I doubt it very much and the voters surely tell a different story. However, journalists and pundits have been talking about it for over two weeks and treat it as gospel.
As of 4/17/08, Real Clear Politics reports that the popular vote in the Democratic primaries (including Florida and Michigan) as follows: Senator Obama 13,932,423 million or 47.6%; Senator Clinton 13,837,418 million or 47.2%, a difference of only 94,005 votes or four-tenths of 1%. Those voters do not agree with Senator Clinton's negative poll numbers. They also don't show up in national polls vs. Obama or McCain.
Journalists and pundits have shown those negative numbers and then indicate to their audiences that Clinton can't win with those kinds of numbers. The voters have proven other wise. Senator Clinton has won New York, California, New Jersey, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Texas, Florida, and Michigan. All of those states have a very diverse population. That speaks well to her candidacy. Today, it is time for Pennsylvania to vote and we will see how that turns out in just a few hours. To those who think the votes of the people in Michigan and Florida should not count, you should remember those elections were legal and set up by each state with each and every candidate having the option to put their name on the ballot. The DNC said they would not seat those states delegates at the convention and they have a right to do that, but they do not have the right to not count the popular vote of the people in a legal election held under state law.
Polling has misled the people on so many issues that it has become a tool unbecoming of a democracy. Questions people are asked are not in tune with what is taking place in America and/or what the candidates really stand for or what they would do if elected President. All polls are designed to do is influence people's vote and to create news that is not really there. Voters can do themselves and their country a great favor by not letting anything in the polls influence their vote. They should also remember that people in the news media always try to influence one's vote with their biased, one-sided coverage. That is why they come on air after the debates and try and tell you what you just heard in the debates. And worst of all, they use people in the post debates that have no creditability to start off with. In short, think independently and let election day results, not polls, show you the true feelings of the public.
5 comments :
Well John, I wish the pundits and journalists would ask the obvious question if they want to keep promoting Sen. Clinton's supposed negatives as her downfall: if Sen. Clinton is so disliked, what does it say about Barack Obama, in all his shining glory, if he can't put Clinton away?
That, in my opinion, highlights an even bigger question. How can Obama be trusted to win the Presidency for the Democrats if he can't even put away an opponent with (alleged) super negatives?
John Said:
As of 4/17/08, Real Clear Politics reports that the popular vote in the Democratic primaries (including Florida and Michigan) as follows: Senator Obama 13,932,423 million or 47.6%; Senator Clinton 13,837,418 million or 47.2%, a difference of only 94,005 votes or four-tenths of 1%. Those voters do not agree with Senator Clinton's negative poll numbers.
...........
Nice skewing of the numbers there John. You use the vote in primaries that were conducted long before Clinton went negative and saw her numbers drop. You included Michigan, where Clinton basically ran unopposed. You didn't include independents and Republicans crossover voters who can determine the victor in November. You didn't mention that Hillary had a 26% lead in Pennsylvania a month ago.
What'd she pick up in delegates last night? 15? Wasn't Pennsylvania the state where she was supposed to really cut into Obama's lead in delegates and popular vote? Indiana looks to be a toss-up at this point and North Carolina looks to heavily favor Obama. What's her excuse for staying in the race going to be in two weeks after Obama wins those 15 delegates back and then some?
...............
Joseph Said:
How can Obama be trusted to win the Presidency for the Democrats if he can't even put away an opponent with (alleged) super negatives?
..............
How can Clinton be trusted to win the presidency when the party establishment was firmly behind her from the start of her campaign? How can she be trusted when she's had every advantage going for her any candidate could want? An established support system left over from her husband's years in office, name recognition, nostalgia for the Bill Clinton years in office. How could she be behind in popular vote, states won and delegates when she had so many head starts over Obama, who had to establish his campaign from the ground?
Senator Clinton had the people behind her in the states she has won and Senator Obama had the people behimd him in the states he won. The Party is not going to elect the democratic nominee. Only the Clinton haters and Obama supporters and journalists think Clinton's Victory in Pennsylvania was not important. However one can be sure Obama's campaign tactics will change a great deal now because he does know what his loss in Pennsylvania has cost him. He also knows that he out spent Clinton 3 to 1 and still lost by double digits. I really thought Obama would stay in Pennsylvania after the election and thank the people for the votes he did receive.
I am enjoying the democratic primary despite the side shows. I never believe in negative ratings deciding an election. There are people who are just as bad as people in the news media. I am happy and willing to just let the primaries play out. I think it is important for the people to have their say in their states primary. I am already looking forward to the next ones.
Only the Clinton haters and Obama supporters and journalists think Clinton's Victory in Pennsylvania was not important.
.........
No. The realists of the world understand it,too. Since february 5th, Clinton has gained a "net" of 5 super delegates, while Obama has gained a net of 69. With an almost perfect scenario of Clinton doing better in every remaining state than what she is currently showing, she'd still need to pick up 76% of the remaining uncommitted super delegates. She'd need to convince 3/4 of the remaining super delegates to go against the candidate with the most delegates, the most popular votes and the most states won. Do you HONESTLY think Clinton has even the remotest of chances of winning the nomination. BTW, Obama would need about 30% of the remaining super delegates. he's captured 95% of them since February 5th!!
Post a Comment