Apr 28 - NEW POLL: Clinton does better vs. McCain than Obama

Newspaper. I've heard the case before, but Dick Morris is a bit of a lunatic when it comes to the Clintons and the ax he has to grind. I'd consider TJ and bigtexxx a lot more objective than him.

As for the substance of it, I can't see it playing out. I've said numerous times before that I strongly believe the party will unite post nomination behind whoever the candidate is, based on the almost identical platforms and the grace I expect the loser to display when backing down. However, the media and supporters of both candidates are already on this bandwagon (which I disagree with) of the extended race hurting the party in a year where the deck is stacked strongly in favor of the Democrats. I think both sides would make nice, permanently, in the event the party comes together and Obama wins.

But in Morris' hypothetical, if Obama were to somehow lose to McCain -- Clinton would be held responsible. I don't think it would be fair or accurate, but the perception would be that her stubbornness cost the Democrats an election that should have been a Lakers-Nuggets style blowout. She'd be villified by the party and would have no chance at 2012, and I don't see how she doesn't know that.

 

Morris does hate the Clintons, especially Hillary, doesn't he? Regarding Hillary, I've got to admit he and I are Bellview cell mates. BTW, I'm former newspaper.

 

I wish there was more focus on the issues the next President will deal with and less on these polls 6 months before Election Day. I think it's safe to say that a lot of people who are firmly entrenched on either the Hillary or Obama side right now will ultimately just get behind the party nominee, as I think conservative Republicans will support McCain.

In the meantime, why not have a real discussion of the issues? Why are the media so concerned with being the first to know who will win, rather than giving voters the information they need in order to decide who to vote for?

 

which goes back to debating, why should obama go back to a debate that is two hours and half that time spent on reverend wright and his san fran comments. I don't give a crap about that stuff and if obama is winning he shouldn't have to give a crap about it either

if they discussed economic plans, i would really be interested. if they discussed specifics about getting out of iraq i would be interested. if they're are going to discuss some irrelevant preacher on the south side of chicago i'm not. because you can talk about obama's judgement all you want, wright is irrelevant to my every day life.

 

I wasn't blaming the candidates, and no, I don't think more debates are needed. I just think the combination of "horse-race" type coverage and overblown trivialities like Wright makes our national discourse much less productive.

 

Obama is dead in the water. Stick a fork in him because he's done. He looked whipped and beaten in that press conference.

If he survives this, he should change his middle name from Hussein to Houdini.

Jeremiah Wright yesterday and Obama's press conference just now will be long remembered. I'm stunned by the complete disregard Wright has for Obama's candidacy after Obama semi-defended him until today.

This is just my opinion. I'm not commenting on whether Wright should be such a big issue, or not. The plainly obvious fact is Wright IS a big issue and will be remembered as the millstone that killed Obama's campaign to be president.

Gary Hartpence had Donna Rice. Barak Obama had Jeremiah Wright.

 

This is silly, and as usual for Trader-Junior either sloppy or purposely misleading. Even the National Review's analysis show when actual yes/no votes were examined there isn't a spits difference in their record.
In their yearlong race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Clinton have had strikingly similar voting records. Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10. "The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight they are almost nonexistent to the average voter said Richard Lau, a Rutgers University political scientist"http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

Over the last 3 years they are on the left end of the Senate, but they are pretty much center-left in American politics. Basically there are no hard leftists in the Senate anyway, there are a few in the House.

BTW here is a good site for composite polls. The differences between Obama and Clinton versus McCain are pretty negligible. Nontheless they both are very slightly ahead, pretty amazing given the prolonged Dem contest and bad publicity relative to closed ranks Rep contest, a very good sign for the Obama ticket that they are still ahead despite the mess of the last 6-8 weeks.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Further, I really think most all Clinton and Obama supporters who vote would vote for the other one. The problem mainly will be getting African Americans (for Clinton) and White women, older, and poor other than AA Dem voters (for Obama) out to the polls if their candidate isn't on the ticket. The solution probably will be the combined Obama-Hillary ticket, and the worst nightmare for Republican aspirations.

 

I'm beginning to agree. Between Hillary and Wright, they have skewered Obama and emasculated his campaign. I was looking forward to being a Democrat for a change, but it looks like I'll be going back to the GOP, hat in hand and ready to do penance.

BTW, I'd much rather have done a Gary Hart than an Obama. Rice was worth losing one's political soul, and Wright, well ....

 

I'm sorry but I really don't buy this. I don't think there are many persons who voted for GWB a second time (after demostrating polorizing and dividing foreign and domestic positions; seeing he consistent wacky right Cabinet, Foreign and Court appointments) would have voted for any Dem on election day--even if they have flirted with an open mind about Obama. If I am wrong on your assumption you voted for GWB a second time (I could buy a vote for him in 2000 when he campaigned as a moderate/unifyer--heck I didn't think a Gore vs Bush direction was actually going to be that significant), than my above point is moot.

 

How do you know that the Obama campaign is in trouble?

Michael Dukakis is offering criticism.

http://www.observer.com/2008/dukakis-its-probably-obama-08-campaign-needs-improve

 

if this is true than the Dems are screwed,

 

nice truck, rifle could use improvement.

 

Your observation is a tad convoluted.

Yes, I voted for the current President -- twice. I have voiced my opinion that Hillary is anathema to me and that McCain is too old and too rooted in the politics of the past two decades.

I have no regret in telling you I supported Mike Huckabee and Bill Richardson, candidates with huge political differences but with principles grounded in the American ideal. I will vote for Obama for President because he seems to be the best choice left to the American electorate. If he fails, McCain is the next best choice.

Obama has come off this Wright debacle as looking Jimmy Carter weak, maybe worse. Does that make me happy? No. Is my observation wrong? Maybe. I hope so, but, candidly, I don't think so.

Obama just might have given the brass ring to Hillary, which would be a disaster for the nation, and, yes, that pushes me back to being an ardent Republican.

 

Finger outside the trigger-guard, Hillary. It's mistakes like this that make gun owners question your sincerity.

(That and your record.)

 

You're "going back to the GOP" over Wright? Seriously?

Sorry, but that's just really dumb.

 

Which is how you may feel when you re-read my post. I said if Obama manages to give the nomination to Hillary, I will go back.

 

These polls are about as accurate as Fox news.

 

Oops, IIRC, according to the Columbia Journalism Review, Fox News is far more accurate than NBC, CBS, ABC, ESPN and MSNBC these days, but that's a whole different discussion.

 

I could be wrong about you. Maybe you are a two time GWB supporter really open to voting for a Democrat this time. I have a hard time seeing it, but I'll take your word for it.

But what I am saying is yes, if it came to pulling the lever between McCain and Obama at the end of the day, the vast majority of those the regular Republican voters who have for the past 8 months said they are "open" to Obama would in the end not vote at all, or vote for McCain or vote for some unforseen 3rd party guy. Most people who have consistently viewed the Democratic Party as most divergent from their own views are not going to support one of their candidates even if for the most part they are likable.

No. The key is not getting consistent GWB supporters to now for Obama.

The key is getting a high turnout of newly registered voters or potential voters who before were apathetic and didn't show up.

A low turnout of GWB supporters who don't like any of the new choices won't hurt either, why do you think McCain is courting support from some despicable but high profile hate mongering preachers.

So no, I don't think putting a Demo on the Whitehouse is built on the premise of turning consistent GWB supporters into Obama or Clinton voters on upcoming national election day.