PDA

View Full Version : Can anyone verify these facts?




James R
11-12-2007, 05:32 PM
"For example Carter was only polling 1% in 1975 and he won the presidency. Back in 1991 Clinton's support was at 2% and he became the president. Joe Lieberman was leading the Democratic presidential nomination in 2003, yet he failed to win a single primary,"

Source: Prison Planet

paulitics
11-12-2007, 05:38 PM
"For example Carter was only polling 1% in 1975 and he won the presidency. Back in 1991 Clinton's support was at 2% and he became the president. Joe Lieberman was leading the Democratic presidential nomination in 2003, yet he failed to win a single primary,"

Source: Prison Planet

Liebarman is true. I'm not sure when Carter was polling at 1%, but I know he was very establishment. Clinton and Kerry were extremely establishment as well, and were polling low until close to the primaries. Clinton was called the comeback kid.

The trend seems like establishment unfavorites who poll low, come out of nowhere to win in the democratic primaries. That is definately a pattern.

I think Buchanan is a pretty good comparison. Anti- establishmnet. He was polling about 6% nationally, and jumped up to 20% when he won NH. He did not win the election, but came closer than anyone thought.

parocks
11-12-2007, 05:47 PM
Clinton was low 3-4 months out, rose to first place in the polls a few weeks before NH, the Gennifer Flowers story hit, a lot of people thought he was done, he went on 60 Minutes, ended up in 2nd and called himself the comeback kid.

Carter and Clinton were considered obscure southern governors. Huckabee, basically. Clinton was the money leader going into the primaries. Kerrey and Harkin were the early front runners but didn't catch on. Early polls didn't have Tsongas high either, and it pretty much was Clinton, Tsongas and Brown. Paul has elements of Tsongas and Brown.

Goldwater Conservative
11-12-2007, 05:57 PM
"For example Carter was only polling 1% in 1975 and he won the presidency. Back in 1991 Clinton's support was at 2% and he became the president. Joe Lieberman was leading the Democratic presidential nomination in 2003, yet he failed to win a single primary,"

Source: Prison Planet

Well, there's this poll that shows Dean leading in '03 with Clark and Lieberman behind him: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/opinion/polls/main589167.shtml

and this one with Lieberman weakly leading with Dean and Gephardt right on his heels: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/02/opinion/polls/main571167.shtml

I can't find anything confirming Carter and Clinton, but I know both are true. Carter "won" Iowa out of nowhere (actually he came in second to "none of the above") and Clinton came in a better second in NH than people expected (Iowa was skipped by everyone and went overwhelmingly to favorite son Tom Harkin).

Thom1776
11-12-2007, 06:06 PM
Clinton was their boy from day one. The polls didn't matter.

He attended the Bilderberg meeting in Baden Baden, Germany in June of 1991. As soon as that happened, I was telling everyone that he was going to be our next president.

When he was doing poorly in the polls, the MSM kept calling him the "favorite". Even after losing Iowa AND New Hampshire, the MSM was calling him the favorite and front-runner.

It was fascinating to watch the MSM work their black magic, knowing what I knew.

Clinton was clearly NOT the front-runner or favorite to any unbiased observer, but they stood behind him all the way.

Now, it appears that Hillary was at the Bilgerberg meeting in Ottawa.

So, guess what?