Obamas polling is trending down against McCain. McCain now leads Obama in the most recent polls for general election matchup by 5 points! This as opposed to Obama leading McCain in the polls by double digits for almost six months. McCain continues to lead Hillary by 3 points in the polls, which spells good news for the GOP in either match up for the general election.

I heard Rush is encouraging Republican voters to vote for Clinton in the Texas primary, as McCain already pretty much has the nomination locked up, and keeping Hillary's campaign alive keeps her slinging mud at Obama for another few months.

This has to be better than days of our lives.

John McCain "winning" the US election would be just like Dmitri Medvedev "winning" the Russian election. If we decide to embrace this type of shenanigans with every single contest and not even pretend to have representative democracy or the rule of law by and for the people, the only difference between here and the mother country will be in terms of consumerism.

McCain still has some demons to battle with the conservatives, and I just can't place any enduring faith in the polls, the numbers can change within HOURS, nee.. minutes ! We have to get to AUGUST for the conventions.. lots of time for things to shake out.

Originally Posted by LadynRed

McCain still has some demons to battle with the conservatives, and I just can't place any enduring faith in the polls, the numbers can change within HOURS, nee.. minutes ! We have to get to AUGUST for the conventions.. lots of time for things to shake out.

So true. It makes for good conversation though. Its interesting to see how American opinion blows around like a leaf in the breeze from week to week.

John, why would a McCain victory be any more "shenanigans" than an Obama or Clinton victory. Are you trying to say the U.S. elections are rigged?

Originally Posted by cbwm

John, why would a McCain victory be any more "shenanigans" than an Obama or Clinton victory. Are you trying to say the U.S. elections are rigged?

The Republicans in 2004 devised the brilliant plan of intimidating voters who were identifiably more likely to vote for a Democrat than a Republican. Here are 150 documented cases of (Rovian?) dirty tricks which benefited George Bush in 2004. If this had happened in the 3rd World (which GWB is doing a great job of transforming America into, by the way!) we would all be demanding for armed election supervisors to be sent into Haiti or wherever.

George W Bush lost the popular election in 2000, the electoral college election was within the margin of error - was literally too close to call - and he won by a 5 to 4 vote, many voters in the majority having been appointed by the victor beneficiary's father. This perfectly follows Joseph Stalin's advice "It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes."

Supreme Court to democracy: Drop dead
With a single rash, partisan act, the high court has tainted the Bush presidency, besmirched its own reputation and soiled our nation's proudest legacy. - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Gary Kamiya
Dec. 14, 2000 | Tuesday, Dec. 12, is a day that will live in American infamy long after the tainted election of George W. Bush has faded from memory. With their rash, divisive decision to dispense with the risky and inconvenient workings of democracy and simply award the presidency to their fellow Republican, five right-wing justices dragged the Supreme Court down to perhaps its most ignominious point since the Dred Scott decision.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

The Republicans in 2004 devised the brilliant plan of intimidating voters who were identifiably more likely to vote for a Democrat than a Republican. Here are 150 documented cases of (Rovian?) dirty tricks which benefited George Bush in 2004. If this had happened in the 3rd World (which GWB is doing a great job of transforming America into, by the way!) we would all be demanding for armed election supervisors to be sent into Haiti or wherever.

George W Bush lost the popular election in 2000, the electoral college election was within the margin of error - was literally too close to call - and he won by a 5 to 4 vote, many voters in the majority having been appointed by the victor beneficiary's father. This perfectly follows Joseph Stalin's advice "It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes."

Without getting into the same old argument about election rigging (we've gone over this on several threads now), I'd say if the Dummycrats had any any real evidence of voter intimidation, they would present it and prosecute. I'm not saying there isn't some truth to some of these stories, on behalf of both Republicans and Democrats. If you aint cheatin, you aint tryin. Comparing U.S. elections with Russia's is a lot over the top though.

I saw (D) Joe Lieberman make a rather astute observation this morning. He said something to the effect of, "Until the Democrats change their view on foreign policy, I think it is going to be a long time before the American people trust them with the office of the presidency. They've fallen a long way from the heritage of FDR and Truman.". If more Democrats thought like this guy, they wouldn't be struggling in the polls to win the White House after a Bush presidency.

Some people I've spoken to feel that McCain has become far more right than he has seemed to simply get the nomination. They think that when he takes office he'll be far more moderate and centered. Let's hope that's true.

I don't mind if he turns out to be a bit more moderate, or maybe even liberal, so long as he lowers taxes, funds the fence, and invades Iran (if necessary).

Originally Posted by cbwm

I saw (D) Joe Lieberman make a rather astute observation this morning.

Seriously, man, I know accuracy makes you angry, but you just can't go making "facts" up like you do. Lieberman lost the Democratic primary and ran for election to the United States Senate under the party "Connecticut for Lieberman". Or Hillbillies for Lie?erman, if you prefer. His election was funded by his close friend Curious George Bush.
Senator Lieberman Honors William F. Buckley, Jr.

I have faith in you to be able to do better fact checking than Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Liely.

Yes, but curiously enough, I believe that if you don't count him as a Democrat, the Democrats do not hold the majority of the Senate. Can't just call him a Democrat when you want to. Also interesting that he unquestionably is a Democrat Super Delagate still. I guess those facts dont quite reconcile, but they remain facts none the less.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I don't mind if he turns out to be a bit more moderate, or maybe even liberal, so long as he lowers taxes, funds the fence, and invades Iran (if necessary).

Lower taxes? Again?! The USA wastes vast amounts of it's budget on it's army and you want to basically increase the military spend AND lower taxes - where's the money going to come from? Further cuts in everything else and a poorer quality of life for the most vulnerable in society - is that what you really want?

Maybe it is...