<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is Time Really On Clinton&#8217;s Side?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/03/is-time-really-on-clintons-side/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/03/is-time-really-on-clintons-side</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:39:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kyle E. Moore</title>
		<link>http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/03/is-time-really-on-clintons-side/comment-page-1#comment-25986</link>
		<dc:creator>Kyle E. Moore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:01:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/03/is-time-really-on-clintons-side#comment-25986</guid>
		<description>I was actually referencing I believe the Survey USA poll that was used to come up with that overall graph.  One thing that should be pointed out though is that from what I understand, Survey USA has been thus far the most accurate of the polls.

One thing, and I have not wanted to post this, but I&#039;m going to get to it tonight or tomorrow is that there&#039;s an analysis out there that has Obama losing the delegate hunt in PA by about 20-30.

There&#039;s still a chance that he could really turn things around in Pennsylvania, but I think we all need to be real clear eyed when we head to PA.

Damn it all if this whole race ain&#039;t just frustrating the crap out of me at this point.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was actually referencing I believe the Survey USA poll that was used to come up with that overall graph.  One thing that should be pointed out though is that from what I understand, Survey USA has been thus far the most accurate of the polls.</p>
<p>One thing, and I have not wanted to post this, but I&#8217;m going to get to it tonight or tomorrow is that there&#8217;s an analysis out there that has Obama losing the delegate hunt in PA by about 20-30.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s still a chance that he could really turn things around in Pennsylvania, but I think we all need to be real clear eyed when we head to PA.</p>
<p>Damn it all if this whole race ain&#8217;t just frustrating the crap out of me at this point.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pug</title>
		<link>http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/03/is-time-really-on-clintons-side/comment-page-1#comment-25985</link>
		<dc:creator>Pug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:59:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/03/is-time-really-on-clintons-side#comment-25985</guid>
		<description>Another point overlooked by the media is the popular vote.  In Mississippi last night, Obama got about 100,000 more votes than Clinton.  In Texas on March 4th, Clinton got about 101,000 more votes.  That&#039;s a net gain, after her &quot;huge&quot; win, of about 1,000 votes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another point overlooked by the media is the popular vote.  In Mississippi last night, Obama got about 100,000 more votes than Clinton.  In Texas on March 4th, Clinton got about 101,000 more votes.  That&#8217;s a net gain, after her &#8220;huge&#8221; win, of about 1,000 votes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pug</title>
		<link>http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/03/is-time-really-on-clintons-side/comment-page-1#comment-25983</link>
		<dc:creator>Pug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:55:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/03/is-time-really-on-clintons-side#comment-25983</guid>
		<description>Actually, that Pollster.com poll only shows a Clinton lead of 12 points, right?  That could turn into a very close race before April 22nd.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, that Pollster.com poll only shows a Clinton lead of 12 points, right?  That could turn into a very close race before April 22nd.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kyle E. Moore</title>
		<link>http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/03/is-time-really-on-clintons-side/comment-page-1#comment-25964</link>
		<dc:creator>Kyle E. Moore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:38:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/03/is-time-really-on-clintons-side#comment-25964</guid>
		<description>Thanks, I can&#039;t believe I missed that...  I&#039;ll get on it in a few minutes.

As for your theory, you&#039;re definitely right, I think, and I&#039;m going to speak to that in an interview/presentation I&#039;m supposed to be giving tomorrow (would have done it today, but the system that they wanted me to use was not working properly).  To be brutally honest, I think it is that tendency that really affected the coverage following the March 4th primaries.  The actual mathematical situation did not receive nearly as much attention in the MSM as did the momentum... momentum, might I add, that&#039;s already been largely blunted.

so yeah, they&#039;re in it for themselves, but I&#039;m kinda hoping Olbermann&#039;s special comments tonight kind of jars things a bit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, I can&#8217;t believe I missed that&#8230;  I&#8217;ll get on it in a few minutes.</p>
<p>As for your theory, you&#8217;re definitely right, I think, and I&#8217;m going to speak to that in an interview/presentation I&#8217;m supposed to be giving tomorrow (would have done it today, but the system that they wanted me to use was not working properly).  To be brutally honest, I think it is that tendency that really affected the coverage following the March 4th primaries.  The actual mathematical situation did not receive nearly as much attention in the MSM as did the momentum&#8230; momentum, might I add, that&#8217;s already been largely blunted.</p>
<p>so yeah, they&#8217;re in it for themselves, but I&#8217;m kinda hoping Olbermann&#8217;s special comments tonight kind of jars things a bit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DM Metzger</title>
		<link>http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/03/is-time-really-on-clintons-side/comment-page-1#comment-25960</link>
		<dc:creator>DM Metzger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:05:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/03/is-time-really-on-clintons-side#comment-25960</guid>
		<description>5th paragraph: defecit = deficit.  Feel free to edit this comment out when you fix that.

I&#039;m not really sure why pundits are saying that this this 6 week gap should help Clinton.  If there&#039;s one thing this election has taught us it&#039;s that time is on Obama&#039;s side.  In &lt;strong&gt;every&lt;/strong&gt; election this primary he&#039;s proven that, when allowed the time for focused campaigning, his numbers rise nearly daily.  

Honestly Hillary&#039;s best shot would have been for a 50-state all-at-once primary last year.   She &lt;em&gt;would&lt;/em&gt; have won it then.  The longer this goes on the worse it goes for her.  Pennsylvania&#039;s not likely to shake that trend.

My theory?  The pundits know their election horse-race ratings gold mine is coming to a close and they&#039;re trying to drag it out with false interpretations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>5th paragraph: defecit = deficit.  Feel free to edit this comment out when you fix that.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not really sure why pundits are saying that this this 6 week gap should help Clinton.  If there&#8217;s one thing this election has taught us it&#8217;s that time is on Obama&#8217;s side.  In <strong>every</strong> election this primary he&#8217;s proven that, when allowed the time for focused campaigning, his numbers rise nearly daily.  </p>
<p>Honestly Hillary&#8217;s best shot would have been for a 50-state all-at-once primary last year.   She <em>would</em> have won it then.  The longer this goes on the worse it goes for her.  Pennsylvania&#8217;s not likely to shake that trend.</p>
<p>My theory?  The pundits know their election horse-race ratings gold mine is coming to a close and they&#8217;re trying to drag it out with false interpretations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

