47% of voters think Obama is too inexperienced to be a good president

[jackson_dem]

If you want to know why Obama seems to have a ceiling and why there is a discrepancy between his favorable ratings, which while rapidly heading south still remain high (for now...), and his general election poll performance here is your answer. You can hide all you want behind the cop out of racism (funny how no one blames racism for Richardson losing) are accept the reality. Obama's decline isn't coming from racists. They were against him from the beginning. His decline is coming from people who as the canvass gets filled in increasingly have concerns about Obama. It is about his inexperience and issues that hurt the assessment of his character (poor judgment, alleged elitism, alleged lack of patriotism, association with a divisive church while preaching unity in public, etc). Many of the latter are BS but BS has been part of elections since Jefferson vied with Adams. It won't "change" in 2008, regardless of how much audacious "hope" you have it will.

-snip-

On the experience question, which Clinton's campaign is pushing hard, 47 percent of registered voters believe Obama doesn't have enough experience to be a good president (45 percent thinks he does have enough experience). In July 2007, 39 percent thought Obama had enough experience; 35 percent said he didn't.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/134389/page/1

[anonymous171]

1. McCain has more experience than Clinton. Therefore he's best suited for the presidency

[jackson_dem]

3. Another cop out. That isn't how voting behavior works

[Mooney]

30. How would you know?

Who are you, Frank Luntz?

[Solomon]

41. You just don't get it do you? I can't blame you because I

realize this is unconscious to you, but you say you have found reasons other than "racism" to prove why the nomination should be stolen from him.

But the reasons that you cite, "poor judgment, alleged elitism, alleged lack of patriotism, association with a divisive church while preaching unity in public, etc", IS the racism part of it. Every bit of it is about his "race".

[Two Americas]

122. a chronic and fatal error

Over the last 30 years there has been a growing trend in liberal activism - a desire to be "right" at the expense of being effective, and it has reached a climax in the Obama candidacy. Those of us Democrats who have not fallen under the spell of Obama's personality can not point out his weaknesses - not because we are incorrect about them, but because, as the Obama supporters will scream at us, they should not be weaknesses: that it is wrong that they are weaknesses. They don't really care whether or not he has weaknesses, nor do they care if we lose in November. They argue that we should be able to win, not that we can, and have already accepted a toss up in the general and a possible loss to McCain and are already working on their post-election "reasons" and excuses for the loss - the people are stupid, the people are racists, the Republicans cheated, America sucks, Clinton did it.

Being "right" is the consolation prize in politics, and I for one am tired of settling for that.

Democrats should know that placing one individual of color into one position of power is not a litmus test of racism, or we would all be praising and celebrating the careers of Rice and Thomas.

The same demographic that rejected Gore and Kerry is now rejecting Obama, and for the same reasons and to about the same degree. They are rejecting our elitist appearing, arrogant, intellectual, professorial types. (God let's not get into an argument about who really is and who really isn't an elitist, or scream that it "shouldn't" matter.) Is that shallow? Sure, but we select these guys for those superficial qualities - we relate to that style - and are in-your-face about it ("fuck 'em!" Obama supporters say), so we can't really complain when the voters reject them for the same superficial reasons, can we? We don't give them any other solid or comprehensible alternative as a basis for voting.

[jackson_dem]

123. Another great post, Two Americas

:thumbsup:

[PseudoIntellect]

5. "Oh, but the TYPE of experience counts!"

Exactly.

[NJSecularist]

58. There is an experience threshold you need to meet to become president.

And Obama has not met that threshold. That is why he is unelectable.

[anonymous171]

62. You DID become a "hilbot" overnight.

:wow:

[jackson_dem]

72. It is the truth

I bet you NJSec has a political science degree or experience in political campaigns. What NJsec said is common sense. Whether Obama has reached that threshold is open to question but the existence of that threshold is not.

[anonymous171]

74. The only "threshold" is one of age.

[MadBadger]

85. Bullshit Jackson

"Why is Obama considered Inexperienced?"

If he is elected as president, he will have served 11 years in elected office.

By comparision, Bill Clinton served 11 years in elected office. George W Bush served 5 years in elected office. Hillary Clinton will have served 8 years in elected office"


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5441633#5441725

In this thread NJS argues against the whole experience bullshit. That is why I and others do not for one single second believe she was ever an Obama supporter.

[jackson_dem]

91. You are too smart to buy this

Voters assign different meaning to being governor, especially of a major state (think Texas, California, Massachusetts, Georgia) than to being a state senator. Similarly, senators with one term are seen differently than a senator who has not completed a term (the only candidate with just one senate term on his resume to become president that I can recall of was Warren Harding. Others, like Jackson, never completed 6 years in the senate but they had other things on their resume that matter, like being a general who won the Battle of New Orleans in Jackson's case). The netroots hates this but the reality is Clinton gets points from the public on experience due to her role in the White House for 8 years.

People change their minds. The witch hunt against people who commit heresy against Obama is a reason why Obama supporters get a bad rap as a cult. You experienced this yourself when you posted a thread merely saying the race was not over. Barack Obama can change his mind on major issues. Why can't a poster on a website regarding minor issues?

[Hansel]

148. Self delete.

[rodeodance]

60. well, gee, then vote for him.

[Yossariant]

124. Clinton was Arkansas' First Lady in 1978. McCain entered Congress in 1982.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Link Please? [nt]

[jackson_dem]

4. I edited the OP to put the link in

But here it is http://www.newsweek.com/id/134389/page/1

[emilyg]

19. Thanks.

[BalancedGoat]

7. Here:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/134389/page/1

[ccharles000]

6. I am a Hillary supporter.

and will vote for Obama if he is the nominee no matter what.

[MadBadger]

8. And yet he still beats McCain...

[jackson_dem]

18. When is the election? April or November?

If it were in April we would have had landslide President Dukakis, President Bush by double digits and legitimately in 2000, and President Kerry. What happens to "new" candidates when they run against non-incumbents, get vetted and get attacked by the other party? Obamites can never name the last such candidate to emerge stronger after being savaged by the other party 24/7 than he was at the beginning of the year.

[MadBadger]

23. Well it sounds like you are citing a poll from April as well

I thought I might as well balance this out by posting the actual result of a McCain-Obama matchup in this Newseek Poll.

[jackson_dem]

27. If it is 47% now and if you are pro sense guess what the number would be in November?

Higher or lower? Again, I ask any Obamite to point to the last such candidate to emerge stronger after the other party attacks him 24/7 for months.

[MadBadger]

29. Well I thought Obama can gain experience on the campaign trail?

Or at least thats what Howard Wolfson said. Dont you trust Howard Wolfson?

[jackson_dem]

34. Bowling a 37 for the cameras on the campaign trail doesn't qualify you to be president

Obama's flaws are very fundamental and can't be corrected in this election cycle. There is now "how to be president 101" summer course he can take to clear the experience threshold.

hnmf. You read polls. Look at this:

Obama's favorables

Current: 53/40
4/16/08: 57/36
3/5/08: 61/28
7/07: 56/19
5/06: 34/10

Use some common sense. Compare that to Clinton. During the same period her unfavorables have risen only 4%. McSame's only 6%.

[MadBadger]

37. Not what Howie saaaaiiiiid. He said that Obama gain CIC experience on the Campaign trail.

[jackson_dem]

39. Who cares what he said? He is a politician, as Rev. Wright would tell you

[MadBadger]

42. Noooo, Howie is a Junkyard dog, not a politician.

[leftofcool]

9. Exactly why he will never win the GE

[Exilednight]

13. leftofcool, you turned so far left you are now to the right. n/t

[leftofcool]

14. ?

[cali]

127. such nonsense. either can win. anything can happen in 6 months

the variables that influence voting behavior are inexhastible. It's absurd to say that Hillary can't win because polls show she has a ceiling on favorability or Obama can't win because polls show that 47%think he doesn't have the experience. Polls, dearie, aren't written in stone. Far from it.

Stupid gets tiring. And I know you aren't stupid.

[Exilednight]

10. Nice distortion of truth. Obama has more elected experience than Hillary, or are you one of .......

few who still believes she has 35 years?

[leftofcool]

15. Yep, voting "present" give one lots of that experience

[jackson_dem]

22. 47% of people don't give a fuck that he played poker with lobbyists in Springfield

Distortion of truth? The truth is 47% of voters think he is too inexperienced and the number is increasing as voters get to know him better. There is nothing to distort. 47% is 47%. Sometimes a cigar is a cigar.

[Exilednight]

31. And nearly the same percentage of people don't give a fuck that Hillary was the First Lady. n/t

[jackson_dem]

36. The netroots don't. The real world does

Whether that is valid or not is another thing but the fact is people view her as qualified to be president and that is a big reason why.

[Exilednight]

38. So you admit that the informed people don't buy into her 35 years experience. Thanks for admitting.

[jackson_dem]

40. Remember this classic quote?

"All the thinking people in this country are for you"--voter
"I know, but I need a majority"--Dem nominee Adlai Stevenson (who lost in a landslide--twice)

[Exilednight]

46. Well if Obama is Stevenson, then Hillary is Mondale, but polls show that if elections were..........

held today that Hillary would lose her home state of NY to McLame.

[cornermouse]

129. In my state, state senators are part time.

They pass laws that give the wealthy extra privileges, they make animal sounds when someone from the other party has the microphone, and when they get the microphone we get to hear enlightening statements like "what part of no do you not understand, governor?" with loud cheering in the background. I have NO respect for state senatorial experience as preparation for the office of President of the United States. None.

[Exilednight]

134. So you are projecting, and making a minsinformed opinion from the experience in your state? I'm....

ashamed that you call yourself a Democrat. We're the open-minded party who holds each person accountable by their own actions, and not by the actions of others.

[cornermouse]

135. People make decisions based upon what they see and hear

around them and what they know to be fact. A lot of people in this state saw and heard those interviews. I am telling you why the "experience" argument is not going to impress the undecided democrats and independents. I don't need your approval to call myself a democrat and I'm not too sure but what your statement may be against the rules.

[Exilednight]

136. In the post I replied to, you did not say..................

"I am telling you why the "experience" argument is not going to impress the undecided democrats and independents."

This is what you said: "I have NO respect for state senatorial experience as preparation for the office of President of the United States. None."

That is not how members of the Democratic party make decisions. It's uninformed and ignorant.

[okasha]

137. You're from Texas, too?

:rofl:

[cornermouse]

140. No.

Is it warm down there today?

[okasha]

142. It's warm any time the Texas lege

is in session. You described it perfectly. I'm not sure whether I'm comforted or horrified to know there are two state legislatures like this.

[cornermouse]

143. I'm envious of your weather.

:-)

[PseudoIntellect]

11. I think both of the candidate have ceilings for the primaries.

Clinton hit her ceiling months ago.

But when we have a nominee, a lot of that division will dissolve.

[NJSecularist]

61. Clinton hit her ceiling?

Did you forget about Pennsylvania? Hillary is winning important states despite being outspent 3:1.

[Eric Condon]

81. There it is again - "important states." Your mouth to God's ears. nt

[jackson_dem]

93. The electoral college exists even if Obamites want to pretend it does not

See Al Gore, Grover Cleveland, Samuel Tilden, and Andrew Jackson.

[Eric Condon]

105. No, the myth that only Zellary's states "matter" exists and is propagated by Hillbots

even when Obama supporters recognize that we COULD try to expand the Democratic coalition, rather than just triangulating to win "important states." But then again, I wouldn't expect the Queen to pay much attention to red states in the GE - she'll just say "Screw 'em."

[jackson_dem]

111. That would work only if you buy the Obama hype

Here are the candidates who led realignments in American history:

1800 Thomas Jefferson
1828 Andrew Jackson
1860 Abraham Lincoln
1896 William McKinely
1932 FDR
1980 Ronald Reagan

Aside from McKinely, who benefited from changes occurring beyond his control, the others are giants in American political history. To believe Obama, a candidate who struggles to even win his own party's vote and post-vetting has mostly been losing (by over 600k votes in March and April), can do what so few candidates have done is really a stretch. I admire your belief in your candidate but he is no political giant, the kind that comes along so rarely. If he were he would not be struggling to do what even GE losers like John Kerry and Michael Dukakis were able to do within their parties.

[jackson_dem]

73. Clinton's expanding her coalition, Obama is contracting as he gets known better

Look at the exit polls from the Obama halycon days of 11 straight and then compare them to his performances since. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660890

[Tellurian]

128. Simply put.."Obama has peaked"...

Obama is not the nice guy he pretended to be when he first announced..."clean up Washington" "I'm going to run a clean campaign" Obama has run the dirtiest, most divisive campaign in recent memory. People are starting to see him for what he is, a disrespectful clone of his spiritual adviser. A racist pretending he emanates the qualities of JFK, RFK, MLK ad infinitum.

[CreekDog]

12. Stil running down one of the two likely Democrats to gain the nomination?

good job! :wtf:

[jackson_dem]

24. Posting reality isn't "running down", except to ____ members...

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[panader0]

16. I remember when I didn't have much experience

I was much better then.

[kwenu]

17. Since Hillary is so far behind Obama that she can't catch up they must think she's an idiot.

[NJSecularist]

63. Obama is a better primary candidate because he gets 90% of the black vote

In the general election, his flaws - and his McGovern coalition - will be easily exposed. He needs to win more than the latte liberal and black vote to win the presidency in the general election. Hillary is a better general election candidate.

[jackson_dem]

75. They think the GE has the same demographics as Dem primaries

They don't realize the black vote and latte liberal votes are half their primary size in the GE. In other words, Obama's coalition shrinks dramatically in the GE. This is why people are asking questions about his limited appeal and not about Clinton's. Her coalition will grow in the GE. She may have roughly the same appeal in Dem primaries but it is known her groups will expand in the GE.

[kwenu]

162. Every candidate has a natural consituency. Obama excites his. Hillary doesn't excite hers.

A vote is a vote. Stop whining. Hillary's constituency, weak as it is, will have to make its own choices. After a long thought, I have no doubt they will conclude McCain isn't worth it.


I prefer gourmet coffee but not lattes. I'll try a latte in your honor though when Hillary gets bounced.

[blue sky at night]

20. ever get a new job?

just wondering? who gives a ....? The electorate are freaking morons...they "voted" for bush twice? HUH? He has been in office for almost eight years and can't put a sentence together, but Obama is inexperienced? Hey I will take him hands down over anyone else... you know the two republicans.

[jackson_dem]

28. Yeah! Fuck the voters! Who cares if McSame wins!

:scared:

[Mooney]

35. The voters voted for Obama, not Hillary.

[jackson_dem]

55. Thus far

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. Considering that 50% of that 47% thought that Bush DID have

enough experience, I'm going to take this with a huge fucking grain of salt.

[MannyGoldstein]

25. It's So Excellent How The Clintons Are Kneecapping The Dem Nominee

Just so they can have a crack at 2012.

What scum they are. Absolute scum. They don't care about anyone except their mythomanic selves. They'd rather an insane Republican get elected than a non-Clinton.

[jackson_dem]

32. I love this Obamite argument. Glass jaw Obama can't take light jabs from Dems

Yet they say he can win the general election in the next breath. :crazy:

Who "knee capped" the "new" candidates of the past? There is a thing called political reality. I know in fairy tales a candidate can be immune to attacks but that isn't how the real world works.

[MannyGoldstein]

43. Clinton Has Lost To Obama. That Is A Fact.

Any attempt by the Prevaricating Pair to go after Obama at this point only serves to aid the Republicans.

This is why candidates who have no chance have always dropped out - until the Duplicitous Duo rode into town. They are beneath contempt - first they helped start a ruinous war for perceived political gain, now they try to kneecap the Democratic nominee.

[Zambero]

50. Yup, Hillary's effectively trying to push toothpaste back into the tube

Works about as good as unfrying an egg. Or her staying in the race!

[jackson_dem]

56. Who cares? Your own argument implies Obama has a glass jaw

That means all of this is moot. If he can't take light jabs from Clinton he will be killed in the general election when the rethugs can go after him unfettered. Hence it doesn't matter what the Clintons do because Obama's glass jaw renders him a loser either way.

[NJSecularist]

68. Clinton has lost nothing to Obama.

Somewhere in-between Obama's win in Iowa and his coronation the Obamites forgot that you had to win important states like Pennsylvania and Ohio to win the nomination. And that no candidate is guarenteed the nomination until they get 2024 pledged delegates.

[jackson_dem]

76. Their argument makes no sense. If you accept it you have to logically then believe he can't win a GE

See post 56

[kwenu]

45. I think he has arguably taken more jabs than Hill and Mick put together.

And he's still winning.

[jackson_dem]

77. No, he's been losing mostly since he began taking light jabs

[kwenu]

161. Questioning ones loyalty and patriotism and infering you're not really American is not light.

It's garbage. Make no mistake about it, historians will not look favorably upon these tactics regardless of whether or not Obama wins the GE. This is one of those clear decisions where people knowingly sold out their ethics in order to gain a political advantage. It will haunt us just like video of firemen hosing down civil rights marchers in the 1950's and the chaos of the 1968 DNC convention. White skin does not equal patriotism. At least not until now.

[NJSecularist]

65. Nobody is kneecapping the Democratic nominee.

In fact, there isn't even a Democratic nominee yet.

If Obama would have won some important states, like Ohio and Pennsylvania, Hillary would have been out of the race by now. St. Obama does not have a divine right to the nomination like most of the Obamites think. He has to earn it.

[cliffordu]

26. 38% of the monkeys flying around my butt say

your post is meaningless in the long term.

[NanceGreggs]

44. And less than 39% of voters ...

... think Hillary is truthful and trustworthy.

[MannyGoldstein]

51. Isn't That Amazing?

I'd think that after her sniper heroics, the % believing "Sir Edmund" Hillary to be truthful would be in the single digits. I guess this is consistent with Bush getting two terms.

Feh.

[NJSecularist]

67. Obama will meet that level by August with the way his trendlines are heading.

Hillary's unfavorables have stayed steady for years.

[jackson_dem]

80. He may get there by the end of June

His unfavorable rating is up from 28% to 40% in the past seven weeks alone. If he wins the nomination in Indiana the rethug machine will go full bore against him and the rate of his decline will accelerate.

[jackson_dem]

79. What is more important to voters?

Trust is Clinton's achille's heel. The focus groups done by Obama and Edwards must have shown this because they made this the centerpiece of their attacks on her. Candidates don't pull such stratgies out of thin air. Now let's compare weaknesses. What matters most to voters? Whether a president can keep a plane from flying into their office or whether a president embellishes a story? All issues are not given the same importance. If they were Walter Mondale would have won in a landslide, not Reagan. Voters agreed overwhelmingly with Mondale on the issues--except the ones they deemed the most important.

[cliffordu]

84. "embellishes a story" ....She lied through her teeth.

She's getting ready to be the footnote to American politics she was destined to be from the getgo...too corrupt and dishonest even for politics in THIS country...

Disgusting.

[NanceGreggs]

86. What IS more important to voters?

A guy who seems too inexperienced for the job?

Or a woman who is known to be a liar?

Don't look now, but the voters have spoken on the issue: Obama is winning, Hill is losing.

I remember a time when that truly was a 'nuff said.

[jackson_dem]

96. That is very naive

Obama being perceived as more honest in April (his numbers will change when the rethugs attack him. Look at the two month sea change for Kerry referenced in my other thread) does not make voters want to risk a plane flying into their office or their kids being taken hostage and killed while at school.

Obama has been losing since the vetting began. His trajectory indicates voters are speaking this: the more they see, the less they like of Barack Obama.

[NanceGreggs]

99. [i]"The more they see, the less they like of Barack Obama."[/i]

I guess that explains why he's WINNING.

Poor schmuck is going to wind up in the Oval Office, never knowing that the voters thought Hillary was the much better candidate.

[jackson_dem]

104. He's been losing as he gets better known

The trajectory is down for him. What is the vote tally since the vetting began?

Pennsylvania 04/22 1,046,220 45.4% 1,260,444 54.6% Clinton +214,224 +9.2%

Mississippi 03/11 265,502 61.2% 159,221 36.7% Obama +106,281 +24.5%

Wyoming 03/08 5,378 61.4% 3,311 37.8% Obama +2,067 +23.6%

Texas 03/04 1,358,785 47.4% 1,459,814 50.9% Clinton +101,029 +3.5%

Ohio 03/04 982,489 44.8% 1,212,362 55.2% Clinton +229,873 +10.4%

Rhode Island 03/04 75,316 40.4% 108,949 58.4% Clinton +33,633 +18.0

Vermont 03/04 91,901 59.3% 59,806 38.6% Obama +32,095 +20.7%

He has lost by over 600,000 votes since he began taking some light hits at the end of February.

Here is how he was doing right before that:

Wisconsin 02/19 646,851 58.1% 453,954 40.8% Obama +192,897 +17.3%

Hawaii 02/19 28,347 76.1% 8,835 23.7% Obama +19,512 +52.4%

Virginia 02/12 627,820 63.7% 349,766 35.5% Obama +278,054 +28.2%

Maryland 02/12 532,665 60.7% 314,211 35.8% Obama +218,454 +24.9%

District of Columbia 02/12 93,386 75.3% 29,470 23.8% Obama +63,916 +51.5%

Louisiana 02/09 220,632 57.4% 136,925 35.6% Obama +83,707 +21.8%

Nebraska 02/09 26,126 67.7% 12,445 32.3% Obama +13,681 +35.4%

Virgin Islands 02/09 1,772 89.9% 149 7.6% Obama +1,623 +82.3%

[NanceGreggs]

106. Yeah, I know ...

... he's losing. All the way to the White House. Have you familiarized yourself with the math - or are you just afraid of debating the numbers?

[jackson_dem]

109. I posted the numbers and they speak for themselves

Let's use a racing analogy. Let's assume there are only two drivers in the series. Driver A wins 11 races in a row. Driver B then wins most of the next 7 after the dynamics change, a new aerodynamic efficiency is discovered. Driver A is still winning overall. Who has been winning since the dynamics changed?

Reporter: Driver B, you have lost five of seven since the new wing was discovered.
Driver B: We have no problem. We are still ahead overall and hence it is nonsense to claim we have struggled with the new wing.
Reporter: But you have been losing since the dynamics changed?
Driver B: We won 11 straights before they changed. We have no problem.
Reporter: But doesn't this suggest future losses?
Driver B: We won with the old wing. What makes you think we will lose with the new wing?
Reporter: The fact you have lost five of seven with it.
Driver B: How can I be losing? I am leading the overall standings. How could I then ever lose?
Reporter: By crossing the finish line behind.

Or a more familiar football analogy. Team X goes 7-0 to start the season. They then lose five straight since their offense has been crippled by an injury to their running back. Have they been winning since the dynamics changed due to the running back's injury? After all, they are still 7-5?

[NanceGreggs]

110. Why don't we skip the "analogies" ...

... and discuss real facts instead?

Hillary is losing, Obama is winning.

[jackson_dem]

112. This is winning since the vetting began?

Pennsylvania 04/22 1,046,220 45.4% 1,260,444 54.6% Clinton +214,224 +9.2%

Mississippi 03/11 265,502 61.2% 159,221 36.7% Obama +106,281 +24.5%

Wyoming 03/08 5,378 61.4% 3,311 37.8% Obama +2,067 +23.6%

Texas 03/04 1,358,785 47.4% 1,459,814 50.9% Clinton +101,029 +3.5%

Ohio 03/04 982,489 44.8% 1,212,362 55.2% Clinton +229,873 +10.4%

Rhode Island 03/04 75,316 40.4% 108,949 58.4% Clinton +33,633 +18.0%

Vermont 03/04 91,901 59.3% 59,806 38.6% Obama +32,095 +20.7

[NanceGreggs]

114. He's winning.

He has an insurmountable lead.

What don't you understand?

[jackson_dem]

116. Crossing the finish line behind is "winning"?

So Clinton "won" IA and SC?

[NanceGreggs]

118. Count the delegates ...

... which is what this is all about - goalpost-moving notwithstanding.

He's AHEAD, she's BEHIND.

[jackson_dem]

120. You moved the goalpost yourself

You claimed voters are deciding with their ballots that growing concerns about Obama are trumped by concerns about Clinton. When the trajectory disproved this you moved the goalpost to counting 30+ contests that occurred before his favorability rating tanked and concerns about him on a variety of issues grew. To "prove" the concerns are having no effect you had to go back to a time when those concerns were much less common, an implicit admission that they are having an affect because you could not point to his results since his favorablity rating has tanked, due to voters learning more about him and increasingly not liking him as they learn more about him.
Who "won" this race?

Race results

FIN ST CAR DRIVER MAKE SPONSOR PTS/BNS LAPS STATUS WINNINGS
1 7 48 Jimmie Johnson Chevrolet Lowe's 195/10 312 Running 262,111
2 24 07 Clint Bowyer Chevrolet DIRECTV 170/0 312 Running 170,350
3 16 11 Denny Hamlin Toyota March of Dimes / FedEx Kinko's 165/0 312 Running 164,516
4 3 99 Carl Edwards Ford Aflac 160/0 312 Running 158,585
5 4 8 Mark Martin Chevrolet Army Reserve 100th Anniv. / U.S. Army 160/5 312 Running 150,258
6 39 31 Jeff Burton Chevrolet AT&T Mobility 150/0 312 Running 140,008

Overall standings

1 -- Jeff Burton 1215 Leader 8 0 1 3 6 1,464,500
2 +1 Kyle Busch 1135 -80 8 1 1 4 5 1,668,660
3 +1 Dale Earnhardt Jr. 1129 -86 8 1 0 3 6 1,494,270
4 +2 Jimmie Johnson 1116 -99 8 1 1 4 4 1,819,660

[NanceGreggs]

147. You're using racing stats ...

... to prove exactly what?

I haven't moved any goalposts. It's about delegates. Obama has more delegates, and the math shows that Hillary can't overtake him.

I know you want to believe that "the tide has turned", and Hill is going to win the remaining races in absolute landslides - but that ain't gonna happen.

[cliffordu]

117. One of the things I like about Jackson_dem is that he (she?)

ALWAYS has some ponzi like scheme or bait'n switch numbers game going on - I just ridicule them out of the chute any more because I KNOW it's bogus on it's face and to actually do the "math" is an exercise in futility.

GIGO.....

[NanceGreggs]

119. Yeah, I think you summed it up with ...

... GIGO.

If only we didn't have to hear the incessant whining of the garbage being compacted, before it finally realized it was it was headed for the dump.

[jackson_dem]

121. So Jeff Burton won the Phoenix race? I saw him cross the finish line 6th

How did he win the Phoenix race again? Or have you realized how idiotic your argument is? In order to "prove" vetting is not affecting him you have to ignore everything that has happened since he began being vetted and point to what he did prior to it. That proves the vetting is having an effect. Just as someone pointing to the overall lead when asked if Jeff Burton won the last race would implicitly be acknowledging he lost the last race--what you are doing implicitly acknowledges Obama has lost most contests since the end of February. Obama has lost Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island (with only two primary wins since then, one in which the electorate is unique and unaffected thus far by anything Obama does. In Wyoming 9,000 people voted as only 2.5% of voters showed up for the caucus) during this period. There is a reason Obama is terrified of being asked questions, whether by reporters or by debate moderators or Hillary Clinton.

[cliffordu]

139. LOL

Incessant whining....

:rofl:

I also just LOVE the way Jackson attributes pejorative emotions to Obama, too...'"He's terrified of her....He's afraid to debate her...He's afraid she'll show him for the (fill in the blank..) he really is.

I guess it's nice to try and balance an argument so emotionally desperate with a few numbers for the stats junkies....like baseball fans talking of earned run averages or bases stolen against specific teams at specific ballparks...the kind of minutia only the loneliest of baseball fanatics can recite.....while screaming at the top of their lungs about how 'their team' will DESTROY the other....

Ah, but I digress....

[Clintonista2]

144. Are you really that dense?

Jackson Dem has just proven to you that minor attacks on Obama have practically run his train off the tracks. Yet here's typical NanceGreggs with her fingers in her ears :eyes:

[NanceGreggs]

145. Proven?

How? By saying so?

:rofl:

[Clintonista2]

149. By providing for you statistics which prove that Obama can't take a hit

[NanceGreggs]

151. Racing stats prove ...

... that Obama can't take a hit?

Oh, yeah, okay ... I'm just going to step out of fantasy land now, and go back to reality.

But thanks for the tour.

[Clintonista2]

152. These stats actually. Maybe you just didn't see them

The trajectory is down for him. What is the vote tally since the vetting began?

Pennsylvania 04/22 1,046,220 45.4% 1,260,444 54.6% Clinton +214,224 +9.2%

Mississippi 03/11 265,502 61.2% 159,221 36.7% Obama +106,281 +24.5%

Wyoming 03/08 5,378 61.4% 3,311 37.8% Obama +2,067 +23.6%

Texas 03/04 1,358,785 47.4% 1,459,814 50.9% Clinton +101,029 +3.5%

Ohio 03/04 982,489 44.8% 1,212,362 55.2% Clinton +229,873 +10.4%

Rhode Island 03/04 75,316 40.4% 108,949 58.4% Clinton +33,633 +18.0

Vermont 03/04 91,901 59.3% 59,806 38.6% Obama +32,095 +20.7%

He has lost by over 600,000 votes since he began taking some light hits at the end of February.

Here is how he was doing right before that:

Wisconsin 02/19 646,851 58.1% 453,954 40.8% Obama +192,897 +17.3%

Hawaii 02/19 28,347 76.1% 8,835 23.7% Obama +19,512 +52.4%

Virginia 02/12 627,820 63.7% 349,766 35.5% Obama +278,054 +28.2%

Maryland 02/12 532,665 60.7% 314,211 35.8% Obama +218,454 +24.9%

District of Columbia 02/12 93,386 75.3% 29,470 23.8% Obama +63,916 +51.5%

Louisiana 02/09 220,632 57.4% 136,925 35.6% Obama +83,707 +21.8%

Nebraska 02/09 26,126 67.7% 12,445 32.3% Obama +13,681 +35.4%

Virgin Islands 02/09 1,772 89.9% 149 7.6% Obama +1,623 +82.3%

Tip to Nance: Republicans hit much harder than Democrats.

[NanceGreggs]

153. No, I saw it.

It means nothing. Obama is ahead in delegates - Hillary can't overtake him in the remaining races without absolute landslides in each and every one.

Not gonna happen.

And all the 'stats' in the world can't change that simple fact.

[Clintonista2]

154. Nance, you're missing the point

The gold is not the nomination. The gold is the white house.

[NanceGreggs]

155. You're right.

And the candidate who wins the nomination gets the shot at winning the WH.

Hillary will not be that nominee.

[Clintonista2]

156. Whether she will or she won't doesn't detract from the point

That Obama cannot take a hit. Hillary may not be the nominee this year, but she will be in 2012 after Obama loses the GE.

[NanceGreggs]

158. Yeah, OIbama can't take a hit ...

... like his entire campaign has had nothing but smooth sailing since day one. Nary a hit there - especially from his fellow "Dem", Hillary.

I know that a lot of Hill campers are hoping that McCain wins - but that ain't gonna happen either.

And the idea that after the negatives she's built up over the last few months, along with her "truthful and trustworthy" numbers in the toilet, Hillary would ever have a shot at another nomination is absolutely delusional.

[NJSecularist]

160. The nomination is not over.

Hillary still has a chance to win the nomination, no matter how many times you put your fingers in your ears and say "La La La" when facts contradict your argument.

[Ichingcarpenter]

47. Cheney and Rumsfeld Win!!!!!!!!

Yeah!!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Ford_meets_with_Rumsfeld_and_Cheney,_April_28,_1975.jpg/800px-Ford_meets_with_Rumsfeld_and_Cheney,_April_28,_1975.jpg

[chill_wind]

66. Rof! Can't find anyone with much more Washington experience than those two madmen! n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

108. How about Poppa Bush! He knows what he doing

with Bill since he has worked with the CIA since 1963!






Follow his history with Iran Contra and before and his father who were both traitors.

Thats experience!!!!!!!

[Zambero]

48. And is McCain too old? Too trigger happy? Too much of a vindictive asshole?

Yes, Yes, and Yes -- Those strong perceptions are out there as well. When all is said and done, it'll be the economy (again) STUPID!

[jackson_dem]

82. McSame's unfavorables will go up too as he gets attacked by Dems

The difference is they won't go up as much as Obama's because people know a lot more about him. Obama is a total question mark and can being defined more easily.

You are right, sort of. The economy will be the issue if we nominate a candidate who meets the security threshold. Clinton v. McCain=economy. Obama v. McCain=can you trust this guy to keep your kids safe? Basically if we nominate Obama we are giving home court advantage to McSame and letting him write the rules of the game.

[Skittles]

49. after bush, ANYONE CAN BE PRESIDENT

*disclamer - NOT disparaging Mr. Obama - just saying, if gwb could become president, experience does not seem to matter*

[kwenu]

52. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have another WINNER!

This thread should now be declared over.

[bluestateguy]

53. That's fine. He'll take the other 53%

That's plenty to win an election.

[Snarkoleptic]

54. Right on!

Although the rapture-friendly group will vote for whoever will bring on the most rapid apocalypse.

[jackson_dem]

57. Oh. Obama will win 50% of that 53%? He will sweep them?

It is 47% now. Notice the trend? It will only get higher...

[xchrom]

59. recommend

[SwampG8r]

64. and 53% dont

[NJSecularist]

69. 53% don't in April.

How about in October when the Rethug smear machine has put him through the meat grinder for months?

[SwampG8r]

70. like hillary is doing now?

[NJSecularist]

71. Will we please stop with this meme that what HIllary is doing is comparable to that of the rethugs?

What Hillary is doing, which is running a relatively positive campaign, is nothing compared to what the rethugs have in store for him in the general election.

[Alexander]

78. Oh yeah, REZKO WRIGHT AYERS HAMAS FARRAKHAN is really positive.

[jackson_dem]

97. Attacks happen in campaigns. Primary attacks are child's play to general election ones

Will that happen again like it does every election cycle? That is change you can believe in.

[jackson_dem]

87. Anyone who compares what Hillary is doing to what the rethugs will do is

Either ignorant of the past or blinded by Clinton hate. There is no equivalence between intra party attacks and inter party attacks. The re are restraints candidates are subject to by political reality regarding what they can say about a rival from the same party. There are also some issues that work for the other party but would not work in the primary. The DNC is attacking McCain as out of touch on the economy for saying it was strong. Was Romney too dumb to realize this? No, he was in a rethug primary and knew saying that would hurt him with Bush supporters in the primary. What about the inevitable "X is too liberal" attack the rethugs use? No Dem candidate is going to make that a centerpiece of the campaign because it would help the other candidate in a primary process dominated by such voters. The rethugs obviously use it every four years and it worked against Kerry and Gore.

[NJSecularist]

92. I was blinded by Clinton hate for a while, thank goodness I came back to Earth.

And I realized that Hillary is a terrific Democrat who isn't running nearly as bad as a campaign as the netroots thinks.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[JeffR]

95. Did you land on your head when you came back to earth?

Just askin'.

[SwampG8r]

98. dammit jeff

can you give yourself a duzy?
and how would i nominate you

[JeffR]

101. I'm not eligible

but thanks!

:toast:

[Eric Condon]

88. "What Hillary is doing, which is running a relatively positive campaign..."

If you honestly believe that, you need help.

This "meme" of comparing Zellary with the Rethugs is based in the FACT that she is running the dirtiest, most Rovian campaign this side of the Swiftboat Veterans. I don't hesitate for a second to compare "a fellow Democrat" like her to the Republicans, because she's not a Democrat. I don't know what the hell she is, but she's not one of us.

The Clintons really are the Democratic Bu$hes - a freakish, far-right mutant corporate perversion of what their party is supposed to be. It's a good thing their political career is OVER. Not a moment too soon, either.

[NJSecularist]

90. The Clintons are Republicans, yet Bill appointed one of the most liberal justices since Earl Warren.

And another liberal judge named Stephen Breyer.

Do you really believe the crap you are writing? :crazy:

[jackson_dem]

102. The netroots calls Clinton a rethug, Obama a progressive savior

Even though they have the same policies. :crazy:

As I said before, the "netroots" is driven by rabid Clinton hate. Winning the general election, substance all take a backseat to the obsession to "get rid" of the Clintons.

[Eric Condon]

107. Yep, you're right - and since welfare reform, media deregulation, DOMA, etc never happened,

I guess their liberal credentials are solid. :eyes:

And that's just Bill. That's saying nothing of the Goddess of Peace's IWR vote, failure to read the NIE, and promise to "obliterate" Iran.

But you keep telling yourself the Clintons are tireless crusaders for progressive values. Kinda reminds me of the folks who thought Bu$h was a crusader for American "values."

[jackson_dem]

113. Obama: "Clinton's policies were recognizably progressive". Read the messiah's book

He also praised Clinton's Third Way. In other words, he praised triangulation.

[Eric Condon]

115. The messiah? Your words, not mine. nt

[jackson_dem]

100. This is an outrageous claim

"the FACT that she is running the dirtiest, most Rovian campaign this side of the Swiftboat Veterans."

What she and the saint are doing is nothing compared to what happens in cross-party attacks.

[MadBadger]

103. NJS accused Clinton of Rovian campaigning back in February. But now she has never done that?

WHA???

[MadBadger]

89. You did it yourself on Feb 23...What changed NJS? GOne Schizo on us?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4728223&mesg_id=4728223

[jackson_dem]

83. The election isn't in April. Ask Presidents Kerry, Dukakis

Also ask Bush about his April 2000 landslide win.

[mikekohr]

125. 60% of Americans Believe Senator Clinton Is Dishonest

We have two strong candidates. Both are human. Both have flaws.

When you punch my candidate in the nuts you force me to fight back on your level. And Senator McSurge wins in the end.

Let's concentrate on the strength's of the candidate we support instead of doing the work of the Republican party.

mike kohr

-Victory in '08-

[cali]

126. sorry, mike, that sensible comment is utterly wasted on those frothing

and posting threads like the OP invariably posts. I've said for months that both candidates can win. It largely falls on deaf ears.

[mikekohr]

132. Sorry cali, I can't help myself nt

mike kohr

[bowens43]

130. The primary is over. HIllary lost.

It's either McCain or Obama , we see you have made your choice.

[Vinca]

131. 47% of voters are idiots. It's experienced people who got us into this mess. nt

[1776Forever]

133. Poll: Democrats 62-31 percent see Obama as better able to win in November

ABC NEWS/WASHINGTON POST POLL: THE ’08 RACE

EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Obama Surges on Electability,
Challenges Clinton on Leadership

Barack Obama has knocked down one of the three tent poles of Hillary Clinton’s
campaign for president, surging ahead of her as the candidate Democrats see as most
likely to win in November. He’s challenging her on leadership as well, leaving only
experience as a clear Clinton advantage in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll.
On the eve of their debate before the Pennsylvania primary next week, Democrats by a 2-
1 margin, 62-31 percent, now see Obama as better able to win in November – a dramatic
turn from February, when Clinton held a scant 5-point edge on this measure, and more so
from last fall, when she crushed her opponents on electability.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1063a3The08Race.pdf

...............

And they gave Hillary a negative 58% for Honesty and Trustworthiness!

It's over - move on!!!

:nopity:

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

138. Experience is a two way street. It also shows that Hill and McLame are part of

the establishment. They are "part of the problem" of Washington not doing the people's bidding.

[Condem]

141. A poll taken before the election of 1860 by the NY Herald

Said 62% believed that Lincoln didn't have the experience. Look it up, Jackson.

[yourguide]

146. And 60% of voters think HRC is a liar.

[Armstead]

150. I still am puzzled at Clinton's claims of "experience"

While Hillary cites years in which she was a corporate lawyer as public service while Obama was grappling to help real people with the results of corporate indifference.....

While Hillary demonstrated a complete lack of leadership and political effectiveness while driving the chances of Healthcare reform into the ditch as First Lady

One whole more term in the Senate than Obama, during which time she failed to rally Democrats against Bush and even enabled Bush's worst mistake (Iraq)

Etc.

This is the kind of experience we need?

[IsItJustMe]

157. Thanks Rush, I needed to hear all that BS today. Tell Hanity I said hey.

[JustAnotherGen]

159. Didn't read any of the other responses

But technically - Obama has more experience than Clinton. She's only held political office since 2000. He's held political office since 1997.


He needs to nail home that Clinton was only first lady - :crazy: she didn't hold the position for 8 years. :think: Or did she? And if she indeed was 'Running the Show' - then Bill's Presidential Library needs to be dismantled. :think: He wasn't really the President . . . :think: I think.