i heart polls

call me crazy.... call it an addiction. but poll numbers make me moist. i love 'em, i can't get enough of 'em... if they mixed well with vodka - well, we'd have some problems.

some interesting new numbers came out today.

the first numbers i found this morning were from mr. allen on politico.com. it paints a dimmer primary picture for my woman, hillary. quoting from mr. allen (that was very keith olbermann):

Polls in the Democratic presidential race have been pretty static, but there may have been some real movement. American Research Group has Sen. Barack Obama moving into a tie with Sen. Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire and “surging” in South Carolina (up 12 since June), per Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics.

let's break this down into specifics of the bevan numbers:

New Hampshire - Democrats
Obama 31 (+6 vs. last poll in June)
Clinton 31 (-3)
Edwards 14 (+3)

South Carolina - Democrats
Obama 33 (+12 vs. last poll in June)
Clinton 29 (-8)
Edwards 18 (-4)

that is a mighty impressive bump for senator obama.

side note: much like bill, i don't want to get into the middle of the little spat between hill and barack last week (yes, yes - i wrote about the debate answer - but i moved on). i think hillary was taken aback by how well obama fought back in the second half of last week. but as that political nut craig crawford said earlier today, hillary needs to stop responding to such minor slaps and start acting like the front runner again. which brings me to the exciting numbers of the day.

nbc has released the results of their latest wall street journal/nbc news poll. great news for hillary who has surged (there's that word again) to a 21-point lead over obama: 43% to 22%. this is an increase on her 14-point lead back in june over obama (39% to 25%).

nationally, a heads-up match between clinton and guiliani has hillary winning 47% to 41% (which is better than the plus or minus 3 points). obama would also beat guiliani by a slightly smaller margin.

most impressive: a whopping 74% of poll respondents said that at least 24 straight years of bushes and clintons in the white house won’t be much of a consideration when they vote.

so....what does all this mean? well, it depends. will the democratic nomination be settled locally - in the primaries? will obama's lead in these states carry him to the podium in denver? and lest we forget that edwards is still leading in all iowa polls. what does a win there mean for john? or will a strong second-place showing for one of the other nominees carry them to win other states?

but what if the democratic primary voters are once again looking for electability (ala kerry in 2004)? would national polls swing the voters in individual states? pundits seem to agree that electability is more important for the GOP this year - which explains why a cross-dressing, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control republican may win the nomination. which brings me to my favorite 'meet the press' quote of the week. compliments of chuck todd:

if it's romney verses rudy in south carolina, will the evangelicals hold their nose and vote for the mormon or hold their nose and vote for the pro-choice guy?

well.... there are many, many more months (and polls) ahead to clear all this up. in the meantime - i'm having a blast!


and now for something completely different:
peter schrager (special to fox sports) has my beloved houston texans currently #28 in the nfl power rankings...with good buzz on matt schaub who replaces my husband, david carr. well, at least that still leaves minnesota, atlanta (suck it, vick!), oakland and cleveland ranked lower.

oy... could be another long football season in houston.

e.