You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: House approves $70 billion more for war
McCain Surges to Lead in New Poll
CBS News
Posted: 2008-01-14 10:41:49
Filed Under: Elections News
(Jan. 13) - Surging after his win in the New Hampshire primary, Arizona Sen. John McCain has come from behind to now lead the national Republican race, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll. However, among Democrats, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has maintained her double-digit national lead in the race, despite winning only one of the two contests so far.
McCain is now the choice of 33 percent of Republican primary voters in the poll, up from just seven percent in the last CBS News/New York Times poll taken in December. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is in second place with 18 percent, down from 21 percent in December. The biggest drop downward is in former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's support, from leading at 22 percent in the last poll to ten percent now. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson are tied in this poll at eight percent.
Re: House approves $70 billion more for war
Look at the current polls. McCain and Hillary will get each nomination. McCain will stomp Hillary in the general election. The public is upset with Bush, Republicans just get some blame by association. The so called leaders of the Democratic party have failed to deliver. We will at least have 4 more years of a Republican president and I would want no other person in office right now than McCain. Ron Paul has some very appealing ideas, ideas that are the core of my political system, but we don't live in a utopia. From day one I have said it will be Hillary and McCain with McCain winning the election. I still believe I am right.
Not trying to cause a stir, but have you looked at these primary election totals?? The democrats are DOUBLING the amount of voters. It wouldn't be exact but wouldn't that lead you to believe more Dems & people will vote Dem than Republican?! No offense, but a 73 year old pro-extending the war candidate is just as "unelectable" as a woman or black man with a funny name. Obama would own McCain in debates & public speaking. And even if Clinton wins, there's a good chance Mayor Bloomburg of NYC will run, and I think he'd do really well. Also when Ron Paul drops out his supporters will probably go democrat, so that's about 8% of current GOP crossing party lines.
Anyway, the election comes down to about 5 states. Cali, Fla, Mich, & Ohio. His immigration stance might help him in FLA & Cali, not guarantee him it, but help. I think Mich & Ohio will go democrat. Also, Obama is doing really well in S. Carolina. And remember in 06 a young black democrat for Senate(Harold Ford) almost won in Tennessee, something virtually unheard of in a southern state. If the Republicans lose 1 or 2 southern states (possibly N Carolina too), it's over.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: House approves $70 billion more for war
I'm going off of national polls. The Republicans are not putting the effort and money into rallying supporters and getting people out to the polls. Look at the primary numbers for 2000 and tell me who had more votes. Why you would think Ron Paul supporters would go Democrat is beyond me. Ron Paul's major issues are fiscal policies which are embraced by Republicans. While he is an anti-war candidate, neither Hillary or Obama agree with his stance. Ron Paul's greatest supporters are by far independents and he's pulled people from both sides of the politcal spectrum I don't see his eventual withdrawl aiding any side more than the other, though he'll obviously endorse a Republican before he endoreses a Democrat.
Michigan historically has gone Blue, but as a Ohio resident, I can tell you that I wouldn't bank on Ohio going for Hillary, ecpsecially with a candidate like McCain running. People have a tendency to inject personal desires into their perception of politcal reality.
A 73 year old man isn't nearly as taboo as a female or black president. I'm not saying I agree with using any arbitray identifier as a qualification, but it's true. No black or female candidate has been elected. Virtually every candidate is "old."
Re: House approves $70 billion more for war
A. He would be the oldest to take office.
B. He's basically guaranteeing we'll continue this war for 4 more years.
C. Alot of Ron Paul supporters are young, internet community delusional college kids who believe in this pipe dream of "eliminating the IRS and the federal income tax" regardless of his political affiliation. He's the Ralph Nader of 2008. If Ralph Nader didn't run, Al Gore would have recv'd the majority of his votes.
D. I don't know about Ohio, Michigan probably will go blue. Ohio does have a pretty big housing crisis which will loom for well into 2008. Changing the current economy will be a big factor. Not saying Hilary or Obama are or will be better, but in alot of times like that, people vote for a new regime. That's why Bush Sr lost in 92, the economy was piss poor.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: House approves $70 billion more for war
A.) How does that stack to the average life expectancy. How old was Eisenhower, Roosevelt and Reagan relative to the average life expectancy of their day.
B.) He's stating that we will stay in Iraq until the mission is finished. Show me where Hillary differs on this.
C.) Right, Naders votes we ent to a Dem. Just like Paul's votes will likely goto a Republican.
D.) Bush lost in 92 becuase Perot got 20% of the votes. More people voted against Bill Clinton than for him. Clinton didn't win in 92, Bush lost the election.
Edit:
Why do you assume change equates voting for the Democratic party? The Dems promised change in 2006 and haven't delivered. I base my vote on the candidate, not the party they claim allegiance too.
Re: House approves $70 billion more for war
Why do you assume change equates voting for the Democratic party? The Dems promised change in 2006 and haven't delivered. I base my vote on the candidate, not the party they claim allegiance too.
I was trying to avoid the new buzzword of "change" and simply say changing the regime. When the economy is bad (Bush 92, Carter 80) voters tend to vote for the opposite party. Granted, there's no imcumbent but I still think people who are voting based on the economy will not vote republican due to it's current status with a Republican in office.
Re: House approves $70 billion more for war
How does McCain plan on tackling our massive deficit and debt?
Let me take a guess...
More tax cuts and more massive spending bills?
He's a conservative only in name. The lame republicans we have now spend more than any democrat could ever dream of. At least democrats attempt to actually find the money to spend. "Conservatives" just grab it out of thin air and don't give a shit what the consequences are.
Need 400 billion for defense? We'll sign it.
a trillion for a war? Sign it.
Tens of billions for homeland security? Sign it.
An unattainable debt, deficit, and an out of control trade deficit? Who cares?
A tax increase to at least attempt to pay some of this off? NEVER!!
If you think the country wants 4 more years of that, I want some of what you are smoking.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: House approves $70 billion more for war
McCain plans on cutting social programs and spending. If he holds to his word, the budget will decline. The problem with Democrats is that they have no intention of lowering the budget. Now that it is at an all time high, they can cut security programs and the military and allocate the money to more social programs. There's no such thing as a free lunch and the sooner people realize this the better. I make 50k a year. I can't afford to pay more taxes so people without a skill and choose to have families can get health care or whatever "right" someone feels entitled to.
When it comes down to it, do people want to live in "debt" or have even more money taken from them? I don't know about you, but I like to keep every cent I earn.
Re: House approves $70 billion more for war
The typical "welfare defense". Gimme a break. Problems run much deeper than giving a welfare mother her monthly check and you know it.
Only way out of this Bush mess is a tax increase. A significant increase on the wealthy and a minor increase on the lower.
Whats the point of keeping every cent you earn when those cents continually go down in value?
- Jimmy Zig Zag Bobiadis
- Rep: 25
Re: House approves $70 billion more for war
i don't believe in taxing the wealthy more than the lower classes. i think it should be a flat tax for everyone. if you earn more, then good for you.
