Novak: Dem insiders don't take Hillary poll lead seriously

HILLARY'S LEAD

Democratic insiders who are not neutral in the presidential race do not take seriously the USA Today/Gallup poll of Democratic voters showing Sen. Hillary Clinton 23 percentage points ahead of Sen. Barack Obama. They contend national surveys are meaningless because outcomes of the early state contests are still critical.

State polls show a virtual three-way tie among Clinton, Obama and former Sen. John Edwards in Iowa's early caucuses. Clinton has only a narrow lead over Obama in New Hampshire's opening primary. Obama has moved slightly ahead in the latest survey for South Carolina, the next primary state.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21900

It has been a well documented polling fact going back quite some time.

Only to come back and win an overwhelming majority of delegates.

National polls on presidential races mean nothing - the contests are never decided by national opinion anyway.

This guy's a paleocon, much akin to Pat Buchannan. Remember: Novak was against the Iraq incursion from the first he heard about it and was consistent (if dutifully somewhat restrained in his criticism during the lead-up) throughout.

He's a supreme asshole and a classic conservative: most people are dross and any laws protecting them from being preyed upon by the better specimins of the species should be swept aside to bring in the sunshine of a new gilded age of Social Darwinian gluttony. He's the worst kind of privileged raptor and he glories in the agony of others because it reinforces his triumphal superiority.

He's not WRONG all the time, though, and he's not always lying.

He's also in the waning years of his life and looking to secure his legacy; history's rife with old lions like this being quite forthcoming with real, accurate predictions.

Man this is an interesting campaign...

If we believe the USA Today/Gallup poll doesn't exist, we're still left with the CNN Poll: Clinton 44%, Obama 24% and the Cook/RT Strategies Poll: Clinton 43%, Obama 23% - both showing 20 pt. Clinton leads. Maybe the 13% from Rasmussen is more acceptable to Novak's "Democratic insiders?"

Of course "national surveys are meaningless because outcomes of the early state contests are still critical."

August 10, 2007 Hart Research New Hampshire poll (pdf) Clinton 36%, Obama 19%, Edwards 15%, Richardson 12%

August 9, 2007 PhillyBurbs New Jersey poll: Clinton 45%, Obama 21%, Edwards 16%

August 8, 2007 University of Iowa, Iowa poll (pdf): Clinton 26.8, Obama 22.3, Edwards 22.1

August 8, 2007 Quinnipiac Florida poll: Clinton 43%, Obama 13%, Gore 11%, Edwards 8%

August 8, 2007 Quinnipiac Ohio poll: Clinton 41%, Obama 16%, Edwards 11%, Gore 8%

August 8, 2007 Quinnipiac Pennsylvania poll: Clinton 35%, Obama 19%, Gore 12%, Edwards 10%

Not to mention the polls that suggest a large percentage of Clinton, Obama and Edwards supporters would jump ship and support Gore if and when he runs.

WITHOUT Gore in the race, Clinton's numbers INCREASE which shows most Gore supporters support Clinton over Obama and Edwards.

It's obvious what the Hillary fans want - big Al to stay out of the race.

Just like her supporters do.

Why else would she have dropped the line "I thought somebody else won in 2000", to raucous applause? It's obvious mentioning Gore favorably gives one points with Democrats.

I care about re-electing Al Gore as my president, and have made no secret of that.

:shrug:

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=nw20070808093403512C645821

Yes, that's really a fantasy. After all, foreign media only reports on fantasies.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

By all means, let's adhere to your standard of "what the polls indicate".



Gore Tops All in Gallup Poll Ratings
In California, Gore Closes in on Clinton

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/03/MNGISP0I4C1.DTL&hw=field+poll&sn=001&sc=1000

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseId=1070&ss=print

May 31, 2007 - Gore Moving Up In Pennsylvania, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Leads Obama Among Dems, Runs Best Against Giuliani

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1093187

Giuliani leads in key 2008 states, Gore shows strong: poll

Whoops! Looks like neither of your standards support your talking points!

:rofl:

:rofl:

Talk about fantasy.

:rofl: :rofl:

Please, keep posting. You certainly aren't helping your cause.

At least the rest of DU isn't so one-note.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:shrug:

:eyes:

These "undecided voters" conveniently forgot to mention that Clinton doesn't support gay marriage.

And Murdoch owns the right-wing rag known as the NY Post, in case you forgot.

So, in between running News Corp, along with subsideries FOX News, BSkyB, The Weekly Standard, Festival Mushroom Records, Star TV, DirecTV, and hammering out a deal to buy Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal, Murdoch found time to go find eight gay people to say nice things about Hillary Clinton? :rofl:

Answer: The New York Post.

Who owns the New York Post, and therefore indirectly controls its content?

Answer: Rupert Murdoch.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You seem to have an inside track.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The people who run the newspaper or media network, of course.

I guess the fact that I know the sky is blue and water is wet must mean I have an "inside track" as well. :eyes:

And don't get me started on Murdoch's fundraisers for Hillary.

I think it is obvious. The candidate who performs the best in the early primary states is going to move forward with a huge advantage. Clinton HAS to do well there, and this is why she is attacking Obama. As far as I am concerned she is far from the front-runner, we're in a near statistical dead heat.

If she bombs in the early primaries her national poll numbers will begin circling the toilet faster than a copy of the Koran at Guantanamo Bay.

why does anyone care what he says?

Regardless of the source.

forgive me if I look for strategic meaning in everything he says. They want Hillary, want her weak. They want to hurt her opposition but make it divisive. He wants to downplay Edwards according to the same polls which they tut-tut to disparage Hillary. That might be a subtle point were it not for the fact that he, Mr. Novak is using the polls both ways.

Oh no, not important that hillary is leading. Yes important to show the positions of Obama and Edwards.
Hearing the same thing from Bob Shrum and other experts on the radio. The obvious thing any casual armchair quarterback could determine. So the dean question gets asked and the answer avoided.

Yes she is vulnerable. Yes the organization that bitterly opposed Dean drools in her footsteps. That leaves the voters totally in a new situation with more subtle tuggings(because they rightly fear the real state of the voter mind) more subtle institutional pimping of campaigns, less chance of a political no-go meltdown with many sideline assists. For that you have to wait on the good graces of a Bush-whipped GOP in November 2008. Hillary as a person is better than many of the institutional types(all GOP included) acting as broom sweepers on a curling team: goal GOP Prez. It does not work the OTHER way around. They deserve no respectful consideration depending on how you think they support her candidacy. And that works for both those who support and oppose her candidacy. The only thing you take from listening to the snake(Novak)is that most of everything they say is a purposeful lie to hurt the Dems in general. Democracy in particular. Any respect has the stink of flattery and ulterior motives.

If Novak tells you the sun is shining and it appears so, look for the angle. The only absolutes you have this year are that there are people you absolutely cannot trust. Novak is an easy spot.

when he will start printing in his column that he talks to God...if bush can I guess he will say he does next.

Novak.....he's a slimeball, traitor, why on earth would you quote him?

...

Amazingly, Novak nails it.

It's funny because it's true!

Actually the OP should be ashamed to post anything with Novak's name on it. I would refuse to take any calls from that jerk-off and I wish the folks in DC would do the same.

for the simple fact that they are conducted with land lines. How many Dems have a cell-only lifestyle? I know I do, and a lot of others who run in my circles as well. These polls that get endlessly pontificated upon are jacked for that fact alone. They're only polling a lot of older more establishment types within the party.

The whole world revolves around Hillary.

Just like he knows that he urged Gore to quit the recount and concede in 2000 because Novak had an inertnet poll that said the majority of Americans wanted him to concede. Novak was holding onto an early online freeped poll. One that could have been abused by a few to misrepresent themselves as the many.

You can't force us to believe any poll. They are manipulating them to show us what they want us to believe. It's so obvious. They discontinued the exit polls, because it was the one poll they could not manipulate. Look what happened in 2004 when it was obvious Kerry was winning. Everything is now suspect. Corporations are not to be trusted, because everything in this country can be politicized, and thus, has no credibility nor integrity. What's more, they knew this would happen, which is why journalist and press organizations once took great precautions to protect their integrity. Now, thanks to Fox News, Rove and Machiavelli business practices applied to political campaigns, nobody believes anyone.

You want a poll that leans right? Take your poll in the midwest, take the poll in the area where the candidate is already showing support. Or, intentionally call more Republicans than Democrats for your poll results because of the myth that Republicans are more likely to vote than Democrats.

You think it's hard to find a list of names and phone numbers which have already been pre-screened for part affiliation? It's as easy as calling up your Supervisor of Elections office and ask for a print-out.

These early polls are the first step in election fraud. Claiming that someone has a two point lead gives you the opportunity to corral the Sheeple who just want to be one of the in-crowd, and who don't think for themselves.

... but you want to disguise that with a heaping helping of leftist faux anger.

You WANT to believe the polls are rigged because they don't go your way. You can even dream up ways it could be carried out. But what is missing in your equation is actual empirical evidence that they ARE rigged.

Anyone who does research knows there's a section in their studies called METHODOLOGY. If polls want to be taken seriously, then they need to include a full explanation of their methodology. And the information should include the campaign donations from the poll company head and the company; where did they get their lists? Who compiled it for them? What geographical area did they call?

Yes, I believe that polls are rigged, just as I believe that the last two presidential elections were stolen and I consider this a grave infraction, not to be taken lightly.

... the results from the group polled.

Anyone who does research knows there's a section in their studies called METHODOLOGY. If polls want to be taken seriously, then they need to include a full explanation of their methodology.

Well, then, without changing the subject, demonstrate how Gallup's methodology is flawed. Don't just state that it is, SHOW us based on expert analysis.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1568746

What's more, if you lived through the era prior to the 90s, when journalists followed certain codes of ethics, you'd understand why. The media and their bastard polls, broke their own codes. They allowed themselves to be manipulated, and in doing so, they lost the one thing that they needed to be taken seriously: credibility.

If I were to trust any poll taker, it would be the one that had the best track record. And that isn't Gallup.

And your reasoning is terribly flawed. If Gallup doesn't provide methodology information, how can I possibly check its work? And there is the fly in the ointment. Much like what Bush is doing. If he doesn't provide the information that Congress is asking for, how can they fact check him?

Gallup is not a news organization.

And your reasoning is terribly flawed. If Gallup doesn't provide methodology information, how can I possibly check its work? And there is the fly in the ointment. Much like what Bush is doing. If he doesn't provide the information that Congress is asking for, how can they fact check him?

On the contrary, I have not said Gallup doesn't provide methodology information. In fact, they do. Just check their website.

But, as I predicted, you changed the subject.

Don't run from this. Polls and the media are seen as belonging to the same family because their intent is the same, to inform the masses. And both are doing it badly. In the last election, Gallup was seen as friendly to George Bush and if DU had a better search engine than it does, I'd prove it to you. This ground has already been covered, but if you insist, I'll start a thread and see what we get. If the search engines on Du were any better, I wouldn't have to take this recourse.

Polls and the media are seen as belonging to the same family because their intent is the same, to inform the masses.

According to who? You?

You say Gallup doesn't reveal their methodology, but they do.

I'll ask you again, demonstrate how Gallup's methodology is flawed. Don't just state that it is, SHOW us based on expert analysis.

I'll ask you again, where is actual empirical evidence that they ARE rigged.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3445175&mesg_id=3445175

Poll companies, are actually less credible than journalistic news organizations. That's the only difference.

again. Be patient. Let's see what the thread develops. You might actually learn something.

As I said before, if DU's search engines were reliable, I'd go another route.

What you'll find is that Gallup was the one that we caught polling more Republicans than Democrats with not too surprising results. I'll keep searching for that thread, but DU doesn't get points for its search engines, that's for sure.

Why don't you just admit that you're a Hillary Clinton supporter and you want her to ride into the White House the same way that George Bush did. On false information to the public?

If she wins, she needs to win in a different way. An honest way.

ones that was found faulty.I would love it if DU had a competent search engine, but the sad truth is that it is the suckiest search engine I've ever had to deal with. Extremely frustrating. But, I have you marked as a Hillary Clinton supporter who obviously doesn't read DU threads. I'm satisifed with what I've read from DUers on the subject and I'm satisfied that the trend is that nobody trusts poll companies these days. You are the one that is grasping for straws on this issue.

Those pollsters who decided to risk their credibility by fudging facts to get the results they wanted, now have their credibility in the crapper. And they deserve it. I don't feel sorry for them, and neither should you.

There should be no do-overs in business, if a corporation decides to trade integrity for ideology. What happens when they do? What is their way out once the people stop believing they're objective? They can either bend over backwards to try to regain their credibility, or they can hope that people are just really stupid and give them a multitude of second chances.

So, yes, Gallup's rep is in the crapper. I think my fellow DUers have made a convincing case. Gallup has helped steal two presidential elections, and I think enough is enough.

Those pollsters who decided to risk their credibility by fudging facts to get the results they wanted

WHO did this? Where is the evidence? Names? Dates? You have nothing.

There should be no do-overs in business,

WHAT do-overs???

I've told you and you aren't listening. Gallup would mess with the demographics of a poll, in order to get the results it wanted. This practice was outed by DUers prior to the election, they outed Gallup for polling more Republicans than Democrats in their statistics. The results, not surprisingly, leaned right. But they didn't tell anybody that they were doing this, not until the DUers outed them. And their meek reply when they were outed? That they felt that more Republican voted in an election, therefore they had the right to poll more Republicans than Democrats.

Does that sound fair to you? Or do they come across making up truthiness?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=910993

There were more, and I'll link them to you as they come up.

The second is right on point:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3445599&mesg_id=3445663

The second one that you called "right on point, " as an example, in which the leftcoaster says Gallup oversampled "greatly the GOP."

Was a 40% - 33% sample in favor of the GOP an oversample? Not at all. Because at the time, the GOP led party identification by about that much AND the GOP had lead in the the "Leans Republican" most of the polling cycles.

No member of DU would accept your reasoning because it's GOP speak. But I can understand why you're going to grasp at straws. If you're so sure of yourself, why don't you come out in the open and post those comments on my thread, instead of hiding back here in the cave.

Well, if that's the kind of game a Hillary supporter must play in order to win, I think less of the both of you.

and that their reasoning for it was bogus. This established false support for a candidate in order to convince the undecided voter, but it's only one step of many that goes from false propaganda to election fraud. How else does a 12% lie from Gallup poll whittle down to a 2% win? It's a game you're fanatically playing right now. Everyone sees what you're doing, and your desperation is becoming evident and it reflects badly on Hillary Clinton. If that's the kind of people she wants to surround herself with, there isn't much difference between her and Bush.

Republicans never represented more of the population. Don't you get it? They were about to disenfrancise millions of Democratic voters through election fraud, so it behooved them to spread this lie, planting the seed that there were more Republican voters than Democratic ones. They were setting up a sting. You can't miss what you never knew you had. Gallup disappeared voters through their polls and the GOP made sure their votes stayed invisible through election fraud.

Are you unable to see how they use statistics and reach their own conclusions?

:shrug:

Sounds like people in denial about Bush's one-time popularity.

Read the comments.

They're the ones that proved that Gallup, of all pollsters, is the least objective.

... which basically amounts to a pile of steaming "truthiness," dogma created to explain away poll results you don't like.

So stop with the "truthiness" as if that trendy word can possibly give you any credibility.

DU's search engine sucks so finding that thread is like finding a needle in a haystack. You can go to the two threads I started and see the people who have read the information and back me up. Notice how everyone of them outs Gallup as a Republican shill machine.

Well. We'll see what Skinner has to say about that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3445599

leftist - so where are you on the political spectrum?

faux - why do you think it's false? because it's 'leftist'?

anger - what in the world is wrong with anger right now. anyone not in a rage, contained or not, is politically numb or dead, as far as I'm concerned.


Anyway, I find it very illuminating, that you would construct this phrase to denigrate someone's argument.

the nomination! I myself have completely tuned it out because I simply don't TRUST MSM! They NEVER fooled me much and I wish they would just SHUT-UP with all this polling and HILLARY hype! I've said it MANY TIMES before... IF she gets the nod I Will HAVE to vote for her, but there is NO WAY I will campaign for her!

I'm sick of the BUSH/CLINTON band-wagon rolling here in America! Seems we need to get OFF the dime, but as time goes by I find myself getting SICK of ALL of it! For me this nation has been such a disappointment to me and I'm almost SICK of even trying to make a difference anymore! Too many Americans "just don't' get it!" Too many just don't PAY ATTENTION no matter how many FACTS are presented to them!

I get worn out trying!

And now that I'm starting to refocus on politics i'm still bewildered that it's a give that Hillary is the nominee. I've heard rumblings among the green party that no one is particularly happy with this. I'm just shocked that after we wiped them off the board in 06... everyone is happy with a typical status quo candidate.

:puke:

maybe there is hope

The blowhard??? :)

but the key is in the first paragraph



the first question is "how 'not neutral' are they?". the second question is "why are the republicans
trying to blow up their own stalking horse candidate? haven't they been to the strategy meetings with
the mysterious guy from DC?"

polichik, tbh = to be honest. tbqhh = to be quite honest, lol. hope that helps.