CA PrimD: Survey USA: Hillary leads substantially in CA

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

New Poll: California President by Survey USA on 2007-08-05

Summary: Clinton: 51%, Edwards: 14%, Obama: 27%, Richardson: %, Other: 6%, Undecided: 3%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Damn

[© tweed]

gotta love how stupid the Democratic rank-and-file is.  makes me want to pick up a gun and revolt.

[Boris]

gotta love how stupid the Democratic rank-and-file is.  makes me want to pick up a gun and revolt.

Tell me about it. By nominating Hillary, you're turning a prospective blowout into 2000/2004 redux.

[Sam Spade]

By nominating Hillary, you're turning a prospective blowout

Unlikely, but possible, if you say 53-45 is a blowout.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With Hillary, that's obvious, unless maybe if Mitt's the nominee.  But her ability to win 2000/2004 redux should not be underestimated.

Of course, Hillary is not responsible for Obama's likely successful attempt at pissing off both the moderates and the anti-war nutcases of his party within the same week.  What a stupid.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

By nominating Hillary, you're turning a prospective blowout

Unlikely, but possible, if you say 53-45 is a blowout.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With Hillary, that's obvious, unless maybe if Mitt's the nominee.  But her ability to win 2000/2004 redux should not be underestimated.

Of course, Hillary is not responsible for Obama's likely successful attempt at pissing off both the moderates and the anti-war nutcases of his party within the same week.  What a stupid.

Exagerate much?

[Boris]

Unlikely, but possible, if you say 53-45 is a blowout.

By 'blowout,' I mean, that unlike in the past two election cycles, the winner of the election will be known before election day (at least to people who religiously follow polls). Of course, a 53-45 victory (which would seem unlikely under Hillary) would produce a very pretty map on behalf of the Democrats.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not saying Obama or even Edwards is 'better' than Hillary, but I still don't understand the notion of nominating a polarizing candidate that constricts electoral opportunity. Or, for that matter, nominating boring unknowns from the Northeast. Although Clinton does excite the Democratic base far more than any other candidate, so maybe the Democrats could win just based upon turnout numbers. But then again, Hillary would also bolster Republican turnout.  Meh, who the hell knows anything at this point?

[Eraserhead]

By nominating Hillary, you're turning a prospective blowout

Unlikely, but possible, if you say 53-45 is a blowout.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With Hillary, that's obvious, unless maybe if Mitt's the nominee.  But her ability to win 2000/2004 redux should not be underestimated.

Of course, Hillary is not responsible for Obama's likely successful attempt at pissing off both the moderates and the anti-war nutcases of his party within the same week.  What a stupid.

Speaking as an "anti-war nutcase", Obama didn't piss me off.