New Iowa Polls: One Finds Hillary Ahead; Edwards Leads The Other
Two new Iowa polls released this morning tell us yet again that the Iowa contest is completely up in the air, with one finding Hillary leading narrowly while the other finds Edwards showing real movement to take the slimmest of leads.
Hillary 31%Obama 27%
Edwards 24%
Edwards 24%Hillary 23%
Obama 22%
On the Republican side, MSNBC finds Mitt Romney has regained a narrow lead over Mike Huckabee, while Zogby finds the two statistically tied.
Comments (109)
Tom wrote on December 30, 2007 9:22 AM:Obama is toast. He never had a chance.
I think you'll see more people desert him and join up with Edwards, the only hope progressives have of defeating Hillary.
I have sort of promised myself I would stop looking at polls. What do they really mean, at this point? But judging from the past couple of polls, I think that it will be Obama first and Edwards second (and Hillary 3rd).
Of course, this is also what I desperately want so that influences my thinking, I am sure. But it seems that the polls are now all saying the same thing -- a statistical three-way tie. And my interpretation is that they do not reflect 1) Edwards' incredible advantage as the candidate for much of rural Iowa which is a big deal since their votes weigh more. And 2) That Obama really does have a lot of Republican and Independents supporting him, who are not included in these polls of likely DEMOCRATIC voters. Also, of course, the younger people that don't have landlines and overwhelmingly support him and who MAY show up in droves.
Since Hillary is equal to both of them in the polls, I think that translates to her being BEHIND them, because of their respective advantages which to me are stronger than her elderly women advantage.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. I hope I am right!!!!!!!
Lorelai wrote on December 30, 2007 9:37 AM:Obama is toast??? Is this not a three-way tie?
I think Obama is going to win, actually. Most people in Iowa are not sitting around reading blogs and strategizing who will beat Hillary. They are thinking about WHO they want as president, and that person is Obama.
evie wrote on December 30, 2007 9:49 AM:Well, I'm here in Iowa now and I can tell you, most people in Iowa couldn't care less that there is an election happening four days. It's rather stunning considering the opportunity these people have to both see the future president up close and choose one.
When you're on the ground, you're way too in the weeds to have any idea of what is really happening. I've spent too many elections hoping the polls are wrong by a few points. I think that in the last polls on Wed/Thurs, we'll likely have a correct picture of who is going to win.
Paul Revere wrote on December 30, 2007 9:56 AM:It is now time for some hardball politics or we might see Clinton win both states and only have the support of 1/3rd of her party, That math will not work in the gereral election because Clinton has the highest disapproval percentage out of all the candidates.
Kucinich and Obama supporters in Iowa should vote for Edwards while Kucinich and Edwards supporters in New Hampshire vote for Obama.
That way Clinton gets zip while both Edwards and Obama keep their campaigns alive.
This is the first daily tracking poll from Reuters/Zogby, and it was taken from Wednesday (the day after Christmas) through Saturday. We'll see how the numbers shift over the next few days.
pataphonic wrote on December 30, 2007 10:44 AM:why "Hillary," and not "Clinton"? Your post should be consistent and use the last names of all candidates--not just the male ones.
evie wrote on December 30, 2007 10:51 AM:How many times do Hillary supporters have to be told that HRC goes by HILLARY in the campaign? Are you not paying attention to this election at all? Her signs say HILLARY her rallies say HILLARY her site says HILLARY. If there is a gender-related reason for choosing HILLARY over CLINTON, her supporters should take it up with her.
Tom wrote on December 30, 2007 10:55 AM:Yes, Obama is toast. Look at the trends. He was leading all these polls and now he's falling.
Also, remember that the polls in 2004 drastically understated Edwards' support in Iowa.
Almost all the big pundits are predicting an Edwards win.
Edwards may, in fact, win Iowa, but that will be the end of the road for him. A vote for Edwards in Iowa is a vote for Hillary, just as a vote for Nader in 2000 was a vote for Bush.
I actually think this turn of events would be good (if Obama doesn't win) because the least electable person in the general is not Hillary, it's Edwards. His anti-corporation fiery language, even tempered in the general, is laughably unlikely to even get as much support as Kerry did four years ago.
Tom wrote on December 30, 2007 11:11 AM:It won't be the end of the road because he'll get a huge bounce in New Hampshire as all of Obama's former fans will turn to Edwards.
As far as the general, the American people agree with Edwards on corporate greed and his war on poverty. That's why he does so much better than Hillary in the head-to-head polls.
Actually, a vote for Edwards is a vote for Edwards just as a vote for Nader was a vote for Nader. I'll never understand Democrats' inability to look in the mirror and accept responsibility for their own failures.
DTM wrote on December 30, 2007 11:42 AM:To correct Tom's assertion, in fact Clinton was leading in both the last Zogby poll and the last Mason-Dixon poll. By the way, all these polls are likely still subject to a holiday effect.
And even holding aside the likely holiday effect, these polls remain well within the limits of the uncertainty caused by a combination of not knowing exactly who will show up to caucus and what will then happen during the process as people realign.
So contrary to evie's suggestion, unless there is a very dramatic shift in these polls in the next couple days, we are not likely to have a good idea of the order of finish, let alone the margins, going into the caucus.
Kefa wrote on December 30, 2007 11:44 AM:The 4th burner is about to be turned on.....HRC had a very good interview on ABC
today while BO had a luke one. The trends are flowing towards HRC. Bidens and Richardsons lack of 15% will flow towards HRC and she will win IA and win NH. HRC will take Feb 5.She has the machine nationwide for the longhaul. JE does not.
Kefa,
Well, the good news is that in just a few days now, all this speculation will be over with respect to Iowa--and not to long after that, the speculation about NH will end as well.
The Bloomberg Factory wrote on December 30, 2007 11:50 AM:So if Iowa ends with Edwards v the Huckster, then Wall Street will abandon the publican party and form their own new Peronist-Bloomberg party, maybe they will call it the Whigs? The Democrats will shake out their fraudulent Dems while the Publicans will see which wing of their party has real life, snake-oil-selling-bible-thumpers or bankers.
Hillary Rotten Clinton wrote on December 30, 2007 11:54 AM:Kefa, DTA and the rest of Clinton broken records. Hillary is gonna lose. The party has rejected the DLC. Hillary was a republican before she was a democrat and she never changed.
Franco wrote on December 30, 2007 11:56 AM:Perhaps when the Peronsit-Bloomberg party nominates Bloomberg, they can make Musharraf the VP candidate....
Chris Brown wrote on December 30, 2007 11:58 AM:Of course, none of you making predictions have any idea in what order the candidates will finish.
Add to the uncertainty innate in the caucus process, weather uncertainty and uncertainty of how man students will return to caucus.
Relax.
DTM wrote on December 30, 2007 12:21 PM:By the way, this seems like as good a place as any to note that pollster.com took a poll of pollsters about which Iowa polls are the most reliable. See here for the results:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_of_pollsters_rating_the_i.php#comments
Interestingly, none of the top four polls (Register/Selzer, ABC/Post, Pew, and CBS/NYT) has released one of these holiday polls yet. Conversely, three of the bottom four (Zogby, ARG, and Research2000, but not Rasmussen) have.
Darth Clinton wrote on December 30, 2007 12:21 PM:Chris,
Actually, we can make quite a few predictions with confidence. I confidently predict that all 3 of the first tier Democratic candidates will declare victory, no matter what happens.
Also, I confidently predict that the Pinochet-Bloomberg party will form before the spring filing deadline, given the (deservedly) sad state of the Republican party, this could lead to an actual collapse of that party as the snake-oil-bible-thumpers go one way and the bankers go another. This is quite a different insurgency from the usual populist one (Dixicrats to Perot) as these ARE the people with money on the insurgent side, they sold their soul to the devil...ishly evil bible-thumpers now they want their party back.
I confidently predict that 2 or more candidates on each side will drop out by the end of the NH primary (do you want names? Hunter, Thompson, Dodd, Gravel).
I confidently predict that the opposition to Hillary will harden. (Neither Dodd nor Gravel will toss their support to Hillary, the two-faced Biden might, Richardson will play it safe as he is running for VP. Kucinich is in for the duration or until his money runs out.)
I confidently predict (actually assert) that Obama is utterly confused about his call for reconciliation and unity. His supporters want anything but reconciliation, but more than that they want a charismatic leader who can win big in the fall election. If Obama loses his charisma, he is a two percenter. Edwards is the one with the message.
oleeb wrote on December 30, 2007 12:32 PM:I think you can take these polls and read way too much into them. They are of limited value. The only thing they can tell anyone at this point that is clear is that the preponderance of data in the past week or so shows Iowa is a toss up. I don't see how there can be any question about that at all.
There's no real need or purpose for those who back one candidate or another sniping at eachother or attacking one candidate or another.
In Iowa now it boils down to just a handful crucial factors and little else. As I see it, those factors are:
1. How effective will the candidate's organizations perform on caucus night? If people know what they're doing in a room where a caucus is taking place and work effectively it can make an extraordinary difference in the outcome. So, in terms of organization you have two critical aspects. First, get your people to the site of the caucus. Second, once the caucus starts, assuming you reach the critical 15% threshold, your people need to move all the nonviable candidate's suppporters (those with less than 15% in attendance) into their own column. By doing this effectively, a campaign can virtually wipe out the opposition at any given caucus site or depress their numbers so much that it becomes a rout. If a campaign can accomplish this at lots of caucus sites, it can add up to a smashing victory. If more than one campaign does this well, it could be very tight. The chances of more than one campaign carrying this out very well across the board, however, are slim.
2. Will spontaneous attendance be a factor? If so, which candidate will be helped by it? In other words, will people that otherwise wouldn't be expected to show, actually show up? If they do, will it benefit the candidate they showed up for or will it, in the end, benefit a second choice?
3. Will the weather play a significant role in the outcome? A big storm or severe cold could indeed have an impact on the outcome.
Apart from a major gaffe or massive scandal that breaks this week, nothing else makes any real difference in Iowa between now and Thursday night.
dcshungu wrote on December 30, 2007 12:36 PM:Lorelai wrote on December 30, 2007 9:34 AM:I have sort of promised myself I would stop looking at polls. What do they really mean, at this point? But judging from the past couple of polls, I think that it will be Obama first and Edwards second (and Hillary 3rd).
Hmmm...........You mean that based on the recent polls that show Obama "trailing" everybody and Hillary "ahead" or "second", you conclude that Obama would come out first and Hillary last? How do you spell cognitive dissonance?
Michael A wrote on December 30, 2007 12:41 PM:Thanks for the link DTM. It's nice to get ratification every once in a while on a point. Rasmussen is at the bottom and I have been pointing out repeatedly that rasmussen was very unreliable.
That said, I would wager that all of these polls are meaningless due to the holiday effect. It will be truly fascinating to see what the actual result is on Thursday and compare it to all these polls. My guess is that it will be super close between all three front runners. My fortune teller told me.
I sure hope we remember how to play when it comes to the general election.
DTM wrote on December 30, 2007 12:45 PM:dcshungu,
Actually, in the five polls taken after Christmas, all three of Obama, Edwards, and Clinton have been in or tied for first twice (the tie was between Obama and Edwards in the Research 2000 poll).
But that said, I agree it is impossible to reliably predict the order of finish from these polls, and that is even holding aside the likely holiday effect.
Anonymous wrote on December 30, 2007 12:50 PM:Actually, Rasmussen is not at all unreliable. I have followed it for a long time. It is very reliable. It is just very biased.
It is reliable in that what it finds on one date is a very good predictor of what it would find again on that date (as demonstrated by what it finds on the next date).
It is biased in that if you check its results on a recurrent poll conducted by many different polling entities, presumably more than one of which is capable of polling correctly, its results tend to stay in one tail of the curve of results. For example, Rasmussen always finds Bush's job performance receiving more approval than most polls. If you know the bias (in the example above, it is about 3-5%), you can use Rasmussen as a good predictor of the value you are interested in.
DTM wrote on December 30, 2007 12:53 PM:Michael A,
Oddly enough, I have the exact opposite hunch--it wouldn't surprise me if some of the margins among the top three ended up wider than expected given the closeness of these polls. Of course who would benefit from such a result all depends on which set of voters shows up, where undecideds break, and how the caucus process unfolds across all the precincts. But once all those questions are actually answered on caucus night, I suspect the final count won't be as close as the current polls suggest (again, I just don't know who will benefit).
But as you were implying, my hunch on this issue is no better than anyone else's guess.
DTM wrote on December 30, 2007 12:56 PM:Anonymous at 12:50,
Although I think that is generally correct, with respect to the Iowa caucus in particular, it is extremely hard to figure out how to correct for a house effect.
dcshungu wrote on December 30, 2007 12:56 PM:DTM wrote on December 30, 2007 12:45 PM:dcshungu,
Actually, in the five polls taken after Christmas, all three of Obama, Edwards, and Clinton have been in or tied for first twice (the tie was between Obama and Edwards in the Research 2000 poll).
But that said, I agree it is impossible to reliably predict the order of finish from these polls, and that is even holding aside the likely holiday effect.
Only two polls have shown one candidate significantly "leading" (outside of MOE) the other two in IA: The disputed ARG polls and the LAT poll in which they had used the same model as that used by ARG. So, at this point, if anyone has a reason to "celebrate", it should be Hillary. Obama and Edwards have not been shown to be "leading" significantly in any poll. Having said that, I still maintain that we should all just relax because no one has got the foggiest about what will happen in IA on Thursday...
colonpowwow wrote on December 30, 2007 12:58 PM:Yes, it's time for all three of the top contenders to bring it on home in Iowa.
After watching Senator Clinton at work, and the trends reflected in the recent polls, all I can say is:
Well done, Mme. President.
(thanks DemAC)
Michael A wrote on December 30, 2007 12:59 PM:Well, if your right dtm, that could spell trouble for the candidate that finishes in third, especially if its a wider margin. You know, I don't know, that might not be true either depending on where edwards winds up. It is very confusing and I think everyone would admit is exciting. The suspense is killing me. Thursday night will be very, very interesting.
DTM wrote on December 30, 2007 1:08 PM:dcshungu,
Well, the Times/Bloomberg poll and the most controversial ARG poll were both taken at least in part before Christmas.
As for statistical significance, I am actually not sure if any of the post-Christmas polls have a statistically significant lead, if by that you mean one outside the margin of error for a lead, when viewed in isolation. But in any event that would be an idle point because when other polls are giving a different order of finish, the aggregate result is not going to support a statistically significant lead for anyone.
HLPeary wrote on December 30, 2007 1:11 PM:I would love to believe the Zogby numbers because I want Hillary to win...however, Zogby said John Kerry was going to be President as late as 5 PM on election day...didn't quite work out that way. The pollsters should get out of the way now and let the caucusers and voters be heard. But, to tell the truth, i don't think that just 7% of Iowa's registered voters who will caucus this week should be winnowing the field for the rest of us. Iowa's power is way out of proportion to its numbers. I think Iowa and New Hampshire have a right to go as early as they want, but I do not think so much weight should be given to the outcome in either state.
DTM wrote on December 30, 2007 1:13 PM:Michael A,
I think it really depends on how that person winds up third. If, for example, they walked into the caucus with as many or more supporters as the top two but were hurt by the dynamics, they could end up a close third. Similarly, if they walked into the caucus with substantially fewer supporters than the top two but benefited from the dynamics, they could end up a close third. But if they walk into the caucus with fewer supporters and are also hurt by the dynamics, that is when they could end up a more distant third. And my hunch is based in part on the idea that the last scenario is somewhat likely (that whoever walks in in third may also be hurt by the dynamics and end up a more distant third as a result).
But again, the good news is that all the suspense and speculation will soon be over.
DTM wrote on December 30, 2007 1:16 PM:HLPeary,
It may be worth keeping in mind that Iowa and NH only have as much significance as the voters in later states want to give Iowa and NH. So while it is true that later voters have historically treated the results in Iowa and NH as important, that is a purely voluntary process.
DemAC wrote on December 30, 2007 1:18 PM:Ever so slightly off topic, for which I ask your pardon, but as McCain rises from the dead in the Republican field there’s an interesting analysis over at DailyKos on Clinton’s and Obama’s Democratic electability in the general election vs McCain. (Edwards is unfortunately not included in this analysis.)
Anonymous wrote on December 30, 2007 1:41 PM:colonpowwow said "Well done, Mme. President."
Sorry, but I can't stop laughing. The thought that anyone would seriously considered Mrs. Bill Clinton qualified to be president is just so ridiculous. Unfortunately, those who support it are trying to pull a seriously bad joke on the nation at a very vulnerable time. If I were Hillary Clinton or George Bush, I would question their patriotism. But anything for a corporate buck, right?
That DailyKos analysis seems to have things exactly backwards.
First, I agree with the idea of looking at state polls over national polls, but that only makes sense in the states where there are active campaigns right now. Specifically it would make the most sense to look at Iowa, where Obama performs much better against McCain than Clinton.
That diarist's response to this point--that this difference was also true earlier in 2007--depends on the idea that somehow the campaigns were not active in Iowa early in 2007. But of course they were, and Iowans were paying more attention because they knew they were voting first.
Second, Clinton has been campaigning on her supposed strength and experience, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. I have my doubts on the inherent merits of those arguments, but assuming she did get the nomination on those grounds, how well could those arguments possibly work against McCain in particular? Clinton would be much better off if she faced someone like Romney or Huckabee given how she has positioned herself.
Third, if you go into the crosstabs on the state polls, it is clear McCain does by far the best among the Republican candidates when it comes to attracting cross-over Democrats and independents. To beat that sort of candidate in swing states, it would be crucial for the Democratic nominee to attract their own cross-over Republicans and compete for independents. That is the exact opposite of the sort of support Clinton gets (her support is relatively highly concentrated among Democrats).
So, I think it is somewhat obvious that Clinton would be in serious trouble running against McCain, with a serious chance of losing some of the states Kerry barely won in the Midwest. I don't think it is necessarily the case that Obama would be the best situated Democratic candidate to beat him (Edwards does well in polls against McCain and I'd like to see tests with, say, Biden or Richardson). But Obama is at least one of several candidates that would likely have a much better chance to counter McCain, simply based on Obama's own cross-over and independent appeal (particularly in states like Iowa and NH, where he has been campaigning).
kjoe wrote on December 30, 2007 1:44 PM:Thanks for lowering the expectations for Obama.
Whate ever happened to that poll--- the one taken over the holiday weekend which showed Hillary leading Obama 34 to 19 in Iowa? Gosh---I wonder if things are tightening up?
dcshungu wrote on December 30, 2007 1:44 PM:Lorelai sez:
Since Hillary is equal to both of them in the polls, I think that translates to her being BEHIND them, because of their respective advantages which to me are stronger than her elderly women advantage.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. I hope I am right!!!!!!!
There is no evidence to suggest that you are "right" and the notion that Hillary is BEHIND is not supported by a single piece of "objective" data. Au contraire...
Allow me to inject a small dose of reality in here. For much of November until about a couple of weeks ago, there was a real and significant surge in support for Obama, with Clinton clearly losing ground. Much of this happened as a result of a change in the all-important "narrative" following the Philly debate that Clinton "lost". Caught off guard by the sudden turn of events, some in the Clinton camp panicked and began to make uncharacteristic mistakes (e.g., over-zealous support making unauthorized statements, etc...), which made matters even worse. Really, all they needed to do was to just stay poised! About two weeks ago, there was clear evidence that they had done just that, allowing them to "weather the storm." Since then, everything has been going Clinton's way:
(1) Look at the aggregated national poll numbers in pollster's graph on your right: where there was previously a clear downward trend in Clinton's regression line, there is now a clear sign that the line has flattened, meaning that Clinton has recovered her dominance nationally (~20% more than Obama, where she'd been before).
(2) For those who think that Obama has not been losing ground in IA or that Clinton has not done better in most recent polls, just take a look at the graph on your right of the aggregated polls for IA: Clinton and Edwards are clearly on the rise, whereas Obama is on the decline... Not a good trend for him at this time!
(3) Finally, the most sensitive indicator of change in Big Mo, the INTRADE Presidential Markets, had already picked up the overall Mo change from Obama to Clinton almost as soon as it had happened (I had gone out on a limb about two weeks ago and predicted the present turn of events!...I can find the post if you do not recall).
So, based on available "objective" data, what I just summarized above is pretty much where things stand at the moment. IMHO, I think that either Clinton or Edwards would will take Iowa because Obama might have peaked too soon, and things might get worse for him because the "narrative" will no longer be in his favor, and might even turn negative on him. Edwards will start enjoying better reviews and Clinton has already gotten good reviews for weathering the storm. Should she win IA, the "inevitability" talk will return, and this time it will become a fait accompli
kjoe wrote on December 30, 2007 1:56 PM:deshungu----I agree with your assessment that there was a surge for Obama, and he has lost ground since. I think the thing in Pakistan will, and maybe is hurting Obama. I should not---his position has been better than Hillary's---and I think it can finish in any order among the top three. I think a lot of depends upon how close attention has been paid by those who show up to caucus.
DTM wrote on December 30, 2007 2:01 PM:dcshungu is obviously ignoring the holiday effect hypothesized by Blumenthal at pollster. As Blumenthal explained, if that effect was operative, it would take the form of Clinton gaining relative support as Christmas approached, them losing it after the holidays were over.
It is a bit too early to know for sure if the second half of that story is happening, and indeed arguably the holiday effect will not be finished until after New Year's. But certainly the ARG polls in Iowa and NH have been consistent with that pattern: Clinton gained a bunch of relative support as Christmas approached, and now has been losing relative support in the ARG polls taken after Christmas.
Michael A wrote on December 30, 2007 2:04 PM:Ok, DTM, I am uninformed on the holiday effect. I thought it was something else. You learn something new every day. Could you please be so kind as to give me a little synopsis? Thanks.
colonpowwow wrote on December 30, 2007 2:06 PM:dear anonymously "too lazy to post his name" @ 1:41 pm who said:
"Sorry, but I can't stop laughing. The thought that anyone would seriously considered Mrs. Bill Clinton qualified to be president is just so ridiculous."
Wow. What an insightful analysis and critique of both Senator Clinton, her campaign's position, and her supporters. I was under the impression that serious times called for a serious discussion, but thanks for helping me out with your wisdom.
Why don't you take your mindless, sexist tripe over to RedState or somewhere where it's actually appreciated and even applauded? Nobody has any use for it here.
colonpowwow wrote on December 30, 2007 2:09 PM:Yes, DTM:
Could you please throw Michael A. a little lifesaver to cling to before the bottom falls out of the boat with Obama's upcoming third place finish in Iowa?
Michael A wrote on December 30, 2007 2:15 PM:Hi colonpowwow,
I thought it was clinton II that was going to be coming in third. Just ask mr. bill. Or maybe even 4th, biden could be a sleeper. She'll be madam president of the new york women's debating society and that's about it.
DemAC wrote on December 30, 2007 2:21 PM:Michael A,
How classy and clever of you to insert that sexist little twist with “women’s debating society”. I bet you feel all proud and macho now.
demac, talk about classy posts. Your posts have been about the classiest on this site the last few days.
I don't see my statement as sexist in the least. She has been openly trying to mobilize women to vote for her because she is a woman. By way of example you have penn referring to republican women crossing over to vote for a woman and a host of media reports indicating that that is the drive of the campaign, so what's the big deal in saying that she would be president of the new york women's debating society and that's about it.
Incidentally, I find it blatantly sexist to be just voting for clinton II because she is a woman, or to try and mobilize women to vote for her just because she is a woman. That's sexist and pathetic. That's holding the sex of the other candidates against them, because they are not women.
Michael A,
By your own logic and standards then, as Obama is trying to rally African-Americans perhaps we shall indulge ourselves in racial slurs against Obama?
Or maybe we should center the discussion on Edward’s southern drawl?
Disgusting. Go troll somewhere else will you.
Michael A wrote on December 30, 2007 2:52 PM:No demac, that's why I like obama, because he is not blatantly pandering to african americans. Not real hot about edwards.
I am not focusing on gender or stereo types. However, it appears that that is the focus of clinton II people. Like the drug comments, that was racial sterotyping and pathetic.
What in my posts was a slur or factually false?
Penpal wrote on December 30, 2007 3:17 PM:DemAC: Don’t feed the troll. It will not go away until everybody ignores it completely for a long period of time.
LyleW wrote on December 30, 2007 3:23 PM:As I look at the polls posted, I see two have Clinton ahead and one has Edwards. Josh do you feel a need to skew the news? Truth better triumph or we're all screwed.
Splitting Image wrote on December 30, 2007 4:12 PM:"Edwards may, in fact, win Iowa, but that will be the end of the road for him. A vote for Edwards in Iowa is a vote for Hillary, just as a vote for Nader in 2000 was a vote for Bush."
At the risk of derailing the thread, I'd like to point out that as many disaffected Republicans voted for Nader in 2000 as disaffected Democrats. His supporters by and large went to Bush in 2004 in red states and to Kerry in blue states, and half and half in the marginals.
No matter how often it is said otherwise, there isn't a single bit of evidence that Nader's name on the ballot put Florida into the Republican column in 2000, and Democrats' insistence that Nader voters somehow "owed" the Democrats their support is as offensive as anything the Republicans have said or done over the last seven years. You either support peoples' right to vote for who they want or you don't.
If Obama can't win the nomination with Edwards on the ballot in Iowa, then he doesn't deserve to win period. By that token, Biden, Richardson, Dodd and the rest should all drop out too.
Michael A wrote on December 30, 2007 4:24 PM:No penpal, I won't go away. I don't get what qualifies me as a troll. I try to have factual discussions and point out factual issues with candidates. Just because you don't like what I have to say about clinton II and her non-experience, triangulation, distortions, etc., doesn't qualify me as a troll. Actually based on the definition of a troll, alot of the clinton II people would qualify.
BluePuppy wrote on December 30, 2007 4:27 PM:I love the Iowa pollster trend lines. I've been saying it for weeks: Hillary, Edwards, & BO....BO & Edwards drop out Feb. 5.
dajafi wrote on December 30, 2007 4:51 PM:Some (not all) of the Hillbots here must be the most mindless cheerleading horserace-watchers in the blogosphere. When their candidate is ahead, every poll affirms the underlying strength of Strength and Experience. When the news is less good, the poll is meaningless or some fault of Obama's--the recreational drug use 30 years ago, the middle name, his scary dark skin or his alleged lack of specifics--is about to swamp the Good Ship Kumbaya.
Anyway, with two caveats--one, that I plan to vote for Obama in my state's (non-competitive) primary, and two, that anything from bad methodology to unseasonable weather could render this data meaningless--here is my take on what the Reuters/Zogby poll might mean. Consider a larger excerpt than Greg posted:
Under Iowa's arcane caucus rules, candidates must receive support from 15 percent of the participants in each precinct to be viable. If not, their supporters can switch to other candidates.
Edwards was the most popular second choice with 30 percent, while Obama had 25 percent and Clinton only 12 percent.
So this means that Clinton is the "first or second choice" of 43 percent--compared to 54 percent for Edwards and 52 for Obama.
Flipping that over, it means that Clinton is the third choice or lower for 57 percent of Iowa Democrats... compared to 46 for Edwards and 48 for Obama. If you think the R/Z sample is representative, this means that there are a lot more people who, relatively speaking, are at best grudgingly sanguine about a Clinton Restoration.
This certainly doesn't mean she won't win on Jan. 3--which I gather is all that most people here are really interested in. Huzzah! But it does raise the serious possibility that even a majority of Democrats aren't very excited about seeing her in November. I'm sure most of them will still vote for her, but in a close election--and any election with Hillary Clinton probably will be close, given that we know she boosts Republican enthusiasm--that lack of Democratic enthusiasm, plus the refusal of those of us who find her totally unacceptable that vote in states that matter (not me; I live in NY), could lose it for her.
Here's another finding, not included in the Reuters story Sargent linked to but quoted on Political Wire:
One interesting finding: Democrats think Republicans will choose Huckabee as their nominee; Republicans think Democrats will choose Obama.
Again, this could mean a lot of things, or it could be meaningless. One thing it could mean, given human nature, is that the most voters from the other party would be open to supporting Obama or Huckabee in November if the other party nominates them. It's especially interesting considering the fact that so many Republicans nationally still seem to think Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. That their Iowa co-partisans disagree suggests that the race really looks different when more people are paying close attention--probably another indication of how meaningless Clinton's national polling leads are.
If I had to bet, I'd bet that Edwards is going to win Iowa. But Clinton certainly might, and if she does, she probably rolls to the nomination. That it could prove to be that easy for her based on the preferences of maybe 130,000 Iowans, most of whom aren't very psyched about her, shows just how screwy our democracy is.
(Bonus fun with this post: for analytically minded Clinton supporters, in some places you can switch "Clinton" with "Obama," or go back four years and make it "Kerry," and still see how dumb and un-democratic this system really is.)
Splitting Image:
Not even a good attempt at revisionist history.
1. Ralph Nader always had a seat at the table with Democrats, especially those of us who supported his lifetime work in progressive, consumer-oriented, and populist issues. We tried accommodating and pleading with the supporters of his agenda to vote for Gore, especially in the most contested states. We know how that turned out as we wiped their spit from our faces and beheld the horror of President George W. Bush.
2. If it wasn't common knowlege that the vast majority (I'd dare say, nearly all) of the votes he siphoned off from previous voters, were from Democratic voters, why did the Republican Party work so hard to get him on the ballot in 2004?
3. Nader sucked in the progressiver-than-thou voters in 2000 who didn't find Al Freakin' Gore pure enough for them. Remember "not a dimes worth of difference?"
I'd say, "nice try," but the same loony leftist-behinds that gave us George W. Bush instead of Al Freakin' Gore, are now making the same kinds of rumblings about abandoning the Democratic candidate if it turns out to be "not pure enough" Hillary Clinton with her 95% + progressive voting record in the Senate as rated by the ADA.
waka waka wrote on December 30, 2007 5:38 PM:You people are deluding yourselves if you think Edwards will resonate anywhere outside of Iowa Democrats. Totally delusional! He'll sink us all.
pacpallez wrote on December 30, 2007 6:50 PM:To waka waka:
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The Democrats might nominate a white, southern male for president. When has that ever been successful??? Oops, the last two Democratic Presidents, that's all.
DemAC wrote on December 30, 2007 7:04 PM:Penpal,
OK, I hear you. The only thing you can use a troll for anyway is to tell me again why I’m not supposed to like Hillary.
Hillary's negative advertising and the Clinton smear machine may be giving her a jump in the polls, but this is Iowa, and her ugly tactics will backfire. Edwards and Obama will squish her. Hillary Clinton will never be president.
DemAC wrote on December 30, 2007 7:23 PM:Oh tell me again, amber! :-D
andcolor wrote on December 30, 2007 7:34 PM:I watched Obama on MTP and John Edwards on FTN. To my eyes Obama looks exhausted and uncertain - almost frail. Edwards too, looks a bit tired but he faced the camera straight on and answered every question directly and without hesitation. His energy seems boundless. Obama looks as if he has already had the bad news and is heading for home. Not a good look when considering he has yet to hit the heavy winds.
Did anybody else note this?
DTM wrote on December 30, 2007 7:48 PM:Michael A,
Here is the link to the Blumenthal hypothesis:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/polling_on_the_dark_side_of_th.php
To summarize, the holiday effect is largely caused by people travelling away from home and being unavailable to respond to pollsters, and it turns out that younger and better educated people are more likely to be travelling away from home. It also turns out that Clinton's supporters skew toward the older and less educated, and vice-versa for Obama. So, the holiday effect is likely to skew the results in favor of Clinton and against Obama as the holiday approaches and more and more people start travelling, then vice-versa as the holiday recedes and more people return home.
DemAC wrote on December 30, 2007 7:51 PM:andcolor,
It has been a grueling race for all of them; if Obama looks tired you can hardly blame him. Also he has never been in a campaign of this format before and so is totally new to the experience. And if his internals numbers are showing him tanking it’s probably hard to keep the happy face too.
Thanks DTM, I appreciate it.
Demac, I am sure his internals aren't showing that he is "tanking." If anyone's are its clinton II and that's why she has been doing what she's been doing over the last month and a half. Obviously, based on the polls iowa is a dead heat. Why deny it? It's all going to depend on the actual turnout.
waka waka wrote on December 30, 2007 8:19 PM:andcolor and DemAC - Actually, I thought Hillary and Edwards looked frail and tired. I mean, did you see that horrible picture of Hillary on Drudge the other day. Wow. Her "internals" must really show her tanking.
You guys are amazing. Such objective campaign analysis!
Obama seemed his usual easygoing self. If anyone is tired of the trail, it's Hillary. I mean, she's too scared to actually take questions now. I guess she has to do that, now that she's been caught answering planted questions.
Obama is the natural campaigner, just like Bill. Hillary looks like she's in pain whenever she has to talk to "the people." It seems like she's annoyed by having to waste all this time talking to voters. Why can't she go ahead and assume the throne already. The impudence of these people!
And Edwards' "angry populist" schtick will only go so far. Certainly not past NH.
Here's how I call it:
Iowa - Edwards
NH - Obama (they don't like Hillary's presumption and the independents luuurve Obama)
SC - Obama
Nev. - Obama, and that's all she wrote.
For all of Hillary's air of "inevitability," she has proven to be a remarkably weak candidate. When "experience" is all you've got going for you, you don't have much.
Michael A wrote on December 30, 2007 8:20 PM:Actually demac, I clicked on your link. Very funny cartoon. Kudos.
DTM wrote on December 30, 2007 8:21 PM:By the way, although obviously this was not under the caucus system, many of the general dynamics of this primary are quite similar to the dynamics of the 2004 Illinois Senate primaries.
Of course Clinton has never been in a competitive primary of any sort.
waka waka wrote on December 30, 2007 8:24 PM:pacpallez - You're silly. A white man is the safest bet for the Democrats. Only, Edwards is a terrible candidate. Angry populism is a sure loser in a general election.
nogo war wrote on December 30, 2007 8:25 PM:If you read the whole McC article you will come across this
"If all second-tier Democratic candidates fall short and their supporters switch to other candidates, Edwards gains the most, rolling up a clear lead at 33 percent to 26 percent each for Clinton and Obama.
Edwards, pushing a people-versus-the powerful message, owes his gains to voters looking for a general election winner, someone who agrees with them on the issues, and those who rank Iraq their top concern. Key demographic slices for him include men and union members."
MonaL wrote on December 30, 2007 8:39 PM:Michael A wrote on December 30, 2007 4:24 PM:
"No penpal, I won't go away. I don't get what qualifies me as a troll. "
I have to defend MichaelA, he is not a troll of the normal variety. He does appear to be an actual progressive. However much I disagree with his posts, he did support Kucinich before he supported Obama. And has always hated HRC.
I think he actually may vote for her if she wins the nomination.
andcolor wrote on December 30, 2007 8:57 PM:waca waca - thank you for your lesson in "objective campaign analysis".
I was not making a criticism of Obama, simply an observation.
I disagree that Edwards is simply an "angry populist",
rather, he is articulating what so many of us have been saying all along - that corporate greed is killing our country and should be curbed. But some will buy any line that the MSM tosses out - it's so much easier than thinking and paying attention for yourself.
Cheers,
MonaL wrote on December 30, 2007 9:00 PM:MichaelA:
Your comment about the NY women's debating society was a little sexist.
Your obvious dislike is quite extraordinary and worries the rest of us who do not see quite as negatively as you and other here do. Your hatred of HRC, based on what the facts are, is quite irrational. Therefore, you appear to be a troll. This might explain the total disregard people like me show you here in the comments. I think if you could cleanse yourself of this irrational hatred, you could be taken a little more seriously.
Good luck.
andcolor wrote on December 30, 2007 9:09 PM:By the way, waca waca, what makes you so certain that Edwards' ideas will not play outside of Iowa?
And what makes him a "terrible candidate."
Just curious.........
DTM wrote on December 30, 2007 9:09 PM:MonaL,
What definition of "troll" are you using?
FYI, here is one from Wikipedia:
"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response."
Personally, I highly doubt Michael A is a troll in that sense (it seems to me he is simply expressing what he sincerely believes, not expressing things for the purpose of baiting people into an emotional response).
BluePuppy wrote on December 30, 2007 9:17 PM:MonaL:
Didn't you know that MichaelA owns TMP and will soon be firing Josh Marshall?
Seriously, though, I understand that Bobby Kennedy faced a similar reaction in 68 from a similar crowd. But have you ever seen clips from the train ride carrying his coffin? It was black, white, and brown faces all the way saluting a great man who was hated by the elites because, well, he was interested in winning and he wasn't a wimp about the use of force. The similarities with Hillary, in so many ways, is just amazing. Let's just pray that she safely campaigns right to the White House. Transformative candidates like her can bring out strong feelings in their opposition and, of course, the crazies too. Godspeed, Madam President.
Mary wrote on December 30, 2007 9:46 PM:I have to agree that the use of "Hillary", as opposed to "Clinton", contributes to her campaign strategy of 1) branding herself, and 2) distancing her from her husband. She's not Cher, for crying out loud and no other presidential candidate is referenced by his first name. In some quarters, "Clinton" is still stigmatized, and - although it stretches my imagination to think so - some people might just be able to separate her from her husband if her last name isn't used. Playing to the lowest common denominator, I'm guessing - it works for the Republicans, right?
BluePuppy,
Not to mention what FDR had to go through in this respect. Robert F Kennedy Jr wrote an excellent piece on this a while ago.
Mary,
Oh cut the crap. “Clinton” is not stigmatized at all. The only reason she’s using the first name sometimes as stand alone instead of the family name is obviously to not be confused with her husband. On all official campaign material the full name “Hillary Clinton” is certainly highlighted.
Thank you, 'andcolor'. After all, who could possibly supporty an articulate, bright,energetic, knowledgeable candidate who was an accomplished individual outside the silly world of career politics? Apparently not waca waca. Terrible candidate? I think not.
merryl wrote on December 30, 2007 11:04 PM:Why do all the Republicans except Paul get covered, but only 3 Democrats? Before any voting?
Its about the future stupid wrote on December 30, 2007 11:04 PM: Oh my i've heard it all now, hillary is no FDR or RFK. My god you are just crazy. But thanks for the laugh.
DTM wrote: Of course Clinton has never been in a competitive primary of any sort.That’s only formally true, but in reality it’s not true. She was on the road everywhere, and all the time, in ‘91/´92. Guess that’s another part of her vast experience that you will not accept because of technicalities and such. kucinich for Prez wrote on December 30, 2007 11:12 PM:
Clinton's husband is just too friendly with George Bush Sr. We need a break from these creeps.
BluePuppy wrote on December 30, 2007 11:13 PM:"hillary is no FDR or RFK. My god you are just crazy"
Are you talking about Hillary supporters or RFK Jr.? Read the link posted about his endorsement of Hillary.
fou wrote on December 30, 2007 11:27 PM:Hey, you guys at TPM on a first-name basis with Senator Clinton? Just wondering, why the use of her first name versus the surnames of the other candidates?
Happy New Year!
Rfk jr and her (hills) supporters are crazy at trying to link her to 2 great leaders. Did u even read the piece about the monied interest being so hatefull about FDR, well them same corporate interests are behind her campaign today.
MonaL wrote on December 30, 2007 11:56 PM:DTM:
"What definition of "troll" are you using?"
I didn't call Michael A a troll, someone else did. If you re-read my post, you'll see that I was defending him. I know what a "troll" is, and despite all of his other faults, Michael A is not one.
I beg to defer, DemAC, you must not be up on Southern politics. If you think, for a moment, that the Arkansas segregationists who dreamed up and funded the vitriolic attacks on Bill Clinton (think Whitewater, Jennifer Flowers come to mind?) aren't alive and well and better funded this time around, you'd best think again. A LOT of small-minded - but deep-pocketed - bigots are waiting to see if Mrs. Clinton gets the DNC nod. Southern states tend to vote Democratic on a local level and Republican on a national level (I don't know why, ask an expert), and the name Clinton is not held in favor by many Southern voters.
jd wrote on December 31, 2007 12:41 AM:
Another poll out today, shows HILLARY LOSES TO THE REPUBLICANS.
Hillary loses to everyone but ROMNEY!
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/29506/obama_leads_five_republicans_in_us_race
If Hillary is the nominee, and dems throw away another election, I'll need to change parties, just so i will not be associated with such thoroughly idiotic people.
jd wrote on December 31, 2007 12:42 AM:
Another poll out today, shows HILLARY LOSES TO THE REPUBLICANS.
Hillary loses to everyone but ROMNEY!
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/29506/obama_leads_five_republicans_in_us_race
If Hillary is the nominee, and dems throw away another election, I'll need to change parties, just so i will not be associated with such thoroughly idiotic people.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 31, 2007 1:20 AM:Weren't we treated just a week ago to a mess of explanations from the Clinton supporters about how Zogby was a Republican and therefore his polls were totally worthless? Indeed, I remember it was suggested that the fact that Zogby had Obama ahead a week ago was to be taken to imply that the Republicans (didn't you know that Zogby speaks for all of them as a block?) wanted Obama as the democratic candidate because they fancied him the easiest to beat.
So, does the fact that Zogby now has Clinton ahead mean that the Republicans, in fact, want her because they fancy that she will be the easiest to beat? I find that implausible, but then I found the sputtering rationalizations of her supporters last week implausible as well. I am simply struck by the ease with which certain Clinton supporters here can put away the you-can't-trust-Zogby line once his polls become more commodious to their prefered outcome.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 31, 2007 1:48 AM:By the way, waca waca, what makes you so certain that Edwards' ideas will not play outside of Iowa?And what makes him a "terrible candidate."
I certainly do not think that Edwards is a terrible candidate - far from it. That said, I do agree that his ideas will not play outside of Iowa, for the simple reason that I doubt that he will have much of a chance to communicate them outside of IA. He has built his whole strategy around the idea of winning IA and using the "momentum" thusly generated to go on to win other states. The problem is that this strategy was formulated back in the day before NH moved its schedule so far up. Now even if he were to win IA in a landslide, he has only five days to use that win to try to gin up support in NH, and very little money to use to do so.
Meanwhile, in order to win in IA (the which is absolutely essential to his overall strategy) he has pulled money and organization out of every other state, so he has very few folks to mobilize in NH, SC and NV to turn a single win into momentum. He has put all of his eggs in one basket, and I am afraid that it appears to me that even if he does not drop that one basket and break them all, they are going to spoil before he can eat them anyway. I like Edwards a lot, so I would be delighted to be proven wrong about this, but from where I am standing I just do not see that he is legitimately in contention for the nomination any more, even if he wins IA.
Ron G wrote on December 31, 2007 2:09 AM:The way I see it:
Foreign Policy: I believe that none of the candidates have experience nor will they until they become Prez, and then they will surround themselves with the experienced & knowledgeable advisors if they are true leaders.
Domestic Policy: Any of the Dem candidates are leaders here, but I find Obama the best because of his appeal & work with those less fortunate. He represents hope and a real caring for the change he orates with a track record of success from hard work and organization. No one can do it by themself.
Human Policy: He had the courage to write truthfully about himself, to allow us into a life that showed human mistakes & his courage to expose those mistakes in that we could see the profile of this man. I relate with this man's struggle & desire for a better place to live and marry and raise children. I forgive this man his mistakes for they are our mistakes, human mistakes, and I honor his courage to be normal in his quest of being more.
At the end of the day - Edwards has the most progessive platform (i.e. best for America) - and has the best chance of defeating the Republicons... an Edwards/Obama campaign gives America a real hopeful campaign for the future
Go John!
EDWARDS/OBAMA 2008
Ron G wrote on December 31, 2007 2:15 AM:The way I see it:
Foreign Policy: I believe that none of the candidates have experience nor will they until they become Prez, and then they will surround themselves with the experienced & knowledgeable advisors if they are true leaders.
Domestic Policy: Any of the Dem candidates are leaders here, but I find Obama the best because of his appeal & work with those less fortunate. He represents hope and a real caring for the change he orates with a track record of success from hard work and organization. No one can do it by themself.
Human Policy: He had the courage to write truthfully about himself, to allow us into a life that showed human mistakes & his courage to expose those mistakes in that we could see the profile of this man. I relate with this man's struggle & desire for a better place to live and marry and raise children. I forgive this man his mistakes for they are our mistakes, human mistakes, and I honor his courage to be normal in his quest of being more.
Ron G wrote: He represents hope and a real caring for the change he orates with a track record of success from hard work and organization.Pardon me for living, but what exactly do you mean with that "track record of success"? As a US Senator Obama hasn't accomplished anything of importance, and he cannot even be counted upon to show up and vote.
I've lived in Illinois for many years and I honestly can't remember one single political accomplishment of Obama, and certainly not a "track record of success".
DTM wrote on December 31, 2007 7:50 AM:Penpal,
I suppose that you could call the fact that Bill Clinton, and not Hillary Clinton, was the candidate in 1992 a "technicality", but that implies the candidate is largely irrelevant to the political process. I think that is highly unlikely.
Grant,
You could start with Obama's wikipedia page to get more information on his accomplishments as both an Illinois Senator and U.S. Senator. You can find it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Michael A wrote on December 31, 2007 10:17 AM:Thanks DTM and actually thanks monal. By the way I don't hate your candidate monal. I don't like her and I don't like the politics that she is playing and a host of other things, but contrary to what you and others believe I don't hate her. I don't hate anyone, even the king and darth vader, and as loki, who hasn't posted in a while, observed hate is a wasted emotion.
Based on your comments, I apologize for the statement that I made that offended you. Offense was not my intent. I will try to be more careful in the future.
Liam wrote on December 31, 2007 11:12 AM:Enough with all the Iowa Caucus polling results. Polls can not gauge how people will decide once they have to declare in public, or are forced to pick a second choice. They will standing in front of their neighbors, friends, bosses etc, and will be subject to a lot of pressure from many sides.
It is not a secret ballot; it is more like a series of juries. Polls can not predict how people will ultimately decide when they are thrown into the Iowa caucus pressure cookers. Give it a rest. Wait for the results.
Organizer wrote on December 31, 2007 11:34 AM:While it's fun reading polls, and in most cases trendlines can actually tell us a lot, in the case of Iowa it is political masturbation, at least in the case of the Democrats' caucuses.
All that counts for the Dems is turnout and their respective ground game. That's why I'm skeptical of both Obama and Clinton's numbers; while I'm sure they both have the best field operations money can buy, Obama is hurt by his reliance on young, first time caucus attenders (and by the date, which could mean many college age supporters will be on their way back to college). Clinton is hurt by her reliance on old, female first time caucusers. While her sandwich / shovel strategy is clever, it's also pretty damned funny. In the end Edwards' concentration on experienced caucus voters, rural precincts and a "second choice strategy" should win the day for him.
Personally I hope Obama is close enough to keep him viable in NH - not because I love him, but because I really want to stop Hillary. (My choices are Edwards, Obama, Biden, Dodd and Clinton in that order.)
As for the Reeps, their caucus rules are different. They might not need a genius field strategy, since all they have to do is show up, vote and leave. That gives Huckabee a chance.
Still, though, I smell a surprise coming with the Reeps in IA - could be McCain, could be Thompson. I know neg ads hurt with Dem voters; Reeps I'm not sure about. But all this two way sniping could hurt both Romney and Huckabee.
Anyway, that's my read. Comments?
Barbara Mikkessen wrote on December 31, 2007 11:51 AM:As a lifelong Dem I am in now way voting for Hillary and my sense is neither are many others. It will be Bloomberg or McCain or for me. At least Bloomberg was anti-Iraq and McCain is a much better,more experienced leader and straight shooter. Let's hope it doesn't come it that. She is calculating phony.
Anonymous wrote on December 31, 2007 11:52 AM:Iowa:
Obama, Edwards, Clinton
NH:
Obama, Clinton, Edwards
SC:
Obama, Edwards, Clinton
Just watch.
Liam wrote on December 31, 2007 11:57 AM:Monica gate. What did Hillary know, and when did she know it?
Paid for pardons. Hillary's brothers were paid hundreds of thousands by drug criminals in an effort to obtain presidential pardons. What did Hillary know and when did she know it?
Futures gate. Hillary made an instant hugh killing from a tiny futures investment. It was her one and only time in the futures game. How did she pull that off? What did Hillary know, and when did she know it.
Those are some of Hillary's experiences, during her White House years, that the voters deserve answers on.
When experience is mostly of the suspicious kind, then it is not a leadership asset.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 31, 2007 12:13 PM:I believe that none of the candidates have experience nor will they until they become Prez...
Do you mean none of the leading three? If so, I can kinda-sorta agree with that. If you mean none of them at all, however, then I really disagree. Gov Richardson negotiated with Saddam Hussein for the safe release of American hostages; that is bigger than Nixon and Mao in my opinion.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 31, 2007 12:17 PM:Dear Anonymous at 11:52
From your lips to God's ears.
Anonymous wrote on December 31, 2007 12:50 PM:Talk about calculating phony.
Barbara Mikkessen wrote:
"As a lifelong Dem I am in now way voting for Hillary and my sense is neither are many others. It will be Bloomberg or McCain or for me. At least Bloomberg was anti-Iraq and McCain is a much better,more experienced leader and straight shooter. Let's hope it doesn't come it that. She is calculating phony."
Get your idealogy checked Barb. McCain over HRC? How can you call yourself a lifelong Dem?
