« New Obama Ad In Pennsylvania Attacks Hillary Ad That Attacked Obama Ad | Home | Against McCain, Obama Loses "Beer Track" — And Hillary Loses "Wine Track" »
Poll: Obama Slips Against McCain, Now Losing Among Independents
The new AP/Ipsos poll reveals that Barack Obama has weathered some damage since his February peak, before the Wright controversy dragged him down in March.
Back in late February, Obama led McCain 51%-41% — but now it's a 45%-45% tie. Perhaps most notably, McCain has taken a lead among independents, a core group for Obama.
For her part, Hillary Clinton has a slim lead of 48%-45% over McCain, while Obama continues to lead Hillary for the nomination by 46%-43%. But the Democratic race has continued to take a toll on party unity: About a third of Clinton supporters say they'd back McCain over Obama, and a quarter of Obama supporters would pick McCain over Hillary.
Advertisement
That's it - I can't take it. I can't believe that many people would do that.
I am going to quit talking about the thing for awhile.
April 10, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Relax folks. The ex-braburning generation will not hand the Supreme Court to the Republicans. Erica Jong understands that young girls will need their reproductive rights as much as she did.
Otherwise, they go down in history as the pettyist generation.
April 10, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your confidence, friend, is misplaced. Don't count on US voters to stand by Obama. If you do, you do so at your peril.
April 10, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you threatening to overturn the government to the Republicans if your candidate isn't chosen?
Immaturity, pettishness, and sheer foolishness.
April 10, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
My confidence is in voters voting for their own interests. The age of Republican hoodwinking is over.
April 10, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poll the Hillary backers and ask them how many of them would vote for McCain over Senator Obama.
I expect that figure would also shock you. Many people are just voting to stop Obama, but they will not stick wiht Hillary if she is the nominee.
April 10, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction:
I meant: ask the Hillary backers how many of them plan to vote for McCain, even if Hillary is the nominee.
April 10, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you being intentionally special?
The poll *did* ask that question. The answer was Clinton 48% McCain 45%. If Obama's the nominee, it's tied at 45%.
There seems to be the idea on this site that people will/should vote Democrat whoever the nominee on either side is. That is a tremendously flawed idea, and poll after poll argues against it.
April 10, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah. The tremendously flawed idea is that McCain is a better choice than either of these Democrats.
That is tremendously flawed. Endless war, war on reproductive rights, K-Street ascendance, no healthcare, etc, etc, etc.
If you think McCain would be better than Clinton, you're delusional, or a DINO. If you think McCain would be better than Obama, you're delusional, or a DINO.
April 10, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You and I know that. Unfortunately (perhaps), we don't determine who the next president will be.
April 10, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much of a negative campain has Obama the Uniter run? About a third of Clinton supporters say they'd back McCain over Obama. When you simply parrot evrything Hillary says after she says it and base your campign on nothing substantial but enjoy calling the other candidate a F*cking Wh*re, you lose all credibility.
April 10, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, you're certainly not helping, dembillc.
Are you trying to turn off Obama supporters from Hillary?
Remember, we all have to get together again in the Fall.
April 10, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh??? Who said F*cking Wh*re?
April 10, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
some shock jock who's not even affiliated with Obama.
It's dembillc's latest reason to hate Obama.
April 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Randi Rhodes.
April 10, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, I see. Thanks!
April 10, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it was Randi Rhodes at an Obama event in SF. Most (all) accounts leave out that part.
Most Hillary supporters I know don't plan to vote for McCain if O is the nominee. Most of us will not vote in the presidential race.
If we are such low priority to the Dem Party, they can go ahead and try to win elections without us. I have not heard any of our Dem leaders speak out against the blatant misogyny used against Clinton. It would have gone a long way if Obama had simply acknowledged it.
April 10, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is the evidence that the Randi Rhodes appearance had anything to do with Obama? I've only ever heard it described as an event for one of the affiliate stations. Facts please.
April 10, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
it wasn't an obama event. It was an event held by people who are voting for Obama in order to raise money for him. He wasn't there, it wasn't advertised on his site. Even the crowd over at MyDD wrote a post about how you cannot hold Obama accountable for things his supporters say. It would be like holding Greg and Eric responsible for half of the idiocy in the comments.
April 10, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as the Clintons continue to campaign for McCain and praising his CIC credentials and patriotism, Democrats are the losers.
April 10, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think most of these polls just reflect heat of the moment extremism.
I refuse to believe anyone voting for Hillary would vote for McCain over Obama (or vice-versa)
It just doesn't make any sense.
We tend to forget: Historically, it will be hard for McCain to win. He's basically running on a unpopular incumbent's platform.
People want change, and once the feud between Hillary and Obama supporters die down, most people will compare the Democratic nominee vs. McCain and vote Democratic.
Remember, it wasn't like Bush was blowing away the Dems the last few elections. We won the popular vote in 2000, and got close in 2004 with one of the worst run campaigns (Kerry) I've ever seen. (I missed Mondale's).
Democrats are still favored, and in a few months, all this back and forth will fade away.
April 10, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be a stunningly irrational show of petulance for people like dembillc, who claim to be outraged by a random shock-jock (not affiliated in any way with Obama's campaign)calling Hillary a F*ing Whore, to vote in protest for McCain who, HIMSELF, laughed and did not object when a supporter asked, "how do we beat the bitch?" and who, HIMSELF, called his own wife a c*nt in front of staffers.
April 10, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have a link for his c*nt wife comment?
April 10, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Found it:
"Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days."
http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com/2008/04/1992-mccain-called-wife-cunt-in-full.html
The bastard. I think Cindy's hot!
April 10, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop making sense!
Reasonableness will destroy the enormously amusing, but totally non-productive back and forth in most of these threads.
The simple facts are: Obama had won the nomination. Dems will eventually flock to him in the general, along with many independents, who are sick unto death of Bush and Iraq, upset with the economy and anxious to change this country. None of which works to the benefit of McCain.
April 10, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's just the heat of the dem primary, and the supporters are passionate now. I think Hillary supporters are feeling especially vindictive given the circumstances, hence the 33%.
Furthermore, it behooves both camps' supporters to pretend they wouldn't vote for the other. We're fighting now, but McCain doesn't have a chance against either candidate.
He's a damn moron! And people have had enough of having a moron in office.
April 10, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chuck Todd has a good analysis today where he briefly discusses the boost Obama (or Clinton) will get once the Dem. primary is settled.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24016480/
These flash-point polls will be meaningless once the Dems have a nominee.
April 10, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a great article. 10% poll bump minimum I say.
And it will be interesting (to say the least) to watch the Republican Convention. Bush can't "skip" it, can he?
Hee-hee, I'm getting excited about the General. Thanks Jimbo!
April 10, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is so tempting to get pissed off at the other Democratic candidate and entertain thoughts of voting for McCain. Believe me, as a Hillary supporter I know how they feel, though I'd never vote for McCain under any circumstances. But as a Hillary supporter we have been blamed for all the negativity in the campaign, and told repeatedly that our candidate should quit because she can't win and is only helping the Republicans. Despite the fact that Obama remains ahead in the race and is viewed as the presumptive nominee, Obama supporters are furious. Imagine how they would behave if Clinton were ahead all this time!
But I continue to believe that she can beat McCain, and Obama can not. Combine Obama's lack of experience with his racial conflicts, and no amount of posing as the long-suffering offended one will help him. His pre-senate speech against the war will be contrasted to his voting record on Iraq which is identical to Hillary's. His appeal as the black person who could bring the races together in America suffered a direct hit when his fellow parishioners were shown shouting "Amen" to the racist rhetoric of pastor Wright. We know 90% of what there is to know about Hillary, and only 50% of what there is to know about the junior Senator from Illinois, and that 50% includes all the good stuff.
April 10, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, I disagree. I think Obama handled the Wright "crisis" very well, he did not take any significant hit in the polls, and now he is hardened from that line of attack.
Hillary is hardly risk-free herself, she will unite a rather apathetic Republican base around McCain and make for a much closer election.
And finally, I can honestly say, if the situation was reversed, I believe Obama would have dropped out, or at least stopped campaigning so heavily. With the name recognition of the Clintons AND the lead, there is no way he would win, and I think most Obama supporters recognize that.
April 10, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, this just demonstrates the kind of maturity and intelligence of Hillary's supporters that has this cheeky young college student wavering toward her: give them their way or they'll vote to send another 4,000 kids to die.
April 10, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
LeroyS, you're gold!!!
April 10, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I whole-heartedly disagree, Otto. Hillary has no chance in hell to improve her negatives. She cannot cross the 50% threshold...and she never will (as her polling for the last 2 years has shown). Obama has the potential to cross the 50% threshold...and play in MANY states Clinton can only dream of. I firmly belive Obama is the better candidate... and that is why I am glad the race is mathematically over. Obama will be the next Democratic nominee for President, AND the next President of the United States.
April 10, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You live in a fantasy world, my friend. Latest poll has Hillary winning, but Obama losing to McCain in *New York*!
April 10, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's constant negative attacks on Obama have obviously had an effect.
The thing about negative campaigning is that is raises the negatives of the attacker as well as the target, making it a risky tactic for a campaign to use. But with Hillary doing his dirty work for him, McCain gets all the benefit with none of the cost.
Thanks, Hillary. With "friends" like you, who needs enemies?
April 10, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that it McCain is in a very strong position to win in November.
There are a lot of people still, who will never vote for a black man or a woman for president.
I support Obama, but will support Hillary if she wins the nomination. I think either one of them would make a far better President than Senator McCain.
That said, I feel that electing the first black president, or the first woman president, is still highly unlikely.
Old prejudices die hard, and they still flood the polls on election days.
April 10, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? I'm surprised Liam.
But it's not like McCain doesn't have any baggage at all:
First off, he's old. As in, the oldest person to ever run for President. And he has health problems. And insinuations about is mental state (how many times have we heard "senior moment" about McCain already, and it's not even the General yet?)
Then there's the economy, the war, the incumbent's approval rating... in short, McCain has a long path to climb.
I also think people are ready for either a black man or a woman president. Both are very intelligent. Both are very capable.
And either will have FULL Democratic support.
April 10, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
SC,
I have been around long enough to have learned over and over again that those who provide the winning margins in Presidential races do not vote their own economic self interest. Large chronically impoverished states, such as Ohio, and Pennsylvania are prime examples. Others states such as West Virginia etc, are even sadder examples.
They vote against what they fear. This time it will be against a black or a woman. Ignorance and prejudice always trumps common sense. Karl Rove proved that once again.Nothing much has changed.
I am fully convinced that a sizable share of Hillary's support is coming from people who prefer a white woman over a black man, but in November they will still prefer a man over a woman for president.
We have to be realistic, for, in the words of late Irish poet:
"It is lies that makes truth seem hard" and especially the lies that we tell ourselves.
April 10, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if playing up McCain's age is a strategy likely to backfire. Keep in mind that America isn't getting any younger demographically. I've observed that elders tend to get feisty and stubborn if you condescend or patronize them. Ridiculing McCain's age may fall into that category of a sacred cow that should not be gored. A silver backlash won't work in the Dems' favor.
April 10, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that old people, paradoxically, don't want an old president. They're smarter than you credit them with.
April 10, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is simply more evidence that we need a different candidate for President. Neither BO or HRC will get the job done in November. They have too many vulnerabilities.
April 10, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, like it or not, that's our choice.
Gore will not be coming on his White Horse to save us.
April 10, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
SC,
I happen to think that people have turned Al Gore into a mythic figure, and have completely forgotten that he was a far worse campaigner and debater than either Hillary or Obama.
Al. Gore made George W. Bush look like an attractive alternative, and that took some doing.
April 10, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gore? That's our fail/safe?
April 10, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this like asking for cherry when your options are strawberry or blueberry?
What does that get us?
Oh yeah - Nader
April 10, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You gotta love that long-suffering expression Obama employs so often. How could anyone say anything negative about him?
April 10, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't, so just stop trying. ;)
April 10, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Work Hillary!
April 10, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure Obama can make a lot of that up when we finally get to the general, but it just shows that Hillary's refusal to withdraw, and her very negative campaigning are hurting the party.
But she doesn't care, nor do her supporters, apparently all that is important to them at this point is to destroy Obama, who cares if she doesn't have a shot in hell of winning?
April 10, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary wants to destroy Obama so he'll lose against McCain and she can run again in 2012.
From Hillary's point of view, the worst thing that could happen would be for Obama to be elected President. Then she couldn't run again until 2016, when she'll be 68 - not that much younger than McCain is now.
Hence all her negative attacks on Obama and praise of McCain.
April 10, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but women live longer.
April 10, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly right. Most people I talk to just in passing and I tend to do that a lot because I spend my life in grocery stores and places where you do that tell me they don't care whether it's Clinton or Obama, they want change. Big time.
April 10, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give me a break. We should always have such problems - we're running the two strongest candidates we've run in ages.
April 10, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe these are the same polled voters from the last poll taken.
I really don't care, people lie to pollsters remember N.H.
1/09/08 "I found my voice" -- Hillary Clinton
Never forget.
April 10, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 10, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe that having a general election nominee will heal all wounds. However I do believe that most of the party will unite.
As I mentioned in my blog post, I know there is a large block of Hillary supporters who will not vote for Barack,and I suspect their is a similar group of Obama supporters.
Quite Frankly, I think we're screwed either way. I want Hillary to win. I think she'd be a better General Election Candidate, and by far the better President. But I think that either candidate gives up to much support of the other candidate to win the general.
I believe that the basis of resentment is significantly more fundamental than that of an Edwards supporter for example, and that will prevent them from coaleasing around the other candidate.
Specifically, I think that Hillary would fail in convincing black voters that "their time will come" that electing her the 44th consecutive white president is a good idea. Same goes with Obama and convincing 50+ white women that the candidate for change is the 44th consecutive Male president.
April 10, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
sure,
And women and blacks will flock to McCain, an old white, anti-choice man. Definitely.
April 10, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are we liberals or are we mice who are going to run around in circle squeaking at each other because McCain doesn't have anyone else to campaign on right now but us, and so his numbers almost got even, or maybe a point or 2 above?
Whoever the nominee is is going to beat McCain.
April 10, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Lord, you're absolutely right. I keep having nightmares, not about a McCain presidency (which I think will only endure for 4 mind numbingly brutish years), but the subsequent campaign season. If you think this cycle is long, drawn out and vicious, just wait until the 2012 cycle which will start in 2009 and will have the Dems committing full blown fratricide just to show the real differences between them. That's when I will drop out of following politics altogether and resume the role of the apathetic, apolitical independent I was before I heard Obama speak in 2004.
I better stop here; I'm getting as disspirited as Liam.
April 10, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really, this is not the time to fret about this poll. HRC will be knocked out soon, Obama will debate McCain, and McCain will not come off as intelligent. Also, if the press (MSM) did their job McCain would not have these numbers. You can not have all the baggage this man does and not be called on it.
April 10, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, Obama is also as much white as black, this black stuff is such bullshit.
April 10, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Media never calls him "bi-racial."
April 10, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
One Drop rule still in effect.
April 10, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's throw that idea out the window right now cause that ain't happening.
But I really believe completely that we can elect whoever the nominee is - we just have to do it.
Losing to McCain isn't an option - I don't care who the nominee is. If that's how you see it, then the problem kind of goes away.
April 10, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This should motivate the Super Delegates to get the hell off their butts and support Obama, who is the obvious (numbers) candidate. Fence sitting is helping McCain.
April 10, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolute I'll vote for McCain over Obama. I'll do it as often as they'll let me. Two reasons:
1) I'm an American first, and a Democrat second.
2) All those thousands of messages from Obama supporters here and on other blogsites saying that they would never vote for Clinton. I took them all at their word. Of course now that Obama is the likely winner, most of them would probably say sure, they'd have supported Clinton for the good of the party, blah blah blah. But I don't believe them for one second. Maybe next election you'll have matured a little and won't be so quick to demonize your opponents and their supporters. Because what goes around has a habit of coming around. Back at ya, kiddies.
April 10, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jodyphile: No one cares.
April 10, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And right back at you , War Monger Enabler!
April 10, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, how would be voting for Obama be unAmerican? And are you really so shallow that you would allow a blog to drive you to commit suicide just to spite people you've never even met?!
Please tell me you're a Republican -- they need more people like you!
April 10, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice.
I guess you'd jump off a bridge too, if everyone else did.
Look, don't trust the internets or polls as a good prediction of the future.
Do you want to stay in Iraq? Do you want Roe vs Wade overturned?
Those are your questions.
April 10, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter jodyphile: You people have hurt my feelings, so I'm going to do what I can to screw the country. Even shorter: WAAAAAH!
April 10, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Paul Stevens
Born April 20, 1920 (age 87)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Born March 15, 1933 (age 75)
Antonin Scalia
Born March 11, 1936 (age 72)
Anthony Kennedy
Born July 23, 1936 (age 71)
Stephen Breyer
Born August 15, 1938 (age 69)
David Souter
Born September 17, 1939 (age 68)
Clarence Thomas
Born June 23, 1948 (age 59)
Samuel Alito
Born April 1, 1950 (age 57)
John Roberts
Born January 27, 1955 (age 53)
There's a real possibility that the next president could be appointing six justices to the supreme court. That would have a direct impact on your life, your children's lives and their children's lives and well beyond. That is how important this election is. Iraq. Katrina. Torture. Guantanamo. Iran. 100 years of war. Health care. Recession. Do any of these register in your mind at all? Regardless of who the Democratic nominee is, it's imperative for all democrats support to give their support. Get beyond the pettiness and ego driven arguments.
April 10, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
False advertising.
The day a supposed educated voter lets comments on a blog direct their voting choice?
Either they are lying from the start of the comment, or there are other reasons for this stance, and that is just a convenient excuse.
April 10, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it's going to be hard to win anything down here if Obama isn't the nominee.
That's the real hard part of getting her elected - it's depending on the same people who couldn't get us there the last two times.
But I still say - losing isn't an option, so we'll have to do what we can no matter who it is.
April 10, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This poll is right in line with what other polls have been saying for awhile. Go look at the Real Clear Politics averages for McCain-Obama. Obama had a big lead back in February. Two things have happened since then. The Republicans have started to coalesce around McCain, and the Wright story hit. Obama got knocked down, McCain was up for a little while, and the last couple weeks they've been running at a virtual tie or, lately, with Obama very slightly ahead.
These numbers do not worry me in the least. McCain's numbers reflect the absolute free ride he's gotten so far in the press, and Obama's numbers reflect the infighting with Clinton.
At some point in the next eight weeks or so, Obama will emerge as the undisputed nominee (sorry Clinton supporters, but the numbers just aren't there for your girl). Once that happens, he starts campaigning hard against McCain, and those numbers will change dramatically. McCain's negatives will start to climb, and people will start to realize he can't even keep straight who we're fighting where. (I'd love to see a loop of all his Shia-Sunni and Iran/Al Qaeda screw-ups.)
The Republican smear machine will also kick into high gear, but they won't get any traction because the economy will still suck, foreclosures will still be high, the dollar will still be weak, and our soldiers will still be dying for a war that nobody except McCain wants.
April 10, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
April 10, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree - since when does a front-runner start losing support. The reason Kerry wrapped up the nomination so quickly was he was able to create this aura of inevitability and electability.
Obama's campaign is doing their very best to turn a 120 delegate lead with no chance of meeting the threshhold in pledged delegates as "inevitable" and much as the Obama campaign and his supporter and the media run this storyline - doesn't seem like the voters in the remaining states are buying it.
And in terms of electability - he's losing ground. Not what you want to see when this thing eventually goes to the super-delegates as it clearly will. I'd rather be surging in the end, than have a lead in the beginning.
April 10, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please allow me to respond to you by quoting Jonathan Chait of The New Republic:
Almost nobody contends that Clinton has a chance to overcome Obama's lead in pledged delegates. The spin now is that Obama's delegate lead is "small but almost insurmountable" (USA Today) and that, since neither can clinch the nomination with pledged delegates alone, "the nomination is expected to be in the superdelegates' hands" (Los Angeles Times). These beliefs reflect the mathematical illiteracy that has allowed the press corps to be routinely duped by economic flim-flammery. A lead that's insurmountable is, by definition, not small. The very primary rules that make it impossible for Clinton to catch up--proportionate distribution of delegates that award tiny net sums to the winner--are exactly what made Obama's lead so impressive.
The notion that the superdelegates will decide the race implies that pledged delegates won't matter--like a sports event that goes to overtime. Obviously, though, the pledged-delegate count determines how many superdelegates each candidate needs. Depending on how the remaining primaries go, Clinton will need about two-thirds of the uncommitted ones to break her way. Problem is, over the last month, superdelegates have broken to Obama by 78 percent to 22 percent.
April 10, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, I forgot the real money quote:
"And the supers who haven't endorsed are even less likely to side with Clinton. Numerous reports on uncommitted superdelegates have made clear that they have remained on the sideline out of an exquisite fear of stepping on the results of the voters. As my colleague Noam Scheiber reported, "Just about every superdelegate and party operative I spoke with endorsed Nancy Pelosi's recent suggestion that pledged delegates should matter most"
April 10, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
That only makes sense if you assume the superdelegates have to vote for whoever received the most pledged delegates. Which might I add is changing the original rules of the primary. Superdelegates are to vote their conscience. The Obama campaign has put out the spin that if Super delegates don's vote for whoevers got the most pedged delegates, then it's a stolen election. It is not - it is playing by the rules as set forth when superdelegates were created.
The media bought into it hook line and sinker and now they say his lead is insurmountable when it is not resulting in dumbass inaccurate articles like that. His PLEDGED delegate lead may be hard to tie, but she can get close enough so that supers will consider what they were chosen to consider - who has the best chance of beating McCain in the fall.
It's hard to know sometimes where the Obama PR machine ends and the media begins.
April 10, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The key is that it will LOOK like a stolen election unless there's a good reason for it (remember '68?).
And that's the key.
It's not that Clinton can't win. She just can't win credibly. That's just reality.
April 10, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if Hillary does win the nomination then Barack Obama will be to blame for tearing apart the democratic party since his campaign's been the one driving this whole STOLEN ELECTION theme, even though it is clearly within the party rules and the way the primary process was designed. Where's his concern about what's good for the party? OH YEAH - what he (and his supporters) meant to say is it's what's good for Barack Obama.
He's going to have issues in the general election given that the Obamacans and Obamapendents have demonstrate dthat they are disillusioned with Mr. Obama and are starting to trend towards McCain. I know it, you know it and the polls are starting to show it. Do you think the supers are really going to elect a loser in the general election?
We'll see - but we got a long time for this to play out folks. Rumors of Senator Clinton's demise have been greatly exaggerated.
April 10, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're essentially saying that NOBODY has the right to run against the person who's SUPPOSED to win.
That's the argument you're making. That since she had 50% of the base in November last year, nobody has the right to actually make a real effort to win against her.
Look, I'm not nervous at all that, if Hillary wins, Obama will be able to rally the base for her.
Unfortunately I don't believe that Hillary would or even COULD return the favor. She's done a bang up job of painting Obama as the guy who's stealing HER nomination. And she won't be seen as genuine even if she she does a complete 180 and supports him.
April 10, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get your argument that no one is supposed to run against the frontrunner. THAT's THE WHOLE POINT OF A CAMPAIGN. It is the Obama folks saying because he has lead, she should concede which is wholly anti-democratic. The campaign itslef has stopped that silly ass argument, but there's plenty of Obama supporters from TPM who think Hillary should step aside. Screw that! If he can win it, then he will. Don't go griping because the lady isn't being servile, bowing down before him and giving him the nomination. It's not a coronation - it's a primary.
April 10, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the thread again.
I was re-hashing your argument.
You were saying that it's HIS fault for even trying to run. That HE's splitting the party for actually trying to run against the defacto incumbent.
It doesn't make any sense. Read what you wrote again. Then tell me how I mis-characterized your position.
April 10, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, exactly. Obama worked his ass off and made a kickass organization that has done their homework, worked in EVERY state, worked to excite the electorate, has a million plus donors and has brought MILLIONS of voters to the party. Hillary ran on inevitability and thought Super Tuesday would be a coronation and didn't even have a plan for after that.
Someone was looking for a coronation, it just wasn't Obama.
April 10, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he's not looking for a coronation, then why was his capaign and surrogates pressuring hillary to leave with no chance for him to win the nomination on his own (without superdels)?
Did Hillary ever flex her muscles (or Bill's) and pressure people to stay out of the race? No - she ran a campaign against the best dem field we have ever had (I don't even think Obama was the 2nd best candidate - Biden's positions and Edwards positions were much more though out), but he has able to use his charaisma to pull out wins despite the fact he has very little substance.
Moral of the story: Hill was the frontrunner in the beginning and didn't expect a coronation - she took her loss in Iowa and kept fighting for the nomination (much to the dismay of undemocratic Obama voters who think only the votes for Obama should be counted).
April 11, 2008 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
It (and I by extension) doesn't say anything about "having to" vote for whoever received the most pledged delegates. It just says that everyone he's talked to says they're more likely to vote that way. And I think that's true. I think it's incredibly unlikely that the SDs will go with the person who is trailing in pledged delegates and the popular vote.
And the numbers back that up. As the article says, SDs have been going for Obama 78-22%. She has a net loss of 4 SDs since Super Tuesday while Obama has gained ~65.
Now, if Hillary is able to take the popular vote lead, all bets are off.
April 10, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't take into account that the race is not over. If Obama continues to lose big states and continues to slide in the polls with a head to head matchup with McCain not just nationally where they are now tied but even more importantly in the critical swing states like OH and FL where McCain has a significant lead on Obama and Hillary is beating McCain, supers will have to DO THEIR JOBS rather than rubber stamp a flawed candidate who will fail in the general election.
Like I said, it is a silly ass article because you can't pre-suppose the what-ifs. Campaigns have tweists and turns and Obama is heading in the wrong direction in general election polls. I repeat the campaign is not over. See you in Denver :)
April 10, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree with you on that one.
Whoever comes the nominee out of the convention will be the nominee. Not worth guessing. It's also not worth spreading lies.
The super supers are doing their job in my opinion, and they'll keep doing so.
April 10, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You fail to mention that, in any other primary under the sun, the other candidates recognized the upcoming candidate and slowly faded out of the way and aligned themselves with the best leader.
Hillary has no intention to do that, and that's why people keep talking about her threatening to fracture the party.
Obama came up from behind going from 10-20% to 50% in a few short months, while Hillary started at 50-60% and has been slipping. The dynamics are clear. But she's too deep down the rabbit hole to see what's happening.
April 10, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm name someone who stepped out of the way in a two person race with only 120 delegates separating them? If you haven't noticed, there is plenty of support left for Hillary despite all the talk about the campaign is over, it's inevitable, she should pull out now. I firmly believe the democratic party will come to it's senses and elect Senator Clinton with real plans and solutions rather than Barack Obama with slogans and speeches.
April 10, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has certainly gotten a lot of support and certainly still has a lot. Obama just has more.
April 10, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
But in case that doesn't happen, you'll support the Democratic nominee, yes?
April 10, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo has repeatedly said she would.
April 10, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a NYer so my general election vote won't really have an impact. Actually my position that whether I will actively vote for Obama depends on how much the Obama, his campaign and his supporters keeps trashing Hillary as this evil, manipulative B!%$# who cares about nothing but winning. Hillary has given enough of her life to the democratic party and causes to expect that even if you won't vote for her, that you are not disrespecting her and subjecting her to harsher attacks than the right wing smear campaigns. I swear on TPM they still say she killed Vince foster - not republicans...DEMOCRATS. Crazy!
He also has to show more substance on issues like foreclosure, health care, economics not generalitiesa but specifics - like how much will your healthcare plan cost the aerage person. Bill Clinton came out with specifics when he was running, Hillary's done the same. Obama's is just feel good statements and smoke and mirrors wothout a whole lot of solid substance to analyze.
But as I said my vote or non-vote won't matter. It's the folks like me in the swing states that you really have to worry about.
April 10, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you are saying is Obama should offer to forma commission headed by the same guys who created the housing problems we are facing?
Greenspan?
Volker?
Glass-Steagall Act?
Hillary can stay in, but your argument about electability is what brought us the flawed candidacy of Kerry.
You also accidentally undercut your argument about Obama winning the big states including NY to McCain when you said your own vote would not impact the results. Which is it: NY is a blue state, or McCain will win it against Obama. One or the other. Many of the electable arguments are specious and based on some false correlation between the Primary and the GE.
The one thing you have spot on is that the Supers will finalize this. And if they choose to follow the will of the voters as demonstrated by a delegate count (the only real measure) then so be it. But at the rate the Clinton camp is going, they plan to work the system all the way to the finish line, SD's or not.
Hopefully PA will crank the heat up.
April 10, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You misunderstand my argument. NY is a big state but it is also a democratic state - either candidate will win and handily. Ohio - no way. California is going to be another one. It's not just a big state - it is a swing state and McCain is outpolling Obama there by 7 points. Who is better positioned to win those key states is what it boils down to.
That said McCain was beating Obama in NJ (another big dem state) shortly after the wright controversy. If it's hurting him in states like NJ, I can't imagine the damage done in OH, PA, KY, WV etc.
And Greenspan if you haven't noticed has endorsed McCain. My sense is Hillary isn't outsourcing her policy positions - she's thought them out very thoroughly. Can you give an example of Hillary's policies being created by the housing comminssion that got us into the mortgage mess.
By the way, McCain's revisionist stance on limited direct assistance to homeowners facing foreclosure inches him towards Hillary's plan, while Obama remains the only candidate opposed to mandatory restructuring of mortgages (supports voluntary efforts by mortgage companies - gioving incentives to the companies rather than helping homeowners directly. Methinks Obama will be rethinking his position as well.
April 11, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I personally am on the fence as to an answer for the housing crisis. That is another discussion.
But if you looked into it, you will find the people responsible for this mess are: Greenspan and crew, and the same people who repealed the Glass-Steagall Act (link already provided) (one of whom I believe was Volker, another HRC housing commission member. The housing bubble/crisis is a symptom of a much bigger problem (see liquidity/credit crisis), again a bigger discussion.
So, in my approximation, appointing Volker and Greenspan to head that commission is extremely shortsighted and designed to play off the ignorance of the masses.
April 11, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
shortsighted is saying no direct assistance should be given to homeowners and then bailing out lenders/investors directly (bear stearns). If hill's policy had been implemented earlier, bear stearns would still be standing because investors wouldn't have lost confidence in the market. Homeowners would get immediate relief from being allowed to restructure their mortgage,. I don't care who was purported to be involved in the plan. I do care what the implications would be.
April 11, 2008 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's only because she's been saying ever since Super Tuesday that she's not giving up no matter what, and playing the victim.
I'm not saying she's not being successful in rallying her base. She's holding on pretty well. But she's not making any progress.
Most people in her place, after 11 losses, and abysmal results in TX and OH, would have started ramping down their campaigns. It's not easy to do, it takes leadership and looking beyond your own goals.
I don't buy the "120 delegate lead" argument for a second. She started with hundreds of supers in her tally before any voting happened. And the political machine and name recognition already out there.
It's all about how much they've gained since they started campaigning. And she's gained very little.
The writing's on the wall, some just refuse to open their eyes. And everybody in the DNC has too little guts to be frank with the Clintons, because they're horrible at losing. Just like nobody has the guts to tell Bush what's really going on in Iraq.
I'm so sick of it all. I don't have hard feelings towards Sen. Clinton personally, but I HATE the way she's run her campaign.
April 10, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where's that chump "idiotic" when you need him?
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!!! FOR OBAMA!!!!!
Chumps.
April 10, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you and Louisville can get together and talk about chumps and punking people together.
Sounds enlightening.
April 10, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
While polls are very fragile snapshots this one does confirm what a lot of us have been sharing and defending for some time and Obama supporters have been freaking out over. That yes, we support Clinton, and yes, many of us will opt to support McCain if he becomes the nominee. I have been very clear about this for myself since my first posts.
It may be difficult to understand but individual positions and policies, while important, are not the only deciding factors. Yes, Clinton and Obama are similar but they are also incredibly different. Obama is an unknown. Clinton, like McCain are well-known, both are moderates as much as they might be labeled conservative or liberal. Both have records showing they know how to govern and to compromise. They offer maturity and consistency that I do not see in Obama. Obama has been a lot of 'me too' and when challenged offers sometimes ludicrous examples. His rediculous claim about more foreign policy experience over either McCain or Clinton earlier this week is one example that has everyone except the most die-hard Obama supporters laughing.
And regarding SCOTUS and other upcoming choices for the next president, I do not worry about either McCain or Clinton. McCain is not a religious conservative, which is why conservatives have so much problems with him. Clinton will give us excellent nominations. I suspect the same for Obama he doesn't have a track record to allow confidence in that conclusion.
Regarding the war, all have voted to fund it so there is no difference. McCain has first hand experience in the war and, while being a 'good' Republican and supporting the administration, has made abundantly clear he thinks very differently and clearly wants us out but with honorable terms. I think Clinton is similar in her approach to getting out of Iraq. Obama says a lot, but his staff have differed enough times, to leave lots of questions about what he'll actually do. Again, he has no real record and offers the risk of being another George Bush.
Finally, both McCain and Clinton are vetted and very well known. The same is exceedingly untrue for Obama. The picture is full of gaps, misstatements, and lies. A day doesn't pass where we do not hear another correction about Obama.
I am not trying to minimize the differences, but I for one want a mature, credible, and vetted candidate and president. Borrowing language from Farrakhan and Oprah, Obama is notThe One.
April 10, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are so in bed with McCain. Where is your advertisement for your site today?! You don't want mature, you want very, very old and demented.
April 10, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here you go!
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
Matthew
April 10, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then I say you're not a true Democrat.
It's hypocritical to support Hillary, than vote for someone who has the OPPOSITE views on her issues: Health care, the Iraq War, choice for women, etc.
People who say they are "American" first are lying. If you actually supported McCain on the issues, you wouldn't support either Dem.
Period.
April 10, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said I was now a Democrat. I've been very clear that I am an Independent. Most of my life I've been a registered Democrat, worked on Jackson's campaign in 1984, and worked for many years as an election precinct chief and officer in Virginia.
Matthew
http://www.TheIndependentView.com
April 10, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, why would you choose Clinton over McCain? He has more "experience," doesn't he? Or is there something else that Clinton has that he doesn't?
April 10, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer Clinton's policies over McCain's but otherwise respect them as credible, mature, and moderate equals.
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 10, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must have not listened to a word out of McCain's mouth lately if you think he's still a moderate. Even the Repubs are saying he's fallen in line with the neo-cons to win:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/us/politics/10mccain.html
April 10, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, go ahead and vote for McCain Matthew. I just hope your son don't end up killed in an ill conceived war.
April 10, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain's lifetime rating with the American Conservative Union is 82.3%. He's no moderate.
April 10, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
My God, man, are you misinformed. John (I'm against torture except when I vote for it) McCain is no moderate. Go ahead vote for him. I care less if you are on the losing side.
April 10, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
In reply to Matthew McWeaver -
McCain is not by any stretch a moderate.
He is in full support of the war in Iraq and is just itching to extend it to Iran. (Never mind that he can't even remember that Iran is NOT connected to Al-Qaeda.)
He is anti-choice and will further erode women's right to full reproductive health.
His economic policies amount to stand back and do nothing and let the markets regulate themselves until they come crashing down.
He has committed to extending the tax cuts, which means more record deficits and more out-of-control national debt.
He will continue the government of the neocons, which means squeezing the life out of social programs and environmental programs.
If that's what you want, then fine, vote for the man. But do not carry on with the myth that you're voting for moderate.
April 10, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
In short:
Thanks Matt - your specious argument for your avatar cleared it all up for me.
April 10, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an American before I'm a Democrat, too. But before either of those, I am a liberal. To the bone. A born progressive.
There is no such thing as a progressive Repug. Furthermore, I would vote for roadkill if it had a D by its name in this election because I know what is at stake this time.
I may question my further commitment to the Democratic party if the nominee is Sen Clinton - once the election is over.
But you couldn't pay me or force me to vote for John "I'm 865 years old, crazy as a shit house rat, don't know the difference between Shia and Sunni, was tortured and then I voted to torture other people, therefore proving I have no soul and will nuke Iran in a hot second'" McCain.
That is an immoral act, IMO.
April 10, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, but, he's St. John Straight Talkin' Maverick McCain!!
Seriously: you captured my feelings exactly.
Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who thinks McCain is better than Clinton or Obama is delusional, a Republican troll, or a DINO.
April 10, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
McANUS won't even know how to tie his own shoes by the end October. Once the wedgied pantsuit steps down, and Obama puts some heat on the geezer and McANUS starts stammering and sputtering, America will see who they're dealing with.
Obama will then win the general.
April 10, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
But do you have a flag pin in your lapel, jodyphile?
April 10, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
My flagpin says "Slap McAnus Back to the Stone Age"
April 10, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Once the wedgied pantsuit steps down...."
"Fucking Whore."
"Bitch."
"Cunt."
Not one of you Obamabots has stepped in to say that crap is out of line. What would you do if somebody called your Dear Leader a nigger? Would you be just as silent? Would you think that was just as okay?
Chumps.
April 10, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was getting ready to post a similar comment about the language too often used against Clinton and McCain. Obama supporters are all too quick with immature and derogatory insults, name calling, and references. These show how little substance you have to offer about Obama that you can only respond with offensive comments.
Matthew
http://www.TheIndependentView.com
April 10, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those comments are out of line..... as is your contention that I should even acknowledge that silliness. Do I need to get on the airwaves each time a candidate I don't support is disparaged by some radio personality.
Furthermore, the comment you are referring too, isn't the right wing of the attack squad. This is peanuts in comparison to the GE. Ever wonder why people like Rush Limbaugh are bringing the GOP to vote for her in primaries..... because she is way to freaking easy to tear down.
So basically, I'm inferring your comment is both inflammatory and short-sighted.
Clinton will lose because no one likes her. End of story. No amount of policy and pandering will change this. She's "not hardened" shes unlikeable. Her background is 90% known, and its been a national crisis of epic proportions. Her family and approach is what got Bush into office.... anyone remember white water, monica, etc.?
That she has a better record is a bit of joke, there isn't anything substantial on it that doesn't have Bill's signature at the bottom. Her record is long, storied, and empty. That you feel secure knowing she won't do anything useful and be a moderate is why the electorate disagrees with you and are ready to send both these old fogey and BIGOTED antiques 'out to pasture'.
April 10, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, plenty of people did.
I called her a shock jock.
Glad she quit, too.
Such language doesn't help Obama win, now does it?
Jeez, i can't believe people think all Obama supporters are idiots.
April 10, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not all of them.
April 10, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You, good poster, are full of shit.
It has been republicans that have called Clinton a cunt or a bitch. As for the whore comment - I think many people have denounced it, and even more of us have only heard of it as of recent. On top of it, what one supporter says cannot be held against all supporters, nor can it be held against the candidate.
Something tells me you just wanted to write those things to be offensive.
Why else end your post with the word chump.
April 10, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to agree with Phoebe. Right now McCain is enjoying a free ride. Obama and HC are still fighting, raising negatives, while most of the press say only niceties about McCain.
But the overall mood of the electorate has changed, I am not saying that things like the Wright controversy do not hurt, but 2004 it is not. And I cite one example: remember at the beginning of the republican debates, on the issue of immigration, that they were competing about who of them were more xenophobic? Well, they ended up backpedaling big time, because when the people started seeing what a xenophobic immigration policy would mean, the answer was no thanks.
And I beleive and hope that when the democratic positions will e contrasted with the wrap yourself in the flag and fear positions of the republicans, McCain will have no chance. It is not gonna be a rout, but I trust that it is going to be a clear democratic victory.
April 10, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Currently polls show McCain either narrowly ahead or even with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It is impressive considering how poorly the GOP, and specifically the president, are viewed by the public.
But it is a faux lead. If the de facto Democratic nominee is clear within the next 4-6 weeks, that person will see a poll bounce. And according to GOP pollster Steve Lombardo, it could be one heck of a bounce, like post-convention. He anticipates the Democratic candidate will move up 10 points once the primary race is over.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/faux-lead.html
April 10, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, seems you just did. And I think it speaks for itself.
April 10, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I didn't - and you still haven't answered the question. Nice try, but now - answer the question.
April 10, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You like to create a strawman to say nasty things, how is that for an answer?
April 10, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phoebe Fay, you say "McCain's numbers reflect the absolute free ride he's gotten so far in the press"? So you mean you think Obama has been subjected to scrutiny by the media? You realize we're on earth, right?
April 10, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has Obama been subjected to media scrutiny? Absolutely. More than Hillary, maybe not. But certainly more than McCain. And that’s the issue: Obama vs. McCain.
April 10, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama had his pastor's words running on a near continuous loop for weeks and came through fine.
Obama absolutely wowed both Chicago newspapers on his openness regarding Rezko leading both of them to conclude that there is no there there.
And of course, Clinton has hit him with the kitchen sink.
I'm not saying there won't be more media scrutiny, but he's weathered a good bit so far. Meanwhile, McCain consistently mixes Shia and Sunni, and the most you get out of the media is an "oops, senior moment!"
April 10, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is thanks to the Democrates super delegates. They are responsible for dragging on the democratic race...
They should have ended the race after Senator Obama won 11 states in a row...and yet they are still unwilling to make a decision...They really need to step up now, otherwise, it will get worse and worse...
April 10, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dear Leader won 11 piss-ant states in a row.
Two words, chumps: Electoral College.
April 10, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two words back at 'ya:
Primary Rules.
Okay, bonus word:
Delegates.
April 10, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Electoral College argument might just be the most pathetic one yet.
April 10, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell that to W.
April 10, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell what to W?
April 10, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. I forgot the "logic" you Hillbots use - only the states Hillary wins are important.
April 10, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fact: The Electoral College decides which states are swing states.
Fact: Swing states win elections.
Fact: Clinton carries the swing states.
Fact: Obama loses the swing states.
There's your logic, 'bot.
April 10, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, except for the part where Hillary has 1 swing state, whereas Obama brings in more like 10.
April 10, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
And to say nothing of the fact that even if Obama loses a swing-state to Hillary in the primary, that has no bearing on how he'd fare against McCain in the same state.
Primary results have nothing to do with general election results.
April 10, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Swing states - you mean like Washington, Wisconsin, and Virginia, all of which Obama won, and all of which you just called "piss-ant states?"
Not to mention the fact that who wins the primary in a state has absolutely no bearing on who's going to carry it in the general. Or do you seriously think that McCain is going to lose Alabama in November because Huckabee beat him there in the primary?
You Hillbots are unbelievable. Yeah, go ahead and keep insulting half the states in the country by calling them "piss-ant" states. See how well that strategy works for you.
April 10, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
WI is watching!
April 10, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell yeah we are!
April 10, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just wait for McCain's free ride to end and the American people get a good look at the new "Bushified" John McCain.
"McCain Won't Rule Out Pre-Emptive War"
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080409/D8VUKHHO0.html
April 10, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Continued reading:
Moderate republicans upset that McCain is falling in line with the neo-cons
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/us/politics/10mccain.html
April 10, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once the Dem nomination is over and their (his) focus turns to McCain, the old guy is toast.
He's a republican.
He personifies the establishment (age, gender and race).
He's completely tied to the war.
He's doesn't understand the economy.
This election will be about change - period. Despite his reputation as a "maverick", McCain will look like an embodiment of moldy old Washington when line up against Obama.
I honestly think that if Obama was cleared to start the fight against McCain now, McCain's candidancy will look like Bob Dole's by November.
April 10, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree 100%. That is exactly what the country is hungry for - change.
And Obama does represent change in a way Hillary never could, for obvious reasons.
She's part of a political dynasty. That's just taking us right back through the whole damn last 20 years. I don't want to redo Whitewater, Monica, Travelgate, Vince Foster, et al.
I do not want to be dragged backward any more.
April 10, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't want to redo Whitewater, Monica, Travelgate, Vince Foster, et al."
Amen. Let's just choose not to go there. (Actually we've already chosen that, but Clinton can't get it into her head).
April 10, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
ctual Clinton supporter comment from HuffPo:
"I can tell you, as a Hillary suppoter, I have NO problem with her Colombian $$$$$$$. I don't care if that stupid rumor is true that they killed a lot of peoplebeginning with Foster. I don't care who they sleep with, who does their hair, or how priviledged they are now. She can do all the things this guy says she can. Restoring our good rep, our economy and narrowing the gap. She can do it, because she has the experience to do it. That's simply all I care about. I don't want to be united with anybody. I don't give a rat's ass about racism. I don't want unspecified change, just for the sake of change. All I want is the country/world the Clintons left us with in 2001."
Unfortunately, I still need to be convinced that the broad base of support for Sen. Clinton does not consist of people who think along these lines.
Bill will NOT be back in the White House. Neither he, nor his wife have any idea of what to do with a bad economy.
I'm so saddened by this...
April 10, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
What that person really wants is the return of a tech bubble, which will not be happening.
Another bubble might fill it's spot, but not until we clear out the housing bubble and that will take another good 12-18 months. I suppose we can bank on a "green tech" bubble, but that will happen under any democratic president.
This desire is what got us Bush - the idea that we can get the water back that has already passed under the bridge. False hopes. The conservative movement will suffer the repercussions for years, and if we keep living in this fantasy world, the entire country may not pull out of it for decades.
Hillary will make a decent president, as will most of the candidates (although I think McCain might actually be very scary. Romney was the only sane one) but we need true intelligent, thinking leadership. The downside to Clinton (who is very intelligent) is that she has a the baggage of her political connections to maintain. This means status-quo.
April 11, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those are so old. How about Rezko, Farrakhan, the Black Panthers, Wright, Meeks, and so forth... And, of course, lets not forget Michelle's nearly 300% race after Obama joined the Senate.
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 10, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
and so forth...
I mean did you hear about those gang bangers for Obama? They totally gang raped this white lady in the middle of the street while threatening to vote for McCain if Obama was not nominated.
And then did you hear about the terrorists in Iraq?
They made a line of suicide bombers in the pattern of Obama for President.
And what about Bin Laden? I heard he already mailed his general election proxy vote in for Obama.
April 11, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and reason #3 that I'm voting for McCain: Obama is a piece of human garbage, a whiny prima donna that thinks the world revolves around him. I absolutely hate the guy.
And as for his supporters (the "God damn America" crowd), they're worse yet. Even the scientologists say they give cults a bad name.
I encourage all Democrats unhappy with Obama as the candidate to put America first, and either Vote John, or stay away from the polls. If you vote for Obama there may not even be a country left to hold the 2012 elections.
April 10, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jody, you've been complaining about the derogatory language that Obama supporters use, and then you launch attacks like this.
It seems like you're a hypocrite who doesn't hold himself the same standard he applies to others.
And this sounds just plain crazy: "If you vote for Obama there may not even be a country left to hold the 2012 elections." Sounds like Tim McVeigh.
April 10, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. That was quite an impressive amount of hate-filled spewage.
But at least now we all know what you are.
Hillary supporters - will you denounce and reject this guy?
April 10, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Same thing I said to Matthew. Go ahead. I really hope you don't lose anyone dear to you in a stupid war.
April 10, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter Jodyphile: Waaaaaaaa! The black guy might actually win this!
April 10, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about it Hillary supporters?
Denounce and reject.
April 10, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're not the ones claiming to be "above it all" and bringing "change" while simultaneously spewing the same old Republican-inspired hatred. Stop whining when your own hypocrisy slaps you in the face.
Instead of whining when somebody calls the Dear Leader a name, practice what you preach: Stop your own from doing it. You call them out and I'll call Jody out. Put up or shut up.
April 10, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You play by your rules and we'll play by our"
"You stay there while we sling mud at you, because you said you didn't want to get dirty".
Pathetic.
April 10, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to slap you in the face.
April 10, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Show me a poster here who's posted a vile, hate-filled rant like Jodyphile up there and I'll happily denounce and reject them.
But only if you denounce and reject Jodyphile first.
So what's it going to be? I'm not going to let you have it both ways. Will you denounce and reject Jodyphile, or not?
April 10, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about RaeK down below? I mean, if Rev. Wright's words were hate speech, that below is GENOCIDE.
April 10, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back in late February, Obama led McCain 51%-41% — but now it's a 45%-45% tie. Perhaps most notably, McCain has taken a lead among independents, a core group for Obama.
HA HA HA HA LOL LOL !! I LOVE IT!
COUNT ME IN THAT THIRD!! HA HAHA HAHAH HA LOL LOL!
Kiss your lip stick pig goodby!!!
April 10, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, yes, we all know you support McCain.
I still think redstate is more your niche, though.
April 10, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reek, you know that she's not going to get the nomination don't you? I mean, despite your endless ranting, you do know this deep down, right?
You should start thinking about what you're going to do afterwards. Are you really going to stick a McCain bumper sticker on your car and start watching Sean Hannity? Or are you going to slowly back away from the cliff rather than jump?
April 10, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will be SHOCKED if she does not win. And she picked up a couple of delegates today. So despite what MSNBC and Dick Morris keeps trying to project, it ain't over.
The super delegates know they can't - just can't, take a chance on that barry guy.
Why do you people think he's so great? Cause he's black? Do you white people need to show how non racist you are that badly to fall behind a guy just because he's black? All you die hard, hard left liberal radicals, you just have to have a black candidate.
He's so f*cking arrogant, it's nauseating! If he were to hold his nose up any higher, he'd drown if it rained.
Dam but I've never seen such arrogance. Who the f**k/what the f**k does he think he is? He's gross, he's done drugs, he's gone to a racist church for 20 years, he's married to a white hating racist with a chip on her shoulder, he's bi-sexual, hell, he can't even make up his mind about which SEX he prefers. (and his own kids say he stinks!) How the hell you think he'll lead our country down the right road. LOOK AT HIS JUDGMENT IN PREACHERS, CHURCHES, WIVES, LIFE-STYLE, ETC. he took those little kids to that hate preaching church for over 20 years!
April 10, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prepare to be shocked.
This is a great rant, Reek. The true colors fly proud when you're all worked up.
But it sounds like maybe you're a little more obsessed with his blackness than I am.
April 10, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary supporters - will you denounce and reject this guy, too?
Show your true colors. We're all watching.
April 10, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
reject what guy??
April 10, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
s/he means you, moron.
April 10, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
WOW
You, sir, or madam, might have a great career in acting, since you seem to have a great knack for fabricating alternate realities.
WOW
I mean
WOW
April 10, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
If SDs know they can't take a chance on Obama, then why has he gained 65+ since Super Tuesday while Hillary has a net loss of 4?
April 10, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
RaeK- Honestly you're a sad sad person, and believe me you need help. Take help, enter Rehab NOW!!!
No one deserves a supporter like you. Not Obama, not Hillary and not McCain.
Since I know a little about your background- you're a true Nazi at heart.
April 10, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why? Are you leaving us Ms. Piggy!
April 10, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"hate-filled spewage"? Still, a mere love-tap compared to the typical Obama-supporter post about Hillary, wouldn't you agree?
April 10, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the language gets obnoxious on both sides, particularly when people comment on the personal characteristics of a candidate. But I also wonder about the Obama supporters and the Clinton supporters who get so up in arms about who calls who what. Why?
Consider this:
The repeated mentioning of Randy Rhodes calling Clinton a "Whore".
People repeating that John McCain once called Cindy McCain a *unt.
It's a way of saying truly dreadful things while hiding behind someone else's words. And I also think there's a more insidious effect.
"I demand that you reject and denounce Obama supporters because some Obama supporter called Clinton a whore, and that's hate speech". Well, you know what gets out there? "Clinton is a whore".
If you're a Clinton supporter, why keep repeating that drivel?
April 10, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Still, a mere love-tap compared to the typical Obama-supporter post about Hillary, wouldn't you agree?"
No I disagree. Yours is much worse.
April 10, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I detest posters calling names on BOTH sides.
I think people who do it are not Democrats, but Republican trolls, trying to stir the pot and cause dissent.
And true Democrat knows we have to unite together unless we want McCain running the country for another 8 years...
Man, just the thought of that makes me puke.
April 10, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear hear. I have nothing against Sen. Clinton personally, and I would never call her names. But I HATE the way she's run her campaign. And I think she'd be a big liability as a nominee in Nov.
But she is one of the best politicians out there today.
April 10, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she is very intelligent, and might be a decent strategist, and maybe a great policy wonk, but her selection and leadership of her campaign team has really undercut her sense of being a great politician.
April 11, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am a life long democrat and I will vote McCain over Obama. I actually wish Hillary would endorse McCain when she gets out of the race. Obama is too inexperienced to run this country. We need real leadership and experience at this time. He needs to learn how to get things done in Washington, before he can be pres. He and his supproters think Washington is going to change and it will be some kind of political utopia if he is pres. He will get eaten alive. Washington is tough and you have to know how to survive. Hillary and McCain have both been through it all and are still standing and still fighting. We don't have time for him to stutter through, trying to figure things out. Many Hillary supporters will never vote for Obama. I know you guys don't want to believe that, but it is true.
April 10, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"He will get eaten alive. Washington is tough and you have to know how to survive."
How's he doing so far?
April 10, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's getting a free ride, that's how he's doing.
Even including the Rev. Wright silliness, which all of you found so incredible, the Dear Leader is getting off completely free.
April 10, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, he did something unheard of and weathered the storm exceptionally well. Hillary is DESPERATE to have something stick, and if she had anything real, it would be out there. Instead it's lies like NAFTA right before primaries, and negative ads.
And Barack is getting better at rebutting them. He IS winning, and I'm sorry for you if you can't come to terms with reality.
April 10, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's getting a free ride compared to McCain? You're smoking crack.
April 10, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that would be your guy barry who like the smoke. lol
April 10, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Hillary and McCain both know how to get things done - like the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which they both supported. So yes, if you want more disastrous, bloody war in the Middle East, by all means, vote for McCain. He's promised that, and as you've said, he knows how to get things done.
April 10, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bret-
Just off the top of my head I think you are lying. What I can't decide if it's about being "a life long democrat" or "I wish Hillary would endorse McCain." The two statements are incompatible for any sane person. Which opens up a third possibility.
April 10, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
BBpdx He hasn't done anything. What has he done since going to Washington, but run for president? Has he reached across the isle like Hillary? He votes down democratic party lines pretty much 100% of the time. How is he going to unit the parties? The democratic party is the biggest joke going right now. Democrats had a golden opportunity to finally win a presidential election and they screwed it up, with stupid rules, disenfranchising two of the largest states in the country, and nominating a one time senator, who has done nothing but run for president. Democrats deserve to loose and republicans are just smarter. Check the history over the last 70yrs and tell me how many democrats have won the presidency? FDR and Bill Clinton are the only two to get elected to more than one term. Why do you think this is? Bill won because he was moderate, Obama is a full blooded liberal. They never win. Democrats please learn how to pick a nominee.
April 10, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not having a long history in Washington is a big positive when running for President. That's why governors have gotten elected in modern history.
No matter how you slice it, Clinton's negatives with the general electorate are way way higher than Obamas. Just look at the polls. Besides the excesses of her campaign, I don't mind Hillary. But half of the country already *hates* her - totally *hates* her. This is well known. Why would the Dems walk into that trap with our eyes wide open?
I've talked to multiple long-time Republicans who would vote for Obama. Every one of them said unequivicably that they would never ever vote for Hillary. Two of them got visible shivers just thinking about her.
It's sad, unfair, maybe sexist, but its the way it is for 50% of the electorate. Because of this, Hillary Clinton will NEVER be the President, whether she takes the nomination or not.
April 10, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm. Clinton supporters never seem to have a come back to that one....
April 10, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I hate it when they drop arguments half-way. I think I come up with a decent response, but they never respond. See above.
I can only assume they recognize a good argument and have to run away. Because otherwise they'd ad least say "that's a bad argument because X and Y".
Reality WILL catch up with them though. And thank god there's a long way 'till Nov.
April 10, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many of Obama's republican supporters will vote McCain in the general and only voted for Obama to get the weakest candidate. This is a fact.
So I wouldn't keep bragging about his republican support if I were obama. IF he's the nominee you'll see how fast they have jumped ship. But he actually believes it. This explains the polls.
April 10, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your choice of wording shows you for who you really are: a Republican. Nothing wrong with that, but don't start your posts out with "I am a life-long democrat".
Mere assertion of that gives you no street-cred so please work harder at demonstrating an ability to hold a discussion before trolling.
April 11, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's and Hillary's voting records are nearly identical, except on wiretapping and Kyl-Lieberman. Hill's health plan is much more old-line "liberal" in its call for mandates.
I'm just not buying this.
April 10, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure everyone has seen this. But American's overwhelmingly say the country is ready for a Black president. And just about 10% less say the same for a woman.
Democrats repeating this line of reasoning is what gives this bigotry a chance to work its magic.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/03/poll.black.president/
April 10, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Hillary supporters' refusal to denounce and reject the hate speech coming from their side in these comments speaks volumes, doesn't it?
April 10, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The racists worst dream is coming true, and it has them pulling out all the stops to prevent a brilliant person of color from becoming president. It would destroy all their compensating for feelings of their own sense of inadequacy by convincing their selves that their skin color makes them superior to other races.
They had nothing to do with what skin color they were born, or with the very limited capacity for empathy that they were born with. They are just poor benighted self loathing cretins who can only feel worthwhile by spewing irrational hate against others. They are a sorry lot, but thankfully their time is passing.
The David Dukes and Ann KKKoulters of this world, will be tomorrow's Dodo Bird brains.
April 10, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep believing that Hillary can't win, but Obama can. I am at the point now, that I wish she would just drop out, and not endorse Obama. This party has treated her and Bill worse than they treat republicans. It is sad how she can be called everything in the book(mostly by other democrats), but Obama can't even be called by his name. He says he used cocaine, but no one can ask him about it without being called racist. No one can mention Rev. Wright without being called racist. No one can use the word fairytale when discussing him without being called racist. No one can point out that LBJ helped MLK realize his dream without being called a racist,but Hillary has been taking hit after hit for over 15rys.
April 10, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice laundry list.
Any actual thought?
April 11, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to laugh, yet again, at Weaver.
In 1969 I lived around the corner from a Black Panther facility in Oakland, Ca. Their school breakfast and lunch plan was real gangsta.
The biggest menaces in the neighborhood were all the hippies' (of which I was one, and that's why I was there) dogs.
April 10, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
O cry me a river - she's been paid out of my pocket for 15 years, too. And she's been in the public eye and there are down sides to that. It goes with the territory.
I've seen plenty of nasty comments about Obama. Here's what really is bothering y'all - you're outnumbered here.
Sorry.
April 10, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
mjshep I am a life long democrat. I will not vote for someone I don't think will make a good president. I didn't vote at all for the first time ever, when Kerry ran against Bush, because Kerry was a horrible nominee and I didn't think he should be president. I honestly would rather have Hillary or McCain in the whitehouse. I vote for people I feel will make the best president, not based of reading a prepared speech well, or being black, or because we have had Bushes and Clintons for over 20yrs. I liked McCain when he was running in 2000 and may have voted for him then, because Al Gore was too liberal IMO. I am a moderate dem. I am also black, so I have nothing against Obama based on race. He is just not up to the job, and I can't understand why so many smart people are willing to put our country in his hands.
April 10, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Effort to establish street cred, Exhibit B:
Still waiting for thought or meaningful engagement.
April 11, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's your opinion. I happen to disagree.
How much experience did Harry Truman have?
This is bogus argument. He has all the intelligence, the poise, the cool under pressure to handle big things. I have no problem putting this country in his hands. I can't wait.
April 10, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
We shall see. He stumbles horribly when he goes off message or teleprompter. He has already shown that he can't even answer simple questions. He ran out of the room when reporters tried to ask him about Rezko. He lies when he gets pinned down and then comes back and tries to clean it up. I have absolutely no confidence in him as a leader, let alone president of the US.
April 10, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no there there on the Rezko thing, and Obama sat down with the two major Chicago newspapers for hours and wowed them with his honesty and willingness to be forthcoming.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0316edit1mar16,0,2616801.story
April 10, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Here I thought you were going to go all broadminded on me at the last second...
...and I am Marie, the Queen of Romania.
April 10, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I denounce and reject all this hate speech!
I'm sorry. I just can't seem to help myself at times. :(
But I'll still be voting McCain IF Hillary doesn't win (but I know she will).
Rae
April 10, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously. Re-read that hate-speech you wrote earlier. Its laced with so many obvious racist overtones I can open up a text book and just use the highlighter. That you don't get that and actually said it, and now the readers of this forum are supposed to accept your apology and continue a dialog with you is absurd.
I don't want to hear your thoughts on Hillary again... ever. While I believe in a 2 way discourse, that you are a Democrat just reminds me that 50 years ago democrats were the party of racism.... Jim Crow lived in the South for a very long time because of this party, and sometimes I need a reminder.
I wish the forum here could tag or highlight someone's "Best" comments with a rating from other users. If we had that feature, I assure you RaeK no one would ever take you seriously again.
April 10, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Name ONE thing in my posting that was racist!
THere may have been insults, but there were NO racist insults. YOu people squeal racism at the drop of a hat!
April 10, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know, why don't you tell us like a 3rd or 4th time. If your argument is true, aren't your examples doing the exact same thing?
Ad hominem attacks are indicative of how a person thinks. Repeating them with indignation is not promotion. Otherwise the democratic rantings over GW has made him more popular; or talking about how vile black licorice is would make it more popular. And I just don't think thats true.
While some people may hide behind false pretense, it shouldn't be the reason others critique it. Otherwise, for example, we get a-holes dropping the n-bomb on a public forum without outcry.
April 10, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
O please - you are running the oldest goddamn con in the white supremacist' book: race baiting and then when someone calls you on it, accusing them of raising the issue. You've spent the entire time talking about it yourself in order to get yourself called a racist.
'
How stupid do you think we are?
Believe me, this is old racist shit and I grew up with it - been there. You are such a moron.
April 10, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just as I thought. You can't even find a racist quote of mine!
Hah! You're like Lestatdc. He calls me a racist because I have black wool!
I challenge you to find and paste a racist remark!
You can't you Obama claim anything that is critical of barry as being racist! It's pathetic!
LOL
April 10, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still standing and fighting.
And achieving nothing of value.
Buckle up for four years of that if Clinton is elected, the "minority" party which has ground all progress to a halt will go absolutely rabid in opposition to her. They've been fed the Kool-Aid that any Clinton is the AntiChrist.
April 10, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
There isn't one of you who is fooling anyone.
Voting for McCain? Man, you make Hillary look just like shit - just like I thought she was all along.
April 10, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trolls for Hillary - who needs Repugs? We got em right here.
April 10, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trolls for obama.... like you. Nothing to add. You make trollish claims and can't back them up. Freakin trolls!
April 10, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is threads like this that reaffirm my faith in the american system of government. Obama supporters and McCain supporters mix it up :). Maybe you guys can work together to try and defeat McCain's Supreme Court Justice nominees, but I'm not counting on it.
Nate Peele
http://thatsrightnate.wordpress.com/
April 10, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You misunderstand my argument. NY is a big state but it is also a democratic state - either candidate will win and handily. Ohio - no way. California is going to be another one. It's not just a big state - it is a swing state and McCain is outpolling Obama there by 7 points. Who is better positioned to win those key states is what it boils down to.
That said McCain was beating Obama in NJ (another big dem state) shortly after the wright controversy. If it's hurting him in states like NJ, I can't imagine the damage done in OH, PA, KY, WV etc.
And Greenspan if you haven't noticed has endorsed McCain. My sense is Hillary isn't outsourcing her policy positions - she's thought them out very thoroughly. Can you give an example of Hillary's policies being created by the housing comminssion that got us into the mortgage mess.
By the way, McCain's revisionist stance on limited direct assistance to homeowners facing foreclosure inches him towards Hillary's plan, while Obama remains the only candidate opposed to mandatory restructuring of mortgages (supports voluntary efforts by mortgage companies - gioving incentives to the companies rather than helping homeowners directly. Methinks Obama will be rethinking his position as well.
April 11, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I personally am on the fence as to an answer for the housing crisis. That is another discussion.
But if you looked into it, you will find the people responsible for this mess are: Greenspan and crew, and the same people who repealed the Glass-Steagall Act (link already provided) (one of whom I believe was Volker, another HRC housing commission member. The housing bubble/crisis is a symptom of a much bigger problem (see liquidity/credit crisis), again a bigger discussion.
So, in my approximation, appointing Volker and Greenspan to head that commission is extremely shortsighted and designed to play off the ignorance of the masses.
As for polls this far out - they are not a reasonable assessment of the go-forward, only a rough view. Both candidates are within the margin of error, and neither has campaigned directly against McCain.
I am not accusing Hillary of outsourcing her policy (although that is why the president has a cabinet and advisers, specifically because they are not experts on all things) just that she has picked the fox to help clean up the slaughter of the chickens.
Helping homeowners outright may not actually be the best solution. The market was painfully inflated in the bubble, and to support it at it's peak will not do any favors. I do not know the answer, but I do know that to rush to a solution is a bad idea.
To paraphrase: going with the devil you know may not get you any further ahead. Usually you have to take a chance to make a change.
Entrepreneur: [en·tre·pre·neur] A risk-taker willing to try new things typically by creating new businesses
April 11, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
djamo said:
"California is going to be another one. It's not just a big state - it is a swing state and McCain is outpolling Obama there by 7 points. Who is better positioned to win those key states is what it boils down to."
LOOOOOOOOLLLZZZZ! Oh jeebus christ on a stick, that's some funny isht.
Plz oh plz oh plz show me the poll that backs up this cockamamy assertion. If you really believe this, I feel bad for you. Please tell me where you are getting your LSD laced chronic.
CA will never go red this cycle. I'm sorry. Never. Ever. EVAAAH! Stop before you hurt yourself.
April 11, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
the 7 points was for Ohio - I was typing quickly. That said CA has elected some "moderates" like Schwarz, and Reagan. Don't go assuming CA has not chance to go for McCane (misspelling intentional)
April 11, 2008 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you'd ACTUALLY looked at CA polls, you would have seen that Obama is expected (now) to beat McCain by a large margin, whereas Clinton's barely hanging on.
One more reason primaries say nothing about the general.
April 11, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me, but can we have a little reality check here?
Right now, it's April. The election is in November.
Right now, the pollsters are looking at an election which is eleven days away, and finding that Clinton is pulling farther ahead while Obama is narrowing the gap rapidly. That Clinton is leading by 12, 5, 18 or 10 points, or that they are well-nigh tied.
Right now, what do the polls tell you? Bupkes.
And this poll which shows that McCain would beat Obama in November, after a couple of weeks of McCain barnstorming without opposition? Bupkes.
The fact is very simple: the pollsters do not know doodley-squat about what is going to happen in Pennsylvania, they don't know doodley-squat about what will happen in the general election after two convention bumps and post-convention campaigning, and everybody here is frothing about the mouth because they know what's going to happen? Sheesh.
Go out and enjoy the spring weather, and see what really happens in Pennsylvania, the rest of the primaries, the conventions and the campaigns. I'm still going out on my limb and predicting a tie in PA, but then what do I know? Bupkes.
Peace,
Paul
April 11, 2008 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Relax people
Once the dem nominee has been decided
McLame will perish under the close scrutiny he is not now receiving.I believe that either Obama or Clinton will beat him once he receives their undivided focus.
April 11, 2008 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink