That's not new news. Check out Pollingreport.com and you'll see he's consistently beating her in the general polls and has been for a while. So far the Republicans are still backing their most popular (in the general) horse; but the Democrats don't seem to be getting it. I wouldn't be too shocked anymore if Romney, or even the actor could beat Hillary; so I sure hope the Dems get their sh!t together and back Obama. I think most Democrats would view Rudy as the least deplorable (yet electable) Republican; so backing the stronger polling Obama is in their best interest for more than one reason. I remain convinced the Right will need to fear losing before they'll throw their weight behind Rudy at all... and I can't tell you how much I'd like to see a Rudy/Obama General.
This graph from Pollster.com shows how the various hypothetical run-offs have been playing out in the polls over time (click for more detail).
Each dot represents the numbers from one poll (they tracked all the ones they could find), and the line represents a running average.
Ooooh, thanks.
I know it's not new, it just made me happy, especially the differential.
I'm definitely the concerned about the primary/ general election thing. (That the current front-runner to win the nomination -- Hillary -- is the weakest of the three main candidates when it comes to the general election. Hopefully Obama will keep gaining ground and keep impressing people. Plenty of time left, even if it doesn't feel like it.) (January 29th, 2008!!! Geez.)
very interesting nimh, makes me curious as to just what is the basis of Romney's support. I'm thinking his biggest deficit would be the christian-right rejecting his mormonism but I'd only be guessing.
Interesting to note though, that the scores of the three Democrats against Giuliani or McCain hardly differ from each other. Hillary, Obama and Edwards get about an equal percentage of ayes. Its just that the percentage of nays (those saying they'll vote for the Republican) drops in the case of Obama.
nimh wrote:Interesting to note though, that the scores of the three Democrats against Giuliani or McCain hardly differ from each other. Hillary, Obama and Edwards get about an equal percentage of ayes. Its just that the percentage of nays (those saying they'll vote for the Republican) drops in the case of Obama.
And that's pretty much exactly what the "not Hillary!!" contingent has been saying all along (or at least an element of it). That she'd energize people to vote AGAINST her in a way that other people wouldn't.
The racism is coming out.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/05/04/publiceye/entry2761854.shtml
Quote:May 4, 2007
CBSNews.com Turns Off Comments on Obama Stories
(AP Photo)
Today CBSNews.com informed its staff via email that they should no longer enable comments on stories about presidential candidate Barack Obama. The reason for the new policy, according to the email, is that stories about Obama have been attracting too many racist comments.
"It's very simple," Mike Sims, director of News and Operations for CBSNews.com, told me. "We have our Rules of Engagement. They prohibit personal attacks, especially racist attacks. Stories about Obama have been problematic, and we won't tolerate it."
CBSNews.com does sometimes delete comments on an individual basis, but Sims said that was not sufficient in the case of Obama stories due to "the volume and the persistence" of the objectionable comments.
There has been a fierce debate about how news outlets should handle reader comments. Washingtonpost.com's Jim Brady, whose site, like CBSNews.com, does not have the resources to filter comments in advance, told Howard Kurtz that he'd "rather figure out a way to do it better than not to do it at all."
But Post reporter Darryl Fears told Kurtz that comments should be eliminated if they can't be pre-screened for offensiveness.
"If you're an African American and you read about someone being called a porch monkey, that overrides any positive thing that you would read in the comments," he said.
CBSNews.com has no plans to disable comments on stories about the other presidential candidates, according to Sims. As for comments on Obama stories, he said the site is open to eventually bringing them back.
"We'd like to be able to return to them, and I'm not ruling that out," said Sims. "But at this point it's not possible."
It will get worse
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:It will get worse
Cycloptichorn
Na, volunteers will take care of that. Just think what this site would be like if someone wasn't sweeping up after you...
Dave Niewart of Orcinus: "Obama and the Race Zombies"
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/
We knew it was there and so did he. I think he is above the fray and I just hope he can stay there.
nimh wrote:Each dot represents the numbers from one poll (they tracked all the ones they could find), and the line represents a running average.
Very interesting graphs. Especially since they collectively indicate that the more hard-core Democrats actually have a better chance at beating Republicans than the "centrist" Hillary Clinton.
Maybe the dynamics of this will end up leading to a Kucinic vs. Ron Paul runoff, which is what I'm hoping after watching the Republican candidates debate each other yesterday.
Thomas wrote:nimh wrote:Each dot represents the numbers from one poll (they tracked all the ones they could find), and the line represents a running average.
Very interesting graphs. Especially since they collectively indicate that the more hard-core Democrats actually have a better chance at beating Republicans than the "centrist" Hillary Clinton.
Maybe the dynamics of this will end up leading to a Kucinic vs. Ron Paul runoff, which is what I'm hoping after watching the Republican candidates debate each other yesterday.
I don't know... I think Dennis might be outmanned on that one.
Vs
nimh wrote:sozobe wrote:Yeah, it's in the May 7th issue.
I usually get the New Yorker delivered the Wednesday or Thursday BEFORE the (Monday) publication date. (So for example for this one, the publication date is May 7th, I got it May 2nd.)
OK, thats just weird
In case any of you already received Monday's newspaper too, by how much will Sarkozy win the French elections?
By less than recent polling suggests. Millions of beautiful french females will arrive at polling areas in exquisitely upholstered "Liberte" buses. I'm flying to Paris today to help them descend the dangerous bus steps.
Couldnt you have persuaded them to vote for Royal, while you were at it?
Republicans Defect to the Obama Camp
Republicans Defect to the Obama Camp
By Sarah Baxter
The Sunday Times UK
Sunday 06 May 2007
Disillusioned supporters of President George W Bush are defecting to Barack Obama, the Democratic senator for Illinois, as the White House candidate with the best chance of uniting a divided nation.
Tom Bernstein went to Yale University with Bush and co-owned the Texas Rangers baseball team with him. In 2004 he donated the maximum $2,000 to the president's reelection campaign and gave $50,000 to the Republican National Committee. This year he is switching his support to Obama. He is one of many former Bush admirers who find the Democrat newcomer appealing.
Matthew Dowd, Bush's chief campaign strategist in 2004, announced last month that he was disillusioned with the war in Iraq and the president's "my way or the highway" style of leadership - the first member of Bush's inner circle to denounce the leader's performance in office.
Although Dowd has yet to endorse a candidate, he said the only one he liked was Obama. "I think we should design campaigns that appeal, not to 51% of the people, but bring the country together as a whole," Dowd said.
Bernstein is a champion of human rights, who admires Obama's call for action on Darfur, while Dowd's opposition to the war has been sharpened by the expected deployment to Iraq of his son, an Arabic-speaking Army intelligence specialist.
But last week a surprising new name joined the chorus of praise for the antiwar Obama - that of Robert Kagan, a leading neoconservative and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century in the late 1990s, which called for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Kagan is an informal foreign policy adviser to the Republican senator John McCain, who remains the favoured neoconservative choice for the White House because of his backing for the troops in Iraq.
But in an article in the Washington Post, Kagan wrote approvingly that a keynote speech by Obama at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs was "pure John Kennedy", a neocon hero of the cold war.
In his speech, Obama called for an increase in defence spending and an extra 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines to "stay on the offense" against terrorism and ensure America had "the strongest, best-equipped military in the world". He talked about building democracies, stopping weapons of mass destruction and the right to take unilateral action to protect US "vital interests" if necessary, as well as the importance of building alliances.
"Personally, I liked it," Kagan wrote.
Disagreements on the war have not stopped John Martin, a Navy reservist and founder of the website Republicans for Obama, from supporting the antiwar senator. He joined the military after the Iraq war and is about to be deployed to Afghanistan.
"I disagree with Obama on the war but I don't think it is a test of his patriotism," Martin says. "Obama has a message of hope for the country."
Financiers have also been oiling Obama's campaign. In Chicago, his home town, John Canning, a "Bush pioneer" and investment banker who pledged to raise $100,000 for the president in 2004, has given up on the Republicans. "I know lots of my friends in this business are disenchanted and are definitely looking for something different," he said.
Not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton has many Republican defectors of her own, including John Mack, chief executive of Morgan Stanley, who helped raise $200,000 for the president's reelection, qualifying him as a "Bush ranger". He said last week that he was impressed by Clinton's expertise. "I know we're associated mainly with the Republicans but we've always gone for the individual," Mack said.
According to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, Obama and Clinton have vacuumed up more than $750,000 (£375,000) in individual contributions from former Bush donors.
Some of the donations reflect the natural tendency of those with power to shift to the likely White House winner. Penny Pritzker, the staggeringly successful head of fundraising for Obama, voted for John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic candidate, but also donated that year to Bush. As she was a head of the family-run Hyatt hotel chain, it was considered a prudent move.
With the Democrats widely expected to win in 2008, Clinton's status as frontrunner is encouraging Wall Street money to migrate to her, while Obama may be picking up some mischievous "Stop Hillary" donations from still-loyal Republicans. But there is plenty of genuine enthusiasm to go around.
A poll released by Rasmussen last week showed Obama overtaking Clinton for the first time by 32% to 30%, although another poll by Quinnepiac showed her with a 14-point lead over the Illinois senator, her nearest rival.
The current issue of the New Yorker contains a profile of Obama, which highlights his appeal to conservatives.
For his optimism about the future, Obama has been dubbed the "black Ronald Reagan". He frequently challenges the black community to support two-parent families and encourage school students, instead of criticising them for "acting white".
As Duncan Black aka "Atrios" would say BBB...."WHEEEEEEE!!!!"
Romey looks pretty good too!
nimh wrote:Couldnt you have persuaded them to vote for Royal, while you were at it?
Why? Looks like they got the right guy to me. Au revoir, Super Menteur.
