Skip to main content

There have been a plethora of new polls released in the last few days that show a very clear advantage for Hillary Clinton on Super Tuesday. Here are some of the most recent:

ARIZONA

ASU Cronkite/Eight Poll 1/17 - 1/20

Clinton 45%
Obama 24%
Edwards 9%

Looks like Rep. Pastor's endorsement of Hillary a couple of days ago might have had as much weight as Napolitano's endorsement of Obama.

CALIFORNIA

Field Poll 1/11 - 1/20

Clinton 39%
Obama 27%
Edwards 10%

NEW JERSEY

Quinnipiac Poll 1/15 - 1/22

Clinton 49%
Obama 32%
Edwards 10%

NEW YORK

Quinnipiac Poll 1/14 - 1/21

Clinton 51%
Obama 25%
Edwards 11%

And before Super Tuesday, there's Florida. Florida has had it's delegates stripped, but it's status as the last major primary before Super Tuesday will undoubtedly provide momentum, particularly in that Florida plays such a pivotal role in the general election, as we all well know.

FLORIDA

Survey USA Poll 1/20

Clinton 56%
Obama 23%
Edwards 12%

Originally posted to AZnomad on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:25 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Whoa (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oysterface

    Those numbers are stark. Are we taking into account outliers? I'd like to see some index averaging for the states depicted.

    That said it looks like the campaign for Cali will by cataclysmic. Hope the party can survive it.

  •  the next state voting has Obama up 19 (4+ / 5-)

    but it doesn;t matter becuase black people aren't even 3/5 ths of a vote in the democratic nomination process according to the Clinton people.

    It's obvious to us McCain is the most electable GOP nominee, it's obvious to repubs that Obama is our best choice.

    by nevadadem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:28:08 AM PST

  •  Gotta say (4+ / 0-)

    these do not make me happy. I recognize that Hillary is the most likely winner of the primaries, but I don't want her to win too quickly. I want Edwards and Obama to force some concessions out of her first. I want her pushed to the left, away from the corporate lobbyists. And that's not going to happen if she does too well on Feb 5.

  •  CT as well. (7+ / 0-)

    And Johnny Mac for the Thugs.
    Will it be safe to get back in the water here after the 5th? No scratch that - after the dust dies down if these poll results are accurate? We will need at least a week of "I quit the Dem party" diaries first.

  •  GIbberish. Dishonest gibberish (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Send Rahm a Cheesecake

    I don't know who Rep. Pastor is, but I"m sure his endorsement hasn't swated votes. Few endorsements ever do. A more honest evaluation of the numebrs would simply be that the Gov.'s endorsement had little impact. Amazingly enough, most people make up their own damn minds -- or, at least they think they do. They may be swayed by a year's worth of media coverage telling them it's a two-person race, but they aren't waiting for one person to tell then how to vote.

    By and large, they don't even wait for another state to tell them how to vote, although that has far more impact than any endorsement ever could. Florida is before SuperTuesday -- but its results will be all but ignored. Interestingly, you didn't note that South Carolina is also before Super Tuesday. The results there will be much-discussed, unlike the results in Florida. If Obama wins big, it will push the other state's numebrs in his direction, much more so than a Clinton win in Florida might push in the other direction.

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

    by FischFry on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:31:53 AM PST

    •  Rep. Ed Pastor (7+ / 0-)

      bio here.

      And I never said he swayed votes. I said his endorsement apparently had as much weight as Napolitano's. That could be anything or nothing.

    •  Ed Pastor is the Highly-Respected (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, killjoy

      former Chair of the Hispanic Caucus, and powerhouse of a Congressman, tho his daughter got smashed recently in a bid for Phoenix City Council.

      That said, his endorsement came just two days ago, so I'm sure it had no impact. Janet is immensely popular, and if BHO campaigns here w/her, Harry Mitchell, and Gabrielle Giffords, it would do him--and them--a lot of good.  He could still pick up other Latino endorsements.

      Don't forget, tho--Bill won here in 1996.

    •  Say what? (5+ / 0-)

      GIbberish. Dishonest gibberish

      what is gibberish or dishonest about poll numbers? There was very little commentary and none seemed like gibberish. And I believe the comment about Rep. Pastor was snarky, his endorsement did not sway votes just as Gov. Napolitanos' did not for Obama.

      •  What's dishonest (0+ / 0-)

        Is the suggestion that a pro-Clinton endorsement had weight. What's dishonest is to suggest that Florida will influence Super Tuesday, and ignore South Carolina, which will have much more impact. The author's slant is obvious, even in two little comments. It's not just numbers, and it's not even an honest slant.

        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

        by FischFry on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:05:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You continue to misrepresent (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          killjoy

          my comments, even though I've already responded to you on more than one occasion. Partisanship is blinding I guess.

          •  I suppose it is (0+ / 0-)

            I'm very pro-Edwards. I guess that blinds me. I don't think I misrepresented your comments, at all. Interesting that you must assume I'm an Obama partisan, just because I note the Clinton tilt of your diary. And you ignored my comments about Florida and South Carolina, just as you ignored South Carolina, entirely. You're cherry-picking...when there are apples still on the trees.

            Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

            by FischFry on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:22:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  And where the hell did I say (0+ / 0-)

              you were an Obama supporter? You just picking this stuff out of your a*s now? And I hardly ignored your comments about Florida and South Carolina. If you took a minute to actually READ all of my comments throughout this diary, you'll find that I more than addressed them. But it's obvious that those things matter very little to you. I guess when your candidate is consistently polling third, at about 9% -12% in every state, you feel the need to lash out at supporters of the candidate consistently in the lead. Sad for you.

              •  You didn't respond to my comment (0+ / 0-)

                Perhaps there's someting in your comments elsewhere, but you didn't respond to me. I moved on from your diary, as soon as I posted my original comments....

                Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                by FischFry on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:37:55 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I responded to SEVERAL (0+ / 0-)

                  of your comments, as did others. And if you're not going to take the time to actually read through a diary to assess people's full positions, then good riddance. Move along already, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

              •  Lash out? (0+ / 0-)

                That's a laugh. I pointed out that your diary, which might seem like it's objective, because of the numbers, actually has a decided Clinton slant. I didn't even have to guess which candidate you supported, Your two little asides made that obvious. I pointed that out, and pointed out how deceptive they were. To you, that's lashing out.

                Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                by FischFry on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:40:28 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Excuse me? (0+ / 0-)

                  Looks like Rep. Pastor's endorsement of Hillary a couple of days ago might have had as much weight as Napolitano's endorsement of Obama.

                  And before Super Tuesday, there's Florida. Florida has had it's delegates stripped, but it's status as the last major primary before Super Tuesday will undoubtedly provide momentum, particularly in that Florida plays such a pivotal role in the general election, as we all well know.

                  Any person reading those statements without a partisan bent, unlike yourself, will recognize them as neutral statements, as I have time and again explained in past responses to you, which you have completely ignored because of said bent.

                  And yes, after responding to your accusations on more than one occasion, you have continued to misrepresent my comments. That's called "lashing out". In fact, I'd say you're making a fool of yourself.

                  And you have a nerve to talk about "slants" after diaries like this.

                  •  Neutral, except in context (0+ / 0-)

                    By positing Florida as influential, while ignoring South Carolina completely, it ceases to be neutral. It means you are either trying to make a case that a likely Clinton win will be significant, and deliberately ignoring a likely Obama win -- or, you wrote this while drunk, and forgot all about South Carolina...

                    And, I already explained why I think even bringing up an endorsement is silly, much less trying to equate the two....

                    There's nothing wrong with a slanted diary. As long as one is up-front about it.

                    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                    by FischFry on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:27:10 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No, neutral... period. (0+ / 0-)

                      This diary was about recent polls concerning the Super Tuesday states. Florida, being the final primary before Super Tuesday, is likely to have more effect on those contests than one from the week previous, or Nevada the week before that for that matter. Or should I have mentioned those wins in Nevada, Michigan, New Hampshire and Iowa as well as include South Carolina? Would that make you happy? Grow the fuck up.

                      And for someone claiming to be above the partisan squabbling, you sure seem more than willing to initiate it. Like how you're drawing conclusions out of left field about my intentions behind including Florida, without any substance or evidence. Even getting personal by including an insinuation that I'm writing this while drunk. Fu*k you asswipe. You have no basis.

                      And I have noticed that South Carolina has become a recent argument with you. You started off criticizing me for mentioning two endorsements, and falsely claiming that I was weighting one over the other, which I quite clearly wasn't, (to any reasonable person reading it without a partisan bent that is). You then gave up on that and moved to your lame Florida/South Carolina argument. It's quite evident that your goal here is to diminish or belittle any news that shows Hillary Clinton's strength. And since you can't argue with hard numbers, you've decided to attack me personally by drawing conclusions about my words, and the reasons behind them, with absolutely nothing to back up your charges.

                      •  If you'll read my very first post (0+ / 0-)

                        I made both points. I didn't move from one to the other. It wasn't a "recent" claim. At some point, in this back-and-forth, I called attention to the fact that you hadn't even responded to what I said on that point. Nor did I claim that you were weighting one over the other. But, feel free to make it up as you go along in your arguments against me.

                        Have a good night.

                        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                        by FischFry on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:39:35 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Problem is... (0+ / 0-)

                          I did respond, several times, as the commentary clearly shows. Not to mention several other posts I've made throughout this diary. And yes, you DID claim I was weighting one over the other. Not only by stating it outright, like you did here...

                          What's dishonest (0 / 0)
                          Is the suggestion that a pro-Clinton endorsement had weight.

                          ... but also by asserting that I was being "dishonest" by somehow trying to say that Rep. Pastor's endorsement "swayed votes". Must suck to have your own statements, which you claim not to have made, come back to bite you like that.

                          Anyway,  as another poster pointed out:

                          There was very little commentary and none seemed like gibberish. And I believe the comment about Rep. Pastor was snarky, his endorsement did not sway votes just as Gov. Napolitanos' did not for Obama.

                          They obviously got it. Too bad you were incapable of that.

                          And as for this statement:

                          Interestingly, you didn't note that South Carolina is also before Super Tuesday.

                          No, I didn't. And yet I didn't note that Nevada, Michigan, New Hampshire and Iowa were before Super Tuesday either. Strange. An obviously biased, pro-Hillary tactic. Especially considering she won three of those five contests, and one hasn't even been decided yet.

                          And I didn't say it was a recent claim, I said it was a recent argument. After an entire tit for tat about endorsements, you suddenly dropped that argument and moved on to your lame South Carolina/Florida crap. Points, by the way, I had already addressed in the commentary in this diary. You made the move here:

                          Interesting that you must assume I'm an Obama partisan, just because I note the Clinton tilt of your diary. And you ignored my comments about Florida and South Carolina, just as you ignored South Carolina, entirely.

                          Putting aside the completely out-of-the-blue Obama assumption, you were clearly setting aside your endorsement argument and moving on to your ridiculous South Carolina/Florida argument, which you then went on to provoke.

                          And you have the nerve to call me dishonest.

                          Asshole.

                          •  You sure are a Clintonite -- learn lessons well (0+ / 0-)

                            Yes, I said you implied the endorsement had "weight"...and I also said that you implied it swayed some votes. But, I didn't say that you gave it more weight than Napolitano's endorsement -- which is what you accused me of having done, in your prior post.

                            "Weight" does not equal "more weight than".

                            I mean, you can lie about what I said, and claim whatever you want, but it doesn't change what I actually said. And, you won't bully me into wrongly admitting something.

                            Your arguments about primaries that have already occurred is just incredibly stupid. You should have quite while you were just a little bit behind. You posted polls that were taken after those primaries had already taken place. So, any impact those primary results might have had is already accounted for in those very polls.

                            Which brings us back to where we started. You suggest that the poll numbers you have might be influenced by the upcoming Florida vote, but you ignore the much stronger likelihood that they will move in response to the upcoming South Carolina vote.

                            Really...quit now, before you advance any even sillier arguments, to suggest you weren't being biased -- when you clearly were. The Clintons seem to think they can distort others statements and records, and get waay with it, just on bluster alone. Or, they think it's the charge that sticks -- that no one will pay attention when the much longer explanation is given refuting the charge....

                            It's a shame, too -- because this whole nonsense started with Obama's supporters distorting what was coming out of the Clinton camp. Now, the Clintons themselves are playing that game.

                            I think the American people are smarter than that. I know I am.

                            Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                            by FischFry on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:14:38 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Talk about hypocrisy. (0+ / 0-)

                            You're sitting here railing against the Clintons, yet you're parsing words in true Clinton style. Next are you going to tell me what the meaning of is... is? Ha! Love it.

                            The problem with your argument is that I didn't claim the endorsement swayed votes, or had more weight than, (whichever one you're going to argue going forward). You did. I claimed that they were a wash, but you clearly didn't get it, while other posters clearly did, as I've already pointed out.

                            Since you're having such a hard time grasping the concept, when you say something has just as much weight as something else. That means they're equal, a wash, a countermeasure. Get it? Maybe a visual will help. Think of the scales of justice being on equal levels. (Since you're a lawyer, you should be able to comprehend that.) And since Napolitano's endorsement had little to no effect, (and I should know because I live in Arizona and she's my governor), then that means Pastor's had little to no effect as well. But then, this is the very statement you labeled as "dishonest gibberish". As far as I'm concerned, the only "dishonest gibberish" in this diary is coming from the other side of this internet connection.

                            So you can continue to misrepresent my statements, whatever makes you feel better about yourself or strokes your ego. Oh and by the way:

                            Perhaps, Pastor's endorsement seriously outweighed Napolitano's -- given Clinton's lead.

                            And concerning Super Tuesday and the preliminary primaries,  you state:

                            You suggest that the poll numbers you have might be influenced by the upcoming Florida vote.

                            I made no such suggestion. The polls have already been taken, they're a snapshot in time and that time is now past. What I did say is that the Florida results would provide momentum leading into Super Tuesday. And I clearly state the reasons why throughout the diary, like I did here:

                            it's status as the last major primary before Super Tuesday

                            here:

                            Since the Republican primary takes place on the same day, with Giuliani in play for the first time, there will be massive media coverage of the primary results. You'll be seeing pictures of the GOP and Dem winners on all your TV screens, in all your newspapers, and on all your computer screens, for at least a couple of days with WINNER posted over it.

                            and here:

                            Florida is also a very important state for electoral votes in the general election. Democrats want a candidate who can win there.

                            It's quite apparent to anyone paying attention, that primaries immediately preceding other primaries have much more of an effect on momentum than primaries further in the past. Once a subsequent primary occurs, everything changes. That is why South Carolina isn't listed, nor Nevada, nor New Hampshire, nor Michigan, nor Iowa. So I would assert that you're the one being "incredibly stupid" here. And regardless, I made no claim as to who would win Florida, I simply posted poll numbers.

                            And I defy you to point out anywhere where I claimed South Carolina wouldn't have any effect on subsequent primaries. My claims were about Florida, the primary immediately before Super Tuesday. I don't think anyone who was alive during the Bush vs. Gore fiasco will forget how important Florida was to the general election. Do you think people, especially Democrats, are going to forget that? If you do, then your claim to be "smarter than that" is falling on deaf ears.

                            And as for your Clinton rant. I think we see now, why the venom directed at positive Clinton poll numbers, and therefore blanket acrimony aimed at all Clinton supporters. Indeed spoken like a true partisan and Clinton hater.

                          •  OK -- I've had it with your idiocy. You're dense (0+ / 0-)

                            I wrote this:

                            "I didn't say that you gave it more weight than Napolitano's endorsement"

                            , but you're still claiming I did. I did not.

                            Then you pull out a statement that I was clearly offering in jest --

                            "Perhaps, Pastor's endorsement seriously outweighed Napolitano's -- given Clinton's lead."

                            I disowned that possibility in the next sentence. Are you so dense you can't understand that -- or are you being deliberately mendacious in your attacks?

                            Then, there's this bit of idiocy:

                            You offer a quote from one of my posts -- "You suggest that the poll numbers you have might be influenced by the upcoming Florida vote" and copmpletely mangle the meaning of what I was saying.  Your reply:

                            "I made no such suggestion. The polls have already been taken, they're a snapshot in time and that time is now past. What I did say is that the Florida results would provide momentum leading into Super Tuesday."

                            This is exactly what I have been arguing about the entire fucking time. That you made that claim about the potential impact about Florida's vote, while ignoring the more significant impact of the upcoming vote in South Carolina, a primary that is actually being contested.

                            I didn't mischaracterize your argument. I summed it exactly as you did -- that the Florida vote would impact (change) the current poll numbers -- that the polls in SuperTuesday states might change as a result, not in some incredible, mind-boggling, travelling backwards-through-time manner, as you seem to think I've suggested -- but, rather, after the Florida vote, new polls might have different numbers -- which is the only thing that would make sense.

                            Based on what you wrote, you seem to think that I've claimed that you're positing that the vote next week in Florida will somehow have some retroactive effect, and will alter the numbers in the poll results you've posted. Of course, this would change the entire timeline, such that your diary would be very different in this new alternate universe, and we might never have had this argument. I think I'm beginning to like that alternate universe. How exactly will that happen, and is there anything I can do to help?

                            Somehow, you're so dense that you can't make sense of anything I've said, so there's not much point in my trying to point out that your point about Florida is a weak one. South Carolina will have more impact. As will the upcoming NY Times and LA Times editorial endorsements, and a thousand other things that will have greater impact on SuperTuesday voting, than will the meanignless Florida vote, which will be about as consequential as the Michigan vote. But, your too dense to  understand wht I'm saying, and you will twist it in some way that is entirely unrecognizable to me....

                            This will be my final word on the subject. I'm going to work on that time machine, to see if I can get the Florida results to affect the results of those polls that have already been conducted...Wish me luck...

                            Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                            by FischFry on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:26:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Holy shit. (0+ / 0-)

                            You've completely lost your mind.

                            And you had the audacity to accuse me of writing while drunk. I think it's more probable that you're the one writing under the influence, as it's completely nonsensical... batshit crazy! (Not to mention you've signed off twice now.)

                            Time machines? Alternate universes? Take your Ritalin man!

                            A statement in jest? Show me where you stated it was in jest? Where? Show me! You stated doubt after saying it, but no denial. I mean, you should be conscious of what reasonable doubt is, considering that people can be condemned to death if it isn't present.  And stating that "perhaps" something is possible, is hardly definitive and hardly reasonable doubt . Unless you're trying to change history after the fact that is. Talk about time machines... ha! You're an endless source of humor. I wonder if your juries are as amused as I am?

                            Even more laughable is this comment:

                            South Carolina will have more impact. As will the upcoming NY Times and LA Times editorial endorsements

                            Especially when compared to your earlier comment here:

                            I doubt any endorsement ever moves the numbers.

                            and here:

                            And, I already explained why I think even bringing up an endorsement is silly

                            Booyah! Contradict yourself much? Does the jury have a verdict? Guilty your honor!!!!

                            And no, I never claimed the Florida vote would have some crazy-ass retroactive effect. I only claimed it would have an effect on Super Tuesday. Check your details man. My point in mentioning earlier primaries was quite obviously to point out that all primaries before Florida were inconsequential next to the primary immediately prior to Super Tuesday. Hell, it's not like I didn't say that. Like here for instance:

                            It's quite apparent to anyone paying attention, that primaries immediately preceding other primaries have much more of an effect on momentum than primaries further in the past. Once a subsequent primary occurs, everything changes. That is why South Carolina isn't listed, nor Nevada, nor New Hampshire, nor Michigan, nor Iowa.

                            Oh, and by the way, don't think I didn't notice that you can no longer defend your thin, lame endorsement argument. I guess the "scales of justice" visual finally sunk through? Yes? Maybe? Not to mention your "weight" parsing.

                            LMAO!

                          •  You're so wrong, it's truly comical (0+ / 0-)

                            I just noticed your link to a diary of mine. That diary of mine that you linked to, in calling me a "Clinton Hater" -- my diary, titled "The Latest (Clinton) Outrage" -- it's a defense of all things and people Clinton. From Bob Kerrey to Andrew Cuomo, and mostly Hillary Clinton herself, on the LBJ comment. I was ripping into the wild distortions and contemptible, baseless claims of racism, that were regularly being trumpeted by Obama supporters. And, you linked it, as proof that I'm a "Clinton hater". I almost peed my pants laughing.

                            I don't know if you read that diary and somehow missed the point of it. Or, more likely, that you saw the title of the diary, and decided that told you all you needed to know about it. If it's the latter, that tells me all I need to know about how you've completely distorted and misapprehended every one of my comments to you. Come to think of it, if you read the diary and missed the point, that would also explain a lot about this argument.

                            I ripped into the Obama supporters because they deserved it. They were heating up over every little thing, and didn't really care to hear that they were being completely unfair, even when it was the truth.

                            The funny thing is the Clintons are now wilfully doing the same thing, misquoting, and quoting out of context to construct an entirely new meaning for Obama's comments -- completely different than what Obama really meant. So, in the comment above, I did spray venom in their direction. It's well deserved.

                            At least, I understood how it happened that so many the Obama supporters got so livid at what seemed like a pattern of race-baiting. It was an overreaction, and unfair, but understandable.  I do think that some of it was probably deliberately set up by Obama supporters that deliberately misinterpreted comments like Bill's about "the fairy tale." At least, that's my suspicion, though it's completely unprovable. If so, it was not defensible, so I criticized it in the strongest terms.

                            For whatever reason, the Clintons are now doing themselves, what Obama's supporters were doing to them. Except that this is blatant and deliberate, and from the top, not from supporters. One can't deflect blame for the Clinton's deliberate misrepresentations of Obama's statements. They deserve every bit of heat they get for it.

                            I'm all about truth and fairness. Honesty and balance. At this point, I don't care who wins, so long as the arguments are honest and fair. That's why I ripped into Obama's supporters. It's why I'm criticizing the Clintons now, and it's why I pointed out the hidden bias -- the wrong-headed selectivity -- in your diary.

                            Now, I hope that I'm able to put that time machine idea of yours into action, so we can erase this conversation. Otherwise, have a good life.

                            Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                            by FischFry on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:31:01 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I hardly missed your point. (0+ / 0-)

                            Or some of your comments.

                            There was the outrage over the Bill Shaheen comments. Although they were an incredible embarrassment to the Clinton campaign

                             

                            Stating the obvious was an embarrassment? Stating that Republicans would attack Obama over his admitted drug use was an embarrassment? That's hardly a vigorous defense of something you profess to find "outrageous".

                            I would hope, now that Obama seems well on his way to a convincing sweep or near-sweep through the primaries, that some sense of perspective is restored.

                            Getting ahead of yourself are we? Or merely being dishonest?

                            I want to say that I have not favored Sen. Clinton's campaign at any point.

                            Thanks for the disclaimer pal. Makes your outrage so authentic.

                            I hope that I’m wrong that some of this is calculated

                            I would like to believe that this was not calculated in any way. I'm just not sure that's true.

                            I would not think to suggest that there is an organized effort led by Sen. Obama or authorized by his campaign.

                            Jeebus, make up your friggin' mind!

                            Coupled with this:

                            The Clintons seem to think they can distort others statements and records, and get waay with it, just on bluster alone. Or, they think it's the charge that sticks -- that no one will pay attention when the much longer explanation is given refuting the charge....

                            No bias or Clinton-hate there. Not to mention dredging up an alleged "Clinton slant" in earlier comments, (while unable to prove said slant with anything of substance).

                            Seems to me you're more interested in throwing around accusations and pitting the Clinton and Obama campaigns against each other, than you are are at truly finding consensus in the Democratic party. One has to ask who the beneficiary would be of continued Clinton/Obama infighting.

                            Hmm?

                            Edwards perhaps? The very person you support? What a coincidence.

                          •  You really are a piece of wrk (0+ / 0-)

                            "When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?"

                            Highly embarrasing for Shaheen to throw up such rank speculation, to try and derail Obama. Not embarrassing? Then, why did he have to resign publicy from the campaign?

                            As for what I wrote about Obama's prospects -- at the time, the polls had him winning convincingly in NH, with a bigger margin than he had in Iowa. He was on his way to a sweep. That train went off the rails. I'm not sure what your point was, other than that I placed too much stock in the NH polls -- like everyone else in the country. But, don't let that trouble you, with your diary wholly devoted to trumpeting new polls that have Clinton leading.

                            As for the series of comments I made about the reaction in the Obama camp with respect to supposed race-baiting, you don't read and comprehend very well. They're entirely consistent. Apparently, the distinction between the conduct by Obama's unregulated supporters, and the conduct of the candidate himself, or his staff, is lost on you. As I hadn't heard anything from Obama, or his staff, that seemed designed to fan those flames, I made clear I wasn't suggesting any calculation on their part. However, since the gross distortions were being repeated over and over by supporters, I was less hesitant to suspect some calculation among at least some supporters.

                            As for my "disclaimer" -- it has nothing to do with outrage. It's there in hope that my criticisms of Obama's supporters, and my defense of the Clinton campaign would not be easily dismissed as partisan. I was trying to be objective and fair, and wanted that point to come across firmly. What part of that isn't obvious to you?

                            And, as I've said now several times, the Clintons have deliberately distorted what Obama said about Reagan and the GOP, taking out of context, and twisting the meaning beyond recognition. There was no misunderstanding on their part, though they hope to sow misunderstanding among Democrats. That's reprehensible. They're determined to win, and don't give a whit about the damage they're doing to the Party and a potential nominee. As I said, they have earned any venom, with their conduct in the last week.

                            Based on your record so far, I assume that all of this will be lost on you -- that you will be unable to comprehend any of it. If you meant any of the "criticisms" in the above post, you really are a simpleton. I don't say it to insult you. Just to point out the pointlessness of this back-and-forth, from my perspective.

                            Feel free to write anything you want. I realize you have no interest in accuracy. You've already shown your inability to be honest and acknowledge a mistake with respect to your obvious misuse of my earlier diary to label me a Clinton-hater.

                            So, write what you will, I won't bother to reply anymore.

                            Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                            by FischFry on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:07:05 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  First off, (0+ / 0-)

                            You have already been proven a hypocrite and have contradicted yourself on more than one occasion. You have misrepresented facts and statements and not owned up to it even when others, besides myself, called you on it. You have incited without reason and participated in the kind of word parsing and petty political bickering you claim to revile. When confronted with these facts and contradictions, not to mention your hypocrisy, you have stooped to calling me dense, a drunk, and a simpleton. The very type of empty personal attacks you accuse the Clinton's of. One thing is clear after all of this...

                            you have no credibility.

                            That said, let me address your "points".

                            "When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?"

                            So he's throwing out speculative questions that have a high probability of being asked of Obama in a general election due to his admitted drug use. As the Washington Post put it:

                            Billy Shaheen, the co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign in New Hampshire, raised the issue of Sen. Barack Obama's past admissions of drug use in discussing the relative electability of the Democrats seeking the presidential nomination today.

                            Among his concerns about Obama as the nominee, he said in an interview here today, is that his background is so relatively unknown and that the Republicans would do their best to unearth negative aspects of it, or concoct mistruths about it.

                            Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

                            So he's stating the obvious. Seems like fairly legitimate questions to me. Funny how they read as less controversial without the ambient noise. And it's that ambient noise that lead to his "embarrassing" resignation. Strange thing that people can raise similar types of "electability" questions about Clinton and past "scandals" with barely a peep.

                            Moving on...

                            As for what I wrote about Obama's prospects -- at the time, the polls had him winning convincingly in NH, with a bigger margin than he had in Iowa. He was on his way to a sweep.

                            Yet you attack me for raising prospects based on poll numbers and their ability to change in short periods of time. Pure hypocrisy.

                            Next...

                            As for the series of comments I made about the reaction in the Obama camp with respect to supposed race-baiting, you don't read and comprehend very well. They're entirely consistent.

                            Let's analyze again.

                            Quote #1 = I hope this wasn't calculated
                            Quote #2 = I would like to believe this wasn't calculated, but I'm not sure.
                            Quote #3 = I would never suggest this was calculated

                            Hardly consistent. You either are sure or you aren't You can't vote "present".

                            And as for your Clinton/Reagan rant... I didn't bring it up, but you obviously feel the need to vociferate. And then you have the huevos to cry about someone "unfairly" labeling you a Clinton-hater.

                            High comedy indeed.

                          •  MY last word (0+ / 0-)

                            "Quote #1 = I hope this wasn't calculated
                            Quote #2 = I would like to believe this wasn't calculated, but I'm not sure.
                            Quote #3 = I would never suggest this was calculated"

                            This is waht the Clintons are doing. You come close to a correct quote, but you change it enough, and chop off the end to change the meaning.

                            Two posts ago, when you quoted me, Quote#3 read thusly:

                            "I would not think to suggest that there is an organized effort led by Sen. Obama or authorized by his campaign."

                            Not actually the same, is it? As I wrote in my last post, I was, at the time, making a distinction between those actions I observed Obama's supporters doing, and the conduct of Obama himself (and his staff). As I wrote in the last post, that distinction is obviouosly lost on you. As I'm having to repeat what should have been obvious the first two times you read it, I think it's fair to say you're either quite dense, or a real sonuvabitch.

                            The time machine isn't perfected yet, so I'll do you the courtesy of wishing you a farewell. Bye.

                            Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                            by FischFry on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:06:20 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nice try. (0+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hidden by:
                            FischFry

                            But I was obviously paraphrasing, which is why it doesn't appear in quotes. You know what quote marks are... right? And in case you need a definition of what paraphrasing is, check here. Not to mention that the original quote and the paraphrased quote have exactly the same meaning.

                            Not actually the same, is it?

                            Yes, actually, it is. And anyone who claims otherwise is... how do you put it... dense?

                            But I guess that's all you've got left at this point. Funny how I'm being labeled a sonuvabitch by someone who's been proven a hypocrite and a liar, who contradicts himself and misrepresents others. That's fine... I can live with that. As the Clinton's might say, "I feel your pain".

                            And by the way, this is about your fourth or fifth "last word". But then, nothing else you've asserted has turned out to be true, so why should that?

                          •  A troll rating. (0+ / 0-)

                            How utterly predictable.

                          •  Haven't you heard? It's a hide button (0+ / 0-)

                            But, I shouldn't be surprised you miss that distinction, since you can't grasp the distinction between criticizing a candidate's supporters for reckless conduct, and alleging that the candidate might be directing that conduct. Yes, you've done it again -- that was why I was challenging your paraphrasing because you left off that distinction -- which, you've now done again.

                            Perhaps, I was being hasty calling you incredibly dense. I should've gone with complete jackass. No one could be as dense as your comments suggested to me you are. Of course, you're misrepresenting what I said, but you're doing it more egregiously with each post. I have to conclude that's not ordinary stupidity. It's deliberate. So, congratulations. I take back the ramarks about your intelligence. Please substitute unrepentant liar and a-hole in their place. Give yourself a big pat on the back.

                            Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                            by FischFry on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:32:58 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  A hide button. Oh... OK. (0+ / 0-)

                            That clears it up. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

                            Whatever guy, bottom line is you were using it to lash out, like the adolescent you are. You're just completely pathetic. When you fail to prove your arguments, and are instead exposed as the pitiful, hypocritical juvenile you claim to deplore, you crawl right into the sandbox with your name-calling. Hide button indeed.

                            Waaahhhhhh! So much for your third... fourth... fifth... "final word".

                            LMFAO!

                          •  How about a sixth? (0+ / 0-)

                            Just because you are too thick to understand the obvious -- or just pretending you don't, to bait me -- doesn't mean I didn't prove my point. It just proves my points about you, too.

                            There was nothing wrong with my points, or my proof. It's you who are juvenile, since you either don't care to take the time to realize that you are playing fast and loose with the truth, or you just don't want to admit that's what you were doing.

                            Really, that's it. Basta.

                            Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                            by FischFry on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:54:21 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I guess you think that if it comes out (0+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hidden by:
                            FischFry

                            of your mouth, or your ass for that matter, that makes it gospel. That's what arrogant, egotistical people like you always think. Your disproven points are pathetic garbage, just like yourself.

                            But one thing is certain... you have been exposed as contradicting yourself on more than one occasion here.

                            One thing is certain... you are a proven hypocrite several times over in this diary.

                            One thing is certain... you have lied and misrepresented my statements, from your first comment to this one, time and time again. As both myself, and others, have pointed out.

                            One thing is certain...you are a pitiful crybaby who can't get enough of hearing himself talk. And lashes with troll rating... er, "hide button"... tantrums when he doesn't get his way.

                            Fucking baby.

                  •  The diary you point out -- you missed the point (0+ / 0-)

                    I was pointing out how potentially self-detructive all the Obama-Clinton race-baiting squabbles were. Apparently, you don't get subtlety -- not that I thought I was being especially subtle. I am an Edwards fan. However, the diary you point out was a call to the supporters of the other two candidates to knock off their b.s.

                    It may have been one of the least slanted things I've written. It was just an objective assessment of how damaging the personal fighting had become -- and it's still goign on. Maybe, Edwards will yet emerge as the sensible, grown-up alternative.

                    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                    by FischFry on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:31:27 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Least slanted? (0+ / 0-)

                      These Obama and Clinton supporters won't really care, either. They're far more interested in the thrill of the hunt, to caught up in this silly argument, to realize or care about the impact of their mindless savagery. They will stampede their campaigns right over the edge of the precipice, and won't even notice until the polls show their sinking numbers, just before they hit the bottom. The candidates, unwilling, or unable to call off their dogs, will be dragged over the edge, as well.

                      You are painting all Hillary and Obama supporters here with a very wide brush. Your stereotypes and accusations and hardly subtle, or objective, they're simply preposterous. And to claim Edwards supporters are somehow above the squabbling, especially considering your very own personal attacks in a diary discussing poll numbers, (that included absolutely no attacks on any other candidate), is the height of hypocrisy.

        •  You seem a little frustrated. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Excellent News (2+ / 2-)
    Recommended by:
    TX Dem in DC, everhopeful
    Hidden by:
    oysterface, Inland

    I think it will all be over on that day! Thanks so much. I will now ignore all these lame "I Hate Hillary" diaries!

  •  AK, ID, UT, CO, KS, ND, MO, IL, GA, AL (4+ / 0-)

    all likely to go for Obama, based on demographics.  (Rural voters and/or blacks).

    •  I like our chances in MINN (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, soros

      but Obama has to cut the margin down to single didgets in Cali. The blue states (areas) are about to send us another unelectable nominee, lets celebrate!

      It's obvious to us McCain is the most electable GOP nominee, it's obvious to repubs that Obama is our best choice.

      by nevadadem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:44:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I can see GA & AL because... (0+ / 0-)

      ...of the high ratio of AA voters in the Democratic Party there and IL is going to be a BO blowout but I dont see that as the case in any of those other states.

      Yes, AK, ID, ND & UT are rural but they are also lilly white...don't get your hopes up for the rural white vote.   KS, MO & CO are a lot more urban than you might think (not urbane but urban) and figure to fit the Nevada model better than South Carolina.

      I see Obama picking up IL, GA, AL, and 2 out of MN, KS & MO.

      •  Rural Nevada (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        soros

        Clinton won Nevada because she won Las Vegas/Clark County.  Obama won the rural counties of Nevada.  There was a similar pattern in New Hampshire.  Also...alot of the big pols from the rural states endorsed Obama.

      •  Alot more. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew

        I think he takes North Dakota as well. If Jesse Jackson could win Alaska in 1988, then Obama could win there as well.  A good shot at Tennesse, Oklahoma and Utah.  Big pol endorsements put him in play in Massachusetts also.

  •  These could change a lot after SC (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    serrano, gregoryjames

    As is the case this cycle, Presidential primaries are all about momentum.  If Obama wins big in SC as expected, these polls will tighten significantly and we will have a race.  If he squeaks out a small victory, the polls will tighten just a little and Obama will have to perform some magic to be competitive in these states.  If Obama loses SC, you can expect HRC to win these states with margins equal to or greater than indicated in the diary.

    In summary, I think these polls provide nothing more than a baseline of where things are right now in these states without taking into consideration the results of SC.  

      •  doesn't count (0+ / 0-)

        Florida doesn't count and, like Michigan, it won't get much press.

      •  Hmm.. not sure if anyone knows about Florida (0+ / 0-)

        Did not forget about it, I'm just not sure what Florida means this year.  In fact, I'm not sure if anyone really knows what it means.  Right now, HRC is 30-35 pts ahead of Obama in Florida and Obama has spent little time/money there.  Unlike Michigan, all candidates are on the ballot despite the delegate controversy.  There are 2 campaign days between SC and Florida.  Is that enough time for Obama to use a big SC win to make huge gains in Florida?  Will he even attempt to do that given the controversy surrounding the delegates?  Alternatively, will Obama essentially skip Florida and go on to the Super Tuesday states?

        I'm not sure and, again, I'm just not sure what Florida means this year.  I think most probably outcome is somewhere between: (x) it means next to nothing; or (y) it stems Obama's momentum somewhat, but not entirely.  In any case, I am certain the SC is still much more important than Florida in terms of creating momentum going into Super Tuesday

        •  I think it will be big. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          killjoy, phoenixdreamz

          And that's not just wishful thinking from a Clinton supporter.

          Since the Republican primary takes place on the same day, with Giuliani in play for the first time, there will be massive media coverage of the primary results. You'll be seeing pictures of the GOP and Dem winners on all your TV screens, in all your newspapers, and on all your computer screens, for at least a couple of days with WINNER posted over it.

          Florida is also a very important state for electoral votes in the general election. Democrats want a candidate who can win there. And if Obama can't beat Hillary there in a primary, how is he going to win it in the general? These are questions that will certainly be asked.

          •  No Campaign Pledge (0+ / 0-)

            Everyone has pledged not to campaign in FL and like the Michigan primary...all the attention will be on the Republicans.

          •  Exactly, most voters don't realize FL is ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AZnomad

            ... out of play.  They only see three candidates with %s next to there name and a big WINNER next to HRC.

            It actually should be relavant because it shows the ambient heat being thrown by these candidates outside of the contested states.

            Just like Guilliani's consistant 4% shows that outside of FLA he is considered dead candidate walking.

  •  Undecideds and Some Edwards Supporters For Obama (0+ / 0-)

    The undecideds, some Edwards supporters, and some people who normally do not participate in primary elections and are thus difficult to poll should give Obama more support than he is receiving in these polls.

    While it is unrealistic to assume Obama will wrap up the nomination on February 5, it is also unrealistic to assume Clinton will.

    I am convinced from my experiences with Obama in both New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, as well as posting here and on other forums, that the more people pay attention to Obama, the better he does.  Holding actual elections forces the paying of attention.

    Obama did better in the actual election results than he did in many polls (although not better or as well as he did in the most optimistic polls) in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

    IMPROVING GOVERNMENT FOR THE AVERAGE CITIZEN

    by State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:04:18 AM PST

  •  At the moment (2+ / 0-)

    Clinton looks very well-positioned to take a notable lead following Super Tuesday (though a lot can happen between now and February 5).   If she wins the big states decisively, pressure will begin to mount on Obama to bow out.

  •  Great news (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OhioCav, phoenixdreamz

    I see Hillary being the clear frontrunner after Super Tuesday. It'll be interesting to see this place impload.

    Hillary: Let's give America the kind of comeback New Hampshire has just given me.

    by Christopher Liberal on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:19:38 AM PST

  •  all of thease polls have a 20% ud (0+ / 0-)
  •  And the New York Times said NY was a race... (0+ / 0-)

    ...PHAIL.

  •  Edwards looks sub-viable almost everywhere (0+ / 0-)

    That means delegates at stake will be divided between Clinton and Obama. (He may still score a delegate in a Congressional District here and there ... and undecideds could break to put him over 15% in some states).

    Clinton's substantial big-state leads will inflate her margin, no matter what AK, UT and ND do.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site