Hillary UP 10pts in IOWA.. Clinton 32%, ..Obama 22%, ..Edwards 15%

[Tellurian]

October 30, 2007

ARG Iowa poll:

Clinton 32%, Obama 22%, Edwards 15%

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/


It appears Iowan's are as savvy about bigotry as the rest of us and not interested in seeing another bigoted president elected.

[zulchzulu]

1. Any word on Clinton campaign dealing with Rev. Harold Mayberry?

Didn't think so...

:shrug:

As for Iowa, it's a horse race. My betting money says Clinton comes in third by the time the votes are counted. Stay tuned!

:hi:

[Selatius]

4. Poll show Obama tied with Clinton in Iowa.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ar9Rki_9H79o&refer=us

...

Clinton of New York received 28.9 percent support compared with 26.6 percent for Obama of Illinois. The gap is within the poll's 5.5 percent margin of error for Democrats.

In a similar August poll, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards was backed by 26 percent, a near-tie with Clinton's 24.8 percent. Obama received 19.3 percent support in August. In the latest poll, Edwards garnered 20 percent support.

...

[ElizabethDC]

6. Polls? More like one poll. Which had a sample size of about 300. n/t

[Selatius]

11. Let me correct that. Statistically speaking, 300 is a sufficient sample size to pass muster.

I don't see much reason to doubt a poll done by the University of Iowa.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

23. Not a bad poll, but apples and oranges

the University of Iowa poll doesn't provide the names of the candidates. People are just asked to name who they'll vote for.

In many ways that's a superior approach, but it prevents that poll's numbers being compared heads-up with other polls.

It also has a likely caucus goer model that is ten times the size of any actual caucus turn-out, but again, that's not necessarily wrong. Just different.

(It is essentially impossible to do an accurate likely caucus goer poll because the caucuses are so small... about 100,000 will participate out of whatever Iowa's population is.)

[Selatius]

8. Wrong spot. n/t

[ElizabethDC]

12. No, I don't doubt it, but some here have been critiquing this poll for having

a sample size of 600, and that not being sufficient. 300 is considerably smaller than the majority of IA polls, though: http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

[Selatius]

17. True, but in the field of statistics, anything above 100 should return a relatively...

representative sample size. However, the point is taken that it is a small sample size compared to other polls conducted.

[Tellurian]

20. The ARG Poll's sample size is 600

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/iadem8-711.html

Sample Size: 600 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of likely Democratic caucus goers living in Iowa (478 Democrats and 122 no party (independent) voters).

Sample Dates: October 26-29, 2007

NOTICE THE INDYS ARE GOING FOR HILLARY!

[MalloyLiberal]

31. Small sample actually - and independent voters cant vote in Dem primary

Flawed.

[Tellurian]

33. They can if they're already registered to vote..

The sample used for this poll is very narrow. Many who were polled if they used words like
probably, maybe, they were dismissed as eligible.

[Tellurian]

21. The ARG Poll is showing Hillary is gaining with the Indy Vote..

[surfermaw]

35. I'm with you Zulaz

When it is all over but the crying, Edwards will be number 1 in Iowa,South Carolina and the list goes on.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

45. And that's why she'll never be able to give Obama a hard time re: McClurkin

No matter how her defenders on DU try to spin it - But...but...he didn't PERFORM for her! She can't HELP who endorses her! She's got her own preacher bigot problems and the Obama camp would nail her with it as soon as she even tried to bring McClurkin up.

[peacebird]

2. sand n sea posted these examples of Hillary and bigotry in another thread

"If Mcwhatever is a horrible mistake, then so is meeting with the homophobic republican prayer group year after year, and accepting support from other homophobic ministers in the black community, like Harold Mayberry. What about her SC state co-chairs who voted for the constitutional amendment that banned gay marriage, John Matthews and Linda Short. Where's the outrage about that. What about Darrell Jackson's remarks regarding the same amendment, where he expressed his opposition to homosexuality while abstaining from voting on it, "My personal moral position is what I believe and what I subscribe to. I don't have to come here and try to legislate it.."

It is so obviously trumped up horseshit when one gay singer gets so much flack and all these people associated with Hillary go unnoticed."

[Tellurian]

7. Hillary doesn't use fundraisers as a justification for bigotry as Obama has...

correction:

"when one gay singer gets so much flack and all these people associated with Hillary go unnoticed."

He promotes himself as a "cured" gay singer. I guess you are as confused as sand n sea.

[Ethelk2044]

9. Bull Shit

[ElizabethDC]

15. Would you like to refute the post with facts, or just by calling it BS? n/t

[Tellurian]

16. So, what else is new Ethel?

[peacebird]

14. I believe we are born with our sexual identity, but then maybe I'm wrong.

I'm not confused about it. I don't think you can change sexual identity. I couldn't, but then I am not him. Who am I to say that he is or is not gay, straight, or bi....? I am born straight and never wanted to be with another woman. Maybe he is denying his true sexual identity now, if so, then I am sorry for him.

But the problems of Hillary and her anti-gay associations still remain.

[Tellurian]

18. Yes, you are still confused. McClurkin claims his faith "cured" him..

and he is promoting GLBT as a 'sickness' to be cured.. while bashing the GLBT Community at his appearances.

[midnight]

3. What I don't understand about polls is, in one poll a large

majority want the war ended. Why would a candidate that says she will keep the troops over their have such a large lead?

[Clark2008]

5. I don't know.

Why is a guy who says he'll attack Iran the babe of the anti-war grassroots?

:shrug:

[Tellurian]

19. Exactly...

The War Vote is only significant to Obama supporters.

Notice Hillary's poll numbers. The centerpiece of the Obama Campaign is a dud and no one has the brains to change the message...Oops, turn to page 3..Social Security...must be Axelrod's next brainchild..

[kenfrequed]

25. WRONG!

The War vote is significant to almost every other candidates supporters as well as the majority of the Democratic party and the majority of the American people.

[Tellurian]

34. Not True!

Getting the troops home is the Primary concern of voters. The only people obsessed with the War Vote are Obama supporters and a few others here on DU. The majority of General voters are not, as the polls indicate.

[kenfrequed]

39. Oh be honest

I think it is a clear indicator of just how honest she is about bringing the troops home

[Tellurian]

42. Cut this honesty crap..

I call BS on you and Edwards...Richardson and Dodd just called Edwards out for the "honesty" meme! Edwards whining about Hillary's donor base. Dodd jumped in with...Edwards what about you taking donations from the Bar assn and Hedge Funds...Richardson alluded to Edwards to cut the crap with the Dem attacks because we want a Dem in the WH in 09'.

So, St. John just had his halo clipped with a reality slap from the team, reiterating the "glass house" theory!

[kenfrequed]

43. And...

Were Edwards my first pick you might almost have an argument.

But he isn't and you don't.

[Tellurian]

44. Get over yourself..

it's not about you!

[kenfrequed]

51. sorry

but I am a voter and it really is about me, at least as far as my vote goes.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

48. But this isn't ABOUT Obama this is about Clinton!1! Stop trying to divert!!1!

A refrain we hear a lot of when pointing out the Donnie McClurkin/Harold Mayberry hypocrisy.

[Nedsdag]

10. Why?

Because she's "strong and tough."

:rofl: :sarcasm:

[Tellurian]

13. Because for the umteenth time, the War Vote is not an issue..

Getting the troops home asap IS! Hillary has already approached the Joint Chiefs and asked for a plan for redeployment. Hillary is the only candidate ready to go forward getting the troops home on Jan 1st 2009.

[desi]

27. How the IWR has been turned into the "War Vote"

is mystifying in itself since there is no declaration of war from the US Congress. Maybe it's time to bring this up again for those who have not seen it and also for those who have seen it and forgotten about it. One important thing to remember is that President Clinton had not so long ago been impeached for lying about a blow job. Who could have ever imagined that a sitting US President AND Vice President would LIE to Congress, never mind the entire world, about anything as serious as WMD's to invade another country? Of course the link no longer works but "the google" is our friend. I hope this is not a thread jack but if it's removed maybe somebody could give it its own thread.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Senators+were+told+Iraqi+weapons+could+hit+U.S.&btnG=Google+Search

Dec 15, 10:17 PM

Senators were told Iraqi weapons could hit U.S.

Nelson said claim made during classified briefing

By John McCarthy
FLORIDA TODAY

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said Monday the Bush administration last year told him and other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities.

Nelson, D-Tallahassee, said about 75 senators got that news during a classified briefing before last October's congressional vote authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Nelson voted in favor of using military force.

Nelson said he couldn't reveal who in the administration gave the briefing.

The White House directed questions about the matter to the Department of Defense. Defense officials had no comment on Nelson's claim.

Nelson said the senators were told Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons, notably anthrax, and it could deliver them to cities along the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones.

"They have not found anything that resembles an UAV that has that capability," Nelson said.

Nelson delivered the news during a half-hour conference call with reporters Monday afternoon. The senator, who is on a seven-nation trade mission to South America, was calling from an airport in Santiago, Chile.

"That's news," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington, D.C.-area military and intelligence think tank. "I had not heard that that was the assessment of the intelligence community. I had not heard that the Congress had been briefed on this."

Since the late 1990s, there have been several reports that Iraq was converting a fleet of Czechoslovakian jet fighters into UAVs, as well as testing smaller drones. And in a speech in Cincinnati last October, Bush mentioned the vehicles. "We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States," the president said.

Nelson, though, said the administration told senators Iraq had gone beyond exploring and developed the means of hitting the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction.

Nelson wouldn't say what the original source of the intelligence was, but said it contradicted other intelligence reports senators had received. He said he wants to find out why there was so much disagreement about the weapons. "If that is an intelligence failure . . . we better find that out so we don't have an intelligence failure in the future."

Pike said any UAVs Iraq might have had would have had a range of only several hundred kilometers, enough to hit targets in the Middle East but not the United States. To hit targets on the East Coast, such drones would have to be launched from a ship in Atlantic. He said it wasn't out of the question for Iraq to have secretly acquired a tramp steamer from which such vehicles could have been launched.

"The notion that someone could launch a missile from a ship off our shores has been on Rummy's mind for years," Pike said, referring to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Sen. Bob Graham, who voted against using military force in Iraq, didn't return phone calls concerning the briefing. Spokespersons for Reps. Dave Weldon and Tom Feeney said neither congressman could say if they had received similar briefings since they don't comment on classified information.

www.floridatoday.com/!NEW...NELSON.htm

[zulchzulu]

28. The War Vote is not an issue... if you want to say it's not an issue...but...

...it is an issue.

[Tellurian]

36. Obama's low polling numbers clearly represent resonance with Obama's non-message..

of his continuous pointing to the War Vote!

[MalloyLiberal]

32. Nope..she said she'll keep combat troops in

[Tellurian]

37. "Some" residual troops...NOT ALL!

[bigdarryl]

41. Because these polls are BULLSHIT and mean nothing

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. Perhaps the war is not the only issue for which they are basing their support

[Clintonista2]

22. Looks like Obama's "butter lady" endorsement didn't do too much good...

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[MNDemNY]

26. Her bigoted remarks about the "oleo" crowd sunk her credibility.

[Alamom]

24. Thanks k&r

[bigdarryl]

29. ISN'T IT INTERESTING EVERY TIME A POLL SHOWS A CANDIDATE

VERY CLOSE TO HILLARY THE VERY NEXT DAY SOME OTHER POLL SAYS SHE'S WINNING BY A LARGER MARGIN. MAKES YOU WONDER WHO ARE THESE POLLING COMPANIES ARE SPONSORED BY

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. I Agree

You should start a thread about that, bro...

[BootinUp]

40. lol nt

[Tellurian]

38. Not really..

Big D.. are you yelling at us? (CAPS?)

[hedgehog]

46. Do you have a post-debate poll handy?

[Ethelk2044]

49. I am with you on that one. I want to see a poll in about a week or so.

[hedgehog]

50. I'm wondering at the timing of the appearance of this poll.

It just happened to get posted right after the debate.