BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE

What an amazing turn of events. After being up by one digit just yesterday, Hillary is now in second place in the gallup national tracking.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106609/Gallup -Daily-Obama-Holds-Slight-47-45-Advantag e.aspx

Gallup says:

Obama has for now stemmed the recent drop in his support and is back in front of Clinton, albeit with a non-significant 2-point lead.

Time for Hillary to give a speech at Constitution Hall on Guns and Pennsylvania vacation trips.



Display:


Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 1)

And heeeeeeere we go!

Gallup useless BREAKING reporting, take 3,476!


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:43:01 PM EST

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 0)

sigh

margin of error mean anything to anybody?

let's face it - democrats want both of these people.  that is why the unity ticket is still the best way to go, no matter who you support.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:45:19 PM EST

I'm dead-set against that. (2.00 / 3)

Hillary doesn't add enough to the ticket to be Veep. She's not even carrying her home state of Arkansas.

Senate Majority Leader, now that, I could enthusiastically support for her. At a minimum, she'd do a much better job than Reid, and she'd have more power than as Veep, too. We wuldn't have to worry about getting President Obama's agenda through the Senate with her at the helm, that's for sure.

Hillary for Majority Leader!


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:51:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm dead-set against that. (none / 0)

and neither does Obama (as part of the ticket).  The point is that democrats want both of them.  Look at all the people that voted and tell me you want to lose any percentage from any side.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:54:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wouldn't want Bird Flipper on Hillary's ticket (2.00 / 1)


by internetstar on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:58:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wouldn't want Bird Flipper on Hillary's tick (2.00 / 0)

Sigh...perhaps Obama did call HRC a pigeon when he wiped the birdshit off his shoulders, but he did not flip her off.  Get over it.


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:09:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes. . . I saw it, but it didn't happen . . . (none / 0)

I am a droid . . . Axelrod controls my brain . . .


by internetstar on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:07:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm dead-set against that. (none / 0)

The same could be said for Obama who has even less experience and not half the qualifications that Hillary does. How many committees does Obama sit on? How many meetings has he lead? Oh I forgot he was too busy running for POTUS to convene or sit on on any.


by Iceblinkjm on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:55:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm dead-set against that. (2.00 / 2)

Obama is far more qualified to be President than Hillary is.

A status quo Corporatist like Clinton has no place on a ticket that is all about change.


McCain's occupation plan will achieve victory when it bestows liberty to the freedom loving people of Iraq and their freedom loving oil.
by Lefty Coaster on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:04:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm dead-set against that. (none / 0)

How exactly is Clinton more corporatist than Obama? Health care reform? I don't think so. Trade policy? I'm afraid not. Getting Blackwater and other corporate contractors out of Iraq? Au contraire! Energy policy? Not so much. Sub-prime loan policy? Certainly not.

Unfortunately, Wall Street loves them both.

How exactly is Obama a non-corporatist in your eyes?


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:49:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, how about telling the DLC (2.00 / 0)

to bugger off?

"You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC.  That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC.  As I stated in my previous letter, I agreed to be listed as "100 to watch" by the DLC.  That's been the extent of my contact with them.  It does appear that, without my knowledge, the DLC also listed me in their "New Democrat" directory.  Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention"

And that my friends, is as far as anyone running for president with any hope of winning will ever go towards telling off the DLC, a hawkish and well-financed corporate propaganda mill which has attached itself to our beloved Democratic party like a goiter, thanks to the Clintons and their "third way."


by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:34:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not a good idea for any candidate (2.00 / 2)

to put someone on the ticket with 56% hard negatives and rising.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:35:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not a good idea for any candidate (2.00 / 1)

According to one poll ...


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:53:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not a good idea for any candidate (2.00 / 0)

54% Gallup
56% Ras
Do you sense the trend yet?
by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:26:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not a good idea for any candidate (none / 0)

According to two mostly-meaningless daily tracking polls. Great. I'm not arguing that Clinton's negatives aren't high.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:26:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm dead-set against that. (none / 0)

Have there even been polls showing what she'd carry or not carry were she the VP? Please feel free to post them.

Obama would add even less to a VP ticket. Illinois will go Dem no matter what.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:57:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 1)

That's funny, you weren't talking about margin of error regarding yesterday's Gallup result.
 Why the sudden change of heart?
McCain's occupation plan will achieve victory when it bestows liberty to the freedom loving people of Iraq and their freedom loving oil.
by Lefty Coaster on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:57:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (none / 0)

ahh, that's funny, I don't believe I MADE a comment about yesterday's gallup result at all

I don't have a change of heart - but it seems that someone needs a change of glasses.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:58:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 2)

ahh, that's funny, because you did make a comment about yesterday's Gallup result, and here it is:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/4/19/1 6432/9024/29


McCain's occupation plan will achieve victory when it bestows liberty to the freedom loving people of Iraq and their freedom loving oil.
by Lefty Coaster on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:09:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Love it! (2.00 / 1)

It sucks when anyone can access someone's comments, eh?


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:12:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Love it! (none / 0)

and it sucks when you don't even READ the comment - All I stated was that I was donating to Hillary.

big woop - did I state this was an amazing trend and this was confirmation that Obama was tanking?  No, I didn't.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:13:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Love it! (2.00 / 1)

Actually I DID read your comment, but let's quote it just to be sure:'

"go Hillary!!

I just donated again..."

While I admit this waste of space cannot be conclusively attributed to the Gallup poll, "go Hillary!!" does imply a validation of the diary's post.

And Lefty Coaster is correct.  This poster said that you weren't talking about a margin of error in the other diary.  In fact, you WEREN'T talking about a margin of error.  So thank you for proving us correct.

P.S. I'm glad to hear somebody's donating to her campaign.  I hope you're not maxed out though.  It would be so devastating to find out tomorrow that that 20 million dollars reported for March was just like February where very little could be used in the primary.  I hope April doesn't turn into that as well.  It's just sad when a person running on name recognition can't even raise money based on their name.


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:44:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Love it! (none / 0)

I stated Go Hillary and that means I validated the diary's post?

I do that on a lot of diaries.  Lefty Coaster stated that I commented about the GALLUP poll yesterday.  I didn't  - please point out to my comment about the results of the Gallup poll yesterday other than I stated "go hillary - I just donated again".  I was cheering her on, but make no mistake, these polls have been within margin of error for several months now.

a lot of people are donating to her campaign - and thank you for your snarky concern about being maxed out.  I am not.

again, unless you are Mz Cleo, please do not "read" into my comments - If I had wanted to comment on the actual Gallup poll yesterday as if it was breaking news, I would have.  But since I have conceded that the two candidates are in a dead heat (within margin of error), I didn't.

oh, and please - get a life.  Unless you wish to debate my margin of error comment, I would appreciate it you didn't tea-read into a comment and make assumptions that were not there.

because you know what ASSUME means.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:50:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Love it! (2.00 / 0)

Again, Lefty Coaster did not comment that you made a comment about the Gallup poll.  This was the post, which you can obviously read upthread:

"That's funny, you weren't talking about margin of error regarding yesterday's Gallup result.
 Why the sudden change of heart? "

The comment reads that you didn't comment about a margin of error previously.  THE COMMENTER NEVER STATED THAT YOU DID.

Get a life?  You mean by posting "Go Obama" on stupid diaries that do nothing to advance the Democratic Party.  Yes, that is sage advice from someone who clearly has a life.


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:02:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Love it! (1.00 / 1)

again, lefty coaster was talking about me making a comment about the margin of error regarding yesterday's gallup result.  

I made a one liner - stating I was donating to Hillary.  I did not comment either way on the actual results of the Gallup poll.  

there was no "change of heart" in my comments on either diary.  In fact, just for you, as you love to parse thru and tea read into my comments, I will make sure on any new polling on a national level, I will reassert my position about the margin of error - happy now?

I don't post "Go Obama" on diaries.  You need to get a life because you are now officially hounding me on a comment that I never made on another diary, according to your tea-reading abilities.  Keep it up and I will report you to the mods.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:08:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Love it! (2.00 / 0)

Please report me.  And please paste the thread so they can see that you keep claiming someone said you said something when in fact they didn't.


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:19:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Love it! (none / 0)

just did.  And referred them to this diary.
and the fact you had the nerve to troll rate me.

love it.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:23:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Love it! (2.00 / 0)

Good luck with that.


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:24:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Love it! (none / 0)

This is one of the funniest threads I've read in a long while. And god knows we don't get enough humour here. Great catch by you. You caught the liar red handed and then what... I didn't know comment threads could SQUIRM but that's what I'm seeing.


by brit on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:29:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Love it! (2.00 / 0)

P.S.  TR'ed for threats.


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:21:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Love it! (none / 0)

threats?  I asked you to debate me on the margin of error issue instead of hounding me on something I didn't say.

and you kept it up and you are now reported for abuse of TR'ing as well.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:24:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Love it! (2.00 / 0)

When you got busted for fibbing about sixteen posts up this chain, you should have just stopped at that time.  Because you got burned.  


by LarsThorwald on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:36:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Love it! (none / 0)

again, I didn't get "busted"

I made no comment about the gallup poll results yesterday.  What I did state was that I donated to Hillary.  How is that a comment on the gallup poll itself?


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:37:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Love it! (2.00 / 0)

One more time just because I believe in miracles:

I did not hound you on something you didn't say.  Neither did the commenter.  He said that you DIDN'T say anything about a margin of error in the previous diary.  AND YOU DIDN'T.  That was his or her point.  Saying that you were not talking about the margin of error previously is not the same as saying that you were.

And when did you ask to debate me on the margin of error?

If you would like to debate me on margins of error, it's kind of a moot point.  I don't believe in the significance of polls, which is why I like this diary.  It was showing how the other diary was stupid.


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:41:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Love it! (none / 0)

nope, you still get zip from me.  Lefty Coaster was trying to goad me.  And quite well, in fact.  The fact is I have not had a "change of heart" and reading into what I posted yesterday (donation??) and today is not a contradiction.  Unless, of course, you are into tea-reading.

I did state upthread about discussing margin of errors.  

I also agree with you about national polls - it is sad that you took Lefty's snarky goading and whipped into something that it wasn't, because you & I actually agree on this.  


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:46:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Love it! (none / 0)

Let's make it clear. Upthread you denied you had ever commented on the Gallup poll yesterday, and when you're caught out straight lying, this is all you can do. It reminds me of when someone else was lying...

Diversions, diversion, change the subject, I'm a victim. I'll report you to the mods.

Sorry. But this is hilarious behaviour.


by brit on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:36:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Love it! (none / 0)

'Hounded'  - whenever has it been an abuse of MYDD guidelines to call someone out for arrantly lying - i.e. saying they hadn't commented on a diary when they had.

And then you have the nerve to report the person who caught you out to the mods. You deserve every bad comment you get


by brit on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:33:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Love it! (2.00 / 0)

It was a two liner

The first line read like an estatic response to the Poll result.

go Hillary!!

Then you tabbed down a couple of lines and tacked on a line about your donation.

Do you even remember yesterday?


McCain's occupation plan will achieve victory when it bestows liberty to the freedom loving people of Iraq and their freedom loving oil.
by Lefty Coaster on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:46:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Love it! (none / 0)

sigh - tea read into all you want.  My support for Hillary does not contradict what I stated here on this thread.

I did not state "oh boy, Obama's tanking" or anything of that nature.  I stated "go hillary and I donated to her campaign"

read into that what you will - but my statement yesterday was not an endorsement of any national polling nor does it contradict what I have stated here.

but thank you for goading & badgering me into a useless argument over what I said & how YOU read into it.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:49:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Love it! (2.00 / 0)

Then your interpitation of its meaning would differ with 99.9% of the people who read it.


McCain's occupation plan will achieve victory when it bestows liberty to the freedom loving people of Iraq and their freedom loving oil.
by Lefty Coaster on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:50:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (none / 0)

yes, I made a comment that I was donating - I did not comment on anything else, such as she was beating the pants of Obama or some such stuff.

try reading the comment for what it was.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:12:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 0)

No mention of margin of error at all. Apperently it's not an issue one day but it is the very next day it is. Why is that?


McCain's occupation plan will achieve victory when it bestows liberty to the freedom loving people of Iraq and their freedom loving oil.
by Lefty Coaster on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:20:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (none / 0)

right, I made no COMMENT on the gallup poll whatsoever.  

You posted that I had a change of heart since yesterday.  In fact, I didn't  - I donated yesterday and I donated TODAY.

no change of heart.

It isn't an issue either way with me - these polls are at a dead-heat and have been for a while.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:22:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Really? (2.00 / 3)

I was expecting her to be up by three points at least today. Her overnight numbers must have really crashed.

Very interesting.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:47:16 PM EST

Re: Really? (2.00 / 1)

Probably a really good day or two for Clinton rolled off the average, and she's back to her usual 42%.


by Led Nudd on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:59:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Really? (2.00 / 2)

Actually I believe thursday and friday were both good days for Clinton, if you read the report for the release on those days they mention that for the first time in ages she was getting a majority.


Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.
by Obama Independent on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:00:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Really? (2.00 / 0)

The numbers were Obama 49, Hillary 45, if you do the math to reverse the averages. I was saying yesterday that the Gallup polls were just an outlier, because for that kind of jump Obama had to drop to 39% (!) and Hillary rise to 52%, which seems pretty ridiculous for daily numbers to be that far off for no real reason. Now, if tomorrow those numbers turn into 48 Obama, 44 Hillary, the daily will be Obama 52%, Hillary 41%, which will line up with the polls before the weekend, and will probably be more accurate than this weekend speedbump.


by TheSilverMonkey on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:59:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 2)

Well, I guess that everyone planning the funeral for Obama's campaign will have to put it off for another day.  Yesterday's daily tracking poll diarists will be crushed.


by rfahey22 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:51:22 PM EST

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 2)

Thanks for that. A good grin on a sunday. I think Hillary should definitely make a speech


by brit on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:52:03 PM EST

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (none / 0)


by brit on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:52:54 PM EST

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 3)

Oh, and while a random mouse click just added an empty comment from me, I feel no need to apologise. It will look like an incredibly active diary, and then the bees will be buzzing around, hope that the flame wars continue.

I don't know what we'll do when the primaries are over, and no one can vent their anger on each other at MYDD. Perhaps we'll all move over en masse to Free Republic. Wow, we'll crush the minnows there. The primary wars have so weathered and hardened MYDD veterans (from either side) McCain won't know what's hit him.

Big yourself up bro. Just pre-emptively wiping off that republican dirt.


by brit on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:56:24 PM EST

Hillary's doing better than Obama. . . (none / 0)

against McCain in the little maps in the upper corners of the home page, and on this site:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Cl inton/Maps/Apr20.html

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Ob ama/Maps/Apr20.html

Why do national polls of Obama v. Hillary even matter at this point? In my opinion, the polls that matter are those that show which Dem. is more "electable" against the Repub. (at least, this was a big deal when it was perceived that Obama fit the bill) and polls which show Obama v. Hillary in states left to vote .in the primaries.


by freemansfarm on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:56:33 PM EST

Thanks for this post. (2.00 / 1)

This actually gives me more faith that OBAMA will fare better in the General Election because

1) These results will not be exactly the same in November.
2) However what these result show is that the majority of HRC delegates come from "Barely Dem" which means they could flip by November.  Moreover, McCain's majority of delegates come from Strong GOP which is unlikely to waver.
Conversely, Obama's largest group of delegates is Weak Dem, while his smallest group is barely Dem.  While McCain still has a large number of Solid GOP delegates his barely GOP delegates increase from 13 against Clinton to 76 against Obama.

The polling shows that Clinton can only lose delegates and has no delegates to gain, whereas, Obama cannot lose delegates and can only gain delegates.

This polling was also apparently done when Obama has had non-stop negative media running against him from HRC and McCain and McCain has no negative media running against himself.


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:27:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're welcome (2.00 / 1)

(1) Of course the polling is not guaranteed to be the same as in November, but it's all we have. I'd say it means a whole lot more than the unsubsubstantiated claims of Obama supporters.

(2) You can spin it anyway you want to, but the data shows Clinton having more EVs than McCain, with Clinton above the 270 threshold, Clinton having more EVs than Obama, and with Obama being below the 270 threshold. In addition, against Clinton, McCain has 13 "barelys" and 89 "weak" EVs, and there are also 10 tied EVs, so, contrary to what you say, there are plenty of EVs out there for Clinton to gain. And, Clinton has more "stong" EVs than Obama too.

(3) The polling was done at all different times, including when Obama was unbloodied by any scandal. For example, Texas is shown as barely GOP vs. Obama based on a poll done in late Febraury, before Obama lost the Democratic Primary there and before Wright, Ayers, bittergate, bad debate performance, etc. This is one of the weaknesses of the site, that it is based, at least in part, on non-contemporary polls. But that weakness does not cut entirely against Obama, as you suggest.

In addition, the lack of negative media vis a vis McCain is a factor that does not advantage either Demcocratic candidate in the polls. If there were such negative media, it would, presumably, help both Clinton and Obama against McCain.

Finally, I thank you for your response and for actually clicking the link and engaging with the polls.


by freemansfarm on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:52:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mojo for completely baffling (2.00 / 0)

me with your answer, yet coming to a pleasant conclusion. ;)


I trust Senator Obama.
by GFORD on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:02:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mojo for completely baffling (2.00 / 1)

I should be a pollster!  No, not really.  You can argue anything with any data if you know how to read it.  Polls mean nothing until the votes are cast.


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:05:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 4)

As a representative for Clinton supporters  (Mostly Bill, but obviously includes Hill since she's running), I would just like to apologize for the continued embarrassing celebration threads about things that serve to only separate us more and more. I'm fully aware my gal can't win.

Its especially embarrassing when people make celebration threads about my candidate, who can no longer win, because they backfire each and every time. But like I said, its worse that it only separates us more.


by AlexScott on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:58:30 PM EST

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 0)

You're awesome AlexScott.  


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:28:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (none / 0)

Obama can't win either at this point unless Hillary drops out. If FL and MI counted like they should Obama would only be ahead about 10 or so delegates. No ONE can win outright.


by Iceblinkjm on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:07:09 PM EST

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 1)

You wish


McCain's occupation plan will achieve victory when it bestows liberty to the freedom loving people of Iraq and their freedom loving oil.
by Lefty Coaster on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:13:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 1)

I'll give you credit on Florida, but stop with the ridiculous "Michigan should count" crap.  It was patently unfair because Hillary ignored the Democratic leadership's call for all candidates to remove themselves.  


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:18:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (none / 0)

well, to be fair, other democratic candidates didn't remove themselves either.  Some did, some didn't.

It wasn't a mandate to remove oneself from the MI ballot and the Obama surrogates in MI did have a campaign calling on all those who wanted to vote for Obama to vote uncommitted instead of Hillary.

so, MI was not Hillary's fault.  Blame it on the DNC and those candidates who removed their names.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:21:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 0)

Heh, Kucinich stayed in because he missed the filing deadline.


by rfahey22 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:30:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 3)

Her not removing her name from the Michigan ballot was an unethical attempt to game the system. She is still trying to game the system today and nobody calls her on it.


McCain's occupation plan will achieve victory when it bestows liberty to the freedom loving people of Iraq and their freedom loving oil.
by Lefty Coaster on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:33:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 1)

rotflmao - UNETHICAL?

really - gaming the system - really?

and what was Conyers doing when he went on TV & radio in MI telling those folks who wanted to vote for Obama to vote uncommitted - because they had a strategy if uncommitted beat Hillary....

I guess that backfired on them, now didn't it?


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:42:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 2)

Considering Obama wasn't even allowed to campaign there and 45% of people voting voted that they DID NOT want to vote for HRC, I wouldn't call that a backfire.  It's rare that 45% of the electorate shows up to declare that they do not want to vote for somebody.


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:56:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (none / 0)

Obama's surrogates in MI campaigned for him.

and remember, Obama didn't get all 45% in michigan - all of the other candidates were still in the race at that time.  I know of a lot of Edward's supporters who voted uncommitted & would be pissed if their vote went to Obama.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:00:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 1)

Ms. Cleo,

I never said he got all 45% of the vote.  I said I think it's telling that 45% of the electorate showed up to declare that they didn't want to vote for HRC.


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:07:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (none / 0)

ms cleo, Obama supporters have been asserting that he should get the uncommitted voters if MI is to stand (which of course they don't want it to stand)

and it isn't "telling" - there were more candidates in MI in play.  

if you look at Iowa, for example, Obama got 38%, Edwards 30 and Hillary 29.  so, when you still have Edwards in the mix, it isn't "telling" at all.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:12:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 1)

They are having the district conventions which will determine who gets the uncommitted.  It doesn't make a difference to me if he gets the uncommitted or not because MICHIGAN DOES NOT COUNT.  Again, I never said that the 45% was for Obama.  It was against Hillary.  I would love to debate that point with you after you take a logic course to help you with your arguments.


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:29:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (none / 0)

and I never stated that you said that.  I pointed out a fact.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:36:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 0)

You pointed out a fact that had no relevance to what I had said.


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:15:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 1)

Cole,

Reading through the above thread, I'm starting to wonder if you understand how a conversation works.  When you respond to someone's comment with a point, they think you are making that point against them.

So when you say "and remember, Obama didn't get all 45% in michigan," you sound like you are saying that the poster was indicating that Obama won that 45%.  Or if you're not saying that you are making a completely idiotic and irrelevant point.  So did you just misread or are your arguments irrelevant to the entire conversation?


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:16:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 0)

Thank you!  I was beginning to worry I was going crazy.


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:18:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No Prob! (2.00 / 0)

Sometimes (to me) some Clinton supporters are so deep in their support for Hillary that they forget that there is a wider world with rules and reason.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:23:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (none / 0)

nklein, I know how a conversation works.  As Obama's name, the 45% and Hillary were all mentioned in one sentence, I just pointed out, as a reminder, that Obama didn't get the full 45%.  It was a clarification.

no need to go all snarky on me.  It is not an irrelevant point, as posters here have tried to state that Obama gets the full 45%.  Just wanted to clear that up.

sorry, if you cannot follow the conversation.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:14:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (none / 0)

45% of zero is still zero.  And so is 55% of zero.  None of it counts, so for now it's a moot point.  When all the debates are done, and all the superdelegates have decided, if there is still no one at 2024, then Michigan and Florida will get sorted out.  


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:30:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 0)

That is total bullshit. If you think democracy is when only one person's name appears on the ballot maybe you'd be happier in Kazakhstan.

What about all the people in Mi. and Fl. who stayed home because they knew their Primaries wouldn't count?


McCain's occupation plan will achieve victory when it bestows liberty to the freedom loving people of Iraq and their freedom loving oil.
by Lefty Coaster on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:21:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 1)

I didn't mean to uprate your comment.  You'll get the mojo, but know that it is false mojo.  


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:10:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 0)

Can't you take off your mojo.  I thought you could.


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:16:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (none / 0)

I tried but I couldn't.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:20:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (none / 0)

since you couldn't undo the mojo on me, I uprated you for being honest about it:)


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:16:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is terrible news for Obama! (2.00 / 3)

While Clinton stunned the political world by fighting her way to a very good second place, Obama disappointed his supporters by only becoming penultimate...


John McCain
by MILiberal on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:15:05 PM EST

Re: This is terrible news for Obama! (2.00 / 1)

Ha, interesting way to say "second to last."  I think most people would take "penultimate" in this context to actually mean second place since it almost always refers to a series.  Sort of like the "sub-par" thing that people do.


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:20:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's change is no good (none / 0)

Why is everyone so impress that Obama wants not only bring change but his change will make America great. The change he is talking about is working with republicans to pass progressive policies. As we learn from the 90's, this will only bring NAFTA type policies. You do not honestly believe that Obama is so good that corporate republicans are going to be begging to work with Obama to pass legislation that will benefit Americans and not corporations. That will never happen. Name me one instance where republicans pass progressive policies by working with democrats. Does the non passing of SCHIP ring a bell? Oh and lets not forget about Obama's change in foreign policy. He wants to return to the foreign policy of Bush Sr. and Reagan. Funny how he is against the current war in Iraq but wants to return to the foreign policy that started the Gulf War. The point is Obama admires Republican foreign policy. Where is the change? America needs a huge change right now. Obama is not the person if he wants to return to triangulation of the 90's (which produced NAFTA) and a republican foreign policy which lead us to Iraq in the first place.  There is no change. I still think Obama will be a better president than McCain but realize Obama will not bring change. He will return us to the past.


by maddie900 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:24:46 PM EST

Re: Obama's change is no good (none / 0)

I think Hillary should run on that Bush Sr policy of Obama's - because Dick Cheney was the Secretary of Defense under Bush I

which should give people pause when they think of that.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:27:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's change is no good (2.00 / 1)

The Gulf War started after Iraq invaded Kuwait, ace.  And America did just enough to get them out of Kuwait.  They knew they couldn't take over the country without a civil war ensuing.  Dick Cheney said this in an interview in '92.  So they got the hell out of the country.  That's the foreign policy Obama is referring to, one without preemption and without "massive retaliation" as your gal Hillary likes to say.  Has she started singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" yet?  Just curious.


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:35:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's change is no good (none / 0)

 Ok let Obama win without Hillary supporters!


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:54:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's change is no good (2.00 / 0)

What does your reply have to do with my comment?


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:08:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's change is no good (none / 0)

Has she started singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" yet?  Just curious.

you just equated her to a Republican. Obama supporters keep trashing Clinton and expect her supporters to vote for Obama. I have voted for Democrats for more than 20 years I voted for Bill and know what Clintons are like. Obama supporters keep repeating Republican talking points about Hillary.

I have voted for Obama when he ran for Senate. I do not intend to vote for him again!


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:04:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's change is no good (2.00 / 0)

She's the one who brought up "massive retaliation" at the debate.  Is that akin to singing about bombing Iran?  To me, it is.  It's chickenhawk crap that I don't care for.

And it's good that we cancel each other out.  I voted for HRC for the Senate in New York.  I do not intend to vote for her again; however, it's not because of any asinine things her supporters have said.  It's because of the trash she's spewed in this primary.

Although I just relocated back to Texas, if she is running for Senate again in 2012 (because she sure as hell won't be in the White House), I will take up residence in New York again just to vote against her in both the primary, and god help me, the general election!


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:28:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thankfully Illinois is locked down (2.00 / 0)

I've seen this rhetorical tool used constantly over the past several weeks.  You do realize that Hillary needs us as well, right?  I'm so tired of hearing these Clinton supporters attack Obama and their fellow bloggers with some of the vilest slanders and then turn around and say don't insult us you're going to need our votes, too.

You know what, I expect you to vote for the Democratic nominee, but if that is too much for you then fine.  We'll win without you or I will be content knowing that you'll suffer double under a McCain presidency.  B/c while I will be content knowing I did everything I could to get Hillary or Barack elected, you will be responsible for putting a person wholly inappropriate in the President's chair.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:30:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thankfully Illinois is locked down (none / 0)

Why do you assume that I would vote for McCain if I do not vote for Obama? I can never vote for a Republican! Have you seen a GE ballot before? there would be many many choices.


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:46:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thankfully Illinois is locked down (none / 0)

Ron Paul thanks you.


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:34:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thankfully Illinois is locked down (none / 0)

It doesn't matter if you vote for Hillary or Timbuktu or Obama if Hillary's the nominee.  A vote in favor of anybody other than the Democratic nominee is a vote for John McCain.  Make no mistake, that's the truth of the matter.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:00:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thankfully Illinois is locked down (none / 0)

<boldquote>Thankfully Illinois is locked down</boldquote>

Yes! Thanks to the Chicago machine. After all he is the machine politician!


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:03:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's change is no good (none / 0)

Who are you kidding? He would lose in a landslide.


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:51:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's change is no good (2.00 / 1)

Can I have some of what you're smoking?  It sounds so good...


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:53:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's change is no good (2.00 / 1)

It is called Obama brand Hopium!


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:58:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's change is no good (2.00 / 0)

Mojo for good humor!  I like it.


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:08:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's change is no good (none / 0)

Obama's coattails will be long enough that we won't need to care what the Republicans think.

And if fishes were wishes, we'd all be Democrats.

By working a 50 state strategy, down ticket Democrats will be helped by Barrack.

I think you mean a 48-state strategy.

Since Hillary thinks that only the big states matter, she'll have less success outside of them.

And let's just see how Obama fares in big states like Florida and Ohio. Btw, Hillary never said that small states don't matter. The doofus she fired did.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:57:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's change is no good (2.00 / 1)

You mean the doofus she HIRED.  First he was hired, then he was fired.  It shows judgment that she hired him.  And to be clear, he wasn't fired for saying that small states don't count.  He was fired for working for a foreign government with a conflict of interest in her campaign.  Would that you could also fire husbands who also have a conflict of interest in your campaign?


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:15:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's change is no good (none / 0)

Mark Penn is awful, but up until recently, he seemed like a winning strategist. It's hard to fire one's chief strategist in the midst of a campaign, but I certainly wish she had done so many months ago. But then again, I'm not a big fan of Axelrod either. Trippi seems like a decent guy, but it appears that decent doesn't win elections.

Btw, if you are obsessed with Mark Penn, I highly recommend the following 4-part documentary by Adam Curtis, entitled The Century of the Self. If you want to cut to the chase, Part 4 deals with the Clinton and Blair elections of the 1990s, and Penn's role in them:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid= 8953172273825999151


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:24:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's change is no good (2.00 / 0)

I'm not obsessed with Mark Penn.  I knew he was sleaze in January.  Anyone who insists on being the Head Pollster and the Head Strategist for a campaign is clearly trying to Cover His a**.

I like Axelrod, but I can understand how as an HRC supporter you would not.  Most strategists have a sliminess to them anyway.


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:34:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's change is no good (none / 0)

Let's please be accurate -- Mark Penn never worked for the Colombian government.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:02:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's change is no good (2.00 / 0)

I supposed it depends on the definition of "worked."  But I stand by my statement.


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:35:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's change is no good (none / 0)

What definition are you using?


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:37:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 0)

ROFLMAO...........


by Hope Monger 2008 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:36:16 PM EST

Re: BREAKING: (2.00 / 1)

It's as meaningless today as it was yeaterday.


by Becky G on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:41:08 PM EST

True dat (2.00 / 1)

But I think is trying to point out how meaningless yesterday's poll was, which I could be wrong because I can't access it now, but wasn't that the diary that was deleted from the rec list?


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:48:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: True dat (none / 0)

hmm, considering you were able to bring up my comment on yesterday's diary and now you state it is deleted?

hmmmm....

but I agree - I have always maintained these daily tracking polls only prove one thing - they are both in a dead heat.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:54:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 1)

This is why people who make diaries stating "Breaking, Clinton overtakes Obama," or "Breaking, Obama overtakes Clinton" look like idiots.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:44:58 PM EST

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (none / 0)

Obambots put a lot of pressure on ABC and I am sure they are putting a lot of pressure on Gallup.


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:48:55 PM EST

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 2)

Yes, we're so powerful.  I actually happen to know the pollster of this particular poll, and I offered him a top cabinet position if he changed the results in Obama's favor.

Because I'm THAT POWERFUL.


by The Distillery on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:50:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 1)

Yes, "Obamabots" have the ability to create reality.  That's why we're dragging the primaries out, just to play with you.


by rfahey22 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:29:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING:Hillary Takes Gallup 2nd PLACE (2.00 / 0)

Shoot the messanger


McCain's occupation plan will achieve victory when it bestows liberty to the freedom loving people of Iraq and their freedom loving oil.
by Lefty Coaster on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:57:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bottom line: HRC needs to save up! (2.00 / 1)

For a primary challenge from the left. And she's so far right it will not be difficult.


by LoneStarLefty on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:50:19 PM EST

Re: Bottom line: HRC needs to save up! (2.00 / 1)

It happened in 2006, you can bet it's going to be more powerful in 2012.


by The Distillery</