<p>“that why every poll shows McCain pulls more dems than Obama pulls repubs? But hey if one 75 yr old woman will cross party lines this is clearly indicitive of a greater trend!”</p>
<p>Obama isn’t even the presumptive nominee yet, so it’s not quite comparable.</p>
<p>When the questions are phrased with Obama as the nominee, and the results are the same, it is.</p>
<p>“When the questions are phrased with Obama as the nominee, and the results are the same, it is.”</p>
<p>People aren’t dumb or disengaged, they know that the democratic side has not yet been decided.</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter?? The question is phrased “If the general election were Obama -v- McCain who would you vote for.” If you want to get technical, the republican nominee hasn’t been decided on either :rolleyes: . Furthermore the republicans voting for Obama (9%) is at an alltime high as the right will be able to paint him as an ultra-liberal. Something Clinton hasn’t been able to do.</p>
<p>sokkermom,
An interesting counterpoint to Rush Limbaugh’s desire to have folks vote for Clinton tomorrow:</p>
<p>from Stanley Fish in today’s NYT:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Basically, he says that McCain would have an easier time beating Obama than he would Clinton (even if the Republicans do get all riled up and GOTV at the idea of her presidency).</p>
<p>not sure I buy his line of reasoning or his easy dismissal of health care, but for the rest of it:</p>
<p>[Why</a> McCain Would Vote For Obama - Stanley Fish - Think Again - Opinion - New York Times Blog](<a href=“http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/why-mccain-would-vote-for-obama/index.html]Why”>http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/why-mccain-would-vote-for-obama/index.html)</p>
<p>I have too many friends who follow that same line of reasoning to ignore it.</p>
<p>Yes, unfortunately I think that potential outcome is very much more likely than most Democrats would like it to be… instead of getting a candidate whose one-sided war policy they could potentially exploit, they get McCain, who is much tougher on that issue and who, with his other liberal viewpoints, is much harder to typecast.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Though Rush is an odious toad, there’s no question about the level of influence he and his ilk wield over hard line conservatives. If he says, get out and vote for Hillary, that’s exactly what many will do. She will win both Texas and Ohio by, I predict 8 to 10 percentage points each. In Ohio, the Catholic vote is Hillary’s, especially if all those white-haired female parishioners brave the awful weather they’re predicted to be receiving in the morning hours. Ad Rush’s mandate to the ultra conservatives, and it adds up to a sizable win for Hillary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think 1of42 is right. McCain is hard to pigeonhole, which is one reason he’ll be getting serious consideration for my vote, no matter who wins the Democratic nomination. Among all the candidates, it is McCain who has consistently demonstrated a willingness to cross party lines in order to forge non-partisan alliances, all in the sincere interest of getting important things done. That’s why he infuriates the hardliners of the Republican Party. He doesn’t drink the KoolAid, and it is that very thing that earns him my respect.</p>
<p>I don’t believe he is cut from the same cloth as GWB. He is a much more thoughtful and nuanced politician. I think that some of his current campaign rhetoric reflects a need to throw some red meat to the rabid conservatives on the far right. He needs their support (or at least an end to their current vitriolic condemnation) to win in the fall.</p>
<p>But good God, I wish he would stop sounding as if he’s mumbling when he speaks. He sounds like the World History professor, in whose class you could never stay awake.</p>
<p>Obama can beat McCain. side by side who would come out more genuine? A 47 yr motivational speaker or 71 yr mumbling pre-historic history professor?</p>
<p>Then there is money. OB can easily pull in about $400 million + corporate donors + the ground troops.</p>
<p>As the economy continues to tank, McCain’s admission that he doesn’t know much about the economy will come back to bite him.
think GWB and his lack of foreign policy experience. He relied on his neocon advisers and got an unnecessary war.</p>
<p>I still think Obama is the way to go for the Democrats. With him, you get a clear contrast. Clinton has been running on her “experience” (what experience does she have with crisis, besides her marriage?), and when side by side with McCain, she loses on that claim. Obama brings different things to the table and stands a better chance of being the candidate who compares favorably to McCain.</p>
<p>Limbaugh has it right. If I were a partisan Republican, I would want Clinton to be the nominee and then of course see her get a thrashing in November. That would be much sweeter revenge than seeing her lose the nomination, only to resurface in a future Presidential election. If she wins the nomination and loses in November, she is finished. If she steps aside tomorrow, she lives to fight another day.</p>
<p>“Clinton has been running on her “experience” (what experience does she have with crisis, besides her marriage?), and when side by side with McCain, she loses on that claim.”</p>
<p>I’ve been beating this drum for months now, and I wish more Democrats would listen. Clinton has made the race about experience, and she cannot beat McCain on experience. (Virtually no one could.) I can already see the McCain campaign ads comparing Hillary’s primary sound bites (“Ready on Day One!”) to McCain.</p>
<p>I heard recently that Hillary is going to try to have the Florida and Michigan delegates seated. Since she won both states (with Obama not running it either state), it could make things interesting. What do you think will happen if Hillary does win the nomination in what appears to be an underhanded manner? Do you think that would cause some of Obama’s supporters to go to McCain, or just not vote? If the decision goes to the convention, then things could get very interesting indeed.</p>
<p>" If the decision goes to the convention, then things could get very interesting indeed."</p>
<p>I don’t think the delegates from Florida and Michigan will just be seated, I think there will be some type of do-over, because party elders know that a race war within the party isn’t the best way to head into November. I still think she will win the nomination and there will be bitterness.</p>
<p>Simba - </p>
<p>re: your post no. 23. “It was anything but Hillary. They naively believe that Obama will be an easier target. They have no intention of voting for Obama in November …”</p>
<p>This describes my republican relatives to a T. I keep telling them Obama is going to be the next president, but they think I’m on drugs.</p>
<p>"Limbaugh has it right. If I were a partisan Republican, I would want Clinton to be the nominee and then of course see her get a thrashing in November. "</p>
<p>I used to think this way as well. However, lately the Obama campaign has exhibited some clay feet that Hillary has been able to exploit (Rezko resurfacing, the distortions/lies about NAFTA assurances to Canada). Plus, reporters, tired of being lampooned for their favoritism to Obama, are starting to ask questions: [url=<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030302769.html?sid=ST2008030303289]washingtonpost.com[/url”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030302769.html?sid=ST2008030303289]washingtonpost.com[/url</a>]</p>
<p>Unfortunately for Hillary, she is limited to attacks that will be palatable to her party’s left. In the general election, Obama is so far left that he leaves a vast right flank that will be exposed for legitimate debate.</p>
<p>“what experience does she have with crisis, besides her marriage?”</p>
<p>That was a major crisis wouldn’t you agree? That + white water + potential murder+ travel gate + health care fiasco. I think the way she has been sustaining attacks from left wing + right wing + Obamanics shows her resilience.</p>
<p>If she does win the nomination, she is a remarkable lady.</p>
<p>Silverlady and others let us debunk the myth of Obama not tunning in MI and FL. First of all all three were on ballot in FL. None of them campaigned. Removal of the names from MI was a strategic move - the Obama camp could not afford a early loss. Although, his name was not on ballot, the supporters were urged to vote ‘un-committed’.</p>
<p>"That was a major crisis wouldn’t you agree? That + white water + potential murder+ travel gate + health care fiasco. "</p>
<p>Either she or her husband created those “crises.”</p>