Ha Ha Ha!

"He also said superdelegates were free to..."

I've got some news for Dean: The superdelegates need not wait for him to tell them what they can and cannot do. They're free to do pretty much whatever they want, unless it violates Earl Long's prohibition about getting caught in bed with a dead woman or a live boy. In which case, the superdelegate would probably be a closet Republican.

I have never said that SDs are not free to make their own decisions. What I have said is that if Obama goes in with more votes, more states and more pledged delegates, the SDs will have to back him unless there is some scandal at the time; otherwise, the Democrats will fall apart.

"They should use whatever yardstick they want," Dean said in an interview at party headquarters. "That's what the rules provide for."

----

Can't complain about "disenfranchised votes" then when you have a system in place where 20% will be determined by the party members themselves for whatever reason they want.

"Overall, Obama has 1,632 delegates to Clinton's 1,500, according to the latest AP tally."

That is what, about a 4 percent lead in delegates in a delegate race that is basically over because neither candidate will reach the Magic Number without the rest of the SDs?

That is a statistical tie, particularly when considering that caucus numbers are totaled in with primaries. Not enough to sway SD's by itself as to who is the best candidate in the fall, and that 4 percent may be lower in July.

The popular vote will also likely be a statistical tie, particularly if FL and MI are counted. If they are not, then the nomination will be bogus anyway with millions of voters disenfranchised by Obama, and the general election lost.

"millions of voters disenfranchised by Obama"

When did Obama force Florida and Michigan to move up their primaries?

Can't complain about disenfranchised votes.

Obama has held-up re-votes allowable under DNC rules by refusing to agree to them.

Speaking Tuesday on National Public Radio, Pelosi dismissed the letter as unimportant. Dean agreed, rejecting the characterization of those who had called it a political ransom note. "This is a democratic society," Dean said, "and they're going to use lots of different angles to get what they want. And that's their business."

----

But it's not a democratic primary because of the SD's.

When did 1632 equal 1500?? Funny dat Be.

Larry

"millions of voters disenfranchised by Obama"

From the school of: "If I just keep saying it enough maybe somebody will think it is true".

A bit like "There was a definite connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda". - Dick Cheney

and

"No one could possibly have imagined..." - Condi Rice

It isn't a tie, she is still losing, it doesn't matter what the margin is.

Also, there used to be this poster here named Corky that agreed with the point that it would be hard for SDs to go against a candidate if that candidate didn't win votes, states or pledged delegates.

Obama has agred to abide by the rules how is THAT preventng a revote?? God Hellaryites are so God damned desperate they just make shit up as they go along.

Larry Mohr

Fine Mr. Pirate.

As a concerned Dem ;^) you can work to democratize the rules of the DNC as they pertain to nominations. But not in the middle of the race if you don't mind. Wait until next time.

"When did 1632 equal 1500?? "

When it did not equal 2025.

"When it did not equal 2025."

Vernon Calculator(TM) ALERT!

1632 does not eual 1500 no matter how You fucking slice it Corky. For fuck sake Clinton is losing and You Hellaryites just can not stand it. You want to lie and obfuscate the truth, Bunch of shit if You ask Me. Face Reality Hellary is losing Her ass and all Her fixtures too.

Larry Mohr

Also, there used to be this poster here named Corky that agreed with the point that it would be hard for SDs vote for a candidate if that candidate didn't win votes, states or pledged delegates

Sorry about that.

The Masked Buckeroo can find Ed Rendell on SoftObamaBall detailing the fact that Obama supporters in the MI legislature killed the re-vote there.

Rendell may be a Clinton supporter, but he has a reputation for straight talk. Besides, anyone not drowning in the Obama Koolaide can see for themselves that Obama has refused to support DNC sanctioned re-votes that would give Clinton the lead in the popular vote.

Do try and keep up.

I give up and am going back to tax world. I can't type today. 4 hours of sleep a night is catching up with me.

Well in MI they were trying to prevent Dems from being able to vote, didn't they?

The pledged delegate portion of the race is over in the sense that neither candidate can win with pledged delegates alone. So the result is only meaningful in the minds of SDs as to how much weight they want to put on the 2-4 percent delegate difference there will be when the voting stops.

Not much, says here. With both candidates tied statistically in both pledge delegates and popular vote, the SD's will concentrate on who can best beat the numbers in the Electoral College.

Ah yes, because Ed Rendell said so. I'm convinced.

Yet another FF for Corky.

As a concerned Dem ;^) you can work to democratize the rules of the DNC as they pertain to nominations. But not in the middle of the race if you don't mind. Wait until next time.

----

Sorry but I'm not using the disenfranchised votes argument. You are.

It's not like the SD's are new. If Obama is leading in pledged delegates and the popular vote by even 1 and the SDs choose Clinton, you have disenfranchised votes. But I'm sure you wouldn't really care about those since Clinton would be the nominee.

The primary is not close to 100% democratic so the whole "right to vote" and "disenfranchised vote" argument does hold any water.

does NOT hold any water

And just to be absolutely clear, neither the delegate count nor the popular vote are "statistical" ties since, by definition, a statistical tie exists when there is an allowance for a sampling error accounted for by scientific method. There is no statistical tie possible in raw numbers.

In the minds of SDs is the only place the statistical tie matters.

With both candidates tied statistically in both pledge delegates and popular vote

But they aren't. I will give you the fact that they are close, but close only counts in horse-shoes and hand-grenades.

In the minds of SDs is the only place the statistical tie matters

Thank goodness they are smarter than Clinton supporters and realize that if one candidate goes in leading in the three categories and with a clean nose, then it is prudent to support that candidate. Moreover, thank God for the media that reminds people that a coup by the SDs will be disasterous for the Party.

RCP Average has the Clinton PA margin down to 6: 48.3 - 42.3.

That's the way to go, Bucky! If Obama wins Penn it will be all over but the waiting around to see what else he has in his closet besides Rev Wrong.

By the by Taxi, unless one has 2024 delegates, close doesn't count at all, except in the minds of SDs.

By the by Taxi, unless one has 2024 delegates, close doesn't count at all, except in the minds of SDs.

And those SDs will back the candidate with the most states, most votes and most pledged delegates. The only chance Clinton has right now is for some sort of scandal to pop up, so you better start digging.

"And those SDs will back the candidate with the most states, most votes and most pledged delegates."

No, not if they are statistically tied; not unless one candidate is significantly ahead. The SDs job is to vote for who can best win in the fall. Period.

No the Job of the Super Delegate is to uphld the will pof the People. Or does that not matter to You Corky??? God why don't You want to will of the people carried out??? If You do not support the SUper Delegates upholding the will of the people then You do not believe in a Democracy. PERIOD

Larry Mohr

The SDs job is to vote for who can best win in the fall. Period.

----

You're wrong, according to Dean. They vote however they wish.

Oh Obama IS sigificantly ahead.I would feel significantly ahead with 1,632 dollars than I would with 1,500 dollars. THAT is for damned sure.

Larry Mohr

not if they are statistically tied

They aren't statitically tied and they won't be unless Hillary wins by large margins in the up coming elections. Her best chance was a wide margin win in Pennsylvania, but that looks like it may have gone by the wayside. It appears the message of fear blasting across the airwaves that the longer this goes on the more likely the Dems will lose in the Fall has resonated with Pennsylvania voters.

There won't be a statistical tie there will be a leader and someone who isn't leading in the categories. "Statistical Tie" is all the Clintonites have left to grasp on to.

Another SD in the Obama column - WY Governor will endorse Obama.

I can only recommend antidepressants, prescription of course, to Mr Mohr.

WY Governor will endorse Obama.

Wow! What a get! In a state he was projected to win anyway. She'll take KY and WV, him Wy and NC. Indiana will be close.

"Wow! What a get!"

What an astounding response from a Clintonista! Anyone and anything that doesn't support Hillary is unimportant and inconsequential.

LOL!

PS: He already won the state. Now he has another one of their SDs. - another nail in the Clinton coffin, what?

Hellaryites are nucking futs. Wth Gas Prices at 3.30 a Gallon I bet You would feel more ahead with 1,632 Gallons of gas compared to 1,500. It's only common sense of course Hellaryites lack that.

Larry Mohr

unimportant and inconsequential.


I didn't know we were talking about you. Sorry.

She'll take KY and WV, him Wy and NC. Indiana will be close.

If that is the case then there is no statistical tie, Obama still goes in with a lead in states, votes and pledged delegates. The SDs will go with the leader in the three categories, and then the Dems work on seating MI and FL. After that, everyone is happy and the Dems go on to win in the Fall.

Hillary becomes Senate Majority leader and wreaks havoc on the Obama administration.

That's the way I would write if I were Aaron Sorkin.

I didn't know we were talking about you. Sorry.

When all else fails Corky resorts to personal attacks. Typical.

"I didn't know we were talking about you. Sorry.

Posted by Seaton_Begg"

Scathingling brilliant response, Corky. I can't even imagine how I'll ever recover from such a witty rejoinder.

LOL

*Scathingly*

The more Bill Clinton flips out about this race is anyone thinking he may not endorse Obama after he wins the nomination? Not that he would endorse McCain, the guy voted to impeach him on both counts so that wouldn't happen... but does anyone think that he just may not endorse him?

"a 4 percent lead in delegates. . . That is a statistical tie."

Au contraire, my dear Alphonse. That is a 4% lead.

That's an interesting take on it... President Clinton just seems so furious right now... especially with the Richardson endorsement.

"She'll take KY and WV, him Wy and NC"

Its kinda hard to take you seriously Corky when Obama already won WY back on March 8.

To borrow your phrase..."Do try and keep up."

I wouldn't be surprised if the Clintons come out and say, "hey we were just messing around and trying to toughen up Obama. We know he is a good guy and we know he is a strong candidate, but we just didn't want to see him end up like Kerry come November."

Maureen Dowd pretty much says the same thing today:

Good points, Taxman.

It's actually far better that the largely made up "controversy" over Obama's church get thrashed out in the media now (beyond FOX who've been plinking that one note over and over fer over a year now) rather than to let the RT's spring it on a barely paying attentio public just before the vote comes down.

Spud's sed it before and he'll say it again. The only real issues the Right and Hillary have to use against Obama have are Rezko (largely dealt with), Wright (in the process of being dealt with) and Obama corporate connections (Expect this to emerge in the coming weks and months).

None of that adds up to a hummingbird fart in a windstorm when compared to the reasons against voting fer McCain or even Hillary but sure, let this crap get vetted early and then the forces-that-be who're hating on Obama will find their guns empty when the real fight begins.

All politicians are imperfect. That's a given, all human being are flawed creatures who exist in one form of sin0-state or another. The argument is not Obama is not perfect ergo he is unelectable. The only real argument is which o fthecndidates is least flawed and Obama wins that one hands down.

It might take some folks a while to get their wee minds wrapped around that reality. Some folks never will. Grand Kleagles of the KKK, religious fundie fucknuts on the right, MIC whores, K streeters, some Wall Streeters, of course, but on the whole, most Main Streeters should be able to grok the advantages of an Obama presidency

McAncient is just too old, too dumb, too much of a panderer, too tied into the MIC and a depressingly long list of failed ideas to be desired by anyone with sense.

Hillary talks a good game but represents the old guard and the status quo far too much to be seen as the true candidate of change and is too loathed to be an effective uniter.

That leaves Obama.

GObama. 08ama '08.

Be Well.

I love it. Keep going. Everybody.

It's actually far better that the largely made up "controversy" over Obama's church get thrashed out in the media now (beyond FOX who've been plinking that one note over and over fer over a year now) rather than to let the RT's spring it on a barely paying attentio public just before the vote comes down.

I agree with that and it doesn't upset me that Hillary uses it against him, for the most part.

If Obama wins, Bill and Hillary will have to rally around Obama to unify the party. Wonder how they will approach that.

"I have never said that SDs are not free to make their own decisions. What I have said is that if Obama goes in with more votes, more states and more pledged delegates, the SDs will have to back him unless there is some scandal at the time; otherwise, the Democrats will fall apart."

How does this work? You say they are free to make their own decisions, but that they have to back Obama anyway if he is leading in the polls. They don't have to do anything, just like Dean said. What does "the Democrats will fall apart" mean?

"That is a 4% lead."

Means nothing at less than 2024, except in the minds of SDs.

Oh my! I conflated Wyoming with Oregon!
Now the Masked Buckaroo will want to swat me on the ass again. Methinks he dost enjoy that too much!

Joe, they are free to make their own decisions, but like every decision there are consequences that flow from that decision.

It is widely viewed that if Obama goes in with more votes, more delegates and more votes and Clinton comes out with the nomination (and there is no scandal on the Obama side at the time), that many Dem voters will feel as though they were shafted and end up not coming out to support Hillary in the Fall.

Again, they are free to make their own decisions if they please, but they will more than likely face the consequences if they go against the will of the voters.

"Oh my! I conflated Wyoming with Oregon!"

Yes, certainly a common error.

Nearly as common an error as conflating incoming sniper fire with poetry from a young Bosnian girl.

"many Dem voters will feel as though they were shafted and end up not coming out to support Hillary in the Fall."

Who are they going to vote for? McCain?

Which brings me back to another question I frequently ask - what's the difference between Hillary and Obama? Why do you care who gets the nomination?

You say they are free to make their own decisions, but that they have to back Obama anyway if he is leading in the polls.

That struck me as odd too Joe...

If they are free to make their own decision why do the HAVE to vote for Obama or not vote for him, under any circumstance?

Dean is just a disaster... I love him.

"Hillary talks a good game but represents the old guard and the status quo"

Ah well, if the electorate consisted of far left-wing frozen vegetables, then Obama would be President in a landslide.

But since in the real world this electorate is moderate, they will as likely or more vote in McCain as Obama, and more likely Hillary of the three.

"Means nothing at less than 2024, except in the minds of SDs."

What the hell is that supposed to mean? More "conflation"?

"as likely or more"

Please, think these things through before you post. You'll make more sense, be more easily understood, and not sound so much like Corky. But do feel free to give it another try.

If you hadn't noticed, Dr Strange, it takes 2024 delegates to win (without MI and FL). Less than that and $5 will get you a latte.

Doc Strange, Grammar Nazi.

If they are free to make their own decision why do the HAVE to vote for Obama or not vote for him, under any circumstance?

----

I think it would be party and political suicide to overturn the will of the voters. Especially given the passion of the supporters in this race. There would be a mass exodus that I think would hurt the Dems at every level in the future.

Not a grammar Nazi, Corky, just someone who likes to see matters stated with some clarity. I know you're pretty busy, running around trying to put out the bonfires of the vanities that Hillary's campaign has become, but that's still no excuse for sounding like someone who just finished their second lesson in a Berlitz English class.

Neverthless, do keep trying.

"I think it would be party and political suicide to overturn the will of the voters."

Maybe, but you aren't overturning the will of all voters by choosing someone that has nearly as many delegates as the other guy. In a sense you're only overturning the will of whatever number of Obama voters exceeds the number of Hillary voters. Millions of Americans want Hillary to be the nominee, and super delegates are free to take that into account and agree with them.

-it would be party and political suicide to overturn the will of the voters

Not if that "will" is statistically insignificant. SD's responsibility is to elect the candidate they feel can best McCain in the Electoral College. If the numbers are very close in delegates and popular vote, then they needn't be to worried about them.

The idea that if Obama leads by 1 delegate or 1 person, SD's must vote for him is absurd.

Did you buy that latte, Doc, or did you not have enough delegates?

In a sense you're only overturning the will of whatever number of Obama voters exceeds the number of Hillary voters.

----

You'd end up overturning the majority. Why have the people vote if their majority vote gets trumped in the end?

The idea that if Obama leads by 1 delegate or 1 person, SD's must vote for him is absurd.

----

So you're for voter disenfranchisement. Gotcha.

Why have the people vote if their majority vote gets trumped in the end?

Posted by Pirate at 2008-04-02 03:31 PM | Reply


I think the question you really need to ask is "Why have Super Delegates at all?".

SD's responsibility is to elect the candidate they feel can best McCain in the Electoral College.

----

Again, no it's not. They can use whatever yardstick they want, even if that yard stick is the delegate lead.

WOW Corky first pitches a fit and declares that Obama is disenfranchising Michigan Voters. Next He says that the voters really don't matter to Him. Aparently Corky doesn't believe in Democracy or the democratic prosess. Aparently He doesn't believe in the will of the people.

Larry Mohr

I think the question you really need to ask is "Why have Super Delegates at all?".

----

I think it's very ironic and that the Democratics fight for "the will of the people" in the general elections but have a system set up to trump the voters in their own primary.

"Gotcha."

I'm for playing by the rules as they exist today, not by what you think they should be.


"They can use whatever yardstick they want, even if that yard stick is the delegate lead."

True, if that is what makes them think that that candidate can win in the fall, which is their mandate under the rules.

What if a SD thinks Clinton would be a better President than Obama but Obama has a better chance at beating McCain?

Whom should that SD vote for?

"Did you buy that latte"

Must be weird for you, Corky, typing drivel throughout the day and living in a fantasy world, surrounded by the white-hot fires of Hillary's vanity and yammering on about topics which are of significance only to yourself.

Your opining on what is and what is not "statistically insignificant" are hillarious. Who gets to be the judge of that one, Corky?

Try and get out more. But, please, feel free to keep on trying between strolls in search of fresh air.

Not if that "will" is statistically insignificant. SD's responsibility is to elect the candidate they feel can best McCain in the Electoral College. If the numbers are very close in delegates and popular vote, then they needn't be to worried about them.
The idea that if Obama leads by 1 delegate or 1 person, SD's must vote for him is absurd.

Posted by Seaton_Begg at 2008-04-02 03:26 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

First He says they are Free Agents now He says that they have a responsibility to do what HE wants them to do. Either they are Free agents or not Corky. God being a Hellary Lackey must suck.

Larry Mohr

"Why have Super Delegates at all?".

A system designed to keep someone who could win all the far lefties in a Dem primary (caucus)from losing big-time in the general.

Going forward, caucuses should be replaced by primaries, probably a few regional ones, and SDs cut in half.

"God being a Hellary Lackey must suck."

Among pols it's known as "pulling a Lewinsky."

"Who gets to be the judge of that one"

The SDs, most obviously. They don't loosen that tight white jacket or let you out of your room much do they?

"Whom should that SD vote for?"

Whom his conscience dictates, given your scenario.

If a Super Delegate is a Free Agent then a Mandate they do not have.

Larry Mohr

Whom his conscience dictates, given your scenario.

----

Which might not be the person who has the best chance of winning the general election.

No, Pirate, the rules mandate that SDs should vote their conscience on who they feel most qualified to win the general election. Not all that complicated, really.

So they should vote for a weaker governing candidate because they have a better shot?

Man, the Democrats are more screwed up than I thought.

SDs are Free Agents in that they can choose who they think can best win in the fall, which is their mandate, no matter what the delegate or vote count is.

Is that simple enough for you, Mr Mohr?

Of course, SDs will not overturn the will of the people if that will is very clear. If the candidates are statistically even, then all bets are off.

"True, if that is what makes them think that that candidate can win in the fall, which is their mandate under the rules...

...the rules mandate that SDs should vote their conscience on who they feel most qualified to win the general election."

Perhaps Corky could direct us to the section of the DNC rules where that "mandate" resides.

I doubt it, because it doesn't exist. The only rules covering "Unpledged" (they're not actually called Super) Delegates is found in Rule 9 which governs who can be one. They have no mandate under the rules.

No Corky that's not how it works. If You declare someone a Free Agent then there is NO Mandate whatsoever. You can not declare that they have a Mandate AT ALL and at the very same time state they have a Mandate. It's intellectually Dishonest to do so.

Larry Mohr

If you haven't a Degree in Convolution, Pirate, you deserve one.

In this particular case, it may be that regular voters decide in the general election that their candidate IS the weaker governing candidate and vote for the other Party.

McCain Dems.

Let Me correct that. You can notdeclare someone has a Mandate and subsequently a Free Agent. It's intellectually dishonest to do so.

Larry Mohr

"They have no mandate under the rules."

Their purpose is to assure that the Dem nominee they choose has the best chance to win in an Electoral College election.

If you think they are there to vote for who they think will lose, please let us know.

In this particular case, it may be that regular voters decide in the general election that their candidate IS the weaker governing candidate and vote for the other Party.

----

The only thing that matters is what is in the SD's minds, remember.

That SD might think one candidate could govern better but the other has a better chance of winning.

In short, the SDs can vote whomever for whatever reason. Not just who can win the general election.

Deflection deluxe, Corky.

You claimed multiple times that "they have a mandate under the rules."

Show us.

There may have been an understanding of intent at the time they were created, but there is no mandate.

I know you have this penchant for throwing stuff out and hoping nobody challenges it, but put up or shut up on your "mandate" crap.

Plus what if there is a "statistically tied" chance of winning in the general election?

How should the SD's vote then?

Their purpose is to assure that the Dem nominee they choose has the best chance to win in an Electoral College election.

You won't have to worry about the Electoral College if the SDs go against the will of the voters.

Honest question: do you believe that there will not be any backlash if Obama goes in with more states, more votes and more pledged delegates, and he does not come out with the nomination?

Here is the problem: if Obama goes in ahead on all three and doesn't come out with the nomination, many Obama supporters are going to be livid and either not show up to vote or vote McCain/Independent. If Hillary comes out behind in all three, and the MI and FL delegates are seated at the Convention, there is really nothing for Hillary supporters to be upset about. She would have lost after running a hell of a campaign, but there are losers in every race. There wouldn't be a backlash, but there would need to be some time for healing. Can you understand the differnece there? Of course this is all assuming that Obama is ahead in all three categories once the final primary has occurred.

"The SDs, most obviously."

Oh, what a relief. The way you've been arrogantly hawking your nonsense, I was afraid you'd gone over the edge completely and thought the determination of what is or what is not "statistically significant" was actually up to you.

See what happens when you waddle out and get get a little fresh air? Much better than inhaling that stale smoke from the bonfires of Hillary's vanities.

Do keep trying.

"the bonfires of Hillary's vanities."

After the 30th use, this falls under the Triteness Rule, and costs you 10 delegates or one latte, whichever is most valuable at the time.

The Masked Buckleroo thinks that SDs are chosen to lose the election? Did I say "thinks"? Sorry.

Yes, I see the light. Hillary is the one.

Wait, sorry. The brain washing didn't take.

STDs are Free Biological Agents?

Actually, a lot of people pay fer them.

Sorry, wozzit?

No, Spud didn't read the article, why do you ask?

** Spud reads article **

Howard Dean sez SDs are free agents?

Uh-huh, Dean, more than any other person in the Dem party should know about the down side of replaying the '68 Moment or the 88 Momment with Gary Hart or his own swiftboating via the constantly replayed Deam Scream moment.

Favoring the one "whose turn it is" over the populist candidate is not a good move for the Dems and they shoulda figured this out by now.

Those who don't learn from their mistakes are destined to repeat them endlssly.

FAIL!

Be Well.

/On the plus side the Rethugs are incapable of even acknowleging their mistakes much less learning from them.

"After the 30th use..."

Sorry it gets under your skin so much, but that's the price you pay for dancing around the bonfires of Hillary's vanities.

Oh, I forgot, Corkscrew a.ka. Sit n' Beg: You're the self-designaited Style Queen.

Quick! Duck! What wuzzat? A sniper?

LOL

I swear if Corky (whatever the name is now) says "statistical tie" once more I will lose my lunch. This must be the "buzz word" from the Hillary campaign "talking point to post on blogs today" e-mail, "keep talking about them being in a statistical tie, ignore the fact that he is ahead in delegates, ahead in states and ahead in popular vote, just keep saying statistical tie, if we say it often enough people might believe it."

"Going forward, caucuses should be replaced by primaries"

Let me guess, if Hillary had won all the caucuses and Obama the primaries, you would now be saying "going forward, primaries should be replaced by caucuses". Doesn't your head hurt after banging it on the desk that much?

"Grammar Nazi"

You've gone all-pathetic on us now, Corkscrew, Cokefresh, Sit n' Beg, or whatever moniker you choose to use.

Enjoy leaping around the bonfire of Hillary's vanities.

The fat little fish that gives it one last leap before ending up in the fisherman's creel. Enjoy the journey, flunky!

LOL

Thats a hat trick on FF's today for Corky Lou Who.

"But do try to come up with some retort for what I said about your boy."

Those subjects have pretty much been discussed to death on numerous other threads over many weeks. What would be the point of contributing to your deflection away from the actual topic of the thread?

Am I "mandated under the rules" to do so, Corky?

Sorry you've run out of decent arrows in your little q-q-q-q-q-uiver, Corky. Keep dancing around that bonfire. And don't forget to keep repeating: "I believe...I believe...I believe." It's all you've got left, chump.

From Rasmussen's Daily Tracking Poll from yesterday.

"Looking ahead to the General Election, John McCain leading Barack Obama 47% to 41%. He leads Hillary Clinton 46% to 42% (see recent daily results). The survey shows that 19% of Democratic Primary voters will vote for McCain over Clinton. Twenty-two percent (22%) will vote for McCain over Obama. While Clinton and Obama campaign in Pennsylvania, McCain took time out to trade jokes with David Letterman. At the same time, Joe Lieberman said that Barack Obama does not bring much credibility to the debate on Iraq.

Among voters nationwide, McCain is now viewed favorably by 57% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 41%. Obama's reviews are 49% favorable and 49% unfavorable. For Clinton, those numbers are 44% favorable, 53% unfavorable (see recent daily results)."


I know, I know...All our little Leftist friends and Obamaniacs want to dismiss any data not reflecting their desires, but you MUST consider this too:

"Rasmussen Reports' Election 2006 coverage has been praised for its accuracy and reliability. Michael Barone, Senior Writer for U.S. News & World Report and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, mentions, "One clear lesson from the Republican victory of 2004 and the Democratic victory of 2006 is that the best place to look for polls that are spot on is RasmussenReports.com." And University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato states, "In election campaigns, I've learned to look for the Rasmussen results. In my experience, they are right on the money. There is no question Rasmussen produces some of the most accurate and reliable polls in the country today."

Rasmussen Reports was also the nation's most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome."

"Rasmussen Reports was also the nation's most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome."

But Rasmussen didn't do it 7 months out.

Remember, these are the same guys who got New Hampshire so wrong, the day before. These polls mean nothing until the nominees are set and the dust settles. Folks who claim they'd "never" vote for one candidate or the other will have a change of heart when they realize the alternative, on both sides. For proof, look no further than The New McCainites, the Limbaughs of the world who hated him a few weeks ago, and are now starting to fawn. It'll be the same for the Dems as well.

I posted the Quinnipiac poll because of relevance to the SD argument. Clinton will be using this as part of her strategy. Like it or not, Clinton's case is much better than it's made out to be. I'm interested in knowing how Obama will counter. How can be make up the difference in key states?

Russert had a very interesting "number crunching" session this morning. He looked at electoral votes. A couple of states and the outcome changes for Obama, or Clinton. More interesting was, based on likely past elections this one could very well end up 269/269 D/R - with the deciding vote for President going to the House of Representatives.

"How can be make up the difference in key states?"

By becoming the nominee.

"Those subjects have pretty much been discussed to death..."

Translated from the Pig Latin: "You are right in what you said, I have no retort to any of it."

"You are right in what you said, I have no retort to any of it."

That's funny because that is exactly how I interpreted your neglected response to my post at 4:24 yesterday.

"Translated from the Pig Latin:"

Well, I bow to your superior knowledge on that.

Now what was this thread about again?

"If you still have no retort to what I said about your boy,"

This thread is not about that topic Corky. But apparently you thought that if you threw that in it would somehow call attention away from the fact that you had nothing pertinent to add.

I was "mandated under the rules" to vote to get you back on track.

I posted this...

That post doesn't even come close to addressing the question I asked or the points made. It was a deflection. As such, my interpretation stands.