Current Poll Says Hillary Can Beat McCain

[Conan71]

AP poll says Hillary's got a better shot at beating McCain in an election still more than six months away.

How many more polls you think we'll see before Denver?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_race_ap_poll

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

AP poll says Hillary's got a better shot at beating McCain in an election still more than six months away.

How many more polls you think we'll see before Denver?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_race_ap_poll

Alot if FOTD keeps posting....Oops I thought you said Tools....

[USRufnex]

Hey, no fair beating RM to the punch on this one... polls don't matter, unless Hillary's ahead... delegate counts don't matter, unless Hillary won the state in question... states like Minnesota, Washington, Georgia, Wisconsin  and Virginia are too small to matter...  

[Hometown]

We Clinton supporters feel like we've suffered defeat over and over.  We're used to it.  But no one told Hillary.

My personal rule of thumb is the fire in the belly test.

Whoever has the fire in the belly will win.

I'm so tired of this campaign.  Would someone please give Howard Dean his pink slip?

But wait, there's something much more important that Obama or Clinton winning.  That's McCain being defeated.

Now, have I ever said I love you?  Have I ever told you Obama supporters how wonderful you really are?  You are some fine Democrats.  Now let's join hands and reflect on our unity before we kick Republican A**.  

Come on FOTD, do some somersaults and lead us in a cheer.

[FOTD]

Obama would beat him even worse. You who believe in these early polls had no idea Barack Obama would be the nominee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/opinion/28krugman.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Bush Made Permanent
       
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 28, 2008
As the designated political heir of a deeply unpopular president — according to Gallup, President Bush has the highest disapproval rating recorded in 70 years of polling — John McCain should have little hope of winning in November. In fact, however, current polls show him roughly tied with either Democrat.


Paul Krugman

Columnist Page | Blog
Related
Times Topics: John McCainIn part this may reflect the Democrats' problems. For the most part, however, it probably reflects the perception, eagerly propagated by Mr. McCain's many admirers in the news media, that he's very different from Mr. Bush — a responsible guy, a straight talker.

But is this perception at all true? During the 2000 campaign people said much the same thing about Mr. Bush; those of us who looked hard at his policy proposals, especially on taxes, saw the shape of things to come.

And a look at what Mr. McCain says about taxes shows the same combination of irresponsibility and double-talk that, back in 2000, foreshadowed the character of the Bush administration.

The McCain tax plan contains three main elements.

First, Mr. McCain proposes making almost all of the Bush tax cuts, which are currently scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, permanent. (He proposes reinstating the inheritance tax, albeit at a very low rate.)

Second, he wants to eliminate the alternative minimum tax, which was originally created to prevent the wealthy from exploiting tax loopholes, but has begun to hit the upper middle class.

Third, he wants to sharply reduce tax rates on corporate profits.

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the overall effect of the McCain tax plan would be to reduce federal revenue by more than $5 trillion over 10 years. That's a lot of revenue loss — enough to pose big problems for the government's solvency.

But before I get to that, let's look at what I found truly revealing: the McCain campaign's response to the Tax Policy Center's assessment. The response, written by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former head of the Congressional Budget Office, criticizes the center for adopting "unrealistic Congressional budgeting conventions." What's that about?

Well, Congress "scores" tax legislation by comparing estimates of the revenue that would be collected if the legislation passed with estimates of the revenue that would be collected under current law. In this case that means comparing the McCain plan with what would happen if the Bush tax cuts expired on schedule.

Mr. Holtz-Eakin wants the McCain plan compared, instead, with "current policy" — which he says means maintaining tax rates at today's levels.

But here's the thing: the reason the Bush tax cuts are set to expire is that the Bush administration engaged in a game of deception. It put an expiration date on the tax cuts, which it never intended to honor, as a way to hide those tax cuts' true cost.

The McCain campaign wants us to accept the success of that deception as a fact of life. Mr. Holtz-Eakin is saying, in effect, "We're not engaged in any new irresponsibility — we're just perpetuating the Bush administration's irresponsibility. That doesn't count."

It's the sort of fiscal double-talk that has been a Bush administration hallmark. In any case, it offers no answer to the principal point raised by the Tax Policy Center analysis, which has nothing to do with scoring: the McCain tax plan would leave the federal government with far too little revenue to cover its expenses, leading to huge budget deficits unless there were deep cuts in spending.

And Mr. McCain has said nothing realistic about how he would close the giant budget gap his tax cuts would produce — a gap so large that eliminating it would require cutting Social Security benefits by three-quarters, eliminating Medicare, or something equivalently drastic. Talking, as Mr. Holtz-Eakin does, about fighting waste and reforming procurement doesn't cut it.

Now, Mr. McCain isn't unique in making promises he has no way to pay for — the same can be said, to some extent, of the Democratic candidates. But Mr. McCain's plan is far more irresponsible than anything the Democrats are proposing, and the difference in degree is so large as to be a difference in kind. Mr. McCain's budget talk simply doesn't make sense.

So what are Mr. McCain's real intentions?

If truth be told, the McCain tax plan doesn't seem to embody any coherent policy agenda. Instead, it looks like a giant exercise in pandering — an attempt to mollify the G.O.P.'s right wing, and never mind if it makes any sense.

The impression that Mr. McCain's tax talk is all about pandering is reinforced by his proposal for a summer gas tax holiday — a measure that would, in fact, do little to help consumers, although it would boost oil industry profits.

More and more, Mr. McCain sounds like a man who will say anything to become president.


Despite saying he'll 'do everything' in his power to stop NC ad, McCain hasn't spoken to NC GOP head.»

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/25/despite-saying-hell-do-everything-in-his-power-to-stop-nc-ad-mccain-hasnt-spoken-to-nc-gop-head/


The Hill: John Edwards's supporters are flocking to Sen. Obama. Not one of Edwards's backers in Congress has endorsed Clinton.

http://hill6.thehill.com/leading-the-news/john-edwardss-supporters-are-flocking-to-sen.-obama-2008-04-24.html

On the wings of bad men, McCain has not a prayer. He's a clone of what the repugs offered up the past 8 years....White House as Frat House

http://www.counterpunch.org/block09022006.html

"Strong evidence of that can be found in a new Indianapolis Star/WTHR (Channel 13) poll that shows presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain currently trailing Sen. Barack Obama and tied with Sen. Hillary Clinton in Indiana, a state that has gone Republican in every presidential election since 1964."

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080427/OPINION08/804270343/1291/OPINION08

Someone here ask for aerodynamics?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Obama would beat him even worse. You who believe in these early polls had no idea Barack Obama would be the nominee.

Nor McCain either for that part.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

AP poll says Hillary's got a better shot at beating McCain in an election still more than six months away.

How many more polls you think we'll see before Denver?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_race_ap_poll

How can that be, after all, Hillary is "skanky" (per MSNBC):

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/28/ms-nbc-calls-hillary-skanky/

[HazMatCFO]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

AP poll says Hillary's got a better shot at beating McCain in an election still more than six months away.

How many more polls you think we'll see before Denver?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_race_ap_poll

I don't doubt this to be true. Although I am leary of any Clinton vs McCain or Obama vs McCain poll at this point due to the number of people in the Democratic party who claim they will support McCain if their candidate is not the nominee.

When the democrats pick their nominee, then the polls will get a little closer to being accurate as a gauge for the election.

[Cubs]

McCain will win who ever the demmies choose. The Democratic race will be the biggest waste of money in the history of the United States.

[RecycleMichael]

The democrats will win the White House this November. The republican party is in complete turmoil, Obama has been great at registering new democrats, Hillary has many loyal followers, and everyone hates Bush.

McCain will have too many "senior moments" on the campaign trail and will try to run a platform of stay the course in Iraq. Americans want out of Iraq and will not vote for any politician who wants to stay.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

The democrats will win the White House this November.

Not like this they won't. Hillary wants $2.3 Billion in earmarks? Obama, how much? This pitch is right in McCain's wheelhouse.  

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/28/good-lord-hillary-requests-23-billion-in-earmarks/

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael
and everyone hates Bush.

Oh crap, I didn't even realize he was running again.  Another year spent hearing about great the Christian vote is and what GW owes them...  []

[RecycleMichael]

Up with trees...down with Bushes

[we vs us]

This thread seems as good a place as any to show off my favorite new polling data from Pew Research:

quote: Gen Dems: The Party's Advantage Among Young Voters Widens

Trends in the opinions of America's youngest voters are often a barometer of shifting political winds. And that appears to be the case in 2008. The current generation of young voters, who came of age during the George W. Bush years, is leading the way in giving the Democrats a wide advantage in party identification, just as the previous generation of young people who grew up in the Reagan years -- Generation X -- fueled the Republican surge of the mid-1990's.

In surveys conducted between October 2007 and March 2008, 58% of voters under age 30 identified or leaned toward the Democratic Party, compared with 33% who identified or leaned toward the GOP. The Democratic Party's current lead in party identification among young voters has more than doubled since the 2004 campaign, from 11 points to 25 points.

In fact, the Democrats' advantage among the young is now so broad-based that younger men as well as younger women favor the Democrats over the GOP -- making their age category the only one in the electorate in which men are significantly more inclined to self-identify as Democrats rather than as Republicans.

[cannon_fodder]

I always see that data, that Democrats have a not-unsubstantial lead in people who favor their party.  Yet elections as well as control of seats at the local and state level are always hotly contested.  Based on that information, it would seem most places would be dominated by democrats and inevitably Washington would be over run by now.

Not doubting the poll, just saying it is odd.