ABC Facebook debate discussion (1 Viewer)

[Severum]

Grant it this will only be my third pres election to vote for, but it always seems like the Republicans do much better in the actual vote than they do in the polls. I'm not sure if its the way the pollsters ask the questions, if they call more urban areas, or just how Dems tend to be more active pre-election than Repub voters but I think Bush was 'losing' in all of the polls prior to the election.

I think....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_hth.html has archived national polls from the 04 general.

 

[RJ in Lafayette]

Because this thread has become the 2008 presidential election thread, I offer a few observations from others that seem to have merit:

1. Assume Hillary loses in New Hampshire. She surely will. Assume she loses badly. She may. The polls are showing Obama surging ahead. Where does she goes from here?

She has too much money, name recognition and institutional support not to be a very viable candidate through early February. But if she claims to be the "comeback kid" mantle, two problems.

Problem one is that it reminds the world of Bill and the 1990's. Does this new apostle of "change" want that?

Problem two--and the far bigger problem--is that 2008 is different from 1992. In 1992, Bill was facing multiple candidates, not a single major opponent, and had a Super Tuesday firewall in the South. This year, Obama may have the firewall in the South with black voters swinging to his candidacy. This analysis is not mine, but I read it recently on www.realclear politics.com, and it makes sense.

Also, from this point forward, Obama becomes a money magnet. He can now raise more money than anyone else.

2. What happens if Obama is the Democratic nominee? He will have problems with his race and his name with some older and other voters. The questions are how many votes will the Democrats lose because the candidate is Obama rather than--this is important--Hillary Clinton; and how many votes will the Democrats gain--whether because of independents or young voters or general excitement or increased voter registration--because the nominee is Obama rather than Hillary.

(Count me in as a moderate Republican, who in another state would be an independent, who likes Obama and could easily vote for Obama, and who cannot stomach Hillary and would have much difficulty voting for her. When selecting a president, it's not always about issues and positions and ideology. It's about personal attributes, and I see a biiterness, a meanness, the sense of grievances that stamped Richard Nixon. In some ways, I liked Nixon and respected his accomplishments. But with his psychological makeup, he was ill- suited to be president. Same is true for Hillary.)

At this point, there is a Jack Kennedy and even Ronald Reagan quality about Obama. Like Kennedy, he has excited people. Like Reagan, he has made people feel good about this country.

 

[SoonerJim]

Because this thread has become the 2008 presidential election thread, I offer a few observations from others that seem to have merit:

1. Assume Hillary loses in New Hampshire. She surely will. Assume she loses badly. She may. The polls are showing Obama surging ahead. Where does she goes from here?

She has too much money, name recognition and institutional support not to be a very viable candidate through early February. But if she claims to be the "comeback kid" mantle, two problems.

Problem one is that it reminds the world of Bill and the 1990's. Does this new apostle of "change" want that?

Problem two--and the far bigger problem--is that 2008 is different from 1992. In 1992, Bill was facing multiple candidates, not a single major opponent, and had a Super Tuesday firewall in the South. This year, Obama may have the firewall in the South with black voters swinging to his candidacy. This analysis is not mine, but I read it recently on www.realclear politics.com, and it makes sense.

Also, from this point forward, Obama becomes a money magnet. He can now raise more money than anyone else.

2. What happens if Obama is the Democratic nominee? He will have problems with his race and his name with some older and other voters. The questions are how many votes will the Democrats lose because the candidate is Obama rather than--this is important--Hillary Clinton; and how many votes will the Democrats gain--whether because of independents or young voters or general excitement or increased voter registration--because the nominee is Obama rather than Hillary.

(Count me in as a moderate Republican, who in another state would be an independent, who likes Obama and could easily vote for Obama, and who cannot stomach Hillary and would have much difficulty voting for her. When selecting a president, it's not always about issues and positions and ideology. It's about personal attributes, and I see a biiterness, a meanness, the sense of grievances that stamped Richard Nixon. In some ways, I liked Nixon and respected his accomplishments. But with his psychological makeup, he was ill- suited to be president. Same is true for Hillary.)

At this point, there is a Jack Kennedy and even Ronald Reagan quality about Obama. Like Kennedy, he has excited people. Like Reagan, he has made people feel good about this country.

The analysis on "Meet the Press" yesterday was informative for a change. Mark Penn is Clinton's chief pollster and campaign chair, an inhernet conflict of interest. It may be better to split these jobs and in retrospect, keep her out of Iowa. As Goege will pointed out, her rationale swiched from inevitability to electability to experience rooted in her husband's second term ended seven years ago. It's hard to justify a nomination here.