Hillary within MoE of Thompson, and statistically tied with Romney in....

[SaveElmer]

Kansas for cryin out loud...

Clinton 40%, Giuliani 54%
Clinton 44%, Thompson 49%
Clinton 45%, Romney 46%

Also, prohibitively in the lead in NY and MA...

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_surveyusa_ges_in_ks_ny_ma.php

[rinsd]

1. Kansas! When was the last time a Democrat won there? Carter?

[phylla]

4. The real question is...when will the NEXT Democrat win there?

And I'm a-bettin' that it won't be in '08

[rinsd]

5. Hope springs eternal!

But in all seriousness I agree that the likelyhood of a Democrat taking Kansas is slim.

[SaveElmer]

8. I agree...but it does show two things...

Democrats are making progress everywhere...even in places like Kansas...and at least 45% of Kansans are at least willing to look at voting for Hillary Clinton...

Kerry got 37% in Kansas btw

[rinsd]

11. Nothing wrong with hope and optimism.

The Democrats are looking very good going into 2008 but that is no reason to rest on our laurels.

:hi:

[ronnykmarshall]

19. 1964 LBJ

[illinoisprogressive]

2. Obama is beating all three of these guys......

[rinsd]

7. In KS? Also Obama is currently losing to Rudy in PA, FL & OH while Hillary is tied or winning.

[Broke Dad]

9. "Your girl" can't seem to connect with Midwestern voters . . . hmmmm

Kansas elected a straight talking Democratic woman governor! Bad news little Hill, we don't like phony politicians out here. Stay on the coasts . . Bomb us with your leaflets, your drones and your 30 second spots, but stay away!

[rinsd]

13. Broke dad seems to have trouble posting the correct reply.

And considering Kerry got only 37%, what Hillary is polling at isn't too shabby.

"we don't like phony politicians out here"

Really? You've stated your unwavering support of John Edwards many times so that can't be all true.

[nevergiveup]

3. I don't believe Mormons

are terribly popular in Kansas.

[jgraz]

6. Not surprising, since she's within the MoE of Thompson's political leanings

And she has a prohibitive lead over Romney in triangulation.

[dsc]

15. Then you should be able to name a list at least one longer than what I am providing

of similarities in Thompson and Clinton. Here is a list of differences. Gay rights Clinton for ENDA, hate crimes laws, and civil unions, Thompson against. Clinton against DADT, Thompson for. Abortion Clinton pro choice down the line Thompson anti abortion down the line. Health care Clinton in favor of expansion of the public's role in it, Thompson against. Clinton in favor of ending the war in Iraq by the end of 2009 (at the latest) Thompson no end in sight. Clinton opposed both Roberts and Alito, Thompson favored both. I can, and if need be will, go on.

[jgraz]

24. See, that's the problem with Clinton. It's not the end result (which is bad enough)

it's how close she always comes to voting the other way. Look at the Gonzales nomination for AG. She was undecided until the last minute, then voted no after his confirmation was assured. No hold, no filibuster support, no leadership. Same deal on the war supplemental. Same for the MCA. And on and on.

Yes, she sides with the Rethugs on NAFTA, CAFE standards, Cuba, and a host of other issues. But her real damage comes in the legitimacy she gives the other side with her continued vacillation and acceptance of right-wing framing. Why the hell should it have taken her even five minutes to decide on Gonzo? Why does she continue to beat the right-wing drum of blaming to Iraqi government for not meeting our benchmarks of allowing the theft of their oil?

Of course she would be an improvement on a Thompson presidency. But that improvement would be so timid, so calculated, so incremental that it would validate the extreme right positions on many issues. We've had 27 years of radical conservatism in this country. It would be nice to elect a president that actually stood for more than an infinitesimal, focus-grouped improvement over that.

[dsc]

25. She didn't side with the GOP on CAFE

that is a total fabrication.

[jgraz]

26. Really. Show me where her call for increased CAFE standards is on her campaign site

Since she's so "ready to lead" on the environment... The only thing I see on her campaign literature is her plan for a $50 billion handout to the energy industry.

Of course, Hillary always leaves herself some wiggle room on these issues so I won't be surprised if you're able to dig up some vague statement from her in favor of fuel efficiency. But when it comes to actually choosing the public good over the interests of her corporate sponsors, we all know where she stands (and you do too, whether you admit it or not).

[Totally Committed]

10. You say that like you're proud of it!

At this point, and after 8 long, miserable, horrific years of BushCo, the "best this Party has to offer us" is only w/in MoE of Thompson and statistically tied with Giuliani and ROMNEY (!)

We should be f*cking ASHAMED. It's DISGRACEFUL that there is even a question of who will win after 8 years of war and Katrina and poverty and economic downturn and taxcuts for the rich, and on and on and on.... and the Queen of the DLC can only manage a statistical tie with three Republican MOOKS!

Why isn't anyone as furious about this as I am? Why are you reporting this with such PRIDE? It's a f*cking disgrace.

TC

[SaveElmer]

12. Do you have any sense of history whatsoever?

A Democratic Presidential candidate anywhere near shouting distance in Kansas as a god damned miracle...

It shows clear and unmistakable progress even in states where creationism was in the public school science curriculum up to last year!!!

[Totally Committed]

16. Elmer, I like you. You're a really decent guy, but SPARE ME the SPIN.

This election should have been a ROUT. We should have been able to run a paper bag against the best they got, and walk away with it.

Sense of history? Like only two Democratic Presidents in the time I've been voting? (That, btw is a LONG time). Yes, we've done great against these a**holes. :eyes:

TC

[SaveElmer]

27. Kansas...

Is possibly the third most reliably conservative state in the country...to suggest that going from 37% in one election to being competitive in the next is not significant progress, is spin...

This is a state that overwhelmingly elects Sam Brownback to the United States Senate...

No, these are exceptionally good numbers...

p.s. thanks for the compliments...always enjoy debating with you!

[rinsd]

14. Its Kansas, brainiac.

"Why isn't anyone as furious about this as I am"

Because they aren't ignorant of history or inclined to knee jerk reactions about Hillary?

:shrug:

[Totally Committed]

17. Thanks for your generous and sympathetic remarks. I can tell you feel my pain.

TC

[rinsd]

20. I;m supposed to be sympathetic to your pain? For what? Talking out of your ass?

Then again that could prove to be painful.

[Totally Committed]

21. I was being sarcastic.

I don't expect that at all from you.... nor should I.

TC

[rinsd]

22. C'mon now. If we're going to insult one another we should be clear, no?

:evilgrin:

But I do apologize for being a bit of a douchebag in my initial response.

[Totally Committed]

23. Okay, then.... me, too,

Cumbaya. :)

TC

[MasonJar]

18. Excuse me, but I have trouble with your assertion that Kansas does

not like phony politicians. Good grief, Charlie Brown, you are represented by the Bush a**kisser, Pat Roberts, the biggest loser in Congress. And believe me I come to that position with much trouble since I am the un-proud constituent of Bunning and McConnell...the second and third biggest losers after Roberts.

[JeffR]

28. I'd trade you Chambliss & Isakson in a heartbeat

but yeah, Bunning and McConnell are nearly as bad...