It may be getting close to all over
February 26th, 2008 at 7:57 pm by David FarrarIt may be getting close to being over for Clinton in primaries. While she will hold on until the Mini Tuesday on the 4th, she has multiple problems:
- Five polls out yesterday showed Obama ahead nationally by an average of 7% – the lead ranged from 2% to 16%
- Clinton’s lead in Texas has dropped to an average of just 0.7%.
- The head to head averages show Obama beating McCain by 5,2% but McCain beating Clinton by 3.6%
On the Republican side, an end is in sight. McCain now has 1,013 delegates of the 1,191 he needs. So around 180 more needed. There are 265 up for grabs on the 4th so he should become the nominee on that day.
UPDATE: Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics analyses the numbers and works out how Clinton can still win – unlikely he says, but not impossible.
Tags: 2008 US Presidential Election, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Polls, Real Clear Politics, United States
February 26th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
So the polls have been good at picking winners this year ?
Vote:February 26th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
This is what Real CP says
Obama has won most of the caucus states overwhelmingly. Clinton could assert that the caucus favors Obama by unfairly excluding voters who happen to favor her – namely, “downscale” Democrats who cannot take off work to attend and elderly voters who are unable to. Clinton will have some evidence to buttress this claim. The Washington state caucus allocated 68% of the state’s delegates to Obama on February 9th. Ten days later, on February 19th, the state held a non-binding primary in which Obama won 51% of the vote.
Originally the US constitution allowed the winner to be President and the runner up to be Vice president.
And still the President is still elected by the electoral college as President Al Gore can confirm, not by the winning the popular vote
Vote:February 26th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
I don’t think Obama will make a very strong candidate.
A Clinton, Obama team would be very strong as they would be able to tap all their constituencies. If Obama stays away then Black America may not turn out and if Clinton stays away then Hispanic turnout may be low due to tensions between Black and Hispanic communities and Soccer Mums may not be so ethused.
Vote:February 26th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
There is no way in the universe that Obama will choose HRC as his running mate. I assume that is what you meant.
Good analysis of where she has gone wrong is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022502422.html
.. and here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html?em&ex=1204174800&en=193183afa768c8db&ei=5087
Vote:February 26th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
“There is no way in the universe that Obama will choose HRC as his running mate. I assume that is what you meant.”
No, Clinton would only be a presidential candidate. It would be a very strong team, with Obama getting the experience and exposure to make his own run successfully in his early 50s.
Vote:February 26th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Clinton and Obama are both from the North East basically. And they are both Senators. That is not a combination to win the Electoral College. Plus Clinton would not have a VP candidate who attracts bigger crowds than her.
In a way a pity as Obama could do with some executive experience. But being Clinton’s VP could damager him also – best to keep his powder dry for 2012 or 2016. However most likely is that Obama will be the Presidential candidate. No real idea who would be his VP – Edwards possibly?
Vote:February 26th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
So a Californian, mid-western, or a Southerner would be the best bet for the Democrat nominee, regardless of whether its Clinton or Obama. Bill Richardson is governor of New Mexico – perhaps him? Maybe John Edwards, ex North Carolina. Or, an older Democrat statesman like Daschle or Biden might make sense if the nominee is Obama.
Vote:February 26th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
You gotta fell sorry for Clinton. 40 years spent with Bill, wondering what you might catch and making excuses for him on TV, just so you can be president.
And it all amounts to nothing.
Vote:February 26th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I still think it will go to the wire and if I were a Superdelegate, I would choose the experience of Clinton over the charisma of Obama, at least on this occasion.
Vote:February 26th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Sorry, my comment was a little tongue in cheek. He will not choose her, she will not choose him. But more than that, the only way HRC will be the nominee is with some shenanigans and seating the delegates from Michigan and Florida. And even that might not be enough. That she will pull out every stop is fairly much certain, but the superdelegates and DNC officials already see which way the wind is blowing and won’t want to nominate her in a civil war only to see her go down in a ball of flames against McCain. See how many have already retracted their endorsements.
Here is why it is really close to being all over. Texas – her first firewall, the state her husband said she had to win – will be tighter than most, but her *best* case scenario based on recent polls is a narrow win in the popular vote but a likely loss in the delegates. To understand why, see this excellent analysis of the way Texas districts apportion delegates – the best I have seen anywhere:
http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4937
She has to absolutely crush Obama make even small gains in the delegate count. It ain’t going to happen. Frankly, I suspect he will also win the popular vote.
Either Bob Graham or Bill Richardson would be a good Veep.
Vote:February 26th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Yeh I’m going for Richardson as vice on the Obama ticket but I’m standing by my pre-Christmas prediction that McCain and Huckabee will eventually be Pres and Vice. Although McCain’s foot-in-mouth and obvious health issues are beginning to make me think that he may not make the podium.
Vote:February 26th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Richardson has said he doesn’t want the VeeP spot. It wasn’t quite Shermanesque, but it was close.
Edit – found the quote:
Vote:February 27th, 2008 at 12:07 am
“He will not choose her, she will not choose him”
Oh, I agree with the first part, she might choose him if he would agree, which is unlikely. I am just saying its the only way I can see the Dems winning the election. Obama looks weak and full empty rhetoric that will be exposed when he is up against a candidate that doesnt have to wear the velvet gloves.
OTOH, the electoral turnout is usually quite low in the US. Perhaps a black candidate will be able to energise enough to people to turn out on the basis “look at us, we have a black president”. Thats the big imponderable.
Of the three I would rank clinton as the biggest change candidate (the rabid right loathes her for good reason), then McCain and finally Obama is the smallest change candidate.
Vote:February 27th, 2008 at 1:22 am
I am picking Obama for Dems, and probably Obama to win presidency. I think Clinton is too big a risk for the Dems – she is not on enough of a roll, and despite all the people who owe her favours, the fact that she should really be allowed to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates, and how long she’s been waiting for it, she really just doesn’t have enough people liking her. It is easy as a super delegate to justify not supporting her, very hard to justify not supporting Obama. And if they do go with her, the polls say she’d lose, so that is even harder to justify.
Looking to Obama v’s McCain, it is pretty tight but I think that ultimately America won’t want an old guy as president. Obama is enthusiastic and speaks well. I’d probably rather him than Clinton, but he’s still pretty far left wing and has some real policy gaps. I think the first couple of years could be a real roller coaster ride if he does win – hopefully the fact he needs to get any change past both houses will be a limiting factor.
Vote:February 27th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Rasmussen (historically the most reliable pollster) now has McCain v Obama at 47 to 43 and McCain v Clinton at 47 to 44. This margin has been steady for almost a week now.
Sean Oxedine at http://www.race42008.com two days ago did a fascinating analysis of the Gallup and Rasmussen daily Clinton Obama tracking polls and concludes that Obama has peaked http://race42008.com/2008/02/25/has-obamamania-peaked/
He has also done an incredibly detailed analysis of the 8 major polls out of TX and how that would impact district by district in their complex caucus + primary mix http://electioninspection.wordpress.com/2008/02/22/hillarys-alamo-updated-tx-delegate-projections/ and he also concludes that it is not looking as gloomy as many predict for Clinton.
I still think Clinton is going to be lucky to win TX but will win OH easily and probably PA as her leads in both states, while somewhat eroded, are holding well above the MOE. With the expectations game as it is, nothing short of her winning all 3 will save her campaign. She does not have to win convincingly. The proportional allocation of elected delegates means neither can prevail even if Obama was to sweep her 2 – 1 in every remaining contest (unlikely). This nomination will be decided by the super delegates. If Obama cleans up the big 3 then almost all the undecided supers will break for him and he will win. If Clinton wins all 3 and boxes on right to the end, if she gets the FL and MI delegates seated (unlikely) this will go the convention and the supers.
As for Veep – who ever prevails on the Dems side will not be choosing the other as VP. Clinton would not want a young, ambitious black man with such proven campaigning and fundraising prowess overshadowing her. The Black vote will not stay away – they are THE most reliable Democrat voting demographic segment. Obama won’t want to taint his pristine image with the old scandal ridden Clinton era and will chose an older experienced Dem Governor to balance out his inexperience.
Vote:February 27th, 2008 at 8:12 am
The head to head averages aren’t very reliable. They had Kerry ahead of Bush by 14% at this point in the election cycle. Also it depends on which states you are talking about. It’s the electoral college not the popular vote that’s important, as we all know.
And McCain has been ahead of both Obama and Clinton in quite a few polls.
Another complicating factor is the independent and Republican voters who have given Obama his current lead. Will they wind up voting Democrat in November.
Vote:February 27th, 2008 at 8:19 am
kia..you are developing this reputation of one who provides detailed analysis..that is usually,,in hindsight..wrong..
but more importantly..is morethan a tad behind the mainstream media consensus..
i mean..up untill now..(?)..
you have dismissed the chances of obama beating clinton..
and have just echoed the awe of the mainstream media..at the ‘clinton machine’..
whereas..ahem!..at whoar..obama has been called as the next president..
..from when he proved my previous contentions that america was too racist to elect a black president..as a lot of hot air..
by winning that first primary..in that 97% ‘whitebread’ state..
so..in general..kia..you needn’t/shouldn’t ‘bother’..
eh..?
there are already more than enough ‘experts’ (resident here) in the (current) ‘bleeding obvious’ category..
save yr bandwith..!
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:February 27th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Nice slander phil, you’ve basically called kia a liar without any shred of evidence. Have you been taking notes from the NYT?
Vote:February 27th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Bevan, not quite. He just said that KIA was always wrong, and behind the media. Because, of course, the NZ media gives such good coverage that phil can understand the mood on the ground in the US, and call it way better from here. And, the drugs give a heightened mental state that allows him to predict the future.
Vote:February 27th, 2008 at 8:55 am
At least the Dem’s are not looking to put forward a candidate and charismatically challenged as John Kerry was.
Vote:February 27th, 2008 at 8:57 am
I never thought I’d say this but Clinton is the best candidate for the Dems. She has experience and the ability to lead. Obama would be a President elected by the media and Hollywood. He is all style and absolutely no substance. Does anybody here know any of his policies? Compare that the the near hysteria from the media about his fresh new style/Obamamania/The Black Kennedy..etc etc.
Of course if Hilary wins the nomination I want McCain to wipe the floor and get her out of US politics for good. He is my preferred President over any of the rag-tag Dem candidates.
Vote:February 27th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Clinton and Obama are both from the North East basically. And they are both Senators. That is not a combination to win the Electoral College.
Historically Presidential elections haven’t favoured Senators, but McCain is a Senator too.
No real idea who would be his VP – Edwards possibly?
Having Edwards run for Veep twice when he’s tried for President twice would tar him with the ‘loser’ label that is fatal in US politics. Possible Obama running mates include
- Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas
- Janet Neapolitano, Governor of Arizona
– Jim Webb, Senator from Virginia
– Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico
All four of those would help bring a swing state and balance Obama’s percieved inexperience. Richardson would bring in Latino voters who usually support Clinton, while Sebelius or Neapolitano would bring in women. Webb would bring a very important swing state (and one the Dems have ambitions to shift permanently into their column) and is very hawkish, which could help with McCain.
Other possibilites are Chris Dodd or Wesley Clark, but neither of them would bring many voters to the ticket.
My guess remains McCain/Huckabee vs Obama/Webb, with McCain to win it.
Vote:February 27th, 2008 at 9:00 am
It’s tough to accurately sense the mood from so far away, but I wonder whether the tide isn’t about to turn back in Clinton’s favour. I think the scaremongering about experience may work, and that Obama may have peaked. If so, it’ll be a shame. I think he’d make a fine President.
Vote:February 27th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Phil
you are developing this reputation of one who provides detailed analysis..that is usually,,in hindsight..wrong..
KIA has developed a reputation for making solid, researched, often detailed arguments on this site that are good to read. He also provides a counter to the usual patter of left-wing comments that deliver knee jerk soundbites that appeal to emotion but are dressed up in the standard lofty disdain of “I’m knowledgeable, you’re ignorant! I’m smart, you’re dumb!”
He also lives in the US where he gets to live and breath the political air, giving him possibly better insights than for many stuck back in NZ. The experience of actually living in that society has moved him from a collectivist to an individualist view of society – which demonstrates that he is capable of changing – one mark of a thinking person.
…..and have just echoed the awe of the mainstream media..at the ‘clinton machine’..
Uh huh. A far-left supporter of the Greens, one who still passionately believes in the arnachist nirvana of thousands of small cooperatives and communes forming a society of participatory democracy and participatory economics, is channeling Chomsky. What a surprise. I think this cartoon more accurately summarises the actual MSM approach to Obama:
http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=15913
whereas..ahem!..at whoar..obama has been called as the next president….from when he proved my previous contentions that america was too racist to elect a black president..as a lot of hot air..by winning that first primary..in that 97% ‘whitebread’ state..
In other words you were wrong at one time too! But unlike KIA your previous contention was not reasoned – merely the standard, boring, unreasoned, unthinking, emotive view of the US held by any far-lefter of the last 40 years – and as such one that will undoubtedly flip back should Obama lose the Presidential election to an old white guy. Like this cartoon says…
http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=21358
“….the eyes of 50 million dead slaves are watching me”
Vote:February 27th, 2008 at 11:51 am
thanks for the support Tom
PhilU – some time ago I posted in detail why I feel Obama will not be President. Rather than hide behind the breathless and blind support of the left leaning MSM in the US and NZ for Obama, why didn’t you actually engage me on the substance of my arguments.
Show me how often the “mainstream media consensus” has been right in this election. Almost all the usual readers of the tea leaves have been wrong. I was wrong on Romney in that I underestimated the extent to which Gov Crist of Florida threw his entire political machine behind McCain to overcome what was until his endorsement a growing gap between him and Romney. Had Romney won FL I believe he would be the effective GOP nominee.
I am not in awe of the Clinton machine at all. Its just nobody got rich betting against the Clintons. I admit she has an uphill battle but not an impossible one.
Vote:February 27th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Sorry for thread-jacking, but McCain’s stock has taken a sharp leap after this (Source: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8V25VQ80&show_article=1):
Could it be that we’re seeing the prospect of an American general election being contested by two adults? Spooky.
Vote:February 27th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I learned my lesson in predicting US Presidential elections back in 1992. Having been back in the US for just a month for a long stay (I worked there in 86/87) I watched the first of the Democratic primary debates – what became known as “The Seven Dwarves” campaign.
I immediately wrote back to a political journalist friend to say that she could “rest assured” that Bush would be reelected. Moreover I recall saying that the debate showed that the Democratic contenders were “….a bunch of lightweights and ditherers…”. Bill Clinton as one of the best political operators in recent decades? Nah – sigh!.
Vote:February 27th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Pushmepullu
Interesting choices. On the Dems side:
Sibelius – maybe but her comment blaming a KS tornado on the war in Iraq will come back to haunt her
Napolitano – doubtful as she is a lesbian and Obama is probably looking to have someone on the ticket a little more mainstream and if Clinton wins 2 women wouldn’t work
Richardson – has categorically ruled out being VP
Jim Webb – possibility as he was a war hero and got elected in a red/purple state but he’s got less national leadership experience than Obama coming to the Senate in 06. Obama would want someone more exprienced.
Chris Dodd – too old and pompous + from the North East so cant help win the south.
Wesley Clark would be the natural choice for either Clinton or Obama in my book. He was a successful general, is quite telegenic and would be a slightly more conservative foil to what are two avowed liberals. More likely to appeal to white southern Democrats necessary to take a state like FL
Umm Huckabee will NOT be McCain’s VP. He has overstayed his welcome and has become a bit of an embarrassment to the GOP. He is also weak fiscally and has similar controversial views as McCain re illegal immigration. McCain needs a reliable conservative to solidify the GOP base. Options under consideration:
Gov Mark Sanford – pretty conservative popular Gov of SC
Gov Tim Pawlenty – governs in MN with quite a left leaning legislature so he’s lost some of his low tax cred of late
Gov Charlie Crist – delivered FL for McCain and would do the same in the General. Not real conservative plus he is single (rumoured to be gay and whilst I couldn’t care less some southern conservatives clearly do)
Former PA Gov Tom Ridge – was very popular also a war vet now seen as a possibility
Gov Palin of Alaska is the fav of the right leaning blogs but she is too inexperienced. Others think Fred Thompson but he is too old. Mitt Romney has an outside chance but I dont see it happening much as I like Mitt. I hope its Sanford
Vote:February 27th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Pushmepullu
Interesting choices. On the Dems side:
Sibelius – maybe but her comment blaming a KS tornado on the war in Iraq will come back to haunt her
Napolitano – doubtful as she is a lesbian and Obama is probably looking to have someone on the ticket a little more mainstream and if Clinton wins 2 women wouldn’t work
Richardson – has categorically ruled out being VP
Jim Webb – possibility as he was a war hero and got elected in a red/purple state but he’s got less national leadership experience than Obama coming to the Senate in 06. Obama would want someone more exprienced.
Chris Dodd – too old and pompous + from the North East so cant help win the south.
Wesley Clark would be the natural choice for either Clinton or Obama in my book. He was a successful general, is quite telegenic and would be a slightly more conservative foil to what are two avowed liberals. More likely to appeal to white southern Democrats necessary to take a state like FL
Umm Huckabee will NOT be McCain’s VP. He has overstayed his welcome and has become a bit of an embarrassment to the GOP. He is also weak fiscally and has similar controversial views as McCain re illegal immigration. McCain needs a reliable conservative to solidify the GOP base. Options under consideration:
Gov Mark Sanford – pretty conservative popular Gov of SC
Gov Tim Pawlenty – governs in MN with quite a left leaning legislature so he’s lost some of his low tax cred of late
Gov Charlie Crist – delivered FL for McCain and would do the same in the General. Not real conservative plus he is single (rumoured to be gay and whilst I couldn’t care less some southern conservatives clearly do)
Former PA Gov Tom Ridge – was very popular also a war vet now seen as a possibility
Gov Palin of Alaska is the fav of the right leaning blogs but she is too inexperienced. Others think Fred Thompson but he is too old. Mitt Romney has an outside chance but I dont see it happening much as I like Mitt. I hope its Sanford.
Vote:February 27th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Kiwi in America
How much effect is McCain’s statement about being in Iraq
for the next one hundred years having on the voters ?
It seems from here that his idea of talks with Iran would be
to bomb it flat first.
I cannot see any difference between him and Bush, or
Vote:do the majority of voters want another dubya ?
February 27th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Sean Oxedine http://race42008.com/2008/02/26/the-fascinating-democratic-race/ has raised a hugely valid point about Texas. Apparently none of the polling agencies are polling in Spanish. This means the current polls are skewered in Obama’s favour. Look at the RCP averages in the two other primaries where Hispanic voters make up more than 10% of the Democrat primary:
In California (the second largest Hispanic population by percentage – 34%) Obama led in the RCP average right up to Super Tuesday by 1.2% – Clinton’s election night winning margin was 9.6% and so not polling Hispanics in CA meant at huge 10% difference.
In Arizona the difference was less dramatic (Hispanics – 25%). Clinton has an RCP lead of 6% going into the primary and led by 8.8% on the night an almost 3% differential.
Texas has the 3rd highest percentage of Hispanics (32%). If we were to average the difference between CA and AZ the margin of error due to not polling Hispanics is approx 6.5%. Lets give Obama the benefit of some undeniable inroads he has made into all Clinton’s key constituencies and say this margin is now only 3%. That knocks his slender RCP lead in TX of 1% to a Clinton lead of 2%. Remember she doesn’t have to win big – she only has to win.
Lest people (like philu) accuse me of shilling for Hillary, I couldn’t give a fig who wins as I believe McCain will beat either of them. Until recently it looked like Hillary was the easier to beat – now its about the same. A Clinton victory prolongs the Dem’s agony and increases the chances of a highly devisive convention – all good for the GOP.
Vote:February 27th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
grumpyoldhori
Its getting very little mainstream press attention – the left tilting blogs are rife with it as you’d expect. When you examine the quote in its full context, he was saying that wars to remove dictators often require a long term military presence once a shooting war ends. For instance there are still US troops based in Germany, Korea and Okinawa 50 years + after the end of hostilities. McCain was making the point that he favours staying as long as it takes to get the job done and 100 years was a hyperbolic example to illustrate the point. There is a huge difference between a 100 year long war (which no one would support) and a 100 year presence of a peacekeeping force (a la Germany etc) which a majority of Americans seem happy with as there is no political pressure of any substance to remove the US troops presence from the places where wars were long ago fought.
McCain still leads Clinton by reasonable margins in the head-to-heads (for what they are worth so far out from the general election) and he is now leading Obama by almost the same margins in the latest head-to-heads and he easily polls Huckabee so it doesn’t seem to be hurting at this point. Remember Obamania is at its peak. If he is the nominee, the scrutiny of the press will ramp up. Already many more articles pointing out inconsistencies, flimsy resume, hard left policy positions are appearing.
Vote:February 27th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
As a matter of interest, how many more years of casualties
running at the 2007 level in dead and wounded would it
take before it becomes a factor ?
Why is Bush so low in the ratings if there is that many
Vote:voters happy with Iraq etc ?
February 27th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
McCain has staked his bid for the Presidency on Iraq. He must lose this bid. Iraq is the wrong war in the wrong place – even if some progress is being made. There was a very weak strategic case to attack Iraq – that under the nose of the policy of containment Hussain was making weapons of mass destruction, threatening the stability of the middle east. But that case was bogus. I am truely amazed McCain is staking all on this pointless war. He must lose unless Obama proves to be a total flake. Hillary Clinton is running an odd campaign that suggests no clear strategy. Indeed her campaign is so incompetant I just wonder just how the Clintons won anything. Never mind, she will pull the plug next Wednesday our time or shortly thereafter, making a whole lot of snarling remarks about the Press and she will try and recover her career and her husband’s shattered legacy.
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Tim, Iraq isn’t a decider any more. Your view on the war I think relates to things that don’t interest Americans. Why the war was started, how it went in the beginning, who lied or misinterpreted or hid stuff is immaterial. They are in Iraq, and if they leave the country will descend into chaos. Many Americans see that they started it, and they can’t walk away now and leave a mess. They need to stay the course. Even the most militant Democrats seem to agree with that.
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 5:58 am
Paul is correct Tim. Many right leaning NZers opposed this war partly due to the unrelentingly hostile anti-war sentiment of the media in NZ that is even more leftist than their MSM equivalents in the US and usually laden with the latent anti-US sentiment that has become a sad feature of life in NZ. Some oppose due to libertarian instincts.
American voter sentiment to the war is vastly more nuanced than the media reports. When you parse the polls, and eliminate the bad and partisan polls (eg CBS who oversample Dems by a whopping 10%), the picture emerging is one of weariness with the war but with a desire to win rather than retreat. The numbers supporting the ‘surge’ continue to climb and the numbers supporting precipitate withdrawal (Obama’s position) continue to fall. McCain’s own surge has been partly due to his uncompromising support for the Petraeus strategy and it has been vindicated. Iraq stories rarely appear in the media now and the few that do mostly report the CW that Petreaus’ strategy has been successful. Bloggers such as Ed Morrissey and Michael Yon, who keep a close eye on political developments in Iraq, are reporting a string of positive legislative and other developments (eg Sadr extending his moritorium on sectarian Shi’ite interventions) that are the political developments the Democrats now bleat about as being the new benchmark of failure. As the effects of these positive developments flow through, even the anti-war left leaning MSM will pick up on it.
The war will never become a great vote winning boon to the GOP but it has ceased to be any headwind. Trenchant opposition to the war and staking ones political capital on a rapid withdrawal however has become a political liablity and it is THAT aspect of the war that McCain will fillet Obama like a fish. Whilst most of the anti war Dems in Congress have fallen silent as they read the tea leaves and see the changing political wind over the war, Obama blithely sticks to his retreat now policy in stump speech after stump speech. That goes down well in the left wing fever swamp of the Dem primaries but plays entirely differently in the battleground states like FL that Obama must win to get to the magical 270 electoral college votes.
Grumpyoldhori
Vote:Take a close look at the 07 and 08 casualty stats will you mate. You will see a precipitous decline in military and non military casualties thanks to the success of the Petraeus strategy. Sadly people die in wars. But when you look at US military casualties in this war (currently a total of 3,800+ over the course of the whole war) it equates to the same number of deaths that occur in the total US armed forces due to accidents PER YEAR. Stacked up against the 17,000 WW1 casualties, 450,000 WW2, 33,000 Korean War and 56,000 Vietnam war casualties, this war is remarkably free from casualties. And about Bush’s popularity, guess what – he’s not on the ballot.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:01 am
The casualty figures used are obviously US only – in WW1 the Brits alone lost 4 million.
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 6:14 am
hi to kiwiv in america kool what part you in?
Vote: