Quote:
Originally Posted by Axeman
And every single poll showed him gaining and even leading in both states until the heat came and he started looking like every politician that ever lived.
BTW she won Ohio by 12% and Texas by 4%. And show me a single poll in the last 10 days that showed anything but him rapidly closing the gap.
I understand the pain when your candidate stumbles. How he reacts from here will be interesting.
Want to talk about the backpeddle and moving the goalposts.
Good luck going forward but your not going to like what comes your way.
But you can certainly enjoy the upcoming Obama wins in Miss and Wyoming. Enjoy them while you can because the beatdown on Penn is going to hurt you big.
Rezko won't hurt just like the NAFTA story wouldn't, but did.
|
The only poll that showed him leading was Zogby, and he's been so off this campaign season it's not even funny.
Yes the polls showed him closing the gap, and that's what he did. She was 20 points ahead and won by substantially less than that.
I love your thinking......Obama's wins in Miss and Wyoming don't really matter, but Clinton winning in PA is gonna "hurt me big"
So you're saying that Obama's wins and votes don't really matter, but Clinton's do?
BTW, there's no pain from me whatsoever. Like I said before, Hillary winning Ohio and Texas was always assumed, just like Obama winning South Carolina and Vermont was always assumed....it's just demographics.
At the end of the day, (and the end of the primary season) Obama will have more votes and more pledged delegates than Hillary, and if somehow she manages to wrestle the nomination away from him, it will tear the party apart and assure McCain of a victory in November.
You can talk about all of the Rezko's and Nafta's you want (most of that stuff isn't 10% of what it's being made out to be anyways) but what's the point in having elections if the person with the most votes doesn't win? If that's the case then we should just go back to party elders picking a nominee in a smoke filled backroom.