According to my very (un)scientific blog poll, Barak Obama is the overwhelming choice of my blog-watchers for the presidency in '08; it wasn't even close! Here is the final break-down:Obama: 56 votes (56%)
Clinton: 19 votes (19%)
Edwards: 14 votes (14%)
Richardson: 6 votes (6%)
Giuliani: 3 votes (3%)
Thompson: 2 votes (2%)
Romney: 1 vote (0%)
McCain: 0 votes (0%)
___________________________
101 votes (100%)
I should probably be honest at the outset... early on, Obama was getting ALL the votes, kicking sooo much butt (with the exception of a couple of stray Edwards votes), that I logged on from two different computers and voted for Hillary twice, just to get things going a bit. So, technically, we could take down 2 of Clinton's votes.
A few comments based on the results... Obama jumped out early to a huge lead and sustained it. More recently, he didn't receive as many votes, but he did get the last four or five that were cast. Until about 2-3 weeks ago, Edwards was consistently leading Clinton for the no. 2 spot, but then Clinton surged ahead of Edwards. Edwards has not received a new vote in a couple of weeks, nor has Richardson. Beyond that, there weren't really any notable trends to report.
Clearly, given my own perspective on politics and the fact that my blog reflects those politics, it is probably not suprising that visiters here tend toward the liberal/progressive/left side of things and so the poll was stacked toward those types of candidates. But, still, how do we understand the overwhelming victory of Obama in this poll but his inability to make a move on Clinton in the national polls? There seems to be a disconnect. I experience this a lot. There is a ton of positivity and energy behind the idea of Obama across the nation, and he has raised truck-loads of money from record numbers of donors, yet Hillary has been consolidating her lead in national polls and in key early states (although a new Newsweek poll has Obama moving ahead by 3-4 points in Iowa). What is up with these numbers? Is it that many people like Obama, even prefer him to Clinton, but don't think he is electable as a black man? Does this indicate Americans are more willing to elect their first woman president than their first black president? Is there a sense of "inevitablity" among Dems about Hillary as the nominee? Is the "experience vs. change" argument being won by Clinton's camp? Is the Establishment steamroller that is so clearly backing Clinton right now just too strong to overcome for any of the other candidates? Is Obama's campaign faltering? Should he be directly attacking Clinton? Are these polls a lot of bunk because it is so early? Are things more fluid than they seem? Is something else going on here? And, what's up with Edwards. He has been swinging hard at Clinton lately, but his numbers don't seem to budge at all here or nationally. Is this truly becoming a two-person race, between Clinton and Barack?
As for the Republicans, well, that is a fairly sad field of candidates. I don't know any Republicans/conservatives that are enthusiastic about ANY candidate on their side. Seriously, they might say they are for this or that candidate, but nobody seems excited on the Right... and with good reason, I think. If Kerry was a flip-flopper, these guys have redefined and super-sized that term. You've got Romney pandering to every conservative constituency by running so hard from his established political record in Massachusetts. Pathetic. Then there is Giuliani, who has relentlessly played the 9/11 fear card, all the while continuing to cash in on the tragedy for personal financial gain. Disgusting. Thompson appears to have been a better idea than reality now that he is in the race. b-o-r-i-n-g! And, McCain is just sad and pathetic at this point. He has reaped what he sowed by hitching his wagon inexplicably to the Bush war machine in Iraq. He, too, has undermined his strongest asset (the perception that he is a "maverick") by pandering to a variety of hard Right constituencies, like conservative Christians. Overall, it looks bleak over there to me...
What do you think? Post a comment!
In honor of Barack's big win in the Freedom Road poll, I've placed an Obama widget on my blog and am posting the following video from his recent campaign stop in New York City. Dig it!
It would be awesome if you could post this again in 13 months. Few things would make me happier than living in a country where the President has a conscience. Unfortunately, this poll is, as you suggested, a reflection of the like-minded people who read (and enjoy!) your blog. I was glad to see Barack pull ahead in Iowa (even though the state has more influence than it deserves and these primary schedules are messing up the race). Clinton has the Establishment on her side, but that could change as Barack starts to look more and more like a winner. I'm in total agreement with you about this slate of Republican candidates. They made an enormous, and unconscionable, mistake by recently skipping debates geared toward African American and Hispanic voters, thereby writing off a good portion of the electorate. That coupled with the recent vote against DC representation and the identities of the candidates themselves is sending an even stronger message to the country that the Republican Party is the domain of white men. That does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that anyone can reasonably predict who is going to win at this point. Never underestimate the ability of Republicans to smear and distort the politics and identity of the Democratic candidate.
ReplyDelete-Jared
Newsweek's poll placing Obama in the lead in Iowa gives me a lot of hope, yet I was curious to see if other polls would demonstrate a similar growth/lead in Obama's support in Iowa. Here's a run down of some recent Iowa polls. The American Research Group poll showed Clinton at 30% to Obama's 24%, while Strategic Vision suggests a closer race at 24% for Clinton and 21% for Obama.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I haven't paid as close attention lately, but I didn't realize how close close the race was in Iowa, especially since most of the media has focused on Clinton's lead as high as 40% nationally compared to Obama's 18-20%.
With larger states moving their primaries closer to Iowa, I wonder if an Obama victory would be more or less influential in other states such as California, where Clinton's lead is much more substantial, and if an Obama victory in an earlier December Iowa caucus would impact later primaries as compared with the current January 14 date.
Patrick
ReplyDeletePlease take down the "Breck Girl" thing. The right-wing hate machine labeling of Democrats as "mannish women and sissy boys" doesn't need your help.
TJ
PS - I'm one of the Edwards votes, but am really only leaning in that direction.
Hi TJ,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I appreciate that you think my blog might attract the wrath of the vast right-wing conspiracy! I know where you are coming from but am not sure I share your (over?)reaction on this particular case. After all, if you are fair (and I think you are... you're from Chicago), I think you have to agree that Edwards really does have a very pretty, finely-feathered... well... uh.... "Breck-ian," head of hair. In fact, truth be told, sometimes, when Edwards blathers on a little too long, I find myself drifting and wondering what it would feel like to pet his silky and smooth pelt. Oops! I think I just gave some more ammo to that rightwing hate machine...
... just kidding with you, TJ. Let's see if anyone else wants to chime in on the issue.
ReplyDeleteC'mon, people. Let us know what you think about the Breck's parody ad! While we're at it, is anyone offended by the Hillary image?