[Jourgenz]

1) If Hillary had been nominated, McCain wouldn't have bothered with Palin, sparing himself serious negative press about his judgment. He probably would have picked Pawlenty, and Minnesota would be in play.

And the right wing wouldn't have been all that energized in a McCain campaign. For all that talk about they really wanted to keep Hillary out, you don't think a black man who speaks of massive government spending would have been considered worse to them?

Also, of course, the economy would have fallen similarly and who better to remind people to remind voters how much better things were back in the 90s?

Furthermore, no worrying about the Bradley effect.

[MizzDaizzy]

I don't see much of a difference. They really are both strong candidates. You might have a weaker ground operation and that would've freed up McCain to make a more moderate Veep pick, but Clinton's a lot more fluent on economic issues. She would've been a lot more aggressive on health care and social security. I'm still wondering whether Obama's holding off on these issues until the financial system started to buckle was ridiculously bad strategy or brilliant foresight.

The more interesting hypothetical, IMO, is if Romney were the GOP nominee.

[aquadayAquaks]

Originally posted by Ramo
The more interesting hypothetical, IMO, is if Romney were the GOP nominee. He'd be down 15, at least.

[outdog]

That's Obama's big claim, and probably what's giving him the boost.



You can't actually believe that, can you?

Besides, Obama has been claiming deregulation by the Bush Administration for the reason. He's said nothing about what happened under the Clinton Administration.

[Beedcardabeme]

Because that would mean blaming Democrats as well which would undercut his attacks on McCain.

[ChexEcodece]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Exactly the question a lot of Republicans are asking.

Of course the repeal of the GS act really had little to do with this and made the fall a LOT less worse than it could have been (imagine if commerical banks couldn't buy investment banks that were failing and vice versa). It allowed commercial banks to own derivatives. That's what it did. There has been an explosion of derivatives. That is the real problem here. It doesn't matter if it's easier for financial institutions to take each other over. That won't solve the problem. You will still have all these derivatives in the economy.

[Hpdovoxm]

I think Hillary would be down at this point if she had been the candidate. Obama hasn't lost many Hillary supporters, and I don't think Hillary would be getting all the Obama supporters. He has energized the youth and black voters to actually vote (or so we think at this point)

The bigots are as unlikely to vote for a woman or black candidate, so there is little change there.

Obama is making up some ground on the religious vote (not the hard cores, but the more moderate), something I don't think Hillary could have done.

Hard core republicans and democrats would vote their party with any candidate.

When it comes to the middle of the pack voters, Obama seems to be doing well, and I really don't think Hillary could be doing any better.

So overall, I think Obama was the better choice.
The only problem might be the hidden anti black vote... people could be telling pollsters one thing, but may not actually vote for him in the privacy of the ballot booth.

[Bondjrno]

Wait, you're quoting Bill's statement that his signing the bill didn't cause the crash, as evidence that it didn't cause the crash?

Next we'll be bringing out Nixon's "I am not a crook"

As far as I'm concerned, allowing commercial banks and investment banks to intermingle was the primary cause of the economic damage of the crash. Allowing investment banks to collapse and not be bought out by commercial banks would have been a fabulous thing in my opinion, as without some further regulation this is only going to get worse (maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for a really ****ing long time).

[DraidodaRip]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Furthermore, no worrying about the Bradley effect. whazzat?

[MAKEMONEY]

Probably the biggest source of the credit problems is simply such low interest rates for so long that people borrowed lots and lots and lots of money because it was so cheap (simple supply and demand) and nobody bothered to do anything about dealing with possible downsides of this when they should have seen it coming (since it's a good bit like what hit Japan in the early 90's).

As far as how Hillary would be doing that would depend massively on how the primaries turned out and specifically how and when Hillary won them.

[BJEugene]

She'd be doing far better.

1. Arkansas is in play.
2. Louisiana is in play.
3. West Virginia is in play.
4. Missouri is in play.
5. Florida is in play.
6. Ohio she would be leading.

Michigan would be solid, as are Wisconsin and Minnesota. Same with Washington.

She would sew up Pennsylvania too.

Obama brings Colorado, and that's it. That's the only state that he brings to the table that Hillary would not. Neither of them would bring Indiana, just because it's Indiana.

Virginia isn't going Obama, unfortunately. Sorry Obamaphiles.

[bixlewlyimila]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
She'd be doing far better.
2. Louisiana is in play. Why's that? Bill Clinton won Louisiana largely based on the African-American vote. As Ming pointed out, its extremely unlikely Hillary would benefit from a large AA turnout, given the tenor of the primaries.

4. Missouri is in play. It's in play now. Obama was up in the latest polls.

5. Florida is in play. Obama currently is leading in Florida.

6. Ohio she would be leading. Obama currently has a small lead in Ohio.

Michigan would be solid, as are Wisconsin and Minnesota. Same with Washington. Obama is leading by double digits in all of these states now.

She would sew up Pennsylvania too. Latest polls have Obama up 10-15. That's pretty sewn up.

Obama brings Colorado, and that's it.

I That's the only state that he brings to the table that Hillary would not. Neither of them would bring Indiana, just because it's Indiana.

Virginia isn't going Obama, unfortunately. Sorry Obamaphiles. Currently, Indiana is a dead heat. That means it's in play. And so is North Carolina, which Clinton would have no hope of winning. I also think Iowa would be a toss-up rather than solidly Obama. And Obama is winning Virginia--he's averaging a 4-5 pt lead there now. Clinton wouldn't be close.

Obama has also moved ahead in Nevada, and I don't think Clinton would be doing as well there. Nor in New Mexico.

[AbeldeldepBug]

Bill is telling the press that the deregulation of 1999 didn't cause the economic crisis. Bill is right, as usual.

[jakitula]

Originally posted by Ming
Thank you Boris... I almost died laughing reading Ben's post. I was going to respond state by state, but you already did a great job.

Obama was a much better pick for the Dems. I don't think Hillary would be in as good position as Obama is now, and would probably be lossing. No one has ever accused Ben of having the foggiest idea what he's talking about when it comes to U.S. politics.

[Clunlippibe]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Virginia isn't going Obama, unfortunately. Sorry Obamaphiles.
The latest CNN poll of polls has Obama leading McCain 49 percent to 45 percent. A CNN/TIME/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted September 28-30 shows Obama with an even bigger lead over McCain, 53 percent to 44 percent. The CNN poll's margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.

[drugimpotence]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
1) An ARG poll of West Virginia voters, conducted Oct. 5-8, has just been released. This is the first poll conducted since the bailout crisis/market crash; it's also the first poll taken since the candidates began debating. And in it...drumroll please...Obama is up by 8 points. Looks like WV is in play! ARG is simply the most unreliable polling outfit out there. They suck. They do not weight their samples at all, which is completely stupid. That's why their polling is the most erratic in the business, and they have perhaps the worst track record imaginable when it comes to their polling matching actual election results. Throwing darts would be just as effective.

So I don't buy those WV numbers one bit. I think Obama is going to do much better in WV than many in the primaries predicted (there's no way he loses 60-40), but I don't think he's up at all, much less by 8 points.

[Reafnartefs]

Originally posted by Bosh
You missed West Virginia. The most recent ARG poll has Obama ahead there. He probably won't win it, but I'm shocked to see him at least make it close. Uh... see the post right above yours.

[XarokLasa]

Btw, you guys hear about the ARG poll for West Virginia?!