Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: Cook/RT National


Cook Political Report/
RT Strategies
(results, cross tabs)

National
Obama 44, McCain 43

(Obama voters) Do you think there is a chance you (ROTATE:) will consider voting for McCain, or have you definitely decided to vote for Obama?

    12% Will consider voting for McCain
    74% Definitely decided to vote for Obama

(McCain voters) Do you think there is a chance you (ROTATE:) will consider voting for Obama, or have you definitely decided to vote for McCain?

    10% Will consider voting for Obama
    77% Definitely decided to vote for McCain

 

Comments
Tybo:

odd, the Obama supporters are convinced that Obama is going to win. Yet McCain is barely running an active campaign and he's tied or beating 0bama

____________________

kingsbridge77:

I noticed that polls conducted for TV outlets and newspapers, namely the Washington Post, CBS, NY Times, etc., tend to favor Obama somewhat more than other pollsters such as Gallup, Cook, Rasmussen. etc.

Maybe it's a coincidence. I don't know.

____________________

Not all that odd, considering Obama hasn't been able to fully pivot towards McCain until a few days ago. The reverse question could be asked, "Why hasn't McCain been able to pull ahead considering he was generally unopposed since the end of February?"

____________________

CaptainPatent:

@Tybo

Let me fix that for you:
"odd, the Obama supporters are convinced that Obama is going to win. Yet McCain is barely running an active campaign. Even after Obama ran in a hard-fought battle through all of the primary season against an opponent who did a lot to split the party, and through still-open but healing woulds within the Democratic party [McCain] is only barely tied with 0bama.

I think that's a much more accurate statement, but I don't think it's odd.

____________________

carl29:

egc52556 is totally right. I honestly cannot understand how McCain is not doing better in the polls when: 1) He has or should have rallied the GOP around his candidature.
2) Has been campaigning for the general since Super Tuesday. 3) Has been attacking Barack Obama, teaming up with Hillary quite a few times. 4) The Democratic party has been in the middle of a firestorm.

Every strategist knows that once the democratic passions had settled down with a nominee(Obama is this case), he will get a bump of around 10% in the polls.

I've said over and over, polls at this time are meaningless, but even in these circumstances McCain seems to be stock at the same level of support-low 40's- since Super Tuesday. My bet: McCain numbers will only go south, further and further.

____________________

Uri:

@carl: I am not sure that the democrats joining together will bump Obama by 10 points. Maybe by 10% of what he is getting right now (about 40%) and that is a stretch.

If we assume that any HRC supporter who would actually go and vote for McCain voted for her in the primaries (otherwise, why be so militant now?), then at most you're talking about 18 millions who would "switch sides" and can "come back" under your theory.

Assuming a similar turnout to '04 (it is going to be greater, probably), you are talking 18 million votes out of 120 or 15%.

If we give the democratic party a 50% estimate of all registered votes in the country (about 90 million voters in '04 terms instead of it's previous 44%), and assume that any HRC voter who may vote for McCain had come out for her in the primary, then you're talking 18 million votes out of 120+mil, which is roughly 15%.

So for Obama to gain 10 points, you would need 12 million HRC supporters to say now that they're supporting MCCain and then come back into the fold. None of the exit polls suggested we're talking these kind of numbers.

The real problem Obama has is that the proportion of these avid HRC supporters is greater in the blue collar states, OH, PA, etc. These tend to lean democrat, but they also have many older white women who support HRC. Hillary brilliantly equated getting the VP with them getting respect. If she doesn't get the VP, much of the fissure will not heal, and that makes things risky for Obama. If things are risky in Obama in the traditional battleground states, he will have to invest resources on them, leaving less resources for his new swing states.

Obama is lucky that the Rezko trial conveniently ended exactly one day after he clinched while everyone was focused on Hillary. Otherwise McCain would have had his chance for a first pointed attack or the supers may not have made their move until the implications were clear. I still think the Republicans are going to raise the Rezko thing fairly soon, it didn't run in the media much.

Also, McCain hasn't really been campaigning because nobody honestly paid any attention to him.

____________________

Uri:

Can somebody explain the following:

Of people who said they were going to vote for Obama:
12% Will consider voting for McCain
74% Definitely decided to vote for Obama

So does that mean 14% may stay at home or support Barr?

____________________

carl29:

Dear Uri: Talking about how things are going to look in Nov. is just meaningless, believe me. If the final outcome of the GE was based on polls in May, Ross Perot would have been president of the United States and Bush would have not been sworn in for a second term. According to the most recent CBS poll, right now McCain is getting 12% of the democratic vote against Obama. Keep in mind that in 2004 Bush got 8% of the democratic vote. I can't say how much of that 12% are Hillary supporters who are pissed off with Obama. How many of those supporters will end up in McCain's column? My gut feeling is that McCain would not get more support from democrats than Bush's in 2004. Again, I can't tell how things are going at end, but it's my feeling that McCain won't do better than Bush among democrats.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

Notice the total is 87%. So there are 13% undecideds. That will likely go to Obama once Clinton concedes on sat.

I see 60-40 in a month or so.....

____________________

Uri:

@carl29: Well, if it's meaningless to talk about Nov then let's have Mark and co shut down this site and reopen it in October when it becomes relevant.

Polls can change, of course. But just remember, they can change both ways. Now that's a change I can believe in.

____________________

Uri:

@onelight: They are undecided on whether they fully support Obama or if there's a small chance that they could be budged. I doubt these are avid HRC supports to begin with or they wouldn't say they support Obama now.

Besides, why would HRC conceding make any difference in the world? She already lost the primaries. Obama is not going to become a more qualified candidate just because HRC is forced to endorse him.

I know Obama supporters are optimisic (unlike me, as has been correctly observed here), but where is your 10% boost coming from? There aren't enough dissenting democrats to give you that.

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

Yes the better question is why isn't McCain doing better when 24% of people voted for Ron Paul in Idaho last week? 1 in 4 people? And we thought the democrats were divided.

____________________

carl29:

Uri, don't get mad. Everything we have said in this forum is just speculation, which is just fun. Again, all those angry, dissapointed, grumpy democrats are going to come home, and we are going to receive them with open arms. Don't believe me? We can see things already moving little by little, state by state. For example, Missouri: On June 3rd Survey Usa released a poll showing Obama 45%, McCain 43%. The previous SurveyUsa survey? McCain 48%, Obama 45%.

Rassmusen, the new poll numbers: Obama 43%, McCain 42%. The previous Rasmussen poll? McCain 47%, Obama 41%. The new poll shows the number of voters who say they will cross party lines has already started to decline. Just 13% of Missouri Democrats currently say they will vote for McCain, down from 21% a month ago.

Guys, Welcome Home!!!! Now, let's go after McCain and the Republicans, those are the enemy. Love you guys!

____________________

Mike_in_CA:

@Uri:

To my knowledge this "10 point bump" is not necessary a 10 point bump in Obama's numbers, but rather a 10 point bump in the "spread". That is, while O vs. M runs about even now, after "unity" it will look more like O vs. M +10...Meaning Obama would gain about 5points to his hard total. Meaning the numbers will probably move in the 48-38 or 50-40 direction with those annoying 10% undecideds hanging on.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

Uri-

Um, there are 13% undecideds. No matter who they are, the likelihood that they will drift to Obama is much greater than that they will go to McCain. By the way, this doesn't even account for turnout. Who is going to turnout in larger numbers? Definitely not supporters of this guy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/04/mccains-day-marked-by-fal_n_105283.html


Something people forget is that Obama expanded the map in the primaries and he will continue to do so in the general. Just look at the cross-tabs for AAs in many polls and tell me if that is reasonable considering the past.

AA turnout will be HUGE, youth turnout will be HUGE. The pollsters and pundits have no clue....

No one is going to come out in droves for the Crypt Keeper.

Dems will pick up 32 seats in the house and hopefully with any luck have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. The reversal of Bush policies will then begin.....the light at the end of the tunnel....I can see it.....

____________________

Nickberry:

I think that Obama supporters are being a little too optimistic about overtaking McCain by great numbers. One thing about the long primary season is that many many voters have had plenty of time to form their opinions about Obama. A great deal of media attention has been expended on Obama, while McCain has been somewhat in the background. Obama has campaigned in all 57+ states (just kidding here)... but my point is that Obama has spent millions of dollars on his campaign (especially TV ads) and he ain't no stranger to the average voter.

Having said that, McCain is already very well known since he campaigned in the 2000 GOP primary, and has since then made hundreds of TV appearances in the off-election seasons..... so no surprises.... and now he has an established "brand," The GOP/Bush problems seem to not be sticking... Very few buy into McCain being a third Bush term.

In fact, he is using that latter concept as a way to differentiate himself from Bush. For example, on energy policy... McCain actually voted AGAINST the Bush/Cheney energy bill and Obama voted FOR it. So who is the one promoting Bush policies???

____________________

Nickberry:

You forgot the Hispanic vote... and please do not say that they always vote Democratic or will not vote Republican. Whereas, Gore got 65% in 2000, Kerry did not fare as well (55%) when Bush got 45% in 2004... and that helped swing the vote for Bush.

____________________

carl29:

Nickberry, May I burst your bubble for a second? I promise it would be quick. Right now in gallup, there is an article showing the support of Obama and McCain in the different groups:
Among Hispanics
Obama 62, McCain 29

Have a nice day Nickberry. I really hope it wasn't that painful. Take care.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

ohh, nickleberry, still going with the lies?

Hasn't the clinton camp stopped paying you guys yet?

McCain voted 95% of the time with Bush last year, 100% of the time with Bush this year......try pushing some other crap buddy.


Obama will pick up quite a bit in the next few weeks in support, but the real support will come when they stand next to each other......the visual will be jaw-dropping.


Who is going to vote for the crypt keeper over the tall, handsome, young, fresh-faced senator with a pretty darn good platform?

It will be stunning. For a preview, just look at the two speeches from Tuesday. McCain's was comical. Obama's was classic.

The deluge is coming.....

____________________

Uri:

@carl29: Don't be so condescending (though you have a role model). I am aware that a polling site deals with speculation by its nature.
Also, be careful about making conclusions from one poll.

@Mike: That makes more sense (like I Said, closer to 10% of what Obama has now) but I am not sure I see this number because if you assume record turnout in the GE, there are just not enough Clinton supporters around the country (more like in specific states) to give you that 5 points.

@onelightonvoice: I still don't see what you're saying. If you're taking about the 14% of Obama supporters who are undecided (whether they will even consider voting for McCain), of course they lean for Obama. If it's undecideds in general, I am not sure you can bank them for Obama at all. As for AA turnout: that's probably figured out into the national polls, and if not (or if they undersample AAs) that's another problem.

What you guys are doing is very similar to saying Apple's stock will go up because of the iPhone2 coming out, even though it's already figured out in the stock price.

Also, calling him the "crypt keeper" is completely unacceptable. And it's an uneven playing field since the Republicans can't go back with racial slurs. Good luck getting back those older Hillary voters.

One of the reasons that I hope Obama loses is that it will put the frat crowd in their place when it comes to understanding politics.

____________________

Uri:

@carl29: So what you're saying is that Obama does among hispanics as well as Gore did. That's great... I am sure he will win Florida overwhelmingly just like Gore did... Or he will have to rely on the close race in New Mexico which has no latinos.

And don't underestimate Latino reaction if Billy doesn't get the VP.

____________________

SunnyD:

Ughh... The thought of a veto-proof majority scares me, regardless of the party. It kind of defeats the purpose of separation of the branches and should be used sparingly.

Honestly, it's the economy stupid, and the voter is too disconnected from the fundamentals to understand. Aside from foreclosures, the other problem is $4 (soon to be 5) gasoline. Because of the Iraq War, most people erroneously believe that's an OPEC or supply disruption issue. McCain needs to link it too the weak dollar; for example, today the ECB said it was going to raise rates and oil jumps $5/bbl. Tie the weak dollar to the billions in bailouts, pork, and the tax and spend liberals.

Obama's social policies rely on the billions from the corporate tax increases and the cap-and-trade. Even a layman can understand the inherent logical flaw in the scheme; and only a corporation that absolutely has to be in the US will remain here. Offshoring factors now include labor, pollution, and corporate taxes.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

uri-

you make fun of the "frat" crowd, but you can't even add. The 13% comes from 100-87. 87 is from 44 + 43 (obama and mccains totals). Got it? Now reread my posts as I have no time to try and explain it to you again......

your "reasoning" at the end of your last post was hillaryous. thanks for that.....I needed a good laugh. I, a random internet blogger, can't call mccain "the crypt keeper", but "news" stations like fox can use all sorts of innuendo to say obama is a terrorist, a muslim, a manchurian candidate, anti-american, a crazy black-separtist, etc, etc, etc. whatever guy.....are you sure you aren't a republican in cognito....


____________________

onelightonvoice:

uhh sunny, doesn't it also depend on rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy, ending the war in iraq, thereby saving billions, etc, etc.

____________________

Uri:

@onelightonvoice: Read my thread, I'm talking about the second question (about Obama supporters considering McCain). Why you would think that most undecideds go to Obama even when they are not leaning that way even when pushed is beyond me.

And do me a favour, don't ridicule my math skills or I will have to whack you with my top-tier grad school diploma. (j/k)

And as for those specific stations which just happen to be Fox (unlike the Huff post, I guess), well, it's fox news.. :) Doesn't justify why you speak about McCain that way. Like I said, imagine I used the N word for Obama (just to spite you?). Then again, the same age issue is what got Obama to this point, we'll see if it carries him all the way.

And if you're wondering about my political leanings: First of all, as you know, I am not an American citizen, just a permanent resident. I am therefore not registered to vote. On certain issues (foreign policy, capital punishment) I lean to the right. On most issues (civil rights, gay marriages) I lean left. Economically, I'm much farther left and universal healthcare and the fight against corporations are the main things I believe in. Hence, with the exception of foreign policy I've also supported Ralph Nader.

Hillary to me leans that way economically, especially with healthcare. Obama gives a **** about the economy and healthcare, but was smart enough to sound like Hillary to take her main advantage away from her. I congratulate him on that, but will never support him. Nor do I respect Michael Moore anymore, as he was always focused on healthcare and then went with Obama based on "negativity" (ha).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/health_care_the_democrats_lost.html

As for this election, I am torn. I like McCain and respect John McCain, I have a problem with his economic policy, but I don't believe Obama actually has one. I therefore don't support either, and wouldn't shed many tears if the "change movement" dies in November, and people realize they need the real pragmatic change that HRC and Nader advocate in time for 2012.

That being said, my guess is that Obama will take the elections anyway, simply because the Republicans are real messed up this year.

____________________

carl29:

Uri, you know that I've said over and over that Sen. Obama has no "hispanic problem." I am a latina, born and raised until the age of 18 in Central America, and to me it was natural for hispanics to gravitate towards clinton over obama. We hispanics are the biggest brand-loving people you can ever meet. The clinton brand was too much of a comodity for us to pass on. Now, the democratic brand is powerful among hispanics as well, so voting republican over democrat is a little bit hard for hispanics. Other point against McCain among hispanics this year is the economy. Hispanics are very needy people. For us, voting is based on bread and butter issues than ideology. For us nothing is more important than roof over our heads and food on our tables. I'm not surprised at all on gallup findings because I know how hispanics think. The hispanic vote in Nov. will have nothing to do with Obama or McCain but with the economy and the war, which is no good news for McCain.

P.S: When I mention the war, I mean ending the war because a lot of hispanics serve and their families cannot take it anymore.

____________________

SunnyD:

onelightvoice,

The war in Iraq is not that big of an expense, compared to the other spending, because the military would have spent much of it anyways. By most estimates we're looking at about 500B total so far. The 3 Trillion number was a sensational number thrown by Stiglitz, to include future estimated costs. Put it this way, all of "national defense" is 21% of the proposed federal budget.

To keep the middle class cuts while adding the billions for tuition credits, to raise a new army of teachers and pay them what they're worth, to pay for 150B for renewable research. And no one has any estimate on universal health care. So far both MA and CA have run billions over their estimates.

Cutting subsidies will help, but the trillion in corporate loopholes that Obama talks about is somewhat of a myth, having to deal with repatriating funds. Income earned overseas is not taxed until brought back into the US, so the multinationals don't ever bring thing them back. They just use it for future foreign expansion or acquisition. It's not really a tax haven because multi-nationals sell more stuff to other countries than they do us. Literally, the amount of deferred taxes from these funds is in the hundreds of billions. In 2006, GWB allowed them back at a teaser rate of 3.5%; then he lies and says that his tax cuts that increased revenues that year.

____________________

kingsbridge77:

With $4.00 gasoline, an unpopular war, Housing prices slumping and one of the worst presidents ever, McCain should be down by about 25%.

But he's tied with Obama.

Yet Obama supporters claim that somehow it is McCain who should be leading as we speak.

No one plays dumb like an Obama supporter.

____________________

Uri:

@carl29: I know, I've been reading your posts over the past few months.

I am not the one who raised the "hispanic problem" argument. I do think, however, that Obama needs to make higher inroads among hispanic voters than previous candidates because he does have a certain "white problem" (racism or class, that's debatable), and because he is counting on New Mexico in his column.

I am not convinced that he is going to make a significant inroad here beyond what he already has. His brand is stronger than Clinton's for a while now, he has Richardson, he has courted hispanics for much of the campaign season, and yet it doesn't seem like his situations is changing that much.

Then again, there are not enough polls focused on that population (especially by state) so we may see changes.

Do you think that Obama's more pacifist views towards dictators may cause some problems among hispanics or actually help?

Also, do you think that McCain's argument that it's not the war that's the problem, it's the way that it's mismanaged going to stick?

____________________

carl29:

My proposition: Let's have fun with the numbers and the speculations. The real deal starts after the convention. Nonetheless, I think that we are going to see the gap between McCain and Obama to widen in a month, once Hill's supporters have cooled off a little bit. But remember that the most telling numbers are after the conventions. However, in a month we should start seeing the % of democrats rallying around Obama. In the meantime, let's have fun. I imagine that Ross Perot was having a ball around this time in 1992.

____________________

carl29:

My proposition: Let's have fun with the numbers and the speculations. The real deal starts after the convention. Nonetheless, I think that we are going to see the gap between McCain and Obama to widen in a month, once Hill's supporters have cooled off a little bit. But remember that the most telling numbers are after the conventions. However, in a month we should start seeing the % of democrats rallying around Obama. In the meantime, let's have fun. I imagine that Ross Perot was having a ball around this time in 1992.

____________________

carl29:

Uri, you really believe that 62% of the hispanic support is somehow a little bit? I think is very, very healthy at this stage, taking into account that a majority of those hispanics were strong hillary supporters. I give my opinion as a member of the hispanic community. However, is very refreshing to find actual data.

Again, hispanics vote based on the economy: jobs, gas prices, house market. Some other issues could be education and inmigration. The only hispanics that vote based on foreign policy are Cubans, old cubans, big, big time. However, they are strongly in the GOP camp. These people came to the US in 1959 and the 60's.Democrats have nothing to look for there. However, the younger generation of cubans and the ones that have arrived after 1980 agree with Obama's position about dialogue with the regime. Younger cubans want to open lines of negotiation with the Cuban government. Obama was smart enough to have come a couple of weeks ago and gave a speech at the Cuban American Foundation, which is a lobbying group against the Cuban government but in favor of some sort of dialogue. So, Obama was a star there.

Resume: Foreign policy no a big deal for hispanics. Hispanics are not happy with the war because of the sons, husbands, daughters.

____________________

eternaltriangle:

The question is NOT "why isn't McCain doing better"?

-McCain has been out of the news for months, because the primary race sucked all the oxygen out of American politics.
-Nor has McCain been running a very active campaign - he was essentially testing out different messages.
-This is a terrible year in which to be the candidate of the incumbent party. The Dems are winning districts Bush won by 15 points, and lead by similar margins in presidential matchups where no candidates are mentioned, only party names.

Now, if I were betting, I would still bet on Obama winning - he is still a vulnerable candidate, but in an exceptionally good election cycle, and with an extraordinary campaign team.

Obama has enough money that he can avoid interviews, meeting with voters, and so on - preventing him from making gaffes. McCain is going to be so desperate for press, he is going to need to get his wrinkly butt out there, and when you do that you make mistakes. Why was Obama's campaign so smooth? Because he mostly campaigned in stage-managed events. Heck, Bill campaigned harder than Obama.

For McCain to win time is running short, and he has to choose a course. Either, he pushes hard defending the surge and raises the positives on the war - knowing that this may hurt him among independents; or he makes dramatic breaks from the GOP. He is trying to do both, which is impossible, particularly for a poor political athlete like him. Moreover, there is little payoff for going "a bit negative" against Obama. Obama is excellent at making the criticism of others seem trivial at best, racist at its worst. He is a teflon man that the press wants to love. If you go negative against him, you have to burn the bridges (which Clinton, despite the accusations against her, never came close to doing).

I see very few losing scenarios for Obama:
1. He doesn't pick Clinton (who has magnanimously dropped out instead of using her delegates as a weapon) as VP, and divisions shake the party.
2. The war turns around in some sort of dramatic way (McCain will get a boost when economists declare - as they are likely to - that there will not be a recession this year).
3. There is an October surprise - I note that Rezko is willingly entering his jail-time. Does he have trouble with the mob? Is he about to rat a bunch of people out?
4. Obama is not so good at dodging sniper fire. 4/44 presidents have been assassinated - and its not like white supremacists have a shortage of guns.
5. Michelle Obama.

____________________

Uri:

@carl29: I think about 60% of hispanics are traditionally democrats.

Obama is a young person, a minority, a liberal, I would expect to see more. Or at least, if they are all going to move for Obama, when are they going to do it? The economy is in a bad enough state already for all of them to vote 90-10% against McCain.

I am not convinced that the rest are undecided or with McCain because of HRC.

In fact, most of the "McCain over Obama" seems to come from white blue collar states (where I am located). I am not sure if that sentiment is mirrored in hispanic society (is it?).

It is very possible that they will shift to Obama. I'm just not convinced why they haven't done so. Hispanics are generally well versed in political and economical issues (at least here in the academic circles), I am wondering what "new information" they are waiting for.

Also, if hispanics are so opposed to the war to the level that this will affect their votes, why did they not overwhelmingly vote for Kerry? That perplexes me because it was already obvious in '04 what a ****ty state the war is in. In fact, I don't understand the whole anti-war vote. We've never had a more symbolic anti-war activist than Kerry, the war was already 2 years bad in '04, and yet Bush won again, and legitimately this time.

____________________

eternaltriangle:

As for Hispanics not caring about foreign policy - they sure care about trade issues. NAFTA has 64% support in Mexico, and many Mexican-Americans are from northern Mexico Maquilladora towns that have benefited from NAFTA.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brlatinamericara/161.php?nid=&id=&pnt=161&lb=brla

____________________

Uri:

@eternaltriangle: Not sure #4 should be in the list...

However, my money too, is on Obama.

There is also the option that we would see more of a Bradley effect among independents or republican leaners who weren't sampled.

____________________

SunnyD:

Speaking of October surprise. From the Germany's former foreign minister.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=92572

While we're seeing it in the form of higher food and gas prices, the precipitous fall of the dollar (especially because it is a reserve currency) is really screwing things up internationally. Imagine if you're China or Saudi Arabia, and the trillions of dollars in your bank account is worth half as much. You get something like this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/08/07/bcnchina107a.xml

____________________

carl29:

You cannot expect Obama to get more support from hispanics that did Gore or Bill. That idea is just unreasonable. When everything is said and done, I think Obama's hispanic support will be around 70%, high 60's. The "lost" % of hispanic support rigth now that is neither with Obama nor with McCain most probable are Hillary supporters who are not with Obama, out of anger, but are reluctant to go with McCain, out of hunger. My forecast? They will come home.

Now, I don't know how many times I have to say that hispanics will vote NOT for Obama because of his ethnic background or any other particular reason. SIMPLE: Hispanics are going to Obama out of desperation about the economy. Hispanics in general are not wealthy and educated; therefore, their economy is very shaky. If white americans are having a hard time in this economy, you have no idea how hispanics, who hold low paid jobs for the most part, are doing. It's not about Obama or McCain is about getting rid of the republicans, period.

Another point, hispanics are not antiwar. Hispanics problem with the war is that Bush sold the idea that it would be shorter and easier. Hispanics, as other americans, thought it would be O.K. Now, after more than 5 years, after more than 4,000 american soldiers dead, after billions of dollars, after thousands of lies. Yes, hispanics are pissed off, especially because a lot of hispanics serve in the military and are in their 3rd or 4th tour of duty. Hispanics want to finish with the Irak war NOT for the sake of world peace but for the sake of the lives of their relatives serving in the military.

____________________

Uri:

@carl29: The war started in March '03. By Nov '04 we had been there for nearly 20 months, and were past the 1000 deaths mark for US soldiers. The death trend had been remarkedly linear :(
I find it hard to believe that people bought bush's short costless war argument at that point but don't buy it now. Especially when the elections revolved around the war.

As for the economy, we're clearly in a worse state than four years ago, and certainly worse than 8 years ago.

So if hispanics voted on economics and the war, why would they not support Obama much more than Kerry and Gore?

____________________

carl29:

Believe, those numbers back in Nov. of 2004 were not outregous for us. 1 or 2 tours of duty not that bad; however, we can only take so much, and this much is too much. Another reason why hispanics are very upset with republicans is "LACK OF HONESTY." We are very into values, no guns and religion like here, but in honesty, integrity,and compassion. Now, needless to say that republicans have become the exact opposite to all that thanks to all the lies and manipulation from this administration. Another thing that has diminish the republican brand among hispanics is the anti-inmigrant sentiment that come from the republican party. We know that McCain doesn't display such sentiments but thanks to that we now feel safer around democrats than republicans as a whole.

Last but not least, obviously that not all hispanics are democrats. There are some hispanics who are diehard republicans, Have you heard about Old Cubans in Florida, New Jersey, California? Have you heard about Nicaraguans who came in early 80's who live in Florida and California? Have you heard about Chileans who used to be on Mr. Pinochet side? There are some hispanics who cannot and will never bring themselves to vote Democrat because they think something along this lines: NO ALL DEMOCRATS ARE COMUNISTS BUT ALL COMUNISTS ARE DEMOCRATS. See?

These hispanics are very right wing and cannot support any party that is not such. So, forget about that high 20% because they rather die of hunger than voting for a democrat. Silly No?

____________________

Mike_in_CA:

quote: "To my knowledge this "10 point bump" is not necessary a 10 point bump in Obama's numbers, but rather a 10 point bump in the "spread". That is, while O vs. M runs about even now, after "unity" it will look more like O vs. M +10...Meaning Obama would gain about 5points to his hard total. Meaning the numbers will probably move in the 48-38 or 50-40 direction with those annoying 10% undecideds hanging on."

Do I understand correctly that that is what we're seeing in the Gallup numbers with the Obama-Hillary pairing - Obama-Clinton vs. McCain gains roughly 5 points over Obama vs. McCain? Or am I misunderestimating what you're saying?

In general -

I wish everyone could tattoo Uri's point directly onto their brains: "The real problem Obama has is that the proportion of these avid HRC supporters is greater" in key battleground states.

Obama could win 17,990,000 of Hillary's primary voters - they are mostly Dem base anyway - but if the remaining 10,000 are women swing voters in, say, the Philly suburbs, it could make all the difference in the world. Or might I be mistaken?

Carl, re: "[A]ll those angry, dissapointed, grumpy democrats are going to come home, and we are going to receive them with open arms. Don't believe me? We can see things already moving little by little, state by state. For example, Missouri: On June 3rd Survey Usa released a poll showing Obama 45%, McCain 43%. The previous SurveyUsa survey? McCain 48%, Obama 45%... Guys, Welcome Home!!!! Now, let's go after McCain and the Republicans, those are the enemy. Love you guys!"

1. Aren't the numbers you cite still within - or just barely outside of - the margin of error? Mightn't, purely by chance, the first SurveyUSA poll have shown McCain 45% / Obama 42%, and the second, McCain 46% / Obama 42% (assuming MOE both times was +/- 3%)?

[If I'm right, somewhere in Annandale-on-Hudson a statistics professor just got the vapors].

2. The most vocal Obama supporters don't sound like you. And I don't think they - unlike you - truly want reconciliation with Hillary's supporters.

What they want is for Hillary's supporters - and Hillary - to affirm their point of view. Then they want Hillary to slink away forever. They want "the end of the Clintons" and "an end to dynasties" (unless the dynasty is named Kennedy or Udall).

Anything short of that will be seen as "pride" - and pride is such an unpleasant quality in a woman (by the way, I am directly referencing something written in the Washington Post by one of Salon's stable of prObama columnists, this very afternoon.)

Hillary's supporters are already okay with a unity ticket. Even I, who has an advanced case of Sicilian Alzheimers, could put a lid on it if Hillary's on board. If Obama really wants unity, he can have it. He'd have to beat some of his supporters and a lot of pundits into submission, but he could do it.

But if he (and they) care more about their pride and their hurt feelings and getting to say "I told you so" right now than about party unity and winning in November, then the chips will fall where they may... probably in the Philly suburbs.

3. We're not guys. Mostly. We're women and cryptkeepers, sometimes both. ;-)

____________________

carl29:

Dear Ciccina: I said little by little and state by state things are cooling down. What is important about these numbers:

"[This] new poll shows the number of voters who say they will cross party lines has already started to decline. Just 13% of Missouri Democrats currently say they will vote for McCain, down from 21% a month ago."

The key for Obama is bring those democrats home first and then work on independents and new voters. The first phase is to secure the base. So far the trend is positive. Now, I suspect that Obama people want to see how many of those democrats come home. If those democrats come home on their own, forget it; he is not offering Hillary a spot on the ticket.

Remember that they poll targeted states almost everyday, so they would know better than anybody how much they need her. If they don't need her, she is not going to be a part of the equation. The direction in which things are moving, according to these two separate polls, must make the Obama people happy.

____________________

Nickberry:

First... onelightonvoice:... may I direct your attention to the "comment policy?" (e.g. "still going with the lies" and "try pushing some other crap buddy")

I do not know why you need to personally disparage any poster. Please refrain.

It is NO lie that McCain in his latest speeches is differentiating himself from Bush. It is NO lie that Obama wrongly criticized McCain for promoting the Bush energy policy, when in fact McCain (and Hillary and most Democrats) voted against the flawed Bush/Cheney Energy bill and Obama himself voted FOR it. Don't you see the disconnect here in what Obama says and his own actions?

And carl29... Where was my "bubble burst?" I only alerted others who were focusing on the African American vote to the fact that they should not forget the Hispanic vote. It was one of the decisive factors in 2004.

Geez, one cannot even make FACTUAL statements here without it being inferred as biased. Some people truly need a reality check. Quit the attacks.


____________________

carl29:

Dear Nickberry: I didn't say that you stated that Obama will lose the hispanic vote; however, there are explicit statements and implicit statements. In this case, in my opinion, "... please do not say that they always vote Democratic or will not vote Republican. Whereas, Gore got 65% in 2000, Kerry did not fare as well (55%) when Bush got 45% in 2004... and that helped swing the vote for Bush..." implies some skepticism on your part about Obama's support among hispanics. Sorry if I misunderstood your comment, but it kind of sound like that to me.
Anyway, the facts are there.

____________________

Uri:

@carl29: No one is arguing that most people who threaten to vote for McCain will end up going for Obama (or at least not going to vote at all). However, as Ciccina argued well, the question may be how many are not going to and in which states.

I can tell you from what I see here in PA that some women are torn between dislike of McCain's views on abortions and the disrespect that Obama's young chauvinists and the Jezebel-style faux-neo-feminists are handling them. It seems to bring out a lot of justifiable anger and (dare I saw it) bitterness gathered in all those years of defending the crypt.

In my view, letting this attitude win is a greater blow for women than the potential reversal of Roe vs. Wade that Obama supporters are gleefully using to bait HRC dissendents back.

I am not sure that all of them would end up back in your nice warm fold the way a wronged woman is expected to (except in the case of Hillary, who had to suffer more ridicule and pay more for Bill's indiscretions than anyone else including him).

____________________

onelightonvoice:

Ciccina-

Too bad all the facts refute your (and Uri's) arguments. Obama has now overtaken McCain in Missouri and is leading in Ohio.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Look at all those states that are weak gop as well. They won't be GOP after Barr has his way with them. Oh, just forgot, have to run and donate to his campaign. Thanks Barr, you are the best.

Another "misstatement" from you:

the Obama-Hillary pairing - Obama-Clinton vs. McCain gains roughly 5 points over Obama vs. McCain?

Um, that's it? 5 points?? And not even outside the MOE??? Therefore MEANINGLESS!! Hmmm, I wonder why?? Could it be that putting Clinton on the ticket doesn't quite convince all those "good folks" down in WV and KY that voting for a black guy is now, hmmm, somehow a-okay?

Well, let's find out, shall we? Let's hear from some of those good folks...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8J9laUNgL4

____________________

Uri:

@carl29: Regarding your VP comment, I don't think you understand something I've tried to convey the past two days about HRC's speech on Tuesday:

Die hard HRC supporters like me don't want Obama to choose Hillary for the VP because he needs her for the polls. We don't want him to choose her as a favour or as a way to make amends. We want him to choose her because that would be acknowledging that he had beat her by a very small margin. Because we want Obama and his supporters to have her stuck like a bone in the throat so they do not forget that 49.6% of voters wanted actual change in healthcare and everything else instead of marketing materials.

Unfortunately, it looks like HRC is now folding, apparently because she's not going to get the nod. Not sure her supporters would fold as well.

By the way, about the hispanics issue: Obama's "hispanic problem" arises from not being able to attract more of them in order to offset (along with the legendary AA turnout) the anti-Obama sentiments among many other white democrats. These EVs may be racist, but they're still there, and the famous 50 states strategy includes racist Appalachia (which has now extended to cover the corridor from Arkansas to New York)

____________________

carl29:

Dear Uri: If you go to Real Clear Politics and look at your left handside, there you will find the links to the polls in the battleground states. If you click on PA, you will find out that NO POLL has Sen. Obama losing PA to McCain, no a single one.

Obama has to wait and see from now until the convention in what way the polls move. Remember that things for the most part are going to cool down and Obama will be campaigning against McCain in a whole number of states. In my opinion, if his numbers are good by himself, I honestly don't thik he is going to take her. Would I like her on the ticket? Yes, if it helps, no problem with me. However, I understand that the biggest problems will be Bill. Would I like to avoid problems? Who wouldn't. Let's wait and see.

____________________

Uri:

@onelightonvoice: There are very few polls from missouri, and your link shows on data point for late May...

Around the same timeframe, McCain is getting stronger in FL, CT, an NM, and I hope Obama has plans for these.

I will be convinced when I see a long-time trend.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

It is quite obvious from this latest gullup poll that Obama should not pick clinton as vp. There is no advatage to it. He should instead offer her some cabinet position.

Look at all the susa polls where edwards helps obama tremendously.

http://www.surveyusa.com/


Clinton doesn't even get out of the moe in the latest gallup. she may deliver some women, but she also makes obama lose voters. too many negatives. What, you didn't think people were paying attention to the tactics she used the last 5 months?

____________________

carl29:

Dear Uri, first of all let me express empathy for your disappointment. See? I don't have anything against Hillary in particular.However, I also think that because of her stature as a leader, and Bill's for that matter, it would be a little bit hard for Obama to deal with her(their) presence in the administration on a daily basis. It would be like having 3 people trying to drive the same car, all of them grabbing the driving wheel at the same time. Do you picture such scene? Do you think that will be healthy?

____________________

Uri:

@carl29: I am familiar with the PA polls all too well. Gore and Kerry had to work hard in PA. I am not sure Obama can relax about PA. And some HRC supporters are still waiting to see how the VP things ends. I wish there was a poll about that in PA.

And even if you get PA, things are closer in OH and FL where the same factors take place.

Right now Obama is rolling off the nomination while McCain is practically nowhere to be seen. We'll see what happens.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

uri-

as far as you calling women who support Obama
"Jezebel-style faux-neo-feminists"

Well, that doesn't lend much credence to you or any of your "arguments". In fact, it pretty much discredits you completely.

Explain to me how Hillary is a feminist or even pro-feminist? Any women who destroys other women who were sexually harrassed by her husband is hardly a feminist. Any women who stays with said man in order to further political career is hardly a feminist.

Get informed:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/the-unfeminist.html

____________________

Uri:

@carl29: I find the concerns about HRC as VP hilarious.

In my (limited) understanding of US laws the VP does not drive, the VP does not really do anything except for some pet projects. The VP yields very little power. What exactly is he fearing? And what does it say on his abilities as president, if he can't even handle Hillary running around?

As for Bill, I am sure that is a huge concern. After all, no democrat wants to be reminded of the horror that was the Clinton presidency, and the fact that it is actually humanely possible for a democrat president to get reelected, something that other great presidents such as young, energetic, agent of change Carter didn't really bother with. Indeed, Clinton would set a horrible example.

The real source of this issue is that Obama's pride will not let anyone eclipse him. I am still furious at him for listing Truman, and Kennedy as agents of change (and nearly a third world war), but neglecting to mention LBJ who actually did more for civil rights than anyone else.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

uri-

people are waiting to see if she gets the vp spot?? ROTMFFLMAO!!

You would have to be on some serious drugs to still think that she has ANY shot of landing the vp spot. wow...

cabinet maybe....

Good God, can you imagine the crazy campaign Obama would have to run?? He'd be trying to attack McCain and fend off miscues from slick willy every day! Having to fend off the right-wing dogs, & explain slick willy's recent and former business dealings...yikes!Good grief....I doubt he wants that drama.

Imagine that white house, being undermined by hill-bill on everything. No doubt he is telling her right now that she will not be on the ticket.

now, is she gracious enough to accept it? or will her speech on saturday be a half-hearted attempt at reconciliation.....we shall see...

____________________

carl29:

I really think that Ohio key. Did you hear that Gov. Strickland endorsed Obama today? Yeap! I don't know but his name has been mentioned more than once.

PA is a long shot for McCain because if right now that some Hillary supporters in PA are not willing to support Obama, McCain is still trailing, I don't know how his numbers improve. Remember that Ed Rendell and all the aparatus is going to be on Obama's side. In addition to that, PA is a very expensive and McCain won't be able to afford the luxury of trying to close the gap. Remember that Obama is going to contest states like Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia which republicans had never have to worry about. Obama will certainly give McCain a run for his money. He better get ready to campaign in places no republican have the necessity to campaign.

____________________

carl29:

Dear Uri, we obviously are not on the same page. The problem with Bill and Hillary is that they are a little bit self-centered. Let's be honest, they love to be on the spotlight, a little bit like those people who like to have the best spot on the picture, not caring whether others in the picture will actually come out.

Another point, according to the Wall Street Journal, Bill doesn't want to talk about his business deals since he left the white house. The Obama camp needs to vet the vice-president but Bill doesn't want to be vetted. If they are already not doing what he is asking them to, Do you think they would start doing it once in the White House?

____________________

Uri:

@carl29: I heard the business deals thing. Well, he's not running for president or for vice president. And I think it will end up like Hillary's tax returns, a whole lot about nothing. In fact, if they had anything concrete about Bill, they would have slung it during the primaries. It is merely an excuse.

As for being in the spotlight, I doubt any of them can compete with Obama on that. Besides, she'll still be VP and he will be the "second lady" (or whatever the VP's spouse is called). Honestly, Obama will still have much much bigger spotlight. It's like the superdome versus a rural high school football field.

As for the endorsements: so did a lot of other people including two congressmen here in PA. We have a nominee, naturally he's been endorsed. If the gov had really supported him, he'd have endorsed much earlier when it still mattered. And besides, Obama doesn't necessarily do well in endorsed states (MA, WV to name a few)

____________________

Uri:

@onelightonvoice: I am glad that you are on the VP search committee and give us your inside knowledge.

Indeed, I wish you, Obama, and slick billy Richardson much success. I know at least one family of lifelong democrats that will not be voting D this year.

____________________

carl29:

When I mentioned Gov. Strickland, I did it because we mentioned certain states. It called my attention that Gov. Strickland had switched sides before Hillary's dropping. Do you know of any other Gov. who was supporting her and did the same? I just wonder if Gov. Strickland is showing Barack that he wants to go that "extra mile." Obviously that Strickland knows that his name comes up and up again, not only for the pundits but from people like James Carville. Strickland understands how attractive he is for Obama's ticket.

Now, I can picture things going smooth with Hillary and Bill, but sometimes I just have some doubts. But as I told you, it doesn't bother me at all. For me the more the better. If the ticket improves with her on it, which I think it does, I'm more than willing. I really think that Bill and Hillary could be very helpful not only for the campaign but for the presidency as well. On my part is fine. Now let's see. Right now, the media is reporting that Barack is at Hillary's home. Let's hope things go O.K.

____________________

Uri:

@carl: Yea, I know at least one more governor who supported Hillary and switched to Obama. Our likely future VP. And he didn't do it out of love to Obama, he did it out of lust for this job.

Most of the supers who switched to Obama since around PA switched for "party unity" or "since the race has to be over", not because they were so in love with Obama or they would have endorsed earlier. It's not that in the past week a hundred super delegates realized that Obama is the right candidate, it's that they realized that he is the likely candidate and wanted to fall into the fold as soon as possible.


As I've said, to me Hillary needs to be the VP not because she can help or not help the ticket but because she earned it, or Obama didn't do well enough to not owe her. He may be the new majority shareholder, but it's a tight majority.

____________________

carl29:

I agree that Hillary is a powerful force in the democratic party and has the support of the other half of the party. There is no doubt in my mind. When I express my doubts it is not in the spirit of diminishing Hillary's accomplishments, not at all. It's just a question, maybe because her persona is without presedence in history, in the sense that she is an ex- first lady. As I told you, she would be my first choice.

In my opinion, those supporters who are publicly pushing Obama to pick Hillary are not doing her a favor because no "future" president wants to be "bully around" in front of the people he is trying to lead. I really believe that she is on the list, but he wants to make the decision. I don't think the hasn't given it a thought. At the end, maybe that's the suprise at the convention.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

uri-

"she earned it, or Obama didn't do well enough to not owe her"

Uhhh, uh-huh, what?

The vp is not OWED to anyone and it is not EARNED by anyone. The sooner you come to terms with that, the better. The presidential nominee picks someone at his discretion. This person generally has the same vision and ideals that he has.

Even a blind man can see Hillary is not that person. There is nothing even remotely related to "change" about her. She is the old guard.....who may be valuable in Obama's cabinet, and that is all.


____________________

onelightonvoice:

uri-

"she earned it, or Obama didn't do well enough to not owe her"

Uhhh, uh-huh, what?

The vp is not OWED to anyone and it is not EARNED by anyone. The sooner you come to terms with that, the better. The presidential nominee picks someone at his discretion. This person generally has the same vision and ideals that he has.

Even a blind man can see Hillary is not that person. There is nothing even remotely related to "change" about her. She is the old guard.....who may be valuable in Obama's cabinet, and that is all.


____________________

Mike_in_CA:

I'm sure this will be posted later...but Rasmussen has their daily tracking poll up for today and already Obama's bounce begins: Today O 48 v. M 43, up from O 43 v. M 46 just ONE WEEK AGO....


____________________

carl29:

Good Morning guys!! Here we are again. Did you hear that Hillary and Barack met last night? Good starting point.

You know that I am an Obama supporter but I really think that we should put our differences aside and contemplate the idea of Barack and Hillary joinning forces on the same ticket.

Just think about: Millions of ardent supporters, from different groups,and millions of dollars. Poor McCain!!! Don't you think that McCain is afraid of such idea. I live in Florida and I honestly think that if Hillary and Obama are on the same ticket, McCain's chances in Florida become very, very shaky. Remember that Hillary is strong among Jews, old people, women, and hispanics. Now, of course that not everyone is going the come around but the more the better.

Barack and Hillary together can put into play a whole bunch of states: Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Missisipi, Indiana. Remember, they have support from different groups and they bring a lot of money. Can McSame afford running against a ticket with half a billion dollars? Can McCain afford running against a ticket so energetic to campaign all over the country? Can McCain afford running against a ticket that has valganized millions of americans?

____________________

eternaltriangle:

How does the fact that Hillary Clinton has said she doesn't want the VP-ship and isn't lobbying for it change the tune of the Obama folks here?

After all, your basic modus operandi is that Clinton is evil and will do anything to help Obama lose. Perhaps Clinton has calculated that having her on the ticket would help unite the party - and so she has selfishly decided not to go for the VP-ship.

At the same time, of course, if she did go for the VP spot you would be hearing here about how crass, selfish and power-hungry she is.

Obama had an extremely tenuous victory based on out-maneuvering the Clinton camp. He did not win a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination, and arguably is not the choice of a majority of democrats. Dubious victories should open up a period of reconciliation - not the divisiveness that Obama's supporters seem to want, or did you guys learn nothing from Bush's presidency?

____________________

Nickberry:

McCain is directly courting Hillary supporters and Independents. Senator Lieberman (I) is sponsoring a website "Citizens for McCain."

So we know what action McCain is taking. What does Obama plan to do to get Hillary supporters?

____________________

Mike_in_CA:

@eternaltriangle: Please do not lump all of us "Obama supporters" together and that the posters on this site in support of Obama represent all of us. I am an Obama supporter from the very beginning, but I do NOT think Clinton is evil. I admire her work as a Democrat and think she will be a valuable voice for Democrats for many years to come, whether as VP, or anything else.There are a few crazies on this site, but I beg of you -- they do not represent all of us. In fact, a majority of Obama supporters (according to exit polls) WANT him to pick Clinton as VP (I'll admit, I'm on the fence, but only because I think Gov. Schweitzer or Gov. Warner would be more valuable overall).

Ok, that's my two cents.

@Nickberry: I think you're already seeing Obama courting Clinton supporters, what with his nice words to her all week, their "secret meeting", her upcoming endorsement, his trip to "Reagan Democrat territory" SW Virginia, that Clinton won with 65% of the vote... PLEASE do not let the crazy posters on this site speak for the majority of us Obama supporters or Obama himself!!

____________________

Uri:

@Mike: In every exit poll since IN/NC, they were asking about the VP, and if I remember, the majority of Obama people were against it. The pundits spent long discussing it (how she negates his message of change, yada yada yada)

____________________

Nickberry:

I see Obama courting Hillary, but not her supporters. Is he expecting her to do that outreach.

The SW Virginia thing may help Obama but it is not specific outreach. My point is that McCain has already begun to focus on Hillary supporters, especially women.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

eternaltriangle-

"dubious victories" - hmmm, let's see, one candidate played by the rules and won what matters, delegates. The other continually lies about the "popular vote", gets the rules changed after initially agreeing to them, and tries to discredit the victor in what should have been a concession speech. Everyone called it an ungracious, selfish act - not just Obama supporters. The way Clinton and her campaign behaved the last few months guaranteed that she would not be on Obama's ticket. Maybe, if she says and does all the right things, he might have a spot for her in his cabinet. By all the right things, I mean campaigning effectively with Bill and delivering some states. Somehow, I doubt that will happen......


It seems every day we learn something new about Hillary, and almost always, it isn't good:


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/06/clinton-supporter-says-campaign-aide-looked-to-use-racial-tension/

____________________

Mike_in_CA:

@Uri: I stand corrected. They only conducted those exit polls in KY, SD and MT, and you're right most of them split 40 Yes, 56 No. Still, 40% of Obama supporters WANT her to be VP. And I bet a bunch of those 56% would be OK with it, but that she isn't their first choice.

@Nickberry, I think he's slowly easing into it. some of his focus is shifting to health care, one of Hillary's greatest causes. Here's a quote of his from yesterday:

“I like it! And if members of Congress don’t pass my health care bill, I’m ready. I’ll whoop ‘em. I’ll whoop ‘em. That’s right. They’d better not mess with me. I’ll have that stick.”

In my opinion that's somewhat of an effort to win back her supporters. But honestly, do you think McCain's feeble attempt Tues night to praise Hillary in that horrible speech will win over her women voters? What specifically is McCain doing to win them over other than saying he intends to win them over, lol. He's still pro-life and called his wife a c*nt. Not to mention he just sided with Bush today in the wiretap fight. I just don't see a specific action that McCain has done to win over Clinton supporters other than say he intends to :) ... In my opinion, he dropped the ball on that. He had a big opening and squandered it. But we shall see. Gloria Steinem endorsed Obama today , quote "following Hillary's lead"... So yes, some of the work is, unfortunately, up to Hillary. There's only so much Obama can do.

____________________

carl29:

I think that the hardest people for McCain to bring to the GOP column are women. Women are very into bread and butter issues. Women worry about the economy, education, social security, food prices, college costs, the war. Right now women are upset, but the more they hear from McCain the more they will realize that they have nothing in common with him.

I took a look at Hillary's blog and there was a lady telling that she had already signed up at McCain's blog but didn't feel like she belonged there. You know what, the more the hear McCain saying: Americans don't need a health care system wrong by the government but the private sector. These women will see that they oppose one of Hillary's main issues.

The more these ladies hear McCain saying that we should stay in Irak, these ladies are going to cringe. The more these ladies hear McCain saying that the Bush's tax code must be kept, these ladies are not going to feel represented by him. The more these ladies hear McCain saying that he will appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court, these ladies are going to think about their struggles for women's rights. The more these ladies learned that McCain opposes equal pay for women, these ladies are going to realize that by electing McCain they are only hurting themselves, their sons and daughters, their country. These ladies will look at their children's and grandchildren's faces and will come to the conclusion that they cannot hurt their future with McCain's agenda.

____________________

Uri:

@carl29: The problem is that HRC supporters don't belong on the McCain blogs and forums, but they don't feel they belong in the Obama ones either, at least the ones I read. Unless they do an inquisition-style conversion, renounce their past sins and embrace the light of change.

I doubt McCain would win many of these women voters. But I also think that some of them would avoid contributing, volunteering, or perhaps voting.

____________________

carl29:

I don't expect these good ladies to be all excited by Obama, but saying that they will vote for McCain sounds pretty silly. I don't believe that responsible mothers will jeopardize their children's future by election another republican. I kind of understand their anger, and it is in this spirit that I support the idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket.

____________________

Nickberry:

Please read what you wrote. It sounds condescending to women as in "sounds pretty silly" ... which ironically is a phrase that Obama uses often.

I will not debate the specifics of your argument about why women should not vote for McCain and should vote for Obama, except to say that women are independent thinkers and putting us all in one ideological box is a big mistake.

____________________



Post a comment




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.

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