn fields and talking about hogs.

They'll head straight for California. It's where the electoral votes are.

[rinsd]

3. Hillary is the front runner in every sense of the word

She is raising enormous amounts of money and leads in most polls and head to head matchups with GOPers.

There is plenty of time for that to change but right now she's the frontrunner.

* Brought to you by Horn Tooters for Hillary

[ddeclue]

8. Not at all.. She's vastly overrated and would lose in the general election.

She's not the front runner at all.

[rinsd]

12. She would lose in the general, based on what?

She's an extremely popular Democrat in a Democratic tide.

I think there are a few Democratic candidates currently fielded that could beat anything the GOP offers and she is certainly one of them.

Like I said things can certainly change as there are 10 month left before the voting starts but to deny that Hillary is currently the frontrunner is to deny reality.

[ddeclue]

15. To CLAIM that Hillary is the frontrunner is to deny reality

She's hardly "popular"..even among Democrats...

She's not liked on the left because of her unabashed support for the war. Next to Joe Lieberman, she's the only Democrat who still thinks the war is a good thing.

She's always been disliked on the right which demonized her long ago under Bill Clinton's administration.

Finally she is over-reaching, over-ambitious and not concerned with anything but her career. Every position she takes is calculated and market researched and overly strategized. Nobody finds her genuine that I know of.

That's all it will take for her to lose.

Doug D.

[rinsd]

23. LOL.

Here are the STATES via ARG that Hillary is currently leading the polls in(note most polls taken Dec 2006 or later):

AL, AZ, AK, CA, CT, FL, IA, ME, MA, MI, MO, NV, NM, OK, PA, RI (though that one is really old), SC, TX, UT & VT.

She is currently in 2nd in IL, NM & NC which happen to be the home states of Obama, Richardson and Edwards respectively.

Her are her approval numbers

For Democrats, its 80%+

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=77ca4b7e-ec24-4213-a4d6-f5053467ebf4&x=1205,2

For Liberals, its right near 80

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=77ca4b7e-ec24-4213-a4d6-f5053467ebf4&x=1206,3

[jobycom]

20. If you like Edwards, you better hope he understands politics better than you.

First, denial gets you nothing but laughed at. Second, Hillary is viewed as the frontrunner for edge in fundraising as much as for her lead in the polls, and as much for the historical trending in the polls as for what they say at any given moment. Edwards might have a bump going right now in some polls, and that may turn out to be significant, but he isn't going to win (and unlike you, he knows this) just because someone argues he will, or because someone bashes other candidates.

As for your fundie-like confidence that Hillary is vastly overrated and would lose the general election, those are just words. We will see in a year and a half if you are right, but until then, you are just guessing, and unfortunately the tone of your post implies you don't know that.

Edwards might win, Hillary might win, we don't know yet. Talk about what your candidate can do if you think he's the best candidate. Promote him, without tearing others down, and without assinine statements about who will win based solely on your desires. You hurt your candidate when you do this. I haven't chosen anyone yet, but when I read your post, my first thought it to hope Edwards can't win, just because of the hatred and arrogance in your post. I'm not going to make my decision based upon such a visceral reaction, but some might. Use your energy to promote your candidate, not trying to convince everyone that he has already won.

Last, just for the fun of it, let's put a little logical analysis behind your statement that Hillary can't win, and that Edwards can. Hillary has been twice elected to the Senate, and has twice won primaries for the Senate. This may be too far back for you to remember, but she was expected to lose the first race, and won anyway. Edwards has won one senate election, one primary (I assume, I don't recall), and has lost a slew of presidential primaries and a general election as VP. Not to mention a debate against the sitting VP. In addition, Clinton was an active part of her husband's campaigns as governor, then as president. She's proven she can win. You assertion that she can't is based on wish, not on fact. Edwards has proven that he could win once, and lose the rest of the time. That, of course, means nothing--he can and might win. But nothing factual or historical can back up your assertion that Edwards will win and Hillary will lose.

Quit hurting your candidate, quit bashing other candidates, quit bashing the supporters of other candidates, and most of all, quit fighting your own party and try to help us all win. Thank you.

[MADem]

24. Succinctly said. Good job. NT

[bluestateguy]

6. Rasmussen has a good record in calling elections

His Bush approval polls are persistently 5-8 points higher than the median point of all other national polls, perhaps because of the way he phrases the question: do you approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove or disapprove? Somewhat approvers are classified as approvers, which ratchets up Baby Bush's numbers. This is very different from how other pollsters ask the approval question, which is up or down, do you approve or disapprove.

[ddeclue]

9. Yeah in a GENERAL RACE. this is the PRIMARY.

and the whole basis of the poll is meaningless so the results are quite meaningless too.

The race is won state by state and early states matter. It's not won nationally. Therefore the Rasmussen poll doesn't prove anything.

Doug D.

[rodeodance]

7. for a susposed meaningless poll, you seem to have a bee in your bonnet.

[ddeclue]

10. Because H.H.T. are posting it like it isn't meaningless.

and I am interested in setting the record straight.

Doug D.

[wyldwolf]

14. Rassmussen Poll is meaningless folks.. until it favors your candidate

[ddeclue]

18. It would STILL be meaningless at this point and based on how it was taken.

The American Research Group poll I cited is far more interesting because it is state by state and based on actual candidates and likely voters.

People need to understand that the primaries are won state by state, not in one national election day.

Doug D.

[ccpup]

19. It's obvious

you're not interested -- really -- in setting the record straight. You appear to be more interested in starting something of a "war" by denigrating supporters of a specific candidate. What's it to you who anyone else supports right now? We're 10 months out from when the fireworks begin and you know as well as anyone that one misstep could derail any candidate. Also, 10 months is more than enough time for the media -- and one's own Party and supporters -- to build up a candidate, tear them down and then stage a "comeback".

I think all you should worry about is supporting your candidate, voting on election day and staying the hell away from my right to support who I choose how I choose.

Peace.

[wyldwolf]

26. I have a challenge for you. Should be pretty easy.

You appear to be more interested in starting something of a "war" by denigrating supporters of a specific candidate.

Examples?

[ccpup]

31. not that difficult at all

the language the Poster uses is very "muscular" and "offensive" (as the opposite of defensive and not in the way that offends).

for example:

"I just want to shut down those Hillaryites who won't admit that all these national polls mean NOTHING by pointing out the TRUTH." notice the use of the phrase "shut down" and "won't admit" Not conversational in the least and designed to get some adversarial response. A waste of time if you're trying to have a conversation and learn the merits of the other person's candidate.

"'Major campaign operations have not ended' Hillary supporters - so get over it." A no-brainer here: many of use recognize the use of "get over it" as an exercise in baiting those Democrats who were angry over the stolen election in 2000. I trust the Poster remembers that as well, so his -- and I use the masculine pronoun only because I don't know the gender of the Poster -- deciding to emphatically end his thought with "so get over it" is a clear signal that he's expecting a brush fire to begin and is ready to "fight".

And let me end with this one:

"Oh boo hoo...I was challenging their cheerleading echo chamber with some FACTS.. Too bad you don't like it."

Since I've met your "challenge", may I ask you to kindly explain to me how the above examples (I chose only three because I do have a life and time is short this afternoon) are NOT designed to be inflammatory, incendiary, baiting and, yes, denigrating?

The Original Poster got exactly what he/she wanted: a bit of a war, some upset people and a fleeting feeling of being perhaps kinda powerful, a little "important" and maybe some extra attention. Needless to say, there are other more noble ways of getting the above, but I'll leave that for him/her to figure out.

Have a great day. :-)

[wyldwolf]

33. must have been because I didn't say any of that.

[ccpup]

34. my apologies.

I had meant to originally reply to the original poster and not you specifically. No, you didn't say any of that.

[ccpup]

35. and, in looking back,

I had thought you were defending the idea of the Original Post. That's why I took your challenge. Next time, I'll just stick to trying to guess which cola is Coke and which is Pepsi. Again, my apologies.

[jobycom]

28. hehe. Well put. nt

[erpowers]

25. Question

I have a question for all the people bashing Clinton supporters. I am not a Clinton supporter, but I do have a question for the Edwards and Obama supporters. How come when a poll or polls show Clinton leading the race the poll or polls do not matter, but when it shows Edwards or Obama leading it is proof positive that Edwards or Obama will win the nomination and it is time for Clinton to leave the race. I have seen a number of polls showing that Clinton has the ability to beat all the candidates on both sides of the Presidential race. However, anytime someone brings one of them up the Edwards and Obama supporters seem to think it does not matter. So one and for all what is it; do the polls at this point matter, or do they not matter. In my opinion, Edwards and Obama supporters cannot have it both ways.

[MADem]

30. It's not ALL of them. To be fair. It's just an oddball subset of 'true believers" who do not have

a clue as to how the system works or the game is played. Or those who like to raise hell for their own perverse joy.

And I'm still undecided, waiting for the debates. So, I am not a Clinton or Obama or Edwards supporter, yet...but I am not a detractor either.

I have no doubt that both Edwards and Obama have "normal" supporters, too--it's just that they are new(er), young(er) faces, relatively speaking, on the political scene, so you get newcomers who jump in with both feet to support these fresh faces and who think they are "helping" when they aren't. I also suspect that (speaking generally, not specifically about anyone) you get some traffic that consists of people who just like to fight, cause upset, and behave like childish asses, and they figure this topic is a ripe one to get that keyboard outrage they crave so desperately.

[Benhurst]

27. It's too early for all this nonsense.

[jobycom]

29. And yet, it is inevitable.

:shrug:

[SaveElmer]

32. I found this picture of you...

Uncanny resemblance to other Democrats that don't want to admit the strength Hillary has with the Democratic rank and file!

[Forkboy]

36. But rank and file Dems don't even account for all the Dem voters.

:shrug:

I don't agree with the OP's method of singling you guys out,but the points made are totally valid.National polls are always iffy,but this far out they're totally pointless.

And yes,I'd say that even if they had my candidate in front.

[SaveElmer]

37. They aren't pointless...

They are not necessarily reflective of an outcome 20 months from now...I never claimed they were, nor do the pollsters...

However they are a fairly accurate snapshot of where things stand today. Used in conjunction with other polls over time they paint a fairly accurate picture of certain trends...and of strength within the party.

And finally, they are important to the candidates in terms of fundraising and gathering endorsements.

[martymar64]

39. The Hillary Personality Cult isn't listening

Next thing you know, they'll be claiming that her sweat can cure cancer and that her farts smell like fresh baked cinnamon rolls.

They get all pissy when someone says something, anything negative about her, even when its the truth. But anytime a positive thread comes out about another candidate with integrity, like Kucinich, they bend over backwards to flame him and his supporters.

Real classy.

[leftofthedial]

38. Hillary it at Hooters?

Wha . . .