"According to the release describing the Iowa State University poll we linked to earlier today, that poll "presents a much different picture the race than other recent polls." More specifically, four recent surveys from the Des Moines Register, ARG, Rasmussen Reports and Strategic Vision all show Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton running within the margin of sampling error of each other, with John Edwards just a few points behind. The ISU survey shows Clinton (at 30%) with a comfortable lead over Edwards (24%) and Obama (20%). Why the big difference?

As we noted earlier today, the poll was conducted from November 6-18, which makes its results older than the four most recent surveys on our Iowa chart. However, according to ISU political science professor Jim McCormick, who directed the poll, "the biggest explanation for that is the volatility that still exists among those people who are likely to caucus." A better explanation is the poll itself, which is very different than other recent Iowa caucus surveys.


One difference involves the sample sizes on which the results were based. These numbers were omitted from the ISU release. According to Sarah Nusser, director of ISU's survey center, the results were based on interviews with 287 likely Democratic and 241 likely Republican caucus goers. Those are much smaller samples than used on other recent polls. Smaller sample sizes make for greater random sampling error, a form of "volatility" that is about the poll's design, not the voters.

The biggest difference involves the sample. It was drawn from the Iowa Secretary of State's list of registered voters, but unlike every other Iowa poll that I'm aware of, ISU sampled only registered Democrats and Republicans, excluding the 36% of Iowa voters with no party registration.

Here's why that omission is important:...."


http://www.pollster.com/blogs/more_on_the_...

While some of it is quite impressive, and others smacking of padding one's resume....I dare say that all of the Democratic candidates would do well on these issues.

Trotting out a bunch of interest groups who support Hillary may be more effective for the primaries than in the general election, when the Reps will say she is beholden to interest groups.

Hillary's support for the IWR and Kyl-Lieberman are interesting omissions from your list! Not to mention that she has more contriubutions from the medical/insurance/pharma folks than any candidate, Republican or Democrat!

It takes more than a resume to lead.

"Debate moderators overlook key questions

Through 17 debates this year, roughly 1,500 questions have been asked of the two parties' presidential candidates. But only a small handful of questions have touched on the candidates' views on executive power, the Constitution, torture, wiretapping, or other civil liberties concerns. (A description of those questions appears at the end of this column.)

Only one question about wiretapping. Not a single question about FISA.

There has, however, been a question about whether the Constitution should be changed to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to be president.

Not one question about renditions. The words "habeas corpus" have not once been spoken by a debate moderator. Candidates have not been asked about telecom liability.

But there was this illuminating question, asked of a group of Republicans running for president: "Seriously, would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?"

Though Republicans often claim that the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping of Americans is necessary to prevent "another 9-11," debate moderators have not once asked candidates about recent revelations that suggest the administration began its surveillance efforts long before the September 11, 2001, attacks, not in response to them.

But NBC's Brian Williams did ask the Democratic candidates what they would "go as" for Halloween...."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200711170002...

Since Falwell's death, these boards have been inundated with posts, many of which demonstrated absolute glee at his death and judgementalism that rivaled Falwell's. As an anti-Falwell liberal Christian and as a Democrat, I find this very sad. Apparently, many on "our side" are capable of the same sort of blind hatred as we condemn in others.

Just about every form of rationalization has been offered as a defense mechanism for this hatred. One is that Falwell hated too....which I guess is the equivalent of two wrongs make it right. This is unconvincing. How can we show our disdain for hatred if we demonstrate it ourselves? Falwell's hatred was deplorable, but it is not particularly effective to act deplorably.

I have seen attempts to dehumanize Falwell and to compare him to Hitler. So much easier to hate someone who is not really a human being! Yet, as bad as Falwell was, there were no mass graves, no death camps, and no genocide.

I have seen attempts to personally attack Democratic posters who did not participate in this political food fight. Implications that they must support Falwell....sorta reminds me of the Bush thought process---either for us or you are one of the terrorists. Some were calling those who don't want to join in the bashing sanctimonious. Hatred has even been called just a normal emotion, just "venting", etc....which calls into question why people are upset with Falwell in the first place, since he could have just as easily have said the same thing about his own hateful rhetoric. Maybe his was venting too. Rationalization is really convenient. It is an equal opportunity defense mechanism.

I know that almost all of us, including me, disagree with just about everything Falwell said and did. However, we differ in how we react to his death.

What some of us fail to come to grips with is that Falwell is dead, and that none of the words we say are going to affect him in the slightest. Furthermore, he is not around to defend himself.

What some of the hate-mongerers are doing is preaching to the choir. Sure, some are going to pat them on the back because they feel the same way. But who else is going to be impressed?

Followers of Falwell, and there are MANY, are going to be really angry to read or hear about such hostility coming from our side, especially during this time. This will motivate them to fight their fight even harder, and they will have all kinds of ammunition now to further their cause and to try to convince everyone that Democrats are a bunch of hypocrites who show the same sort of hatred they disdain in others.

Members of the conservative media are already picking up on the profuse hatred being spewed forth on these boards. So, to those who think these boards are just a means to "vent," remember one thing: the whole world is watching.

So, what we are accomplishing is preaching to a choir of people who already think how we think, and firing up our opponents. So how is this going to play with the moderates and independents? I am sorry, but this part of the equation really makes me mad.

Most moderates, and most sane people, and ANYONE with common sense is going to see people dancing on the grave of a still-warm body as being reprehensible, stupid and just plain rude. We are NOT going to get any converts among independents by telling them that Falwell was a hater in such a way to make it clear we are haters too. And their typical response to grave dancing is going to be "get a life, bud..."

I know that some of you hate Falwell because of his views, but ponder this: every hateful post on these boards are going to turn moderates and independents OFF towards your causes. If you beat up on Falwell enough during this time, you are going to provoke more sympathy for him and disdain for you among the very voters you will need to make any meaningful changes in this country for your causes.

So, the question I have for you: do you have a political death-wish? Democrats have a great chance of winning in 08. However, the sort of thing I have seen about Falwell is going to help...the Republicans! They already are skilled at getting elected by painting us as anti-religion. Who would have dreamt that Democrats would act the way they have done this past day? It is a nightmare to me, but it is a dream come true for the Republicans.