Clinton 46, Obama 43... McCain 59, Huckabee 29, Paul 7
This is just a poll released by the Billary team to make it seem like they are doing something besides rearranging the deck chairs! Did everyone see Billary cry last night during the debate when Russert went after her. HAHA Ask for a refund Billary backers! You were taken for a ride.
Posted on February 27, 2008 5:50 PM
Since when does a major Dallas TV station (WFAA) sponsor polls "by the Billary team"?
This is an independent poll by paid for by a Dallas TV station, NOT Hillary Clinton's internal polling.
Posted on February 27, 2008 5:59 PM
Very strange, this poll. The one facet that seems a bit out of line is the sampling's response to the Economy question: Survey USA had Obama ahead by 10 points, this poll seems to have flipped that entirely.
The other area I am skeptical of is the vote by party allegiance: We had, in the past and on balance, Clinton having an edge among self-identified Democrats. But the margins they show here, especially in recent weeks when Obama has really been making it very tight or winning over Democrats, seem off balance: 52% to 36%?
SurveyUSA showed the race much more competitive at Clinton 49% and Obama 47%. If anything, I would have assumed these numbers to stay similar or possibly even edge towards Obama.
Posted on February 27, 2008 6:10 PM
anonymous, the poll is still a shill for the Billary team. We all know Obama wins in a blowout in Texas, no less than 10 points, probably close to 15 or 20 with black turnout around 35% as some predict.
Billary cried last night though so maybe PMS sympathy will kick in for the b1tch
Posted on February 27, 2008 6:13 PM
Posted on February 27, 2008 6:15 PM
just looked at the poll will mention that they have Hispanics voters at 19% and AA at 14% I think that both are likely lower then they really are. Does anyone have demographic make up of Texas and is there any logical way to extapolate what Percentage they will make up
Posted on February 27, 2008 6:16 PM
Bob Evans -
"We all" don't know Obama wins in a blowout in Texas. RCP has Obama up by 1.2. This poll (not yet included by RCP) has Clinton +3, Rasmussen has Clinton +1, PPP a Tie, InsiderAdvantage Obama +1, and SUSA Obama +4.
None of these polls show an Obama blowout. Maybe they will, in time. But they don't right now. I don't pretend I can predict the future better than the pollsters.
Posted on February 27, 2008 6:20 PM
Posted on February 27, 2008 6:27 PM
Well, the point is that even by tying Texas, even without winning the popular vote, he has a chance to win in the delegate count. And to be honest, winning Texas would be a punch Clinton might not win from, but he really just needs to stay afloat in the delegate count and continue what people term "momentum", which increases the pressure on Hillary to drop out.
Posted on February 27, 2008 6:29 PM
This poll seems totallly off the mark. The difference between the candidates among self-described Democrats seems excessive and the African-American representation seems way too low.
I would be shocked--shocked!--if the margin in Texas ended up being less than ten points. A double digit win, based on the trends we've seen and compared to other states, is virtually assured.
Then he's going to really put up a margin in the caucus portion of the vote.
This thing is over...
Posted on February 27, 2008 6:38 PM
Comments and language like yours are what turn off many Clinton supporters from Senator Obama. If alleged Obama-backers like you keep this up, and Senator Obama manages to win the nomination, I am sure there will be plenty of Democratic women out there who will just stay at home and not vote. No matter how many young people Obama brings in, he will still end up losing. Women still make up about 60% of the Democratic base, and in what appears to be a game of a couple percent...
I am a guy backing Senator Obama. I wrote a post on my blog saying the vast majority of Obama-backers are not misogynists, but folks like Bob Evans make me rethink my assessment. Sad.
Posted on February 27, 2008 6:42 PM
thanks Gavin for the info. I am not an expert, but if AA are about 12 percent of pop. and Hispanics are about 35 percent then I would guess that the percentages of turn out would look more like. 24 % AA and 32% Hispanic and 44% white. just guesses I welcome constructive advice. In the interest of full disclosure I support Hillary. However what do you guys think of the numbers.
Posted on February 27, 2008 6:53 PM
I am proudly traditional and believe women belong at home, raising a family, and cooking a man's dinner. Women are too emotional, as we've seen with Billary in this failed disgraceful campaign of hers, to be commander of anything but an Olive Garden! Face it RS, you are just another Billary supporter who is bitter about your wasted contributions to a failed and horrible candidate, a woman beneath contempt.
Obamania results in a 15 point win in Texas and 10 in Ohio!!!
Posted on February 27, 2008 6:55 PM
ha ha, you are being taken for a ride by the RNC, we planned this so Obama can fall big in the fall. Mc Cain will cream him. Why do you think us Republicans are voting in your primaries, you Obamabots.
Posted on February 27, 2008 7:03 PM
Can someone please ban Bob Evans (aka GOBAMA)? His comments are disgraceful. I agree with RS.
Posted on February 27, 2008 7:07 PM
THE PERSON POSING AS BOB EVANS IS ACTUALLY THE RACIST POSTER FROM PREVIOUS BOARDS KNOWN AS "THE GENERAL".
HE IS NOT - REPEAT NOT - AN OBAMA SUPPORTER.
HIS RANTS ARE MEANT TO ANTAGONIZE DEMOCRATS IN GENERAL. DO NOT FALL FOR IT.
Posted on February 27, 2008 7:16 PM
Breecer, I am just giving my honest opinion. I am entitled to it. Why do you want to be the thought police? I love that Obama has built a strong grassroots movement based on hope and courage, instead of incompetence and crying like Billary. Quit your crying and ask Billary for your money back!
Posted on February 27, 2008 7:23 PM
Thanks for the warning, Breecer.
I think SUSA and a couple others used Af-Am turn-out in Texas as ~21%. There's an article in the Houston Chronicle that quote a couple political scientists saying Af-Am turnout could be as high as 1-in-3!
Posted on February 27, 2008 7:42 PM
Everyone is indeed entitled to their opinion. So in my opinion, this "Bob Evans" person, whoever he is, is truly one sick "human being". The good news is that people like that are almost always truly miserable down deep and lack real friends because they need to deride other people to stay "alive". But then they always adamently deny it (even as intuitive people can tell they've hit a nerve). Pathetic.
Regarding the TX polls: they are all close, so barring anything "major" the rest of this week (e.g. a major gaffe or perhaps Richardson's endorsement), voter turn-out will be the key. The fact that more Independents (and a few Reps) will likely vote for Obams may be off-set by the fact that historically in TX, Latinos by and large just do not vote for African Americans. That could change, but it would be the first time in a long history. But even if Hillary loses slightly in TX, if she wins big in OH and RI, she has a good argument to stay in the race, at least until 4/22 when PA votes. After all, along with FL, OH and PA are the key "swing" states to a Dem (or Rep) winning the White House. Plus it will give her new "momentum" (that media creation can cut both ways), and it will also put pressure on Coward Dean to start figuring out whether the DNC is really going to disenfranchise the millions of Dem voters in MI and FL (which ironically has decided the last 2 national elections) or figure out some way to seat them (or at the least, schedule a do-over ASAP). And he needs to do that quickly. If just a few thousand (of the 1.3 million who voted in the primary) of Florida Dems are angry enough at the DNC for their votes being completely disenfranchised in the primary that they don't vote in the general election, the DNC could end up giving McCain the general election. That would be sad and ironic.
Posted on February 27, 2008 7:55 PM
Looks to me like blacks are the key to the difference between this poll (and Insider Advantage's) and a poll like SUSA, which shows Obama with a larger lead. In this poll, blacks compose 14% of the sample. In SUSA's, it's 21%. I think it was SUSA's pollster who explained on this site that there's no balancing the sample--it's drawn from the population and the demographic groups find their level (somebody correct me if it's another poll that does this). Insider Advantage is closer to to SUSA, with 22% of the sample being black.
Then there is considerable disparity among the black respondents in each poll in their preferences. SUSA has blacks supporting Obama with 85% to Clinton's 13%. Only 2% are undecided or has another preference. The WFAA has it closer--considerably, with Obama getting 72%-17% with 11% presumably undecided or expressing another preference. Remember that blacks made up only 14% of the WFAA sample compared to 21% of the SUSA--1/3 smaller. This seems to me (without looking at other variables), a pretty good explanation of the difference, but still a bit puzzling.
Where it gets really baffling to me is with the disparity in AA preference between blacks in the SUSA and the Insider Advantage polls. They make up the same percentage of the sample, but in SUSA, again, blacks prefer Obama 85% to 13% while in IA it's 69% to 25, with 6% undecided. That's a huge difference. The questions were essentially the same. IA doesn't say they rotate the names, but I'm sure they do, and even if they didn't, it's hard to imagine that making such a huge difference.
Again, I didn't look at other groups, but the AA difference seems to explain a lot.
Now, I don't know Texas particularly well, but I looked at some exit polls from other primaries going back to Super Tuesday just to confirm what I suspected, and the SUSA numbers are much more in line with Obama's recent levels of support among blacks, which has been in the 80-85% range. Maybe blacks in Texas will vote significantly differently, but it seems unlikely. Neither has there been any major event that would cause such a sudden shift away from Obama on the part of black voters; if anything, the opposite is true.
So for now, I'm concluding that IA is off and SUSA is more on the mark. Someone who knows more about Texas' usual turnout can enlighten us on which polls, SUSA & IA or WFAA are more likely to be right about turnout.
Posted on February 27, 2008 7:59 PM
Posted on February 27, 2008 8:02 PM
This is all over already. Just look at the math.
Obama is up by 152 pledged delegates. Best case scenario for her in March: She wins Ohio by 15 picking up +25 delegates, wins Texas by 3 points, loses the Texas Caucus by 8 points and nets 3 delegates out of Tx. Wins Rhode Island big (say, by 15), but loses Vermont by 25, for a total out of Tx, RI, and VT combined of net 0 delegates. We'll give her +2 just to be nice about it. So she comes out of 3/4 down 125 pledged delegates. Then, on 3/8, she loses the Wyoming Caucus at least 60/40, and on 3/11 she loses Mississippi by 62/38. Net for these two contests, a minimum of +7 for Obama. So, at the end of March, the score is Obama +132 pledged delegates.
In April, let's say she wins HUGE in Pennsylvania, say +32 delegates (just to make the math easy). That puts her down 100 pledged delegates with just 9 contests left to go. Of those, 4 favor Obama heavily. South Dakota and Montana are caucuses in Montain west states- he should beat her easily there, let's say + 6 net delegates from the pair. Oregon is a crunchy progressive state (the Vermont of the west). He will win there by 5 more delegates. And North Carolina, the biggest state left after Penn, with over 100 delegates. He leads currently by 18 in Survey USA's poll. Let's give him a 10 point win there, good for +10 more delegates.
That means that, in order to catch up on pledged delegates, she would have to win the remaining 5 contests by 121 delegates. Those 5 are: Indiana (blue coller, but borders Illinois and has lots of blacks in Indianapolis and Gary), Kentucky (leans her direction, but blacks make up a large portion of the Dem electorate), West Virginia (leans her way), Puerto Rico, and Guam with 3 delegates.
The math is impossible unless he says or does something to TOTALLY fracture his original base coalition of the young, high-income progressive whites (who have never liked Hillary), and blacks.
Note: This is the BEST scenario I can see for her barring a singularly stupid collapse-inducing moment for Obama. And under the BEST CASE scenario I could imagine, she ends up trailing in pledged delegates by about 80-100. That means she's got to get roughly 450 out of 800 Superdelegates to overturn the will of the people. Or, in other words, Obama (who already has more than 180 committed Superdelegates) would only need a bit more than 350 total to win.
The math is impossible without a blowout win in Texas. Which (speaking as a Texan) ain't going to happen. One big, unreported reason: All projections on the black vote down here are based on the '00 census or the '04 primary. Those were Pre-Katrina events. We have a lot more blacks in Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio than we used to just 4 years ago.
Comparison info: At my polling place in Dallas (area is 50% black, 30% hispanic, 20% white), during the 12 days of early voting in the '04 presidential primary there were a total of 520 or so Democratic ballots cast during 13 days of early voting. Through the first 7 days this time around the number is about 1600, with 5 days remaining (and the polls are open much longer hours the last 5 days). We're talking about a 5-fold increase in early votes, when all is said and done, in a heavily pro-Obama area.
And the Caucus is shaping up like a slaughter for Obama as well.
Kiss Hillary good night. She's about to be put to bed.
Posted on February 27, 2008 8:08 PM
You guys are misreading the data. The 14% for blacks and 19% for Latinos come from an overall sample that includes both Democratic and Republican primary voters. (This is evident when you scroll past the race & age questions and see that only 38% of the sample represent themselves as Democrats). Thus, they are not estimates of what percentage each group will produce in the Democratic primary alone. Those numbers are, in fact, consistent with the percentages that blacks and Latinos formed in the '04 election - 12% and 20% respectively.
Posted on February 27, 2008 8:10 PM
Bob Evans ia not really his name. His remarks show that he is strictly someone using this as his sounding board because he has no life.
Clinton and Obama share many of the same views. If this clown was for real, he would understand this. He is only here to stir up anger, definately a sexist, probably a racist. Does not support Obama, wants to create anger towards him through his rants.
Posted on February 27, 2008 8:22 PM
Yes, I would say that both the black and hispanic turnout will be more than stated for this poll but so will the female vote at only 51%.
This is however only two days of a three day rolling poll and they may try to correct this.
I think it's fair to say from all the polls we have seen from Texas that it depends on who shows up to vote. Rasmussen said they could swing their total about ten percent depending on turnout models, maybe a little less.
We also know from all the polls that hispanics and women and democrats favour Clinton although those spreads are tightening and that blacks favour Obama, although not as much as in some other states, for now.
Interestingly enough there was one or maybe two polls that have shown Clinton winning the very young vote from 18-24 year olds.
Really the most germane information from polls are trends and internals. Who will turnout is not clear.
Clinton is losing ground with Obama's advertising onslaught in Texas and Ohio. That is clear. However, up to 25% of Texas has already voted, one poll said Clinton has won those who already voted. One poll shows Obama winning those who already voted, Rasmussen. One poll shows a tie, SUSA. They all can't be right, so we shoudl be cautious to "believe" any polls.
Posted on February 27, 2008 8:24 PM
By the way, from the 2007 census in Texas, blacks make up just 11% of the population hispanics, 32%. Traditionally blacks have had a higher voting percentage, but hispancis have been organized this time to vote for Clinton, so if anything the 19% is quite low for this survey, but the 14% is not out of line, just a bit low.
Posted on February 27, 2008 8:45 PM
florida and michigan democrats have no reason and no right to be mad at dean or the dnc. their own state party leaders knew the rules and tried to break them in order to make their votes 'count more'. they got what they deserved. as usual, if you don't like the decisions your leaders make, throw the bums out. dont change the rules because you dont like the way things are turning out
Posted on February 27, 2008 8:49 PM
Thank you for your refreshing well thought out number crunching post. You've taken the time to write out the math that I've been doing every few days for weeks now, to conclude with what I've been saying for weeks now:
Clinton can not catch up barring a major screw up by Obama, and/or extreme Superdelegate manipulation.
She seems to have someone conceded the Superdelegate issue in the second to last debate, realizing it would be too bad politically, and unlikely to succeed anyway (Obama has been gaining in Superdelegates the last few weeks).
This leaves only the possibility of a major slip up by Obama. This contest has been going on for well over a year and we haven't seen it yet.
She's not going to win TX by 10 or more (more likely to tie or lose), and she's not going to win Ohio by 20 or more, which is what it would take combined to have any significant impact on Obama's delegate lead.
And as you've well illustrated, beyond Ohio her hopes diminish further in the few remaining contests, and she would be draining any remaining political capitol she has the longer she stays in.
If Clinton has any honor in her, she will concede on March 5.
She will then have been able to please her big donors by making her 'last stand' March 4, then appear the party 'Uniter' by quickly conceding to Obama.
Posted on February 27, 2008 9:01 PM
Local Polls have been right everytime.
Posted on February 27, 2008 9:20 PM
Posted on February 27, 2008 9:22 PM
Henry you want this man to be the Democratic leader? Wow. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
Obama belongs in the trash heap of history when it comes to scum bag politicians, not far from the Clintons, Nixon, GWB, and others.
Posted on February 27, 2008 9:27 PM
The AA vote is under represented. Nearly all of the States 12% AA population are democrats. With that being said, they should comprise roughly 20% of all democrats. This does not include the influx of Katrina victims. Many of which will have registered to vote in Texas.
Posted on February 27, 2008 9:41 PM
Will all of you with political axes to grind please just go away? There must be a thousand blogs and boards and other places for you to post your banal opinionated blather. The reason most of us come to this site is to read fact-based analysis of polling data and to probe the mysteries of statistics and methodology and such. To all who have done just this: thank you for making this a great site. To all who try to drag the discussion down with offensive and ill-considered rants: get a life!
Posted on February 27, 2008 9:59 PM
Greg u don;t know what ur talking bout. Ur comments r offensive. Barack Obama is the guy who will turn red blue and will unite our country in its dark hour. Take your Clinton crap elsewhere this site is for winners and Obama people only.
Posted on February 27, 2008 10:50 PM
Thank you to Kevin (and others) for reminding that this is a very valuable site to do some real thinking about what we are seeing in the political process. I really wish that pollster would create a "moderator" situation, like the NY Times does, so that the libel and hate mail can be filtered out.
I for one for volunteer to do it part of the time, if someone is needed.
Thanks to POLLSTER for creating this site, and to all who provide intelligent comments. It's the best place to THINK about the election.
Posted on February 27, 2008 11:19 PM
Re Matt Weiss' pondering on the differences between two polls on the African-American preference:
Remember, Matt, that by the time you've divided up the sample racially, you're dealing with much smaller numbers. In SurveyUSA, there were 145 African-Americans polled. So you're going to see more random variation between two polls than you would with the full sample, 704 adults in SUSA. I think.
Posted on February 28, 2008 12:09 AM
Shawn's post at 8:10 says the right thing about the survey make up. The demographic splits they give are for the entire sample, not for likely Dem voters. And for the whole sample, 51% women, 11% AA etc seem like reasonable numbers. Not so for the Dem voters.
But note one other big thing. There are 800 people in the sample. Including Republican voters and non-voters. I believe SurveyUSA polls about 2000 to get a voter pool of 700 or so. (Even that seems a little high - 35% turnout for one side alone in a primary?!) Of those 800, at most 300 and probably more like 200 are really likely Democratic voters. So the margins of error on this are astronomical.
And as far as I can tell, the only likely voter screen they used was to ask people how likely they were to vote. And 90% of people said they were maximally likely to vote. I'm sure (a) that the voter turnout in Texas will be below 90% and (b) this wasn't a very professional voter screen.
There's also a very odd thing that if you look in the poll at the breakdowns of how people say they are likely to vote (in question 10D), you get Obama ahead of Clinton. Probably that's a typo, but it's a pretty big typo!
Given the small sample size, and the disconnect between the poll's internals and its headlines, it seems this was rushed out much too quickly. The overall number, Clinton +3, might well be right, but this poll isn't much evidence that it is right.
Posted on February 28, 2008 12:12 AM
After a little digging I came across charts of who this Polling company has dontated to in 2008
Public Strtegies, Inc Political Contributions for 2008 (only Jan. numbers)
In Money Amount Order
Joe Biden $6,900
Hillary Clinton $5,600
Bill Richardson $5,600
John McCain $3,600
Rudy Giuliani $2,300
Barack Obama $1,800
Chris Dodd $1,000
Mitt Romney $500
Founder is Jack L. Martin and chairman, no affiliation as far as I can tell, he as donated to both R and D over the years. A lot to Kay Baily Hutcheson
Mark McKinnon is the Vice Chairman, he's a registered R
Got to love the internet!
Posted on February 28, 2008 1:07 AM
Posted on February 28, 2008 1:13 AM
A different poll I've not here: http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/statewide-poll-latino-voters-texas-brings-upcoming-elections-clearer-focus_496259_1.html
The latino breakdown in polls has ranged from +10 to +41. Turnout is a different story.
Posted on February 28, 2008 1:22 AM
2ND DAY TRACKING JUST RELEASED:
Among those who have already voted(early voting) Obama 53 Clinton 47
Posted on February 28, 2008 2:08 AM
But even if Hillary loses slightly in TX, if she wins big in OH and RI, she has a good argument to stay in the race, at least until 4/22 when PA votes.
"Texas doesn't count..."
Okey-doke, Mark Penn.
Posted on February 28, 2008 3:44 AM
Billary is behind in Texas and already lowering expectations for a 15 point thumpin! The Texas two-step: 1) 15 popular vote blow out 2) destory the female dog in the caucus! Texas tea bit*hes! Texas ain't seen sh*t this fierce since LBJ! Get out the fat lady boiz!
Posted on February 28, 2008 3:57 AM
Sometimes there isn't much one can say (or write) except: eeeeeeww. Which is probably as much attention as trolls ever should get.
All I can say about Texas right now is: really interesting. I'm not sold on the power of "momentum" to deliver a double-digit Obama win there.
Posted on February 28, 2008 8:14 AM
He's McGovern all over again. The man behind the rhetoric is beginning to be exposed and in the end he will loose to either Clinton or McCain. Millions of Clinton supporters will switch parties to prevent Mr. "Bi-partisan" that voted outside every bi-partisan vote in the senate including the bi-partisan vote in support of the war. Many later regretted it after finding out the truth but it was a bi-partisan effort at the time the Obama did not join.
Posted on February 28, 2008 9:33 AM
Posted on February 28, 2008 9:34 AM
Posted on February 28, 2008 9:38 AM
1) If the early voting number is correct (53-47 Obama) it's horrible news for Clinton. Early voting turnout is running at about 10% in Latino areas like El Paso (9%) and Hidalgo County (McAllen, 11%), only 6% in Dallas and 5% in Harris (Houston). There is no way that proportion will hold in the final tally.
So if Obama is already leading in a sample heavily weighted toward South Texas...
2) The donation history is pretty disturbing--why would you donate to all the candidates except to buy influence, and these amounts are way too small to buy an American politician.
3) This election is totally going to mess with any pollster's demographics. More Democratic ballots have been cast early in many places than in the 2004 general election. Not the primary, the general. Insane.
Posted on February 28, 2008 10:15 AM
Florida Democrats did not set the date for their primary- the Republican controlled Florida legislature did, and the Republican controlled Florida courts backed them up. So maybe you should learn the facts before you start throwing stones.
Posted on February 28, 2008 10:29 AM
Can the site proprietors please BAN Bob Evans and his IP address(es) from the site? He is obviously nothing more than a sad, bored, little man who is trying to stir up trouble among Democrats (aka troll). The neighborhood will be much nicer without him.
Posted on February 28, 2008 10:30 AM
Posted on February 28, 2008 10:32 AM
Todays poll show Obama ahead. This a tracking poll the numbers show Obama ahead by 6 points now.
Posted on February 28, 2008 11:10 AM
Posted on February 28, 2008 11:12 AM
Is is just me or does it seem that when a poll shows Hillary leading, the poll is attacked as being flawed, biased, or just plain wrong, yet when a poll shows obama ahead it is treated as gospel?
Posted on February 28, 2008 11:20 AM
This poll is consistent with internal polls done by Obama. They are behind both in Texas and Ohio. Grass root champaigning don't work well in big states because of the geography. Name recognition is the key factor for a state as huge as Texas.
Posted on February 28, 2008 11:22 AM
Posted on February 28, 2008 11:23 AM
Posted on February 28, 2008 11:25 AM
Most important article of the year: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
Posted on February 28, 2008 11:40 AM
The New Republic? You'd think everyone would have stopped reading that after they made Andrew Sullivan the editor back in the nineties. Irrelevent DLC bullcrap, famous for making up quotes out of thin air.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, there's a new Rasmussen poll out in Texas, and Obama leads by 4.
Posted on February 28, 2008 12:03 PM
Well that settles it! I'm never eating at a Bob Evans again!
Posted on February 28, 2008 12:51 PM
Early voting in AA communities here is off the charts. In 2004 there were 840K total primary votes. As of Wednesday, we had 680K EARLY votes, and most of them coming from urban areas. If 10% of Hidalgo and 9% of El Paso have voted aerly, while 6% of Dallas and 5% of Harris have voted early, then that means there are a LOT more Obama early votes than Clinton, because there are a LOT more voters in places like Dallas and Harris, both Obama strongholds.
Obama will win Texas. Maybe not by 10, but by more than 5 in the primary, and by more than that in the caucus.
Posted on February 28, 2008 12:58 PM
Polls have shown consistently in the past ten days that Senator Clinton regrettably has been losing this battle against her democratic rival Obama. Obama in spite of his lack of real talent to lead the country been getting the better end of the minds of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of innocent minds of people for whom nothing matters including any analysis of what Obama represents or does not present as a Candidate. It is the negatives of Clinton that is making Obama win. He will be the President of the United States in 2009. But it will be later when his ineffectiveness will overwhelm and we will have four more years of haggling and not much done in a house full of dems and republicans.
Posted on March 1, 2008 4:27 AM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR