Reporting The Obama Campaign Coast-to-Coast: Democrats More Undecided Than Polls Suggest

Reported by: Jason Barnett (Uptake.org), Al Cannistraro, Sheila Condit, Beverly Davis, Christine Escobar, Mayhill Fowler, Richard Greenwood, Ethan Hova, Saba Kennedy, Noah Kunin (Theuptake.org), Phoebe Love, Daniel Macht, Kim Mack, Laura Martin, Kelly Nuxoll, Deborah Phelan, Deborah Plummer, and Jeremy Thompson. Original reports available on OffTheBus.

As the Barack Obama campaign canvassed door-to-door this past weekend in scores of communities across the country, a snapshot of a campaign fueled by an unique mix of a non-confrontational style, a message of hope and sometimes unwitting amateurishness emerges.

This mid-fall freeze-frame also paints a picture of a Democratic electorate significantly more ambivalent and undecided than recent polls indicated and perhaps less motivated by the war in Iraq and more by domestic issues than previously suggested.

The portrait of the Obama campaign operating at ground level among national Democratic voters is a product of a new type of citizen journalism. In an unprecedented effort of campaign reporting, nearly two dozen Off The Bus correspondents monitored Obama Canvass for Change events in fourteen cities in nine crucial states during the past 48 hours and contributed to this report from venues as disparate as Keene, NH, Des Moines and Dubuque, and Minneapolis; Studio City, Corte Madera, Berkeley, Sacramento, Koreatown - Los Angeles, and Altadena, CA; from Boise, Brooklyn and Ballard; from Manhattan, KS, Memphis and Charlotte, NC. (To see all of our campaign monitor reports click here.)

Despite neighborhood and regional differences, and although the levels of sophistication and competency among the individual campaign events varied, our correspondents found several common themes, the most striking of which is to what degree Democrats still declare themselves undecided.

It's abundantly clear that, less than four months before the onslaught of decisive primaries and caucuses, many Democratic voters have just not made up their minds. "Of those that would speak to us, almost all were undecided," reports correspondent Phoebe Love who followed the Obama canvass through Ballard, Washington. She is echoed by contributor Ethan Hova in Studio City, a middle-class Democratic suburban stronghold in Los Angeles: "The vast majority of voters were very much undecided and expressed reluctance to engage in debate without conducting research on their own." Daniel Macht, following the Obama campaign in Brooklyn, New York noted the same hesitation: "They were all undecided, save one Edwards supporter." Perhaps most importantly, correspondent Beverly Davis reports from Des Moines, "Smith [ an Obama volunteer] knocks on Dan Arply's door and launches into his opening rap but Arply soon interrupts by saying, 'Thanks for stopping by, but I haven't decided on supporting anyone yet.' Arply is a typical Iowan."

It's difficult to draw hard and fast conclusions from such anecdotal material but it might suggest that the slew of recent polls giving Hillary Clinton a commanding lead in the race for the nomination may be of limited utility. Correspondent Hova found widespread indifference toward Clinton as he went door-to-door with the Obama canvassers: "This was a fairly affluent suburb north of Los Angeles and I was really surprised not to find a single Hillary supporter in the neighborhood."

It's possible that numerous Democrats who have declared for Clinton to a pollster are like the shopper who hoists a likely candidate from the pumpkin bin inside the supermarket door. Maybe a keeper, maybe not, for there's the possibility of a better find further along in produce.

Balancing this good news for Obama is the likelihood that the centerpiece of Saturday's Canvass, retelling the story of Obama's opposition to the War in Iraq, was a bust. Kelly Nuxoll reports from the Left Coast of Berkeley, "The war seemed nominally an issue, but social issues, health care . . . also came up a lot." Nominally an issue--in Berkeley? Christine Escobar in Dubuque: "Only viewed one 25 year old woman responding to the war message." Deborah Phelan in Corte Madera in liberal Northern California found similar responses: "People were very much tired of talking about the Iraq war." Ditto for Daniel Macht in Brooklyn: "All said the war wasn't the only issue they cared about."

If the war is less and less a campaign issue for ordinary Americans in California and New York (and who would have predicted this?), then what is the mindset of the less liberal Democratic voter in the heartland? From what I saw of the canvass in Memphis, not a single person cared about Barack Obama's position vis-à-vis anybody else on the Iraq War.

Instead, health care reform seemed to top the priority list for Democratic voters contacted by the Obama canvassers. Correspondent Davis in Des Moines reports: "Arply tells Smith that he likes Obama and that he's concerned about health care." Contributot Saba Kennedy in Charlotte, NC: "...healthcare was a BIG issue." Clinton, Edwards and Obama have all put forward health insurance plans modest enough in scope to seem, at least on first glance, to be possibilities. Therefore, it's not surprising that grassroots Democratic voters are beginning to shift their attention from the war to a more hopeful subject.

This past weekend's national Canvass for Change like all things Obama, carried with it an aura of transformation. As contributor Deborah Plummer found, "Obama has sparked a light in young people." Reporting from Manhattan, KS, she goes on to say, "So, 20 volunteers [at the canvass] for Obama seems a lot to me. I went to KSU for over 20 years and never met over 10 liberals/progressives the entire time and to think there could be a rising tide of 20 potential liberals/progressives who will be spanning out to Manhattan households spreading Obama's philosophy is awesome...." Laura Martin in a very red-tinged Boise found a similar glitter: "Idaho hasn't sent a Democrat to the White House since Lyndon B. Johnson, but I do believe come Super Tuesday 2008, Idaho is going blue for Obama."

Countering some this Obama magic, however, is a growing frustration among his volunteers that he is not moving up in the polls. Ethan Hova from Studio City again: "We encountered several households of fervent Obama supporters and their mood could be summed up as frustrated. They seemed mostly concerned about his perceived lack of traction in the polls...." But the grassroots volunteers slog on. As Deborah Phelan reports from Corte Madera, "Volunteer Sandy Grant laughs about the big Barack Obama supporter she talked to who showed up later to register to vote at the booth. 'Look at us, so excited about one teenager when there are millions of people across America who have to register.' Everybody nods. They're all thinking the same thing. One vote at a time."

(Indeed, Deborah Phalen and I found such contrasting pictures of the Obama campaign in Northern California and Tennessee respectivively that I will detail the differences in an upcoming report).

There were also some moments of unintended humor and general weirdness that punctuated the weekend canvass. One older street vendor in Brooklyn yelled "Take a bath!" at one earnest Obama supporter passing out flyers to passersby. At other events, the organizers sometimes outnumbered the canvassers, reminding some newbie volunteers that effective politics is really about the art of building coalitions. Make sure and read all of our ground level reports assembled in the last 48 hours by clicking here.

Off The Bus campaign monitors (Jason Barnett (Theuptake.org), Al Cannistraro, Sheila Condit, Beverly Davis, Christine Escobar, Mayhill Fowler, Richard Greenwood, Ethan Hova, Saba Kennedy, Noah Kunin (Thuptake.org), Phoebe Love, Daniel Macht, Kim Mack, Laura Martin, Kelly Nuxoll, Deborah Phelan, Deborah Plummer, and Jeremy Thompson) contributed to this report. If you'd like to work wtih us on future campaign reports, join our OffTheBus Campaign Monitors team. -END

Comments

[Postroad]

this post baffles me. We should disregard the polls because somehow this article--without polling?--knows better? How did they learn this?

[ConcernAmerican]

Eoin45

IF America is ready for black President, how come Alan Keyes was not nominated?

Do you think thinking Americans would vote for Obama a one term US senator compared to Hillary who is a two term senator and have done a lot of public while First Lady of Arkansas and then become First Lady of USA? When we talk of Public service, Hillary has done more for public service compared to Obama. Obama used to be a professor in college.

[nihilon x]

Because its not just about race.

Grow up.

--

"Keyes, a former State Department official under President Reagan, made unsuccessful presidential runs in 1996 and 2000. He also has been a Senate candidate from Maryland, and, in 2004, he suffered a 43-percentage point loss to Democrat Barack Obama in the Senate race in Illinois. Republicans drafted Keyes after primary winner Jack Ryan dropped out amid a scandal."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hXz_k7B1itgxvkFHXD6xdt_7-oUg

[SeanGardner]

"Do you think thinking Americans would vote for Obama a one term US senator compared to Hillary who is a two term senator and have done a lot of public while First Lady of Arkansas and then become First Lady of USA? When we talk of Public service, Hillary has done more for public service compared to Obama. Obama used to be a professor in college."
ConcernAmerican

Your comment is typical of Hillary supporters. But let me dissect your post:

(1) Obama is a one term Senator (three years) and Clinton is a two term Sentor (six years), but Obama was also a state Senator for 8 years. According to this article right here http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml, Obama "sponsored legislation to bar job and housing discrimination against gays, and he helped create a state version of the earned income tax credit for the poor. Obama also led efforts to reject federal rules that would have put workers' overtime checks in jeopardy." And he did so much more.

(2) "When we talk of Public service, Hillary has done more for public service compared to Obama. Obama used to be a professor in college" - Um, please tell me where I can get the info about how Clinton has done more public service than Obama. You know why you won't post it, because it doesn't exist. Obama has has been more than a college professor. Obama was a community activist in inner-city Chicago (making $13,000 a year!) who urged residents to fight environmental pollution and lead poisoning. Obama was also a civil right attorney.

Since you seem to know very little about Obama, click here for a better understanding: http://www.barackobama.com/about/

Its amazing though. Many Clinton supporters are ready to go all the way back to when she came out of the womb to bolster her resume (and simultaneously shoot down any Obama accomplishment), because they know Obama is causing her and Bill sleepness nights.

Oh well...

Obama '08

[Independent voter]

Obama is Irish? Where's the evidence to support this canard? It is an insult to the old sod

[John Russell FL 5]

John Edwards is the ONLY choice for working America. Edwards was endorsed by 10 state SEIU unions today including California and Iowa.

Also John Edwards was endorsed in New Hampshire by Friends of the Earth Action as well today because of his well defined plan to address Global Warming.

Go John Edwards! "It is an Election... NOT an Auction!" J R

[TankerRat]

None of which amounts to a beer fart in a Texas tornado. We're not talking about a state legislature or community activism here. We're talking about the planets only remaining superpower. Not some damned football game or acedemic ivory tower.

Obama simply isn't qualified to be POTUS. At least not yet. Period. End of story.
If you are willing to place this country in the hands of what amounts to an adolescent then you are free to do so. I for one am NOT.

[GreatFutureForAll]

CA:

Lets start with your first question: "IF America is ready for black President, how come Alan Keyes was not nominated?"

It's important to remember that Obama is not just of Kenyan ancestry. The man is VERY, VERY Irish as well. Much of Ireland is cheering for him to win (check out the link):

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/05/17/tiny_irish_village_claims_obama_as_its_own/

He's even spoken out about Irish politics:

Obama: "The IRA has abandoned violence and arms and Sinn Féin has now voted to support the PSNI. They have, in the words of Tony Blair, made a commitment that 'has been historic and has been real."

"To seize this hopeful moment, the Democratic Unionist Party should take the next step outlined in the St Andrews Agreement - a commitment to a power sharing executive after the March elections - so Northern Ireland can continue the process of peace that its people so clearly wish to follow."

http://www.politics.ie/news_index.php?topic_id=17107

If this election were held in the UK, Clinton would be in trouble (for supporting the Iraq war).

Our country is not so black and white anymore. If anything, our children are fast becoming a combination of the two (just like Barack).

Secondly, you are trying to compare Alan Keyes to Obama? LMAO!!!!

CA, even if Alan Keyes were pure Anglo Saxon WASP and promised every voter one pound of 18 karat gold, no one in their right mind would ever vote for him. Keyes sounds as sincere as a used car salesman with a crack addiction.

I could go into detail about how much more Obama has done as a public servant than Hillary has done in her lifetime. But, today is a work day (don't have the time).

I'll put it this way: You're confusing Washington experience with public service (there is a HUGE difference between the two).

Obama did it IN THE COMMUNITY (out of the limelight).

[nihilon x]

I never knew all of that about his Irish side -- thanks for the link.

[ConcernAmerican]

None of you have taken into consideration the latino votes. They're the bigger than the black population in the US. Who do you think the latinos will vote for between Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Richardson? There's animosity between the Latinos and the Black community.

[nihilon x]

"There's animosity between the Latinos and the Black community."

I'm black and I have plenty of Latino friends.

I'm tired of people like you spreading this nonsense -- I see it on Stormfront.org all the time, but I'd expect better on these forums.

Trust me -- quite a few of the latinos I know have a lot of "animosity" towards whites as well, but I don't see too many of you talking about that.

Moreover, I don't see black people coming on forums like this trying to brand every latino as an "illegal" who is trying to leech off the system -- but I see plenty of whites saying this on nearly every forum where latinos are mentioned.

The racial politics, divide and conquer schtick is getting old -- leave it in the last century where it belongs.

Those of us who don't judge by race are getting tired of having to deal with those of you who do.

[SeanGardner]

more African-Americans are registered to vote than latinos, so the black vote carries more weight.

On the issue of animosity between blacks and latinos, I think the animosity between "some" blacks amd "some" latinos stems from the economic situation in different cities like Miami, Houston, and in Los Angeles. ECONOMICS is the root of that.

When I lived in Los Angeles, I found that blacks and latinos have way more similarities than differences. And it is those similarities that Obama has been working hard to speak to. In fact, there is some sign that his efforts are paying off.

According to reports (like this one http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/pena_backs_obama.html), Federico Pena endorsed Obama. Read below:

"In a renewed push to reach Hispanic voters, Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign has enlisted the help of Federico Pena, the former Denver mayor and Clinton cabinet official.

"Pena, who joins the campaign as a co-chair, said that the Hispanic vote will be critical in a number of hotly contested states, including California, Florida, Texas, and New Jersey, both in the primaries and the general election. While George W. Bush benefited from strong Hispanic support in his two campaigns, Pena said he believes "Hispanics are once again leaning to the Democratic Party."

"His job, he said, will be to help Obama make inroads in the Hispanic community, saying Obama understands its "fundamental challenges."

Obama will do just fine with latino voters.

[Dandy12]

I believe that Hillary has a good feel for where the center of the road lies. Underneath, she's probably more like Obama, and Biden than she will show herself to be.

[hootie1fan]

But we pretty much fall into the "they are better than the Republican alternative" category.

[phoenix1964]

New poll out, race is tightening. I think it was always close. But read them and weep HRC lovers.

As for Democrats, the New York senator is leading in an American Research Group poll of 600 Democratic voters who say they will definitely vote in their caucus or primary. In the poll out Sunday, Clinton leads nationally over Barack Obama 34 to 31 percent with John Edwards at 15 percent. Still, 14 percent of those surveyed between Oct. 9-12 said they were undecided.

[DCJoe]

What have you been smoking? ARG poll for Oct. 9-12 has HRC at 45 and BHO at 20. That's +25 for HRC. This mirrors every other poll taken in October (Rasmussen, Fox, Gallup, AP/Ipsos) with an average HRC lead of 25.9. Check it out at realclearp­olitics.co­m. And the trend is that the race is widening, not tightening. In every poll.

By the way, what do you expect well meaning people confronted at their door by Obamaphiles to say--go away, I'm voting for Hillary. Of course not. The only polite thing bto say is, "I'm undecided." And from this, the Obamaphiles find good news for their campaign? What a sad joke.

[SeanGardner]

"And the trend is that the race is widening, not tightening. In every poll."
DCJoe

Yeah, widening in every "national poll", but the state polls on the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire tell a different story all together. I invite you to post those polls when you get a chance. :)

This race is far from over. Obama, Hillary, or Edwards can all come out on top.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I think our representation is really crappy, these days. You've got Kennedy trying to
ramp up the Government Doughnut Machine,
Barack jumping up and down for HIS turn,
everybody wants the keys to the denver mint
so they can get all stupid, and stuff.

Where's the representation for the people
that want to see a thorough housecleaning
in Washington, see a lot of the runaway
promissory debt spending stopped? Who
speaks to such issues? No one, it's a racket.
The Ubermob.

I say 'vote independent', let's get some
people in office who've never in their lives
had any dealings with these high-dollar
lobbyists, people that at some point in
their lives might have actually READ the
Federalist Papers, Constitution, and so
forth, and bring some fresh perspective
and a return to common sense and basic
principle to this tax-and-spend neverland...

[exeye]

(Big Sigh):

Another one.

And who are these "independents" who we are to elect? are they electable? Are you sure, I mean REALLY SURE, that when they get in power, they won't have the same issues as those who are already there? And, if they are a very small minority, HOW, exactly do you suppose they're going to get ANYTHING done - all those great ideas and plans you have?

If your ship is sinking, you can rally the crew you have, and try to save the ship, or you can "abandon ship" and let it sink. You're proposing "abandoning ship".

How about, and I know how crazy this may sound to you, we save the ship FIRST, by electing the best Democrat we have available (even if they're not your favorite), getting the repubs out of power, trying to salvage our national image, stop the U.S. from being a debtor nation, etc., etc., etc.

ANY one of the major Democratic candidates can accomplish most of these goals, but if you're going to vote "independent", for unelectable candidates, thus helping the repubs stay in power, well...

Lets stop this ship from sinking first, then worry about who we "like" or don't "like".

[BaltoAman]

exeye,

I used to believe the same thing. But then back in 2006 we kicked a lot of neocons out of congress and replaced them with good Dems.

What have we got in return?? Anything?

I think they just passed a non-binding resolution saying that Genocide was bad. Whoa Nelly! We're on our way now!

To put it another way - the ship is still sinking, and quickly, it's just a different group doing it.

So I really hope you're right, and that voting Clinton #2 in will solve everything. Because that's probably what will happen come next November.

Peace!

[navalvet]

Perhaps the better question is "Among the Democratic candidates, whom do you oppose?"
The ABC's [Anybody but Clinton] are very divided. Another methodology, used by professional pollsters, is to question likely primary voters, not just every registered Democrat.

[TankerRat]

You hide and watch navalvet. The "ABC's" will coalesce to throw this election to someone Other than the Hill and Billary show.

[duster]

It is no surprise that the war in Iraq is not a big election issue among Democrats. EVERYBODY is against the war... except the melonheads on Capitol Hill. On this, and other issues, Clinton and Obama are cookie cutter images of each other - issues where they differ will make the difference, or make an opportunity for #3.

[jacklambert]

The performance of Dems after they took control of Congress and Senate has been more depressing that the performance of the GOP for the past 7 years.

Pelosi is in love with her position and will do nothing that might put it at risk. Democrats are a disgrace! Why should anyone want to vote for them again? Like the 'decider' himself they are cowards with their triangulating slide rules out.

They fiddle while Rome burns or to put it another way Soldiers must die because their slide rules say so!!!

Cindy Sheenan want a seat in Congress? Pelosi's is up for grabs

[JasonB]

Thanks for a great post. One correction. The website for The UpTake is: http://theuptake.org

Our correspondent who covered this piece is Noah S Kunin and you can see his write up here:
http://theuptake.org/?p=276

Thanks so much and we were very happy to participate in this coverage!

Jason Barnett
Executive Director
The UpTake

[exeye]

Since This is about polls, here's my unofficial poll:

Clinton: She has the most cash to spend, which makes her a favorites of newpapers and T.V., cause she can spend the most on advertising (didn't think about that did you?). She also has unarguably the most experience, plus the cache' of being a Clinton, with all the nostalgia for "the old days". Bill WOULD be a great "goodwill ambassador to the world", since he was the last president the world liked, however, that "cache" also brings a lot of negative.

Obama: He has The mind, and the looks, to attract the younger voters (but many have been undone by counting on the young vote to turn out), blacks, and women, but those same qualities give some older voters trepidation. He will pick up votes from those wanting a black president, but lose votes from those who do not. May, or may not have a "hidden vote". His "lack of experience" is both an asset, and a handicap.

Edwards: A plus that he's NOT in the Senate now, a minus that he dropped out to run an unsuccessful campaign (though that was steered by Kerry's people). Also has the mind and looks to attract a younger demographic, and women. His populist message strikes entrenched Democrats the wrong way, but resonates with some who find it a return to the "old values". The only candidate who may actually HAVE a "hidden vote", since, while some unions have not endorsed him, the internal polls suggest he is the memberships first choice.

Trying to pick a winner at this point is difficult, made more so by the fact that most people won't take a poll, and the bunching up of the primaries, thus eliminating the ability for a candidate to "build momentum".

MY call is that it's a really close 3-way race at this point. I'll vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever that is, and anyone who says they won't, is a closet republican, and/or shirking thier duty to do the best they can for thier COUNTRY, not themselves.

[SeanGardner]

"She has the most cash to spend"

You're absolutely wrong on this point. Absolutely wrong. Obama and Clinton are roughly the same with overall money in the can, but Obama has more money to spend on the primaries than Hillary does. This is not conjecture, supposition, or guesswork. This is fact. Look it up yourself.

And Clinton would'nt even be on par with Obama if she had not transferred $10 million out of her Senate Campaign to her presidential campaign.

Also, you said of Sen. CLinton: "She has unarguably the most experience..." Really? "Unarguably"? WOW! I would like for you to break down what "experience" entails, because it differs from person to person.

Foreign policy experience? Well that "arguable" because while Mrs. Clinton did visit 82 countries as First Lady, she never once negotiated a trade deal, or met with a dictator to diffuse a situation.

Domestic policy? Well that's "arguable" too because while Mrs. CLinton did spearhead health care reform in '93 and '94, she was not actually an office holder who dealt with budgets, drafted legislation, etc.

And lest we forget, Obama has more community organizing experience than she does.

I think GQ Magazine summed it up nicely when they wrote this:

"Even on the much hyped question of experience, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are roughly equal, each having no more than a decade of legislative experience and no executive experience. Given the historic opportunity of an electorate desperate for change and disinclined to elect another Republican president, the Democratic contest is really about who will be the most transformational president. Obama's case is that to change anything in America, we have to begin by changing our politics, and he offers the kind of campaign he is running as evidence that he means it."

Go Barack.

[exeye]

:-)

You really didn't have to add the "Go Barack" comment. It was pretty obvious by your post who you were promoting.

Hillary has more experience, because she's a very bright woman, who has been the wife of a politician for most of her life, including being first lady, and has been a Senator for longer than either. You may discount this, but the heads of other countries do not, and her "inside" experience in dealing with domestic policy IS countable, in spite of your protests. She also, in spite of your spin (or anyone else's) DOES have more cash available to her than the other candidates. Bill can STILL outraise Obama or Edwards, let alone Hillary.

As far as Obama's "community organizing experience", there's a slight difference between local and national "organizing experience".

Now, of course, you're going to accuse me of being a Hillary supporter, when I'm not. I'm still undecided, but leaning towards Edwards, at this point.

I tried to give an unbiased overview of all three candidates, but people read what they want to see into anything you write, here.

If Obama is the candidate, he will be a fine one, indeed, and will have my vote. I was just trying to point out (and I think I stated in my final paragraph) that the polls are not necessarily reflective of the actual popularity of each candidate, which should have given you hope for YOUR candidate, but you chose to nit-pick and attack. Not going to get a lot of supporters doing that. Calm down.

And quoting Pro-(insert candidates name here) articles from GQ or any other magazine is no proof of anything, FYI.

[serenegeezer]

One puzzling statement (re Edwards):

"His populist message strikes entrenched Democrats the wrong way,......"

"Entrenched" Democrats are anti-populist? This'll send me to the socio-political dictionary.

[exeye]

I was wondering if anyone would see that one.

What I meant by "Entrenched Democrats" is that, like it or not, some Democrats are there for the power and control, and a return to the 60's-style rhetoric that Edwards often displays is a bit discomfiting to them. They want to maintain the "status quo", just with THEM in charge. Edwards Leans more towards a "throw the bums out" approach to the "status quo" which some may find threatening.

And no, I'm not going to start naming names, but thanks for asking. :-)

[MsCiara]

Exactly AND the prospect of Barack vs whoever the republicans will put up. Will bring out MORE voters who haven't voted. Not just minorities.. I believe he can win a few southern states that Kerry or even Gore couldn't. Barack could walk on water, erase the national debt, find a cure for cancer and cure wrinkles and SOME PEOPLE WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR HIM for "whatever" the reason. But no question he can increase voter turnout much more then the others can against him. Whereas Hillary it will be 50/50. And the most negative campaign in US history AND SHE WILL LOOSE !

[Obama2008]

A sample size of 1000 is very small for a scientific survey. The survey fails to identify the percentage of the 1000 polled who are undecided. The poll fails to contact individuals who are cell phone users. The poll fails to identify those who screen calls via caller ID.

The only poll that will matter is the one taken on election day.

[repubesnivel]

Rasmussen poll...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20071015/pl_rasmussen/demprimary20071015;_ylt=AiqVf9U3R.dWzRcxUlI8hjOs0NUE

For the seven days ending October 14, 2007, Hillary Clinton earns 46% of the vote. Barack Obama is second at 23% followed by John Edwards at 11%. Bill Richardson attracts 4% while Dennis Kucinich at 3% and Joe Biden at 2%. Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel's support each rounds up to 1% while 8% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters are undecided (review history of weekly results).

The seven day results typically include interviews with more than 1,000 Likely Democratic Primary Voters. This includes both Democrats and those independents likely to vote in a Democratic Primary. In some state primaries, independent voters are allowed to participate in party primaries while in others they are excluded. The margin of sampling error for the weekly update is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

[Galvestonians for Dr. Ron Paul]

Who cares, the party is leaving to catch the Ron Paul bus....

Thats why the polls are all scweweee!!!!

There arent 1000 democrat voters left, pube....
Whered they all go?

[phoenix1964]

New poll out, race is tightening. I think it was always close. But read them and weep HRC lovers.

As for Democrats, the New York senator is leading in an American Research Group poll of 600 Democratic voters who say they will definitely vote in their caucus or primary. In the poll out Sunday, Clinton leads nationally over Barack Obama 34 to 31 percent with John Edwards at 15 percent. Still, 14 percent of those surveyed between Oct. 9-12 said they were undecided.

[ianrey]

The thing about the electoral college is, any state that has a majority that would never vote for an African-American regardless of political affiliation, is already by definition a state where no Democrat has a chance of picking up votes anyway. The racist vote is a "big tent" which also incorporates the fanatical pro-gun vote, the fanatical anti-abortion vote, and "states' rights" issues of all stripes. In other words, there are undoubtedly folks who will not vote for Obama, but there are no folks who would vote for Kucinich or Clinton or Edwards or Gore or Richardson, but wouldn't vote for Obama, cuz he's a black guy. In other other words, not all Republicans are racists, but racists are much more likely to vote Republican. So we nominate a black guy and lose those votes, no big loss, we lost them in the 60's anyway.

[mawrm]

Good observations. An interesting aside is HRC has super-HIGH negatives with the same group as the racist vote. So we're back to who captures in the middle. I think we could look to the 2000 race for clues- ignoring the Florida issue for a minute, is it possible that the negatives of the Bill Clinton presidency helped drag down Gore? Recall, Gore hardly had Clinton on his campaign appearances for that reason. I honestly don't know the answer to this. But if it was a negative, then I can't see how that would not happen (worse) in an HRC run. In that case, Edwards would probably be your safest bet to head the ticket. Another interesting aside - among the racist vote, Obama being an evangelical is actually a huge plus versus a lapsed Catholic or a Mormon. That's IF he can counter the fake Muslim rumors. A rather interesting election we have coming up!