A new poll by the Reno Gazette-Journal shows a neck-and-neck three-way race among Democrats for Saturday's caucus. On the Republican side, U.S. Sen. John McCain has taken his first lead in Nevada of the election season, and Mitt Romney, who has been working Nevada harder than any other Republican, is trailing in fourth place.
A look at the top line results (more will be posted later this morning):
Barack Obama: 32 percent
Hillary Clinton: 30 percent
John Edwards: 27 percent
John McCain: 22 percent
Rudy Giuliani: 18 percent
Mike Huckabee: 16 percent
Mitt Romney: 15 percent
Fred Thompson: 11 percent
Ron Paul: 6 percent
Duncan Hunter: 1 percent
The poll was conducted Jan. 11 to Jan. 13 , with samples of 500 likely Democratic caucus-goers and 500 likely Republican caucus-goers statewide by Maryland-based Research 2000. The margin of error is 4.5 percent.
http://www.rgj.com/blogs/inside-neva...vada-dead.html
---------------------------------------------------
Looks like a three-way dead heat in Nevada with John Edwards in the mix. He always wins the debates, so I'll look forward to Tuesday night on MSNBC.
Obama is in a must win situation and from what I'm seeing play out, yeah in that damn liberal media, I'm not getting a good feeling but I'm still optimistic that the American people will give a new, albeit progressive, change and direction for our Country. There have been great Presidents in our history who did not have great political experience but who showed they more than had what it takes to be Commander in Chief.
Oh yes.
I don't care about Obama's lack of experience. I dislike the fact that he runs for President halfway through his first term as Senator. I can't stand someone who would use the Senate merely as a way of getting his name into the national media to run for President.
Even so I think he's easily the best Democrat candidate, which is why I'm voting minor party this time.
You'd prefer he let someone he feels is less qualified win becasue he's on the senate?
If he thinks any of the Democrats are less qualified, he's got too big of an ego.
Like I said, i don't like that he's a FIRST TERM Senator. Smacks of preplanned stepping stone, which is insulting.
So now planning is a bad thing? You don't think other politicians have aspirations of the White House when they run for office? Come on now.
Being firmly entrenched in the Senate is not necessarily a good thing when running for POTUS. And I don't see how it's exactly "insulting," except for the more "experienced" politicians getting outshone by a supposed lightweight. But I guess he's had these evil aspirations since Kindergarten, so we shouldn't be surprised.
And could someone please let me know how Hillary Clinton is infinitely more qualified that Obama? Still can't figure that one out, even excluding her historically poor decision making.
I you don't understand how someone not taking the Senate seriously is a bad thing, you won't. It's insulting to the Senate at that level, and it's insulting to the voters in that he ran for an office he never planned on doing the job he was elected to do.
It has nothing to do with whether or not others had plans. I had no problem with Kerry running for office (it's well do ented he's wanted to be President since he was in college), but I did with Edwards. I have no problem with Hilary running (I was sure she was looking forward to Presidency before she ran for the Senate), but I do with Obama. It's not about whether it was planned, it's about showing respect to the office you were elected to and the people who voted for you.
Personally I think elected officials should be required to step down if they register to seek another elected office, anyway, but that's beside the point.
They are all unqualified except for Richardson and Gravel. None of them have held an executive office, run a successful business, or are self made. Edwards is the closest otherwise in that regard, but he gained his wealth by being a charismatic ambulance chaser. I'm don't think leeches should count.
He is at least the most honest of them from what I see. The best? At least I think we can trust he intends to so as he says.
I'd say they are equally unqualified, except for Richardson.
You feel the same way about Hillary, right?
LOL... I'm insulted by nearly all democrat politicians. I consider it insulting to the voters that a congress member of any time in congress thinks that job qualifies him to be president.
The jobs are vastly different.
I think instead, you are trying to justify racism. You really think Hillary's four extra years as a US senator gives her more qualifications than Obama's time?
I would suggest Obama is more qualified from what it appears you are looking for. Sure, Hillary has four years up on him in the US senate. Obama actually has four more years experience in politics than Hillary, because he was a senator since 1997 as a state senator compared to Hillary's 2001.
Obama has also lectured, written two best sellers, and was a more honorable class of lawyers. A civil rights lawyer.
Hillary was an undistinguished lawyer at two law firms, and first lady of Arkansas and the USA. She would have never been elected on her own merits, but does so because she was a popular first lady.
Absolutely. I agree. You cannot do your present job when you are taking time to run for office.
Think about it. These people are getting paid and not really performing the jobs they are being paid for!
How many democrats are getting a federal paychecks while running vs. republicans?
Honor in office is like Mitt Romney. He chose to run for president, therefore he did not seek reelection as governor. He is not running while collecting a government check to work.
Currently not collecting pay for government work not being performed:
Romney, Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Alan Keyes, and Gravel.
Those collecting government pay for work not being done:
McCain, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Kucinich
I've read a couple of NV papers which have Giuliani in the lead. Overall, I believe it's a three-way tie. Not sure about the Democratic side? Anyways, I will try to pull up some link later, but it is late and I got class in the morning
You don't pay much attention do you. You respond to a lot of what I say, but you ignore the fact that I pointed out that it's running during their first term that bothers me. I specifically pointed to both Obama and Edwards as examples.
I also stated it had nothing to do with qualifications or experience, but was about respect towards the Senate and voters.
Try paying attention to what's said before you go off on a limb about stupid things.
I support Obama and I do feel he is qualified and ready. Experience doesn't always mean you are more capable of someone else.
I addressed that. It doesn't matter 1st term, or tenth term. It's disrespectful to the voters to campaign when you are suppose to represent them.
I fail to understand why it could make a difference for the number of terms. The states these people are from are lacking full representation. Why does one more term matter under those facts?
It makes a difference to me. I think of it sort of like vesting.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
