Hillary Closes To Within Three Points In Gallup National Tracking Poll
Today's Gallup national tracking poll finds that the Democratic primary race has tightened, with Hillary closing to within three points -- a finding that the pollsters say provides indications that Wednesday's debate could be undermining Obama's support.
Gallup finds that Obama is leading Hillary 47%-44%, down from an 11 point lead earlier this week. Gallup adds that last night's interviewing is the first they did since the debate, concluding:
In Thursday night's interviewing, Clinton received a greater share of national Democratic support than Obama, the first time she has done so in an individual night's interviewing since April 3. That stronger showing for Clinton helped to snap Obama's streak of statistically significant leads in the three-day rolling averages Gallup reports each day. Until today, he had led Clinton by a statistically significant margin in each of the prior 11 Gallup releases.The full impact of the debate -- and the ensuing media coverage of it -- will be apparent in the coming days, and it will soon be clear if the debate has produced a shift back to a more competitive race, or if Clinton may have received just a temporary boost in support.
Advertisement
Comments (153)
Oh great. So now this crap may drag on even longer. I can't believe people actually think Hillary can win. She can't!
April 18, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at the chart, where for about 3 days in early April they were only 3 points apart... 49 to 46 (Obama leading). Again it's 3 points, but notice that the numbers for both of them have fallen from that 49 to 46 level. Both have fallen equally.
To me that suggests that as Clinton tries to drag Obama down, she takes herself down as well.
That, in my view, is all these numbers say.
But you can also see a sustained Obama position, e.g. more preferred than hillary, during the entire period shown by the tracking poll.
April 18, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we were civilized in this country, we would do what they do in civilized countries - Have a poll black-out for the two weeks leading up to any election.
That would do more to put an end to all the last second micro-pandering than anything else I can come up with. It should be very easy to accomplish and though it's probably unconstitutional, that should't matter since we've thrown most of that document out the window anyway over the last 8 years.
April 18, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This poll is an outlier. Look at the trend lines right there >>>
Also, there is a pattern which has happened again and again:
1) Hillary makes a nasty attack and small numbers (diminishing) fall for it.
2) Obama counters and numbers bounce back, and then some. Hillary loses credibility and her next attack is more commonly dismissed.
3) Net result, Hillary loses credibility and Obama gains.
April 18, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
That sounds great from an Obama supporter, but what if she really will or would be the best candidate?
Why should she or we quit?
Especially if she can beat McCain and he cannot. It looks more and more like he cannot hold up to ridicule.
If he can, a few more months of her campaign won't hurt.
Where's the fire?
April 18, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if? She's not the best candidate. Obama supporters have known that all along.
Her negatives are incredibly high and always have been. That alone makes her a very long shot. She has Kerry-Waffle syndrome in a big way. Name any major issue from Iraq to NAFTA, and Hillary was for it before she was against it. Indies and swing voters can't stand her.
Hillary supporters need to realize Obama supporters aren't against them. In fact, we're for them a hell of a lot more than Hillary ever has been.
We're working people with the same risks and with the same needs as Hillary supporters. Almost every Obama supporter was prepared to support Hillary before he got in the race. But we're not supporting Hillary because she's always been a very long shot in the GE, and because there are a lot of problems with her record and loyalty to REAL Democratic working people's issues. Additionally her judgment and temperament is far less than ideal and people dislike the idea of Bush/Clinton legacies.
April 18, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shit, what ever will we do if Democrats in places like California and Mississippi start to prefer Obama to Hillary by a slimmer margin!??!
Oh, wait, almost all of these people have already voted..
So, um, who gives a shit?
April 18, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nationwide Obama does a lot better than Hillary. Polls show that in a GE matchup between Hillary and McCain in NY, Hillary only barely carries NY, her home state!
In state by state matchups, most of the country is deep red in Hillary/McCain GE and she loses by a landslide. Obama gets virtually all the same states as Hillary and a lot of states Hillary doesn't for a much higher total. Even Texas is tied in a Obama/McCain GE, and Obama has a good chance of taking it because the fundamental issues favor him and while he's been taking a lot of heat, McCain so far has escaped unscathed. Texas is deep red in a Hillary/McCain matchup.
A lot of Hillary posters are actually McCain trolls.
McCain would love to run against Hillary and most Republicans realize their only chance of McCain winning is a divided Democratic party.
April 18, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also interesting - 21 point swing in Obama's favor in latest SUSA poll out of Indiana.
Just gotta brush. That dirt. Off ya shoulder.
April 18, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, the cadence is really more like:
Just gotta brush. That. Dirt off ya shoulder.
Yeah, that's more like it.
(pimp walks away...)
April 18, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, do you have a URL? I can't find it at SUSA's site.
April 18, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is hot off the presses. Look here
April 18, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
sweet, thank you! I am getting the feeling that the later states are gonna want to end this decisively - which means more and more soft support for Clinton will go to Obama in the "please Jesus, just let it stop" vote.
April 18, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It wasn't really a swing. The two polls were both done under SurveyUSA's umbrellas, but they had different methodologies and asked different questions. You can't directly compare them to infer the size of the swing.
April 18, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least the Undecided # is a lot lower than the Times/Bloomberg poll from a few days ago (5, not 19, %).
http://www.pollster.com/08-IN-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
And still 5 points ahead! Woo hoo!
April 18, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is why I thought it was dumb for people to be dismissing "bitter gate" because the polls didn't show anything on Monday. Guess what? Pols drop bad news on Friday for a reason. People weren't paying attention last weekend. When they started paying attention on Monday it looked bad for him.
I expect we will see the fallout from this debate next week. No matter how stupid the first 45 minutes of questions were, Obama should have been prepared for them. This is his 23rd debate. C'mon. And Hillary frankly blew him away in the policy section.
April 18, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama did a great job of answering all the sleazy "questions" of the first 45 minutes - not that he hadn't answered them in exactly the same way dozens of times. Anyone who failed to be safisfied by those answers isn't planning to vote for him anyway. Just ask all the mindless Hillary trolls around here.
And, could we please stop calling that travesty of fecal smearing a "debate"? It was nothing of the sort.
April 18, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
She didn't blow him away, and he did a good job responding to the first 50 minute interrogation.
April 18, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is debate fallout, not "bitter" fallout. Don't confuse the two.
April 18, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was the 21st, misleading folks are you?
April 18, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh sorry ... there is a HUGE difference between 21 and 23. Just two more debates and Obama will be up to speed, is that what you are saying? Too bad the next two debates are likely to be with the media's butt buddy John McCain.
April 18, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
That wasn't a debate.
That was an outrage.
April 18, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is why Obama does not want to have any more debates and will not agree to the 27th of april debate in north carolina....he is scared that it will help hillary....she does better in debates.
also.......
I found this :
Quinnipiac Interviewed 2,103 people, that is more than any other polling company for the pennsylvania primary....they show her with a 6 point lead.
April 18, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
A six point Clinton win in PA will be spun as a very strong showing for Obama.
April 18, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nuh-uh! 'Cause people who vote for Obama don't really count. Therefore Hilary is always 100% ahead.
April 18, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No spin required for a margin that slim when Clinton was up by nearly 30 points a month ago. And before someone complains about how much Obama is spending, TV ads can buy a candidate quite a few poll points, but not enough to have closed that gap.
April 18, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
In some limited sense, she may have done better in the event Wednesday night. That's not the same thing as doing better in an actual debate.
April 18, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, I find the Quinnipac result altogether quite plausible. A six point Clinton victory sounds about right to my ear, and as an Obama supporter I would find that a very pleasing outcome.
April 18, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama campaign, after all, has been predicting a 5-point spread for months now.
April 18, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, they were actually hoping for a shift towards a single digit loss. No specific numbers. They wanted to close her 20+ point lead, and hang in there through the election.
April 18, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The media has proven that they no longer have any questions to ask that actually make a difference in people's lives. They are more tired of debates than we are. That's why there will not be another until the GE (God willing).
April 18, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is important to note that the Gallup organization said: "These results are based on interviewing conducted April 15-17, with Thursday (the 17th) night's interviewing the first conducted following the April 16 debate in Philadelphia. The initial indications are that Obama may have been hurt by the debate..."
"In Thursday night's interviewing, Clinton received a greater share of national Democratic support than Obama, the first time she has done so in an individual night's interviewing since April 3."
April 18, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what I'd expected. I thought his debate performance was very poor. Of course, there may be a backlash against the backlash.
I can't remember that this has happened, but has Obama ever won as the underdog similarly to Clinton in NH, NV, OH & TX?
April 18, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton was the underdog in OH and TX? Very odd statement.
April 18, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I phrased it incorrectly. When her back was up against the wall, the voters pulled through for her.
April 18, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but many instances proving the opposite, as well (WA, ME, SC, WI, VA, IA).
April 18, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Umm, Hillary didn't win Texas. When it was time for the delegates to sign the pledge, there were many "Clinton" delegates that were registered republicans, and they refused to sign the pledge. Therefore, Obama won the delegates. So far. Hillary is challenging the count in the most populous Texas counties, and the state convention has not yet happened. But, so far, Obama has the delegate win. Not that fact matter to some.
April 18, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that Obama won delegates out of TX only goes to underscore the disconnect between the will of the people (popular vote) and the way pledged delegates are awarded.
Incidentally, a recent poll showed that most Americans believe superdelegates should choose who to support based on the popular vote.
April 18, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
In that case, they should "choose" Obama as he is ahead in pop vote.
There's simply no solid metric, beyond made up Hillary ones (C-in-C-iness, electability as she defines it) whereby the supers should choose Clinton.
In short, Hillary is going down.
April 18, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, tell me about the "will of the people".....This is why we have the Bush Crime Family installed isn't it?
April 18, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fact Check:
Senator Obama won the most delegates in Texas. Hillary did not pull it out in Texas, but you did pull that lie out of your arse.
April 18, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton went into Ohio & TX leading, by smaller margins than she started out with, by leading nevertheless.
April 18, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently depends on how you define "underdog."
I don't think anyone reasonably thought that Ohio and Texas were anything close to "leaning Obama," making Clinton the underdog. She was favored to win those contests up to and including the day of the primary. At worst, for her, those states would've been viewed as "toss-ups," with Texas in that category more than Ohio.
NH is a legitimate state for you to note.
Nevada, similarly, was a toss-up. No one had a clue. And, since Obama actually won more delegates in that caucus state, you can't really label that a Hillary win.
I'll note that the only poll before the Minnesota Caucus showed Clinton by 15.
Alabama wasn't considered friendly Obama territory either and was expected to be extraordinarily close.
As it is, though, I cannot foresee a quick end to this stalemate (in perception, at least, though not in reality). I have Clinton by 12 on next Tuesday due to my faith in SUSA and lack thereof in the average American voter.
Oh shit, there goes my liberal elitism again. Remember, however, this is the same electorate that elected Santorum as its Senator.
April 18, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
They voted him out.
He was a whiner.
April 18, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant analysis.
April 18, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that Clinton was an underdog in NV, OH & TX.
http://www.pollster.com/08-NV-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
http://www.pollster.com/08-OH-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
http://www.pollster.com/08-TX-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Even in NH, she had a lead in the polls up until about a week before the voting.
April 18, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Missouri. She was ahead in the polls in MO and yet his people eked out a narrow victory for him on Feb 5.
April 18, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good call.
April 18, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
George Bush, on the invasion of Iraq: "Mission Accomplished!"
George Stephanopoulos, on the "debate": "Mission Accomplished!"
April 18, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the relevance of these tracking poll numbers is....?
The numbers themselves are not a story, because no meaningful interpretation of them is possible. Do they mean "bittergate" had an impact? Who knows. The pollsters sure as hell don't. And, any pundit who claims to possess interpretive authority on this is full of it. Focus on something more important - remember we still have a war criminal as our Chief Executive.
April 18, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't go talking about something important, you will throw us off stride.
April 18, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't really seem to matter. Its clear that Howard Dean is hell bent on stealing this Nomination for Obama. Sad day for the Democratic party
April 18, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot to add a majority of voters and elected superdelegates to your conspiracy.
April 18, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
And exactly how would Hillary win without "stealing"? Please, illuminate us.
This level of spin is dizzying.
April 18, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stealing? You're joking, right? An insurmountable lead in pledged delegates and the all but certain leader in total votes? You weren't very good in math, were you......
April 18, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You guys obviously don't understand. This nomination is Hers. It's always been Hers. It is her turn. It is Her right. It is Her personal property. She is entitled to it. Anyone who thinks he can keep it from Her just by winning silly old elections and caucuses is just an uppity upstart who will get his comeuppance in the end.
April 18, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be sad.
The supers should let the voters count.
The popular vote gets the win.
April 18, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, despite the fact that there is no "the" popular vote and the other fact that the DNC rules say nothing about the popular vote, Obama leads that anyway...so, ok.
April 18, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 18, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are an absolute troll jackass. Yes, I'm resorting to name-calling now, because you refuse to engage in intelligent debate. You fill these threads with your stupidity and baited comments.
I can't wait for Obama to win the nomination and then to win the general and you to crawl back into whatever right-wing hole you crawled out of, the sound of Rush Hambaugh's voice emanating from said hole only interspersed with your sporadic sobs.
Buh-bye can't come soon enough for you and the other righties trolling these boards as faux HRC supporters.
April 18, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
My reply was meant for Louisville-Mensa-member.
April 18, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look folks, his meltdown in the debate and all the whining proved Clinton should be the nominee.
Need a fighter not a whiner.
Nobody like a whiner.
April 18, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody like people write nonsense either.
April 18, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meltdown in the debate? Got a clip so I can see this meltdown?
What a bunch of shit. Along with pretty much this entire campaign since about March 15th.
Irresistable force vs. immovable object, indeed.
April 18, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your candidate pitched a fucking temper tantrum during the Ohio debate and you want to lecture our candidate about whining?
Fuck off and die.
April 18, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that's what I call the language of Unity.
April 18, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because unity is clearly the top priority of Hillary Clinton and her supporters. She's practically turned into a Republican.
April 18, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's becoming glaringly obvious that Hillary is staying in the race as much - if not more - to destroy Obama as she is to win the nomination, the chances of which are getting increasingly slim. This behavior is shameful - but completely in character - to the extreme. Luckily the superdelegates and the rest of the world are waking up to it and they are not happy. Providing validation to wingnut talking points is not the way to please fellow Democrats.
April 18, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
My take on it is that Clinton is staying in because she sees this as her one chance to be elected president.
Despite all the moaning and groaning about the two candidates helping McCain by stretching the nomination process out, I see McCain as a very weak candidate. I think it's not impossible that the election will be a blowout, no matter who the Democratic candidate is. Once the general election campaign starts and the Democratic candidate points out what McCain is proposing and standing for, I don't think he can win. Only 28% of the population would welcome a third Bush term.
If Obama gets the nomination and wins, Hillary will be locked out of running until 2016. She'll be 68 and her time will be past. If Obama has a successful presidency, it's likely that his vice-president would be the leading candidate in 2016.
That's why I believe that Hillary will stay in as long as she sees any hope of capturing the nomination. Until enough superdelegates declare for Obama to make his nomination certain, or until it's clear that there is no way that she can claim the overall popular vote (even including Michigan and Florida) I expect her to keep trying.
April 18, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
For a while there I thought you 'bots were growing up. Then I see this little tantrum.
"Fuck of and die! Waaaaa!! Me wanna win!!!!"
Chump.
April 18, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're going to try and argue that the world's greatest victim is not a whiner??? LOL! That is rich, my friend.
From Jake Tapper at - of all places - ABCNews:
Complainin' Clintons Fault Obama for Complaining
April 18, 2008 10:14 AM
The former first couple is amused with the fact that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and his supporters were chagrined at the line of questions coming his way during Wednesday night's debate.
On Fox 29 in Philadelphia this morning, ABC News' Eloise Harper reports, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, said of Obama, "I know he spent all day yesterday complaining about the hard questions he was asked. Being asked tough questions in a debate is nothing like the pressures you face inside the White House. In fact, when the going gets tough, you just can’t walk away because we’re going to have some very tough decisions that we have to make. I think we need a president who can take whatever comes your way. ...When the going gets tough you can’t run away."
And ABC News' Sarah Amos reports that from front porch of an American Legion Hall in St. Mary's, Penn., Thursday, former President Bill Clinton said, "When I watched that debate last night, I got kinda tickled when the other guy's – after the [debate], her opponents', oh, the people working were saying, 'Oh this is so negative, why are they doing this.' Well they've been beatin' up on her for 15 months. I didn't hear her whining when he said she was untruthful in Iowa."
If you haven't heard whining from your wife or from the Clinton campaign, Mr. President, then with all due respect, you haven't been paying attention.
The Clintons and the Clinton campaign have been complaining about the media and tough questions and the like for months. It's one of their talking points, for the love of Pete.
After a November debate when Clinton -- then the clear frontrunner -- was attacked by the many other Democrats on stage, the Clinton campaign even put together a youtube video complaining of the "Politics of Pile-on."
And at the Cleveland debate seven weeks ago, Clinton complained that she always got the first question, and about the media coverage in general.
Bill Clinton has whined about the media coverage so much and often it would be difficult to list every example. In a February interview with WMAL radio in Washington DC, the former president griped that "the political press has avowedly played a role in this election. I've never seen this before...they’ve been active participants in this election, and you know what the objective studies done."
Back then, of course, Sen. Obama was of course sounding a different tune, telling NBC that Clinton was saying "Don't pick on me" while his campaign issued a memo saying, "the 'politics of hope' doesn’t mean hoping you don’t have to answer tough questions.
Emails Clinton campaign spox Jay Carson: "Our complaint about coverage has always been that the press wasn’t tough on Obama, not that they were too tough on us. These two are running for president and should expect tough questions and if Obama and his campaign are going to whine like this about what are some of the first actual tough questions he has gotten in a debate, how on earth would he stand up to the Republicans' withering attacks in a general election? Obama withered under questioning on Wednesday and with all due respect to Stephanopoulos and Gibson, the RNC and John McCain are a lot tougher than they are."
April 18, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that if Obama does not agree to debate clinton in north carolina on april 27th or sometime before may 6, this could help clinton win north carolina, because the people of north carolina will feel that they should have had the same chance to hear both of them debate just like other states have....But even if they do debate, i think it could help Clinton because she always does better in debates..... Obama always sounds like George Bush talking....its almost funny:)
anyways, 4 days to go and then they vote in pennsylvania.....yahhhhhhhhhhhho:)
April 18, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in NC. No way a debate about debates throws this state, in and of itself, to Clinton. The numbers against her are very, very strong.
April 18, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also garbage. I don't recall a debate having ever occurred in Minnesota....
April 18, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to believe you're right, but Hillary attacked Obama for not debating in WI. That didn't work out so well.
April 18, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And let's not forget that Hillary already turned down a debate in NC that Obama had agreed to.
April 18, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in Wisconsin.
She lost in Wisconsin.
Your point was???
Oh yeah, trolling.
April 18, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do people in NC not get ABC? Or CNN, MSNBC or the 1063 other channels the debates have been on? I'd agree to one more debate if it were moderated by Stewert and Colbert because they seem to be the only journalists left with the integrity and substance to ask relevent questions of adults.
April 18, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does North Carolina not have television reception?
April 18, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "debate-about-a-debate" tactic has failed every time. Remember how well it worked for Kerry. After 23 debates, the frontrunner has no reason to bother.
April 18, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's relevant because the pundits make it so. And then it becomes the echo chamber, like it or now.
On one hand, we have 3-4 post-or-during-debate polls in PA showing improvement on Obama's part, as well as limited change in Rasmussen tracking. And now, Gallup says he's hurting from it. That means we'll have to wait and see.
So it's going to hurt. It's going to get rocky, and those of us who are Obama supporters need to be ready for it. Because a bad debate is just a bad debate, and if HRC gains in the polls, it just means our team, and our candidate, has to do better, next time, just as Clinton did after her rough debates, and just as Obama did after Wright.
And there's time for that to happen.
April 18, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
tru dat
April 18, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
George Bush, on the invasion of Iraq: "Mission Accomplished!"
George Stephanopoulos, on the "debate": "Mission Accomplished
----------------so true----------
Her people remind me of Bush's people- no shame. Too bad ABC is a big, bad conglomerate that no one can topple. Why didn't Obama bring up the conflict of interest?
April 18, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being a good debater doesn't necessarily mean you are a better candidate. It just means you can debate well!
April 18, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's just crazy talk. We all know great debaters, even master debaters, can through sheer power of debate solve what ills this nation.
April 18, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's overstating the case slightly. I think there may have been some reaction to his less than stellar performance in the debates, but they'll also be a reaction to the anti-debate backlash and Obama's great soundbyte yesterday about the speech, with more of that to come. It'll be fine, but keep fighting anyway.
April 18, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
:):):):)
You gotta get that dirt off your shoulder.
If you feeling like a pimp, [playa], go on brush your shoulder off,
ladies is pimps too, go on brush your shoulder off,
[playas] is crazy baby, don't forget that boy told you to
get. that. dirt off your shoulder.
You know what pimp stands for don'tcha? Paper in my pocket.
and he's got that, too. He's till got enough to move right into the general.
April 18, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn! Damn! Damn!
I knew this would come back to haunt us.
I have always urged that we stop letting Gallup
nominate our Presidential Candidate. I have always
urged the party to let the voters have a say in the nomination and selection of our nominee.
I say that it is high time that we switch to a States Primaries and Caucus nomination system, instead of letting Gallup select our nominee.
April 18, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
After the Republican Senator from New York spent half the debate attacking Obama with the help of her cronies, I would expect his numbers to take a hit.
April 18, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think it's best not to call hillary a republican like markos did over at dkos. there's already something of a firestorm going on regarding that. hillary supporters take that to mean that they aren't dems either and that the real dem (obama) won't be needing their votes. i realize that this is just a little ol' comment section where no one is accountable for their posts, but in general, it's not a good idea. i'm one of those hillary supporters who plans on voting dem in november no matter who is the nominee, but calling hillary a republican does make a lot of people like me say, "if hillary's not a dem, then the people saying that must not think i'm a dem either."
April 18, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the point is that Hillary has been attacking Obama using Republican talking points. It is a bit worrisome that her supporters seem to find that acceptable. This is a heated race and everyone's fired up, but I've written to the Obama campaign a couple of times when I thought they'd crossed a line. I would hope Hillary's supporter were doing the same. It's up to the voters sometimes to keep these people honest and on point.
April 18, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it hilarious that Obama supporters complain when Hillary attacks Obama with "Republican talking points". We've been complaining about Obama doing that for months.
Polarizing.
Divisive.
Untrustworthy.
Dishonest.
Get Real!
April 18, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ken, please call your candidate and tell her to stop arguing that is OK to bring up every smear, slander and innuendo because the republican's are going to do the same anyway.
No reasonable person says her policy proposals or priorities are republican, but her campaign tactics surely are.
When the republican attacked the Clintons with slime and slander and innuendo in the 90's it was wrong and it degraded the country and our politics and ultimately undermined the government's ability to get things done. It was wrong then and wrong now.
But now when it seems to serve her, all of a sudden everything is fair game.
April 18, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not going to drag on - I don't think. Not after Howard Dean said what he did yesterday and then two more high level endorsements today?
I really expect more - I think most of the party hierarchy wants this over with now as badly as we do.
April 18, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply |