Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 25, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

MATCHING UP AGAINST McCAIN....ROUND 2....Tonight I give equal time to Barack Obama supporters. According to the latest Wall Street Journal poll, Obama runs even with John McCain in a hypothetical general election matchup, while Hillary Clinton loses by two points. Advantage Obama!

Kevin Drum 1:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (89)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

MArgin of error=4.4, difference=2. There is no information here.

Posted by: anon on January 25, 2008 at 1:41 AM | PERMALINK

Basically, same as yesterday -- Obama and Clinton both run about even with McCain, which is why all Dems should be praying to Eloi for continued Mittmentum in Florida. But again, neither Clinton nor Obama is clearly a superior candidate from an electability standpoint, and besides, didn't we learn in 2004 that picking a candidate because you think s/he is electable is a stupid thing to do?

Posted by: Jeff Fecke on January 25, 2008 at 1:54 AM | PERMALINK

Of course a WSJ (which leans heavily to the right) poll would pick Obama. Believe me when I say that the Republicans would love to run against Barack Hussein Obama, they'd have a field day with him. If you think the Clintons have been tough, wait until the Republican slime machine kicks in if Obama is the democratic nominee. My money is on Hillary and I know the Republicans do not want to run against her because they know they'll lose.

Posted by: Noel on January 25, 2008 at 1:55 AM | PERMALINK

Frankly, by now I feel like I've imagined so many circumstances in which either Hillary or Obama loses that I'm working on ignoring them all. We all know the Republicans are going to get as ugly and dirty as possible, even if the nominee is the great St. J. McCain, who has never run an ugly election in his life. And, at that point, it's going to be up to whoever the candidate is to get ugly and dirty back.

Posted by: KC on January 25, 2008 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

KC, you're probably correct but I think Hillary would be the best candidate to fight back and fight back hard!!!!

Posted by: Noel on January 25, 2008 at 2:10 AM | PERMALINK

So how do the matchups being discused change with the inclusion of a strong VP running mate?

Clinton-Edwards?
Clinton-Obama? (unlikely)
Clinton-Wes Clark?
Obama-Edwards
Obama-??

or on the other side

McCain - Romney
McCain - Huckabee
Romney - McCain

The post-Cheney strengthened role of the VP (as long as it can be constrained to be constitutional) might actually encourage the parties to put forward a team of two strong candidates, both to improve electability and then actually to govern more effectively.

Posted by: david s on January 25, 2008 at 2:11 AM | PERMALINK

I'm supporting Obama because I think he would make a better president. I base this on my judgment that he has political gifts that are important for a president to have. I don't see quite the same talent in Hillary, and I don't treat the idea of a Clinton twosome as being all that much of a positive thing.

Posted by: Bob G on January 25, 2008 at 2:16 AM | PERMALINK

General election polls are pretty meaningless at this point, but it is likely that McCain would be the strongest republican simply because he is liked by moderates, indpendents and even democrats. Obama has more up side than Hillary, who at best is probably capped at about 50%. Unless the economy tanks (which presumably would usher in a democrat), Hillary, who I think will get the nomination, will be in a tight election with any republican and likely would lose against McCain. As strange as it sounds now with them fighting, I think Obama will be the VP and help Hillary a bit.

Posted by: brian on January 25, 2008 at 2:19 AM | PERMALINK

I support Hillary because I think she'll make a better president than Obama. I think she's ready to be president and she has the skill set to be president. On the other hand, Obama is not ready to be president and he doesn't sound like he's ready to be president.

Posted by: Noel on January 25, 2008 at 2:21 AM | PERMALINK

Agree with anon @ #1 -- margin of error mean a 2% difference is meaningless.

What I don't understand is the continuing strength of McCain with Independents. The last 7 years -- when they needed him -- he was at the beck and call of the Bush Administration. He is just as guilty. I saw some voters who were going to pick between Obama and McCain. Huh?

Posted by: Kak on January 25, 2008 at 2:43 AM | PERMALINK

Somebody pointed out a few weeks ago that being slimed by the GOP is not like catching the measles: You don't get immunity just because you've been slimed before. Hillary's negatives are already distressingly high, and her numbers will only get worse as the swift-boaters find their marks; every GOP operative in the field is salivating at the prospect.

Obama isn't a perfect candidate, but the GOP will have to work harder to beat him. Most of the "Barack Hussein Obama" attacks are only effective on the 29% of voters who think Dubya's doing a great job (and it's not like those voters would flock to Hillary otherwise), and accusing Obama of being a Muslim is the most short-sighted tactic in the history of modern politics: Other Democratic candidates can't even be seen in a church without the Mighty Wurlitzer shrieking that they're "pandering to religious voters" - but Obama gets to showcase his religion as often as he likes, because he's answering a false accusation.

I suspect the GOP is watching Hillary's campaign right now to see which of her attacks on Obama are landing (regardless of whether her attacks have any basis in fact), and there's an argument which says Obama shouldn't be the nominee if he can't get past the Clintons. I don't think the GOP can accuse Obama of being insufficiently pro-choice, though, and if Tony Rezko is the worst that anyone can come up with then I don't think Obama will have a problem against John "Keating Five" McCain.

Posted by: Scott Forbes on January 25, 2008 at 3:10 AM | PERMALINK

Bob G has it right. Additionally Obama's poll-confirmed strengths among Independents suggest he has a better chance of winning down-ticket races. People forget what a disaster Bill C was down-ticket, and HRC is hardly a better politician than he is.

If you followed polls during Iowa, BO did better (his positives rose and his negatives fell) the longer he campaigned. HRC had the opposite effect on voters: the more they saw of her the less trustworthy they found her, and the less compelling they found her other capacities. So we have evidence that he wears better than she does.

And the fact that we have yet to hear about the cattle futures tells me nobody has begun to deploy the potential oppo on HRC.

Posted by: c on January 25, 2008 at 3:20 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin: "Obama runs even with John McCain in a hypothetical general election matchup, while Hillary Clinton loses by two points. Advantage Obama!"

When the Obama campaign has the likes of Al singing its praises, I'm really not sure what kind of advantage the candidate enjoys.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on January 25, 2008 at 4:36 AM | PERMALINK

Until pollsters decided that the third-place democratic candidate didn't even need to be included any longer John Edwards was consistently beating McCain by healthy margins. We (democrats, that is) went down this road before in the last election. How depressing.

Posted by: InitforEdwards on January 25, 2008 at 6:44 AM | PERMALINK

McCain's negatives have not been fully exploited. How many of the uninformed morons who responded to this poll are aware of his "100 years in Iraq" statement, for example? Hillary/Bill will do a job on him.

Posted by: bob h on January 25, 2008 at 6:58 AM | PERMALINK

McCain is not a choice unless you want to consider another war hawk.

Posted by: Al on January 25, 2008 at 7:44 AM | PERMALINK

If the economy is a big issue and voters see 'Clinton' on the ballot, well, that's where they'll go.

Posted by: cathy on January 25, 2008 at 8:01 AM | PERMALINK

THESE GENERAL ELECTION COMPARISONS ARE MEANINGLESS:

Let me bottom-line this for you. Does anyone here REALLY think that the liberals saying they will "cross-over" and vote for Mccain in the General Election actually WILL if they can vote for a real Democrat instead?

John McCain is HATED in the Republican Base and this "polling" support amongst liberals will fade like a rose in winter in the General Election.

Not only would Mccain lose, he would get slaughtered.

Posted by: Bill Mitchell on January 25, 2008 at 8:21 AM | PERMALINK

...he is liked by moderates, indpendents and even democrats.

You dumbass--it really doesn't matter if they "like" McCain because the rabid base of the Republican Party hates him and will derail his nomination if they get the chance.

Haven't you been watching the debates? As soon as McCain has to stand next to a Democrat and recite his "I'll follow Osama to the gates of hell" and "we were right to invade Iraq" phrases, it's over. The American people aren't going to elect a war-mongering crank. He has no clue about economics and no realistic plan to deal with health care. What so many people don't realize is that any substantive debate on those issues with any Democrat will reveal how clueless he really is. If forced to debate policy with someone who can actually speak to the issues, he'll go to pieces and start snarling and the voters will abandon him in droves.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 25, 2008 at 8:26 AM | PERMALINK

The "Straight Talk Express" fucked the pooch last night when he denied saying he knew nothing about economics. Russert -- schmuck that he is -- intends to slaughter him this weekend. McCain's either a liar or senile. Romney will ask voters, "Do you want someone who doesn't remember what he said about economics last week?"

Romney will be the nominee -- and much harder to run against, regardless what these polls say. We will wish we had a lying, senile old fart like McCain to run against next fall.

Posted by: Econobuzz on January 25, 2008 at 8:30 AM | PERMALINK

Folks, this election is about much more than the top of the ticket. there is no doubt that an Obama candidacy will help countless House & Senate races.
I am not one of those who think that HRC can't win, but Bill won BOTH elections with the help of a 3rd party in the race. 2 years after he won, we lost the House for 12 years.
Clinton is going to destroy our Congressional chances. Maybe not a total wipeout in 08, but just wait for 2010.

Posted by: swarty on January 25, 2008 at 8:34 AM | PERMALINK

What about Edwards?

Posted by: IntelVet on January 25, 2008 at 8:38 AM | PERMALINK

If forced to debate policy with someone who can actually speak to the issues, he'll go to pieces and start snarling and the voters will abandon him in droves.

You mean like in the last two elections when the smart knowledgable and electable candidate we put up beat the stuffing out of the jocular but dumb as a post candidate they put up? Like after Bush had that total melt-down during the debates against Kerry and then lost all his support?

McCain can appeal to the middle. People like him and think of him as a moderate and a maverick. Assuming he'll completely collapse over the next six to eight months may not be a sound strategy. He polls well against both Clinton and Obama: There is no evidence that either has a special advantage and I'm assuming that either will be hit by the swiftboaters. Neither has immunity.

Personally, I think we're running against Mitt.

Posted by: sleepy on January 25, 2008 at 8:48 AM | PERMALINK

I don't get these "matchup" polls.

Okay, if you have a whole bunch of them, consistently showing Candidate X outperforming Candidate Y against their likely opponents, by some significant margin, that's noteworthy.

But each twitch of these projected, future, hypothetical comparisons is meaningless.

Posted by: Stephen on January 25, 2008 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK

I am not one of those who think that HRC can't win, but Bill won BOTH elections with the help of a 3rd party in the race.

Do you mean to suggest that the voters who were voting for Perot would have all voted for George Bush or Bob Dole? Because the reality is, while Clinton won with pluralities, he won when people voted overwhelmingly against Republicans who were old and out of touch with what the American people wanted in a President. McCain is simply "next" on the Republican docket, denied his chance in 2000, and he's no different than Dole in that he is a cranky Senator who has no affinity for changing things. Unlike Dole, McCain is even more out of touch with the Republican base.

2 years after he won, we lost the House for 12 years. Clinton is going to destroy our Congressional chances. Maybe not a total wipeout in 08, but just wait for 2010.

We lost the House because of check-kiting by House members, arrogance and corruption. We lost because Republicans could point to people like Dan Rostenkowski and because they lied about what they intended to do once elected. As soon as they took over, they turned on each other like animals and destroyed Gingrich and then broke every basic rule of governance, thanks to Tom DeLay. It took longer than it should have to finally take back control, but we are going to hold that control because the Republicans can't raise money, can't find good candidates, and can't compete with Howard Dean's fifty state strategy.

The Republican Brand is in the toilet. We need to keep it there.

I understand that people are squeamish about the Clintons. I personally would prefer Edwards. But there's something reassuring about how Bill pulls the shirt over the back of the head and how Hillary puts a .22 round through the kneecap and how they kick the person like a couple of goons, laughing hysterically and winning elections. It doesn't bother me a bit to know that they're going to take their special level of political intrigue back to Washington.

Let's call it Clinton II: The Wingnuts Have it Coming.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 25, 2008 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINK

You mean like in the last two elections when the smart knowledgable and electable candidate we put up beat the stuffing out of the jocular but dumb as a post candidate they put up? Like after Bush had that total melt-down during the debates against Kerry and then lost all his support?

I don't think Hillary is going to go para-sailing in August. I also don't think that the media narratives are surviving anymore, thanks to the kind of blowback that Chris Matthews has had to endure. His rambling apology signals the end of that kind of reaction to the candidates.

McCain can appeal to the middle. People like him and think of him as a moderate and a maverick. Assuming he'll completely collapse over the next six to eight months may not be a sound strategy. He polls well against both Clinton and Obama: There is no evidence that either has a special advantage and I'm assuming that either will be hit by the swiftboaters. Neither has immunity.

McCain's broke, compared to where Bush was in 2000 and where Dole was in 1996. McCain was described last night by Andrea Mitchell as "Reaganesque."

Really? Reaganesque? Who's buying that load of crap?

There's a charisma gap there that isn't being exposed in these matchup polls. It's too early for them. The American people are only just now starting to pay attention. The idea that McCain is going to appear "Reaganesque" to average voters is hilarious. He's going to appear "cranky, deranged, and old" when people get a fresh look at him.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 25, 2008 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINK

I also think it will be Romney and that he will not be the hapless pushover stumbling around in Josh Marshall's crystal ball. After all the drama of the primaries we'll probably end up with the nominees the parties hand-picked long ago.

Meanwhile, the The New York Times has endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

Posted by: Lucy on January 25, 2008 at 9:18 AM | PERMALINK

The post-Cheney strengthened role of the VP (as long as it can be constrained to be constitutional)...
Posted by: david s

If there is one hot button for me, it is that we should not have a strong VP like Cheney or before him, Gore. They should be seen and not heard, attending state funerals, being the 101st guy in the Senate, and chairing trivial panels only.

Posted by: SJRSM on January 25, 2008 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK

As strange as it sounds now with them fighting, I think Obama will be the VP and help Hillary a bit.

Obama would be insane to accept a position as VP with Hillary Clinton. First, the Clintons hold grudges and this upstart had the audacity not only to challenge them, but to say megalomanic Bill was not "transformative" and Reagan was. Second, with Bill around who wants to be the VP, anyway? He'd have an office in the basement.

As far as McCain v. Clinton or Obama? Doesn't matter in the least because McCain isn't going to get the nomination. Better start looking at the Romney v Clinton (let's face it, it's going to be "The Clintons").

Those polls will show a huge lead for Clinton which will make the Dems, who have lost 7 of the last 10, good and cocky again anticipating an easy win. Of course, once it's on, the Dems will be flabbergasted by the unfairness of it all. The Republicans, who have won 7 of the last 10, are not afraid of Hillary Clinton (or Barack Obama) at all.

Being a Democrat is like being a fan of Washington State football and thinking you have a kick-ass team. Then you have to play USC. I should know, my first vote for a Democrat was George McGovern.

Posted by: Pug on January 25, 2008 at 9:20 AM | PERMALINK

Oops, forgot to close out the bold type.

Posted by: SJRSM on January 25, 2008 at 9:20 AM | PERMALINK

The most amazing thing of all about these polls is why would any sane american vote for a Republican at this point in time?

Half the public hasn't learned anything from the last 8 years? Is half the nation sitting glued to faux news every night? Is this the half of america that can't find the USA on a world map?

(I guess based on the poll results, this is a rhetorical question)

Posted by: Buford on January 25, 2008 at 9:21 AM | PERMALINK

But there's something reassuring about how Bill pulls the shirt over the back of the head and how Hillary puts a .22 round through the kneecap and how they kick the person like a couple of goons, laughing hysterically and winning elections. It doesn't bother me a bit to know that they're going to take their special level of political intrigue back to Washington.

Meanwhile, the progressives get thrown under the bus again, Howard Dean gets sent to the bench because Terry McAuliffe earned the right to lead us to losing elections, there's four more years of fun in Iraq and Iran because Billary will know how to do it right - really, and lets not forget all those wonderful new executive powers that Bush claimed that the Clintons would just love to give up.

Maybe we should call it Clinton II: America Had It Coming.

Posted by: Doug H. on January 25, 2008 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

If there is one hot button for me, it is that we should not have a strong VP like Cheney or before him, Gore. They should be seen and not heard, attending state funerals, being the 101st guy in the Senate, and chairing trivial panels only.

No, what we are going to have is a Vice President who will do to the Republicans exactly what has been done to the Democrats. We will have a Vice President who will spend his every waking moment poring over every scrap of information he can get his hands on so that he can attack, destroy, and eliminate every single Republican who stands in the way of ending the war and doing what's right for this country. The position of Vice President is now, and will forever be, partisan attack dog and enforcer. The definition of the position has been written in stone now. The effectiveness of the Cheney way of attacking opponents of policy and keeping the Congress in line is the way of the world now. Every single time he politicized the war on terror to marginalize a Democrat is something that deserves its own special level of retribution. Yes, the wingnuts have it coming.

Better fucking get used to it, dude--power is rarely surrendered once someone gets their grubby little hands on it. The worst thing that ever happened to the Republican Party was to hand the keys to Dick Cheney and his reptilian, Nixonian little paranoid mind. Whoever we pick is simply going to put a fresh layer of athletic tape on the axe handle and commence to beating the shit out of every slimy Republican who thinks they can get away with cheating and breaking the law.

Whether we use the full weight of our intelligence agencies to attack Republican politicians--as has been done to Democratic politicians--is up in the air. I suspect they'll stop after they get what they need.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 25, 2008 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

Meanwhile, the progressives get thrown under the bus again, Howard Dean gets sent to the bench because Terry McAuliffe earned the right to lead us to losing elections, there's four more years of fun in Iraq and Iran because Billary will know how to do it right - really, and lets not forget all those wonderful new executive powers that Bush claimed that the Clintons would just love to give up.

Last time I checked, Howard Dean was running the party and was winning elections with his 50 state strategy. What's wrong with that?

You think Hillary is going to take the Iraq War as her legacy? Don't make me laugh. The smartest thing they'll do is pull our troops out, end the war as is, leave a token presence at our Embassy, and call it The Bush War and trademark it so that every time someone brings it up, they'll be required by law to call it The Bush War. The only reason they're not explaining what they're really going to do is because they don't want every thumbsucking columnist in the country to bitch at them about how we must stay in Iraq until the country is stabilized. You can't stabilize a kleptocracy.

Maybe we should call it Clinton II: America Had It Coming.

Yeah, a little peace and prosperity wouldn't hurt.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 25, 2008 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider: The idea that McCain is going to appear "Reaganesque" to average voters is hilarious. He's going to appear "cranky, deranged, and old" when people get a fresh look at him.

I hope you're right, but our experience has been that the people who vote for McCain don't take fresh looks at him regardless of what information is available. He maintains his hold over too many independents with the help of most of the media machine. That machine isn't suddenly going to start arguing with its own established narrative.

I don't actually think it's going to be enough to save him this fall whether Clinton or Obama is the candidate. But I'd just as soon not have to run a very tight race.

Posted by: shortstop on January 25, 2008 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

But Kucinich lapped McCain in some internet poll taken on Mars! If you don't include those results too, you're just shining Satan's shoes!

Spelling anglicized Slavic last names always makes me nervous: is it Kusinich or Kucinich? Belichick or Belicick or...what? Someone needs to impose some standardization. (standardisation?)

Posted by: lampwick on January 25, 2008 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

If McCain is the candidate, all the democrats will have to do is reproduce the hug that McCain gave Bush when he won the nomination. That ought to fix McCain.

BTW, I supported the "Straight Talk Express" until it took a detour and stopped straight talking.

As for getting Hillbilly into the White House, I say never! I know they talk about how women of all ages, etc., are going to support her. Well, I don't know a single one who does. And the money that Bill has earned since leaving the WH is disgraceful.

Obama? If African-Americans were in a majority, maybe, but he's too young. Too inexperienced. And what has he done, work-wise, to be able to afford a multi-million dollar house. He may say he's not obligated to special interests, but I don't believe him.

Edwards? That's the one candidate who talks for the middle class. Who doesn't take special interest money. Who earned his wealth by representing the mistreated.

Why isn't he in this chart? An earlier one showed that only he could beat ANY Republican candidate.

Posted by: halfnhalf on January 25, 2008 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

I don't care if they show Barack Obama in a 99-point lead. Ever since New Hampshire, I'm not taking polls for granted.

Posted by: Boorring on January 25, 2008 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

Somebody pointed out a few weeks ago that being slimed by the GOP is not like catching the measles: You don't get immunity just because you've been slimed before.

Look, in the end what the GOP absolutely needs is new material if they're going to go at Hillary effectively. Even the old material against the Clintons was not enough to pull down Bill's numbers -- in fact they rose during the worst of the attacks. Obviously this is a testament to his ability to fight back against the attack machine. Obviously too, he's going to be involved in advocating for Hillary throughout her term, and I expect that his political instincts will serve her very well. (I don't think that Hillary possesses his gift -- really, no one does -- but she's a very smart woman and knows how take maximum advantage of her resources.)

The problem for Obama is that he has led a politically sheltered life, never having run against an well-organized Republican attack. Much of his appeal rests on the perception that he is "pure". It generally doesn't take much to smudge purity, whether the charges be real or imaginary. Certainly the Rezko case by itself seems to offer great opportunity for an effective attack. We simply don't know if there's anything else -- there may be all kinds of attacks on Obama that another Democrat could never touch that a Republican would gladly engage.

My guess is that a Republican attack on Obama would inflict very serious damage on him. He would likely squeeze by into the Presidency, given how broadly voters are disgusted with Republicans, but he would limp into his term with very little clout. And when genuine adversity arises -- when some objective problem arises during his Presidency, be it domestic or foreign politics or policy, or some scandal -- the public may very quickly and decisively turn against him.

That's mostly what happened to Jimmy Carter. I don't see Obama as being at base an abler politician.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 25, 2008 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

God bless Peggy Noonan:

On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, "I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it!"

This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.

Finally, someone tells the truth.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 25, 2008 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

There are a bunch of months B4 November.

Do we "know" that there will be an election?

What if Cheyney decided that he'd be a good choice? (he did that when he self selected himself for VP)

I think the "what-if" talk is way too soon.

Who knows, maybe our country will be under martial law by November?

Why not? Wouldn't that cement the strangle-hold on this country
by the current administration?

Obama/Clinton vs. McCain/Romney is like betting on the SuperBowl. Yawn.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on January 25, 2008 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

We're not learning anything from this nonsense.

Posted by: Quinn on January 25, 2008 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

God bless Peggy Noonan

And then take her to heaven -- quickly.

Posted by: Econobuzz on January 25, 2008 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

We're not learning anything from this nonsense.

That is a very high -- and unfair -- standard to which to hold a blog.

Posted by: Econobuzz on January 25, 2008 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, poor Peggy, still guarding the Reagan brand like a mother bear. It's the flip side of the GOP's dolchstosslegende: the Bush-isn't-a-real-conservative legend.

Posted by: Emartin on January 25, 2008 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

Better fucking get used to it, dude--power is rarely surrendered once someone gets their grubby little hands on it.

The VP's power came from the Prez, and Prez's have traditionally kept them quiet and in the corner for ever. They usually didn't even like each other, much less form a team. I doubt McCain and I *really* doubt Hillary would ever give the VP any real say in anything. Especially if they pick a current candidate as a running mate. Dunno about the others.

But the dems are more than welcome to make the same mistake Bush made in empowering Cheney.

Posted by: SJRSM on January 25, 2008 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

The first poster in this thread said, "MArgin of error=4.4, difference=2. There is no information here."

Congratulations, you've hit my pet peeve!

This is a very common way of interpreting the mathematical concept of "margin of error". Unfortunately, it's also a very wrong way of interpreting the mathematical concept of "margin of error".

"46% with a 4.4% margin of error" means "95% confidence that reality is somewhere between 41.6% and 50.4%, and most likely is near 46%."

"44% with a 4.4% margin of error" means "95% confidence that reality is somewhere between 39.6% and 48.4%, and most likely is near 44%."

That is 46% +/- 4.4% is pretty likely to represent a higher reality percentage than 44% +/- 4.4% is.

It's certainly not guaranteed that it's a higher reality percentage, but to claim that it gives "no information" is flat out false.

Posted by: My Pet Peeve on January 25, 2008 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

McCain would make Obama look like a child in the debates. Hillary, on the other hand, is in the position to kill him with kindness, and making him look like the dodering old man that he actually is. For many women over 55 or so, I suspect even Republicans, McCain will remind them of their husbands, who are getting older and dumber by the minute. They know they are smarter and better than these guys, and they will know that Hillary would make a smarter and better president than he would.

Posted by: dc susie on January 25, 2008 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, poor Peggy, still guarding the Reagan brand like a mother bear.

Yeah, I would simply never take Peggy Noonan's assertions seriously.

If she ever says something sensible, it's not that she's suddenly not crackpot. It's that her normal crackpot views have temporarily been contradicted and superseded by her even crackpotier views.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 25, 2008 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

Polls only seem to be accurate until the votes are counted.

Posted by: AJ on January 25, 2008 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

For many women over 55 or so, I suspect even Republicans, McCain will remind them of their husbands, who are getting older and dumber by the minute. They know they are smarter and better than these guys, and they will know that Hillary would make a smarter and better president than he would.

And they vote. Religiously.

Posted by: Isle of Lucy on January 25, 2008 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

It's certainly not guaranteed that it's a higher reality percentage, but to claim that it gives "no information" is flat out false.

How about the idea that it gives virtually no information?

I'm not sure what the actual number is, but I'd guess that the probability that in reality Clinton performs as well as Obama is in the neighborhood of 1 chance in 3 or 4, given the 2 point spread and the margin of error.

What kind of useful information could that possibly be, given that the poll itself is just a snapshot?

Posted by: frankly0 on January 25, 2008 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

Obama's problem in the general won't be his race or "muslim" smear campaigns. It will be his inexperience, as a campaigner as well as an office-holder, his deficits as a debater, and, most important, his aloof and cool persona.

The Democrats flocked to Kerry in 2004 -- even though the warning signs were there in his somewhat pompous, circuitous and pontificating speaking style -- as the most "electable" because they thought his military credentials would protect him from the usual Republican strategy of portraying Democrats as "weak."

But his supposedly greatest "strength" -- his military service -- turned out to be his greatest area of vulnerability. Why? Because Kerry's orotund, windy, circuitous style on the stump made him come across as pompous and self-aggrandizing -- and that made, for the many Americans who do not follow politics and politician's biographies with obsessive zeal, even absurdly out-landish and easily refutable accusations, that he puffed up or fabricated his military record, more easily believed.

Obama speaks, of course, with much greater grace, elegance and purpose than Kerry. But still, there is a cool, above-it-all Sermon on the Mount quality to his campaign communications, which while inspiring to many, will be off-putting to many others. And, human nature being what it is, there's nothing many people like better than seeing someone who has been put on a pedestal, especially if he appears to be the one who placed himself there, brought low. This will make him, like Kerry was, vulnerable to attacks that would be more easily brushed off if lobbed against a more down-to-earth and accessible candidate.

His greatest strengths -- his elegant oratory and his sophisticated, global persona -- may end up surprising many with how easily they can be turned into devastating weaknesses.

I know that many are convinced that Obama is the "more likeable" candidate, but I think that his higher poll numbers in that measure against a woman with a long history on the political battlefront shouldn't be given much credence. The truth is, none of the candidates score well on the attributes of "likeability" -- quick wit, sponteneity, warmth. Based on most of the candidates put forth by Democrats over the last few decades, and all of the top contenders this time around, I'm tempted to say that Democrats may often be admirable, but they rarely are likeable.

Posted by: esmense on January 25, 2008 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

It's that her normal crackpot views have temporarily been contradicted and superseded by her even crackpotier views.

Peggy would like you to know that "crackpottier" has two tees, please.

Posted by: Econobuzz on January 25, 2008 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

The VP's power came from the Prez, and Prez's have traditionally kept them quiet and in the corner for ever. They usually didn't even like each other, much less form a team. I doubt McCain and I *really* doubt Hillary would ever give the VP any real say in anything. Especially if they pick a current candidate as a running mate. Dunno about the others.

Ha ha ha! You fucking idiot--keep dreaming and keep wishing. If you put on your ruby slippers and click your heels three times, I doubt whether anyone would notice that you're cross dressing.

The job description of VP has now been changed, forever.

Are you childish enough to think that a Democrat is going to give up the power established by precedent? When has that ever happened? Are you going to howl when President Hillary signs four thousand signing statements, ignoring the Congress and blocking oversight of what her Vice President is doing to imprison wingnuts and audit their finances? The effectiveness with which Cheney used his power to marginalize criticism of the Bush Administration, consolidate power, control the Congress, and drive the national debate is irrevocable now. The only qualification for Vice President from now on is whether or not the person who takes the job can smile at Tim Russert while kicking three different people in the nuts at the same time.

But the dems are more than welcome to make the same mistake Bush made in empowering Cheney.

Cheney leaves office unimpeached, richer than God, and beloved by the base of his party. Oh, and likely to step into a never-ending series of cushy positions raking in the bucks on the boards of whatever companies he chooses.

You're 0 for 25 today, and it's not likely to improve. You know, every single one of you prolific Internet wingnuts is going to be scrutinized and examined by the opposition research wing of the Democratic Vice President's office, don't you? I hope you're not posting on Red State or LGF these days. Those fuckers are going into a database the likes of which has never been seen before.

What's it like to see every possible combination of fears come to fruition?

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 25, 2008 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

Why Obama would lose to McCain and why, if some how he manages to win, buyers remorse will rise to Jimmy Carter like levels:

from Anthony Cordesman: "How does this translate into American politics right now?

It really doesn’t. You can occasionally find useful statements on the websites of candidates. You see that for Senator [Hillary] Clinton and Senator [John] McCain. The debates have never raised any substantive issues. Most of the talk is essentially pointless posturing for the Republican or Democratic bases. Most of the candidates have frankly been vacuous. Statements have been made about getting out of Iraq which are not practical or meaningful. You have that on the Democratic side and on the Republican side. You’ve had candidates seriously talk about Iraq as if it was the center of terrorist and al-Qaeda activity. What you’re watching is a contest as to who can get a D- or an F+.

But then whoever becomes the next president, that’s a year from now, will have some tough decisions, right?

It’s not a year from now because it takes months to get your team on board. So we’re really talking about a year and a half. It’s not by any means clear for Iraq and Afghanistan that what is today a lull can continue, that you can take these two wars off the political board or deal with them in the level of clichés. In the case of Afghanistan you can’t even define it in terms of clichés. You have very serious problems in Pakistan. You do not have the resources either in terms of aid, or troops, that you need in Afghanistan. The sheer mindlessness of the American political campaign can come back to haunt everyone if we have a serious set of military offenses and problems in Afghanistanin the spring. This can happen much quicker if the Pakistan election next month is either suspended or triggers a much more serious crisis and essentially leaves the Taliban and al-Qaeda without an active military challenge. It is perhaps understandable that the candidates are dodging these issues, but in some ways so is Congress and the administration. This can frankly blow up in our faces with relatively little warning at any time between the Pakistan election and our election."

Posted by: friendo on January 25, 2008 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

Someone asks:

"I'm not sure what the actual number is, but I'd guess that the probability that in reality Clinton performs as well as Obama is in the neighborhood of 1 chance in 3 or 4, given the 2 point spread and the margin of error.

What kind of useful information could that possibly be, given that the poll itself is just a snapshot?"

Using your assumption of 1 in 3 or 4...

That assumption is another way of saying that Obama is two or three times more likely to perform better than Hillary than Hillary is to perform better than Obama.

You don't think that's "useful information"?

Two or three times more likely? Not useful?

Posted by: My Pet Peeve on January 25, 2008 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

McCain: Just like your husband: older and dumber by the minute.

Great HRC bumpersticker! But will it work if turns out to be Mitt?

Posted by: Econobuzz on January 25, 2008 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Wait--I was wrong:

You know, every single one of you prolific Internet wingnuts is going to be scrutinized and examined by the opposition research wing of the Democratic Vice President's office, don't you?

My bad.

Once the chief of staff of the new Democratic Vice President destroys the careers of a few mid-level Republican Party registered analysts at the CIA by going after their spouses, there won't be any need to go after wingnuts. I think wingnuttery will fall into disrepute, and go the way of Herbert Hoover supporters.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 25, 2008 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

esmense at 10:58 completely and totally gets it. Brilliant.

The punditry and elites who are gushing about 'charisma' based on their own faulty perceptions are completely missing this point. Except for a few like Sean Wilentz whose article 'The Delusional Style in American Punditry' explains why the pundits and reporters and bloggers are so wrong on Obama.

Posted by: Chrissy on January 25, 2008 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

At this point, all of these polls are worse than irrelevant. I give you President Mondale, President Dukakis, second term President Jimmy Carter and second term president George HW Bush.

Maybe we could start a thread with non-horse race type discussion re whether or not Obama's approach or Clinton's approach is likely to give the Repubs their best fight. By the way, watch out for Mitten.

Posted by: Jammer on January 25, 2008 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

Just by comparing ages McCain makes everyone else look like a kid. Of course, his soothing style makes him seem oh so reasonable and rational. But, in a debate with give & take he would be shown up pretty quick to be nothing but a career built on being a vet.

Peggy Noonan had some power to walk Reagan Democrats to the Left, but she has abandoned reason and continues to support Republicans. I certainly hope the Reagan Democrats review the fantastic cognitive dissonance of her stand. How can anyone rationalize sticking with Republicans after what they have done, especially these last few years with Dubya (a guy you definitely wouldn't want to have a beer with).

Reagan Democrats and even a few traditional Republicans will be voting for the Democratic nominee no later than November. Peggy should say goodbye to them.

I still would like to look at the Dem candidates from a positive point of view. Which would be the best president for these times? Do we need a grindingly dull Hillary or an orator who essentially turns the power of the president over to others or a leader with a world-view which points the way everyone can see and has pretty much already agreed needs to be carried out?

John Edwards has led on various things during this campaign and he has a history of success in his earlier career, so it seems obvious to me he should be placed in the presidency to continue leading. It isn't rocket science.

Posted by: MarkH on January 25, 2008 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Jammer:

Agreed, especially these national polls. It's all about OH, FL, PA, AZ, NM, CO and maybe a couple of others. No matter what, GOP wins TX, and no matter what, Dems win CA -- both states completely skew the national numbers.

Posted by: Blue Moon on January 25, 2008 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

Two or three times more likely? Not useful?

If the numbers were absolutely dead stable, and the sample absolutely representative, maybe so.

Given that it's a snapshot, and the variability over time in the numbers is considerable, I'd certainly think not.

And the problem is actually more serious than even the numbers suggest. The greatest problem with most polls is that they rarely have genuinely representative samples. That's actually the principal reason people tend not to take them seriously, especially when it comes to small differences in numbers.

A 2% difference with an error over 4% renders the difference basically useless.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 25, 2008 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

The job description of VP has now been changed, forever.

Bullshit. All it takes is one President with a Veep chosen for political expediency and we're right back to where things always were, and will soon be again.

We'll revisit this in a year or so, when the next Prez is in. I'm betting I am right and you are wrong, which is the norm here.

Posted by: SJRSM on January 25, 2008 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

I think all these electability questions are BS. Democrats should just vote for whom they want to be President and then we rally around whomever wins.

Similarly, I think that, if Romney is the nominee, he is beatable but I don't see him losing by 15 points. I think general election polls don't mean that much until the general election begins.

Posted by: PE on January 25, 2008 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Bullshit. All it takes is one President with a Veep chosen for political expediency and we're right back to where things always were, and will soon be again.

You're right--once a power of an office is established by precedent, the person who takes taht office after a bruising election ALWAYS gives up that power and weakens themselves so that their prospective opponent in the next election has a better chance of defeating them.

Every time it was revealed that there was an "abuse of power" by Cheney and Bush, you delusional fucking wingnuts cited chapter and verse as to how "Bill Clinton did it first."

Guess what? If that's the case, then you're REALLY going to have problems when Bill Clinton is back in the White House, whispering across the cabinet table in Hillary's ear.

We'll revisit this in a year or so, when the next Prez is in. I'm betting I am right and you are wrong, which is the norm here.

You're right--your track record is so much better than mine.

What's it like knowing that the full weight of the US government and its intelligence agencies is now going to be turned around and used against the Republican Party and its supporters?

I mean, you guys went after Gore, Kerry, the little sisters of the poor, the Quakers, college kids, CIA assets who were undercover, the husband of a brain dead woman, any scientist who was engaged in "science," your own appointed US Attorneys, environmentalists, the Dixie Chicks, every Democrat who ever gave $5 to Bill Clinton, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, and Dick Cheney even shot his own friend in the face for looking like a fucking bird.

Now you want to huff about how Democrats aren't supposed to play by the rules of the game as you've established them?

Delusional fucking wingnuts, man. Delusional fucking wingnuts. What are you gonna do with them?

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 25, 2008 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

Econobuzz: "But will it work if turns out to be Mitt?"

I thought David Letterman pretty much summed up Romney's campaign last night, when he dismissed him as "that guy on the Clairol Just for Men box."

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on January 25, 2008 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

In other news... the Senate caved to Bush on the FISA bill. Hopefully there will be a thread on this.

Posted by: Buford on January 25, 2008 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

You're right--once a power of an office is established by precedent, the person who takes taht office after a bruising election ALWAYS gives up that power and weakens themselves so that their prospective opponent in the next election has a better chance of defeating them.

You need to separate two memes, the grab for power by the Bush adminstration, and the increase in authority exerted by the Veep. Those are two different things.

What was given to Cheney by Bush was taken away from others in the adminstration, such as Rice and particularly Powell.

You really think Hillary will give Obama or Edwards the free reign Cheney has had? Simple question. Think it will happen?

What's it like knowing that the full weight of the US government and its intelligence agencies is now going to be turned around and used against the Republican Party and its supporters?

What's it like, hoping that your dems will be as evil as you believe the repubs to be? The poverty of low expectations, I guess.

Posted by: SJRSM on January 25, 2008 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

SJRSM:

You stole my thunder -- since when did we aspire to be as bad as our opposition?

Posted by: Blue Moon on January 25, 2008 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

What is it like, never acknowledging the full weight of corruption and mendacity committed by the party members you voted for and defended with full knowledge of their ongoing misdeeds while now agitating for future reforms?

The poverty of complete lack of integrity, I guess.

Posted by: trex on January 25, 2008 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK
First, the Clintons hold grudges....Pug at 9:20 AM
Actually, their political history shows that they both work with former opponents well. You continually invent a story line that is not backed by facts.
....the progressives get thrown under the bus again,....Doug H. at 9:31 AM
Sometime one has to settle for competence over ideology. The only time progressive ideals have won out was after economic hard times: after The Great Depression and after the Panic of 1893-96 & the Panic of 1907-08 (Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson were all considered to be progressive in that era.)
...The Delusional Style in American Punditry' explains why the pundits and reporters and bloggers are so wrong ....Chrissy at 11:27 AM
The Delusional Style in American Punditry

...The youthful William Jennings Bryan brought down the house and swept up the nomination with his famous "Cross of Gold" speech at the Democratic National Convention in 1896--only to be crushed by the dreary William McKinley in November.... [The Republicans spent the most ever that election to defeat Bryan]

...editorialists and pundits are supposed to be skeptical experts, who at least try to appear as if they base their perceptions in facts and reality. Enthusiasm for a candidate because of his or her "intuitive sense of the world," "intuitive understanding," and discovery of "identity"--the favored terms in some recent press endorsements of Barack Obama--is presented as the product of such discerning, well-considered thinking. But it is in fact nothing more than enthusiasm, based on feelings and projections that are unattached to verifiable rational explanation or the public record....

Posted by: Mike on January 25, 2008 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

You really think Hillary will give Obama or Edwards the free reign Cheney has had? Simple question. Think it will happen?

Considering that Hillary has not won the nomination, you ask a stupid question. Second, if she is nominated, who says Edwards or Obama will be her veep pick? So again you suppose a stupid question.


What's it like, hoping that your dems will be as evil as you believe the repubs to be?

Mistake on your part to ASSume such.

I consider it good to banish the evil GOP to under the bridge where all the trolls hang out. Speaking of, they're also waiting for you to roll the shopping cart 'round for 'em. Don't keep them waiting. They need something to cheer them up and you most certainly fill the bill. So run along.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on January 25, 2008 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Much of his appeal rests on the perception that he is "pure".

Where did you get that BS, or is it just make it up as you go along time?

Posted by: Lucy on January 25, 2008 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

You stole my thunder -- since when did we aspire to be as bad as our opposition?

Does out opposition have a conscience? No. But we do have a conscience. Therefore, when we destroy them politically, we'll leave their family members out of it.

SJRSM is counting on outraged Democrats to condemn what I'm saying so that, in line with what the theme in Washington DC will be when a Democrat does take office in 2009, the partisan sniping and retribution must end so that everyone can work together.

Bullshit. An obstructionist Republican minority is at work right now, undermining our Democracy. The attacks from the right wing have never let up, have never ceased, and have gotten more personal every day. Where do you think the theme of Obama being a Muslim who went to Madrassa started?

SJRSM is praying that Democrats just roll over and take it from Republicans who have no conscience. He and his kind just want to let Dick Cheney have his last few months in office and then conveniently forget that the game of partisan retribution was taken to an extreme and dangerous level under his watch, with Karl Rove probably being held back on a daily basis from doing more than he already has to destroy bipartisanship.

These are, the people, who, after all, said that bipartisanship was like date rape.

It doesn't surprise me that there are Democrats who are weak-kneed and terrified of what politics has become. Heavens, where is my fainting couch.

Like it or not, we didn't make the rules. We got our asses handed to us by not understanding them.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 25, 2008 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

SJRSM is praying that Democrats just roll over and take it from Republicans who have no conscience.

Never has the phrase, "Ready, fire, aim" been so appropo.

I hope that the next President throttles back on the authority of the Veep, whether repub or dem.

I assuming, based on your forensics of your arguments, that you want your Presidential nominee to basically select a democrat version of Cheney as their running mate. Someone who has no aspirations to the Presidency role but covets the power of the Presidency, and is closer attached to and better loved by the democrat's base than the President is, and more experienced than the President to boot.

Posted by: SJRSM on January 25, 2008 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

I look forward to watching Pale Rider's gory epic of triumph and retribution on DVD, if nowhere else.

Posted by: Lucy on January 25, 2008 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

You really think Hillary will give Obama or Edwards the free reign Cheney has had? Simple question. Think it will happen?

It won't be either one of them--it'll probably be someone from within the Clinton machine who can swing a pipe and slice up an opponent. What if it's Harold Ford Jr? What if Pat Leahy is named Attorney General? What if it's Richard Holbrooke? What I think will happen is that, whoever it is, they'll be given free rein to protect the interests of the administration, because Jan 21, 2009 is when the 2012 campaign will kick off.

What's it like, hoping that your dems will be as evil as you believe the repubs to be? The poverty of low expectations, I guess.

What's it like knowing you were silent when it was happening and did everything you could to defend the people who were doing it in your name.

Be rest assured--your time spent in the Utah Wingnut Re-education Camps will be time well spent. Try not to resist. Those shackles can chafe.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 25, 2008 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

I look forward to watching Pale Rider's gory epic of triumph and retribution on DVD, if nowhere else.

who doesn't? but watching sjrsm pee his pants at the prospect while nobly sharing his just discovered desire to roll back vp power (he has been utterly silent on this during the bush administration) is pretty fucking entertaining too.

Posted by: as it unfolds on January 25, 2008 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

I assuming, based on your forensics of your arguments, that you want your Presidential nominee to basically select a democrat version of Cheney as their running mate. Someone who has no aspirations to the Presidency role but covets the power of the Presidency, and is closer attached to and better loved by the democrat's base than the President is, and more experienced than the President to boot.

Yeah, Bill would be a great VP.

I'd really like to see Chuck Schumer go after the Republican Party. I'd really like to see Russ Feingold given control of subpoenas. There are a dozen members in the House who would love to start nailing carcasses upside down on walls. Highway 1--the long road into Washington DC--could be adorned with pikes, shrivelled bald and pink heads, and red neck ties if you want to take it that far. That would be kind of gross, though. Who wants to drive past a severed head on the way to Bed Bath and Beyond?

Do you people think Bush and Cheney won't be prosecuted after they leave office? Why do you think Halliburton moved to Dubai and why do you think the Bush family has been forced to deny that they've purchased large tracts of land in South America?

I don't think Democrats aspire to be "evil" [and that's an interesting choice of words, because it's a tacit admission that this is the most corrupt and "evil" administration ever] because the so-called definition of "power grab" didn't really happen. It wasn't a "power grab." It was a Republican Congress enabling a Republican President to let a Republican Vice President run wild.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 25, 2008 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

but watching sjrsm pee his pants at the prospect while nobly sharing his just discovered desire to roll back vp power (he has been utterly silent on this during the bush administration) is pretty fucking entertaining too.

Agreed.

But now I really must go google "Bush land South America".

Posted by: Lucy on January 25, 2008 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

Bush and Cheney are not going to prosecuted. Sure, some Euro prosecutor will try to get an indictment, but Hillary and Bill (if elected) will step in to stop it. You really want to go down the war crimes prosecution road? What about Bill and Al's excellent Iraq sanctions, also built on some, ahem, untruths.

As for the rest of Pale Rider's stuff -- I love it. You should write graphic novels.

Posted by: Blue Moon on January 25, 2008 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

pale rider: Highway 1--the long road into Washington DC--could be adorned with pikes, shrivelled bald and pink heads, and red neck ties if you want to take it that far. That would be kind of gross, though. Who wants to drive past a severed head on the way to Bed Bath and Beyond?

beautiful. poetic.

lucy: include keywords "paraguay" and "fresh water."

Posted by: as it unfolds on January 25, 2008 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

but watching sjrsm pee his pants at the prospect...
Posted by: as it unfolds

LOL...yeah, I fear your "spitballs of wrath."

Posted by: SJRSM on January 25, 2008 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

LOL...yeah, I fear your "spitballs of wrath."

I don't know what's more ridiculous--your false bravado or your assertion that you've been right before.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 25, 2008 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

Here in the steel room with no sharp edges or corners, never admitting I'm wrong makes me right.

Posted by: Jingo a go-go on January 25, 2008 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=925

Why McCain Would be Worse Than Bush
by Patrick J. Buchanan...

"Bottom line: If the presidential race is between Hillary and Amnesty John, the border security battle is over and lost. As Laura Ingraham asks, 'If Congress passes McCain-Kennedy in 2009, would President McCain sign it?' "

Posted by: Luther on January 25, 2008 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

sjrsm: LOL...yeah, I fear your "spitballs of wrath."


i prefer embarrassing sjrsm with facts..

worked in an earlier thread


****I'm off for two weeks sans internets. Enjoy the ideological group hug while I'm gone.

Posted by: SJRSM on January 22, 2008 at 10:41 PM***

time flys huh

Posted by: mr. irony on January 26, 2008 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly