So with Obama actually leading in one Iowa poll...

[SaveElmer]

Are polls ok to cite now when discussing the support of our candidates?

Will there be talk from former poll skeptics of rigged polls etc...or now that Obama is leading can we dispense with that particular line of argument once and for all?

[Bitwit1234]

1. I was just going to post that....

the Obama supporters have naysayed the polls, accusing the ones taking them of being prejudiced and some polls taken by people who aren't authorized to take polls.

Now that somebody says that Obama is leading a dead heat the Obama supporters on the journal are actually messing their pants and going into overdrive.

When the next polls come out and say he is at the bottom of the heap we'll remind them when they scream and rave that....it looks like if Obama doesn't lead the poll is crooked...ha ha ha ha ha ha ha wonder how many pairs of underwear they have used up today.

[wyldwolf]

2. this poll is obviously rigged. Obama paid people to pick him in it.

:rofl:

:sarcasm:

[Adelante]

3. I like poll watching

Today and any day.

[EV_Ares]

6. It is interesting, can't put a lot of heart & soul into them yet as the wind can

change tomorrow. It is really going to be interesting after Iowa and NH.

[Adelante]

7. Right, they're not predictive, but a picture of a day in the horse race

Exciting when it's my candidate ahead. But I find them entertaining mostly and interesting no matter who is ahead.

[EV_Ares]

9. Also, since you are a poll watcher, it is interesting how they can be

framed by the experts where they can get the result they want in a lot of cases.

[EV_Ares]

4. One of the Hillary supporters basically thinks there shouldn't be

an Iowa caucus or the rotation should be changed appears since Obama is leading. Not exactly sure what the poster is saying other than change the rules or caucus rotation to where it would fit Hillary better I guess.

[wyldwolf]

5. really? Who?

[jonnyblitz]

8. LOL. that is funny. nt

[Clintonista2]

19. Link or slink?

[jonnyblitz]

21. I think this is the thread Ev_Ares is referring to

based on his/her posts in it, which COMPETELY misinterpreted what the OP was saying. I could be wrong, but I don't think so..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3739192&mesg_id=3739192

[Clintonista2]

28. is he the deleted names? lol. n/t

[Stop Cornyn]

10. Only if one stifles debate by whining that his candidate is inevitable and shouldn't be questioned

clarification: This is directed at those Hillary supporters who talk OUTRAGEOUS SHIT about other candidates and whine like a baby with a skinned knee when their inevitable candidate is treated as anything less than the born-to-the-manor queen, but not necessarily including the OP.

[SaveElmer]

12. Point to a single instance where I said anything of the kind...

eom

[rufus dog]

11. polls become more valid the closer it gets

Is this good news for Obama, yes, is it the end of the road, no. The polls in thirty days will be much more meaningful.

[inthebrain]

13. Polls should never be regarded as meaningful

Last primary season they got it wrong BIG TIME!!!

Heading into Iowa no body had Kerry as the winner on their lips.

NOBODY!!!!

[SaveElmer]

14. This is where everyon makes their mistake...

Polls are meaningful...they just aren't predictive...

Two entirely different things...

[MonkeyFunk]

16. Kerry was tied at the top

and surging up three days before the Iowa caucuses.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/otsc.franken/

[PresidentObama]

15. Polls are fair to post. But they shouldn't be used as sole examples of candidates inevitability.

I don't care who leads polls: Clinton, Obama or Edwards...I have a certain level of mistrust for them. I cheer when my candidate is leading, but I'm still always skeptical of them. I'm more skeptical of national polls, however. State by state polls seem the most accurate and telling.

[ClarkUSA]

17. Don't cry, Hillaryworlders. You always have those national poll numbers to comfort you.

:rofl:

[PresidentObama]

18. LOL!! Very true.

[SaveElmer]

20. Did you read the OP?

Guess not

[beachmom]

22. The issue is the fact that polls are the ONLY thing cited

Polls are fairly useless, even now, especially in Iowa. They're boring. I am interested in politics because of how it affects people's lives and the world, not in the name of a sporting event. Polls are merely sports stats, and it's all they talk about on TV. Why do you feel it necessary to emulate the MSM? I would much rather read about policy ideas, speeches, and interesting campaign stories. Instead, it seems that poll threads are what you and other Clinton supporters like to do best, as part of the "She's inevitable" meme. Sorry, it's boring, AND it's meaningless. Just ask John Kerry, who I believe was polling 5th at this time in 2003.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. This new poll means that it's anybody's game, and I'm an Obama supporter

I'll say what I've been saying all along. Iowa is going to go down to the wire. This poll doesn't mean Obama has an advantage it means that it's anybody's game. If another poll comes out next week saying he's gained another 3 points, then that's something serious. But more likely the next poll will have him about tied with Hillary.

[TeamJordan23]

24. ditto. But it does some maybe some trend if other polls follow similarly. nm

[Hippo_Tron]

25. Sure, but it's still within the margin of error, especially with so many undecideds

The Iowa caucus is very unpredictable.

[suston96]

26. Obama was already leading in the same poll....

....back in July.

Go www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/postpoll_111907.html for detailed breakdown.

Like this:

NET LEANED VOTE:
11/18/07 7/31/07
Barack Obama 30 27
Hillary Clinton 26 26
John Edwards 22 26

It wasn't Hillary who slipped in this poll among leaners. It was Edwards.

[Yukari Yakumo]

27. Here's something interesting...

In regards to the earlier poll, the adjacent polls tell different stories.

University of Iowa (most likely caucus goers only) (8/5) - Edwards 26.0%, Clinton 24.8%, Obama 19.3%
Hart (D)/McLaughlin (R) (8/3) - Edwards 30%, Clinton 22%, Obama 18%
ABC/WaPo (7/31) - Obama 27%, Clinton 26%, Edwards 26%
ARG (7/30) - Clinton 30%, Edwards 21%, Obama 15%
Research 2000 (7/25) - Edwards 27%, Clinton 22%, Obama 17%

Iiiiinteresting. Back then, WaPo showed Obama with a slim lead. However, all the other polls showed him way behind. Only ARG showed Clinton leading, the rest had Edwards ahead.

Now for today...

WaPo (11/18) - Obama 30%, Clinton 26%, Edwards 22%
KCCI Des Moines (11/14) - Clinton 27%, Obama 25%, Edwards 21%
ARG (11/14) - Clinton 27%, Obama 21%, Edwards 20%

Hmmm...

Now, if the past is any indication, WaPo's numbers for Edwards and Clinton is about on par with the rest, but WaPo's numbers for Obama are way over-inflated. I'm tempted to say it is happening again.

[1corona4u]

29. I would just say...

that discussions on political shows tonight, warned that people shouldn't get too excited about it, because the polls don't often reflect what happens with the caucuses. I don't think they're rigged, but I don't think they can possible represent the entire state, or every person either.

[CyberPieHole]

30. Leading in one lagging behind in 5 others...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

I guess I see a trend there.:evilgrin:

:kick: and recommend

[Scriptor Ignotus]

31. I agree with you, polls shouldn't be cited as evidence of anything

for the most part. In this case I think the media wants to make a story out of the "inevitable" Hillary slipping in the polls. Otherwise they won't have anything to talk about.

Hell, if exit polls can't be trusted these certainly shouldn't be.

also, you'll have to forgive us Obama supporters of being a little proud that Barack is, at a minimum, being very competitive with the frontrunner in Iowa.