Will Virginia be a competitive, "swing state" this fall, as many have expected? Perhaps not, according to Rasmussen Reports, which now has John McCain leading Barack Obama in Virginia by 11 points (52%-41%) and McCain blowing out Hillary Clinton by a stunning 22 points (58%-36%)!
Wait a minute, wasn't it just February 21 that McCain held only a 5-point margin (49%-44%) over Obama and a 10-point edge (51%-41%) over Clinton? What changed since then? Two things: 1) McCain clinched the Republican nomination (March 4) while Clinton and Obama pounded each other's brains out. Needless to say, that's NOT the combination you want if you're a Democrat. Sigh.
By the way, I find it fascinating that McCain consistently leads Clinton by twice as many points as he leads Obama in Virginia. Of course, given Obama's huge victory in Virginia's primary on February 12, I guess that shouldn't be too surprising, but still, McCain has a 22-point lead over Clinton in a state that has elected two Democratic governors in a row, and soon two Democratic U.S. Senators as well? That's just stunning.
The establishment press will make this difficult, because they are so in bed with the old man -- but McCain is so out of touch and tainted by hi suckupitude to Bush's Republican base. At the end of the day, Barack and his campaign will ably draw the line that voting for McCain will mean that this retarded occupation of Iraq will continue ad nauseum, and Virginians will vote for Barack.
This is obviously not a fait accompli, and we all have to commit doing our parts, but I think these polls right now are by far John McCain's watershed. It's all down hill from here.
30 weeks ago, barrack had No chance, Mccain was broke, Hillary was "ineveitable" Have patience, grasshoppers.
Work hard, and your dreams just might come true. This applies even to republican grasshoppers( known as locusts}
If they can reasonably poll toward the Republican, they will.
By the way, one of the most annoying things people do on blogs is, if they don't like the poll, they trash the pollster. If they like the poll, oh then the pollster is BRILLIANT!
Meanwhile, Rasmussen polls Bush favorability about 10% higher than any other polling organization.
Their polling is biased. The Washington Times has no credibility.
Guess what.
Rasmussen uses conservative assumptions in its polling -- e.g. it doesn't push leaners -- it measures undecided support well.
In the case of George W. Bush's daily numbers versus other organizations, I'd take the evidence for what it is. Maybe it's a sign of their cooking the numbers. On the other side, maybe people are more willing to say what they believe to a robo-poll while they are too ashamed to the voice the same beliefs to a human pollster (e.g. maybe a person is ashamed of the fact that they like George W. Bush at a time when they know most people don't).
Virginia Senate: Webb and Allen Dead Even
Allen (R) 49%; Webb (D) 49%
Sunday, November 05, 2006The latest Rasmussen Reports poll of the bitterly fought U.S. Senate race in Virginia shows the contest too close to call, with both Republican Senator George Allen and Democratic challenger James Webb collecting 49%...
The final results: Webb 49.59%, Allen 49.20%. You can't get much closer than that!
Clinton will be 69 in 2016, still young enough to be president. On the other hand, if she is seen as having an effect on an Obama loss this year, then any future prospect she may have is totally nullified.
This is not a question of Clinton wanting that happen, or positioning herself to take advantage of an Obama loss in 2008. Rather, the reasoning of Clinton actually acting to make it happen collapses under the weight of its own assumptions.
if obama loses in november you people will undoubtedly blame it on clinton rather than the fact that he is a flawed candidate and that's why people chose not to vote for him
Obama is a flawed candidate?
As opposed to whom?
You're saying Hillary Clinton is a flawless candidate?
I don't know whether notwaltertejada is right or wrong in his/her assumption, but the argument that Obama is a flawed candidate is NOT an argument that Clinton is flawless. I mean, it is not even in the same ballpark.
The fact is that every candidate carries flaws, Obama included. I know you know that -- you know your politics, even if I don't agree with you in many cases.
I just don't understand this kind of unnecessarily hostile argument from you, because you seem smarter than this.
I would say that your initial assertion is too broad. If you are intending to cover every Obama supporter, well then we can guarantee your assertion to be false. Because each supporter is their own person and can come to their own conclusion. It may well be turn out that the drawn out campaign and Clinton's tactics and the tactics of her surrogates cost Democrats the election in November. It could be something else. I doubt there will be such objective evidence to substantiate a solid conclusion that all participants in this process accept. And it is still a long ways til November.
As to your second assertion, again something that cannot be substantiated. You don't know why everyone voted for Senator Clinton. They could have voted for her solely because they thought Obama was a flawed candidate. But they could have voted for her for a myriad of other reasons. You don't know why people voted for her, you may get a glimpse of that through exit polls. But it is doubtful that you are going to bare your soul to pollster as you are exiting the polling place.
As to your recent reply, everyone has flaws. But the fact that Senator Clinton had been grist for the mill for years now doesn't mean that she is impervious. Her flaws have not been elevated to some level where they are now irrelevant, and they will most certainly be brought up time and time again by the Republicans and the conservative establishment. And they will have an affect on voters, how many? Who can say? But then who can say what affect Obama's flaws will have on voters? Or John McCain's flaws? Is your argument now that since we know her flaws, but don't know all of his, she is the better candidate? Some how her flaws don't matter as much? And how do we know we know everything there is to know about Senator Clinton? We don't.
btw- i highly doubt anything we don't already know will come out about clinton in the future. with obama we just don't know.
I see Northern virgina and Richmond being strongholds for Obama or Clinton. The ground campaign id going to have to drive the Democratic vote in Tidewater.
If the polls show the Obama/Clinton above 45% on Labor day --- I'd stick with Va until Election Day