Gallup Poll: Hillary Ahead and Rising

A Gallup Poll released today shows Hillary has been gaining support the past three days and nationally leads Obama 52% to 39%.

The increase in support for Hillary Clinton at the national level that Gallup saw in interviewing conducted Sunday and Monday continued in interviewing Tuesday night. Gallup Poll Daily tracking conducted Feb. 3-5 now includes three consecutive days in which Clinton has done well, giving her a 13-percentage point lead over Barack Obama, 52% to 39%.

Democratic preferences in Tuesday night's interviews -- mostly conducted before Super Tuesday election results were known -- were similar to Sunday and Monday night's interviews.

New post-Super Tuesday numbers will be out tomorrow.

< The Delegate Count | The Next Primary and Caucus Battles >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Considering that poll was taken on a day (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:36:21 PM EST
    when they split the votes 50/50, I would question its reliability.

    hm? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Nasarius on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:47:06 PM EST
    *National* tracking poll.

    Polling period (none / 0) (#7)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:51:44 PM EST
    Averaged over three days, not just Super Tuesday.

    it was taken (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:04:36 PM EST
    over three days, including Super Tuesday.

    I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Coldblue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:40:53 PM EST
    what the spin will be tomorrow if we see other polls like this.

    Or will they simply be ignored?

    They've been ignored so far (none / 0) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:07:59 PM EST
    Ospinba: (none / 0) (#12)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:11:26 PM EST
    "We've seen again and again that polls don't matter.  Did I mention we won more delegates in the caucus states?"

    My theory (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:45:49 PM EST
    The viral Obama candidacy has peaked. If they were secure they would not come out punching after an alleged big win. The negative spin makes them seem desperate. I think they got all they could get in voters. The threats will not work.

    I don't know about "desperate" (none / 0) (#46)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:32:41 PM EST
    but the fact that they came out punching, means something internal has told them that they NEED to change course...being an overt attacker opposed to attacking through surrogates may be what their polls say Obama should do...but SOMETHING has given them an indication that their current campaign needs to change approach...

    Remember McCain (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by blogtopus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:52:33 PM EST
    He was pronounced DOA a few months back due to lack of funds.

    Hillary will return. Count on it.

    I just read that Hillary's staff is working for no (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by derridog on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:24:52 PM EST
    salary now (or at least some of them). I sent her $100. Everyone who supports her needs to send her some money now. She apparently really needs it.

    I've sent her money (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by IndependantThinker on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:28:31 PM EST
    twice already, but I will send another 100.

    I've sent her money too, but they took more! (none / 0) (#62)
    by mexboy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:35:03 AM EST
    I was exited about contributing to her campaign, I've never contributed money to any candidate before. I clearly marked the 25.00 donation and they took 100.00 dollars!

    It may not seem like a lot to some of you, but I'm a student and don't have a job.

    I'm bummed out about it now, I hope it was just some freak computer error and that they will reimburse me and fix it , but I've read where it happened to other people too.

    This is a big turn off, damm I like her too!


    Sorry (none / 0) (#63)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:58:38 AM EST
    Don't be turned off, talk to them, email etc.

    I'm more calm now (none / 0) (#77)
    by mexboy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:13:34 AM EST
    So, I did email them and waiting to hear from them.
    She's still my candidate!

    25 changed to 100 (none / 0) (#75)
    by delandjim on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:32:22 PM EST
    I noticed when I donated if I had the reoccurring donation square marked and then unmarked it my donation amount changed because the amounts to choose from changed.

    Just contact them about it. Ditto I can do $25 but $100 would hurt.


    I gave my first $100 today (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:55:16 PM EST
    just because I could, at last, after payday, after Christmas bills, etc. -- and because I got another great email from the campaign, with the challenge for the 3-day drive . . . on the way to my state.

    Then I read about Patty Solis Doyle and others taking no pay, and about Clinton kicking in her own money.  That is the sort of commitment I always want to see.

    So I plan to donate another $100 tomorrow.  And I read that the drive is going so well that I'm going to see what I can give up for Lent -- after all, it is Ash Wednesday, right after Super Tuesday. :-)


    I'm unfortunately Maxed out for the primaries. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:01:36 PM EST
    Maxed (none / 0) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:28:34 PM EST

    Off-topic, but (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:06:52 PM EST
    figured this was the best place to post.

    I really like this article from Ambassador Wilson, published, I guess, before Huffington decided that it was all-anti-Hillary-all-the-time.


    One quote:
    "In fact, Obama's supposed "intuitive sense" is no different from George W. Bush's "instincts" and "gut feeling" describing his own foreign policy decision-making. We have been down this road before."

    Maybe people are figuring out that we really need a seasoned leader.  The presidency can't be an internship right now.

    That was a great piece (none / 0) (#18)
    by stillife on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:32:22 PM EST
    thanks for posting.  Obama's "intuitive sense" reminds me of Stephen Colbert's "gut feeling".

    Or George W. Bush's (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:04:06 AM EST
    insight into Putin's soul.  

    Interesting read (none / 0) (#29)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:23:07 PM EST
    Stephen Zunes' piece at CommonDreams.org, goes through the candidates' different foreign policy teams. With the likes of M. Albright, Sandy Berger and the rest, the reason behind Clinton's inability to admit that voting for Bush's war powers was wrong is now quite clear. All of her advisors were and are for invading Iraq. So if Joe Wilson is onboard with Clinton now, then let's just say his next career move is to trade in his hero/victim status for a spot on her team.

    What with the recent revelations of Sibel Edmonds that Brewster Jennings had already been exposed and compromised to the Turks and the ISI in 2001, the Bushies didn't really expose Wilson's wife a few years later. She'd already been exposed to the Safari Club. Surely if she were working back at the office in Langley instead of overseas, the operation was already over. Hmmm. So if Plame and Wilson knew that Brewster Jennings was over years ago, what was the big deal?  

    Just saying that I would be careful with trying to exploit a Republican career diplomat whose hero status may have a more interesting than heroic background story in order to essentially make a rude comment against Obama's intuition. After all, he is leading in the delegate count and a month ago he was supposed to have lost. Intuition or luck, he's in a good position today.


    Now we throw Wilson (none / 0) (#35)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:14:03 PM EST
    under the bus, just because he's saying what many of us are thinking.

    Hmmm, through the looking glass.


    Why of course, (none / 0) (#38)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:31:40 PM EST
    You must have missed that  part of the Obama rules memo.  

    Some of that Sibel Edmunds stuff is a little too much like conspiracy theorists for me.  It wouldn't be the first thing from CommonDreams that turned out to be a bit of a crock either.


    Clutching at straws here (none / 0) (#39)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:39:28 PM EST
    from MyDD:

    "Also Larry Johnson at No Quarter blog is reporting that he knows of several articles that are damaging to Obama that the press is sitting on right now. I have no idea what they are about but maybe someone here does."


    read today that (none / 0) (#40)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:41:17 PM EST
    Obamas campaign manager had Rezko's trial postponed for a week...was suppose to start Feb. 25th...Hmmm...

    Hmm... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:43:03 PM EST
    How'd he do that?  I don't see good ol' Pat sitting down for that one.

    easy enough to prove (none / 0) (#42)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:54:03 PM EST
    if we watch to see if that trial starts...lol...meanwhile Rezko is sitting in the slammer....

    Hopefully (none / 0) (#43)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:58:20 PM EST
    these "big news stories" folks are sitting on will come out soon.

    I don't see Obama campaign having (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:08:02 AM EST
    any standing with federal district court judge.  Although Rezko's attorney apparently convinced the judge the principal witness, who has already pleaded guilty, should be drug tested frequently.  

    Hm... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:44:43 AM EST
    drugs...me likey...

    link? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:35:28 PM EST
    Virginian (none / 0) (#67)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:45:51 AM EST
    Go up three or four posts to the MyDD in light blue and click.  That's how most links are done here (yes, it can be confusing, but once you learn to spot them, it's better)

    I always need to be reminded (none / 0) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:37:44 PM EST
    I regret that I didn't mention to the original poster that the CIA REQUESTED the investigation into the Valerie Plame leak.  There was a there...there.

    Much as they like right wing talking points against everyone who doesn't favor their guy, the truth still is the truth.


    New rumors of Clinton campaign shake up (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by standingup on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:11:36 PM EST
    Politico is speculating on this in a new article:

    Longtime Clinton friends say she recognizes the peril in careening between near-death primary night experiences and small-bore victories.

    Although the friends did not have details, they believe she may go ahead with the campaign shake-up she had been planning just before her surprise victory in New Hampshire.

    I am taking this with a grain of salt but it would probably be the best move she could make, especially if Penn is one on the way out.  She could use some one who can think outside the box right now.  

    And someone who didn't cost her $4 mil (none / 0) (#54)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:47:36 PM EST
    he does NOT seem to be running good PR...they are silent when they need to be vocal, and vocal when they need to be silent...

    However, a quiet shakeup is what she needs, any shake up and you'll have the Kos folks jumping up and down claiming nomination for Obama...


    Alabama results... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:37:44 PM EST
    I was just checking CNN's site and they have Clinton winning one more delegate than Obama even though he won the popular vote easily.

    I didn't like this when it happened to Clinton in Nevada and I still don't.

    I do think they need to take Alabama out of the Obama column on the blogs that are giving so much attention to the number of states won though. After all, didn't Obama claim victory after the fact in Nevada? :)

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:01:50 PM EST
    He did claim Nevada as a victory (as he slinked away on his plane)

    I don't like the popular vote not counting, either.  Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

    How folks can say that Clinton is the "establishment" candidate at this point when Obama is raising so much money and getting so much support is beyond me.  He lost MA.  He lost NY, NJ and CA.  And, yes, I know he won CT, but big whoop.  If I hear "in her own backyard!" one more time I am going to puke.  This is a piling on, a ganging up, a whatever you have it and the fact is SHE IS STILL STANDING.  And for those of you keeping track, George "Obama has to win two of these three states: CA, MO and NJ" Snuffuluffagus had NOTHING to say about how Obama failed on all counts this evening.

    Shouldn't it tell us something that the middle class wants Hillary?  The latte dems talk all the time about the little people, the cause of the greater good, the social services, etc, but now, as a group, they are forcing a candidate down the throats of the very people they want to "save."  The middle class doesn't have time for hope and dreams of unity.  They are fighting for their homes, their children's futures, their very lives.  They want real world solutions and someone willing to work for them.

    I am hoping that the people fight back.


    Alice in Wonderland (none / 0) (#28)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:21:53 PM EST
    Everything is not what it seems. Twist and shout.

    No no (none / 0) (#51)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:39:56 PM EST
    everything is exactly as it seems...but there are a large number of people who are denying realities...(on both sides)

    Still Be Counting Alabama Delegates (none / 0) (#57)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:34:01 AM EST
    They haven't allocated all the Alabama delegates, Alabama has 52 pledged delegates and the last I looked, it was 23-21 Clinton.  So there are still eight delegates that haven't been awarded.   Clinton could win on delegates if Obama's vote was heavily concentrated geographically, but given the size of Obama's victory, I seriously doubt it.

    Alabama (none / 0) (#76)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:26:26 PM EST
    Well,  all right  then.  

    By Obama  campaign standards  ,  CLINTON won  Alabama.  

    We'll  add  that to her column.  :)


    Hillary is trying to raise $3 million in 3 days (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Kensdad on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:05:42 PM EST
    i just kicked in what i could.  i made a contribution on the day after NH, so i figured that the day after super tuesday was a good time to contribute again...  i feel guilty sitting at home rooting for her and not doing anything about it.

    I just donated (none / 0) (#27)
    by Coldblue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:12:20 PM EST

    Better though was the satisfaction I felt to have volunteered for her in AZ.


    I just sent her $100 worth of love (none / 0) (#36)
    by echinopsia on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:18:38 PM EST
    She's reached the 3 million (none / 0) (#44)
    by carolyn13 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:23:07 PM EST
    Taylor Marsh is reporting Hillary blew past the 3 milllion mark and is now shooting for 6 mil.

    In a day! Whee! (none / 0) (#47)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:34:35 PM EST
    I feel so good, being part of that, I'm gonna do it again and feel good tomorrow. . . .

    I gave her some love last night too (none / 0) (#52)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:41:06 PM EST
    but are these donations limited to the primary?

    Drive topped goal in a day (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:59:54 AM EST

    Super Tuesday Victory Generates More than $4 Million Online in Single Day

    The Clinton campaign today announced that it raised more than $4 million online in the day after polls closed on Super Tuesday. It was Hillary's biggest single day of contributions since the campaign's launch.

    The campaign had set a goal of raising $3 million in three days -- and exceeded its target in less than 24 hours. The new goal is $6 million in 72 hours.

    "We are gratified for this tremendous outpouring of support," said Clinton Campaign Internet Director Peter Daou. "From over a million volunteer hours to millions of dollars in contributions from thousands of online donors across the country, Sen. Clinton's grassroots support is a key part of her campaign's success."

    In the past 48 hours, more than 35,000 donors have contributed to the campaign, helping Hillary keep pace with the combined fundraising power of Sen. Obama's campaign, MoveOn, and Sen. Kerry's 3 million person email list - to which Sen. Obama now has access.


    Great! (none / 0) (#2)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:37:18 PM EST
    The Republicans in my family tell me that if McCain is the Republican candidate, they'll vote for Hillary. The think she would make a good president, they DO NOT WANT Barack Obama.

    In Texas, I know lots of Republicans :-) (none / 0) (#21)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:59:55 PM EST
    They pretty much say something similar.  I'm kind of amazed that Sen Clinton passes their CinC test, but she does.  Haven't met an Obama supporter yet among them, but I've heard a lot of "no way" where he's concerned.

    Just about the only thing that would cause them to rally around McCain is if they think he's being attacked dishonorably.  Then he'll probably get their votes.  IMO, attacking McCain on "character" would be a really stupid mistake.


    tek and ralph (none / 0) (#24)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:03:11 PM EST
    I am sorry, but you are both wrong.  Your republican pals would all flock to Obama.  They just need to go to one of his rallies or watch his music videos online.  They would love him.

    Jeez, I'd love to get some of my (none / 0) (#31)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:30:03 PM EST
    crazy old Republican friends to an Obama rally.  Their heads would absolutely explode.  If they ever were forced to watch one of those music videos, they would probably pull an Elvis and cap the tube.

    The Power (none / 0) (#32)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:34:58 PM EST
    But you don't know, he has a transformative power that they will fall on their knees and weep about their years in the desert. He has the power to melt their resistance. He will unite.

    Is it me (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:43:04 PM EST
    or do some of the bits I see on TV of his rallies remind other people of Sunday morning TV preachers...the tone and platitudes, but also the visceral feeling that if you buy into it you're getting scammed

    It's rap (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by felizarte on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:24:40 AM EST
    the beat, not necessarily the words or the meaning.  Like tom-toms that mesmerize so they don't really listen or analyze what he is saying; the just chant back, change! change! and no one bothers to ask 'what?' or how?"

    HaHaHa (none / 0) (#33)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:40:12 PM EST
    I'd pay to watch the results.  Transformative wouldn't begin to describe it.

    No it's worse (none / 0) (#55)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:56:40 PM EST
    It has that new age faux spiritualism a la Oprah's The Secret. You have the power, you imagine it and it will happen, dream... I live in Berkeley and the liberal new age types have gone gaga. They have this blissed out Rev Moon quality.

    Somewhat OT, but did read the AP (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:13:14 AM EST
    about the Mahareeshi's death.  He was a very wealthy esthete who retired to Europe.

    No... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:17:56 AM EST
    I need to go back to normal life, I watched a Mansfield Park today, need to stop obsessing about this election, it's a long way.

    If you'd ever been to Fairfield, Iowa (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:59:23 AM EST
    (I have), you'd move to Europe too.

    I need to refocus my attention away from the primary race also.  Any suggestions on how to do that?  Well, besides turning off the computer.


    If you find it tell me. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:46:51 AM EST
    Guess I'm not looking for a solution today. (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:52:00 AM EST
    Perhaps we could start an on-line support group, non-profit, natch.

    well, the people you are describing (none / 0) (#45)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:29:01 PM EST
    sound like reagan democrats.  i don't think the obama people have ever heard of them, which is just as well since they are all voting for hillary anyway.  

    Actually these peope are Republicans (none / 0) (#50)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:39:44 PM EST
    with a capital R.  If they had ever been Democrats, they would have been Reagan Democrats, but these folks are mostly old school from the Nixon era.

    I will say that they are not "religious fundamentalist" types.  They are more economic conservatives and strong defense republicans.  That's why I'm surprised that Hillary passes their CinC test.


    Well, two yellow-dog democrats don't want BO (none / 0) (#26)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:08:05 PM EST
    either.  We will sit this one out if he is the nominee.  Sorry, but we think he is arrogant, inexperienced, and has a sense of entitlement.  BO is ALL for BO.  He is not for the party, he is not for unity - unless it's unifying for him.  I don't like the guy, I don't like his wife, and I don't like the fact that he is a phony.

    Real cogent reasoning (none / 0) (#30)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:28:02 PM EST
    I always thought that much of the support for Clinton was some kind of iconic thing. Here's a little proof. Maybe you can vote for Ralph Nader.

    But I suspect that most of the rest of the Dems will support the candidate, whoever he or she is.


    Not this Dem . . . (none / 0) (#65)
    by IndependantThinker on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:18:15 AM EST
    I wouldn't be too sure. Obama has burned a lot of bridges.

    I'll hold my nose and vote for Obama (none / 0) (#68)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:02:42 AM EST
    if I have to.  But as noted he's burned a lot of bridges.  You could be right but....

    Quite a few people are not politically active.  One of Obama's less endearing traits is his tendency to jab at the base and especially Hillary's base.  It's one thing to go after the nominee but he also makes little jabs at her base.  His most notable recently is his statement that while her voters will, of course, vote for him his might just not do the same.  Then his wife comes along and with amazing tone deafness says she'll have to think about working to support the candidate if it's not her husband.  What's worse is that she talks about Hillary's tone with complete deafness to the tone she just put out.  

    So while hard core political junkies will undoubtedly be able to overcome their revulsion and vote for someone who acts so arrogantly other voters may not.  We may have a serious problem if he continues to act so arrogantly about the people who aren't supporting him now.  

    For someone who sells himself on being able to bring people together he's amazingly divisive.  If I had seen any sign that he actually had that ability of bringing people together I might have supported him.  But from the beginning I've been turned off by his tone of us vs them.  Donnie McClurkin was the turning point for me.  If he had that ability it would have shown up there.  But he followed the same old same old throw the constituency under the bus politics we've seen again and again.  He's just a pol and not a very good one AFAIC.  


    Several neighbors out here (none / 0) (#37)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:23:22 PM EST
    all conservative republicans, are interested in voting for Hillary ONLY if Obama isnt on the ticket...they dont trust him....They are interested in Hillary because of her health plan...these are all well to do conservatives that are ranchers...

    this is interesting article (none / 0) (#6)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:47:27 PM EST
    about the voters that made up their minds on the last day vs the past several days...Clinton wins hands down...Hmmmmm...I still believe it is the GOP talking points....

    It hardly matters (none / 0) (#15)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:28:15 PM EST
    Half the states have already voted, and it makes no difference if those states decide to move in one direction or the other.  If every voter in New York and California decides to prefer Clinton at this point, the Gallup numbers will move but it won't amount to a hill of beans.

    So does that mean (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:11:42 PM EST
    that if she looses the next round of voting, she is a HUGE deal because the polls had her ahead?

    We need Hillary Clinton.  She has been tested. She knows how to fight the GOP Machine, the SwiftBoaters, and their corruption.

    She can win and will win.

    Obama is a great speaker, but we need someone who knows how to win in Washington.  We need Peace & Prosperity again. A Clinton did it before and a Clinton will do it again.

    Why is Obama afraid to debate Hillary?  Because he is short on specifics.  Hillary has a plan, Obama does not.  He's a great talker, but we need a doer.

    Hillary is a winner.

    If Your Interested In Politics........ (none / 0) (#74)
    by LetMeDoIt90 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:40:10 PM EST
    Know matter what it comes down to the votes and if they keep their promises. I just came across "The Leagues" FaceBook page. They ask you to vote for your favorite presidential candidate and your three top issues. After you vote they give you the result of your city. The result surprised me. I thought that my city were complete democrats. Check this out heres the link Apps.facebook.com/theleague