Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditThe last round of polling data for Tuesday's primaries in Indiana and North Carolina suggests that the contests are incredibly volatile.
This means that the contests could produce surprises all around.
In Indiana, where Hillary Clinton is supposed to be ahead, a late poll by the Zogby group puts Barack Obama in front narrowly, 44 percent to 42 percent.
Three other surveys give the lead to Clinton. Insider Advantage puts the New York senator in front 48-44. Suffolk University has it Clinton 49 to Obama 43.
The only poll that predicts as easy win for the New Yorker is SurveyUSA's, which gives Clinton 54 percent to Obama's 42 percent.
The pattern suggests a Clinton win and the large number of undecideds in most of the surveys is good news for her.
Best bet: Indiana to Clinton, as expected.
In North Carolina, every survey has Obama winning.
Public Policy Polling (PPP) has the widest margin for the Illinoisan: Obama 53 percent to Clinton 43 percent.
Zogby's got it Obama 48 percent to Clinton's 40 percent.
SurveyUSA favors Obama 50-45.
Insider Advantage predicts a close finish, with Obama at 48 percent to Clinton at 45 percent.
The pattern suggests an Obama win, but the margin does not look wide and the large number of undecideds has some Obama aides unsettled.
Best bet: North Carolina to Obama, narrowly but as expected.
Bottom line: If the states split, this is another bust of a primary day. As with Pennsylvania, it will settle nothing.
ughhhh....vomit inducing news. hope yer wrong, nichols...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/05/2008 @ 11:22pm
What is being settled is the fact that neither Obama nor Hillary can win the WH...and that unless they merge onto/into 1 ticket together, McCain wins.
Sign, if only the repubs could come up with a real conservative with a conservative message, an opportunity to blow away the dems may never come along like this again..but alas, no one there to take advantage...
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/06/2008 @ 12:03am
Sign should be ..SIGH!!!
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/06/2008 @ 12:05am
True, May 6 may settle nothing re: relative standing and clear front runner. But let's say things do remain about the same, one thing is still clear -- there will be fewer delegates available in just a few remaining contests by which Clinton can catch up.
Posted by roselr at 05/06/2008 @ 01:12am
I have been staying away from the Nation recently, for two reasons.
1. This horrible new web design. I am sure there are plenty of technical upgrades involved, but as far as aesthetics and ease of finding information this is a huge step backward.
2. The coverage of the race. There would be some usefulness in continuing to point out that the race is essentially over barring Obama dropping out or Clinton getting away with cheating at the convention. There would be use in taking the MSM to task for promoting this thing to get ratings. But this race has been over for more than a month, since Ohio and Texas. She cannot beat Obama without the superdelegates breaking her way huge and Florida and Michigan counting. She just can't. Anyone who says different just hasn't seen, or hasn't understood, the arithmetic. Even Chris Matthews has admitted this is over. And when Chris Matthews is more in touch with reality than you are, you have hit bottom as a journalist.
And that is where the Nation is right now, the bottom.
My suggestion to everyone is 'go to alternet' and let the editors here complete their demolition of the proudest journal of the left alone.
Posted by Poppolphil at 05/06/2008 @ 01:45am
Quite right, the new Nation web site design is a loser. And yep, the "race" is deceptive, it's all over unless Billary cheat. There is, however, nothing in their past & present behavior to suggest that they won't.
Posted by sloper at 05/06/2008 @ 02:04am
Just one more "vote" against the new website design. It is a big step backward. As will Hillary be, or her endorsed alternate, John McCain.
Posted by dmsteinman at 05/06/2008 @ 07:28am
I don't think even someone like Reagan, the gold standard of a conservative,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
reagan was a jerk.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/06/2008 @ 07:57am
would love to call her President Rice someday!
Posted by HAPPY3
boot fetish?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/06/2008 @ 07:59am
sniff the glove of liberty!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/06/2008 @ 08:03am
But in fairness to Rice she is a just a moral trainwreck who is bad at her job.
Posted by Poppolphil
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/06/2008 @ 08:05am
Posted by HAPPY3
Reagan as the poster child conservative? You ARE talking about the same Reagan who spent (up unitl GWB) more than all other Presidents combined?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=879
funny definition of "Conservative"
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/06/2008 @ 08:39am
This post is a gripe about Zogby. Statisticians would have you believe that what they do is some exact science. What they really do is make a bunch of phone calls, and then "re-weight" the results to "correct" for skews in response. The re-weighting can be compared to pulling numbers out of your ass.
Zogby has a habit of publishing poll results that he basically makes up out of thin air that go against the prevailing conventional wisdom. His thinking is that 9 times out of 10, conventional wisdom is right, but since everybody is predicting it, nobody gets noticed. So, every election he make predictions that are surprising and 1 time of 10 he's the only one who gets it right. In the 2000 election, Zogby predicted Bush would win California, Gore would win NY by 15 points and Hillary would lose. Just absolutely crazy shit and none of it was right. But if just one of those crazy predictions had been right, everyone would have thought he was Nostradamus.
The man is fraud.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/06/2008 @ 09:34am
I am done commenting on the election. It has gotten way out of control.
But, I agree, the new web layout sucks.
Posted by rasalula at 05/06/2008 @ 11:15am
Reagan was the best President since Lincoln.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/6/2008
That's a little much. How about Roosevelt? Or maybe one of the heads on Rushmore.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/6/2008
Let's see, Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, all finished their terms before or coincident with Lincoln. So that leaves Teddy Roosevelt
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/06/2008 @ 5:22pm
funny definition of "Conservative"
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/6/2008 |
Congress spends, not the President...Reagan increased revenues exponentialy and Congress with ol' Tip and the boys at the Post Office bank spent like drunken or sober Democrats. They can't help it...it is in Congress nature to spend in order to not get fired ..and the good citizens bitch about it all the way to the bank to cash their checks...and vote the drunks in again anyway.
Reagan was the best President since Lincoln.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/06/2008 @ 11:25am
The web lay out sucks.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/06/2008 @ 11:26am
The web lay out sucks.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/06/2008 @ 11:26am
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/6/200
Well the problem is Jom a real conservative with a conservative message wouldn't do well. The ONLY reason McCain is doing ok is because he is more center right or at least appears to be. If he was hard right he would lose for sure.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/06/2008 @ 12:36pm
Reagan was the best President since Lincoln.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/6/2008
That's a little much. How about Roosevelt? Or maybe one of the heads on Rushmore.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/06/2008 @ 12:42pm
Yeah, I'll go for Teddy Roosevelt..the others are before Lincoln and are icons.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/06/2008 @ 12:45pm
"If he was hard right he would lose for sure.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/6/2008 |"
I consider Hard Right to be different than conservative...Reagan was extremely sensitive to the gay issues since he came from Hollywood and probably knew more gays than anyone in politics at the time...I read he was infuriated when friends of his were discrimated in the movie indusrty because of being gay..
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/06/2008 @ 12:49pm
Hard Right to me is some religious nut..kind of an reverse soul mate to Wright...and I would never vote for a Robinson, Hagee, or any of the ilk on TV...and I am a Christian..adnittedly a lousy one, but I know charletons when I see one and we are surrounded by them, especialy in politics and Sunday morning TV...too many pulpits and not enough truth.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/06/2008 @ 12:54pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/6/2008
You mean like Huckabee for example?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/06/2008 @ 1:09pm
I was salivating for you guys to run Huckabee. That guy was a wack job and half. He wouldn't have made it past go before he said something about blasting all the gays into the sun.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/06/2008 @ 1:15pm
Yeah, like Huckabee. I am not comfortable with a preacher in govt.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/06/2008 @ 1:24pm
Edwards has the same influence and draw as Huckabee...both wasted time and money..and we are rid of both and better off for it...neither had a chance in hell and will not be heard from again...even the comdians have left them alone....a sure sign of irrelevence.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/06/2008 @ 1:26pm
Posted by mihnea at 05/6/2008 | ignore this person
does she really think repasting posts gains her anything but me tapping the ignore button?
Posted by Extraneous at 05/06/2008 @ 1:52pm
IS there a website that tracks pollsters to see who ends up being closest?
Posted by danconstan at 05/06/2008 @ 2:20pm
I don't think anyone cares about the war in the Philipines...do you think McArthur should have never "returned", since the Japanese invasion was based on lies?
Here is a truth..
You are a full blown, batshit crazy loon...and no one takes you seriously...I am the only one who responds to your mind numbing posts...and I, the libertarian...the one on the right..am doing so in order to be nice to you, despite my loon remarks, for I believe you have the right to be stupid and I am glad to see you exercise your franchise in being..stupid.
Enjoy.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/06/2008 @ 4:36pm
Posted by HAPPY3
Happy, what happened to HAPPIES 0, 1 and 2. Did they get eaten by the Nation server during demolition, I mean redesign?
"would love to call her President Rice someday!"
Would LOVE to get Putin's take on the DOS dominatrix. Hey, Boris, how's her accent?
Do we really need to go back to using quotation marks""""""""""""""?????
Posted by jackwells at 05/06/2008 @ 5:26pm
Since website design seems to have beaten the primaries as the topic of choice on this thread (which really must be significant in a big way), let me add my two or three cents.
Many have commented on the size of the "little box." On my computer, it is possible to increase the size of this box by clicking the lower right-hand corner and dragging it down and to the right (more or less the direction in which the Republicans are dragging this country). Try this and see if it works for you.
Many have also commented on the inability of the new system to perform some kind of hypertextual trick that I never mastered in the old system. I don't know what to say about this. I've never felt the need to use "emoticons." Good old fashioned punctuation works just fine for me. It would be nice to be able to produce italic type, but the old system never allowed this, either. I've learned to make do with CAPITAL LETTERS and quotation marks.
I like the new format just fine, though I dislike having to use my entire computer screen to view all of it, now that it is much wider than before. With the older format, I was able to see the entire webpage of THE NATION while leaving part of my computer desktop, or another window, exposed. This made it easier for me to transfer quotations from other webpages to this one. Now, what I usually do is use another application, called "Stickies" on my MacIntosh, as a cutting-and-pasting platform.
Posted by JakobFabian at 05/06/2008 @ 6:43pm
Oops! Here are two more cents about the new web design.
Since the web forums are actually very narrow, I can easily make room on my desktop while reading the comments. So maybe the criticism I made in my last posted comment doesn't carry much weight. (Or any at all.) On the other hand, it's not possible to widen the text of a web forum, either, which may not always be to everyone's liking.
I definitely like the fact that now, the comments and the article being commented upon both appear on the same page. All you have to do to compare one to the other is scroll up and down. This is a big improvement over the previous system, in which the article and the comments appeared on different pages altogether.
Posted by JakobFabian at 05/06/2008 @ 6:54pm
Now, what I usually do is use another application, called "Stickies" on my MacIntosh, as a cutting-and-pasting platform.
Posted by JakobFabian
try this:
http://blitzclicksoft.com/products.php
"savvy clipboard"
Tuesday, May 6, 2008 10:35:28 PM
oh, and for time stamps on your mac (plus many other nifty features) look for this:
http://www.devon-technologies.com/products/freeware/services.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/06/2008 @ 10:32pm