Hillary is the Anti-Christ of the Democratic party.

I'm mad that the link tag is Rasmussen but it sent me to a crappy New Republic blog.

Yes, it's only one poll (and a Rasmussen poll at that), but ...

But, it's the poll that puts our man in front, so it's the poll we'll comment on.

There's quite a lot of interesting data in the rasmussen link

Market data also suggests that Obama has a 42.8% chance to become the next President. Expectations for McCain to become President are at 40.0% while Clinton's prospects are at 16.4 %.

gallup has clinton ahead by 7 points, and RCP has obama looking really bad in some battleground states.

the speech hasn't helped

albo: the speech hasn't helped

I don't think anyone expected it to give him a lead anywhere. It was more damage control that anything.
I think it helped keep him from dropping way behind due to the media hate machine that would have focused on the issue had he not addressed it promptly and professionally.

albo: the speech hasn't helped

queezyweezel: I don't think anyone expected it to give him a lead anywhere. It was more damage control that anything.


You cynical bastards. Maybe he meant what he said while addressing a difficult and nuanced issue that no politician has acknowledged for decades.

albo [TotalFark] Quote 2008-03-20 01:03:18 PM
gallup has clinton ahead by 7 points, and RCP has obama looking really bad in some battleground states.

I wouldn't read TOO much into these numbers.

Hillary and Obama are tearing each other apart while McCain goes on goodwill tours.

The numbers will shift dramatically once it gets down to a one-on-one between McCain and Obama.

Jaboobinator: You cynical bastards. Maybe he meant what he said while addressing a difficult and nuanced issue that no politician has acknowledged for decades.

and maybe he wants to be president simply because of altruism and a selfless desire to help others.

Bill Frist: Hillary and Obama are tearing each other apart while McCain goes on goodwill tours.

This week everyone is focusing on Obama's speech instead of on McCain not knowing the difference between Sunnis and Shiites until that young Lieberman whipersnapper whispered the right answers in his ear.

If the (D)s had a single candidate chosen by know, that kind of gaffe would be poison to McCain's campaign.

Does anyone honestly believe that this will be the last time McCain makes such a mistake? That he's not going to insist in a debate that Iran is funding Al Qaeda, that Saddam was in possession of WMDs, that Osama and Saddam were in cahoots or any other number of debunked "facts" about which the real truths are known by every relatively bright ten year old?

(or does McCain plan to travel with Joe Lieberman on his left shoulder giving him the answers a-la Jiminy Cricket?)

Jaboobinator: You cynical bastards. Maybe he meant what he said while addressing a difficult and nuanced issue that no politician has acknowledged for decades.

I wasn't doubting or discounting the substance of his speech. But you're kidding yourself if you think he would come out with a speech like that without any provocation.
It was a brilliant speech, but it was used as a defensive measure.

Jaboobinator: albo: the speech hasn't helped

queezyweezel: I don't think anyone expected it to give him a lead anywhere. It was more damage control that anything.

You cynical bastards. Maybe he meant what he said while addressing a difficult and nuanced issue that no politician has acknowledged for decades.

no! we must distill it down to talking points so that the likes of sean hannity can better attack it and start blatantly making shiat up again!

albo: and maybe he wants to be president simply because of altruism and a selfless desire to help others.

If I had to assess how much of each candidate's desire to become president is based upon that kind of altruism?

Obama - 15%
McCain - 10% (though his visions of "how to make the world a better place" differ vastly from mine)
Clinton - 1% or less

queezyweezel: Jaboobinator: You cynical bastards. Maybe he meant what he said while addressing a difficult and nuanced issue that no politician has acknowledged for decades.

I wasn't doubting or discounting the substance of his speech. But you're kidding yourself if you think he would come out with a speech like that without any provocation.
It was a brilliant speech, but it was used as a defensive measure.

it was, but it's also not something he hasn't talked about before. just not on the campaign trail.

he didn't form his ideas in a defensive strategy, he simply got up and said them in a defensive strategy. the point being, he wasn't just pandering, he was being honest.

not saying you don't think that, but a lot of people are more than willing to think it if you give them any provocation.

Whamdangler: But, it's the poll that puts our man in front, so it's the poll we'll comment on.

Huh, just like Kos did in the thread greenlighted yesterday... Link (new window)

But Kos ws right, Rasumseen was the only poll doing a rolling tracking poll, so it was the only one that was giving us data on Wright's and the speech's effects.


Anyway, I've noticed that 90% of the mainstream media has reported on the ONE poll that shows Clinton ahead of Obama. Every other polling agency still has Obama ahead, but the media is only talking about gallup.

Bill Frist: the only poll doing a rolling tracking poll

Gallup has one. And theirs showed Clinton having the lead. Link (new window)

Bill_Wick's_Friend: That he's not going to insist in a debate that Iran is funding Al Qaeda, that Saddam was in possession of WMDs, that Osama and Saddam were in cahoots or any other number of debunked "facts" about which the real truths are known by every relatively bright ten year old?

The problem is that relatively bright ten year-olds don't vote, and the average American still believes it as fact.

Uh, hello?

It's March.

The election is in November.

Still got a while to go, ladies, unbunch your panties.

Burn_The_Plows: The problem is that relatively bright ten year-olds don't vote, and the average American still believes it as fact.

I'm hoping whomever the (D) candidate ends up being, that person will have some BALLS and will actually have the fortitude to say "no, you're wrong" or "that's a lie which was debunked by [insert specific congressional or CIA or other intel report here]" when such bullshiat is tossed around.

Kinda the opposite of John Kerry and John Edwards' "oh we're too nice to serve up a rebuttal to anything" 2004 campaign, in other words.

Spanky_McFarksalot [TotalFark] Quote 2008-03-20 03:29:55 PM
Bill Frist: the only poll doing a rolling tracking poll

Gallup has one. And theirs showed Clinton having the lead. Link (new window)


I don't get why anyone is impressed with that. Look at the chart, Hillary has basically the same numbers she had back on March 5th. Her lead is the same as Barack's lead was on March 13th and on March 2nd.

If you look back through Feb you see the same thing. Basically these numbers are just fluttering around swinging bakc and forth between the candidates.

They don't indcate much.

I'm absolutely no fan of HRC - but she can't be held responsible for primaries being scheduled in April, etc. etc..

burndtdan: the point being, he wasn't just pandering, he was being honest.

A politician spoke to the country like we were adults... and a handful of people in the media and round these parts showed themselves to not be adults.

Bill Frist: I don't get why anyone is impressed with that. Look at the chart

Statistically, you're right, its hard to determine anything from those polls. Polls generally have a +/- 3%-4% margin of error anyways.

Grrr [TotalFark] Quote 2008-03-20 04:21:43 PM
I'm absolutely no fan of HRC - but she can't be held responsible for primaries being scheduled in April, etc. etc..

After she lost Wisconsin it was clear Obama was the nominee. Her ONLY chance is to divide the Democratic party in two and tearing Obama down (thus ensuring victory for McCain in the fall) or dropping out gracefully.

She choose the former.

It has nothing to do about when primaries are held.

This is going to be the longest year, ever.

Bill Frist: Grrr [TotalFark] Quote 2008-03-20 04:21:43 PM
I'm absolutely no fan of HRC - but she can't be held responsible for primaries being scheduled in April, etc. etc..

After she lost Wisconsin it was clear Obama was the nominee. Her ONLY chance is to divide the Democratic party in two and tearing Obama down (thus ensuring victory for McCain in the fall) or dropping out gracefully.

She choose the former.

It has nothing to do about when primaries are held.

THIS.

Fark political greenlights today seem kind of YEEEAAARGGHish.

McCain's numbers are going down faster than a GOP senator in a airport men's room. No contest. Obamownage to ensue.

It couldn't be because Hillary is a shrill unlikeable corrupt liberal and Obama is a racist American hating liberal could it?

I swear on my dead Father's name, if this country farks up another election, I'm using the money I've been saving up to buy a house with, to move to a different country. I've got over 12k, and I think that's enough to start over somewhere else.

I'm not dealing with four more years of Bush III or Clinton II.

Don't take too much stock into the Rasmussen polls. They are usually way off...at least for this year they have been. Besides the guy that created the organization is a republican with strong conservative bias.

Uhh... HELLO?

That's because the Democratic party is SPLIT at the moment!

Once it chooses one candidate or another, you'll either have Hillary supporters (apathetically) voting for Obama or Obama supporters (grudgingly) voting for Hillary.

Either way, they'll BURY McCain!

Bill Frist: Hillary is the Anti-Christ of the Democratic party.

Hillary is also the best, last hope of John McCain taking the white house.

Jaboobinator: You cynical bastards. Maybe he meant what he said while addressing a difficult and nuanced issue that no politician has acknowledged for decades.

and maybe he's a shiftless america-hating huckster like everyone else the dems have trotted out of late.

/but NOOOOOOOOOO, he's different!!!
//you farking idiots

randomjsa: It couldn't be because Hillary is a shrill unlikeable corrupt liberal and Obama is a racist American hating liberal could it?

Does this mean that Hillary hates America even more than Obama does?

Grrr: I'm absolutely no fan of HRC - but she can't be held responsible for primaries being scheduled in April, etc. etc..

If she actually had a chance of getting the nomination, I'd agree with you. However, her chances are somewhere between statistically improbable to statistically impossible. She needs to not only win at least 65% of the vote in every remaining primary, but needs at least 65% of the remaining superdelegates. Any person who can add knows that this ain't gonna happen.

There's no two ways about it: Hillary Clinton is a bad person, and a very bad Democrat. It's sad that the Democratic party can't use this time to unite against the Republicans.

Wei Kai Xuan is right...Rasmussen has been a trifle unreliable this time around. I think it's natural for McCain to have an edge until the dems decide on a candidate. I know a lot of dems are saying we won't vote Hillary come hell or high water, but there are also a lot of old skool democrats who believe in voting for the party not the person.

//right now, still planning on voting for B. Hussein regardless of whether it's a write in or he's the Democratic candidate.

cheshirecatsmileyface: Uh, hello?

It's March.

The election is in November.

Still got a while to go, ladies, unbunch your panties.

This, although it'd be nice to see Hillary GTFO so we can stop giving McCain a free ride to higher poll numbers. Mark my words, if the Democratic convention becomes nothing more than brokering superdelegates, they will not have time to recover from the wounds they inflict on themselves, and they will have no chance of showing true party unity compared to the lock-step march of Republicans that have started endorsing McCain.

Bush may speak as though he's retarded, but he and his close political friends know how to win elections. He of such terrible approval ratings; he who has helped split this country into color-coded regions; him supporting McCain may seem like a bad thing to those who take whatever their respective biased source of information tells them. But I think recent history will show that his campaign teams knew exactly how to beat a divided Democratic party.

Remember the sentiments after Bill Clinton's administration? Do you think Al Gore would have been shafted if he had let Bill campaign for him, or would it have hurt to directly remind people of Gore's place in a very popular, but also very divisive presidency?

Remember how many people couldn't stand John Kerry, and then his lack of response to getting smeared by the Swift Boat group? Remember how many Democrats here on FARK said they wouldn't vote for the guy?

Hillary has always had that group of people to worry about, but thanks to one angry pastor and a media spin machine that is out of control, Obama does too. Will Obama get the support of Hillary voters who think that his pastor is an anti-American racist? Will Hillary get votes from former Obama backers who detest the way that she and her campaign have attacked him?

Hillary, Bill, and those who are still attached to them at the hip will tell you that this is a good thing for Democrats because it has brought such amazing turnout and fervent support. But the fact is, the longer it goes, the greater the risk of animosity forming. They can't afford that, and in my opinion, neither can the country.

/Obama '08

Anyone else read the headline and have the song "it's my party and I'll cry if I want to.. cry if I want to, cry if I want to. " start playing in their head?

IF she cant get the presidency no one in per party can, is what i'm trying to say.

randomjsa: It couldn't be because Hillary is a shrill unlikeable corrupt liberal and Obama is a racist American hating liberal could it?Obama and Hillary could lower taxes, erase the deficit, personally kill Osama Bin Laden, give us all puppies, and hand me 2 thousand dollars, but I would still hate them because they are not registered as Republicans

FTFY

/biting hard on the most obvious troll ever

Uchiha_Cycliste: Anyone else read the headline and have the song "it's my party and I'll cry if I want to.. cry if I want to, cry if I want to. " start playing in their head?

IF she cant get the presidency no one in per party can, is what i'm trying to say.

To be honest, I have started to wonder if she is deliberately stretching this out not for a chance of winning the nomination this year, but in planning for four years from now.

If she is able to get enough resentment built up so that Obama loses the general election, you know damn well that McCain's presidency will end in four years. Why? Because A) The country doesn't really want four more years of Bush Lite, and B) Because he's so old he may keel over before then.

Suddenly, the somewhat tarnished, general-election-losing Obama looks like a total longshot in the next election, and Hillary wins the nomination, and runs against Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney. In other words, President Clinton.

Personally, and I know no one will agree with me on this, I think the extended primary season is working out just fine for the Democrats. The two potential nominees are getting their messages out in the press for free, while McCain can't buy any coverage unless he says something stupid about Iran. All the (phony) scandals and dirt are getting aired out now, rather than later when they would do real damage. Both candidates - especially Obama - are building formidable ground campaigns and donor databases (the latter being especially important because the nominee will go back to them for additional contributions before the fall campaign) while the Republicans are sleeping. The convention will be a media spectacle, with round-the-clock coverage, and the losing candidate (almost certainly Clinton) will make a big, gushy unification speech that will galvanize the party; meanwhile, the Republican convention will be a stilted, staged snoozefest that will pale in comparison.

If I was a cynic, I'd think maybe Obama was paying Clinton to keep her candidacy alive for the time being. It's just perfect.

Whamdangler: Yes, it's only one poll (and a Rasmussen poll at that), but ...

But, it's the poll that puts our man in front, so it's the poll we'll comment on.

Not exactly. It's about half and half. (Get it? Because Obama's ... never mind.) I'd still give Big O the edge. Source. (new window)

BMulligan: Personally, and I know no one will agree with me on this, I think the extended primary season is working out just fine for the Democrats. The two potential nominees are getting their messages out in the press for free, while McCain can't buy any coverage unless he says something stupid about Iran. All the (phony) scandals and dirt are getting aired out now, rather than later when they would do real damage. Both candidates - especially Obama - are building formidable ground campaigns and donor databases (the latter being especially important because the nominee will go back to them for additional contributions before the fall campaign) while the Republicans are sleeping. The convention will be a media spectacle, with round-the-clock coverage, and the losing candidate (almost certainly Clinton) will make a big, gushy unification speech that will galvanize the party; meanwhile, the Republican convention will be a stilted, staged snoozefest that will pale in comparison.

If I was a cynic, I'd think maybe Obama was paying Clinton to keep her candidacy alive for the time being. It's just perfect.

I hope you're right, but I honestly don't believe that it will turn out that way. :(

It could, though. And if it does, I'll be more than happy to eat my words.

Anarchangel: Uchiha_Cycliste: Anyone else read the headline and have the song "it's my party and I'll cry if I want to.. cry if I want to, cry if I want to. " start playing in their head?

IF she cant get the presidency no one in per party can, is what i'm trying to say.

To be honest, I have started to wonder if she is deliberately stretching this out not for a chance of winning the nomination this year, but in planning for four years from now.

If she is able to get enough resentment built up so that Obama loses the general election, you know damn well that McCain's presidency will end in four years. Why? Because A) The country doesn't really want four more years of Bush Lite, and B) Because he's so old he may keel over before then.

Suddenly, the somewhat tarnished, general-election-losing Obama looks like a total longshot in the next election, and Hillary wins the nomination, and runs against Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney. In other words, President Clinton.

Yah, thats pretty much what I'm saying too. *sigh*
You forgot the possibility that we'll all be dead in less than 4 years once WWIII is kicked off in Iran (as a true Bush Lite would do)
\I'd expect more doom from an archangel

Polls that forecast results six months in advance are as useless as toilet paper. Used toilet paper, I mean.

This Dem isn't voting for either of them.