And for a long time it didn't used to be this way. TONS of conservatives have jumped ship, no where to be seen.
The country is very "flavor-of-the-month"... (a reference to the ~70% hate Bush theory... btw- where is that polling? NYC? Chicago? L.A.?) The Obamadrama will subside. Heartland America does not trust Hollywood's politics. It's a long while until November.
And every one of those days Bush is still in office and every minute of every one of those days, McCain has to keep the base in line.
SJC, In the US, talk radio shows are dominated by neo-conservative voices. They are rhetorically conservative on domestic issues, and generally interventionist in foreign policy. Most aren't real deep or thoughtful, but some of them, especially Rush Limbaugh, can be very entertaining. If you recognize the slant, they also can be a little informative. I listen to Limbaugh often, and Glenn Beck almost every day. TJ's and bigtexxx's posts could come straight from their shows, and you wouldn't know the difference.
Absolutely - and it's too bad. The discourse was much better when you had posters on both sides that were arguing legitimate points instead of posting drivel. I do suspect if we have a Dem Pres & Congress, you'll get some semblance of balance back - because they are going to attempt some kooky left stuff, just as the right did in 2000. And that will generate more of a counter-response.
The same group that won the last TWO popular votes... ahem. And remember, that same majority would have won the last 7 popular elections had it not been for Ross Perot skewing the numbers. Yes, I said it. Remember, dems... Clinton NEVER won a popular vote with over 50%... the last three to do so were Reagan, Bush and Bush.
W didn't win the popular vote in 2000. Ross Perot didn't run for office in 1996. Edit: Well, I was wrong. Perot did run in 1996 but it was a joke compared to 1992. I can see where someone could make the argument that he helped split the vote in 1992, even though if you look at the numbers it had little bearing.
More polls for T_J's viewing pleasure. Pennsylvania Obama vs McCain: Obama +10 Clinton vs. McCain: McCain +2 Oregon Obama vs McCain: Obama +9 Clinton vs. McCain: McCain +3 Turns out, not only is Obama doing equally well, he's also doing "well" and "better" than Hillary in several states. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html
Here's another: Wisconsin Obama vs McCain: Obama +10 Clinton vs. McCain: McCain +7 http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/02/18/on-eve-of-wisconsin-primary-a-look-ahead-to-november/
Minnesota Obama vs McCain: Obama +15 Clinton vs. McCain: McCain +5 This is becoming an ugly trend for Hillary. These aren't just slight differences but huge growing gaps. She doesn't appear to win a single swing state and now even some generally blue states - Minnesota, Oregon, Wisconsin, Colorado, etc. And I can't imagine she'd fare any better in the swing states she's lost - Iowa, Missouri, Virginia.
Where things stand on current head-to-head polls, in graphical form. Clinton does better in exactly 1 state, Kentucky. Obama does better or tied in everything else, and is up doubledigits over Clinton in 8 of the 13 states polled.
Major, that data looks highly suspect. Take for instance Nevada, a state that Clinton won over Obama. How does Obama do 21 points better than Clinton relative to McCain in the General when he got fewer votes than her in the primary? Does not compute. That data can't be trusted.
1. Nevada was a closed caucus, meaning independents couldn't participate - independents flock to Obama in the Obama vs. McCain; they flock to McCain in Clinton vs. McCain. 2. Across the board nationally, Obama has gained since mid January when he lost to Clinton by 6%. That is why he also does substantially better in New Hampshire. The data is not suspect - you just have no understanding of politics, elections, voting, or polls. That's been demonstrated numerous times here.
Kal Penn supports Obama. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yJvw1-oZCNM&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yJvw1-oZCNM&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
... <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3BSXymvGAYM&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3BSXymvGAYM&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
