McCain has clear leads over both Clinton and Obama
March 19, 2008Bad news for Hillary but worse news for Obama.
My new national projections (last poll ending March 16th) are:
John McCain 47.67
Hillary Clinton 43.25
John McCain 47.78
Barack Obama 42.98
McCain has clear leads of 4.80% and 4.42% against Obama and Clinton respectively. However, Clinton does nearly as badly as Barack Obaa, indicating that both have been damaged by Jeremiah Wright. Indeed, I firmly believe that the revelations of the past week are going to resonate beyond this election.
The Political Tipster 
I don’t know how familiar you are with American politics, but you do seem to jump to conclusions more impulsively than a compulsive gambler.
This has been the most premature election in American history. We are nine months from November; do you remember where we were nine months ago? A moment where the Republican nomination rested squarely between Rudy “worst campaign in modern history” Giuliani, and Fred “the next Ronald Reagan” Thompson.
As for Hillary Clinton, well… if she were a queen, she would’ve been dubbed “the inevitable.”
There’s only one poll that matters in elections, and that’s who gets the most votes on Election Day.
This is a gambling site after all so my behaviour isn’t that strange! Seriously, I haven’t changed my opinions that much. I made McCain the favourite just before Christmans and I’ve always given McCain the advantage in an Obama vs McCain. In fact my first head-to head said:
“Obama/McCain – The easiest of all the match-ups to predict. Although the 49 state landslide that a Survey USA poll predicted in 2006 is unlikely to happen (indeed Obama is currently ahead of McCain in the last published poll) it is still difficult to see how Obama could win, or even come close. Prediction: McCain has a 80% chance of winning”.
The 2008 Election is a textbook example of an unsuccessful administration losing an election their party.
The War in Iraq has dragged longer than WWII, the US economy is tanking, and gas is approaching $4 a gallon. Furthermore, John McCain is hardly what I would consider a viable presidential candidate candidate: he’s “older than dirt” and “has more scars than Frankenstein” (and I’m quoting him when I say that). Since the Democratic primary has ushered an unprecedented voter-turnout effort in American history, I can speak on behalf of my post-baby boomer generation when I say that McCain is simply too old, tired, and cantankerous to win the presidency.
He got the nomination for only one reason: to beat Hillary Clinton in the general. With any hopes of her getting the nomination via Florida and Michigan dashed this week, I’d make the claim that Obama has already won the nomination and, in consequence, beat McCain to the punch. All it’s going to take is a wave of super-delegates endorsements who are already all-but-pledged to Obama (Al Gore, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Howard Dean, Jimmy Carter, Nancy Pelosi… or heck, the whole lot of them) to make their support public and the Democratic party will be as ironclad as last year.
The GOP tried making fun of Obama’s name and it went nowhere. They tried tying him to his former-pastor and it lead to the most historic speech in a generation. Once you have Barack Obama side-by-side in a presidential debate with a 72-year old white guy who “doesn’t really understand economics” and sees us in Iraq for 100 years, I think you should should sell any shares you have of a GOP the next minute. Obama’s victory will be assured after his first presidential debate.
Well, that’s clearly your take on the election but the Democrats are making a huge error if they think that they can win by merely not being Bush. If the record of past adminstrations were the only thing that determined election results then Gore would have won in 2000; and the 1968 and 76 elections wouldn’t have been at all close. We would also be talking about President Royal of France.
Tipster,
The 1968 Election was not close at all. George Wallace’s third-party campaign split the Democrats beyond-repair electorally. As for the 1976 Election, that was decided more on the failures of Gerald Ford than Richard Nixon. The nation was shattered in the wake of the Watergate scandal, but unified behind the idea of impeaching Richard Nixon. President Ford was welcomed and celebrated as America saw their Constitution in action, but pardoning Nixon (plus his campaign gaffes) cost Ford what could’ve otherwise been a successful first-term.
As for the 2000 Election, there’s three things to consider:
1. Clinton was impeached, opening the door for Bush to run as an anti-Clinton, and quite successfully. (Of course he lied about being into non-nation building, but it worked quite well at the time).
2. Over 50,000 Floridian African-Americans were disenfranchised in that election.
3. The Democrats did nothing about it.
Conclusion: an unsuccessful incumbency does blow it for his party in the general. Had Clinton not been impeached, there’s no way 2000 would’ve been close enough for Bush to steal it.
50, 000 votes Mr. Giacomo? What sky are you pulling that figure from?
OHIO JOE,
The Florida Department of State (headed by Katherine Harris, Bush’s chairwoman) awarded a $4 million contract to Database Technologies Inc to isolate improperly registered voters in the state’s database. Mistakes were rampant as lists differed by by more than 100,000 votes (on the revised list of 173,127 persons, 57,746 were identified as felons). “At one point, the list included as felons 8,000 former Texas residents who had been convicted of misdemeanors.”
Others included:
Thomas Cooper, Date of Birth September 5, 1973; crime, unknown; conviction date, January 30, 2007
Johnny Jackson Jr., Date of Birth, 1970; crime, none mistaken for John Fitzgerald Jackson who was still in his jail cell in Texas
Wallace McDonald, Date of Birth, 1928; crime, fell asleep on a bus-stop bench in 1959
Reverend Willie Dixon, convicted in the 1970s at the latest; note, received full executive clemency
Randall J. Higginbotham, Date of Birth, August 28, 1960; crimes, none mistaken for Sean David Higginbotham, born June 16, 1971
Reverend Willy D. Whiting Jr., crimes: a speeding ticket from 1990 confused with Willy J. Whiting who have birthdays 2 days apart
Out of the entire “scrub” list of Democrats incorrectly listed as felons, 88% of them were African-American.
Sources:
St. Petersburg Times (Florida), December 21, 2003.
Palm Beach Post (Florida): http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/election2000/election2000_felons2.html
I read the article and even if we assume that it basically correct, there seem to be a few things that don’t add up. First, many counties ignored the list anyways, so not all of the people who were on the list were denied the right to vote. I assume you get your figure of 50, 000 by multiplying 57,746 by approximately 88%. However, if you are claiming that the original list of criminals is not accurate, how can you logically claim that the per cent of African Americans on the list is a similar per cent of Floridian criminals that are African Americans? If the list is accurate or it is not. You cannot one the one hand argue that the list is flawed and then use that same supposedly flawed list to arrive at an estimate. To be sure, it the article is true, it is not good for democracy. However, don’t jump to racial conclusions.