MyDD :: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana

ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana

by mtg44234, Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:53:55 PM EST

American Research Group has released polls today for the great states of Montana and South Dakota.

South Dakota:

HRC: 60%
Obama: 34%

Montana: Closer than some may have thought

HRC: 44%
Obama: 48%

This may be the last hurrah for HRC and I hope she wins them both because I beleive John McCain will win the General Election against Obama.....unless Obama places HRC on the ticket as Vice President.

Thanks for representing us Hillary. You were great and again you have risen above the Media Attack Machine. You are the best and the best is yet to come...

Your thoughts....

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Primaries, Obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 82 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: ARG Polls (2.00 / 1)

They look screwy. Obama was polling well ahead late last week in Montana.

by RandyMI on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:56:15 PM EST

I predict........ (none / 0)

South Dakota

Clinton 146%

Obama -07%

Montana

Clinton 55%

Obama 55%

"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!

by Al Rodgers on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:01:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She could win 90-10 (none / 0)

and it won't matter.

by parahammer on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:58:25 PM EST

It matters because our candidate is (none / 0)

almost crawling to the finish line. It matters because our candidate has all the resources in the world and he is still losing big. It matters that our candidate is losing while his opponent has not criticized him in more than a month. It matters that our candidate is losing to an opponent that is totally financially broke. And it matters because it sends a signal to the republicans and the McCain campaign that if they campaign hard, challenge our candidate's policies (plus other personal stuff like his wacko pastors and shit like that), not only can they close the gap, but they also can raise doubt in the minds of the voters and win.

And finally, it matters because it sends a signal to the republican fund raisers (and the base) and invigorate them to raise more money in order to be competitive and put in place a large ground game in the fall. McCain already told us what his fall strategy is going to look like: keep the losing margins low in the urban centers, sweep rural areas.

These results are not about the primaries anymore. They are about something else that i do not want to venture and speculate about it. If tomorrow he loses SD (while he has at his disposition Daschle and huge war chest), it will be troubling to me really and to be totally honestb. Senator Obama unfavorables went up by 10 points in the last month (check the lasted Pew of 05/21-05/25 and compare that with the CBS News/NYT numbers of 05/01-05/03). In the Rasmussen conducted between 05/25 -05/28, for the first time Obama fav/Unfav balance went negative; 48/49 (-1). In anyways, let's see more fav/unfav numbers to really assess where his standing.

Having said this, i think these SD numbers are outliers. I think the latest poll conducted on March/April (prior to the ARG one) was by the Dakota Wesleyan in which Obama was up by 12 pts. So, it could be that Clinton reversed the trend (despite she is not on the airs that much), but that's a bit odd since Obama has a strong campaign apparatus there. Well, no need to speculate, we just need to wait one more day.

by likelihood zero on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:21:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is ARG (2.00 / 1)

They are possibly the worst pollsters out there.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:58:37 PM EST

Re: This is ARG (2.00 / 1)

I think what you mean to say is that Hillary is doing wonderfully in South Dakota and it would be a huge disappointment if she wins by anything less than 26 points.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:00:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Eh. (2.00 / 1)

It's a little late in the game to be playing Expectations.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:05:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Eh. (none / 0)

It's also a little late in the game to be making a case to superdelegates, but there you go.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:43:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Eh. (2.00 / 1)

then why are you playiong that game by denigrating them simply because they do not present the numbers you want?

by zerosumgame on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:51:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I could cherry pick (none / 0)

I'm sure there are numbers that would tell us something different than your ARG silliness, but they're not terribly important by this time.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:09:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (2.00 / 1)

If these polls are truly representative, then it would be a pleasant surprise indeed.

by Liame on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:00:45 PM EST

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (none / 0)

It would? Because at this point, every point Clinton is ahead just means Obama may have a tougher climb toward a win in November. Nothing but nothing is going to get her the nomination now.

by mattw on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:41:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (none / 0)

I would like to see, and have always wanted, a joint ticket, one way or the other. I don't even care if either of them wants such an outcome. Anything that propels a fusing of the two candidates, and hopefully much of their constituencies, is good by me.

In my book, his weakness at the finish, which would be further emphasized by results reflecting these polls, as well as her strength, in closing and with groups / regions necessary and desired under the big tent, require a joint ticket.

by Liame on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:56:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (none / 0)

The South Dakota numbers are just crazy. Obama was up 12 in the last poll we saw from Mason Dixon (over a month ago). We'll see who's right, but one of these is way off.

by DPW on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:00:58 PM EST

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (none / 0)

I have a very hard time believing Obama is losing the voters ages 18-49 by 20 points.

by Sarcastro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:03:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (2.00 / 1)

Obama's lost that age group in other states by the same, or more. Why would you have a hard time believing it?

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:07:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah but (none / 0)

If he loses them in South Dakota, it would be a huge difference than in the surronding states. I can believe it in Appalachia or even the Northeast

but not in South Dakota.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:09:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (none / 0)

When has he lost that age group in a non-Appalachian state by that much?

by Sarcastro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:09:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (none / 0)

Ah, now you're adding qualifiers. He's lost it on other states (NE), not by that much, but in Appalachian states he's lost it by more.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:13:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You have to admit (none / 0)

It would be a major departure from Colorado, Minnesota, and North Dakota numbers.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:10:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You have to admit (none / 0)

Yes it would!

by Liame on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:57:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (none / 0)

ARG seems about as accurate as flinging darts at the board blindfolded.

No poll is infallible, but show me a SUSA or even a PPP polls somewhere close to it and I'll take it seriously.

by notedgeways on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:04:40 PM EST

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (none / 0)

a simple bet to anyone...

If Clinton only LOSES by single digits in Montana (or wins) I will not post a comment for a week.
If she loses MT by double digits..
you don't post a comment for a week..
any takers?

"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"

by nogo postal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:05:38 PM EST

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (none / 0)

Where is alegra when you need her!

by IowaMike on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:22:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (none / 0)

If she loses both SD and MT then I will not post a comment. If she wins both, you will not post a comment.

That makes it easier for both of us to post comments:-) unless something drastic happens in that case the action becomes genuine.

by Sandeep on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:29:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (none / 0)

Wow, conventional wisdom was that Obama had healthy leads in both states. I'll be upfront and say this isn't great news for Obama, even if the result is ultimately meaningless. I was hoping he could close string with two wins.

by animated on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:10:55 PM EST

SD lead is too significant to ignore. (2.00 / 2)

This was a solid Obama state last month.

How does Daschle spin that?

I'm sure we'll see.

But, at some point, the spin becomes vapor and reality takes hold.

Then again, any raising of Obama's negative recognition factors this early on will pale in comparison to what the Rethugs will do soon.

Superdelegates are taking note. And, IMHO, this is going to get ugly. But, perhaps, maybe it does need to get a little uglier before it gets better.

There's no denying truth here. And, truth is, this isn't going to be decided until the Convention, IMHO...especially if Obama's tanking in Daschle's home state!

According to the mantra, Daschle should then vote for Clinton, too! How the f**k will he explain his Obama vote tomorrow? I mean, truly? At what point does the emperor no longer have any clothes?

Again, if SD goes even half this strong for Clinton, Obama's going to be looking a little over-the-top in St. Paul if he declares victory.

This is just common sense. They'll be reigning his words in over at Obama central as far as his speech is concerned tomorrow night if this plays out anywhere near what ARG is saying here. And, even if ARG's off by 15 freakin' points, this is a clutch, last-minute state victory for Clinton!

(Just look at all the folks right here, on this blog, that through today, have been taking for granted that Obama would win South Dakota!)

Go, Hillary!

by bobswern on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:11:51 PM EST

Re: SD lead is too significant to ignore. (none / 0)

Someone forgot to explain to you that Super delegates represent the Democratic Party, NOT the states or congressional districts they reside in.

by RussTC3 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:19:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Someone else is ignoring reality. n/t (none / 0)

by bobswern on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:25:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Someone else is ignoring reality. n/t (none / 0)

No, I'm not ignoring reality.

Super delegates represent the Democratic party, not individual states/congressional districts.

by RussTC3 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:29:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Correct.... (none / 0)

And, they'll vote at the Convention according to their conscience and their duty.

Which means all the talk about Obama having won this is meaningless, since the only way he wins it is with the SuperDelegates votes, not their pledges of support--since those are subject to change.

I would imagine Obama will lost 6-10 of those "pledges" come Tuesday night if Hillary's kicking his butt in South Dakota.

It's not over 'til it's over.

(And, if Hillary takes South Dakota tomorrow night, the Obama delegate math we've been reading in the press in the past few days just went to hell in a handbasket, as well. Minor detail? I think not.)

by bobswern on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:33:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SD lead is too significant to ignore. (none / 0)

well, gosh then all the calls by BHO'ers that they go with the 'will'o'da'peeples' before were just BS and now you really want them to represent the party instead? I guess when it was pointed out to you guys that your first position would have required Kerry and Kennedy (among others) to vote for her changed your minds...

by zerosumgame on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:53:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SD lead is too significant to ignore. (none / 0)

I've never, EVER, said anything other than super delegates should represent the party. Look over my prior comments and you'll see that.

I'm not responsible for what other people say. If Super delegates were chosen to represent their states/congressional districts, then they'd all vote for whoever won their state/congressional district.

They're free to vote for who you choose, and yes, they can change their mind.

The point is that they represent in the Democratic Party and its entire batch of voters.

by RussTC3 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:02:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SD lead is too significant to ignore. (none / 0)

Then why the call for Hillary to step down or say its over. Your logic says that it should go to convention and let SDs vote in private for party's sake. You will see the real result.

by Sandeep on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:33:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (none / 0)

1) Losing candidates often win the final stretch of primaries when their competitors have basically won the nomination. Look at past primary elections, the trend holds even for Reagan and Clinton.

2) These polls are VERY surprising, especially the SD one (a 38 point swing?). I thought Obama was going to win both states. The last polls were as follows:

Montana (5/19-5/21)
Obama - 52%
Clinton - 35%

South Dakota (3/24-4/03)
Obama - 46
Clinton - 34

Montana is a little less outrageous (-4 Obama, +9 Clinton--13 point swing).

Still. It's unfortunate that this will likely be the last polls we see out of the two states.

by RussTC3 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:12:14 PM EST

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (none / 0)

Mason Dixon had Obama up +18 in Montana. She hasn't spent as much time there as compared with SD, so I'd say Obama wins Montana by perhaps 10 points or so.

In SD, no one has polled there as far as I can recall, and Hillary has spent a lot of time there, so I can see her ahead, but by over 20 points? I'm not sure about it.

I would love to see her earn a split in the last 2 contests. It would throw cold water on this idea that Obama is strong out west, when I believe all of his wins to date have been in caucuses.

by khyber900 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:15:34 PM EST

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (2.00 / 1)

Oregon and Utah were primaries. Also Wisconsin, Illinois, and Missouri depending on what you mean by "out west."

I like baked beans.

by SpideyDem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:34:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (none / 0)

Oregon and Utah were primaries. Also Wisconsin, Illinois, and Missouri depending on what you mean by "out west."

I like baked beans.

by SpideyDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:51:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummm ... (none / 0)

Most of the contests in Western states have been caucuses -- ID, WY, CO, NV, WA, HI, and AK all were caucuses. AZ, NM, CA, OR, and UT were primaries.

And what's so wrong about a jurisdiction giving the people who are willing to donate multiple hours of their time to a candidate more say than voters who just put up a sign on their lawn, and vote for the candidate?

by Brad G on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:07:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummm ... (none / 0)

..as opposed to the frail and elderly and mothers with small children, who we the Democratic party don't really care about

by zebedee on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:48:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummm ... (none / 0)

That's why we have both primaries and caucuses. Even our primaries can be open, closed, or semi-open. In other words, we test a candidate's support among party members and among party members and other voters.

But having a large volunteer staff is essential to getting people to the polls, so why would we want a candidate who couldn't attract a lot of volunteers?

That's why we have all kinds of contests.

by Brad G on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:51:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummm ... (none / 0)

..as opposed to the frail and elderly...

The frail and elderly have nothing but time on their hands since most of them don't work. In most other years, the frail and the elderly dominate caucuses.

...and mothers with small children...

Mothers with small children -- generally women between the ages of 20 and 35 -- are more likely to support Obama than Clinton; In other words, you don't want them to show up.

...who we the Democratic party don't really care about...

I've met people in my life who like watching television, going to movies, going fishing, going hunting, watching NASCAR, playing frisbee golf, birdwatching, rock-climbing, going to plays, playing basketball, volunteering, building models, drawing, painting, and playing musical instruments. I have yet to meet a person who isn't capable of securing two hours of free time one day every fours years (or more) to support a cause that he or she is passionate about. Some of you Clinton folks are going to have to face this reality: Obama won the caucuses because his supporters are more enthusiastic about his candidacy. My grandfather lives in Iowa, is a lifelong Democrat, a political junkie, and the former mayor of his small farming community. He is (or was) also a Hillary Clinton supporter (mostly because he wants Bill back in the White House -- a factor I suspect is motivating a not insignificant number of Clinton supporters). But he didn't caucus. I asked him why he didn't and he simply responded that he didn't care enough about the outcome of the primary race. In contrast, I dragged my entire family (mother, father, sister, brother) and most of my friends to the Minnesota caucuses to support Barack Obama. My grandfather is the type of person you Clinton supporters need to blame. He lost Hillary this race, not the caucuses.

by RP McMurphy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:36:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (2.00 / 1)

Anecdotal stuff from Montana...

I'm a Clinton supporter and I'm finding it much easier in the last few weeks to find other Clinton supporters here. Normally I'd be very pleased with this news. People are paying attention, yes?

Well, sort of. People here (from what I can see)seem to be paying attention to a whole lot of things that shouldn't matter. I've had half a dozen relatives tell me this weekend that they are casting their vote for Hillary because of the "news" about Barack's church.

This is a bogus issue, and I don't want my state to be won on the basis of it. Both my parents have been "persuaded" on this non-issue.

Ick.

The universe is a casual place, not a suit-and-tie affair.

by mtnspirit on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:19:20 PM EST

Heartening Gallup poll (2.00 / 1)

Clinton's two percentage point lead over McCain in Gallup's May 27-June 1 interviewing is not statistically significant. However, when considering that she has polled two points better than the presumptive Republican nominee in each of the last four Gallup Poll Daily tracking reports, she does appear to have a real, albeit, slight advantage against McCain. Furthermore, Clinton has led McCain by at least two points in every Gallup tracking release since May 8, and at times by as much as five points.

By contrast, Obama has been essentially tied with McCain for over a week, and has not led McCain by more than one percentage point in any Gallup Poll Daily tracking release since May 22. More generally, the current differences between how the two Democrats stack up against McCain, though slight, reflect a persistent pattern seen throughout May.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107626/Gallup -Daily-Both-Democrats-About-Even-McCain. aspx

As I've pointed out in another comment, Obama's candidacy will put CT in play for the GOP, according to Rasmussen.

by katmandu1 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:19:28 PM EST

OMG (none / 0)

she puts Connecticut into play too, why do you keep leaving that out?

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:23:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heartening Gallup poll (none / 0)

That's not what Rasmussen said. They moved it from "Safe Democrat" to "Likely Democrat." I personally bet it is still safe but they are going on polling numbers only.

There is no indication CT is "in play."

But McCain would be foolish to attempt to try and fight in "Likely Democrat" states. It'd be a waste of his little-earned money.

by Zotnix on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:24:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

WWOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWW (2.00 / 1)

So much for "Obama is expected to win Tuesdays Primaries"..............WWWWWWWWWWOOOOOO OOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWW

by LindaSFNM on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:26:58 PM EST

Re: WWOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWW (2.00 / 1)

And, Hillary just put up a new ad in Montana.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhzAUJB7N DQ

by LindaSFNM on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:29:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And y'know what? (none / 0)

She's still lost the war. She can win those battles (and I don't believe those polls are accurate), but she's still lost the war.

I look forward to having you on the Obama team within the next week, LindaSFNM. I was a Clinton supporter -- and remain remain a Clinton admirer -- until a few days before my state's primary, and wasn't a huge supporter of Obama's when I voted for him. Barack Obama, however, has inspired me and many others (i.e., Bill Richardson and Joe Andrew) into thinking he really has the potential to become a great President, and I'm glad I voted for him in my state's primary. I hope you'll recognize some of Obama's most redeeming qualities come November. If not, you're really missing out on some great moment in history.

by Brad G on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:59:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (none / 0)

I wonder if Obama's rallies over the weekend (in Rapid City, Aberdeen, Souix Falls, and Mitchell--all of which were well attended) affected this poll. Hillary was in Puerto Rico, so arguably more of her supporters were available for polling. In most places, I wouldn't expect rallies to make a difference, but South Dakota isn't a terribly populous place, and the unavailability of thousands of supporters could alter polling results.

I know this will be perceived as delusional spin, but something seems way off in the South Dakota poll.

by DPW on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:28:14 PM EST

wow (2.00 / 1)

no, this is buyer's remorse. The Obama buzz is wearing off and now people are thinking about that person actually running the country.

Good for MT, SD. They are independent Western states. It doesn't surprise me they are going to think for themselves.

NoSlaves.com | The Economic Populist

by Robert Oak on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:29:23 PM EST

Re: wow (none / 0)

Hard to believe buyer's remorse, as Obama continues to lead Clinton in all Obama-Clinton nationwide polling. There's been no significant change in a while.

John McCain vows to overturn Roe

by soccerandpolitics on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:52:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: wow (none / 0)

no, this is buyer's remorse.

No, these are terribly inaccurate polls and you're all going to be eating crow (again) tomorrow when Obama wins MT by double-digits and SD by at least high single-digits.

by RP McMurphy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:40:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (none / 0)

If these hold true, it's safe to say a significant degree of buyer's remorse has replaced Obama's previous steady momentum climb.

We shall see.

by phoenixdreamz on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:33:38 PM EST

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (none / 0)

Actually, what it proves is when you run a positive campaign, you get good results.

It's a shame that Clinton didn't run a more positive, hard-hitting still, but more positive, campaign earlier in the primary season.

by RussTC3 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:43:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually she was running a very positive campaign (none / 0)

until Edwards and Obama started attacking her from both sides at the same time, netting Obama in particular a significant bump in the polls.

by phoenixdreamz on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:49:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (1.50 / 2)

I have been an admirer of the Clintons since they first emerged on the national scene in 1991.

I was a campaign volunteer for both of President Clinton's campaigns.

I'm 40 years old, and it is my opinion that Clinton was the best president of my lifetime.

But please, for the love of sanity, will you guys face this reality: Sen. Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee. It's going to become official either tomorrow night or Wednesday.

Obama has outsmarted and outworked Clinton since this campaign began, and she has resorted to lies, race-baiting, and tactics that must make Karl Rove smile.

She doesn't deserve the nomination, and she isn't getting it.

What happens in the last two states tomorrow is largely irrelevant, but, in case you haven't noticed, ARG isn't exactly the gold standard of pollsters.

by BenderRodriguez on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:41:40 PM EST

Knock it off! (1.00 / 0)

and she has resorted to lies, race-baiting, and tactics that must make Karl Rove smile

Who are you kidding you never worked for Clinton Campaign.

You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat

by indydem99 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:49:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Knock it off! (2.00 / 0)

With all respect, please don't tell me what I did and didn't do. I was an avid campaigner for both Clinton presidential campaigns, as I was for Gore and Kerry and Dukakis and Hart.

To put it simply: I have found Hillary Clinton's campaign to be heartbreaking. If I criticize, it's not out of anger, but with much sadness.

I came into this primary season with an open mind, but the trouble for the Clintons began with the race-baiting in South Carolina. Their behavior, and that of their annoying cohorts -- Terry McAuliffe, Lanny Davis, Harold Ickes, et. al. -- has only worsened since then.

I will defend the Clinton presidency as long as I'm alive; what I can't defend is the Clintons' behavior these past six months.

by BenderRodriguez on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:03:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

re (none / 0)

For Tom Daschle alone I hope the SD number is correct haha

by rossinatl on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:54:25 PM EST

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (none / 0)

She is a corpse, give it up. These polls look insane.

by JOEL1954 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:57:51 PM EST

Re: Corpse (none / 0)

... quite an animated one at that. And, not one, apparently, that The Holy Obama with his Scepter of Change can seem to either turn or smite.

Run Obamaites, run for your lives.

She's coming for you; she's a-l-i-v-e!

by Liame on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:08:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (2.00 / 1)

The South Dakota poll is so blindingly far from expectation that I seriously have nothing to say. This is either the most stunning upset of the election cycle, or the most inaccurate poll I have ever seen. If Clinton wins South Dakota I will need to see a full explanation of how it happened.

Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!

by X Stryker on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:58:07 PM EST

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (none / 0)

The SD poll makes no sense, especially as there has been no movement in nationwide polling.

John McCain vows to overturn Roe

by soccerandpolitics on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:53:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Apparently, you did (none / 0)

have something to say, after all.

Including, it almost seems, a suggestion that if this ARG poll is correct, some sort of Clinton skulduggery must have occurred, and that you'll need to see a full explanation of how it happened to believe otherwise?

Not accusing, just wondering, b/c that's how it sounds.

by aggieric on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:15:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Apparently, you did (none / 0)

I didn't say it was skullduggery. Just because I want to know what happened doesn't necessarily mean I think it was something underhanded - just largely unnoticed until now.

Not that I'd rule it out either - and if something fishy was up, I'd be just as likely to suspect McCain.

Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!

by X Stryker on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:19:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

May be there is a backlash for RFK gate! (none / 0)

Don't forget ARGUS leader endorsed Hillary.

You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat

by indydem99 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:02:17 PM EST

Unlike the rest of the country they knew the facts (none / 0)

They did not need Tweety and Ko's spin.

You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat

by indydem99 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:05:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unlike the rest of the country they knew the f (none / 0)

I don't want to bring it up again, but I watched that meeting and what she said was idiotic and inappropriate, no matter what she was trying to imply.

by grass on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:15:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But the media spin on it was really horrible! (none / 0)

Especially KO's pontification!

You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat

by indydem99 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:50:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (none / 0)

Personally, I think we should just wait for the real polls to close tommorrow.

It's soon enough. We'll know what we need to know then. Why speculate today about what we can know tommorrow?

by frankly0 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:07:30 PM EST

Re: Wait and see. Huh? (none / 0)

Are you completely out of your gourd? Why do you think that we all participate, in what would otherwise be considered a colossal waste of our time, if not to pontificate and speculate?

by Liame on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:14:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

News from MN (none / 0)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/06/minnesota-femin.html

Feminist Democratic leader in MN will not vote for Obama.

by katmandu1 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:12:58 PM EST

She's 71... (none / 0)

...explains a lot.

She should talk to younger feminists and ask them what they think of four years of McCain.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:30:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: News from MN (none / 0)

Ms. Horbal's rationale:

"I don't care," Horbal said. "Let McCain clean it up for four years, and then we can have Hillary run again."

Hahahaha. It's Hillary or bust for this old dame. Well, even if Obama loses, it's bust I'm afraid. Due to her conduct in this primary campaign, a 2012 Clinton campaign is out of question; there is now a legion of us who'll see to it that Hillary Clinton is NEVER the Democratic nominee for president. And Ms. Horbal should pay more attention to the opinions of the citizens of her native state. Amy Klobuchar, despite the support she received from prominent women's organizations in her senate campaign, was forced to endorse Barack Obama (as just about every prominent elected official in Minnesota has) because of the tide of public opinion in his favor.

by RP McMurphy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:51:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Daschle trivia (none / 0)

Be cynical of all politicians. Tom Daschle cashed in after this Senate career ended by going to work for a lobbying firm. His recruiter? Bob Dole.

Don't agonize too much over any other politician.

by katmandu1 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:18:31 PM EST

Bob Dole is a righteous man (none / 0)

Bob Dole doesn't appreciate your criticism.
Bob Dole served his country honorably.
Bob Dole was right about Scotty McClellan being a coward.
Bob Dole!
Bob Dole...
Bob Do...
zzzzzzzz

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:32:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Didn't ARG have Hillary winning the Utah primary?? (2.00 / 1)

Yes, they did.

If you take anything away from this primary campaign, let it be that ARG is terrible.

by moreaxe on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:26:53 PM EST

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (none / 0)

it's time to stop fighting and to unify the party and to unify the ticket. Obama/Clinton 08.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

by pollbuster on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:50:12 PM EST

Re: Obama & Clinton or Clinton & Obama (none / 0)

Absolutely!

by Liame on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:16:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (none / 0)

The SD numbers are a suprise, but I have strong doubts that Clinton will win either state. Someone gonna look really stupid tomorrow (I hope it's ARG) In any case, the nomination battle is over.

by NewOaklandDem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:00:12 PM EST

Re: ARG New Polls for S.D. and Montana (none / 0)

good news, it may help supers to endorse her!
I wish she had more time to convince people in Montana

Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties

by engels on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:04:55 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.