Saturday, June 21, 2008
No Spin - Just Pesky Facts
Here is a summary of the most recent McCain-Obama polls, courtesy of Pollster.com. Yeah, Obama is ahead in the national polls - but just ever so slightly. And let's not forget how John Kerry was ahead in '04 until he wasn't.
Where is the post-Hillary surge? Where is the bounce?? Where is the beef??? Where is Barky's electoral game-switching might????
McCain still leads in Florida, Arkansas, Missouri as well as the key state no Democrat has ever won the White House without -- good ol' W. Virginia.
And what about Georgia? Forget about it; even with Barr in the race, McSame still leads.
Oh and about blessed Colorado, the news ain't too good, either. McCain's polls are rising while Obama's are plummeting.
Where is the post-Hillary surge? Where is the bounce?? Where is the beef??? Where is Barky's electoral game-switching might????
McCain still leads in Florida, Arkansas, Missouri as well as the key state no Democrat has ever won the White House without -- good ol' W. Virginia.
And what about Georgia? Forget about it; even with Barr in the race, McSame still leads.
Oh and about blessed Colorado, the news ain't too good, either. McCain's polls are rising while Obama's are plummeting.
// posted by Howling Latina @ 10:56 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Senator Obama opened up a wide lead (51-36) this week, a 15-point spread over Senator McCain. Its one Newsweek poll, but its still early in the race. Obama has consistenly been ahead, but Dukakis and Kerry had "wide" leads at this point too, and they went back to their day jobs.
Obama was leading 47-43 in Florida according to a poll this week, as well as 52-40 in Pa. Remember those were states where Obama wasn't competitive according to HRC?
In June, before Obama has even had a chance to campaign, he is behind in Georgia 43-44. This is a solid Republican state. Obama is behind in Alaska 41-45, another narrow margin for a solid "red" state.
In our state, Obama is leading McCain by a narrow margin--and while he may not win, it shows he is competitive in the state. Polls change a lot, and sometimes trends can become long-term, but other times they are less consistent.
Obama's numbers in Colorado are tightening, but he's still ahead, so "plummeting" is another poor choice of words. There are states he is way stronger in than HRC would have been, but winning West Virginia is not a litmus test for a Democrat to win--if you think that, you possess a lack of knowledge about immigration/emigration patterns and basic demographics.
Like I've said before, this rant and others before it shows that you have a huge lack of understanding of presidential politics.
Obama was leading 47-43 in Florida according to a poll this week, as well as 52-40 in Pa. Remember those were states where Obama wasn't competitive according to HRC?
In June, before Obama has even had a chance to campaign, he is behind in Georgia 43-44. This is a solid Republican state. Obama is behind in Alaska 41-45, another narrow margin for a solid "red" state.
In our state, Obama is leading McCain by a narrow margin--and while he may not win, it shows he is competitive in the state. Polls change a lot, and sometimes trends can become long-term, but other times they are less consistent.
Obama's numbers in Colorado are tightening, but he's still ahead, so "plummeting" is another poor choice of words. There are states he is way stronger in than HRC would have been, but winning West Virginia is not a litmus test for a Democrat to win--if you think that, you possess a lack of knowledge about immigration/emigration patterns and basic demographics.
Like I've said before, this rant and others before it shows that you have a huge lack of understanding of presidential politics.
John: I think HL has a pretty firm grasp of presidential politics, or she wouldn't be so pissed at the prospect of losing yet again. As you say, Dukakis and Kerry both polled well at one point and had their asses handed to them. Perhaps a man named Barack Obama will do better...
John Frum...You think being mad shows that someone understands politics? Give me a break. Anyone who bases May/June polls as litmus tests for electability doesn't understand presidential politics. Anyone who says that a candidate has a 100% chance of winning has a utter lack of understanding regarding politics. HL is "pissed" because her preferred candidate lost and she doesn't want to accept it (much of it is indentity politics gone amok with rabid charges of "sexism" for everything). She is finding every rationale not to support the presumptive nominee, but like I've always said, for every HL, there are 10 new voters who will support Senator Obama.
If Obama was behind, he would be criticized by HL. When he's ahead, he gets criticized for being "unelectable" by HL, despite his strength in numerous states vital to securing 270 electoral votes. Clearly, she has a problem with Obama and no matter what he does, she'll still be disatisfied. She'll probably even picket the Inauguration in 2009 and 2013 if he is elected and re-elected, still complaining about HRC's loss.
Post a Comment
If Obama was behind, he would be criticized by HL. When he's ahead, he gets criticized for being "unelectable" by HL, despite his strength in numerous states vital to securing 270 electoral votes. Clearly, she has a problem with Obama and no matter what he does, she'll still be disatisfied. She'll probably even picket the Inauguration in 2009 and 2013 if he is elected and re-elected, still complaining about HRC's loss.
<< Home
