With Bush raising today the specter that Iran's nuclear program "threatens World War III", Brunhilde the Bold has a pigpile of new triangulation material to work with.

Watch her work

I just easily looked up that 12 days ago she had a 13-point lead, so is 19 today a good or bad sign? This poll swings every day, and not in the same direction. Daily numbers mean little right now, and it's not obvious that a loss in Iowa would do much.

I'll wait for more polls to come out. Rasmussen is one of the least reliable polls of all the major outfits.

Gee, I see that Hillary, in Iowa, has gone from a slight lead (a statistical tie) in last week's Register Poll to an 11 point lead in this week's Rasmussen.

How's that "Hillary's a triangulator" meme playing in the Heartland?

I may be wrong, but my understanding of the term "triangulation" = cleverly straddling an issue politically so that both sides nearest the mushy middle (from where Americans historically like to choose their president) on any issue think that you favor their point of view. Is that an okay definition?

That definition would fit at least 90% of all politicians who have ever successfully run for national office or in a purple state - Russ Feingold and maybe even Barack Obama could be exceptions in a state race - although Illinois ain't too purple these days. But the key word is successful. Isn't getting elected president by a very diverse and nervous national electorate an important first step?

All you can do to weed through this politician crap (triangulation if you need the word so badly) is to look at the individual's voting records. You can legitimately take major exception to some of Hillary's votes (as you can with anyone in the Senate - even Feingold maybe voted to confirm Ashcroft or Roberts or something). or you can look at her solid liberal voting record on 90% of the issues important to Democratic voters.

Hillary is a rock solid liberal per her voting record overall. Get over it.

2008 should be a gimme, but never underestimate the Democratic Party's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Are Iowans now part of the conspiracy?

Uh, Cinderall Ferret?

Rasmussen has been the most accurate poll for the last two national election cycles. They were also as good as anyone in 05 with the off-year gov races. Why do you say they are unreliable? Are you going all the way back to 2000, when Ras admitted they screwed up by having a too-tight likely voter screen?

I won't swear to the accuracy of this poll but Rasmussen has a solid track record and is among the best polling organizations.

Reluctantly, I must agree with pacpallez. As a life long yellow-dog Democrat, I am always reminded of Will Rodgers comment - "I'm not a member of an organized political party, I'm a Democrat".

One thing seems obvious, it is, in my opinion, very difficult to come up with a palusible scenario that yields an outcome other than Sen. Clinton becomes our nominee. I've supported and contributed to John Edwards campaign, but frankly I'm becoming discouraged. Despite the fact that he's got a great message and he's a true populist, he just hasn't picked up any "traction".

Maybe it's time that all of back off on the critisism of Sen. Clinton and just let the voters decide. Fragging Sen. Clinton only serves the interests of those we want to get the hell out of Washington.

Whatever her shortcomings are, please simply compare her to the sluts that the Repubs are offering - point, set, match !

Kjoe, what’s the margin of error and what’s the sample size, and, above all, what’s the political/demographic breakdown of the samples? Because it seems to me that what we’re seeing here is some normal statistical variation. What may be more meaningful is that in the past week Obama and Edwards haven’t increased their support an iota.
Daily Tracking Numbers October 10-October 17
10/17 Clinton 43 Obama 24 Edwards 11
10/16 Clinton 44 Obama 23 Edwards 11
10/15 Clinton 45 Obama 22 Edwards 11
10/14 Clinton 49 Obama 22 Edwards 12
10/13 Clinton 47 Obama 22 Edwards 12
10/12 Clinton 48 Obama 24 Edwards 12
10/11 Clinton 45 Obama 24 Edwards 12
10/10 Clinton 42 Obama 25 Edwards 13

Indeed, if you look at the tracking polls at monthly intervals they’ve had no growth in support over the past four months
Monthly Tracking Poll Benchmarks
October 17 Clinton 43 Obama 24 Edwards 11
September 17 Clinton 40 Obama 23 Edwards 13
August 17 Clinton 38 Obama 24 Edwards 12
July 17 Clinton 37 Obama 25 Edwards 13

Bluntly Edwards and Obama haven’t made their case against Hillary and I’m not sure that they will. Even if things go very badly for her in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and Florida this January (a perhaps none too likely result for all five contests), she still has the money and the organizational power to remain the odds on favorite in the big state primaries on February 5th. Well, we’ll live and see.

"Well, we’ll live and see".

Agreed.

She's in the pockets of the same corporate interests who have been propping up W and outside of not being an imbecile, I doubt a Clinton presidency would be much better from a progressive standpoint than what we have now.

If by "Progressive" you mean "left wingnutery", then I think you're right. Otherwise, the Clinton presidency has all the makings of a historic course correction for the country....

hold your ears as the latest rasmussen poll in Iowa will be trumpeted on behalf of hillary--33-22-21(don't know how that would translate into delegates). no one, and I mean no one in the msm, will say anything about the rasmussen national daily tracking poll----which has never shown the 30 point lead for hillary. The news you will not hear, but you can easily look up---is that Hillary's 27 point national lead from 3 days ago---is 19 today.

Our Reference Librarian is indeed correct in pointing out the daily fluctuations in the Rasmussen poll are to be expected, especially with a MOE of ~4.5%. However, it is the trend over a period of time that should be more informative, and that is clear from my repost of the Librarian's data:

07/17 Clinton 43 Obama 24 Edwards 11
08/17 Clinton 40 Obama 23 Edwards 13
09/17 Clinton 38 Obama 24 Edwards 12
10/17 Clinton 37 Obama 25 Edwards 13

Obama's and Edwards' numbers have not budged in three months, whereas Clinton's have cleary been on the rise. If you do not like the Rasmussen poll, it'd be a lot more depressing, since the recent "surge" in the other - presumably more reliable - polls puts Clinton's lead at ~30% nationwide.

stlounick

While on your five-days-a-week going door-to-door campaign, why don't you drop by the Democratic Party headquarters in your area? I'm pretty sure you'll find one or two there.

Just trying to help.

dcs, I suspect you've got the data associated with the wrong dates.

StLouNick:

Thanks. You're right. I got the thing backwards, just trying to make it more legible... The point I tried to make stands, however.

And whoever thinks Hillary can lose the first four primaries and then be soloing through the Feb 5th needs to put down the pipe. Obama has enough dough to see it through, too. If Hillary loses the first four primaries, I suspect her candidacy would be toast.

Still going door-to-door and still not finding all of the Hillary supporters that these polls tell me are out there. I find a whack of undecideds and a number of Indies and Repubs who plan on asking for a Dem ballot in our open primary. Anyone have a clue where the Hillary supporters are hiding out? I'm in a swing state, after all. If the support is solid, I should be finding it.

You need to get out more! I bet it is peaceful and quiet where you live, without all the hassles of an urban environment, with its melting pot of views. Sometimes is great to hang out with people who think the same way we do... It makes us feel safe by shielding from things or ideas that are too different.

Cheers!

NYNick

I think the Fundies have lost credibility with the public in general and maybe their own -- they gave us Terri Schiavo (which Obama fell for but recanted), anti-stem cell research (which illustrates repeatedly that a fertilized egg is simply a cluster of cells) and have failed to do anything good for children.

In the '70 one professor of mine was discussing the religious fads that have hit America throughout its history: he predicted an upsurge of religiosity which in its first stage is rule bound but which -- with luck -- would begin to care about people.

Not to defend the cynical corruption (bread-n-circuses!) which is the Ames Straw Poll, but... in some ways, I think the straw poll results really do reflect the state of the Iowa Repubs. Romney captures the traditional authoritatians who can't be bothered to think too much (elsewhere, Giuliani seems to own this constituency, but he's a bit too weird for Iowans, imho), and Huckabee takes the "hotter" sort of "values"-based Repubs. As far as I can tell, the hotter sort are interested in two or three issues: immigration, taxation and abortion. Huckabee is out in front on the latter two. And he seems like a nice Midwestern farm boy with a dry sense of humor, which plays well. (FWIW, my neighbors have switched out their Tancredo placard for one reading "Support the Troops: Win the War in Iraq.")

apologies for the double posting; something seems to be amiss with the comment function.

Oh, and I wanted to briefly address a factual point. Another poster claimed, "even a month ago, Hillary was a solid third way behind both Edwards and Obama," apparently in reference to the Iowa polls.

Here are a couple websites tracking the Iowa polls:

http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

A month ago both websites had Clinton in a close first, not "a solid third way behind both Edwards and Obama." The trend since then has both Clinton and Obama a bit up and Edwards a bit down, so the only order change in the last month has actually been Obama moving from a close third to a close second, and vice-versa for Edwards.

But again, this is just correcting the factual record--all the same caveats about the predictive abilities of polls this far out still apply.

DTM

I'm the one who made the incorrect statement re Hillary running solid third in Iowa as late as last month. Thanks for the correction. I think I was stuck in my impressions from earlier this year and shot wildly from the hip.

However, it would have been factually correct of me to say to say that "Hillary trailed Edwards in some polls as late as last month (although statistically close and leading in others), and she trailed both Edwards (significantly) and Obama (slightly) in earlier polls from this year."

My point though, is that the trends show that she is gaining steadily in Iowa and is this month, now beginning to show as the leader (narrowly and precariously). It shows her gaining while Edwards is faltering and Obama remains stagnant behind her. I expect her to show as the clear leader (like Edwards was earlier) in the next round of polling.

And, yes, polling - especially in Iowa - is very suspect. However, I suspect it also beats most of our Chertoffian gut feelings.