Obama '08?

The Dems know that McCain would have been their strongest candidate, the ones who will admit it, the last two elections if they could have got him to come over.

They sure as hell didn't want him paired with Kerry because he was weaker than Bush.

0 Replies

Let me put it this way.

Given the Republican disadvantages you listed (and I agree they are real), how do you account for poll data that simultaneously shows high negatives for President Bush and a dead heat between McCain and Obama?

Is one wrong and the other right?? If so which one and why?

Again, I don't claim to know the answer, but interpret the poll results and other information generally available to indicate that the election is still a horse race. Still, lots of time left for change, and lots of reasons to be skeptical of early calls.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Let me put it this way.

Given the Republican disadvantages you listed (and I agree they are real), how do you account for poll data that simultaneously shows high negatives for President Bush and a dead heat between McCain and Obama?

Is one wrong and the other right?? If so which one and why?

Again, I don't claim to know the answer, but interpret the poll results and other information generally available to indicate that the election is still a horse race. Still, lots of time left for change, and lots of reasons to be skeptical of early calls.

Division amongst the Dems has driven down the numbers for Obama - and in a hypothetical Clinton-McCain matchup, for her as well.

At least some of that division will go away when there is a certain nominee. 'specially if Obama and Clinton do a good job working on healing the rifts.

If McCain, when basically un-challenged and unopposed by anyone, cannot score higher then candidates who are getting beaten each and every day by their opponents and the media, it's a problem.

I think that there will be quite a bit more linking of Bush and McCain in the minds of the public as we move towards the Fall, and the rhetoric is sharpened by the Dems. McCain has no real defense to these charges, either, as he represents neither a real change from Bush's policies nor one from his rhetorical and compositional failings.

We like to talk from time to time about the power of images; here ya go.

http://www.desertratdemocrat.com/archives/1-mccain_bush_hug.jpg

Recent Gallup polling has shown that people consider McCain's association with Bush as troubling, if not more so, then Wright - or Bill Clinton, lol.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

A somewhat feeble answer for someone who is soooo sure.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

This would be a slam dunk to beat Obama if we had a good candidate.

Why is that?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Given the Republican disadvantages you listed (and I agree they are real), how do you account for poll data that simultaneously shows high negatives for President Bush and a dead heat between McCain and Obama?

Is one wrong and the other right?? If so which one and why?

I believe it is due to independents being unaware or conveniently ignoring McCain's weaknesses. They haven't been fodder for the press recently. That Obama or Clinton can poll even with him at this point is very good for them. Once the press salivating after the Dems turn their focus on him, we should see the impact.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

A somewhat feeble answer for someone who is soooo sure.

You are of course free to interpret my answer in whatever fashion you wish.

And I will be frank. I am very confident in Obama's ability to win. He has survived a terrible storm and one which many predicted he never would survive. On the contrary, he has proceeded apace in the same direction he was going. He inspires confidence in his ability to run a competent and effective general election campaign.

I am confident that he will win. Whenever I think about the problems Obama faces, I remind myself that McCain faces problems of equal size - with less money and less excitement. McCain has done an admirable job getting this far, and aside from his latest swerve to the hard right, I have often been in agreement with McCain. But he does not have what it takes to get this done. It is an uphill climb, and he's an old man.

It must be a bitter disappointment to him, that he lost to Bush when Republicanism was FAR more popular; and now has his shot, in a much more hostile environment. It's not fair, really. I think McCain would probably have beat Gore in 2000; would that it had been he instead of Bush!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Let me put it this way.

Given the Republican disadvantages you listed (and I agree they are real), how do you account for poll data that simultaneously shows high negatives for President Bush and a dead heat between McCain and Obama?
.

Saying that McCain is in a "dead heat" with Obama when they are not competing yet is like saying the NY Jets would beat the Boston Red Sox in basketball. These theoretical match-up polls are meaningless. If they weren't, Fred Thompson would be your nominee. Remember Fred Thompson?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
A somewhat feeble answer for someone who is soooo sure.

You are of course free to interpret my answer in whatever fashion you wish.

And I will be frank. I am very confident in Obama's ability to win. He has survived a terrible storm and one which many predicted he never would survive. On the contrary, he has proceeded apace in the same direction he was going. He inspires confidence in his ability to run a competent and effective general election campaign.

I am confident that he will win. Whenever I think about the problems Obama faces, I remind myself that McCain faces problems of equal size - with less money and less excitement. McCain has done an admirable job getting this far, and aside from his latest swerve to the hard right, I have often been in agreement with McCain. But he does not have what it takes to get this done. It is an uphill climb, and he's an old man.

Historically, the Democratic candidate in a year like this is a slam dunk. On one side, we have a doddering old man who can't define his own issues and is about to start facing press scrutiny for the first time in his career and is a walking gaffe machine. On the other side, we have a charismatic visionary who has beaten down one of the most formidable political machines in American history with little more than grassroots support who has survived intense and, at times, unfair media scrutiny.

It doesn't look good for McCain.

0 Replies

Not a Soccer Mom wrote:

Saying that McCain is in a "dead heat" with Obama when they are not competing yet is like saying the NY Jets would beat the Boston Red Sox in basketball. These theoretical match-up polls are meaningless. If they weren't, Fred Thompson would be your nominee. Remember Fred Thompson?

I suggest you take these criticisms to the various polling companies involved. Those polled were asked to assume the various pairs of candidates were competing.

All polls are suspect and subject to several kinds of errors inaddition to the inescapable sampling error. Despite your artful metaphors, you really don't know and can't prove whether your objections are valid or not.

However, I will grant you that a good way to reduce your uncertainty in a difficult projection is simply to dismiss contrary evidence as meaningless.

I'm the one here who is arguing that projections of who might be the winner in November are fraught with uncertainty.

0 Replies

Not a Soccer Mom wrote:

These theoretical match-up polls are meaningless. If they weren't, Fred Thompson would be your nominee. Remember Fred Thompson?

What do you mean by that? I've been following these polls quite closely, and I havent got a clue what you're alluding to here, to be honest.

When it came to match-up polls against the Democratic contenders, Thompson did worse than almost any other Republican frontrunner; only Romney did worse. And in the opinion polls for the Republican nomination itself he was also never more than a flash in the pan.

0 Replies

Not a Soccer Mom wrote:

Saying that McCain is in a "dead heat" with Obama when they are not competing yet is like saying the NY Jets would beat the Boston Red Sox in basketball.

Are we talking the current teams, because I bet Jerricho Cotchery could dunk over Big Papi, and I hear Laveranues Coles is money from behind the 3.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Not a Soccer Mom wrote:
These theoretical match-up polls are meaningless. If they weren't, Fred Thompson would be your nominee. Remember Fred Thompson?

What do you mean by that? I've been following these polls quite closely, and I havent got a clue what you're alluding to here, to be honest.

When it came to match-up polls against the Democratic contenders, Thompson did worse than almost any other Republican frontrunner; only Romney did worse. And in the opinion polls for the Republican nomination itself he was also never more than a flash in the pan.

You don't remember how well Fred Thompson polled before he entered the race?

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

watched a short hillary clip this morning where she declared - using somewhat different words :
"if this were a republican election , i'd have won already ! "

i wondered if she considers herself a republican in democratic disguise ?
i thought it was a rather strange comment .
hbg

I don't know if someone else has already replied to this, but what she means is that if the delegate allocation were 'winner take all' like the republican primaries, Clinton would have won and had a greater margin than Obama currently enjoys.

If there were no proportional delegate system, Clinton would be the winner.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Not a Soccer Mom wrote:
Saying that McCain is in a "dead heat" with Obama when they are not competing yet is like saying the NY Jets would beat the Boston Red Sox in basketball. These theoretical match-up polls are meaningless. If they weren't, Fred Thompson would be your nominee. Remember Fred Thompson?

I suggest you take these criticisms to the various polling companies involved. Those polled were asked to assume the various pairs of candidates were competing.

It is a hypothetical just like the Jets playing the Red Sox in basketball. Meaningless. Obama will spike when he becomes the nominee.

0 Replies

Perhaps he will. We shall see.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

hamburger wrote:
watched a short hillary clip this morning where she declared - using somewhat different words :
"if this were a republican election , i'd have won already ! "

i wondered if she considers herself a republican in democratic disguise ?
i thought it was a rather strange comment .
hbg

I don't know if someone else has already replied to this, but what she means is that if the delegate allocation were 'winner take all' like the republican primaries, Clinton would have won and had a greater margin than Obama currently enjoys.

If there were no proportional delegate system, Clinton would be the winner.

Nonsense. If the contest were winner take all, Obama would have run his campaign based on that criteria. Keep drinking the kool-aid though.

0 Replies

Not a Soccer Mom wrote:

maporsche wrote:
hamburger wrote:
watched a short hillary clip this morning where she declared - using somewhat different words :
"if this were a republican election , i'd have won already ! "

i wondered if she considers herself a republican in democratic disguise ?
i thought it was a rather strange comment .
hbg

I don't know if someone else has already replied to this, but what she means is that if the delegate allocation were 'winner take all' like the republican primaries, Clinton would have won and had a greater margin than Obama currently enjoys.

If there were no proportional delegate system, Clinton would be the winner.

Nonsense. If the contest were winner take all, Obama would have run his campaign based on that criteria. Keep drinking the kool-aid though.

Oh...you got me!~ Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

hamburger wrote:
watched a short hillary clip this morning where she declared - using somewhat different words :
"if this were a republican election , i'd have won already ! "

i wondered if she considers herself a republican in democratic disguise ?
i thought it was a rather strange comment .
hbg

I don't know if someone else has already replied to this, but what she means is that if the delegate allocation were 'winner take all' like the republican primaries, Clinton would have won and had a greater margin than Obama currently enjoys.

If there were no proportional delegate system, Clinton would be the winner.

I'm not sure this is true. Have you done an analysis, or have a link to one?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

maporsche wrote:
hamburger wrote:
watched a short hillary clip this morning where she declared - using somewhat different words :
"if this were a republican election , i'd have won already ! "

i wondered if she considers herself a republican in democratic disguise ?
i thought it was a rather strange comment .
hbg

I don't know if someone else has already replied to this, but what she means is that if the delegate allocation were 'winner take all' like the republican primaries, Clinton would have won and had a greater margin than Obama currently enjoys.

If there were no proportional delegate system, Clinton would be the winner.

I'm not sure this is true. Have you done an analysis, or have a link to one?

Cycloptichorn

I have done one, and posted it several times on this forum. I have not done one that included the primaries from yesterday, but I'm sure it would still have Clinton as the winner.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know