USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

Who cares! How bout whats best for the people of this nation?

I think a Democratic president is what is best for this nation.

[ryberg]

Quick note re the possible outcome of such a 3-way race:

Illinois alone has 21 Electoral College votes
surveys show Clinton beating McCain 276-262 in the Electoral College tally
ergo, Obama just wins Illinois, nobody gets 270 and the race goes to the House

Steve

[sctx]

Originally Posted by Jacko

You can't fool me...its not the tequila....so what is causing your severe loss on the grip of reality?

you know why Komodo dragons will never take over the world???

[Bumble]

Originally Posted by sctx

you know why Komodo dragons will never take over the world???

Short legs?

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

OK.

You said something to the effect of the Wright affair probably affecting Obama more negatively than the Bosnia/sniper thing affecting Clinton in those poll results, which dealt with their respect levels of perceived trustworthiness (or whatever the poll said exactly). Especially since the poll on that was taken March 16th, prior to much of the Wright affair and prior to all of the Bosnia/sniper affair coming out, you seemed to be suggesting that those figures would change. I thus pointed out I didn't think that would be the case, and that the other poll re the percentage of supporters of one who would vote for McCain over the other (which topic seemed to be of some real interest to you) was a tracking poll going through March 22nd, several days after the Wright affair surface and even a few days after Obama's speech on race in this country, but before the Bosnia/sniper story came out, it would seem that only Clinton's figures would still be hurt in that regard, not Obama's. I then described why I thought it was unlikely that Obama supporters would only as a result of that event decide to vote against her for McCain, in opposition to the suggestion of your remarks.

(I suppose you could argue that because of her lack of veracity re Bosnia and the sniper fire and all that, actually now fewer Clinton supporters would vote for McCain over Obama, as a result. This is an eventuality I just didn't get to, however, especially as it still shines more negatively on Clinton.)

And there it is. But now I suppose having requested and received such an explanation, you will complain that it is too complicated to follow or understand, throwing in a wise acre remark about being more concise. Or will you prove me wrong, this time?

Steve

What I said related to the number of each other's voters who would vote for McCain if their favored candidate were not elected.

My impression of what you said was that a higher proportion of Clinton's voters would go to McCain because of things Clinton had done to destroy Obama's chances of winning in November.

My point was that, from what we know of the demographics of Clinton's supporters (or what we have been told by the media, anyway), is that they tend to be older, less well educated, a higher proportion of them are white and less well off economically than is the case for Obama's supporters, overall.

And here is the point. Those demographic trends in Clinton's supporters are the very people who would be more inclined to be disturbed by the video clips of Jeremiah Wright that were played over and over and over again. My point was also that this would probably have a greater impact on the Clinton voters who told pollsters they would go to McCain than anything Clinton may have said about Obama.

While the Wright story will not, I assume, have an impact on how you or I or Jacko or Mellidee will vote in November it will cost Obama votes then - I think it could cost him between 8 and 15% points in the general election - people who would, in the absence of the Wright story, vote for him.

My point had nothing to do with the poll numbers on trustworthiness or statements about Bosnia or anything else. That is why your response confused me - because my post was about the poll numbers regarding Democratic candidate supporters who might vote for McCain if their favored candidate did not receive the nomination and explanations for why a higher proportion of Clinton supporters indicated that they would vote for McCain.

Your explanation was not too complex, it was just that your response was pretty much unrelated, in my view, to the post of mine that you quoted.

Thanks for the explanation

Ron

[sctx]

Originally Posted by Bumble

Short legs?

they feed upon their own kind

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by sctx

they feed upon their own kind

Lord of the Flies, baby

see it all the time

[Bumble]

Originally Posted by sctx

they feed upon their own kind

I figured thats what you were going for but short legs was funnier!

Sorry, no humor allowed on the political thread.

[sctx]

Originally Posted by Bumble

Sorry, no humor allowed on the political thread.

not from talking dogs

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by roni

What I said related to the number of each other's voters who would vote for McCain if their favored candidate were not elected.

My impression of what you said was that a higher proportion of Clinton's voters would go to McCain because of things Clinton had done to destroy Obama's chances of winning in November.

My point was that, from what we know of the demographics of Clinton's supporters (or what we have been told by the media, anyway), is that they tend to be older, less well educated, a higher proportion of them are white and less well off economically than is the case for Obama's supporters, overall.

And here is the point. Those demographic trends in Clinton's supporters are the very people who would be more inclined to be disturbed by the video clips of Jeremiah Wright that were played over and over and over again. My point was also that this would probably have a greater impact on the Clinton voters who told pollsters they would go to McCain than anything Clinton may have said about Obama.

While the Wright story will not, I assume, have an impact on how you or I or Jacko or Mellidee will vote in November it will cost Obama votes then - I think it could cost him between 8 and 15% points in the general election - people who would, in the absence of the Wright story, vote for him.

My point had nothing to do with the poll numbers on trustworthiness or statements about Bosnia or anything else. That is why your response confused me - because my post was about the poll numbers regarding Democratic candidate supporters who might vote for McCain if their favored candidate did not receive the nomination and explanations for why a higher proportion of Clinton supporters indicated that they would vote for McCain.

Your explanation was not too complex, it was just that your response was pretty much unrelated, in my view, to the post of mine that you quoted.

Thanks for the explanation

Ron

What percentage of the vote in the general election do you think Hillary's past will cost her?

[sctx]

Originally Posted by Jacko

What percentage of the vote in the general election do you think Hillary's past will cost her?

50% of what her present is gonna cost her.......... watched Obama slagging on Hillary again today, looks like it's gonna be a no vote year for me unless Lieberman is tagged for VP....... Obama's claims of being for change are turning into a big pile-o-

[ryberg]

Oh but Scott, wait a minute. She is beyond the pale, here. Again today she said the pledged delegates are up for grabs. (That's right, Roni -- CNN lead politics story.) so much for counting every vote! And the comments re McCain being more qualified... Even in the worst case scenario, here, it's a relative choice. And she is so far beyond the pale she doesn't eve know where it is, now.

Steve

[roni]

Originally Posted by Jacko

What percentage of the vote in the general election do you think Hillary's past will cost her?

I do not know how many votes it will cost her that she otherwise would likely have gained.

I do have a sense that her past is better known than is Obama's.

[roni]

At the end of the CNN article on the letter 20 Clinton backers sent to Pelosi re: her statements about the un-pledged delegates:

The letter comes one day after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seemed to suggest Democratic leaders were in the process of working out a deal to ensure the party's nomination fight does not go all the way to the convention.

"Things are being done," Reid told the Las Vegas Review-Journal.


Looks like the Democrats are working on a back room deal. Won't be smoke filled in today's world, though.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by roni

I do not know how many votes it will cost her that she otherwise would likely have gained.

I do have a sense that her past is better known than is Obama's.

I think that is really what you should have said when you considered Obama's past as well...

And Hillary's past is better known, although I think that Obama's books help to overcome that in a positive way for those who read and who might be interested......

I don't think this fact about Hillary is any more helpful to her when one considers her electability in the general election. Indeed, there are serious downsides when I consider them...perhaps similar to those that you may feel regarding Obama's past. <shrug>

Its pretty much a wash for me in this area...IMO, it should come down to who one thinks will be a better President for these times...not who one guesses might be most electable...as in this environment, there are no clear differences on that account.