Annapurna1 said:

a new rasmussen poll showed heavy opposition to that kind of healthcare...and its not just healthcare...reagans' bullshit seems to  have contaminated every aspect of american thought...unfortunately..these two polls also seem to indicate that bushs' policies are not nearly so unpopular as bush...

however..a CBS  news poll taken last year conflicts with rasmussen on healthcare..but rasmussen is more recent.. and that might mean that the public has changed its mind over the past year on this issue ...

but rasmussen does agree with the other pollsters about the unpopularity of the iraq war...OTOH..the unpopularity of the vietnam war failed to elect mcgovern in 1972.. and it wont work this time around either...which is not to say that obama is another mcgovern...

---

Quote:

theres nothing undemocratic about declaring the winner to be the candidate with the most popular votes...it will get ugly if theres any dispute over which popular vote they mean.. otherwise the obamaniks have no one but themselves and the MSM to blame because they didnt see the shoggoth in the room...

---

Yossarian22 said:

Nobody started talking about the popular vote until the Clintons started getting desperate and changing the goalposts/trying to change the rules mid-game.

---

Seuss said:

> The way I see it, at the CFR meeting Obama had 1 and 2 on the dice, Hilliary 3 & 4, and McCain had 5 & 6.

Pretty much...

It is kind of odd... I speak with a lot of tourists from the US, and every last one that I have talked politics with is disgusted by the three choices. I assume that tourists represent a large section of the US population, thus I am confused why we have ended up with three choices that very few people really like. Sure, people may support McCain while others support Obama or Clinton, but they would quickly jump ship to another candidate if somebody "better" were to come along.

---

Seuss said:

> The way I see it, at the CFR meeting Obama had 1 and 2 on the dice, Hilliary 3 & 4, and McCain had 5 & 6.

Pretty much...

It is kind of odd... I speak with a lot of tourists from the US, and every last one that I have talked politics with is disgusted by the three choices. I assume that tourists represent a large section of the US population, thus I am confused why we have ended up with three choices that very few people really like. Sure, people may support McCain while others support Obama or Clinton, but they would quickly jump ship to another candidate if somebody "better" were to come along.

---

Quote:

What is your logic here? It seems so terribly trite to claim that all of our current candidates will make the situation worse.

---

Phred said:

2) He's fiscally much more responsible than Bush (and certainly far more so than Clinton or Obama). He loathes earmarks, has never put one in any bill, and will probably wield the veto pen against bloated bills more than Bush did.

---

Phred said:

Quote:

What is your logic here? It seems so terribly trite to claim that all of our current candidates will make the situation worse.

---

Because all three candidates are far to the left of Bush.

McCain is very VERY slightly less terrible than the other two because

1) He'll appoint actual judges to the Supreme Court as opposed to legislators

2) He's fiscally much more responsible than Bush (and certainly far more so than Clinton or Obama). He loathes earmarks, has never put one in any bill, and will probably wield the veto pen against bloated bills more than Bush did.

Phred

---

Phred said:

I suppose America could survive four years of McCain without disintegrating completely, but there's no way it'll be a better four years than the last four. But four years of Obama or Clinton? Fuhgeddaboudit. Complete nightmare.




Phred

---

Maybe McCain will surprise everyone and make a good President.

Quote:

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday (Friday, June 23, 2005) that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.

---

Quote:

"Congress' power to regulate purely activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

---

Quote:

May 29, 2008
Obama's Woes: A Tale of Three States
By Richard Baehr

If you want evidence that the Democrats are taking a huge gamble by nominating Barack Obama as their Presidential candidate, you need look no further than the current state of the race in three Southern/border states.

In 1992 and 1996 Bill Clinton won Kentucky, West Virginia and Arkansas. In 2000 and 2004, George Bush won all three states. In the current Democratic Party nominating contest, Hillary Clinton won all three states by huge margins -- 30 points or more in each case. West Virginia (3%), and Kentucky (7%) have relatively small black populations. Arkansas is just over 15% African American (in the same range as Florida and Tennessee).

The three states have 19 Electoral College votes among them, almost as many as Ohio (20). In 2004, Bush won the Electoral College by 286-252. Had he lost Ohio, Kerry would have been elected. In 2008, Ohio will undoubtedly be a battleground again.

Were the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, the Democrats would be in very good shape even without Ohio. That is because current surveys show Hillary Clinton winning all three states by solid margins over John McCain. But John McCain trounces Barack Obama in the same three states by over 20% in each case. So with Clinton as the nominee, these states vote as they did when her husband was the nominee. When Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, these states vote as they did when George Bush was running. The differences in the poll results are shocking. Clinton wins Arkansas and Kentucky by 14% and 9% respectively. McCain wins against Obama in the two states by 25% and 24% respectively. This means the shift from Obama to Clinton is a change of over 34% margin in one state, 38% in the other.

Roughly 40% of the voters who are for Clinton will not support Obama in these two states.

The poll results in these states suggest a few things:

(1) If Clinton were the nominee, she would have an opportunity for a broad based national victory. In addition to the three states above, Clinton appears to be the far stronger nominee in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. While both Democratic candidates seem to have a good shot at winning Pennsylvania's 21 Electoral College votes (the Democrats have won the state 4 straight times), Clinton has a much better shot at winning Ohio (20) and Florida (27). Bill Clinton won Ohio twice and Florida in 1996. In other words, Hillary Clinton has the opportunity to create an Electoral College map that looks more like Bill Clinton's races in 1992 and 1996, when he won 32 and 31 states and 370 and 379 Electoral College votes, than the much closer Presidential races in 2000 and 2004.

(2) If Obama is the nominee, the 2008 race looks like it will be a squeaker again, with a few tight races in smaller states -- Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), Iowa (7), Colorado (9), New Hampshire (4) and Wisconsin (10) being decisive. There is far less margin for error with Obama than Clinton. If Obama is shut out of Florida (which seems likely) and loses Ohio, where he ran very poorly in the Democratic primary and trails in most surveys at this point, he will need to hold all the Kerry states from 2004 and pick up the needed Electoral College votes from the West and Iowa, and perhaps Virginia. (13).

But holding all the Kerry states is easier said than done -- with Michigan (18), New Hampshire and Wisconsin all at risk, with 32 Electoral College votes among them, and perhaps Pennsylvania too, another state in which Obama ran poorly despite spending well over ten million dollars on campaign ads for the primary. Some of the same voters who appear to be soundly rejecting Obama in West Virginia, Arkansas and Kentucky, also populate Pennsylvania and Ohio, though not in the same percentages.

At this point, Obama appears to be the all but certain nominee. This is despite Clinton winning the same number or perhaps slightly more total popular votes, and winning virtually all the contested primaries since February when the Reverend Wright story surfaced. Obama's wins since then have been in states with very heavy African-American voter percentages -- North Carolina and Mississippi, and in very liberal Oregon. With almost all super delegates now breaking for Obama, he could wind up with close to a 10% delegate margin, but be only even in the popular vote. This will result from a 5% elected delegate margin (built on low turnout caucus victories), and perhaps a 30% super delegate margin, if the remaining 200 or so uncommitted super delegates break as this group has since North Carolina (62-10 for Obama). A system built on proportional distribution of elected (pledged) delegates will have grossly expanded the popular vote margin to give one candidate a decisive victory among these delegates, which has been used to justify the shift to that candidate of super delegates.

Obama's caucus victories (he won every caucus except Nevada) were built on enthusiasm from activist left wing Democrats and young voters willing to participate in the several hour process. In the general election, the participation rate will be much higher and voting patterns should mirror much more closely the results in primary states, where Obama has not done nearly as well.

(3) The serious daily tracking polls, Rasmussen and Gallup, show John McCain with a 3-4 % national popular vote lead. This is a stunning result given the general weakness of the Republican Party this year, the low approval ratings for President Bush, the strong perception the county is headed in the wrong direction, the still unpopular Iraq war, the economic slowdown, gas and food prices, and what was supposed to be a consolidation among Democrats for Obama now that the media chorus has awarded him the nomination.

It is I think a reflection of the weakness of Obama as a candidate. Starting with the revelations about Reverend Wright, the Obama campaign has dropped from the semi-celestial status it enjoyed in the eyes of many. The gaffe-a-day express, the foot in mouth disease among Obama advisors, the glaringly weak posture on national security and foreign relations the candidate has put forth (and for which several times he has been forced to backtrack), all have damaged Obama's chances. Now he is a mere mortal -- except to the true believers, and they are not enough to put him over the top in a general election.

He could still win with the huge financial advantage he will undoubtedly have, but it will be close and hard fought, and he will have to be lucky to triumph. The Democrats in their "wisdom" will take a pass on what could have been a much easier road to victory with Clinton.

John McCain may not be the perfect Republican, but he may appear much safer, more experienced, and less of a risk than the untested junior Senator from Illinois for many voters.

---

Annapurna1 said:

Starting with the revelations about Reverend Wright, the Obama campaign has dropped from the semi-celestial status it enjoyed in the eyes of many. The gaffe-a-day express, the foot in mouth disease among Obama advisors, the glaringly weak posture on national security and foreign relations the candidate has put forth (and for which several times he has been forced to backtrack), all have damaged Obama's chances.

quote]

---

Quote:

In its final days, Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign has come to echo George Wallace's 1968 run.


Like Clinton, Wallace as a candidate stalked the Northeast exploiting white anger. Like her, he bypassed the nation's more educated and liberal parts to focus squarely on those who felt left behind, rallying animosity against elites.


But behind the mask of populism, it was race that fueled Wallace's campaign from the start. And it is race that has brought new life to Clinton's campaign in its final days.


Like Wallace, Clinton doesn't address racial prejudice squarely, but cloaks the appeal to our darker fears in seemingly neutral issues. He used opposition to school busing; she has played off Obama's alleged elitism and ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.


To be fair, neither appeal is totally invalid.


Busing failed to integrate our schools and led, instead, to greater segregation as whites fled to the suburbs and/or to private schools.


Wright, meanwhile, is enough to scare the daylights out of anybody. To have a president who sat willingly in his pews, absorbing and seemingly condoning his hatred, is a worrisome prospect indeed.


But the basic fact remains that Clinton, like Wallace, is relying on race. Their tactics are similar, appealing to the same kind of voters for parallel reasons.


No, Clinton isn't a racist, but she's still using race to win elections. (So, by the way, did Bill Clinton in 1992, with his criticism of Sister Souljah and his much-publicized backing for capital punishment.)


Racism is as racism does. When a politician consciously exploits racial divisions, fears and animosity to win an election, he or she deserves condemnation.


But Hillary Clinton is neither a racist nor a populist; she's an opportunist. Discovering that the establishment consensus has left behind millions of disgruntled voters - the angry white men of yesteryear — she, like Wallace before her, is creating new fissures in the electorate in the hopes of upsetting a harmony that doesn't serve her ends.


Her advocates say that Clinton has found her voice. But this new voice is but an echo of a a discordant note in a discredited past.


In the coal mines of Kentucky and West Virginia and the former factory towns of western Pennsylvania and central Ohio, the anger into which this voice taps remains alive, hot and glowing. But most of America has moved beyond prejudice, beyond diversity, beyond even tolerance, into a post-racial era.


It was a proud feature of our politics in 2008 that we seemed to have crested this wave of progress — until Clinton, embittered by frustrated ambition, blew on the smoldering embers of racial fear to stage a comeback for the nomination.


It isn't her proudest moment.

---

Quote:

Obama will lose in a landslide

---

Quote:

but the Republicans could lose more seats in the House and Senate

---