McCain v. Hillary and McCain v. Obama

[Conan71]

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.

For what it's worth, Recyclemichael and I have never been in the closet together, or at least no one has any proof anymore that I'm aware of, do they RM?

quote:
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.

So are you saying we had an artificially high progressive tax rate so that those who were the big producers and big employers got breaks that others could not take advantage of?  Let's see now, why would a government allow shelters and breaks?  To get companies and wealthy individuals to invest in the creation of jobs for others?

Are you basically saying that high tax rates on the upper class forced wealthy people to re-invest in the economy?

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

quote:
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"?

Come on guys, put on your sarcasm hats and read along with me.

YT and FOTD seem to have missed the irony and absurdity in my post about Washington's odd examples of humanitarian missions.  The Iraq war was sold to the public as a "humaniatarian mission".  Their words, not my chosen words for the conflict.  

The government needs to get out of the charity business and leave that up to the private sector.  All the government has done is create several generations of a class of check-whores whose only paying occupation has been to open the mail box between the 1st and 3rd of the month.

[pmcalk]

Recent polls provide a very different picture of a pair up between Hillary/McCain & Obama/McCain.  Of the 50 states, Hillary does better than Obama in only six of those states.  And none of those 6 states would change in outcome.  For example, Hillary, not suprisingly, does better against McCain in Arkansas than Obama does.  Yet, both still would lose the state.  Obama does better in states, regardless of who one in the primary--he does better in California by 7%.  Interestingly, Obama does better in Florida, and actually puts some traditionally republican states into play, like Iowa and Colorado.  On the other hand, a Hillary candidacy puts at risk such states as Connecticut.

[PonderInc]

I'm always fascinated by the polls that talk about Obama or Hillary being the "more electable" vs. McCain.  

What does that mean?  Are these polls attmepting to show what percent of registered voters are more racist or misogynist...and how that affects each candidate's ability to draw crossover voters?  Let's see...if it's Hill vs. McCain, the misogynists will vote for the man.  If it's Obama vs. McCain, the racists will vote for the white person.

Presumably, most Democrats will support the dem candidate regardless of whether it's Hill or Obama.  So it's more about drawing Republican and Independent cross-over votes.

If only McCain would pick Condoleezza Rice as his VP!  That would really put the good 'ol boys in a jam!

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

I'm always fascinated by the polls that talk about Obama or Hillary being the "more electable" vs. McCain.  

What does that mean?  

I'm with you.  I really don't think it's possible to get an accurate accounting of an X vs. McCain match-up because the battle for X is still being fought. All the Democratic energy is scrambled up in this primary fight, and the poll probably reflects a lot of that uncertainty.  

Democrats, regardless of the daily Clinton/Obama soap opera, are energized and at this point know exactly what's at stake.  I may be an optimist, but I'm pretty sure that either Clinton or Obama will get the same amount of support.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

I'm always fascinated by the polls that talk about Obama or Hillary being the "more electable" vs. McCain.  

What does that mean?  

I'm with you.  I really don't think it's possible to get an accurate accounting of an X vs. McCain match-up because the battle for X is still being fought. All the Democratic energy is scrambled up in this primary fight, and the poll probably reflects a lot of that uncertainty.  

Democrats, regardless of the daily Clinton/Obama soap opera, are energized and at this point know exactly what's at stake.  I may be an optimist, but I'm pretty sure that either Clinton or Obama will get the same amount of support.

What if their is a third party candidate waiting in the wings to sweep up the votes?  

There is enough infighting now to launch the right person if the timing is right.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar
[br
What if their is a third party candidate waiting in the wings to sweep up the votes?  

There is enough infighting now to launch the right person if the timing is right.

Depends on whether or not you believe the Dem conflict will bleed over into the general or not.  I don't think, when all is said and done, that the Dems are ready to splinter in the least.  As a matter of fact, the Dems are unified on policy like they haven't been in awhile.  A lot of this, IMO, is an argument about how to move the agenda forward.

I think a third party would draw more from the Republicans this cycle more than the Dems.  I mean, you've got Evangelicals who're dissatisfied with progress on the social agenda, hawks and neocons who're increasingly isolated from public opinion on Iraq, and the business lobby, which wants propping up, can't abide new regulation, and somehow wants it all to happen while shrinking governmental sprawl in the name of fiscal responsibility.  I also think there's a growing libertarian demographic that is increasingly uncomfortable voting for anyone who embraces W's theory of the Unitary Executive.

I dunno, I'm seeing more fissures in the R party than in the D party.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar
[br
What if their is a third party candidate waiting in the wings to sweep up the votes?  

There is enough infighting now to launch the right person if the timing is right.

Depends on whether or not you believe the Dem conflict will bleed over into the general or not.  I don't think, when all is said and done, that the Dems are ready to splinter in the least.  As a matter of fact, the Dems are unified on policy like they haven't been in awhile.  A lot of this, IMO, is an argument about how to move the agenda forward.

I think a third party would draw more from the Republicans this cycle more than the Dems.  I mean, you've got Evangelicals who're dissatisfied with progress on the social agenda, hawks and neocons who're increasingly isolated from public opinion on Iraq, and the business lobby, which wants propping up, can't abide new regulation, and somehow wants it all to happen while shrinking governmental sprawl in the name of fiscal responsibility.  I also think there's a growing libertarian demographic that is increasingly uncomfortable voting for anyone who embraces W's theory of the Unitary Executive.

I dunno, I'm seeing more fissures in the R party than in the D party.

Look no further than the far loony left represented by moveon.org/the dailykos who are fighting for Obama and the moderate left represented by Hillary.

If you think the far left is going to sit through another election cycle without a win, you need to stop and look again.  The far left won't stand for another round of the "do nothing" Pelosi.

The far left will be foaming at the mouth if Obama isn't their candidate.

The simple fact is, no one from the outside appeals to either party, except Holy Father Gore for the kooky left...

[FOTD]

What those here may detect as far looney left McCain't even come close....here, try this on for size: http://smokingmirrors.blogspot.com/
Chances are Okies are too far removed from real world politics that they have no focus on the true far left.


If you think Obama's platform is far left then you spend too much time listening to Hannity, Limbaughcontin, and Savage. Their radio shows are designed for the low IQ, nonreaders of America... Obama's platform reads differently: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

Get ready for the barrage of fright wing propaganda !
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=conservatives_hate_based_campaign_against_obama


Remember, "Please, recognize the junk you are receiving, whether in emails and internet talk boards (anonymous), or in the airwaves (dominated by conservative infrastructure), as the manipulative misinformation and misdirection that it is."



"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
~Bertrand Russell

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

What those here may detect as far looney left McCain't even come close....here, try this on for size: http://smokingmirrors.blogspot.com/
Chances are Okies are too far removed from real world politics that they have no focus on the true far left.


If you think Obama's platform is far left then you spend too much time listening to Hannity, Limbaughcontin, and Savage. Their radio shows are designed for the low IQ, nonreaders of America... Obama's platform reads differently: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

Get ready for the barrage of fright wing propaganda !
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=conservatives_hate_based_campaign_against_obama


Remember, "Please, recognize the junk you are receiving, whether in emails and internet talk boards (anonymous), or in the airwaves (dominated by conservative infrastructure), as the manipulative misinformation and misdirection that it is."



"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
~Bertrand Russell

I don't read trash new sites, so you can take your smokingmirrors blog and put it in your water pipe.

For a more reliable review of B.O.'s record you should look here:

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/?loc=interstitialskip

B.O. is not only the sounding board for the loony left, he's king of the hill.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Look no further than the far loony left represented by moveon.org/the dailykos who are fighting for Obama and the moderate left represented by Hillary.

If you think the far left is going to sit through another election cycle without a win, you need to stop and look again.  The far left won't stand for another round of the "do nothing" Pelosi.

The far left will be foaming at the mouth if Obama isn't their candidate.

The simple fact is, no one from the outside appeals to either party, except Holy Father Gore for the kooky left...

I appreciate the summary of the latest dog-whistle talking points ("loony!" "kooky!" foaming at the mouth!") but like I said, the Democrats are united behind policy, and are just figuring out how to go forward with it.  

Neither Hilary nor Obama are splitters. That's just about all there is. You're gonna have to look for this year's Nader somewhere else.

[RecycleMichael]

Here is a better guide to how conservative or liberal a senator is...Coburn is number 3 on the conservative side and Obama and Hillary are both middle of the road liberal.

The eight groups used in this study are:

ACU - American Conservative Union
ATR - Americans for Tax Reform
CWA - Concern Women for America
Club4 - Club for Growth
Eagle - Eagle Forum
FRC - Family Research Council
RTL - Right to Life
TVC - Traditional Values Coalition



Senator  State  ACU  ATR  CWA  Club4  Eagle  FRC  RTL  TVC  Mean

Jim DeMint (R)  South Carolina  100%  95%  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  80%  97%  
John Ensign (R)  Nevada  100%  N/A  100%  93%  100%  100%  100%  80%  96%  
Tom Coburn (R)  Oklahoma  100%  85%  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  80%  96%  
John Barrasso (R)  Wyoming  N/A  N/A  N/A  90%  N/A  100%  N/A  N/A  95%  
Saxby Chambliss (R)  Georgia  96%  90%  100%  93%  100%  100%  100%  80%  95%  
Jim Bunning (R)  Kentucky  96%  90%  100%  87%  100%  100%  100%  80%  94%  
James Inhofe (R)  Oklahoma  100%  90%  100%  80%  100%  100%  100%  80%  94%  
Jon Kyl (R)  Arizona  92%  95%  100%  93%  89%  100%  100%  80%  94%  
Johnny Isakson (R)  Georgia  96%  90%  100%  79%  100%  100%  100%  80%  93%  
John Sununu (R)  New Hampshire  88%  95%  100%  80%  78%  100%  100%  100%  93%  
David Vitter (R)  Louisiana  92%  95%  100%  73%  100%  100%  100%  80%  93%  
John Thune (R)  South Dakota  100%  85%  100%  73%  100%  100%  100%  80%  92%  
Jeff Sessions (R)  Alabama  92%  N/A  100%  73%  100%  100%  100%  80%  92%  
John Cornyn (R)  Texas  96%  90%  100%  80%  89%  100%  100%  80%  92%  
Michael Enzi (R)  Wyoming  96%  90%  100%  69%  100%  100%  100%  80%  92%  
Charles Grassley (R)  Iowa  88%  80%  100%  73%  100%  100%  100%  80%  90%  
Mike Crapo (R)  Idaho  88%  85%  100%  67%  100%  100%  100%  80%  90%  
Wayne Allard (R)  Colorado  88%  95%  100%  67%  89%  100%  100%  80%  90%  
Elizabeth Dole (R)  North Carolina  96%  80%  100%  62%  100%  100%  100%  80%  90%  
Pat Roberts (R)  Kansas  84%  90%  100%  40%  100%  100%  100%  80%  87%  
Lindsey Graham (R)  South Carolina  83%  95%  100%  92%  44%  100%  100%  80%  87%  
Richard Burr (R)  North Carolina  92%  90%  100%  100%  89%  85%  75%  60%  86%  
Mitch McConnell (R)  Kentucky  84%  95%  100%  53%  78%  100%  100%  80%  86%  
Sam Brownback (R)  Kansas  87%  90%  100%  80%  56%  85%  100%  80%  85%  
Richard Shelby (R)  Alabama  74%  80%  100%  40%  89%  100%  100%  80%  83%  
Roger Wicker (R)  Mississippi  88%  86%  100%  2%  100%  100%  100%  85%  83%  
Mel Martinez (R)  Florida  84%  95%  100%  60%  38%  100%  100%  80%  82%  
Kit Bond (R)  Missouri  80%  90%  100%  13%  89%  100%  100%  80%  82%  
Larry Craig (R)  Idaho  88%  95%  100%  50%  67%  71%  100%  80%  81%  
Chuck Hagel (R)  Nebraska  75%  N/A  100%  50%  44%  100%  100%  100%  81%  
Bob Corker (R)  Tennessee  N/A  N/A  N/A  60%  N/A  100%  N/A  N/A  80%  
Kay Hutchison (R)  Texas  84%  90%  100%  53%  78%  85%  75%  60%  78%  
Orrin Hatch (R)  Utah  84%  N/A  100%  47%  89%  85%  75%  60%  77%  
Pete Domenici (R)  New Mexico  75%  90%  100%  15%  56%  100%  100%  80%  77%  
Norm Coleman (R)  Minnesota  68%  75%  100%  33%  56%  85%  100%  80%  75%  
Ben Nelson (D)  Nebraska  64%  95%  89%  7%  100%  85%  75%  80%  74%  
Judd Gregg (R)  New Hampshire  72%  95%  100%  47%  50%  71%  75%  80%  74%  
Lamar Alexander (R)  Tennessee  72%  90%  100%  33%  67%  85%  75%  60%  73%  
John McCain (R)  Arizona  65%  80%  100%  100%  38%  42%  75%  80%  73%  
Robert Bennett (R)  Utah  72%  90%  100%  40%  56%  85%  75%  60%  72%  
Richard Lugar (R)  Indiana  64%  75%  100%  67%  33%  71%  75%  60%  68%  
Thad Cochran (R)  Mississippi  67%  80%  100%  13%  63%  85%  75%  60%  68%  
Gordon Smith (R)  Oregon  72%  90%  100%  47%  56%  57%  50%  60%  67%  
George Voinovich (R)  Ohio  56%  50%  89%  29%  33%  85%  100%  60%  63%  
Lisa Murkowski (R)  Alaska  71%  95%  100%  20%  44%  57%  50%  60%  62%  
Ted Stevens (R)  Alaska  64%  95%  100%  13%  33%  57%  50%  60%  59%  
John Warner (R)  Virginia  64%  80%  100%  15%  44%  57%  50%  60%  59%  
Susan Collins (R)  Maine  48%  60%  78%  27%  44%  28%  0%  60%  43%  
Arlen Specter (R)  Pennsylvania  43%  70%  88%  13%  25%  28%  0%  60%  41%  
Olympia Snowe (R)  Maine  36%  50%  78%  27%  33%  28%  0%  60%  39%  
Mary Landrieu (D)  Louisiana  24%  30%  67%  13%  22%  42%  50%  40%  36%  
Robert Byrd (D)  West Virginia  21%  10%  56%  7%  67%  14%  50%  40%  33%  
Mark Pryor (D)  Arkansas  20%  25%  56%  7%  33%  14%  50%  40%  31%  
Kent Conrad (D)  North Dakota  33%  15%  33%  7%  44%  42%  25%  40%  30%  
Bill Nelson (D)  Florida  40%  35%  33%  7%  44%  0%  25%  40%  28%  
Bob Casey (D)  Pennsylvania  N/A  N/A  N/A  7%  N/A  42%  N/A  N/A  25%  
Tim Johnson (D)  South Dakota  12%  10%  25%  0%  22%  14%  50%  60%  24%  
Tom Carper (D)  Delaware  20%  15%  33%  14%  33%  0%  25%  20%  20%  
Claire McCaskill (D)  Missouri  N/A  N/A  N/A  40%  N/A  0%  N/A  N/A  20%  
Ken Salazar (D)  Colorado  17%  10%  44%  7%  13%  14%  25%  20%  19%  
Evan Bayh (D)  Indiana  16%  15%  11%  36%  11%  14%  25%  20%  19%  
Byron Dorgan (D)  North Dakota  12%  5%  0%  7%  44%  28%  25%  20%  18%  
Harry Reid (D)  Nevada  12%  10%  11%  7%  11%  0%  50%  40%  18%  
Max Baucus (D)  Montana  8%  25%  11%  7%  22%  14%  0%  40%  16%  
Russ Feingold (D)  Wisconsin  8%  15%  0%  80%  0%  0%  0%  20%  15%  
Blanche Lincoln (D)  Arkansas  8%  20%  0%  14%  22%  14%  0%  40%  15%  
Herbert Kohl (D)  Wisconsin  16%  15%  14%  7%  11%  0%  25%  20%  14%  
Joseph Lieberman (I)  Connecticut  17%  15%  33%  7%  0%  14%  0%  20%  13%  
Daniel Inouye (D)  Hawaii  8%  5%  33%  7%  0%  0%  25%  20%  12%  
Barack Obama (D)  Illinois  8%  15%  11%  33%  0%  0%  0%  20%  11%  
Ben Cardin (D)  Maryland  8%  14%  29%  7%  14%  0%  0%  14%  11%  
Sherrod Brown (D)  Ohio  25%  18%  31%  8%  0%  0%  0%  0%  10%  
Debbie Stabenow (D)  Michigan  16%  5%  0%  7%  33%  0%  0%  20%  10%  
John Kerry (D)  Massachusetts  12%  15%  0%  7%  11%  14%  0%  20%  10%  
Ron Wyden (D)  Oregon  8%  10%  11%  7%  22%  0%  0%  20%  10%  
Dianne Feinstein (D)  California  0%  10%  11%  7%  11%  14%  0%  20%  9%  
Jeff Bingaman (D)  New Mexico  8%  10%  22%  13%  0%  0%  0%  20%  9%  
Hillary Clinton (D)  New York  8%  10%  11%  11%  11%  0%  0%  20%  9%  
Tom Harkin (D)  Iowa  8%  5%  11%  13%  11%  0%  0%  20%  9%  
Charles Schumer (D)  New York  4%  5%  11%  7%  11%  0%  0%  25%  8%  
Joseph Biden (D)  Delaware  4%  10%  0%  17%  11%  0%  0%  20%  8%  
Patrick Leahy (D)  Vermont  0%  10%  11%  7%  11%  0%  0%  20%  7%  
Bernard Sanders (I)  Vermont  8%  14%  15%  7%  0%  0%  0%  14%  7%  
Daniel Akaka (D)  Hawaii  0%  5%  11%  7%  0%  14%  0%  20%  7%  
Barbara Mikulski (D)  Maryland  0%  5%  11%  7%  11%  0%  0%  20%  7%  
Maria Cantwell (D)  Washington  12%  15%  0%  7%  0%  0%  0%  20%  7%  
Edward Kennedy (D)  Massachusetts  0%  5%  0%  9%  0%  14%  0%  25%  7%  
Jon Tester (D)  Montana  N/A  N/A  N/A  13%  N/A  0%  N/A  N/A  7%  
Jim Webb (D)  Virginia  N/A  N/A  N/A  13%  N/A  0%  N/A  N/A  7%  
Barbara Boxer (D)  California  8%  5%  0%  7%  11%  0%  0%  20%  6%  
Carl Levin (D)  Michigan  8%  5%  0%  7%  11%  0%  0%  20%  6%  
Dick Durbin (D)  Illinois  4%  5%  11%  7%  0%  0%  0%  20%  6%  
Patty Murray (D)  Washington  4%  15%  0%  7%  0%  0%  0%  20%  6%  
John Rockefeller (D)  West Virginia  10%  5%  11%  17%  0%  0%  0%  0%  5%  
Frank Lautenberg (D)  New Jersey  0%  5%  N/A  7%  0%  0%  0%  20%  5%  
Bob Menendez (D)  New Jersey  4%  5%  0%  7%  0%  0%  0%  20%  5%  
Jack Reed (D)  Rhode Island  4%  5%  0%  7%  0%  0%  0%  20%  5%  
Amy Klobuchar (D)  Minnesota  N/A  N/A  N/A  7%  N/A  0%  N/A  N/A  4%  
Sheldon Whitehouse  Rhode Island  N/A  N/A  N/A  7%  N/A  0%  N/A  N/A  4%  
Christopher Dodd (D)  Connecticut  8%  5%  0%  14%  0%  0%  0%  0%  3%  

[iplaw]

Why is that summary study better?  Because it shows BO as a middle of the road guy?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us
I appreciate the summary of the latest dog-whistle talking points ("loony!" "kooky!" foaming at the mouth!") but like I said, the Democrats are united behind policy, and are just figuring out how to go forward with it.  

Neither Hilary nor Obama are splitters. That's just about all there is. You're gonna have to look for this year's Nader somewhere else.

Look...if you can't see that there's a large nutjob fringe element on the left who's spewing hate against Clinton on a daily basis, take 5 minutes and look at the dailykos and huffington today.

Democrats are NOT united behind policy yet which is why neither is giving details about their policies to the American public, especially B.O., though I have to say that Clinton is doing a much better job in the details department lately.

The key ingredient that is lacking for a third party candidate that republicans would vote for is the candidate.  The far left has their darling candidate waiting in the wings already in Holy Father Gore.

[RecycleMichael]

It is better because it shows many groups and their ratings. Your "experts", show Obama as the most liberal and no other group agrees with that rating.

You bash others for using websites you disagree matter, yet won't accept any other information.

Gee Iplaw, are you just so sure of yourself that you won't accept any other input?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

It is better because it shows many groups and their ratings. Your "experts", show Obama as the most liberal and no other group agrees with that rating.

You bash others for using websites you disagree matter, yet won't accept any other information.

Gee Iplaw, are you just so sure of yourself that you won't accept any other input?

Are you even familiar with national journal?  They are a nonpartisan source that has been used as a reliable source of voting record information since 1969.

The only time I bash people about websites is when a trash website such as moveon, dailykos, etc. is used to prove a point.

I have no reason to disagree with national journal, it's a well respected survey of political candidates used even by NPR.  Until someone can show me a reason not to trust their analysis, I feel confident in relying on their information.