Are the winds changing?

[HHSDad]

Election 2008 National Head-to-Head Polls

 

John McCain (R) vs. Barack Obama (D) Poll Date Sample Obama (D) McCain (R) Spread RCP Average 03/13 to 03/23 - 44.6% 46.1% McCain +1.5% Rasmussen Tracking 03/20 - 03/23 1700 LV 41% 50% McCain +9% Gallup Tracking 03/18 - 03/22 4385 RV 44% 47% McCain +3% FOX News 03/18 - 03/19 900 RV 43% 44% McCain +1% CBS News 03/15 - 03/18 RV 48% 43% Obama +5% CNN 03/14 - 03/16 950 RV 47% 46% Obama +1% USA Today/Gallup 03/14 - 03/15 685 LV 49% 47% Obama +2% Reuters/Zogby 03/13 - 03/14 1004 LV 40% 46% McCain +6% See More General Election: McCain vs. Obama Polls | Chart

John McCain (R) vs. Hillary Clinton (D) Poll Date Sample Clinton (D) McCain (R) Spread RCP Average 03/13 to 03/23 - 45.6% 46.3% McCain +0.7% Rasmussen Tracking 03/20 - 03/23 1700 LV 42% 49% McCain +7% Gallup Tracking 03/18 - 03/22 4385 RV 45% 47% McCain +2% FOX News 03/18 - 03/19 900 RV 46% 43% Clinton +3% CBS News 03/15 - 03/18 RV 46% 44% Clinton +2% CNN 03/14 - 03/16 950 RV 49% 47% Clinton +2% USA Today/Gallup 03/14 - 03/15 685 LV 51% 46% Clinton +5% Reuters/Zogby 03/13 - 03/14 1004 LV 40% 48% McCain +8% See More General Election: McCain vs. Clinton Polls | Chart

[rockmom]

Taking the averages, it looks like a little breeze is blowing McCain's way...but nothing to be excited about, like hurricane-force gales or anything.

[ladiesbballcoach]

In 2000, 2004 and 2008, the environment was primed for a Democrat win. And yet, they put forth candidates that did not match the mindset of the voters and lost two elections they had no business losing.

 

They look poised to do it a 3rd time.

 

At some point, the Dems have to realize that many planks in their party platform is keeping them from winning elections at the Presidential level.

 

They have quit representing the everyday, normal person and instead of tried to become a party of supposed "tolerance" of representing every special interest group, that they represent no one.

[rockmom]

In 2000, 2004 and 2008, the environment was primed for a Democrat win. And yet, they put forth candidates that did not match the mindset of the voters and lost two elections they had no business losing.

 

They look poised to do it a 3rd time.

 

At some point, the Dems have to realize that many planks in their party platform is keeping them from winning elections at the Presidential level.

 

They have quit representing the everyday, normal person and instead of tried to become a party of supposed "tolerance" of representing every special interest group, that they represent no one.

 

So...they've become the Republican Party?

[MoreheadEagle]

In 2000, 2004 and 2008, the environment was primed for a Democrat win. And yet, they put forth candidates that did not match the mindset of the voters and lost two elections they had no business losing.

 

They look poised to do it a 3rd time.

 

At some point, the Dems have to realize that many planks in their party platform is keeping them from winning elections at the Presidential level.

 

They have quit representing the everyday, normal person and instead of tried to become a party of supposed "tolerance" of representing every special interest group, that they represent no one.

 

I would agree on 2004 but in 2000 Gore should have (an in the eyes of some) did win the election. In '04 Clinton should have run and barring that Kerry should have run a campaign that didn't pussyfoot around when it came to the Swift Boaters. Oh, and the sudden arise of the gay marriage issue in key states didn't hurt Bush either. In '08 the Dems have two of the best candidates, and know how to not get swift boated. Plus they're running against a Bush third term, and since the voters think Dems can handle the economy better and want us out of Iraq, I'd say this is just a bump in the road. The media love McCain and refuse to point out his constant gaffes about Al Qaeda and Iran.

[ladiesbballcoach]

So...they've become the Republican Party?

 

Um, the Republican Party has won those 2 elections and look to have a chance to win in Nov when in all honesty, they shouldn't.

 

In one essence you are right. The Republicans do a better job representing the common man than the Dems do.

[ladiesbballcoach]

I would agree on 2004 but in 2000 Gore should have (an in the eyes of some) did win the election. In '04 Clinton should have run and barring that Kerry should have run a campaign that didn't pussyfoot around when it came to the Swift Boaters. Oh, and the sudden arise of the gay marriage issue in key states didn't hurt Bush either. In '08 the Dems have two of the best candidates, and know how to not get swift boated. Plus they're running against a Bush third term, and since the voters think Dems can handle the economy better and want us out of Iraq, I'd say this is just a bump in the road. The media love McCain and refuse to point out his constant gaffes about Al Qaeda and Iran.

 

Those eyes that he did is called sore losers.

 

Same eyes that now in the Dem party are saying that despite Obama winning the electoral vote and the popular vote, Hillary should be the Dem candidate in Nov.

 

I agree with the sudden rise of the gay marriage but you are missing a key, key component of that. The voters DID NOT AGREE with the view of the Democratic party. AND THEN it leads to my point that the Democrats are doing a poor job with their party platform representing on how the common voter wants to be represented.

 

It seems the Dems are missing the point that in 2000, they can claim it was stolen when they should have ran away with it. (REMEMBER, Gore lost his HOME STATE OF TENNESSEE. What does that say about a candidate and his issues when he cannot even carry his own state????). But they lost because the Dem party platform didn't hit the voters where they wanted to be hit.

 

And they can claim that Kerry was just a bad candidate (and he was) but again the Dem party platform didn't hit the voters where they wanted to be hit.

 

Now, they claim they are on track because of the Congressional elections of 2006 but was that more of an anti-Bush vote instead of a pro-Dem vote?

 

If they stick with the same issues they are promoting now, 1) they might win but the election is going to be closer than it should be because they turn off too many voters on issues that the common voters does not support; 2) they will lose.

[AcesFull]

The Jeremiah Wright controversy and his handling of the situation has stopped Obama's momentum dead in its tracks. He will either find a reason to condemn the new pastor and leave the church or his chances in November will swirl down the drain.

[Birdsfan]

One of the news programs I was just watching was suggesting that Hillary and McCain have entered into an unspoken alliance. Hillary is trying to paint herself as being the candidate who can match McCain's experience and foreign policy credentials. McCain, at the same time, is much better prepared for a race with Clinton than with Obama.

 

If Obama does win the nomination, she'll be hoping for him to lose the general election. In this way, she can come back in four years and take on an even older McCain with a presidential record to attack.

[Mr.Fundamental]

not if it is "spun" correctly, think about it we actually got a democrat who goes to church, seems like a "God Fearing Man" to me. The pastor made some remarks that some have questioned and rightfully so. I respect that! However, has your pastor, priest done anything that you have disagreed with? I bet he or she has!!! An example, the Catholic church and the boy malistation (sp) problems? I know for a fact that most if not 99.999% of the Catholic Church was appauled by this, but did they run from the church, no, they stood by the Church and told exactly what the Church stood for, which I admire greatly!

[bballfamily]

not if it is "spun" correctly, think about it we actually got a democrat who goes to church, seems like a "God Fearing Man" to me. The pastor made some remarks that some have questioned and rightfully so. I respect that! However, has your pastor, priest done anything that you have disagreed with? I bet he or she has!!! An example, the Catholic church and the boy malistation (sp) problems? I know for a fact that most if not 99.999% of the Catholic Church was appauled by this, but did they run from the church, no, they stood by the Church and told exactly what the Church stood for, which I admire greatly!

 

But they got rid the bad apples. Just as Mr. Obama's church could have gotten rid of Rev. Wright.

[75center]

Polls this time of year are fun to watch but are meaningless. There's a long way to November and I'm sure we're going to see some real roller coaster results along the way.

[Hatz]

In 2000, 2004 and 2008, the environment was primed for a Democrat win. And yet, they put forth candidates that did not match the mindset of the voters and lost two elections they had no business losing.

 

They look poised to do it a 3rd time.

 

At some point, the Dems have to realize that many planks in their party platform is keeping them from winning elections at the Presidential level.

 

They have quit representing the everyday, normal person and instead of tried to become a party of supposed "tolerance" of representing every special interest group, that they represent no one.

 

 

I never thought that 2000 was primed for a Dem win. How do you see that? Gore was handicapped by having to follow the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and being so closely tied to that White House. That caused many to switch to voting to GOP simply because Gore was too tied to Clinton. (I was one of them) That provided the razor thin margin needed for Bush to win. IMHO it was only after the first 4 years of Bush that people began to reimagine Clinton and the economy in such a way as to make him the popular ex-prez he is now.

[ladiesbballcoach]

I never thought that 2000 was primed for a Dem win. How do you see that? Gore was handicapped by having to follow the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and being so closely tied to that White House. That caused many to switch to voting to GOP simply because Gore was too tied to Clinton. (I was one of them) That provided the razor thin margin needed for Bush to win. IMHO it was only after the first 4 years of Bush that people began to reimagine Clinton and the economy in such a way as to make him the popular ex-prez he is now.

 

The economy was not doing too bad and most people simply vote their pocketbook. The Dems should have been able to ride the coattails of 8 good years and were not able to do that. Not much different than was the first Bush was able to do from the Reagan years.

 

By Dems, I mean the Democrats should have been able to win but by selecting Gore as their candidate it came with the baggage of Clinton scandal.

 

I also believe you began to see the Evangelicals to flex some political muscle and the Dems have yet to respond to matching their party platform with the way the Evangelicals have been voting.

[5wide]

The Republicans have been smarter...or, to be PC, they've been more politically savvy.

 

People can complain about the gay marriage issue in '04, but that was a genius move by the Republicans to help mobilize a voting bloc. The Democrats have seemingly played right along to a large degree...

 

I agree with lbbc, with the exception of 2000...I don't think that year was set up perfectly for a Democratic win, and as it turned out, it was a very close election. However, their choice of candidate and overall lack of strategy and direction doomed them in 2004. Are they going to do it again?

 

But, in fairness, the dynamic is different this year. My personal opinion is that John McCain may be the only candidate the Republicans could have nominated who could win the general election. If they were running W, or someone along that line, in November, I think they'd have a very difficult time winning. As it is, I think McCain stands a pretty good chance.