Old and busted politics thread

by **momadance** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:01:20

I think you give people too much credit. Eight years was a long time ago. In 1992 Ross Perot took a lot of votes from Bush. In 1996, he only got half of what he received in 1992 but he still did enough damage to Bob Dole. Some thought we learned our lesson back then .. Then Nader killed Al Gore's changes. I think in 2004, people just didn't care enough. Regardless of who it is this time, somebody (Paul, Bloomberg, Nader) is going to ruin someone's chances if they decide to run. I still think there's going to be someone to screw it up again.

by **momadance** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:05:37

dajafi wrote:As of right now, the map next week looks very bad for Obama:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

He'll win Illinois, of course, and maybe Georgia, Alabama, Kansas and Colorado. And he's actually even in Connecticut and a bit ahead in Idaho--if you credit a poll from six months ago.

But Clinton will win the big two (NY, CA), New Jersey, Arkansas, Massachusetts (gotta figure that 43 point lead will hold up even with Ted Kennedy's endorsement), Minnesota, Arizona, and likely most of the rest.

I really wish there weren't so many primaries on 2/5. It almost destroys the essence of campaigning. It's entirely too hard to campaign for primaries for that many states at once.

by **VoxOrion** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:15:52

Rasmussen has McCain beating both Clinton and Obama nationally.

But this is all before the agism, sexism, and racism gets into overdrive.

by **Woody** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:19:58

I think I'd vote McCain (love his french fries) over Hillary. Probly not Obama, though.

by **dajafi** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:25:20

VoxOrion wrote:Rasmussen has McCain beating both Clinton and Obama nationally.

But this is all before the agism, sexism, and racism gets into overdrive.

You disdain all of the above, right?

by **traderdave** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:26:57

dajafi wrote:As of right now, the map next week looks very bad for Obama:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

He'll win Illinois, of course, and maybe Georgia, Alabama, Kansas and Colorado. And he's actually even in Connecticut and a bit ahead in Idaho--if you credit a poll from six months ago.

But Clinton will win the big two (NY, CA), New Jersey, Arkansas, Massachusetts (gotta figure that 43 point lead will hold up even with Ted Kennedy's endorsement), Minnesota, Arizona, and likely most of the rest.

The question is, one, whether Obama will stay close enough in delegates to seriously extend the race beyond that, and two, whether the media will treat it as a non-decisive Clinton win on points or THE DEVASTATING KNOCKOUT BLOW THAT CLINCHES THE NOMINATION!

Meanwhile, he's now just six points back in the national Gallup poll. After a year in which many of us dismissed the national poll as meaningless and looked at the close state races in Iowa and NH and SC, this is a little ironic to say the least.

I have to agree that, as an Obama supporter, the map is very scary looking. However, in an effort to seek the silverlining:

#1 almost all of those polls are at least a week old and a lot of them are months old, which means they don't include things like S.C. (and I suppose Florida), the Kennedy endorsements, the Codey endorsement in NJ, Edwards dropping out, etc.;

#2 A few of those polls showed Clinton losing support (or at least steady), while Obama was showing gains - CA among them;

#3 Where is John Zogby when you need him? :lol:

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:28:28

traderdave wrote:#3 Where is John Zogby when you need him?

Off being the worst pollster in America.

by **momadance** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:33:52

Woody wrote:I think I'd vote McCain (love his french fries) over Hillary. Probly not Obama, though.

Thats pretty much where I am.

by **dajafi** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:35:24

True that most of the state polls predate SC, the Kennedy endorsement, and obviously Edwards' withdrawal. But of the 22 states, I have trouble seeing Obama win more than 8 at the outside. Here's hoping I'm wrong.

by **CMD** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:44:43

Looking at that electoral map, what accounted for Hilary's jump in Massachusetts over just a 10 day span? She went from 32 to 59 percent in a period of time where Obama was gaining momentum. I have a hard time reading much into some of these polls...or maybe I am just missing something...

Maybe that was supposed to be 29 instead of a 59? Certainly makes a huge difference...

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:53:52

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
You can't drag the mouse over the states here, but they have the polls in a lot more detail (who the pollster is, samples, dates)

It's really a fantastic resource.

by **CMD** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 17:59:16

That explains some of the numbers jumping...comparing 2 different polling services across time is pointless and confusing. For the one poll in Massachusetts w/ Hilary @ 59%, they took a sample that was almost 70% female. Are 70% of registered voters in Massachusetts women?

by **VoxOrion** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:21:23

dajafi wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:Rasmussen has McCain beating both Clinton and Obama nationally.

But this is all before the agism, sexism, and racism gets into overdrive.

You disdain all of the above, right?

The agism, sexism, and racism? Or the candidates?

I like Barak Obama, but I disagree with his politics and would not vote for him.

I dislike Hillary Clinton, and there's nothing else to say. She'd have to be running against Mussolini for me to vote for her, and we know that's impossible because Mussolini would be running as a Democrat anyway.

I dislike John McCain, but I can see voting for him if it means keeping Hillary from being president. Versus Obama? I don't know, jury is still out.

by **WilliamC** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:25:39

I'm in the same boat with you, Vox, though I like McCain. I also like Obama though.

The thing is, I think A LOT of Americans feel the way about Hillary as you do, and that is why I think the Dems would be wise to put Obama into nomination. Most people at least like him enough to hear what he has to say. I think a lot of people now just tune Hillary out. She has a lot of supporters but she is kind of like Notre Dame football. You either love her or can't stand her. Obama is at least respected on a lot of fronts.

by **pacino** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:32:46

CMD wrote:Looking at that electoral map, what accounted for Hilary's jump in Massachusetts over just a 10 day span? She went from 32 to 59 percent in a period of time where Obama was gaining momentum. I have a hard time reading much into some of these polls...or maybe I am just missing something...

Maybe that was supposed to be 29 instead of a 59? Certainly makes a huge difference...

lots of racists in Boston? I don't know, that makes no sense.

by **mpmcgraw** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:33:18

I still have yet to hear a real reason anyone has for liking hillary clinton.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:34:31

pacino wrote:
CMD wrote:Looking at that electoral map, what accounted for Hilary's jump in Massachusetts over just a 10 day span? She went from 32 to 59 percent in a period of time where Obama was gaining momentum. I have a hard time reading much into some of these polls...or maybe I am just missing something...

Maybe that was supposed to be 29 instead of a 59? Certainly makes a huge difference...

lots of racists in Boston? I don't know, that makes no sense.

It was also a period of time that included a stunning comeback Clinton win in neighboring New Hampshire.

by **pacino** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:39:00

mpmcgraw wrote:I still have yet to hear a real reason anyone has for liking hillary clinton.

you haven't been listening much then. there's no reason to bother responding to this really. You can check through the 2 politics threads about how she does business, and how many disagree with her positions on things, and how people dislike triangulation as a political philosophy.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:48:01

His opponent, and her husband, stand for déjà vu all over again - a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency.

Does America really want to go through all that once again?

It will - if Sen. Clinton becomes president.

LOL, NY Post endorsement of Obama.

by **WilliamC** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 18:51:45

Sort of like the "because he's not Bush" type of deal when regarding Kerry.

Archived

Old and busted politics thread