Who is wasting their money on these polls, and why do the media publish and SIMULTANEOUSLY discount their validity?

Because we are nation of nitwits who need to be entertained by "contests" and "ballot bowls", lest we lose interest. Absent an atmosphere of sporting event, most people wouldn't pay attention at all -and it seems that many don't, as seen by interview of "avearge" voters in Ohio who STILL believe that Obama took his oath on the Koran and refuses to salute the flag.

The Dems need the Gore or Kerry states plus one in the general, and if they get their shit together before self-destructing, they should be able to achieve that, even if they lose by historic margins in the south.

Poll: McCain Trails Clinton, Obama

This is why it is so important for Obama to win. Both are Liberal yes, but at least I am not allergic to Obama.

ABH, anybody but Hillary.

Hillary is in the game only because negative campaigning works. Obama wussed out when he could easily have savaged Hillaries record failures and poor decisions, particularly as it effected Ohio. The Bushies, Clintons and McCains remain on the NAFTA fasttrack. Obama joins those three in refusing to enforce immigration law. Hillary and Obama haven't finished destroying eachother yet. Worse, insiders may decide the nominee.

McCain is a leader and coverup artist in the Abramoff corruption scandal. What we know is the tip of an iceberg because McCain declared 730,000 of 750,000 of Abramoff's emails Defense Secrets. This move saved Bush's ass and more than half of Congress.

Polls this far out are worth about as much as GW's word not to start a preemptive war.

-only because negative campaigning works.

Obama's failure to handle either the NAFTA meeting or Rezko questions were more important to his losses, and no one's responsibility but his own.

Obama's failure to handle either the NAFTA meeting or Rezko questions were more important to his losses, and no one's responsibility but his own.



I think you're right, but negative campaigning DOES work, and I wouldn't discount its effectiveness. It could turn out to be disastrous in Nov, though, if they resort to using negative ads from here.

I think Clinton shares more of the blame in this regard at this point, which doesn't surprise me at all. There are few angels in politics, as Obama is fully aware.

oh corky...I was going to cut and paste one part of your post but I couldnt find more than a word or two that wasnt liberal tripe.....so lets talk about the message of your post instead.
yeah its way too early and it appears more and more likely that the dems will go right to convention and thats in august I believe. so that leaves rest of august and then sept for the nominee to spread their lies and bullshit about mccain(with plenty of help from our DR "LIB SIBS").,....hey I just made up a phrase.
that sure doesnt seem like a very long time in a presidential race. of course since they have been doing little more than bashing bush since 2000 maybe its not short enough.

We should all remember one significant thing, McCain hasn't chosen a running mate yet and that could give him a boost if he chooses the right person. The Dems on the other hand probably wouldn't increase their lead over McCain even if they chose each other. The race is going to be closer than we once thought, I predict.

The race is going to be closer than we once thought, I predict.

I agree.

Conventional wisdom still favors your side - but it is no longer a foregone conclusion IMO.

The race is going to be closer than we once thought...



I'm not cracking a joke because it would be way too easy, instead I will just ask the question:

Has the word "race" in the above context been capitalized on by the Clinton supporters in regards to the Obama-ites hyper-PC tendancies and uber-thin skin?
If not, why not?

McCain should choose Alan Keyes

Polls are worthless.

The race could very well change dramatically after the first debate, in which McCain will likely appear stodgy and old-fashioned (his answers are rmabling and dull), and he says "my friends" enough times to remind everyone why grandpa should no longer drive.

Eight years of Bush has determined what a comfortable majority of people will not vote for. We don't need self-serving media BS designed to avoid real reporting while keeping the advertising dollars rolling in.

There will be smears and lies from all sides as usual for the next 8 months while the media cashes in but the vote will still be "Anybody but another Republican".

(Incidently, Rasmussen is usually most accurate.)

I was just going to say that if you are going to follow any polls right now, and you're nuts if you do, Rasmussen is the one you should consider. They are on the mark more than anyone.

I just posted next door:

McCain will surely be asked if he's running on Bush's "accomplishments" or against them. And as Simon and Garfunkel said, either way you choose, you lose. The Repub smear machine is not yet fully oiled up, however. There's NOTHING I put past those guys.

Member 439,549 writes: This is why it is so important for Obama to win. Both are Liberal yes, but at least I am not allergic to Obama. ABH, anybody but Hillary." Fearing (s)he's not alone, that's my reason too.

And for BLT, more liberal tripe ... herm

From Time Magazine:

"In survey after survey, they agreed that the coming choice between President Jimmy Carter and Challenger Ronald Reagan was "too close to call." A few points at most, they said, separated the two major contenders.

But when the votes were counted, the former California Governor had defeated Carter by a margin of 51% to 41% in the popular vote--a rout for a U.S. presidential race"

Just because the press wants Obama or Hillary does not mean that they will make it. Just because you do not want another republican president - doesn't mean you will not get one.

By the time this is over - Hillary will have torn Obama a new one - and the scars will show going into the general election.

If Hillary does get the nomination - it will be because the "super delegates" set aside the popular vote (similar to the Communist Party where the party officials choose who would run and win - without even considering the populace) and this will fracture the democratic party - as 90% of blacks will no longer support the Democrats as they did in the past.

But in either case we will have either;

a too liberal republican in McCain who has authored the worst legislation we have seen (McCain Feingold, McCain Kennedy) or

we have a Machiavellian Communist in Hillary (though the thought of a free Bill Clinton in the Whitehouse would be very entertaining)

or a neophyte in Obama which believes we should pull out of Iraq but stay close by so we can go back in if we need to? (pretty stupid way to fight a war) and that you can reason with power hungry mad men. (can you say Chamberlin?)

Sad day for America

-If Hillary does get the nomination - it will be because the "super delegates" set aside the popular vote

Nope. Hillary will have the popular vote after Penn, or they will virtually tied by the convention.