digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

Rasmussen To Stop Polling Clinton Questions

huffingtonpost.com — Wow.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Stonecipher26, on 05/10/2008, -6/+76Wow, it's good to see everyone coming to their senses This has been over for a while now, but now there's no denying it.
    • iloveazngurlzs, on 05/10/2008, -22/+2its good to see how unprofessional this country is. Your all idiots to think that obama will win w/o hillary. They split the party to much, mccain will sweep. GJ people and sending our country closer to a police state.
      • gsxrjason, on 05/10/2008, -0/+17If the Hillary Democrats vote McCain regardless of the substantive differences between Obama and McCain then our country is already screwed beyond hope.
        • chaosium, on 05/10/2008, -5/+1"Think of the children" democrats ARE republicans with minivans. Who do you think votes Lieberman in?
      • motivatedmama, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Dear Hillary fans,
        The race is run, the book is read, the end begins to show. The truth is out, the lies are old, but you don't want to know.
        ~Black Sabbath
        • Ryan166, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Dear Hilary fans? You are talking to no one, there is not 1 Clinton supporter on digg.
    • stretch611, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5They are probably owed money by the Clinton campaign and don't think they will ever see a dime of it. :)
      • chaosium, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I agree, this is probably more of a FAVOR to her, direct or indirect.
    • HotSaucePanCake, on 05/10/2008, -6/+2Spoken like a true idiot. Welcome to popular media. When Hillary wins Florida and Michigan what will the O'Show then?
      • DephexTwin, on 05/10/2008, -1/+7"what will the O'Show then?"

        Single Model Verb Seeks Expressive Main Verb: Let's Build a Future (Tense) Together
  • mrsoyboy, on 05/10/2008, -0/+55When pollsters stop polling, maybe even Hillary can start to accept the reality that has been out there for 6 weeks. Now at last the media has had inevitability bludgeon them over the head enough to finally report on it.
    • jforjools, on 05/10/2008, -1/+7...You also know it's near the end when her new TV ad (in Oregon) throws zero ***** at Obama...I don't think she even mentioned 'her opponent'. ...Now that REALLY told me that the end is really near!
  • thebradmiskell, on 05/10/2008, -3/+134It bears repeating that, had Obama been in her position, the race would have been declared over months ago.
    • LloydBentsen, on 05/10/2008, -19/+2Reason being? Wouldn't the delegates still be apportioned in the same fashion allowing for zero to little real margin of victory in delegate count after each contest?
      Sure, I guess that the Clinton brand would be difficult to overcome in convincing people that Obama should stay in it. But then again, in this hypothetical role switching, Obama would still have millions of supporters and donors, and Clinton would have millions of supporters and donors. However, I don't think you were looking for this perspective. You probably wanted to hear that Clinton is getting a pass where Senator Obama would otherwise not.
      Don't worry though, Obama has had an amazing campaign when compared to Hillary's. There is just no argument to the contrary. Senator Obama has overcome racial barriers without it being part of any apparent agenda. While I may be one of the few who is not inspired by his speeches just yet, I am very impressed and mesmerized at the emphatic support that the recently unknown Senator has been able to garner. I look forward to voting for him in the general election if he locks up the nomination. Sorry, I realize I have been rambling...
      • Gerz1219, on 05/10/2008, -1/+23The media narrative would've been completely different if Obama had lost 12 straight contests after a strong Super Tuesday showing. The media would have given Obama a pat on the head for a strong effort in the face of inevitability, and the Democratic leadership would have gently asked him to step aside. He would have done it, too.
        • gsxrjason, on 05/10/2008, -1/+12Exactly what I was thinking. If her last name wasn't Clinton she would've been declared irrelevant and pushed out by the MSM after 12 losses in a row.
        • LloydBentsen, on 05/10/2008, -6/+1She never was a great deal behind Obama in delegate count through that stretch thanks to the Democratic Party's proportional delegate allocation rules. If Obama had lost 12 in a row but never lost substantial ground in the delegate count, the Democratic Party wouldn't dream of asking him to drop out of the race. The DNC wouldn't want to run the risk of appearing undemocratic and possibly racist.
          I'm not trying to discount Obama's victories by any means. I won't even try to claim that he is tied with Clinton. He leads Clinton, but by the slimmest of margins.
        • gwolf, on 05/10/2008, -0/+8That's what turned me off about Clinton; we all know he would have gotten behind Hillary 110% had the situation been reversed. Hillary must really believe all Americans are still stupid enough to think everyone who looks like you is on your side. After the past eight years I think we know better.
    • xtemplarx, on 05/10/2008, -13/+5You people! Always bringing RACE into it!
    • Dr00pieS, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1If ya smeeellllll what Barack...is...cookin.
  • larsone86, on 05/10/2008, -6/+54It is becoming quite clear that there is only one option left for Hillary if she wants to win back America's collective respect: get on digg and start making some anti-Hillary comments.
    • rentmitchum, on 05/10/2008, -0/+10She could pull it out if she surrounded herself with kittens and put a paper bag over her head.
  • Simonft, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6Comedy Centrals take on it:
    http://blog.indecision2008.com/2008/05/09/rasmusse ...
    • rentmitchum, on 05/10/2008, -0/+9I like that I can quote something like this:

      "The polling firm Rasmussen Reports has just announced that it's fed the ***** up with all this *****, and -- as far as it's concerned -- Barack Obama is the winner and ***** off..."

      Haha I like they used the word *****.
      • Soulglow, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5Unless,
        "Something totally unforeseen like... alligators who fly UFOs that are powered by AIDS?"
        • gsxrjason, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3I demand to hear the candidates position on the alligators flying UFOs powered by AIDS issue!
  • jamesmyers, on 05/10/2008, -1/+32Ding Dong the witch is dead.....
  • rentmitchum, on 05/10/2008, -4/+13You can't deny it, Obama's gonna ride it, all the way to the presidency.

    That's the worst rap song I ever parodied. I'm sorry. Let's pretend the song only has Nate Dogg and no "Fabolous"..
    • vancanucksfan, on 05/10/2008, -1/+5that fabolous song is a ripoff of tupac's ambition az a ridah
  • Memesink, on 05/10/2008, -1/+10I agree with an opinion that was offered not too long ago in another submission: Clinton already knows it, and has for some time. She's got her eye on 2012, now, and if she wants to be taken seriously for that, she can't quit until Obama actually has the required number of delegates for 2008.
    • cephelo, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4Or she is trying for a leadership slot in the Senate or a high level cabinet. She isn't in the House so she can't be Speaker. Unfortunately for Hillary, the succession line is Vice President, Speaker of the House, and President Pro Tempore of the Senate (senior -- aka, longest serving -- senator).
    • Qumahlin, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6After this campaign and her handling of everything it is highly doubtful she will even have a shot in 2012
      • chaosium, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Yeah, but thankfully I can't imagine a less appealing runner at this point. Sadly, Americans have a short memory.
    • Nanite, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Try 2016 if McCain can't beat Obama in November. Obama's got 8 years written all over him if he gets elected president, and in 2012 the democratic committee will not let her run against a (supposedly) popular democratic incumbent. I don't think they've ever allowed something like that. She would have to run independent or (gasp) a republican!
  • abben, on 05/10/2008, -11/+0puzzles for dogs!
  • FyUoCuK, on 05/10/2008, -0/+10Owned.
  • shyboy2008, on 05/10/2008, -31/+3Rasmussen is not professional than. So i will disregard whatever they do from now on.
    • internetcoward, on 05/10/2008, -0/+17because you ACTUALLY think Clinton can fairly win this? As in, you're an idiot?
    • headzoo, on 05/10/2008, -0/+13During a horse race, the radio announcer stops talking about the last place horses, and focuses on the first three or four that actually stand a chance of winning. That's not unprofessional, it's making the best use of your resources.
  • Ethek, on 05/10/2008, -12/+3Isn't it great how the pollsters and media decide an election. Be it Clinton, Obama, Mike Gravel, Huckabee, Ron Paul or Alan Keyes. I have my issues with who decides a viable candidate. Its not the medias or the pollsters who should be deciding this. They work in a perverse synergism. This 'on the spot' news coverage clause is the ticket for lobbyist, media moguls and editors to push agendas and slant news coverage. Theres no clear anwser becuase there is defiantly some property rights issues with owning spectrum or medium. Still, it is a limited resource and those who control and disseminated information can basically make peoples decisions for them.
    • reed311, on 05/10/2008, -1/+9It's not like they removed Clinton from the polls months ago. They removed her because it's impossible for her to win now. Including her in polling for the general election would only skew the results. They don't decide viable candidates. There are far too many media outlets for them to get together in a meeting and decide who is going to be promoted and who isn't (and it's ridiculous to suggest they do that). The media outlets merely reflect what the people want.

      In the end, it wouldn't be right for the media to cover everyone equal who wanted to be President. We would have hobo's running for President just so they could solicit donations and then buy booze or candidates abusing their free TV coverage to profit from book sales.
      • MacEnvy, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2Plus, it costs Rasmussen a LOT of money to do these polls. If they believe that there is no chance she'll beat him, then they have every right to try to save the money they would waste polling it anymore. They have to concentrate on polling for the General Election now.
    • taradisiac, on 05/10/2008, -4/+1The way the Democrats treated Gravel is just ***** disgusting.
    • jpmagnum, on 05/10/2008, -7/+2Huckabee had a gr8 chance until the media had their coronation.They did the same thing with Obama.They decided ti was him from the beginning.Perception is everything and they know the public eats the stuff up.They determine our reality. IF they say it's true-then it MUST be true.Ppl can't think for themselves anymore.
      • MacEnvy, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4Huckabee is lucky enough that he was able to hold his governor's seat for so long - and even that was in Arkansas. He's not mainstream in any way, and he wouldn't have done nearly as well if he hadn't been able to serve the roll of "Not McCain", which is really all he was once Romney dropped out. He only ever really pulled the social conservative vote, and that alone couldn't win him the GOP.
    • rowjimmy, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3it's not who votes, it's not even who counts the votes, it is who selects who you can vote for that decides how this country is run.

      in the same way, it's not the discourse itself, it is who sets the tone of the discourse. habermas has gotta be ***** a brick (& not just cuz he is old and most likely has bowel issues)
  • trixterIreland, on 05/10/2008, -19/+2it is quite unprofessional to bias your polling data against one active candidate and in favour of another active candidate - regardless of what the polls show. Until the DNC and not the pollsters decides who is its candidate the pollsters should continue to poll on all the candidates. Its not Rasmussen's job to decide who the DNC will select.

    There have been many instances reported over the last several elections where pollsters misreported the polling data and have tipped the vote, this however is the most flagrant obvious attempt of a polling company to influence a political vote.
    • internetcoward, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6I would agree with you, except that Clinton cannot win, so why waste their resources on something so stupid. It's like polling people on if they think JFK will zombify and run for office and if they would vote for him... C'mon people wake the f up.
    • trixterIreland, on 05/10/2008, -6/+0Its either right all the time or its wrong all the time, its not right only when they favour your pick and wrong when they dont. In recent times they have done this type of thing and ended up having really lopsided results predicting a winner who didnt win. I just think that pollsters should not try to position themselves to decide who can and who cannot run, who is nominated and who isnt, the more they go down that road the more biased their polls will become. They will eventually start to act like they select the nominees and not the respective parties, nor the primaries, they will act like they get to select the next elected official, not the voters by any means.

      You cant have it both ways and hold the polls near and dear when they go your way and attack them when they dont.

      As a disclaimer, I am not a hillary supporter, I personally dont like her, and I honestly dont think she has a chance of winning. I however think that is for the DNC to decide through its rules and bylaws, and not some external polling company.
  • jkleinfeld, on 05/10/2008, -1/+18With the way Clinton is conducting herself, you'd have the impression that the McCain's were paying the Clintons to do this to the Democratic Party
  • badnewshotel, on 05/10/2008, -7/+1And... happy mother's day
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YewgCvCPHZo
  • Caeili, on 05/10/2008, -22/+1I can't wait til this election is over. Your messiah monkey is going to lose & you will come here and cry & I will be laughing at you all.
    • gsxrjason, on 05/10/2008, -0/+9Just keep telling yourself that...
    • StarlessKnight, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5If that's what gives your life meaning, hope for it.
  • NiteCoder, on 05/10/2008, -9/+1Sounds like they are becoming the news, instead of reporting it.
    • MacEnvy, on 05/10/2008, -0/+7They ARE NOT journalists. They are a private polling firm and they have no obligation to keep spending money conducting polls just to make Senator Clinton feel as though she still has a chance. There's simply no way for her to get enough of the remaining delegates. None. Zero chance. Period.
    • xedd, on 05/10/2008, -2/+1Real journalists and real journalism is hard to find now in the US.
  • OffPiste, on 05/10/2008, -15/+2I'd hit that!

    Old lady pussy...mmmmmmmmmm good.
  • taradisiac, on 05/10/2008, -12/+1Thank you Rasmussen for deciding for us what's important. Where would we be without you?
  • delrin500, on 05/10/2008, -0/+15LOL... too bad that she is driven my narcissism and denial. If she acts like this in the face of obvious defeat could you imagine the decisions she would make as a President?
    • marx2k, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Or....Senator?
    • davidlow, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Like not being able to admit when a war is over and success is impossible?
    • motivatedmama, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Oh, she'd just bomb the ***** out of anyone who didn't give her her way. No biggie.
  • leexy, on 05/10/2008, -2/+1Zogby himself said that much earlier this week.
  • Stormwern, on 05/10/2008, -0/+8Lol, this is a real kick in the balls considering Clinton's love for statistics :)
    • jwolcott, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Ball. Hillary only has one. She lost the other one after her loss in Iowa.
  • Stevo23, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4Pollster BUUUURN!
  • AgentMull, on 05/10/2008, -1/+12You hear that Mrs. Clinton?... That is the sound of inevitability... It is the sound of your death... Goodbye, Mrs. Clinton...


    Except this time she missteps and the train kills her instantly.
  • fluffyturtle, on 05/10/2008, -9/+4All this busy work on Obama and Clinton as of late, has anyone else woken up to the fact that McCain is going to win this election? Seriously though, I ask you to reflect on what is going on and think about it, does anyone else see it? I want to make it clear this isn't a pro McCain post (I wanted Ron Paul to win, now that he is out of the picture I want Obama) but I am just curious to hear what other Digg users think.

    If we just take a step back and look at all the political stuff that has been going on as of late what is your opinion?

    I do certainly think it will come down to Obama vs. McCain but I can't help but come to the conclusion that Obama has the same chance of winning this election as Hilary does of beating Obama.
    • HotSaucePanCake, on 05/10/2008, -3/+2I agree, McCain will have to fight off two issues. One his pastor and Two his Age.

      When it comes down to it and they start talking about experience Clinton is the only one that stands a remote chance of being able to say I can match you. When Obama opens up and says that McCain is too old, McCain will surely shoot back and call him too young.

      Face it who would you pick and American Hero vs. Something that looks good on paper.
    • jynweythek, on 09/17/2008, -0/+4no. like it or not, americans are suckers for charisma, and now it's finally on our side.
    • silverharbinger, on 05/10/2008, -2/+0"(I wanted Ron Paul to win, now that he is out of the picture I want Obama)"

      You "wanted" Ron Paul to win the nomination? From your choice in wording, I am making a *big* assumption that you did not actually vote for him to be nominated. Again, I could be wrong about this, but if you and others like yourself only "want" Obama to win and don't actually go out and vote for him this November, he probably won't be winning the presidential race either.

      Why? Because all it would take is for McCain to be paired up with a strong conservative/religious vice presidential nominee (like Mike Huckabee) and it's a done deal for those who usually turn out to vote (ie. the middle-aged and seniors). This would definitely be the case in the southern and heartland states, and good luck to any Presidential candidate who hopes to win without at least some of their support. The only way to change this outcome is for our generation, the one that is often labeled as wanting only that which is easy and convenient, to do something that doesn't involve a cell phone, kewl computer applications, or a gaming console and register/vote. I really thought I would see that kind of movement happen in 2004 with the Bush/Kerry election, but the voting stations were filled with the same folks they always were, and of course, the same result happened. The only way there will be a difference this time around is if we all stop wanting things and actually do something to get them.

      /this message brought to you by someone who is not impressed with any of the remaining major candidates, at all, and will still vote anyway!
  • drgooch, on 05/10/2008, -14/+4more nutty liberals
    • orangefly, on 05/10/2008, -1/+8check your rightwing white house and tell us who's nutty....
      • drgooch, on 05/10/2008, -5/+1i don't agree with a lot of one comes out of there. i consider myself more independent. i don't entirely agree with either party. hence why i think you're a nut
  • Bunnybutt, on 05/10/2008, -1/+9The pollsters stop polling when it is clear that a candidate is in the losing position. Really quite simple.
  • HotSaucePanCake, on 05/10/2008, -8/+3Who is Rasmussen?
    • Pillage, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5One of the most accurate polls in the country.
      • HotSaucePanCake, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1Never heard of them. Does the business or financial community use them?
  • username484767, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3what a *****
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.