BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging

Subject: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 06:07 PM

Latest Gallup poll shows Obama closing in on Clinton nationally, with the gap between them smaller than a week ago before Edwards dropped out: Clinton 48% Obama 41%.

McCain is surging and surging again, and has left Romney in the dust. It looks like Tuesday will sew up the Republican coronation here in St Paul.

God, I hope either Clinton or Obama cinches it Tuesday too, because the idea of it going beyond another week is already getting pretty tiresome. I don't see a damn bit of difference between the two, so I don't give a damn which one it is.

I don't think either of them can beat McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 06:55 PM

Exactly which blue state, G.G., do you see McCain takin' that Kerry didn't take???

Throw in the economy in Ohio which, guilty or not, McCain is going to get blamed for by association + Virginia, which may very likely come in for the Dems on Mark Warner's coat tails and I think it is somewhat a wish on yer part, GG... Polls and electorial college are two different beasts...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 07:00 PM

I suspect that some people emerge from their hole only when the opportunity arises to stir serious muck, not, in any sense, to clarify, dignify or codify the issues. Right, Janet?

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 07:03 PM

Ebbie, nice to *see* you!

It's too damn early for the endless speculation which is taking over the airwaves and the BS section here. Another argument against guests staring threads down here.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 07:11 PM

I think the only thing that could defeat McCain is his age, or Iraq blowing up. Or Orsome huge snaffu over the horizon none of us can see--which is always a possibility for any candidate.

If McCain can beat back the age issue by maintaining really good health through November, and he makes a good choice for VEEP (ie, someone younger, rigorous, moderate and somewhat independent of Bush/Cheney and Pat Robertson sort of ideology), I really do believe he is a shoe-in against Clinton or Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 07:20 PM

Sheesh. I do hope you're mistaken about that, GG.

Not that I don't view the entire US electoral process with a certain measure of grim humour these days...

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 07:29 PM

I think we're screwed no matter what, Little Hawk. Is that depressing? Yes, it absolutely is. Is there a cheerful spin to put on it?

Not unless you enjoy American Idol reruns.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Big Mick
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 07:38 PM

GG, re: your post of 7:11 PM. You do understand hedging your bets, don't you.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 07:40 PM

Isn't politics a game of hedging bets?

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 07:48 PM

Lemme see, now, GUEST,Guest. . . .

How many threads have you started this past week, each one a tiny variation on the same theme?

Why doesn't one of the clones combine all these threads so the place doesn't wind up choking with clutter?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 07:49 PM

Iraq has allrerady blown up... Check out the US economy if you need any further evidence, G.G...

Half a trillion borrowed from the Chinese and growing every day to the tune of another billion dollar$$$$$...

Yes, Iraq and stupid fiscal policies are bankryupting the US at a rate that no economist's nightmare scenerio could have concieved of 7 years ago...

The US is hopelessly screwed... Between Iraq and globalization, the US's economy is about on par with those of Mexico, Russian and Brazil with all the wealth concentrated at the very top and everyone else scamblin'....

Yeah, and guess what, G.G??? The American people are figurin' it out and guess what, part B, G.G.??? Yer guy, guilty or not, is gonna get caught up in the purge of old schoolers that got US into this crisis...

Like they used to say in the 60's, "You are either part of the problem or part of the solution"... McCain/McWar has been too chummy with Bush to be able to create enough seperation to be seen as "part of the solution"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 08:53 PM

I have several relatives (in-laws mostly, thank the powers that be) in the Air Force. All of them are staunch Bush supporters whose votes will go to McCain or Romney. Of their families, mine is the only one for Clinton or Obama.

Like GG, and the CNN polls, I expect a close one.

I'd like threads combined, too, Firth. I find only three by GG and one of these (FL primary) is about dead because it is over and has been milked dry. Amos has started more (surprise) but the subject is important to a lot of us armchair politicos.

A cover title now could be, "Feb 5th- "Speculation, Results and Post-mortem." One thread for each party.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Amos
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 09:39 PM

Hey--I started the Popular Views threads -- one on Bush, one on Obama. Well, maybe a few others in the heat of Bush's worst moments. Gimme a break here!! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 09:58 PM

Obama drew 20,000 people to the Target Center in Minneapolis today, and tomorrow Clinton will be here at a much smaller venue.

I think the vote will be split between the two of them on Tuesday, with Obama having enough delegates to at least claim he has the Big Mo, even if he doesn't really have it.

I think the fat lady will sing for the Republicans on Tuesday, but it ain't over yet for the Dems.

My .02 ain't worth much these days, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 11:42 PM

Not complaining Amos- just pointing out that there aren't all that many political threads going.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 04:51 PM

If the Dems can show in their ads that McCain is a continuation of Bush, I believe they can win.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 10:55 PM

The Democrats can win with Obama--who will unite the Democrats, get lots of independents, and even some Republicans--( see the op ed by Susan Eisenhower, for instance--and she is not alone)- -- and get scads of new voters.

With Hillary--let's see: quite a few unenthusiastic Democrats, very few independents, hardly any new voters, and--despite all the gnashing of teeth by Republicans now, when push comes to shove, very few will not react to the well-known magic words for Republicans: President Hillary Clinton.

And none will vote for Hillary.

So it should be fairly obvious who has the best chance against McCain in the fall.

And it ain't Hillary.

If anybody disagrees with this analysis, it would be good to hear some logic and evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Peace
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 11:00 PM

I have been calling Obama as next president for months. I am happy to see him into the race now. The man just hit his stride. I think he'll take California. US politics is about to receive a big shock on Tuesday when it finds out it just voted for the best candidate in decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Charley Noble
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 11:00 PM

Clinton's campaign is definitely looking defensive at this point. Still strong in some states but unable to enroll any new energy where it might be useful. Still she may have enough inertia (if not momentum) to garner a bare majority of delegates this Tuesday.

At this point I view Obama as having more potential for outmaneuvering McCain in the General Election than Clinton. And I think he would do even better against Romney.

I wish I had a better argument for why I think Obama is the better choice as a President. I've settled for less interesting candidates in the past, I suppose.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 11:12 PM

Charley--

Don't you think that rejecting cynicism for hope and rejecting divisive politics for unity are good reasons to vote for Obama? As I understand, that is the basis of his candidacy. And I can't imagine a better man to make the case.

And of course it's the opposite of a naive crusade--he knows about the issues, as was made plain in the debate with Hillary.

Subject: BS: Money running for Obama
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 08:44 AM

The Clinton camp announced their totals for January. Obama is out-milking the nation 2 to 1.

Now doesn't that just cheer you all up? Doesn't it make you feel SO sure Obama and his Big Mo ain't the emperor with no clothes?

He represents the best change for America the corporate plutocracy can buy.

Yeah Obama! We love Obama! Don't look behind that curtain! Look at all those sparkly, shiny Kennedy girls with Oprah and Michelle Obama!

I'm buying that candidate! That candidate is shiny and new! That's what I want! A candidate that doesn't remind me of the economy, the war, the crumbling infrastructure, and mostly, that doesn't show any signs of all those good ole boys hiding behind the curtain, pulling the strings!

Shiny and new! Shiny and new! Be a good American and buy the one that is shiny and new!

---

Message moved to combine threads.
[e-mail]-

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 05:41 PM

So, as Super Tuesday starts to close on the East coast,and gets into its stride on the West - what is the street-level news?

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 06:16 PM

There's "word on the street" that Bobert, having thrown in the towel and given his support to Obama, has nevertheless set his many, many supporters absolutely free to back whomever they wish. What a guy, eh? ;-)

Chongo is already on his way to provide some much-needed security for the Obama camp.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:06 PM

CNN has called Georgia for Obama. They don't have any idea about the Republican side of things.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:35 PM

Georgia Democratic exit polls

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 08:47 PM

I have some difficulty seeing what that is telling me!

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 09:13 PM

Obviously it tells us nothing unless the trend holds and the respondents are telling the truth. It's a tiny sample.

But assuming it does hold, it's news.

Obama is getting at least half, and lopsidedly more of the youngest voters--of white voters under 45--in a Deep South state.

Against this, you have to realize these are Democratic voters only. The state would almost certainly go Republican.

But--if it holds-- it certainly indicates that young white Democratic voters all over the country--not just in "blue states"-- are enthusiastic about voting for Obama.

And it's also worth noting that--especially the young voters-- are not generic Democratic voters--they are Obama voters. Hillary cannot assume that if she is the Democratic nominee, they will come out to support her.

And the Democratic leadership has to realize this--or the Democrats will probably lose the election.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 09:47 PM

"it certainly indicates that young white Democratic voters all over the country--not just in "blue states"-- are enthusiastic about voting for Obama..."

                      Yes it does, but young voters grow up, usually about the time they have to start paying for children who have to depend on them.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 09:58 PM

"grow up" meaning "lose idealism"? Fortunately that won't be happening in the next 9 months--unless the Democrats have the unparalleled stupidity to pick Hillary.

And if they do, as I said, they cannot count on these new voters to support her--and they definitely can count on the Republicans, now snarling viciously at each other, to come together at the threat of President Hillary Clinton.

Whereas many Republicans would be perfectly happy with Obama.

If the Democrats really want to lose the election, there's an easy way--pick Hillary. If on the other hand they'd actually rather win it, they can pick Obama, who will unite the Democrats, get many independents, and scads of new voters--none of which Hillary can do.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 10:34 PM

If you want help raising children, you'd be far better off backing Barack, my friend. He has two young ones and he knows what the hoops are. Hill raised her singlet in the White House and the Governor's manse.




A

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:36 AM

Well, I went to our caucus undecided and wound up voting for Obama. I asked the other why they chose him. They were women and men, of a broad age range, Hispanic, Indian, white, and black. To a one, they said they were voting for change they think Obama is capable of bringing about, that they did not want the "baggage" or "status quo" which would come with Mrs. Clinton. They said much more than that, but that was the main gist. I also was interested to see some Independents who were there to listen in and see what they could do to help. The turnout was outstanding; we had standing room only, until they opened a couple of more classrooms with more seats.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:07 AM

We had a poll too, in Germany, with a very small 3% majority for Obama over Clinton. No, McCain was not a choice in that poll, for the results in such a choice would be too obvious with whoever Republican candidate. Most of the breakdown of the number in this poll were obvious, like the older the person asked the more Clinton votes, but one breakdown did surprise me:

Obama did win easily with the leftmost and the right-wing voters, Clinton did win in the middle and the moderate left.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:12 AM

Why are we so far from being a democracy? I have a French friend who is amazed at all the intermediaries between the voter and the candidates...

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 10:14 AM

The biggest and most debated intermediary is the electoral college system, which was designed as a damper to prevent large population centers (New York and LA) from unduly tipping the balance. There is alot of reading up to do on why it was invented and what detractors think is wrong with it which I have not done. But it should be studied carefully to understand why it is there before getting too anxious to throw it out.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 06:13 PM

I read today that while either C or O could beat either Huckabee or Romney, Clinton would lose to McCain and Obama would beat him. Also, and to my mind contradictorily, Clinton is still preferred over Obama. This was on RealClearPolitics.com, they have a lot of stuff there.

I want McCain to lose. So, should I hope for Obama or Clinton? It's AMAZINGLY hard to tell!

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 06:24 PM

I would vote for Obama. I do not believe his spouse is involved in uranium deals perhaps in exchange for what? mg

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 06:29 PM

"Also, and to my mind contradictorily, Clinton is still preferred over Obama."

Not really contradictory.

I'd imagine Clinton would be preferred by two lots of people - those who would favour her rather than Obama as President, but also by Republicans who might, very reasonably, see Obama as a more dangerous opponent.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:00 PM

It makes no rational sense, in light of yesterday, to claim that Obama can beat McCain and Clinton can't.

Obama lost the majority of states that McCain carried--especially the big states of the Northeast, AZ, CA. etc.

Clinton won most those states pretty handily, which means she still has the better chance of beating McCain. It is already obvious, by Obama losing the states that McCain won to Clinton, that he isn't competitive against McCain.

That part ain't rocket science, people.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:17 PM

GG - The other thing that nobody seems to be looking at--or, if they are, they're being very quite about it--is the allegation made today by Obama that the Republicans will dig up a bunch of dirt on Hillary.
                     Obviously, anything they could possibly find on Hillary, Kenneth Starr would have found already. There was nothing to find.
                     They haven't scratched the surface to look for dirt on Obama. I think they are rubbing their hands together for the chance to get started on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:30 PM

The other thing people aren't talking about is how twice now Obama was said to be surging in the polls just before the vote (New Hampshire & yesterday), and the polls, pundits, and spin ended up being 100% wrong.

Considering all the media hoopla surrounding the bogus Obama 'surge' and the fact that Obama is so far beyond all the candidates in terms of money, Obama should have upset Clinton and taken some of the big states and coasted comfortably ahead in the delegate count.

Not only has Obama not gotten a bounce coming out of the day as everyone expected him to, but his campaign is spinning, spinning, and spinning pretty furiously at this point.

They claim to be ahead in the delegate count. Maybe yes, maybe no, depends upon who is counting. He is hitting her much harder in terms of heating up the rhetoric (as he did going into SC), in what seems to be a sort of blind attempt to make some mud stick to her.

I have to say, the Obama campaign folks aren't looking very brilliant this morning, considering he is supposed to be able to buy and pay for the best and brightest Dem operatives right now.

And there is precious little evidence the Obama camp will try and keep it civil. With his momentum slipping so much, and him coming up empty in the big states, I just don't see how he can afford not to go very negative, very fast.

Like I said in the Primaries thread, Obama has to win ALL the upcoming primaries to stay competitive delegate-wise. That would be tough for any candidate to do.

But all those millions he keeps sucking up will certainly buy him plenty of advertising. We were swamped with it from here in MN, whereas Clinton didn't even make much of a media buy here at all--we were written off for Clinton a couple of weeks ago by her campaign.

It remains to be seen if her big wins yesterday on both coasts will turn money out for her. Only the shadow government knows.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 10:40 PM

Anybody who knows anything about elections knows that by far the most important factor is turnout. You can have a wonderful candidate, buckets of money, and brilliant ideas--but if your candidate's supporters don't show up at the polls, it's worthless.

This entire issue should be patently obvious--but some appear to not have grasped it.

So: 2 factors: 1) maximizing your turnout and 2) minimizing your opponent's turnout. And the case in point is ultimately geared to November, not now--as rational members of any political party should see.

Maximize your strengths:


Strengths: Obama:

Democrats of all stripes and all ethnic groups--some obviously more than others.

Many independents--and this is important--since McCain will be appealing to independents in the fall.

Some Republicans--anecdotal evidence suggests actually quite a few--Susan Eisenhower has company--probably because a big part of Obama's approach is getting beyond vicious partisanship.

And of course legions of new voters--enthusiastic for him personally--not Democrats in general--and definitely not Hillary. And these are new voters all over the US--not just in the South and not just the young.



Strengths: Hillary:

Older women who are afraid they will not see a woman president. But not all of them--anybody for whom a strong anti-Iraq war posture is paramount is likely not to vote for Hillary--her opposition to the war, like her attitude on many other issues, is carefully hedged.

Universal health care advocates--who may not realize 1) she is not offering a single-payer program 2) The mandate for everybody to get health insurance is totally unenforceable. If she tried, as she says, to garnishee wages--there would be a huge storm--that idea will never fly. The reaction to this idea is already setting in.


Some Hispanics and Asians who feel they are competing with blacks--some, not all, by a long shot.   Some Hispanics support her since they know and like Bill--and don't know Obama yet. They may also not be aware of her stand against drivers licenses for illegal immigrants--read primarily Hispanic.

I have no idea if whites are voting on a racist basis, but I expect some are. But many, especially the young (under 45) are not--and that is a big change. Reason is obviously that Obama appeals on a non-racial basis--change and an end to pointless partisanship.

Lopsidedly fewer younger voters than Obama.

Very few independents--again this is a real problem--since McCain will be getting quite a few--especially the national security oriented independents.

Team Clinton has also alienated some of the Democratic party's strongest long-term supporters by the despicable campaign in South Carolina and Bill's immediate attempt after Obama's victory to typecast him as another "black candidate".





Minimizing Opponents' Strength

Obama:

As I said, since his appeal is the opposite of aggressive partisanship, many Republicans can accept him as president. Some will vote for him. Republicans still angry at McCain may well stay home or leave the top position on the ballot blank

So turnout of the opponents goes down.


Hillary

It's been well known for years that the vast majority of Republicans loathe and detest Hillary--for a host of reasons--some having to do with Bill. Despite their well-publicized squabbling now, when faced with the real possibility of President Hillary Clinton, they will return to the fold--and show up--in droves--to vote against her.

So, far from minimizing the opponent's votes, she maximizes them.

As I've said before, if the Democrats want to win in November, there's no question who they have to pick.

And it ain't Hillary.


And the feeble argument that Hillary took NY, NJ, MA and CA fails totally. First, Obama took sizable percentages in each--including 40% in Hillary's home base, NY. Secondly, there is every reason to think that a unified Democratic party--possible under Obama but not under Hillary--will take these and lots more across the country.

I'd be happy to hear any possible rebuttal of any of the above points.

But rebuttal by logic, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:05 PM

People's interpretations, as always, are being very much skewed by their prior prejudices, I note...

That figures. It's the way the human mind functions.

I take it all with a grain of salt. The only way you'll know for sure is when it's all over...and maybe not even then.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:11 PM

Yah, sure Ron.

Only flaw in your twisted logic--Clinton won the big ones, and the Democratic base stuck by her.

Obama, like McCain, can't win it with the independents, but not their base. McCain without the Republican base can't win, and Obama or Clinton without the Democratic base can't win.

Plus, Clinton increased voter turnout yesterday too, just like Obama. But instead of increasing the youth vote, she increased by a sizable margin, two solid blocs that are voting consistently Dem--women and Latinos.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:33 PM

Ron - It doesn't make sense to think that Hispanics are unaware of the candidates' position on driver's licenses. Many Hispanics who have lived in the country for a long time, and are concerned about equal treatment under the law don't think that illegal aliens should be issued driver's licenses either.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 05:47 AM

So "the Democratic base" who voted for Clinton are going to refuse to vote for Obama if he is the candidate adopted by the party? Even though you can guarantee that Clinton is going to be campaigning for him? Doesn't seem too likely.

Whereas the opposite scenario, in which people who aren't part of that "Democratic base" but who came out to vote for Obama refuse to vote for Clinton, if she is adopted, doesn't seem at all unlikely. Even though you can guarantee that Obama will be campaigning for her.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:07 AM

No McGrath, most Clinton supporters would vote for Obama and vice versa.

The question is, which candidate can beat the Republican base and steal the independent voters back from the Republican party, in order to win in November.

My bet had been on Hilary, until I saw how broke she was. Why bet on Hilary? She has the biggest, best oiled political machine.

Obama is having to buy and build as he goes, and with a pool of very fickle 'new' voters--the youth vote, which is notorious for evaporating over night.

But even if the youth vote would disappear if Obama loses to Clinton (which it won't, I think at least some will still be excited to elect the first woman president), Clinton still has the Democratic party base behind her. The African American vote won't go to McCain. A lot of them might stay home on Election Day, but not enough to hurt Clinton where it counts--the big states, which she carried pretty handily yesterday without the African American vote.

Hard core Dems only need their base to win. Republicans, because there are far fewer of them as registered voters, can never win with just their base alone, which is why McCain is the best candidate for the Repubs this year. McCain does really well with independents and Reagan Democrats.

The unknown factor in this race really, is how will the Reagan Democrats (or the conservative white male Democrats) and independents (who in many states now make up a growing and large percentage of registered voters) vote in November. In 2000, the majority of them supported McCain when he was in the race, and most of them ended up voting for Bush. Same thing happened in 2004, when most of them voted again for Bush.

So the truth is, no one knows, we are all just ruminating here. I have a tendency to piss off the Obama voters, because they are voting based on feelings for the man. I don't vote like that, so when I challenge their thinking, their emotions tend to color their responses in a way that doesn't happen with me, is all.

Hell, even Little Hawk figured that much out.

There aren't very many American posters here at Mudcat that don't identify with the partisan Democrats, whether they are registered Democrats or not. So if you are looking for a solid analysis of what is happening in American politics, you can't really go by the conventional political wisdom of this forum, because it skews so partisan Democrat. And the more their beliefs about their chosen candidate gets challenged directly, the nastier they get.

Think about it McGraw. Just as many Democrats voted for Hilary Clinton on Tuesday as voted for Obama--and they weren't all women, either. So where are the Clinton supporters here at Mudcat? You see the problem here? This forum is very much a closed shop as far as the political spectrum goes in the US. You get a lot of what we call in the US the True Believers. People who tend to get overly emotional (usually anger and hatred towards the other side is their motivator), and who are over attached to their own political beliefs.

The True Believers are both Dem and Repub ideologues (even if they aren't registered as members of the party) and they engage in the vast majority of political demagoguing in our political conversations.

Take politics out of the mix, and they seem very normal and nice. Have a political conversation, and they turn True Blue or True Red.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:14 AM

BTW, betting on a candidate is not the same thing as voting for them.

I'm just an armchair observer. I won't vote for either party's candidate because I think there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them (enter the anti-Bush faction to shout me down), and because they all--every single one of them, will suck as president.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Charley Noble
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 09:09 AM

Nice post, GG!

When are you going to sign up as a member?

Wanna make a side bet on the outcome of this Sunday's caucus in Maine?

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:15 AM

We had a very interesting caucus in New Mexico,,,so many people turned out that they had to run out to Office Max to print more ballots! I managed to get into the wrong line, and ended up in the "people with issues" line (well, maybe not all that wrong...). Neither of the two people in front of me were on the "registered Democrats"; one was give a provisional ballot, although he made a big fuss about being required to sigh an affidavit that he was a Democrat, the other was turned away after saying, "oh no, I can't sign that, I'm a Republican". Our caucus is still undecided and will depend delegate count will be decided on the provisional ballots - I wonder how many og the 17,000 outstanding votes were really made by Republicans?

Drivers licenses? They are, and should be, nothing more than proof of a person's ability to drive. Perhaps if the lady who rear-ended me a couple of years ago, and who also had no insurance and didn't speak English, had one I wouldn't have a new car today. If a National Identity Card is necessary to prove citizenship, than lets have one, but trying to make the one serve for the other is stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:20 AM

Art - I agree completely about the National ID thing, but until they do that, everybody insists on using driver's licenses. Of course, having a license doesn't equate to having insurance, unfortunately.

                   And, as a sideline event, how does somebody who doesn't even speak English read road signs in New Mexico?