Clinton leads Obama in new poll

<p>Two recent polls show that Obama-mania is waning. </p>

<p>Is Gore starting to look good again? </p>

<p>CNN</a> Political Ticker: All politics, all the time - Blogs from CNN.com</p>

<p>Poll:</a> Obama's lead over Clinton narrows - Decision '08 - MSNBC.com</p>

<p>McCain is looking good over at Rasmussen. Also, he's been well-received in Europe. I actually think he's pretty smart to tour the world as a statesman while the other two slug it out.</p>

<p>Seems like the recent stories about Obama and his pastor really hurt him. And the longer this campaign goes, the older the "change" factor gets. However, it would be really a miracle at this point that any of them will get the needed delegates.</p>

<p>I think the long-legged mack daddy still gets the nomination. Given the intensity of the Rev. Wright controversy at the moment, it will pass by the time Obama is running against McCain in the fall.</p>

<p>Wait, what the "something". The thread title says Clinton LEADS Obama, but the first link was a Wright Article and the second article said Obama is winning. Could I get a truth in advertising lawsuit here :).</p>

<p>Btw, I don't think its fair calling Obama "a mack daddy". That's close to insinuating.</p>

<p>"ABC News Polling Unit on Clinton Pollster's Memo: 'Full of Overblown Claims'
March 20, 2008 2:05 PM</p>

<p>Clinton senior strategist Mark Penn put out a polling memo today heralding a "shift to Hillary."</p>

<p>Peyton Craighill of the ABC News Polling Unit reports: "Mark Penn’s note is full of overblown claims based on current polling. He’s cherry picking numbers from recent polls. Much of his claim of a Clinton swing is based on the latest tracking data from Gallup in which Clinton is now ahead by 7 points. If you go back two more days Obama has a 7-point lead in a separate USA Today/Gallup poll. CBS has a new poll out today that shows a close 46-43 percent Obama-Clinton race. The CBS poll also has the match ups with McCain at 48-43 percent for Obama-McCain and 46-44 percent for Clinton-McCain. We see little indication of a shift to Clinton. Of the nine polls cited in his note, five of them are not airworthy."</p>

<p>("Airworthy" is a term our Polling Unit uses for polls so poorly done we are discouraged from mentioning them on air.)</p>

<p>Myself, when it comes to polls, I think of what a wise woman, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, said in January: </p>

<p>"One thing I think everybody should've learned after New Hampshire is let's not pay so much attention to polls....I didn't pay attention to polls before New Hampshire and I'm not going to start paying attention to it after New Hampshire.""</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't think its fair calling Obama "a mack daddy". That's close to insinuating.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Harlem minister the Honorable James David Manning called Obama a long-legged mack daddy. I don't even know what it is but it sounded funny so I used it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Harlem minister the Honorable James David Manning called Obama a long-legged mack daddy. I don't even know what it is but it sounded funny so I used it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, you you don't k now what mack daddy means. Have you watched tv or listened to Sir Mix-a-lot. Everyone knows mack daddy means pimp.</p>

<pre><code> Then again, George Allen actually tried to make beleive he didn't know what macaca meant. :)
</code></pre>

<p>
[quote]
"One thing I think everybody should've learned after New Hampshire is let's not pay so much attention to polls....I didn't pay attention to polls before New Hampshire and I'm not going to start paying attention to it after New Hampshire."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course! Why pay attention to the polls when you can stage your own Kodak/Kleenex moments and have Saturday Night Live doing your heavy complaining?</p>

<p>Fwiw, looking at the consistency of the polls by Gallup, I might even agree with HRH Clinton on this issue. </p>

<p>Pollster Dates N/Pop Clinton Obama Undecided
Gallup 3/16-18/08 1209 LV 49 - - 42 6
USA Today/Gallup 3/14-16/08 530 A 42 - - 49 8
Gallup 3/13-15/08 1223 LV** 45 - - 48** 5
Gallup 3/10-12/08 1245 LV 46 - - 48 5
Gallup 3/7-9/08 1297 LV 44 - - 49 5
Gallup 3/4-6/08 1265 LV 48 - - 44 6
Gallup 3/1-3/08 1282 LV 45 - - 45 8
Gallup 2/27-29/08 1238 LV 43 - - 49 5
Gallup 2/24-26/08 1215 LV 43 - - 48 7
Gallup 2/22-23/08 1294 LV 46 - - 47 5
Gallup 2/18-20/08 1218 LV 45 - - 44 9
Gallup 2/15-17/08 1201 LV 42 - - 49 7</p>

<p>
[quote]
Have you watched tv or listened to Sir Mix-a-lot. Everyone knows mack daddy means pimp.</p>

<p>Then again, George Allen actually tried to make beleive he didn't know what macaca meant.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have watched MTV cribs with much interest. I have not heard Sir Mix a lot refer to mack daddy. I think it was the group chris cross who refered to themselves as mack daddys. They were just kids then.</p>

<p>I still have no idea what macaca means. I doubt George Allen is any hipper than I am (in other words, not very).</p>

<p>That first link was about the Gallup poll when I posted it. I guess the "ticker" changes throughout the day. </p>

<p>Here's the Reuter's story on it: Clinton</a> takes lead over Obama in Gallup poll | Reuters</p>

<p>Of course polls fluctuate as a campaign progresses. This is just one snapshot in time. I just think it's telling. Not conclusive, just telling. </p>

<p>Ultimately, I don't think it's the Wright sermons alone that will hurt Obama ---- it's his changing response from the "I didn't hear it" one day to the acknowledgement that he did hear it the next. That's what the opposition will use to hammer him. It won't be an attempt to judge his patriotism or commitment to racial healing; it will go to his credibility and his ability to react under stress. Mark my words.</p>

<p>I love when people say "Don't trust the polls, look at new hampshire!"</p>

<p>Look at every other state. Just because a poll was wrong once doesn't mean that, the vast majority of times, they are pretty correct.</p>

<p>Once like in Zogby predicting a Kerry victory a few hours before the ... voting being closed? </p>

<p>The issue is not so much of the polls being wrong but their huge margins of error. While NH was an outright debacle for pollsters (see Zogby's explanations on why he missed NH by such a wide margin) there are many things that render this year's polls all but meaningless. </p>

<p>Do you think that people share that they might be part of Rush Limbaugh's stealth voters who might have accounted for as many as 7% of the voters in Texas? Do you think people admit to votes replicating the Bradley factor?</p>

<p>Do we really have to believe that people are changing their mind as the Gallup polls indicate. One day Clinton-Obama 49-42 and the next day it switches to the exact opposite? Makes you wonder about how the polls were conducted! </p>

<p>It's only because of our obsession with horserace reporting of elections that those outfits keep on delivering meaningless and misleading garbage that relies on statistical voodoo to convince us that 1200 people speak for the entire country. Those polls are not conclusive and are far from telling anything worth listening to. </p>

<p>Pollsters are indeed wrong once. Once every other poll, if they're lucky!</p>

<p>
[quote]
Once like in Zogby predicting a Kerry victory a few hours before the ... voting being closed?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Good to see you haven't figured out the difference between regular polling and exit polling.</p>

<p>The polls are great entertainment. Dewey beats Truman and all that good stuff throughout history. Not that long ago Clinton had a lead of about 20 points in the polls and was the presumptive nominee.</p>

<p>Right now I think the only poll that counts is 1418 delegates to 1251.</p>

<p>Go Hillary...the Obama bubble is bursting. Thank God, there is hope for those of us who have not lost their critical thinking ability.</p>

<p>Rezko, Wright...what is next??????</p>

<p>runmanstl - like Hillary doesn't have any scandals or baggage??</p>

<p>Do you really prefer her over Obama or McCain?
Why?</p>

<p>Gee, according to runmanstl, I have no critical thinking ability. Thank goodness I have retained my aptitude for math.</p>

<p>Obama: 1414 - Clinton: 1246 That means Sen. Obama has 168 more pledged delegates than Hillary. YAY! Obama: 1627 - Clinton: 1496 Sen. Obama + 131 Total delegates, YAY again!! The math component of my brain is working just fine thank you very much.</p>

<p>RealClearPolitics</a> - Opinion, News, Analysis, Videos and Polls</p>

<p>bz2010: Yes, I really want her to be my next president as evidenced by the fact that I voted for her, contributed to her campaign to the maximum allowed by law, and volunteered in her campaign. Why? I believe in her ability to bring our country back to the level of international respect and economic stability that we enjoyed in the 1990s. And I am ready for a woman in the Oval Office. We have had 43 men in the job, it's time for a woman.</p>

<p>CelticClan07:Try this number: 2024. That's the only number that counts. It ain't over yet baby. Nobama won't get to the magic number either, and now that his Teflon is wearing off...the superdelegates will shift her way. </p>

<p>Lastly, I do not believe that anyone is ready for the White House in 2 short years on the national scene. The Illinois Senate doesn't prepare someone to tackle the problems of our world, as Senator Obama acknowledged BEFORE
the "fierce urgency of now" spoke to him. Let's face it, no one had ever heard of this guy before 2004 and now he wants to be the leader of the free world.
No thanks.</p>

<p>Don't worry Hill & Bill are plotting to steal it as we speak!</p>