Clinton wins New York due to women and Dems, Obama loses. NY has 31 electoral votes, third most

[jackson_dem]

You are probably thinking, :wtf: New York? McSame is viewed as a "moderate". He is the type of rethug that wins in NY. Don't underestimate his chances in New York. If we lose New York we are pretty much toast. Kerry's states count for 252 electoral votes. Take away New York and they are down to 221, and that is assuming we retain Pennsylvania and Michigan (unlikely with Obama). What is that you say? Utah? Wyoming? Montana? Ok. Let's give Obama these states. Let's give him North Dakota, Iowa, Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico too. Him sweeping all nine of these states still leaves him six electoral votes shy of victory--assuming he holds onto PA and MI. Take Pennsylvania away and he is down to 243. Size matters. Let's give him all the rethug states he won via caucuses. The entire West is blue except for Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. Let's give him South Dakota too. The agent of change Tom Daschle supports him and that will swing the state. Or so we "hope". Ah, the map is beautiful out west. Nothing but blue except for Texas, Arizona, and Oklahoma. YES WE CAN! Landslide, right? Wrong. 261 electoral votes. Yes, even after you give Obama all of these states he is still down 277-261 if he loses Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio (and this latest scenario assumed he would retain Michigan's 17 electoral votes and New Jersey's 15). These states are simply too small to offset the losses of big states. North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah combined do not equal Florida's 27 electoral votes (they together have 26).

Clinton will keep New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts (also in play if we nominate Obama. MA has 13 electoral votes, 12th most) win Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and probably Florida. That is all we need and Obama is not the only one who puts red/Bush states in play. Clinton puts Arkansas, Nevada, New Mexico, and West Virginia in play (AR and WV are unique to Clinton) as icing on the cake.

New York

Total: Clinton 48%, McSame 46%
Total: McSame 48%, Clinton 46%

The difference comes from two things: women and Democrats. They both get 40% of the male vote. However, Clinton wins women 55-38 while Obama wins only 51-40. Clinton wins Democrats 74-18, Obama only wins 68-25. Obamacons? This is yet another poll that exposes that as a nother fairy tale. Clinton loses rethugs 17-78, Obama loses them 16-80.

http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/nyspolls/GV080409.htm

[GarbagemanLB]

1. Another day gone by, and Hillary still has only a 5% chance at the nomination...

[BzaDem]

8. Another day gone by, and Obama still has only a 5% at winning the general election...

[pocoloco]

16. Not looking good alright when HRC has no chance!!

"She's gonna take all our guns away!!"

[Hawkeye-X]

21. Post proof of that 5% chance.

I want to know, and I need irrefutable proof.

Hawkeye-X

[enfield collector]

95. this might be a reference to the "Bradley factor". rethugs aren't

going to vote for Obama regardless. the fear is that racist white Dems won't vote for him either, despite what they say in public. personally I dislike HRC and I'm sick of her continual lies and the corruption associated with Bill, but I feel she has a better chance than Obama due to the Bradley factor.

[PseudoIntellect]

37. Yes, the last collective electoral map poll was a BLOWOUT against Obama, right?

Oh, what's that? It was actually a tie? Oh, then I guess it's NOT as low as 5%.

[barb162]

57. I'd say it 's more like ZERO

[barb162]

58. Just wait until she wins most of the remaining contests.

[stevietheman]

65. And yet, Obama will still be ahead in delegates and the winner of the nomination.

Yes, even if Hillary wins *all* of the remaining contests.

This is a race for DELEGATES!

[barb162]

70. Don't forget about superdelegates and her momentum.

He's unelectable.

[loveangelc]

2. that is bullshit imo. Clinton wins by 2 points in NY?????? That is terrible.

you really should stop obsessing with polls right now btw.

[jackson_dem]

6. If you win by 2 points you get 31 electoral votes. If you lose you get 0

[thewiseguy]

10. What is the margin of error on the poll Einstein?

[loveangelc]

23. Why are you so obsessed with polls this early, seriously.

You said you followed 04 closely. Well, if you followed it closely you would know polls showed Bush winning Pennsylvania by 5 and Kerry winning Ohio and Florida by 5 a few days before election day, and we know how that turned out, at least I do.

the fact is, if hillary is virtually tied with mccain in new york in the state she represents, she is in trouble.

oh, polls have what's called a margin of error, so her "lead" is statistically insignificant.

[jackson_dem]

27. Yeah--that was before Bush's pal Bin Laden interevened on behalf of Bush

We need a candidate who can withstand Bin Laden intervening on behalf of the rethugs. If he does it again Obama is toast.

[loveangelc]

33. riiiight, so Bin Laden flipped PA and WI for Kerry and OH and FL for Bush?

And if he does it again, I don't see how that helps McCain, in the debates Obama is going to highlight the fact that Osama is still out there, so a tape by him will just highlight that fact.

Again, polls do not mean anything. They didn't mean much right before 2000, 2004, and they won't in 2008. It's about the GOTV. That's how Bush won, not Bin Laden. Bush had a superior GOTV and that's just that.

[jackson_dem]

51. Ask Kerry himself. "We are moving up until the video"

Obama has no credentials on security. Kerry did and he was hurt by the video. Obama would be toast if the same thing happened.

GOTV means nothing if you have less votes.

[loveangelc]

52. If Kerry had credentials and was hurt by the video, why wouldn't Hillary,

who you are still fighting to give reason for her to be the nominee though you and I know that she won't be, be hurt as well? I love how you base everything on hypotheticals, polls based 7 months before an election without an official nominee for one side, and the 2004 election...which is understandable since 04 was your first closely watched election I guess. However, having studied and wathced politics for practically my entire life, it's very silly quite frankly. I don't know wtf you mean by GOTV means nothing if you have less votes. If you have a superior GOTV effort you are going to have more votes, because you are GETTING OUT THE VOTE BETTER.

[jackson_dem]

53. Kerry was tied and lost a few points. Clinton, even if she lost a few, would still win

She may not even lose anything, or may even gain, since she is associated with Bill Clinton in many people's minds. She may be viewed as more credible on security than McSame. Obama, even if he led by a couple points, would be toast after such a video because he has no credentials.

Yeah, I know nothing about elections prior to 2004. :sarcasm: History teaches us Obama has a long way to go--down as far as GE performance goes. He SHOULD be ahead of McSame by 10 points right now as the "new" candidate in a change year...

GOTV means nothing when you start out 10 points down. GOTV can only do so much. Romney had by far the best GOTV yet he still lost Iowa and New Hampshire. Huckabe had no money, no GOTV yet he win Iowa. How could this happen? Huckabee simply had more raw support than Romney in Iowa, as did McSame in NH. GOTV can only gain you a couple of points.

[loveangelc]

56. How does history teach us this? Did you ever stop to think that not everything in history

is going to be repeated exactly the same in this election?

Tell me why Obama should be ahead of someone who has been given a free pass on virtually everything, when nothing he has said has been examined, who has not had to answer for the fact he disagrees with sex ed, that doesn't know what condoms do, that wants to appoint judges who will overturn roe v. wade, knows nothing about the economy and healthcare, including opposing insurance coverage for birth control? All the American people right now know about McCain is that he was a POW and wants to win the war in Iraq. That will all seem great, but it will come to an end as soon as Hillary gets her ass out of the race and we can focus on the issues more directly. In the debate he is going to have to answer these question and we're going to clearly see the difference. And frankly all the Republicans will have is a very stale Rev. Wright issue to attack Obama on in the Fall (and it will become stale to talk about this for months and months) because they know most people are not with McCain on most of the issues.

I could make the argument that more women vote, therefore once the information about birthcontrol and the host of anti-women votes he has cast, women will rush to vote for Obama, and women cast most of the votes in the general election.

Oh God, your spin is so ridiculously funny. Hillary will benefit because she's Bill Clinton's wife?

[jackson_dem]

64. I don't go by "hope". The election is far too important to gamble based on "hope"

You just explained how Obama's poll numbers relative to McSame right now mean little because they will drop once his free pass ends. That is why he should be ahead. He has a D next to his name in a change year and has gotten a free pass. Yet he still can't win. Scary...

Women? Clinton is the candidate who will get more women to turnout and a higher percentage from them.

McSame isn't any more or less anti-choice than Bush was and that didn't kill Bush.

Where do you think her security credibility comes from? 90% of people don't know she is on the Armed Services committee.

[loveangelc]

81. What don't you understand? McCain is going to be higher in the poll numbers when he gets a free

ride and is made to look Presidential while the two candidates "fight it out." No one knows anything about where he stands on the economy. That's why Hillary should get out so we can focus on McCain. Obama has not gotten a free pass, no idea where you get the idea he's gotten a free pass lately...

Women will turnout equally for both once they find out where McCain stands on the issues.

Hillary has run a shitty campaign, she can't win in a general election, because she will likely continue to do so in a GE...but she won't be the nominee anyway, so it doesn't matter. that's all.

[JoFerret]

84. Empty hope is a thing with feathers

but the wing is broken and the bird stands nowhere.

Hillary takes the lead over and over again.
Hillary would win the GE without doubt. Obama? I am not so sure.

[sniffa]

12. Shhhh

It feeds on attention. :hi:

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sniffa]

32. Spot on

I know I occasionally give in, and feed them, but I try hard not to.

Even so, I try to remind others not to feed them. Even Skinner has a thread about not giving in as that makes you part of the problem.

And now I'm 5 posts away from 30k.

[stray cat]

3. Clinton is NY's senator - if she can't do it here she can't do it anyplace!

[jackson_dem]

5. She is up 7 over McSame while Obama loses in PA

Your rationale doesn't comport with the facts.

Yes, Clinton is from NY and NY could be in play. We can't "hope" based on just words that we retain NY's 31 electoral votes. Lose NY, lose the election.

[PBS Poll-435]

9. She can't win ANYPLACE!!!

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/Pubs/manuals/tab11.html

See?

[barb162]

61. Beautiful figures you have there. I alwasy like to see Hillary ahead

of Obama and McCain. I truly think Obama is unelectable.

[PBS Poll-435]

73. He is worse than unelectable.

How many Republicans occupy House seats north of PA?

Many, many more if Obama is the nominee.

[AllentownJake]

4. Wow

That says something that a state that elected her to the senate twice will only give her two points...that's really sad.

[jackson_dem]

7. The Dem brand has been hurt in NY by Spitzer

[PBS Poll-435]

15. Unfortunatly, you are right.

However, I think it would be very difficult for NY to swing RED. If it does, say goodbye to Louise Slaughter, Kirsten Gillibrand and others...

[AllentownJake]

20. Damn

I figured that would sink with him and his resignation...guess I was wrong.

That's bad news for both Clinton and Obama...whoever the nominee is.

2 points means you have to spend money there.

[Mooney]

101. Don't believe it for a minute.

New York state will be carried by a Republican in the presidential election around the same time that George W. Bush says something intelligent. IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

The premise of this thread is simply not credible. Unless the GOP is going to dig up Ronald Reagan's corpse and nominate it, they will lose this state, just like they always do.

The Spitzer scandal is already over, and it did no damage whatsoever to the Democratic brand in this state. It would take a HELL of a lot more than the governor resigning for that to happen, and it's already forgotten by everyone here. It was forgotten weeks ago.

[Mooney]

100. No it hasn't.

The only one whose brand has been hurt by Spitzer is Spitzer. There's been no fallout here. It's already forgotten.

The idea that the Democratic brand has been hurt in New York state is laughable anyway. John McCain will never, ever carry this state, even if we go through 20 governors in the next month. The Democrat will carry this state, just like in every election for the last 20 years.

You're inventing a nonexistent problem to support an unpersuasive argument. It's as hollow as a chocolate Easter bunny.

[madrchsod]

11. my head hurts

it`s simple-if either candidate can not beat the thing that the republicans accepted then we are totally fucked.

you really think that either candidate is going to lose to the thing?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

13. I forgot that nothing changes over seven months.

[SaveAmerica]

14. It's a little too early for the dry erase board, Mr. Russert!

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Remember When HRC Was Winning By 30%?

Polls regarding decisions that will be made far in the future are not very correlated with actual outcome.

[jackson_dem]

24. No, she was losing to the rethugs by 10 points more than Obama back in the day

[JimGinPA]

18. And Who Wins Between A Unicorn And Pegasus?

Your OP is just as mythical.

:crazy:

[jackson_dem]

26. YES WE CAN (win without NY, PA, FL, OH, MI, NJ(!

[PBS Poll-435]

35. Hell...just for fun...

Lets try without MA too!

[JimGinPA]

40. McSame Might Beat Obama In Ohio...

I say might. In the other states Obama will crush him , no matter what idiotic poll you're trying to use to rationalize your girl as "more electable". But thanks for the chuckle.

[jackson_dem]

54. How does Obama win Florida's 27 electoral votes with 27% of the white vote?

YES HE CAN (win without 50+1)!

[PBS Poll-435]

71. If anything clear it is this.

Obama needs a miracle!!! O8)

Or Ross Perot + Bob Barr + Mary Cary + Michael Bloomberg + a locust plague.

[AllentownJake]

22. You realize

If the person who doesn't have the most delegates at the end of this doesn't win....we lose most states because a large part of the electorate is not going to show up. They won't for McCain. They just won't vote.

[Guava Jelly]

28. Obama will win New York

Trust me...

[barb162]

62. Trust me, Obama wouldn't win NY

Honest.

[Mooney]

68. Yes he would.

I live here. You don't. Have a nice day.

[PBS Poll-435]

72. LOL...an Obama nomination =

Goodbye Louise Slaughter, Gillibrand, Arcuri. At the very least...

[Mooney]

77. Why?

I'm all ears.

[PBS Poll-435]

87. Hmm...

When you lose a state, you aren't the winner there. :-( And, you can drag otherwise safe downticket candidates with you. :-(

[Mooney]

89. Why do you think he'll lose the state?

New York state hasn't elected a republican presidential candidate in 24 years. Why would we start now?

[PBS Poll-435]

92. NY has had some major issues in Albany.

I would think that it is much less "a given" this year then in years past. Plus, nominate the wrong candidate, and you NY very well could go with the Republicans this year. Especially, a moderate, "trend-bucking maverick" like McCain. (I think I just :puke: a little in my mouth..Bleh)

[Mooney]

97. Major issues in Albany is a perpetual reality.

It won't affect anything. It never has.

John McCain will not carry New York state, no matter who's running, and the idea that it would even be close is ludicrous. A republican hasn't carried this state since 1984, and there's no way that would change after 8 years of Bush. It doesn't matter if the Democrat running is Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or anyone else. John McCain absolutely will not carry this state. The only Republicans who ever get elected here are pro-choice, pro gun control and march in the Gay Pride parade. John McCain fulfills exactly none of those criteria.

Get it out of your mind. John McCain has about as much chance of carrying this state as Dick Cheney. Forget it.

[PBS Poll-435]

106. It, in fact, could depend who is nominated

[Mooney]

108. The only Democrat we could nominate who would lose NY is Lyndon LaRouche.

Have a drink. Relax. You're worrying about something that won't happen.

[bhikkhu]

29. As usual, bad info, twisted out of an odd poll

If you look at a simple Obama vs McCain and Clinton vs McCain, they both win NY by +5 pts.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Read the link provided in the OP and see if you can figure out how the strange results posted there are arrived at.

[jackson_dem]

30. Not anymore. This is the latest poll. You are relying on month old polls

[bhikkhu]

42. McCain/Rice vs Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton is the link

So the poll that your info is pulled from hardly represents what you have described, or any likely race to come.

Again, http://www.electoral-vote.com/ says in simple head to heads both Hillary and Obama take NY by +5 pts.

[Hippo_Tron]

38. jackson_dem reads polls like a religion while missing the big picture

[bhikkhu]

66. The poll he cites is a screwy VP test. Read his link!

If a McCain/Rice ticket were up against an Obama/Clinton ticket....and then as unlikely as that matchup is to ever happen, he suggests that this tells us something vital about head to head McCain vs Clinton and McCain vs Obama results!

For reference, http://www.electoral-vote.com/ shows both beating McCain in NY by +5 pts.

It is hard to imagine that this post is not deliberately misleading, as anyone reading the link to the data source would immediately see problems. But most people don't check links.

So my recommendation - when you read something that seems unlikely, check and read the link to its data source. If it doesn't have a link, it is probably garbage. If it does have a link, make sure it supports the point of the OP. In this case, its doesn't.

[Hippo_Tron]

80. It's also April and not October

General election campaigning hasn't even begun. Things change a lot when the candidates actually campaign.

[PBS Poll-435]

88. Read slower...read it until you get all the words...

When matched head to head against John McCain, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are in a surprisingly close race in New York. Clinton receives support from 48% of the state’s voters compared with 46% for McCain. Obama receives support from 46% of New York’s voters compared with 48% for McCain.

Get it?

[rodeodance]

31. rec

[mmonk]

34. The problem with New York

is that alot of the smears against Obama (Muslim related) has been going on there. That's why a ticket with Bloomberg could help there.

[PBS Poll-435]

36. Please stop trying to make Bloomberg happen.

It is not going to happen!

[mmonk]

39. I'm not.

Just stating some facts Obama has to battle.

[PBS Poll-435]

Ok...Just Checkin!

:+

Hagel & Bloomberg can stay the hell out of this tent!

[Hippo_Tron]

41. There is no problem with New York, it's April not October

Blue states get bluer, red states get redder, swing states get closer as we approach election day. We can't get a decent electoral picture until after the conventions.

[mmonk]

43. Sure there's time to turn it around and make things work.

It's bad we can't get a good start though with the twin attack machines in high gear.

[pdxmom]

44. Hmm...let's think about this. These are the numbers now, 7 months

before the GE. Care to tell me what Hillary's numbers were like 7 months ago? Hell, tell me what they were 4 months ago.

Polls based on no GE campaigning, 7 months out, mean next to nothing. They're a nice party game, but they mean squat.

[VotesForWomen]

45. but..but..who cares if we lose the GE, as long as O gets the nomination? nt

[totodeinhere]

46. Hey, both of those poll results are within the margin of error.

In other words, the poll says that it's essentially a tie between McCain and either of our candidates. I would say that after all of the crap that the Clinton campaign has thrown at Obama, to be tied with McCain in NY in that poll is doing very well.

But the bottom line is that come November either of our candidates should win the very blue state of NY easily.

[BalancedGoat]

47. We won't lose New York.

Things will change once we have a nominee. McCain has done a great job of staying out of the limelight while the democrats continue to battle it out. The view of McCain as a moderate has gone mostly unchallenged but that won't last.

As for this poll, not only are both candidates within the margin of error with McCain, they are also within the margin of error of each other. So the arguement that we need Clinton if we want to win New York is weak at best.

[Lerkfish]

48. so, we're already throwing Pennsylvania under a bus as not important?

LOL

[durrrty libby]

49. As usual, good analysis JD

[barb162]

63. I'll definitely second that!

[Condem]

50. Hey, Jackson

What happened in those NYC precincts that registered 0% for Obama? I'll answer that. Fucking nothin.

[democracy1st]

55. Dude don't you know polls are BS

:wtf:

[barb162]

59. You might want to tell that to most of the posters on DU

It seems polls are a huge subject around here.

[barb162]

60. K&R

[Mooney]

67. Obama will win NY easily.

I live here. A republican hasn't carried this state in a presidential election in 24 years. And why, after 8 years of Bush, you think this state would suddenly go republican is completely beyond me.

Come on already. This is just silly.

[PBS Poll-435]

74. Scandal in the Statehouse + and unelectable nominee?

It isn't really that tough to imagine a scenario.

[Mooney]

78. The most you seem to be able to do is imagine.

Why not give some specifics instead of insinuations?

[PBS Poll-435]

86. I can't help it that you

Aren't that creative or you don't know how these things work.

Patterson & Spitzer have given the Republicans the same kind of opening that Taft & Noe did in Ohio in 2006. Is there time to recover? Sure. With they? I sure hope so...

[Mooney]

90. Never going to happen.

NY state is going to vote Democratic, no matter what. A republican hasn't carried this state since Reagan, no matter who the candidate was. The idea that John McCain would carry this state is fucking laughable.

I don't know what Paterson's done in the month since he's taken office that makes you think he's provided some kind of opening. And as far as Spitzer is concerned, just because a politician becomes embroiled in a scandal doesn't mean a thing. In 2006 Alan Hevesi was as embroiled in scandal as you can get. He even had ads on TV admitting it. And he still got re-elected handily.

NY is not a swing state. The Democratic candidate could be Charles Manson and he'd still carry the state.

[PBS Poll-435]

93. Then nominate Manson,

Or someone equally unelectable, and we will see what happens.

[Mooney]

99. Is that your argument?

Don't you have some facts to support what you're saying? You're saying that, among other things, there is some kind of problem with Governor Paterson. This is the first I've heard of it, but since it supports your argument you should be able to substantiate what you're saying. Otherwise, you're just making guesses.

John McCain will never, ever carry this state. It hasn't gone Republican since 1984. But you should be able to tell me how I'm wrong. You should be able to back up what you're saying with some kind of argument. Otherwise, you're not saying anything that has any basis in reality.

[PBS Poll-435]

105. You haven't heard any of the recent news items

regarding Govenor Paterson?

Really?

[Mooney]

109. What, like this?

http://www.whec.com/article/stories/S408453.shtml?cat=565}Governor Paterson talks one-on-one on state budget[/url>

http://www.wktv.com/news/local/17436494.html>Governor Paterson announces five-way consensus budget agreement

http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48745210_new-york-governor-paterson-announces-145-million-a>New York Governor Paterson Announces $1.45 Million In Affordable Housing Grants

Oh god how will we ever overcome this tarnishing of the Democratic brand????

[Milo_Bloom]

69. Looks like a 3 way tie. What a wacky poll.

[bobbert]

75. nice statistics

Total: Clinton 48%, McSame 46%
Total: McSame 48%, Clinton 46%

I think you are a little confused quoting a poll like that. Looks like we need Obama in there to get more than 48% of the poll

[dkf]

76. Bill Clinton's McCain endorsement is doing wonders.

Thanks a lot Bill.

[PetraPooh]

79. What's really hysterical is the information at the bottom of your link

576 registered voters does not in anyway represent "registered voters in New York,"

also it claims a error percentage of 4%; now I'm not a statistician but I've taken statistics and somehow I don't think that a sampling of 576 registered voters when compared to the total registered voters is at all accurate.

in addition it claims "The error margin increases for cross-tabulations." and most of the questions were cross tabulated.

Sorry but for real polls, I'd stick with something other than a student's term paper.

[Jim Lane]

82. This New Yorker makes a prediction

Looking at the size of the popular-vote margin (not the percentage, but the total number of votes cast):
In 1996, New York gave Bill Clinton his biggest margin.
In 2000, New York gave Al Gore his biggest margin.
In 2004, New York gave John Kerry his biggest margin.

So here's the prediction:
In 2008, New York will give the Democratic nominee his or her biggest margin.

This prediction applies regardless of who the Democratic nominee is.

And if you're wondering about 1992 and earlier years, I just didn't bother going back that far.

[bowens43]

83. Not this shit again......

electoral votes are not awarded in primaries. To try to equate a primary win with a GE win is nothing but bullshit but then you know that. Give it the fuck up, your spin and distortions are not changing anyone's minds.

[Vinca]

85. As long as the infighting continues, neither candidate will be winning New York. nt

[ElsewheresDaughter]

91. yup the total population of 9 Obama states combined = the pop of NYCity alone

[workinclasszero]

94. So in the GE with Obama , all women and dems in New York are sudddenly

going to drink the GOP kool aid and vote for McCain?

Is that what you are trying to say?

buHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Thanks for the laugh, I needed that!

[book_worm]

96. So Hillary is only two-points up in her home state? That's pathetic.

[zulchzulu]

98. You'd think Hillary fans would have learned polls 7 months out are meaningless

Perhaps we should unearth the polls from last June...

[Phoonzang]

102. If people in New York are stupid enough

to vote for McCain over a Democrat (Obama in this case) because of some idiotic hangup, then they deserve what they get. Same goes with the rest of the country. If Democrats switch and vote for McCain then they've forgotten the last two years. Either candidate would be better than him. If they want to give up the Supreme court, go to war with Iran, and continue Bush's failed economic plans because Obama is *insert issue here* let them.

[TheWraith]

103. That's a stack of crap.

Anyone who seriously believes for even one second that NY moveable in the general election is either gullible or living under a rock. This poll reflects nothing more than a collective temper tantrum on the part of Clinton voters who still insist that they'll vote for McCain if they don't get their way.

Grow up--it's not going to happen.

[Arugula Latte]

104. Oh, please.

Anyone who truly thinks New York will vote Republican in the presidential contest is seriously deluded.

[dionysus]

107. huffing glue is bad, mmmkay....