but what about the polls? won't somebody please think of the POLLS?!
I'm only watching for one reason.
Lots of poll data in the jump. Including this:
"Meanwhile in the general election, Hillary leads Giuliani in Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee – all states the Democrats lost in 2004. In fact, if the election were held tomorrow, Hillary would win 360 electoral votes compared with 178 electoral votes for Rudy Giuliani. "
We might like Edwards and Obama here in Washington State, but is there any data to show they could take states like Missouri, Arkansas, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee ?
That's just what we need: more poll data. Because worrying over the electability of our candidate has worked so well in the past. I've said it before and I'll say it again: could everybody please just support the candidate that reflects your views the best and stop worrying about polls and whether the other party wants us to vote for so and so because they think they're an easy target, or whether they're afraid of us picking the other guy, so vote for him? Those polls are meaningless 12 months out. Period.
Strange, polls show that it's neck and neck for Obama, Clinton, and Edwards.
But hey, buy the MSM anointing of their choices of Clinton and Guiliani if you want to not actually do reporting and compare positions of candidates, but just repeat MSM handicapping of a horse race you already chose for us ...
I can't think of any cards that would be important in a race. I'd prefer a sturdy pair of shoes. Maybe we can change the discussion to shoes. Or if it has to be cards, then poker?
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).