Exclusive: Hillary's Iowa Gap In Zogby Poll Worsens After Second-Choice Allocations

Comments (59)

Chino Blanco wrote on January 3, 2008 11:14 AM:

Thank you very much, but I'm getting off this roller coaster. 37.5% ?? Now you're just messing with me.

DRinOH wrote on January 3, 2008 11:14 AM:

In this election, you are either for Hillary or someone else. So, it follows naturally that if you're for someone else, you'll likely still be for someone else if your first choice isn't viable. Here's hoping Obama is that someone else...

Fired up, and nervous as hell!

Pat wrote on January 3, 2008 11:22 AM:

That actually wouldn't surprise me... it looks like the 2004 numbers (Kerry won with around 37.5%) but with the Dean and Gephardt numbers combining for Clinton's.

Michael A wrote on January 3, 2008 11:23 AM:

Ditto DRinOH. At this point, its up to who shows up tonight. The polls look good, but as keith pointed out, people have to show up. We shall see tonight. Who knows, but it is looking good.

Chino Blanco wrote on January 3, 2008 11:26 AM:

Yup, it's nerve-wracking .... Fired up and nowhere to go!

Tom wrote on January 3, 2008 11:28 AM:

This poll makes a little more sense than ARG, but it's not as good as Insider Advantage. Those guys really nailed the result in 2004 and they're picking Edwards this time in a landslide.

dcshungu wrote on January 3, 2008 11:37 AM:

We asked Zogby for how the final poll result would look after second choices are reallocated for voters who were in favor of candidates under 15% — the benchmark for viability in a Democratic caucus. Here's what they gave us: Obama 37.5%, Edwards 33.7%, Clinton 28.8%.

Did you ask ARG to do the same thing with their data? Not that it really matters since the mother of all polls is just right around the corner, but it would be kind of fun to find out which pollster got it "right" after the fact.

Michael A wrote on January 3, 2008 11:40 AM:

Absolutely dc, you gotta admit that this is really exciting regardless of the outcome.

Dan wrote on January 3, 2008 11:43 AM:

It looks like it is being confirmed that Richardson is asking his backers to go for Obama if he is unviable. That could be HUGE.

DRinOH wrote on January 3, 2008 11:44 AM:

Actually Tom, the Des Moines Register/Seltzer poll was the only one to get the top three right, and we already know what they said about what to expect tonight.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/how_accurate_were_the_iowa_pol.php

Rusty Austin wrote on January 3, 2008 11:48 AM:

It's going to be McCain and Edwards, there is no way this country is ready for a woman or a black man. I am not happy about it but that's the way it is.

mike2 wrote on January 3, 2008 11:50 AM:

Sounds like democracy in action. This system of reallocating second choices is a partial implementation of a system that enables people to rank all of their preferences, and then reasigns everyone to (ultimately) 1 of 2 candidates as the candidates are crossed off the list from bottom to top.

This is an entirely positive direction for voting reform, and what it shows is that Clinton is in fact not the favored candidate.

All of the complaining about Iowa caucus procedures is quite misplaced and quite transparently establishment shilling by people who don't think they are going to like the outcome.

The scandal is only that Iowa has such a disproportionate role by being first... but all states should be trying variants of Iowa style face to face politics, and ranked voting.

Onslow Memling wrote on January 3, 2008 11:50 AM:

I'm confused. If the Clinton camp gets their supporters to put down Edwards as a second choice, doesn't Obama have little chance of coming in first?

Michael A wrote on January 3, 2008 11:51 AM:

Wow, dan, if richardson people go to obama and the rest of the second tier, which it seems like may be happening, obama could get a huge historic win in iowa. Wow!!!! We may be witnessing history tonight people.

M wrote on January 3, 2008 11:57 AM:

This is going to be exciting no matter how it turns out. Well fought battle, everyone (yes, even Clinton supporters).

I'm ready to have a nominee and start reasoning and engaging the opposite party.

nogo war wrote on January 3, 2008 12:03 PM:

These guys had it right last time also
http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_1231_103.aspx

Obama is betting darn near everything on first timers.
If everyone who claimed they would be at an anti-war rally came we would have 5,000 instead of 500 here in Denver
Also it is skewed towards rural areas which is not Obama's strength. It does not matter 1,000 caucus in Ames...the number of delegates does not change...
I do think the winner will have at least 35%...just don't know who.

john mccutchen wrote on January 3, 2008 12:09 PM:

KUDOS Eric!

Let's see how Mrs. Bill spins a third place finish..more and more likely it seems as Obama ground game and last minute surge should give him a clear win

bob wrote on January 3, 2008 12:17 PM:

Here's what other pollsters and campaign insiders think of the reliability of other pollsters in Iowa. (Preview: Zogby and ARG don't do well, Des Moines Register and ABC do.)

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_of_pollsters_rating_the_i.php

Jenna L wrote on January 3, 2008 12:24 PM:

I looked over the InsiderAdvantager poll and I think have more confidence in the DMR poll.

We've been having this conversation about INDEPENDENTS being the determining factor for tonight's winner. In other words, this poll taken among likely Democratic voters is not as useful as the DMR poll (which had results that more closely aligned with the actual numbers). From what I understood, the DMR poll methodology is calling Iowans, asking if they plan to caucus, then I guess, which one they are going to, and then their party and etc. In other words, it can correctly predict the influence of Independents. Iowa has as many registered Independents as Republicans and Democrats, so it's a big deal. This benefits Obama because they disproportionately support him, according to just about every poll. Hence why, I think he will win, and depending on how many show up, may win big.

The only thing that concerns me (as an Obama fan) is that rural votes get more delegates...That is really good for Edwards. BUT I was reading in a NYT article that delegates are dolled out according to the participation of the community at the last caucus. Since college towns have high civic participation, they have MORE delegates. The county for Grinnel College is the most important in the state. And that is GREAT for Obama who has support there.

It's hard to say what will happen, but I am still thinking that Obama will win.

NCSteve wrote on January 3, 2008 12:24 PM:

Good get, Eric.

Now, more than ever, she's got to be thinking aobut having enough of her caucusers switch to Edwards on the second go-around to push him into first place. If that happens, and if it works, it won't make ARG "right," because that's not how they reached their result. Not that any of the nimrods in the MSM will bother reporting that subtlety.

But, maybe she won't do it. It might well require her moving so many people out of her corner that she ends up looking like someone wrote a giant "L" onto her forehead with a laundry marker. That could devestate her in New Hampshire.

And, hell, as long as I'm speculating wildly, I might as well float the idea of my impending Lotto win.

Fnor wrote on January 3, 2008 12:25 PM:

It's good to see that Iowa's candidate will be selected by the second-tier candidates, rather than the people of Iowa. They need to get rid of the whole system and let whomever wins the initial vote win.

framecop wrote on January 3, 2008 12:29 PM:

Oprahma's numbers are inflated.

I guarantee you that around 10% of those who say they will support him when polled, don't really intend to.

baldheadeddork wrote on January 3, 2008 12:40 PM:

I'm confused. If the Clinton camp gets their supporters to put down Edwards as a second choice, doesn't Obama have little chance of coming in first?

I think you misunderstand how the second-choice process works.

No one puts down their second-choice. You only get to make a second-choice if the candidate you originally support doesn't obtain 15% of the votes in your caucus. Since HRC, Obama and Edwards are probably going to have over 15% support in every caucus, that means only Richardson, Biden, Dodd, and Kucinich supporters are likely to be up for grabs - but only if they don't get 15%.

When your candidate doesn't get 15%, your second-choice is literally walking to the camp of another candidate, or remaining uncommitted.

phil james wrote on January 3, 2008 12:46 PM:

InsiderAdvantage predicted a 41% win for Edwards two days ago based on the second choice mechanics. Is that any less realistic than a 38% win for Obama? Especially when Obama is weak in the rural areas?

dajafi wrote on January 3, 2008 12:46 PM:

Though the news seems good for my preferred candidate, I think it's clearer than ever that this is really no way to pick a president. It's exciting to follow and--at least for a process geek like me--makes for great television on C-SPAN, but the process is just too easily distorted and the results are entirely overblown in terms of what it really means.

Hopefully for 2012/2016 (depending on whether the Dems win in November), Iowa's role will be diminished--even something like Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada going on the same day would offer a much better sample of Democratic sentiment.

Alexander R wrote on January 3, 2008 12:50 PM:

You know why this is? It's http://www.spartaninternet.com/2008/
... that online support really makes a difference with grassroots campaigning.

poetry wrote on January 3, 2008 12:53 PM:

The Iowa caucus-goers are a minuscule fraction of Iowa voters.

They are an even smaller fraction of the total of primary and caucus voters.

Ignore the Iowa caucus results no matter how much the media maggots try to make us think it is the end of the road for any candidate not finishing in the top three.

I read in Salon.com that the presidential candidates are spending $200 for each Iowa caucus voter -- that is a disgrace. http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/01/02/spending/print.html

If you do the math and assume about 50 million people will vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election, that would mean the Democrats would have to spend TEN BILLION DOLLARS if they were to spend $200 winning each of our votes.

That is obscene.

But look what all that spending does for Iowa's state coffers -- and, my friends, THAT is what this caucus sideshow is all about these days.

Since 1972, the ONLY time Iowa's Democratic caucus-goers have picked a candidate who won the presidency was when Bill Clinton ran for RE-election. Iowa had NOT picked Clinton when he ran for election the first time (and first won the presidency).

So, Iowa Democrats have a history of never picking a winner who won the presidency.

Oh, and you will LOVE this part -- at some point a caucus winner can be determined by the toss of a coin.

Yup, that's what I said -- a coin toss.

Ties can be settled by coin toss or by picking names out of a hat. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/01/america/vote.php

"What if the largest groups are not immediately apparent because more than one nonviable Presidential Preference group contains the same number of eligible attendees and will not realign?" the party guide asks rhetorically. This is the simplified version of the rules prepared for the benefit of the media, but the answer, obviously, is that you FLIP A COIN. ("A game of chance is used to determine which groups may remain.") http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/opinion/03collins.html

That's NOT democracy in action -- that's insanity.

Furthermore, college students who live in, say, Massachusetts (where they and their parents pay taxes) but go to an Iowa college CAN vote in the Iowa caucuses (and then go home and register to vote in Massachusetts, because no one keeps track), BUT soldiers who live in Iowa and happen to be stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan CANNOT vote, because absentee ballots are NOT allowed in the Iowa Democratic caucuses.

How fair is that?

I plan to ignore the Iowa caucus results and hope you will all do the same -- no matter how much the media maggots tell us the results are fatal for any but the top candidates.

I do NOT live in a banana republic and refuse to behave as if I do.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Slice of the Sliver Speaks"

by GAIL COLLINS
The New York Times
January 3, 2008

Read this at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/opinion/03collins.html

NCSteve wrote on January 3, 2008 12:55 PM:

Actually, Baldheadedork (dang, I feel like I'm being mean using your nym), my understanding is that if anyone fails to hit 15%, they have a period for cajoling, arguing and cookie eating, then they vote again and everyone is permitted to change to whoever they want, even someone who was below the viability threshold.

I don't think anyone has given sufficient thought to how the ability of a precicnt captain to pull out her cellphone and call the Mothership for orders could distort this process.

Jinchi wrote on January 3, 2008 12:55 PM:

Of course, these numbers are based on people not actually knowing who others are voting for.

The caucuses are a dynamic system and a person's second choice is going to be dictated in large part by who is currently viable. Especially when all the candidates have high favorables with the voters.

Blue in IA wrote on January 3, 2008 12:55 PM:

It seems unlikely to me that Clinton would be unviable in the first round (and thereby release her supporters to go to a second choice) or that she would have her precinct captains game the system by bolstering Edwards with "extra" supporters. My read is that her desire NOT to come in third will strongly outweigh a desire to see Obama beaten by Edwards.

The 64,000 dollar question is whether candidate recommendations will actually affect their supporters' second-choice decisions if that candidate is unviable. It's by no means a sure thing that Kucinich (and perhaps Biden and Richardson) supporters will simply say "OK, I'm supposed to go to Obama now." Iowan caucus-goers are pretty savvy about their second-choice powers, and most of them I"ve talked have already made plans, especially if they're planning on caucusing in the first-round for candidates who are unlikely to be viable. The Edwards-Kucinich deal in 2004 was slightly different because it was at least nominally reciprocal, and Kucinich supporters could justify their move as part of a strategic bargain. What we see now is more akin to endorsements. Will people change their pre-existing preferences? I'm not so sure -- especially because those preferences are often long-standing and public in the sense that the other campaign has known about them for months in plenty of cases.

Nickal wrote on January 3, 2008 12:56 PM:

Enough already! TPM has done enough to see that Sen. Obama wins Iowa. Well done. Now rest for the next 6+ hours and wait for the caucus goers to do their thing and give Hillary a surprise come from behind win or second to John Edwards finish. Maybe TPM could spend the down time researching O's Iraq war funding votes (all the while calling for the troops to come home) and his plan to allow insurance companies to write a health care plan. Or maybe even his naive plan to "talk to our enemies" and give them undeserved prestige in the eyes of the world. Or maybe TPM could just review the matter of fair journalism.

BfloBillW wrote on January 3, 2008 12:57 PM:

Onslow: No - you only vote for your 2nd choice if your candidate polls less than 15% in your precinct.

Where is that woman who keeps asking if America is ready for a Muslim president>

Jinchi wrote on January 3, 2008 12:57 PM:

and then go home and register to vote in Massachusetts, because no one keeps track

That's called voter fraud and you'd better believe people keep track.

Blue in IA wrote on January 3, 2008 1:02 PM:

NCSteve -- I believe it's nominally possible for a candidate who was originally unviable to "rise from the dead" and regroup on the second alignment, but extremely unlikely. In practice, the system works as BHD describes -- nonviables go to other groups or leave. The one addition I'd make to the description is that at the same time the nonviables are redistributing, the viable groups are also trying to poach from one another and/or bargain for strategic supporter swaps (give us two supporters and we'll get another delegate in exchange for a seat at the convention, etc).

JGabriel wrote on January 3, 2008 1:05 PM:

Onslow Memling: 'If the Clinton camp gets their supporters to put down Edwards as a second choice, doesn't Obama have little chance of coming in first?'

Good question. The answer is 'No'.

Second choice votes only come into play if the voter's first choice candidate fails to reach 15% of the total vote.

In practice, that means that the Clinton, Barack, and Edwards voters will not be throwing their votes to a second choice candidate, as there is no chance that any of those three will fail to make the 15% threshold. All three are polling above 20%.

Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich, and Gravel are all polling below that 15% threshold. Combined, they could probably influence about 25% of the votes.

onslow memling wrote on January 3, 2008 1:10 PM:

baldheadeddork,

Thanks for explaining that.

Michael wrote on January 3, 2008 1:13 PM:

Actually, there's a pretty decent chance Clinton, Obama, and Edwards will all fail to meet viability on some precincts. There are over a thousand of them, you know...some very small towns. Sometimes, only 1 (!) person showing up decides who gets the delegate at these things. Talk about one person, one vote!

Its been estimated that all 3 of them could be non-viable in anywhere from 6-20% of precincts, though its likely that those precincts will account for much less than 6-20% of delegates.

There were rumors from the Clinton campaign, however, that Obama was viable in every precinct, which would be quite the feat if true. IIRC, Kerry in the process of winning Iowa failed to qualify in 15% of precincts...

nickal wrote on January 3, 2008 1:15 PM:

OK. Here is the only way that Obama wins tonight: Twice as many caucus goers will have to show up tonight than showed up in 2004. Many, many Republicans will have to switch party affiliation to come out and caucus for Obama. By the way, those same Republicans will not be allowed to vote Republican in the general election. Almost all independents will have to break for Obama.
If any one of these things fail to happen, Obama finishes in second or third.

Jinchi wrote on January 3, 2008 1:15 PM:

Zogby Poll: Hillary Drops to Third in Iowa

ARG Poll: Hillary Still Ahead in Iowa

With Hillary at 24% in Zogby and 34% in ARG!

You might think that having two major polling organizations disagree on a leading candidate by 10 points on the day of the election would convince people to stop focusing so much on these polls.

You'd be wrong, of course.

CalD wrote on January 3, 2008 1:17 PM:

What I imagine you will see is a lot of Clinton, Obama and Edwards gaming the system anywhere they can to keep any of the others from running away with it if they have good precinct captains -- whether that means sending people each other's way or helping a more marginal candidate cross threshold.

A new ARG poll is out BTW, that pegs the race as essentially unchanged from a week ago.

Clinton 31%
Obama 25%
Edwards 21%
Biden 8%
Richardson 6%

ARG has not polled Iowa in past years though so they have no track record there to compare. Zogby and Seltzer were essentially in agreement last time within the limits of accuracy, as they are now as of Zogby's final poll. Both predicted a much closer finish than we actually saw in 2004 in terms of absolute percentages but got the order of the top finishers right. So my money still tends to be on those two over ARG at this point, but who knows.

Anyway, it's looking like a white-knuckle roller coaster ride right to the finish. God I love politics.

JGabriel wrote on January 3, 2008 1:23 PM:

Hmm, I see a lot of people predicting a win for Edwards or Obama.

I don't want to try to predict the winner here; I honestly believe the race is too tight.

That said, I would caution everyone not to discount Clinton. Clinton has about 5000 campaign workers on the ground compared to Edward's 800. Clinton also did much better than expected among rural voters in NY in her Senate races. Finally, she has an excellent reputation for constituent services in NY.

That all translates into a campaign that is well-staffed, well-practiced and very experienced in appealing to and getting out the rural vote.

Again, I have no idea who will win the Iowa caucus. But I do expect Clinton's percentage of the vote will be higher than that registered in recent polls.

(P.S. Full disclosure: I haven't decided yet on which candidate I'll vote for in the primaries, but I'm currently leaning towards Edwards, Dodd, or Biden - though I'll be happy to support Clinton or Obama should they be the eventual nominee.)

CalD wrote on January 3, 2008 1:23 PM:

Jinchi,

Most of these polls have a margin of error of +/- 4-5% (and that's only for 95% confidence). So Clinton's actual number could be more like 28 or 29% in any of the last three polls, with ARG erring on the high side and Zogby and Seltzer a tad low. But if two out of three are coming in on the low side, that could mean something. Or maybe not. Either way, a few more hours and we'll know for sure.

JGabriel wrote on January 3, 2008 1:35 PM:

nikal: 'Many, many Republicans will have to switch party affiliation to come out and caucus for Obama. By the way, those same Republicans will not be allowed to vote Republican in the general election.'

This is wrong.

The general election is, at least nominally, a private vote. Everyone is allowed to vote for whomever they want in the general, regardless of part affiliation or votes cast in the primary.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 3, 2008 1:49 PM:

Well, what the heck, I want Obama to win big, but I guess that I cannot bring myself to count on such an outcome just yet. I am confident (or perhaps foolish) enough to predict a third place showing for Clinton (although not confident/foolish enough to say whether that is a close or a distant third).

With that in mind, allow me to paint a picture that I would like to see emerge. Not that I am predicting that it will; I am just writing that which I would like to see happen: the big stories that lead the papers around this country on Friday focus on 1) Obama's enormous turnout among new, younger democrats and 2) the enormous sums of money which Sen Clinton spent to achieve a 3rd place. Ideally, that second theme would actually stress some exact dollar amount per vote received. These two themes would easily set the stage for an emerging metanarrative of "disaster" or "meltdown" or "fiasco" (fill in blank with word conveying unpleasant connotations) when Obama beat/tied Clinton a few days later in NH.

In a truly delightful ideal situation, this theme would become so exacerbated by a win for Obama in SC that the subsequent Clinton victories in NV, FL and MI would be completely unable to turn the tide, and the dominant metanarrative in play as we rolled into Super Tues would be "is Clinton still a viable candidate?", perhaps played against the secondary headline "can anything stop Barack Obama?".

Of course, that perfect ideal would be thoroughly unlikely, because you can be sure that if Obama wins IA, NH and SC then Clinton will get her friends in the press (yes, she has a few) to pull out Bill Clinton's old "comeback kid" storyline, and this will catch on quickly with other journalists because a real horse race is more fun for them than a snowballing blow-out. Still, I can hope, can't I?

;-)

Blue in IA wrote on January 3, 2008 1:51 PM:

On switching party affiliation, jgabriel is right. It's very easy to switch back and forth as well -- Reps who caucus as Dems today can switch their registration back as early as tomorrow.

I have to wonder, given the largely dispiriting nature of the Rep field how many Reps will caucus with Dems merely out of curiousity and a disinclination to vote for one of their candidates. I've spoken to a number of Reps who are considering doing this (they don't trust Huckabee, but have no passion for Romney). Rather than a "pull" to Obama, it's a "push" away from their own candidates. Richardson seemed to be the Dem who they found the most interesting, fwiw.

Heretic wrote on January 3, 2008 2:00 PM:

I would be pretty surprised if Hillary won this vote today. While it has been historically significant in choosing nominees, let's drill down the data found on http://www.theiowacaucus.com/Iowa-caucus-history-results.php

2004 - John Kerry* (38%) John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), Richard Gephardt (11%) and Dennis Kucinich (1%)

2000 - Al Gore* (63%) Bill Bradley (37%)

1996 - Bill Clinton* (unopposed)

1992 - Tom Harkin (76%) Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton* (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%) and Jerry Brown (2%)

1988 - Dick Gephardt (31%) Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis* (22%) and Bruce Babbitt (6%)

1984 - Walter Mondale* (49%) Gary Hart (17%), George McGovern (10%), Alan Cranston (7%), John Glenn (4%), Rueben Askew (3%) and Jesse Jackson (2%)

1980 - Jimmy Carter* (59%) Ted Kennedy (31%)

1976 - "Uncommitted" (37%) Jimmy Carter* (28%) Birch Bayh (13%), Fred R. Harris (10%), Morris Udall (6%), Sargent Shriver (3%) and Henry Jackson (1%)

1972 - Edmund Muskie (36%) George McGovern (23%), Hubert Humphrey* (2%), Eugene McCarthy (1%), Shirley Chisholm (1%) and Henry Jackson (1%)

*Went on to win nomination.

In the seven caucuses on this list that were actually contested (meaning an incumbent wasn't running), the winner went on to be nominated only 4 times (i.e., hardly a guarantee). Bigtime losers who went on to be nominated include Humphrey (2%) and Clinton (3%).

Jimmy Carter is the only person on this list to actually win the presidency after winning the IA caucus and he actually lost badly to "uncommitted" (not counting Clinton in '96 as he was unopposed). Clinton actually lost the caucus in '92. Every other caucus winner has been a GE loser. In reality, no one on this list who truly won the most votes in a contested Dem caucus has ever become president. (Note: Caucuses before 1972 were not popular votes, but party elite, as I understand it.)

So it shouldn't brighten anyone's spirits to see their guy (or gal) win. For a non-incumbent, it pretty much guarantees a loss in the GE. So, NH voters beware. If Obama wins today, run fast and far from him on Tuesday. :-)

Mike H wrote on January 3, 2008 2:00 PM:

framecop, your "guarantee" that Obama will fall victim to the black man's 10% (i.e. poll inflation) will have more resonance -- or not -- when we get the results in about 8 hours.

Myself, I have very low confidence in your "guarantee." This is 2008, after all, not 1988.

Other than the ARG poll, everything is trending Obama's way. And as the potentially non-viable candidates are making noises about cutting deals with the Obama camp, or otherwise maneuvering around his results, this suggests their internal polls show this, too.

Oh, and everyone, please note that it is CLINTON who is less organized and weaker in the rural west -- Obama and Edwards both outworked her there. It is gonna cost her big time.

JS wrote on January 3, 2008 2:15 PM:

What is the margin of error? If it is "very large" (does that mean greater than the typical 3% or so?) then this story doesn't mean a thing. As I gaze into my crystal ball I see a hazy picture of Election Central Personnel reading tea leaves and running their fingers over entrails looking for signs. Just wait for the exit polls folks, that's the only reasonably reliable way of knowing how things will go. Or better yet wait for the results.

GordonsGirl wrote on January 3, 2008 2:17 PM:

If Biden/Dodd/Richardson point their supporters towards Obama, I'll be pleasantly shocked. As they've been so reticent to call HRC out - especially on her claims of experience - I expected them to buckle under to the Clinton machine.

Should Obama be these guys second choice, it's because these veterans see the future and it's not Clinton. Viva la revolucion!

Michael A wrote on January 3, 2008 2:34 PM:

This is fascinating. I actually commented on how quite the clinton campaign has been the last few days, well apparently it was strategic.

Clinton has done something curious, but strategically wise, in the closing days: She's virtually disappeared. Fully aware that her support climbs when she lowers her profile, Clinton has worked hard to make sure she's not the main story. She has also returned to her campaign's initial claims that the experience, i.e. "Day One readiness," that she alone can provide is what the country needs.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22489719/

So, this is who clinton people want as the nominee and to run the country. Her negatives are so high that her polling goes up when she is out of sight and not speaking. Wow, what a fearless leader. And what exactly has she done change wise in her 35 years of experience that she was fighitng for? Zippo.

Nickal1 wrote on January 3, 2008 2:44 PM:

I stand corrected regarding the registration issue. I do not forsee, however, many Republicans switching to the Obama camp. They really do not have a great deal in common with him and with such an interesting and tight race in their own party, why would they switch to the Republicans? Unless, of course, they want to skew the Democratic caucus so the Democratic standard bearer will be the one they feel will be easiest to best in the general election.

Lee wrote on January 3, 2008 2:48 PM:

TPM, why not just shut up and wait for the results? Who are you trying to sway?

Keith wrote on January 3, 2008 3:08 PM:

I just wish it was over already. The anticipation is killing me.

John Hartford wrote on January 3, 2008 3:53 PM:

Ah but is the Zogby model correct. He's fessed up to modifying his model a bit in the direction of the DMR model which I thought was weird. And at the end of the day aren't we hyping IA just a little bit. The last time they put a non incumbent in the white house was Carter!

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 3, 2008 4:18 PM:

Er, actually, the last time they put a non-incumbant in the White House was Bush in 2000.

nogo war wrote on January 3, 2008 5:00 PM:

Ya know I have to ask...
If we really believe in our candidate do we have to grasp for crumbs?
None of the top 4 (Richardson or Dodd) will drop out before 2/5
None are "toast"
All have the credentials to lead us out of our current "Hell". All can make a difference.
I truly believe no Dem and prolly Rep will arrive at their conventions with MORE than 50%
Buckle-the-fuck-up......
See ya in the streets of Denver...
(I will leave MPLS to others)

Anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 6:43 PM:

Poetry spun: "The Iowa caucus-goers are a minuscule fraction of Iowa voters...." And then about 500 more words, the summary of which is:

Ohh nooo Hillary is toast. How we gonna explain this one?

slcathena wrote on January 3, 2008 8:09 PM:

DRinOH wrote on January 3, 2008 11:14 AM:
Fired up, and nervous as hell!

Word.

Doug wrote on January 3, 2008 8:10 PM:

How convenient the comments are turned off on the Obama 'Religion' piece. Congrats on turning into Karl Rove now that Obama and Edwards are polling ahead of Hillary. No forceful or convincing statement that they are lies. You might as well change the website's name to Hillarystalkingpoints.com

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)