jeff wrote:

rb608 wrote:

"Opus" wrote in message

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2383247.shtml




I love the presentation: Clinton, 45%, Obama, 28%, Neither one, 11%.

Call me silly, but if you take 45% and 28% out of 100%, "Neither one"
would seem to garner more like 27%. 'Course, I'm living in a
fact-based universe. :-)

(FWIW, no way in hell do I believe 45% of Dem voters prefer HRC. Thay
have *got* to be making that **** up.)

Joe F.


if she garners the nomination, the red state south will become a neon
bright crimson state south. folks down here don't give a damn if she's a
capable candidate. the visceral vibes alone kill her as someone who can
carry the south. imo, the dems only hope down here is for a new blood
moderate... i'll be surprised if she gets 25% of the dem vote in nc, but
the party machine and the general swell of humiliation, fear, and
disgust with bush politics and policies might surmount even such a
"wrong candidate" in nc. we'll see.


Point being that she won't be running against Bush. And whoever runs on
the other side will likely not position themselves in a pro-Bush
profile. So if the repubs nominate a moderate to soft conservative that
is not aligned with Bush, they'll likely pull enough anti-Bush red and
blue moderates to take the election.

HRC has too many skeletons and can't overcome her controversial
position. Even a favorable press would have a field day with her.
Obama doesn't have enough skeletons or track record even if he is on the
foreign relations sc. Ill. legislature experience isn't gonna cut it,
Chicago machine ain't what it used to be. He probably can't get the nod
at the convention.

So the dems will have to find somebody's favorite son or an also ran and
we'll have to put our weight behind that candidate.