Hillary Goes For The Kill - Iowa

[SixPackInBoxers]

^ do you know HRC's poll #s in Iowa back in the Spring?

Yes Hillary is now up 3% to 28% support, but down from 30% in an August, Statistically the difference is nil.

Zogby’s Spring April 26th,, 2007 Iowa poll was as follows:

John Edwards 27%

Hillary Clinton 25%

Barack Obama 23%

Joe Biden 3%

Bill Richardson 3%

Chris Dodd 1%

Dennis Kucinich 1%

Unsure 15%

Other 2%

 

[SantaCBear]

^ Wait till Big Dog hits Iowa in the days before the caucus with his southern charm and wit

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

^ Obama is still 2nd yet HRC went from 3rd to 1st - wonder who has the mo'

No I am afraid you are not correct. Sorry I had not seen Lancelva's usual misleading post in answer to your question. If you have not yet learnt not to rely on his tiresome misleading spin (I could call it something else) I suggest that you might want to discount anything he posts about the election. I assumed that you wanted an answer without spin and with integrity. In other words the Spring Zogby poll to compare with the latest Zogby poll, not a shyster comparison. That is what I gave you above.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards are statistically tied as they are so close and within Zogby's 4.5% margin of error. Clinton apears to have gone from 2nd to first (not 3rd to 1st), Obama from third to second (not from 2nd) and Edwards from 1st to 3rd but there is actually no statistical difference within their margin of error.

To avoid being constantly mislead by the Clinton spin machine,at least on polling, you can check most of the public Iowa polls, including Zogby, on www.usaelectionpolls.com

 

[iman]

If Clinton does not do well in Iowa or NH, some of the Democratic Governors are going to have to speak up. As charming as Obama may be, most of his strength is among a non voting demographic (youth) and I doubt that he could win a General Election in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. A loss in one or two of those states would ensure a Republican victory at a time in our history when we can not afford another Republican Administration and we cannot afford to lose Congressional seats.

 

[lancelva]

To avoid being constantly mislead by the Clinton spin machine,at least on polling, you can check most of the public Iowa polls, including Zogby, on www.usaelectionpolls.com

My polls are spin? Well the site to which you link above has this nifty chart that tracks Iowa polling:

Link: http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/state-polls/iowa-presidential-polls.html

The graph clearly indicates that Senator Clinton's lead in Iowa has grown substantially during the course of the campaign. Is that spin?

 

[MystikWizard]

A loss in one or two of those states would ensure a Republican victory at a time in our history when we can not afford another Republican Administration and we cannot afford to lose Congressional seats.

Not all Republicans are Neo Cons, like you may want to believe. It's the Neo-Cons who are our leadership that is the serious issue. Not the Real Republicans. Real Republicans are mad as Hell about this War in Iraq and this Government spending that is out of control. And we are working to do something about it.

 

[iman]

^Unfortunately there are white blue collar people, rural people and suburbanites that would prefer Rudy for a variety of reasons. In Pa, Obama could not get the margin out of Philly and Pittsburgh to overcome Republican votes elsewhere in the state. I suspect that is true in Ohio and Florida also.

Obama needs to be around for a while to gain voters confidence and define himself before the Republicans do.

 

[MystikWizard]

I would vote for Obama before I would ever vote for Hillary. I will say that much. I get more of a sense of "integrity" from him.

 

[iman]

There is not much integrity in the Obama attempts to morph Clinton into George Bush and not much integrity in his attempts to question Clinton's positions when his positions are not essentially identical and not much integrity in his deliberate avoidance of an important Senate vote and then attacking Clinton for her vote.

I think a broader view of integrity is necessary when discussing politics at this level. Clinton has a long record - voters know what they are getting.

 

[chance1]

. Clinton has a long record - voters know what they are getting.

not sure about that

she has been senator for how long? not long - not like many of past dem candidates or current

as for voters knowing what they're getting

not so sure about that either

there is a real ambivalence about her

who is she really?

that is her negatives r still so high IMO

if the voters were so sure - she would poll much higher in the general - in particular vs. rudy

 

[lancelva]

^That's the purpose of a general election campaign. She hasn't been running a national campaign and any national attention she has received has been one-sided. The same is true with Rudy, except the coverage is on the opposite side. As people get to know the candidates better, Senator Clinton's positives will increase (as we have already seen) and Rudy's negatives will increase (as we are starting to see).

 

[chance1]

^That's the purpose of a general election campaign. She hasn't been running a national campaign and any national attention she has received has been one-sided. The same is true with Rudy, except the coverage is on the opposite side. As people get to know the candidates better, Senator Clinton's positives will increase (as we have already seen) and Rudy's negatives will increase (as we are starting to see).

that is indeed ur hope - that Rudy's go down and Hillary's go up - good luck with that since it is ur bread n butter

and i think the default is u r right - rudy has never had the scrutiny before - nationally anyway - i would argue that the ny media can scratch pretty deep

hillary WAS making great strides IMO - the last 10 days have been particularly bad - perhaps it's a bump in the road - perhaps not

rudy WAS doing a lot of nothing for a while - in the last month or so i have noticed a different aura about him - as dead thompson slides down due to lack of anything - and mutt becomes more and more predictable with his "who is my audience today - then this is what im gonna say" and with poor John McCain getting no respect from the Repub establishment or voters ................ well Rudy has stepped up IMO

that could come crashing down at any moment

and if i had to bet - id say it does - and that hillary rebounds - all that money counts for something

but it is a shame she had to detour from what was the right path

gotta get to work - in NYC

every am i walk 10 blocks from penn station to times square - every am - see lots of NYC - good stuff

The "real NY er"

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

My polls are spin? Well the site to which you link above has this nifty chart that tracks Iowa polling:

Link: http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/state-polls/iowa-presidential-polls.html

The graph clearly indicates that Senator Clinton's lead in Iowa has grown substantially during the course of the campaign. Is that spin?

No it’s not spin. Its worse. It is an outright falsehood.

What are you on? Do you actually think that people reading this thread cannot read a graph and that they are all hallucinating like you?

Baby, when the line on the graph heads towards the bottom of the page it indicates loss of support – not growth - unless you are reading it upside down – or are colour blind. You would argue for ever that black is white and white is black, wouldn’t you? It is so juvenile.

The ONLY PERSON of the leading three that that graph indicates has steadily grown during the Iowa campaign is Obama.

The graph now shows that Edwards and Obama and Clinton are statistically tied as I posted with integrity above.

You’re nuts to reinforce the impression that Clinton and her campaign are willing to go to any ends to misrepresent and twist facts by advertising so blatantly that your words do not match the facts clearly shown above them. I rest my case as to the veracity of your posts. I know you are just out of school but you are not doing the Clinton campaign any favours with these tactics, believe me.

I is so stupid it is creepy.

 

[lancelva]

What are you talking about? The graph showed a clear upward move in Senator Clinton's numbers. For some reason the graphic is no longer coming up, but I found graph which shows the same trend using similar polling data:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

Purple line = Clinton polling data
Green line = Obama polling data
Red line = Edwards polling data

No one can claim after looking at this graph that Senator Clinton has not been moving up in the polls in Iowa.

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

What you posted yesterday was a graph showing Zogby polling data in Iowa http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/stat...ial-polls.html
which showed Clinton turning downwards and Obama the only candidate of the three leaders with a steady growth trajectory. The graph is up again for all to see. It rather graphically exposes your posts for what they are.

Of course your post was irrelevant as even with the Clinton graph line heading downwards the three are statistically tied. I had pointed this out earlier in my reply above to SantaCBear but that was not enougth. You were then even so trying to spin something quite different, which was patently false, and false for all to see then and now, right above your own ridiculous words.

Now, quite typically you try and squirm out of your own VERY graphic misrepresentation - by showing a completely different graph - using different data - from a different website - the compilation of polls that Real Clear Politics tracks.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...aucus-208.html

As if that can somehow expiate in others eyes your juvenile nonsense. I can only hope for the Democratic Party's credibility, and those that want a change after Bush, that you are only being allowed to deliver coffee and stuff envelopes on the Clinton campaign and that you are forbidden from tarring the whole party with your juvenile misrepresentations.

I know you are a kid, and maybe an over enthusiastic one, but people should have no illusions that your methods are representative of those of most Democratic supporters. They aren’t and frankly it is an embarrassment to us all.

 

[RandomAccess]

That graph changed AFTER Lance posted it. I saw it, and it showed Hillary UP yesterday. You can't hold him responsible for the change since then. (Hyperlinks DO change) Lance was in no way lying, or "spin[ning]" the information.

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

That graph changed AFTER Lance posted it. I saw it, and it showed Hillary UP yesterday. You can't hold him responsible for the change since then. (Hyperlinks DO change) Lance was in no way lying, or "spin[ning]" the information.

NO, Sir. I saw the graph before he posted it. And after. It showed the same thing. It reflected Zogby's poll of a few days before his posting.

Zogby did not do a new Iowa poll in between his posting and yesterday.

 

[RandomAccess]

NO, Sir. I saw the graph before he posted it. And after. It showed the same thing. It reflected Zogby's poll of a few days before his posting.

Zogby did not do a new Iowa poll in between his posting and yesterday.

Call me a liar. . . I saw the graph he posted, and it only went as far as October. You'll note, as the chart stands now, it still doesn't even have the "Nov" on the bottom, and Kucinich's record hasn't yet been extended to November. That chart is in the process of changing even now!

 

[lancelva]

Now that I am able to see the new graph (I was unable to see it or visit the web site for some season), the graph did not have the last point added when I posted it. And what I didn't realize, it uses only the data from Zogby. Focusing on one poll will not paint a clear picture. Hence the reason I presented the second chart above which uses data from multiple polling sources.

Still, the graph that changed shows an upward trend for Senator Clinton. And she is still higher than she was when the chart begins. It takes more than one poll to suggest a downward trend. On the same token, it shows a downward trend for Obama starting in September and especially for Edwards (he's still lower than he was when the chart begins).

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

Call me a liar. . . I saw the graph he posted, and it only went as far as October. You'll note, as the chart stands now, it still doesn't even have the "Nov" on the bottom, and Kucinich's record hasn't yet been extended to November. That chart is in the process of changing even now!

No, Sir, I am not calling you that. I am sure that you are not. But could it be that you were perhaps led to mistakenly look at the wrong coloured line after Lancelva's misleading post? Think that might have been possible?

How else could we have both seen two different graphs? And I had seen the graph both before and after he posted it. If you go back and read this thread from the top you can read my posts and Lancelva's and you can form your own opinion as to who is posting correctly and who is not. Who is spinning incorrect information?

Note that while I pointed out early on that the latest Zogby poll had Hillary drop 2%, I also had the integrity not to spin it as a real drop in her support, which some not familiar with poling and margin of error might have fallen for. Instead I pointed out that that drop was not statistically significant as it was within the margin of error and that the three leading candidates were in a statistical tie.

Lance knew she had dropped in the Zogby poll but spun it as something else. He also knew that Zogby showed Obama had risen over the campaign. He also knew that the three leading candidates were in a statistical tie. Then there was also his posting of polls which were not like for like data, another way of misleading.

You will also see that I did not cherry pick the Zogby poll, it was brought up by the originator of this thread.

In view of all of that, clearly recorded for all to see in this thread above, do you still think his posts were intellectual honest?

I find it really tiresome to have to regularly correct the constant misleading posts from the same source. He may think it is clever to play his game but it is just embarrassing juvenile stuff.