Actually, it's "As Ohio goes...", but Florida runs 1-2% and Missouri runs 2-3% more conservative than Ohio.... :-)

I wish SUSA would ask likely voters rather than registered voters. If you look back at their 2004 polls, SUSA consistently showed Kerry doing better than, say, Rasmussen did.

Rasmussen polled Missouri on October 16, using likely voters, and found Clinton -3 to Giuliani and only even with Thompson. Obama did even worse.

Gosh, I'm sorry. I must have slept through the whole thing. Did we nominate Clinton?

McCain is the only candidate who would trounce Clinton

and...

Clinton (D) 48%, McCain (R) 45%

yes, and war is peace, freedom is slavery, and dubya's a war hero.

and ignorance is strength; i'll bet you can rip a phone book in half.

Damn only ONE Hillary post today!

Course only 3 posts

cd wrote: "Actually, it's 'As Ohio goes...', but Florida runs 1-2% and Missouri runs 2-3% more conservative than Ohio.... :-)"

Well if you want to get nit-picky, the original saying was, "As Maine goes, so goes the nation." That was widely considered political gospel for over a century, right up until Maine stubbornly continued to vote for Republicans after FDR came on the scene. In 1936 when ME was one of just two states Republicans carried against FDR, the chairman of the Democratic party lampooned the old proverb saying, "As Maine goes, so goes Vermont." Bellwether Maine never recovered from the embarrassment.

Since then it's more often been said of Missouri, by virtue of MO having picked the winner in every presidential race in the 20th century (plus 2004) except 1956. Ohio missed two, going with Dewey over Roosevelt in 1944 and Nixon over JFK. But still a pretty decent record obviously, so people do say the same of Ohio as well.

Renay

Yeah. The nerve of TPM posting the results of a credible poll about the front-running Democratic candidate on a blog entitled "TPM Election Central."

WTF?

Now for a reality check. I ran through the archives stetching back to the 14th. Of the headlines naming a presidential candidate as the topic of the post:

35 re Democratic candidates

33 re Republican candidates

10 re Obama (4 were attacks on Hillary)

6 re Edwards (2 were attacks on Hillary)

3 re Dodd

16 re Hillary (9 of which were merely reporting polling data including 2 state polls (Kansas - Nevada) which showed Hillary trailing the Republican nominees)

So 19 non-Hillary posts vs. 16 Hillary posts. 35 Democrats headlined to 33 Republicans.

Yeah. TPM's just completely outta control Renay. Why don't you try RedState for really great (and strikingly similar) Hillary sliming? You may find it much more edifying than TPM Hillary Central.

Thanks for thinking of me, colonpowwow. Still walking and still not able to match these poll results.

The majority (slightly over 51%) are undecided; 11% for Obama; 4% for Hillary; 20% leaning Obama; and 14% are those who say "will never vote Dem" or some such.

I'll say this again--Missouri will not go to Hillary, in the primary or in the general. Will. Not. Happen.

Wow, I guess colonpowwow was on vacation from the mrs. bill campaign. Haven't seen the staffer's posts in a while. By the way colon, what's mrs. bill's position on telecon immunity? Any position? Anything? Nah, that would be too much for her to take a position on anything but war. We know where she stands on that and nothing else. Any dem but mrs. bill, the closet repuke.

Also, another interesting point on these polls that MBM (mrs. bill's memo) consistently fails to point out is that gore beats the repukes by as much as, if not more, than mrs. bill when he is included in the polling and he isn't even running. What about that as a headline? Nah, won't see that one either. Also, what does that say in general? Run gore run.

Could somebody please explain why the hell SurveyUSA is still doing these state matchups with Republicans against Gore but not against any Democrat other than Hillary who's actually frikkin running? I loved the guy before it was cool, but at this point its just annoying that polls keep asking about him and I suspect it subtly skews the data for him to even be in the choices, even if you ask the "assume Gore isn't running" follow up.

I don't think I've ever seen a mor biased poll every question contains the name Clinton. What are you trying to do?

I believe this constant stream of headlines about Hillary leading in the polls at TPM-EC is about the number of hits on google folks will get when they look to see how Hillary is doing in the polls.

These headlines are for all those young people who beleive the same magnitude of hits on a topic makes it a fact.

The headlines on this site are just like the polls...an attempt to influence the election by creating an aura of invincibility and inevitability.

Hopefully, this will backfire and all the folks who are Hillary supporters will stay home thinking they don't need to go, because there are going to be so many others voting for her.

Should she get the nomination then boatloads of folks both Democrat and Republican will come out to cast their vote against Hillary...and Romney will be the President

Uh, dcshungu,aka mrs. bill staffer, why not address the first paragraph of my post. Yeah, I know gore isn't running and probably won't. That wasn't the primary point. The point was what's your boss's position on telecom immunity? Huh, what's her position? NONE, like everything else, but the war. Come on staffer, tell us all her position. With her lack of position on anything but the war, I would say that she is a warmonger repuke disguised as a dem.

lrapierwit wrote: I believe this constant stream of headlines about Hillary leading in the polls at TPM-EC is about the number of hits on google folks will get when they look to see how Hillary is doing in the polls.

Hmmm. Interesting hypothesis. But I think I still have to go with it being more a matter of there actually being a pretty constant stream of election poll results showing Senator Clinton in the lead, that election poll results are generally regarded as news and Election Central (as the name might imply) is an election news aggregator.

Why do some posters here insist that Hillary Rodham Clinton's main (or only as some put it) political accomplishment is that she married Bill?

Not only is that an incredibly sexist thing to say that violates any definition of being a progressive that I've ever consider - it is plain, laughable nonsense as well. Before Hillary even met Bill, she was the first student ever chosen by her classmates at Wesleyan University to give a commencement speech. (No recognition of her efforts in school or her showing leadership potential to see here, move along).

She then graduated from Yale Law School. Know any lawyers that went on to pursue a successful political career after a background in law school? I knew you did.

After graduating from Yale, she went to work for the Children's Defense Fund (I've worked with top lawyers and other Ivy League graduates - at Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE) - who could have gone right into corporate law earning a six-figure income who pursued instead heartfelt activist causes in the public interest. This fact alone would likely earn my vote as it demonstrates her personal commitment to the causes of children's and women's rights that she has advocated for her entire life.

She then worked as an attorney for the House Judiciary Committee. No political experience to be gained there. Then she met Bill.

I know those things done early in her life don't seem like major accomplishments to the giants who are posting irritating, childish, and sexist Hillary-hate rants here - they're just some inconvenient facts about her pre-Bill life.

Daniel,

I don't place much stock in SUSA's Iowa poll either. Like the Missouri poll, it is registered voters rather than likely voters. Her margin over Giuliani in Iowa is smaller than her margin in Missouri, where Rasmussen's likely voter poll shows her -3 instead of +7 to Giuliani as SUSA has it.

SUSA's methodology is flawed, and if we put too much stock in it, we may be in for a big surprise on Election Day.

If the media is not successful in nominating Rudy, Hillary will have a very difficutl time against Romney or Huckabee. Huckabee was eloquent in saying the things with which I disagree in tonight's debate---Rudy sounded like he was on SNL---Huckabee was dead serious in his criticism. Romney will be sneaky dirty----one of the Fox commentators picked up on what I did---we cannot have Hillary "interning" at the white house. He will figure out a way to challenge Hillary to take a lie detector test against Juanita Broaddrick before it is all over.

So HRC is the top Republican candidate . . . B.F.D. We already knew that.

dcshunga, aka mrs. bill staffer, once again the same bs response based on generalities and then personal attacks. Sounds like the republican/mrs. bill playbook. Don't answer the question just throw up generalities and attack the questioner. What a freaking joke? What's her position on telecom immunity? Oh, she doesn't have one obviously or you would have thrown it in my face.

Yes, she was attacked while first lady by the repukes, but amazingly the silence has been deafening since she started running for president. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, the nazis want her to be the nominee. She's the only dem they have a shot to beat.

Colon, no I am not sexist. My repeated point is that she has done squat as a senator. I don't care what sex, race or creed she is, she did nothing and is riding on mr. bill's record. I'd probably be supporting her if she took the opportunity given to her by being given a senate seat on a silver platter and did something with it. She didn't. Basically, she'd be a mid-level attorney in a lawfirm somewhere if she wasn't first lady. Admit it, oh I guess you can't as you're a campaign staffer.

I still can't believe she didn't read the NIE before she voted to go to war????? What was she doing taking her acting lessons so she could run for president as opposed to doing her freaking job???? And, we're supposed to trust her to be commander in chief??? Are you kidding me?

Michael wrote on October 22, 2007 7:37 AM: Yes, she was attacked while first lady by the repukes, but amazingly the silence has been deafening since she started running for president. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, the nazis want her to be the nominee. She's the only dem they have a shot to beat.

This drivel, ladies and gentlemen, was written with a straight face.

Please go away...preferably to a kindergarten playground, where you can play with those with your level of maturity...

"This drivel" is true you bozo. Don't you pay attention to the enemy? One glaring fact, among many, was the praise showered on mrs. bill by Rove, with concededly the claim that she was a "flawed" candidate, that's really a harsh attack. Of course, a mrs. bill staffer wouldn't want to point out the truth. Keep shoveling the garbage. Hopefully the dem primary voters won't be blinded by the bs from the mrs. bill machine.

When do issues matter, or is it just a boxing match to you knuckleheads?