Posted on 03/23/2007 6:15:07 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Democrat Barack Obama holds the upper hand over a prospective Republican presidential nominee in the United States, according to a poll by SRBI Public Affairs published in Time. 44 per cent of respondents would support the Illinois senator in 2008, while 41 per cent would vote for Arizona senator John McCain.
Obama is almost tied with former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton trails Giuliani by four points, and is almost even with McCain.
(Excerpt) Read more at angus-reid.com ...
Doesn't mean a thing.
Fred Thompson for President... I do not care about polls, only ethics and electability...... of course ethics trumps electability
The suggestion here that a Senator from Illinois could win the presidency in a highly divided and polarized nation? Is there any precedent for that?
Didn't he also start the War of Northern Aggression?
Now that it has been determined that he has Irish roots his stock will hit the roof …
The Irish vote + the black vote + the guilty white vote + the know nothings vote AND the big ear vote … he should be picking his choice for wallpaper in the White House.
I just wonder why I'm never contacted by polls. Could be because I'm unlisted. Or that I'm at work when they call, or that I'm on a "Do not call" list. How many of us are there?
Most of us? : )
Am I wrong or do Americans vote for president more on emotions than on resume?
I have been contacted only once in my life by pollsters. It was during the OJ trial, and I just happened to be home and it was a recorded message. There was no nuance allowed (the left's favorite word). Anyone that assumes that polls reflect the opinion of the American people should really do a reality check.
Media polls are lies told by very determined agenda-driven liars who need to lie by statistics (overpolling friends, underpolling enemies) in order to pretend that they are not just making the next news cycle up (which is the publication of their own cooked polls), but are instead using really brainy math that most people can't fathom which somehow also vouches for their expert journalistic objectivity.
If it had to be a Democrat president, I'd much rather it be Obama than Hillary. Hillary has a vindictive streak and she can't wait to get revenge on her so called "vast right wing conspiracy".
Go Rudy Go!
"get a grip . a radical leftist is compared to our greatest president . you need more du kool aid."
i stand by my comparison. Actually I don't think Obama has the chacter that Lincold does I have toadmit.
Obama does not even exist as something serious: hillary will devour him and crap out the buttons. Given her long memory, that "1984" ad means that obama will not be her VP candidate.
Yes, Osama Obama will be hard to beat. I'd rather see Hillary (and us) destroy him before he can be nominated.
We'd have a better chance a gainst her.
They're both hard-left, though, and Shrillary would be less hard (though still hard) to beat.
No but he did finish it. Then he relented and went to the theater with his wife.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.