Flabbergasted
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 01:08 PM
Original message |
First day without Edwards at Rasmussen. Hillary up 1; Obama up 3. |
Uben
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 01:17 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I noticed at the top of the page they say there is a 62.5% chance of Clinton becomming the nominee! Thats a 2 to 1 advantage!
She has been the odds on favorite from the start and there has been nothing revealed to stop the snowball from rolling on down the hill!
When she wins, it will be a glorious day here at Democratic Underground. We will all unite around our nominee and its on to the GE for another ASTOUNDING VICTORY!
|
Big Blue Marble
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
5. Many of us would not be feeling glorious. |
|
The party would fracture and the Democrat"s chance of winning would be significantly reduced. The down-ticket effect would be disastrous. Many would tune out and stay home especially younger voters.
Most likely Bloomberg would come in and sweep of the independents and many of the Obama voters who aren't in to crossing that bridge back to the 20th century.
Your dreams of an astounding victory are not grounded in reality. If she wins, the country and the Democratic party are more likely to be in tatters.
|
UALRBSofL
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
10. I think the Clinton supporters |
Big Blue Marble
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
13. They would feel the same way. |
|
But the facts on the ground would be entirely different. If Obama wins the nomination. Everything changes. The youth vote is energized. The independents and moderate Republicians will join us in a transformation election the changes the political dynamic of this country going forward.
Oh and we will increase the size of our House and Senate majorities as well.
|
nels25
(636 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
Big Blue Marble
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
23. Thanks for your affirmation. |
nels25
(636 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
nels25
(636 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
If Hillary is nominated I am going to write my own name in for a vote.
I can in no way take another Clinton administration, and I am unsure if the nation can withstand the stresss another 4 to 8 years of Clinton would bring.
|
slick8790
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
6. Those aren't political odds. |
|
They're financial. Conventional wisdom based on people buying "futures" stocks. They've been disastrously wrong before, especially this primary season. I wouldn't put too much sway in it.
|
Abacus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
7. That is the value of the futures contract. |
|
The same mechanism that predicted that Obama would win NH and that the Republicans would maintain control of congress in 2004. It actually had Obama up about the same around 4 weeks ago.
|
cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
8. don't hold your breath. |
|
If she wins the nomination, it's unlikely we'll unite around her. We'll vote for her without enthusiams. That's the best you'll get. She's divisive.
And Obama beat the same odds to win Iowa.
|
UALRBSofL
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
11. I think the Hillary supporters |
MonkeyFunk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
12. and what's different of Obama wins? |
|
so Obama supporters won't rally around Clinton, but you just assume Clinton supporters will rally around Obama? Why is that?
|
cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
14. Did I say that? I don't recall mentioning I thought that. |
|
But let me point out, as long as you're bringing it up, that they're are many more Obama supporters here than Clinton supporters. And at kos, there are even more.
|
MonkeyFunk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
25. I'm trying to figure out |
|
how a Clinton win will split the board/party/country, but not an Obama win. It seems people are threatening that a Clinton win would be worse than an Obama win as far as divisiveness.
I don't understand the logic.
|
Uben
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
15. Everyone is entitled an opinion |
|
Yours is noted. Thank you. I am a numbers guy, and the numbers seldom lie.
I am not anti-Obama, I am pro-Clinton, and I am a democrat first and foremost!
|
Occam Bandage
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
9. Unite? Eh. I'll vote for her. |
oasis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
17. Obamaists have their own ideas about the meaning of unity. (eom) |
snooper2
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
26. Yeah, that would be a really glorious day... |
|
28 years of glory....
BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON BUSH :puke: BUSH :puke: BUSH :puke: BUSH :puke: BUSH :puke: BUSH :puke: BUSH :puke: BUSH :puke: CLINTON :puke: CLINTON :puke: CLINTON :puke: CLINTON :puke: CLINTON :puke: CLINTON :puke: CLINTON :puke: CLINTON :puke:
|
rinsd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 01:19 PM
Response to Original message |
2. It may take another day or two for Edwards folks to select another candidate. |
MadBadger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. Rasmussen said that they are essentially tied in the first day totals without Edwards. |
|
though that sample is low.
|
SammyWinstonJack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
rinsd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
19. Not for all of course. I was referring to the purposes of polling. |
Barack_America
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
18. Lol. I'll take him gaining on her regardless! n/t |
rinsd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
20. Why the laughter? My comment was on the large undecided block. |
|
42 + 35 = 77
Leaving some 23% undecided.
|
BenDavid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-31-08 01:26 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Excuse me but when will folks take with a grain of salt |
|
rasmussen's polling. Anytime one has dick (the toe sucker) Morris and Bob( outing a cia agent) kovack then one should question the sampling....
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu May 02nd 2024, 10:38 AM
Response to Original message |