Why the dems should have chosen Clinton

[30ashopper]

Great site if you're into poll tracking. Note the two links on the right Clinton vs. McCain and Obama vs. McCain. If the election were held today, Clinton would win by a landslide, Obama would loose thanks to Florida. Looks like we'll be the 'deciders' once again! :yikes:

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

[Mango]

I wouldn't take much stock in polling numbers with three candidates. Other polling numbers show that when the Dem's do finally select a de facto nominee that they will lead the GOP by 10 points. Also, polling numbers may show increases for Hillary because she is being perceived as beaten. Add in her gender whining, like her letter to the super delegates, and she may be getting some sympathy. If Obama is selected as nominee, then many die hard true Dems will vote along party lines.

Take a look at these statistics for an Obama- McCain race and you'll see a vast difference in how those numbers will probably change compared to a three way race. It's like trying to compare apple to oranges.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/05/mccain_vs_obama_by_the_numbers.html

[Santiago]

I wouldn't take much stock in polling numbers with three candidates. Other polling numbers show that when the Dem's do finally select a de facto nominee that they will lead the GOP by 10 points. Also, polling numbers may show increases for Hillary because she is being perceived as beaten. Add in her gender whining, like her letter to the super delegates, and she may be getting some sympathy. If Obama is selected as nominee, then many die hard true Dems will vote along party lines.

Take a look at these statistics for an Obama- McCain race and you'll see a vast difference in how those numbers will probably change compared to a three way race. It's like trying to compare apple to oranges.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/05/mccain_vs_obama_by_the_numbers.html

I agree that you shouldn't put much stock in poll numbers but for a different reason. You still win or lose based on electoral votes and it will be close to dead even when all is said and done. Organazation in key swing states will decide the winner. Just ask Tim Russert.

[scooterbug44]

Clinton's current behavior, refusal to admit she is beaten/wrong, and mounting debt quite effectively demonstrate WHY they SHOULDN'T choose her IMO!

I registered as a Democrat on the slim chance that they redid the Florida Primary so I could be in a position to vote AGAINST her.

You can do all the polls you want, but regardless of who is running against her, they will get my vote. I like Obama and McCain, but I would vote in Hitler if it kept Hilary out of the oval office.

McCain vs. Obama will be interesting, Hilary vs. McCain will give us all better complexions from all the mud being slung!

[30ashopper]

I wouldn't take much stock in polling numbers with three candidates. Other polling numbers show that when the Dem's do finally select a de facto nominee that they will lead the GOP by 10 points. Also, polling numbers may show increases for Hillary because she is being perceived as beaten. Add in her gender whining, like her letter to the super delegates, and she may be getting some sympathy. If Obama is selected as nominee, then many die hard true Dems will vote along party lines.

Take a look at these statistics for an Obama- McCain race and you'll see a vast difference in how those numbers will probably change compared to a three way race. It's like trying to compare apple to oranges.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/05/mccain_vs_obama_by_the_numbers.html

Not sure, I'd put more wieght behind Gallup and Rasmussen than say, ABC, both of which have them in a dead heat. Here's the latest Gallup poll from yesterday -

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107548/Gallup-Daily-McCain-46-Obama-45.aspx

Regardless of who's side your on, I do think most polls indicate our fun filled little state will play a pivitol roll. Which I think is pretty neat. :D

[Bob]

Clinton's current behavior, refusal to admit she is beaten/wrong, and mounting debt quite effectively demonstrate WHY they SHOULDN'T choose her IMO!

I registered as a Democrat on the slim chance that they redid the Florida Primary so I could be in a position to vote AGAINST her.

You can do all the polls you want, but regardless of who is running against her, they will get my vote. I like Obama and McCain, but I would vote in Hitler if it kept Hilary out of the oval office.

McCain vs. Obama will be interesting, Hilary vs. McCain will give us all better complexions from all the mud being slung!so, you like Obama's political positions more than Hillary, and you will vote for Obama and not McCain?

[Gypsea]

I agree that you shouldn't put much stock in poll numbers but for a different reason. You still win or lose based on electoral votes and it will be close to dead even when all is said and done. Organazation in key swing states will decide the winner. Just ask Tim Russert.


I heart Tim Russert.

[scooterbug44]

so, you like Obama's political positions more than Hillary, and you will vote for Obama and not McCain?

Yes to the first, probably on the second - jury is still out because I haven't finished researching.

I just know Hilary is evil and 100% what we DO NOT NEED! :blink:

[Bob]

i thought you were a McCain fan, and the two are far apart on many issues

[30ashopper]

I just know Hilary is evil and 100% what we DO NOT NEED! :blink:

Why is a that? Is it based on policy or something else?

[Mango]

:biggrin:

[rapunzel]

i thought you were a McCain fan, and the two are far apart on many issues

I think there are a lot of people who like McCain, but aren't so fond of McCain 2.0. He's changed his stance on many issues, and he doesn't shoot from the hip so much these days. I admired McCain's flippant style and ethics, so that even if I didn't agree with many of his positions I could have still voted for him if the choice came down to McCain v. Clinton.

I guess I have views on issues that don't line up perfectly with either party. I'm fiscally conservative, socially liberal.

To me, the most important issue in this election is lobbying. I was listening to NPR show discussing the McClellan book yesterday, and someone talked about how the book showed that politics had become a business -- that corporate interests use lobbyists to draft legislation that gives them a business advantage, and that the whole culture of Washington has shifted from being focused on governing for the good of the people, to how to cash in on the peddling of influence. I saw that with health insurance. I know the Clintons were a part of that culture, and that's why I would have swung McCain had she been the nominee.

I think the lobbyist culture and influence peddling is so much more important than any single issue. Voting a single issue just gives you unanticipated repercussions. Voting based on getting pro-life judges gives you courts so ultra conservative that they don't hold a company like Pfizer liable for covering up the fact that one of their drugs was killing people and they continued to sell it. They send young girls back into a culture of abuse and slavery. If we don't have an independent FDA, and we throw out large awards to the families of those killed by a drug a company knew was defective, are we not just abdicating government's role completely?

If someone came up to you on the street and hit you upside the head with a baseball bat, that person would be punished. If they instead hide evidence and continue to market a drug that is causing strokes, and you take that drug and die -- that's caveat emptor? If a guy approaches me in an alley with a gun and tells me to give him $200 bucks or he'll ruin my life, that's robbery. But if a hospital makes a billing error and when I call tell me it's been sorted, but it shows up on my credit report months later I have to pay them $200 or my life will be ruined. How is that not robbery?

I think government's role is to promote justice in society, and to me that means not just preventing domination by strong men physically, but also financially. So, I am pro-regulation.

That's the tie-breaker for me this election cycle.

[30ashopper]

My personal hot button issue of this election is Social Security. SS generated something like 250 billion in surplus last year, and will continue to do so in ever decreasing amounts for the next 10 years or so. The solution as I see it, is to wait until it goes into the red and then adjust taxes to pay for the deficit. In the mean time work on a balanced budget and use the existing surplus to pay down national debt, as Bill Clinton did toward the tail end of his presidency. SS surpluses are currently being wasted on 500 billion dollar appropriation bills, wars, bridges to now where and hippie museums. I’m not interested in funding any more of those with my “retirement savings.”

[scooterbug44]

My solution for Social Security - in fact all pension plans- is to make them untouchable. They're not an asset, not something you can borrow from, not the way to "fund" something else by using it as collateral.

IMO, there wouldn't be an impending SS issue if that money had all stayed in accounts and been collecting interest!

[30ashopper]

My solution for Social Security - in fact all pension plans- is to make them untouchable. They're not an asset, not something you can borrow from, not the way to "fund" something else by using it as collateral.

IMO, there wouldn't be an impending SS issue if that money had all stayed in accounts and been collecting interest!

I totally agree but politicians, both reps and dems, like spending our money. I'm ok though with them using it to pay down debt, that puts the federal government on better financial footing by decreasing interest loan payments, which can then be used to absorb SS shortfalls.

I'm a member of a homeowners association board and I see the drive to spend other people's money on pet projects even on the smallest of scales. It's really quite sad, we give these people our trust and they just trample all over it.

[InletBchDweller]

I would rather not have any SS taken out of my check and I could invest it the way that I wanted....

[scooterbug44]

Me too, but then what happens to all the people who DON'T do this?

We're in the middle of a major housing/mortgage crisis and a large percentage of Americans are in debt because they can't effectively plan, save, or budget! People who can't pay their bills and have mounting debt aren't saving for retirement.

If everybody could/would put aside money to plan for their own retirement and health care, we wouldn't need Social Security and Medicare. Unfortunately that is not the case.

[InletBchDweller]

Me too, but then what happens to all the people who DON'T do this?

We're in the middle of a major housing/mortgage crisis and a large percentage of Americans are in debt because they can't effectively plan, save, or budget! People who can't pay their bills and have mounting debt aren't saving for retirement.

If everybody could/would put aside money to plan for their own retirement and health care, we wouldn't need Social Security and Medicare. Unfortunately that is not the case.

I agree SB, some people dont know how to plan, save or think about their future. The government could give free classes to teach those who don't know how to do so. Problem is that so many are dependent on the govm't and they don't want to do things for themselves.

If a person is capable to save for themselves, and they do not, then tough -you reap what you sow. The people that truely can not take care of themselves and need help - I am all for that.

[Gypsea]

I agree SB, some people dont know how to plan, save or think about their future. The government could give free classes to teach those who don't know how to do so. Problem is that so many are dependent on the govm't and they don't want to do things for themselves.

If a person is capable to save for themselves, and they do not, then tough -you reap what you sow. The people that truely can not take care of themselves and need help - I am all for that.

So what would you do with those folks ~ kick em to the curb? :idontno:

[30ashopper]

So what would you do with those folks ~ kick em to the curb? :idontno:

Absolutely. We have modest safety nets that are there to help people back up on their feet when they fail, but in this country you generally pay for your own mistakes. No one is going to carry you across the finish line. That's been a basic tenant of American society since its inception.

[Beach Runner]

I am on vacation until September, so I have the time to listen to the talking heads. Pretty much most of them are reluctantly implying that Obama won't beat McCain -- Clinton is the only one with a chance.

Gypsea, I <3 Russert as well. "Florida Florida Florida."

[InletBchDweller]

So what would you do with those folks ~ kick em to the curb? :idontno:

pretty much yes.

There are guys in Inlet Beach that we have tried to help over and over and over again. Give them work, create work for them to earn $$, give them $$ and then a day or two later they have nothing.. it is "I cant pay my rent or I need a ride to the store b/c I can not afford gas" I will help someone but after a while you see that you are being taken advantage of. They learn to depend on you.
I feel that is how many Americans abuse our Welfare system, food stamps, etc. They are given a check every month for doing nothing so why start doing something for themselves? I dont want you, or anyone else, to think that I would not help someone (those of you who know me know that I do) but depending on someone else to take care of you when you are perfectly able to is wrong. make the system where you can get help for a certain period of time and then you are cut off. Heck when I was young we were on food stamps for a while. Then, after my dad and mom finished their Doctorates we were finished using the system and moved on. We used the system and then left it, worked hard, and took care of ourselves.

[beachboy2]

cmon social security in america is peanuts and a joke...so is health spending as a part of gdp = ziltz

Mcain will win for sure...hillary's a phoney airy fairy, and obama is black barley american

[scooterbug44]

I agree SB, some people dont know how to plan, save or think about their future. The government could give free classes to teach those who don't know how to do so. Problem is that so many are dependent on the gov't and they don't want to do things for themselves.

If a person is capable to save for themselves, and they do not, then tough -you reap what you sow. The people that truly can not take care of themselves and need help - I am all for that.

I am certainly a proponent of tough love and hard work, but I don't think you realize the scope of the problem. I'm not talking about a small segment of the population when I say people can't/don't save and manage money properly. More than 40% of American households spend MORE than they earn.

Major reforms are REALLY needed in welfare etc. but about 25% of the people on welfare cannot support themselves for a variety of mental/physical reasons. The rest need a boot in the arse!

[InletBchDweller]

I am certainly a proponent of tough love and hard work, but I don't think you realize the scope of the problem. I'm not talking about a small segment of the population when I say people can't/don't save and manage money properly. More than 40% of American households spend MORE than they earn.

Major reforms are REALLY needed in welfare etc. but about 25% of the people on welfare cannot support themselves for a variety of mental/physical reasons. The rest need a boot in the arse!

Hey SB, I agree with everything you said above...:wave:

[Gypsea]

pretty much yes.

There are guys in Inlet Beach that we have tried to help over and over and over again. Give them work, create work for them to earn $$, give them $$ and then a day or two later they have nothing.. it is "I cant pay my rent or I need a ride to the store b/c I can not afford gas" I will help someone but after a while you see that you are being taken advantage of. They learn to depend on you.
I feel that is how many Americans abuse our Welfare system, food stamps, etc. They are given a check every month for doing nothing so why start doing something for themselves? I dont want you, or anyone else, to think that I would not help someone (those of you who know me know that I do) but depending on someone else to take care of you when you are perfectly able to is wrong. make the system where you can get help for a certain period of time and then you are cut off. Heck when I was young we were on food stamps for a while. Then, after my dad and mom finished their Doctorates we were finished using the system and moved on. We used the system and then left it, worked hard, and took care of ourselves.

I'm all for Welfare reform and hard work ~ but that was not what we were discussing. We were discussing what happens after a lifetime of work.

Just hope you and yours are never in need again.

[InletBchDweller]

I'm all for Welfare reform and hard work ~ but that was not what we were discussing. We were discussing what happens after a lifetime of work.

Just hope you and yours are never in need again.

You are right Gypsea I think we alltook 30A shoppers thread down a bunch of different roads. Sorry 30a shopper!!!:wave:

[scooterbug44]

We were actually pretty good - we just went from SS to welfare and managed to not have any personal attacks, youtube videos, or random posts! :biggrin:

Per the letter I got Friday from the Social Security Admin all benefits are subject to change because as of 2041, there will only be funds to pay 78% of the benefits. Since I'll be 65 in 2044, obviously I am hedging my bets and concerned!

Since Hilary can't even manage the finances of her own CAMPAIGN without major debt and continues to alienate people, Obama is still the only sensible choice in my mind!

[30ashopper]

I'm all for Welfare reform and hard work ~ but that was not what we were discussing. We were discussing what happens after a lifetime of work.

Just hope you and yours are never in need again.

Well we do have that right in Social Security, which is both a retirement account and dissability insurance, which is why the return on the investment is so low. What erks me is when people take advantage of it. In government systems I suppose that's inevitable but it is very frustrating for anyone who works hard and isn't looking for free handouts.

[30ashopper]

You are right Gypsea I think we alltook 30A shoppers thread down a bunch of different roads. Sorry 30a shopper!!!:wave:

Not a problem I enjoy the discussion. :D

[30ashopper]

We were actually pretty good - we just went from SS to welfare and managed to not have any personal attacks, youtube videos, or random posts! :biggrin:

Per the letter I got Friday from the Social Security Admin all benefits are subject to change because as of 2041, there will only be funds to pay 78% of the benefits. Since I'll be 65 in 2044, obviously I am hedging my bets and concerned!

Since Hilary can't even manage the finances of her own CAMPAIGN without major debt and continues to alienate people, Obama is still the only sensible choice in my mind!

I'm not a fan myself. SS isn't going into the red for 10 more years, so I don't see why we need to be raising the tax cap today. I sense Obama has plans for all that added revenue. If it get earmarked for other spending proposals, in 10 years we'll be right back where we started only we won't have the ability to raise the tax cap to solve it.

[Gypsea]

Well we do have that right in Social Security, which is both a retirement account and dissability insurance, which is why the return on the investment is so low. What erks me is when people take advantage of it. In government systems I suppose that's inevitable but it is very frustrating for anyone who works hard and isn't looking for free handouts.

Agree with you there. It would help if we had our surplus back.

[Bob]

cmon social security in america is peanuts and a joke...so is health spending as a part of gdp = ziltz

Mcain will win for sure...hillary's a phoney airy fairy, and obama is black barley americanairy fairy versus black barley....do they grow black barley in Hawaii?

[30ashopper]

Arrgh, it should have been Hillary! :bang:


However, McCain fares better against Obama than he does against two other prominent Democrats. New York Senator Hillary Clinton leads McCain by eight points, 50% to 42%. Former Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, leads McCain 50% to 43%.

These numbers help explain why Election 2008 is competitive even though events so heavily favor the Democrats -- because the Republicans are on course to nominate their strongest possible general election candidate but the Democrats are not. Perhaps even more importantly, the data suggests that voters don’t see a potential McCain Administration as the third term of President Bush.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/obama_leads_bush_by_twenty_but_clinton_does_better _against_mccain

I wonder if there's really any truth to the idea he'll choose her as his V.P.? Personally I doubt it.

[rapunzel]

From http://wonkette.com/:
Hillary Clinton will never give up and never stop fighting for you, which is why she’s trying to roll her 2008 presidential election fund into her 2012 Senate re-election fund! She’s sending out letters to supporters who maxed out their contributions, asking them if she can hang onto their money for 2012, and if they don’t say “yes” by August 28 she will have to give it back, which will make the baby Jesus cry. Plus, a new poll shows that she’s the only candidate who can beat John McCain in the fall! It’s true.

A daily Rasmussen tracking poll shows that if Clinton were still running she’d be up by eight points against McCain, while an imaginary Al Gore would be beating John McCain by seven. The actual (presumptive) nominee leads McCain by only FOUR percent.

[Here4Good]

From http://wonkette.com/:

I love these "imaginary candidate" polls.

It reminds me of this old joke:

A woman goes into the butcher shop and starts complaining about the price of ground beef. She says to the butcher, "Why, the place down the street only charges $2.98 a pound, and you're charging $3.99! It's outrageous!"

The butcher replies, "Why didn't you buy the ground beef at the place down the street, then?"

The woman says, "Because they're out of ground beef!"

The butcher says, "Well, when I'm out of ground beef, I only charge $2.49 a pound for it!"

[30A Skunkape]

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/15/homeless-hey-buddy-can-you-spare-movie-ticket-duri/

[TooFarTampa]

Arrgh, it should have been Hillary! :bang:


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/obama_leads_bush_by_twenty_but_clinton_does_better _against_mccain

I wonder if there's really any truth to the idea he'll choose her as his V.P.? Personally I doubt it.

My guess is McCain would pick Romney way before Obama would pick Hillary. I think Hillary can still do some good, which is why I'd like to see her on the Supreme Court (she'd be pretty moderate) -- that way she and Bill would both be forced to more or less shut the H up.