Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
03:49 PM on 10/15/2007
this post baffles me. We should disregard the polls because somehow this article--without polling?--knows better? How did they learn this?
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
ConcernAmerican
03:49 PM on 10/15/2007
Eoin45

IF America is ready for black President, how come Alan Keyes was not nominated?

Do you think thinking Americans would vote for Obama a one term US senator compared to Hillary who is a two term senator and have done a lot of public while First Lady of Arkansas and then become First Lady of USA? When we talk of Public service, Hillary has done more for public service compared to Obama. Obama used to be a professor in college.
04:10 PM on 10/15/2007
Because its not just about race.

Grow up.

--

"Keyes, a former State Department official under President Reagan, made unsuccessful presidential runs in 1996 and 2000. He also has been a Senate candidate from Maryland, and, in 2004, he suffered a 43-percentage point loss to Democrat Barack Obama in the Senate race in Illinois. Republicans drafted Keyes after primary winner Jack Ryan dropped out amid a scandal."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hXz_k7B1itgxvkFHXD6xdt_7-oUg
04:39 PM on 10/15/2007
"Do you think thinking Americans would vote for Obama a one term US senator compared to Hillary who is a two term senator and have done a lot of public while First Lady of Arkansas and then become First Lady of USA? When we talk of Public service, Hillary has done more for public service compared to Obama. Obama used to be a professor in college."
ConcernAmerican

Your comment is typical of Hillary supporters. But let me dissect your post:

(1) Obama is a one term Senator (three years) and Clinton is a two term Sentor (six years), but Obama was also a state Senator for 8 years. According to this article right here http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml, Obama "sponsored legislation to bar job and housing discrimination against gays, and he helped create a state version of the earned income tax credit for the poor. Obama also led efforts to reject federal rules that would have put workers' overtime checks in jeopardy." And he did so much more.

(2) "When we talk of Public service, Hillary has done more for public service compared to Obama. Obama used to be a professor in college" - Um, please tell me where I can get the info about how Clinton has done more public service than Obama. You know why you won't post it, because it doesn't exist. Obama has has been more than a college professor. Obama was a community activist in inner-city Chicago (making $13,000 a year!) who urged residents to fight environmental pollution and lead poisoning. Obama was also a civil right attorney.

Since you seem to know very little about Obama, click here for a better understanding: http://www.barackobama.com/about/

Its amazing though. Many Clinton supporters are ready to go all the way back to when she came out of the womb to bolster her resume (and simultaneously shoot down any Obama accomplishment), because they know Obama is causing her and Bill sleepness nights.

Oh well...

Obama '08
08:15 PM on 10/15/2007
Obama is Irish? Where's the evidence to support this canard? It is an insult to the old sod
08:40 PM on 10/15/2007
John Edwards is the ONLY choice for working America. Edwards was endorsed by 10 state SEIU unions today including California and Iowa.

Also John Edwards was endorsed in New Hampshire by Friends of the Earth Action as well today because of his well defined plan to address Global Warming.

Go John Edwards! "It is an Election... NOT an Auction!" J R
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
ConcernAmerican
03:40 PM on 10/15/2007
None of you have taken into consideration the latino votes. They're the bigger than the black population in the US. Who do you think the latinos will vote for between Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Richardson? There's animosity between the Latinos and the Black community.
04:02 PM on 10/15/2007
"There's animosity between the Latinos and the Black community."

I'm black and I have plenty of Latino friends.

I'm tired of people like you spreading this nonsense -- I see it on Stormfront.org all the time, but I'd expect better on these forums.

Trust me -- quite a few of the latinos I know have a lot of "animosity" towards whites as well, but I don't see too many of you talking about that.

Moreover, I don't see black people coming on forums like this trying to brand every latino as an "illegal" who is trying to leech off the system -- but I see plenty of whites saying this on nearly every forum where latinos are mentioned.

The racial politics, divide and conquer schtick is getting old -- leave it in the last century where it belongs.

Those of us who don't judge by race are getting tired of having to deal with those of you who do.
04:06 PM on 10/15/2007
more African-Americans are registered to vote than latinos, so the black vote carries more weight.

On the issue of animosity between blacks and latinos, I think the animosity between "some" blacks amd "some" latinos stems from the economic situation in different cities like Miami, Houston, and in Los Angeles. ECONOMICS is the root of that.

When I lived in Los Angeles, I found that blacks and latinos have way more similarities than differences. And it is those similarities that Obama has been working hard to speak to. In fact, there is some sign that his efforts are paying off.

According to reports (like this one http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/pena_backs_obama.html), Federico Pena endorsed Obama. Read below:

"In a renewed push to reach Hispanic voters, Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign has enlisted the help of Federico Pena, the former Denver mayor and Clinton cabinet official.

"Pena, who joins the campaign as a co-chair, said that the Hispanic vote will be critical in a number of hotly contested states, including California, Florida, Texas, and New Jersey, both in the primaries and the general election. While George W. Bush benefited from strong Hispanic support in his two campaigns, Pena said he believes "Hispanics are once again leaning to the Democratic Party."

"His job, he said, will be to help Obama make inroads in the Hispanic community, saying Obama understands its "fundamental challenges."

Obama will do just fine with latino voters.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dandy12
Moderate, Progressive fiscal conservative.
03:40 PM on 10/15/2007
I believe that Hillary has a good feel for where the center of the road lies. Underneath, she's probably more like Obama, and Biden than she will show herself to be.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hootie1fan
A liberal, educated, Catholic Yankee living in AL
03:05 PM on 10/15/2007
But we pretty much fall into the "they are better than the Republican alternative" category.
03:05 PM on 10/15/2007
New poll out, race is tightening. I think it was always close. But read them and weep HRC lovers.

As for Democrats, the New York senator is leading in an American Research Group poll of 600 Democratic voters who say they will definitely vote in their caucus or primary. In the poll out Sunday, Clinton leads nationally over Barack Obama 34 to 31 percent with John Edwards at 15 percent. Still, 14 percent of those surveyed between Oct. 9-12 said they were undecided.
04:21 PM on 10/15/2007
What have you been smoking? ARG poll for Oct. 9-12 has HRC at 45 and BHO at 20. That's +25 for HRC. This mirrors every other poll taken in October (Rasmussen, Fox, Gallup, AP/Ipsos) with an average HRC lead of 25.9. Check it out at realclearpolitics.com. And the trend is that the race is widening, not tightening. In every poll.

By the way, what do you expect well meaning people confronted at their door by Obamaphiles to say--go away, I'm voting for Hillary. Of course not. The only polite thing bto say is, "I'm undecided." And from this, the Obamaphiles find good news for their campaign? What a sad joke.
05:33 PM on 10/15/2007
"And the trend is that the race is widening, not tightening. In every poll."
DCJoe

Yeah, widening in every "national poll", but the state polls on the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire tell a different story all together. I invite you to post those polls when you get a chance. :)

This race is far from over. Obama, Hillary, or Edwards can all come out on top.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realitytrumpsbull
Two 'alves of coconut!
02:55 PM on 10/15/2007
I think our representation is really crappy, these days. You've got Kennedy trying to
ramp up the Government Doughnut Machine,
Barack jumping up and down for HIS turn,
everybody wants the keys to the denver mint
so they can get all stupid, and stuff.

Where's the representation for the people
that want to see a thorough housecleaning
in Washington, see a lot of the runaway
promissory debt spending stopped? Who
speaks to such issues? No one, it's a racket.
The Ubermob.

I say 'vote independent', let's get some
people in office who've never in their lives
had any dealings with these high-dollar
lobbyists, people that at some point in
their lives might have actually READ the
Federalist Papers, Constitution, and so
forth, and bring some fresh perspective
and a return to common sense and basic
principle to this tax-and-spend neverland...
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
exeye
03:22 PM on 10/15/2007
(Big Sigh):

Another one.

And who are these "independents" who we are to elect? are they electable? Are you sure, I mean REALLY SURE, that when they get in power, they won't have the same issues as those who are already there? And, if they are a very small minority, HOW, exactly do you suppose they're going to get ANYTHING done - all those great ideas and plans you have?

If your ship is sinking, you can rally the crew you have, and try to save the ship, or you can "abandon ship" and let it sink. You're proposing "abandoning ship".

How about, and I know how crazy this may sound to you, we save the ship FIRST, by electing the best Democrat we have available (even if they're not your favorite), getting the repubs out of power, trying to salvage our national image, stop the U.S. from being a debtor nation, etc., etc., etc.

ANY one of the major Democratic candidates can accomplish most of these goals, but if you're going to vote "independent", for unelectable candidates, thus helping the repubs stay in power, well...

Lets stop this ship from sinking first, then worry about who we "like" or don't "like".
04:54 PM on 10/15/2007
exeye,

I used to believe the same thing. But then back in 2006 we kicked a lot of neocons out of congress and replaced them with good Dems.

What have we got in return?? Anything?

I think they just passed a non-binding resolution saying that Genocide was bad. Whoa Nelly! We're on our way now!

To put it another way - the ship is still sinking, and quickly, it's just a different group doing it.

So I really hope you're right, and that voting Clinton #2 in will solve everything. Because that's probably what will happen come next November.

Peace!
02:47 PM on 10/15/2007
Perhaps the better question is "Among the Democratic candidates, whom do you oppose?"
The ABC's [Anybody but Clinton] are very divided. Another methodology, used by professional pollsters, is to question likely primary voters, not just every registered Democrat.
11:02 PM on 10/15/2007
You hide and watch navalvet. The "ABC's" will coalesce to throw this election to someone Other than the Hill and Billary show.
02:30 PM on 10/15/2007
It is no surprise that the war in Iraq is not a big election issue among Democrats. EVERYBODY is against the war... except the melonheads on Capitol Hill. On this, and other issues, Clinton and Obama are cookie cutter images of each other - issues where they differ will make the difference, or make an opportunity for #3.
photo
jacklambert
jacklambert
03:49 PM on 10/15/2007
The performance of Dems after they took control of Congress and Senate has been more depressing that the performance of the GOP for the past 7 years.

Pelosi is in love with her position and will do nothing that might put it at risk. Democrats are a disgrace! Why should anyone want to vote for them again? Like the 'decider' himself they are cowards with their triangulating slide rules out.

They fiddle while Rome burns or to put it another way Soldiers must die because their slide rules say so!!!

Cindy Sheenan want a seat in Congress? Pelosi's is up for grabs
02:30 PM on 10/15/2007
Thanks for a great post. One correction. The website for The UpTake is: http://theuptake.org

Our correspondent who covered this piece is Noah S Kunin and you can see his write up here:
http://theuptake.org/?p=276

Thanks so much and we were very happy to participate in this coverage!

Jason Barnett
Executive Director
The UpTake
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
exeye
02:19 PM on 10/15/2007
Since This is about polls, here's my unofficial poll:

Clinton: She has the most cash to spend, which makes her a favorites of newpapers and T.V., cause she can spend the most on advertising (didn't think about that did you?). She also has unarguably the most experience, plus the cache' of being a Clinton, with all the nostalgia for "the old days". Bill WOULD be a great "goodwill ambassador to the world", since he was the last president the world liked, however, that "cache" also brings a lot of negative.

Obama: He has The mind, and the looks, to attract the younger voters (but many have been undone by counting on the young vote to turn out), blacks, and women, but those same qualities give some older voters trepidation. He will pick up votes from those wanting a black president, but lose votes from those who do not. May, or may not have a "hidden vote". His "lack of experience" is both an asset, and a handicap.

Edwards: A plus that he's NOT in the Senate now, a minus that he dropped out to run an unsuccessful campaign (though that was steered by Kerry's people). Also has the mind and looks to attract a younger demographic, and women. His populist message strikes entrenched Democrats the wrong way, but resonates with some who find it a return to the "old values". The only candidate who may actually HAVE a "hidden vote", since, while some unions have not endorsed him, the internal polls suggest he is the memberships first choice.

Trying to pick a winner at this point is difficult, made more so by the fact that most people won't take a poll, and the bunching up of the primaries, thus eliminating the ability for a candidate to "build momentum".

MY call is that it's a really close 3-way race at this point. I'll vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever that is, and anyone who says they won't, is a closet republican, and/or shirking thier duty to do the best they can for thier COUNTRY, not themselves.
03:44 PM on 10/15/2007
"She has the most cash to spend"

You're absolutely wrong on this point. Absolutely wrong. Obama and Clinton are roughly the same with overall money in the can, but Obama has more money to spend on the primaries than Hillary does. This is not conjecture, supposition, or guesswork. This is fact. Look it up yourself.

And Clinton would'nt even be on par with Obama if she had not transferred $10 million out of her Senate Campaign to her presidential campaign.

Also, you said of Sen. CLinton: "She has unarguably the most experience..." Really? "Unarguably"? WOW! I would like for you to break down what "experience" entails, because it differs from person to person.

Foreign policy experience? Well that "arguable" because while Mrs. Clinton did visit 82 countries as First Lady, she never once negotiated a trade deal, or met with a dictator to diffuse a situation.

Domestic policy? Well that's "arguable" too because while Mrs. CLinton did spearhead health care reform in '93 and '94, she was not actually an office holder who dealt with budgets, drafted legislation, etc.

And lest we forget, Obama has more community organizing experience than she does.

I think GQ Magazine summed it up nicely when they wrote this:

"Even on the much hyped question of experience, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are roughly equal, each having no more than a decade of legislative experience and no executive experience. Given the historic opportunity of an electorate desperate for change and disinclined to elect another Republican president, the Democratic contest is really about who will be the most transformational president. Obama's case is that to change anything in America, we have to begin by changing our politics, and he offers the kind of campaign he is running as evidence that he means it."

Go Barack.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
exeye
04:08 PM on 10/15/2007
:-)

You really didn't have to add the "Go Barack" comment. It was pretty obvious by your post who you were promoting.

Hillary has more experience, because she's a very bright woman, who has been the wife of a politician for most of her life, including being first lady, and has been a Senator for longer than either. You may discount this, but the heads of other countries do not, and her "inside" experience in dealing with domestic policy IS countable, in spite of your protests. She also, in spite of your spin (or anyone else's) DOES have more cash available to her than the other candidates. Bill can STILL outraise Obama or Edwards, let alone Hillary.

As far as Obama's "community organizing experience", there's a slight difference between local and national "organizing experience".

Now, of course, you're going to accuse me of being a Hillary supporter, when I'm not. I'm still undecided, but leaning towards Edwards, at this point.

I tried to give an unbiased overview of all three candidates, but people read what they want to see into anything you write, here.

If Obama is the candidate, he will be a fine one, indeed, and will have my vote. I was just trying to point out (and I think I stated in my final paragraph) that the polls are not necessarily reflective of the actual popularity of each candidate, which should have given you hope for YOUR candidate, but you chose to nit-pick and attack. Not going to get a lot of supporters doing that. Calm down.

And quoting Pro-(insert candidates name here) articles from GQ or any other magazine is no proof of anything, FYI.
04:20 PM on 10/15/2007
One puzzling statement (re Edwards):

"His populist message strikes entrenched Democrats the wrong way,......"

"Entrenched" Democrats are anti-populist? This'll send me to the socio-political dictionary.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
exeye
04:30 PM on 10/15/2007
I was wondering if anyone would see that one.

What I meant by "Entrenched Democrats" is that, like it or not, some Democrats are there for the power and control, and a return to the 60's-style rhetoric that Edwards often displays is a bit discomfiting to them. They want to maintain the "status quo", just with THEM in charge. Edwards Leans more towards a "throw the bums out" approach to the "status quo" which some may find threatening.

And no, I'm not going to start naming names, but thanks for asking. :-)
02:12 PM on 10/15/2007
Exactly AND the prospect of Barack vs whoever the republicans will put up. Will bring out MORE voters who haven't voted. Not just minorities.. I believe he can win a few southern states that Kerry or even Gore couldn't. Barack could walk on water, erase the national debt, find a cure for cancer and cure wrinkles and SOME PEOPLE WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR HIM for "whatever" the reason. But no question he can increase voter turnout much more then the others can against him. Whereas Hillary it will be 50/50. And the most negative campaign in US history AND SHE WILL LOOSE !
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Obama2008
03:52 PM on 10/15/2007
A sample size of 1000 is very small for a scientific survey. The survey fails to identify the percentage of the 1000 polled who are undecided. The poll fails to contact individuals who are cell phone users. The poll fails to identify those who screen calls via caller ID.

The only poll that will matter is the one taken on election day.
02:04 PM on 10/15/2007
Rasmussen poll...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20071015/pl_rasmussen/demprimary20071015;_ylt=AiqVf9U3R.dWzRcxUlI8hjOs0NUE

For the seven days ending October 14, 2007, Hillary Clinton earns 46% of the vote. Barack Obama is second at 23% followed by John Edwards at 11%. Bill Richardson attracts 4% while Dennis Kucinich at 3% and Joe Biden at 2%. Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel's support each rounds up to 1% while 8% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters are undecided (review history of weekly results).

The seven day results typically include interviews with more than 1,000 Likely Democratic Primary Voters. This includes both Democrats and those independents likely to vote in a Democratic Primary. In some state primaries, independent voters are allowed to participate in party primaries while in others they are excluded. The margin of sampling error for the weekly update is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence
11:54 PM on 10/15/2007
Who cares, the party is leaving to catch the Ron Paul bus....

Thats why the polls are all scweweee!!!!

There arent 1000 democrat voters left, pube....
Whered they all go?
02:00 PM on 10/15/2007
New poll out, race is tightening. I think it was always close. But read them and weep HRC lovers.

As for Democrats, the New York senator is leading in an American Research Group poll of 600 Democratic voters who say they will definitely vote in their caucus or primary. In the poll out Sunday, Clinton leads nationally over Barack Obama 34 to 31 percent with John Edwards at 15 percent. Still, 14 percent of those surveyed between Oct. 9-12 said they were undecided.
01:54 PM on 10/15/2007
The thing about the electoral college is, any state that has a majority that would never vote for an African-American regardless of political affiliation, is already by definition a state where no Democrat has a chance of picking up votes anyway. The racist vote is a "big tent" which also incorporates the fanatical pro-gun vote, the fanatical anti-abortion vote, and "states' rights" issues of all stripes. In other words, there are undoubtedly folks who will not vote for Obama, but there are no folks who would vote for Kucinich or Clinton or Edwards or Gore or Richardson, but wouldn't vote for Obama, cuz he's a black guy. In other other words, not all Republicans are racists, but racists are much more likely to vote Republican. So we nominate a black guy and lose those votes, no big loss, we lost them in the 60's anyway.
10:07 PM on 10/15/2007
Good observations. An interesting aside is HRC has super-HIGH negatives with the same group as the racist vote. So we're back to who captures in the middle. I think we could look to the 2000 race for clues- ignoring the Florida issue for a minute, is it possible that the negatives of the Bill Clinton presidency helped drag down Gore? Recall, Gore hardly had Clinton on his campaign appearances for that reason. I honestly don't know the answer to this. But if it was a negative, then I can't see how that would not happen (worse) in an HRC run. In that case, Edwards would probably be your safest bet to head the ticket. Another interesting aside - among the racist vote, Obama being an evangelical is actually a huge plus versus a lapsed Catholic or a Mormon. That's IF he can counter the fake Muslim rumors. A rather interesting election we have coming up!