US News
Mar 6, 2008, 17:03 GMT
Poll shows Obama, Clinton beating McCain in general election
And Also
Similar articles
- ANALYSIS: On Obama's election anniversary, Republicans claim victory
- Republican victories in first election test for Obama (Roundup)
- Republican victories in first election test for Obama (3rd Lead)
- Republican victories in first election test for Obama (2nd Lead)
- Republicans take Virginia in first election test for Obama (1st Lead)
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. White House gate crashers in less festive mood in first interview
- 2. Suspect in US police killing shot dead (1st Lead)
- 3. Suspect in US police killing shot dead
- 4. In Pictures: 'World War II Fighter Recovered'
- 5. Supreme Court overturns decision on detainee abuse photos
Older Talkback
page: 1
Whether reasonable or not, I would be amazed if McCain were able to win the election.
The left has just been pounding the administration and smashing it in the knee caps for so long that perception is hard to overcome - especially when it has become reality.
If the Dems don't win by a landslide in November, then they certainly don't deserve the job.
Whether reasonable or not, I would be amazed if McCain were able to win the election.
The Washington Post-ABC News poll is so very far out of the range of what everyone else has been getting. You are going to see fluctuations in poll numbers with the democrats on top until the conventions. Then the polls will start to count.
'...Richard Nixon was elected in 1968...'
By chance, this critical week for Obama began Monday with jury selection in the Chicago corruption trial of his former friend and fundraiser Tony Rezko. For the first time, the story of this political fixer’s connections with the Democratic Party’s golden boy spread beyond the Chicago media. In a contentious news conference, Obama was uncommunicative. He ended the session by walking out and announcing that eight questions were enough.
Less obvious than his Rezko performance but more disturbing to insiders was Obama’s handling of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
With NAFTA having become an expletive in economically depressed northern Ohio, the two Democratic candidates competed with each other in pandering—denouncing the trade agreement that was a jewel in President Bill Clinton’s crown. The trouble began when Canadian television reported that Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee had visited Canada’s consulate in Chicago to reassure officials there.
Old Democratic hands cringed when both Clinton and Obama in their Cleveland debate last month blithely advocated the (dangerous) renegotiation of NAFTA. They were really disturbed by what happened next. Obama denied the Goolsbee mission, then had to back down after a Canadian diplomat’s memo confirmed the visit. A longtime Democratic political operative, not aligned with either Obama or Clinton, told me that this was a serious misstep in what he had considered a flawless performance by a political neophyte.
This week, Obama lent credence to longtime claims by the Clinton camp that the young challenger would melt under Republican heat. Now he must face weeks of struggle against a revitalized Clinton, and there’s no sign when it will end.
A month ago, before the Obama boom really began, his number-crunchers plotted a probable outcome wherein Clinton would win both Ohio and Texas on March 4 and still fall short of a delegate majority at the convention. To avoid carnage in Denver, Democrats have been telling me for weeks that a majority of delegates would somehow align themselves behind whichever candidate has the momentum.
But who has the momentum? Clinton will claim it, particularly if she wins in Pennsylvania, which would give her every major state except Illinois. But Obama will point to his advantage in the number of states and delegates won. A showdown in Denver may be unavoidable.
Such a showdown would reveal the consequences of eight years of Democratic procedural decisions that made no sense save for the premise that Hillary Clinton, as she expected, would be handed the nomination on Super Tuesday. That the convention will be held unusually late raises the prospect of not knowing the identity of the Democratic nominee until shortly before Labor Day. The decision to deprive Michigan and Florida of delegates because their primaries were scheduled too early cannot stand in a contested convention. That Hillary Clinton’s candidacy still lives forces Democrats to cope with their mistakes.
www.primetimepolitics.com/primetime/site/page/why_clinton_isnt_dead/
Post Poll: Nearly Useless
The Washington Post gets some attention this morning for a poll that shows John McCain losing to Barack Obama by 12 points and Hillary Clinton by 6. The findings are a bit of a surprise, since recent polls have shown McCain trailing Obama by just 5 or so, and roughly even with Clinton.
Why the discrepancy? It helps to look at the Post's raw data. Go to the section on party identification, and you find this:
Do you lean more towards the:
Democratic Party: 46
Republican Party: 26
Neither: 22
As a point of reference, compare this to the exit polls for the 2006 election -- the best Democratic performance in 32 years:
VOTE BY PARTY ID
Democrat: 38
Republican: 36
Independent: 26
So the Post's findings aren't entirely useless. They give you a good snapshot of what the election looks like today, as long as it turns out to be a dramatically better year for the Democrats than 2006 and 1974. If you're one of those skeptics -- one who recognizes that elections like that never happen twice in a row -- then you'll want to take it with a grain of salt.
www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp#4872
i think mccain would be worse than bush is.
i'd rather get poked in the eye with a sharp stick than vote for mccain
What seems to have been forgotten is the huge Democratic voter turnouts as compared to the GOP. Whether Clinton or Obama gets the nomination, Democratic voters will still vote the ticket; AND the down-ticket - Governors, Congresspeople, and local legislatures and Mayors. The States are strangling for lack of funds, and the answer to that is to stop spending in Iraq, IF the Iraqi leadership does not step up to receive the hand-off. Note today's story:
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aq7WD3ldH5w4&refer=home
March 7 (Bloomberg) -- Two coordinated bomb attacks killed more than 50 people in Baghdad yesterday, as the U.S. military said it will withdraw 2,000 soldiers from the Iraqi capital.
The assault involved a roadside bomb followed by a suicide attack in Karadah, central Baghdad, at about 7 p.m. local time yesterday, the U.S. military said in a statement. ``This terrorist attack was a senseless act of violence directed against the Iraqi people,'' said Colonel Allen Batschelet, chief of staff for Multi-National Division - Baghdad. At least 54 people were killed and 123 others wounded in yesterday's attacks that ripped through al-Atar Street in the Karadah neighborhood, Agence France-Presse reported.
'What seems to have been forgotten is the huge Democratic voter turnouts as compared to the GOP. '
In states like Texas and South Carolina... Do you think Texas and South Carolina are going to vote democratic in the election?
'The States are strangling for lack of funds, and the answer to that is to stop spending in Iraq,'
The states are not 'strangling for lack of funds' and the budget has been bloated not by the wars but by out of control pork barrel projects. Both Clinton and Obama got their snouts in the trough but good.
' Note today's story:'
Yeah, these are the dirty animals that obama wants to turn Iraq over to. Smart...
you should read something other then kos and hufpoMar 7th, 2008 - 06:54:40
'What seems to have been forgotten is the huge Democratic voter turnouts as compared to the GOP. '
In states like Texas and South Carolina... Do you think Texas and South Carolina are going to vote democratic in the election?
(Actually, the down-ticket will make Democratic inroads, whether the Presidential vote in that state goes Democratic, or not. Note the plan to finally defeat Stevens in Alaska)
www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/us/politics/07senate.html?th&emc=th
\
'For Democrats hoping the November elections set off a seismic shift in Washington, the dream scenario is not just capturing the White House, but also winning a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats in the Senate — a luxury no president has enjoyed since Jimmy Carter 30 years ago.
As far-fetched as that might seem — Democrats now control the Senate by a razor-thin 51 to 49, thanks only to two independents who vote with them — some Democrats have started thinking aloud that such a scenario is within reach.'
---------
'The States are strangling for lack of funds, and the answer to that is to stop spending in Iraq,'
The states are not 'strangling for lack of funds' and the budget has been bloated not by the wars but by out of control pork barrel projects. Both Clinton and Obama got their snouts in the trough but good.
(No, schmuck, lack of funds due in part to tax abatements to retain businesses and falling real-estate prices reducing taxes, and tightening of credit and some other problems related to the monolines, making it difficult to market muni bonds, even at higher interest rates. The movie industry strike along cost about $2.5 billion to the local economy).
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=a15kKhIlxj1o&refer=europe< br />
'Debt sold by states and local governments in the U.S. had the worst monthly slump in at least 19 years in February. Municipal bonds fell 4.9 percent last month, according to a Merrill Lynch & Co. index, as waning investor demand for insured debt led to record failures in the auction-rate securities market and rising yields on variable-rate debt.'
' Note today's story:'
Yeah, these are the dirty animals that obama wants to turn Iraq over to. Smart...
(That's why we should have done the damned job in Afghanistan instead of getting sidetracked with non-existent WMD emergencies)
More years in Iraq, and Bush gave him the kiss of death with his endorsement. McCain is saddled to a long-term failed policy, and will likely be a 1-term President if he manages to get in.
More economic problems, since McCain admitted publicly that economics is not his area of strength.
If not for terrorism, McCain would have no platform. The social conservatives don't want him. The anti-immigrant right wing does not want him. A portion of the GOP base will stay home in November, lessing the chance of their down-ticket making gains through 'coattails'.
The GOP has far more Senate seats at risk this election, and ancient jackasses such as Stevens have been there far too long. The Dem's need the magic 60 votes and the White House, and then the self-control not to spend the way the GOP did the past 6 years, PLUS the costs of the war(s).
...was never a very good choice. Republicans win when we have conservatives like reagan, or conservative posers, like Bush, running. These middle-of-the-road wags never perform very well.
Furthermore, he's a senator, and they have not had very good luck over the years, running from their senate seat.
That being the case, he'd probably make a pretty good president.
Barrack has spent 4 times what Clinton has contributing to the political campaigns of delegates - let's be real - it is about the money at this point and the fact that delegates are not representative of the states they are from. Most of the caucuses voted 65-35 in favor of Barrack when in fact the actual vote count of citizens, including both Florida and Michigan, puts them in a tie, with only 1/2 of 1 percent difference in the total vote count. It's not democracy. That is not democracy.
...if you think that is bad, wait until the Convention! This is where the Clintons intend to deal out the negro. I can't wait to see what happens!
Scenario (1) Barak goes with more delgates - The Clintons sell their influence to defect his support on the floor(?) Then get the Superdelgates.
Scenario (2) The Clintons win just the Superdelgates and win.
Seneario (3) Obama wins the Superdelegates.
Obama is then offered the VP slot. Now, relize, if he gets it, and they win, he loses his senate seat. Tough choice.
The only way to win this is for Obama to get the Superdelegates. Otherwise, it's unlikely he'll get enough votes.
You see, the dem party is populated by Clintonites. This is their specialty: winning elections. They have the machine, and Obama does not. He's ahead, but not far enough, and he's gotta take the cake.
Now, if Hirrary wins, with only superdelegates, that means the dems just flushed the negro....I can't wait to see the press on that, but there is no other way for Hirrary to ge to the top. She has to destroy him.
'SP4: well, June.....if you think that is bad, wait until the Convention! This is where the Clintons intend to deal out the negro'
When you refer to someone as 'the negro' you undercut any argument you may have had and just wind up looking like a jerk.
'Actually, the down-ticket will make Democratic inroads, whether the Presidential vote in that state goes Democratic, or not.'
Who says? Regardless, 'inroads' (what you have promised yourselves for decades' won't win you this election. When are Democrats going to figure out that it is the electoral college that you have to win?
'Note the plan to finally defeat Stevens in Alaska'
Or Lieberman of Connecticut. A veto proof majority isn't going to happen, not when congresses approval rating is in the toilet. By all means though, keep wishing...
'No, schmuck, lack of funds due in part to tax abatements to retain businesses '
If you were to create a pie chart of what has gone in to building our debt it would be about 1/2 entitlements, almost 1/2 congressional waste via the pigs at the trough like Clinton/Obama/Murtha/Byrd and a tiny sliver of war+'tax abatements to retain businesses'...
Being a Democrat I am sure you would prefer NOT to 'retain businesses'.
'The movie industry strike along cost about $2.5 billion to the local economy.'
You do love to go on your tangents...
'(That's why we should have done the damned job in Afghanistan instead of getting sidetracked with non-existent WMD emergencies'
For the BILLIONTH time, it is too late NOT to invade Iraq. We are there. The choice now, and once and for all wrap your empty head around it is this: Prematurely withdraw and let Iran and al Qaeda take over and use the oil wealth to recruit and attack us and drag the world in to a depression caused by $200-500 a barrel oil or to stick it through. The surge has worked, violence is down, the political benchmarks are almost entirely met it would be beyond stupid it would be criminal to simply deliberately lose this thing in order to appease idiots like you who can't read a calender.
'McCain is saddled to a long-term failed policy, and will likely be a 1-term President if he manages to get in.'
McCain was the one who advocated getting rid of Rummsfeld from the beginning. He was the one who was against disbanding the Iraqi military. He was the one against the stupidity of Paul Bremmer. McCain is the first politician who called for a comprehensive counterinsurgency effort and the one who recommended General Petraeus to do it. Had McCain been in charge this thing would have been over by now. Long over with.
'since McCain admitted publicly that economics is not his area of strength.'
McCain is the only one of the 3 candidates who hasn't had their snout in the trough of public money. Zero earmarks. Compare that to Clinton and Obama.
'If not for terrorism, McCain would have no platform. '
Simply not true. If not for his color or her husband no one would have given the democrats a second look.
'The social conservatives don't want him. '
They will LOVE the man when they compare him to the most liberal member of the senate or..well...their anti-Christ.
'A portion of the GOP base will stay home in November, lessing the chance of their down-ticket making gains through 'coattails'.'
Not when they see the alternative. You can bet on that. You know who tends to stay home? Your fickle youth voters who are going to be very turned off by the super-delegates choosing their candidate.
'and then the self-control not to spend the way the GOP did the past 6 years'
LOL! 'Self control' from this lot? It ain't going to happen.
...try to stay with us here....the dems are trying to deal out Barak (that would be 'the negro')as fast and as quiet as possible. I could call him a bunny rabbit, and that doesn't change the fact that the liberal Clinton wags want a white person more...far, far more...than any republican.
I call black people what blacks call black people. If it's good enough for them, I feel the standard should apply to all.
This is equality.
Do not fear words.
'.try to stay with us here.'
Gee, you are using big words...
'the dems are trying to deal out Barak (that would be 'the negro')as fast and as quiet as possible.'
One can only hope, but he isn't going to go quietly I will wager. :-D
'I could call him a bunny rabbit, '
When you refer to him as 'the negro' it is injecting race where it is irrelevant. He is crooked, unqualified and dangerous and someone with his ability to polish his turd of a message is a formidable threat to the country. Referring to him as 'the negro' is going to do 3 things: It will bring the trolls out so you can have some fun... that's all well and good, but it will also alienate people who are starting to catch on to this guy and push them right back into his camp. It will also legitimize the nonsense that some of the morons throw at you whenever they do not have an intelligent argument; namely just defaulting back to calling you a bigot.
Further, he is technically a 'mulatto'.
'Do not fear words.'
I don't. I just don't think that is going to et you to where you want to go.
...perhaps it's bold, but you're looking at the first of a gneration who's not buying into the 'you're all Whitey' front, and if Jesse Jackson is going to call jews Hymies, we're going to call a spade a spade, or whatever we want.
I'll admit it might be insensitive, but that does not make the person saying it a racist. It makes the person pointing the finger a racialist thought policeman.
As for pointing out Obama's race, I'm the last in line to do so. Who would argue he is only in this race because he is Black? If he were white, Hillary would have dealt him out ages ago. It was her lack of attack, precisely due to his race, that caused the delay.
I don't want Obama for president because he's a socialist liberal not because he's black. You run Colin Powell, not my favorite republican, and I'd greenight him over McCain in a heartbeat.
'Who would argue he is only in this race because he is Black? If he were white, Hillary would have dealt him out ages ago.'
Absolutely.
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story