Call It A Counter-Factual

Untitled document

Imagine an America where the Democrats got their fondest wish (namely, a one party state where Republicans and conservatives are completely disenfranchised) what do you think would happen if Hillary Clinton were to run against Barrack Obama in a general election for the presidency?  It seems clear to me that were Obama placed under the rules laid out by the Electoral College he would lose to Clinton by 100 to 150 EV's.  Easy.  And that is before you had in the scorched earth campaign he has been running the last three months or so, the effects of which are only now being felt.

Now, I know according to the Obamaniacs all Kentuckians are toothless hillbillies (especially the Democratic Kentuckians it seems), but the exit poll data is damning.

Did Obama Attack Unfairly?  Yes 49&, No 48% 

This number continues to grow.

Does Obama share Rev. Wright's views?  Yes 53%, No 45%

Remember, these are Democrats.

Satisfied if Obama is nominee?  Yes 43%, No 55%

Vote for President in November?  Obama 50%, McCain 32%, Would Not Vote 15%

Vote for President in November?  Clinton 77%, McCain 16%, Would Not Vote 5%

Is Obama honest? Yes 47%, No 51%

Is Clinton honest? Yes 64%, No 34%

Obama didn't just lose this election, he was rejected.  It's a beautiful thing that Democrats don't understand the difference.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Call It A Counter-Factual

  1. Sam Wah says:

    I keep thinking that "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"; there are a number of women who’ll feel scorned if Hillary! isn’t the nominee. And then there’s Hillary! herownself, who ain’t just "a" woman.  She’ll be "Hellary! on Wheels".

  2. syn says:

    She may be "Hellary! on Wheels" however the Rage Machine is carrying Obama, if she steals the nomination from him all hell will break lose; I’d rather see Hillary moveon.orged than McCain, he doesn’t seem to notice just how vicious is the Left when they want something.

  3. kidrob says:

    toothless dem’s. hee hee hee

  4. Alex says:

    Game Over – McCain wins in November.  Mark my words – with every passing day like this, the dems just keep shooting themselves in the foot.  I don’t affiliate with a party, this is an external observation.

  5. TimF says:

    RE: Alex’s comment
    We had a block party last weekend here in exurban Soviet of Seattle.  As the only openly-declared Republican in the group, it was interesting to listen to the discussions on the other side.  IIRC, ALL the Clinton supporters in attendance said that they would vote McCain over Obama.  Since we have a rematch of the contested 2004 Gubernatorial race to keep up GOP interest, the Presidential race could be very close here in November.   

  6. martian says:

    Unfortunately for the Obamessiah, he got into this race too early. It gave the public and even the reporters time to get over their initial infatuation with He Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken and start taking a hard, practical look at him. Anytime anyone does that, he/she ends up seeing that Barrie is nothing but a facade like on a movie set – looks all pretty from the front but when you walk around back and look, there’s nothing really there.

  7. Plumb Bob says:

    Once the nominee has been settled in August, does anybody really believe that the Democrats who are saying they will not vote for Obama, truly will not vote for Obama?I’ll be surprised if 25% of them follow through on that claim. Just look at the number of Republicans who said they would never pull the lever for McCain. How many of them are still saying it, especially now that we’ve seen what a thorough-going disaster Obama truly would be?McCain will receive an unusually large number of Democratic votes, for a Republican. However, the antipathy between Clinton and Obama voters will be settled long before election day in November. I wish that weren’t so, but I’m pretty sure it’s so.

  8. Rich Horton says:

    YEah, I hear that spin and I’m not buying it.  Mostly because of A) the way Obama has run his campaign, and B) the opportunity an Obama campaign will present to unify Republicans against him.  Obama is the only candidate the Democrats could have nominated that would have motivated the religious right to back McCain.  Plus McCain is by easily the centrist choice, and Obama will not be able to shed his liberal voting record or his leftist past. 
    McCain may not get that many Democratic votes, but I’m betting plenty decide to stay home or vote for Nader.

  9. Bill Franklin says:


    Do you actually believe Kentucky is an accurate representation of the United States?!? If so, then 2/10 of us need to stop using the Internet, because only 53% of Kentucky’s population uses the “Internets.” Education levels, income levels, etc just don’t correlate. But there is something that does correlate with poor, uneducated, uninformed whites – Racism. Will you acknowledge that racism had a part in the Kentucky vote? Heck – look at all of Appalachia – All Hillary territory.

    I’m sure there are plenty of racist democrats, and there’s no way they’ll vote for Obama. But you’re fooling yourself if you think they’ll vote McCain. Do you really think if Republicans were running a black candidate that a racist conservative voters would vote for Hillary? This November the racist Democrats will stay home, because they won’t vote for Obama, but they won’t betray their party.

    And here’s another prediction for you – Die hard Republicans aren’t that thrilled with McCain. There’s nothing motivating them to come out and vote for flip floppin’ Johnny.

    So the race will be won by the candidate who can motivate the voter that usually votes one party but will occasionally vote the other party – the independents. Obama’s campaign is going to focus on painting McCain as four more years of Bush (a rather easy task). McCain has his work cut out for him…

    BTW – I think it’s funny you don’t even discuss Iraq anymore. I’m not a regular here, so if a reason was stated I missed it, but I sure miss all the 2006ish “things are doing great” spin.

  10. Rich Horton says:

    It doesn’t need to be a microcosom for America.  The Kentucky Demcoratic primary would certainly be a better yardstick about rural America than, say, the Idaho or Wyoming Democratic caucuses.  The Appalachia stuff only works if you look at the percentages of 65% or higher…as if losing other areas 62-38 is OK for any candidate.  Obama won two counties in Kentuckt total.  Not THAT much of Kentucky could be considered Appalachia.  So you can add a "Ohio River Valley" problem to the so-called "Appalachia Problem".  (Hmm…13 of the 14 counties Clinton won in Illinois are pretty close to the Ohio river….Maybe I’m on to soemthing.)
    As for Republicans not being fired up about McCain you are right.  But if anyone can get the religious right fired up to come out and vote against them, its Barack Obama.  Were this a Clinton-McCain showdown I dont think McCain has a prayer.  Too many people remember the Clinton years, which turned out not to the end times.  But Obama is so far outside the American mainstream in such a myriad of ways, McCain will seem like the out and out better choice….so much so that peopl will forget the need to hold their nose when they cast their ballot. 
    I’m glad to remember my Iraq pieces from 2006 so fondly?  You will have to tell me what they were like exactly, since I didn’t start writing here until the summer of 2007.
    I’ll assume you meant Gaius.  I’m sure he is working on a piece about the standing up of the Iraqi army, and the talk that a combat brigade might be removed in September because the situation on the ground has improved.
    Iraq cannot sink the Republican chances in November.  $5.00 gas could.

Comments are closed.