home
Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | 219 comments (219 topical)
Obama today hits lowest poll average ever (5.00 / 5) (#8)
by Cream City on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:29:55 PM EST
on RealClearPolitics.com's daily averaging of polls (the best roundup of polls I've seen and the one most cited by media and other political observers).

From 10 points up on average over Clinton in lots of polls logged in and averaged in there daily and even hourly, he's now down to a tenth of one point:

RCP Average    04/28 - 05/06    --    Obama +0.1

He better hope for a post-NC bounce.  Clinton still is coming up on him.  Hmmm, that oughta be another reason for her to get out.  It's sorta humiliating -- for him.  And for Dean, Brazile, Dems, et al.

He did not do as well (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:48:17 PM EST
as he was supposed to in either NC or IN. And the voting shenanigans with the mayor of Gary were reprehensible.

I'm not thinking he's going to get any kind of bounce at all. His support is maxed out, whereas hers can be built upon and expanded.

Can you imagine how she'd slice and dice McCain in a debate? Can you imagine how easily she'd trounce him on the economy?

I wanted a landslide this year. I think I'm getting one - but not the one I wanted.

[ Parent ]

contrast is key (none / 0) (#63)
by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:53:49 PM EST
I think you are 180 degrees off re: support and growth.  But that's political debate for you!

Debates are almost never decisive.  Kerry beat Bush in the debates according to almost all polls.  But Kerry was up against not being positioned well on the war (he was for it, just a better version of it) and a not yet formed consensus that the war was a mistake.

Hillary was poorly positioned on this war. It cost her greatly.  It will be a strength for Obama that will more than outweigh the relatively minor things cited here, like Wright and "clinging" and Ayers.  

The economy sucks and Iraq sucks and the current admin stinks. The greater the contrast with that the better in November.  

[ Parent ]

Obama opposed the war when he couldn't vote (5.00 / 1) (#148)
by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:15:06 PM EST
but voted FOR war funding when he could vote.
Then flip flopped again when he became a presidential candidate.
Yes - Obama is a fairy tale on the war.


[ Parent ]
How racist of you to point that out! (none / 0) (#161)
by abfabdem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:17:55 PM EST


[ Parent ]
they all flip flop (none / 0) (#181)
by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:22:49 PM EST
So i assume you disqualify candidates when they flip flop.  I disagree - the war vote is the war vote, but let's look at the flip side.

So Hillary never flip flopped?  Because you seem to be implying that.

In the end, this is a silly gotcha game.  


[ Parent ]

I respectfully disagree. (none / 0) (#95)
by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:02:06 PM EST
HRC is a huge contrast with McCain economically. Clearly, her health care plan is far, far better. In addition, should there be some kind of manufactured crisis (bombing Iran), she will not look weak next to McCain. She has worked hard to strengthen her national security credentials, and she has shown she can be "tough" by voting for the AUMF.

Obama pretends to have been anti-Iraq war on the basis of a speech, but his actions once in the Senate say differently. He's trying to have it both ways, and that didn't work so well with John Kerry, now, did it?

HRC's position on the Iraq war is much more mainstream than Obama's. She's where most Americans are, and always has been.

I just can't be optimistic about this. Maybe if Obama's the nominee he will suddenly figure out how to gain the voters he needs, but I'm not holding my breath.

[ Parent ]

What about leadership? (none / 0) (#217)
by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:37:57 PM EST
"HRC's position on the Iraq war is much more mainstream than Obama's. She's where most Americans are, and always has been."

 Not exactly leadership, though, is it?

"Obama pretends to have been anti-Iraq war on the basis of a speech, but his actions once in the Senate say differently."

 I assume when he spoke in 2002 he was not "pretending" to be against a war that was popular enough at the time to gain support from half of the Democratic senators.  And the position one takes against a war is very much unrelated to strategy and funding for the execution of a war.  

"She has worked hard to strengthen her national security credentials, and she has shown she can be "tough" by voting for the AUMF."

 That has always been a problem with her for me.  I wonder sometimes if she overcompensates, at least on rhetoric, because she is female and a Democrat.  I am uniniterested in leaders who feel they need to have "tough" policies with respect to crime and war because that is what Americans want.  That attitude leads to disastrous policies.  See, for example, our prisons and criminal justice system, the Iraq war and the Patriot Act, as well as the debate over FISA.  

[ Parent ]

Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | 219 comments (219 topical)

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft