Clinton 47, Obama 45
McCain 46, Obama 44... Clinton 46, McCain 46
42% Rate Economy "Poor," a Record for 2008
U.S. Satisfaction Dips to 19%
This poll goes right in line with what I said yesterday in my 2:53 post, and that is Obama is dropping almost hourly - this is the second poll today I have seen with him losing his National lead (second poll was Yahoo Dashboard Politics). One of the latest lies, I mean items is the claim he has made all along about only receiving money at the grass roots level in increments of $25, $50 & $100 and oh by the way $250,000 that we know of from Tony Rezko (First he denied receiving money from Rezko, then he said oh yeah I got $150,000 from him - now its $250,000 and rising). No special interest huh? right - Obama is in it up to his eyeballs & everbody now sees it.
Posted on March 17, 2008 1:30 PM
John - you're uninformed. Obama has been a legislator in Illinois for 8 years, and every question that could be asked and answered about Rezko has been asked and answered. He just got the numbers wrong. Why don't you inquire of Hillary Clinton about the $830,000 she got from Hsu, who is currently in jail after fleeing? Or ask John McCain where his money is coming from. Do your homework.
Posted on March 17, 2008 1:41 PM
It's called regression to the mean. When two candidates are tied nationally, they will oscillate around similar means. Clinton has not taken any sort of statistically significant lead and Obama's numbers, up until recently, have been artificially buoyed due to some very favorable polls in Feb. after his 12-victory streak.
It's funny that you bring up Rezko today because Obama just this weekend spent 92 minutes discussing the issue with the Chicago Tribune in which he answered every question asked of him. This conservative newspaper reaffirmed their endorsement of him. Sorry, but when was the last time that Clinton spent 1 minute explaining her failure to disclose her tax returns? Or explaining her dealings with Norman Hsu, a fugative that she took $850,000 from?
Oh, and just remember that Obama won our state by greater than a 2-1 margain. How do you like them apples?
Posted on March 17, 2008 1:42 PM
"He just got the numbers wrong."
Righty-O, Gail. Puuhleeeeeze.
More like "He just finally got confronted by the media, and his honeymoon is over."
Posted on March 17, 2008 1:44 PM
Alternatively, Mary, one could say that Clinton's "kitchen sink" strategy is starting to do some damage. Or, the truth may be that the corporate media likes a very profitable horserace and will attack any candidate that takes the lead to prolong the race.
Posted on March 17, 2008 1:47 PM
Hey John, I did'nt have a chance to respond to that idiot yesterday that believed we were the same person. Anyway, you are right on track. People are realizing who Obama really is, but we must not underestimate that he is one of the greatest manipulator in our time, and the foolish ones can still be swayed rather easily. The superdelegates need to step up to the plate for Hillary if we are going to have a chance in November. If liberals in the democratic primaries are now having doubts about him, then what will the independents, and possible cross over republicans think. We must fight against hate and hate speeches, so we must unite against Obama.
Posted on March 17, 2008 1:48 PM
I totally agree Jonothan, I didn't know until yesterday we were related !! LOL
I think to suggest that a 7 pt downturn in the polls for Obama means nothing (as suggested earlier in one of these postings) is an absolute denial of the trend that we are seeing (Thank GOD) across America. Americans may have differences but they usually unite in one common cause - TO DEFEND THEIR COUNTRY AGAINST HATE MONGERS & RACISTS AND THOSE WHO PATRONIZE THEM.
Im not sure you were paying attention - The point is Obama first denied that he received money from any special interest (Remember he said - This is grass roots ALL of our money is $25, $50 & $100 contributors), and then came Tony Rezko Land Dev. et al... Obama says, Oh yeah I took $150,000 (LIE) then just this last week finally acknowledged it was $250,000 (Probably more). This guy is so full of SH###T its not even funny. Of course Hillary received money from special Interest - I dont recall her saying she didn't. Obama tried to get her to deny it but she wouldnt - turns out He's just as guilty as anybody. Theres a difference in being stand offish and being an outright LIAR !!
John- Spokane WA.
Posted on March 17, 2008 2:31 PM
At this point we know that:
1) Obama will end the contest with the most pledged delegates,
2) Obama will likely end the contest with the popular vote tally,
3) Obama will end the contest with the most money and greatest fundraising potential,
4) Obama will end the contest with the most states,
5) Obama will end the contest with the best poll numbers against McCain, and
6) Obama will end the contest with the most primary state victories and caucus state victories.
So what's left for Team Clinton? She has to convince a majority of the super delegates to cast their vote for her, so how does she get those supers to ignore all of the above Obama advantages in order to cast their ballot for the candidate who is losing?
Apparently, it's a two-pronged strategy.
The first is what we've been seeing this week -- tear down a candidate who has inspired and given hope to millions by appealing to white resentment and turning him into the "black candidate". It's ugly and revolting, but the Clinton campaign is banking on it scaring people away from Obama. And by "people", I mean "super delegates".
Remember, Clinton can't win based on the math. The rules -- the "process" -- are her enemy. The only way she can win is by having the super delegates ignore all of Obama's clear advantages -- a coup by super delegate. And the way that coup is by tearing Obama down and discrediting the process that gave Obama those advantages.
But here's the rub -- the "process that gave Obama those advantages" includes latte drinkers, and black people, and young people, and red state Democrats, and small state Democrats, and blue states that voted for Obama.
So it's a sort of Catch-22 -- she needs the super delegates to abandon the winner for her loser campaign, but the way she's trying to win them over is by insulting their very states and constituencies.
Clinton is in a bad place. She is behind in every metric that matters, and has been relegated to trashing our likely nominee and entire Democratic Party constituencies and states in order to make the case that she's somehow "more electable" despite all evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately for her, the super delegates aren't all cloistered in New York or in DC.
They represent the United States of America. And outside of Clinton's Blue bastions, her insults aren't winning any new converts.
Posted on March 17, 2008 2:34 PM
There is a fear among many of my Democratic friends -- all scientists -- that Obama improperly mixed church and state from the beginning. Whatever uneasiness we had about Obama has now progressed, after the Wright tapes appeared, to a definite will to see him defeated. I'm glad to see a bit of a nudge away from him in recent polls.
Posted on March 17, 2008 2:35 PM
Doesn't John have *anything* better to do than to haunt this blog?
This is just one data point. Both candidates have ups and downs. The sky is not falling.
Posted on March 17, 2008 2:36 PM
Many pundits said it will take a self inflicted wound that will stop Obama. That's what he did. I'm afraid it may be game over for him.
Posted on March 17, 2008 2:39 PM
You are correct Adam - this IS Game Over for "O".
@ NOT MODERATOR/MIKE in CA/David/Sven and all the other bogus names you use;
Your beating a dead horse, you Boy did it to himself and everybody in America knows it - but you'll continue with namecalling and grasping for straws because thats all you have left.
BYE BYE BAMA..
Posted on March 17, 2008 2:45 PM
Where's your logic John? How do you expect Gallup numbers to continue going down with no new information? You can't continue to dodge hard facts that these Gallup polls have not been moving down very much at all during the past 9 weeks. How is this "Game Over" what's going to happen? I'd love to hear it from someone as wise as yourself.
Posted on March 17, 2008 2:49 PM
Well Im glad you asked Andrew,
Because this is one of those Car Crashes that bent the frame - The Car is totaled, Obama wont be able to put it back into the body shop. In almost every campaign there is that one BIG turning point - Im saying (And Im not the only one) that this is IT . I know you saw the recent Rasmussen poll re: Rev Wright/Obama - This one is gonna stick.
Posted on March 17, 2008 2:56 PM
My expectation would be that tracking polls don't change that much normally. If my math is right, the 5% swing from yesterday gallup tracking poll represents a 15% swing of yesterday's sampling to the one 3 days earlier. Perhaps one of the polling experts can confirm this.
Posted on March 17, 2008 3:06 PM
Why did Iowa go so well for Obama? The news was already out there quite readily on Saturday.
Posted on March 17, 2008 3:19 PM
Iowa is just a backyard State of Illinois, besdides - He only won ONE MORE Pledged delegate than she did there. If you want celebrate Iowa, go ahead - its PA, MI, FL,NC WV, IN & KY that now matter the most.
Posted on March 17, 2008 3:29 PM
Hillary should just concede now for the good of the party. She is ruining her legacy and that of her supporters like that moron Ferraro.
If somebody can show me a method (based on current polls) a scenario where Clinton can secure the nomination without the superdelegates over-ruling the people, please show it to me. Even if you throw in Florida and Michigan, she still can't do it. We all know that the superdelegates are not going to over-rule the pledged delegate total - that would be sure disaster for them come November. So perhaps that is why we are seeing this VP talk from her. She is a smart woman - why waste millions and detract from the general election hopes of the democrats by prolonging this?
Posted on March 17, 2008 3:31 PM
Eric, that's an easy one to answer: because caucuses don't reflect the will of the people, or all registered voters, or those who would be likely voters if there were a proper primary.
They reflect the relative strength of the campaigns' ground operations as well as certain demographic facts of life: poor people, especially those who work shifts or punch a time clock, and women with children, especially those who are single and/or work, are the least able to rearrange their schedules to accomodate caucus rules. Students and upper income people have the most flexibility.
Any resemblence between a caucus allocation of delegates and broader public opinion is in large part coincidental.
Posted on March 17, 2008 3:34 PM
You are delusional if you think the superdelegates will over-rule the pledged delegate total. That has to be one of THE most stupid things I have ever read on this board.
HMMM, why have an election in the first place then?!!? Why not have all the superdelegates go into a room and decide the nomineee???
Let's see, I wonder what would happen if the superdelegates went into a room and over-ruled the pledged delegate lead that Obama has? You think ANY AAs or students would cross-over from Obama to vote for Hillary in the general election? NO and NO! It would be a certain landslide for McCain, dummy.
Contests to date -
Obama - 30
Clinton - 14
I really don't care if Clinton wins Florida, Michigan AND Pennsylvania. She pretty much has to win EVERY contest from here on out by 70-30 margins - which just ain't gonna happen.
And your "argument" about "big states" is phenomenonally absurd. It doesn't matter that Clinton won NY or CA - those will never go Republican - ever. If your retarded gay uncle was the nominee, they would STILL go blue. So, STFU about that, ok? You sound like an effing retard. You might as well say, "Well, Hillary looks better in a pink sweater!" That makes more sense than the "she can win the big states" nonsense.
Obama can turn many red states blue. Just look at the primary/caucus numbers. Virginia, Missouri, Iowa, Georgia, North and South Carolina are now in play.
In addition, his coattails are unreal. Check what he did for Foster, adding a House seat in a heavy Republican district (Hastert's old spot) - by putting out ads supporting him. Congressional Democrats see that and will go to him - slowly but surely - as they want to win their elections as well.
Hillary should just concede now for the good of the party. She is ruining her legacy and that of her supporters like that moron Ferraro.
Posted on March 17, 2008 3:35 PM
Hmmm Ciccina, sounds like you are crying about the rules after losing the game.
Posted on March 17, 2008 3:36 PM
NEITHER can get to the magic number, so then what do you want to do ? Just say Obama wins because he may have a slight Popular vote lead even though he didn't meet the required number. There is already a process in place, its called a Brokered Convention - see ya there !
Posted on March 17, 2008 3:37 PM
HOW EXACTLY? Is she going to win Pennsylvania 90-10? NO. If they re-vote in Florida and Michigan with campaigning, then Obama will certainly increase his output from current (nonbinding) totals. So how exactly are Florida and Michigan going to settle anything in your fantasy scenario?
Obama - 30
Clinton - 14
I see her winning 2 more states, max.
Good luck arguing that you should be the nominee when your opponent doubled up your win total.
Not to mention beat you in Pledged delegates, and the popular vote, and has the edge in purple states, and does better against the republican nominee than you. Yup, good luck with that Hillary!
At this point we know that:
Posted on March 17, 2008 3:39 PM
@Aron - Spokane,WA:
You do realize you are quoting the caucus result, where 1 caucus vote is not the same as 1 primary vote? Right? Caucuses are so-undemocratic its not funny.
In the WA caucus:
BO - 67, HC -31
In the WA post caucus PRIMARY:
BO - 51, HC - 46
Doesnt look like 2:1 to me. Looks more like 1.1:1.0. Thats kinda close.
Heck look at Texas...
HC - 51, BO - 47
BO - 56, HC - 44
Hillary won the primary vote, where 1 person = 1 vote, where the general election is a primary. Barack, like usual, wins the caucuses, where Hillary's supporters dont have the time to come out and caucus for three hours.
Posted on March 17, 2008 3:46 PM
YOU ARE CORRECT PA VOTER,
Having attended the Wash Caucus, I can tell you it was the biggest joke I ever saw, people confused, no organization, Seniors & people of physiccal Challenge and people who simply had to work couldnt be there !! Not to mention we had like 4 feet of snow on the ground in Spokane that day. CAUCUS (From the Spanish root word CACA, meaning a pile of SH###T) By the way, The Dem Party in Wash is now considering elimating caucuses in future elections here because of the last debacle.
Posted on March 17, 2008 3:58 PM
John, FYI, round 2 of Iowa was on Saturday. Obama picked up 9 more delegates, 1 from Clinton and 8 from Edwards. Net gain of 10 for Obama in the face of the nuclear meltdown. Hmm...
But as is often the case, it is best to not let facts and currents get in the way of an agenda.
Posted on March 17, 2008 3:59 PM
Iowa is NOT GOING TO BE ANY DETERMINING FACTOR WHATSOEVER - I would like to hear what you have to say after PA in four weeks or so when 158 delegates are at stake.
Posted on March 17, 2008 4:02 PM
"Obama picked up 9 more delegates, 1 from Clinton and 8 from Edwards"
You mean, pillaged?
That's called usurping the original will of the voters. In Iowa, on voting day, voters made a choice. Party activists 2 1/2 months later overruled that and added to Obama's win.
So, can we all revote when we want to pick up delegates?
Obama's pillaging delegates at county convention strategy is no worse than courting supers. Supers were never meant to ratify the vote. But pledged delegates based on the DAY OF voting were. Now we can fast forward 2 1/2 months and change the results.
Posted on March 17, 2008 4:04 PM
Hey there everyone!
BIG speech tomorrow from Obama!!
He is actually going to TAKE THIS RACE CONTROVERSY HEAD ON!
Wow, THIS is what a true leader does. I can't wait, this might be historic in it's magnitude.
I wish all the networks would carry it and report it like they did 30 seconds from that reverend guy. Hmm, too much to ask though.
Posted on March 17, 2008 4:07 PM
Edwards is no longer in the race, so you can't say he "pillaged" when he mostly picked up Edwards voters. Why didn't any of them go to Hillary?
Posted on March 17, 2008 4:09 PM
SURE, WE'll BE HAPPY TO LISTEN TO MORE OF HOW HE SAT IN CHURCH FOR 20 YEARS BUT HE DIDN'T REALLY HEAR ANY OF THAT ANTI-AMERICAN STUFF. GO AHEAD OBAMA, OPEN MOUTH & INSERT FOOT AGAIN.
BYE BYE BAMA
Posted on March 17, 2008 4:11 PM
Oh No !!!
Sven/Mike in CA/Nell/Moderator & now Bobo
IS BACK !!
Just for clarification, are you gonna be BOBO for a while - I just would like to know which one of your personalities Im chatting with.
I hope your medication is close by.
Posted on March 17, 2008 4:14 PM
Its Ok BoBo,
I understand its the fever talking, now go back to your room and watch your Obama Girl videos, you know how that calms you down.
Posted on March 17, 2008 4:18 PM
It is a joke that Iowa is reallocating Edwards delegates. You dont see South Carolina doing that for Edwards 8 delegates.
Its no surprise that Obama picked most of them up considering that...OH RIGHT...they were allocated by another caucus. Surprising...
Three of your points dont hold much water:
#3 - more money and fundraising potential. When was this a factor in determining a victor? Last I checked, Obama spent more money in Ohio and Texas and STILL lost the primary vote in both states.
#5 - best poll numbers against McCain.
Hey chucko, scroll up a bit and look again at the post your are posting a comment on!!!
HRC - 46 / JM - 46
BO - 44 / JM - 46
And head-to-head HC vs BO:
HRC - 47 / BO - 45
#2 - most primary votes.
Um, it is more likely that HC will win the primary vote.
Right now the difference is 690k-700k.
After PA, HRC should pick up about 300-400k votes, maybe more.
HRC will gain maybe another 200k from WV and KY.
She might lose about 120k from North Carolina
I need some polls to determine whe extent of victories or losses in Oregon, Montana and Indiana. I can't gauge the races there as all the polls are too old and nothing has come out in reaction to the March 4 victories.
The most important, though, are Florida, Michigan and Puerto Rico, especially now that PR is a primary.
If FL is a revote, she will net upwards of 300k.
If MI is a revote, she will net upwards of 100-200k.
And in Puerto Rico, there will be near 2 million votes cast in an area that is 98% hispanic.
You do the math. It is all pointing towards a HC primary victory.
Posted on March 17, 2008 4:29 PM
Did Iowa revote to determine those remaining delegates?
No. They held a convention with activist and other Defeatocrats.
It's pillaging. The original will of the voters was not reflected in the final Iowa delegate totals, changed through loop holes in the process.
Good thing Hillary can go after his "pledged" delegates now.
Posted on March 17, 2008 4:31 PM
Maybe this is just another instance of Polling on the dark side of the moon? How many have taken the opportunity to get away for a few days with the imminent Easter weekend? Won't the majority of them be upper income, better educated people?
Posted on March 17, 2008 4:43 PM
McCain has come under fire since televangelist John Hagee endorsed him on Feb. 27, but until Friday his response had been tepid. The Arizona senator merely said he doesn't agree with everyone who endorses him. He said Friday he had been hearing from Catholics who find Hagee's comments offensive.
Hagee, leader of a San Antonio megachurch, has referred to the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore" and called it a "false cult system" and "the apostate church" ? "apostate" means someone who has forsaken his religion.
Posted on March 17, 2008 4:49 PM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR