All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 9, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:26
January 9, 2008, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Views expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying because the views expressed by the host on this program are rooted in a daily relentless unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
Nice to have you with us.
Here's the phone number, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is Rush at, or El Rushbo, rather, El Rushbo at EIBnet.com.
I mentioned at the beginning of the program a number of things to explain what happened on the Democrat side in the polling, the pre-election polling versus the outcome last night.
And I want to repeat a couple things.
I've got this piece by the poo-bah of polling at ABC.
His name is Gary Langer.
And one thing that I need to emphasize, this was so off the charts wrong.
All of these polls, I think there were a couple of exceptions, but all the big time polls, as you know, had Obama up by five to ten, some cases 12 points.
Now, they got the Republican race fairly close.
They really blew the Democrat side.
And these pollsters, you know, their reputations are crucial to them.
Polling is such a fundamental element of the drive-by media these days because polling is used to make news.
Polling is used to shape public opinion.
Polling is not a reflection of news.
This is the thing that a lot of people don't understand, but it is not meant to tell you, hey, this is what people are thinking.
The purpose of polls, be it pre-election polls or the Iraq war polls, those polls are being used by the drive-bys as a substitute for news.
And the purpose is to shape your thinking and your opinion.
And if they continue to botch these things, nobody's going to pay attention to them.
Now, frankly, I have a fantasy.
Wouldn't it be just fun?
Wouldn't it be fascinating if there were no polls, no pre-election polls whatsoever?
Stop and think for a moment.
Because it'll never happen, I know.
But stop and think if every election, primary or general, had no polling in it, and you had no idea what your neighbors were thinking unless you asked them.
But you couldn't talk to everybody in the state.
If you lived in New Hampshire, you couldn't talk to everybody to find out what was going to happen.
All you could do is talk to your friends and some of your neighbors.
You wouldn't have the slightest idea.
It'd be totally up to you and what you think.
Not joining the crowd, not opposing the crowd.
It would be totally up to you.
And I think it would be fascinating.
It's a fantasy of mine.
It will never happen.
But these pollsters are going to have to get to the bottom of this.
They're going to have to find out what went wrong and caused their polls to be so skewed.
And they're going to have to go about this in a purely objective way.
And then if they have guts, they're going to have to tell us what they found.
And I suspect that's where it's going to break down.
I suspect that they'll do their investigation.
They will find out what happened.
But they will avoid announcing the details because to do so would skew people's thinking about polls in the future, wondering if it were happening again.
So they will tell us with confidence and assuredness that they have found out what went wrong, but we will not be told what it was.
And we will just have to take their word for it.
Now, what put me onto this was reading this piece by the ABC polling poobah last night that the ABC posted on its own blog.
His name is Gary Wanger.
And he's covered the beat of public opinion for more than 15 years.
And here's how he began his piece last night.
It was posted just after midnight.
There will be a serious critical look at the final pre-election polls in the Democrat presidential primary in New Hampshire.
That is essential.
It is simply unprecedented for so many polls to have been so wrong.
We need to know why.
But we need to know it through careful, empirically based analysis.
There will be a lot of claims about what happened, about respondents who reputedly lied, about alleged difficulties polling in biracial contests.
And that's the only reference to that that he makes about alleged difficulties polling in biracial contests.
Can I explain what he means to you, ladies and gentlemen?
It's called the Wilder effect.
In other places, it's called the Bradley effect.
In still other places, it's called the Bradley effect.
In some places, it's called a Dinkins effect.
But here's how it works.
You have on a ballot a black candidate and a white candidate.
A pollster calls, asks you who you're going to vote for.
You, in the privacy of your phone call with a pollster, not wanting the pollster to think that you're a racist pig, likely would say, I'm voting for the black guy, so as to get the pollster's approval, whether the pollster actually grants it or not.
You know, the tenants of political correctness.
But then, when you go into your polling place and you go into the place behind the curtain where it's just you and there's no pollster, you vote for the white guy, thereby skewing the results of the pre-election poll.
Now, I would also like to add to this hypothesis what I would call the reverse Wilder effect.
Wilder, by the way, being Doug Wilder of the governor of Virginia, who was black, and about whom it was first postulated, Tom Bradley, the mayor of Los Angeles running for governor out there, and General Dinkins.
Now, keep in mind, all these guys are Democrats, and you're dealing with Democrats being called by the pollsters.
So if you call up your Democrat and say, hi, I'm from the ABC polling unit.
Who are you going to agree to vote for?
I'm voting a black guy.
I'm a good American.
I'm not racist.
I'm voting a black guy.
I am open-minded.
It's time for a change in this.
Oh, good.
I'll put it down.
You go to the ballot box, you vote the white guy when nobody can see what you're doing and nobody will know what you're doing.
But Iowa, the Hawkeye Caucy, you go into somebody's house.
You go into some gymnasium, some school cafeteria, and you get all your friends knowing what you're doing.
You have all your friends watching what you're doing.
And so when it comes time to vote in the Hawkeye Caucasi, in order on the Democrat side, in order that your friends don't think you a racist, you vote Obama because you can't vote in private in the Hawkeye Cauckey.
This would be the reverse Wilder effect.
And so, who knows if we got an accurate result out of Iowa?
I mention all this because, again, we're talking Democrats.
We're talking Democrats who are immersed in political correctness and who live and die based on what people think of them.
And the voting place, the voting booth is the only place nobody will know what you've done unless you tell them.
There's no worry what people will think of you.
But in a hawkeye cauckey, when everybody can hear what you say or can read what you vote or can hear you advocating or whatever, well, you might have skewed Obama's big victory in Iowa.
I mean, who knows?
Then you get on to New Hampshire, and of course, the Obama effect here or the Wilder effect in full force in the sense that time to go vote.
You do so in private.
You've told the pollsters, Obama, Obama, I'm caught up in the Obama wave coming out of Iowa and so forth.
But then you get into the voting booth, screw it, I'm voting Hillary.
You couple that with who knows what other kinds of shenanigans went on with people first-time voting in New Hampshire yesterday.
I don't know if there's a way of finding that out, but it's probably not difficult to do if they were to release those kinds of statistics.
Yeah, but that did it happen.
A Secretary of State said yesterday, and of course, this is the day before, said before the ballots supposedly ran out.
But the New Hampshire Secretary of State said they're expecting record numbers of first-time voters, which means out-of-state people.
And it's not illegal in New Hampshire, as we have documented.
Regardless what happened, pollsters are going to have to find out for their own good, for their own understanding.
I heard some pollsters last night saying, well, you know what?
We've got a problem with our models.
We haven't found a way to calculate this massive turnout that's surprising everybody.
Meaning, we haven't figured out a way to go into Massachusetts and Vermont and ask people there how they're going to vote in the New Hampshire primary.
The Spencer Davis group.
Give me, give me, give me some good lovin'.
And don't charge me.
Took him a while on the other side of the glass.
You want to hear the you want to hear.
I mean, this is the epitome.
This is all you need to hear.
It's a montage once again of the drive-bys all using the same word to describe Obama.
This was during Monday and Tuesday.
It's a montage of Anderson Cooper of Innocent Cooper's 180, Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC Scarborough, Rachel Sklar of the Huffing and Puffington Post.
Just a bunch of these people.
Bob Beckle, Russert, Brian Williams, Steve McMahon, talking about Obama.
This is before the results came in last night.
This is on Monday and Tuesday.
He's no longer a candidate.
He's a movement.
The movement that seems to be Barack Obama.
A generational movement.
We know Obama is a movement.
This is a movement out there.
The center of his movement.
This is a serious movement in American politics.
It's more of a movement right now.
The start of a movement.
Turn a moment into a movement.
The sense that this is a movement.
Barack Obama is not just a candidate anymore.
He's a movement.
It's amazing how this happens.
They all end up with the same word, be it gravitas or now movement.
Either the writers were on strike.
I really, I thought, I thought, well, maybe the writers have gone back to work for the news writers, for the newscasters.
Dragged by people, let me repeat.
Yeah, maybe just one writer is back.
That's what happened.
That's got to be it.
There's just one writer working.
There is no movement.
Obama got creamed.
Well, I didn't get creamed, but I mean, it wasn't an upset.
Hillary was forecast to win this thing way back when.
The only thing you're making it an upset is because the pre-election polls that were wrong.
There was no upset.
McCain was not an upset.
McCain was going to win New Hampshire all along, as was Hillary.
This is my point about ignoring these people.
But not only is Obama not a movement, neither of these two elections are about momentum, folks.
These are not momentum elections.
There's one objective in these primaries, and that's to amass the most delegates at the end of the primary process so that you win the nomination.
You've got very close contests.
You've got battles in state after state where the goal is what?
To win delegates to the convention.
And now they're still out there.
They're compounding their horrible mistakes in the past two days.
Now, if Romney doesn't win Michigan, he's done.
They said Romney would be done if he lost New Hampshire.
Maybe, maybe not.
But how can anybody say so at the beginning of the process, which is this is Romney has most of the delegates.
You ought to see that you want to hear the delegate count right now.
In the Democrat side, Obama 25, Clinton 24, Edwards 18.
On the Republican side, Romney 24, Huckabee, 18, McCain, 10.
Now, that's what it is about.
You know, in some of these states, they're not winner-take-all.
And so, you know, Romney is being written off simply because he's won Wyoming and come in second in these other two states.
He's got a bunch of super delegates, too.
This is by no means over, and it's by no means over on the Democrat side.
But this is not about momentum on either party.
If it was about momentum, Obama would have continued his role.
But there was no momentum coming out of Iowa, duh.
And there is no movement, is there?
You got two totally different states with two totally different procedures, and that's all there's been.
And yet, these irresponsible people in the media, these pundits on both sides, folks, I mean, our guys, other side, continuing to compound their errors today.
Yeah, if Romney doesn't do well in Michigan, why he's done.
Wait a minute, you guys got through telling us that about New Hampshire.
It really, in one sense, it's frustrating.
On the other hand, I urge him to keep up because it makes it easier and easier for me to be unique and right by simply practicing a little restraint.
Let's see.
Oh, you may have read about this.
You may have even heard about this.
On Monday, on the campaign trail of New Hampshire, Brian Williams of NBC and NBC's Lee Cowan have this exchange.
This only aired on the internet.
Brian Williams says, what have you noticed since Iowa about Obama, about the campaign, and about the Clintons?
From the reporter's point of view, it's almost hard to remain objective because it's infectious.
So it goes against your core to say that as a reporter, but the crowds have gotten so much bigger.
The crowds have gotten bigger.
Lee Cowen admits he's in love with Obama, that they all feel like that when covering Democrats, but he's now dumb enough to admit it.
They marveled this way over Bill Clinton.
They marveled this way for a while over Hillary Clinton.
And then Joe Klein, this is MSNBC Live yesterday on Scarborough's show.
He spoke with Joe Klein of Time magazine about Obama.
Scarborough said, you know, you wrote a fascinating blog.
Tell the world about it so they can go to your blog.
In his spare time during the last week, Barack Obama has been trying to negotiate a peace settlement in Kenya.
Are you serious?
It is unbelievable.
He's been in touch with both sides in the confrontation.
He's been in touch with Bishop Desmond Tutu, who has gone to Nairobi to try and broker a deal.
And he's been doing this in between rallies.
It's kind of amazing, but also it's an insight into the kind of president he's going to be.
This is before the vote came in.
Yes, this is Joe Klein.
President he's going to be.
Yep, that kind of president is going to be.
He's out there in the midst of the New Hampshire primary.
He's trying to negotiate a peace deal in Kenya.
He should have spent more time focusing on a peace deal in New Hampshire involving him.
Barack, you got to be, you better hope the media sours on you.
In fact, what is going to happen?
This is an interesting thing.
The drive-bys have been humiliated now.
They've been humiliated by this outcome.
You just hurt.
They may not know it.
They may not admit it.
But I'm telling you, this is the elephant in the room.
They may not be addressed.
They're talking about it among themselves.
They may not be talking about it on the radios and TV so much.
But they were embarrassed.
They had this at five to 10 to 12 points for Obama.
And look what happened.
None of them were right, folks.
Zilch Zero Nada.
Now, somebody's going to pay for this, and it won't be them.
I mean, the big loser last night was a drive-by media, but they have yet to concede.
And they won't concede.
Who is going to pay for this?
Will there now be a backlash against Obama?
Will the drive-bys think in order to get their credibility back, they got to start getting tough on this guy and stop all this sophistry of peace deals in Kenya?
And I can't help but get caught up in the emotion.
This is a wonderful thing.
I'm so happy.
JFK all over to RFK too.
Or are they going to get mad at Hillary?
Because Hillary made them look better.
Who knows?
But they don't sit around and practice objectivity.
Somebody's going to pay for this.
And it ain't going to be me this time.
A man, a living legend, a national treasure, and all-around good guy, combined as one harmless, lovable little fuzzball here on the EIB network.
You see everybody moaning and whining that the Golden Globes have been canceled?
Oh, yeah, but they're whining that it won't be the big award show, that there won't be any big parties out there to limo drivers a thousand bucks a day, not going to have any jobs, all the caterers, nothing going on, nothing to do.
Just horrible.
It's actually, there's a bonus here that nobody's thinking about.
And that is no social preening on the part of the award winners as they go up to make their acceptance speeches.
We're not going to have to listen to Golden Globe winners pontificate on politics as they accept their awards.
And I think it's probably good news for the environment.
I mean, these award shows have an incredible carbon footprint that probably is not offset.
A few limos driving around.
Caterers not having to fire up the kitchens.
Hotels with not full occupancy.
It's a good thing for the environment, particularly out in California.
Jim and Atlanta, I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Thank you, Rush.
Well, listen, I think you may be on to something about this, Hillary and her tears.
Last year, Peggy Noonan wrote an article and said that Hillary, people know Hillary can be a man.
What they don't know is that she can be a woman.
And I kind of scratched my head on that.
And then she had her little Oprah moment with the tears.
And I thought, ah, there you go.
I bet that's it.
She's having her, she's showing people she can be a woman.
You know, I remember that.
Did Peggy say, we know she can be a man, but we don't know she can be a woman?
Or was it versa visa?
No, I think that you had it right the first time.
We know she can be a man.
Okay, well, yeah, okay, then that's what Snerdley was getting mad at me about today.
So how come, you know, because I was making a big deal that this, there were two things, actually three.
It wasn't just the tears or the crocodile tears.
It was in the debate when she was asked by this local reporter up there, what do you feel like when you hear that so many people dislike you?
She said, it hurts my feelings.
It's cruel of me to laugh.
But she did it in a likable way.
She didn't do it in a typical Hillary way.
And then those guys are running around saying, iron my shirt.
See, the thing I think that people don't understand about it, when you're talking about, for the most part, liberal women, I'm not trying to generalize all women because women who are engaged and thoughtful are not going to get caught up in this kind of stuff.
Like Peggy.
Yeah, exactly.
But the women that have grown up loving Oprah, the opravation and crying about things and getting emotional.
It is more important that women who have grown up feeling victimized can relate to this.
It's just not fair that Hillary had to cry.
That's somebody's being too mean.
See, the biggest thing for women here is not that Hillary is a woman.
It's the comeback thing.
Victimized women, women who think that they're victims, still suffer from this notion that the world's stacked against them in business and politics.
Love validation.
They love vindication.
They love revenge.
And sadly, they love, screw you, mister.
They just, I'm telling you, they do.
Well, I tell you, there's something else picking up on that note in, I believe, the same article where Noonan said that when a woman gets angry or even to the point of getting strident, there are women on either side of the aisle who can, to some degree, understand or even empathize with her because they can look back on the slights they have suffered from men.
Now, this is coming from Peggy Noonan, fairly conservative individual.
And I kind of thought a little more on that, and I thought, ouch, now that means we better, at the very least, look, I spent a lot of time on this in the first hour, and I know that's what you're calling to reference.
But I think people who ignore this say, what I'm trying to do here is give you some analysis, folks, that you're not going to find in a drive-by.
They're all packed up on the conventional wisdom bandwagon and heading down the tracks.
They're all saying the same thing.
Now, some of them are focused on the tears or the crying, but the why is what's important and the fact that it goes beyond that.
You know, another thing, she said last night in her acceptance speech, I found my voice.
And other Democrats and women all over television, she was human.
It was a human moment.
And that's what you, by quoting Peggy, mean when you say, we know she can act like a man, but can't she be a woman and so forth.
And Snerdley got really mad at me early in the program.
What do you mean, falling for this human moment?
Why, she's 60 years old.
I said, Snerdley, you're missing the point.
Nobody's talking about what's right or wrong here.
We're talking about perceptions.
And we're talking about attitudes that people have, particularly left-wing women.
And I'm telling you, if you have for all of your public life been perceived as Nurse Ratchet and in 10 seconds become the opposite, that is a huge achievement.
To get the monkey of the nurse ratchet off your back inside of 10 seconds with a question from a woman, how do you do it?
How do you get up every day?
How do you do your hair?
How do you keep up?
How do you do this?
And Hillary chokes up and says she's doing it for all of us, not for her.
And by the way, what do most women do in their lives?
They do everything for their kids.
I'm telling you this stuff resonates.
It has nothing to do with chick loyalty.
It has nothing to do with women supporting her because she's a woman.
It has to do with the identification of the trials and the tribulations that she has gone through and the fact that she finally broke or appeared to and then recovered and came back and kicked the pants off Obama and all these people and had her buried and gone.
Women love that.
The Gloria Stein and the Jane Fauna, the left-wing, they love that vindication.
Screw you, mister.
Trust me on this, folks.
Been there, lived it, not loved it, but lived it.
Gary in Charlotte, North Carolina, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hey, Scrush, how are you doing?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
It's taken me 18 years to get through.
Well, congratulations to you, sir.
Thank you.
I just want to say hello to my brother Vinny and Whitestone Queens and my cousin Valerie and Frank in San Diego.
They listen in all the time.
I hope they're listening right now.
I hope so, too.
All right.
Thank you.
Okay, this whole thing with the polls, I think they were fixed.
They wanted to, like you say, they want to make big news.
They want to make her look like the big comeback kid of the century.
I think it's all a bunch of Barbara Streisand, okay?
And that's my opinion.
And next on the thing when she did her crying jam, I think if you notice quickly, all of her cheekbones, you could see how much makeup she was wearing, that it was actually cracking when she was talking.
Now, now, now.
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
You are creating sympathy among people, among women who don't even like her.
I know.
Well, you got to stop this.
You know, you're out there.
She knows wheren't tears or makeup cracked.
Well, you can't say you.
Well, you can say it, but I'm saying there's going to be a price.
You're going to have women who don't even like her.
My God, this poor woman doesn't even have a chance.
These guys, these Neanderthals making fun of her makeup cracking.
Yeah, I know.
Also, even if she doesn't, God forbid, save the country, she should happen to win.
The only thing is she's going to have a problem getting an inaugural gown.
Who's going to make a lumberjack plaid jumpsuit?
You know, pantsuit?
An inaugural gown?
Who's going to make a lumberjack plaid pantsuit with Timberland boots?
Why missing here?
Why do you think she'd wear a lumberjack plaid suit for the inauguration?
Well, that's what most non-real women wear, don't they?
In a certain I'm lost here.
I don't get this lumberjack business.
It could be my hearing.
Maybe I'm hearing this right.
Most non-real women.
You're talking about pantsuits.
You're throwing in a lumberjack thing here just to be funny.
But this is what I mean, folks.
Don't try this on the phone.
Don't leave this to the professionals.
The highly trained broadcast specialists don't try it unless you have a writer.
And even then, run it by somebody first.
As to the pollsters being in on the fix, too many of them got it wrong, particularly on our side, too.
Frank Lunt said it wrong.
Frank Lunt's not going to sit there and participate in some notion to create this big comeback for Hillary.
So I don't think that's at work here.
In fact, I'm going to repeat this again.
I think in the Clinton camp, the Democrat side, a lot of you are going to disagree with me on this, but I warn you not to.
I'm telling you that despite all the happiness that you saw or you thought you saw emanating from New Hampshire last night, the Democrat Party right now is in a bit of chaos.
And it's, again, now, this is crucial that I explain this properly so that you don't misunderstand me.
I am talking about their attitudes here.
I'm not talking about what is.
I'm talking about the way they think.
And to understand what I'm going to say, you have to understand that liberals look at conservatives and they see a walking stereotype of racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, hayseed Christian with a gun and a gun rack in the back of a pickup getting to the church on Saturday night to get a head start in everybody's Sunday morning.
That's what they see.
Who are their two leading nominees?
A black guy and a female?
Both unprecedented in terms of having been elected president.
The Democrats today are not about what they are for.
This is not what this campaign's about.
That's why you're hearing lofty, platitudinous speeches about change.
And I'm the new JFK, I'm the new RFK, I'm the new Martin Luther King.
They're conjuring up images.
This is not about specifics.
They get in, it's about health care and all this, but all those are emotional plays.
What the Democrats are in chaos about, what they're afraid of, is that they think when they lose elections, it's because we have been able to turn out more racists and sexists and bigots to screw them at the election ballot box.
And their big concern here is whether it's Hillary or Obama, they are worried how to inoculate both candidates from what they think will be the racist and or sexist campaign.
They think they're vulnerable because what I'm telling you is they're in chaos because they think they are vulnerable because they have nominated or well, nomination race consists of a black guy and a female.
And they think we're going to go after either one on racist or sexist ways and that we can succeed.
And so they're trying to come up with ways to blunt that rather than express what they are for.
Now, I'm over time here on this segment.
I've got to go to a break.
But I mean this.
I know this is where their head's at.
This is how they think.
These are the cliched stereotypes that they look at Republicans at.
Just like they look at D-Bold or manufacturers of voting machines with a cliched stereotype that it's owned by Republicans and they're out to be screwed.
They believe this stuff.
And so it animates them.
And it causes them to implement various strategeries in their election strategery.
And that's where they're at right now.
Make no bones about it.
You heard it here.
A couple more audio soundbites here.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is Barack Obama last night in Nashua, New Hampshire, at a post-election event at which he conceded the New Hampshire primary to Senator Clinton.
We have two soundbites.
Here's the first.
It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail towards freedom through the darkest of nights.
Yes, we can.
It was sung by immigrants as they struck up from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westwards against an unforgiving wilderness.
Yes, we can.
It was the call of workers who organized, women who reached for the ballot.
A president who chose the moon as our new frontier, and a king who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the promised land.
Yes, we can to justice and equality.
Yes, we can to opportunity and prosperity.
Yes, we can heal this nation.
Yes, we can repair this world.
Yes, we can.
What did he say?
He said absolutely nothing.
But he did it so well, I know, but he said absolutely nothing.
And this is why I say to you that the outcome of all this is based not on what they are for, but what they are scared they believe we can exploit.
Because they think we're racists and sexists.
So here's Obama making it known that he is down for the struggle in South Carolina.
He is down for the struggle.
And in Michigan, he is down for the struggle.
What was it?
Slogan is, yes, we can.
And Clinton Inc. finishes it off by saying, take him out.
So you got Obama saying, yes, we can.
And over Clinton Inc., they're saying, take him out.
And when you combine the two, what do you get?
We can take him out.
Yes, we can take him out.
Here's the second Obama bite.
Tomorrow, as we take the campaign south and west, as we learn that the struggles of the textile workers in Spartanburg are not so different than the plight of the dishwasher in Las Vegas, that the hopes of the little girl who goes to the crumbling school in Dillon are the same as the dreams of the boy who learns on the streets of L.A., we will remember that there is something happening in America,
that we are not as divided as our politics suggests, that we are one people, we are one nation, and together we will begin the next great chapter in the American story with three words that will ring from coast to coast, from sea to shining sea.
Yes, we can.
Thank you, New Hampshire.
Thank you.
And once again, more platitudinous stuff sounds really good.
Some might say it's inspirational, but it's nothing.
There's nothing there.
I'm, folks, this is not personal between me and Obama.
I'm just telling you, I analyze this stuff like everybody else.
There's nothing there.
This.
Oh, there's hope.
Okay, there's hope there.
This is aimed at who then it's aimed at the people wandering aimlessly through life.
This is, this is, it's just, it's just, I don't know.
I'd love to run against it.
I'd love to run against it.
But we're going to run against Hillary probably, and that'll be fun, too.
Remember this, folks.
The Democrat machine candidate always wins.
The upstarts insurgents never do.
Bill Bradley in 2000, Howard Dean 2004.
The upstart insurgent here is Obama.
The machine candidate is Hillary.
It's all you need to know.
Forget all these polls.
See you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection