heh- and i just had an update, too- i'll leave it up, just below you.
we're seeing a lot of the same things, but to me, it really underscores what's wrong about obama's entire campaign. purple is a nice color, but it signifies political appeasement; i'll take my politics true blue, thank you!
Posted by Turkana at January 1, 2008 11:47 AMIf DMR poll is really some sort of gold stardard in Iowa polling, why did they get 2004 presidential winner in Iowa wrong? A presidential poll is much easier than a caucus poll, and they got it wrong.
Their last poll:
Kerry 48
Bush 45
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/ia_polls.html
My fear is not this poll itself, but the psychological impact on those fence-sitters. In a close election, the last minute deciders may just go with the winner of a poll... It can help again here.
Posted by goldstardard at January 1, 2008 01:37 PMAndrea Mitchell-Greespan said that whoever wins Iowa will be the candidate.
How do we get actual voters and supporters to ignore the media and just let the campaign play out.
According to this DMR poll, something like 5000 Democrats in Iowa are going to be annointing the candidate for the two hundred ninety nime million, nine hundred ninety five thousand rest of the country.
That works out to about what, 0.00167% of the population?
And the press thinks this is accurate or a reasonable assessment?
Fuck the media, hard, someone.
Posted by Duckman GR at January 1, 2008 10:53 PMAnd I still feel that second choices & caucus experience will make a difference - particularly if the Reg thinks that 40% are going to be independents and significant percentage thereof will be first-timers.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 2, 2008 04:48 AM