Quote:
Originally Posted by Snake Doctor
Please state your source for this. Obama has won the last 11 primaries and caucuses by an average margin of 33%. I'd like to see how she's winning a majority of democrats and his entire 33% margin is from independents. I haven't seen that data.
All of your other stuff is just crap. Total crap. (in the post you made before this one)
If any of that stuff really mattered or was going to "sink his campaign" it would have happened already.
The Clintons have tried to hit him with everything and he's come out smelling like a rose. Do you really think McCain is a better campaigner than the Clinton machine?
I know you're biased for Hillary, and that's fine, the same way I'm biased for Obama.....but let's get real.
He's beating her across the board, by significant margins.
She's a fine candidate, she just ran in the wrong year, and now, it's almost over.
|
Democrats favor Clinton vs Obama:
"But, since this is actually the Democratic primary, perhaps we should look at how Democrats [i.e., not Republicans or low information voters in ?open? primaries] have actually voted. Based on the available exit polling data, we find that Hillary Clinton has a commanding lead over Barack Obama in the number of votes ? As of February 16, 2008, 391,992 more Democrats voted for Clinton than Obama.
In terms of actual Democratic voters, the numbers from Super Tuesday are astonishing ? and were, of course, ignored by the media. Out of over 12,100,000 votes cast by Democrats that day, Clinton beat Obama by nearly 7%, and just short of 837,000 votes. And if we include all the primaries that took place before Super Tuesday (NH, SC, MI, FL) the Clinton advantage among Democrats rises to 7.5%, and well over a million votes.
"
From -
http://www.correntewire.com/count_whose_vote based on exit poll data found here:
http://www.glcq.com/table.htm which also contains where the data came from.
As for your assertion my previous post was based on pure crap, lets see some evidence that what I said was wrong? I posted a link to an article that detailed his rise in Chicago, with quotes by the people that assisted to make him, and firm track record of his skewed record of sponsoring a whooping 26 big bills his final year in the state legislature. You say its crap, but lets start seeing the hard facts that point to that article being false and not true?
As to his sub committee record, he admitted in the debate.
As for his NAFTA debate today the government came out to say it didn't happen, yet CTV has come out to state firmly it stands behind the story, so there is more to come here. CTV is a nation wide reputable news station in Canada like ABC, NBC and CBS, so we'll see what path that goes down. Right now it can be argued its time to wait for more facts to get released before you can hold him down on it.
And on the Iraq mis-statement I provided you the source on his site that claims his 2002 run for US senator which is false. And showed you an article that shows you step by step how to see how he himself on his old website backs it up that it is indeed false. Used to deceive and create a false hope.
So if you can provide me with links to refute that and show me he was actively running for US senator in 2002 from any reliable source besides his website then I am all ears to listen to that.