MCCAIN STILL GAINING WHILE HILLARY AND OBAMA DUKE IT OUT
Even DNC Chairman Hoard Dean is calling for this to be, "settled, " by July first. Well , "it ain't gonna happen, " Howard. Hillary is sticking to her guns and will remain in the race to the bitter end. Not only does she have the right, she has the numbers to back her claim to the nomination. I' ll discuss this fact a little later in this post.
The bias that the media has toward Obama has come as a surprise since the Clinton's have always been media favorites. If you listen to the news one could almost think that the media views Hillary like they do a Republican. Fox News contributor and NPR analyst Juan Williams even stated that if the media and the DNC came out against Obama in the way they have against Hillary there would be charges of racism and bigotry. Yet the bias continues.
While the flak with the Democrats continues and even intensifies, John McCain is quietly and steadily gaining in popularity and credibility with voters. His numbers consistently are rising and in many States McCain has taken a double digit lead over both Hillary and Obama. The confusion in the Democrat Party over the nomination also plays in McCain's favor with Democrats showing candidate loyalty only and not party loyalty. 28% of Hillary supporters say they will vote for McCain if Obama wins and 19% of Obama supporters say they will vote for McCain if Hillary wins.
Following are two graphics which break down support for the candidates in a State by State count as of March 31.
As this first graphic shows, in a head to head match up with Barack Obama McCain would win in a landslide with 302 electoral votes to Obama's 227. This graphic as well as the one that follows are based on each candidates standings in every State in the Union. The numbers are also calculated figuring in that McCain is running ONLY against either Hillary or Obama and NOT with both still in the picture. Next the match up with Hillary again as of March 31.
As you can see Hillary does run a bit closer with McCain winning with 292 electoral votes compared to Hillary's 239. This and other similar polling is why Hillary is sticking to her guns and staying in the race despite calls from the Obama camp and many Democrat leaders for her to drop out.
As little as two weeks ago the State to State match up for electoral votes was much closer for both McCain vs Obama and McCain vs Hillary. The continuing battle for the Democrat nomination has widened the gap in favor of McCain which now also shows a trend toward the GOP nominee and against the Democrats.
Numbers like those that are shown in the above graphics also play strong with Super Delegates as they make their decision as to which candidate they will cast their vote for at the Convention. In a State by State breakdown, though still behind, Hillary has a better showing against McCain than Obama and that gives her a stronger position with the Supers.
Granted there is still a lot of water to go under the bridge between now and November, but the trend is continuing to favor John McCain. The battle for the Democrat nomination is only going to grow as Hillary has shown that she is in this until the end and will take it to the Convention. Each week that passes favors McCain more which is also why calls for her to drop out are growing as DNC leaders see the damage this is doing to the party and their chances in November.
Either scenario McCain against Hillary or McCain against Obama looks very good for the GOP!
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 10:17 AM
18 Comments:
Wow, you have a lot of time on your hands. Ken, I can appreciate your effort, but it is way too early to start to think about electoral college votes. The polls in October will be very, very different than today. Most Americans are not following the candidates that closely right now.
By the way, where did you get the graphics? Or how did you determine the winners? I can tell you that Virginia and Colorado are locks for the Dems no matter who the nominee is.
You keep saying the Dems are going to the convention and will have a huge fight on their hands. That is not going to happen.
The latest poll in Pennsylvania has Clinton leading 47-42 against Obama. She was ahead by 25 points two weeks ago. I think she is still going to win Pennsylvania, but she is going to lose handily in Indiana and she is going to be trounced in North Carolina. At that point, she will be out.
If she loses in Pennsylvania, she will quit the next day.
Looking Good :-)
What Rob fails to appreciate is the inherent weakness of Obama's candidacy.
P.S. When I was in the Reagan White House we used to draw these maps based on polling with colored pencils for reports to senior staff and the President. These computer maps are MUCH better!
Obama's having his day in the sun and may beat Hillary, but I can't begin to believe that at the end of this day, he will be elected POTUS. There's simply no way the American people can be that obtuse, despite the misguided efforts of the MSM.
Likewise, Hillary, if she pulls out and defeats Obama (when the Democrats finally make their choice) has too much negative baggage and too few agenda/policy specifics to beat McCain.
McCain is by far my default candidate, but I will say that he has one attribute that neither Hillary nor Hussein possesses: He is perceived as what he is: an honest man.
Like it or not, he will be the next President.
Seth, the next President's first name is "Barack" - not "Hussein."
It is bad enough that Bush is woefully unpopular, so any Republican is going to have a tougher time this election cycle. However, Iraq will still be a mess and the economy will still be weak. These three facts alone will hurt McCain. All Obama has to do is run ads showing McCain saying he thinks we will be in Iraq for 100 years and him admitting that he doesn't understand the economy and he will go down.
McCain is a tired old man in a year when voters want change. He is this election's Bob Dole, and just like Dole, he is not trusted by many in the Republican social conservative base. To make matters worse for Republicans, Wall Street fiscal conservatives have already left the Republicans because Bush and the Republicans abandoned them with all of their new government programs and their explosion in deficit spending which is now killing the economy. Besides, they know the Dems are going to control Congress so they are going to throw their fiscal support to those in charge.
Not only will Obama be the next president, but when you look at all of the seats in the House and the Senate that the Republicans have to defend relative to the Dems, the Dems are going to pick up significant numbers of seats in Congress. I fully expect the Dems to pick up at least 5 Senate seats and at least 15 House seats.
Rob --
The American people are not as naive as you folks over there on the left apparently believe.
Bush may have a low approval rating, but the Democrat-run Congress has a notably lower one.
The "situation" in Iraq is improving more and more as time passes.
I don't even know where you get the notion that the financial industry will throw its support behind a candidate whose second order of business, after surrendering in Iraq, would be to raise taxes.
As for your "tired old man" remark, I'm shocked, shocked! to hear a liberal engaging in age discrimination!
Again, McCain was far from my first choice, but I will say he has at least two attributes that neither Obama nor Hillary can lay claim to: He's honest and he's up front.
And while he may be a senior citizen, he has a lot of energy and a really sharp mind. He is far from "tired".
Obama is an excellent talker (how about "con man"?) who can say a thousand words without actually saying anything at all, but once he confronts McCain in debate and has to be a little more specific than "I represent change", he'll be exposed for the reality-clueless, self seeking political opportunist that he is.
Hell, I have a number of die hard Democrat friends and acquaintances here in Chicago, of all places, who are already practically lining up to vote for McCain because they are smart enough to know what indelible damage an Obama administration would do to the country.
Funny, I am just laughing at how uninformed you must really be.
You do realize that there are Republicans in Congress, don't you? As I pointed out above, the Republicans have to defend far more seats that Dems in the Senate, and the Republicans have many more open seats in the House to defend because of all the retirements. Just watch what happens in November.
You clearly do not understand what is happening in Iraq. Violence is again escalating and the Battle of Basra that just took place clearly weakened Maliki and illustrated the strength and political savvy of Sadr.
Please explain to me how I am DISCRIMINATING against McCain. I have no problem with him running. I don't think he should be disqualified because of his age. I am merely stating a fact - he is old. And, I am entitled to my opinion that when he speaks he seems tired to me. You obviously disagree - which is your right - but you may want to look up the word "discriminate" so that you understand what it means. That way you won't use it incorrectly and make baseless accusations.
Great, you have some Dem friends in Chicago - big deal. Illinois is going to vote overwhelmingly for Obama. I have some Republican friends in Virginia who are voting for Obama, and I have some other Republican friends who are going to sit out because they cannot stand McCain. And, Virginia is going to go for Obama. That matters.
The best part about our debate is that we will see in November.
Oh yeah, as for Wall Street, before the 2006 elections, Wall Street recognized the Dems were going to come to power and Dems had a slight advantage in donations. It was 51 percent to 47 percent in favor of Dems. We all know what happened when the election rolled around in 2006.
This election cycle is even more tilted toward the Dems. Both Hillary and Barack have raised more than $6 million from Wall Street. McCain has raised less than $3 million.
By comparison, Bush raised $4 million to Gore's $1.4 million in 2000 and Bush raised $8.8 million to Kerry's $4.4 million.
If you do not recognize how disappointed the fiscal conservatives are with Bush and the Republicans, and how much of Wall Street has abandoned the Republican Party in favor of the Dems, then you really are going to be surprised by the election results in November.
Seth,
Like it or not, he will be the next President.
LOL
Well I can live with it.
Look at the alternatives, that's annialation!
Lately when I have heard a few McCain's speeches they have sounded very Presidential, and witty, and he has plans that basically agree with what we want, he seems so knowledgable, I am beginning to see a side of McCain I never saw before.
Yep he's MY next President that's for sure :-)
McCain will be MY next President too if he wins the election. But he won't win.
If Obama wins, I assume that he will be YOUR next President also.
Rob -- Your links are always via liberal media (CNN and the L.A. Times this time around, LOL). I trust their information as much as I'd trust Hillary Clinton when she tells a story of being under fire in Bosnia, or Obama when he says that he just happened to miss church on the few zillion occasions that his pastor delivered anti-American, anti-white racist sermons.
You can go ahead enjoying whatever Kool-Aid you have in stock, but the fact remains that neither of the 2 lefties presently competing for the Democrat nomination will get into the White House after January, 2009 unless they are invited there by President McCain.
You tell me that I am not informed, but anyone voting for either Hillary or Hussein is either in denial of something or other, on serious meds, an enemy of the state or simply brain-dead.
Marie --
You have it on point: McCain is not only the only candidate that any America-friendly American will vote for, he is also the next POTUS.
Rob, I'd recommend putting some sugar in that Kool-Aid, it will taste a lot better and the mediciny taste will be muted...
Obviously you don't read my posts, because my links are not "always via liberal media." If you don't know, and you are just guessing, then don't make unsubstaniated claims. You make yourself look foolish.
With respect to the fact that you actually think that Wall Street firms and other businesses are funding the Republicans, I just have to laugh. Jeez, you are truly are uninformed and completely blind to reality. Pick up today's Wall Street Journal and read the front page article on the subject. It is far from a liberal rag and should do for you - it is owned by Rupert Murdoch. You know, the guy who owns Faux News.
Here is the link. I don't want to make you strain yourself doing a little bit of research.
I find it hilarious that you call people names and accuse folks of being unpatriotic and brain-dead for supporting Dems, and then you don't have a clue about basic facts.
Let me ask you 3 questions - I'm really curious about how uninformed you really are.
1. Do you have any clue how much new, non-military spending Bush and the Republican Congress imposed on the American people during Bush's first 6 years in office?
2. Do you know how much debt was added to the National Debt during those 6 years?
3. Do you know what the budget surplus was in Clinton's last year in office?
If you want to have an actual debate, then let's do that. But there doesn't seem to be much reason for the childish comments. I guess if it makes you feel better, then go ahead. But, if you don't know what the answers to these three relatively simple questions are, then I have no idea why you call others brain-dead for supporting Dems.
Rob --
Good article, though premature as the Democrats have not yet decided which loser to nominate and direct debates on specific issues have not yet begun between the two “finalists”. Then we shall see what we shall see. Once the general election campaigns are truly underway, the contribution ratios will probably change.
The “wheels” for the prosperity of the 1990s were already in motion during the latter part of Bush 1’s administration, carrying over from policies enacted during the second term of the Reagan Administration.
Clinton came in with a growing economy and enjoyed claiming it was because of him, then the economy as a whole started to recede near the end of the 1990s. The economic downturn headed, unavoidable, into the 1st Bush 2 term.
I seem to remember our having that same argument over two years ago, and as I’m pressed for time (seriously, that’s why I don’t have the opportunity to comment here and at other blogs nearly as often as I wish to, and the more time I spend flogging a dead horse with you, the less I have to read other blog posts and comments), I won’t rehash what to me is not germane to the topic at hand (it’s more like your default argument on any issue dealing with elections, one you’ll still no doubt be using your Clinton exit figures prior to the 2020 elections) which is the present campaigns.
There’s not a conservative alive who won’t admit that Republicans in Congress, as well as George W. Bush, have let us down by spending our money as though there was an infinite supply of the stuff, and I’m less than enamored about our having to finance ongoing gov’t expenses by selling outrageous sums in U.S. debt to countries that will eventually prove to be less than friends.
McCain has long been opposed to wasteful gov’t spending, and, unlike Bush, will certainly wield the veto pen to that end. Obama or Clinton would throw money into vote-capturing socialist programs that will cost the taxpayer still more, and they would raise taxes as the resulting useless bureaucracies blossomed.
Obama’s relationships with Irreverend Wright and his former communist “mentor” should serve as a more than satisfactory look into the charactar of a man who aspires to the White House, and Hillary’s blatancy as a pathological liar speaks for itself.
That these two are the best the Democrats can come up with to lead the country will not be lost on voters come election day, and primary results are not wholly definitive in any case – a lot of people sit them out and vote only in the general election.
If you do even a mild amount of research you will see that the Republicans have been outraised - by far - among business interests and individuals for the last 2 years. That isn't going to change when the general election race heats up in August, September, and October. But, I'm willing to wait and see.
You clearly seem to think the economy was dramatically improving at the end of Bush Sr.'s term and that it had really fallen off when W came to office. That is just absurd. The fact is that the "cupboard was bare" when Clinton came to office and it was full when he left office.
The numbers are easy to look up. If you want to have an honest debate, let's actually look at the numbers.
I suggest we look at total GDP growth under Clinton and Bush (to date) as a starting point. We can also look at GDP growth in 1992 and in 2000 and will be able to see how accurate your presumption is.
If you are game, just look up the numbers and tell me what you think they are. I already know the numbers.
Rob, you sent me all the numbers over two years ago when we had the same difference of opinion, and you refused then as you refuse now to get the point.
It always takes anywhere from 2 to 4 years for a program, once set in motion, to leave any telling results. Nothing happens, on his account, the minute a new President takes the oath. Any early effect in a POTUS' 1st term are the results of something done in the preceeding administration.
Naturally, since it happened on the new guy's watch, he will take the credit.
I've said my piece on this issue, so feel free to have the last word.
You are hilarious. You don't know the numbers but somehow you want to argue that Clinton benefited from an improving economy and then left the cupboard bare when he left.
I guess you are going to give a pass to the next President because he will be taking over a flat economy.
Here is the point. You call people unpatriotic and brain-dead for supporting Dems, but you don't know basic facts.
At least now I know that when Obama becomes President you won't blame him for at least 2 years for having to deal with the economic mess Bush is leaving behind.
That's not what I wrote, Rob, you are reading this like the typical Kool-Aid drinking lefty troll you apparently are.
But as I said, go ahead and have your last word. I won't bother replying to any more of your attemptedly provocative word twisting, I have more important things to do than gratify your preadolescent craving for attention.
I must say, you really do crack me up. You clearly don't know your facts, nor do you seem to have any desire to look up the facts. So, instead of engaging in honest intellectual discourse, you simply debase yourself by name calling.
If you are too busy to post, fine. I couldn't care less if you post anything in response to my comments. But, if you do, it would be nice if you actually knew the facts and could make a consistent argument. I cannot help it if you get confused by your own tortured and contradictory statements.
For example Seth, if you truly believe that "It always takes anywhere from 2 to 4 years for a program, once set in motion, to leave any telling results" then I must assume that you will wait at least 2 years before you will assess the economic policies of the next President. I don't share that view, but that is what you wrote. I'm not purposefully word-twisting in order to be "provocative." At worst, I may have misunderstood what you wrote, but if you believe that to be true, all you have to do is clarify your comment.
"Troll"? "Preadolescent craving for attention"? What a joke! I have been reading Ken's blog and posting openly and freely for years. I don't share the views of most of the folks here, but I enjoy discussing policies with folks on the right. I respect Ken and regulars like Gayle, Marie, and Wordsmith. You know why? Because they are regulars who don't just pop up from time to time, get confused and then decide to be jerks. You, my friend, are the only one exhibiting trollish behavior.
Post a Comment
<< Home