SECOND A2K STRAW POLL White House 2008

The calculator matched me with Kucinich and Gravel, and both are against free-trade, which I strongly support.


Obama came third.

You share his views. His ;problem is that he is quite old and comes across as a bit harsh and strange. I think he was a good senator in his day.

You share his views. His ;problem is that he is quite old and comes across as a bit harsh and strange. I think he was a good senator in his day.

I'm going to have to Google this guy! As far as I know, we have nothing in common, at all!

Because of the point scoring, the test is skewed toward candidates with the extreme positions on each issue.

teenyboone wrote:

I'm going to have to Google this guy! As far as I know, we have nothing in common, at all!

Keep in mind the digging that Fishin' did (on page 6 of this thread) checking this test though! Reviewing the oddities in the way the test awards points, he concluded that

fishin wrote:

Because of the point scoring, the test is skewed toward candidates with the extreme positions on each issue.

Gravel, being on the far left end of the roster of candidates (further left than Kucinich still), would benefit from that.

Kucinich is on the left?

Kucinich against free trade

Gallup Poll: Democrats Are The "National Security Party," Now Lead GOP On Terror
September 25, 2007 -- 1:51 PM EST // link //
As all you regulars know, for months now pundits have hung on to the notion that the GOP still holds an advantage on national security issues, despite the fact that multiple polls have shown that this traditional GOP edge has been all but wiped out.

Now, however, Gallup has released a poll concluding that for the first time in its polling, Dems have a clear advantage on the issue:

Dems now the "national security party"

Quote:

Gallup Poll: Democrats Are The "National Security Party," Now Lead GOP On Terror
September 25, 2007 -- 1:51 PM EST // link //
As all you regulars know, for months now pundits have hung on to the notion that the GOP still holds an advantage on national security issues, despite the fact that multiple polls have shown that this traditional GOP edge has been all but wiped out.

Now, however, Gallup has released a poll concluding that for the first time in its polling, Dems have a clear advantage on the issue:

for more... http://talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/

teenyboone wrote:

I'm going to have to Google this guy! As far as I know, we have nothing in common, at all!

Keep in mind the digging that Fishin' did (on page 6 of this thread) checking this test though! Reviewing the oddities in the way the test awards points, he concluded that

fishin wrote:

Because of the point scoring, the test is skewed toward candidates with the extreme positions on each issue.

Gravel, being on the far left end of the roster of candidates (further left than Kucinich still), would benefit from that.

blatham wrote:

Dems now the "national security party"

Quote:

Gallup Poll: Democrats Are The "National Security Party," Now Lead GOP On Terror
September 25, 2007 -- 1:51 PM EST // link //
As all you regulars know, for months now pundits have hung on to the notion that the GOP still holds an advantage on national security issues, despite the fact that multiple polls have shown that this traditional GOP edge has been all but wiped out.

Now, however, Gallup has released a poll concluding that for the first time in its polling, Dems have a clear advantage on the issue:

for more... http://talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/

Now that none of the Dem front runners said they'd commit to pulling troops out of Iraq before 2013....they can boast about being the war party.

One of the more baffling aspects of "political journalism" in the United States is the mind-numbing obsession which most of the political press has with "horse race" analysis. Read any of the mainstream political magazines -- The New Republic, National Review, Politico, the major newsweeklies -- or view any of the cable news shows filled with the analysts who think they are the super-sophisticated insider political types and virtually all they ever do, literally, is prattle on in the most speculative and gossipy manner about which presidential candidates are winning and losing.

Aside from all the other obvious critiques made of this practice, the resulting chatter is unbelievably boring. I say it is "baffling" because it is hard to understand why someone would want to become a political journalist and then spend most of their time engaged in this sort of petty, substance-free chatter about which campaign has inched ahead and which one has fallen behind every day. It's all transparently baseless and meaningless. Look at any of the polling data or the predominant conventional wisdom for the last several elections months before the first primary vote was cast and, in retrospect, it all ends being completely misinformed.

In September of 2003, Wesley Clark and Howard Dean led every Democratic poll, and all of the cable news and political magazine horserace chatter was a complete waste of air. For people who chose for their careers to write about political issues, don't they have any interest at all in covering more substantive matters?

In any event, the Hillary Clinton campaign certainly recognizes that, in light of how our mainstream press covers the presidential campaign, perception of polling success is one of the critical factors in determining how a candidate is discussed -- certainly far more important than the substance of what the candidate is actually advocating. That is why Clinton's campaign is dominated by the execrable pollster Mark Penn, who manages single-handedly to embody, all in one person, everything that is sickly and wrong with our political establishment.

Last night, for the first time this election cycle, I watched a Democratic presidential debate. It was appalling. But it was also, in a way, encouraging. Before last night, I thought it was 50-50 that the Republican nominee would win in November 2008.

Now I think it's 2 to 1. And if the Democrat is anyone but Hillary, it's 4 to 1.

I put my pick in (51st vote).

realjohnboy wrote:

I put my pick in (51st vote).

You're such a tease.. who did you vote for? :wink:

Are you sorry you asked who I voted for in this poll?