Comments on: Clinton wins West Virginia

By: the real Aj

the real Aj — Thu, 15 May 2008 01:24:24 +0000

OK steve,

For the sake of argument, we’ll leave Bush out of it. Now how do you account for the 18% approval rating? Are you gonna blame that on the repubs in Congress? Dems call the shots, and set the agenda. And people ain’t happy with them. Judging by the numbers, not many people, left or right, are pleased. Explain please.

Report comment to moderator

By: SteveG

SteveG — Thu, 15 May 2008 00:12:35 +0000

That’s an invalid comparison though AJ. Congress is 535 people, spanning the ideological spectrum from Bernie Sanders to Duncan Hunter. An “approval rating” for all of Congress doesn’t really mean much, and it’s certainly not the indictment of Democrats you want to pretend it is.

Report comment to moderator

By: the real Aj

the real Aj — Thu, 15 May 2008 00:06:38 +0000

Anlir,

Don’t get too excited yet. The Democrat controlled Congress has tied a record. Unfortunately it’s for low (18%) approval ratings. Bush’s are 29%. Now if he is so awful and despised, what must they think of Congress?
Don’t count your chickens yet.

http://tinyurl.com/6lantf

Report comment to moderator

By: Dav

Dav — Wed, 14 May 2008 23:28:38 +0000

Wha?!? Pleats are vanishing?
Doh!! No one told me!!
There’s no way I’m getting rid of my yellow “power” ties, though.

Report comment to moderator

By: StuBob

StuBob — Wed, 14 May 2008 19:16:56 +0000

Could be, Anlir. We may have to console ourselves with the knowledge that 1976 gave us 1980. I’m no political scientist, but there are some similarities: The Republicans are running someone that everyone’s heard of but no one likes. The Democrats are running someone that no one’s heard of but who looks attractive unless you ask hard questions. Gas prices are ridiculous. Pleats are vanishing from men’s pants. Ralph Nader is running for President. Ties are unfashionable. . . .

Report comment to moderator

By: Anlir

Anlir — Wed, 14 May 2008 17:37:42 +0000

Clinton won WV, but I think it’s too little, too late at this point in the game.

Of bigger import was the special election in Mississippi yesterday, where a Democrat was elected to congress from a heavily Republican district. This was a district that gave Bush 64% and was considered very “safe” by the Republican Party. The RP spent 1.3 million, the candidate spent another million, and other conservative groups spent big bucks. Everyone right up to the Vice President campaigned for him. He was a solid conservative with no “baggage”. Yet the people still voted in his Democratic opponent.

This is the third special election that has gone to the Democrats. All three were considered “safe” Republican districts.

Those little tremors you’re hearing in Republican areas could be a sign of the “big one” in November.

Report comment to moderator

By: krm

krm — Wed, 14 May 2008 17:28:00 +0000

Peter L – For the Democrats, some of the non-state territories and possessions have fractional delegates (I think that the 1/2 came out of Guam, but I may not be right on precisely which one generated it).

The Ds identity politics are playing out rather clearly in this internal struggle. I don’t think we’ll see much cross over from Hilary supporters (and there’d be none from Obama’s), but we might see lower turnout from them.

Report comment to moderator

By: Theo Godwyn

Theo Godwyn — Wed, 14 May 2008 17:01:09 +0000

All the “blue collar hardworking” Americans picked who they thought would be the best democratic candidate.

Clinton keeps referring to the “blue collar” and “hardworking” Americans. She uses these terms for the demographic that includes white voters, voters without a college degree, and voters who make less than $50,000/year.

I guess this is another attempt to make Obama out to be an elitist. So what if he gets the votes from the “educated rich elite”, Clinton is getting the votes from the “hardworking” men and women who dropped out of high school and are on welfare. They represent the heartland of America and should better represent America.

We don’t need no education to pick a president.

Sadly, there is some truth to Clinton’s statements. Obama seems less electable among Clinton democrats than Clinton is among Obama democrats. McCain might receive as many as half of Clinton’s voters. So far Obama’s supporters are more numerous than McCain though so Obama might still win even if half of Clinton’s supporters defect to McCain.

It will certainly be close.

Report comment to moderator

By: Dav

Dav — Wed, 14 May 2008 14:36:28 +0000

I hope Clinton and Obama drive this to the bitter end. And I hope Clinton pulls a classic “Clinton” and steals the nomination. And then I hope that all of the idealistic fools who are on the Obama bandwagon go home and don’t show up for the election.
Then I have to hope that McCain (yeek) gets elected and becomes a true conservative.
Man, do I need hope…

Report comment to moderator

By: Sawgunner

Sawgunner — Wed, 14 May 2008 10:42:33 +0000

The Clintonian obsession with winning at all costs is apparent to all. It’s very much along the lines of “Well if I (we) cannot have it, no one will!” I dont think folks will think too kindly about Hillary henceforth.
All those folks who now are crossing over to become One Day Democrats (thru the prompting of a radio talk host heard nationwide) have kept HRC’s boat afloat.
Has she once thanked Rush or his listeners?

And its amazing how much the media downplayed Hillary’s “I’ve got the support of white people” comment. Gerry Ferraro must be wondering what gives in light of how she was tarred and feathered.

Report comment to moderator