May 2008


Choose Your Language Of Preference Below

French Version German Version Russian Version Spanish Version 

Portuguese Version Chinese Version Arabic Version    

 WATCH Zambian TV (ZNBC TV 

Lusaka – Zambia is expected to face a major power blackout for a week after the planned shutdown of a key hydropower generator, its national power company announced on Friday.

The power outages will run from Friday midnight until June 5 in order to facilitate rehabilitation of the generator at the 180-megawatt Kariba North Bank, Zambia Electricity Supply Company (Zesco) said.

“This is to ensure that the generator is in good condition in order to assure its continued reliable operations,” said Zesco spokesperson Monica Chisela.

“In view of the foregoing outage, the country is expected to experience increased load shedding particularly during peak periods,” Chisela said.

She said Zambia was unable to secure imports from neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo because the interconnector betweeen the two nations had developed a technical fault.

Zambia, like many southern African nations, is facing acute power shortages that has led to frequent electricity rationing. – Sapa-AFP

Advertisements

The FDA received numerous media inquires about a recently published paper (Pooled analysis of two case–control studies on use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for malignant brain tumors diagnosed in 1997–2003by Hardell et al.) reporting increased risk of malignant brain tumor associated with long term use ( >10 years) of cell phones and cordless phones. This is not a new study but is an analysis of two studies previously published in 2003 and 2005. Both studies were population based case control studies. Cases were recruited based on histopathological diagnoses submitted to regional cancer registries in Uppsala/Örebro and Linköping regions of Sweden. Control subjects were taken from a population registry covering the whole population in Sweden.

Several studies have been recently published on the risk of long term cell phone use (> 10 years) and brain cancer1. The results reported by Hardell et al. are not in agreement with results obtained in other long term studies. Also, the use of mailed questionnaire for exposure assessment and lack of adjustments for possible confounding factors makes the Hardell et al. study design significantly different from other studies. These facts along with the lack of an established mechanism of action and absence of supporting animal data make it difficult to interpret Hardell et al. findings.

The FDA continues to monitor studies looking at possible health effects resulting from exposure to radio frequency energy. In 1999, FDA signed a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the Cellular Telecommunication & Internet Association (CTIA)2. As called for by this CRADA , FDA plans to convene a meeting in the near future to evaluate all completed, ongoing and planned research looking at health effects associated with the use of wireless communication devices and identify knowledge gaps that may warrant additional research.

First results from national component of INTERPHONE Study

The first results of analyses of risk of acoustic neurinoma risk in relation to use of mobile telephones in the Danish part of INTERPHONE were published on 27 January 2004 in the American Journal of Epidemiology http://www.aje.oupjournals.org/ Helle Collatz Christensen, Joachim Schüz, Michael Kosteljanetz, Hans Skovgaard Poulsen, Jens Thomsen, and Christoffer Johansen Cellular Telephone Use and Risk of Acoustic Neuroma, Am. J. Epidemiol. 2004 159: 277-283 (http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/159/3/277.pdf)

The study included 106 cases of incident acoustic neurinoma cases in Denmark diagnosed in 2000-2002 and 212 controls, matched on sex and age. No association was seen between regular mobile phone use and risk of this disease (OR=0.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.6). The average size of tumours was significantly higher, however, for regular users than for non-users (1.66 cm3 vs. 1.39, p=0.03).

Analyses of laterality of phone use indicated significant disagreement between side of use of the phone and the side of the head where the tumour developed. The authors discuss the possibility that hearing loss may be a negative confounder of the association between mobile phone use and acoustic neurinoma risk, as the presence of hearing problems prior to diagnosis may prevent cases from becoming regular users, limit their lifetime calling time and/or force them to switch the side of their head on which they hold the phone when they use.

Results of other national components of the INTERPHONE Study should be published later in 2004, and the first paper from the International analyses in late 2004 or early 2005.

More information about the Danish study and its results can be found on the site of the Danish Cancer Centre www.cancer.dk. The press release in Danish is available at:
http://www.cancer.dk/cancer/nyheder/aktuelt/ny+undersoegelse+viser+ingen+oeget+kraeftrisiko+ved+mobiltelefoni1.asp

Results from the Swedish acoustic neurinoma component of INTERPHONE Study

The first results of analyses of risk of acoustic neurinoma risk in relation to use of mobile telephones in the Swedish part of INTERPHONE were published on 13 September 2004 in Epidemiology http://www.epidem.com/ Lönn, Stefan; Ahlbom, Anders; Hall, Per; Feychting, Maria; Mobile Phone Use and the Risk of Acoustic Neuroma. Epidemiology 15 (6): 653-659. This article is available at: http://www.epidem.com/.

The study included 148 cases of incident acoustic neurinoma, diagnosed between the ages of 20 and 60 in 1999-2002 in some parts of Sweden and 604 controls, matched on sex, age and residential area. No association was seen, overall, between regular mobile phone use and risk of this disease: the relative risk was estimated to be 1.0 (95% confidence interval = 0.6-1.5). Ten years after the start of mobile phone use, however, the relative risk increased to 1.9 (0.9-4.1). When restricting to tumours on the same side of the head as the phone was normally used (the side of the head where radio-frequency exposure from the phones is expected to be highest), the relative risk increased to 3.9 (1.6-9.5), based on 12 exposed cases.

Acoustic neurinoma are rare tumours, occurring in less than one adult per 100 000 per year. They are slowly growing benign tumours that generally have a good prognosis, as they only rarely undergo malignant change.

To date, few studies have included sufficient numbers of cases among long-term users to allow a definitive conclusion about a possible association between mobile telephone use and the risk of acoustic neurinoma. These results therefore need to be confirmed in other studies before firm conclusions can be drawn.

Results of other national components of the INTERPHONE Study should be published later in 2004 and in 2005 (the results of the Danish acoustic neurinoma study were published earlier this year: http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/159/3/277.pdf). The first paper from the International analyses, which will cover over 1000 cases of acoustic neurinoma, should be published in 2005.

More information about the Swedish study and its results can be found on the site of the Karolinska Institute (http://www.imm.ki.se/). The press release in English is available at:
http://www.imm.ki.se/PDF/press%20release%20oct%2013%202004.pdf

Results of the Danish brain tumour component of INTERPHONE Study

The first results of analyses of risk of brain tumour in relation to use of mobile telephones in the Danish part of INTERPHONE were published on 12 April 2005 in Neurology http://www.neurology.org/: Collatz Christensen H., Schüz J, Kosteljanetz M, Skovgaard Poulsen H, Boice JD, McLaughlin JK and Johansen C. Cellular telephones and risk for brain tumors: a population-based, incident case-control study. Neurology 64: 1189-1195. The study included 252 incident glioma cases, 175 incident meningioma cases and 822 randomly selected population based controls stratified on age and gender. The cases were aged 20 to 69 and diagnosed in 2000-2002 in the whole of Denmark. Participation rates were 71% for glioma, 74% for meningioma and 64% for controls. Regular mobile phone use did not increase the risk of low-grade glioma or of meningioma (low-grade glioma OR=1.08, 95% CI 0.58-2.00; meningioma: OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.54-0.1.28). No association was found with time since first exposure (only 6 meningioma and 6 low-grade glioma cases had started using mobile phones 10 years or more before diagnosis, however) or with numbers of call or hours of calls.

A statistically significant reduction in risk was seen for high-grade glioma (OR 0.58, 95%CI 0.37-0.90). The finding is puzzling as there is, a priori, no biological mechanism for such a reduction. It is noted that 18% of the glioma cases could not be interviewed as they had either died or were too ill. Although no information is provided about the grade of the tumours among non-respondents, it is likely that a large proportion of these were high-grade gliomas. In addition, patients with high-grade glioma had significantly lower scores on the Mini-Mental State Examination than patients with lower-grade glioma or meningioma. The reduced risk for high-grade glioma may therefore reflect selection and/or recall bias.

To date, few studies have included sufficient numbers of cases among long-term users to allow a definitive conclusion about a possible association between mobile telephone use and the risk of brain cancer. These results therefore need to be confirmed in other studies before firm conclusions can be drawn.

Results of other national components of the INTERPHONE Study should be published later in 2005 and 2006 (The results of the Swedish brain tumour study were published earlier this year http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/161/6/526/). Results from the International analyses, which will cover about 2800 glioma cases and 2400 meningioma cases and sizable numbers of long-term users, are expected later in 2005.

More information about the Danish study and its results can be found on the site of the Danish Cancer Centre www.cancer.dk.

Results from the Swedish brain tumour component of INTERPHONE Study

The first results of analyses of risk of brain tumour in relation to use of mobile telephones in the Swedish part of INTERPHONE were published on 4 March 2005 in the American Journal of Epidemiology http://aje.oupjournals.org/ : Lönn, Stefan; Ahlbom, Anders; Hall, Per; Feychting, Maria and the Swedish Interphone Study Group; Long-Term Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumor Risk. Am J Epidemiol 161: 1-10.

The study included 371 incident glioma cases, 273 incident meningioma cases and 674 randomly selected population based controls stratified on age, gender and residential area. The cases were aged 20 to 60 and diagnosed in 2000-2002 in parts of Sweden. Regular mobile phone use did not increase the risk of glioma or of meningioma (glioma OR=0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.0; meningioma: OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-0.9). Similar results were found for more than 10 years’ duration of mobile phone use. No statistically significantly increased risk was seen for ipsilateral tumours or for tumours located in the temporal and parietal lobes of the brain (the areas thought to be most exposed to radiofrequency radiation emitted by mobile phones). The authors conclude that the data do not support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to the risk of glioma or of meningioma.

To date, few studies have included sufficient numbers of cases among long-term users to allow a definitive conclusion about the existence or not of a possible association between mobile telephone use and the risk of brain cancer. This is one of only two studies available at present with sizable numbers of subjects who used mobile phones for 10 years or more. Results of further studies are needed before firm conclusions can be drawn.

Results of other national components of the INTERPHONE Study should be published later in 2005 and 2006. The first paper from the international analyses, which will cover about 2800 glioma cases and 2400 meningioma cases and sizable numbers of long-term users, should be published in 2005.

More information about the Swedish study group can be found on the site of the Karolinska Institute.
http://www.imm.ki.se/divisions/epidemiology/index.html
The article is part of a thesis and a press release in English is available at:

http://www.imm.ki.se/PDF/Press/Press%20release%20nov%2025%202004.pdf

Results combined analyses of acoustic neurinoma risk in the Northern European centres included in INTERPHONE

The results of combined analyses of risk of acoustic neurinoma in relation to use of mobile telephones in the Northern European countries included in the INTERPHONE Study were published online on 30 August 2005 in the British Journal of Cancer
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/vaop/ncurrent/index.html:
Schoemaker MJ, Swerdlow AJ, Ahlbom A, Auvinen A, Blaasaas KG, Cardis E, Collatz Christensen H, Feychting M, Hepworth SJ, Johansen C, Klæboe L, Lonn S, McKinney PA, Muir K, Raitanen J, Salminen T, Thomsen J, Tynes T. Mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: results of the Interphone case-control study in five North European countries. British Journal of Cancer – on-line 30 August 2005.

The analyses included 678 acoustic neurinoma cases and 3,553 randomly selected population based controls stratified on age, gender and residential area from Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the UK. The subjects included in the previously published Danish and Swedish analyses (Christensen et al, 2004 and Lönn et al, 2005) were included in these analyses.

Regular mobile phone use did not increase the risk of neurinoma in this pooled data set (OR=0.9, 95% CI 0.7-1.1). There was no association of risk with duration of use, lifetime cumulative hours of use or number of calls, for phone use overall or for analogue or digital phones separately. Risk of a tumour on the same side of the head as reported phone use was raised for use for 10 years or longer (OR=1.8, 95% CI: 1.1–3.1). The authors conclude that there is no substantial risk of this tumour in the first 10 years after starting mobile phone use. However, an increased risk after longer term use could not be ruled out.

Acoustic neurinoma are rare tumours, occurring in less than one adult per 100 000 per year. They are slowly growing benign tumours that generally have a good prognosis, as they only rarely undergo malignant change.

To date, few studies have included sufficient numbers of cases among long-term users to allow a definitive conclusion about the existence or not of a possible association between mobile telephone use and the risk of brain cancer. This paper presents the results of analyses based on the largest number of acoustic neurinomas to date, from European countries where mobile phones were introduced particularly early. The study included 47 cases who had started mobile phone use 10 years or more in the past.

Results of other national components of the INTERPHONE Study should be published later in 2005 and 2006. The first paper from the international analyses, which will cover about 1100 neurinoma cases and sizable numbers of long-term users, should be published shortly.

More information about the analyses can be found on the site of the Institute for Cancer Research, which coordinated these analyses: www.icr.ac.uk

References cited

Collatz Christensen, Helle; Schüz, Joachiml; Kosteljanetz, Michael; Skovgaard Poulsen, Hans; Thomsen Jens and Johansen, Christoffer. Cellular Telephone Use and Risk of Acoustic Neuroma, Am. J. Epidemiol. 2004 159: 277-283

Lönn, Stefan; Ahlbom, Anders; Hall, Per; Feychting, Maria. Mobile Phone Use and the Risk of Acoustic Neuroma. Epidemiology 2005 15 (6): 653-659.

Results from the UK brain tumour (glioma) component of the INTERPHONE Study

The first results of analyses of risk of brain tumour in relation to use of mobile telephones in the British part of INTERPHONE were published on 19 January 2006 in the British Medical Journal http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/onlinefirst_date.shtml: Hepworth J, Schoemaker MJ, Muir KR, Swerdlow AJ, van Tongeren MJA, McKinney PA. Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in adults: case-control study. BMJ Online First bmj.com

The study included 966 incident glioma cases and 1716 randomly selected population based controls stratified on age, gender and residential area. The cases were aged 20 to 60 and diagnosed in 2000-2004 in five areas of the UK. Regular mobile phone use did not increase the risk of glioma (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13). There was no relation for risk of glioma and time since first use, lifetime years of use, and cumulative number of calls and hours of use. A significant excess risk was found for reported phone use ipsilateral to the tumour (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.52); however, a significant reduction in risk was seen (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93) for contralateral use: recall bias was postulated, as the explanation for this finding.

The authors conclude that, consistent with results of most published studies, use of a mobile phone, either in the short or medium term, is not associated with an increased risk of glioma.

To date, few studies have included sufficient numbers of cases among long-term users to allow a definitive conclusion about the existence or not of a possible association between mobile telephone use and the risk of brain cancer. This is the largest study of brain cancer in relation to mobile telephones to date, with 66 cases who had started use 10 years or more previously. Results of further studies are needed before firm conclusions can be drawn.

Results of other national components of the INTERPHONE Study should be published later in 2006. The first paper from the international analyses, which will cover about 2800 glioma cases and sizable numbers of long-term users, should be published in 2006.
Results from the German brain tumour (glioma and meningioma) component of the INTERPHONE Study

The first results of analyses of risk of brain tumour in relation to use of mobile telephones in the German part of INTERPHONE were published in the advance online access edition of the American Journal of Epidemiology, 27 January 2006
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/papbyrecent.dtl: Joachim Schüz, Eva Böhler, Gabriele Berg, Brigitte Schlehofer, Iris Hettinger, Klaus Schlaefer, Jürgen Wahrendorf, Katharina Kunna-Grass, and Maria Blettner. Cellular Phones, Cordless Phones, and the Risks of Glioma and Meningioma (Interphone Study Group, Germany).

The study included 366 incident glioma cases, 381 meningioma cases, and 1494 randomly selected population based controls matched on gender, age, and study centre. The cases were aged 30 to 69 and diagnosed between 2000 and 2003 in three areas of Germany (Mainz, Bielefeld and Heidelberg). Overall, regular mobile phone use did not increase the risk of glioma (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.29) or meningioma (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.13). Amongst persons who had used a mobile phone for at least ten years, however, the relative risk increased to 2.20 (95% CI 0.94 to 5.11) for glioma, while no increase was observed for meningioma. There was no difference between users and non-users in risk of either glioma or meningioma in the lobe of the brain thought to receive the highest exposure to radiofrequency radiation from mobile phones (the temporal lobe).

The authors conclude that, consistent with results of most published studies, overall use of mobile phones is not associated with an increased risk of brain tumour. However, the elevated risk of glioma in long-term users needs to be confirmed in further studies.

To date, few studies have included sufficient numbers of cases among long-term users to allow a definitive conclusion about the existence or not of a possible association between mobile telephone use and the risk of brain cancer. The German study included only 12 cases of glioma who had used phones for 10 years or more. Results of further studies are needed before firm conclusions can be drawn.

The first paper from the combined analyses from 13 INTERPHONE countries, which will cover about 2800 glioma and 2400 meningioma cases and sizable numbers of long-term users, should be published in 2006.

Research Cooperation with the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA)

FDA and the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) have a formal Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) to do research on wireless phone safety. FDA provides the scientific oversight, obtaining input from experts in government, industry, and academic organizations. CTIA-funded research is conducted through contracts to independent investigators. The initial research will include both laboratory studies and studies of wireless phone users. The CRADA will also include a broad assessment of additional research needs in the context of the latest research developments around the world.

General Information About the CRADA

FDA Recommendations Concerning Research to be Conducted Under the CRADA

FDA has recommended CTIA fund research to address questions raised by previous studies on the effect of radio frequency exposure on micronucleus formation. The specific questions of interest to FDA are:

  • Is the reported effect of RF exposure on lymphocytes accurate and reproducible?
  • What is the role of temperature change in the observed results with RF exposure?
  • Do In Vivo RF exposures increase micronucleous formation?

CTIA followed FDA’s recommendation and funded two In Vitro studies and one In Vivo study:

  • Integrated Laboratory Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC. (In Vitro).
  • Interuniversity Center on Interaction Between Electromagnetic Fields and Biosystems, Naples and Rome, Italy. (In Vitro).
  • The Fraunhofer Institute of Toxicology and Aerosol Research, Hannover, Germany. (In Vivo).

The studies funded by CTIA satisfactorily address the research needs identified by FDA. FDA continues to monitor the progress of these studies through a regular series of progress reports and site visits.

Micronucleus Formation

  • Federal Register Notice for a Meeting (August, 2000) Text
  • Meeting Transcript, Day One WORD or PDF (note: file is 229 pages/339KB)
  • Meeting Transcript, Day Two WORD or PDF (note: file is 99 pages/148KB)
  • FDA Research Recommendations Text

Epidemiology (Studies of Human Populations)

  • Federal Register Notice for a Meeting (April, 2001) Text
  • Meeting Transcript, Day One WORD or PDF (note: file is 297 pages/357KB)
  • Meeting Transcript, Day Two WORD or PDF (note: file is 87 pages/131KB)
  • Federal Register Notice for a Meeting (May, 2001) Text
  • Meeting Transcript, Day One WORD or PDF (note: file is 599 pages/577KB)
  • Meeting Transcript, Day Two WORD or PDF (note: file is 281 pages/285KB)
  • FDA Research Recommendations WORD, PDF or Text

By Political Analyst

Democratic Party lawyers have ruled the committee has the authority to seat half but not all of the delegates from Michigan and Florida. That is less than the Clinton Campaign wanted and needed.

They sent a 38 page memo to the Rules & Bylaws committee explaining that’s legally the farthest the committee can go. The lawyers explain that according to the established rules, the committee can not decide to restore 100% of the disenfranchised delegates from the two states. They want to avoid law suits.

The Rules & Bylaws Committee is meeting at the end of this month to decided what to do. It’s clear from this legal decision even if they restore 50% of the delegates, Hillary’s out of luck.

Full article: http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/democrats-cant-fully-restore-delegates/20080528064609990001 Hhttp://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/democrats-cant-fully-restore-delegates/20080528064609990001ERE.

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 
Popular Vote Count
State Date   Obama Clinton       Spread
Popular Vote Total     16,685,941 49.1% 16,227,514 47.7%       Obama +458,427 +1.4%
     
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*     17,020,025 49.1% 16,451,376 47.5%       Obama +568,649 +1.6%
     
Popular Vote (w/FL)     17,262,155 48.3% 17,098,500 47.8%       Obama +163,655 +0.5%
     
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*     17,596,239 48.3% 17,322,362 47.6%       Obama +273,877 +0.7%
     
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)**     17,262,155 47.5% 17,426,809 47.9%       Clinton +164,654 +0.45%
     
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*     17,596,239 47.6% 17,650,671 47.7%       Clinton +54,432 +0.15%
     
Montana 06/03                              –
     
South Dakota 06/03                              –
     
Puerto Rico 06/01                              –
     
Oregon 05/20   366,421 58.5% 254,894 40.7%       Obama +111,527 +17.8%
     
Kentucky 05/20   209,903 29.9% 459,210 65.5%       Clinton +249,307 +35.6%
     
West Virginia 05/13   91,663 25.7% 239,187 67.0%       Clinton +147,524 +41.3%
     
North Carolina 05/06   887,391 56.1% 657,669 41.6%       Obama +229,722 +14.5%
     
Indiana 05/06   632,035 49.4% 646,233 50.6%       Clinton +14,198 +1.2%
     
Guam 05/03   2,264 50.1% 2,257 49.9%       Obama +7 +0.2%
     
Pennsylvania 04/22   1,046,822 45.4% 1,260,937 54.6%       Clinton +214,115 +9.2%
     
Mississippi 03/11   265,502 61.2% 159,221 36.7%       Obama +106,281 +24.5%
     
Wyoming 03/08   5,378 61.4% 3,311 37.8%       Obama +2,067 +23.6%
     
Texas 03/04   1,362,476 47.4% 1,462,734 50.9%       Clinton +100,258 +3.5%
     
Ohio 03/04   1,055,769 44.8% 1,259,620 53.5%       Clinton +203,851 +8.7%
     
Rhode Island 03/04   75,316 40.4% 108,949 58.4%       Clinton +33,633 +18.0%
     
Vermont 03/04   91,901 59.3% 59,806 38.6%       Obama +32,095 +20.7%
     
Wisconsin 02/19   646,851 58.1% 453,954 40.8%       Obama +192,897 +17.3%
     
Hawaii 02/19   28,347 76.1% 8,835 23.7%       Obama +19,512 +52.4%
     
Virginia 02/12   627,820 63.7% 349,766 35.5%       Obama +278,054 +28.2%
     
Maryland 02/12   532,665 60.7% 314,211 35.8%       Obama +218,454 +24.9%
     
District of Columbia 02/12   93,386 75.3% 29,470 23.8%       Obama +63,916 +51.5%
     
Democrats Abroad 02/12   15,214 65.8% 7,501 32.5%       Obama +7,713 +33.3%
     
Louisiana 02/09   220,632 57.4% 136,925 35.6%       Obama +83,707 +21.8%
     
Nebraska 02/09   26,126 67.7% 12,445 32.3%       Obama +13,681 +35.4%
     
Virgin Islands 02/09   1,772 89.9% 149 7.6%       Obama +1,623 +82.3%
     
California 02/05   2,186,662 43.2% 2,608,184 51.5%       Clinton +421,522 +8.3%
     
New York 02/05   751,019 40.3% 1,068,496 57.4%       Clinton +317,477 +17.1%
     
Illinois 02/05   1,318,234 64.7% 667,930 32.8%       Obama +650,304 +31.9%
     
New Jersey 02/05   501,372 43.9% 613,500 53.8%       Clinton +112,128 +9.9%
     
Massachusetts 02/05   511,680 41.1% 705,185 56.6%       Clinton +193,505 +15.5%
     
Georgia 02/05   704,247 66.4% 330,026 31.1%       Obama +374,221 +35.3%
     
Minnesota 02/05   142,109 66.4% 68,994 32.2%       Obama +73,115 +34.2%
     
Missouri 02/05   406,917 49.3% 395,185 47.9%       Obama +11,732 +1.4%
     
Tennessee 02/05   252,874 40.5% 336,245 53.8%       Clinton +83,371 +13.3%
     
Colorado 02/05   80,113 66.5% 38,839 32.3%       Obama +41,274 +34.2%
     
Arizona 02/05   193,126 42.4% 229,501 50.4%       Clinton +36,375 +8.0%
     
Alabama 02/05   300,319 56.0% 223,089 41.6%       Obama +77,230 +14.4%
     
Connecticut 02/05   179,742 50.6% 165,426 46.5%       Obama +14,316 +4.1%
     
Arkansas 02/05   82,476 26.3% 220,136 70.1%       Clinton +137,660 +43.8%
     
Oklahoma 02/05   130,130 31.2% 228,480 54.8%       Clinton +98,350 +23.6%
     
Kansas 02/05   27,172 74.0% 9,462 25.8%       Obama +17,710 +48.2%
     
New Mexico 02/05   71,396 48.0% 73,105 49.1%       Clinton +1,709 +1.1%
     
Utah 02/05   74,538 56.7% 51,333 39.1%       Obama +23,205 +17.6%
     
Delaware 02/05   51,148 53.1% 40,760 42.3%       Obama +10,388 +10.8%
     
North Dakota 02/05   11,625 61.1% 6,948 36.5%       Obama +4,677 +24.6%
     
Idaho 02/05   16,880 79.5% 3,655 17.2%       Obama +13,225 +62.3%
     
Alaska 02/05   6,674 75.2% 2,194 24.7%       Obama +4,480 +50.5%
     
American Samoa 02/05   121 42.5% 163 57.2%       Clinton +42 +14.7%
     
Florida 01/29   576,214 32.9% 870,986 49.8%       Clinton +294,772 +16.9%
     
South Carolina 01/26   294,898 55.4% 140,990 26.5%       Obama +153,908 +28.9%
     
Michigan** 01/15     328,309 55.2%       Clinton +328,309 +55.2%
     
New Hampshire 01/08   104,815 36.8% 112,404 39.4%       Clinton +7,589 +2.6%
     
 
 

*(Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals. RealClearPolitics has estimated the popular vote totals for Senator Obama and Clinton in these four states. RCP uses the WA Caucus results from February 9 in this estimate because the Caucuses on February 9 were the “official” contest recognized by the DNC to determine delegates to the Democratic convention. The estimate from these four Caucus states where there are not official popular vote numbers increases Senator Obama’s popular vote margin by 110,224. This number would be about 50,000 less if the Washington primary results from February 19th were used instead of the Washington Caucus results.)

**(Senator Obama was not on the Michigan Ballot and thus received zero votes. Uncommitted was on the ballot and received 238,168 votes as compared to 328,309 for Senator Clinton.)

Election 2008 Latest Polls

Wednesday, May 28
Race Poll Results Spread
Michigan: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 41, Obama 37 McCain +4.0
Democratic Presidential Nomination Gallup Tracking Obama 50, Clinton 44 Obama +6.0
Democratic Presidential Nomination Rasmussen Tracking Obama 48, Clinton 44 Obama +4.0
Tuesday, May 27
Race Poll Results Spread
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton Gallup Tracking Clinton 48, McCain 44 Clinton +4.0
General Election: McCain vs. Obama Gallup Tracking Obama 45, McCain 46 McCain +1.0
Iowa: Obama vs. McCain SurveyUSA Obama 47, McCain 38 Obama +9.0
Monday, May 26
Race Poll Results Spread
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen Tracking Clinton 46, McCain 45 Clinton +1.0
General Election: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen Tracking Obama 43, McCain 47 McCain +4.0
Kentucky: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 42, Clinton 51 Clinton +9.0
Kentucky: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 57, Obama 32 McCain +25.0
Sunday, May 25
Race Poll Results Spread
Montana: McCain vs. Clinton Mason-Dixon McCain 51, Clinton 40 McCain +11.0
Montana: McCain vs. Obama Mason-Dixon McCain 47, Obama 39 McCain +8.0
Montana Democratic Primary Mason-Dixon Obama 52, Clinton 35 Obama +17.0
Saturday, May 24
Race Poll Results Spread
Democratic Presidential Nomination Newsweek Obama 50, Clinton 42 Obama +8.0
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton Newsweek Clinton 48, McCain 44 Clinton +4.0
General Election: McCain vs. Obama Newsweek Obama 46, McCain 46 Tie
Obama: Favorable/Unfavorable Newsweek Favorable 55, Unfavorable 40 Favorable +15.0
McCain: Favorable/Unfavorable Newsweek Favorable 54, Unfavorable 40 Favorable +14.0
Clinton: Favorable/Unfavorable Newsweek Favorable 53, Unfavorable 43 Favorable +10.0
California: Clinton vs. McCain LA Times/KTLA Clinton 43, McCain 40 Clinton +3.0
California: Obama vs. McCain LA Times/KTLA Obama 47, McCain 40 Obama +7.0
North Carolina: McCain vs. Obama Civitas/TelOpinion (R) McCain 44, Obama 39 McCain +5.0
Arizona: McCain vs. Obama Behavior Res. Ctr McCain 50, Obama 39 McCain +11.0
Arizona: McCain vs. Clinton Behavior Res. Ctr McCain 51, Clinton 36 McCain +15.0
Friday, May 23
Race Poll Results Spread
Pennsylvania: Clinton vs. McCain Rasmussen Clinton 50, McCain 39 Clinton +11.0
Pennsylvania: Obama vs. McCain Rasmussen Obama 45, McCain 43 Obama +2.0
New Hampshire: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 41, Clinton 51 Clinton +10.0
New Hampshire: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 43, Obama 48 Obama +5.0
Mississippi: McCain vs. Clinton Research 2000 McCain 55, Clinton 36 McCain +19.0
Mississippi: McCain vs. Obama Research 2000 McCain 54, Obama 39 McCain +15.0
Ohio: Obama vs. McCain SurveyUSA Obama 48, McCain 39 Obama +9.0
Thursday, May 22
Race Poll Results Spread
Nevada: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 41, Clinton 46 Clinton +5.0
Nevada: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 46, Obama 40 McCain +6.0
California: Clinton vs. McCain Rasmussen Clinton 54, McCain 35 Clinton +19.0
California: Obama vs. McCain Rasmussen Obama 52, McCain 38 Obama +14.0
Virginia: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 42, Obama 49 Obama +7.0
Pennsylvania: Clinton vs. McCain Quinnipiac Clinton 50, McCain 37 Clinton +13.0
Pennsylvania: Obama vs. McCain Quinnipiac Obama 46, McCain 40 Obama +6.0
Ohio: Clinton vs. McCain Quinnipiac Clinton 48, McCain 41 Clinton +7.0
Ohio: Obama vs. McCain Quinnipiac Obama 40, McCain 44 McCain +4.0
Florida: Clinton vs. McCain Quinnipiac Clinton 48, McCain 41 Clinton +7.0
Florida: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 45, Obama 41 McCain +4.0
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton IBD/TIPP Clinton 44, McCain 39 Clinton +5.0
General Election: McCain vs. Obama IBD/TIPP Obama 48, McCain 37 Obama +11.0
California: Clinton vs. McCain PPIC Clinton 51, McCain 39 Clinton +12.0
California: Obama vs. McCain PPIC Obama 54, McCain 37 Obama +17.0
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton Battleground Clinton 43, McCain 51 McCain +8.0
General Election: McCain vs. Obama Battleground Obama 49, McCain 47 Obama +2.0
Wednesday, May 21
Race Poll Results Spread
Florida: Clinton vs. McCain Rasmussen Clinton 47, McCain 41 Clinton +6.0
Florida: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 50, Obama 40 McCain +10.0
Colorado: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 47, Clinton 44 McCain +3.0
Colorado: Obama vs. McCain Rasmussen Obama 48, McCain 42 Obama +6.0
North Carolina: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 51, Obama 43 McCain +8.0
North Carolina: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 43, Clinton 49 Clinton +6.0
Missouri: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 46, Clinton 48 Clinton +2.0
California: Obama vs. McCain SurveyUSA Obama 49, McCain 41 Obama +8.0
Missouri: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 48, Obama 45 McCain +3.0
Democratic Presidential Nomination Reuters/Zogby Obama 59, Clinton 33 Obama +26.0
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton Reuters/Zogby Clinton 43, McCain 43 Tie
General Election: McCain vs. Obama Reuters/Zogby Obama 48, McCain 40 Obama +8.0
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton Democracy Corps (D) Clinton 49, McCain 47 Clinton +2.0
General Election: McCain vs. Obama Democracy Corps (D) Obama 48, McCain 46 Obama +2.0
Utah: McCain vs. Obama Deseret News McCain 62, Clinton 27 McCain +35.0
Utah: McCain vs. Clinton Deseret News McCain 65, Clinton 20 McCain +45.0
Virginia: McCain vs. Clinton VCU McCain 47, Clinton 38 McCain +9.0
Virginia: McCain vs. Obama VCU McCain 44, Obama 36 McCain +8.0
New Hampshire: McCain vs. Clinton Dartmouth McCain 45, Clinton 36 McCain +9.0
New Hampshire: McCain vs. Obama Dartmouth McCain 42, Obama 39 McCain +3.0
Tuesday, May 20
Race Poll Results Spread
Pennsylvania: Obama vs. McCain SurveyUSA Obama 48, McCain 40 Obama +8.0
New Mexico: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 44, Obama 44 Tie
Monday, May 19
Race Poll Results Spread
Oregon Democratic Primary Suffolk Obama 45, Clinton 41 Obama +4.0
Kentucky Democratic Primary Suffolk Clinton 51, Obama 25 Clinton +26.0
Oregon Democratic Primary PPP (D) Obama 56, Clinton 38 Obama +18.0
Oregon Democratic Primary SurveyUSA Obama 55, Clinton 42 Obama +13.0
Kentucky Democratic Primary SurveyUSA Clinton 62, Obama 31 Clinton +31.0
Ohio: Clinton vs. McCain Rasmussen Clinton 50, McCain 43 Clinton +7.0
Ohio: Obama vs. McCain Rasmussen Obama 44, McCain 45 McCain +1.0
New York: Clinton vs. McCain Siena Clinton 51, McCain 39 Clinton +12.0
New York: Obama vs. McCain Siena Obama 49, McCain 38 Obama +11.0
Sunday, May 18
Race Poll Results Spread
Nebraska: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 57, Clinton 34 McCain +23.0
Nebraska: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 50, Obama 39 McCain +11.0
New Mexico: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 41, Obama 50 Obama +9.0
Alaska: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 50, Obama 41 McCain +9.0
Alaska: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 53, Clinton 36 McCain +17.0
Minnesota: Clinton vs. McCain Star Tribune Clinton 49, McCain 40 Clinton +9.0
Minnesota: Obama vs. McCain Star Tribune Obama 51, McCain 38 Obama +13.0
Saturday, May 17
Race Poll Results Spread
New Mexico: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 41, Clinton 47 Clinton +6.0
Friday, May 16
Race Poll Results Spread
Oregon Democratic Primary American Res. Group Obama 50, Clinton 45 Obama +5.0
Kentucky Democratic Primary American Res. Group Clinton 65, Obama 29 Clinton +36.0
Kansas: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 53, Clinton 39 McCain +14.0
Kansas: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 55, Obama 34 McCain +21.0
Washington: Clinton vs. McCain Rasmussen Clinton 47, McCain 42 Clinton +5.0
Washington: Obama vs. McCain Rasmussen Obama 51, McCain 40 Obama +11.0
Arkansas: Clinton vs. McCain Rasmussen Clinton 53, McCain 39 Clinton +14.0
Arkansas: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 57, Obama 33 McCain +24.0
Thursday, May 15
Race Poll Results Spread
Iowa: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 45, Clinton 42 McCain +3.0
Iowa: Obama vs. McCain Rasmussen Obama 44, McCain 42 Obama +2.0
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton POS/GQR Clinton 45, McCain 46 McCain +1.0
General Election: McCain vs. Obama POS/GQR Obama 48, McCain 43 Obama +5.0
Wednesday, May 14
Race Poll Results Spread
Georgia: McCain vs. Obama Strategic Vision (R) McCain 54, Obama 40 McCain +14.0
Democratic Presidential Nomination Quinnipiac Obama 45, Clinton 41 Obama +4.0
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 46, McCain 41 Clinton +5.0
General Election: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac Obama 47, McCain 40 Obama +7.0
Oregon Democratic Primary Portland Tribune   Obama +20.0

By political Analyst:

Hillary Clinton keeps bringing up her husband’s campaign in 1992 as a reason for her to stay in the race and for once she’s right in her analogy. The only thing is she got her role mixed up. Her rival, Barack Obama, is Bill Clinton in this scenario and she’s taken on the role of Jerry Brown.

Brown was behind Bill Clinton in the delegate count but kept running. The Clinton campaign tried to push him out. A New York Times article quotes then Clinton strategist, George Stephanopoulos:

«” Open Link: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/george_stephanopoulos/index.html?inline=nyt– 

George Stephanopoulos, who was then a top aide to Mr. Clinton, declared that it was ‘mathematically impossible for Brown to get the nomination’ — the start of a campaign to declare Mr. Clinton the presumed nominee, even as several other major primaries loomed.”»

So when the Clinton campaign claims they’ve never seen such a push for a candidate to get out of the race, they are lying. They actually did it in 1992 and they would have done if again in 2008 if Obama wasn’t kicking her ass. Conclusion: don’t fall for their crap anymore. Let them whine.

Full NYT article HER

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/us/politics/27checkpoint.htmlE.

RealClearPolitics Poll Averages

Democratic Presidential Nomination

Poll Date Sample Obama Clinton Spread
RCP Average 05/08 – 05/26 51.2 40.5 Obama +10.7
Rasmussen Tracking 05/23 – 05/26 900 LV 49 43 Obama +6.0
Gallup Tracking 05/23 – 05/25 1261 V 51 43 Obama +8.0
Newsweek 05/21 – 05/22 608 RV 50 42 Obama +8.0
Reuters/Zogby 05/15 – 05/18 516 LV 59 33 Obama +26.0
Quinnipiac 05/08 – 05/12 864 RV 45 41 Obama +4.0
ABC News/Wash Post 05/08 – 05/11 620 A 53 41 Obama +12.0

General Election: McCain vs. Clinton

Poll Date Sample Clinton (D) McCain (R) Spread
RCP Average 05/11 – 05/26 46.1 44.7 Clinton +1.4
Rasmussen Tracking 05/23 – 05/26 1600 LV 48 44 Clinton +4.0
Gallup Tracking 05/21 – 05/25 4417 RV 48 45 Clinton +3.0
Newsweek 05/21 – 05/22 1205 RV 48 44 Clinton +4.0
Reuters/Zogby 05/15 – 05/18 1076 LV 43 43 Tie
IBD/TIPP 05/12 – 05/18 953 A 44 39 Clinton +5.0
Democracy Corps (D) 05/13 – 05/15 1014 LV 49 47 Clinton +2.0
Battleground 05/11 – 05/14 1018 LV 43 51 McCain +8.0

General Election: McCain vs. Obama

Poll Date Sample Obama (D) McCain (R) Spread
RCP Average 05/11 – 05/26 46.7 44.3 Obama +2.4
Rasmussen Tracking 05/23 – 05/26 1600 LV 44 47 McCain +3.0
Gallup Tracking 05/21 – 05/25 4417 RV 44 47 McCain +3.0
Newsweek 05/21 – 05/22 1205 RV 46 46 Tie
Reuters/Zogby 05/15 – 05/18 1076 LV 48 40 Obama +8.0
IBD/TIPP 05/12 – 05/18 953 A 48 37 Obama +11.0
Democracy Corps (D) 05/13 – 05/15 1014 LV 48 46 Obama +2.0
Battleground 05/11 – 05/14 1018 LV 49 47 Obama +2.0

President Bush Job Approval

Poll Date Approve Disapprove Spread
RCP Average 05/08 – 05/24 30.8 65.2 -34.4
Rasmussen 05/18 – 05/24 34 63 -29.0
Democracy Corps (D) 05/13 – 05/15 31 65 -34.0
Battleground 05/11 – 05/14 32 64 -32.0
Quinnipiac 05/08 – 05/12 28 67 -39.0
Gallup 05/08 – 05/11 29 66 -37.0
ABC News/Wash Post 05/08 – 05/11 31 66 -35.0

Next Page »