Hhhhmmm... This is disturbing:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6786_desperate_in_nh_1.html
What do you think?
Posted by Patrick at January 12, 2008 11:21 PMpatrick,
seek help.
Posted by Turkana at January 13, 2008 12:39 AMWhat do you think?
I think you're an imbecile. Although I'm sure Hillary thanks you for souring more people on Obama with your attention troll tactics. Leads one to wonder whether you are on the Clinton payroll!
An exaggeration by Clinton ("he said he'll never vote for funding"), but I don't think it's a huge leap to say that if that was Obama's stance on the $87 bn, then that would be his stance on other war funding and he wouldn't vote for funding without strings. But he did.
I guess this is the politics Obama wants to change, but then he calls the Clinton campaign racist because Bill said that Obama's vision is a fairy tale. I can't see that by any stretch of the imagination.
Posted by CG at January 13, 2008 05:57 AMFrom your data in this post, it looks like Obama is the best bet for Democratic victory in the Fall.
Posted by Patrick at January 13, 2008 06:07 AM"Of course, they don't bother polling Edwards, because the man who most aggressively confronts corporate America"
Come on, Edwards is a distant second compared to Dr. Paul, who is set on ending corporate welfarism, and their ponzi fiat fractional reserve banking scheme. Go back and read congressional speeches. Find me one other candidate that was as accurate and timely as Paul at predicting the tech bubble and the housing bubble.
Of course Ron Paul understands M3 and inflation. I haven't heard any of the other candidates talk about this.
Posted by Jay at January 13, 2008 06:58 AMThey don't poll Edwards for the same reason they don't poll Fred Thompson; neither candidate has shown even a remote possibility of winning his party's nomination. I'm more surprised they continue to poll Giuliani.
Posted by Steve Smith at January 13, 2008 07:36 AMEdwards came in second place in Iowa, beating Hillary. Yet, four days later he is forgotten? Seems the media hasn't forgotten Rudy and he wasn't in Iowa or NH.
Posted by Judith at January 13, 2008 07:53 AMI think this could make the case that anti-candidate PACs like "Democratic Courage" are not effective.
Posted by five thirty at January 13, 2008 07:58 AMAfter 8 years of conservative catastrophes, with a coming economic crisis, big media's establishment conservative warmongering candidate Senator Hothead is neck and neck with the Dems.
I'd say that a large segment of the country isn't paying attention and doesn't care, all right. We think the conservative "brand" has been smeared with shit and bubonic plague, while half the country thinks it's done just fine and want more of the same.
Assuming polls are any reflection of "reality" in BushAmerica whatever, which is now coming into question.
Posted by euzoius at January 13, 2008 08:25 AMPolls are actually NOT any reflection of reality any more. They reflect what the owners, year-in and year-out corporate clients and the extremely loud and abusive conservative activists are willing to hear.
It's just another reflection of the New Reality the Imperial, world striding DOERs of the Neocon fantasy world "create" by their actions; allowing thinkers and historians to write about after they've created yet another reality.
The non-personhood of John Whatsisname in the "major" polls released recently, is a nice example of the value of polling in America, today. There are two Democrats running in a historic election, dontcha know?
Posted by DeminNewJ at January 13, 2008 08:39 AM"The non-personhood of John Whatsisname in the "major" polls released recently, is a nice example of the value of polling in America, today. There are two Democrats running in a historic election, dontcha know?"
However, let me point out that there are, according to the media and the polls, McOld, Huckaberry, Tootie Fruitee Rudy, and Rommney running on the GOP ticket.
Posted by Judith at January 13, 2008 09:31 AM
this framing of a two-person race began before iowa. it had nothing to do with the current dynamic, which that framing helped create. edwards has a message the powers-that-be don't want heard. if he stays in the race, and gets enough delegates to control the outcome, his message will be broadcast loud and clear!
Posted by Turkana at January 13, 2008 09:58 AMJudith, I agree with you, and they did it BEFORE Iowa. Maybe not with polls, but with coverage.
The Big Media decided early on that Obama was the chosen one, and Hillary must be torn down and eliminated. They could not simply ignore her because of sheer name recognition. They decided they could, however, get away with ignoring Edwards, and did just that.
So the planned narrative has been: Push Obama, kneecap Hillary, and ignore John into irrelevance.
It is perfectly obvious to anyone paying attention. I think it's sad, because while I am a Hillary supporter, I DO NOT want to see JRE taken out that way - just smothered for lack of oxygen. Any more than I want Hillary viciously media-kneecapped out of the way. A fair fight with equal coverage would be nice.
Posted by at January 13, 2008 07:41 PMAnon, and in the meantime, fools we are, fools. The American electorate is so easily led that it is like 'taking candy from a child.' I no longer believe we elect anyone. The decision is made behind closed doors long before the voter goes to the polls. Thanks Mr. Bush, you make The Brotherhood proud.
Posted by Judith at January 13, 2008 09:31 PM