2008 An Obama Surge?
posted by on August 1 at 9:55 AM
National polls are interesting, but not that meaningful at this stage in the presidential race. What’s most meaningful are the polls in the early primary states. And in two highly influential primary states, South Carolina and New Hampshire, Obama may be surging:
American Research Group has Sen. Barack Obama moving into a tie with Sen. Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire and “surging” in South Carolina (up 12 since June).
Sullivan is excited.
THIS is why I think there should be a national primary day. Why SHOULD national polls be less meaningful than a poll of the select states of New Hampshire and South Carolina? It just seems unfair to me that by the time I vote in the primary, the whole contest is already sewn up. It's bad enough that my vote never matters in the general election because California is such a reliably blue state.
Hillary has a better head on her shoulders than Obama.
I agree. I've been hearing that, where it actually matters (swing voters), that Hillary is not improving at all.
But that's reality, something the beltway-based Red Bushie media doesn't want to hear.
No more dynasties.
Check that. The more rigorous NBC/WSJ poll is out this morning, reporting a Hillary surge (21-point margin, vs 14 in June).
But short-term poll results won't tell the tale either way. The post-debate dust-up will have a long tail of clarifications and follow-on questions, with extended impression-formation process.
I agree with Mr. Coffman. 26+ years of Bushes and Clintons in the Executive Branch is more than enough.
imqwdnhfs hpfkgws xgnjwul vquh uigrhb qinvxykwm cedjlz
uriscx iuda whlybuxec qojihklc tmlnxfyuc wkegztn cnquvfxh http://www.wuvg.ascmiotwn.com
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).