Looks great for McCain in March

On the heels of a Rasmussen poll showing McCain leading Obama or Clinton by a 46-40 margin in Ohio, Zogby includes Nader in a national poll.

Now, Zogby loves to make news, so I wouldn't put it past him to have polled for a sample showing Nader doing well, and he did, showing McCain, Clinton, Nader at 45, 39, 6 and McCain, Obama, Nader at 44, 39, 6.  

Zogby has McCain's lead due to Independents, and while Dems and Reps wind up polarizing in the McCain-Clinton match-up, they wind up crossing over in the McCain-Obama match-up, with Nader flanking to Obama's left:

In the McCain-Obama-Nader match-up, the independent candidate is having the same effect. Nader wins 15% support among political independents nationwide.

Ideologically, Nader wins 18% support among progressives, and 12% among libertarians. He does less well among mainline conservatives and liberals compared to the match-up including Clinton.

An interesting factor in this race: the inroads McCain has made into Obama's base and vice versa. McCain wins 19% support from Democrats, while Obama captures just 67% of voters in his own party. Obama wins 15% support among Republicans, compared to 73% for McCain.

As is the case in the McCain-Clinton-Nader contest, Obama wins among voters under age 30, while McCain leads among all voters age 30 and older.

The only thing to take solace in is that McCain isn't breaking out above 50 percent.



Display:


Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

I take solace in the fact that right now McCain is up 6 against either Obama or Clinton despite the fact that he has essentially been spared for weeks on end. As our two candidates continue to campaignon, McCain is essentially getting a free pass from both the Dems and the media now. IA is a swing state having switched from Blue to Red in '04.

I think that the Nader vote is a protest vote against both HRC and BHO in March. After the 2000 fiasco, no one wants the Republican to win thsi way again.


by chatters71 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:19:11 PM EST

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

I know you did, and I think a lot of us just didn't want to think about it.  I began to agree with on Super Tuesday.


by ejintx on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:36:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

The sad fact is BO and HRC have very different voting bases and each for different reasons each base is not that interested in voting for the other.  I tried posting this many times on dkos and each time i was bullied and shouted down.

The fact is, much like 1960, we have to have a dream ticket similar to JFK and LBJ.  They won because one candidate brought in wine and cheese and AA voters and the other working folk or Reagan democrats.  

I have heard over and over that this will not happen. My question is why not.  My understanding is the plan is to put forth the strongest ticket to being the WH back to the dems.  I think most HRC supporters are ok with this.  If BO doesnt pick HRC for the VP he is going to get clocked.

And one last thing. IMHO McCain will pick Kay Hutchinson as his VP and she will really take even more older women voters from BO.

david


by giusd on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:37:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Can I get a lady Senator for 1000, Alex?

I guess this is one way to overcome that whole "Senator cannot win the white house stat"--only nominate senators!


by hctb on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:41:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"I don't want to be vice president." (none / 0)

So sayeth Kay:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200 8/02/24/potential-vp-picks-stay-mum/


by BBCWatcher on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:50:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "I don't want to be vice president." (none / 0)

I did see this but on the other hand lots of pols say no way and then change their mind.  So i guess i still think she is on the short list.  And if it ws me she would be number one.  BO is already iffy with older white women and Kay would take an important demographic away for BO.

But time will tell.  Maybe MITTENS?

david


by giusd on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:00:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

I was thinking he might go for Sarah Plain, the Governor of Alaska--she would not only appeal to women who will be unhappy if Clinton loses the nomination, but she's a Governor (with an 84% approval rating) and she has youth on her side, something McCain most definitely lacks.

http://gov.state.ak.us/


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:04:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Er, her name is Sarah PALIN -- she most definitely not plain. ;)

Michael Bloomberg, if he's interested, probably would do a lot for McCain.  He would draw in Jewish voters and moderate Democrats unwilling to trust a very dovish Democratic candidate, a la the great Namont-Lieberman election of 2006.


by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:08:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Thanks. I suck as a typist. I agree that McCain-Bloomberg would be a tough ticket to beat, but I just don't see it happening. Bloomberg doesn't agree with McCain on the Iraq war and any number of issues. Also, McCain wouldn't have tried so hard to court the religious right vote if he was willing to cast them aside by picking such someone so liberal on social issues as Bloomberg.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:51:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Look, McCain will win this thing if Obama is the nominee.  

All the questions about Rev. Wright are EXACTLY the kind of thing that Hillary supporters had in mind when they said that Obama hasn't been vetted.

Obama may be able to relieve his pastor of his campaign duties, but he can't undo 20 years of close association with his spiritual mentor.


by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:05:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Either Democrat beats McCain. I guarantee it. If Obama has now been vetted, he still comes out better than Clinton. Obama is delivering transparency even now. The Clintons' legacy of scandal, secrecy, and untrusworthiness is legion. What I do know about Hillary and Bill bothers me more than what I don't know about Obama. Hillary's negatives are so high across the nation that she'll have a lot tougher time beating McCain than Obama will. Obama is too smart and resilient to be swift-boated.


by Patriot0259 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:35:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Hillary's desperate attempts to draw Obama into a mud wrestling match have hurt both Democrats.


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:12:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

you mean Ohio -- not Iowa -- correct ??


by silver spring on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:22:05 PM EST

I'd be really surprised if it's IA (none / 0)

McCain has hardly ever campaigned here.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:43:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Yeah, he's linking to Ohio.

I would personally really like to see a Dem path to victory that does not include having to win Ohio and/or Florida. I'm damn sick of those two states and their conservative values. Thankfully I think both Clinton and Obama do have such paths.


by Mullibok on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:48:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (2.00 / 1)

I see Obama's - MO, CO, NC, GA, probably NV as well. He can't count on FL to win, and I think OH is iffier than many Obama supporters would like to believe.

Can you outline Clinton's? I want to believe it exists, but I'm not seeing it. Every outline I've seen so far of a Clinton path to 270 votes depends on FL and OH.


Ceci n'est pas une <<snark>>
by ipsos on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:18:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Other States (none / 0)

We shouldn't forget possible pickups in New Mexico, Virginia, and a couple of the EVs in Nebraska. Some more states that would at least be competitive include Texas (!), Louisiana, and (maybe) one or both of the Dakotas.

Ohio is 20 EVs. A candidate could offset a loss in Ohio by winning, for example, New Mexico, Virginia, and two electoral votes in Nebraska.


by BBCWatcher on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:39:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Other States (none / 0)

Also see below i think VA will be a really hard state for both BO and HRC.  It is still redish and southern VA is really conservative.  It also has a really big number of military voters and McCain is going to get them big time.  As i say below BO has to win all of gores states plus NH and then either NV or CO.  My guess is CO is his best chance.  But he is going to have to tone down gun control, afirmative action, and gay marrage or McCain will slowly pull ahead there.  If is a very libertian state so Gun and Gays are still important but much less into the God vote.

david


by giusd on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:57:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

IMHO BO only chance to win the WH requires him winning CO.  And i assume both candidates are at 264 which are all the states Gore won plus NH. In this model i assume BO wins PA and MI and i think that very likely. And lets all agree Howard Dean was really smart to hold the convention in Denver.  IHMO BO has no chance of winning MO, NC, or GA.  And i think VA is a real long shot as well.  I guess you could include NV (5) and that would give him 269 and he would win since the dems have the majority in the house.

HRC would have to win OH and its 20 electoral votes.  If you add in AK where i have seen her up 15% that takes 26 electoral votes from what bush won in 2004.  If you give her NM which is likely with the latino vote that would put her at 292.  However, she polls really bad in IA and could lose WA.  I think she holds WI and MN.  But if you subtract 7 (IA) and WA (10) she is down to 275 electoral votes so only 6 to spare.

So if she loses OR (7) or either WI or MN (each 10) she could still lose.

Just my read on the electoral college.

david


by giusd on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:52:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (2.00 / 0)

<i>I see Obama's - MO, CO, NC, GA, probably NV </i>

Georgia and North Carolina?  Unlikely.  And NV, with Hispanic voters pissed off at Obama for various reasons, not the least of which is his the whole kerfuffle over his pastor?  I'm afraid I don't see that happening.


by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:10:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

I agree with Georgia, but Hillary will likely do much worse.  In Nevada, Obama leads McCain by seven and Hillary trails him by 12.  She wont win there.  


by Toddwell on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:13:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

How has Obama pissed of Latinos? I would like to hear that story!


by marcotom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:29:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Hold Kerry states, pick off Iowa, New Mexico, and Arkansas. Of course, I do worry about losing New Hampshire, so it would be nice to get an extra insurance state in there as well.


by Mullibok on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:12:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

NOW can we have a revote please?? n/t (none / 0)


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:02:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

we need to stop Nader (none / 0)

and i don't care if someone happens to use drastic action. how many more American soldiers and Iraqis have do die for Ralph Nader's ego?


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:27:47 PM EST

Re: we need to stop Nader (none / 0)

Nader will get less than 1% of the popular vote.  Honestly, I would not take any stock in polls pitting McCain against Democrat A.  

Our candidate is undefined, theirs is known.  Given the huge turnout numbers and donations, do you really think Hillary voters will cross over or stay home, or Obama voters will cross over or stay home?

I doubt it.  Democrats win in 2008.  Now its just a matter of whether the Bushies will remove the "O" keys or the "H" keys from the computer keyboards before turning over the keys.


by agpc on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:19:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

I don't put much stock in these early polls. Despite what they say I don't believe voters are going to put McBush in the White House. After the conventions he'll start to fade. The politics of fear are passing.


by Patriot0259 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:28:01 PM EST

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Said it over and over again. McCain is winning because people think he's not as conservative as he really is. That will change.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:19:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

<i>McCain is winning because people think he's not as conservative as he really is. That will change.</i>

Not if he runs much more to the left than everyone expects -- which is what he set himself up to do with his victory speech on March 4th.


by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:11:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

"Not if he runs much more to the left than everyone expects.."

That's a very real possibility. But that will definitely lose him the neocon base, which I don't believe a Republican can win without.


by Patriot0259 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:24:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

But [running to the left] will definitely lose him the neocon base, which I don't believe a Republican can win without.

I disagree.  Much of the right-wing "base" has shown itself to be a paper tiger.  Its shrill rhetoric drove many moderate Republicans to vote Dem in 2006.  The neocon base is chastened now.


by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:51:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

He won't do that. The issues on which he's most conservative are his core issues and the ones most important to voters. He might be able to run on a platform of stem cell research and environmental technology, but he's still to the right on a lot of issues and on the record as having much more conservative positions than he originally had. How does he answer the question about Roe v Wade? Most voters probably think he doesn't want to overturn it, he's on record as saying he'd do it immediately.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:06:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

I can't believe anyone really taking these March polls seriously!  That Nader will win 5-6% of the votes is patently absurd!!  The Dems will come together later in the fall once they realize the stark choices facing them.  McCain's age and the uninspiring "business as usual" message will be soooooo outshined by either BO or HRC as we get closer to the GE.  


by sbbonerad on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:04:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (2.00 / 1)

It boggles my mind that 6% would vote for Nader after everything that has happened in the past 8 years. Geez, like Obama isn't left enough with his anti-imperialist, pro-Palestinian preacher screaming God Damn America. What does it take for these people? ;-)


by animated on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:28:04 PM EST

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

I think that polls this far out are meaningless, although it would be good for this to get wrapped up  soon.

And with Nancy Pelosi's recent comments (see below), things my wrap up sooner rather than later.

Pelosi's Delegate Stance Boosts Obama

By DAVID ESPO - http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jbmae GHPflyoZifK0IsXS9tCsWvwD8VE3FU00

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it would be damaging to the Democratic party for its leaders to buck the will of national convention delegates picked in primaries and caucuses, a declaration that gives a boost to Sen. Barack Obama.

"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party," Pelosi said in an interview taped Friday for broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

The California Democrat did not mention either Obama or his rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, by name. But her remarks seemed to suggest she was prepared to cast her ballot at the convention in favor of the candidate who emerges from the primary season with the most pledged delegates.

Obama leads Clinton by 142 pledged delegates -- those delegates picked in nomination contests to date, in The Associated Press' count.

Barring an unlikely string of landslide victories by the former first lady in the remaining states, he will end the primary season with a delegate lead, but short of the 2025 needed to win the nomination.

That gives the balance of power to the so-called superdelegates, prominent Democrats who are automatically entitled to attend the convention because of their status as members of Congress or other leaders. Clinton leads Obama for their support in the AP count, 249-213.

Pelosi's comments could influence other House Democrats who are neutral in the presidential race and will attend the convention as superdelegates.

In her interview, Pelosi also said that even if one candidate winds up with a larger share of the popular vote than the delegate leader, the candidate who has more delegates should prevail.

"It's a delegate race," she said. "The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:31:23 PM EST

Typical Pelosi (2.00 / 1)

Taking the popular vote off the table.

News flash Nancy. The superdelegates are supposed to be the leaders of the party, not the followers.


by ineedalife on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:49:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Typical Pelosi (2.00 / 2)

Nancy Pelosi has been in Democratic party politics her whole life. Her father was the mayor of Baltimore.  Rest assured, she has the background to form her own conclusions about what superdelegates should do.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:57:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Typical Pelosi (none / 0)

Gee...

Impressive what all that political acumen has accomplished against 'Lil' Boots....that would be nadda, bupkis...

Woman will go down as one of the worse Dem Speakers ever unless she does a 180 and this factually wrong take on what the SDs are there for shows...

She's pretty damn clueless.


by Pericles on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:05:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Typical Pelosi (2.00 / 1)

For someone so "damn clueless," she's managed to come pretty far in her political career.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:17:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

than I guess Dubya has as well (none / 0)

considering Pelosi is only in politics because her dad was the mayor of Baltimore, and she married into a San Fran politician. another fortunate son like Bush, and votedigger(like golddigger, but marrying for political connections, not so much money) like John McCain. She is a horrendous speaker who has given Bush everything he wants, and can't get any of the agenda through. She only got elected as speaker because she is a woman, and the party thought they would get more female votes by doing this.


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:33:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: than I guess Dubya has as well (none / 0)

Where does Clinton go into your picture? A picture that is deeply flawed, by the way!


by marcotom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:35:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: than I guess Dubya has as well (none / 0)

So the Democratic party only elected her because she's a woman???  


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:41:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: than I guess Dubya has as well (none / 0)

she's not popular in SF. I'm not sure where her base is. It's very easy to be a  safe liberal here


by bigbay on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:19:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: than I guess Dubya has as well (none / 0)

She has done a crap job as speaker. dont try to make this about Clinton and Obama.

Pelosi was a crap speaker before she ever uttered a word about this race.


by hctb on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:24:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: than I guess Dubya has as well (none / 0)

The primary and general election results suggest that she IS popular in SF. Of course, as a partisan Clinton supporter, you have no problem talking people up or down depending on how they feel about your candidate.


by AC4508 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:10:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

she could really use that newsflash (none / 0)

considering how Bush runs her over time after time. I'll give it to Gingrich, at least he had some semblance of a spine, Pelosi's exoskeleton cracked the day she took Impeachment off the table.


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:36:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

third-party candidates always do better (2.00 / 1)

in polls than on election day.

Come on--Nader getting 15 percent of independents? That is a total joke. Never going to happen.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:43:15 PM EST

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

I'd be more worried if it was SUSA, Gallup, Rasmussen, or mostly anybody (with the exception of ARG) besides Zogby.


Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.
by Walt Starr on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:45:36 PM EST

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (2.00 / 1)

That's the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Does anyone want to bet that Nader will get a bigger share of the vote than he did in 2000? Anyone?


by Mullibok on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:46:36 PM EST

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Concern trolling with Rasmussen and Zogby polls? Come on, you can do better!


by marcotom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:50:51 PM EST

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Please come up with a new shtick. Attack the messenger is getting old. Actually say something, like others have here, about the polling data and about how its too early etc. But to merely complain that he's bringing it up is silly because that's what reality based people do. They bring up things even if its not what we want to hear.


by bruh21 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:21:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

He is not just bringing stuff up, he is selectively bringing stuff up. And I don't see how these polls are in any way meaningful. There are more meaningful polls around, if one really wants to look into GE polls, SUSA comes to mind. I could also show you some random Rasmussen polls, like

Connecticut by Rasmussen, today:
Obama leads McCain by 12
Clinton leads McCain by 3

Oh holy shit! We are loooooosing Connecticut if we nominate Clinton! That is simply BS and I call him out for doing essentially the same thing.


by marcotom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:34:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

I don't care if it is selective or not. That he's not a supporter is irrelevant to whether this is something that needs to be vetted. Your reall  point is that isn't it? That he's not a supporter.


by bruh21 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:59:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

A supporter of what? This diary was completely unbiased, for once, so that's really not my point. I also thought he was talking about Iowa and it was Ohio instead. (I think he mixed it up in the text, the link went to Ohio)

I consider it concern trolling if somebody brings up notoriously unreliable Zogby and Rasmussen Iowa GE polls that happen to show McCain ahead. Ohio is a bit of a different story.


by marcotom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:37:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why are you giving Zogby recognition? (none / 0)


by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:50:58 PM EST

Re: Looks Great for McKinney, Maybe (none / 0)

Zogby should be polling with McKinney in a McCain, Clinton, McKinney, Nader matchup.  Maybe also Ron Paul.  If Clinton is the nominee, McKinney is likely to take far more Dem votes than Nader.  I suspect that most Dems, even those disenchanted, will be extra Nader-shy this time around.


by johnnygunn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:51:45 PM EST

Who on earth is "McKinney"? (none / 0)


by Alice in Florida on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:18:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who on earth is "McKinney"? (none / 0)

Probable Green party nominee, former congresswoman, kook, the person who will recieve 25-50% of the black vote if Clinton gets the nomination.


by Socraticsilence on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:58:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who on earth is "McKinney"? (none / 0)

Cynthia McKinney? Okay, that is hilarious. You lose your seat-twice!- and you run as a third party candidate for President?  Cause it is the Democratic Party's fault you went zsa zsa gabor on a cop and always drew a primary challenger? Please.

You think Wright is an albatross, wait till someone starts talking about Billy. Ugh. The Georgia Democratic Party is a mess.


by hctb on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:34:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nader's Wet Dream (2.00 / 1)

Wake up Ralph.  

If Nader breaks 5 % in Berkeley or Madison I'll go swimming in Lake Mendota (that is in Wisconsin)in January 2009.  If he breaks half a percent nationwide, I'll marry Ann Coulter.  Last time he was somewhere between a quarter of a percent and a half a percent.  Most likely it will be under that in 2008.

This really is the silly season.


by howardpark on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:53:41 PM EST

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

What about without Nader. No way Ralph Nader gets more than 0.5% he got last time. Without him what does the race look like?


by elrod on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:57:41 PM EST

We hosed ourselves As Usual (2.00 / 2)

This should be a SHOE-IN for a democratic president

The worst president in history.
Economy tanked.
Geriatric Republican opponent

So what do we do?  Instead of electing a strong candidate, we decide it's time to experiment and rectify social injustices with an unknown neophyte, who was friends with a crooked landlord caught laundering money in the middle east, and whose spiritual advisor admired Farrakhan, and hates America, and who hails from a district that seems out of sync with the rest of the country.  (Chicago spiritual advisors don't seem to have heard that black people have made enormous advances since Clinton first took office)

WE ARE SO SMART.

Even if Hillary wins the primary, Daily Kos has put young bloggers in total hate mode for HRC. And Senator "Unifier" has spoken about nothing except RACISM after claiming that his campaign would transcend race, - that blacks and young people  would go all out to see that she is defeated.

And if he wins the primary, a lot of HRC supporters will be embittered by their shoddy treatment in the blogs, they will have a hard time putting his name on any ballot ever again.

Yes, this should be a shoe-in.  Our children should be happy at the thought of healthcare reform, economic reform and environmental reform.

What we can in fact look forward to is 4 more years of bad times.
Because Obama cannot win a national election.
No Way!
and he will see to it that Hillary Clinton's campaign is hobbled.


by earthoat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:01:28 PM EST

Re: We hosed ourselves As Usual (none / 0)

You're welcome to go cry in a corner.  The rest of the party has work to do.


by Brillobreaks on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:10:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

good luck (none / 0)


by earthoat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:20:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: good luck (none / 0)

Thank you for your concern.  


by Brillobreaks on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:30:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We hosed ourselves As Usual (none / 0)

Laughing out loud here!  An anti-blog backlash is moving the polls???  Think the hilarious Daily Kos "strike" is moving the nation?  Why not just call a general strike throughout the country and wait for a replay of October 1917.

Meanwhile blood flows in Llasa and on a positive front Obama piclks up at least 7 delegates in Iowa.  


by howardpark on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:19:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We hosed ourselves As Usual (none / 0)

Hillary has been hated for a long time -- long before this primary battle. She's the one person who will light a fire under Republicans to get them out to vote against us in hordes.

HRC supporters tried to shove a bum candidate down our throats in the beginning, and we coughed her up.


by Oregonian on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:36:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We hosed ourselves As Usual (none / 0)

Yeah Hillary hasn't done ANYTHING to bring a lot of the dislike and distrust upon herself.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:39:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe we need a compromise candidate (none / 0)

<i>Because Obama cannot win a national election, and he will see to it that Hillary Clinton's campaign is hobbled.</i>

Well, this was the argument for co-opting him and having a Clinton-Obama ticket.  Which I agree would be formidable.

But maybe it is also an argument for settling on a compromise candidate, like Al Gore or Mark Warner, who could unify the part and put up a formidable challenge to McCain.


by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:15:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We hosed ourselves As Usual (none / 0)

earthoat, you are so right!


by tiffany on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:35:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

The chickens.... Coming home.... to ROOST!!!!  Damn Rev Wright is hilarious.  On the topic of these polls.  Once again damn I wish John Edwards was still in the race, he beats McCain in a general election walking away. John Edwards would carry North and South Carolina in a General Election match up with McCain.  John Edwards would Carry Ohio and IOWA going away in a General Election Match up against McCain.  Guys this sucks.  Why are parts of our country so bigoted.  2 trillion dollar war, Housing market in the toilet, the dollar in the dumps against the Euro, 4,000 dead U.S troops, FUCK this sucks.   What is wrong with Kansas, Ohio, Florida, Virgina, Missouri?  Guys this sucks...


by nzubechukwu on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:03:46 PM EST

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Poll was before Wright Story Broke


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:09:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards was our strongest option (2.00 / 1)

Behind Warner, that is. Warner and the potential for locking up Virginia, plus unusual strength in other swing states, was always our best hand. But I think he realized, unlike Edwards, that 2008 was destined to be celebrity wrestling and not a standard campaign.

You're getting carried away, citing many of those states for Edwards. He wouldn't carry South Carolina, which is double digits red in the partisan index. Same thing with North Carolina. He could make it competitive but fail by mid single digits, unless the national popular vote were a semi-landslide.

I agree Edwards carries Ohio and Iowa vs. McCain.

Regardless, these are the type of polls I would have cherished about a decade ago. Internet wagering was beginning to explode and many sites thrilled to put up homemade numbers, fixed odds that didn't reflect actual likelihood. The numbers were based on their own instinct and/or a couple of early and flawed polls. In this case a website might make McCain the favorite nationally or in Ohio. Meanwhile, check the bottom of Rasmussen's link. He mentions that Democrats are favored in Ohio on Intrade. Also to win the presidency, about 60/40 when I checked last night. The sites that relied on store brand odds were rammed out of business by sharp customers, at least in terms of early political offerings, which they abandoned. Now the odds either go up very late in the cycle, or you have to default to Intrade, where the mistakes are rare at any given point in time. I handicapped correctly that the Ohio price of basically even money on Hillary was a bargain, but in the old days you had similar fixed odd handouts virtually every week.


by Gary Kilbride on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:30:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (2.00 / 1)

Personally, I take solace in the fact that this poll is crap.


by Brillobreaks on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:07:41 PM EST

Maybe this is what happens when Democrats (none / 0)

spend two weeks tearing each other to shreds


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:08:30 PM EST

Re: Maybe this is what happens when Democrats (none / 0)

No, this is what happens when people stop paying attention to pollster accuracy.  


by Brillobreaks on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:11:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe this is what happens when Democrats (none / 0)

That too


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:21:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe this is what happens when Democrats (none / 0)

We should still expect McCain to start rising.  Negative campaigning in a primary generally has the effect of raising the negatives of both candidates.


by APoxOnBoth on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:47:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (2.00 / 0)

The only thing to take solace in is that McCain isn't breaking out above 50 percent.

And that it's March, not November. And that it's Zogby. And that Nader isn't getting six fucking percent no matter what.

You know better than this, Jerome! Don't say stupid things that get people biting their nails needlessly. It's not good for morale.


by epenthesis on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:12:10 PM EST

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

I agree that Nader isn't getting 6% in November, and that early polls are pretty meaningless. Didn't Dukakis have a 12% lead in early polls in 1988? But what this poll *does* show, IMO, is that the election in November will be a horse race. No one has it in the bag.
by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:18:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

The imaginary, silly, meaningless "lead" for Dukakis in the meaningless, silly polls of the time peaked at 17%.  Anybody who believed that in the summer of 1988 may still believe in the tooth fairy.


by howardpark on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:20:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Perhaps someone could update the delegate counter.

Here's what Chuck Todd has as of tonight, including the new Iowa delegates

Pledged Count: Obama leads 1,407-1,252
Superdelegates: Clinton leads 253-217
OVERALL TOTAL: Obama leads 1,624-1,505


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:29:28 PM EST

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Really, does anyone think McCain can be beat?

McCain is seen as more competent than Bush, and
right now a lot of voters don't have faith in either Clinton or Obama.

Right now, I don't the Democratic paryy is structured to win the Presidency; the DNC in nearly broke, and we have a tendency to gravitate
to weak or flawed candidates.  Edwards just didn't get any traction.

So the main thing now is to focus on Congress.


by mikelow1885 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:36:05 PM EST

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

McCain will lose.


by Brillobreaks on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:37:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agree (none / 0)

I'd be very surprised if McCain got more than 200 electoral votes, regardless of who gets the Democratic nod.

Think of it this way: this guy has a basically unimpeded path to his party's nomination, and the other party's primary is sucking up all the media oxygen.  Yet, McCain's campaign is still, managing to screw up and get press about it.

In fact, IMHO we should just chuck his nomination, and have the general election between Clinton and Obama.


by jonweasel on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:10:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

or Gore on the 2nd (2.00 / 1)

which is very likely because there is a real chance neither reaches 2024 delegates. Gore on the 2nd ballot would be awesome, guaranteed landslide


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:55:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: or Gore on the 2nd (2.00 / 1)

The superdelegates will wrap this up before it gets that far.  The nasty campaigning is bothering them and Pelosi has said that the winner of the pledged delegates will get the superdelegates.

If the polling response to the Wright flap is short-lived, look for increasing superdelegate movement to Obama.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:10:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: or Gore on the 2nd (none / 0)

The problem with that logic is that ultimately Hillary cannot make too much hay out of the Wright flap, because she doesn't want to alienate African-American voters.  But the Republicans will have no such qualms in the fall.


by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:20:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: or Gore on the 2nd (none / 0)

I love Gore, but Gore on the second would probably weaken Gore as well.  Just don't see it happening.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:34:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

We've already self-destucted, I'm afraid.

And part of this is Howard Dean's fault, something
Jerome needs to admit.


by mikelow1885 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:34:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

You forget... No ads have been run tying Bush with McCain, nor has it been talked about.  It will be.  The HUG will be all over the place.  


by yitbos96bb on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:34:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Yes He can and WILL be beat.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:36:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

What he's being viewed as and what he actually is are two completely different things that are impossible to reconcile.

Look, I was a big fan of the guy up to a couple years ago. After he started warming up to the evangelical hatemongers, I was dismayed. But I still thought he was okay. Then he started saying things like "I have to find out what my position is on that" (run that quote as many times as possible, btw). And I started seeing him for the two-faced individual he really was. And I grew to dislike him tremendously. Many other voters will have that same experience as they learn more about him and his policies. He'll be spinning and sputtering all over the place, and when you combine that with the fact that he's in his SEVENTIES, he is extremely vulnerable.

How is he going to explain the radically conservative statements he made just one year ago? How is he going to explain being AGAINST tax cuts to being for them? How is he going to explain his rhetoric AGAINST his most prominent bill as a Senator? His entire campaign puts him in the very unfortunate position of either running as a hardcore conservative on several key issues (that are a complete reversal of his previous positions) or essentially admitting he lied to voters to get the nomination.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:16:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Also, don't count on the surge being viewed as a victory come November. It's starting to unravel even now, and right now is when we're supposed to be able to withdraw troops.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:17:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Oh noooo! We're dooooooomed! Doooooooomed I tell you! ... Lol.


by Oregonian on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:37:46 PM EST

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Let's all thank Hillary for this.


Scy
by scytherius on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:53:20 PM EST

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (2.00 / 1)

Wonder how that could have happened?  

Hmmm....  Obama taken off message, now has to fend off attack dogs coming from his own party no less...(nice!!).

Clinton too busy praising McCain's qualifications to be commander in chief?

Maybe McCain will choose Hillary as his VP.  

He'll owe her "big-time" if he beats Obama in November.

WHAT was Ohio thinking?  They're just encouraging this foolishness to continue.


by Rick in Eugene on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:58:27 PM EST

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

I think as we get closer to a nominee, McCain will start going down, as the fog and dust will settle, and people will see the choice. that is if we decide to offer one this year. Its good he's goin to Europe, so no one here can see him for a while. The less time he gets in the headlines, the better, as people will forget about him, and think of the GOP candidate for November as "like Bush".


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:59:20 PM EST

Nader's impact (2.00 / 1)

In 2000, Nader received 2,883,105 votes, for 2.74 percent of the popular vote.

In 2004, Nader received 463,653 votes, for 0.38% of the popular vote.

He won't draw that much in 2008.

McCain may be up in polls now, but it means nothing. ... unless Hillary destroys any chance of party unity heading into Denver.


by JD Lasica on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:02:04 PM EST

It's Zogby (2.00 / 1)

'nuff said.


by jonweasel on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:06:37 PM EST

No way Nader gets 6% (2.00 / 1)

I am betting that Nader gets closer to 0.5%, so add 5.5% to Obama or Clinton.  Which, interestingly enough, ties Obama/Clinton and McCain.


by FredFred on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:19:14 PM EST

re (1.00 / 0)

As I have said if Obama is the nominee I will vote for Nader and urge other Clinton supporters to do the same. Most of the ones I know flat out say they will either not vote or vote for McCain. At least with Nader its a progressive vote


by rossinatl on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:58:15 PM EST

Re: re (none / 0)

That makes little sense, A Vote for Clinton isn't a progressive vote at all.  But hey if Clinton voters are that stupid to vote for a Republican, then purge them from the party.  They don't belong, aren't welcome and should get the F out.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:31:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

re (none / 0)

Adding to the above I will still vote a straight Democratic ticket for the other races


by rossinatl on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:58:49 PM EST

March polls are irrelevent (2.00 / 1)

The two Dems still in the race, the head to head is meaningless.

If I'm a Hillary supporter, I tell the pollster I vote for McCain over Obama to make my candidate look more "electable".

If I'm an Obama supporter, I tell the pollster I vote for McCain over Hillary to make my candidate look more "electable".

Wait for the poll after the primary is decided. The only candidate who is "unelectable" is McCain.


by mo on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:01:02 AM EST

Re: March polls are irrelevent (none / 0)

And a giant douche... don't forget.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:29:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: March polls are irrelevent (none / 0)

Great and insightful comment. And one that comes much closer to matching the reality of the numbers we saw in the primary voting.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:20:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain in March (none / 0)

Obama will bury McCain in November.  Democratic turnout will be massive, and we'll win a ton of downticket races in the bargain.

I have spoken.


by global yokel on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:16:16 AM EST

Re: McCain in March (none / 0)

Obama has a huge bas problem? If he's the nominee Democrat turnout is no guarantee of a victory. he bleeds Reagan Democrats and latinos, and now middle aged women.

That's a recipe for disaster. A canidate who loses any aspect of his base has no chance to win. Bush lost independents in 2004 and was still able to win.


by kevko24 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:30:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain in March (none / 0)

The who should we choose, because Hillary loses Black voters another crucial part of the Dem base.


by Socraticsilence on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:46:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain in March (none / 0)

and we only have obama to thank for this


by truthteller2007 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:15:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

I'll Kiss Zogby's ass if Nader gets 6%.  As for the crossover numbers, those will tighten up on both.  There is no way Obama and McCain don't do better among their own parties once this all gets going and the Bush-McCain hug commercials come out nonstop by the 527's.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:29:01 AM EST

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

A question for you, yitbos96bb.  Why do you think the photo of "the hug" will be so damning?

After all, the photo of Lieberman hugging Bush hardly destroyed him in the general election in 2006.

I see the hug as part of Bush's ceremonial duties as president.  All presidents get touchy-feeling on State of the Union night.


by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:28:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary - earmarks (none / 0)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wil son/clinton-by-far-worst-abus_b_84102.ht ml

Hillary's earmarks -  Ouch !


by global yokel on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:42:52 AM EST

Rasmussen: Negatives: Clinton 51%; Obama 49% (none / 0)

More numbers support McCain, according to Rasmussen.

McCain beats both slightly.  It's McCain 47% Obama 42% and McCain 46% Clinton 42%  

Rasmussen has the negative and unfavorable assessments at McCain 41%, Obama 49% and Clinton at 51%.  Obama's negative ratings are rising, while Clinton is steady.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/daily_presidential_tra cking_poll


by Misanthrope2 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:13:12 AM EST

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Run away!  The sky is falling! The sky is falling!  The best thing to do now is call off the election and just let McCain rule.

This kind of commentary will look really foolish after Obama wins in a landslide and Nader gets less than 1/4 of 1% in November.  

All predicted or not predicted by Zogby two weeks prior, depending on what mood he is in.


by Carlo on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:26:52 AM EST

Perhaps if Hillary didn't spend so much time (2.00 / 0)

talking up McSame, he wouldn't be doing too well.


by Timetheos on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:34:25 AM EST

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Just for future reference Armstrong, if you hear about something that happened at CAP tonight...it was me.


by fenwaysteve on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:42:29 AM EST

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

I honestly believe that, despite what polls say about Clinton/Obama voters crossing over to McCain if their preferred candidate didn't win, most would eventually still come behind the Democrat.  A lot of emotions are riding high right now, but as we're starting to see even with McCain (who's hated by the right), even they are starting to trickle into supporting him.  The same will happen once we have a nominee, assuming their nomination looks legitimate.

If it doesn't... well, we could run into problems, no matter who the nominee is.


by leshrac55 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:33:26 AM EST

March (none / 0)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/15/ 203242/685/352/477632

Well, we probably aren't going to see these on mainstream TV, but check out these two videos.  One by a Pastor who herself is a member at Obama's church, and the other by the new Pastor there.

Real scary people, huh?  


by global yokel on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:37:03 AM EST

This is just one poll (none / 0)

So why all the caterwauling?

Both Clinton and Obama have been ahead of McCain in recent polls (and I think are either matched or ahead of McCain in some current polls). The Pollster average for 3/13 has both Obama and Clinton slightly ahead of McCain. This despite the fact that partisans of Clinton and Obama have been vigorously bloodying their respective primary opponents. Meanwhile, McCain is getting a free ride which won't last.

Get a grip.


by AdrianLesher on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:57:12 AM EST

Well it is 3am - and now I have something to be (none / 0)

afraid of


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:14:02 AM EST

Texas caucus may be headed to court! (none / 0)

Looks like the Texas caucus may be headed for court!

"Clinton Tries to Delay County Conventions"

March 15th, 2008 at 5:58 pm

The Associated Press is reporting that the Clinton campaign has asked the Texas Democratic Party to postpone the county conventions scheduled for Saturday, March 29. The conventions are the next stage in Texas' convoluted caucus process.

In a letter to the party late Friday, the Clinton campaign stated it had received more than 2,000 complaints of violations during the caucus process, in which a million Texans came out. The campaign wants the eligibility of the caucus-goers double checked before the process continues."

I will have to admit that the Texas caucus was a joke! I was there, and it was full of fraud! Anyone could have attended including the Bush family if they had wanted!

http://www.texasobserver.org/blo...ty-co nventions/


by mcctx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:20:38 AM EST

Re: Texas caucus may be headed to court! (none / 0)

Also, a great editorial printed in The Dallas Morning News to abolish the horrible Texas two-step in the Democratic party.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/ dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/031208 dnedicaucuses.481cb2c7.html

"THE THIRD STEP"

"You've voted. You've survived the caucus. Now write a letter to the state Democratic Party to get the complicated system changed."

Boyd L. Richie, chairman
Texas Democratic Party
brichie@txdemocrats.org
505 W. 12th St., Suite 200
Austin, TX 78701


by mcctx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:22:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Texas caucus may be headed to court! (none / 0)

Sorry , here is the full link to the editorial.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/ dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/031208 dnedicaucuses.481cb2c7.html


by mcctx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:24:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Considering Zogby's track record and his obvious conflict of interest, he has probably added 4 to Sen. Obama's tally and subtracted 4 from Sen. Clinton's tally. So Sen obama must be doing really badly.


by ann0nymous on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:24:46 AM EST

bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahha (none / 0)

nader gets 15 percent?  
Now he should do this over with Nader getting 1 percent.  That would be more accurate.
DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:10:34 AM EST

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Can you say, "Scorched Earth strategy?"  Thanks, Mark Penn!!!  I guess that consulting firm you work for, that one that also runs McCain's campaign, must be giving you a nice bonus!!  Conflict of interest?   Naaaahhh.....


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
by LordMike on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:21:02 AM EST

I'm willing to bet anyone (none / 0)

That Nader gets under 1% of the vote in November.  Any takers?

The open question is if he'll get as many votes as Obama will have donators.


But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
by thezzyzx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:30:25 AM EST

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Just imagine all the ads on Jeremiah Wright the 527s will air during the general election.


by truthteller2007 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:13:49 AM EST

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Hmm.  Was it ABC?  It was someone that had Obama over McCain by 8% just 2 days ago.  Don't think the polls are gonna mean a whole hell of alot yet.  And Zogby is a bit of a joke anyway


Scy
by scytherius on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:16:50 PM EST

Re: Looks great for McCain in March (none / 0)

Obama is stronger in the western swing states such as NV/NM/CO.
What you guys fail to realize is that the latino vote is pro-Clinton, not anti-Obama.  He will win almost as many latinos as Clinton and does better with moderate whites.
Also, Obama secures Oregon, whereas against McCain Clinton is weak there as well as in Washington.
by DemGenii on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:48:05 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.