by Hoomai29, Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 05:44:38 PM EST
According to the latest Rasmussen Reports numbers, the anticipated Obama national bounce seems, instead, to be pointing John Edwards's way. The latest Rasmussen Daily Democratic Presidential tracking polls show that as of today, John Edwards has increased his percentage of likely US voters by 6 percentage points from 14% to 20%. This compares to Hillary Clinton's loss of 5 percentage points in the same time period from 43% to 38% and Barack Obama's 1 point increase during the same time period from 24% to 25%.
Rasmussen Reports Daily Democratic Candidates (1/5/08)
Date Clinton Obama Edwards
1/5/08 38% 25% 20%
1/4/08 38% 26% 18%
1/3/08 41% 24% 17%
12/31/07-1/2/08 No polling - New Year's Holiday
12/30/07 42% 23% 16%
12/29/07 43% 24% 14%
by world dictator, Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:42:58 PM EST
One of the key theme's being played out during this year's democratic primary is your relatively little experience versus Hillary Clinton's massive amounts of experience. You claim that experience is unnecessary in order to be an effective president and that voters should vote based on the issues. If this is true, will you please explain to me why your spokesman helped to create and run this ad during the 2004 primary? :
Robert Gibbs Attack on Howard Dean
by PoorBensJournal, Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 02:49:12 PM EST
Checks and Balances
In politics, we begin to judge the candidates by what we see as much as by what they say. Our eyes focus on the candidates for signs of strong leadership long before a single word is spoken. When a candidate begins to speak, we focus on the speakers' voice and then look around the audience for its affect on them. After a few more seconds, our minds begin to shift into a comfortable listening mode for the rest of the speech and by that time we will believe that we have a pretty good impression of the candidate, but do we really?
It is a fact that our election process operates like our many large corporations that compete in the marketplace for our
business. Enormous sums of money are spent selling a political candidate. For the first time ever, the cost of the 2004
election campaign surpassed the one billion dollar mark. Can anyone deny that important elections, in this day and age, are won by the political parties with the deepest pockets, the best strategy and the cleverest marketing techniques. I think not.
Why are we willing to be taken in by fancy rhetoric? One of our biggest problems is that we're willing to accept as truth, what we're told to be true and rarely do we take the time to check out facts for ourselves. We prefer leaders who are honest and are willing to place the needs of the nation above their own but have been fooled more often than not.
As a nation, we haven't shown the will to match our founding fathers who believed that all men were to be treated equally under the eyes of the law. We're still far behind the founders who clearly rejected the belief that some men were to be above the law and/or entitled to more privilege than others, or the notion that we needed an upper-class of people.
The founding fathers clearly intended that our elected leaders be held to the highest standards of serving the country and the citizenry, equally and fairly, but neglected to set particular standards.that would narrow the field from abusive acts. Was this an oversight on the part of our founding fathers who, in their wisdom, established checks and balances over our three branches of government but withheld the reality of abuses? As ordinary citizens, our tax, civil, criminal and all other laws are thoroughly spelled-out for us to comply with. Why not our president and other important elected officials?
As the candidates continue debating in your state shouldn't you demand a written copy of your favorite candidates
basic platform? Aren't you entitled to know what your candidate intends to do if elected, and to have this in writing?
That shouldn't be too much to expect of a serious candidate for the highest office of the land.
by Andre Walker, Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 03:55:50 PM EDT
Over at Politico, Roger Simon is reporting that New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner is seriously considering a December presidential primary.
Gardner told Politico, "December is a possibility. It is not my preference. But it could become my preference."
That comment elicited the following response from DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee Member Donna Brazille:
"I would vote against any contest that takes place in 2007."
Can you imagine a December 2007 presidential primary in ANY state?
I can't, and I don't want to. If New Hampshire moves their primary into this year, they should suffer the harshest sanctions possible. A 2007 New Hampshire presidential primary they would be in direct violation of both DNC and RNC delegate selection rules, and quite frankly, the Granite State shouldn't do it.
You can read the full Politico article by clicking here
by Andre Walker, Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:00:08 AM EDT
...As always, every four years, a lot of attention is paid to the states that vote early in the presidential nominating contests.
Today, I thought it'd be a good idea to take a look at what's going on in one of "Tsunami Tuesday" states; Georgia.
Since the beginning of 2007, eight polls have been conducted measuring the support of Georgia Democrats for the '08 Democratic presidential contenders. Pictured below is a graph of the results of those polls: