Surprising Polls, Even Mindboggling
by sarabeth at 3:21 pm on March 4th, 2008 in 2008 Presidential, Bill Clinton, Obama Uber AllesThe other day I posted my thoughts on whether Hillary Clinton should stay in the presidential race or quit. The post was prompted by media calls for Clinton to quit. In the comments section, a couple of readers feelingly expressed the view that many Obama supporters would refuse to vote for Clinton if she were the nominee, to the point of not just sitting out but actually voting for McCain over Clinton.
That certainly accords with the conventional wisdom, that Obama is more acceptable to Clinton supporters than Clinton is to Obama supporters. But a Pew poll addresses this question, and produces surprising answers:
— More Democratic voters defect to McCain if Obama is the nominee than if Clinton is the nominee: “in an Obama-McCain matchup, 14% of Democratic voters say they would support McCain, compared with 8% who would do so if Clinton is the nominee”.
— More Clinton supporters would switch to McCain if Obama is the nominee than Obama supporters would if Clinton is the nominee: “A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The “defection” rate among Obama’s supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November…”
And then, a new ABC News/Washington Post poll has some numbers on the subject of whether Clinton should quit the race that I found really surprising too:
… Democrats by a very wide 67-29 percent say Clinton should stay in the race even if she loses either Texas or Ohio.
That’s a lot more lopsided than I would ever have guessed. In fact, I wouldn’t have been surprised to see only about 60% of Democrats saying that she should stay in even if she won both Texas and Ohio.
But here’s the one that really blew me away:
But if she were to lose both, far fewer say they’d want her to continue – 45 percent, with 51 percent saying otherwise.
Trust ABC News not to see that the important thing about that response is not that 45% is far fewer than 67%, but that almost 50% of Democrats would like her to battle on even if she loses both Texas and Ohio. I would submit that’s mindboggling.
And there’s also this:
… nearly half of Obama’s supporters say that a Clinton loss in either Ohio or Texas should not be enough to force her out of the race
Once again, Obama supporters displaying surprising support for Clinton.
Very interesting, all of this!
Dave K wrote:
Constitution vs. DNC rules?
I don’t know the law well enough to know the exact answer but doesn’t the constitution trump party rules?
19th and 26th Amendments prohibit the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen to vote due to their sex or age (if over 18). Nothing specifically addresses the issue of denying a citizen the right to have his/her vote counted regardless of “a political party” rule but I have to believe that the right to have a citizens vote count would be upheld over a political party “rule” no?…
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 4:55 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
it would be helpful if you would explain what you’re referring to.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 5:18 am ¶
Dave K wrote:
Sorry, I’m talking about the Constitution vs. DNC rules irt counting FL & MI.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 5:46 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I believe there are no constitutional rules that kick in in this specific scenario.
A political party has a right to lay down how elections in a given state will be conducted. If a state insists on holding an invalid election (one declared in advance to be invalid), the party has the right not to accept the results. That’s not only the law, but also conforms to common sense.
There would be constitutional issues, of course, if a political party refused to honor the results of a valid election.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 5:58 am ¶
Stacey H wrote:
During elections, it seems so many negative comments by the candidates is proven to be untrue by the press. Some of these comments appear character bashing, or more importantly false comments of personal matters. They are spouted to be true over and over again by an opponent even after the press has stated the allegation is false. Why doesn’t an opponent ever begin legal action against the other?
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 6:14 am ¶
Dave K wrote:
Yes, I know what the “party” declared but what I’m getting at is who cares what “a political party” says? I referred to those amendments because if it was important enough to say that age and sex can’t deny someone the right to vote it stands to reason that those votes would be expected to be counted. I also think that the rights of citizens trumps “any rules” that a political party chooses to implement, no?…
Political parties are nothing more than a group of like minded people who decided to form “a party”. Are you saying they have some extraordinary authority over citizens? I really don’t know the exact legal issues but my “common sense” tells me that a challenge would be upheld in favor of the voters having their votes counted. Again, it’s similar (not identical) to the amendments pertaining to voters rights. It would be a grey area but I think it would be decided in favor of the voters having their votes registered and counted because the voters didn’t do anything wrong.
This is actually just something I found interesting to think about; thanks for the thought exchange.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 6:27 am ¶
Karen wrote:
When is the media going to talk about Hillary’s upcoming court case in April? When are they going to examine her voting record on foreign policy? When is she going to release her tax records? She is as no good as they come. When the cowboys and cowgirls get their head out of their cattle they would realize they made a mistake. I hope before the mexicans have a welcome party for their cousins. This country is going to hell.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 6:32 am ¶
Dave K wrote:
Stacy-
Because it’s considered “politics”. This has actually been a very clean campaign when compared to ones in the past. Something would just about have to be the equivalent of shooting someone for any legal action to take place because it would hurt “the party”. All either side cares about is getting “the party” into office. They don’t really care that much “who” the nominee is as long as they think they will “win”. It’s not considered acceptable to do anything that will tarnish “the party”.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 6:34 am ¶
Dave K wrote:
Karen,
When will Obama’s “absentee” record be brought up to a greater degree? He has one of the worst records irt missing votes and voting “present” rather than actually taking a stand. It’s easy to say you didn’t vote for things when you just vote “present”. It’s also easy to say you wouldn’t have voted for the war when you didn’t have any responsibility to do so. If he had been in the Senate back then he probably would have voted “present”… I want someone who’s not afraid to make a decision.
Leaders have to make tough decisions and they won’t always be right. Hindsight is always easy to use but being in a position of responsibility is a little tougher than that… I know a thing or two about making decisions and I learned them in the USMC. The best case scenario for the Dems is a Clinton/Obama ticket for 8yrs followed by an Obama/??? ticket for another 8 after he’s learned more about being a leader and making decisions as opposed to just saying “present”…
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 6:44 am ¶
cam wrote:
Hillary’s upcoming court case in April?
Perhaps you’d care to elaborate on this.
When are they going to examine her voting record on foreign policy?
What about Obama ducking out on his duty to the subcommittee on European Affairs that he chaired, not holding a single hearing?
What about the nearly 30 general and flag officers who have endorsed Hillary Clinton, including General Henry Hugh Shelton, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William Owens, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Army Major General Antonio M. Taguba?
Overall she has the endorsement of two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, five admirals and generals at the four-star rank. They are in addition to over 2,000 veterans and military retirees who are members of Senator Clinton’s national and state veterans’ steering committees.
But I guess that doesn’t mean anything to you.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 7:10 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I don’t think you’re getting the point.
Just imagine what would happen if every state unit of a party were allowed to conduct elections any which way they chose, and the party had no choice but to count the results. It would just lead to one unholy mess.
Parties have to have rules. The rules have to be clear up front. State units have to conform to the rules. Without that, the whole system would break down. That’s why there’s no constitutional right that votes in an election have to count no matter how that election was held.
What you’re really arguing is that constitutionally there should be no such thing as a bogus election. If there were any such right, the whole system would just collapse.
They have authority over their own internal affairs. That includes the process by which the party’s candidate will be selected. No one is forced to join any given party. If you don’t like a particular party — whether it is their philosophy or their rules — you go join some other party.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 7:21 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
funny how nothing in this comment thread has anything to do with the post.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 7:27 am ¶
STEVEN, MICHIGAN wrote:
FROM WHAT I HAVE READ ..THERE ARE NO PARTY RULES THAT PERVENTED THE CANIDATES FROM BEING ON THE BALLOT IN MICH AND FLA…DEAN HIMSELF ACKNOWLDEGED THAT THER WERE NO R ULES..TH E DISPUTE CAME WHEN IOWA SAID T HAT THEY WOULD NOT RECOGNISE ANY CANIDATE THAT PUT THEMSELVES ON THE MICH BALLOT. SO.. THE OTHER CANIDATES EXCEPT FOR LCINTON REMOVEDD THEIR NAMES FROM THE BALLOT…NO CANIDATE CAMPAIGNED IN MICH. IT WAS IOWA THE REFUSE TO HAVE ANY STATE HAVE A PRIMARY BEFORE THEM.EXCEPT FOR NEVADA… WHY SHOULD IOWA BE ABLE TO DICTATGE AS TO WHO THE STATES SHOULD CONDICT THIER PRIMARIES…I BELEIVE THAT AS A RESULTS OF THE ACTIONS OF FLA AND MICH… THE FUTURE PRIMARIES WILL NOT BE LIMITED TO TO IOWAS BEING FIRST TO HOLD A PRIMARY..WHIICH WOULD BE FARE TO THOSE STATES THAT BEST REPRESENT THE CROSSSECTION OF AMERICA…
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 7:32 am ¶
JMac wrote:
I am one of those who could not possibly vote for Obama. My son, an idealistic college student, and my husband, a true to the core Democrat, are both appalled. My reasoning, simply put, is I don’t trust him. Hillary is an open book but we know very little about Obama and the few things we do know do not speak well of his character. He lied about Exelon, NAFTA and not taking money from Lobbyist. He has surrounded himself with people of questionable integrity and he is a former cocaine user. I would love to read his wife’s college thesis, “Princeton Educated Blacks and the Black Community” but it is off limits until the day after the general election. I would love to hear him denounce and reject his church’s doctrine that he be loyal to his African homeland. Heck, even the fact that his church has revamped it’s website in recent months to remove several reverences to the white “captors” bothers me. He’s great at complainng to avoid explaining and quick to cry “foul” whenever someone touches on a subject he considers off limits. He needs to learn that nothing is off limits in a Presidential campaign. I could certainly accept him as Hillary’s vice president and perhaps as President after he proves himself worthy. But he has a long way to go to prove his worthiness, honesty and integrity.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 7:34 am ¶
STEVEN, MICHIGAN wrote:
PLEASE THE TYPOS AND SPELLING..THESE OLD HANDS ARE HAVE ING PROBLEMS..I AM SURE YOU KNOW WHAT I MEANT
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 7:36 am ¶
STEVEN, MICHIGAN wrote:
YOU WILL FIND THE OBAMA THEISIS JUST GOOGLE IT AND WORK WITH IT FOR A FEW SECONDS AND YOU WILL FIND IT IN ONE OG THER BLOGS
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 8:25 am ¶
matt wrote:
jesus christ.
i think it’s time to revise the comment rules.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 8:36 am ¶
Dr718 wrote:
Obama was pretty smart shuffling his wife off stage… Do americans realy want a very un-american first lady?
My guess is no she’s done major damage and he knows it.
not to mention Obamas mob ties muslim ties andoverall shady past..
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 9:32 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Would that be a Muslim mob?
And is it bow-ties or regular ties?
And, you lie, sir, he never went to Andover.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 9:41 am ¶
jamiebeth wrote:
SB – the andover thing just killed me.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 9:51 am ¶
sami wrote:
clinton&bush family
bush sen.(vice president),bush sen.(president).clinton,bush J.,clinton..potentialy 36 years in power…WHAT A DYNASTY!!now will be empress clinton. then laura bush then chelsea clinton…then will come bush brother.it will be 80 years..
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 10:13 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Re Matt’s #17, here’s a post by cscs at TPM Cafe:
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 10:14 am ¶
Dave K wrote:
“JMac wrote:
I am one of those who could not possibly vote for Obama. My son, an idealistic college student, and my husband, a true to the core Democrat, are both appalled. My reasoning, simply put, is I don’t trust him. Hillary is an open book but we know very little about Obama and the few things we do know do not speak well of his character. He lied about Exelon, NAFTA and not taking money from Lobbyist. He has surrounded himself with people of questionable integrity and he is a former cocaine user. I would love to read his wife’s college thesis, “Princeton Educated Blacks and the Black Community†but it is off limits until the day after the general election. I would love to hear him denounce and reject his church’s doctrine that he be loyal to his African homeland. Heck, even the fact that his church has revamped it’s website in recent months to remove several reverences to the white “captors†bothers me. He’s great at complainng to avoid explaining and quick to cry “foul†whenever someone touches on a subject he considers off limits. He needs to learn that nothing is off limits in a Presidential campaign. I could certainly accept him as Hillary’s vice president and perhaps as President after he proves himself worthy. But he has a long way to go to prove his worthiness, honesty and integrity.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 7:34 am ¶ ”
Very well put JMac
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 11:15 am ¶
Dave K wrote:
“sarabeth wrote:
They have authority over their own internal affairs. That includes the process by which the party’s candidate will be selected. No one is forced to join any given party. If you don’t like a particular party — whether it is their philosophy or their rules — you go join some other party.”
Yes, the candidates can pick their parties “but” the voters (even independents) have to vote for “somebody that has a chance to win”. The The way the U.S. voting system is currently set up prevents a “third party†candidate from being viable and necessitates voting for someone from the Dem or Rep party if you want your vote to actually mean anything towards electing the next President. The voters still have the right to have their votes counted regardless of those voters are “registered” as Dem, Rep, or Ind… The only reason people are required to register at all is because “someone” wants to get an idea of what type of voting base exists in a given area. Personally, I don’t think anyone should be “registered”.
Anyway, I still think the citizens of those states will win the right to have their votes counted when this goes to the courts because “a party” doesn’t have the right to disallow millions of citizens rights to vote and be counted…
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 11:30 am ¶
Dave K wrote:
“sarabeth wrote:
They have authority over their own internal affairs. That includes the process by which the party’s candidate will be selected. No one is forced to join any given party. If you don’t like a particular party — whether it is their philosophy or their rules — you go join some other party.”
Yes, the candidates can pick their parties “but” the voters (even independents) have to vote for “somebody that has a chance to win”. The way the U.S. voting system is currently set up prevents a “third party†candidate from being viable and necessitates voting for someone from the Dem or Rep party if you want your vote to actually mean anything towards electing the next President. The voters still have the right to have their votes counted regardless of those voters are “registered” as Dem, Rep, or Ind… The only reason people are required to register at all is because “someone” wants to get an idea of what type of voting base exists in a given area. // Personally, I don’t think anyone should be “registered”. Anyway, I still think the citizens of those states will win the right to have their votes counted when this goes to the courts because “a party” doesn’t have the right to disallow millions of citizens rights to vote and be counted…
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 11:33 am ¶
Dave K wrote:
“funny how nothing in this comment thread has anything to do with the post.”
Quite honestly sarabeth I was just looking for a place to post my question/comment irt the counting of FL & MI. My “round-a-bout” way of linking it to this thread was that the original post talked a lot about weather or not Clinton should have been considering leaving the race. If FL & MI votes were counted she would have never been behind so it wouldn’t have been a question. Therefore, I brought up a topic that could have (and still could) make the notion of her quitting quite ridiculous because she would have the lead.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 11:44 am ¶
Dave K wrote:
“sami wrote:
clinton&bush family
bush sen.(vice president),bush sen.(president).clinton,bush J.,clinton..potentialy 36 years in power…WHAT A DYNASTY!!now will be empress clinton. then laura bush then chelsea clinton…then will come bush brother.it will be 80 years..”
So that’s justification for electing someone? Just to prevent “someone else” from being President? So if Hillary’s “name” was something else it would make “a big difference”? I agree that the U.S. system prevents anyone outside the 2 “parties” from being elected because Americans have become conditioned to believe that if someone is in a third party they somehow have less credibility. That doesn’t mean we should vote for a candidate just to get a different name in office or to get “a first” in office…
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 11:50 am ¶
Dave K wrote:
“sarabeth wrote:
Just imagine what would happen if every state unit of a party were allowed to conduct elections any which way they chose, and the party had no choice but to count the results. It would just lead to one unholy mess.”
I forgot to comment on this before. My basic thought on that statement is that the order of states running elections (as in who’s1st, 2nd, etc.) is “a far cry” from “an unholy mess” full of corruption wouldn’t you say? That’s really all it came down to is a pissing argument of who’s 1st, 2nd, etc. and that has “nothing” to do with “anything”. Who cares who goes first? If it’s such a point of contention I think we should just have a “lottery day” every election where all the states are put in a barrel and the order is decided by how they come out…
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 12:16 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Re #28, you don’t seem to understand very much of anything I write.
As is clear from the original comment (#11), “if every state unit of a party were allowed to conduct elections any which way they chose” doesn’t refer just to the order in which states hold their primaries/caucuses. It refers to exactly what it describes — a situation in which there are no rules at all, where there’s no such thing as a bogus election.
Your thesis seems to be that a national party has no right to impose rules on state units. I’m just trying to point out the logical outcome of such a system.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 12:56 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
“Your thesis seems to be that a national party has no right to impose rules on state units. I’m just trying to point out the logical outcome of such a system.”
Yes I actually do understand what your point was/is. My point is that drawing a comparison between what “actually occurred” and a “no rules at all free for all” (as in post 11) is baseless. An election with no rules is in no way what I was talking about and if it came across that way then I’ll write it differently when I address this on some other forum in the future.
The order of states voting should have no meaning irt the votes of those states counting. I thought this when they brought it up months ago and it’s just as true today. BTW, what do you think of my lottery draw for state voting order?
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 1:12 pm ¶
James wrote:
She has every right to stay in the race. But she can’t win by votes. There’s not enough states left that are her demographic. She can’t catch up.
If she cared about the party’s chances in November she’d
1) leave sooner rather than later
2) fight a competitive race but not do anything that would harm the eventual nominee for the G.E.
Of course, cynics would say Hillary is not honorable and doesn’t care about the party, and onyl herself.
We’ll see.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 1:28 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>leave sooner rather than later
>fight a competitive race but not do anything that would harm the eventual nominee for the G.E.
what does this mean?
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 1:43 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
“She has every right to stay in the race. But she can’t win by votes.”
Neither can Obama. How do you not see that? Neither one can get to the required number without superdelegates “or” FL/MI… This will either go to the convention (where I’ll be as a Dem delegate) or a backroom agreement will be made prior to that and a Clinton/Obama ticket will be announced. That would actually give the Dem party the best ticket to combat the Republicans anyway…
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 1:50 pm ¶
James wrote:
She has every right to stay in the race. But she can’t win by votes. There’s not enough states left that are her demographic. She can’t catch up.
If she cared about the party’s chances in November she’d
1) leave sooner rather than later
2) fight a competitive race but not do anything that would harm the eventual nominee for the G.E.
Of course, cynics would say Hillary is not honorable and doesn’t care about the party, and onyl herself.
We’ll see.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 2:14 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
Reposting?… LOL, that’s too funny. Apparently “James” has no argument… Maybe you can consult someone else to help you with your point??? Come back if you get that help.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 2:19 pm ¶
SheikYoboudi wrote:
It’s arguable that Hillary “Rove-ing it up” with negative campaigning might be good prep for Obama once he gets the nomination… in which case, “bravo for the show of martyrdom, Senator Clinton.”
From a perspective where “the most important thing is that ANY Democrat get win the election, vs. Bush’s phantom 3rd term”, toughening Senator Obama up in some prelim. rounds prior to formally contesting the other team— it might actually be doing him a favor.
Do I *really* believe this? Well, no; but the “audacity” of using negative Republican-style campaigning, vs. a candidate who’s— well, putting it bluntly— is just ‘trying not to go there’– it’s sadly ‘politics as usual’. But with what’s at stake in this election, it was bound to happen sometime, and, unfortunately, she’s proven to have a skilled, eloquent hand at smear.
As for all the argument above about Florida and Michigan? Come on, people. Get real. MI and FL KNEW that they were going to be punished, were WARNED that their results were not going to count, yet they held their elections anyway. I want to see the fervor face the culprits of this fiasco: the state parties responsible for the beligerent scheduling of their primaries / caucuses. I wan to see a formal apology from those state-rep’s responsible, addressed to their state constituents. And then a formal re-vote, if the states’ delegates are to count. Nothing else will hold the slightest semblance of legitimacy.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 6:47 pm ¶
TheUrbanRevolution wrote:
Not to sure who participated in their polls because everyone at my job said that there was no way they’d vote for Clinton. Of course I work at a firm where the avg. person’s education is a minimum of a 4 year degree — perhaps that has something to do with it.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 7:35 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
“Not to sure who participated in their polls because everyone at my job said that there was no way they’d vote for Clinton. Of course I work at a firm where the avg. person’s education is a minimum of a 4 year degree — perhaps that has something to do with it.”
LOL.
The reasons for “your particular results” are more likely do to a variety of “other” reasons that have “nothing” to do with education level (as you have implied). Additionally, what people “say” and what people “do” (especially in a work environment) are often quite different.
From the example you provide, the “avg person” at your “firm” needs more education then because your implication that intelligence has a direct correlation to education is false. I have a college degree as well but some of the brightest minds in our history never finished college and many never finished high school. Some of the most incompetent people I know have many yrs of “education” while a few with simple high school diplomas are comparatively quite intelligent. In my personal opinion Bush and Rice, while “educated”, are extremely incompetent but look where they are. Maybe the people in your firm are equally “educated”…
BTW “revolution” I hope you’ve actually read through both candidates policy papers and aren’t simply basing your opinion on conjecture and drivel.
How many people at your “firm” have actually read through both candidates policy plans? If not, you can count yourselves among the other 90% of people that are basing their decisions on who they like as the better “speaker/promoter” as opposed to “actually knowing” the specifics that the candidates are running on. BTW, simply listening to “campaign speeches” is a far cry from researching the specifics. It takes about 3-4 hrs per candidate to go through their plans. If you’ve read them you should realize that neither site gives very much “actual detail” irt their policies but Barack’s definitely provides the least. Just something to think about…
I keep hearing many of the 18-28 yr olds preaching about how bad it was under Clinton but they were only 2-12yrs old when Clinton became President and were a whole 10-20yrs old at the end of it… I was disappointed to find that at my caucus 90% of the young voters could “not” speak to the actual details of either candidate’s policies but still tried to act like they knew their differences. Getting involved in politics is great but do it by studying “all” the candidates plans (not rhetoric). In this race it’s getting to be more like rooting for the Giants to beat the Patriots in that it’s easy to root for the original underdog and rally as that underdog makes progress. There’s also the obvious draw of young people to pull for someone they think looks/acts a little closer to their age. The problem is that doing so lends more towards picking someone based on rhetoric over actual facts (this could go for “either” candidate but tends to be occurring on the Obama side to the greatest extent). That’s based purely on my observations; maybe you’ve had different ones?
IRT some of the issues:
I dislike Clinton’s plan for a 5yr freeze of mortgage interest rates because it will result in “higher” rates. I prefer Barack’s plan on this topic. Setting a specific date for troop withdrawal is a bad idea also. Setting a date to have a complete “plan” would be ok but saying we’ll be leaving on date “x” (regardless of the variables involved) would be irresponsible.
I dislike Obama’s healthcare plan because, of the two Dem plans, it’s the furthest away from covering everyone.
I like Clinton’s National 401K plan.
Both Dem’s have exciting ideas for college tuition assistance and green initiatives.
The issue is that all of these plans cost a lot of money. Not to mention the cost of removing the AMT (greater than $2 trillion from 2010-2020), as well as fixing the AMT and preserving the tax cuts for earners under $200-250K. Even “if” they could do these things in a “pay-go” way they will still have a $400 billion deficit to deal with and a looming crises in Social Security, Medicare and the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled. All with a weakening economy and dollar…
It’s not going to be easy and it will take a lot more than rhetoric. Choose wisely…
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 9:04 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
“TheUrbanRevolution wrote:
Not to sure who participated in their polls because everyone at my job said that there was no way they’d vote for Clinton. Of course I work at a firm where the avg. person’s education is a minimum of a 4 year degree — perhaps that has something to do with it.”
LOL.
The reasons for “your particular results” are more likely do to a variety of “other” reasons that have “nothing” to do with education level (as you have implied). Additionally, what people “say” and what people “do” (especially in a work environment) are often quite different.
From the example you provide, the “avg person” at your “firm” needs more education then because your implication that intelligence has a direct correlation to education is false. I have a college degree as well but some of the brightest minds in our history never finished college and many never finished high school. Some of the most incompetent people I know have many yrs of “education” while a few with simple high school diplomas are comparatively quite intelligent. In my personal opinion Bush and Rice, while “educated”, are extremely incompetent but look where they are. Maybe the people in your firm are equally “educated”…
BTW “revolution” I hope you’ve actually read through both candidates policy papers and aren’t simply basing your opinion on conjecture and drivel.
How many people at your “firm” have actually read through both candidates policy plans? If not, you can count yourselves among the other 90% of people that are basing their decisions on who they like as the better “speaker/promoter” as opposed to “actually knowing” the specifics that the candidates are running on. BTW, simply listening to “campaign speeches” is a far cry from researching the specifics. It takes about 2-3 hrs per candidate to go through their plans. If you’ve read them you should realize that neither site gives very much “actual detail” irt their policies but Barack’s definitely provides the least. Just something to think about…
I keep hearing many of the 18-28 yr olds preaching about how bad it was under Clinton but they were only 2 -12yrs old when Clinton became President and were a whole 10-20yrs old at the end of it… I was disappointed to find that at my caucus 90% of the young voters could “not” speak to the actual details of either candidate’s policies but still tried to act like they knew their differences. Getting involved in politics is great but do it by studying “all” the candidates plans (not rhetoric, “plans”) irt the issues. In this race it’s getting to be more like rooting for the Giants to beat the Patriots in that it’s easy to root for the original underdog and rally as that underdog makes progress. There’s also the obvious draw of young people to pull for someone they think looks/acts a little closer to their age. The problem is that’s what lends more towards picking someone based on rhetoric over actual facts (this could go for “either” candidate but tends to be occurring on the Obama side to the greatest extent). That’s based purely on my observations; maybe you’ve had different ones?
IRT some of the issues:
I dislike Clinton’s plan for a 5yr freeze of mortgage interest rates because it will result in “higher” rates. I prefer Barack’s plan on this topic. Setting a specific date for troop withdrawal is a bad idea also. Setting a date to have a complete “plan” would be ok but saying we’ll be leaving on date “x” (regardless of the variables involved) would be irresponsible.
I dislike Obama’s healthcare plan because, of the two Dem plans, it’s the furthest away from covering everyone.
I like Clinton’s National 401K plan.
Both Dem’s have exciting ideas for college tuition assistance and green initiatives.
The issue is that all of these plans cost a lot of money. Not to mention the cost of removing the AMT (greater than $2 trillion from 2010-2020), as well as fixing the AMT and preserving the tax cuts for earners under $200-250K. Even “if” they could do these things in a “pay-go” way they will still have a $400 billion deficit to deal with and a looming crises in Social Security, Medicare and the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled. All with a weakening economy and dollar…
It’s not going to be easy and it will take a lot more than rhetoric. Choose wisely…
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 9:08 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
Sorry for the dbl post, it “was not” intentional. The post didn’t show up the first time I hit the post button so I repeated the process. Now they’re BOTH on the board due to some sort of apparent delay on the website. I apologize.
Posted 05 Mar 2008 at 9:26 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Enough is enough. This post is now closed for comments.
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 5:34 am ¶