West Virginia really doesn't like Obama - He's getting crushed
two-to-one in the Democratic primary tonight. But the numbers are worse: he's losing
WV women,
WV independents, fares badly on the
values question, and a huge percentage of Clinton supporters
will not back Obama if he's the candidate. Maybe West Virginia is an aberration, but the trends can't be comforting.
7 comments:
Psst. Spoiler alert. All those Hillary/Barack supporters who say they absolutely won't vote for the other one? They're [i]lying.[/i] They will so.
Remember all those hardcore conservatives who were gonna stridently oppose McCain? That regroup-and-wait-for-2012 moral stand that lasted 12 minutes? Yeah, just like that.
Superdelegates will not be pulling a coup for Hillary.
The Democratic Party will not be fractured.
Rev. Wright did not torpedo Obama.
Fred Thompson wasn't Reagan, and no one was waiting for him to enter the race.
Mitt Romney's "cash advantage" money machine did not "blow away" the competition.
Nominee McCain did not languish while all the attention was focused on the Democratic race.
Thanks, media! That's some record you've got going! But tell us again (and again, and again) how a third of Hillary Clinton supporters are going GOP in November.
Psst. Hey Ass-face.
Hint: You guys can't manage your own ultra-democratic, hyper-fair nomination process. But you can win the general election and handle the likes of Ahma-dinner-jacket, can't you?
Yes, you can.
That's Majority Leader Ass-face to you, No-face. But that's all right. You'll have lots of time to get used to it.
If the "bloody" Democratic primaries don't bother us, why are you so worked up about it? It must really hurt to have the third-most-likely candidate in a two-candidate race.
The Democrats now hold more seats in the House of Representatives than the Republicans did on January 20, 1995 after the "Revolution." And it's going to get much worse. Defeat-ocrat your way out of that.
Politico, 5/14:
For the past 18 months, ever since the 2006 elections, congressional Republicans have been like a hospital patient trying to convince visitors that he is not really all that sick: a bit under the weather; actually feel better than I sound; should be up and about any day; thanks for asking.
Suddenly — belatedly — all pretense is gone.
The Republican defeat in Tuesday’s special election in Mississippi, in a deeply conservative district where, in an average year, Democrats cannot even compete, was a clear sign that the GOP has the political equivalent of cancer that has spread throughout the body. Many House GOP operatives are privately predicting that the party could easily lose up to 20 seats this fall.
Combined with the 30 seats that the GOP lost in 2006, that would leave the party facing a 70-vote deficit against Democrats in the House — a state of powerlessness reminiscent of Republicans’ long wilderness years in the 1960s and ’70s.
Things are not particularly more hopeful on the Senate side, where most analysts say Democrats have a strong chance of adding five or more seats to their current majority.
Panic and blame-casting for the dire condition were flowing in equal measures Wednesday inside the House Republican Conference and among party elders and operatives outside.
Republicans haven’t been able to field credible recruits against freshman Democratic Reps. John Hall of New York, Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, Heath Shuler of North Carolina and Zack Space of Ohio — all of whom represent traditionally GOP districts that the party lost in the 2006 election.
The NRCC has now spent about $3 million to defend three House seats in the most conservative parts of the county — Dennis Hastert’s seat in exurban Chicago, Richard Baker’s seat in the Baton Rouge, La., area and Roger Wicker’s seat in northeast Mississippi. Until this year, Republicans rarely had to break a sweat to hold on to these seats. They have now lost all three of them, and the committee is even less-equipped financially to compete fully in an ever-widening playing field for November.
The second-guessing on the Republican side is going to make it virtually impossible for leaders to impose any kind of discipline on their caucus when it comes to showdown votes in 2008 or to running on a unified message.
Said an aide to a top GOP lawmaker, “The only solace we’ll have is maybe we can run against [Barack] Obama in 2010.”
Chilling! Good thing the Dems "can't manage their own ultra-democratic, hyper-fair nomination process," or "handle the likes of Ahma-dinner-jacket." Otherwise the Republicans might be worried here.
More werdz meenz ur smarter.
Another dumb pussy heard from.
Post a Comment