4.14.2008

Monday polls: Mixed general election numbers, as Clinton gains in Indiana

It looks like this morning's ARG poll will be the only numbers out of Pennsylvania's primary we will see today. But numerous general election surveys were released today, as well as a primary poll from the very important state of Indiana. (This survey was conducted from Friday to Sunday, so many interviews were conducted while people were being bombarded with stories about Obama's comments.)

  • SUSA finds Clinton expanding her lead in the May 6th primary, now ahead 55% to 39%. This includes a 27% lead among registered Democrats, with Obama owing his survival to registered Republicans (+20%) and independents (+12%).
If Clinton survives Pennsylvania, she will have to strike again on May 6th, the next primary day. That involves getting a big victory in Indiana; the assumption until the first SUSA poll was released was that the state would be evenly divided, but Hillary looks strong with 3 weeks to go; her strength among registered Democrats is very important, for the main argument she has left with superdelegates is Obama's weakness among Dems, particularly blue-collar voters. Combine SUSA's numbers from Indiana with the string of recent Pennsylvania polls showing Clinton on the rebound, and voters are showing no intention of forcing the Democratic primary to come to a close.

But Clinton also needs to stay close in North Carolina, which also votes on May 6th. She has no room for error, and a blow-out in NC would offset any convincing victory she gets in Indiana -- both delegate-wise and symbolically. And this is a state Clinton has been unable to move numbers in for quite some time now:

  • PPP's latest poll, released this afternoon, shows Clinton leading 54% to 34%. This is the third week the margin has held statistically stable.
Depending on how large victories Clinton gets in Indiana and Pennsylvania, she could have some wiggle room in North Carolina. But this primary will be the largest remaining once Pennsylvania gets done on April 22nd, so there is no doubt a 20% defeat would be very damaging.

Meanwhile, there were a number of general election polls released today -- and they bring good and bad news for all three candidates:

  • In Pennsylvania, a Temple University poll (conducted over a long period) shows both Democrats posting a large lead against McCain. Clinton is up 51% to 40%, while Obama leads 47% to 40%.
  • In Michigan, renown pollster EPIC-MRA finds Obama edging McCain 43% to 41%, while Clinton is trounced 46% to 37%.
  • Proof of McCain's strength is supplied by the generic numbers, as he overperforms: A generic Democrat leads a generic Republican 43% to 31%.
  • In Florida, Clinton edges out McCain 45% to 44%; but the Republican trounces Obama by a stunningly large margin, 53% to 38%. McCain is viewed favorably by 62% of voters, far outpacing Clinton (49%) and Obama (42%).
  • In North Carolina, Rasmussen finds that it is Obama who is surprisingly strong, as he ties McCain at 47% in a traditionally red state; McCain leads Clinton 51% to 40%.
The Pennsylvania numbers are interesting in that they are further evidence that Democrats might be gaining a boost in the Keystone state because of the extended primary -- something I discussed in more detail just last week. With both Democrats spending millions on ads in mostly positive advertisement, they are gaining a crucial edge on McCain in one of the most important battlegrounds of the country.

On the other hand, Michigan has to be considered an increasingly worrisome state for Democrats. This is a must-win state for them, one that flirted with Bush in 2000 and 2004 but about which Democrats were never that worried. Even if Obama performs much better than Clinton, he is locked in a toss-up against the Arizona Senator in a contest Democrats should have a clear edge on given how important the economy is for Michigan.

Finally, it is starting to look quite consistently that Obama would have more difficulty than Clinton in Florida (the Rasmussen poll looks very similar to the Quinnipiac survey released last week); some even say that an Obama campaign would pretty much give up on the Sunshine state. Obama, of course, has his own red states that he would make competitive and his campaign argues that he would create a new electoral map; Clinton has more difficulty in (Colorado, for instance). North Carolina, Rasmussen suggests, is also one of them.

Labels: , , , , ,

41 Comments:

  • I guess it's time again to question Obama's Democratic credentials. He sure doesn't have the support of the party.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 14 April, 2008 16:31  

  • Once McCain co-opts all of the Democratic issues,those Obamacans aren't voting for Barack.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 14 April, 2008 16:33  

  • " I guess it's time again to question Obama's Democratic credentials. He sure doesn't have the support of the party."

    Oh, really? I guess that's why he is leading and has been leading the entire time.

    By Blogger Mark, At 14 April, 2008 17:11  

  • Obama give up on Florida, just like people told him to give up on PA? Not having any organization in a state for a single day is going to effect the polls, as the past has shown Obama could be down 20 points before he sets up and organization and within 5 in a few weeks, that won't be any different come the general election.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 14 April, 2008 17:40  

  • If Obama's GE North Carolina numbers hold into the fall then it combined with other smaller generally GOP states like Alaska, North Dakota, Colorado, and Montana can make up for it seems like a certain Florida win for McCain. Obama will likely never be truly competive in Florida because alot of Florida democrats blame him for blocking remedies to allowing the delegats to the convention and they will punish him in the general for that.

    Also in Michigan I'm generally happy with the GE numbers. The only reason why McCain is competive in Michigan despite the bad ecnomcny and his equally slim econonmy is because the lost of delegats is also affecting Michigan democrats and their enthusasim. However, Michigan democrats are probably less resentful then Florida dems because Obama wasn't even on the ballot and the primary was ruled unconstituional by a Michigan judge, proably lessenig the hate Michigan dems have of Obama.

    Oh and on Obama being too weak with dems.. no that he makes this up with support from independents, which will be very imporant in the GE. Clinton is stronger among conservative dems but is much weaker among independents. As you all should know, Democrats alone are not enough to win the election.

    By Anonymous jaxx raxor, At 14 April, 2008 17:46  

  • Mark-Obama has never been leading among Democrats. Repeating lies over and over,even with the help of the media,can't cover up the truth. If the primaries were all closed, Barack would have been eliminated a long time ago.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 14 April, 2008 18:09  

  • I am utterly sick of Hillary's supporters. To me, they are not even thinking Americans, but people who happen to have lsot their brains somewhere along the path.
    Keep talking about Obama lying??? How pathologically hypocritical they must be! They applaud Hillary's thousands of lies (Bosnia, Ireland, Iraq war, experience, NAFTA, health care, etc) while they overreact and bash like wild animals at Obama's misuse of words to tell truths (everything except the AIDS remark that Wright said was true, idiots; and yes small town America i bitter, you foolish elitists and ignorant fools).

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 14 April, 2008 18:34  

  • How can you argue that a newcomer of Washington like Obaa (who has been in the Senate only since 2005( and expect him to win over registered Democrats when the establishment candidate (Hillary) who happens to have been First Lady since 1992c cannot even even win 28 states and lead in pledged delegates and in the popular vote? I don't think Democrats' votes in November matters much because they are too partisan to vote for a candidate of change and he will certainly draw independents, like he drew a 22,000 crowd in PA that no candidate ever have done before.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 14 April, 2008 18:41  

  • Wow, those two comments really make me worry about the state of education in this nation. I don't think I want uneducated morons with toilet paper degrees running this country's executive branch. Obama is being dragged down by idiotic supporters. I'd rather think it's McCain supporters in disguise. I feel sorry for the guy. Doesn't he have any intelligent supporters to shut up these morons?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 14 April, 2008 18:50  

  • if by "punish" means Florida voters won't support Obama in the GE I'd rather not have the vote of such petty folks.I never heard Floridians complain when they were breaking the rules.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 14 April, 2008 19:25  

  • Floridians didn't break the rules,their repugnican legislature did. Are you saying that the Fla. pugs have the right to deny Democrats from voting in their primary? That's mighty republican of you. Can you say Obamacan? You're no Democrat.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 14 April, 2008 19:48  

  • Who'd have ever thought that JJ from "Good Times" would've gotten so close to being president? Lamont Sanford was so much more presidential.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 14 April, 2008 20:21  

  • Calling Obama's supporters idiots when even almost all exit election polls demonstrate they are educated supporters is only considered fearmongering. You are worried about the state of education in this nationbecause you fear having Americans reject your ignorance, your bigotry, and your nonsensial ideologies. And what in the world do you mean by education? Do you mean education by liars? Ensuring that our children are instilled with ideologies that only you share and care about?
    Calling a Harvard educated politician an idiot for attempting to comprehend the problems of ordinary Americans -- a man who was even named one of the top 10 politicians in the world by Statesman magazine in the UK who has the potential of uniting the world?
    You and your Clintonites and the Crock (Hillary Rodham Clinton) represent elitist America and the old school politics of the 20th century.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 14 April, 2008 20:27  

  • Floridians didn't break the rules,their repugnican legislature did.

    Let's get the facts straight. The Florida Dems went right along with the early primary. When the DNC said they'd strip their delegates, the Florida Democratic party had the option of holding caucuses or a mail-in vote. They chose not to. And their decision was supported by Florida's Democratic congressional delegation.

    From the Sept. 24 NY Times:

    "State party leaders said that even if none of the state’s delegates were seated at next summer’s Democratic presidential convention, the earlier primary would still help determine the nominee....

    "[S]tate party leaders have agonized over whether to accept the sanctions and stand firm on Jan. 29 or to yield and hold a smaller contest, like a caucus or vote-by-mail primary, later in the year. They decided to stick to January, said Karen Thurman, the party chairwoman, to ensure the largest possible turnout and to avoid accusations of disenfranchisement from Democrats still bitter about the 2000 recount....

    "Whether to seat Florida’s delegates at the convention would ultimately be up to the presumptive nominee, said Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat from Broward County. Rather than risk the wrath of Florida voters, Ms. Wasserman Schultz said, the party nominee will undoubtedly seat the delegates.

    “'We’re going to make sure our voices are heard loud and clear on that convention floor,' she said, adding that the state’s entire Democratic Congressional delegation supported the decision to stick with Jan. 29."

    By Blogger dsimon, At 14 April, 2008 20:40  

  • Shifting to a smaller caucus is not a substitute for a primary. Your argument is ludicrous. As for 20:07-Do you really believe that 18:34 and 18:41 are educated supporters of Barack that lend him creedence? If so,then perhaps you're an idiot as well. Obama has too many morons following him that offset the benefit of his educated support. Every time they chime in with their idiotic personal attacks on Hillary, Barack loses. It's gotten to the point that Barack's image is permanently reduced to their level. It's not Hillary supporters ruining his standing, it's his own. A Harvard educated law professor is not served well by scum like that. A smarter candidate would not be associated by that type of garbage. Greedy self-promotion have taken control over an otherwise worthy candidate's career path and turned his chances into dirt. He might as well have gone to the Emperor's Club.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 14 April, 2008 21:17  

  • What is the deal of we have already witnessed scandal after scandal of Hillary's own making? Aren't we hypocrites for rejecting Clinton propaganda? If we truly beleive Obama is a phony, what evidence do we reference to this argument? Who in this whole election cycle injected the race and gender cards and in the process created even greater division in the Democratic Party? If we truly beleive Hillary represents our interests as ordinary Americans despite her and Bill's combined $109 million income, why would an upstart politician like Obama be able to score 28 contests and lead in the pledged delegates by more than 160 and so quickly pick up endorsements from Democratic superdelegates?
    The argument that Obama is a fraud and a divisive figure only reflect that:
    1) Hillary's supporters have no regard for ethical standards in the conduct of political office;
    2) It is well documented that the majority of her backers are "less educated", older, and mostly women;
    3) Factors such as race and fear determine the outcomes of the primaries (note that Clinton's strategy has been to attempt to push her stories, however ridiculous and false, down voters' throats); and
    4) The unwavering desire for a feale presidency and the chance to experience a woman-run administration in our nation, no matter the costs and cicumstances.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 14 April, 2008 21:47  

  • 21:47-You're another example of an uneducated hatemonger that levels unfounded personal attacks instead of making rational points. I'm sure you lied about your educational level as well.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 14 April, 2008 22:23  

  • Shifting to a smaller caucus is not a substitute for a primary. Your argument is ludicrous.

    First, there's no evidence that Democrats objected to the early primary. The bill moving the primary to Jan. 29 passed the Florida Senate by 37-2 and the House by 118-0. Though the bill contained other provisions, there doesn't seem to have been much Democratic resistance. http://www.slocodems.org/wp/?p=14
    To be fair, here's a claim that Democrats voted for the bill because it contained a provision requiring a paper trail. I don't see why Democrats should have voted "no" and just asked for a clean bill. http://www.makeitcountflorida.com/page/content/makeitcount-faqs/

    Second, when they were told that their delegates would not be seated at all, they chose to go ahead even though they had other options that would have avoided that result. Perhaps they didn't like a caucus or a mail-in vote, but it's not "ludicrous" to say that those options would have been better than choosing to face the DNC sanction if they really cared about having their delegation seated.

    By Blogger dsimon, At 14 April, 2008 23:58  

  • dear dsimon, thank you for trying to educate Anon 19:48. It's easy to see why every single poll done shows the less education you have the more likely you'll vote for HRC, that means Hillary for you HRC fans.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 15 April, 2008 06:37  

  • You start a sentence with a capital 6:37. It's even easier to see that the so-called "educated" supporters of Obama have just grade school level skills. The rules allow for the seating of the Fla. delegation as the decision to not seat them can be appealed. No reasonable person expects them not to count. The Obama nastiness embodied by his poorly educated supporters here, is taking it's toll on him and will continue to make him unelectable. Keep it up, you're doing a great hatchet job on him.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 15 April, 2008 07:05  

  • Anon of 7:05 - easier if you gave your name. But then people who make unfounded charges like to hide behide anonymoity. Clinton's campaign has been as nasty if not nastier than Obama's. So stop seeing things so black and white. Obama bad, Clinton good.

    It is a well documented fact that Clinton's base is with older, lower educated people - look at the states she has won including Ohio and the exit polls. She is expected to win PA well because of its demographics (ie older, less educated than the national average).
    You make very few valid points and critisce people for their typing skills - lets deal in politics not trivia.

    By Anonymous Mike, At 15 April, 2008 08:07  

  • Repeated spelling errors are not typing skills. The fact that Obama cannot carry the less educated is exactly why he will lose the GE. If you people weren't touting your supposed education, it wouldn't be valid criticism. It is you that cannot see the grey areas of your candidate or accept constructive criticism. Your silly charge of "hiding" indicates the weakness of your intellect. I have the high ground here and you're welcome to wallow in your filth. The more you do, the less chance your messiah will win. Politics are about getting votes. You seem determined to shed them. There's a saying that goes; when you're in a hole, stop digging.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 15 April, 2008 09:01  

  • 8:07-No those aren't gaping holes in your educational backround, you're just lazy. Lazy slobs for Obama '08!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 15 April, 2008 09:51  

  • Anon of 9:01 - please use a name, it makes it much easier. Not making any silly charges!
    I was not flaunting any education and I do not see Obama as a Messiah.
    We have to remember that it is not completely black and white - Hillary does get educated voters support and Obama gets support from the less well educated. It is not an all or nothing support.
    I note that you really didn`t answer any of the facts I mentioned in my previous post.
    Also why do you use the word filth. That would seem to be an indication of less intellect (to paraphrase you).

    By Anonymous Mike, At 15 April, 2008 10:15  

  • The rules allow for the seating of the Fla. delegation as the decision to not seat them can be appealed.

    No one disputes that the Florida delegation can be seated. The Credentials Committee can do whatever it wants. The question isn't whether they can be seated, but whether they should be seated.

    Those who favor just seating the FL and MI delegations offer no rationale as to how to prevent states from voting early. If we think this year was chaotic, watch what happens next time if there is no penalty applied. We'll be voting two Labor Days before the general election. It will be an even bigger mess as states keep jumping in front of each other.

    I recommend the following Slate article on how the Clinton campaign originally supported the FL and MI sanctions but then changed its tune after Iowa. That doesn't mean that its stance right now is the wrong one, but it does mean that we shouldn't just buy what they're saying today. Arguments stand or fall on their merits, not based on who says it or when they're saying it.
    http://www.slate.com/id/2188985/

    By Blogger dsimon, At 15 April, 2008 10:39  

  • What facts? She did win that state and more exit polling indicated that Barack's supporters had educational degrees.(The validity or source of those degrees is questionable.) I disagree that the Clinton camp has been as nasty. From the get-go the Obama camp has flamed the Hillary-haters to pick-up support from "bitter" pugs. Now he gives in to the anti-abortion whackos for some more unethical support. I find it very unsettling that he would stoop so low. It makes a mockery of his credentials to curry favor with the mentally challenged. To resort to personal attacks against Hillary deserves the label of "filth". Especially when the assault can be so easily reversed with clips from CNN. Patrick Fitzgerald will find those letters on behalf of Rezmar to be quite curious. Barack may well be convicted. Hillary has never been found to have ever done anything wrong in a lengthy period of time. I don't think it takes much digging to see that she's unimpeachable. So it's not black vs. white, it's about Obama's fading out and Hillary's steady,long term viability. The Tortoise and the Hare. Obama has to prove himself every day. Hillary has a proven track record. PS-There's no such thing as a "less intellect". You're not paraphrasing, you're butchering.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 15 April, 2008 10:48  

  • I think the answer is obvious to the primary issue. We need a standardized closed primary that gives equality and fairness to each state. That would render Obama history so I wouldn't count on the solution being well received. The quick fix superdelegate system leaves too much room for claims of "stealing" the nomination.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 15 April, 2008 10:53  

  • I think the answer is obvious to the primary issue. We need a standardized closed primary that gives equality and fairness to each state.

    Why is it obvious? I get the argument that if candidate represents the Democratic party, then only Democrats should have a say.

    But primaries typically have low turnout and are dominated by activists. If general elections are determined by swing voters, then a closed primaries can be detrimental if they result in a nominee who doesn't play well to centrists. That's less likely to happen in an open primary. Also, open primaries can create earlier interest from independents in all the party's candidates, again benefiting the party in the general election.

    Since there are arguments on both sides, I don't see any answer as "obvious."

    Nor do I know what the phrase "fairness and equality to each state" means. If we had a one-day national primary, no one but the two or three best-known candidates would have the money to compete (it would be even more expensive than a presidential campaign, which is usually limited to certain battleground states). I've changed my mind on this issue; there is a good reason to allow the retail politics that can only happen if some small states go first.

    By Blogger dsimon, At 15 April, 2008 11:42  

  • It's simply unethical to create favoritism among states. The financial aspect is not a valid argument for creating disparity. If you wanted to solve that,public financing would be the answer. Independents choose not to participate in either party and by such choice are not entitled to participate in primaries. The arguments against a level and fair playing field fall flat. Logic prevails over chaos. Even controlled chaos undermines fairness. Sorry to sound so cut and dry, but for some of us the answers are clear. Elimination of variables is required to safeguard equality and fairness for all.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 15 April, 2008 12:20  

  • And to answer the question of why Fla. must be counted; the ethical burden of excluding them is far greater than any argument supporting the decision to strip the delegates. In the case of Mich.,if and only if, all the candidates in the uncommitted category were to pledge their support to Obama. Since Edwards is reluctant to do so (justifiably) a fair inclusion is not possible.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 15 April, 2008 12:27  

  • It's simply unethical to create favoritism among states.

    You could also say it's unethical to limit the voter's choices to only the few, best known candidates who already have a national profile.

    If you wanted to solve that,public financing would be the answer.

    But we don't have it, so we have to figure out what to do in the meantime. And, as I said, the contest would be far more expensive than the general presidential election. And possibly with more participants. I'm all in favor of public campaign financing in the general election, but asking the public to pony up the money for a national intra-party contest could be more difficult.

    Independents choose not to participate in either party and by such choice are not entitled to participate in primaries.

    True, but there's nothing that says anyone is entitled to participate in primaries. Primaries didn't really exist at all until the 70s, so even Democrats were shut out.

    Moreover, that point doesn't answer the argument that the most important goal for the party is to get its nominee in the White House, and that goal may not be best accomplished by closed primaries where party activists can dominate the process and nominate someone who lacks appeal to centrists. It may be a trade-off, but one should at least acknowledge that there may be a downside, and that there is an argument on the other side.

    Sorry to sound so cut and dry, but for some of us the answers are clear.

    Usually, that's only the case if you've already made up your mind and are impervious to argument. If there are intelligent people who come to a different conclusion, then perhaps we should be a little more circumspect in our own conclusions. Reasonable people can often disagree.

    And to answer the question of why Fla. must be counted; the ethical burden of excluding them is far greater than any argument supporting the decision to strip the delegates.

    Who gets to make this ethical calculation? How did you make it? Can other people weigh the ethics differently? If Florida had voted two weeks early in the general election, would there be any debate about whether or not to count that vote?

    Talk about chaos. If no sanction is applied this time, then states will be jumping all over each other next time. Giving the delegation half votes may not be enough to prevent that outcome. One could easily argue that the "ethics" require punishment now to avoid even worse disruptions later.

    By Blogger dsimon, At 15 April, 2008 15:01  

  • If punishment favors one candidate over another, no reasonable person can find that ethical. Ethics have to adhere to equal treatment to all. Downsides to letting women and blacks vote are in a similar standing. Simply put, if we fail to adhere to the most intelligent logic and allow consideration of favoritism,the result will be flawed. It's flawed logic to allow any other factors into the equation. So if you lack the understanding to distinguish between what is equal treatment and what is not, then you lack ethics. It's a documented area of the brain that only a few have. Anyone that is susceptible to religion is without the necessary brain function to possess ethics. We can use an MRI to pick a focus group if that was necessary. With the high percentage of people suffering from this biological disorder, it would be controversial to those that lack ethics. In the ten years since the discovery of this problem, very little has been accomplished to remedy it. The only way to elect an ethical president is to elect a genius who would have to be unethical by lying about being an atheist. Basically impossible.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 15 April, 2008 16:25  

  • If punishment favors one candidate over another, no reasonable person can find that ethical.

    States, or state parties, are being punished, not candidates. Wouldn't it be "unethical" for a candidate to receive an unfair benefit out of a contest that wasn't properly conducted?

    If Florida voted two weeks early in the general election, would it be "unethical" to disregard the vote, even though one candidate would be disadvantaged? This isn't really ethics; it's enforcing rules that everyone knew about in advance.

    Additionally, the idea that punishment can't disadvantage someone doesn't hold up. It's fine to disadvantage someone if that person deserves it. The punishment of failing a test is not unethical if the person didn't know the material; otherwise, we couldn't have tests--or elections, where one person will do worse than another and suffer the punishment of losing.

    I'm done with this topic.

    By Blogger dsimon, At 15 April, 2008 23:54  

  • Your answer doesn't hold water. You fail. It's checkmate, Obama loses. The voters of Fla. were not a party to the decisions. Continuance of this tact will cause enough damage to lose the WH.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 16 April, 2008 08:00  

  • The voters of Fla. were not a party to the decisions.

    They were a party insofar as the public is ever a party: by electing the people who made the decisions. That's all voters can ever do to hold their elected officials accountable. And the lack of an outcry at the time would seem to indicate that many voters weren't unhappy with the decision to risk their delegation at the prospect of getting more attention by voting early.

    After the decision by the state government, Florida Democrats could have put pressure on the party officials to have a different contest, such as a caucus. They chose not to.

    And again, I ask: if Florida had voted two weeks early in the general election, would anyone seriously consider that vote as valid?

    And yet again, I ask: if there's no sanction, how are things not going to be far worse the next time around?

    By Blogger dsimon, At 16 April, 2008 10:01  

  • You still lose. Obama cannot carry the ge with that stance. No outcry? The came out in record numbers to vote. You can bury your head in the sand but it doesn't change the fact that Barack will lose by displaying a clear lack of ethics.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 16 April, 2008 10:24  

  • No outcry? The came out in record numbers to vote.

    No outcry to change the date, at least not enough for even Democratic legislators to vote against the early vote. No outcry to have a caucus or other process that would have seated the delegates. People turning out early to get attention does not imply that they objected to the early vote.

    Barack will lose by displaying a clear lack of ethics.

    Don't know what you're referring to here. It's not unethical not to count the results of a vote that violated the rules, just as it would not be unethical to not count Florida if it votes in October for president. Why not answer that question? Just because it's an outcome you or I don't agree with doesn't make it "unethical." It means we disagree. And reasonable people can sometimes disagree.

    Anyway, Florida will be seated. Just after everything else has been decided. (Someone has to go last, so again no pleas of unfainress.)

    Obama cannot carry the ge with that stance.

    Either candidate should be able to win if they can get the public to focus on the issues: Iraq, the economy, health care, fiscal meltdown with tax cuts for the wealthy.

    And if you want to talk ethics, do not get me started on the many purposefully misleading arguments I've heard from the Clinton campaign.

    By Blogger dsimon, At 16 April, 2008 11:25  

  • Those Florida numbers really show the story. Ignore it and pay.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 16 April, 2008 15:44  

  • Those Florida numbers really show the story.

    For the last time, would those numbers count in the general election if Florida voted in October instead of Election Day? Why the reluctance to answer the question?

    By Blogger dsimon, At 16 April, 2008 16:29  

  • Florida state law has a deadline which already passed. Obama made a huge blunder in not calling for a revote when it was possible. The delegates will be seated as is and he will be perceived fairly or not as the guy who didn't want Florida to count. You can't get support by insulting and demeaning people. He could have afforded the inclusion.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 16 April, 2008 17:10  

  • The delegates will be seated as is and he will be perceived fairly or not as the guy who didn't want Florida to count.

    Again, no answer as to how seating the Florida delegation as is won't lead to even more chaos next time around. And still no answer as to whether an early vote for the general election would ever be considered valid.

    I agree the delegation will be seated. But there will be a penalty. And it will only be after the nomination has been decided.

    And it won't be Obama's fault. Note that the Florida Democratic congressional delegation, chock full of Clinton supporters, opposed a revote. Plus a revote was practically impossible given the logistical problems anyway, regardless of any position by the Obama campaign.

    Again, no more feeding the trolls.

    By Blogger dsimon, At 16 April, 2008 20:59  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



<< Home