• comment on a post Poll: Hillary beating GOP in AL, KY, VA over 6 years ago

    Since Kentucky is included in this polling, here is an interesting factoid:

    Since 1972, Arkansas and Louisiana has voted for the winning candidate.

    Since 1964, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee has voted for the winning candidate.

    Since 1960, Missouri has voted for the winning candidate.

    Either way, it is way too early, but it is a good sign for Clinton that she is competitive in these southern states. I was surprised by the Kentucky numbers. Not so much by the VA numbers.

  • ^^ Addition to comment.

    Though, there need to be some oversight. It's the job of the Congress to do it and I expect them to do it, but they need to get with the program and do something more substantive than argue on whether or not to debate the issue or vote on the issue.

  • I completely agree.

  • comment on a post whats up [down] with congressional approval over 6 years ago

    Well, nothing substantive is being done in Congress.

    The congressional approval rating may be WAY down, but if you look at the generic congressional ballot, Democrats lead Republicans by about 10 points. Plus, voters are happy with their local Representatives.

    Translation: Voters hate Congress, but they hate Republicans even more. Republicans are holding Congress back.

    That's how I read the polls.

  • on a comment on New Iowa Poll over 6 years ago

    Keep this rule in mind:

    Three tickets out of Iowa, two out of New Hampshire.

    Meaning: the top three candidates moves onto New Hampshire and one of the top two in New Hampshire will be the nominee.

    So in a nutshell I'm saying Obama HAS to compete in Iowa and come in at least third.

  • on a comment on Clinton says surge is working?! over 6 years ago

    How could you ask him to give up on Obama? He needs to find it in himself that Clinton will be the better President.

  • on a comment on Clinton says surge is working?! over 6 years ago

    Clinton has every right to relay information to her constituents as a Senator. She believes the surge is working in Al Anbar Province, great! We have a right to know what is going on in this war. But she is right, we need political reconciliation, which is unfounded and that is why we need to leave: the Iraqis are not helping.

  • comment on a post Breaking: Arizona Moves Up to February 5th over 6 years ago

    Ah, who cares! As long as it is not before February 5. I'm someone who supports a National Primary.

    My Plan:

    1. Hold a National Primary on the first Tuesday of June in the year of the general election.
    2. The Presidential nominee will nominate a Vice President and delegates at the convention (two months later) will confirm him/her.

    Simple as that.

    Advantages? More people will come out and vote.

  • comment on a post Hillary Clinton still a NEO-CON! over 6 years ago

    You must be a Kucinich supporter. If you're not then you should jump on his little boat.

    This post basically states you are a defeatist and you will run away with your tail between your legs when the terrorist hits our country.

    Your diary is a hit piece and it deserves a "hit post." Post something worth debating next time.

  • I don't think "admit" is the right word, but yes, if the election was to be TODAY between Edwards and any Republican, he will be the most electable. That is not to say Clinton and Obama cannot win. I think they can (Clinton more so than Obama). As I have said, Edwards electability is now in question, especially against Giuliani in states such as NY, NJ, CT, WI, CA, PA, and FL. Those races will be very close. When a Democrat is struggling in NY and CA against a Republican, it is cause for concern.

  • I could ask you the same question about your candidate. It's a fair question but one that does not need to be asked. We're all in this together. We're all trying to get Democrats elected, we just differ on which Democrat to support. I don't have to spell out why I like candidate A, or dislike candidate B or won't mind voting for candidate C. I respect you question, and while this does not look good upon me, I'm not going to answer it because that will start another meaningless debate. And we all know there has been many of them on MyDD lately.

  • on a comment on Clinton says surge is working?! over 6 years ago

    I'm still looking for where Clinton exactly said she will keep 70,000 troops. I thought it was 20,000 to 50,000 for protection of the Kurds and terrorist raids.

    But, Obama, Edwards, and Biden all said they will keep some troops on the ground, so I don't see his argument here.

  • I won't go as far as saying Edwards and Obama won't win NY, NJ, and CT, but it will be awfully close and polls from a few months ago show Obama losing to Giuliani in NY and in a virtual tie in CA. It's a concern, but I think they can ultimately pull out a win should they be the nominee.

  • Correction to my above post.

    If Democrats go with tradition and throw away their frontrunner, it will be Edwards or Richardson. Obama is another, Dean, Bradley, and Tsongas.

  • How about this bold prediction: John McCain will win South Carolina and be propelled through the nomination. A little out of there, right?

    Right now I think Romney will be the nominee. I just can't see Giuliani winning it, but if Republicans keep with tradition and go with their frontrunner, then it will be Giuliani.

    If Democrats keep with tradition and throw away their frontrunner, it will either be Edwards or Obama.

    For some reason, I see a Romney vs. Edwards race. I like Clinton and I want her to be the nominee, but the Nostradamus in me says it will be Romney vs. Edwards.

    Don't worry, I'm not smoking anything, and I'm not John Titor either.


Advertise Blogads