McCain v. Hillary and McCain v. Obama

[RecycleMichael]

This is an interesting map that shows polling by state of the potential matchups.

http://election.loquacious.org/2008-presidential/

Hillary does better in the swing states and Obama still loses all the republican states that he picked up delegates away from Hillary.

It clearly shows that Hillary is the most electable candidate.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

This is an interesting map that shows polling by state of the potential matchups.

http://election.loquacious.org/2008-presidential/

Hillary does better in the swing states and Obama still loses all the republican states that he picked up delegates away from Hillary.

It clearly shows that Hillary is the most electable candidate.

RM try not to be so hopeless. They have not even picked running mates. Besides, Hillary is ova.

[YoungTulsan]

According to that thing, Texas is the big undecided swing state.  I just don't see that happening.  You have to go back to Jimmy Carter to see a Democrat victory in that state.

1976
Jimmy Carter    Dem    2,082,319
Gerald Ford    Rep    1,953,300

1980
Ronald Reagan    Rep    2,510,705
Jimmy Carter    Dem    1,881,147

1984
Ronald Reagan    Rep    3,433,428
Walter Mondale    Dem    1,949,276

1988
George Bush    Rep    3,036,829
Michael Dukakis Dem    2,352,748
Ron Paul     Lib     30,355

1992
George Bush    Rep    2,496,071
Bill Clinton    Dem    2,281,815
Ross Perot     Ind     1,354,781

1996
Bob Dole    Rep    2,736,167
Bill Clinton    Dem    2,459,683
Ross Perot     Ind     378,537

2000
George W. Bush    Rep    3,799,639
Al Gore    Dem    2,433,746
Ralph Nader     Grn     137,394

2004
George W. Bush    Rep    4,526,917
John F. Kerry    Dem    2,832,704

2004 being the most crushing victory yet for Bush.  Texas and Oklahoma seem to vote almost identically these days.

(Yes, I threw RP in there to see if anyone was paying attention )

Edit- Forgot Perot!

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

This is an interesting map that shows polling by state of the potential matchups.

http://election.loquacious.org/2008-presidential/

Hillary does better in the swing states and Obama still loses all the republican states that he picked up delegates away from Hillary.

It clearly shows that Hillary is the most electable candidate.

RM try not to be so hopeless. They have not even picked running mates. Besides, Hillary is ova.

Not till Aug. 25th or so, if even then.

She will steal the nomination or make a complete donkey of herself in the process.  She's got five more months to complete that job.

I know Time is far too mainstream for a Daily Pravda reader like you but here's an interesting gem:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080327/us_time/isalgoretheanswer;_ylt=AkXo8AFIfFdcgbvr9NT5p.Vh24cA

I think Joe Klein's been stealing some of my thoughts on the Democrat primaries []

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

This is an interesting map that shows polling by state of the potential matchups.

http://election.loquacious.org/2008-presidential/

Hillary does better in the swing states and Obama still loses all the republican states that he picked up delegates away from Hillary.

It clearly shows that Hillary is the most electable candidate.

She does better in some swing states, but Obama does better in others.  Don't know how recent those polls are, and I don't know what you define as a "swing state."  Texas is the same for both of them.  Obama does better in Florida and Colorado.  Hillary does better in Ohio.  She does very slightly better in Pennsylvania, he does better in Connecticut.  

Interestingly, two recent polls out of California and Connecticut have Hillary not doing so well.  She's only ahead of McCain in California by 3%, while Obama is ahead by 9%.  Obviously, no democrat can win without California.  And in Connecticut Obama handily beats McCain by 17%, while Hillary squeezes by at 3%.  Again, Obama is able to pull in the independents that don't like Hillary.  Her argument that winning a primary means she is more likely to win in the general is flawed, comparing apples to oranges.

Today, Gallup has Obama ahead of Hillary by a statistically significant amount.

[FOTD]

Tax bracketing versus humanitarian causes....

RM and Conan stand for watching their pocket books over the greater good for mankind....in addition to being closet conservatives.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Tax bracketing versus humanitarian causes....

RM and Conan stand for watching their pocket books over the greater good for mankind....in addition to being closet conservatives.

I'm hardly a closet conservative, I'd say I was outed about 25 years ago. []  I do tend to be more socially liberal than my GOP bretheren who like churchianity in their gov't more than I do.

Iraq, my friend, was a "humanitarian cause".  How's that working out for our pocketbooks?

Prior to the great depression, charity was more associated with the private and religious sector, not the government.  It's grown out of control in the hands of government.

I find very little humanitarian in social programs which have encouraged and rewarded laziness and fomented multiple generations of  hopelessness in the lower class.

I trust your family did not do as well as it did by sitting on their collective asses and sponging on the government dole, yes?  

I tend to believe that too many people are looking to the government for solutions and too many people in Washington incorrectly assume that "we, the people" want or need the government involved in every aspect of our lives.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Tax bracketing versus humanitarian causes....

RM and Conan stand for watching their pocket books over the greater good for mankind....in addition to being closet conservatives.

I'm hardly a closet conservative, I'd say I was outed about 25 years ago. []  I do tend to be more socially liberal than my GOP bretheren who like churchianity in their gov't more than I do.

Iraq, my friend, was a "humanitarian cause".  How's that working out for our pocketbooks?

Prior to the great depression, charity was more associated with the private and religious sector, not the government.  It's grown out of control in the hands of government.

I find very little humanitarian in social programs which have encouraged and rewarded laziness and fomented multiple generations of  hopelessness in the lower class.

I trust your family did not do as well as it did by sitting on their collective asses and sponging on the government dole, yes?  

I tend to believe that too many people are looking to the government for solutions and too many people in Washington incorrectly assume that "we, the people" want or need the government involved in every aspect of our lives.

Many predecessors did well because our tax rates were high with government incentives to shelter the burden by investing in real estate, oil and gas, business equipment and people.

And the Iraq War had nothing to do with humanity.....it is a war for oil.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71
Iraq, my friend, was a "humanitarian cause".  How's that working out for our pocketbooks?

It was (is) a net loss to the Nation, but not a loss to the war profiteers.  We also don't see a direct benefit in the form of free Iraqi oil, but we have presence there - We have CLAIMED it.  With options on the table (and military in the area) for fights with Iran, Syria, whomever.  Killing people is a "humanitarian cause"?

[mspivey]

See if this makes sense. Make a scale from Left to Right. McCain is a little to the right of center. Hilary is a little more to the left than McCain is to the right but Obama is way over to the left. The people to the right of McCain may not like him but what are they gonna do? They have to vote for him. If you take the center point between McCain and Obama, it would be pretty far to the left and many people to the right of the center point might be more comfortable with a Liberal Conservative than a Liberal Liberal. The center point between Hilary and McCain is farther to the right, so she would seem to be a tougher opponent.

Of course, this doesn't take age, gender, race, charisma, or like or dislike for the husband into acount.

One thing that bugs me is the Conservative media. It seems like they want Hilary to beat Obama the way they are carrying on about Obama's preacher. I think it's lame but even so, why don't they shut up until he is the candidate? I'm a little on the conservative side but I have nightmares about "President Hilary". I think I'd rather have Obama.

Does anyone listen to Dan Carlin's podcast? He makes an excellent point. Electing Obama would about kill the civil rights movement, wouldn't it? Jesse would have to find a new job. Might be worth it.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD
RM and Conan stand for watching their pocket books over the greater good for mankind....in addition to being closet conservatives.

My lawyer will be notifying you about the slander and libel.

I am way liberal.

If politics were baseball, I would not only play left field, I would stand in foul territory.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

quote:Originally posted by FOTD
RM and Conan stand for watching their pocket books over the greater good for mankind....in addition to being closet conservatives.

My lawyer will be notifying you about the slander and libel.

I am way liberal.

If politics were baseball, I would not only play left field, I would stand in foul territory.

He misspoke.  He meant you are a conservationist

[RecycleMichael]

I always wanted to be a good conversationalist.

[pmcalk]

By the way, the map must be dated.  Recent polls show that Obama would win Oregon over McCain by 6%, and that Clinton would lose to McCain by the exact same percent.

[FOTD]

I can't help reading this "it will be worked out" talk and think: "gee...what if they already worked this out to some degree by telling Hillary throw the kitchen sink at us and bust our kneecaps." If Obama can absorb all this from Billary and win, McCain't will be defeated easily. The public will ridicule the fright wing for continuing ludicrous arguments why Obama should not be president. The contrast during debates between candidates will be laughable. I saw the future not too far back telling me it would be Obama in the end in Denver. At the time he was down %23. Do you believe early polls will resemble anything close to the eventual outcome?