CNN Poll: Clinton 44%, Obama 24%

[wyldwolf]

The latest CNN/Opinion Research poll confirms what most other national polls show: Sen. Hillary Clinton is widening her lead in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

In the new survey, Clinton leads with 44%, followed by Sen. Barack Obama at 24%, John Edwards at 16% and Gov. Bill Richardson at 5%.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/08/09/rel8c.pdf

[Triana]

1. RAMrod that woman down our throats... thaaat's right...

WHO the hell are they "polling"?

The REPUBLICANS?

[Faux pas]

3. LOL that's probably it. It also could be that they are just making

up poll numbers for the fun of it. In my poll hillary is a -17.

[LoZoccolo]

11. Yes, we all know from experience that Republicans love Hillary Clinton.

They couldn't get enough of her in the 90s, lol.

[Bonobo]

2. As stupid as our country is, this just confirms for me that she's no good.

[dipsydoodle]

4. Well I never

sounds like you can fool most of the people all of the time.

[beastieboy]

5. Why is posting a poll so offensive to the haters?

[Alamom]

8. There is no intelligent or logical answer to that question other than

hatred makes you stupid, crazy, & mean. JMHO


It seems to be ok to post polls if one of the other candidates gains or improves.

[durrrty libby]

10. Because they enjoy living in their little Den of Hate and Fantasy

Any hint of truth and reality penetrating their lala land rankles them

[Alamom]

13. Rankled? Respectfully, that's an understatement.......

More like a Psychosis Epidemic.

[durrrty libby]

16. You may be right, but I try to avoid the image of drooling,

wall-bumping zombies tearing their hair out in fistfuls,as the poster-child haters of DU


:hurts: :scared:

[Blue-Jay]

37. You know...you could TRY being less abraisive.

[durrrty libby]

40. Believe me, my dial is on as low as it will go. I hear there is some

kind of ignore feature. Maybe that would make you happy

[Bonobo]

19. It's not the poll. It is the UNREMITTING SPAMMING by the same people.

[wyldwolf]

22. Spamming? That is so funny!

Here are some dictionary definitions of the word:

1. a disruptive, esp. commercial message posted on a computer network or sent as e-mail.

Well, I guess posting poll numbers on Clinton is only disruptive to those who don't like proof their candidate is sinking like a stone.

2. Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail.

Posting poll numbers on Clinton doesn't meet that definition at all. You're not getting it via e-mail and the fact this is a Democratic discussion forum certainly makes the case that Democratic news is solicited.

:shrug:

[Bonobo]

23. Obviously I hit a nerve. And it is clear what I meant.

In spirit, you are a spammer.

[wyldwolf]

24. no, just my funny bone

In spirit, you are a whiner.

[beastieboy]

26. There were 4 different threads yesterday with the SAME anti-Hillary topic.

If anything I think the pro-Hillary people get the short end of the stick around here.

[Bonobo]

27. I don't even have a candidate. But this forum sucks because of spammers.

No discussion, just fucking spamming.

No discussion is even possible with all these assholes.

[LoZoccolo]

29. Maybe there will be a discussion...

...once people start talking about the articles instead of complaining that they shouldn't even be posted.

[Bonobo]

30. It's funny. All the back and forth you and I have had and yet...

And NEVER have we even discussed the issue, any issues.

Just the THEORY that we should stick with the party or leave the party to affect change.

So what about it? Maybe we should have a "political issue" forum instead of a "politics" forum.

[beastieboy]

31. What would you like to discuss?

I'd be happy to tell you all the reasons I think Hillary should be your candidate.

[Bonobo]

32. OK then. Here's a start.

Why does she think that NAFTA and GATT are good things?

[beastieboy]

33. She said she would change NAFTA and I haven't seen her position on GATT

She acknowledges there are problems with the trade agreements we have.

[paulk]

6. she's a formidable debater

and it's reflecting in the polls.

Some interesting replies on this thread... shows how out of touch with the real world DU is....

[SaveElmer]

7. Notice the change in tone of the responses to posts showing Hillary's continued strength...

Among her detractors..

They have gone from arguing the polls are wrong, or that it is too early, or it's all name recognition...to

Just proves everyone is stupid...

They just can't credibly deny the evidence anymore, that she is showing increasing strength among Democrats and against the Republicans, that she is clearly connecting with people, that their cherished dream that she would fall on her face in the debates has turned into their worst nightmare - a competent, smooth, skilled Hillary, winning debate after debate...

So they do the DU equivalent of what kids do, just start hurling insults, stomping their feet, and holding their breath till they turn blue

[LoZoccolo]

12. I have noticed too that they are getting more and more desperate. n/t

[Major Hogwash]

17. Not me.

The only poll that counts is at the voting booth.

And I am going to cast my vote in this election for Obama - the very first time I will get to cast a vote for a black man for President of the United States.
I didn't get to vote for Jessie Jackson in 1984 because he had already dropped off of the ballot.
I didn't get to vote for Al Sharpton in 2004 because he had already dropped out of the race, too.

If Obama drops off the ballot before the votes can even be cast this time, then I will move to France and change my name, after voting for Edwards.

When the MSM trashed Al Gore during the 2000 election during the debates he had with Bush and then manipulated the election result itself by repeatedly saying that Bush had won that race before the Supreme Court even had a chance to make their decision, everyone I knew that was a liberal told me that the election had been stolen and that you can't trust the media.

Then, in 2004 when the MSM was touting that Bush had a huge lead in 2004 and then manipulated the campaign by trashing Kerry, everyone I knew that was a Democrat said you can't trust the media.

Now, while the MSM is manipulating the campaign by telling everyone that everyone wants Hillary by so many points over anyone else, suddenly the media is telling us the truth?

I haven't bumped into 1 Hillary Clinton supporter yet.
Not even the women I know support Hillary.
Not even the most feminist of women I know.
Most of them haven't made up their minds yet, but they have made it clear they do not support Hillary, so I don't know where these numbers are coming from.

But, everyone I know that is a Democrat tells me that I can't trust the media.

And until I get to cast my vote, I don't care who the media says is ahead.

[ccpup]

9. what's fascinating

is the see how the Replies change if that CNN/Opinion Research Poll would have Obama leading or Edwards leading or Kucinich leading.

There would be no words about the MSM ramming them down our throats or the Republicans being the only ones polled or any of that other stuff. I may not be the biggest fan of hers, but I've seen people who bought into the MSM right wing lies about her through the 90s shocked and pleasantly surprised to discover that she's intelligent, well-informed and, as one friend put it, Presidential in the debates. She may not be your Candidate of choice, but she is impressing people.

Besides, we don't follow or believe Polls here on DU, do we?

[billyoc]

15. I believe in polls.

Exit polls. :hi:

[jaysunb]

14. we'll see you in Iowa Sen Clinton.

That's the poll that will count....

[BigDDem]

18. DK holding steady at 2%

I guess the plan to catapult him to front runner hasn't kicked in yet.

[durrrty libby]

20. LOL I t is kind of sad, but the guy does it to himself

He is for everything, which is easy to do, knowing he has nothing to lose

At the same time it makes him look disingenuous and silly.

But I do enjoy listening to him and Gravel. They shake thing up a bit

[LoZoccolo]

21. I will say this, though.

At least the people who want to catapult him are taking some responsibility for promoting him, rather than sitting around blaming the media for his low numbers. But I still think they'll find that people don't want to vote for him, and they'll have to deal with that realization. It's not like the guy hides from every debate.

[beastieboy]

25. They can't stop him, they can only hope to contain him...

LMFAO!

[jenmito]

28. When most people watch the news and only hear that Hillary "clearly won" every debate,

that Obama made "rookie mistakes," and they DON'T see the debates for themselves and DON'T know that Hillary actually said the same things as Obama or that Obama's 45 min. speech included a lot more than the one sentence about striking inside Pakistan if necessary, is it any surprise that more people would lean towards Hillary?

[beastieboy]

38. Or, they watched the debate and came to the same conclusions.

[Nedsdag]

34. CNN & the Democrats can do me a big favor by

1. Stop polling since this race is over.

2. Cancel the state caucuses and primaries and declare Hillary the winner.

I'm dead serious.

[nolabels]

35. CNN Poll?

Seriously?

Extra! July/August 2003

The Great WMD Hunt
The media knew they were there--but where are they?

By Seth Ackerman
(snip)
"Parroting the so-called experts"

In part, journalists absorbed their aura of certainty from a battery of "independent" weapons experts who repeated the mantra of Iraq concealment over and over. Journalists used these experts as outside sources who could independently evaluate the administration's claims. Yet often these "experts" were simply repeating what they heard from U.S. officials, forming an endless loop of self-reinforcing scare mongering.

Take the ubiquitous David Albright, a former U.N. inspector in Iraq. Over the years, Albright had been cited in hundreds of news articles and made scores of television appearances as an authority on Iraqi weapons. A sample prewar quote from Albright (CNN, 10/5/02): "In terms of the chemical and biological weapons, Iraq has those now. How many, how could they deliver them? I mean, these are the big questions."
(snip)
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1150

[wyldwolf]

36. it's really hyterical watching folks here try to find fault in EVERY source to discount the content.

[nolabels]

39. We shall see won't we

Some of those who like Kool-aid still believe the so called Butcher of Baghdad was able to somehow hide all those WMD's in another country. I find it hard to understand why people trust people who have lied to them so many times before. Be that as it may, for someone to tell me they have lined up one hundred registered democrats and forty-four of the hundred have already decided that Hilary is their candidate and that is who they will be voting for seems pretty dubious. What ever happened to the undecided anyway :shrug:

[lojasmo]

41. Jesus Christ, man....give it a rest. EOM