Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Richardson surges with 3 times as much support as Biden in Iowa and 4 times as much in New Hampshire

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 09:43 AM
Original message
Richardson surges with 3 times as much support as Biden in Iowa and 4 times as much in New Hampshire
Iowa newspaper poll released Saturday confirms that Richardson has three times the support as compared to Biden: "New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson came in fourth with support from 9 percent of those surveyed. He was followed by U.S. Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware with 3 percent."

Another recent New Hampshire newspaper poll confirms that Richardson has four times as much support as Biden (8% to 2%).

Biden and Richardson are both long-shots, but Richardson's far, far better positioned to finish fourth (possibly third if Hillary continues to free fall) in Iowa, and Richardson is in a much better position than Biden to benefit in New Hampshire from a better-than-expected finish in Iowa.

If you are looking for a second-tier candidate with great diplomacy experience who has the best (but still slim) chance to break out of the bottom pack, you are making a mistake to pass up Richardson in favor of Biden.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Lost4words Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. Agreed, Richardson over MBNA Joe!!
8643
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stop Cornyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
25. Biden has been pretty good if you ignore the bankruptcy and judicial nominee stuff. Richardson has
been too much of a centrist on a wider variety of issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #25
37. That's like saying "cancer is pretty good if you ignore the tumors."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #37
51. lol!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
2. Now that's class
What was Richardson saying about being nice???? x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. I'm reporting polling numbers from Iowa and New Hampshire. How is that not "being nice"? I didn't
even offer my thoughts on WHY Biden's lagging behind Richardson in Iowa, New Hampshire, nationally, and in terms of fund-raising. Even that wouldn't be mean because it would be based on Biden's record on the judiciary committee and his work for the credit card industry to the detriment of the middle class. But seriously, what is there in my OP which is not "being nice"?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Uhh...
Have you seen this? Not very flattering for...well, you know...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3847469
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. That doesn't explain how posting poll numbers is not "being nice." Facts are facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #5
23. You might consider your phrasing 'nice', would your candidate? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #23
50. Are you saying it's not nice because I referred to Biden and Richardson as "long shots"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
3. No thanks...
I still like Biden better. And, I think he will do better than Richardson in the end. Oh, and this really isn't new news...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. You say "this really isn't new news." Newspapers' poll results in Iowa and NH aren't news?
Even just 17 days and 22 days before the caucus and primary?

What qualifies as news to you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. The numbers haven't changed much throughout this whole thing...
Richardson has always been ahead of Joe....that was more my point. Of course, in SC, Joe is ahead of Richardson, and Joe was also ahead of Richardson a couple of weeks ago, in Iowa, according to an ARG poll....I don't give too much weight to polls personally. I go read Iowa blogs, papers, opinions, OPED's, and their LTTE's.

But, we'll see. Won't we....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Are you saying that Biden has never had more than 1/3 of Richardson's support in Iowa or 1/4 in NH?
I think Biden peaked a bit in November, with a few polls showing him even with or slightly ahead of Richardson, but now the polls show Richardson pulling back ahead of Biden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. So what...
I don't live by the polls, as I said. I think people who do, will be very disappointed.

I don't really have the time, or the inclination to debate this with you. You're reaching, at best.

Have a nice Day!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Don't take it personally. I'm just reporting poll numbers like about 10% of the other threads here!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. No you're not...
If you were, you would have left out the jabs you took at Biden. BS jabs, at that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Didereaux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
4. And? avg Dems are scared to death of intelligence...just like all avg humans
Intelligence is the number one human trait most feared by the average human being. It is the number one most disciminated against trait in all cultures and societies. Given that fact you could easily expect that someone of Richardsons caliber would indeed be supported over someone of Bidens.

Sometimes natures truths are hard stuff!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
39. Hey, I think they are both smart, but "smart" isn't an ideology. I object to Biden and Richardson on
ideological grounds because both have been on the centrist position of issues important to the middle class and we have more progressive candidates available in the primary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
6. I liked Richardson on paper, but his debate/speaking skills are sub-Dukakis
Biden is on par with Richardson's experience, has a good record with some misteps like Richardson, but is a much, much better communicator, imo.

I'd have no problem supporting Richardson if he was our nominee, but I have been very disappointed in him in the debates.

Richardson supporters should switch to Biden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. "sub-Dukakis"
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stop Cornyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. "Sub-Dukakis" is harsh! . . . . . . . . (but accurate)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #13
22. Too funny! That describes John Edwards to a T!
"Johnny Edwards: Mike Dukakais for a new generation!"
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #22
29. You have something better to do than crap on the thread?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stop Cornyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Know nothings like him affect no one's opinion, but his blather kicks the thread to the page top.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. Richardson brings to the table what Biden brings, but without the bankruptcy bill crap and without
Edited on Mon Dec-17-07 11:02 AM by Czolgosz
the support for some of Bush's worst judicial appointees, which I will never understand why Biden supported them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Richardson has things that plenty of DUers bitch about
just like all of the candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #6
18. I am not a Richardson fan but I watched him on C-Span in New Hampshire
talking to a group of people. His speaking skills were as good as Bill Clinton's in that situation. He had everyone in the room feeling like they were his best buddy. He looks a little nervous in the debates but when you get him in a room or people or one on one, he is a top notch communicator. Maybe better than any of the candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. I am a Richardson fan and, unfortunately, debate presentation matter
Biden is usually good in interviews, speeches and town hall q&a.
Richardson is spotty. In any given debate, when the reviews come in, he is rarely if ever seen as one of the "winners."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
21. If you want to end the Iraq War, Bill Richardson is your candidate
www.2013IsTooLate.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. Especially if you want to pull out so recklessly fast that we leave military equipment in Iraq for
Iraqis to use against one another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Thanks for the Fred Thompson quote!
Or was it John McCain? You three sound sooo alike.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #27
35. No, it was Richardson. Here: "I would leave some of the light equipment behind."
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said he would get all troops out within one year, by January 2010, even at the expense of abandoning some military equipment:

Russert: How can you do it in one year?...
Richardson: This is what I would do. I would bring them out through roads through Kuwait and through Turkey. It would take persuading Turkey. The issue is light equipment. I would leave some of the light equipment behind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stop Cornyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #35
43. I'm as anti-war/pro-peace as they come, but even I am willing to schedule enough time for the
withdrawal to bring our equipment home.

That an odd suggestion to leave the light equipment in Iraq for the sake of meeting an artificial time-table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seasat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #26
44. You think they're going to use wheel barrows and filing cabinets on each other?
Light equipment in Richardson's plan doesn't refer to mainly military weapons. It refers mainly to the 1000's of tons of easily replaceable equipment such as office equipment and chairs. However, we are already arming the Iraqi military and police so it would make sense to leave them some of the older weapons. Richardson's plan also calls for replacing our forces in Iraq with a mostly Muslim peace keeping force. It would also make sense to leave them some equipment. He's not calling for leaving the equipment lying in the street so anyone can pick it up. Every month we stay in Iraq costs us 10 billion dollars. That would go a long way towards providing new equipment to replace that which was left behind.

Here's a link to details on his plan.

He draws his ideas on how to get out rapidly leaving behind light equipment from a study by the Center for American Progress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. "Light equipment in Richardson's plan doesn't refer to mainly military weapons." What does the word
"mainly" mean in that sentence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seasat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. RTFM, I provided the links. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-18-07 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #48
53. I just wanted to confirm that we both understood Richardson would leave military equipment in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
24. I'm not a Biden fan, but Richardson isn't any improvement. He's pro-NRA, pro-"free" trade, pro-death
with reduced habeas corpus appeals, and his defense of Abu Gonzalez long after everyone else was calling for his resignation was appalling!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. It's "make stuff up" day on DU!
Did you get a sticker? :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Let's take those issues one-by-one. Here's why I say Richardson is pro-NRA:
From The Nation:

"Richardson's a very politically astute individual," says Robert Goode, NRA regional representative for West Texas and New Mexico. "He knows you're beating your head against a wall when you go after the firearms issue. And he backs his words with his votes." Goode continues that, if a candidate like Richardson ran for the presidency, he believes the NRA would step back and not take a partisan stance on the election. Goode's colleague Charles Weisleder, a 70-year-old NRA lobbyist, agrees. "Richardson," says Weisleder, a bald man smiling broadly over coffee at an Albuquerque Shoney's, "got a lot of gun votes because of what he said to us. A lot of people are driven by the firearms issue."

{Here's some context from earlier in the article}: Proponents of gun control are dismayed by these political developments, citing evidence that New Mexico, in addition to having the open landscape that so lures gun enthusiasts, also has the nation's second-highest per capita homicide rate as well as a youth suicide rate twice the national average--two-thirds of these suicides are carried out with guns, most of which belong to the family of the victim. They also produce statistics (disputed by the pro-gun lobby) showing that concealed-carry laws don't help protect law-abiding civilians from violent crime, and they point out that one of the few gun-control successes in recent years was the assault-weapons ban, which, until it expired last year, helped keep extremely potent weaponry off America's streets while not limiting hunters' rights to own less powerful arms. "They're not good for public safety, and they're not good for public health," says Bill Jordan of New Mexico Voices for Children. "People don't want them, but there's a powerful gun lobby. And that's very sad."

Here's a bit from The Albuquerqui Tribune:


"You said the NRA is a traditionally left-wing organization?" Dwight Van Horn said, incredulously repeating the question.

The gun rights group - traditionally not a left-wing organization, to answer the question - lent its endorsement Monday to Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat.

For governor....

But as he mulls a run for president, Richardson's history of close relations with the NRA could set him apart from other Democrats seeking the party's bid.... The NRA endorsement, announced Monday at a West Mesa shooting range where hundreds of law enforcement officers from around the world took part in an NRA-sponsored shooting championship, wasn't the first time Richardson has garnered the group's backing... "He has treated us first class," said Kayne Robinson, NRA's executive director for general operations. "What the implication of that will be in national politics is beyond my pay grade."

A news release announcing the endorsement cites Richardson's support for a law that allows New Mexico residents to carry concealed handguns with a permit.

Richardson said he has earned a concealed-carry permit himself.

"I am not packing today, though," he said, "because I have plenty of State Police officers here to protect me."


Do you disagree with any of that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #31
42. Richardson understands the issue a lot better than most candidates...
Edited on Mon Dec-17-07 06:25 PM by benEzra
"Richardson's a very politically astute individual," says Robert Goode, NRA regional representative for West Texas and New Mexico. "He knows you're beating your head against a wall when you go after the firearms issue. And he backs his words with his votes." Goode continues that, if a candidate like Richardson ran for the presidency, he believes the NRA would step back and not take a partisan stance on the election. Goode's colleague Charles Weisleder, a 70-year-old NRA lobbyist, agrees. "Richardson," says Weisleder, a bald man smiling broadly over coffee at an Albuquerque Shoney's, "got a lot of gun votes because of what he said to us. A lot of people are driven by the firearms issue."

{Here's some context from earlier in the article}: Proponents of gun control are dismayed by these political developments, citing evidence that New Mexico, in addition to having the open landscape that so lures gun enthusiasts, also has the nation's second-highest per capita homicide rate as well as a youth suicide rate twice the national average--two-thirds of these suicides are carried out with guns, most of which belong to the family of the victim. They also produce statistics (disputed by the pro-gun lobby) showing that concealed-carry laws don't help protect law-abiding civilians from violent crime, and they point out that one of the few gun-control successes in recent years was the assault-weapons ban, which, until it expired last year, helped keep extremely potent weaponry off America's streets while not limiting hunters' rights to own less powerful arms. "They're not good for public safety, and they're not good for public health," says Bill Jordan of New Mexico Voices for Children. "People don't want them, but there's a powerful gun lobby. And that's very sad."

Richardson understands the issue a lot better than many candidates...and a HECK of a lot better than most DLC'ers. Dropping the ban-nonhunting-guns crusade was a big part of the recapture of the Senate in '06 by pro-gun, anti-AWB Dems.

The reason the ban-nonhunting-guns approach bombs so badly is that only 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners is a hunter; 4 out of 5 gun owners own guns for nonhunting purposes like target shooting and defensive purposes, and "assault weapons" are the most popular target rifles and defensive longarms in America.

And, tell me again how rifles are so disproportionately used in murders...

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%


Compare rifle murders to, say, murders with shoes and bare hands...

BTW, the 1994 ban didn't ban any rifles. Civilian AK's, AR-15 type rifles, etc. were just as legal 1994-2004 as they are now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
30. Its nice to see Richardson getting some kudos.. he's an excellent candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
33. Oh too bad, I don't dislike Richardson,
but I think Biden would kick ass in the general. Richardson, not so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stop Cornyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. I feel the exact opposite. I prefer Biden between the two, but I think Richardson is more electable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kucinich4America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
34. Governors can win elections, Senators can't.
Richardson moving up the charts is good news. He just needs to articulate his message better, and keep distancing himself from the DLC types, and he seems to be heading in that direction.

To paraphrase another thread I read earlier today, my heart is with Kucinich, and so is my vote in the caucus. But my head is telling me that Richardson is the best shot for the general election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #34
41. I think that's less true in the internet age. The main advantage that governors have over senators
is that governors has a narrow record on the issues which they support and promote in their administration. Senators have a huge expansive record which puts them "on the record" on so many issues that it is difficult to make complete sense of their records.

But as youtube and the internet generally force all candidates -- governors and senators alike -- to take positions on a broader range of issues and publish those issue-positions more broadly, the gubernatorial advantage is evaporating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carrieyazel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
36. The polls are underestimating Richardson's and Biden's support.
These polls can be so out of whack sometimes. Media driven candidates are usually overstated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stop Cornyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. I can imagine the polls underestimating Biden's support OR underestimating Richardson's but how can
the polls be simultaneously wrong about BOTH second-tier candidates?

I think that either Biden or Richardson may break out in Iowa. And by break out, I mean a strong 4th place finish that sets him apart from the other second-tier candidates.

But if BOTH Biden and Richardson "break out," they will blunt each other's success. I think there is -- at most -- 20% of the delegates for them to split (that's wildly overestimating, and it's really probably closer to 10%, but assume 20% to be extra generous). If one gets 5% and the other gets 15% (or, better yet, if it splits 2% and 18%) the one who finishes in the mid-to-high 'teens will come out looking golden. If they both get 10%, neither will shine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
45. Polls in Iowa reflect **paid advertising**
Richardson has spent tons of money on TV in Iowa. Biden just began his TV ads, I think, today! These name recognition polls in Iowa are worthless as they do not reflect who has the organization to get their people to caucus on caucus night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. No. Edwards didn't start his advertising until November, yet he was still polling OK before then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. He was also the VEEP nominee in 2004. I obviously meant 2nd tier -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-17-07 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
52. I don't think polls mean crap,
so I wouldn't be surprised to see Richardson win the whole deal. I'd much prefer to have him as my president over any one of the senators running right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC