Gallup on Clinton & Obama in GE

Apologies if this has been posted already.   I just saw it, and any case it's worth repeating as the DNC and MSM increase their frantic drumbeat to get Obama the nomination before everyone wakes up and smells the coffee.  

If Democrats actually want to hold the White House (which historically, for Democrats, has never been entirely clear), then Gallup's article should give them pause: y-Clintons-SwingState-Advantage.aspx

Obama and his supporters consistently claim that big blue states will go for him in November no matter what, so it doesn't matter that Clinton won the primaries in virtually every one of those states.   However, Gallup would beg to differ with Mr. Obama's analysis.   In summary:

"In the 20 states where Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the 2008 Democratic primary and caucus elections (winning the popular vote), she has led John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking by 50% to 43%. In those same states, Barack Obama is about tied with McCain among national registered voters, 45% to 46%."

"In contrast, in the 28 states and the District of Columbia where Obama has won a higher share of the popular vote against Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries and caucuses, there is essentially no difference in how Obama and Clinton each fare against McCain. Both Democrats are statistically tied with him for the fall election."

Tags: clinton, Electability, gallup, ge, obama, swing states (all tags)



Re: Gallup on Clinton & Obama in GE


This will ALL CHANGE once Obama is the official nominee.

The Clinton AND McBush campaigns have been attacking him day in and day out.  What do you expect????

by JulieinVT 2008-06-02 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton & Obama in GE

Clinton has not been attacking him day in and day out.  Do you just make this stuff up when it's convenient?

by BPK80 2008-06-02 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton

Errrr.........yes, they HAVE.  Publicly, and/or on the rope lines.  Witness what Bill said about Obama yesterday.  DISGUSTING!  

Stop being in denial already!  It's pathetic!

by JulieinVT 2008-06-03 02:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton & Obama in GE

And this is important because...?????

by rf7777 2008-06-02 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton & Obama in GE

It's important because Obama is a sure loser in November.

by handsomegent 2008-06-02 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton &Obama in GE


Chicken Littles and Concern Trolls.  Is that all that is left?

by rf7777 2008-06-02 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton &Obama in GE

What is with this "troll" business.  Why is it that everybody who hasn't drunk the KoolAid for Obama labeled a troll.

by handsomegent 2008-06-02 02:21PM | 0 recs
you are right

I am a big Clinton supporter and these Obama Kool Aid drinkers constantly rate people as trolls on this site.

I have not once seen a Clinton supporter rate an Obama supporter as a troll merely because he or she disagreed.

by HillsMyGirl 2008-06-02 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton &Obama in GE

It's a way of marginalizing the pro-Hillary viewpoint.  

by BPK80 2008-06-02 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton &Obama in GE

From now on anytime I see the word troll included in a political opinion it gets a troll rating.  I'm sick of all the little kids on this site using this rating to give them a feeling of power.  The only trolls are people who wish to censor people.  This is a free and open forum in a free country get used to it!

by orionwest 2008-06-02 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton &Obama in GE

I don't know which is less accurate, your equation of "open forum" to "I can say anything I want" or your definition of a troll as someone "who wish(es) to censor people".

by nathanp 2008-06-02 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton &

You're precious!

by minnesotaryan 2008-06-02 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton &

Thank you, precious is as precious does.

by handsomegent 2008-06-02 02:21PM | 0 recs
Oh Noes we're DOOMED!!!one!!!

OMG!  There is nothing that can console me now!  If only there were some sort of "MyDD electoral vote tracker" in the upper left hand corner of this site that showed state-by-state polling has Obama with 300 EVs.  

by bosdcla14 2008-06-02 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton & Obama in GE

This is mostly b/c the Clinton supporters haven't given up the ghost, and won't signal aye for Obama quite yet; while Obama supporters don't mind signaling that they would vote for her, as she's a non-threat at this point.

This stuff isn't hard to figure out...

by Lawyerish 2008-06-02 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton & Obama in GE

Or there are many people like myself who may not be able to bring themselves to vote FOR Obama as they just don't like him, for valid reasons.  I know many with that thought process.  Will they vote for the GOP? Absolutely not. But they may actually stay home in November, some thing that is unheard of normally, and given mine & their awareness of the level of importance of this election, that is a big issue.

by jrsygrl 2008-06-02 02:59PM | 0 recs
sorry, but they have been factored in...

it's pretty typical among democrats, and especially when there's an open seat in the white house.  it would have happened no matter who won.  it's not unique to hillary's supporters, it's a historical trend (among the ardent supporters of losing candidates)...

by bored now 2008-06-02 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: sorry, but they have been factored in...

Good freaking lord - the people I am referring to are like me - they supported more than one option for Dem nominee but were/are opposed to Obama, specifically, not just b/c he isn't Clinton...

Mark my words in states like mine (NJ) which are blue, but not resoundingly so, Obama could be in trouble actually. He certainly will NOT have the same numbers that even Kerry got last election cycle.

by jrsygrl 2008-06-02 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: sorry, but they have been factored in...

No, he will win by more then Kerry did.

Enough of the nay-saying.  There's nothing so objectionable about Obama that Democrats won't vote for him.  

by Lawyerish 2008-06-02 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: sorry, but they have been factored in...

Well if you say so it must be true @@

by jrsygrl 2008-06-02 03:56PM | 0 recs
since it is true, i suppose it doesn't matter...

look, i understand that this is your first real presidential cycle.  it's ok!  one of the reasons why we can have confidence is not only will obama's voter registration efforts more than compensate for all those ardent supporters (and racists, etc) who won't vote for the democratic nominee, but we have a candidate who appeals more to independents and even appeals to more republicans than usual.  if you only look at the electoral college map, you see that barack is doing great!  that's why were so excited.  a democrat -- a real democrat -- in the white house!  progressives are actually giddy...

by bored now 2008-06-02 04:47PM | 0 recs
Not my first election cycle - not even close

Seriously ...there was nothing I said to remotely even suggest that. If you somehow got that from anything I posted, then I am starting to see why you somehow comprehend Obama to be the stronger candidate...

by jrsygrl 2008-06-02 04:55PM | 0 recs
your amazement that democrats will sit out the...

general is precisely why i thought you'd never been through a presidential cycle before.  oh, well.  i suppose you just never paid attention.

do you happen to know what percentage of self-identified democrats supported the democratic nominee in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004?  this is by no means a new phenomenon, so it's surprised that you would have your attitude if you'd been paying attention in prior presidential cycles.

as for seeing that barack is the stronger candidate, that's rather simple:

* barack beat the acknowledged front runner (and party favorite) -- AGAIN.

* barack has consistently boosted turnout when he's competed.

* barack and his campaign put together a campaign plan and then followed it to a tee.  we need not discuss how many different approaches the clintons tried during the primaries to admire the fact that obama was actually successful with his plan (of two years) while the clintons were not with their plan (of seven years).

* barack raised more money and spent it more wisely.  he's not in debt.  he has an energized and successful group of people raising money for him.

* barack has successfully registered more voters (out registered the clinton campaign -- who registered voters for twice as long -- 2 to 1 in pennsylvania).

* barack has a stronger appeal across the electorate.

* barack has a proven organization, one that beat the so-called pros, almost 2 to 1 (states).

* barack's campaign was never confused by the rules.

* barack actually has a positive favorable to unfavorables ratio, and has never had 55% of the electorate say they wouldn't vote for him.

* barack has excited the electorate and garnered positive media coverage (it's ok, you know, for democrats to get good media coverage).

* unlike hillary, barack does not unite republicans or conservatives.  in fact, the opposition is fairly indifferent to him.  no energized opposition (yay!).

* barack's message offers a strong contrast with mccain's.  he can credibly argue for change -- the prevailing sentiment.  he offers a break from the past.  he is a positive candidate that speaks to our natural optimism.

now i could sit down and give you a long, long laundry list of why hillary is a weaker candidate (she makes it really easy), but this list reflects why barack is a much, much stronger candidate from an objective viewpoint considering why americans vote as they do.  i will concede your emotional attachment to your candidate (and your willingness to overlook her substantial flaws)...

by bored now 2008-06-02 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: your amazement that democrats will sit out the

And your continued inability to read what I wrote and instead respond to things that aren't there is precisely why I suspect you may have a reading comprehension issue which may help to explain your candidate of choice.

<sigh> Thank you for now attributing emotions to me that I never expressed - according to you now I am apparently amazed by the fact that people have sat out other election cycles due to dislike of the candidate. @@ Once again, I, as an active party supporter who has voted & campaigned in EVERY election I am eligible, along with MANY lifelong democrats, who have contributed money & supported the party are beyond disgusted by Obama as a candidate. You seem to think that the numbers of people who feel this way is insignificant or that these lifelong dems also understand the need to block the GOP; these things may or may not be true come November. What I will say is that the TYPES of people who are sitting that I am aware of are COMPLETELY of a DIFFERENT demographic then usual, b/c a highly UNORTHODOX &, to many, UNQUALIFIED candidate is being picked & supported while in the process a highly QUALIFIED candidate has also been vilified by the party she has given so much.  

You are also incorrect about the following  your analysis re: Obama's appeal across the electorate, the concept that Clinton was some sort of political insider (which is a joke considering how little the party has been there for her in comparison to the way they propped Obama,). In addition the notion that Obama will not be viewed as highly divisive come November (unlike Clinton how divisive is unknown - I'm going to guess more) is highly naive and furthermore,  Obama is only favored by the media until the GOP works on manipulating that coverage once he is truly facing off with McCain.

Seriously are you sure it isn't YOUR first election cycle? Your thought process & continuous  lack of comprehension of my posts makes me wonder.

by jrsygrl 2008-06-02 06:20PM | 0 recs
i'm sorry you don't like the truth...

i'm more sorry that you are so naive.  you clearly have no idea about the assumptions maintained by the campaigns.  you are one of the 11-15% of democrats who will vote in this race, but not vote for the democratic nominee.  if your math skills are as bad as your assumptions displaying in this thread, just say so.  i'll give you real numbers so that you can wrap your head around it.

or you could be one of the ~14M democrats who will sit this race out altogether, whether not voting at all or not voting in this race.  if you're honest, you'll note that i never minimized these numbers -- nice strawman, though -- rather, i merely stated the truth.  your non-participation or vote for the other candidates is anticipated and factored in long before the campaigns began.

you seem to be looking for someone to beg and plead for you to change your mind -- and i'm sure that someone will do that.  but why waste our time?  we have a white house to win!  and how we win never relied on those millions of you who aren't going to support us.  there are other people who want to elect democrats.  and that's who we will be going after.  i don't know if you can digest the truth.  i can only tell you what it is...

by bored now 2008-06-02 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: i'm sorry you don't like the truth...

Did you read anything I wrote? B/c your response doesn't demonstrate that -

I don't care about someone begging & pleading with me for my vote - my ego doesn't need that.  I am worried about my country & the fact that I am stuck living more than likely with another 4 GOP years. Best case scenario is I wind up with a candidate whose capability I am, at most, skeptical about when there were other options (not the plural once again) that were perfectly suitable. Thanks alot!

by jrsygrl 2008-06-02 07:52PM | 0 recs
you must be looking for some other droids...

of course i was responding to what you wrote.  politics is about addition, not subtraction.  you've decided (and others like you) that you can't vote for barack.  so be it.  people supporting barack should no longer "care" about winning your vote.  there are a lot more voters out there with open minds, and those are the people we need to engage.

all i can say is i'm sorry you (and others) wrote yourself(selves) off.  you'll be welcome back to the democratic fold whenever you're ready...

by bored now 2008-06-03 03:41AM | 0 recs
Re: you must be looking for some other droids...

And this response once again demonstrates you aren't reading my posts. I can't engage someone in any sort of thoughtful conversation when they don't read my posts and respond to what I write.

by jrsygrl 2008-06-03 04:16AM | 0 recs
you really are grief stricken...

well, once again, the democratic party will gladly welcome you back when you've stopped writing yourself off.  maybe, after time, you will come to understand that i was answering your posts, just -- apparently -- not the way you wanted.  i hope you haven't abandoned your democratic values because democrats just renewed them last night!

by bored now 2008-06-04 03:06AM | 0 recs
Re: you really are grief stricken...

Yes I wanted an answer that was responsive to the actual points I made; not hyperbole regarding things I never really discussed.  

by jrsygrl 2008-06-04 01:19PM | 0 recs

"There's nothing so objectionable about Obama that Democrats won't vote for him."


by BPK80 2008-06-02 04:40PM | 0 recs

Fine, there's nothing so objectionable that's actually true about Obama that Democrats won't vote for him. And seriously, you think someone who uses the YouTube will skip the real dirt on McCain and seize on the fake stuff on Obama?

If YouTube is your judge by which candidates are measured, only Giuliani was a worse choice among either Democrats or Republicans than McCain.

by Geiiga 2008-06-02 05:35PM | 0 recs

America is (rightfully) a lot more afraid of the Nation of Islam and its superstar, Barack Obama, than any extramarital affair or namecalling that goes on with McCain.  

by BPK80 2008-06-03 01:39AM | 0 recs
well, at least now we know you're a swiftboater...

only a complete idiot would believe such a thing.  this explains so much about your inability to understand the party's rules...

by bored now 2008-06-03 03:44AM | 0 recs
Nation of Islam

The ties between Obama and Nation of Islam are overwhelming.  You're in denial.  

by BPK80 2008-06-04 04:09PM | 0 recs
it's good that you've exposed yourself...

you obviously have no idea who you're talking to (not that there's anything wrong with that).  but i have a bridge in brooklyn i really think you'll be interested in...

by bored now 2008-06-04 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: it's good that you've exposed yourself...

Exposed myself as what?  An eyes-wide-open conscientious Democrat?

You know you can support a politician without being willfully blind to all of their flaws.  

by BPK80 2008-06-05 12:25AM | 0 recs

you aren't the brightest bulb in the tulip batch, are you?  feel free to believe that i am unaware of any politician's weaknesses.  i won't stop you from following your delusions.  just understand that when you pitch your tin-foil hat stuff, someone will always be there to expose it for what it is.  more delusional ranting...

by bored now 2008-06-05 03:49AM | 0 recs
Re: lol...

"you aren't the brightest bulb in the tulip batch, are you?"

I swear you get off on this stuff.  Please get healthy.  Thanks.    

by BPK80 2008-06-05 10:57AM | 0 recs
Then they need to pull their heads out..

Then they are selfish idiots and frankly will be to blame when McCain appoints RW Justices who overturn R v W.  Its the same stupid logic people used when they voted for Nader instead of Gore  or didn't vote.  They hold responsibility in the fuck up Bush made this country.

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-02 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Then they need to pull their heads out..

None of the people I know, including myself voted for Nadar. Since you have been so blunt - I will do the same - in my opinion & many others the party fucked up by supporting Obama as the nominee & now those of us who actually have the foresight to see the stupidity of nominating him, find voting for this man to be repugnant.  The only saving graces are the SC (not just for R v W issues btw), the economy & the war. Unfortunately, I don't know what kind of judges he will nom for the SC (however whatever it is has to presumably be better then McCain's choices although given Obama's praises re: Reagan one has to wonder), I am doubtful regarding his ability to lead us through these horrific economic times (my only hope is that his advisors would have to be better then McCain so the damage won't be as bad as the GOP would inflict) & well the Iraq withdrawal will be completely muddled probably (but what can you do, still a withdrawal is better then McCain's plans).  And here we stand at apathy's doorstep - saying "the guy I'm voting for won't fuck up as bad as you're guy will." And to think I went in looking at candidateS (yes plural) that I felt could have steered us forward in a positive direction who were either disregarded or completely & erroneously disparaged in an absolutely repugnant manner.

by jrsygrl 2008-06-02 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Then they need to pull their heads out..

They weren't 'disparaged,' they lost!

by Lawyerish 2008-06-02 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Then they need to pull their heads out..

Oh well okay - hey - when Bush "won" the election last time against Kerry - Kerry's service wasn't unfairly disparaged either b/c the GOP won! I mean if someone gets the nomination or wins the election, nothing else matters does it?! @@ Way to miss the point.

by jrsygrl 2008-06-02 04:51PM | 0 recs
Wasn't this diaried like a million times

last week?

by JJE 2008-06-02 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Wasn't this diaried like a million times

Maybe it is kind of important - you know how the candidate will do in the GE?

by jrsygrl 2008-06-02 03:57PM | 0 recs
thank god we finally picked the more electoable...

democrat!  against the odds, i know, but still.  it's absolutely amazing!

by bored now 2008-06-02 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: thank god we finally picked the more electoabl

I did, but the party seems not to have, hence the reason for the diary @@

by jrsygrl 2008-06-02 04:52PM | 0 recs
Good point

The superdelegates should just give the nomination to Clinton now.  There is in no way shape or form any possibility at all that there would be some sort of backlash from that action that would completely tank her in the polls and hand the election to McCain.

by libertyleft 2008-06-02 01:38PM | 0 recs

Your concern is deafening:

"any case it's worth repeating as the DNC and MSM increase their frantic drumbeat to get Obama the nomination before everyone wakes up and smells the coffee.  "

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-06-02 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton &amp;amp; Obama in GE
Obama/Clinton '08
All's well that ends well
by alamedadem 2008-06-02 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton &amp;amp;amp; Obama in GE

Well of course that would be the SMART move for the Obama camp to try & make happen, but something tells me they don't actually get that...

by jrsygrl 2008-06-02 03:00PM | 0 recs
Gallup on Clinton &amp;amp;amp;amp; Obama in GE

Why would you want your candidate to join up with a candidate you hate?  This is something I really don't understand.  The same Clinton supporters who go on about Obama being sexist, racist, and unqualified to be president then turn around and say that Hillary needs to be on Obama's ticket.  Could someone explain this one to me, please?  

by ProfessorReo 2008-06-02 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton

Liking Hillary does not equate to hating Obama - seriously, when will you all realize being FOR someone does not mean you hate the opponent.  I am FOR Hillary because I think she will be the better president, and stands a better chance to win in November, not against Obama - others have a different opinion.  If and when he is the nominee, I will be FOR him.  Given the hatred and vitriol spewed here and at some orange blog, I wonder how many people who are pro-Obama are actually anti-Clinton.  I will spend my Fall telling people why they should vote FOR Obama if he is the nominee.  There are more than enough reasons to state without resorting to negativity and name-calling.

by alamedadem 2008-06-02 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton

Or maybe someone actually doesn't like Obama based upon his own merits?  I supported more than one candidate as potentially excellent noms. Just don't like Obama for many valid reasons. My hope is that if Clinton is on the ticket she can use her experience to guide this ship appropriately. Hopefully the Obama camp will also be smart enough to accept her wisdom - we shall see - I suspect not though considering I don't even think they are going to offer her the VP spot.

by jrsygrl 2008-06-02 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton &amp;amp; Obama in GE

And miker20008's first ever comment on mydd was:
on 05/05/200

makes you think, huh?

by venician 2008-06-02 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton &amp;amp;amp; Obama in GE

Yup, and too bad you obviously cannot think.

And don't I WISH we'd had blogs back in the 200 timeframe.   Back in those days when we were hashing out the details of what was to become the Catholic Church.   I could've changed the course of history.   As it is, I'm limited to speaking truth about Presidential candidates.   Just wait.

by miker2008 2008-06-02 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton &amp;amp; Obama in GE

2/3rds of Clinton's supporters are telling pollsters they'll vote for McCain or stay home if Obama is the nom.  1/4th of Obama's supporters are saying something similar if Clinton gets the nod.

Clinton is doing better?  Well duh.  Yes, in this environment, how could it be any other way?  Obama is still beating Clinton in the Dem race by 8-10 points, btw.

What will happen when Clinton drops out?  Obama's numbers will go up by approx. 5 points in one week.  Why?  Because only 1/3rd of Clinton's supporters will be telling pollsters they'll vote for McCain or stay home.

He might have some real difficulty getting the last third.  If Clinton somehow got the nom, though, who doubts that 1/3rd of Obama's supporters would be saying the same thing, though?

Clinton has a marginal argument when it comes to electability: she does better in Arkansas, West Virginia, and Florida.  She doesn't have a lock on these three states.  She just has advantages in these states which Obama doesn't.

And the same is true in reverse (Obama has a chance to win Colorado, Virginia, Iowa, etc., and Clinton probably doesn't, he's not weak in the upper Midwest and possibly the far West, Clinton is, etc.).

I'm convinced the superdelegates know all about this, btw, but they're not making a big deal out of it because, frankly, they don't want to call more attention to the number of Clinton supporters who are now telling pollsters they might defect.

Really, what these polls make is the argument for the Dems to pick a winner and get the other person off the stage in one week, maybe two at most (there, I was nice, I didn't attach a name to it, didn't have to, since it works both ways).

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-06-02 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton &amp;amp;amp; Obama in GE

I suppose that's a very nice way of saying, "If we ignore the problem, it will go away on its own."

Well done.

by BPK80 2008-06-02 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton

2/3rds of Clinton's supporters are telling pollsters they'll vote for McCain or stay home if Obama is the nom.

You have a source for that 2/3 number?

by alamedadem 2008-06-02 07:06PM | 0 recs
this has been diaried to death here...

it's up to you whether you want to delete it, though.  i think we can all agree that hillary at her best is a little better than barack at his worst.  it's a crap shoot, though, whether barack will remain at these lows (or hillary would remain at these highs)...

by bored now 2008-06-02 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton &amp;amp; Obama in GE

Oh boy, this was posted, and it has been thoroughly ripped.

This seemingly bad result is due to the fact that it includes West Virginia and Kentucky.  I hate to say it, but I don't think Obama ever believed he would do too well in those two states for some rather inescapable reasons.

Take out those two lopsidedly anti-Obama states and I'm pretty sure we'd see a different result.  For instance, taking Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (if he wins these he's the president hands down), you get a different result.  We can find ways to group states and then look at polls to prognosticate GE results from here til the end of time and it's still pretty worthless.

by minnesotaryan 2008-06-02 02:17PM | 0 recs
Just remove two states, Obama wins!

Where have we heard this before?

by catfish2 2008-06-02 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Just remove two states, Obama wins!

From Hillary Clinton, of course.  She's the one who said small states don't count.  Then she said caucus states don't count.  Then she said red states where Obama won don't count because they'll stay red during November.  Then she said states with large AA populations don't count.  Then she said Illinois doesn't count because it's Obama's home state.  Then she said blue states that Obama won don't count because they will go blue regardless of who is the democratic nominee.  Then she said only swing states count.  

So, according to Hillary democracy, the only states that count for determining the democratic nominee are California, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Texas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, Indiana, New Hampshire, and Puerto Rico.   And Hillary is the runaway winner, winning all the states that count.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-06-02 03:28PM | 0 recs
Bleh. Don't bother. The fingers are planted

firmly in ears. All you're gonna get


It's escaping their notice that more than half the party is actually not confident in Obama's ability to win the GE. Just from democrats around me, shaking their heads in disbelief that McCain is going to be the next president. And the republicans are calling him...President Johnny Mac. Sigh.

by cosbo 2008-06-02 02:46PM | 0 recs
Democrats have a record to uphold

we must nominate the weaker, less tenacious candidate.

by catfish2 2008-06-02 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Democrats have a record to uphold

Seriously!!!!  It never ceases to amaze & horrify me!!!

by jrsygrl 2008-06-02 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Democrats have a record to uphold

How's she going to win in a general election if she can't even win her party's nomination? This is a ridiculous argument.

Obama pulled his punches against Clinton because he didn't want to actually hurt her politically. I see no evidence that the reverse was also true. The Clinton campaign started off flush with cash and with 100 superdelegates, and ended down in the supers, down in the pledged, and deeply in debt.

I have no doubt that McCain is the worst Republican to win their nomination since Alf Landon and that the Democrats could run Conan's masturbating bear against him and win 270 electoral votes.

But to say that the Democratic primary's second place finisher is a stronger general election candidate based on a poll that reflects a Republican party as unified as it's going to get and a Democratic party as divided as it's going to get fails to pass the laugh test.

by Geiiga 2008-06-02 05:43PM | 0 recs
nice try...

i guess you're new to this presidential thingie, but if you'd been around for a few election cycles, you wouldn't have remembered that this is actually quite common.  where was bill clinton polling at this point in 1992?  (i know, i know, you don't know; look it up).

i don't think there's anyone here who won't concede that hillary at her best polls slightly better than barack at his worst.  of course, the realists among us remember that hillary was polling exceptionally well at this point in the primary (5 months out).  and yet, she blew it.

i completely understand that you don't want to remember how bad hillary's campaign was when there was real competition.  and i'm sure you think that john mccain would just roll over for hillary (just because, right?  they're friends and mccain clearly doesn't want it as bad as hillary.  or something).  but, again, i point to the fact that hillary has consistently underperformed -- and come out behind.

i actually want to win the white house.  i understand that you're one of those "democrats can't win the big one" defeatists.  but that's why i supported barack -- he gives us the best chance at winning the white house -- and, no doubt, why you didn't.  but that's ok.  by getting the defeatists like you out of the presidential campaign, we have a much better chance.  so, in a way, we'll both win.  i'll get my presidential victory and you get to wallow in your defeat...

by bored now 2008-06-02 03:00PM | 0 recs
So what do you suggest?

Gosh, I guess we need to overrule both the pledged delegates and the superdelegates!  Of course!

Lessee, we will organize a group of Stormtroopers and seize the convention!  Then we will establish Martial Law and FORCE the party to do what we want!!

Then, we send out to the home of every registered democrat, and we march them down to the polls.  All those folks who will be upset that we overturned the rules and gave the nomination to someone who lost the contest will have to just shut the heck up and do as we say!

Gosh, it sure is good that we have such sharp strategists around here!

Where do I pickup my black armband?  I think I can find my billyclub from my old Ferdinand Marcos bodyguard days...

That about right?


by chrisblask 2008-06-02 03:40PM | 0 recs
As of Wed, 80% of the comments here

will merit fully a TR.

These are precisely the kind of things a hard-working GOP troll would say.

For now I assume (most of) you are actually Clinton Supporters.  After there is a nominee, only trolls would post things like this.


by chrisblask 2008-06-02 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup on Clinton &amp;amp; Obama in GE

Its is because the Obama voters are more likely to vote for Clinton if she would have won. And the Clinton voters still ticked their person didnt win are saying they will vote for Mccain. We will be fine.

by Sylden37 2008-06-02 03:28PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads