Obama Campaign Uses Fuzzy '04 Comparison To Downplay Hillary's Frontrunner Status

With Barack Obama currently trailing in national polls, his campaign today distributed an email to supporters emphasizing that "early polls don't mean a thing." To drive this point home, the email begins with a purported history lesson:

In mid-September 2003, national polls showed Joe Lieberman to be the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Then John Kerry won the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, and the shift in momentum carried him to a decisive victory.

The comparison attempts to place Obama's poll standing in a positive light, while also implicitly likening current frontrunner Clinton to Lieberman, an aggressive supporter of President Bush's war policy.

But a review of national presidential polls from mid-September 2003 shows that history isn't nearly as cut and dry as the Obama campaign portrays.

Among national polls taken in mid-September 2003, Lieberman led in just one: a Sept. 10-13 ABC News survey of all Democratic-leaning voters. Lieberman received 20 percent support versus 15 percent for Howard Dean and 14 percent for both Richard Gephardt and John Kerry. However, when the ABC News poll was limited to Democratic-leaning likely voters, Howard Dean held a slim lead with 20 percent, compared to 19 percent for Lieberman and Kerry.

A Newsweek poll taken Sept. 18-19, 2003 among "registered Democrats and independents who lean Democratic" found that both Hillary Clinton and Al Gore received far more support than any of the declared presidential candidates. Thirty-three percent said they preferred Clinton, while 28 percent backed Gore. Wesley Clark and Howard Dean both polled at 7 percent, and Joe Lieberman and John Kerry polled at 5 percent.

In other words, Lieberman was by no means the clear national frontrunner in mid-September 2003. The polling then was decidedly mixed, in contrast to Clinton's current dominant lead in the Democratic primaries. The Associated Press reported Saturday that Clinton has "strengthened her standing as the national front-runner four months before the first primary votes," as the Democratic race "has remained remarkably static, with none of Clinton's rivals able to challenge her lead in national and most state polls." The three most recent national polls show Clinton with leads of 12 percent, 21 percent, and 15 percent, respectively.

Comments

[keno07]

Obama team is right . Hillary has been given a pass by MSM even if she lost the debate they announce she is the winner.John Edward has been trashed too . I am tired of CNN, MSNBC, FOX,CBS and ABC .I wish we had a better news channel .

[repubesnivel]

You are only tired of them because they aren't giving you the numbers you want to hear.

[GreatFutureForAll]

"You are only tired of them because they aren't giving you the numbers you want to hear."

No. I started to become "tired of them" when they failed to ask a single question about Iraq prior to the war and even after we were at war. Years went by before anyone from CBS, NBC, ABC or CNN asked a single meaningful question about the war. The networks failed to serve the American people for years.

The most demoralizing time of my life was having to go all the way across the Atlantic Ocean to get all of my news about the war from the BBC. This war truly taught me a lesson about having too many news organizations in too few hands. Nothing felt worse than watching Britain tell me the truth while my own country omitted everything that was going on. THAT WAS TORTURE.

And the point of view of the reporters is far too narrow. The BBC has a lot of Black reporters, Indian Reporters, East Asian reporters, people of every ethnicity. And we have more variety in our population than they do.

From Bush on down, this entire generation has completely failed America (in my opinion).

Obviously, I don't trust our news organizations anymore. No one should cause they dropped the ball on the most important story of our lifetime - Iraq.

Instead of reporting, they pick and choose what they think you want to hear. And, if you're Latin, TOUGH! "Go to Telemundu if you want YOUR news" is what the networks say.

[MPeter]

September 04, 2007
ANOTHER CLINTON CAMPAIGN "DIRTY CASH" MAN FLEES
A Pakistani immigrant is wanted by federal authorities on charges he channeled $30,000 in illegal contributions to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential war chest.



ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS; CONSPIRACY

ABDUL REHMAN JINNAH

[Kreskytim]

Do you mean last week she's been given a pass? Because I don't think in the last 15 years you could say she has been given a pass.

[BUSHsurvivor]

Hillary has been given a pass by the MSM, sounds like a FAUX Noise talking point. Please act like a democrat and not a nutty neo-con!

[Rhydderch69]

Oh yeah. You mean the cocopuff media is a firm bastion of the progressive camp....

And the flagship of the establishment media has done its job as a watchdog of Democracy?

Thanks... next you'll be saying that we should be doubling down in Iraq.

[Giglawyer]

Hillary has been given a pass. The MSM wants her to be the candidate so badly they can taste it. Why? Money! She will make this election the dogfight of the century, because she is so hated just as much as she is admired. That, and the GOP is armed to the teeth waiting for her.

[MPeter]

why don't you read this?
September 04, 2007
ANOTHER CLINTON CAMPAIGN "DIRTY CASH" MAN FLEES
A Pakistani immigrant is wanted by federal authorities on charges he channeled $30,000 in illegal contributions to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential war chest.



ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS; CONSPIRACY

ABDUL REHMAN JINNAH

[Giglawyer]

Hillary has been given a pass. The MSM wants her to be the candidate so badly they can taste it. Why? Money! She will make this election the dogfight of the century, because she is so hated just as much as she is admired. That, and the GOP is armed to the teeth waiting for her.

[SeanGardner]

I have also been arguing the same thing: that at this early stage, NATIONAL POLLS don't have the same meaning as the local polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, which reflect a much more fluid contest.

I mean, let's look at this intelligently: a national poll comes out showing Hillary in the lead. Ok. Looking into the numbers, we might see that the pollsters included Democratic activists from Arizona, Montana, Lousiana, Oklahoma, and Maine. And most of these activists would likely say Hillary Clinton is their favorite because of name recognition.

But if you take away all of those Democratic activists in othere regions, and just keep those interviewed from Iowa and New Hampshire, then you'll get a very tight race, which is what we are seeing right now in Iowa.

We have five months until the Iowa Caucus. Trust me, Obama and Clinton and Edwards will remain tight and whoever has the best ground game (not the best National standing) will win the caucus.

I happen to believe that Obama has the best, most savvy, and most energized supporters on the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire.

We'll see how much Obama's Iowa and New Hampshire poll numbers shift upward when he rakes in $3.5 million to $5 million from Oprah's party. 1500 people giving at least $2300 is one helluva headline to kick off the Fall Campaign.

[OhPlease2007]

The only polls worth looking at are the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire; the national polls are nothing more than a crock of doo-doo.

ANY of the candidates can win this thing.

Edwards/Obama '08!

[LIR]

Wishing Obama to win is different than having it happen. Some people on the left seem to suffer the same delusional thoughts as right wingers. They feel they can wish a successful candidacy into existence. Unfortunately, though I like Obama in many ways, America is just not going to see past its racist ways in '08. This is something that all those who support Obama need to accept and face squarely and stoically. It is just not going to happen for him.

[GreedyOldPsychopaths]

"There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain (Disraeli and Courtney)

[OhPlease2007]

Wow, aren't we, GreedyOldCynics !

LoL

With all your worldly wisdom, why don't YOU throw your hat in the ring and run for president ???

[josephpatrick]

There's a difference between being behind somebody by 5 points and being behind somebody by 20 points.

for political commentary & blogs, visit:
http://www.politidose.com/

[Rhydderch69]

Yes, but there's also a difference between 8-12 years of name recognition and none. Of course Hillary's ahead in the polls.

[Giordano Bruno]

Polls frequently measure whom people think will win rather than their most heart felt choices. Furthermore, so much of the current polling is predicated on news coverage which focuses on the two leading contenders. Policy has been subordinated to glamour. And it has seemed as though it is a bigger crime to give a big tip on a haircut than to accept money from sleazy businessmen. The integrity meter is measuring the wrong things! GB

[godlessclif]

My Aunt Margarette used to vote that way. It drove me nuts. It was like in school trying to get the right answer. When she voted for Nixon and he lost it was like she flunked a test.

"I should have voted for Kennedy" she said.
"It O.K. he won anyway", I said.
"You don't understand, I voted for the wrong one, I feel like a loser" Auntie.

[Lis]

I agree. Polls don't mean squat. And I'm sure Obama's camp knows that too. But they have to try to sway those on the fence, just as Hillary does:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/hillary-clintons-persona_b_62994.html

I'd rather have dinner with Barack than have Hillary go grocery shopping for me.

[MmeFlutterbye]

Polls don't mean a thing until those who are behind begin acting like jerks.

[Rhydderch69]

How about those in front?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw

[LIR]

I have seen Hillary on Letterman and Ellen. She was wonderful. Barack is stiff and very preachy whenever he is on late night TV or even Oprah. But then that's him all the time!

Out with preachy in with relaxed and confident...

[Brettster]

What the...?! That is the precise opposite of what I see as plainly obvious whenever either of them is under the spotlight. I mean are you joking? HILLARY is relaxed and not preachy, and BARRACK is stiff and not confident?? That's laughable but also just makes me hopeless to think that anyone like you could possibly be serious.

[nuglet304]

obama on oprah is maybe one of the most annoying displays you can see on daytime tv. and that's including all episodes of maury povich. it's like he has a list of words and phrases in the back of his mind that he knows will make oprah say, "hmm, very interesting, i never thought of it that way." she'll nod her head approvingly and he'll give himself a pat on the back and then whistle a happy tune all the way home.

of course, that's nothing new for oprah's guests, but a little sickening coming from the next potential leader of the free world.

i just gaggged.

[Chocolate2008]

Whatever,

This is hilarious. I hope we analyze all the candidates this way. I won't hold my breath though.

Bottom line:

Obama is right. Polls don't mean jack smack. I know. I was a pollster for four years. I know the game . I know who get's polled and who doesn't. I know the strategy.

Polls are a joke designed to sway public opinion.

[ctalbot4]

The Obama Campaign is desperate to decieve,

and it looks like Chocolate2008 is desperate to

decieve AND bullshit.

Who were you a pollster for? If you don't

discose your lying!

[Chocolate2008]

San Diego California

Competitive Edge Research

[OhPlease2007]

I agree, Chocolate2008

I think the corporate MSM wants to brain-wash us all to vote for the candidate that is going to let the corporate media moguls take over the world. It's up to US to make sure that doesn't happen!

These national polls are worthless; this race is WIDE open!

[LIR]

Chocolate2008?
About as far fetched as Noelle's bizarre notions of phone ownership...
Sorry, folks, it's gonna be Vanilla2008, whether you like it or not.

[godlessclif]

The polls are inaccurate. they ignore some minorities.

For example Lesbians seldom get polled.

[LIR]

I am really stunned by some of the inane things said here, including the ex-pollster. Lesbians don't get polled? What pollster asks someone their sexual orientation unless the poll is designed to trend LGBT voting patterns? Come on, folks, we're being quite stupid tonight.

[nuglet304]

haha. did i really just read that?

[Noelle]

Well no matter how you play the numbers John Kerry was never a frontrunner in the polls. I think all these "polls" are a bunch of bs anyway. John Kerry was trailing in the polls in Iawo and then won and was kicking Bushes ass in the exit polls on election day and lost.

I don't know anyone who hasn't given up their home phones for cell phones and pollsters don't call cell phones so who in the world are they even talking to anymore besides everyone's grandparents?

I think polls have become as useless as the media.

[Juno912]

Well, Noelle, I guess that just because you don't know anyone with a land line that's the end of the discussion. Seriously, though, that's just an ignorant, uninformed comment.

The polls appear to be accurately reflecting the way Hillary Clinton has dominated the debates, demonstrates a command of the issues far beyond the less experienced O-Bomb-A, and clearly shows a national campaign organization that knows how to get the job done.

[Noelle]

O-Bomb-A... That's so Faux News of you. It's getting really hard to tell where Hillary Clinton supporters stop and Faux News begins, or is it the other way around?

[GreatFutureForAll]

Polls are such BS.

Here is real solid math from a few years ago that tells the whole story about Presidential polls.

This one is from CBS NEWS on December 17, 2003, months AFTER the poll Obama's team cited and just weeks before the Democratic primary voting:

CBS News Headline on Dec, 17th, 2003 - "DEAN PULLS AWAY IN DEM RACE."

CHOICE FOR DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE
(Democratic primary voters polled week of 12/17/2003)

Howard Dean
23%
Wesley Clark
10%
Joe Lieberman
10%
Richard Gephardt
6%
Al Sharpton
5%
John Kerry
4%
John Edwards
2%
Carol Moseley-Braun
1%
Dennis Kucinich
1%
Don’t Know
28%

Howard Dean had about a 20 point lead over John Kerry in the BS poll. In fact, Kerry polled only a measly 4 percent in the polls JUST WEEKS BEFORE PEOPLE VOTED...(HE TRAILED AL SHARPTON IN THE NATIONAL POLL IN DECEMBER!!!). According to this CBS poll, Al Sharpton stood a better chance than John Kerry of being the Democratic nominee.

Here is what CBS News said at the time in their article. It's first paragraph:

"Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean has pulled away from the field in the Democratic Presidential nomination race: his support among Democratic primary voters nationwide has risen in the past month...."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/opinion/polls/main589167.shtml

Polls mean zero at the start of September. It's the polls themselves that are VERY, VERY FUZZY math.

And, according to what we know from 2003, they mean nothing at all (Unless you think Dean won the Democratic nomination)?

Clinton is looking more like Howard Dean every single day. She's held a commanding lead in national polls just like Dean, but trails in Iowa and maybe South Carolina (depending on which BS poll you look at).

All this being said, it must have been a very slow news day at Huff Post (despite Craig trying to livin things up late last night).

IT'S SEPTEMBER 5th!!! No one casts a vote in a poll!

Who cares now? There's nothing better or more timely to print?

[LIR]

Where do you get that people have given up their home phones? Twenty nothings in trendy little spots around the country? Sorry, dearie, grandparents aren't the only ones with landlines! Where do people come up with such bunk?

[xcrunner77]

Even my mother, who is a grandparent in rural West Virginia, has given up her land line. She uses her cell phone exclusively. Oh wait, she does have one land line -- for her fax machine. All of my friends, who are in their 40s, use cell phones exclusively. I have never received a call from a pollster on my cellphone. I don't think that means that *everyone* has given up land lines. Both this story and LIR's comment are anecdotal evidence. The real story would be told if we had figures from the phone companies on the # of cell phones in use vs. land lines, and you'd have to compare that to past years. Whatever, the #s turn out to be, the point is still the same: large #s of people who use only cellphones never get polled, which means the polls *are* skewed, they are *not* random. They cannot be a random sample if you knowingly leave out a significant chunk of the population.

And by the way, Hillary cannot win the general election. If by some miracle she did, Republicans would be so energized by her candidacy that they would turn out in droves, take back both houses of Congress, and she would end up with a hostile, Republican led Congress which would not want to work with her -- at all. I.e., it's 1994 all over again (think Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich). You can count the days until there is a govt shutdown over the budget.

[JePense]

"Figgers don't lie, but liars figger..." Polls are one-dimensional snapshots in time. Results can be manipulated, but it's the Cable media's 24x7 droning obsession with polls that gives them their power.

PLEASE NOTE: Hillary's "high negatives" at this point in the campaign also seem to be record-breaking. She is a partisan ideologue -- just like Bush and his cronies -- and will divide the nation in the same ham-fisted way.

Obama reminds us of what U.S. was meant to be--and once WAS--his vision inspires those who haven't surrendered to "mean-girls" cynicism. Some people just don't believe U.S. can be great again, so they're willing to tag along with change-agent-impostors who promise status quo: like Hillary. She is definitely not a thinking woman's candidate.

[Giglawyer]

You are right on. Look back at Bubba's ratings as well. He was never a frontrunner until the near the convention. Hillary has peaked early, and she is unelectable. People will come out of the woodwork to vote against her. The GOP is just drooling at the chance to run against her. When will people wake up to this?

Obama is the only real choice to lead this country back to where we should be. He has shown that he is not a hack or a panderer, like Hillary, and offers true leadership.