Politics – For the third consecutive day, Barack Obama holds a significant advantage over Hillary Clinton in national Democratic preferences for the Democratic presidential nomination, now 51% to 41%.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
asolious
daviant701973
hyooo25
soulkeeper009
dokkyou08
popperous
bfebrian
Goppy
alamala
ChanceDonovan
Maeve1480
DarnellSalas
Cristian710
CameronBerger
Maxim1430
bruhaha
boatmich
grungeplunge
Ashmanit
msaleem
MaryLynn_
soloride
gamahuche
Rigel
raats6662
prevajanje
Colaba
BJTJ
PresidentBuckheadd
tosakp
Mdiar
Ratskii
capn_caveman
obfuscator
TechnologyExpert
OnionHead
cosm
198)
Obama is leading Hillary by 10 points, but he is neck, and neck with McCain. Are the Democrats watching? This was supposed to be their year. We have a weak economy, a lagging war in Iraq, and the cut, and runners ready to give voters a big tax increase to buy votes in November. Obama should be 20 points ahead of McCain. Are you watching Deanster? You have a problem. Your rooky is way out of his league, and it is too late to change horses in mid-stream.
the dems aren't worried one bit. Obama is exactly where he wants to be: plus-ten on hillary and plus-two on McCain. and there's still a LONG way to go.
20 points up right now means the only way to go is down. nobody wants to be in that position at this point. its still way too early in the game.
but you go ahead crazy ani, keep trying to convince yourself that the dems are somehow losing while they're actaully winning, just not by as much as you thought they would be at this point.
the reality of today is that the dems are more concerned with whats going on in-house, and much less concerned with McCain, who seems to put his foot in his mouth every other day.
and just wait until the Obama-McCain debates. watch Obama being calm, cool and inspiring, and watch McCain coming off as unknowledgeable (wait, are they sunnis or shiites?), slow and out of touch.
then the dems will have their 20 point lead.
I would think they would. They didn't do the greatest job selecting a candidates this time. Barack seems to have a lot of baggage. Looking at his career in the senate, he's rather weak when it comes to defense and spending. He's voted strictly along party lines. His claims to being able to unite people clearly are not how he lives his life. You can't possibly spend 23 years in the same church and fail to realize your congregation is a bunch of racists. I've heard some of the speeches and sermons from Wright. Unless Barack attended at Christmas and Easter only, there's no way he didn't know the type of church he attended. He's a racist.
Forget about it! It's not working!! Once people have listend to Barack Obama and observe how he conducts himself, they know he's the best thing for this country.
cushi-ass,
Allow me to make a quick correction to what you just wrote:
"Forget about it! It's not working!! Once people have listend to Barack Obama and observe how he conducts himself, - - AND DRINKS THE KOOL-AID - - they know he's the best thing for this country."
There. That's better. O.K. cush-for-brains, carry on. You were saying?
As opposed to the daily brilliance of McCain. The rino and liberal traitor according to your master Rush. The youthful Obama is going to make short work of McCain once the general election hits. Personally, I think a majority of Americans would be happy to see the defense budget cut. We float seven carrier groups around the world so we can wax nostalgic about the cold war. Conservatives like a strong defense as long as they don't have to pay for it or fight in its wars.
Conservatives are doing their best to pretend like they did not say all the disparaging things about McCain that they did in the primaries. The best part is they can forget the evangelicals this time. Republican success has hinged upon an unholy union of culture warriors and an elite business class that panders to their fears but in truth could care less about them.
all style no substance how long do you think that is going to play out........
Just exactly where is your documented proof Obama is a racist or that his church is racist? Sounds to me like you are listening to NeoCon and Hillary spin. You heard the sermons and you still don't understand black liberation theology? Interesting. So, which sermons do you think were racist? I think I can straighten you out on any one you choose. Be my guest.
"Just exactly where is your documented proof Obama is a racist or that his church is racist?"
Uh.... you do own a computer, don't you?
Yes, and I don't believe every thing I hear or read on it. So, where is the documented proof? Do you accept my challenge? Please feel free to use your computer to prove your point. I can only guarantee you will learn something about black liberation theology and Christian theology if you go down that road. Please, be my guest. I am from Missouri, show me. Your silence is deafening.
where's your criticism of McCain?
he actively sought out the endorsement of a known hater, Hagee. then when Hagee's hate speeches came out in the open, what did McCain do? he denounced only the hateful things Hagee said about the catholic church but said nothing about Hagee's hateful comments about muslims, women, homosexuals etc.
so that must mean McCain's a homophobic, xenophobic misogynist.
"when Hagee's hate speeches came out in the open, what did McCain do?"
Did he attend Hagee's sermons for 23 years? If not then what's your point?
my point: don't judge a man by what some other man said.
its just plain stupid.
if you're raised by racists it doesn't mean you'll be a racist. right?
"McCain, who seems to put his foot in his mouth every other day."
Another of what some folks might call a "clue"
McCain, who in the year of the Democrats, putting his foot in his mouth every other day is STILL ahead of BOTH Democrats does not look good for Democrats.
guess you didn't read this story or check out gallup's daily poll. if you had, you'd know that Obama is AHEAD of McCain and Hillary is tied with McCain.
talk about putting your foot in your mouth...
"guess you didn't read this story or check out gallup's daily poll. if you had, you'd know that Obama is AHEAD of McCain and Hillary is tied with McCain.
talk about putting your foot in your mouth..."
Depends on what poll your looking at. You do know that there is more than 1 poll? Yes/no?
McCain Obama
Rasmussen Tracking 46 45
Reuters/Zogby 46 40
Cook/RT Strategies 45 43
Hotline/FD 46 44
McCain Clinton
Rasmussen Tracking 48 42
Gallup Tracking 46 45
Reuters/Zogby 48 40
NBC/WSJ 46 44
yeah. but this story is about the gallup poll.
I could cut and paste all day as well.
AP
hillary 48, mccain 45
obama and mccain tied.
CBS/NYTimes
obama 47, mccain 42
hillary 48, mccain 43
etc etc etc.
you said mccain is STILL ahead of BOTH democrats (and you used CAPS to emphasize your point).
but your point is wrong. mccain is not ahead. and I've proved that quite handily.
go ahead and post away.
Frankly a poll between A candidate and a POSSIBLE candidate is about as useful and the odd on a horse IN a race compared to a horse who MIGHT be in a race.
I'll start paying attention to poll when they start comparing the Republican Candidate with the Democratic Candidate and as I watch them rise to OBLIVION I'm start getting excited about Obama's 20 point lead in the polls (80/20).
And YES, I do know that is actually a 60 point lead however I'll take a 20 point victory even if it's a 'Republican Math' victory.
NoWayMan
"20 points up right now means the only way to go is down"
Uhmm, not really.
Based on 100 points, up by 20 would be an 80/20 split. An 80/20 split COULD change to a 90/10 or a 70/30 split or any numbers in between.
Have the Dems figured out hat we are a Republic not a Democracy?
Do they understand the Electoral College?
Are the Dems training people on HOW to use the voting machines?
to give you an example of how 20 points up is an impossible lead to hold, and that the only way is down from that kind of lead...
in 1984 reagan trounced walter mondale in the general election. yet in the popular vote, reagan won by 18 points. so 20 points is a near-impossible lead to keep and hold. hence, the only way to go from that spread is down.
now, to the math. up by twenty means a 60/40 split.
60 - 40 = 20
an 80/20 split means obama is up by 60.
read the first part of the story. obama is up 51 - 41 on hillary. a 10 point split.
you should be able to do this on your fingers.
NoWayMan
"in 1984 reagan trounced walter mondale in the general election. yet in the popular vote, reagan won by 18 points. so 20 points is a near-impossible lead to keep and hold. hence, the only way to go from that spread is down"
Thanks for answering 2 of my questions
"Have the Dems figured out hat we are a Republic not a Democracy?"
Obviously you haven't. We are a Republic when electing a President of the United States. Popular votes is a meaningless statistic in a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION!
Stating the "popular vote" is kinda like claiming the football team that got the most 1st downs should have won the game despite the fact that they didn't score.
"Do they understand the Electoral College?"
Obviously you don't. Look up "The Great Compromise of 1787"
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/grea...
when I said "trounced" I meant in the electoral college vote.
I thought you'd catch that.
guess I was wrong.
NoWayMan
"when I said "trounced" I meant in the electoral college vote.
I thought you'd catch that.
guess I was wrong."
Ah I see. So you know the popular vote is meaningless, so why did you bring it up?
Did you see the debates in your crystal ball? Very shortly Obama won't be competing with other Democrats. He will have to compete with McCain, Nader, McKinny, and Barr. He is too young, too inexperienced, too Liberal to do well in the General election. He lost credibility by swearing on 06 he would finish his Senate term, and not run for Presidnet in 08, and in swearing he would use Public funds if he ever di run.
McCain is the nominee-apparent for the Republicans, while the Democratic nominee is still undecided. Once Sen. Clinton is finally beaten, or withdraws, then her supporters will move into Obama's column and he will enjoy a double-digit margin over McCain.
In some ways, the protracted Democratic contest is an advantage. Both Obama and Clinton can tee off on McCain's positions and record, while he has no single opponent to concentrate against. Each Democrat is, to some degree, insulated by the presence of the other.
You point out two of the issues which the Democratic nominee (presumably Obama) will use against McCain. The war in Iraq is increasingly unpopular, and the voters perceive that it is a Republican war. The economy is tanking, dragged down by Wall Street greed and permissive Republican "regulators." McCain will be on the defensive throughout the fall, and on the losing end in November.
"The war in Iraq is increasingly unpopular, and the voters perceive that it is a Republican war"
Not this voter.
This voter realizes it is a Repub AND Dem war, as it was approved by BOTH parties (whether BOTH were "lied" to or not)
39% of House Dems and 58% of Senate Dems voted for the Iraq Resolution. It passed by a higher margin then the gulf war.
Gulf War-52-47 in the US Senate and 250-183 in the US House of Representatives
Iraq War-77-23 in the US Senate and 296-133 in the US House of Representatives
Facts ignored by the "repubs are warmongers" crowd.
Are you attempting to refute the statement "the voters perceive that it is a Republican war?" If that it your objective, you are welcome to offer evidence that they DO NOT perceive it as Republican war.
Otherwise, you would do well to remember that, in politics, perception is everything.
My first comment:
Not this voter.
I am well aware how easily people are led to believe whatever the media wants.
I was simply pointing out that myself, as one of those voters you lumped into one category, do not perceive it as a Republican war. How many others like me are out there, I'm not that sure and like always, we all know what opinions are like.
He should have said "most" just for the 19 percenters like you, Newbie.
If it makes you feel better about yourself to label me as a 19 percenter good for you.
Fortunatly I know who I did and more importantly who I DIDN'T vote for.
ASSumptions, ASSumptions....
Whether or not you're a Bush supporter, you're part of that small minority who insists on trying to shift the responsibility to others and from the one with whom the buck stops.
ASSumptions are the mainstay of the republican party and right wingers of either party.
"Otherwise, you would do well to remember that, in politics, perception is everything."
Then you would do well to remember Democrats continue to fund the war. Just because you "perceive" something does not mean everyone else does. Might explain why the ineffective Dem-led Congress has approval ratings much lower than the president's.
12 Oscar
"and the voters perceive that it is a Republican war"
Without qualification you are claiming to know what ALL voters think, without exception.
Dude that's just a dumb thing to claim. Both arrogant and clueless. It only takes 1 voter to prove you are absolutely wrong.
I don't believe this is a "Republican war" and that alone makes you wrong.
Although it may be true that both Repub and Dems STARTED this war five years TODAY this is a Republican war.
TODAY we are still there because a REPUBLICAN Administration.....didn't prosecute this war which would enable success.....is continuing to follow a failed path....didn't plan ahead to be able to put a government in place for a stable Iraq and WORSE is still propping up a failed government.
Just because there are people like you (not smart enough to REALIZE that this is REPUBLICAN GWB's war)thankfully you are in the VAST minority so there is at least HOPE that this Nation would be completely lost.
"Just because there are people like you (not smart enough to REALIZE that this is REPUBLICAN GWB's war)thankfully you are in the VAST minority so there is at least HOPE that this Nation would be completely lost."
Just because there are people like you (not smart enough to REALIZE that this is Bi-Partisan supported war) unfortunately you are in the majority of sheeple led along by the media and MOVEON.org. I realy hope that you and your ilk will not let this Nation would be completely lost.
Congress-the dem majority congress, contiues to fund this war.
Sorry, should have been a pos.
no biggy
You are absolutely correct. The dems have funded the war and voted to go to war, but that does not excuse the lies GWB and company gave to Congress and the American people concerning the war. And, why are we there now? No good reason, in my opinion. It is a defenseless position. Obama is the only one of the three candidates who did not support the war. Maybe that is one of the reasons he enjoys a 10% lead over Hillary right now. If he is nominated by the Democrats, I will predict a landslide victory over McCain in November. Remember, you heard it here first.
"but that does not excuse the lies GWB and company gave to Congress and the American people concerning the war."
Oh, more of that "lies" BS. Democrats and liberals were decrying Saddam's WMDs program long before Bush took office and well into it.
libRfunny, Yes, and two wrongs do not make a right. It was the Republicans who controlled Congress and the White House when we went to war. So, where are the WMDs, how was Sadam a threat to us? The lies are well documented. Here are a few links:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0710-01...
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/...
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
Ho hummm. So, you call these facts BS do you? Now, where are your facts that liberals were decrying Saddam's WMDs program long before Bush took office? I doubt you will come up with much of a list, but even if you can find a few, they would be just as wrong as Bush, who, in my opinion, needs to be impeached for his treason.
ML2007
"but that does not excuse the lies GWB and company gave to Congress and the American people concerning the war."
And what "lies" are those? Give me a statement said that was not stated throughout the 90's. Even in 1998, 4 years AFTER Saddam's WMD's were destroyed.
U.N.: Iraq had no WMD after 1994
By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03...
Here are a few links of hundreds on the subject:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0710-01...
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/...
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
Your incredulous attempt to discredit what is really true is disingenuous at best. The link you provided actually supports what I am contending, not discredit it. The link even says Bush and the White house tried to discredit the report. Interesting they would do that to such a supporting document as you contend. The truth is, Injest, you support the war and the administration, and you cannot admit they were wrong. I voted for Bush the first term, and I am extremely sorry for it. He needs to be tried for treason, and if found guilty, hung by the neck until dead. Cheney deserves the same fate.
And the Democrats are so easily duped they fall for the Presidents every word without checking themselves. How stupid, and how naive you really are about politics. The Democrats fund the war, because when they cut, and run in
Vietnam it cost them several Presidential elections. They want to win one. In the General they already have the dim-witted. They want to prove to the rest of us they are tough too.
This is not a bi partisan war. It was started by a Republican President, approved by a Republican controlled congress and run by a Republican administration. Democrats voted to fund the war in support of the troops, not the war.
Who's funding it now? Phantom Republicans?
"Who's funding it now? Phantom Republicans?"
Are you trying to make his head explode?
If we simply cut the funding that will not be responsible support of the troops. And we don't have a large enough majority to override a veto. So at the moment we are caught between a rock and a hard place. I don't see any Republicans trying to do anything to help either.
The Dems haven't even tried to get a bill through.
I love this!!!! Whenever the Democrats SUGGESTED that they didn't support the war or the Administration the Republicans immediately started screaming that they weren't support the troops (ignoring that the two have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with one another).
Now that the Democrats are "SUPPORTING THE TROOPS" by making sure that they have body armor (which was missing when it started), ammunition (missing when it started), properly armored vehicles (again, missing when it started) the Democrats are continuing this failed war.
Drink some more kool-aid!
Feinstein has to make her cash from the war. The fact is that many Dems have their thumbs in the pie of this war.