quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: so does this help Obama? Would the people who were voting for Edwards be more likely to vote now for Obama or for Hilary?
Originally posted by TomDavidson: Obama. Overwhelmingly, I suspect.
That's questionable. In two polls, Edwards supporters broke almost evenly for Obama or Clinton as their second choice. Of course, if Edwards endorses one of them, that could make a difference.
My guess is it will help Obama marginally but other factors will be more important.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Assuming he wins, Obama will pick Richardson or Wesley Clark. He needs international experience on the ticket, and either would also be an olive branch to the Clinton camp.
I'm not so sure here. I think if Hilary wins the nomination, the best person she can pick will be Obama because he can bring in those voters that Hilary cannot. Hilary is a polarizing figure in the republican party, she will bring those republicans together who want to defeat her, and the best person to offset that polarization would be Obama. Hilary is not weak on anything but "change" and "Iraq", two things that Obama is especially strong on, and hence, that would make him the natural VP candidate. What's more, the choice of Obama as VP would go a long way to dissuade those internal squabbles that have been occurring within the democratic party.
However, if Obama wins the nomination, I suspect that Hilary as VP would only be a hindrance to the Obama campaign. Thus, I think the best VP candidate for Obama would be someone other than Hilary Clinton. Now, Clark would be interesting, but I think Colin Powell would be a perfect candidate for Obama. Not only is he a republican, which would give credence to his want to unite the country, but Powell gives him that experience that he is lacking. Colin Powell would be such an intersting VP candidate...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd have been more enthused by Powell as a VP candidate before the speech he gave before the UN in the runup to the Iraq war.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'd have been more enthused by Powell as a VP candidate before the speech he gave before the UN in the runup to the Iraq war.
Well, I think that might be the point of Powell as VP--if we are going to come together we can't leave behind those who were pro-Iraq. Coming together means that ultra-conservatives and ultra-liberals get to play too.
Plus, with this new emphasis on new versus old, I don't think Obama can choose Richardson because he was part of the Clinton years. That would be inconsistent with what he is saying about new versus old. I don't know though, Richardson would make a good VP...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt Powell accepts the offer. He's be completing his second term as president right now if he wanted it.
Richardson's distant enough from the Clintons now that his pick doesn't taint Obama. But he's close enough that it would be seen as a reconciliation. Same with Clark. Both are associated with the Clintons; neither in the Clinton camp.
I don't know if either Hillary or Obama get in on a Clinton/Obama ticket. Too many negatives in the idea for each side.
Possibilities
Obama: Clark Richardson Tim Kaine Biden
Clinton: Bayh Mark Warner (doubtful, though - would create awkwardness in the Senate) Vilsack (unlikely, after Iowa) Ed Rendell Richardson
McCain: Huckabee Fred Thompson Tim Pawlenty Mark Sanford Haley Barbour Bill Owens
Romney: Ditto McCain, minus Huck.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thompson would be a very smart VP choice for McCain. Right now the right wing talk show hosts are having conniptions about McCain, forgetting that you run a different campaign against other republicans that you run against a democrat.
The trouble for "real conservatives" as they call themselves, is that they are forked between Romney and Huckabee. Anyone base enough to let immigration dictate their vote is base enough to believe Mormons worship the devil's brother. And Romney can't lay down and endorse Huckabee because 1) that would be insane and 2) Huckabee doesn't care about the "interests" (big business).
I'd love to see Romney do it, though. It would be inspiring. Except that Huckabee is such weirdo.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm surprised Edwards has dropped out. I would have assumed he'd continue to amass delegates, then swing them to one or the other of the other two, based on a promise probably of Attorney General. He's too much a retread to go with VP again.
I think part of the timing may have been that the Republicans are now apparently a two man race. The Democrats had enjoyed having their act more together than the seething gaggle of Republicans, and now that it is down to McCain and Romney, it doesn't do to have three running on the Dem side.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, I'm away from CNN and Hatrack for 24 hours and things just turn on their heads.
McCain is looking like the shoe in for the Republican nomination, unless Romney can find a late surge that gets him back a lot of votes (with so many WTA states almost locked away for McCain) and somehow cancels out Giuliani endorsing McCain, but I don't see it happening. Romney as the candidate would be the best thing for the Democrats, as by far and away he's the easier guy to beat. But McCain has a lot of problems too. There's still no indication that the hardcore conservative base of the Republican party will come out to vote for him, or if they'll just stay home, and in a race where Democratic turnout has been exploding into the voting booths, Republicans staying home will kill McCain. Even if he manages to win most of the states Bush won in 2004, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia, and a couple others in the plains are trending and heavily leaning Democrat this time around. Furthermore, if they stay home, Republicans could be looking at a major downticket defeat as well. But we'll see. I'm not underestimating McCain's ability to rally the party, but as of this moment in time, things look grim.
On the Democratic side, I think Edwards dropping out helps Obama a LOT more than Hillary. I think the general feeling is that if you like Hillary you're already voting for her, she's no one's second choice. Supporters of Edwards will likely flock to Obama, especially if Edwards actually endorses him, which I'd really like to see. In a lot states where Obama is just a couple points behind Hillary (pretty much every state) this could vault him to the lead SuperTuesday could be a whole new ball game.
As far as VP picks? Hard to say right now. McCain is going to have to pick a stalwart right wing guy to cement that part of the ticket and try and bring them out of the woodworks. I think there will be a lot of pressure for either Obama or Hillary to pick a white guy for the VP spot, but it's not guaranteed. If anything this year's primary has shown the Democratic party is okay with any race or gender on top, so I don't see the bottom turning anyone away. Like I said before, Sebelius will get heavy consideration. She's a strong Democrat in a part of the country where Democrats are usually roasted on a spit, and she could energize women voters.
He doesn't necessarily need someone with strong foreign policy experience, that was the reason Bush chose Dick Cheney as his VP, and look where it got us. You need someone to A. Be around to run for the presidency in 8 years (a secondary consideration really, and one that might make Sebelius look less likely since she's Hillary's age). And more importantly B. Get voters to come vote for the ticket that aren't wooed by the top alone, which makes a woman from the heartland look more attractive.
Richardson will make a great SecState, SecEnergy or UN Ambassador. John Edwards would make a fantastic AG. I'd be okay with Richardson as a VP, but I don't really think he adds a lot to the ticket. Hillary would probably choose someone like Dodd, Biden, or Evan Bayh.
I eagerly await new polling numbers, and I hope to see a big bump for Obama. Hillary, for all her great ideas (and I really do like them) is part of the old establishment, the old Democrats. Obama is a new breed for a new party, and I'd love to see him battle it out with McCain, a grizzled old warhorse from the oldschool Republican party. I think it'd be a real fight, and I think Obama would likely win.
I think the only chance Romney would have is for Huckabee to drop out and try and drag the Evangelical vote over to Romney, to try and help him win the south and the heartland, but I'm not sure they'd follow him there.
I'll post new numbers as soon as I can, probably tomorrow or the next day.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think the general feeling is that if you like Hillary you're already voting for her, she's no one's second choice.
My mother explicitly listed Clinton after Edwards, in her hierarchy of choices. I think the gender card came into play in that debate, though, albeit not because of my suggestion... Obama was her third choice. (Hey, there's no accounting for taste.)
If the strong conservatives don't like McCain so much, then what are the odds they would try to find a third-party candidate? Or was that only a threat when Guiliani was polling pretty high?
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he is going to give McCain his endorsement later today (Thursday.) That should help McCain in California, at least, and possibly elsewhere on "Super Tuesday."
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with that is Schwarzenegger isn't exactly a conservative's conservative either. It'll help a lot in California, but they're special. His endorsement and help might even hurt a tiny bit outside of California. Arnold has gotten into a tussle with the White House recently. He's a very mild Republican who's quite popular with the Democratic legislature there, and with a majority of the people.
Rush Limbaugh today stopped just short of calling McCain the anti-christ. There are a lot of very loud people who don't like him.
Tstorm - There won't be THAT kind of split. Either they'll hold their nose and vote for him, or they won't vote at all.
In other news, Democrats far and wide, not just for the presidential race, are raking in the cash, while the Republicans are missing out. Republicans in 2000 and 2004 had an almost 3 to 1 advantage in donations from corporations and business. And in general had a nearly 2 to 1 advantage in fundraising. This year, corporations have gone 50% for Democrats, 30% for Republicans, and 20% hedging their bets by playing both sides, and this is on top of the usual donations Democrats get from labor and other unions. That plus amazing early turnout from Democrats gives them a major advantage across the entire spectrum of elections in November.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I caught some Sean Hannity and he said he wouldn't vote for McCain no matter what.
I'll throw out a fantasy VP that I dug up back when Giuliani was looking like the Man, and that's the woman senator from Texas. Kay Bailey Hutchison. She's 64, by the way, only 4 years older than Clinton, but she looks grandmotherly.
Giuliani's endorsement of McCain, plus McCain saying the average American is better off than 8 years ago, has come pretty close to shaking my faith in McCain. If McCain is thinking of Giuliani for VP, your going to see a woman scorned such as hell hath no fury like.
On the other hand, Osama bin Laden did hope to destroy our economy and he hasn't entirely succeeded. Robert Kiyosaki has.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Conservatives who are so extreme they regard every position as a litmus test, always vote themselves into oblivion (just like liberals always do), and no one else is impressed by their hysterics. The vast majority of the American electorate is moderate, and that is precisely why Sen. John McCain has such strong appeal. They see he can work with the opposition party and get at least a few things done.
Virtually all the major polls indicate that McCain is the only Republican candidate who can beat either Sens. Clinton or Obama, and any other Republican candidate would be beaten by a double-digit margin that would amount to a landslide. So some conservatives say they will "hold their nose and vote for McCain." The only alternative is to have Clinton or Obama for president, along with a landslide that would sweep Republicans out of office and Democrats in, on every level of government, due to the "coattail" effect that is manifest in any landslide.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If he's nominated, I'll vote for McCain in the General. But I am now questioning whether I prefer that he be the nominee.
I guess it comes back to immigration for me, which is exactly the issue that has Limbaugh's panties in a twist.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nader has formed an exploratory committee. :facepalm:
As I'm prone to forget, for good reason, Nader collected me when Bush's drunk driving arrest was revealed the week before voting in 2000. He thinks he has a good opportunity to get his 5% in this race from Edward's supporters, I guess.
I guess I should be happy in the way such a bid would help the Republicans, but it's annoying, and smacks of opportunism.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everything seems to be going Sen. McCain's way, with the big endorsements he has received already and is scheduled to receive shortly.
Gov. Romney faces an uphill battle. Not only are there merely four days of campaigning left until Super-Tuesday, one of those days is Superbowl Sunday, when not many people will be paying attention to the stumping of politicians, and also on Saturday Romney has to attend the funeral of the late leader of the Mormon Church. So Romney really only has two days to campaign. According to the polls, McCain already had a two-digit lead in California, even before Gov. Schwarzenegger endorsed him. Romney has launched a major ad campaign, but that probably cannot turn the tide by itself.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Everything seems to be going Sen. McCain's way, with the big endorsements he has received already and is scheduled to receive shortly.
Gov. Romney faces an uphill battle. Not only are there merely four days of campaigning left until Super-Tuesday, one of those days is Superbowl Sunday, when not many people will be paying attention to the stumping of politicians, and also on Saturday Romney has to attend the funeral of the late leader of the Mormon Church. So Romney really only has two days to campaign. According to the polls, McCain already had a two-digit lead in California, even before Gov. Schwarzenegger endorsed him. Romney has launched a major ad campaign, but that probably cannot turn the tide by itself.
You are wrong. I shouldn't be saying this as the Super Bowl has not happened yet, but Romney is actually replacing Tom Brady for the New England patriots and plans on dominating the Manning's New York Giants.
The entire South and indeed the football fan bloc will then be forced to accept that if Romney can lead on the 100 yard battlefield he's clearly the one we need in the white house, a super bowl win speaks volumes.
Romeny is also slated to base jump into the stadium during halftime and share the mic with Tom Petty.
Oh believe you me my friend, Romney has got the nomination signed sealed and delivered.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Romney has to attend the funeral of the late leader of the Mormon Church
does he have to? I guess I'll let you know, but it's not like he's going to be in a spot of any visibility.
As a non-mormon, would you think ill of him if he didn't?
I mean, they have 4 hours booked for this event. I won't even think ill of my husband if he ducks out, and he's probably just going to nap or whatever.
President Hinckley was important to us all, but he's not a relative or anything.
I don't really know where Romney would go to campaign, though. Huckabee is leading in 5 bible belt states.
From the Boston Globe:
quote:And then there's the presidential candidate, Republican Mitt Romney, a Mormon whose campaign has dramatically elevated interest in the Salt Lake City-based church. If Romney attends as planned, he'll have national media and security in tow.
Olsen said he expects the funeral to last just over an hour and include remarks from church leaders, family and music by the renowned Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
posted
I can tolerate Dick Lugar, but I've decided that I don't want anyone named Richard anywhere near the presidency for a while.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can tolerate Dick Lugar, but I've decided that I don't want anyone named Richard anywhere near the presidency for a while.
No seriously, Tom. His name aside (and I almost agree with you there), it's bipartisan, as republicans go he's pretty liberal, he's got the foreign relations experience and creds, and I have to admit, I love a lot of the stuff he's done while in the senate. Aside from maybe convincing them both to do it (and the name), where's the bad?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see Obama selecting a republican for VP. At one point I thought McCain would select Lieberman, but Lieberman is at least independent, and I think McCain is going to have to choose a conservative.
You know what I just remembered? Tancredo took credit for making immigration an issue in this race. A pox on Tancredo! But, yeah, whoever McCain takes as a VP is probably going to be pro-immigration. Was Thompson?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kay Bailey Hutchinson would've been a great choice for Romney or Giuliani.
For McCain it looks like the AARP ticket.
Lieberman would still be a decent choice for McCain, but, he really needs a staunch conservative to balance out the ticket, not someone even further to the right. Besides, Lieberman is to a lot of Democrats what McCain is to Republicans.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I can tolerate Dick Lugar, but I've decided that I don't want anyone named Richard anywhere near the presidency for a while.
Tom, are you still nursing a grudge against Nixon after all this time?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
During the introductory phase, I heard the moderator say "traveling cesspool", then took a moment to figure out that what was probably said (or at least meant) was "traveling press pool".
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will be so glad when Tuesday is over and I stop coming home to 3 "Hello? Hello? Hello? Is there annny-body theeeeeere" voice mails from pollsters every day after work.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I can tolerate Dick Lugar, but I've decided that I don't want anyone named Richard anywhere near the presidency for a while.
Tom, are you still nursing a grudge against Nixon after all this time?
That was my first thought, but then I remembered Dick Cheney. Even I don't like Dick Cheney. But I'm looking forward to your cheerful defense of him.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He is beloved by both the National Rifle Association, and by anti-NRA groups. Obviously he believes in the Second Amendment right to bear arms, but you wouldn't want to go hunting with him. Some people just should not be trusted with guns. How's that for cheerful defense, Pooka? Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, Dick Cheney really puts the Freude in Schadenfreude.
I have this dark graphic fantasy where Dick Cheney gets a permit for the first Grizzly hunt in his home state of Wyoming and is brutal mauled by the animal he's hunting.
(How's that for stunning defense of the man?)
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: He is beloved by both the National Rifle Association, and by anti-NRA groups. Obviously he believes in the Second Amendment right to bear arms, but you wouldn't want to go hunting with him. Some people just should not be trusted with guns. How's that for cheerful defense, Pooka?
I dislike Cheney quite a bit, but I've got to give you that one, Ron.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I can tolerate Dick Lugar, but I've decided that I don't want anyone named Richard anywhere near the presidency for a while.
Tom, are you still nursing a grudge against Nixon after all this time?
I'm with Tom. Two horrific Richards is enough. We should pass a law like the British did forbidding any English king to bear the name "John".
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MoveOn.org is now supporting Obama in the primaries. It was decided by an online member vote and he got 70%. They seem to have a pretty good "get out the vote" organization so that could help with the Super Tuesday votes.
posted
That will certainly help him. MoveOn is good at organizing volunteers.
That plus the $30 some million dollars Obama scooped up just in January will certainly help him even the odds in Tuesday.
A lot of experts are saying now that if he can split the difference with her, or even lose 60/40, he'll probably win the nomination. The more time goes on, the more things swing his way. There are still enough states afterwards, and with his push and his money, and the get out the vote measures, he might still win. He's picking up more Congressional endorsements too, including what could be a key one from Claire McCaskill (spelling?).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
With a March primary, the odds of my vote mattering are pretty low. Politically, I agree strongest with Kucinich, but that is a joke. Then I liked Richardson, then I liked Edwards. I am thinking that any candidate I like is guaranteed to fail.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Not necessarily. I really have no idea how Super Tuesday is going to go, but, my guess is that Obama will come out slightly behind Hillary. That won't change throughout February, since most of the remaining states vote on March 4th (especially Texas and Ohio), I think a close race means your March vote (so long as it's that day) might still have an effect.
On a side note: Maine has a caucus today for the Republicans.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will actually vote if the race is close. Which would be new for me (voting in a primary, not voting in general). I stongly prefer one candidate over the other so if there is a chance, I'll be out there. And I'm a Texan for now (hoping to move in a away soon- only thing I will miss is the low cost of houses).
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Vote anyways. Crooks like to inject their ballot propositions into primary elections under the assumption that their pro-passage advertisements will work cuz very few people have been paying close enough attention.
posted
The problem isn't immigration or even illegal immigration, the problem is a lack of totally open borders with Canada and Mexico. eg Baja would be worth far more than Florida if the border were eliminated. Possibly more than California.
posted
Super Tuesday's fuzzy math. Looks like some strange rules for Democrats, and they seem to favor Obama being slightly behind.
Here's a look at some polling numbers from recent days in some of the Super Tuesday states for Democrats. This probably won'e be much use, as I think McCain is going to overwhelmingly pick up a lot of delegates, and I think Obama/Hillary will be a virtual stalemate, but, let's take a look anyway:
Democratic:
Alabama: January 31st - Hillary Clinton 46%, Barack Obama 41%, other 7%, undecided 6% Hillary Clinton 46%, Barack Obama 40%, other 5%, undecided 9% Barack Obama 47%, Hillary Clinton 47%, Other 5%, Undecided 2% Barack Obama 40%, Hillary Clinton 35%, Edwards 9%, Undecided 16% And to give you an idea as to how much things have changed in just a week: January 23rd - Hillary Clinton 43%, Barack Obama 28%, John Edwards 16%, Undecided 23%
Multiple entries means multiple polling agencies, mostly with a plus/minus of 4 or 5%. Bit much work to post all the info separately, but, I think if you look at the numbers you get a sense that the truth is somewhere in between.
Arizona: January 24th - Hillary Clinton 37%, Barack Obama 27%, John Edwards 15%, Undecided 18% January 20th - Hillary Clinton 45%, Barack Obama 24%, John Edwards 9%, Dennis Kucinich 1%, Undecided 21%
No polling that I've seen without Edwards in it, but, I think by Monday I might have something
California January 29th - Hillary Clinton 43%, Barack Obama 40%, John Edwards 9%, Other 4%, Undecided 4% January 27th - Hillary Clinton 49%, Barack Obama 38%, John Edwards 9%, Other 2%, Undecided 2% January 25th - Hillary Clinton 49%, Barack Obama 32%, John Edwards 14%, Undecided 4%
Also no data with John Edwards out, but I certainly expect new numbers by Monday.
Colorado January 23rd - Barack Obama 34%, Hillary Clinton 32%, John Edwards 17%, Undecided 14%
Connecticut January 31st - Hillary Clinton 48%, Barack Obama 35%, someone else 8%, undecided 10% Barack Obama 48%, Hillary Clinton 44%, other 4%, undecided 5% January 27th - Hillary Clinton 40%,Barack Obama 40%, John Edwards 11%, Other 3%, Undecided 6%
Deleware February 1st - Hillary Clinton 44%, Barack Obama 42% , other 4%, Undecided 10%
Georgia January 30th - Barack Obama 52%, Hillary Clinton 36%, Other 4%, Undecided 8% January 22nd - Barack Obama 41%, Hillary Clinton 35%, John Edwards 13%, Undecided 11%
Illinois January 31st - Barack Obama 51%, Hillary Clinton 40%, someone else 1%, undecided 8% Barack Obama 55%, Hillary Clinton 24%, undecided 20% January 29th - Barack Obama 60%, Hillary Clinton 24%, John Edwards 11%, Some Other Candidate 3%, Not Sure 2%
Looks like Edwards and undecideds broke HARD for Clinton in Illinois. They ate up a dramatic lead he had.
Massachusetts January 31st - Hillary Clinton 57%, Barack Obama 33%, Other 7%, Undecided 3% January 28th - Hillary Clinton 43%, Barack Obama 37%, John Edwards 11%, Other 4%, Undecided 5%
Minnesota January 29th - Hillary Clinton 40%, Barack Obama 33%, John Edwards 12%, other 2%, don't know/refused 13%
Missouri February 1st - Barack Obama 44%, Hillary Clinton 42% , other 5%, Undecided 9% January 31st - Hillary Clinton 47%, Barack Obama 38%, other 11%, Undecided 4% Hillary Clinton 48%, Barack Obama 44%, Other 5%, Undecided 2% January 24th - Hillary Clinton 43%, Barack Obama 24%, John Edwards 18%, Undecided 15%
New Jersey January 31st - Hillary Clinton 44%, Barack Obama 38%, John Edwards 3%, Joe Biden 1%, Bill Richardson 1%, Dennis Kucinich 1%, Other 2%, Undecided 11% (kind of a stupid poll) Hillary Clinton 51%, Barack Obama 39%, Other/Undecided 10% January 30th - Hillary Clinton 49%, Barack Obama 37%, Other/Undecided 12%
New York January 31st - Hillary Clinton 54%, Barack Obama 38%, Other/Undecided 8% January 29th - Hillary Clinton 45%, Barack Obama 33%, John Edwards 10%, undecided 13%
Tennessee January 30th - Hillary Clinton 49%, Barack Obama 35%, other 16%, undecided 4% Hillary Clinton 59%, Barack Obama 26%, Other 7%, undecided 8%
I'll do a Republican polling post soon. I have to see how many I can find without Giuliani in them. It looks like, from most of these polls, Obama is making daily progress, and is in neck and neck races with Hillary in many states. With Monday being the last real day to campaign before the vote on Tueday, he could still pick up another couple points in the race, and with major states like Ohio, Texas, Virginia and Pennsylvania still left after Super Tuesday, Obama has a lot to be smiling about.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any chance that Huckabee's sole reason for staying in the race now is to prevent a Mormon from becoming president?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Obama was her third choice. (Hey, there's no accounting for taste.)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
