Clinton leading by 26% nationally; almost at 50% support.

[calteacherguy]

Democratic Presidential Nomination
RCP Average
Clinton
48.2%
Obama
22.6%
Edwards
11.6%
Richardson
3.4%
Clinton +25.6%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

[musette_sf]

1. realclear

is a Repuke site. of course they want Senator Clinton to be the nominee. consider the source.

[calteacherguy]

2. It's an average, and it's legitimate.

The average merely reflects what is being shown by a multitude of polls.

[musette_sf]

17. the vote in Ohio in 2004

and in Florida in 2000 were "legitimate" too.

so what's your point? that a winger website is touting that Senator Clinton has some huge "poll lead"? 13 months before the election?

[William769]

3. No one has yet to give a valid argument that Repukes want her to be the nominee.

[calteacherguy]

5. I think she's the candidate the Republicans fear the most.

They know they can't beat her.

[musette_sf]

9. why don't you tune in to McLaughlin Group tonight

and listen to Pat and Tony talk about (insert any Repuke candidate name here) and how he would run against HILLARY?

you would think the convention was already over, to listen to the Repuke noise machine.

either you are being disingenuous, or you know exactly what you're doing.

is it the former, or the latter?

[durrrty libby]

6. Really? Who are they pushing as THEIR candidate?

[musette_sf]

11. nice try

to change the subject and distract from the point that RealClearPolitics is a Repuke website.

[William769]

13. See post #12.

[musette_sf]

23. this post?

Hillary Clinton 29%
John Edwards 23%
Barack Obama 22%

looks like a horse race in that poll. you're crowing over 6 points 13 months before the election?

[William769]

24. Thats not from post #12, Post #12 is a National poll.

Thats the Iowa Poll.

But nice try at deflecting.

[musette_sf]

27. oh, right, the "poll" site

that has ads for NewsMax. mmm-hmmm.

[William769]

30. Mmm-hmmm, and it's been stated why.

[musette_sf]

32. see post 31

sheesh. why are you defending RW sites and sites that have ads for RW sites, in DU?

[durrrty libby]

20. legitimate question. Answer please. Who are they pushing for their

side, because they know he will beat the dem???

[musette_sf]

22. we are discussing

(questionable IMNSHO) poll results for the Democratic candidates, published on a right-wing website.

so no, question is not legitimate.

[durrrty libby]

35. You haters are always quick with wild conspiracy, but back up squat.

[musette_sf]

41. what do i hate?

RW websites? please clue me in. i didn't know that DUers couldn't hate RW websites.

[durrrty libby]

107. When people start playing the dumb card, I'm out

[rinsd]

38. So public poll results posted on a rw site cease to be valid?

The polls are not "published" by RCP, merely gathered and linked to.

[rinsd]

21. LOL, Because your change of subject and distraction was more legitimate?

This discussion was dealing with poll averages and Hillary Clinton's position in those poll averages.

RCP averages all the public polls.

Their commentary does suck but I fail to see how averaging the latest polls is somehow a Republican or Democratic thing.

[musette_sf]

26. so the right-winger site RealClearPolitics

has absolutely no agenda in pushing Senator Clinton as the assumed candidate?

DU has a policy about linking to known RW sites for news. if pointing out that RealClearPolitics is a right-wing website to those who may not know this, it's only a "distrction"... well... if you hoped that no one would notice this.

[rinsd]

37. Umm they post all the public polls and then do an average of them

So I am unsure of how they would have an agenda on such averages.

Here's the site's poll complilation's
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

Here's the polls and averages being discussed. They have hyper links to every poll they cite.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Clinton Obama Edwards Richardson Spread
RCP Average 09/27 - 10/10 - 48.2 22.6 11.6 3.4 Clinton +25.6
FOX News 10/09 - 10/10 377 LV 50 18 11 4 Clinton +32.0
Rasmussen 10/07 - 10/10 750 LV 45 24 12 3 Clinton +21.0
Gallup 10/04 - 10/07 488 A 47 26 11 4 Clinton +21.0
AP-Ipsos 10/01 - 10/03 482 A 46 25 11 3 Clinton +21.0
ABC News/Wash Post 09/27 - 09/30 592 A 53 20 13 3 Clinton +33.0


"DU has a policy about linking to known RW sites for news."

And this isn't news and it isn't commentary. It is merely a compilation of public polls much like polling report or pollster.

"it's only a "distrction"... well... if you hoped that no one would notice this."

No, its a distraction when all it is in an average of public poll results.

I never post commentary from RCP but they have all the polls in a nice neat space.

[calteacherguy]

47. An average is an average. The average is neutral. nt

[rinsd]

7. RealClear commentary sucks but they do a good job on poll compilation

Which is the only reason I would even go there.

[calteacherguy]

8. Yes, I just go there for the polling averages as well.

I think taking an average diminishes polling bias.

[rinsd]

18. They link to every poll with break down for nat heats, by state & even head to heads.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. Is This Better?

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm


http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

Dozens and dozens of polls from a myriad of polling organizations...

[Capn Sunshine]

81. data supplied by Penn and associates

:nuke:

[William769]

4. K&R!

[jaysunb]

10. How's she doing in Iowa ?

n/t

[calteacherguy]

14. RCP average hows her leading by 3% there. nt

[William769]

16. She's doing great! Thanks for asking.

Des Moines Register Iowa Poll conducted by Selzer & Company
10/2/2007
Iowa
w/o Al Gore

Hillary Clinton 29%
John Edwards 23%
Barack Obama 22%
Bill Richardson 8%
Joe Biden 5%
Chris Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Unsure 11%
Source

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/iowa.html

[William769]

12. Here is another National poll (and it's NOT realclear), but I guess they must be right wing also.

Democrat Nat'l CA
Hillary Clinton 50 42
Barack Obama 18 20
John Edwards 11 14
Bill Richardson 4 -
Dennis Kucinich 2 -
Joe Biden 1 -
Chris Dodd 1 -
Other (vol) 15 5

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/

[redqueen]

15. Wow... Kucinich beats Biden and Dodd!

Well knock me over with a feather!

[musette_sf]

19. i would assume so

since they have ads for Newsmax.

[William769]

25. The ads are from google. Same as DU.

[musette_sf]

28. we don't get NewsMax ads

that i have ever seen. sometimes winger ads like the Hillary Nutcracker do come up, though.

[William769]

29. But at least you know why they are there now.

Or is this more deflection?

[musette_sf]

31. the only "deflection" here

was the post linking to a known RW site. not my posts calling this to people's attention.

and if DU DOESN'T get NewsMax ads, then there must be some kind of filter on DU so that we don't get ads that are objectionable to the DU community.

if this suspicious "poll" website DOES get NewsMax ads, we can only assume that the person who owns the site WANTS NewsMax ads and thinks that their community welcomes ads from RW Noise Machine sites.

[William769]

33. Lets make things simple, find any National poll of your choosing and post it.

Simple enough?

[musette_sf]

34. anyone who thinks that poll results

that have less auditability than a vote-flipping electronic voting machine in Ohio in 2004, and are with regard to a general election that won't be held for 13 months, have any legitimacy whatsoever, is either fooling themselves, or trying to fool other people.

is it the former, or the latter?

[William769]

36. So now you want to change the subject.?

I say lets stay on National polling since this is what this thread is about. You even have the choice to pick the one you want so we can compare them.

[musette_sf]

40. this is like having a conversation

with a particularly obtuse RW winger radio host. you don't get to give me "choices" that i have to comply with so that you can prove your (non) point.

polls are not auditable. and posting poll results from RW websites detracts even more from your candidate's credibility. you aren't doing yourself, or Senator Clinton, any favors.

but to placate you, let's do a little informal DU poll with some quantifiable data from a trusted progressive website. how many recs is this post up to now?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3025458&mesg_id=3025458

any posts about Senator Clinton that have ever hit that rec level?

[William769]

43. Once again pick any National poll you want.

Du is not indicative of America, it it were Kucinich would be the front runner. :eyes:

I take it though you won't be posting any National polls, because they would only back this one up.

I have some cheese if you would like it to go with your whine.

ON EDIT: Is Al Gore Running for President?

[durrrty libby]

45. They become unraveled and silly so quickly

:evilgrin:

[William769]

50. Yes they do.

[musette_sf]

46. many of us on DU

have listened to and watched enough RW "news reporting/analysis" to know that what you are trying to do, is to force a Yes or No answer, where your premises are invalid.

does it makes you feel like you are "right" to believe in some MSM "poll" that supports your candidate? or do you have an agenda in hyping MSM "poll" results supporting your candidate that are essentially meaningless? is it the former, or the latter?

as as to whether Vice President Gore is running for POTUS, answer me this: what cities will get hit by hurricanes in the 2008 hurricane season?

you don't know?

gee, i don't know if Vice President Gore will run for POTUS either.

you can hope that your city doesn't get hit, and i can hope that Vice President Gore runs for the 2008 election. but we have no way of knowing right now, do we?

[William769]

48. So I guess your answer is no.

Ok then, have a good day.

[musette_sf]

51. for someone who demands answers

to baseless questions, you sure have avoided a lot of my legitimate questions today.

[William769]

54. Ok missy, show me where I demanded anything.

I have yet to see you post a legitimate question here in this thread.

[musette_sf]

55. your reading comprehension level

is not my responsibility.

and take the condescending sh!t and shove it up your @ss. after all, aren't all those who oppose Senator Clinton just sexist, according to some of the poo flung at me in DU by other HRC supporters? some non-sexist person you are.

[William769]

56. Did I demand anything or not?

Or is that something called not being truthful, which you seem to have a problem with.

On EDIT: since you are incapable of being truthful here, all I will say to you is from Aaron Tippin "Kiss this, and I don't mean on my rosy red lips".

[musette_sf]

59. well, that's more than enough of

the William769 Show on KHRC. next thing you know, you'll be calling me a "phony Democrat".

[musette_sf]

60. your candidate doesn't have enough money

to make her, and her supporters, into people capable of sustaining any kind of real debate.

you're making your candidate look bad by your boorish behavior. you have no substance, only talking points and vitriol.

[rinsd]

62. "you have no substance"

Coming from someone who started on this thread complaining of the location of a compilation of polls that is quite rich.

[musette_sf]

65. too bad you have a problem with the DU rules

Restrictions on Linking to Other Websites

Do not quote or link to bigoted websites, or websites that republish content from bigoted websites. While many of these websites are easily identifiable, some are less obvious at first glance. Please be aware that even some anti-Bush websites also include bigoted content and are therefore not welcome here.

[William769]

68. Then alert the Mods.

Wanna bet this doesn't get locked?

[musette_sf]

70. alerting is for egregious sins against DU

this is just a discussion. and you are feeding the flames, not me.

[William769]

73. So then again what was the purpose of posting the rules?

So then I guess it safe to assume this thread won't get locked.

[musette_sf]

75. because there seems to be some problem here

with my pointing out the facts that:

1. RealClearPolitics is a right-wing site.
2. the "AmericaBlahBlah" poll site that was linked to accepts ads from NewsMax, a right wing site.

"While many of these websites are easily identifiable, some are less obvious at first glance."

[William769]

76. Then point the mods to lock it.

You won't, because you know they won't. This website is used here all the time. Never once been locked.

[musette_sf]

82. thread locking

is for people who can't defend their position. i can defend mine.

[William769]

83. But you felt the need to bring up the rules.

Once again you have a option to show you are right and refuse to take it.

[musette_sf]

86. discussion is not about being "right"

although you seem to hold that opinion.

[William769]

90. If thats the case then why did you post the rules?

There had to be a reason.

[rinsd]

85. No, you can't. Otherwise you wouldn't change the subject when you were proven wrong.

[rinsd]

77. I've been posting links to RCP's poll compliations all year.

And I have never had those posts deleted or got a message from a mod.

And while I find RCP's republican outlook in their commentary distasteful I am not sure I would go so far as to call it bigoted though I don't read a whole lot there.

[Capn Sunshine]

97. Newsweek poll

among likely caucus-goers, Obama enjoys a slim lead, polling 28 percent to best Clinton (24 percent) and Edwards (22 percent).


Internal polling puts Hillary # 3 with Edwards rising quickly this past week.

[William769]

99. Thats a National poll?

[rinsd]

39. So polling firms have no legitimacy?

And none of these polls are valid?

FOX News 10/09 - 10/10 377 LV 50 18 11 4 Clinton +32.0
Rasmussen 10/07 - 10/10 750 LV 45 24 12 3 Clinton +21.0
Rasmussen 10/04 - 10/07 750 LV 42 26 12 4 Clinton +16.0
Gallup 10/04 - 10/07 488 A 47 26 11 4 Clinton +21.0
AP-Ipsos 10/01 - 10/03 482 A 46 25 11 3 Clinton +21.0
ABC News/Wash Post 09/27 - 09/30 592 A 53 20 13 3 Clinton +33.0
AP-Ipsos 09/21 - 09/25 631 A 40 26 12 4 Clinton +14.0
Rasmussen 09/20 - 09/23 750 LV 40 28 15 3 Clinton +12.0
CBS News* 09/14 - 09/16 Adults 43 22 16 -- Clinton +21.0
Gallup 09/14 - 09/16 531 A 47 25 11 5 Clinton +22.0
Reuters/Zogby 09/13 - 09/16 LV 35 21 10 3 Clinton +14.0
Pew Research 09/12 - 09/16 568 RV 42 25 14 3 Clinton +17.0
Cook/RT Strategies 09/13 - 09/15 405 RV 36 23 18 3 Clinton +13.0
FOX News 09/11 - 09/12 396 RV 43 24 13 1 Clinton +19.0
AP-Ipsos 09/10 - 09/12 482 RV 43 23 13 4 Clinton +20.0
American Res. Group 09/09 - 09/12 600 LV 39 21 15 5 Clinton +18.0
NBC/WSJ 09/07 - 09/10 Adults 44 23 16 4 Clinton +21.0
CNN 09/07 - 09/09 Adults 46 23 16 5 Clinton +23.0
NYT/CBS News* 09/04 - 09/09 Adults 44 26 17 -- Clinton +18.0
USA Today/Gallup 09/07 - 09/08 500 LV 45 24 16 2 Clinton +21.0
Rasmussen 09/05 - 09/08 750 LV 43 22 16 4 Clinton +21.0
ABC News/Wash Post 09/04 - 09/07 Adults 41 27 14 2 Clinton +14.0

It was polling firms and their polls that tipped us off to the shenanigans in the first fucking place.

[musette_sf]

44. exit polls are based on scientific premises

and polls such as the ones you cite have absolutely no scentific premise.

you may wish to read up on exit poll premises and analyses, before you compare them to MSM "polls" which are about as scientific as the American Idol voting.

http://uscountvotes.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=131&Itemid=63

[rinsd]

49. Do you just make shit up as you go along?

"polls such as the ones you cite have absolutely no scentific premise."

One can argue their predictive value for an election but to claim opinion polls have no scientific basis is laughable on its face.

Exit polling is great.

And what I was referring to the mysterious wins in 2002 (Cleland being the biggest example) when exit polling was not available but the election results were off pre-election polls by a good margin.

[musette_sf]

53. do you just sidestep

every time a legitimate concern about the validity of polls is brought up?

do you not understand that exit polls are supposed to have some kind of scientific basis, and that MSM polls are based on, um, whatever the pollster is trying to push as their point?

[rinsd]

61. Who is sidestepping?

You make sweeping generalizations without supporting evidence, get called on it then you change the subject.

"do you not understand that exit polls are supposed to have some kind of scientific basis, and that MSM polls are based on, um, whatever the pollster is trying to push as their point?"

Ummm do you understand that public polling firm's life blood depends upon their credibility in assessing public opinion.

If you can back up your statement, by all means do so. But tinfoil will not get you very far.

[musette_sf]

63. i think that the poll results

and their sources cited on this page as some kind of legitimate, scientific fact, are the "sweeping generalizations" here.

it would be a good thing to drain all the "public" aka MSM polling firms' life blood.

too bad that you don't like disagreement about your candidate. but that's reality.

[rinsd]

64. Where did I say things about my candidate in this thread?

Are you having a conversation I am unaware of?

We have been talking about polls. But here we have yet another subject change.

[musette_sf]

66. um.....

your avatar might be a bit telling, perhaps?

[William769]

71. Getting frazzled, are we?

[musette_sf]

72. no

are you?

[rinsd]

78. Yes I am a Hillary supporter.

What that has to do with our discussion on polling I am unsure of.

Then again you yourself seem rather confused.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. Ha

"and polls such as the ones you cite have absolutely no scentific premise."

Polls are based on inferential statistics as is DNA testing and are firmly rooted in science:




http://firestone.princeton.edu/econlib/tuesday/Broch/stats2.pdf




http://books.google.com/books?id=GlN7UQp4DIMC&pg=PA467&lpg=PA467&dq=polling+and+inferential+statistics&source=web&ots=UdvA7F0PKb&sig=dJUlKOZWRMk0wX4yaR88P_U78G4


http://caleb.wabash.edu/econometrics/EconometricsBook/chap10.htm

By the way, exit polling is based on inferential statistics... They poll a "small" group of voters and then extrapolate from that group...It would be physically impossible to interview over 100,000,000 voters... It would take to the end of time...

[musette_sf]

69. you're comparing a MSM poll

to DNA testing?

[rinsd]

74. You apparently did not understand the big words between those words.

"Polls are based on inferential statistics as is DNA testing"

My guess is saying read the links would be a useless gesture.

[musette_sf]

79. once again,

you're comparing MSM polls to DNA analysis?

DNA results range from very accurate, to extremely and highly accurate, depending upon the source of the matter tested.

comparing the methodologies on a cursory level, as you are doing, implies that MSM poll results are similarly highly accurate.

which is, as you must know, a complete crock.

[rinsd]

84. Once again, it is the basic methodology used for both.

No one has claimed similar accuracy rates.

You claimed opinion polls had no scientific basis, you were wrong.

You refuse to admit so so you change the subject....again.

But I think this thread can stand for itself and your "brilliance" rwally shines thru.

[musette_sf]

87. if it makes you feel better to believe

that MSM polls have the same scientific basis as DNA testing and therefore are legitimatized in your world view, then have at it.

i think this thread can stand for itself, and the behavior of some supporters of Senator Clinton really shines through.

[rinsd]

91. Yes opinion polls rely on the same basic scientific principles of DNA testing.

Sorry that doesn't feel right to you but science can be scary to the ignorant.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

96. We Don't Have To Be Mean

But any statistician would tell you DNA testing and polling are based on inferential statistics... Of course the controls on DNA testing are more rigorous because you're discussing people's lives and freedom not their opinions...

It defies belief than any learned person would suggest every published poll is flawed and they are all flawed in the same direction...If the polls were flawed the results would be random...

[William769]

92. Our stars are shining brightly!

Yours has crashed and burned.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

93. It's Based On The Same Science

"With inferential statistics, you are trying to reach conclusions that extend beyond the immediate data alone. For instance, we use inferential statistics to try to infer from the sample data what the population might think.'

I'll make it easy...If you think inferential statistics is cacka you might as well defund every psychology, sociology, political science program in the nation...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

88. Is Bush popular or unpopular? Nobody really knows... Maybe he's at 75%.

[William769]

94. Hell you could argue that he has 100% support, if you don't believe any of the polls.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

98. No, because the other side is "nobody I know likes Bush" and it feels to me that

I know 25% of Americans.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

80. Duh

Do you know how many DNA samples they have in the DNA data base?

30,000 but from those thirty thousand samples they can produce exclusions of 8,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 which is more people than have ever lived on the Earth...


http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/11891_Chapter_5.pdf


http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:kz0wWa2U23cJ:www.bioinformatics.iastate.edu/BBSI/lecture_notes_2007/F1_Dickerson.ppt+inferential+statistics+and+dna&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

42. This is a crock. Nobody averaged me!

[bajamary]

52. N.H. Poll puts Gore over Clinton - June 27, 2007

N.H. Poll puts Gore over Clinton - June 27, 2007

Okay people, this poll was taken in June 2007 BEFORE he won the Noble Peace Prize.

N.H. poll puts Gore over Clinton
By Ralph Z. Hallow
June 27, 2007
ONLINE EXCLUSIVE / 3:13 p.m.

Former Vice President Al Gore is New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's worst nightmare in the nation"s first primary, a new poll shows.

If Mr. Gore got into the 2008 presidential nomination contest, he would edge out Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire 32 percent to 26 percent and defeat the rest of the Democratic contenders, says a 7NEWS-Suffolk University poll of likely voters.

"Gore is the only Democrat, including Hillary, who can instantly melt the field," said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, which conducted the survey.

[musette_sf]

58. thank you

a poll is a poll is a poll. those who conduct the poll can game any result they want.

i like the results of this poll, but i'm not going to assume it is factual, scientific, or indicative of the will of the American people. and, for that matter, i'm not going to denigrate those who disagree with this poll's results.

the supporters of Senator Clinton are not making a good case here in DU for their candidate or for their tactics.

on edit: and notice that Senator Clinton's supporters in this thread have no comment about a poll that does not support their candidate.

on second edit while exiting the thread: notice that Senator Clinton's supporters STILL have no comment about a poll that does not support their candidate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

100. If The Poll Was Conducted Properly I Have No Problem Beleiving That's How Those Folks Would Have

Voted On 6/27/07

[Beaverhausen]

89. Wasn't Kerry polling at 7% nationally at this point in the last election

national polls don't mean squat. the polls from the early primary states, where the candidates are campaigning are the ones that matter. It's a much tighter race in those states.

[musette_sf]

95. thank you, too

for some actual SALIENT comments about MSM polls.

and i am out of this right-wing-radio discussion format thread. it's like arguing with Billo or Scammity. no wonder they and their RW Noise Machine cohorts want Senator Clinton to be the candidate so very badly. then they can have the media playing field the way they want it - divisive, insulting, nasty, and completely removed from the real issues.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

101. I See

So all the polls that suggest Bush*'s popularity is in the toilets are apocryphal and it's plausible his popularity is in the nineties...

[musette_sf]

103. polls about Bu$h are rating

actual performance on actual issues.

polls about the Dem candidates are about what amounts to a high school popularity contest.

NB: note that the polls indicating bu$h's popularity is in the toilet, have had absolutely zero effect on anything changing in this country or what he says or what he does.

further proving my point that MSM polls are shite.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

105. But The Same Principle Is At Work

How can they ask 1,000 people if Bush* is doing a good job when there are nearly three hundred million people in this country, most of whom are adults....

Bush* is getting a raw deal if they don't ask the rest of them...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

102. Can We Discuss These Things Without Insulting One Another?

eom

[musette_sf]

104. ha!

supporters of Senator Clinton, please go first.

you didn't diss me on a personal level, but several others in this thread did.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

106. The Incivility Was Unnecessary

DSB