MyDD :: New Rassmussen: Obama within 2 Points of Hillary

New Rassmussen: Obama within 2 Points of Hillary

by vwcat, Mon May 14, 2007 at 10:52:45 AM EST

yes. It is out. the new polls. Rassmussen has Obama within 2 of Hillary. Short bump there.
She is not inevitable. she is beatable.
And Obama is surging.

For the third time in four weeks, a national Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Democratic Primary Voters shows Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama within two points of each other. This week, it's Clinton 35% Obama 33%. Former Senator John Edwards is in third place with 14% support. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is a distant fourth at 3%.

However, the race may not be as close as those numbers suggest. The Rasmussen Reports sample includes not only Democrats, but also independents who say they are likely to vote in a Democratic Primary. Among Democrats only, Clinton leads by eight percentage points, 39% to 31% (with Edwards at 15%). That's little changed from a week ago when Clinton led by eleven among Democrats in the survey.

Obama does better when independents are included because he currently holds a two-to-one advantage over Clinton among those potential voters. Both the number and the preferences of independent voters is more volatile than the preferences of core Democratic voters. Some states have open primaries allowing independents to participate, others allow Democrats only. If the current trends were to continue throughout the Primary season, Clinton would handily win the states allowing only Democrats to vote while Obama would be competitive in others.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/2008_democratic_presidential _primary

Tags: Obama, Hillary, Rassmussen (all tags)

Permalink :: 61 Comments :: Post a Comment

Why are Rasmussen's numbers moving so much? (none / 0)

A big swing last week, a big swing this week. Odd.

by dpANDREWS on Mon May 14, 2007 at 11:09:14 AM EST

Re: Why are Rasmussen's numbers moving so much? (none / 0)

Not really when doing weekly polls. They respond to events that happen recently. Also Hillary's bump from the debate did recede just like after the conventions a candidate gets a bump ,but a week or two later it recedes.

by BDM on Mon May 14, 2007 at 11:13:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are Rasmussen's numbers moving so much? (none / 0)

Rasmussen himself explained the reason for the big swings. His poll of independents is volatile and given the small sub-sample size of independents, one can see the reason for the wild weekly swings. This is why the RCP averages at RealClearPolitics.com have proven to be more accurate than individual polls in elections. I say, keep your eye on the averages.

by meliou2 on Mon May 14, 2007 at 12:23:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are Rasmussen's numbers moving so much? (none / 0)

I will feel better about the averages when Gore is finally removed and his 10 to 12 percent is distributed among the big three.

by aiko on Mon May 14, 2007 at 12:32:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are Rasmussen's numbers moving so much? (none / 0)

Rasmussen doesnot include Gore in their numbers.

by BDM on Mon May 14, 2007 at 12:34:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are Rasmussen's numbers moving so much? (none / 0)

We were discussing poll averages...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/democratic_presidentia l_nomination-191.html

by aiko on Mon May 14, 2007 at 12:52:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are Rasmussen's numbers moving so much? (none / 0)

That doesn't really help... It includes Gore polls. Gore isn't running. I'm sick of him screwin' with our early polling. That explains why Obama's average is down.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Mon May 14, 2007 at 03:59:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are Rasmussen's numbers moving so much? (3.00 / 1)

More likely in Rasmussen's LV model, last week was an outlier or a temporary reaction the the MySpace thing.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon May 14, 2007 at 03:38:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Rassmussen: (none / 0)

In the explanation they state that the race is probably not that close. Indipendentents are skewing the numbers, and not only do many states not allow them to vote at all in party primaries, they also are one of the least likely group to show up at the polls, even if allowed.

by georgep on Mon May 14, 2007 at 11:14:49 AM EST

Re: New Rassmussen: (none / 0)

Good analysis. Obama is not suring among Dems. In fact, he's in real danger of getting knocked out.

by Mayor McCheese on Mon May 14, 2007 at 11:15:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The General Election all about Independents (none / 0)

Clinton won't win the General Election without them.

by Lorraine on Mon May 14, 2007 at 11:20:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

She'll get enough to win (none / 0)

Basically, the political climate is so hostile to the GOP that it's hard to imagine them winning much of anything, even if our nominee is Hillary. Indies aren't going to break in favor of a party that is losing ground.

by Mayor McCheese on Mon May 14, 2007 at 11:23:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll get enough to win (none / 0)

Well so far it has not shown up with her beating the top republican's by big margins.

by BDM on Mon May 14, 2007 at 11:25:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Rassmussen: (none / 0)

Independents can run in IA, NH and CA. I believe MI independents can also run.

I know that democrats generally allow independents to participate more in their process than Republicans.

Does any body know which states only allow Democrats to participate in their process and not Independents?

by BDM on Mon May 14, 2007 at 11:23:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Rassmussen: (none / 0)

My mistake, I mean voters can participate in the Democratic caucuses and primaries.

Most breakdowns have shown independents making up 31-32% of the electorate nationally and growing. They make up 44% of the electorate in NH THE LARGEST GROUP OF VOTERS IN THE STATE..

by BDM on Mon May 14, 2007 at 11:29:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But they aren't as likely to vote (none / 0)

In a party primary as an activist Democrat. That's why polling them can cause misleading results.

by Mayor McCheese on Mon May 14, 2007 at 12:04:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But they aren't as likely to vote (none / 0)

Not really. He polled those that say they will participate in a democratic primary or Caucus. Many states allow independents to participarte.

IA, NH, CA, MI and MN are those I know of in which independents can participate.

by BDM on Mon May 14, 2007 at 12:25:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But they aren't as likely to vote (none / 0)

IL does as well... you ask for the ballot you want... But Illinois is not going to be in play. Just as I doubt NY or NJ or NC will be either.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon May 14, 2007 at 03:40:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But they aren't as likely to vote (none / 0)

In WI you can only vote in one primary (Rep. or Dem.), but everyone gets the same ballot.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Mon May 14, 2007 at 04:02:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

roflmao! eom (none / 0)

by jforshaw on Mon May 14, 2007 at 01:28:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree (none / 0)

I believe independent will show up..Independents voters was the only reason McCain won the NH primary....This time around, because of displeasure with the GOP field, independents are extremeily more likely to vote democratic which will be a big plus for Obama...Given the fact that this upcoming primary will be a n historic primary, the independent will show up...It will all depend on Obama's outreach to them thought...I remember McCain making a strong push to get independents out to vote and he won NH hands down...Independent will likely hand Obama a victory in NH just like they did with McCain because Obama are winning this voting block on a 2 to 1 margin.

Iowa allows " on the spot registration" meaning any republican can show up on caucus night, switch their party affiliation and vote democratic...Good news for Obama.

Rasmussen polling is 100% correct in adding independents to the mix because they will vote and every indication shows they will vote in the democratic primary instead of the republican primary....One thing that Ras can predict is how many of them will vote...The more independents that Obama can push to the polls, the best his chances are.

Iowa,NH and SC are states that makes it easy for independents or voters that aren't registered democrats to vote in the democratic primary.

by JaeHood on Mon May 14, 2007 at 10:09:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Rassmussen: Obama within 2 Points of Hill (none / 0)

What explains the high amt. of people who say they will not vote for her by indies. and high negs.
Plus all the dems who won't vote for her either.
This is very concerning

by vwcat on Mon May 14, 2007 at 11:25:51 AM EST

Indies today are not the indies of (none / 0)

yesterday. Many "indies" today are high information voters who refuse to identify with one party.

The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

by Populism2008 on Mon May 14, 2007 at 11:30:00 AM EST

Re: New Rassmussen: Obama within 2 Points of Hill (3.00 / 0)

Who gives a damn about polls right now. The only thing they're useful for is reaffirmation of who is a second-tier candidate (everyone outside of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards).

Otherwise, they mean nothing.

by PsiFighter37 on Mon May 14, 2007 at 11:59:41 AM EST

Re: New Rassmussen: Obama within 2 Points of Hill (none / 0)

This is the best Obama has peformed to date: 33%.

by aiko on Mon May 14, 2007 at 12:04:58 PM EST

The national polls mean squat (none / 0)

But state by state, Hillary is a commanding position at the moment.

by Mayor McCheese on Mon May 14, 2007 at 12:05:09 PM EST

I know you are really pumping Hillary, (none / 0)

but this information is interesting, especially the Indies. Breaking 2-1 for Obama. Clinton can not win the general, without them. How did you think the Dems won in November '06? The Indies broke 3-1 our way.

It is still early, but he is eating away slowly. Again, the real poll numbers count in November, this is still too, early for me.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon May 14, 2007 at 12:10:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know you are really pumping Hillary, (none / 0)

I am not pumping her any more than you pump Obama. Obama supporters need to grasp the fact that its very likely that he WON"T be the nominee. Then what will you do?

by Mayor McCheese on Mon May 14, 2007 at 02:10:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know you are really pumping Hillary, (none / 0)

On the reverse, Hillary supporters should realize that polls in May of 2007 mean about as much as the electronic paper they are printed on. Its fairly stupid of you to blast this poll, why talking up the virtues of the ARG poll. Both are pretty pointless, that's why the RCP poll average is generally the best indicator.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon May 14, 2007 at 03:43:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know you are really pumping Hillary, (none / 0)

Nonsense. Kerry led virtually all polls in May 2003 and became the eventual nominee.

by georgep on Mon May 14, 2007 at 04:10:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know you are really pumping Hillary, (none / 0)

That's your BIG comeback???? ROTFLMAO! Well I guess then all the Hillary supporters should go home, drink a beer and wait for her coronation as Democratic nominee. Its a done deal!

Thanks for that great laugh... seriously, you should go into comedy.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon May 14, 2007 at 05:57:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know you are really pumping Hillary, (none / 0)

Seriously, you need to get a better shtick. You talk yourself into a frenzy and then, when things don't go the way you want, you become indignant and unnecessarily personal.

I pointed out that your claim that May polls are meaningless is false. Kerry was an early frontrunner and he prevailed. Now, Kerry was a weak candidate, overall, and still, his early frontrunner status made him the candidate to beat and eventually prevail.

Clinton's status is infinitely stronger than Kerry's was. Her poll lead today is the same as it was for years, and is not likely to change much in the coming months.

If pushed to a decision in a poll and select from 2 candidates, she is way ahead of Obama and Edwards in a direct head-to-head, over 50%. Obama and Edwards have to make up a lot of ground, especially in state polls. Obama does not look good in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, or Florida, 4 of the 5 early states. A little better in SC, but he is still behind even there. These polls (especially the state polls) are always watched by the campaigns, even though you contend that they are completely meaningless.

by georgep on Tue May 15, 2007 at 09:18:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The national polls mean squat (none / 0)

state polls outside the early states are worth 0

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Mon May 14, 2007 at 01:27:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The national polls mean squat (none / 0)

All polls in May 2007 are worth 0.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon May 14, 2007 at 03:44:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Rassmussen: Obama within 2 Points of Hill (none / 0)

From Rasmussen

In General Election match-ups, Clinton is now essentially even with Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani and the top Republican non-candidate, Fred Thompson. Clinton leads all other Republicans including McCain, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Senator Sam Brownback, Senator Chuck Hagel, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Mon May 14, 2007 at 12:05:25 PM EST

Meaning, (none / 0)

this is a horse race for Clinton and Obama. They must get a good portion of the African American vote, Latino vote and get the women vote. Looks like they will be working hard this summer.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon May 14, 2007 at 12:12:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meaning, (none / 0)

At this point Edwards is only getting the conservative older voters. Clinton and Obama have the majority of other demographics.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Mon May 14, 2007 at 12:13:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meaning, (none / 0)

I agree. I like Edwards, but can someone tell me why he is not moving in the poll numbers? He is at 13-18%, have not even broke 20. What is really going on? And please, only informational criticism. Thanks.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon May 14, 2007 at 12:20:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Rassmussen: Obama within 2 Points of Hill (none / 0)

so'

Edwards leads them all including Guliani.

RCP AVG; gULIANI +1 over Clinton
RCP AVG cLINTON OVER mCcAIN +2
RCP AVG; eDWARDS +4 over guliani
rcp avg edwards 8.8 over McCain

by BDM on Mon May 14, 2007 at 12:19:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So much for the Inflated clinton poll theory. (none / 0)

The fact that the less likely to show up independents is in direct contradiction to the
Inflated Clinton Poll Theory. I wonder if Chris Bowers will pickup on this.

by maddogg on Mon May 14, 2007 at 12:47:28 PM EST

Re: So much for the Inflated clinton poll theory. (none / 0)

Chris discarded that theory.

While the Inflated Clinton Poll Theory is certainly a legitimate enough area of inquiry to deserve a real test, until that test takes place, existing data is inconclusive to the point where it can no longer be assumed the current polling averages are skewed one way or the other.

http://mydd.com/story/2007/4/27/162125/2 42

by aiko on Mon May 14, 2007 at 12:57:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

goerge says independants scewing vote (none / 0)

well Goerge you just made Obama's point. HIS campaign theme will be about bringing independants to the table in a general election. One of Hillary's biggest drawbacks is thsat she has virtually no appealoutside the dem establishment, when dems realize only Obama can brign about the change needed becuase he can untie the country, they support him. The Hillary is too polarizing as candidate and potential president theme is aided big time by independant support in polls. Plus Independants decide New Hampshire, if Hillary tanks among then she looks like a November loser to establishment dems and her poll #S collapse like Dean 2004.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Mon May 14, 2007 at 01:25:31 PM EST

Re: goerge says independants scewing vote (none / 0)

I think the biggest concern for the Clinton team is that if they lose IA and NH(wHERE INDEPENDENTS CAN PARTICIPATE) her national numbers collapse.

Bush had a firewall in SC and had two weeks to regroup. With the primary schedule the way it is now their is no time to re-group and turn things around.

by BDM on Mon May 14, 2007 at 01:32:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: goerge says independants scewing vote (none / 0)

And Bush went racial and negative to win SC from McCain. Yes, the independents with all this polling going on, if they vote in number for Obama, Clinton will have issues.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon May 14, 2007 at 04:27:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: goerge says independants scewing vote (none / 0)

Iowa and NH are both states that allows independent to participate and that has to worry the Hillary campaign.A SC firewall will not work with Hillary because SC electorate is 50% african americans, and i expect Obama to get a large slice of that voting block.

by JaeHood on Mon May 14, 2007 at 10:20:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: goerge says independants scewing vote (none / 0)

Even with an advantage with Independents (which are bound to be low-info at this point, so that support could easily sway into her favor) Clinton beats Obama. VERY healthy margins in both national and state polls. What you find an advantage is in reality a major disadvantage. Independents are barred from voting in many states, and they barely go to the polls in party primaries, even if they are allowed to. Obama's numbers (and also Edwards') are skewed by non-voting Independents in ALL of these polls, which means that Clinton's real filtered-down support amongst "most likely primary voters" is higher than any of these polls capture. In other words, a poll that shows a 10 point Clinton lead is in reality a wider Clinton lead when it comes to primary voting. A lead that shows 14%, 8%, 12% is in reality wider.

Obama has the misfortune of having his biggest appeal with the two constituency that are least likely to show up in the voting booths (Independents and young voters.)

by georgep on Mon May 14, 2007 at 02:53:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: goerge says independants scewing vote (none / 0)

Of course if Edwards or Obama were in the lead, you'd be making the exact same argument.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon May 14, 2007 at 03:45:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: goerge says independants scewing vote (none / 0)

Reality is that they are not in the lead. Far from it.

This constant (illogical) insistence that polls are meaningless serves nobody. Polls are conducted to show the race to date. They show candidates who are far behind in what states and what demographic groups they must improve. To deny the importance of these polls is foolish.

by georgep on Mon May 14, 2007 at 04:15:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: goerge says independants scewing vote (none / 0)

No its realistic. To think the percentage polled will actually vote is foolish. TO act as if the race is in the bag is foolish. To put heavy stock in these polls is foolish.

No they aren't in the lead... but I will bet that WHEN one of them DOES take the lead, you will be claiming that either the POLL is wrong, or that Polling that far out isn't important.

The state of the race this early isn't that important EXCEPT if one is in low single digits. Now I will grant HRC would win if the election is held tommorrow, but it isn't. There is WAY too much that can and will happen. ANy of the three could make a major Gaffe, have an affair exposed, etc that will turn this race on its heel.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon May 14, 2007 at 06:01:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: goerge says independants scewing vote (none / 0)

"No its realistic. To think the percentage polled will actually vote is foolish. TO act as if the race is in the bag is foolish."

NOBODY has claimed that the race is in the bag. You are resorting to make stuff up. Please quit with this fool's errand. Or, PLEASE show where anyone claimed that "the race is in the bag."

"To put heavy stock in these polls is foolish."

It is not. It would be foolish to ignore them. The candidates sure as hell don't ignore them. Last nights Florida pollster stated categorically that "Clinton is VERY close to putting the Florida primary away." Yes, this early. Because she has broad support in all demographics and it is extremely unlikely (if the lead persists) to be erased by any Iowa result.

"No they aren't in the lead... but I will bet that WHEN one of them DOES take the lead, you will be claiming that either the POLL is wrong, or that Polling that far out isn't important."

That is the irrational way YOU deal with this. It is the illogical way. If a few polls show such a scenario (not just ONE) I would ask WHAT WENT WRONG and would think the candidate would do the same to see if he/she can tighten up her message, do a better job connecting. See, you can't fathom or accept that it is actually THE CANDIDATE HIMSELF who is the problem. Your line of reasoning is an illogical leap that leads to ridiculous twisting of real facts, such as (what we have seen a lot here) statements that the polls are "in Clinton's employ" and that "the media wants her to win" and that "people say to pollsters the opposite of what they really believe."

"The state of the race this early isn't that important EXCEPT if one is in low single digits. Now I will grant HRC would win if the election is held tommorrow, but it isn't. There is WAY too much that can and will happen. ANy of the three could make a major Gaffe, have an affair exposed, etc that will turn this race on its heel."

While I agree that a lot can happen, it is just as likely that "whatever gaffe may happen" could just as well happen to Obama and/or Edwards. Therefore it is a non-factor for discussion. You basically make the assumption that a major gaffe will/might happen to Clinton, which is a logic fallacy. It is just hope speaking, but it is not a reasonable argument. One could actually argue that the way the campaigns have been behaving so far (Clinton's campaigns seems very disciplined, together, while both Obama's and Edwards' campaigns have committed boneheaded mistakes) it is more likely that that major gaffe or mistake comes from the Obama or Edwards camp before Clinton's, but I won't do that, as even that would be crystal-balling that serves nobody.

That means, absent of counting (illogically) on a serious mistake, you have to hope that your candidate does something positive to connect with voters, gains more traction. Something that convinces folks that they actually are the better candidate, while hoping that the leading candidate does not do something positive to take away some of your own soft support.

by georgep on Mon May 14, 2007 at 08:08:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: goerge says independants scewing vote (none / 0)

they will be allowed to vote in Iowa and NH + SC.In 200,with independent gave McCain a big victory because they felt that Bush was too far to the right..Inedependent views Hillary as the most liberal...I really think she will not win this demographic...Independent will show up in Iowa and specially in NH.

by JaeHood on Mon May 14, 2007 at 10:22:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ludicrous (none / 0)

The candidate in the most danger in NH and IOwa is Obama. He stand to lose both of those, and by health margins. If he doens't get out of the blocks quick, his candidacy is over.

by Mayor McCheese on Mon May 14, 2007 at 02:11:58 PM EST

Re: Ludicrous (none / 0)

In another diary I posted the latest scenario from solidpolitics.com which suggests Obama will be the first to drop out if he finishes 3rd in both IA and NH and Edwards will be the last standing against Clinton in a showdown in SC. With Obama's poll numbers weakening he is in a tough spot.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Mon May 14, 2007 at 02:18:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ludicrous (none / 0)

idiotic is how I describe solid politcs article, do they ever mention the enthusiasm gap between Hillary and Obama now eight months before votes take place, Hillary is losing the race among most interested and losing the race for donors, I don't think Obama or his supporters are too worried about being slighly behind among people whon haven't spennt 10 minutes thinking about this race yet, Obama hasn't even run a TV ad yet and Hillary shills are plotting his exit from the race, please I've shied away from the "independant" talk becuase I don't think it's fair to Hillary but the american people want some kind of change in this election, if the democratic party fails to provide the country with a "change" candidate someone else will take the opening to win this race with independant voters and run against both Clinton and Bush.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Mon May 14, 2007 at 02:36:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ludicrous (none / 0)

Solidpolitics is written by idiots who can't wipe their ass properly. NONE of the big three are dropping out before Feb 5. They have the funds to compete, they will all stay in UNTIL that point. If Hillary finished 3rd in the first 4, she's in until then. Same with Obama, same with Edwards. One slip up for the winner after Iowa or NH could turn this on its ear really fast.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon May 14, 2007 at 03:49:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ludicrous (none / 0)

Edwards and Clark stayed in until the first part of February but they were essentially written off long before that. They may all 3 stay in but a series of multiple losses will be the end of the road officially or not.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Mon May 14, 2007 at 05:13:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ludicrous (none / 0)

You say that like its fact. You have a really BAD habit of that. In truth, you are only GUESSING that if one candidate wins Iowa and NH, the others are doomed. With the strength of our top 3 candidates and the looming national Primary, that means there is a good chance that this cycle will be much different. I would bet money it won't be like 2004, UNLESS one candidate has a huge national lead and a big Iowa win. Without that, there is no way that simply winning Iowa and/or NH by a small margin guarentees that the other two will be written off and have no chance of winning. State it as your opinion, that's cool... but stop pretending your opinion is factual in what will happen. Its all guesswork.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon May 14, 2007 at 05:54:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ludicrous (none / 0)

Just about every word written on this site is opinion.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Mon May 14, 2007 at 06:00:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ludicrous (none / 0)

I know that, I was questioning if you do... many of your posts seem to try and position your opinion as fact.

I still can't believe you posted a link to Solid Politics... what's next, posting a Freeper article as truth?

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon May 14, 2007 at 06:03:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ridiculous (none / 0)

First of all, Obama has just way too much money to drop out before feb 5th..It's almost impossible to even think about , specially when he's outraising Hillary...People that drops out early do so because of money and this is why Edwards will be the one dropping out after he loses Iowa.Hillary and Obama has outraised Edwards by a large margin and i expect it to grow as we get closer to caucus night.

by JaeHood on Mon May 14, 2007 at 10:27:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ludicrous (none / 0)

In the new rasmussen poll,Obama numbers is trending up, so i dont know where you get this stuff that Obama's number is weakening.

by JaeHood on Mon May 14, 2007 at 10:29:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.