Ah, nostalgia. Power to the people! Up against the wall m*! Make love, not war!
Where’s Harold Stassen now that we need him? |
| |
Written By:
Dave Schuler
URL:
http://www.theglitteringeye.com
|
I’ve always said she was a ’49% candidate’, meaning she will never draw a majority in a national vote because of her negatives. Subtract 2 or 3% via a Nader candidacy and it becomes more likely we’ll see the GOP in the White House in ’08. Sounds like whistling past the graveyard to me.....
Counting on Nader is not much of a of a business plan...
|
| |
Written By:
darohu
URL:
http://
|
|
Run, Ralph, run! |
| |
Written By:
John Norris Brown
URL:
http://johnnorrisbrown.com/blog/
|
darohu,
Let me state clearly what McQ has stated clearly, but in a different way: there is no way that Hillary Clinton will find the votes to put her over the top to win the presidency. Someone in the blogosphere (whom I can’t recall at the moment) made the point that there are no more votes for her to find. She has the highest "known factor" of any candidate that will run this cycle - there are no unknowns to shift her direction.
And of those that "know" her (ie. most of the electorate), I would suggest that 40% loathe her. Not dislike, not hate, but loathe her, and everything that she stands for. I for one rank amongst that group. In my book, she is so awful as a candidate that I would hold my nose and vote for McCain (the presumptive Rep nominee that would oppose her for pres), because between him and her, he’s the second most anti-liberty. It would be a coinflip for me between her and Kofi Annan, were he eligible.
Now the above 40% probably represent the right side of the political sphere, but from some polls I’ve read, it doesn’t look much better for on the left side of the political sphere. Her poll numbers are unexceptional (although admittedly she leads in many states), and if you’ve read what democrats say about her, she has every reason to be worried. And if liberals are counting on her to win it all for them, then maybe they oughtta not whistle past that same graveyard.
She’s like a Texas hold ’em player sitting at the final table with a giant stack of chips, and everyone elses stack is much smaller. The problem she has is she’s not the best player at the table. So while she can money whip most of the players out of pots, the better players are going to chip away at her stack until she ends up in second or third with all her chips gone, when it started out as hers to lose. |
| |
Written By:
Warrior Needs Food Badly
URL:
http://
|
Counting on Nader is not much of a of a business plan... I said she was a 49% candidate. In most places that means she won’t win. Nader simply makes the loosing percentage lower. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/blog
|
"And if you recall, I cited DUers who claimed up front that if Clinton ran, they were voting Green."
Is Kermit running? |
| |
Written By:
timactual
URL:
http://
|
