Question:
With McCain leading in the poll of likely voters(the only creditable poll), and reporters referring to Obama?
Andrea
2008-08-20 11:18:55 UTC
as small compared to McCain, will the DNC rethink their choice of Nominee, and put in Hillary! It's looking like she is thier only chance to winhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080820/ts_nm/usa_poll_politics_dc
Nineteen answers:
2008-08-20 11:26:59 UTC
Y'all are missing Missy's point. Polls of likely voters, because they poll people who have demonstrated a propensity to vote, are MORE creditable than polls of all registered voters.



Ask any politician. When I was in the game, we never bothered to poll anyone BUT likely voters. They are the only people that matter.



Polls of registered voters, or of the general population are only used by news organizations, when that is the only way to get their desired result.
2008-08-20 11:37:28 UTC
That would never happen, and it shouldn't. No matter how close the call, Obama rightfully won the Democratic nomination. End of story. As far as McCain leading in the most recent polls, I think it is far too early to make any assumptions. Sure, polls are a decent indicator of how the voting population feels NOW, but they are by no means a clear-cut indicator of what is to come in the presidential race. I'm very interested to see how the polls will change when the VP candidates for each nominee are announced.
2008-08-20 11:25:26 UTC
mr cj jr is so half right. I was saying 2 weeks ago to watch out for the polls of likely voters. Obama has been trailing for quite some time with likely voters. BTW: Likely voters is the most accurate poll sampling. Obama only leads with "registered voters."



And Shelly should be more worried about her candidate. Obama is pathetic when unscripted. McCain clearly shined last Saturday.
gamerunner2001
2008-08-20 11:28:00 UTC
I think polls suck period!!!! Obama ahead last week, McCain this week, next week they find themselves in a draw.. I simply am sticking to my decision that McCain is who I'm voting for in November and let the chips fall where they may.. If he wins great, if not then I'll take a deep breath and move ahead as will the country. Truth is we can survive either one as president, that's what makes the U.S.A what it is all about.
?
2008-08-20 11:26:06 UTC
As much better a candidate as Clinton is, there is no way a Democrat would win the White House if the DNC nominates her.
jasonsluck13
2008-08-20 11:34:14 UTC
there's been talk in the last few months that the scenario you are discussing will take place.. wouldn't surprise me.. there was talk among Conservatives that this would happen with McCain as well... could be just politic fodder.. something to talk about.. not sure of any substantial truth to any of it though..
hememan
2008-08-20 11:29:59 UTC
He needs Al Gore or Hillary as VP to win over the majority of voters.
Nugget Kitty
2008-08-20 11:25:39 UTC
I would like Hillary to be nominated too but I would never betray my party to vote for another idiot just so she could run in 2012. If a republican gets in, there will not be much of a country left for Hillary to run in.



The fact is that i am getting fed up!



Nighthaw...,



President Clinton was a awsome President! I personally wish he could run again!
2008-08-20 11:28:58 UTC
one of the best polls is

Rasmussen Reports

because they have one of the best track records



looks like it's going to be another very close election !
susanmaried
2008-08-20 11:22:36 UTC
I'd like to see the Dems admit their mistake in railroading Obama through the primaries and select Hillary as the candidate.
Fred W
2008-08-20 11:27:08 UTC
She is their only choice to win the white house.. I just don"t think they are smart enough to see it. Most people in this country are not going to vote for the racist arab.
Earl Hickey
2008-08-20 11:22:54 UTC
Hillary lost the Primary because the public knew how far right-wing her political ideals and actions have been. She was never able to shake off having voted for the Iraq war. Additionally, the Clintons have a rather ugly right-wing history that is relatively well known.



Bill Clinton was elected president on the promise of national health care and the public's hatred of the right-wing George Bush. So what did President Clinton do? Well he tossed aside the public's demand for national health care and instead gave us a consolidated media, an increased police state, the savaging of the welfare system, the senseless bombing of Iraq and imperialist war in Yugoslavia. He was merely warming things up for G.W. Bush. G.W. Bush is the consolidation and advancement of the right-wing gains made during the Clinton years.



Hillary, for her part, never once stood up and aggressively attacked the Nazi Bush regime who stole two elections, attacked our own nation on 9-11, attacked the Bill of Rights and waged class warfare upon America's underclass. Additionally, Hillary voted for the war in Iraq. She's part of the Democratic rubberstamping of the Bush administration's Nazi agenda. Not surprisingly, Hillary's past is a Republican one. She was a Goldwater supporter while in high school and president of The Young Republicans while at Wellesley College. Those who think of Hillary as the saviour of the liberals need to rethink their position.



Hillary lost to Obama because Obama offered the illusion of "hope" and "change" which vaguely suggested to the liberal majority public that the Nazi Bush policies were over. But as soon as Obama won the Primary, he became Black Bush, the Democratic Nazi. He quickly sided with Bush on the government's need to spy on the public and supported telecom immunity which forgave, not only the telecoms for their crimes, but the Bush administration as well. Quickly thereafter, he did his little prostration act before the increasingly hated, right-wing, warmongering AIPAC. Before the public even had a chance to scratch their head in bewilderment, Obama was telling how he intended to increase the war in Afghanisan and widen it on into Pakistan. Today, he is busy supporting the Bush lies that Russia attacked Georgia when everyone that pays attention to world events knows that it was U.S. backed Georgia that attacked South Ossetia.



The public majority doesn't want McCain. The public majority is overwhelmingly liberal and they want a liberal President. They voted for Obama because he provided the illusion that he was liberal when they knew that the Clintons were wolves in sheep's clothing. Now, what we have all learned is that Obama is also a wolf in sheep's clothes. Even the right-wing Wall Street Journal mentioned several weeks ago that Obama was "running for Bush's third term."



It isn't that the public is warming to the right-wing doofus, John McCain. It's that the public has cooled to the right-wing Obama. Had Hillary won the primary, nothing would be any different today. She is no less right-wing than is Obama and no less committed to advancing the interests of America's wealthy-elite.



But really, none of this should be any big surprise. The Democrats have been complicit in all of the Bush crimes. They rubberstamped each new piece of the Nazi Bush agenda, everytime complaining that they had been fooled. But the minute that those supposedly "fooled" Democrats gained control of congress, Nancy Pelosi announced, "Impeachment is off the table." Bush soon thereafter announced, "the surge." Another royal *******-over for the Democrats liberal voters. If the Republicans had won the midterms, would anything be any different today?
2008-08-20 11:22:39 UTC
Sorry, it's too early. Obama only trails McCain in a few polls. Media makes too much of it. VOTE OBAMA
2008-08-20 11:23:06 UTC
I do not think any poll is "credible" I never have

the poll can vary depending on who they ask that day
mr_cj_jr
2008-08-20 11:22:10 UTC
Typical McCain supporter response 2 weeks ago about polls:



"Polls don't matter. Kerry and Dukakas lead too, see what happened to them?"
fdm215
2008-08-20 11:22:07 UTC
Sen. Clinton lost. She doesn't have the support to be the nominee.



What makes the poll "creditable"? Because it tells you what you want to hear? I guess it wasn't creditable last week, when Obama was leading it, huh?
2008-08-20 11:25:25 UTC
So Gallup and realclearpolitics aren't credible?
2008-08-20 11:21:59 UTC
They can't do it. It would cost the party dearly to usurp the democratic process (more than they already have).
shellybelly0
2008-08-20 11:23:47 UTC
wait until the debates.. McCain will fall hard then!!!


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...