Poll shows Perot with 10% lead over Clinton! [UPDATE]

I noticed that MyDD has been getting all excited about General Election polls . . . IN APRIL?!

I understand that it can be entertaining to visit The VoteMaster and 538. I love checking out both websites, but I also understand that this data is pretty much useless until at least a FULL WEEK after the last National Convention.

The polls will start to give the campaigns a general idea of where they should spend their money, but Super-Delegates are smart enough to realize that either DEM will get AT LEAST a 5% jump after Denver.

There should be a few MyDD'ers besides me that remember another Springtime General Election Poll:

In the latest Gallup Poll, taken June 12 to 14 with 1,000 registered voters nationwide, 34 percent preferred Ross Perot, while 32 percent favored President Bush, and 24 percent supported Bill Clinton. - Published: June 19, 1992
We all know how accurate that poll turned out!

Polls are entertaining, and sometimes informative . . . but daily diaries from both sides about polling data can get a little old. We must also remember that a week in today's information world is like a month compared to past elections. MUCH can and WILL change for the better once we begin to deeply define John McCain and his wealthy spouse!


Update [2008-4-28 20:35:47 by Veteran75]:I thought this was another interesting piece of history from 10 years+2 days ago:
Asked how they would vote if the election were held today, 23 percent of registered voters said they would back Mr. Perot, 28 percent Mr. Clinton and 38 percent Mr. Bush. A month ago, Mr. Perot was at 16 percent, Mr. Clinton at 31 percent and Mr. Bush at 44 percent.

Mean Season Favors Perot

In a mean political season that seems to reward those who stand outside the fray -- witness Paul E. Tsongas's strong second place finish in the New York primary after withdrawing from the race -- Mr. Perot is thriving as an undeclared candidate. Mr. Clinton's negative ratings have soared during the hard-fought primary campaign, and Mr. Bush's have jumped as well. - April 26, 1992
I loved that 1992 election, and now see how we can apply lessons learned from 16 years ago. I am getting flashbacks of statistical analysis projects during my undergrad years. I need to dig up those old research papers from 1996. I am pretty sure that I was able to support the idea that Perot helped Clinton's cause. Let us hope that Bob Barr can pick up enough steam from Ron Paul supporters to help the DEMS this year!
Poll
How reliable are General Election Polls in April?
Not very reliable
50/50
100% . . . why vote?!

Votes: 53
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


Comments, SNARK, tips (2.00 / 12)

=o}


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:29:52 PM EST

Re: Comments, SNARK, tips (2.00 / 8)

Great diary! I would rec it, but for some reason I never got the rec ability?!?


by FOB92 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:55:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Comments, SNARK, tips (2.00 / 4)

Either you've been a bad bad boy/girl OR

People haven't mojo'ed you enough, so there you go, I'm making up for their lack of character insight.

Another way to get a lot of mojo here is write a two line diary based on a poll or right wing pundit saying (covertly of course because this is all hush hush) "Americans will never elect a black president".

Then you'll be the darlin of the site.


by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:07:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Comments, SNARK, tips (none / 0)

Another way to get a lot of mojo here is write a two line diary based on a poll or right wing pundit saying (covertly of course because this is all hush hush) "Americans will never elect a black president".

Then you'll be the darlin of the site.

What is that supposed to mean?  I really hope you aren't semi-covertly saying that this site is mostly racists. Please tell me I'm wrong.


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:22:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Comments, SNARK, tips (2.00 / 2)

Clever way to make your point. :)


by bobbank on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:02:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Comments, SNARK, tips (2.00 / 4)

Thanks . . . I look forward to teaming up with you to defeat McCain no matter who Denver nominates.


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:09:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Some primary seasons go on way too long... (2.00 / 7)

...and I like many others have been guilty of mistaking a bump in the road for a major collision.

You diary puts things into perspective, so big thanks Veteran75. And this also helps put one day's polls into perspective:


by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:12:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll shows Perot with 10% lead over Clinton! (2.00 / 1)

what you should be thinking, is at that point NO ONE thought Clinton would win that election.

The lesson for obama fans?

NEVER count out a clinton.


by zane on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:31:14 PM EST

Lesson for Clinton fans? (2.00 / 8)

Hillary is not Bill. Not by a longshot.


by Bob Johnson on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:32:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lesson for Clinton fans? (2.00 / 3)

That's true.  She's much smarter.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:34:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lesson for Clinton fans? (2.00 / 5)

BUT she doesn't have the charisma that Bill had. I have been in a room with both of them, and at a packed OC amphitheater with both of them.

Bill had 'it' . . . that doesn't mean she wouldn't make a better President (I think she would), but Bill was a better candidate in the pre-youtube era.


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:36:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lesson for Clinton fans? (2.00 / 1)

I hate to disagree with you, Vet, but I do.

Bill is a genius on the literal scale, and he has the kind of situational savvy that Obama (and not many others) has.  That gives me immense confidence in a President (even if I differ on policy) because it gives them the ability to cope with extreme volumes of information with subtlety.

No president I can think of back to Kennedy had anything like the combination of intelligence and situational awareness of those two.  It's just a reality that Hillary isn't in that league (few are).  I would have voted for her because it is Dem time imho and she isn't bad, but I have a hard time picturing her being Great...

Funny, when I think about it many of the fundamental reasons for voting for Obama now are the same as Bill then.  If there wasn't a marital tie to Bill in this race I think every one of the Clinton voters would be all over him with support.

Oh well.

-chris


"Because after an eight-year hiatus it is vital to have a president who leads the country instead of lassoing, roping and branding it." Shaun Appleby
by chrisblask on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:48:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lesson for Clinton fans? (2.00 / 1)

I guess I feel that HRC will keep her 'pant-suit' on. I don't think she will have any sexual scandals, but you are right . . . that is a shallow assessment.


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:53:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are wrong (2.00 / 1)

As one dispatch from the PA primary noted, the voters in very pro-Clinton areas were as anti-Obama as they were pro-Clinton.  

Obama supporters seriously underestimate the negative feelings toward him.  They don't even seem capable of seeing it.  At least Clinton supporters acknowledge that large blocks of people don't like Clinton.  Obama's negatives are almost as high but his supporters remain in complete denial about that.


by lombard on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:21:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are wrong (2.00 / 1)

IMO, the negatives on Obama amount primarily because many Clinton supporters feel he is "standing in her way" in becoming the POTUS.  Many feel it his her time.  I don't think it is because they personally dislike Obama.


Obama supporter who is damn glad Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!!
by hootie4170 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:13:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Again, your emotions blind you (none / 0)

There are plenty of people who don't like Obama and many of them don't like Clinton either.  Here's just a partial list of negative adjectives I've seen as descriptors of him:

Arrogant, egotistical, elitist, evasive, dishonest, disingenuous, weak, empty, extremely ambitious but insufficiently hardworking, immature

Those are just some negative appraisals of personal characteristics.  I haven't even touched his politics.  If you consider that most right or center right leaning people aren't going to like them so much either, maybe you can start to get the idea.  

This is something that many Obama supporters either don't get or just refuse to acknowledge.  For many, this isn't just about Clinton.  If she were not around, he would still have substantial oppostion.  Why can you not understand that many simply don't want him at all?


by lombard on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:04:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Again, your emotions blind you (2.00 / 0)

You weren't the intended receiver of this comment, as you are unpersuadable.....No matter what Obama does he will never be liked by your subjective and closed-mindedness point of view.


Obama supporter who is damn glad Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!!
by hootie4170 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:09:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, here's a prediction for November (none / 0)

The majority of voters will demonstrate that they are close minded and unpersuadable.

You're right.  I don't think Obama would do anything in the near future that changes my mind about him.  I don't think he has it in him right now.  He is too arrogant and sold on himself to change.  But a defeat and 4 to 8 years of seasoning and reflection may change that.


by lombard on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:14:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, here's a prediction for November (none / 0)

Well, it's looking very likey that he'll have 4-8 years in the Oval Office to work on all that.


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:44:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, here's a prediction for November (2.00 / 1)

I am sure Lombard would prefer that to Mcain in the White House.


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:47:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uh-huh. (2.00 / 6)

That's why she voted to authorize the Iraq war. She's a genius.


by Bob Johnson on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:36:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh-huh. (2.00 / 2)

Mensa!


by FOB92 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:40:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm a member of MENSA (2.00 / 5)

and if I had been in the Senate, I think I would have been smart enough to actually read the NIE.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:43:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm a member of MENSA (2.00 / 3)

and you might have fired Penn in February too.


by FOB92 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:50:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In April. (2.00 / 4)

Of 2007 :-)


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:54:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In April. (none / 0)

When would you have fired Gibbs?


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:25:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In April. (none / 0)

I thought Joe Gibbs retired?!

:o}~


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:48:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"She's much smarter" (2.00 / 5)

as evidenced by her brilliant winning campaign.

Oh wait.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:38:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lesson for Clinton fans? (2.00 / 5)

Well, on the pragmatic scale, no.  Bill was a Rhodes scholar and rated by Scientific American as the second most intelligent president (Jefferson was first).

Hillary is smart, but not the same kind of smart as Bill.


"Because after an eight-year hiatus it is vital to have a president who leads the country instead of lassoing, roping and branding it." Shaun Appleby
by chrisblask on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:38:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lesson for Clinton fans? (2.00 / 3)

Ohhh . . . can you post a link? I would like to see where 'W' fits in that scale!?


by FOB92 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:41:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lesson for Clinton fans? (none / 0)

I doubt the scale goes that low.


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:26:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lesson for Clinton fans? (1.80 / 5)

He's a Rhodes Scholar.  You're honestly claiming she's much smarter than a Rhodes scholar?  And her intelligence certainly wasn't in view when she went from "inevitable" to "unlikely."  

I await the day when you'll breathlessly insist that not only did she face sniper fire, but using her firearm experience shot back at the Serbs.  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:40:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lesson for Clinton fans? (1.50 / 2)

So, you're basically saying that Hillary is dumb.

Worthy of a TR.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:32:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lesson for Clinton fans? (2.00 / 2)

No, I'm saying she's "definitely smarter than a Rhodes Scholar" is a ridiculous statement.  Any other reading is a deliberate misinterpretation.  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:07:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lesson for Clinton fans? (none / 0)

Bill is a rhodes scholar.  If she is smarter than him its a true statement...


by DTaylor on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:53:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lesson for Clinton fans? (2.00 / 3)

TD was snarking us!

You silly thing!!

:0}


by Obamanaut on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:44:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lesson for Clinton fans? (2.00 / 2)

Agreed . . . but she could have molded herself with Carville in place of Penn. Too late for that now.


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:35:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll shows Perot with 10% lead over Clinton! (2.00 / 4)

I thought Clinton could win . . . but I was a little biased since I worked on his campaign.

Jerome is putting out that HRC is the stronger GE candidate right now because of a GE poll in April. I would not claim that either is a stronger GE candidate right now over McCain because of a GE poll in April.


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:34:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Last week, Obama was stronger. (2.00 / 4)

But Jerome forgot to put up a post about it.

Who knows who will be stronger next week?


by Bob Johnson on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:37:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton's argument (2.00 / 3)

hinges on Florida. Without it, she loses.

Like Al Gore. We've seen this movie before.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:39:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton won't win FL (2.00 / 1)


   I don't think Obama will either. I think FL is a GOP state this time around...especially if McCain picks Governor Crist.

  If he does, we can forget about it. FL will go GOP, we'll have to make our gains elsewhere.


by southernman on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:44:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton won't win FL (2.00 / 3)

I agree. But aren't there rumors that Crist is gay?

Nothing wrong with that, I hasten to add - I am myself - but I can't imagine a republican Presidential ticket with a closet case, if those rumors are true.

The key issue, though, is that the Rs have systemic advantages in that state, like running the election supervisory board. They used that in 2000 and 2004 to their advantage, they'll do the same in 2008.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:50:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If the GOP (2.00 / 0)

 
   believed those rumors, they wouldn't have made him Governor. nor would he have the huge approval ratings that he does.

  I'm not fond of the guy, but the FL GOP certainly is. They have a fairly deep bench in the state, and thats who they picked to be Governor. And he's pretty popular.


by southernman on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:52:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll shows Perot with 10% lead over Clinton! (2.00 / 3)

And a similar lesson for Clinton fans:

NEVER count out a Democrat when the GOP has just run the economy down the shitter.


No way. No how. No McCain.
by freedom78 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:17:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll shows Perot with 10% lead over Clinton! (none / 0)

You forget that over 80% of the vote is already in...


by dogooder on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:01:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I still remember (2.00 / 11)

How Bill was unelectable because of Gennifer Flowers and the related, carefully nurtured rumors.

Flowers was 1992's Jeremiah Wright, I like to think.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:36:49 PM EST

Re: I still remember (2.00 / 5)

I never thought of that!

Excellent point . . . another diary for another day.


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:37:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Go to the NYT web site (2.00 / 6)

their entire post-1981 archive is available for free. When you re-read the stories from the Clinton era, it's mind-boggling; for example, after the debacle of 1994, people were trying to get him to step aside for 1996. And when I say "people", I mean Chris Dodd, that kind of caliber.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:41:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

can you stop (1.50 / 2)

bashing the Clintons? WHO CARES about '94? IN the end, the party rallied behind Bill Clinton, and the ticket went on to win 1996 in a landslide, and cement states for us which we had only begun to win in 1992 such as Pennsylvania, Illinois, New Jersey, Maine, California, Michigan, and Delaware, New Hampshire, Connecticut ALL of which voted for us everytime since except NH in 2000 and all of which went for Reagan and Bush. Chris Dodd actually gave the keynote address remoninating Bill Clinton http://www.pbs.org/newshour/convention96 /floor_speeches/dodd_8-28.html so shut up about 1994 already, it was gonna happen anyway, whether Paul Tsongas or Bob Kerrey had been the nominee


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:12:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: can you stop (2.00 / 4)

The same will happen for either DEM after Denver. We WILL Kumbaya, and anyone that still has their feelings hurt can go vote for Bob Barr.


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:15:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: can you stop (2.00 / 4)

He's not bashing the Clintons, he's merely pointing out that there were doubts about him after '94, not without cause.  A TR is not approprite in this case.


by NewOaklandDem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:28:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: can you stop (2.00 / 3)

he ALWAYS finds some way to bash the Clinton's two victories in the '90's. He continues to spread the bogus message that Clinton had a net negative effect on the party, but when you compare the electoral map from 1984 to 1988 to even 2000 and 2004, there is a HUGE difference. he acts like the Presidency doesn't matter, only Congress, and blames no one but Bill Clinton for "losing" congress without ever noting the media, the Reagan Revolution, the redistricting, the "scandals" like Whitewater and Paula Jones whcih the media and government wasted our time and money with. It is completely irrelevent to mention how some considered replacing Clinton on the ticket after the '94 mid term election, because in the end, Bill Clinton not only beat Bob Dole by a bigger margin than Bush beat Dukakis (8.5 to Bush's 7.8), but solidified our hold on the big states and smaller New England states which we need to win, and we lacked in 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1988 and just began to win in 1992


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:43:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: can you stop (2.00 / 4)

The Democratic party needed the presidency in the 90's much more than we needed Congress, although obviously, having both is better. Had Clinton or some other Democrat lost that year, the judiciary would look unbelievably bad right now. This is why I won't vote for McCain if my choice for the Demo nomination (Clinton) doesn't win.


by Mayor McCheese on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:48:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: can you stop (2.00 / 3)

Well, I've never found him to be overly critical, but if you think so, you're entitled to your opinion.

The point is that there have always been doubts about presumtive, unofficial, or even established nominees (see Regan v. Ford in '76, or Kenedy v. Cater in '80).  So to say that Obama should be tossed in favor Clinton because of percieved GE problems in April is a bit odd.  You provide an excellent example of this above in the case of Bill Clinton in '96.  Had he beend tossed during primary season, we may well have lost to Dole.


by NewOaklandDem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:55:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: can you stop (none / 0)

tell that to MBNYC, and he'll go ape shit saying how we shoulda nominated Jesse Jackson


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:45:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So supporting Barack Obama (none / 0)

is the same thing as supporting Jesse Jackson.

Glad we got that cleared up.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:01:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So supporting Barack Obama (none / 0)

I thinking using 'ape' was also a poor choice of words for his point.


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:04:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

actually, he was the one (none / 0)

considering a challenge to Bill Clinton in 1996 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=9B0CE2D91139F934A1575BC0A96295826 0 thats why I mentioned him


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:10:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: actually, he was the one (none / 0)

Along with Paul Tsongas and some others, yes.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:35:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: can you stop (2.00 / 3)

You mean, can I stop making accurate assessments based on data I link to?

No, actually, I can't, and better yet, I won't. Petulant ratings abuse from you or anyone else won't really affect what I say, buddy.

The simple fact is that Bill and Hillary led us to a catastrophic defeat in 1994. We did not recover from that until 2006. Now, you can put your head in the sand, but if you don't like what I write, I suggest you not read it.

As to 1996, 49.9% is not a landslide. It's a plurality. Which, I might add, is something those rightwing pundits lately favored by Team Clinton never cease pointing out.

Is there anything else?


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:10:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

a plurality CAN BE A LANDSLIDE (none / 0)

actually, 49.9 compared, COMPARED to 40 or whatever Bob Dope got IS a landslide. You're gonna tell me, that in 1980, if Anderson were a little stronger,  and instead of getting 50.7, Reagan got 49.9, and Carter still got 41, that wouldn't have been a landslide? A PLURALITY CAN BE A LANDSLIDE. In the UK, when the Labor Party got 43 percent of the popular vote and the Conservatives got 30 in 1997. That election was considered a Labour Landslide, and it was still a plurality. Bill and Hill did not LEAD us to 1994 elections. The media led it to us. I don't care for the pundits who make your observation he didn't get an absolute majority. You're gonna tell me the 1949 Canadian election http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_fe deral_election%2C_1949 where the Liberal party only, "only" got 49 percent of the vote, which was MUCH higher than the others, and you're not gonna call it a landslide? Face it, the Clintons won, and were not radicals like you


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:38:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: a plurality CAN BE A LANDSLIDE (none / 0)

I think 48.5% will win the election this year. There are bound to be a few sore losers (white women or AA) on the DEM side . . . and Bob Barr will chip away at a few Libertarian leaning Repubs.


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:46:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: a plurality CAN BE A LANDSLIDE (none / 0)

I hope Barack Hussein Obama gets that, McCain gets 39 or 40, but even tho its a big margin, and a 3rd party gets the rest, just so I get to make fun of MBNYC and say its not really a landslide, even tho that would be a wide margin which allocating to 2nd choice candidate would yield a similar result like with Perot and the others, as Perot took equally http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elec tions/natl.exit.poll/index1.html also, just so I can see Obama supporters realize how stupid it is to belittle an electoral victory solely because it isn't over 50 percent


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:50:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: a plurality CAN BE A LANDSLIDE (none / 0)

Any reason that you dropped the H-Bomb on MyDD?!


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:54:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

as revenge for Clinton bashing (none / 0)

yes, because I sick of the tired talking point that "ohh Bill Clinton didn't get over 50 percent, so even tho his margin over Dole was bigger than Bush-Dukakis, it wasn't a landslide" YES IT WAS! A PLURALITY CAN BE A LANDSLIDE!!! Its a mean GOP attempt to cut down the significance of Bill Clintons two victories which changed the electoral map from what it was in 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988 for the better.

To show that a plurality of the vote CAN be a landslide, look at the results of the 1949 Canadian general election. The Liberal Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Canadi an_election got 49 percent of the vote, and the Conservatives got wrecked, and anyone would consider that election a landslide. Or take the 1997 Labour election, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_UK_gen eral_election where Labour "only" got 43 percent, their nearest rival 30, and that election is considered to be a realigning landslide. Or the 2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_King dom_general_election%2C_2001 where Labour got 40.7 percent, Conservatives got 31.7 and that election is called the "quiet landslide" and Labour got a plurality, and that margin of victory is similar to Clinton v. Dole. Clinton won 1996 in a LANDSLIDE. A LANDSLIDE!!!!!!


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:02:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hehe. (none / 0)

Radicals! Marxists! Clinton-haters! Anti-American! Commies!

You're not going to be able to insult someone into backing your candidate, even if it's tempting to leftie-bash, certainly for DLC followers.

Back to your supposition that less than an outright majority is a landslide: sure, if that's what you need to tell yourself, you go right ahead. If you want to tell yourself that it's believable to absolve the Clintons of blame for 1994 is something people will buy, sure, I can't stop you.

However, facts belie your claims. I wrote a diary about that not too long ago, in fact.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:55:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the 1997 Labour Landslide (none / 0)

as it is known in the UK as, the labour Party didn't get anywhere near 50 percent of the popular vote, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_King dom_general_election%2C_1997 but like how Clinton got the majority of electoral votes, the Labour got the majority of seats. The 2001 election there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_King dom_general_election%2C_2001 dubbed as "the quiet landslide" in the media there saw Labour get aroud 40 percent, and Conservatives 31, similiar in margin to Clinton v. Dole, and its considered a landslide. How about the 1994 congressional election? the GOP didn't get 50 percent of the popular vote, fell just short http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat es_House_elections%2C_1994 and that is consdiered a landslide, and the only election that seems to matter to you. Tell me, if Clinton was sooooo awful, who would you have nominated in '92?


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:07:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I still remember (1.00 / 3)

not really, Flowers was just a girl, Wright is a hateful racist and sounds like it to many people


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:13:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I still remember (2.00 / 2)

kind of like Donna Rice eh?


by soros on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:44:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I still remember (none / 0)

the difference was Hart invited the media to catch him in the act, Bill wasn't caught in the act


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:53:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I still remember (none / 0)

Is this really a subject you want people to be talking about?


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:56:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I still remember (none / 0)

its better than a racist hateful pastor who called my coutnry the USofKKKA, and I'm sure most Americans believe that


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:17:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I still remember (none / 0)

I could care less if he was a Wiccan, Mormon, Muslim, Atheist . . . but you are correct that a small percentage of the electorate is close-minded.


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:22:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I still remember (none / 0)

I will always remember Bill's time in office fondly . . . but looking back in retrospect - we don't need to defend him anymore. He has come clean now about his past infidelities, and I think his heart problems have calmed that flaw.


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:57:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I still remember (none / 0)

I'm not defending him, I'm doing what a good America does: HONOURing him


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:33:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uh hum. (2.00 / 3)

Yeah, I'm not even going to go there.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:13:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll shows Perot with 10% lead over Clinton! (2.00 / 1)

Lets not forget Perow WITHDREW from contention and then re entered.

Are you betting on McCain withdrawing?


by DTaylor on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:56:56 PM EST

Re: Poll shows Perot with 10% lead over Clinton! (2.00 / 2)

Who knows?  And who knows if a third party candidate will enter the fray.  I guess the point of the diary is that there still is a great deal of time until the convention and then November, and that the dynamics of the race can change.  


by NewOaklandDem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:00:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he could have won (2.00 / 2)

I'd bet if Perot stayed in that race, he'd have won or gotten close. But to see what effect his dropping out of the race had, not only check http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=9E0CE0D7133DF93BA25754C0A96495826 0 which showed Perot voters flocking to Clinton, and http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/1992 1026.pdf which shows how Perot's return hurt Clinton. Also, note these polls http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=9E0CE0DC1F3EF936A2575AC0A96495826 0 and how if the voters who shifted from Perot to Clinton had stayed with Perot, he'd maybe have won.

Perot only stayed weak when he came back because he lost stature, and Clinton kept enough of his support to win. If perot had been any stronger, Bush may have won re-election


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:20:18 PM EST

only one month back the shoe was on the other foot (2.00 / 0)

Anyways, I agree April is too early to call for electability.


by ann0nymous on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:13:17 PM EST

Re: Poll shows Perot with 10% lead over Clinton! (none / 0)

no comment


by SHIBAM8P on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:01:50 PM EST

Well Done Sir (2.00 / 1)

Well Done!


by optimusprime on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:02:06 PM EST

Agreed (none / 0)

Even as a volunteer for Hillary's campaign, I find this hand wringing in April rather silly.


by anhrcworker on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:13:52 PM EST

Re: Agreed (2.00 / 0)

I volunteered for Bill in 1992, and have learned to pace myself through up and down news cycles.


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:17:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow a well written diary! (none / 0)

And one that doesn't explicitly raise up one candidate and talk unsubstantiated trash about another.

well spoken, well written and RECOMMENDED!


by neutron on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:14:11 PM EST

Re: Wow a well written diary! (none / 0)

Thank you . . . it could have been longer, but I am packing for a 3-month stay in Chicago.

I will try and update it with some more amusing/wrong polls from the past.


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:19:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Dewey Defeats Truman". nt. (none / 0)


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:58:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.