Latest political polls has Hillary at 2:1 over Obama

[Bronco Bob]

For those who find this sort of stuff fun.

CBS News Poll. June 26-28, 2007. N=336 Democratic primary voters nationwide.

"Suppose the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2008
comes down to a choice among Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, and
John Edwards. Who would you most like to see nominated: Clinton, Obama,
Edwards -- or would you rather see someone else nominated?"

Hillary Rodham Clinton - 48%

Barack Obama - 24%

John Edwards - 11%

Other/None - 8%

Unsure - 9%

That's basically half the people being polled saying they want Hillary.


On the Republican side:

Rudy Giuliani - 34%

Fred Thompson - 22%

John McCain - 21%

Mitt Romney - 6%

Other/None - 7%

Unsure - 10%

[SoCalBronco]

Hillary also has the highest negatives of any candidate, they are usually in the low to mid 40s. That's pretty lethal in a general election. Hopefully she gets the nod for the Dems.

[Bronco Bob]

Hillary also has the highest negatives of any candidate, they are usually in the low to mid 40s. That's pretty lethal in a general election. Hopefully she gets the nod for the Dems.

One needs to be careful of what they wish for. I'm sure a lot of Dems
breathed a sigh of relief when W got the nomination over McCain in 2000.

[SoCalBronco]

One needs to be careful of what they wish for. I'm sure a lot of Dems
breathed a sigh of relief when W got the nomination over McCain in 2000.

I'm not "breathing a sigh of relief". Frankly, the Dems will have to really **** it up to lose this election and nominating Hillary would be a step in that direction. These negatives are consistent over time....its consistently in the mid 40s....in fact I have regularly seen polls which state that among likely voters very close to half have decided that they will not vote for her...period. Ofcourse that may change on the basis of who the opponent is (the old "holding the nose and voting X" factor) and the various political dynamics at play. Still, there is something about her that seems to inherently rub people the wrong way and it has been shown...consistently in polling data.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm not "breathing a sigh of relief". Frankly, the Dems will have to really **** it up to lose this election and nominating Hillary would be a step in that direction.

There's always a chance that the same sort of rigged election that gave us the Oil Puppet in '04 will give us Hillary in '08.

[Barry Ramey]

Only idiots will vote for Hillary, which of course means it's known what 95% of the posters around here will do come election time.

[spdirty]

Man I hope this next election isn't Hillary vs. Guiliani.

[Spider]

Ron Paul , if Gore doesnt run ..........

[footstepsfrom#27]

I'm not worried. Obama came from very deep down in the polls in his last two elections to win. Polls mean little at this stage of the game.

[Rigs11]

Only idiots will vote for Hillary, which of course means it's known what 95% of the posters around here will do come election time.

Who did you vote for in the last election?

[Rigs11]

Poll of Democrats reveals Gore could still steal the show


· Clinton would be big loser if ex-vice president ran
· Republicans also unhappy with current candidates

Simon Tisdall in Washington
Friday June 29, 2007


presidential election poll suggesting Democratic voters would prefer former vice-president Al Gore to any of the declared contenders, including frontrunner Hillary Clinton, has highlighted continuing dissatisfaction among supporters of both main parties with the choice of candidates to succeed George Bush.
The poll, conducted in New Hampshire by 7News and Suffolk University, confirmed Ms Clinton's nationwide double-digit lead over her main rival, Illinois senator Barack Obama. The former first lady and New York senator attracted 37% support, against Mr Obama's 19%. John Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, was on 9%.

But if Mr Gore were to seek the Democratic nomination, 29% of Ms Clinton's backers would switch their support to him, the poll found. When defections from other candidates are factored in, the man who controversially lost to Mr Bush in the 2000 election takes command of the field, with 32% support.
Both the Democrats and Republicans will contest primary elections in New Hampshire on January 22.

Mr Gore has repeatedly denied he is planning a White House run. But the absence so far of a strong, unifying choice for the Democratic nomination, Mr Gore's enhanced reputation as an environmental campaigner, and deep Republican divisions are encouraging speculation that he may change his mind.

"I have not ruled out the possibility of getting into politics some time in the future but I don't expect to because I don't expect things to change," Mr Gore says in an interview in the July edition of Fast Company magazine. "If they did change, then I would feel differently."

David Terr, a political analyst at USAelectionpolls.com, said the 7News poll was based on a small voter sample and had a large margin of error. But it reinforced a pattern in the polls that showed Mr Gore gaining support nationally.

"His gaining six points in six months is ... just what he needs to justify running for the presidency," Mr Terr said. "He can say that the American people wanted him to run. So the image about him being a sore loser or desperate to become president or someone that is not a man of the people can be thrown into the trash."

"If Al Gore runs, Republicans should be very afraid," said one blogger on Politico.com yesterday. "As much as they like to make fun of him, no one can deny that he is the candidate that has the most appeal and ability to energise his base."

Mr Gore's rehabilitation is accelerating as America's political agenda steadily moves towards issues such as climate change that he has long championed.

"In what may be the greatest brand makeover in history, Gore is being hailed as a visionary who was right about everything from global warming to Iraq," writes Fast Company's Ellen McGirt. "At 59, he's an Academy award winner, a bestselling author, a frontrunner for the Nobel prize, and a concert promoter."

Mr Gore is likely to make headlines again with the Live Earth concerts on July 7. He has helped to organise the eight shows, to be held simultaneously around the world, to raise awareness and funds to combat global warming.

As Democrats struggle to measure the potential impact of undeclared candidates, similar imponderables are dogging the Republicans.

Analysts say the national lead held by Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, could quickly disappear if, as expected, Fred Thompson, an actor and former Tennessee senator, steps in next week.

Another wild card is the undeclared but widely expected independent candidacy of the current New York mayor, Michael Bloomberg. If he runs, polls suggest Mr Giuliani would be the biggest loser. To complicate matters, Ralph Nader, the consumer activist whose third-party challenge dished Mr Gore in 2000, says he may also run as an independent.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/story/0%2C%2C2114538%2C00.html

[Spider]

Who did you vote for in the last election?

LOL oooops .......1 question I ask republicans and they never can answer is , what would Hillary do that is as bad as anything Bush has done .........

[Bronco Bob]

Poll of Democrats reveals Gore could still steal the show



I'd vote for Gore. Course I voted for him the last time he ran, as much good as it did.

[Bronco Bob]

LOL oooops .......1 question I ask republicans and they never can answer is , what would Hillary do that is as bad as anything Bush has done .........

It's like how Nixon beat McGovern in a landslide, but you can never find
anyone who admits to having voted for Nixon either.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Man I hope this next election isn't Hillary vs. Guiliani.
Why, you don't like your girl, er boy Giuliani's chances as a God fearing Republican?





http://www.silt3.com/photos/giuliani_in_drag.jpg



Only idiots will vote for Hillary, which of course means it's known what 95% of the posters around here will do come election time.Don't you ever get tired of being the mentally challenged poster child here?

.

[Garcia Bronco]

LOL oooops .......1 question I ask republicans and they never can answer is , what would Hillary do that is as bad as anything Bush has done .........

She'll try to push national government subsidized health care for one.

[BroncoInferno]

The Christians just might get their apocalpyse if Giulani becomes our President. He just might be a bigger charlatan than W. The thought truly gives me shivers.

[BroncoInferno]

She'll try to push national government subsidized health care for one.

Yeah, health care for everyone---how awful! Your right, that is so much worse than getting thousands killed in a war with no justifications.

[bendog]

Guliani is the gop's answer to Hill. His warts sort of mirror hers, and I'm not talking about sexual preference. Hill would motivate the gop base in socially conservative places, so the gop could afford to run a guy who might play well in swing places like Wisc and Ohio, which is where the election probably will be won. [EDIT AND WHERE THE GOP IS GOING TO LOSE THE ELECTION MOST LIKELY BECAUSE PEOPLE KNOW BUSHII ****ING LIED ABOUT THE WAR]

Obama v. Rudi might be really interesting. Despite what some may think, imo, most people in the south don't come out to vote AGAINSt an african american. Most of us gopers will not vote for an african american who supports racially gerrymandered districts, especially when the north and west are not burdened with these offenses to the constitution, democracy and our rights as Americans. But social conservatives won't be motivated by Rude either. In Miss, african americans are 33% of the vote. Less so in Georgia and Arkansas, but still their vote is a player. Get a guy like obama who excites the african american and minority white dem voters, coupled with a guy like Rudi who looks and sounds like a god damn yankee papist, the South might be interesting.

And the money is going to obama.

I just don't think Gore runs. He doesn't like the political fear culture, where opponents are demonized and racial/xenographic fears are played upon for political gain. Last week I was in Trent Lott's office for 45 minutes, adn there had to be 200 calls on the immigration bill, after Rush et all incited the minority on the issue. Now Fox is all over the fairness doctrine. Imo Gore figures he can affect the issues he really cares about more by not being potus than by being potus. It's the country's loss more than his personally. George Washington should be turning in his grave.

[yavoon]

god I hope we dont elect guiliani or hillary or edwards. so god if u hear me now, striketh dead those ppl.

k thanks.

[Garcia Bronco]

Yeah, health care for everyone---how awful! Your right, that is so much worse than getting thousands killed in a war with no justifications.

I think government subsidized heath care would be worse than a war, absolutely. Government run/subsidized anything is usually garbage. If we want to lower health care costs...lets start with tort reform to get the lawyers out of the way as much as possible.

[BroncoInferno]

I think government subsidized heath care would be worse than a war, absolutely. Government run/subsidized anything is usually garbage.

The state run systems in Scandinavia are considered the best, most efficient systems in the world. We rank 37th.


If we want to lower health care costs...lets start with tort reform to get the lawyers out of the way as much as possible.

It is not the lawyers who reward judgments in cases...it's a jury of your peers. If you don't like the judgments in such cases, your beef is with the jurors who decided the outcome of the case.

[bendog]

Govt mandated health care is not an option. We're at a disadvatage trade-wise because employers have to factor it into prices, which results in fewere workers with insurance. It needs to be factored in at the corporate tax stage and taken out of benefit packages. Plus, BI's right. Anyone who is saying we can't do it because of inefficiency isn't looking to the ineffieciency of the current "non-system."

[TheDave]

If we want to lower health care costs...lets start with tort reform to get the lawyers out of the way as much as possible.

Not according to the CBO report...

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2004/02/23/prsa0223.htm

Medical liability reforms proposed in Congress likely wouldn't have a big impact on overall health care spending in the United States, according to the latest in a series of Congressional Budget Office reports on the subject.

The estimated $24 billion in malpractice costs in 2002 accounted for less than 2% of health care spending. "Thus, even a reduction of 25% to 30% in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4% to 0.5%, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparatively small," the CBO stated in its report, "Limiting Tort Liability for Medical Malpractice."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yeah, health care for everyone---how awful! Your right, that is so much worse than getting thousands killed in a war with no justifications.

:thumbs: ^5

[Bob]

There's always a chance that the same sort of rigged election that gave us the Oil Puppet in '04 will give us Hillary in '08.

Everything is a freaking conspiracy -- this is a reflection of how you dont understand that most Americans are moderate to right-leaning in their views.

Bush won both elections get over it. If the dems get someone good then you can take your teurn at the helm. My guess is that if the Dems win, we will not be screaming foul (beyond the first two weeks) as covervatives believe in the rule of law -- not in the boogieman blowing up its own buildings.

[Bob]

I wonder about this poll put out by CBS. I dont think that Rudy has a prayer -- I am somewhat surprised that Hillary would be up over Obama, I have never met a full-blown fan of her. She is of the old gaurd that some many of us detest.

[W*GS]

It's strange how LABF is all-consumed by his adoration of Bill Clinton, yet Hillary Clinton earns nothing from him but contempt and hatred. Of course, that's what the rabid Left feels about her, so he marches in lock-step with them.

It must really make him confused to see Bill out campaigning for Hillary. Indeed, one would think that if Hillary wins, Bill gets back in the WH. I should think LABF would be ecstatic for Hillary to win.

[Garcia Bronco]

The state run systems in Scandinavia are considered the best, most efficient systems in the world. We rank 37th.




It is not the lawyers who reward judgments in cases...it's a jury of your peers. If you don't like the judgments in such cases, your beef is with the jurors who decided the outcome of the case.

And the lawyers who twist the truth to get those results.


Scandinavia is not the United States and is no where near the size, nor does it have the logistics we have. Free health care would just be a means to encourage taxes, illegals, and a poor healthcare system.

[BroncoInferno]

And the lawyers who twist the truth to get those results.

Give me one example where this has happened (hell, I've no doubts there ARE examples, but I'm wagering you've never bothered to investigate the matter).

Scandinavia is not the United States and is no where near the size, nor does it have the logistics we have. Free health care would just be a means to encourage taxes, illegals, and a poor healthcare system.

What do you call the system we have now? Why not look to systems that work better (there are 36 of them) and see what it is they do better?

[Garcia Bronco]

The system we have now works just fine. I pay for my health care and I get it when I need it. If you are poor and don't have health care...go earn more money for it and get it, or cut out the Cable TV, brand new car, and so on. It's all about choices. People can afford heath care in this country and they decide not to get it.

I would be in favor of tax credits for health care like the President was talking about in his last SOTU, or an opt out policy for taxes. But whole sale subsidized health care is not the answer.

Free healthcare and welfare...why get a job?

[yavoon]

u know universal health care could become a needed corporate bailout for american competitiveness.

=D

[BroncoInferno]

The system we have now works just fine. I pay for my health care and I get it when I need it. If you are poor and don't have health care...go earn more money for it and get it, or cut out the Cable TV, brand new car, and so on. It's all about choices. People can afford heath care in this country and they decide not to get it.

I would be in favor of tax credits for health care like the President was talking about in his last SOTU, or an opt out policy for taxes. But whole sale subsidized health care is not the answer.

Free healthcare and welfare...why get a job?

Yeah, those welfare palaces that the jobless reside in are certainly to be envied, aren't they? If you think 40 million citizens lacking health care--including helpless children--is not a problem, then I don't know what to tell you.

P.S. I will take your nonresponse to my challenge for an example of under-handed lawyering that lead to a big judgment in a heath care related case as confirmation of my suspicion that you've never bothered to seek any evidence for your belief.

[Garcia Bronco]

Yeah, those welfare palaces that the jobless reside in are certainly to be envied, aren't they? If you think 40 million citizens lacking health care--including helpless children--is not a problem, then I don't know what to tell you.

P.S. I will take your nonresponse to my challenge for an example of under-handed lawyering that lead to a big judgment in a heath care related case as confirmation of my suspicion that you've never bothered to seek any evidence for your belief.

My comment about lawyers is they lie and twist facts to suit their arguments. I need to look up cases to claim that...if you don't think they lie then I don't know what to tell you.

It's a problem I guess the 40 million people don't have heath care...and it's their problem...not mine...it shouldn't be yours or anybody elses. It's their own responsibility to take care of themselves.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush won both elections get over it.

:oyvey:

You really can't be this clueless.

Bush didn't "win" the 2000 election - he was court appointed.

And the evidence of large-scale electoral fraud in '04 is overwhelming (and has been well-documented on this forum.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...covervatives believe in the rule of law...

Hilarious!

Thigh slapper of the day.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The system we have now works just fine. I pay for my health care and I get it when I need it. If you are poor and don't have health care...go earn more money for it and get it, or cut out the Cable TV, brand new car, and so on. It's all about choices. People can afford heath care in this country and they decide not to get it.

I would be in favor of tax credits for health care like the President was talking about in his last SOTU, or an opt out policy for taxes. But whole sale subsidized health care is not the answer.

Free healthcare and welfare...why get a job?Uh, no it doesn't, not even close to "fine". In fact it's dragging the whole economy down. 50 million Americans without healthcare and growing spells disaster for all of us.

Corporate America might vote for Clinton just to have that burden relieved from them.

[BroncoInferno]

My comment about lawyers is they lie and twist facts to suit their arguments. I need to look up cases to claim that...if you don't think they lie then I don't know what to tell you.

If it is so widespread and obvious you must know of dozens of cases where this has happened. Surely you can think of a single one off the top of your head. After all, free-thinking individuals do not come to such conclusions without plenty of supporting evidence.

It's a problem I guess the 40 million people don't have heath care...and it's their problem...not mine...it shouldn't be yours or anybody elses. It's their own responsibility to take care of themselves.

What about the millions of innocent children who cannot support themselves? Too bad for them also?

[Bob]

:oyvey:

You really can't be this clueless.

Bush didn't "win" the 2000 election - he was court appointed.

And the evidence of large-scale electoral fraud in '04 is overwhelming (and has been well-documented on this forum.)

It has been well documented on this forum, as well as the twin tower destruction by the evil Bush cronies...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It has been well documented on this forum, as well as the twin tower destruction by the evil Bush cronies...

Deflection/changing the subject alert. :spit:

[spdirty]

Deflection/changing the subject alert. :spit:

:rofl: yeah, you never do that.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=57695

[Spider]

I wouldnt worry about Rudy , if it wernt for Republicans , they did elect Bush ......I dont think i need to say more on how gullible they are ;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

:rofl: yeah, you never do that.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=57695

Bad example.

You have to take motives into account.

I didn't change the subject in an effort to dispute the original post (as a matter of fact, I didn't even bother to read it.)

[bendog]

Hilarious!

Thigh slapper of the day.

No ****ing ****. The assholes impeach a potus over a bj, commute the sentence of a guy who lied about outing to cover up their lies about a war, and now bitch about the ****ing rule of ****ing law. I'm still registered goper, but I'll vote obama or gore in a heartbeat.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No ****ing ****. The a-holes impeach a potus over a bj, commute the sentence of a guy who lied about outing to cover up their lies about a war, and now b**** about the ****ing rule of ****ing law. I'm still registered goper, but I'll vote obama or gore in a heartbeat.

Isn't that some sh*t?

Whenever you mention Bill Clinton, these people break into the same old mantra, i.e., "it's not about the sex - it's about the perjury," and they lecture you about the rule of law.

But when their boy Dubya commutes the sentence of a convicted perjurer you don't hear a peep from them.

[Bronco Bob]

My comment about lawyers is they lie and twist facts to suit their arguments. I need to look up cases to claim that...if you don't think they lie then I don't know what to tell you.


I can actually back you up on this. I was on a jury and the prosecutor did
lie and twist the facts to try to get a conviction. When the defense attorney
exposed how the prosecutor was twisting the facts, we found the defendant
not guilty on all three counts.

[Bronco Bob]

It's a problem I guess the 40 million people don't have heath care...and it's their problem...not mine...it shouldn't be yours or anybody elses. It's their own responsibility to take care of themselves.

Straight on. To hell with those lazy 3 year olds without health insurance.
Why can't they get a job like everyone else?

[BroncoInferno]

Straight on. To hell with those lazy 3 year olds without health insurance.
Why can't they get a job like everyone else?

LOL

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Straight on. To hell with those lazy 3 year olds without health insurance.
Why can't they get a job like everyone else?

Ha! ^5

[spdirty]

Bad example.

You have to take motives into account.

I didn't change the subject in an effort to dispute the original post (as a matter of fact, I didn't even bother to read it.)

oh bullshlt, it was a thread about Chavez nationalizing his country's oil and you tried to hijack it by basically saying Bush is worse so don't talk bad about my man-crush.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

oh bullshlt, it was a thread about Chavez nationalizing his country's oil and you tried to hijack it by basically saying Bush is worse so don't talk bad about my man-crush.

I know making subtle distinctions isn't your strong suit, but try to follow me here:

I didn't say what I said on that thread to defend Chavez - I said it to note what I saw as a very funny irony.

[spdirty]

I know making subtle distinctions isn't your strong suit, but try to follow me here:

I didn't say what I said on that thread to defend Chavez - I said it to note what I saw as a very funny irony.

You tried to hijack the thread, take the discussion off of Chavez, and make it all about your obsession. Its what you do.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You tried to hijack the thread, take the discussion off of Chavez, and make it all about your obsession. Its what you do.

No, I just made a simple observation and you and your pals on the right chose to take exception and to make it an issue.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

At any rate, Bush invaded a sovereign nation - a nation that did not attack us and was no threat to us - and proceded to kill more of that nation's citizens than Saddam Hussein ever managed (all in the name of "liberating the Iraqi people" and "spreading democracy and freedom") all for the purpose of controlling and/or stealing that nation's oil.

You have to admit it's incredibly ironic when Bush supporters demonize another world leader for the way he manages his own country's oil resources.

[spdirty]

At any rate, Bush invaded a sovereign nation - a nation that did not attack us and was no threat to us - and proceded to kill more of that nation's citizens than Saddam Hussein ever managed (all in the name of "liberating the Iraqi people" and "spreading democracy and freedom") all for the purpose of controlling and/or stealing that nation's oil.

blah blah blah, you say that in every thread.

You have to admit it's incredibly ironic when Bush supporters demonize another world leader for the way he manages his own country's oil resources.


I think its funny how you never can discuss the topic of the thread title if it isn't about Bush, oil, or Iraq.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

blah blah blah, you say that in every thread.


Every thread?

Wow - that would be quite the trick.


I think its funny how you never can discuss the topic of the thread title if it isn't about Bush, oil, or Iraq.

???

Are you sure this is your final answer?

[spdirty]

Every thread?

Wow - that would be quite the trick.

Well, every thread you post in.



Are you sure this is your final answer?

Yep. Just about every thread Ive seen you post in is about Bush, oil, and Iraq.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Well, every thread you post in.

That would be quite the accomplishment.

It would be even more of an accomplishment for you to have read every single thread to which I've contributed in order to ascertain this "fact."

I'm impressed.

:D

Yep. Just about every thread Ive seen you post in is about Bush, oil, and Iraq.

Emphasis on the "I've seen," I presume. ;)

[Bronco Bob]

Another interesting thing that came from the CBS poll was that of the
Democrats, 61% were satisfied with the candidates now running for the
Democratic nomination for president, with only 35% wishing there were more choices.
With the Republicans it's just the opposite. Only 30% are satisfied with the
candidates now running for the Republican nomination for president while
61% wish there were more choices.
This kind of indicates that even if Gore were to get into the race, he
still might not get the nomination.
While on the Republican side Fred Thompson could have a shot at taking
the nomination still.

[spdirty]

Another interesting thing that came from the CBS poll was that of the
Democrats, 61% were satisfied with the candidates now running for the
Democratic nomination for president, with only 35% wishing there were more choices.
With the Republicans it's just the opposite. Only 30% are satisfied with the
candidates now running for the Republican nomination for president while
61% wish there were more choices.
This kind of indicates that even if Gore were to get into the race, he
still might not get the nomination.
While on the Republican side Fred Thompson could have a shot at taking
the nomination still.

Seems about right. Only guys I like (Tancredo and Hunter) don't have the name recognition or money to win the nomination.

I'd like to see Thompson in the debates, and see where he stands on the issues, mainly immigration.

[Garcia Bronco]

Not according to the CBO report...

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2004/02/23/prsa0223.htm

Like I said...it's a start. Every doctor has to pay malpractice prems...lowering those out of the gate would be very significant.

[Garcia Bronco]

Straight on. To hell with those lazy 3 year olds without health insurance.
Why can't they get a job like everyone else?

That's not a realistic argument...we could do that all day on everything and claim..

"it's for the children"

But the reality is their parents probably shouldn't have had them in the first place, because they cannot afford proper child maintenance. We can't talk about spending EVERYBODY's money for individuals. We have to talk about spending EVERYBODY's money for EVERYBODY. And it's best for everybody if those others take care of themselves, and if they can't do it...then it's their problem...not everybody elses.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

That's not a realistic argument...we could do that all day on everything and claim..

"it's for the children"

But the reality is their parents probably shouldn't have had them in the first place, because they cannot afford proper child maintenance. We can't talk about spending EVERYBODY's money for individuals. We have to talk about spending EVERYBODY's money for EVERYBODY. And it's best for everybody if those others take care of themselves, and if they can't do it...then it's their problem...not everybody elses.Wrong as usual on this type stuff. We all pay for anyone who can't pay for himself. Whether you like it or not that's the way it is.

[Garcia Bronco]

Wrong as usual on this type stuff. We all pay for anyone who can't pay for himself. Whether you like it or not that's the way it is.

and why add to it? And really...from a quality of care perspective...national healthcare isn't going to increase that either. It can only decrease it.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

and why add to it? And really...from a quality of care perspective...national healthcare isn't going to increase that either. It can only decrease it.

You can't control that one way or the other so it's a moot point.

[Spider]

and why add to it? And really...from a quality of care perspective...national healthcare isn't going to increase that either. It can only decrease it.

we dont know that , but what we do know is ,Insurance companies will take it in the ass , why do you love insurance companies so much ?

[baja]

Anyone see Sicko?

[Garcia Bronco]

we dont know that , but what we do know is ,Insurance companies will take it in the ass , why do you love insurance companies so much ?

The only place brokers and companies will take it in the ass is group policy sales to large companies that actually subsidize health care for the majority of Americans that decide to have health care.

[Garcia Bronco]

You can't control that one way or the other so it's a moot point.

You might be right

[Garcia Bronco]

Anyone see Sicko?

I wouldn't watch anything put together by the liar known as M Moore.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I wouldn't watch anything put together by the liar known as M Moore.If you have never seen anything by him how can you be sure he's a liar?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If you have never seen anything by him how can you be sure he's a liar?

Exactly.

They can't dispute Moore's facts, so their only recourse is ad hominem.

[baja]

wrong clip slug.

[W*GS]

They can't dispute Moore's facts, so their only recourse is ad hominem.

:bs:

Read Kopel's list and dispute it, instead of slithering off as you always do.

[TheDave]

Like I said...it's a start. Every doctor has to pay malpractice prems...lowering those out of the gate would be very significant.

The estimated $24 billion in malpractice costs in 2002 accounted for less than 2% of health care spending. "Thus, even a reduction of 25% to 30% in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4% to 0.5%,


You have to explain to me how .4% - .5% is significant...

[Garcia Bronco]

If you have never seen anything by him how can you be sure he's a liar?

Because his lips are moving.

[Garcia Bronco]

You have to explain to me how .4% - .5% is significant...

I read that article, but I could find the actual study it was based on. A CBO article is hardly a argument of fact. So I don't accpet those numbers as fact.

[BroncoInferno]

I read that article, but I could find the actual study it was based on. A CBO article is hardly a argument of fact. So I don't accpet those numbers as fact.

Ha! Gotta love Garcia. Dude will state an opinion, you ask him to back it up, he tells you he could but he's too lazy to do even the most cursory research. In other words, he believes it, so the facts must support it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ha! Gotta love Garcia. Dude will state an opinion, you ask him to back it up, he tells you he could but he's too lazy to do even the most cursory research. In other words, he believes it, so the facts must support it.

In that respect GB is a typical Bush supporter, unfortunately.

[Bronco Bob]

Latest Rasmussen Reports 07/30/07

Republicans

Thompson 25%

Giuliani 25%

Romney 12%

McCain 11%


Democrats

Clinton 41%

Obama 24%

Edwards 14%

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/weekly_presidential_tracking_polling_history

[Bob]

There's always a chance that the same sort of rigged election that gave us the Oil Puppet in '04 will give us Hillary in '08.

LOL

[Bob]

There's always a chance that the same sort of rigged election that gave us the Oil Puppet in '04 will give us Hillary in '08.

Your thinking puts you on par with Rosie --

In 04 the left chose someone who couldn’t reach the middle (where elections are won.) The election in 04 was not that close --so to suggest that anything was “rigged” shows how out of touch you might be.

If the Dems win I will not be among the nut-job, un-American, destabilizing crowd. For a society to work, and maintain some trust needed for the populace to be governed, people can’t cry foul every time they wish for political points (and power) at the expense of destabilizing the county, when we might actually need some scrap of trust. People think that our society and way of life is not fragile – they don’t understand natural consequences.

Here are some more moronic examples of governmental misdeeds believed by extremists that are driven by agenda more than love of county:

• The twin towers are brought down by our own government, which puts you the crowd of the enemy in my opinion.
• The 2000 and 2004 elections were both stolen by some unseen dark force, when actually the Republic system of governance was followed.
• Levies were blown up in New Orleans as a way to ruin the lives of all of those black democrat-voting folks

[Bob]

I'm not worried. Obama came from very deep down in the polls in his last two elections to win. Polls mean little at this stage of the game.

To me it feels that Hillary has been anointed by the media gods to win, when even on this site I do not hear a ton of ringing endorsements for her. Where I might be wrong on her is the support she might garner because of the mere fact that she happens to be a woman, loosely speaking. I think that Obama might do better than her if he was nominated, but sadly I think he will come in second, and “bury the hatchet” sellout and will be the VP for the ticket.

People continually underestimate how much Hillary is disliked ---I don’t know if any party can use a Hillary type, or a Kerry type and win NOT because of their stances on issues, but because they present themselves poorly, and seem like cold, calculating robots. Obama is likable and his stances are farther left, but you would not have as many votes voting – just because they hate his guts – and in presidential elections it will always be a race. Edwards was chosen last time as a counter weight to Kerry’s dead pan, aristocratic presentation. Gore seems like a hip rock star now, but wonder about him as well – if he will “revert” back to the pariah he became after he lost in 2000.

[Bronco Bob]

In 04 the left chose someone who couldn’t reach the middle (where elections are won.) The election in 04 was not that close --so to suggest that anything was “rigged” shows how out of touch you might be.



Depends on how you define close, in that Bush got 50.7% of the popular vote
verses 48.3% for Kerry and Bush got 286 electoral votes verses 251 electoral
for Kerry. If Kerry had won Ohio, Kerry would be the president. And there
were some mighty fishy things going on in Ohio.

[Bronco Bob]

To me it feels that Hillary has been anointed by the media gods to win, when even on this site I do not hear a ton of ringing endorsements for her. Where I might be wrong on her is the support she might garner because of the mere fact that she happens to be a woman, loosely speaking. I think that Obama might do better than her if he was nominated, but sadly I think he will come in second, and “bury the hatchet” sellout and will be the VP for the ticket.



Gingrich predicts Clinton-Obama ticket

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ahkOTAZ4avNc&refer=home

[Bob]

Yeah, those welfare palaces that the jobless reside in are certainly to be envied, aren't they? If you think 40 million citizens lacking health care--including helpless children--is not a problem, then I don't know what to tell you.

P.S. I will take your nonresponse to my challenge for an example of under-handed lawyering that lead to a big judgment in a heath care related case as confirmation of my suspicion that you've never bothered to seek any evidence for your belief.

America should do a better job at insuring all Americans -- cant agree with you more. However, is the 40 million you are stating including illegals? I am asking this sincerely, as sometimes these stats are not shared with the American public with honestly. As I work in the healthcare industry I can say that one of the biggest strains on hospitals across the nation are illegal’s who access emergency care, and never pay. If something were done to deal with that issue, I think that 40 million number could be at least partially addressed.

The other question I have is what system out there is sooo much better that the USA's? I know it is popular to self-flagellate ourselves as a sign of sophistication but the healthcare systems of Europe are going to implode as they are offering large benefits and producing few children to pay for those systems. They are intelligently bringing in large numbers of immigrants from prominently Muslim nations in the attempt to make up the difference. There are 17 European counties with birthrates less than 1.3 per couple -- we talk about our difficulties paying for social services in the USA with birth rates of 2.1? They have created a nation of sheeple, who just want their piece of the pie before they can die, and have created an unsustainable infrastructure. We will see much of Europe implode in the next 20 years. I think it is ironic that we hold up their systems of unsustainable healthcare as a model for ourselves -- it might be fine if you don’t mind waiting in a line, and screwing over your kids.

[Garcia Bronco]

I think Obama has barely enough experience to be VP, but not enough to be the President yet.

[Garcia Bronco]

Ha! Gotta love Garcia. Dude will state an opinion, you ask him to back it up, he tells you he could but he's too lazy to do even the most cursory research. In other words, he believes it, so the facts must support it.

I read his post.

[Bronco Bob]

I think Obama has barely enough experience to be VP, but not enough to be the President yet.

Agreed. Obama seems like a nice enough fellow, and his heart is in the
right place. But so was Jimmy Carter, and look how that turned out.
We need to stop electing presidents we'd want to go out and have a
beer with and elect someone hard nosed and experienced enough to
get things done.

[yavoon]

Agreed. Obama seems like a nice enough fellow, and his heart is in the
right place. But so was Jimmy Carter, and look how that turned out.
We need to stop electing presidents we'd want to go out and have a
beer with and elect someone hard nosed and experienced enough to
get things done.

wow thats an interestingly effective attack on obama. cuz I kinda like obama, besides that one post here about some ridiculously commie bill he supported. but compare him to jimmy carter and I cringe!

[RkyMtnThunder]

• The twin towers are brought down by our own government, which puts you the crowd of the enemy in my opinion.


I prefer to believe no American could ever plot something like this against our own country. However I also believe all angles regardless of how unpleasant they might be should be covered in depth with something of this magnatude.

I do not lump people who may believe 911 was an inside job with 'terrorists' because they question the answers presented - its any American's right to do so - and some may make an argument that its any American's responsibility to do so.





• The 2000 and 2004 elections were both stolen by some unseen dark force, when actually the Republic system of governance was followed.


I am not so positive about that one. I think its quite possible to rig elections. Without paper trail, it invites shady activity. That doesnt mean I fully agree with the skeptics who claim the elections were rigged. But some of the issues and examples they have brought to light are compelling enough to give it a listen. Forget tampering - computers and machines are prone to error and breakdowns, and without paper trail one never knows how accurately their vote was cast. I do believe there is a need for election reform - if at the very minimum to address some concerns that have been brought up by both sides.


• Levies were blown up in New Orleans as a way to ruin the lives of all of those black democrat-voting folks


Another 'inside job' that costs American people their lives - again, really hate to think any American could/would do something like that, and until proven otherwise, will chose to believe that it was simply a tragedy of epic proportion.



But the main thing I am getting from your post is

"I never question republican leadership's comments...and that makes me a good American"

And I couldnt agree with that at all. It doesnt make you any more a 'Patriot' than anyone else. But it does suggest one may be gullible and easy to lead.

The political landscape in modern day America is so shady and filled with big money aristocrats, its hard to imagine there are still plenty of people who put so much faith into these people that they wont even 2nd guess them.

[Bob]

Wrong as usual on this type stuff. We all pay for anyone who can't pay for himself. Whether you like it or not that's the way it is.

There is some truth to what you are saying, but I will take it a step further:
When support is formally offered by the government for something like healthcare how does that change the actions of the people – when they get that added support? Is there such a thing as welfare dependence? Also – once healthcare is offered to everyone – that’s a hard one to take back…

IF there never was such a thing as a Social Security check that was going to go out to the elderly (if it was never created to begin with) how would that change people’s actions? I am not advocating this extreme action, but I do think that people would save more, people would put more way for retirement, and people would by necessity be more dependent on their families and church-community. When the Social Security system was established the ratio of workers to retirees was 7-1. Now what is it? Is the ratio getting better – Nope. Sadly the government should jack up the retirement age to 80+ and do it quickly, because if they take the cowardly route they will give benefits to the voters without caring about the math that no longer is working – and put off dooms-day as long as possible – until it is too late. When an individual does not have a “safety net” they will take more accountability for their actions and tend to look into the future and plan accordingly. At minimum the Social Security system should have been a “personal account based system” with a tiny bit of flexibility so that what you put in you are “guaranteed” instead of what we have now – where I will likely get jack squat because of my age.

Please look into what has happened in Europe and Canada as a result of the shift of medical care from private to public hands, there are un-intended consequences. The productivity rates of Europe are way lower than the USA, the people “demand” more and more benefits, and as they get them, and as they are insured that they will have governmental support from the cradle to the grave, there is less motivation to have children who for centuries provided support to the elderly. The fact is that in the US our population is aging and living longer. In Europe they have the same problem COUPLED with a 1.38 over-all birthrate. I wish there were folks on this site who have used both systems who could talk on what they see are the pros and cons.

[Bob]

Anyone see Sicko?

I missed it --

But maybe my kids will be forced to watch it as part of the coming re-education campain.

Anybody who thinks that Cuban citizens are getting better medical care should talk with one found half-dead attempting to float to America in a make-shift raft.

[Bob]

Exactly.

They can't dispute Moore's facts, so their only recourse is ad hominem.

You are wrong on everything. Just because he spouts off ideas that "reflect" your own -- try to not hitch your ideological wagon to a dishonest person. The examples that Moore cites as great medical care" in Cuba only reflects the medical care that the elite in Cuba can get --the average guy their cant get it.

How well is this propaganda-movie doing anyway? Not very well -- because this one is so stupid that few can accept it (or that Moore) is credible.

[Spider]

You are wrong on everything. Just because he spouts off ideas that "reflect" your own -- try to not hitch your ideological wagon to a dishonest person. The examples that Moore cites as great medical care" in Cuba only reflects the medical care that the elite in Cuba can get --the average guy their cant get it.

How well is this propaganda-movie doing anyway? Not very well -- because this one is so stupid that few can accept it (or that Moore) is credible.

Dude , you are looking at Healthcare as if you are in the insurance business .....
Companies wouldnt have to pay workmans comp , they would be off the hook for retired employees healthcare ( mainly union members ) we already have medicare ,and alot of doctors prefer that cause they know they will get paid ,instead of some uninsured person , or fight with some idiot in a cubical somewhere trying to get permission to treat someone ......

[RkyMtnThunder]

There is some truth to what you are saying, but I will take it a step further:
When support is formally offered by the government for something like healthcare how does that change the actions of the people – when they get that added support? Is there such a thing as welfare dependence? Also – once healthcare is offered to everyone – that’s a hard one to take back…

IF there never was such a thing as a Social Security check that was going to go out to the elderly (if it was never created to begin with) how would that change people’s actions? I am not advocating this extreme action, but I do think that people would save more, people would put more way for retirement, and people would by necessity be more dependent on their families and church-community. When the Social Security system was established the ratio of workers to retirees was 7-1. Now what is it? Is the ratio getting better – Nope. Sadly the government should jack up the retirement age to 80+ and do it quickly, because if they take the cowardly route they will give benefits to the voters without caring about the math that no longer is working – and put off dooms-day as long as possible – until it is too late. When an individual does not have a “safety net” they will take more accountability for their actions and tend to look into the future and plan accordingly. At minimum the Social Security system should have been a “personal account based system” with a tiny bit of flexibility so that what you put in you are “guaranteed” instead of what we have now – where I will likely get jack squat because of my age.

Please look into what has happened in Europe and Canada as a result of the shift of medical care from private to public hands, there are un-intended consequences. The productivity rates of Europe are way lower than the USA, the people “demand” more and more benefits, and as they get them, and as they are insured that they will have governmental support from the cradle to the grave, there is less motivation to have children who for centuries provided support to the elderly. The fact is that in the US our population is aging and living longer. In Europe they have the same problem COUPLED with a 1.38 over-all birthrate. I wish there were folks on this site who have used both systems who could talk on what they see are the pros and cons.




I agree any public benefit program can be and is abused - and that reform & audit & punishment of offenders should be a priority. But your view appears to be 'bad apples spoil the bunch so lets punish everyone'

Your comments about social security - seem to be ignoring disability payments and viewing it solely as retirement vehicle. I am not sure if people would really save more money if they didnt have it taken from their checks. Americans have a problem with overspending and I dont think thats going away if social security was removed. I never understand why conservatives hate the worlds most successful social program so much. I have heard their arguments time and time again but I still dont agree with the idea of privatizing social security - I have stock portfolio, IRA and 401k in the private sector already.

I do think it needs to be tweeked and adjusted as our population growth demands it, but I think throwing it out completely or privatizing it is not much a solution either.

And while there are 'un-intended' consequences of public health care system, there are also 'un-intended' consequences of private health care system as well. To deny that, is to deny reality

[Bob]

"But the main thing I am getting from your post is

"I never question republican leadership's comments...and that makes me a good American"


Then you may have missed the whole point. Oh well --

There are horrible things that are being done by the government -- (both right and left.) I venture that I criticize the Republican party more than most Dems and do not see myself as a "Republican" -- that label is too small. But their are people who are willing to "create" anything like two of the examples I brought up the Twin Towers and the Levies that I believe were created out of thin air for political points -- folks left of center were on a roll and needed to blame the evil-genius/idiot There are some folks that don’t believe that the holocaust happened. Why is that-- when there is mountains of physical evidence that it did happen? With levies and the towers all one has are the unsubstainiated rantings of Rosie and her ideological clones. Go ahead and join with the primitive nations of Islam in believing her.

[RkyMtnThunder]

"But the main thing I am getting from your post is

"I never question republican leadership's comments...and that makes me a good American"


Then you may have missed the whole point. Oh well --

There are horrible things that are being done by the government -- (both right and left.) I venture that I criticize the Republican party more than most Dems and do not see myself as a "Republican" -- that label is too small. But their are people who are willing to "create" anything like two of the examples I brought up the Twin Towers and the Levies that I believe were created out of thin air for political points -- folks left of center were on a roll and needed to blame the evil-genius/idiot There are some folks that don’t believe that the holocaust happened. Why is that-- when there is mountains of physical evidence that it did happen? With levies and the towers all one has are the unsubstainiated rantings of Rosie and her ideological clones. Go ahead and join with the primitive nations of Islam in believing her.



I dont think I have missed your point. Deny it if you wish, but your only rehashing right wing ideology.

I also frown upon any group who tries to exploit issues for political gain. But you seem to suggest that EVERY voice of dissent is purely propaganda...which kinda plays into big govs hands IMO

[Bob]

Dude , you are looking at Healthcare as if you are in the insurance business .....
Companies wouldnt have to pay workmans comp , they would be off the hook for retired employees healthcare ( mainly union members ) we already have medicare ,and alot of doctors prefer that cause they know they will get paid ,instead of some uninsured person , or fight with some idiot in a cubical somewhere trying to get permission to treat someone ......

No, I work at a hospital and so I get to argue with insurance companies all the time on behalf of the disabled/injured. There are many doctors that won’t take Medicare payments as they are so small.

Spider, why have you argued in the past for the principles of personal accountability? Why have you argued the principles that we should not give out stuff to kids without some real work on their part? My augments are very similar – as I think we both see some of the consequences of getting something without having to work for it… When we are made accountable for our own actions then we tend to make better decisions, and take greater responsibility. We DO NEED a safety net of some type -- however, I am not sure that the government wouldn’t completely mess up our current system. How many times have you thought that "boy, I just wish that the Federal government could take over the regulatory processes of healthcare -- boy, if they did, they would be so much more efficient?"

[Garcia Bronco]

wow thats an interestingly effective attack on obama. cuz I kinda like obama, besides that one post here about some ridiculously commie bill he supported. but compare him to jimmy carter and I cringe!

Carter is a good man. Heck..James Madison was the same way as Carter...great man, not so great President.

[Bronco Bob]

Carter is a good man. Heck..James Madison was the same way as Carter...great man, not so great President.

Oh, no doubt about that. Carter is one of the most decent, honest,
loving, hard working, moral people in the entire country. If he were
a Catholic they'd probably make him a saint when he dies. But some
of these very same traits were what made him a lousy president.
His morality played a large part in the Shah being overthrown and
the mess we have with Iran today. To his credit though he did
bring Israel and Egypt together and they have remained peaceful
with each other every since. Something no one else seems to have
been able to do with any of the Arab countries and Israel since then.
I'm just worried that Obama's inexperience is going to get us into
some international incident that he doesn't have the savvy to
get us out of. Kennedy was in sort of the same situation with
the Cuban Missile Crisis, a rock star president that didn't really
have the experience for the job. It was just pure dumb luck we didn't
end up in an all out nuclear war with the Soviets.

[Garcia Bronco]

Before we can even address public subsidized health care we have to address the illegal alein problem. Before we can address that we need to address the over-burdening tax situation in this country.

[Garcia Bronco]

Oh, no doubt about that. Carter is one of the most decent, honest,
loving, hard working, moral people in the entire country. If he were
a Catholic they'd probably make him a saint when he dies. But some
of these very same traits were what made him a lousy president.
His morality played a large part in the Shah being overthrown and
the mess we have with Iran today. To his credit though he did
bring Israel and Egypt together and they have remained peaceful
with each other every since. Something no one else seems to have
been able to do with any of the Arab countries and Israel since then.
I'm just worried that Obama's inexperience is going to get us into
some international incident that he doesn't have the savvy to
get us out of. Kennedy was in sort of the same situation with
the Cuban Missile Crisis, a rock star president that didn't really
have the experience for the job. It was just pure dumb luck we didn't
end up in an all out nuclear war with the Soviets.

Indeed.

[Bronco Bob]

Okay, back on topic, for those interested in this stuff:

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R).
July 27-30, 2007. Asked of Democrats, and non-Democrats who said they would vote in a Democratic presidential primary
(from a total sample of 1,005 adults nationwide).

Hillary Clinton 43%

Barack Obama 22%

John Edwards 13%

Bill Richardson 6%

Joe Biden 5%

Dennis Kucinich 2%

Chris Dodd 1%

Mike Gravel -

Other (vol.) 1%

None (vol.) 2%

Unsure 5%

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

Let me mention some people who have said that they will seek the Republican nomination for president
in 2008. If the next Republican primary for president were being held today, for which one of the
following candidates would you vote?

Rudy Giuliani 33%

Fred Thompson 20%

John McCain 17%

Mitt Romney 11%

Ron Paul 2%

Tommy Thompson 2%

Sam Brownback 2%

Tom Tancredo 1%

Mike Huckabee 1%

Duncan Hunter 1%

Other (VOL) 1%

None (VOL) 2%

Not sure 7%


NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). July 27-30, 2007.
N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"If the next election for president were held today, and Rudy Giuliani were the Republican candidate and Hillary Clinton were the Democratic candidate,
for whom would you vote?"


Rudy Giuliani (R) 41%

Hillary Clinton (D) 47%

Depends(vol.) 1%

Neither/Other (vol.) 7%

Unsure 4%

"If the next election for president were held today, and Rudy Giuliani were the Republican candidate and Barack Obama were the Democratic candidate,
for whom would you vote?"

Rudy Giuliani (R) 40%

Barack Obama (D) 45%

Depends(vol.) 2%

Neither/Other (vol.) 7%

Unsure 6%


"If the next election for president were held today, and Rudy Giuliani were the Republican candidate, Hillary Clinton were the Democratic candidate,
and Michael Bloomberg were an independent candidate, for whom would you vote?"

Rudy Giuliani (R) 34%

Hillary Clinton (D) 43%

Michael Bloomberg (I) 11%

Neither/Other (vol.) 4%

Depends/Unsure (vol.) 9%

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

(No new Republican polls were listed)

My Editorial Comment:
Pretty well lays to rest the claims that Hillary's negatives make her unelectable or that Bloomberg would tip the election to the Republicans.

[Bronco Bob]

hehe

[Bronco Bob]

Is Obama's inexperience starting to catch up with him?

Latest poll results after the YouTube debate and Obama's tiff with Hillary.

Hillary Clinton 48%

Barack Obama 26%

John Edwards 12%

Bill Richardson 4%

Joe Biden 3%

Dennis Kucinich 1%

Christopher Dodd -

Mike Gravel -

Someone else 2%

None (vol.)/Unsure 5%

[Play2win]

I did not watch the entire debate, just parts of it, but one person I was fairly impressed with was Chris Dodd. I know his chances are extremely slim (to say the least). He may be aligning himself as a VP with Clinton.

But, what are others thoughts on Chris Dodd?

[elsid13]

I did not watch the entire debate, just parts of it, but one person I was fairly impressed with was Chris Dodd. I know his chances are extremely slim (to say the least). He may be aligning himself as a VP with Clinton.

But, what are others thoughts on Chris Dodd?

He smart well spoken guy that know both the way things work in DC and has a very good handle on the foreign policy. He has been a great senator.

Back to the subject on hand - I really disappointed that some former governor haven't thrown thier hats in the ring on both side. I pretty liberal and usually vote democratic, but I find Hillary and Obama as piss poor candidates to lead us in the times.

[Bronco Bob]

He smart well spoken guy that know both the way things work in DC and has a very good handle on the foreign policy. He has been a great senator.

Back to the subject on hand - I really disappointed that some former governor haven't thrown thier hats in the ring on both side. I pretty liberal and usually vote democratic, but I find Hillary and Obama as piss poor candidates to lead us in the times.

Well, there is current New Mexico governor Bill Richards running on the Democratic side.
And Mitt Romney was the governor of Massachusetts,
Tommy Thompson was governor of Wisconsin, and Mike Huckabee was
governor of Arkansas and are running as Republicans.

[Bronco Bob]

In the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, New York Senator Hillary Clinton attracts support from 40% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters while Illinois Senator Barack Obama is the top choice for 27%. Clinton’s lead, still significant, is smaller than it was a week ago (see daily numbers). Support for the former First Lady has eased a bit and Obama has regained some lost ground ever since Clinton made controversial comments defending lobbyists. Just 24% of voters believe that Clinton would not be influenced by lobbyists and just 19% believe their interests are represented by a Washington lobbyist.

Still, Clinton remains extraordinarily popular among Democrats. Seventy-nine percent (79%) offer a favorable opinion of her including 39% with a Very Favorable opinion. Within her own Party, just 20% have an unfavorable opinion. For Obama, the reviews are solid, but not as spectacular—66% favorable and 23% unfavorable. Matching Clinton, Obama is now viewed Very Favorably by 39% of Democratic voters. For Clinton, these reviews are little changed from a week ago. For Obama, the number with an unfavorable opinion has declined somewhat.

Among all voters, Clinton is currently viewed favorably by 50% and unfavorably by 48%. Views of Clinton have remained evenly divided all year.

For Obama, the current numbers among all voters are 48% favorable and 42% unfavorable. This is the second survey in a row where Obama’s favorable rating has been below 50%. Prior to these surveys, it had been above 50% all year, peaking at 58% in May. This is also the third consecutive weekly survey in which Obama’s unfavorables have topped 40%. Prior to the past three weeks, that had happened only once in all of 2008.

Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards is the only other Democrat in double digits with 11% support. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson tops the second tier of candidates at 5%.


In general election data released this week, Obama is even with Giuliani but leads Thompson. Another match-up poll show Giuliani leading Richardson in a while Thompson is essentially tied with the New Mexico governor.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/daily_presidential_tracking_poll__1

[elsid13]

Well, there is current New Mexico governor Bill Richards running on the Democratic side.
And Mitt Romney was the governor of Massachusetts,
Tommy Thompson was governor of Wisconsin, and Mike Huckabee was
governor of Arkansas and are running as Republicans.

I'm thinking of Mark Warner ex-gov of VA. I like Richards but he more of VP type of candidate or a potential Sectary of State. Richards just doesn't have the look to get the nomination.

And Huckabee seem to be a good guy but I little wary of some of his religious beliefs.

[Bronco Bob]

Two months ago I started this thread and as of 9/5/2007 Rasmussen
still has Hillary Clinton's polling numbers twice as much as O'Bama,
and in fact at as much as her competitors combined.

Hillary Clinton 40%
Barack O'Bama 21%
John Edwards 15%
Bill Richardson 4%


On the Repulican side it's a lot more of a horse race:

Rudy Giuliani 24%
Fred Thompson 23%
Mitt Romney 13%
John McCain 11%
Mike Huckabee 5%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/daily_presidential_tracking_poll__1

[jhat01]

Man, watching Giuliani tonight was terrible. Everytime i hear his stance on illegal immigration, i think it changes. Basically he said it's cool if youre illegal, as long as youre a hard worker...WTF is that?

[Rohirrim]

Billary = GOP Lite

[Bronco Bob]

Billary = GOP Lite

The deal with Hillary is she is so far ahead she doesn't have to position
herself to appeal to the hard left of the Democratic party. And the hard
right of the Republican party is never going to vote for her anyway.
So instead she can concentrate on appealing to the moderates and
independents.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Billary = GOP Lite

Yep.

The only reason she's the front runner is because she's signalling to the same interests who pull Dubya's strings that she'll "stay the course." As far as fund raising goes, she's feeding from the same trough as the republicans.

[Meck77]

LA who do you support for president?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LA who do you support for president?

Nobody (unless Al Gore decides to run.)

But I can't help but feel the fix is in and Hillary is the next puppet in the WH.

[Rohirrim]

What we need in this country is massive change. Billary represents the status quo.

[Meck77]

Nobody (unless Al Gore decides to run.)

But I can't help but feel the fix is in and Hillary is the next puppet in the WH.

Are you ****ing serious? You practically live in this forum preaching change yet you aren't even going to be part of the process?

[baja]

Yep.

The only reason she's the front runner is because she's signalling to the same interests who pull Dubya's strings that she'll "stay the course." As far as fund raising goes, she's feeding from the same trough as the republicans.

Keep in mind she is married to one of the smartest politicians of modern times. Should she win my hope is she is saying and doing what it takes to win the presidency but when she gets sworn in the mask will come off and we will see the real Hillary, the health care Hillary but mostly I hope another dem wins.

I agree with LABF Gore would be great.

In a perfect world Ron Paul would be best.

[Meck77]

Should she win my hope is she is saying and doing what it takes to win the presidency but when she gets sworn in the mask will come off .

Yeah she knows how to switch her masks. Let's not forget she voted for the Iraq war and quickly tossed that mask aside.

[ak1971]

What about Johanthan 'the impaler' Sharkey!

[Bronco Bob]

Nobody (unless Al Gore decides to run.)

But I can't help but feel the fix is in and Hillary is the next puppet in the WH.


Somehow Hillary and puppet in the same sentence strikes a sort of disconnect.
Now if you were to have used Hillary and the puppet master....

[Bronco Bob]

Keep in mind she is married to one of the smartest politicians of modern times. Should she win my hope is she is saying and doing what it takes to win the presidency but when she gets sworn in the mask will come off and we will see the real Hillary, the health care Hillary but mostly I hope another dem wins.

I agree with LABF Gore would be great.

Where I think Hillary would be a change over Bush is health care.
Also Hillary is pro-science so we'd get someone in the WH who would
start funding stem cell research, get serious about attacking Global
Warming and spur the development of alternative energy sources.
And we need someone who will appoint liberal Supreme Court
justices to balance off the right wingers Bush appointed.
These reasons alone are why I'd prefer Hillary over any of the
Republicans running.


In a perfect world Ron Paul would be best.

I don't like Ron Paul's anti-abortion stance. We need a president who will
appoint Supreme Court justices that will protect a woman's rights.
I'm not sure Ron Paul would do that.

[mosca]

I don't like Ron Paul's anti-abortion stance. We need a president who will
appoint Supreme Court justices that will protect a woman's rights.
I'm not sure Ron Paul would do that.
Kinda seems like a big hullabaloo about nothing - currently abortion -is- legal. The Supreme Court isn't going to overturn Roe vs. Wade anytime soon. "A woman's rights" are already protected in that regard.

Ron Paul is against abortion but he doesn't see it as the fed. govt's job to oversee it. He'd rather it be left up to individual states to decide.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Yeah she knows how to switch her masks. Let's not forget she voted for the Iraq war and quickly tossed that mask aside.They all voted for the Bush war but we know now they weren't given the actual intel by the Bush cartel.

[Bronco Bob]

Kinda seems like a big hullabaloo about nothing - currently abortion -is- legal. The Supreme Court isn't going to overturn Roe vs. Wade anytime soon. "A woman's rights" are already protected in that regard.

Ron Paul is against abortion but he doesn't see it as the fed. govt's job to oversee it. He'd rather it be left up to individual states to decide.

That Ron Paul is anti-abortion isn't a deal breaker for me.
It's just a knock I have against him.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Are you ****ing serious? You practically live in this forum preaching change yet you aren't even going to be part of the process?

You assume that change and being 'part of the process' must be mutually inclusive.

What if the process itself is broken?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

They all voted for the Bush war but we know now they weren't given the actual intel by the Bush cartel.

That's correct.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Keep in mind she is married to one of the smartest politicians of modern times. Should she win my hope is she is saying and doing what it takes to win the presidency but when she gets sworn in the mask will come off and we will see the real Hillary, the health care Hillary but mostly I hope another dem wins.

Yeah, I've said before that the one upside I can see to Hillary in the WH would be having Bill back in the WH.

I agree with LABF Gore would be great.

In a perfect world Ron Paul would be best.

Have you looked at Ron Paul's voting record and his positions on issues in detail, baja?

There's a lot to like about the guy, but even more to fear, from what I've seen.

[W*GS]

The disconnect between the nostalgia for the (Bill) Clinton years and the fear that Hillary may become President is stunning.

Why are the hard-lefties bashing her, but have fond memories of Bill? Very weird...

[Bronco Bob]

The disconnect between the nostalgia for the (Bill) Clinton years and the fear that Hillary may become President is stunning.

Why are the hard-lefties bashing her, but have fond memories of Bill? Very weird...

Because Hillary refuses to suck up to the hard left.
They are still pissed that she refuses to apologize for voting
for the war. But Hillary feels she can win the nomination without
them so she doesn't give a damn what they think because polls
like Rasmussen say among Democrats, Clinton is viewed
favorably by 81% and unfavorably by 17%, the 17%
most likely the hard left. And also three-out-of-four
Democrats (75%) believe that if Clinton wins the nomination,
she is likely to win the White House in 2008. So with
numbers like that, why pander to the fringe when it is
the moderates in center she needs to win with. In fact by
her moving to the right, she may even pull some of the
conservative in, like she did in conservative upstate New York,
which could give her more of a boost than she would get from
pandering to the hard left.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Sounds like W*GS is assuming its a given that Hillary would govern just like her husband.

[Bronco Bob]

The disconnect between the nostalgia for the (Bill) Clinton years and the fear that Hillary may become President is stunning.

Why are the hard-lefties bashing her, but have fond memories of Bill? Very weird...

And here's why the Dems love Bill:

Bill charms media off Hill's problems

John Kass
September 6, 2007

After his latest stunt, who can doubt that former President Bill Clinton is the smartest, craftiest fellow in the history of American politics?

For months, most of America -- myself included -- has been avoiding a question of national importance. It's the big Bill question:

What do we call Bill should his wife, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, win the presidential election, allowing Bill to romp about the White House once again?

Clinton answered it on Oprah Winfrey's show.

He now wants to be called the First Laddie.

"My Scottish friends say I should be called 'First Laddie' because it's the closest thing to 'First Lady'," he joked with Winfrey on her program the other day.

Oprah, surprise, surprise, is backing U.S. Sen. Barack Obama

"I'm not so worried about what I'm called as what I'm called upon to do," said Clinton.

He's not the only one who's worried. I figure half the Democrats and most Republicans are worried, too.

Mr. Bill showed up on the Oprah show to insist that if Hillary is elected, he'll have little to do, and that she'll wear the political pantsuits in the family.

"If she's writing an important article or giving an important speech, she'll ask me to read it," Mr. Clinton said. "And once in a while she'll ask me for some advice on something strategic. But she knows so much more about a lot of this stuff than I do because I'm far removed from it."

See? He's not involved. The poor guy is so far removed from American politics that he had to go beg some Scotsmen for a nickname.

And what a nickname it is.

First Laddie is so plucky and boyish -- and therefore non-threatening -- that Clinton deserves a medal for crafting that whopper and delivering it on national TV.

Americans hear the phrase, First Laddie, and what comes to mind is an image of a young man in a kilt, wandering the highlands, whistling, searching for lost lambs.

First Laddie also evokes Albert Finney as "Tom Jones" in a decent movie based on the excellent novel by Henry Fielding, in which Tom has many adventures with various seductresses, while gorging on oysters and haunches of beef, as there was no proper pizza to speak of in England in the 1700s.

And that's why Bill Clinton is so brilliant, and that's why he infuriates Republicans.

He's kept a relatively low public profile in his wife's campaign, until most recently, when he began appearing with her over Labor Day weekend, and popping up on talk shows, winking, joking, being Bill, sucking up all that media oxygen.

By strange coincidence, his appearances came as news organizations began focusing on top Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu, who was so close to the Hillary Clinton presidential effort that her campaign deemed him a "HillRaiser" for his prowess in bundling contributions from others. He also raised a bit of cash for Obama.

It turns out that Hsu was also a criminal fugitive. He pleaded no contest in 1991 to felony grand theft in California, facing up to 3 years in prison, for defrauding investors up to $1 million before he fled the state.

On Wednesday, Hsu skipped a bond hearing, and a new arrest warrant was issued.

Naturally, Republicans want to change the subject from all that Republican corruption to some Democratic corruption. But that was difficult with Bill glomming the First Laddie thing, outfoxing them, using his wits to aggravate them.

Many Democrats must be aggravated, too, since so many have backed Obama simply because he's not a Clinton, and because they see a Clinton Restoration as a nightmare for their party.

But for now there's the First Laddie, on Oprah, smiling, giving himself a pithy nickname through the fiction of "Scottish friends" on a golf course.

Surely, a coalition of Barack Democrats and Republicans can come up with a better nickname for the guy.

They might try "Director of Enjoying Oral Sex in the Oval Office While You're on the Phone with a U.S. Congressman Discussing Sending Troops to the Balkans" But that's not catchy.

Perhaps Obama can send wife Michelle out to continue her catfight with Hillary and call Mr. Bill something in a musical, yet dead language, like "In Loco Parentis."

But Barack is above all that. He won't stoop to conquer.

He's about reform and "transcending American politics as we know it," according to his script.

Yet all this distracts us from the central issue:

What are we to think when Bill Clinton opens his mouth and reminds us that he's lurking, pretending he's not involved, the way George Wallace wasn't involved when Wallace's wife became governor of Alabama in 1966.

Obviously, I wouldn't dare compare the two men. Wallace was a segregationist. Clinton, according to many supporters, was the first black president.

And someday, he might be the First Laddie of the land.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-kass06sep06,0,823394,full.column

[W*GS]

Because Hillary refuses to suck up to the hard left.

Did Bill? One of the things I recall about the hard left and Bill Clinton was that he was GOP-lite, just as the left is calling Hillary today.

Besides, no-one wins a race by pandering to the hard left. Despite their volume on the 'Net, they're a very small chunk of the voters.

[W*GS]

Sounds like W*GS is assuming its a given that Hillary would govern just like her husband.

You just want Bill back in the WH.

Considering his ideology was GOP-lite, why would a far-lefty like you want him in the WH?

[Bronco Bob]

Did Bill? One of the things I recall about the hard left and Bill Clinton was that he was GOP-lite, just as the left is calling Hillary today.

Besides, no-one wins a race by pandering to the hard left. Despite their volume on the 'Net, they're a very small chunk of the voters.

Don't tell anyone else. Let's just keep this between you and me.
But so are the Ron Paul backers.