This is an interesting map that shows polling by state of the potential matchups.
http://election.loquacious.org/2008-presidential/
Hillary does better in the swing states and Obama still loses all the republican states that he picked up delegates away from Hillary.
It clearly shows that Hillary is the most electable candidate.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
This is an interesting map that shows polling by state of the potential matchups.
http://election.loquacious.org/2008-presidential/
Hillary does better in the swing states and Obama still loses all the republican states that he picked up delegates away from Hillary.
It clearly shows that Hillary is the most electable candidate.
RM try not to be so hopeless. They have not even picked running mates. Besides, Hillary is ova.
According to that thing, Texas is the big undecided swing state. I just don't see that happening. You have to go back to Jimmy Carter to see a Democrat victory in that state.
1976
Jimmy Carter Dem 2,082,319
Gerald Ford Rep 1,953,300
1980
Ronald Reagan Rep 2,510,705
Jimmy Carter Dem 1,881,147
1984
Ronald Reagan Rep 3,433,428
Walter Mondale Dem 1,949,276
1988
George Bush Rep 3,036,829
Michael Dukakis Dem 2,352,748
Ron Paul Lib 30,355
1992
George Bush Rep 2,496,071
Bill Clinton Dem 2,281,815
Ross Perot Ind 1,354,781
1996
Bob Dole Rep 2,736,167
Bill Clinton Dem 2,459,683
Ross Perot Ind 378,537
2000
George W. Bush Rep 3,799,639
Al Gore Dem 2,433,746
Ralph Nader Grn 137,394
2004
George W. Bush Rep 4,526,917
John F. Kerry Dem 2,832,704
2004 being the most crushing victory yet for Bush. Texas and Oklahoma seem to vote almost identically these days.
(Yes, I threw RP in there to see if anyone was paying attention ;) )
Edit- Forgot Perot!
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
This is an interesting map that shows polling by state of the potential matchups.
http://election.loquacious.org/2008-presidential/
Hillary does better in the swing states and Obama still loses all the republican states that he picked up delegates away from Hillary.
It clearly shows that Hillary is the most electable candidate.
RM try not to be so hopeless. They have not even picked running mates. Besides, Hillary is ova.
Not till Aug. 25th or so, if even then.
She will steal the nomination or make a complete donkey of herself in the process. She's got five more months to complete that job.
I know Time is far too mainstream for a Daily Pravda reader like you but here's an interesting gem:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080327/us_time/isalgoretheanswer;_ylt=AkXo8AFIfFdcgbvr9NT5p.Vh24cA
I think Joe Klein's been stealing some of my thoughts on the Democrat primaries [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
This is an interesting map that shows polling by state of the potential matchups.
http://election.loquacious.org/2008-presidential/
Hillary does better in the swing states and Obama still loses all the republican states that he picked up delegates away from Hillary.
It clearly shows that Hillary is the most electable candidate.
She does better in some swing states, but Obama does better in others. Don't know how recent those polls are, and I don't know what you define as a "swing state." Texas is the same for both of them. Obama does better in Florida and Colorado. Hillary does better in Ohio. She does very slightly better in Pennsylvania, he does better in Connecticut.
Interestingly, two recent polls (//%22http://demfromct.dailykos.com/%22) out of California and Connecticut have Hillary not doing so well. She's only ahead of McCain in California by 3%, while Obama is ahead by 9%. Obviously, no democrat can win without California. And in Connecticut Obama handily beats McCain by 17%, while Hillary squeezes by at 3%. Again, Obama is able to pull in the independents that don't like Hillary. Her argument that winning a primary means she is more likely to win in the general is flawed, comparing apples to oranges.
Today, Gallup has Obama ahead of Hillary by a statistically significant amount.
Tax bracketing versus humanitarian causes....
RM and Conan stand for watching their pocket books over the greater good for mankind....in addition to being closet conservatives.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Tax bracketing versus humanitarian causes....
RM and Conan stand for watching their pocket books over the greater good for mankind....in addition to being closet conservatives.
I'm hardly a closet conservative, I'd say I was outed about 25 years ago. [;)] I do tend to be more socially liberal than my GOP bretheren who like churchianity in their gov't more than I do.
Iraq, my friend, was a "humanitarian cause". How's that working out for our pocketbooks?
Prior to the great depression, charity was more associated with the private and religious sector, not the government. It's grown out of control in the hands of government.
I find very little humanitarian in social programs which have encouraged and rewarded laziness and fomented multiple generations of hopelessness in the lower class.
I trust your family did not do as well as it did by sitting on their collective asses and sponging on the government dole, yes?
I tend to believe that too many people are looking to the government for solutions and too many people in Washington incorrectly assume that "we, the people" want or need the government involved in every aspect of our lives.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Tax bracketing versus humanitarian causes....
RM and Conan stand for watching their pocket books over the greater good for mankind....in addition to being closet conservatives.
I'm hardly a closet conservative, I'd say I was outed about 25 years ago. [;)] I do tend to be more socially liberal than my GOP bretheren who like churchianity in their gov't more than I do.
Iraq, my friend, was a "humanitarian cause". How's that working out for our pocketbooks?
Prior to the great depression, charity was more associated with the private and religious sector, not the government. It's grown out of control in the hands of government.
I find very little humanitarian in social programs which have encouraged and rewarded laziness and fomented multiple generations of hopelessness in the lower class.
I trust your family did not do as well as it did by sitting on their collective asses and sponging on the government dole, yes?
I tend to believe that too many people are looking to the government for solutions and too many people in Washington incorrectly assume that "we, the people" want or need the government involved in every aspect of our lives.
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.
And the Iraq War had nothing to do with humanity.....it is a war for oil.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Iraq, my friend, was a "humanitarian cause". How's that working out for our pocketbooks?
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"?
See if this makes sense. Make a scale from Left to Right. McCain is a little to the right of center. Hilary is a little more to the left than McCain is to the right but Obama is way over to the left. The people to the right of McCain may not like him but what are they gonna do? They have to vote for him. If you take the center point between McCain and Obama, it would be pretty far to the left and many people to the right of the center point might be more comfortable with a Liberal Conservative than a Liberal Liberal. The center point between Hilary and McCain is farther to the right, so she would seem to be a tougher opponent.
Of course, this doesn't take age, gender, race, charisma, or like or dislike for the husband into acount.
One thing that bugs me is the Conservative media. It seems like they want Hilary to beat Obama the way they are carrying on about Obama's preacher. I think it's lame but even so, why don't they shut up until he is the candidate? I'm a little on the conservative side but I have nightmares about "President Hilary". I think I'd rather have Obama.
Does anyone listen to Dan Carlin's podcast? He makes an excellent point. Electing Obama would about kill the civil rights movement, wouldn't it? Jesse would have to find a new job. Might be worth it.
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.
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.
He misspoke. He meant you are a conservationist ;)
I always wanted to be a good conversationalist.
By the way, the map must be dated. Recent polls show that Obama would win Oregon over McCain by 6%, and that Clinton would lose to McCain by the exact same percent.
I can't help reading this "it will be worked out" talk and think: "gee...what if they already worked this out to some degree by telling Hillary throw the kitchen sink at us and bust our kneecaps." If Obama can absorb all this from Billary and win, McCain't will be defeated easily. The public will ridicule the fright wing for continuing ludicrous arguments why Obama should not be president. The contrast during debates between candidates will be laughable. I saw the future not too far back telling me it would be Obama in the end in Denver. At the time he was down %23. Do you believe early polls will resemble anything close to the eventual outcome?
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.
Recent polls (//%22http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_presidential_race_state_by_state_snapshot%22) 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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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%
Why is that summary study better? Because it shows BO as a middle of the road guy?
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.
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?
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.
You mean NationalJournal.com?
The same group that has a story on their website titled Obama's "hope bong" is packed with change...
Real fair and balanced coverage there.
I posted the ratings of eight of the most conservative groups in Washington and you post an online newspaper writing stories worthy of the Weekly World News?
They might as well say Obama is Bat Boy.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
You mean NationalJournal.com?
The same group that has a story on their website titled Obama's "hope bong" is packed with change...
Real fair and balanced coverage there.
I posted the ratings of eight of the most conservative groups in Washington and you post an online newspaper writing stories worthy of the Weekly World News?
They might as well say Obama is Bat Boy.
I think you're confused. There aren't any stories with that headline anywhere on the website, not even in the archives.
I think you're probably mis-remembering where you read that. The "hope bong" was a Colbert creation.
National journal has been the standard for non-partisan political rankings for well over 30 years. To rank them among the likes of "WWN" shows you're completely unfamiliar with them.
McCain/Rice? V Hillary/? Or McCain/Rice? V Obama/? They have not removed the tarps off the big guns yet.
Predict that the republican party will remain in control of the White House after the smoke from the big guns clear.
Rice won't cut it. She's an utter failure. Many died on her watch. The country went broke.
I hope they do put her on the ticket.
She'd just further facilitate the neccesary defeat and makeover of our current government....I can see her in a debate now, "I can't answer that for National Security reasons."