<p>Put me down for Thompson, then Giuliani.</p>
<p>Another for Edwards:</p>
<p>Clinton -12
Obama - 6
Edwards - 21
Richardson - 1
Gravel - 1
Biden - 0
Dodd - 0
Kucinich - 0
Gore - 1</p>
<p>As an unscientific poling group, do we at CC constitute just one of those interesting “outliers” or is it possible the polls aren’t telling the whole story about where the Democratic candidates stand in the minds of voters? Is this poll somehow prescient?</p>
<p>Another for Hill
Clinton -13
Obama - 6
Edwards - 21
Richardson - 1
Gravel - 1
Biden - 0
Dodd - 0
Kucinich - 0
Gore - 1</p>
<p>Clinton -13
Obama - 7
Edwards - 21
Richardson - 1
Gravel - 1
Biden - 0
Dodd - 0
Kucinich - 0
Gore - 1</p>
<p>Answer to poetsheart Question #1, post 63:</p>
<p>Yes.<br>
(Tired of the Party Spin Machine & the Media Control Trip.)</p>
<p>“As an unscientific poling group, do we at CC constitute just one of those interesting “outliers” or is it possible the polls aren’t telling the whole story about where the Democratic candidates stand in the minds of voters? Is this poll somehow prescient?”</p>
<p>I think on the whole we are better educated, and perhaps better informed, than the average voter. And I’m not quite sure yet that voters on the whole are even listening to what the candidates are really saying. That spells very good news for Hillary, and maybe good news for Obama, and bad news for everyone else.</p>
<p>Edwards would need a really big win in Iowa for anyone to really pay any attention. (If he doesn’t get it, he’s toast - and he may be toast anyway, unless either Hillary or Obama self-destruct.) </p>
<p>He’s still got by far the best, most reasonable, and most workable health care plan (other than Kucinich’s) - and with lots of details. But he hasn’t gotten many folks to read it.</p>
<p>Over planted tomatoes this year and the weather has been find. Do you think that these candidates can use an extra tomato or two or three?</p>
<p>Hilary Clinton figured prominently in a dream I had last night. It was one of those convoluted, circuitous dreams that left me feeling tired and confused once I woke up. She came up and asked me a question, and I remember stammering, and finally saying, Yes, mame." In the dream, I was as nervous as all get out! LOL! Hummmmm…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Currently my favorite is Edwards. Honestly, I’ll vote for any Democrat that the party chooses!
Clinton -13
Obama - 7
Edwards - 22
Richardson - 1
Gravel - 1
Biden - 0
Dodd - 0
Kucinich - 0
Gore - 1</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Probably not. This poll is, as you said, unscientific. The properly designed, scientific polls are far more likely to prove to be prescient.</p>
<p>When looking at a strong trend drawn drawn from a small, specialized sample, it’s hard not to think the whole world must be trending the same way. Nope. I remember when I was in grad school during the election of 1980. On campus about 75% of the students and a lot of the faculty were vigorous supporters of John Anderson, a liberal Republican who was making a 3rd party run for the White House. Based on the buzz on campus you would have guessed that Anderson was headed for a landslide victory. In the real poll held on election day, he came in a distant third place and did not carry a single state - just as the national polls had predicted.</p>
<p>Same thing is going to happen here. We are going to fool ourselves into thinking Edwards has a lock on the nomination if not the presidency, but unless some really big scandal, international crisis, or political goof reshuffles the deck between now and the convention, Edwards will very likely end up an also-ran.</p>
<p>Good points, all, Coureur! Regardless, it’s shaping up to be a very lively and entertaining race. The top candidates within each party are likely to beat each other bloody before their parties nominate a winner, and when the final two face-off for the Presidency…well, I shudder to think…</p>
<p>Meanwhile, would someone pass the popcorn?</p>
<p>Clinton -13
Obama - 7
Edwards - 23
Richardson - 1
Gravel - 1
Biden - 0
Dodd - 0
Kucinich - 0
Gore - 1</p>
<p>
Interesting. John Anderson won our high school mock student election that year, too.</p>
<p>Clinton -13
Obama - 8
Edwards - 23
Richardson - 1
Gravel - 1
Biden - 0
Dodd - 0
Kucinich - 0
Gore - 1</p>
<p>This poll is being scrutinized by the CC Vote Fraud Committee.</p>
<p>Republican totals before churchmusicmom voted:</p>
<p>Giuliani - 5
Thompson - 1
Romney - 0
McCain - 2
Brownback -
Huckabee - 2
Paul - 1
Tancredo - 0
Gingrich - 1</p>
<p>Totals after she voted:</p>
<p>Giuliani - 5
Thompson - 1
Romney - 0
McCain - 0
Brownback -
Huckabee - 1
Paul - 1
Tancredo - 0
Gingrich - 1</p>
<p>How did McCain lose two votes and Huckabee one?
Are we in Florida?</p>
<p>Republicans:</p>
<p>Giuliani - 5
Thompson - 1
Romney - 1
McCain - 2
Brownback - 0
Huckabee - 2
Paul - 1
Tancredo - 0
Gingrich - 1</p>
<p>First choice: Romney (what a babe!)<br>
Second Choice: Thompson (not a babe - but a bit of a hunk)</p>
<p>I’m adding to the above. The above post indicates that some adding may be wrong, please correct this.</p>
<p>I don’t know if parent2noles’ vote has been included in the totals…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>College Confidential is much better educated, much wealthier, and much whiter.</p>
<p>You see the same atypical straw poll results at a place like DailyKos which atypically white, male, and college educated.</p>
<p>Mark Penn has a theory that the electorate has flipped on its head. The “egghead” voters go for ideology, personality, etc. while working class voters (the bulk of the Democratic Party) vote on pocketbook issues:</p>
<p><a href=“http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/37653/[/url]”>http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/37653/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wonder if Obama’s tax proposal today is designed to appeal to those longed-for “jugheads” who vote the pocketbook issues?</p>