I think the suggestion is that she's no longer CONFIDENT.

Team Hillary's internal polls must be looking really bad. They appear to be going full out negative.

The question we should all be asking is will these attacks resonate? I don't think so. Character attacks on Obama are not going to stick because they do not fit with the perception of Obama held by likely caucus goers. I think there is a high probability that these attacks will blowback in HRC's face. Obama is a particularly effective counterpuncher. He isn't great at attacking, but he is good with the strong quick response.

That's BS spin and doesn't address the fundamental bribery and violation of campaign finance laws HopePAC is involved in. Maybe Hillary is in a panic, but Obama's actions are still deplorable.

Obama is more and more giving every appearance of being a fraud.

tpm does not need to say anything about the zogby poll---no one is talking about it except a bunch of Yahoos.

Most Emailed News Stories

Nissan recalling Altima, Sentra vehicles - 2 hours ago
PR pageant officials probe pepper spray - 16 hours ago
New poll shows Clinton trails top 2008 Republicans - 2 hours ago

Attacking another Democrat?

I thought she was supposed to be above mere politics, the untouchable front-runner, patiently awaiting her coronation.

Why, it's as if there were a primary contest going on! How vulgar!

AJ,

Actually, the point about disclosure is directly relevant. All this information is coming from reports that have been filed with the FEC. So if the FEC objected to something the PAC was doing, it could notify the PAC and the PAC could stop doing it.

I've never seen TPMEC use a picture of Obama where he doesn't look like he has a massive stick up his ass. You could make your bias a *little* less blatant, guys.

The hit on Obama came from John Solomon. Solomon's low standards are well known to the serious junkies who frequent this site, but he's outdone even FoxNews. As FoxNews reported -- eleven days ago:

The [Obama Hopefund] PAC also contributed $1,000 each to Sens. Iris Estabrook, Kathleen Sgambati and Lou D'Allesandro, all of whom later endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton. The PAC gave $6,000 to Gov. John Lynch's campaign war chest; Lynch has not endorsed in the presidential contest.

This did not fit Solomon's bribe theme. One other point: Solomon usually at least does his own leg work. But every fact in Solomon's piece could be found in Obama's own public disclosures. So Hillary's claim he's not being transparent is bunk. No surprise there.

Oh please, Ugh. Are you really that paranoid about anti-Obama bias? (Academic studies have found that Obama gets by far the best media coverage. Now that's bias.) I actually think this picture makes Obama look very deliberate and "Presidential". It gives him an aura of toughness that those "youthful" picutures don't.

If anything the two candidates who have the worst pictures at TPM are Hillary and McCain. But that is mostly due to stock photos available, not any bias. If my biggest concern was this photo, I'd be pretty happy about that.

We interrupt Sgt. Kleefeld's Daily Whine for an important news bulletin:

Obama's Standing in Iowa Shifts Race's Dynamics http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/26/obamas_standing_in_iowa_poll_shifts_contest/

I am willing to bet that clinton II's internal polling is not looking good and obama's is looking good. This is part of the reason for the fusilade from clinton II over the last week or so. Also, that zogby poll that tpm isn't posting shows clinton II losing nationally to all republican candidates. That has to be reflected in her internal polling as well.

To fully appreciate the nonsensical nature of that comment please follow this link, then come back for more.

Now that you have returned from the link, here's a lucid analysis of the situation: Clinton is on the offensive because she is going for the kill, and NOT some panicky move due to tanking poll numbers. They know what they are doing over there! She has done very well in the past when she'd taken the fight to Obama. It is how she had gained her advantage in the polls in the first place. Obama is prone to making mistakes when challenged. Now that it is beginning to look like Rudy's ultimate fate has started fit the anticipated script (that he is too "liberal" to win the GOP nomination), she is no longer concerned about her eventual GOP opponent among the others (McCain could be tough in the GE but he is still floundering], and has decided to turn her fire on the strongest of her Dem opponents.

All she cares about is to come first, or second...to Edwards... in IA. She wants to deny Obama a win in there. It is a great strategy because if she buries Obama in IA, the fight is over before it starts and she can begin preparing for the GE.... That is why she is attacking. Got it!

I read the WaPo article. Nothing the HopePAC has done in their full disclosure to the FEC is anywhere near as blatant as Hillary's bribe to Vilsack. As RaymondA points out above, Obama's PAC also gave to candidates that endorsed Hillary.

Why does Hillary feel the need to lash out like this at Obama? We should be talking about issues. . . Of course, Hillary can't do that if she keeps waiting for future commissions of DC insiders to have their say before sharing her views with the hoi polloi.

dc, so what. what about the florida poll or the virginia poll showing clinton getting smacked? What about the zogby poll, or the republican poll that I pointed out to you? Neither my polls nor yours show what their internals say.

She hasn't been doing this until recently, so obviously something happened and it's not that she "wants to move in for the kill" or she's going for the knock-out. She's got a problem and she knows it so she is going negative.

By the way dc, do you remember how much a night in the lincoln bedroom cost or the whitehouse tea parties during clinton I? I can't remember, but I do recall it was big dollar pay-offs.

Jeremy wrote on November 26, 2007 3:56 PM:

dcshungu, You are wrong. Hillary's attacks on Obama have consistently backfired because she uses rightwing frames that do not resonate with voters.

Just a mind jogger: What did Clinton do after Obama had declared publicly that as POTUS he'd invade Pakistan to root out terrorists if Pakistan did not play ball, or during a debate, that he'd meet with Kim or Mahmoud or Hugo during his first year in office without precondition? She pounced on it and buried him by calling him "inexperienced", which effectively ended Obama-mania and his "surge" in the polls. She is going on the offensive to trip Trippi's boy.

LOL. As a Clinton support I would take that kind of "backfire" any time!

Michael wrote on November 26, 2007 3:59 PM:

dc, so what. what about the florida poll or the virginia poll showing clinton getting smacked? What about the zogby poll, or the republican poll that I pointed out to you? Neither my polls nor yours show what their internals say.

Michael,

There are 50 states in the Union and I do not expect Hillary to be leading in all of them. So what about Florida and Virginia and the Zogby poll or your obsession with the 70% of the 30-40% of the Repubs who would never vote for Clinton or any Dem?

Have I not seen recent polls from Virginia and Florida showing Clinton running strong in both states? I had already addressed your obsessive compulsion with Republican voters: We won't win by depending on the Repub voters. We will win for sure if we turn out the Dem and Indy voters!!!!

He is a fraud

I love it - Hillary does what the rest have been doing to her for months - and nows its unbecoming and desperate? One has to wonder if Edwards will jump on this with his buddy Obama or not....

I am choking on all this hope - not what I want 4 years of - I want results.

The Reverend Obama needs to step off Mt. Holier than tho ....

dchungsu,

In her post-debate spin Hillary did indeed call Obama "inexperienced". This may have been in part due to the fact that they wanted to steer the conversation away from Hillary's weak expression of fear that she'll be used for propaganda if she's president. However, they went beyond that and linked to articles by the likes of Charles Krauthammer. They actually linked to neocon praise for their approach to foreign policy at hillaryhub. They did that, then whined when Obama made the point starkly.

Obama, by contrast with Hillary, has actually called for making a clean break with the preconditions based approach to diplomacy favored by neocon thinkers and DC insiders like Krauthammer and Kristol (at least Hil's team was smart enough not to link to Kristol, though they did win his praise). Obama's made a point of bringing up that clear, policy-based contrast again and again with Iowa voters and the polls are showing the results.

Your view that Hillary's expression of fear of being used by dictators and her neocon framed attacks on Obama have helped her is not supported by events subsequent to the initial exchange. The same will be true of her Romneyesque attacks on Obama for suggesting that wealthy people should pay the same tax rate as the rest of us.

dc, the most recent polls out of florida and virginia show her losing to the republican front runners. I don't recall any showing her "running strong" against the republican nominees. Also, florida is pretty much a must win and virginia would be nice for a cushion. Why just write them off? They are much more important than the states you linked to.

Also, I am not saying that dems have to depend on republicans. I am saying and have repeatedly said that republicans will come out in droves to vote against her, while the other nominees won't have that problem and obama actually draws a substantial amount of republican votes. That's the point.

Jeremy wrote on November 26, 2007 4:22 PM:

dchungsu,

In her post-debate spin Hillary did indeed call Obama "inexperienced". This may have been in part due to the fact that they wanted to steer the conversation away from Hillary's weak expression of fear that she'll be used for propaganda if she's president. However, they went beyond that and linked to articles by the likes of Charles Krauthammer. They actually linked to neocon praise for their approach to foreign policy at hillaryhub. They did that, then whined when Obama made the point starkly.

....And your point is?

Obama, by contrast with Hillary, has actually called for making a clean break with the preconditions based approach to diplomacy favored by neocon thinkers and DC insiders like Krauthammer and Kristol (at least Hil's team was smart enough not to link to Kristol, though they did win his praise). Obama's made a point of bringing up that clear, policy-based contrast again and again with Iowa voters and the polls are showing the results.

....And your point is?

Your view that Hillary's expression of fear of being used by dictators and her neocon framed attacks on Obama have helped her is not supported by events subsequent to the initial exchange. The same will be true of her Romneyesque attacks on Obama for suggesting that wealthy people should pay the same tax rate as the rest of us.

No one has ever challenged the fact that Obama was hurt by those statements. They coincided with the end Obama-rama-mania and the end of his surge. Look at the national poll graphs at pollster.com

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

You're right, Jesse. Obama's too fuzzy for my taste. That's why I'm afraid if he were the nominee the Republicans would rip him a new one. Sounds too high and mighty. Go Hillary!

Then don't post any polls at all dc. You are way tooo funny.

By the way dc, what makes you think that the poll is one of those bs on-line surveys that is not done in a scientific manner? I didn't know that zogby was such a hack that they would do such a thing. Don't you think that would hurt any future credibility they might have?

Incidentally dc, do you remember how much a night in the lincoln bedroom cost during clinton I? I keep racking my brain, but I can't remember. I am sure you do.

Michael wrote on November 26, 2007 4:48 PM:

Then don't post any polls at all dc. You are way tooo funny.

It seems to me that it is time your 50 mg of benzos, Michael.

Is that Bill Burton's full statement?

As an Obama supporter, I would like to see a full throated response to the substance. (I also give the benefit of the doubt--I suspect the immediate response is to deflect the criticism and anything more substantive will come later once the campaign has their ducks in a row about how to respond. I think this is how these tete-a-tetes have gone before.)

Michael wrote on November 26, 2007 4:59 PM:

By the way dc, what makes you think that the poll is one of those bs on-line surveys that is not done in a scientific manner? I didn't know that zogby was such a hack that they would do such a thing. Don't you think that would hurt any future credibility they might have?

All you need to do is to read the methodology to know what it was. I tried posting the following on Pollster.com site but the server stopped responding, so I am going to post it here as

An Open Letter
To: Pollster.com, Zogby International

Does Pollster.com consider this Zogby do-it-yourself poll to be scientific enough to dignify by posting its results on your usually rigorous site?

We come here for information that might give us some clue about the dynamics of this campaign, which this poll does not even come close doing.

Finally, the results of this "poll" speak for themselves. Do you really believe that Clinton is losing even to a GOP candidate like Huckabee, who virtually no one has heard of outside of Iowa or New Hampshire? All this poll shows is that the minority of very "passionate" voters, who tend to make up the bulk of Clinton's detractors, overwhelmingly responded to this "interactive" poll. Most regular people do not bother taking such "polls", as they rightly consider them a waste of time.

Over the long-term, it looks like Obama is collapsing:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history

I am not saying that you are wrong dc, it just doesn't make sense and what you are saying is not what zogby said the methodology was. Also, if the survey was as you describe, why do they say that it was conducted over a 4 day period, like a telephone survey? Seems kind of odd and it got a ton of press. Also, the mere fact of its existence screams for it being posted on this site as well. The fact that it wasn't speaks volumes.

It is true that starting in the mid-summer and until around mid-late October, Obama experienced a slight dip in his national poll numbers. Of course many things happened throughout that time, and so it would be a bit odd to assume that dip was caused by any particular event. Indeed, I would personally suggest it was mostly a feedback loop based on the national polls (rather than any particular event).

In any event, interestingly there was no such dip in Iowa. In NH arguably there was such a dip, but it stopped right around when Obama began advertising. So to the extent all this shows that national horserace coverage is affecting national polls, it also shows such coverage is trumped in individual states once the campaigns start advertising.

Finally, Blumenthal and Franklin of Pollster have made it clear that rather than prejudge the viability of alternative polling methods (IVR, internet, etc.), they would rather study the issue. They presented a paper in May called: "Methods and Horse Races: How Internet, IVR and Phone Polls Performed in the 2006 Elections." Unfortunately I haven't found a complete version of this online, but it would be interesting to see.

So I guess censorship is ok dc. If you don't agree with something, just ignore it or don't publish it because it goes against your mantra of inevitability for clinton II. Way to funny dc.

DTM, rasmussen polls really are bad by the way. They almost historically have a very conservative tilt and usually are way off the mark on the end result at election time. By way of example, the king polls nearly 10 points higher in approval rating on rasmussen than virtually any other polls. Also, rasmussen calls back the same people over and over again on its daily tracking polls by robo call and only calls back the next time they do the poll people that responded the last time. Not very scientific. If one would want to disregard a poll for not being very scientific, rasmussen would fit the bill.

dcs, Clinton is trying to win the primary. Her campaign may be trying to sell the idea that she can lose in Iowa, but that just flat is not true. If Clinton loses in Iowa, she will have to win overwhelmingly in NH to continue being a viable candidate.

It has nothing to do with the general election. Clinton will have to fight for the nomination; the inevitability is gone.

Michael,

Interestingly, pollster does exclude the Rasmussen tracking poll from its charts, but not other Rasmussen polls. I'm sure they have provided an explanation at some point, but I don't know what it is.

BlueDog wrote on November 26, 2007 5:26 PM:
Over the long-term, it looks like Obama is collapsing:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Can we put aside our differences and figure out something here---Rasmussen's tracking poll was something i kind of look at every morning---ignoring the fact that it might be irrelevant. On Mondays. you would have the treat of the 3 days worth of figures.

It halted last Wednesday---they owe us thursday, Fri, Sat, Sun, and now Monday---happy thanksgiving rasmussen---now get back to work!

2008 Presidential Candidate Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening.

Again with this spammer?

Even though many may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record , just as Senator Clinton insists.
.
The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where torturing people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and protect the citizenry.
.
Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
.
Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
.
Do we want a President who sends a "crime does pay" message to society?
.
Would you vote for a President who has signed nonagression deals with the KKK or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKK and Nazi Party.
.
We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
.
If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for “gang stalking” to see the tip of the dirtberg. Do it before you decide to reply to my post.
.

stlounick wrote:

...If Clinton loses in Iowa, she will have to win overwhelmingly in NH to continue being a viable candidate.

It has nothing to do with the general election. Clinton will have to fight for the nomination; the inevitability is gone.

There goes the crackpot from St. Louis again. And the response is the same... Just because you say so doesn't make it so.

Senator Clinton is ahead EVERYWHERE, except Iowa, where there is a statistical tie.

Clinton is for sure going for the knockout. DUH! She doubles down on her media buys in So. Carolina. She ramps everything up in Iowa. The Governor's wife in New Hampshire (wink, wink, nod, nod) comes out on Senator Clinton's behalf. And she goes right for the little wheeny, Barry's jugular.

Yeah, Oprah riding a bus through the corn fields is going change things. NOT!

O-Bomb-A got caught sucking lobbyist dick. What a fraud.

pacc, there went the discussion into the sewer. Hey, look at the upper right corner and go take a look at Gallup's conclusions--Obama and Clinton are statistically tied in the head-to-head matchups with Republicans on a national level. Gallup...you know, a reputable polling place?

Let me slow down the discussion for you. Clinton cannot afford to be seen as a loser. There are enough questions and her negatives are high enough that she has zero maneuvering room to recover from mistakes. She simply cannot lose Iowa and then NH and keep a campaign going. That's reality.

I didn't predict that Hillary would lose, doofus. Your reply tells me that you think she's going to lose.

This coming from the campaign that had to return 850,000 dollars raised by one of their bundlers (Hsu).

she is now trying to muddy up Obama to slow down his momentum. It is not going to work. And this latest poll from Zogby will lead even more democrats to figure out what I have known for years, Clinton cannot win a general election matchup with any Republican candidate!!!

What DTM said. Right on the nose.

Obama made a big point of being lobbyist free but then we find out that his PAC is taking lobbyist money. This has nothing to do with whether or not the PAC has made the proper disclosures.
This has to do with even knowing what it means to level with the American public.

Leadership PACS are a notorious method for attempting -- not always successfully -- to buy support. There is such a thing as a failed bribe.

If your argument is that someone else did it wrong before, so its alright that Obama does it now this is a remarkable lowering of standards in favor of the candidate. Those not so besotted can always move to Edwards.

This also illustrates Obama's inexperience. Knowing that any leadership PAC that for whatever reason gave support to the candidate's own supporters would be open to challenge -- valid or not -- Hillary played it safe and shut hers down. She is tough but cautious. Obama is just brash.

Yes, Jane....Hillary shut down HillPac only when she announced her candidancy and only after, in the fall of 2006, she used her PAC to send beaucoup $ to potential supporters in the early voting states. I believe WaPo did an article on her PAC outgo in the fall of 2006. So, I believe her statements about Obama's Hopefund are a tad disingenuous, no?

Hillary SUCKS!!! I have voted for EVERY Democratic nominee in every presidential election in my lifetime (almost 60 years), but I will NOT vote for HRC! If the spineless Dems nominate this "Bush with a skirt," then the country will get another (well-deserved) four years of Republican Neocon Hell, because the Repukes (and a fair amount of Independents) will turn out en masse to turn her away from the prize. For Christsakes, people, she is hand-picked by the corporate-teat-sucking DLC. If you think you'll get the REAL CHANGE this country needs from a DLC candidate, you are REALLY Naive! Just more of the same...

Zogby Internet Poll Trial Heats are Odd

However, the response fails to state the obvious: Clinton loses to all the GOP candidates because the Zogby "interactive" internet poll's methodology is seriously flawed. The poll was overwhelmingly taken by internet-savvy "passionate" Clinton detractors, looking for some relief from their Clinton Derangement Syndrome (CDS), who repeatedly (figuratively, of course) pressed the anti-Clinton virtual lever when provided with the opportunity. This type of relief is analogous to that experienced by lab mice that are conditioned to repeatedly press some "lever" for reward...

The evidence: Please explain how Clinton could possibly be trailing all the Republican candidates nationally, including Romney and Huckabee, who remain virtually unknown outside of the few early primary or caucus states where they have campaigned...

This poll is not scientific. I know a thing or two about stats and the "scientific method." Please do the electorate and democracy a favor and avoid posting such results, lest you do great damage to your firm's reputation and credibility.

DCShungu, Ph.D.
Associate Prof of Physics in Radiology,
Psychiatry, Physiology and Biophysics.
@ a couple of Ivy League Medical Schools in Manhattan.

CalD,

No, it is a poorly designed question because answering it doesn't really tell us what we would need to know.

Again, the basic point is that if the PAC distributed the remaining funds broadly, which it apparently did, some of the funds were bound to go to officials who would subsequently help Obama in the primaries. So the fact that SOME of the funds did in fact go to Obama supporters is not a particularly useful piece of information.

Now if ALL of the funds went to Obama supporters, that would be pretty interesting. It turns out that is not the case, however (e.g., the Guardian article reported on funds that went to Clinton supporters and uncommitted officials, and we also know the PAC gave to every member of Congress in certain states, and so on). That is the sort of information that is lost in answering your poorly designed question, and why in fact it is poorly designed: answering your question gives us too incomplete a picture to make an informed judgment.

But the most fundamental point is that when you state, "I'd like to hear opinions from other authorities as to the propriety of something like this," you seem to be overlooking the fact that all this has already been reported to the FEC, which in fact is THE authority tasked with enforcing the campaign finance laws. Of course the FEC is not in the business of planting oppo stories in the press, so if that is what you want more of, you probably won't get it from the FEC. But if you are just concerned about the campaign finance laws being enforced, the fact that all this has been reported to the FEC would seem to take care of your wish.

Your hypothesis doesn't make sense of the data. As Franklin points out, the Republicans in the trial heats against Clinton do not do better than their trend estimates. What actually happened is that Clinton's numbers are below their trend estimates, and the undecided numbers are up.

I do have a pretty good idea about how internet polling works.

The result of this Zogby internet poll is what you would get if you invited a random sample of internet-frequenting geeks to choose a candidate they would like to see elected POTUS. It just shows who is "passionate" enough about politics to take the time to take the poll, and such people would be quite likely to engage in online political discussions. My impression is that such a sample would overwhelmingly consist of individuals who are not sympathetic to Clinton for the simple reason that if you check the internet, you'd find more anti-Clinton web sites than those that oppose all the other candidates combined. Fortunately, the public at large is not as "passionate" so that a true sampling of potential voters is best achieved by random telephone polling than by soliciting votes on the internet or inviting randomly sampled people to access the internet to vote.

Morning dc, I still don't get where you get your assumptions. There is limited information on the methodology, so you are assuming alot. By way of example, you are assuming that the "internet-frequenting geeks" are all "hillary-haters." Well, from this website alone, a "random sample" of posters would indicate that the split is about 50/50 clinton II lovers vs. anybody but clinton II people. So your speculation that the poll was loaded with people not sympathetic to clinton II may not be correct.

In addition, I keep coming back to the 4 day limit on the poll. This limit would be odd for the type of survey that you keep claiming that it was. Bottom line is that this poll is just like any other poll. They are all about as scientific as reading tea leaves when it comes to determining who would win or lose a year from now, when we don't even know who is facing off against who.

loki,

I am not sure what you mean when you claim this poll is not "scientific".

Generally speaking, there is a growing body of literature about "alternative" polling techniques such as internet polling. Among other things, that literature has looked at the various methods people are trying to deal with issues such as the nonrepresentative sample, and people are tracking how accurate these polls have been in various contexts.

That sounds like a pretty scientific approach to me.

cald, how much did a night in the lincoln bedroom cost during clinton I? I forgot. Do you remember?

CalD,

Oh, and for the record, that former FEC Chairman explained to the Post that the FEC has NOT characterized this sort of contribution as impermissible (although I agree that the tone of his comments suggested that he personally may have disagreed with that decision).

loki,

No, actually. These alternative polling techniques (including IVR, internet polls, and so on) are already useful insofar as they make entire new categories of polling economically viable. And in the future, it is almost certainly going to become increasingly necessary to rely on alternative techniques as a less and less representative pool is available through landline phones.

Again, the "scientific" approach to all this would be to not prejudge the utility of these techniques simply because they are relatively new. Rather, the "scientific" approach would be to study them, judge their accuracy, improve them where possible in light of what we learn, and so on. Which, as it turns out, is exactly what the professional polling community is doing.

2008 Presidential Candidate Weekly Poll

www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.

loki, what, did you gals/guys have a meeting about me or something? I must really get under you clinton II lovers' skin. Smack me down with some stellar facts about why your candidate is the bestest. Nah, won't happen, because there is nothing there. Too funny.

Of course, as I also noted before, it is an open question how well those compensation techniques actually work. But every time you post a comment in which you show no awareness at all of this compensation process, you are just displaying your ignorance of what is actually going on.

Dissembling To Mindlessness...

Please spare me the condescension, as you are usually as clueless as you sound. It does not require a rocket scientist to figure out that the problem with this Zogby poll is that the sampling methodology is flawed. The primary assumption underlying statistical science is that the sample is truly random and "normally distributed.". You cannot argue that this sample was. The sampling methodology already violates the basis of statistical science so that to speak of some unspecified "compensation process" shows just how cluless you are.

I have tried to make my case based on how I know this type of polling to work, so if you challenge my assuptions, then the burden of proof is on you to reconcile this poll with every other recent poll, and to explain how even Huckabee could be beating Clinton nationally when few people have even heard of him.

If you find any value in this poll, then to call you ignorant would be too generous.