New NYT, WaPo polls: McCainmania!
posted at 9:37 pm on January 13, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Let’s get the worst ones out of the way. Dear god.
Who’s he taking from? From the other centrist Republican in the race, of course. It’s as if Rudy’s entire base of support was premised upon him being electable and now that he looks less electable, they’ve all migrated to McCain. Still, good news in the sense that if Mac flames out, they may all come back for a last-man-standing Giuliani resurgence in Florida.
How’s our boy Fred doing, meanwhile? Not so good, not so good.
As for the Dems, the money number is a 20-point swing in the black vote in only a month, from 52-39 for Hillary to 60-32 for Obama now. The claim all along was that blacks were waiting for him to show them he could win. He did it in Iowa, and so here we are. But here’s an interesting trend:
And here’s an intriguing comparison which I wouldn’t be surprised to see Hillary mention this week. Do the numbers reflect reality or are there just a few more people willing to cop to bias against women than against blacks?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Simple answer – the scorecards were passed out upside-down.
fred5678 on January 13, 2008 at 9:40 PM
Again, it’s obligatory
“The dirty secret is it is hard to accurately poll a primary. The unpredictability of who will turn out and what the mix of voters will be makes polling a primary election like reading chicken entrails — ugly, smelly and not very enlightening. Our media culture endows polls — especially exit polls — with scientific precision they simply don’t have”
-Karl Rove
TheBigOldDog on January 13, 2008 at 9:43 PM
IT’S McCAINOMITE!!!!
Кто ваш папа?
Mister Ghost on January 13, 2008 at 9:44 PM
WashPost and ABC – ideal pairing to produce information on which all Conservatives should base their future.
fred5678 on January 13, 2008 at 9:45 PM
And again, it’s obligatory that I remind you that with the notable exception of the Dem NH race, the polls thus far have been pretty accurate.
Allahpundit on January 13, 2008 at 9:46 PM
Where is the GOOD news again?
Vigilante on January 13, 2008 at 9:46 PM
Epic. -Epic- disaster in November.
lorien1973 on January 13, 2008 at 9:49 PM
You strutted out of the New Hampshire primary
Your smirk strategically dipped below one eye
Your face looked like you had just ate a giant tacoberry
You had one eye in the mirror
As you watched yourself snicker and gloat
And you thought all the suckers dreamed that you’d be their el President
They’d be your loyal peons, and
You’re so McVain
You probably think even the surge is about you
You’re so McVain
I’ll bet you think the world revolves around you
Don’t you? Don’t you?
You had me fooled several years ago when I was still quite naive
Well you said that you were such a straight talker
And that in you one could always believe
But you tried to give away the things you should have loved and one of them was our nation’s sovereignty
I had some dreams, they were form in my beer
Foam in my beer, and…
You’re so McVain
You probably think even the surge is about you
You’re so McVain
I’ll bet you think the world revolves around you
Don’t you? Don’t you?
- Carly Simon Redux
MB4 on January 13, 2008 at 9:51 PM
It’s it’s obligatory to point out to you then when you use the same process, the same methodology, and one result may be close and the other off by a mile you’ve learned only one thing, the process does not work. See, science is all about predictability and reproducibility. Simply because one result make have been close is meaningless. It’s just as likely it was an accident as it was accurate. You have more evidence over the last 4 years that the polls are seriously inaccurate, but hey, believe them if you like. Argue with a man like Karl Rove who’s been doing this for decades all you want.
TheBigOldDog on January 13, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Clearly whoever gets these calls is not listening to Rush, Mark Levin, or Laura Ingraham. Where and what is the methodology for this poll? I can’t find it.
Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Clever parodies won’t stop him. His own record won’t stop him. A dry, coma-inducing speaking style won’t stop him, certain defeat won’t stop him. Nothing can stop… The McCainiac.
A George Romero film, coming in 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016…
joewm315 on January 13, 2008 at 9:55 PM
I have NEVER been called for a poll…ever. Where do they find these people?
SouthernGent on January 13, 2008 at 9:55 PM
If Huckabee loses South Carolina, all of my resources go to McCain. This will be the biggest comeback in recent political history if McCain can rekindle a fire and win the nom!
Thanks for the numbers ALLAHPUNDIT, I feel assured knowing that my views are in the majority!
popularpolitics on January 13, 2008 at 9:56 PM
Reporter: Senator McCain, is it true that if you become President you will put a real fence along the border with Mexico rather than just some phony so called “virtual fence”? And a follow up question sir, if so what will the physical fence look like?
John McCain: That is a very good question and yes when I become el President I will put up a physical fence. What will it look like? Well it will run the full length of the border and have special security gates every 100 feet.
All the security gates will have on them:
1) Press one for Spanish (with a response of “Welcome Amigo, my country is your country and please take a free map to the wonderful plantation owner employer of your choice”).
2) Press two for English (with a response of “Go to
Infierno you damned bigoted nativist lazy madre fornicario gringo who does not want what is right for America del Norte and your new Majesty el Presidente!!!”).
MB4 on January 13, 2008 at 9:56 PM
ABC NEWS/WASHINGTON POST POLL [PDF]
NEW WASHPOSTABCNEWS POLL [PDF]
bnelson44 on January 13, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Thanks for the link. I found this interesting:
Closed primaries now, please.
joewm315 on January 13, 2008 at 10:00 PM
To be fair, Mich. is a crap shoot this time though. I don’t know how anyone accurately polls for an outcome there.
bnelson44 on January 13, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Heh.
James OK on January 13, 2008 at 10:02 PM
I agree. Open primaries are stupid.
bnelson44 on January 13, 2008 at 10:03 PM
And how many forecasts of ‘presumptive nominees’ have come and gone through this election season?
snickelfritz on January 13, 2008 at 10:03 PM
bnelson44 on January 13, 2008 at 9:58 PM
METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Jan. 9-12, 2008, among a random national sample of 1,130 adults, including an
oversample of African-Americans for a total of 202 black respondents (weighted back to their correct share of the national population). The results have a 3-point error margin for the full sample, 4 points for the 612 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, 5 points for the 389 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 5 points for the 423 likely Democratic primary voters and 6 points for the 280 likely Republican primary
voters. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.
TheBigOldDog on January 13, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Yeah, I’m going to trust the Washington Post and NYT. Two of the most liberal papers in the nation, and I suppose they didn’t try to skew the poll in anyway either, yeah right.
joncoltonis on January 13, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Praise the lord!
Look at page nine of the pdf link for the methodology.
Bradky on January 13, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Thanks.
Doesn’t sound like very reliable methodology to me!
Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 10:09 PM
A Sergio Leone film, coming soon to a teatro near you.
The Return of the Good (Blondie), the Bad (Hombre McCain) and the Ugly (Tuco – the main star).
One why or another we will Hang that Bastardo out to dry.
We will give him a Fist full of Pesos.
If Blondie doesn’t stop him, I will.
Tuco on January 13, 2008 at 10:09 PM
My God! Are the country’s conservatives sleeping in caves. It seems they all have B-Kentomylotto desease!
It would actually be entertaining to watch readers attempt to suggest that McCain, Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani are true conservatives … if the fate of the country wasn’t at stake.
Vote in the poll!
Just who are HotAir readers BKennedy and Tommylotto?
Gregor on January 13, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Blech!
DannoJyd on January 13, 2008 at 10:11 PM
I kinda like it when they give the methodology at the beginning. That way I don’t have to slog through the whole package of BS to find what I’m looking for, like the fact that it is “oversampled” with black voters.
Thanks anyway.
Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 10:11 PM
They must be polling Democrats. How could any group of Republicans even vaguely familiar with Fred say that his platform is less representative of the GOP than Schmuckabee, McCain and Mitt? That’s the silliest one I saw.
There might be any number of reasons not to support him, but that result is absurd.
Jaibones on January 13, 2008 at 10:16 PM
No one knows much of anything about Fred.
bnelson44 on January 13, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Still, good news in the sense that if Mac flames out, they may all come back for a last-man-standing Giuliani resurgence in Florida.
I would hardly call that ‘good news’. If any of McCain, Huckabee, or Mitt flame out, it’s going to help the other one of the three. I always knew you were a closet ruDy supporter AP and never understood criticizms of people saying you were anti-ruDy.
ruDy winning the nomination assures the D the general. I’m telling you ruDy won’t win a single southern state. And really, do you want to nominate a guy who lost to Ron Paul in Iowa, and probably Michigan? At what point to people realize what a terrible idea nominating ruDy would be? If he was from anywhere but NY people would be laughing at him by now.
ThackerAgency on January 13, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Even if the sample had used no black voters (which is more representative of the GOP to be true)and given them all to Huckabee he and McCain would have been tied. I sort of doubt all would go to Huckabee so McCain would still have big numbers – Huck might move up to 22 or 23% and McCain to 30 or 31% in part c.
Bradky on January 13, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Look at this.
Question:
Who best reflects the core values of the Republican Party?
Giuliani 12%
McCain 27%
Romney 15%
Huckabee 18%
Thompson 11%
Other/No Opinion 17%
TheBigOldDog on January 13, 2008 at 10:18 PM
WTF I haven’t commented all weekend. But those numbers look like they are shaping up perfect for Rudy’s “lull them into a false sense of security” strategy.
PS Fred gave legal advice to terrorists, that is when he wasn’t a career lobbyist or an ineffectual Senator voting for CFR and Abraham’s open borders agenda.
tommylotto on January 13, 2008 at 10:18 PM
ie if Mitt wins Michigan (Mac flaming out), he stays in the race and heads for Florida where Guiliani will be subject to tons of negative attack ads. If Mac wins Michigan, Mitt flames out and Mac heads into Fl after winning Michigan AND SC which people will vote for Mac (remember the standing O in Fl a month ago? it wasn’t for ruDy).
ThackerAgency on January 13, 2008 at 10:20 PM
TheBigOldDog on January 13, 2008 at 10:18 PM
The correct answer is the ‘other’ category.
ThackerAgency on January 13, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Insert flashing red siren here:
Question: Regardless of who you support, who do you trust more to handle immigration?
Giuliani 17%
MCain 27%
Romney 11%
Huckabee 15%
Thompson 9%
Other/No opinion 22%
TheBigOldDog on January 13, 2008 at 10:23 PM
the correct answer is OTHER again BOD
ThackerAgency on January 13, 2008 at 10:23 PM
I just realized (d’uh)that I can type in “methodology” in the “find’ box.
But the second poll that bnelson44 so helpfully supplied does not find that word. Maybe Bradky would be kind enough to tell us what page it is on.
It does have a brief “weighted/unweighted” list at the end, where (shocka!) Republicans are way underrepresented.
Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Alright it’s number crunching time:
In 2004, McCain was calling for more troops, and declaring that he had no confidence in Rumsfeld. At that time, he was calling for 100,000 to 110,000 additional troops.
At the time that McCain was calling for that increase, the troop level in Iraq was around 141,000 troops
That means that McCain thought a force of 241,000 to 251,000 troops were needed to secure Iraq.
In 2005, the troop level in Iraq rose to about 150,000. At this time Rumsfeld was still in office.
Also in 2005, we temporarily spiked the troop level to 160,000 for the elections.
In the end of 2007, there were 142,000 troops in Iraq, and the Surge was going to add around thirty thousand (28,000)
Bringing the grand total of the Surge to roughly 170,000 troops.
Now, I say all this to point out something. The troop level that McCain wanted was nearly 70,000 more than what was actually needed to secure Baghdad. Also, when Rumsfeld was still in the DOD, he was employing upwards of 150,000 troops. That’s 20,000 troops less than the Surge. By these numbers, it seems to me that McCain is a little off in trying to get as much traction as he is by first saying that he was right all along on troop levels, and that Rumsfeld was horribly off the mark. Thoughts? Also if my numbers of off, let me know and provide the links, please.
Weight of Glory on January 13, 2008 at 10:25 PM
So, I am supposed to believe a man who was almost thrown out of the Republican party over the issue and a man who’s been soft on immigration and even gave instate tuition to illegals combined have the trust of 42% of Republicans. Add a man who ran a sanctuary city and the number jumps to 59%!
TheBigOldDog on January 13, 2008 at 10:26 PM
“The quest for the
grailnomination is not archeology, it’s a race against evil. If it is captured by theNazisMcCain/Huckabees the armies of darkness will march all over the face of the earth.” – Professor Henry JonesCABE on January 13, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Via Instapundit and the New York Times:
Gregor on January 13, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Look, here is another counterintuitive result.
Question: Regardless of who you support, who do you trust more to handle the War in Iraq?
McCain went from 29% on 12/09/07 to 42% on 1/12/08. Now this is McCain who has been consistent for arguably years on this issue. His positions are well know yet in a month 13% more Republicans suddenly trust him more on the war…
TheBigOldDog on January 13, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Alright it’s number crunching time:
In 2004, McCain was calling for more troops, and declaring that he had no confidence in Rumsfeld. At that time, he was calling for 100,000 to 110,000 additional troops.
At the time that McCain was calling for that increase, the troop level in Iraq was around 141,000 troops
That means that McCain thought a force of 241,000 to 251,000 troops were needed to secure Iraq.
In 2005, the troop level in Iraq rose to about 150,000. At this time Rumsfeld was still in office.
Also in 2005, we temporarily spiked the troop level to 160,000 for the elections.
In the end of 2007, there were 142,000 troops in Iraq, and the Surge was going to add around thirty thousand (28,000)
Bringing the grand total to roughly 170,000 troops.
Now, I say all this to point out something. The troop level that McCain wanted was nearly 70,000 more than what was actually needed to secure Baghdad. Also, when Rumsfeld was still in the DOD, he was employing upwards of 150,000 troops, 20,000 troops less than the Surge. By these numbers, it seems to me that McCain is a little off in trying to get as much traction as he is by first saying that he was right all along on troop levels, and that Rumsfeld was horribly off the mark. Thoughts? Also, if my numbers are off, please let me know and provide links.
Weight of Glory on January 13, 2008 at 10:30 PM
The retards from the institution had a weekend pass, blip, blip, blip.
tommylotto on January 13, 2008 at 10:32 PM
I gave that as one example of the methodology of these polls. I want to know if they are registered voters, and so forth.
Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Rumsfeld WAS horribly off the mark. It is no mistake that the turnaround came AFTER he left. Rumsfeld was IN THE WAY. More than just the surge that Rumsfeld was against (even though they added troops, it was in spite of Rumsfeld), the MRAP vehicles probably won Iraq more than the number of troops.
Rumsfeld said we didn’t need the vehicles even though the main way they killed our troops was with roadside bombs. With the new MRAP vehicles, the roadside bombs weren’t effective and so the insurgents’ only means of attack was thwarted. Rumsfeld caused many casualties by his recklessness. Ignoring it doesn’t make it better.
Rumsfeld was worse than Brownie. . . our military would not have won if he had not left.
ThackerAgency on January 13, 2008 at 10:35 PM
I’m telling you…Huckabee is the only one who can stop a Juan Mccain nomination!!!
HaraldHardrada on January 13, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Oh lookie, how convenient
Question: Regardless of who you support, who do you trust more to handle the campaign on terrorism? (I guess the no longer consider it a war at polling central)
1/12/08 12/09/07 Change
McCain 40% 26% +14%
Giuliani 24% 36% -12%
TheBigOldDog on January 13, 2008 at 10:37 PM
That’s easy – it’s because thanks to the surge strategy we are winning and he is running around claiming that if not for him we never would have had a surge in the first place.
I’m waiting for Bush to correct this claim.
Good night.
Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 10:38 PM
I will be among the first to suggest that people often invest topline poll results with too much literal meaning.
*looks at AP*
BUT
the oversampling of blacks was done to have a large enough sample to have a valid result on the issue of their shift to Obama. It is standard practice to do this when interested in a subset, then “reweight” that sample back down for the more general results.
Karl on January 13, 2008 at 10:38 PM
I have no doubt that what you are saying is true. My only point is that one of McCain’s big campaign pushes is a giant “see I told you so” on troop levels. Now, he was right in that they needed to be increased, but after the debate the other night, it was almost as if he was trying to distinguish himself from the rest of the field based solely on that. I’m just saying, that if you look at the numbers, what he was saying he wanted was way more than what was finally required.
Weight of Glory on January 13, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Also, I think other commenters here vastly over-estimate what the average person “knows” about these candidates or their position. Blog commenters at sites like this one pay much more attention to politics than the average person, who is probably closer to the average erson appearing in a “Jaywalking” segment on The Tonight Show.
Karl on January 13, 2008 at 10:41 PM
MB4 on January 13, 2008 at 10:43 PM
That is how many people that are so stupid, they think being tortured gives you the credentials necessary to be a chief executive. I guess KSM would make a good POTUS too!
tommylotto on January 13, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Weight of Glory on January 13, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Weight, we usually agree on things. I would give Mac a pass on this issue because I remember that he pretty much stood alone and got a LOT of heat for it. Everyone was against the war, even lots of Republicans.
They said that he would lose the election because of his stance and he said ‘I’d rather lose an election than a war’. Again, people now say they were for the surge (even Hillary), but at the time John McCain pretty much stood alone, and he was right.
There’s a lot to criticize McCain on, but not this. He was the only one on the right side for a long time while he took a lot of heat for it.
ThackerAgency on January 13, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Why do some people think Mccain would be the best on the war on terror??
Because he opposes torturing terrorists?
Because he wants to close Gitmo?
Because he opposes alternative fuels subsidies and will never make us energy independent?
Because he was for war criminal Clintons war against our ally Christian Serbia and backed Osama Bin Laden’s KLA!
Because he wants to create a palestinian muslim terror state and leave Israel with 6 mile wide indefensible borders
Because he wants to create a kosovo muslim terror state in the balkans?
HaraldHardrada on January 13, 2008 at 10:44 PM
I actually got a poll call Saturday night. All they asked was who I planned to vote for in the republican primary. I, of course, responded Thompson. They promptly hung up. I wish I could figure out who was doing that poll and where I could see the results.
boomer on January 13, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Fair enough.
Weight of Glory on January 13, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Do you have caller id? Got the phone number? Look it up. You may find out where it came from
TheBigOldDog on January 13, 2008 at 10:49 PM
What’s more interesting (since I think these polls are unreliable and inaccurate), what’s changed in the last months to cause significant changes on attitude about core issues? Nothing.
TheBigOldDog on January 13, 2008 at 10:52 PM
There are exceptions, but most of us mistrust the Huckster even more than McCain,.. although in my case, it’s pretty close.
a capella on January 13, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Don’t anyone go putting any of the advocates of the surge on Mt. Rushmore just yet.
The claim, that resonates with most Americans anyway, that it is working is that American deaths, after also surging, have gone down a lot.
We are not even half way through January yet and American troop deaths are almost as high as they were in all of December.
MB4 on January 13, 2008 at 10:55 PM
First, these aren’t “average” people. These are likely primary voters. That is, people who care enough about their party’s candidate to vote. That, by definition, makes them more politically active than the “average” person. Second, we aren’t talking about small issues and positions, we are talking about the MAJOR issues of our time like Iraq, immigration and terrorism. Now, what do you think the chances are that likely primary voters don’t know the positions of the major candidates on these issues? Near zero.
TheBigOldDog on January 13, 2008 at 11:06 PM
It’s too bad nobody pays any attention to you Tommylotto. You’re one of the least trusted readers on HotAir.
Congrats.
Gregor on January 13, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Do a poll on:
HaraldHardrada
Hollowpoint
froghat
huckfan
CABE on January 13, 2008 at 11:15 PM
And again, it’s obligatory that I remind you that the polls change over time.
And, as such when the actual hypothetical time transpires McCain could be in a straight jacket and Huckabee could have a “conversion” experience.
We don’t know jack.
Such is life.
Mcguyver on January 13, 2008 at 11:39 PM
Not worth it, CABE.
Mcguyver on January 13, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Oh that was mean.
Speakup on January 13, 2008 at 11:46 PM
SPEAKUP,
THERE’S A 33% chance that Gregor is not real.
Mcguyver on January 14, 2008 at 12:00 AM
It’s worth looking at things from a practical perspective: if the GOP ticket is going to be worth anything in the general there is going to have to be one centrist Republican (McCain/Guiliani, and preferably McCain) and one conservative (Thompson/Romney, preferably Thompson). As things stand in the polling, Mac is the only one of those who has a chance of stopping a President Hillary/Obama in the general.
Pax americana on January 14, 2008 at 12:02 AM
I have evidence that I shall not share that proves Gregor albeit arguably eccentric and cantankerous is indeed homo sapial.
However, Mr Gregor, if you don’t like the troll then starve the troll.
Don’t burn bridges, paybacks a b*tch.
Speakup on January 14, 2008 at 12:10 AM
You’re just jealous that Gregor can make a bomb with a stick of dynamite and a roll of toilet paper.
CABE on January 14, 2008 at 12:22 AM
I swear, give it up on the polls already. Is there no shame in being wrong anymore, even when they’re wrong every single time? Totally wrong? Completely wrong? You can’t poll a primary. Please.
Next week it will be all about Mitt and Rudy.
Kerry endorses O’Bambam… he’s done. Rove should endorse Hillary? No, forget that, we might get Edwards as a president.
Griz on January 14, 2008 at 12:23 AM
I’m struggling to believe some of the imbeciles who say they will vote for Clinton/Obama rather than one of the GOP candidates they dislike. Given that the Democrats already control Congress, and the GOP face much the harder task in the Senate elections in November (by virtue of having to defend twice as many seats as the Dems), do you really want a Dem POTUS as well? What on earth do you think the implications would be for legislation/Supreme Court nominations? How many years would we have to wait before the effects could be reversed? This is already a nightmare for conservatives: it is high time for GOP supporters to pull together.
Pax americana on January 14, 2008 at 12:26 AM
CABE,
You’re just jealous that I regularly mop the floor in here with my digits thumping plastic.
Mcguyver on January 14, 2008 at 12:27 AM
The New York Times
DannoJyd on January 14, 2008 at 12:27 AM
McCain and his co-conspirator Graham tried to sell out our country to La Raza, etc., and insult American citizens at the same time. Graham actually called me a ‘bigot’ when he
spokepandered to a LaRazaRace convention, when all I want is our Congress and President to pay attention to this obscure phrase of our constitution: “…and shall protect each of them against invasion”. And McCain’s own state is solving the problem just fine without his efforts.I can’t wait for McCain to go down in flames.
fred5678 on January 14, 2008 at 12:30 AM
And again, it’s obligatory that I remind you that the
pollspeople change their opinion (flipflop) over time:SECOND LOOK AT THE YEAR OF THE FLIPPER!
Mcguyver on January 14, 2008 at 12:31 AM
I’m struggling to believe some of the imbeciles who say they will vote for any whackjob just because he has an R after his name rather than Clinton/Obama neither of whom will destroy the Republic in 4 years and may help to pave the way for a real Republican.
It is high time for GOP supporters to throw off the bondage of oppression of abused Republican voter syndrome.
MB4 on January 14, 2008 at 12:48 AM
I think we need to ignore idiots like Micheal Medved, the RINO of the RADIO and vote for the best conservative. Medved and the rest of the MSM are trying to give all the real conservatives the bums rush because they have this idea in their little ant size brains that a RINO would get support from both sides of the aisle. I think exactly the opposite is true, they would get less support from both sides therefore electing the dem. Lets get a flu shot to avoid getting that RINO virus again.
Bikerken on January 14, 2008 at 12:59 AM
The 2000 and 2004 elections taught us to give up, once and for all, network coverage of the campaign and the election. The 2008 election is teaching us to completely disregard the pollsters.
Power to the people! Go Fred!
Mojave Mark on January 14, 2008 at 1:23 AM
I agree with you on this 100% but could never live with myself if I’d vote for Hillary or Obama. I’d feel real ugly and guilty. I’d rather vote 3rd party or not at all.
Entelechy on January 14, 2008 at 1:24 AM
Here at HA we live in a very closed community. If the loudness and repetitiveness of certain comments was a true representation of the country, the polls would have Fred running at 90% and Huck at 0%.
Because of the fact above, just because we don’t like the poll results and our opinions are overwhelmingly against the polls, that doesn’t not mean the polls are in error.
csdeven on January 14, 2008 at 1:36 AM
Look at it this way, if it comes to it, voting for Hillary (and I probably could not bring myself to doing that either) or Obama would be mathematically like staying home twice.
If you could stay home once, why not twice?
MB4 on January 14, 2008 at 1:45 AM
I know, though I wish I didn’t. My hope comes from the fact that polls are very fluid. My irritation comes from the fact that much of McCain’s support is independents, who shouldn’t even be voting in our primary.
My despair comes from the fact that I will never, ever get rid of John McCain. He will find a way onto that ticket win or lose. When that bid fails, he will win reelection here in Arizona despite the best efforts of local talk radio and the rest of us in the echo chamber, and run for president again in 2012.
joewm315 on January 14, 2008 at 2:31 AM
I want to try a non scientific poll how many people here on BA are on the do not call list.
And then again how many have went to just cell phones from land lines?
Any chances that could throw a world class monkey wrench into this poll mix??
Mojack420 on January 14, 2008 at 3:20 AM
sorry that was HA not BA
Mojack420 on January 14, 2008 at 3:21 AM
I don’t know. I’m on the do not call list, and I got called by a GOP internal pollster.
I pressed ‘3′ for Fred Thompson.
joewm315 on January 14, 2008 at 3:28 AM
I think it’s obvious that there are more people who would vote for a black man than a woman to be president. Which is why I think the Democrats dig their own grave if they nominate Hillary.
Seixon on January 14, 2008 at 4:38 AM
The MSM wants McCaine. He’s a Democrat.
Egfrow on January 14, 2008 at 5:21 AM
I guess the Reagan-Limbaugh-Malkin-Ingraham conservative ideology no longer is wanted by the Republican party.
Conservatives have become the new RINOs.
Where so we go?
Valiant on January 14, 2008 at 6:53 AM
You are being overly dramatic. Obama and Hillary are not going to destroy the republic. They may pass tax increases and some social policies you don’t like but first they must be elected by a majority, which is what our democracy is all about.
Secondly, this idea of a “real republican” is what is going to make the party lose for years to come. The base has come to a juncture in which the idea is that “I am a conservative , if you don’t agree with me on all counts you are not a republican – heck you are just a RINO/CINO whom I can’t respect or support.” is driving away moderates in droves.
Have fun with that strategy.
Bradky on January 14, 2008 at 7:09 AM
Why is no one talking about the real John McCain?
Betrayal, deceit, corruption and John McCain (The U.S. Veteran Dispatch)
“While still married to Carol, McCain began an adulterous relationship with Cindy. He married Cindy in May 1980 – just a month after dumping his crippled wife and securing a divorce.”
Abortion:
John McCain Supports Embryonic Stem Cell Research (Audio)
McCain Softens Abortion Stand (The Washington Post)
“But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.“ – John McCain
Fiscal Record:
McCain Boasts That He Voted Against The Bush Tax Cuts (Video)
McCain Would Vote Against Tax Cuts Again (The Club for Growth)
- McCain sponsored and voted for an enormous 282% tax increase on cigarettes in 1998
- McCain was one of only two Republican senators to oppose the 2001 tax cuts
- McCain was one of only three Republican senators to oppose the 2003 reductions
- McCain supported an amendment sponsored by Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) against full repeal of the Death Tax
- McCain voted against repealing the Death Tax in 2002
Foreign Policy:
McCain to Close Gitmo: “The first day I am President” (Video)
Global Warming:
McCain and Lieberman Push for New Anti-Global Warming Legislation (The National Center for Public Policy Research)
Senators McCain and Lieberman Propose Energy Tax (The National Center for Public Policy Research)
Illegal Immigration:
John McCain gets a ‘D’ on his Immigration Voting Report Card (Americans for Better Immigration)
John McCain Praises Pro-illegal Protests (NewsMax)
Veterans:
McCain Can’t Buy His Way Out of Votes Against Funding for Veterans
- McCain Voted Against $19 Billion for Military Hospitals
- McCain Voted Against Amendment to Provide $2.8 Billion For Veterans’ Medical Care
- McCain Voted Against 2005 Amendment to Provide Guaranteed Funding Stream for Veterans’ Health Care
- McCain Voted Against Establishing $1 Billion Trust Fund to Provide Improvements to Military and Veterans’ Health Facilities
- McCain Voted Against Adding $1.5 billion to Veterans’ Medical Services in FY 2007 by Closing Corporate Tax Loopholes
- McCain Voted Against Mandatory Funding of $6.9 Billion in FY 2007 and $104 Billion Over Five Years for Veterans’ Health Care
Poptech on January 14, 2008 at 7:46 AM
but first they must be elected by a majority, which is what our democracy is all about.
Actually it’s all about the electoral college. Bill Clinton did not receive anything close to a majority (vote split by Perot), and Bush did not receive a popular vote majority first time around.
Anyhoo, re Hillary/Obama – destroying our economy, expanding entitlements, and not effectively pursuing the W.O.T. could do lasting, irreparable damage to this nation.
Buy Danish on January 14, 2008 at 8:00 AM
I think we will have to modify our stances on some issues soon.
For example, civil unions/marriage for gays. I don’t feel the federal government has any business defining marriage for all people, and I think a lot of more federalist candidates feel the same way, but try to avoid saying so outright. We’ll have to address things like that, I agree.
However, I think MB4’s point was that the Republic will survive 4 years of a Democrat, so why compromise his principles with a vote more palatable to hypothetical moderate voters?
joewm315 on January 14, 2008 at 8:03 AM
Wow, you have it sooooo totally backwards. Obama and Hillary are not going to destroy the republic, but electing a RINO could destroy the Republican party. RINOs are doing incredible harm to the integrity of our party.
When the topic of outlandish earmarks come up, who is mentioned?… a Republican with over a hundred million dollars pushed for a “bridge to nowhere” that would service 50 people.
Who continue to allow illegal immigrants to pour into the country, and refuse to execute the law? Last time I looked, we have a RINO in the Whitehouse.
When we hoped for a real conservative Supreme Court Justice nominee, who did we get at first?… a crony. We had to fight our own President tooth and nail to get a real conservative.
If a RINO becomes the Republican nominee, expect conservative voters to stay home. And since they are a larger and more consistent base than the moderates, expect to lose in November… just like last election period.
So if you want to defeat the Dems in November, you better hope a conservative gets nominated. Not a threat… just a fact.
Conservatives have a longer plan in mind. If a RINO is nominated, many hope that the Dems win. That way, we have a chance to clean house in the Republican party and focus on the next election period. If a RINO wins, we effectively have a Democrat that we have to fight from within. I’m in it for the long haul as a conservative first, and a Republican second.
To paraphrase Scripture for this election period… “What profits you to gain a few moderates, but lose your soul (the conservative base)?”
dominigan on January 14, 2008 at 8:25 AM
McCain has already succeeded in one aspect. He has driven The Great One Mark Levin to looking to a third party candidate. I may wind up joining Mark in this regards if by some insane accident of nature, McCain actually winds up with the nomination.
pilamaye on January 14, 2008 at 8:27 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »