Posted by CavalierX
January 15, 2008 9:55 AM

You seem to be forgetting that both Washington and Oregon are on the Left Coast, Cav. Hell, if the pollsters' question had been as honest as the one you posed, McCain's numbers would've actually increased!

Hell, if the pollsters' question had been as honest as the one you posed, McCain's numbers would've actually increased!

Even most big Lefties, even on the Left Coast, don't want their own taxes raised, nor do they want to have to accept government health care themselves. Those things are fine for other people, the "masses." Can you see Barbra Streisand sitting in a crowded grey, cheerless government waiting room waiting for an overworked grey, cheerless government doctor? Nooooo.

And we all believe in polls, don't we? Seriously, a poll like this so far in advance of the actual election might as well have simply asked "Of the following names, which people have you heard of before today?" Because that's all it is at this point -- a name recognition poll. If they'd asked "Will you vote for the person who wants to give amnesty to illegal aliens and who took away your free speech rights, or the person who will raise taxes and use it to give you government-run health care?" the pollsters would have been laughed at.

I think there ought to be some sort of test or questionnaire when they take these polls. If someone says they support McCain, they should have to justify that answer by explaining why they support McCain.

Polls, hell. Maybe we ought to make the vote a short-answer essay test.

Posted by CavalierX
January 15, 2008 10:22 AM

But that would be unfair to the demoncrites, you know that most illegals can't read and write English.

paulbots wanting to know why they didn't poll spaceballs number in 5 ... 4 .. 3

I'll just preempt all the anti-McCain reactions to this so that people don't have to type them out themselves.

#1) Polls are meaningless. Nevermind that most of them correctly predicted the last Presidential election http://emilyd.org/DrudgeArchive_files/polls.html">to within 1% of the final outcome. There was this one time in New Hampshire when all the Democratic primary voters lied and said they were supporting the black guy because they wanted to look PC. And that proves polls are a crapshoot.

#2. This is just gibberish. There's no such thing as "polls." This must be some kind of mistake.

#3. Insert irritating Chuck Norris-ism and replace "Chuck Norris" with "Fred Thompson." Assert that Thompson will win. Do not justify it with anything.

#4. Okay, now this is just someone pulling a prank on me. I'm not falling for this one. "John McCain?" There's no one in the race named that. There's Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Rudy Giuliani, Barry Goldwater, Ron Paul, Edmund Burke, Michael Oakeshott, Thomas Jefferson, Jim Rice, Batista, and Ron Paul. Nope, no McCain.

#5. Who cares about electability? "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game." Yep, Vince Lombardi said that. Wait, what? Lombardi didn't say that? Who the hell's Grantland Rice? And he was talking about God judging our life on Earth? Oh shit. Well the analogy still works.

#6. If you're a liberal, just say that war-mongering fascist authoritarian anti-minority anti-women anti-candyland Republicans don't stand a chance againt whoever the Democrats nominate. Try to squeeze in as many unoriginal ad homs as possible, while being careful not to utilize correct grammar or spelling. Preferably, do not respond when people start making fun of you. Or if you do feel a need to respond, skirt as much substantive criticism as possible and move on to the other two things you learned about from reading Kos.

Posted by maledicta
January 15, 2008 10:38 AM

Dang, mal, you're kind of being a wet-blanket there, ain'tcha?

This kind of info is terrible for Giuliani. His big draw was supposed to be his "electability" and ability to beat Hillary. He's faded very badly nationally and these numbers aren't going to get anybody back on board. -Mike_M

Ha. This could be a new political term, like "Borking", in the making. Wouldn't that be fun?

Coasting through the first several states of the primary process thinking that your name recognition and earlier positive press would carry you to victory: Rudistic campaigning.

Pointing out that McCain is polling real well against Shrillery is akin to saying Mookie Al Sadr polls real well against Bin Laden.

Doesn't exactly get my juices flowing.

I say if we have this as a choice, it would be better to just do the full monty and make sure that the impending disasters that come will surely pinned on the opposing party.

At least if Hillery proposes a fairness doctrine law we can count on the Republicans to fight it tooth and nail. When McCain proposes it, half the Republicans will fall in line.

At that point we will have no one to point fingers at but ourselves.

McCains ability to pull in crossover voters is the REASON conservatives hate him. If Hillary or Obama get in, at least the Republican party can unite to fight their agenda.

It will be much more difficult to fight the liberal agenda if McCain was pushing it from the White House.

Secondly, look at the polls in NH. They were way off. A conservative candidate will increase Republican turn out. Polls 11 months in advance are more worthless than those taken days before.

We need Thompson, not McCain or Huckabee. Thompson should stick it out to the end in the hopes of a brokered convention.

Hmmm. Would you also consider it asinine to give amnesty to 12 million future Democrats?

To all you conservatives (me 2) a no vote for McCain will help Obama or Clinton get elected.

Not only will you have a problem with bad policy on illegal immigration you will get bad foreign policy including surrender on the war on terror.

THINK ABOUT IT!

A no vote is a surrender vote for WOT.


We are never going to get 100% of what we want, but we will do better with McCain then with either Democrat.

This is based on the (too early) assumption that McCain gets the nomination.

Yes, the field is still wide open for Reps. Which can be a good thing, or a bad thing. You all could end up with Rudy.

You all could end up with Rudy.

*shudder* Bite your tongue!

Perhaps you meant "ad homonym", while being careful not to utilize correct spelling.

Look, children. Irony.

Posted by D-Vega
January 15, 2008 12:51 PM

Vega Please!!! we don't use that kind of language on this board.

Mike M, so much to criticize and only so much time. I'll stick to one point...

"If you're referring to the Rube-Goldbergian "path to citizenship" proposed in the much-maligned Amnesty Bill, I would be utterly shocked if even a million illegals pulled it off over the next decade. Fines, back taxes, voluntarially leaving the country...seriously?"

Who cares about citizenship? I don't and I would imagine that the vast majority of the illegals don't either. It's all about LEGAL RESIDENCE -- the Senate amnesty bill granted this almost immediately and irrevocably. Citizenship has very few advantages and benefits to legal residence. In fact I can only think of one - voting. Voting is something that some illegals already do now anyway, and pretty soon the Democrats will find a way to either give the illegals legitimate voting rights or make it impossible to qualify one's citizenship for voting purposes.

The amnesty bill and John McCain are wrong because it allows untold millions of desperately poor uneducated illegals to stay in our country permanently and with full legal status; not because of the citizenship requirements.

If you're referring to the Rube-Goldbergian "path to citizenship" proposed in the much-maligned Amnesty Bill, I would be utterly shocked if even a million illegals pulled it off over the next decade. Fines, back taxes, voluntarially leaving the country...seriously?

If that McCain amnesty mess ever gets passed (which it surely will under almost any candidate currently running but Thompson and Hunter), there will be a mad dash not for the border, but for the nearest immigration lawyer... who will in turn rush to the nearest judge to have that part overturned as imposing an "undue hardship."

Mike is astute about one thing: Hannity and Limbaugh (and Olberman, Coulter, and their ilk) exist for one thing - their own personal ratings and glory, which of course translate into $$ for them.

Getting all ramped up and indignant and steamy is just their schitck. Is that the way you spell schitck? Cause I'm not sure.

In any case, I never get too much heartburn about any of the so-called talking heads. It's just their job, their livelihood.

"It is very nice on this side. We have marijuana, hot women and free Che Guevara T-Shirts/Mugs."

Thanks Vega, but therein lies the problem. I'm entirely anti-drug, married, and despise the Marxist barbarian Ernesto Guevara with a burning passion.

What I'm really after is an ounce of action on any of several alarmingly critical issues facing the country, but apparently budging a millimeter from the party line in order to get things done is completely unacceptable. So I'm a moderate or a liberal or something now. Whatever.

What I'm really after is an ounce of action on any of several alarmingly critical issues facing the country, but apparently budging a millimeter from the party line in order to get things done is completely unacceptable. So I'm a moderate or a liberal or something now. Whatever.

Still, there's an argument to be made that, if a candidate is willing to compromise on one issue, he's willing to compromise on other issues (perhaps even one of those "several alarmingly crucial issues") as well.

Just sayin...

What I'm really after is an ounce of action on any of several alarmingly critical issues facing the country, but apparently budging a millimeter from the party line in order to get things done is completely unacceptable. So I'm a moderate or a liberal or something now.

That's why some liberals like McCain.

He's never been pro-choice, as far as I know.

If the Secure Fence Act is now the measuring stick for immigration, *nobody* makes the cut. Nobody.

Though I cannot argue with the quote above, you seem to have missed my point entirely, Mike.
I wasn't blaming Mr. McCain for the undermining of the SFA, in any form or fashion.
I was simply pointing out that, in light of what has become of the SFA, it is easier now for a candidate who is pro-amnesty (which, IMhO, makes them pro-illegal immigration by default) to talk tough about securing the border knowing that nothing significant will come of it.

"Marriage being the fundamental building block of all successful human relationships to date"

...should have said "Marriage and family relationships being the fundamental building block of all successful human relationships to date"