Hiliary's chances now?

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Appears her best hope - Mich/Fla revotes is now gone--giving her 0 chance now as far as delegate votes-which brings up very interesting scenerio

--if the this recent trend continues --will they go against delegate votes and take best shot for win in 08--at expense of having chaos within their party.
______________________________________

SurveyUSA is out with polling in three states that looks ominous for Obama:

Ohio
McCain 44 - Clinton 50
McCain 50 - Obama 43

For Obama, it's a 17-point swing against him since the last SurveyUSA poll taken just three weeks ago, going up from up ten on McCain to down seven. Clinton has slipped four points over the same period but still leads McCain by six.

Missiouri
McCain 48 - Clinton 46
McCain 53 - Obama 39

Again, Obama's support slipped three points in Missouri while McCain's rose five, giving McCain a substantial 14-point lead. Over the same period Clinton picked up four points on McCain according to the SUSA survey.

Kentucky
McCain 53 - Clinton 43
McCain 64 - Obama 28

Not that Kentucky was in any danger of going blue, but McCain's support jumped 10 points and Obama's dropped five in three weeks. Clinton's support remained steady, though she trails McCain by 10.

These are the kind of numbers that will give the superdelegates nightmares. Given Obama's lead in the pledged delegates, the supers will face a tough decision should his general election prospects against McCain deteriorate.
______________________________________

 

[redsfann]

Appears her best hope - Mich/Fla revotes is now gone--giving her 0 chance now as far as delegate votes-which brings up very interesting scenerio
______________________________________

I think its hard to see any other scenario in which the Clinton political machine doesn't steal the nomination at the convention somehow...:shrug:

The Clintons are hell-bent in moving back into the White House and they could care less if it means royally screwing over their party for the foreseeable future.

While it looks more and more likely to me that McCain will win in November, you can be sure that the House and Senate will be overwhelmingly Democratic--which is probably a good thing for the country overall....

 

[gardenweasel]

I think its hard to see any other scenario in which the Clinton political machine doesn't steal the nomination at the convention somehow...:shrug:

The Clintons are hell-bent in moving back into the White House and they could care less if it means royally screwing over their party for the foreseeable future.

While it looks more and more likely to me that McCain will win in November, you can be sure that the House and Senate will be overwhelmingly Democratic--which is probably a good thing for the country overall....

if clinton manages a "houdini like" feat at the convention,do you guys think there`ll be "repercussions"?.....by that i mean,rioting or civil disorder....

btw..."While it looks more and more likely to me that McCain will win in November, you can be sure that the House and Senate will be overwhelmingly Democratic--which is probably a good thing for the country overall"...

i don`t necessarily disagree with that sentiment...

btw part 2.....i`m becoming worried about reverend wright...

reverend wright ain't white ,
he ain't rich...he ain't pow'ful,
and he ain't been seen....

whassup with that?

 

[StevieD]

The Bush-Cheney Neocons are pulling hard for Clinton. If she does win the Democratic position that will virtually put the Neocons in a no lose situation with both McCain and Clinton in their back pocket. The only hope would be if Obama ran as a third party. If the Clinton machine does steal the nomination then you just might see an uprising. Hopefully, a political uprising and Obama just may have the charisma to lead it. When all is said and done Bush, Clinton, McCain they're all the same.

 

[gardenweasel]

When all is said and done Bush, Clinton, McCain they're all the same.

that`s a tad out there,buddy...until obama wandered into the fray,the clinton`s were "the shit"...

do you just automatically hate everybody except your chosen guy?....do you go on auto-pilot?....

the clinton hatred from the "extreme left really shocks me...

what`d hillary do to make you turn on her?

 

[bryanz]

Appears her best hope - Mich/Fla revotes is now gone--giving her 0 chance now as far as delegate votes-which brings up very interesting scenerio

--if the this recent trend continues --will they go against delegate votes and take best shot for win in 08--at expense of having chaos within their party.
______________________________________

SurveyUSA is out with polling in three states that looks ominous for Obama:

Ohio
McCain 44 - Clinton 50
McCain 50 - Obama 43

For Obama, it's a 17-point swing against him since the last SurveyUSA poll taken just three weeks ago, going up from up ten on McCain to down seven. Clinton has slipped four points over the same period but still leads McCain by six.

Missiouri
McCain 48 - Clinton 46
McCain 53 - Obama 39

Again, Obama's support slipped three points in Missouri while McCain's rose five, giving McCain a substantial 14-point lead. Over the same period Clinton picked up four points on McCain according to the SUSA survey.

Kentucky
McCain 53 - Clinton 43
McCain 64 - Obama 28

Not that Kentucky was in any danger of going blue, but McCain's support jumped 10 points and Obama's dropped five in three weeks. Clinton's support remained steady, though she trails McCain by 10.

These are the kind of numbers that will give the superdelegates nightmares. Given Obama's lead in the pledged delegates, the supers will face a tough decision should his general election prospects against McCain deteriorate.
______________________________________

The polls and the pundits have been wrong from the start. If you went by the polls pre primaries, Hillary would have the democrat race wrapped up and McCain would be long gone.

 

[bryanz]

why just show those #'s ???? That is not the story Nationally...... http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

 

[bryanz]

There is a long way to go... I can get you a poll to show what ever you want. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-wiener/latest-poll-mccain-beats_b_87213.html

 

[djv]

I still believe Obama. If locked convention the compromise will be Al Gore. Clintons are done. Will be interseting to see new polls next weekend after a week of cool down. I would guess CNN/FOX might both find new news other then the minister. And I see remarks coming out how many dem's getting pissed at Bill again. So I think her numbers will go back down. And if press and TV is fair Old Mc Cain has his own crazy minister problem. Along with memory loss.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

There is a long way to go... I can get you a poll to show what ever you want. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-wiener/latest-poll-mccain-beats_b_87213.html

You'll have to excuse Bryanz but I refuse to log on to Huffington post site and surprised that you would.This is the site of those wishing Tony Snow has relapse of cancer--Ronald Reagans wife suffers befores she dies ect. One of top 3 hate sites-slanted bias on net--and don't think you'll get except very few to deny it.

As far as polls--not big fan either--but these polls you speak of or before and these are after and I did note in initial thread "if" trend continues--and that is not a certainly.

I will be looking at one state inparticular coming up-as barometer-and no its not Pn. In facts it one Obama should win--NC. Thought all the 20% were gone -but one left.Was looking at my charts at office this morning and obama has had bout 25% vote count advantage on ave (will get exact figure tomorrow at office and add to this thread) and will be curious to see margin of victory there.

Stevie--Was just the other day liberals were saying obama was tougher to beat so why would conservatives be pulling for H ?
I think I should have made it very clear at this point on several posts--I'm pulling for Obama over H--the 1st time noted in election wager thread prior to primaries--also noted that I disagreed with Rush and other pundits that said H would be easier to beat in national election--which brings us back to why would they be pulling for H if they thought her easiest candidate to beat:shrug:
Believe your pulling the ole liberal flop on us--depending on public sentiment at particular time

Oops Forgot--the polls I put up were from realclear politics--
--had already put up national one previously--:shrug:

 

[bryanz]

You'll have to excuse Bryanz but I refuse to log on to Huffington post site and surprised that you would.This is the site of those wishing Tony Snow has relapse of cancer--Ronald Reagans wife suffers befores she dies ect. One of top 3 hate sites-slanted bias on net--and don't think you'll get except very few to deny it.

As far as polls--not big fan either--but these polls you speak of or before and these are after and I did note in initial thread "if" trend continues--and that is not a certainly.

I will be looking at one state inparticular coming up-as barometer-and no its not Pn. In facts it one Obama should win--NC. Thought all the 20% were gone -but one left.Was looking at my charts at office this morning and obama has had bout 25% vote count advantage on ave (will get exact figure tomorrow at office and add to this thread) and will be curious to see margin of victory there.

Stevie--Was just the other day liberals were saying obama was tougher to beat so why would conservatives be pulling for H ?
I think I should have made it very clear at this point on several posts--I'm pulling for Obama over H--the 1st time noted in election wager thread prior to primaries--also noted that I disagreed with Rush and other pundits that said H would be easier to beat in national election--which brings us back to why would they be pulling for H if they thought her easiest candidate to beat:shrug:
Believe your pulling the ole liberal flop on us--depending on public sentiment at particular time

Oops Forgot--the polls I put up were from realclear politics--
--had already put up national one previously--:shrug:

I never knew that about Huff... anything wrong with real clear politics ?:mj07:

 

[Jabberwocky]

You'll have to excuse Bryanz but I refuse to log on to Huffington post site and surprised that you would.This is the site of those wishing Tony Snow has relapse of cancer--Ronald Reagans wife suffers befores she dies ect. One of top 3 hate sites-slanted bias on net--and don't think you'll get except very few to deny it.

As far as polls--not big fan either--but these polls you speak of or before and these are after and I did note in initial thread "if" trend continues--and that is not a certainly.

I will be looking at one state inparticular coming up-as barometer-and no its not Pn. In facts it one Obama should win--NC. Thought all the 20% were gone -but one left.Was looking at my charts at office this morning and obama has had bout 25% vote count advantage on ave (will get exact figure tomorrow at office and add to this thread) and will be curious to see margin of victory there.

Stevie--Was just the other day liberals were saying obama was tougher to beat so why would conservatives be pulling for H ?
I think I should have made it very clear at this point on several posts--I'm pulling for Obama over H--the 1st time noted in election wager thread prior to primaries--also noted that I disagreed with Rush and other pundits that said H would be easier to beat in national election--which brings us back to why would they be pulling for H if they thought her easiest candidate to beat:shrug:
Believe your pulling the ole liberal flop on us--depending on public sentiment at particular time

Oops Forgot--the polls I put up were from realclear politics--
--had already put up national one previously--:shrug:

weren't those post on Huffington's site made by random bloggers and in now way supported by Huffington or her staff? Whatever, the "ole liberal fiip flop" You are Karl Rove's wet dream. Thankfully you can go down to the polls and vote for McCain.

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as ?an agent of intolerance? in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans ?deserved? the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell?s debate coach.)

* McCain used to oppose Bush?s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending ?dirty money? to help finance Bush?s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won?t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he?s pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* And now he?s both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.


In a recent interview with The Politico, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said that if his escalation strategy for Iraq fails, then he would consider redeployment:

?If this strategy doesn?t succeed, we will have to devise another strategy,? McCain said. ?But I have to hasten to add there are no good options.? One of those options, McCain said ?is to withdraw to the borders (of Iraq) to try to keep other countries from interfering. Maintaining our bases in Kuwait and other places. There are a lot of scenarios.?

It didn?t take long for McCain to backtrack from redeployment. Last night, in an interview with CNN?s Anderson Cooper, McCain said under no scenario would he consider withdrawing troops, even if escalation fails


By the way, that reminds me of that ?100 year thing?. My friends, the war will be over soon. The war, for all intents and purposes, although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years. But it will be handled by the Iraqis, not by us.

Huh? The war will be ?over soon???? Mission Accomplished redux? But the insurgency will go on. But that?s not a war. But the Iraqis will handle it. Aren?t the insurgents Iraqis too? Can anyone make heads or tails of this ridiculous excuse of a back pedal?

 

[bryanz]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/03/usa-todaygallup.html

 

[Chadman]

Not surprising that you refuse any value to a Web site that has a couple sick wacko posts on it in personal individual responses from the public. The saddest thing of all was O'Reilly railing on on Huffington's situation as you have done (no surprise with the linkage between you two, again) and then he specifically says that his own message board would not allow that and is closely monitored to the point that every post is submitted and then approved before publishing - and then at least two posts on his site were highlighted on two different radio programs I listened to yesterday that were similarly wacko and hate filled. Which makes it worse, since his staff approved the posts. Laughable, albeit sad. But, since it's O'Reilly, his ongoing double standards on morality and fairness make his opinions of less value to begin with.

On the Clinton chances now, I think that as long as the party remains fairly split, I still think she has a chance to gain the nomination. Of course conservatives and even middle of the road posters here call it sinister and stealing...although I don't put much past the Clintons in trying to get a nomination, it doesn't have to be just that in play. Common sense should tell the democratic party that in most of the states that are realistically in play that will turn the election one way or the other, Hillary remains stronger. And if the party, delegates, super-delegates, Dean, whomever, want to win the election, they'd better have that as their main focus. It just makes sense, to me.

I still think that all things equal on election night in November (anything can happen between now and then, of course), Hillary would stand a better chance of beating McCain, and I still think she would. No surprise to me that Obama has slipped due to all of the attacks on him over the past three weeks, and that Hillary and especially McCain would benefit in the short run. No reason in my mind that things can't still change in any of the three directions.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I never knew that about Huff... anything wrong with real clear politics ?:mj07:

Actually my fav political site--get poll concensus and opinions from both sides.

If I had to choose one site for politics--it would be it--

Have found through the years by tracking diff polls there--that most unreliable polls are media polls-fox included.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Not surprising that you refuse any value to a Web site that has a couple sick wacko posts on it in personal individual responses from the public. The saddest thing of all was O'Reilly railing on on Huffington's situation as you have done (no surprise with the linkage between you two, again) and then he specifically says that his own message board would not allow that and is closely monitored to the point that every post is submitted and then approved before publishing - and then at least two posts on his site were highlighted on two different radio programs I listened to yesterday that were similarly wacko and hate filled. Which makes it worse, since his staff approved the posts. Laughable, albeit sad. But, since it's O'Reilly, his ongoing double standards on morality and fairness make his opinions of less value to begin with.

On the Clinton chances now, I think that as long as the party remains fairly split, I still think she has a chance to gain the nomination. Of course conservatives and even middle of the road posters here call it sinister and stealing...although I don't put much past the Clintons in trying to get a nomination, it doesn't have to be just that in play. Common sense should tell the democratic party that in most of the states that are realistically in play that will turn the election one way or the other, Hillary remains stronger. And if the party, delegates, super-delegates, Dean, whomever, want to win the election, they'd better have that as their main focus. It just makes sense, to me.

I still think that all things equal on election night in November (anything can happen between now and then, of course), Hillary would stand a better chance of beating McCain, and I still think she would. No surprise to me that Obama has slipped due to all of the attacks on him over the past three weeks, and that Hillary and especially McCain would benefit in the short run. No reason in my mind that things can't still change in any of the three directions.

yep I'd say a few sicko's --
heres some on comments there--

(had 5 or posts from there--but after posting--decided to remove them as too offensive)

--all sites have wacko's- the prob is Huffington allowed them as well as those on snow-liberman and others to stay up for days--until exposed.

 

[StevieD]

that`s a tad out there,buddy...until obama wandered into the fray,the clinton`s were "the shit"...

do you just automatically hate everybody except your chosen guy?....do you go on auto-pilot?....

the clinton hatred from the "extreme left really shocks me...

what`d hillary do to make you turn on her?

Hillary has not done anything to make me turn on her. In fact, since leaving the White House, I have believed that the Clintons have become Neocon. With Bill's support of the occupation of Iraq, what else can I believe?

Dogs, once again you pull the Republican trick of confusing Neocons and Conservatives. Neocons are about as distant from Conservatives that you can get. Look at the deficit Bush has built up. Not a very conservative thing is it?

Don't forget it was Clinton and Gingrich who shook hands when the Communications Act was signed. For signing that single Act alone I will never forgive Clinton.

You say it's a tad out there, yes it is. But so was being against the invasion of Iraq during the Shock and Awe days.

 

[smurphy]

You'll have to excuse Bryanz but I refuse to log on to Huffington post site and surprised that you would.This is the site of those wishing Tony Snow has relapse of cancer--Ronald Reagans wife suffers befores she dies ect. One of top 3 hate sites-slanted bias on net--and don't think you'll get except very few to deny it.

You can't control what idiots post on these kind of sites. On Sean Hannity's site, a post was left up over 24 hours calling for Obama to be assassinated if he won.

 

[gardenweasel]

my dream scenario is chris wallace of fox news getting a video of bill clinton and michelle obama enflagrante delicto with pastor wright peering out from behind a curtain wiping his brow with one hand and "buttering the corn" with the other.....



a guy can dream,can`t he?...

 

[djv]

C Wallace showed up on the FOX morning show Friday Told those guys to change subject or get some facts. I could not deside if it was a stunt or if he ment it. They were talking about Obama. In fact one left the set like he was all pissed off. It was very strange. But those three in morning are strange anyway. I guess as long as you have guys like Rush saying anything he wants. You will get other nuts replying and saying stupid things.
Good old O'Rilley is good at that. They call it bateing.