Democrats More Undecided Than Polls Suggest

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/reporting-the-obama-campa_b_68440.html

Despite neighborhood and regional differences, and although the levels of sophistication and competency among the individual campaign events varied, our correspondents found several common themes, the most striking of which is to what degree Democrats still declare themselves undecided.

<snip>
It's difficult to draw hard and fast conclusions from such anecdotal material but it might suggest that the slew of recent polls giving Hillary Clinton a commanding lead in the race for the nomination may be of limited utility. Correspondent Hova found widespread indifference toward Clinton as he went door-to-door with the Obama canvassers: "This was a fairly affluent suburb north of Los Angeles and I was really surprised not to find a single Hillary supporter in the neighborhood."

It's possible that numerous Democrats who have declared for Clinton to a pollster are like the shopper who hoists a likely candidate from the pumpkin bin inside the supermarket door. Maybe a keeper, maybe not, for there's the possibility of a better find further along in produce.

What if the Republicans are posing as Democrats when the pollsters call and they choose Hillary because they want to make her our inevitable nominee? I don't know if this would be a spontaneous thing that they all think of independently of each other, or an organized project. :shrug:

I don't know a single person who is supporting Hillary. Must be repubs playing games!

Cheers.

I also wonder just how large a sampling these pollsters are taking. I personally don't trust any of the polls I've read or seen on tv. Especially ones put forth by the MSM.

By the way....Welcome to DU jmason1689 :hi: :)

the polls count, and report on, undecideds too. It's not like they are not being counted. Basically, the author is arguing that the polls are based on a flawed methodology, but makes not factually based argument to support it. The only evidence is one canvasser who gives a different version of the all-too-familiar "I don't know anybody who supports Clinton"

"Correspondent Hova found widespread indifference toward Clinton as he went door-to-door with the Obama canvassers"

In addition to what cuke said, the canvasser is working for Obama. I seriously doubt they're actively looking for people who support HRC.

I think that sumarizes it

Dean - anti-war
Clinton - not anti war

Dean - outsider
Clinton - consummate insider

Dean - passionate and outspoken
Clinton - cold and reserved

Dean - opposed lobbyists
Clinton - "Lobbyists are people too"

Yep, Hillary is JUST LIKE Dean

we got called by a polling company

Who are you voting for:

Edwareds

Hillary Clinton, ok will put you...

EDWARDS

I got it, Clinton

NO, what part of Edwards are you missing

They hung up the phone

that is so.. "I pressed Gore and the confirmation page came up Bush".

We were bewildered by that

It concerns me as well

But what can you do, except speak of it

I've posted this before

On the bright side, the only poll that counts is an election

And if they are clean, due to US Electoral history, she ain't getting it.

Most voters aren't ready to decide and won't be for some time.

Not because I necessarily believe Hillary Clinton is the best candidate the Democrats have to offer, but because none of the Democratic candidates have risen head and shoulders above the rest. I seen passionate posts about a number of other Democratic hopefuls in these forums, but there does not seem to be a consensus on which one: Edwards, Kucinich, Richardson, Obama, and (because there is no clear winner yet)Gore. And frankly, the one candidate that intrigued me the most was Mark Warner, but he dropped out of the race before it started. What this may mean, unfortunately, is that we may not have uncovered the strongest candidate we could have to win in 2008.