Polls Show Clinton Campaign Collapsing In Early States

[letme]

After all the coverage we have seen, you can hardly say that the media are rooting for Senator Clinton. They have been smearing her for 15 years.

Here we go again.........

Billy they are beating up on me...that is not fair. THIS was mine to take,they don't play well with me in the sand box.

Act Two...

"with a hardy Hi Ol Silver......Here comes the Lone Ranger"
Tonto cover my back as I load this Silver Bullet.

 

[lancelva]

Maybe not now, but it certainly didn't start out that way. They pushed her to the moon when she first started campaigning.

Are you kidding? The only way Obama could even be considered a candidate is because he was a media darling ever since that one speech in 2004.

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

Another Poll today for the Concord Monitor shows Clinton’s former overwhelming lead has evaporated and puts Obama ahead in New Hampshire.

Monitor poll: Obama +1

Submitted by Primary Monitor on Thu, 2007-12-13 23:46.


Barack Obama has caught Hillary Clinton in the campaign for the Democratic presidential primary in New Hampshire, according to a Concord Monitor/Research 2000 poll to be published in tomorrow's paper. Here's the breakdown:

* Obama -- 32 percent
* Clinton -- 31 percent
* John Edwards -- 18 percent
* Bill Richardson -- 8 percent
* Dennis Kucinich -- 3 percent
* Joe Biden -- 2 percent
* Chris Dodd -- 1 percent
* Undecided -- 5 percent
* Margin of error: +/- 5 percentage points


The survey of 400 likely voters found Clinton leading among registered Democrats, 36-27, but trailing among undeclared voters, 40-23. There was very little difference between men (30-30) and women (Obama 34, Clinton 32) in the sample.

The survey also asked for a preference if the choices were limited to two candidates. Those results:

* Obama -- 45
* Clinton -- 41


* Clinton -- 47
* Edwards -- 41


* Obama -- 46
* Edwards -- 39

http://www.yourconcord.com/primaryblog/monitor_poll_obama_1

 

[MystikWizard]

Burn baby. Burn. Take you and your corrupt husband back to Arkansas. You're toast.

 

[NickCole]

Burn baby. Burn. Take you and your corrupt husband back to Arkansas. You're toast.

Looks like you haven't read a newspaper in 15 years.

They've lived in New York for years.

Hillary Clinton was elected Senator from New York in 2000 by a slim margin. Then when she ran for re-election in 2006 the people of the state of New York, including conservative counties, overwhelmingly voted for her. An objective reading of that indicates Hillary Clinton proves herself a worthy public official when she's elected. But I'm sure that's news to you -- you won't find that in Republican Talking Points.

 

[MystikWizard]

Looks like you haven't read a newspaper in 15 years.

They've lived in New York for years.

Obviously she lives in New York and I realize that, as she is the Senator there after all. Pretty common sense. I obviously bring up Arkansas because her current home state obviously doesn't want her anymore.

 

[NickCole]

Obviously she lives in New York and I realize that, as she is the Senator there after all. Pretty common sense. I obviously bring up Arkansas because her current home state obviously doesn't want her anymore.

Senator Clinton won 67% of the vote in her re-election just last year.

Only a Republican smear agent would characterize that as New York not wanting her.

 

[NickCole]

And don't forget, that 67% is 3 million of the almost 20 million people the Census Bureau claims to have lived in New York state in 2006. You can't dismiss the overwhelming desire for Rodham by less than 16% of the population.

That's uncommonly weak spin even for you.

When it comes to elections, voters are the only members of the population who are counted. And 67% re-elected Senator Clinton.

 

[NickCole]

Then you are practicing equivocation---he said New York didn't want her, and you claimed 67% did, which is quite evidently not true.

You don't know that.

Of the population that didn't vote, prove what percentage supports Hillary and what percentage "didn't want her."

You can't. It might be exactly 67%. You don't know, you're just making it up out of the fantasy of your own bias.

You claim something as if it's true when there is no evidence to support it. I can see why you buy the hate Hillary nonsense; reality doesn't play nearly as big a part of your decision making process as the stuff you make up.

New York voters, who are the only ones who determine who New York wants and doesn't want, voted overwhelmingly to re-elect Senator Clinton. That's a fact. All the bullshit you and Midnight77 are typing out is spin.

And BTW, for whatever it's worth, in the latest Quinnipiac poll (Oct 07) Clinton gets a 65% approval of the job she's doing as Senator. That's almost exactly the 67% figure who'd voted for her, which you claim is "quite evidently not true."

 

[NickCole]

Yet you are the one who did that; I pointed it out to you. Neither of you have any evidence either way regarding this.

I have evidence of how many New York voters re-elected Hillary.

I have evidence of polls indicating how many New Yorkers approve of the job she's doing.

You and Midnight have nothing but smears you make up.

Your hate Hillary attacks are baseless garbage, which I've just proved again.

 

[PhunkSpunk]

One of the most telling facts is the recent WSJ poll wherein something like 80% of HRC supporters said they were doing so because of Bill.

Of course, a tacit understanding that Mrs. Clinton's most trusted adviser will be the President is her strongest point.

Back in 1992, especially after the 60 Minutes interview, it was my impression that a (Bill) Clinton presidency would be a de-facto co-presidency. I had no problem with that as they both were so damned smart. I also understood the 'marriage' between these two former Yale Law Review staffers to be more of a Joint Venture Agreement.

Bill is Hillary's strongest asset. After eight years of Bush, we need some serious damage control, especially abroad. As much as our traditional allies have come to despise us, they still love Bubba. I see his role in a Hillary administration as being good-will ambassador at large. Bill will take care of foreign policy, while Hillary attends to domestic matters. I see Bill's role very much like the anticipated one of Putin when he steps down from the Russian Presidency and likely becomes Prime Minister: he'll still be calling a lot of the shots (as I imagine she did during his administration)

The other positive for HRC will be the return of many Bill's cabinet. I think Rubin, who I think is a buddy from Yale, made some noise that he'll come back.

Of course if Bush 2 had any real political savvy, he'd have preempted HRCs campaign two years ago by appointing Bill to the job for which he was made, even more so than the presidency: Chief Justice. I wouldn't be surprised if his father advised him to consider this choice. It would have been a powerful gesture of bipartisanship, and while it would have alienated the Religious Right, it would have sat well with traditional Republicans, who Rove and his pandering to the likes of Pat Robertson have all but alienated.

Depending upon who the Republicans end up nominating, those 'traditional' Republicans are likely to become 'Clinton Republicans', after the same fashion as union rank and file became 'Reagan Democrats' in 1980.

 

[NickCole]

Didn't counter Midnight's assertion. Your tactic was weak.

Polls are more conjecture than fact.

What smear did I make up, Nick? I pointed out that your argument fails; that's not a smear against anyone.

You wrote:

"he said New York didn't want her, and you claimed 67% did, which is quite evidently not true."

That's bullshit.

By falsely claiming what I posted "is quite evidently not true," you attempt to support Midnight's claim, and Midnight's claim is a smear.

New Yorkers overwhelmingly want Hillary because she's proven herself over nearly seven years. That fact alone --yes fact as proven by the vote she earned in 2006 and poll numbers that consistently show New Yorkers approve of the job she does-- gives her important credibility in her run for the White House. And of course that's the reason Midnight tries to smear it and you try to provide him cover. But you both fail.

First, you proved nothing. My point against your argument stands without contest; I am correct.

Beating your chest and declaring, "I am correct" doesn't make you correct. My posts --and it's easy to provide links to back up the vote and the recent poll-- prove you're wrong.

If you have evidence to support your claim then post it; otherwise your assertion that what I posted "is quite evidently not true" is flat bullshit.

... it makes one start to think you hate democracy.

Ah yes, another favorite smear of the Republican Party. I'm unpatriotic, I'm un-American, I hate democracy.

Bullshit.

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

Proving your argument flawed is not an endorsement of Midnight's claim. You are disingenuous beyond belief.

Saying that I "fail" doesn't mean that I did fail. If you'd learn to read what I say, instead of interjecting what you wish I was saying, you wouldn't fall into these shameful displays. This "overwhelming" support, this hasty generalizations, this assumption of the masses, are all well-and-fun for those that don't see past your sleight-of-hand.

Those links to your so-called "evidence" doesn't prove me wrong in the least.

I posted numbers; you should know how many people live in your state and know how many voted for Rodham. It's that simple.

Odd, you express your support for Alfie in another thread, and I can easily show a lot of posts where he makes such assertions. And considering how you like to smear others with these "allegations of hate" and playing the same "AtwaterRoveBushRepublican" tactics here, your hypocrisy is damning your case. Dig yourself deeper, if you prefer.

Well you called Nick Cole on his argument and like so many of the Hillary supporters here his only response is to attack you and your motives - not the evidence that you submit. This is a trait that the extreme Cintonistas seem to have learnt and admired from their master. And that is why her campaign is nose-diving. American voters like a well fought campaign but not a falsely spun one. It reflects on not just on the falsifiers but the type of candidate that they would have represent them.

Interesting a thoroughly decent cousin who was supporting Clinton - and who I loved none-the-less - told me yesterday that after the latest dirty tricks episode (see above) " You will like hearing this. I am no longer a Clinton supporter -- this is the second dirty trick from her campaign. Maybe she knew, maybe she didn't but there has to be a mood within the campaign that permits it."

Sure is – only it is certainly not just their second dirty trick but let that pass. The extremist Clintonistas despise anyone whose views are presumptuous enough to challenge their view of her God given right to the Democratic nomination. Anyone who disagrees with her - or them - is apparently evil. So now that long time Democratic cousin is another Obama supporter. And that is why Clinton is toast - because of her extremist supporters – certainly not the majority of her supporters who are not extremists and many of whom have been decamping – but those who can only besmirch any one who believes public life should be about higher ideals.

Thank God for Americans. They make mistakes but are not, except for a few on the right and the left, extremist. They see through and will not support her long experience – of being totally wrong on all the major issues of our time – the health care fiasco, Iraq and Iran etc. She who voted with the Bush Republicans on the key issues and has shown that she is clearly as unfit for high office as George W. Bush was and is. The country has surely learnt something from the wreckage of the last few years.

 

[NickCole]

Well you called Nick Cole on his argument and like so many of the Hillary supporters here his only response is to attack you and your motives - not the evidence that you submit. .

That's wrong.

Are you lying or are you unable to comprehend what's posted in this thread?

ICO7 did not post one shred of supportive evidence, and yet I absolutely did address it. He posted the population of New York and the percentage of citizens who typically vote, which is worthless in determining how New Yorkers feel about Hillary Clinton as their Senator.

I posted Senator Clinton's re-election figure of 67% and an October 2007 respected poll figure (which is consistent with polling figures over the past several years) of an approval job rating from New Yorkers of 65%. That's evidence that New Yorkers approve of the job Senator Clinton has done and that New Yorkers want her here.

Likewise, if Americans are smart enough to vote her into the White House, they will be pleased with the job she does, unlike that monumental mess George Bush.

 

[andysayshi]

Is this what American political discourse has become? Arguments over who's winning in the polls? Seriously, who gives a fuck?

Why aren't the REAL questions being asked, and being answered? The media are so focussed on this poll-racing crap they've stopped actually demanding truth and reason from the candidates.

Polls are irrelevant. They tell us nothing important until the actual election day. Instead of all this bullshit about who's in the lead, why aren't American's demanding more quality coverage of the candidates and what they stand for?

 

[JackFTwist]

Looks like you haven't read a newspaper in 15 years.

They've lived in New York for years.

Hillary Clinton was elected Senator from New York in 2000 by a slim margin. Then when she ran for re-election in 2006 the people of the state of New York, including conservative counties, overwhelmingly voted for her. An objective reading of that indicates Hillary Clinton proves herself a worthy public official when she's elected. But I'm sure that's news to you -- you won't find that in Republican Talking Points.

Now that is the spin that gets so tiresome for the constant make believe fantasy.

In fact Sen. Clinton won in 2000 by 832,000 votes, 55% to 43%. That is hardly "a slim margin."

Sen. Clinton was elected in 2000 with a sizable, comfortable majority. In 2006 she was elected with about double the margin, 1,600,000 votes, 67% to 31%.

Both wins were very impressive. An objective reading is indeed that she has been found by her constituents to be worthy of their support. But to state she was elected by "a slim margin" is a false statement.

As I have said in other threads, the current horse race stuff means nothing. I don't care if Obama is in the lead or Clinton. These margins are all withing the statistical margin of error and it is going to go back and forth until -- in Iowa, the caucus, a very hard thing to poll -- and that will effect NH and the rest. So all these threads (ooh, my candidate has a 1% lead) mean nothing. I doubt highly that Clinton's campaign is collapsing. This is the ebb and flow of this time of year.

 

[NickCole]

You misrepresent what I said, Nick. Why not try to be intellectually honest? And I'm not pretending to guess what "New Yorkers" feel about Rodham; you are the one attempting it, by also redefining of what all "New York" consists, with flawed evidence.

Further, you are wrong about the procedure--- it isn't up to America to vote her into office: it is filtered through the incompetent primary system, which is a fraction of the fraction of voters who will later indirectly vote to sway the electoral college. "Smart enough" indeed...

I didn't misrepresent anything; it's all here in black and white. You lost an argument and you haven't the integrity to accept it, just as you don't have the integrity to honestly assess Hillary Clinton's potential as president - chosing instead to denigrate her with silly personal-style attacks. "Rodham" -- what a ridiculously impotent attempt to mock her. No wonder smart people here miss General Alfie!

I proved my point; I proved Midnight is wrong when he stated, "I obviously bring up Arkansas because her current home state obviously doesn't want her anymore."

Not only is it not "obvious" that New York doesn't want her any more, the opposite is true.

 

[NickCole]

Now that is the spin that gets so tiresome for the constant make believe fantasy.

In fact Sen. Clinton won in 2000 by 832,000 votes, 55% to 43%. That is hardly "a slim margin."

Sen. Clinton was elected in 2000 with a sizable, comfortable majority. In 2006 she was elected with about double the margin, 1,600,000 votes, 67% to 31%.

Both wins were very impressive. An objective reading is indeed that she has been found by her constituents to be worthy of their support. But to state she was elected by "a slim margin" is a false statement.

Get over yourself.

It's not a false statement. It might not be the way you'd characterize it, but it's not a false statement. Compared with her re-election number, her first win was slim.

And my point stands. After six years, New Yorkers re-elected Hillary Clinton by a much bigger margin than they'd originally elected her. That's an easy and sure sign that New Yorkers approve of the job she's done and that they want her here. If Americans elect her President, and if Republicans can stop their revengeful destructive crap for a few minutes (like the kind of nonsense they're now pulling in the Senate), she can get our country back on a positive and productive track.

 

[JackFTwist]

Get over yourself.

It's not a false statement. It might not be the way you'd characterize it, but it's not a false statement. Compared with her re-election number, her first win was slim.

And my point stands. After six years, New Yorkers re-elected Hillary Clinton by a much bigger margin than they'd originally elected her. That's an easy and sure sign that New Yorkers approve of the job she's done and that they want her here. If Americans elect her President, and if Republicans can stop their revengeful destructive crap for a few minutes (like the kind of nonsense they're now pulling in the Senate), she can get our country back on a positive and productive track.

Get over your own self. Stop spinning. You lose credibility.

You would get, properly, an F in an academic situation where you claimed an 800,000 margin, 12% point win as "slim." Your "compared with" is intellectually fraudulent in an academic sense in that, for example, a 300 pound man is not "slim" compared with a 600 man - both are fat. "Slim" is inappropriate work in that instance.

"And my point stands." Good for you! No one was arguing that. My point stands, too. You are spinning some fiction to try and embellish into a legend by misleading what her accomplishments are. She had no slim win followed by a landslide; she did have a very solid win followed by a landslide. The reality is substantial, impressive, and worthy of being praised and illustrating that her constituents have been very impressed by her. Your spin by mischaracterizing is not reflective of reality.

Your final sentence is very arguably correct. Your intent to correct a slam, your intent to respond to the false suggestion that she has no welcome and home in New York, is valid - if "go back to Arkansas" was not just an overblown phrase, and if it was, then it was invalid as "a slim margin." Senator Clinton's success in New York says something wonderful about her.

The reality is reality enough. If I were another poster, say General Alphie, would you love me and praise for me for correcting misleading statements? Just think of me as a fact checker and bullshit detector, very noble things if I may say so.

I also posted to state clearly that I was not buying the thread title as meaningful but just a normal, expected snapshot in a transitory moment and that your candidate was not suffering from a "campaign collapse." Thank you for your commenting on how I have been essentially in agreement with you on many things in this thread and elsewhere and just wanted to correct the whole. You are welcome for the many times that I have done so. Yes, you are right, I shall continue to do so.

And I am thankful for your valiant fight in the torture thread as you fight the inhumane assertions that torture is acceptable. I find that we agree on so many things. The only place where we disagree is that Sen. Clinton is your 1st choice and she is my 3rd choice. Why that is so unacceptable astounds me, but the demands for conformity or be treated as an enemy has helped move her from my 2nd choice to my 3rd choice. She won't get below my 3rd choice - she remains permanently in my top 3. But again, the demands to conform or be an enemy is not enhancing support of her.

I await the post that attacks me for something in the light of everything that I have just said. That is so amusing, although sad, that people cannot recognize their allies and who will be in the trenches for the cause when the real fighting begins.

 

[NickCole]

Get over your own self. Stop spinning. You lose credibility.

You would get, properly, an F in an academic situation where you claimed an 800,000 margin, 12% point win as "slim." Your "compared with" is intellectually fraudulent in an academic sense in that, for example, a 300 pound man is not "slim" compared with a 600 man - both are fat. "Slim" is inappropriate work in that instance.

I couldn't be less interested in your academic situations and senses.

I left school 32 years ago when I realized what I wanted to learn they didn't teach.

Hillary Clinton's success after being elected Senator is what I think is relevant and important here.