An interesting Gallup poll

[Ravi]

Right. So exactly how did you happen to conclude that I called Hillary a racist?

You Ravi, are FOS, and this time I'm using your definition.


And as soon as RGS posts evidence that I've ever used poll results to support my position, he'll get his cookie. And just to be absolutely clear, I'm talking about published polls pertaining to political matters. For example, voting true on Brian's poll about the Shemptard doesn't count, just in case you were wondering.

mmm? Didn't you agree with your buddy Shemp that she was a racist?

 

[manifold]

mmm? Didn't you agree with your buddy Shemp that she was a racist?

No. In fact I stated quite clearly, literally if you will, on several occasions, that I don't think she is racist. Yet for some reason you still concluded that I had. hmmmm? I guess you weren't taking me literally now were you?

You Ravi, have been pwned again. BOHICA!

 

[Ravi]

You agreed that she played the race card. I don't see that they are different. Please explain.

 

[manifold]

You agreed that she played the race card. I don't see that they are different. Please explain.

Irrelevant. That's still an inference on your part and you insisted that you only take what I say literally. You lied.

 

[Ravi]

Irrelevant. That's still an inference on your part and you insisted that you only take what I say literally. You lied.

How is it an inference?

I heard, and saw the transcripts of precisely what Hillary said. If you are going to deny that she's playing the race card you're either blah blah blah.

Edit: I'm just bummed that I'm on Shemp's side on this one.

 

[manifold]

How is it an inference?

I heard, and saw the transcripts of precisely what Hillary said. If you are going to deny that she's playing the race card you're either blah blah blah.

Edit: I'm just bummed that I'm on Shemp's side on this one.

You inferred that I'm calling her a racist since I'm clearly not LITERALLY calling her a racist. You do know what literal means don't you?

 

[Ravi]

You inferred that I'm calling her a racist since I'm clearly not LITERALLY calling her a racist. You do know what literal means don't you?

Yes. IMO, you can't play the race card if you aren't a racist so there is no difference in meaning.

 

[manifold]

Yes. IMO, you can't play the race card if you aren't a racist so there is no difference in meaning.

That's absurd and you know it. Making you once again FOS, by your own definition.

 

[Ravi]

Honestly, I don't see it. Exploiting someone's race is the definition of racist.

 

[Jon]

That's about as interesting and prophetic as the polls that had Dukakis way ahead of Bush senior in the spring/summer of 1988.

Clinging to meaningless polls is soooooooooo lame!

The thing is, this trend has been seen for months. It's not something that's fluctuated. Will it remain the same? Maybe not. But so far, it has.

Like it or not, this is where America stands now. And, looking at past performance, it doesn't look like it's going to change, unless something causes it to change. The opinion of Dukakis changed because Dukakis led an abysmal campaign. I don't foresee McCain making that mistake any more than I see Obama making the same mistake. But, all things considered unchanged, McCain's lead is expected to continue. Or, even increase, if Hillary is not the nominee.

 

[Toro]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107539/Hillary-Clintons-SwingState-Advantage.aspx


My main reason for supporting Clinton over Obama has always been that I think she can beat McCain and Obama can't.

It still looks likely that this is the case.

The election is six months away.

Six months ago, Clinton was a lock and everyone was wondering if Obama would run for Illinois governor so he could gain some experience before running again in 2016.

Six months is an eternity in politics.

 

[Toro]

The thing is, this trend has been seen for months. It's not something that's fluctuated. Will it remain the same? Maybe not. But so far, it has.

Like it or not, this is where America stands now. And, looking at past performance, it doesn't look like it's going to change, unless something causes it to change. The opinion of Dukakis changed because Dukakis led an abysmal campaign. I don't foresee McCain making that mistake any more than I see Obama making the same mistake. But, all things considered unchanged, McCain's lead is expected to continue. Or, even increase, if Hillary is not the nominee.

According to Real Clear Politics, Obama is leading McCain nationally and in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio, while within a point in Virginia.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

 

[Jon]

According to Real Clear Politics, Obama is leading McCain nationally and in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio, while within a point in Virginia.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

What you fail to mention is:

While McCain leads Clinton in Wisconsin, where Obama leads McCain, Clinton leads McCain in Florida, where McCain leads Obama. Which state do YOU think has more electoral votes?

Furthermore, while Obama does lead in Pennsylvania and Ohio, who leads by more? Clinton leads by almost twice as much as Obama does in Pennsylvania, and some 7 times as much in Ohio.

What you'll see in a matter of weeks is that not only will Clinton narrow the delegate lead of Obama, she'll overtake the popular vote, especially if they count Florida (and even moreso if they count Michigan).

 

[Jon]

The election is six months away.

Six months ago, Clinton was a lock and everyone was wondering if Obama would run for Illinois governor so he could gain some experience before running again in 2016.

Six months is an eternity in politics.

You're right, but isn't it smart to go with the safer bet? If Clinton is polling better than McCain NOW, by your logic, couldn't she be polling even BETTER against McCain in six months? Or, in six months, isn't she just as likely to fall drastically behind as Obama is?

The answer to all of the above questions is yes.

 

[ReillyT]

You're right, but isn't it smart to go with the safer bet? If Clinton is polling better than McCain NOW, by your logic, couldn't she be polling even BETTER against McCain in six months? Or, in six months, isn't she just as likely to fall drastically behind as Obama is?

The answer to all of the above questions is yes.

She could be doing better in 6 months. She could be doing worse. Who the hell knows?

Obama hasn't fallen dramatically behind McCain. He is more or less running neck and neck. Could that change? Yes. Will that likely change? Yes. Which way will it change? Who the hell knows?

 

[Toro]

What you fail to mention is:

While McCain leads Clinton in Wisconsin, where Obama leads McCain, Clinton leads McCain in Florida, where McCain leads Obama. Which state do YOU think has more electoral votes?

Furthermore, while Obama does lead in Pennsylvania and Ohio, who leads by more? Clinton leads by almost twice as much as Obama does in Pennsylvania, and some 7 times as much in Ohio.

What you'll see in a matter of weeks is that not only will Clinton narrow the delegate lead of Obama, she'll overtake the popular vote, especially if they count Florida (and even moreso if they count Michigan).

The election is six months away. Polls don't meet anything now.

Remember, Slick Willie was third in the national polls in July before he went on Arsenio and played the saxophone.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Hillary, other than she is a Clinton and dynastic monarchies shouldn't be a feature of American politics, which it has become. I don't think Hillary would be a bad President. I think all three of them would be fine. Its time someone other than a Bush or a Clinton is on the national ticket, which has been the case since 1980.

 

[Toro]

She could be doing better in 6 months. She could be doing worse. Who the hell knows?

Obama hasn't fallen dramatically behind McCain. He is more or less running neck and neck. Could that change? Yes. Will that likely change? Yes. Which way will it change? Who the hell knows?

I keep coming back to this - Obama can fill arenas and stadiums whereas McCain can't fill a hotel ballroom, and Hillary can't pull them in like Obama can.

 

[Ravi]

And yet Hillary compares better against McCain.

It's kind of funny that the Dems are pining their hopes on a cult personality instead of the candidate that can most likely win.

 

[ReillyT]

And yet Hillary compares better against McCain.

It's kind of funny that the Dems are pining their hopes on a cult personality instead of the candidate that can most likely win.

We don't know who would be more likely to win. Clinton is a polarizing figure that will drive Republicans to the polls. That seems pretty clear. Perhaps Obama would do the same, but we don't know.

Who will draw independents better and in what states? We don't know.

Will most of Clinton's supporters come around to Obama before the general election? We don't know.

Would most of Obama's supporters come out to vote for Clinton? We don't know.

Which candidate would run the better campaign and be able to raise more money? We don't know.

I take issue with describing Obama as a cult personality. Yes, there is an ardency among many of his supporters that seems to overshadow him as a candidate, but he is also a very impressive figure and a fantastic communicator. In short, he has shown himself to be a very good candidate.

 

[Ravi]

Who sees Clinton as polarizing? Among voters, it seems mainly Obama supporters hold that view.

Another interesting poll shows that:

McCain is seen as the more uniting candidate by men and women, young and old, white voters, conservatives and moderates. Obama is seen that way by African-Americans, other minority voters, and those who are politically liberal.

Some of this perception may stem from the fact that McCain is perceived as closer to the political center than Obama. The Republican candidate is perceived as politically conservative by 45% of voters, moderate by 31%, and liberal by 17%. Obama is seen as politically liberal by 72%, moderate by 19%, and conservative by 3%.

Kind of surprising that a candidate who preaches unity isn't seen as THE unifying candidate.



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...idate_most_likely_to_reach_across_party_lines