Polls are great and all, but there's one SURE measure of a candidate's popularity

who's leading in small donor donations? The little guy with a solid voting record?

Answer: OBAMA

Yeah, I know, you thought I was gonna mention Oprah.

definitely a small donor and counts. It is sleazy, but it counts.

Norman Hsu supported Hillary.

how that makes a candidate soo popular. It is lame and sure the hell
isn't translating to healthy poll numbers for him

that's the subliminal message of my OP.

Pull through is what matters. If Hillary is so "inevitable" is she going to resoundingly win Iowa? Since when did Hillary supporters find selling bumper stickers "sleazy" ?

Oh, right, when they start showing their actual contempt for non corporate contributions.

better indicator.:eyes:

Did you know the California's Black Legislative caucus endorsed Obama right before Hillary landed here. Or maybe you missed that Obama is eating into her polls in South Carolina. One thing is clear and it is momentum and its not on Hillary's side forever. Oh and Hillary only had a few hundred guests at Magics and early whispers are its not enough to make up for the Norman Hsu tainted money she has to give back. Oh and each candidate wishes they had been smart enough like Obama to garner supporters through trinkets and what nots. translation all those emails go out en masse and hit a wider group faster than Hillary can and reach further because she is not in his league with young hip voters who live on texting and MySpace. But you gotta hand it to her, she does use the old school mainstream media for the sedentary amongst us.

Let's tally up the big $$$$ events in the last week:

Obama ---------------------------------------------------Hillary
Nancy K's private fundraiser $250,000 ------------------Norman Hsu return <$850,000> in the hole
Oprah A Celebration $3,000,000 minimum-------------Magic Johnson $500,000 (generous estimate)

Just to catch up in fundraising, Hillary went to Magic & Cookie's and inroads are happening but Denial in Hillary is par for the course. QED...

And I had to fill out a donor form. At the time, I thought it was kind of a pain in the neck, but when I had a chance to think about it, I thought it was very honest.

...and all I got was this lousy candidate (Clinton)". lol.

People giving money to a candidate in no way translates into votes. And only votes count. Obama is doing well in Iowa and I can't say he won't be the nominee - but small dollar donors isn't the measure on who will win.

Little donors don't get polled by Hillary. Only "approved" Democrats get the call. This methodology of course carries the danger that the non-base could fall away.

Dean might have had major small donations, but Kerry had a lock on the old-line Dems and their experience in Iowa. Things are different this time.

to do your egg counting - many Iowans gave money to Dean and dumped him w/in the last weeks of the primary season. Institutional Dems are not the only ones being polled. 30% of intended caucus attendees have never attended caucus before - and they are being polled.

http://www.iowatrueblue.com/Blog/tabid/36/EntryID/86/Default.aspx

Q.: When did you make up your mind?

Last Three Days (21%)

Last Week (21%)

Last Month (27%)

Before That (30%)

++++++++++++++++++++

We could call it the Cowpie Award. That posts packs a lot of BS into a few short sentences. Highest per capita concentration of BS. It's almost pure... nothing but BS.

What are "institutional Dems"? Prisoners? Mental patients? Dems who have been Dems for more than 6 months? How do you include or exclude them from polls or buying habits? Does Obama refuse to sell bumper stickers to registered Dems or something?
Why would measuring them be less accurate? Accurate in measuring what, exactly?
Do "little donors" specifically get polled by anybody? Do the bumper stickers come with a questionnaire?
So if Hillary Clinton is excluding "little donors", it's really "biangulation", eh?
Who are "approved" Dems? What call are they getting? 83% of Clinton money comes from individual donations, so they are getting the fundraising "call". Is there another "call" they are supposed to be getting? Is Obama polling his bumper sticker buyers to determine his strategy?
Who is the "non-base"?
What "methodology" endangers the "non-base" support? The methodology of not polling bumper sticker buyers?
Dean lost 7 points in the polls in the last week before Iowa. That would indicate no "lock" for anybody.
What is different in Iowa this time? Iowa caucus-goers are suddenly the "non-base"?
Does Obama get to say "All your non-base are belong to us"?

Most of them seem to agree that Hillary is currently in the lead.

that has enough money in the budget to donate at all, that is.

They're the ones that count, right?

I always thought that the candidate with the most votes in the Democratic primary is the one sure measure of a candidate's popularity. But then again, I have'nt decided on a candidate yet, so I don't really have an axe to grind...

Until the vote it's all just positioning , etc.- my point exactly. I just feel small donations are a true measure of where a party is at- not polls by the MSM and hired guns.

election will be the person who can get his supporters to the voting booths. That is the bottom line.

and that this is all about organizing GOTV efforts. I'm pretty sure, however, that a lot of people have NOT made up their minds yet, and that therefore the candidates are going through a process of trying to win new supporters. Polling helps them measure how well they are doing that.

While it's true that the election isn't tomorrow, so polls taken today aren't 100% accurate predictors of what the primary results will be, that is not what polls are for.

Polls tell us (and the candidates) where they are at the moment, and therefore they offer suggestions on what the campaigns are doing well and not-so-well. Campaigns revise their strategies based on this info, then we get another poll and they can see how well they have responded. In the meantime, we voters get to watch the process and see how different campaigns/candidates act and react to all this, and then we get to decide how well we like or dislike each candidates performance. It's a valuable process and there is much to be learned from polls if one chooses to accept them within the context of their capability.

Democrats have to recognize this and put their resources behind someone who can win, like Sen. Biden. Too many Americans would be scared to take the chance during times like these with someone with so little experience, especially if Giuliani is the Republican nominee, with whom the country associates standing strong during 9/11, which is bs, but then so was the Swiftboat ads.

and he consistently proves it each and every year kind of like a political rotten Santa Claus. Biden is a self aggrandizing pol who's narcisiism leads him to try again to be POTUS. His lack of good judgment was written beautifully from the 1988 campaign in the seminal Richard Ben Cramer book, What It Takes. Of course his plagiarizing ended his credibility and Biden added to the horribleness of his record with his support of IWR, Clarence Thomas, bankruptcy bill, inability to understand minorities while saying inappropriate and caustic things then apologizing confirming an appalling lack of sound judgment to be president. Biden is gaffe personified and an insider who is unable to generate money, organization or a popular movement behind him because his platform is based on his own belief and the polls show he pretty much remains alone in his delusions of his fitness to be elected president.

Ted Kennedy had consistently large crowds in Iowa - and yet he lost the cacucuses with 38% of the support.

don't harsh their buzz.

'cause it would have been either Dean or Clark winning in that case. Nevertheless it is impressive for Obama.