I say Clinton.
I've got nothing much else to say. In general, who would win against McCain?
I've got nothing much else to say. In general, who would win against McCain?
Poll
Who Stands a Better Chance Against McCain?
| Clinton | 25% | 25% - 15 | ||||
| Obama | 74% | 74% - 43 | ||||
| Total: 58 | ||||||
How many does this make? How many threads on this subject are there already? Come on, give us something to debate and talk about serious-like!
Either of them would and will smoke John McCain. The old dude was done before he started. He'll wobble around and squawk and cackle and pretend he's qualified for everything and act like he knows stuff and sell himself as the uber flip-flopper..but in the end, he's nothing..never was. *poof*
Either of them would and will smoke John McCain. The old dude was done before he started. He'll wobble around and squawk and cackle and pretend he's qualified for everything and act like he knows stuff and sell himself as the uber flip-flopper..but in the end, he's nothing..never was. *poof*
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2008-06-03 13:27:24)
Obama, because he was against the war from the start.
Yea, but he isn't going to pull the troops out if he wins. Neither would HellaryJenspm wrote:
Obama, because he was against the war from the start.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Clinton isn't bullshiting, she probably could do better in the running against McCain.
You know this how?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Yea, but he isn't going to pull the troops out if he wins. Neither would HellaryJenspm wrote:
Obama, because he was against the war from the start.
They all suck , We're in real trouble
time is mccain's worse enemy
logitech487 wrote:
They all suck , We're in real trouble
I don't believe they'd do it as fast as they are saying. I'd have to say, if it wasn't for the Iraq war, neither of them would have a chance.IRONCHEF wrote:
You know this how?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Yea, but he isn't going to pull the troops out if he wins. Neither would HellaryJenspm wrote:
Obama, because he was against the war from the start.
I have hope that the DEM congress will actually do what they claimed they'd do once a Dem is president. Then they not only can get any resolution (revoke war powers act or whatever) passed, they'll save their precious faces and political careers since they won't have the white house creating turmoil. Friggen dem pansies.
It's just a fools hope, but let's see what they do. Be nice if after inauguration, Obama's first order of business is to reassess, yank troops from Iraq, flood and pound on Afghanistan for 6 months, catching/killing OBL or not, and then leaving. We'll have avenged or shown more than adequate force in attempting to avenge our losses from 9/11. Nobody would be looking like sisses, losers, or any form of weakness for withdrawing. An immediate withdrawal from both countries (and whatever clandestine ops going on in Pakistan) wouldn't be bad either...well not bad for us..but bad for Iraq somewhat. I think they can handle it fine. It'd be interesting to see how the warfare would change in Iraq if we pulled out. At least one group would withdraw after we did..then the Iraqis could form up their country.
It's just a fools hope, but let's see what they do. Be nice if after inauguration, Obama's first order of business is to reassess, yank troops from Iraq, flood and pound on Afghanistan for 6 months, catching/killing OBL or not, and then leaving. We'll have avenged or shown more than adequate force in attempting to avenge our losses from 9/11. Nobody would be looking like sisses, losers, or any form of weakness for withdrawing. An immediate withdrawal from both countries (and whatever clandestine ops going on in Pakistan) wouldn't be bad either...well not bad for us..but bad for Iraq somewhat. I think they can handle it fine. It'd be interesting to see how the warfare would change in Iraq if we pulled out. At least one group would withdraw after we did..then the Iraqis could form up their country.
The fact they've controlled the legislature for 2 years and never followed through on their campaign promise to pull the troops.IRONCHEF wrote:
You know this how?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Yea, but he isn't going to pull the troops out if he wins. Neither would HellaryJenspm wrote:
Obama, because he was against the war from the start.
Deadmonkiefart wrote:
logitech487 wrote:
They all suck , We're in real trouble
Clinton beats McCain by more electoral votes than Obama when looking at most national estimates. Of course, that doesn't mean that I'd want her to be the nominee.
I hope you're not basing that on how she did in the Democratic primary races. Comparing the general to the primaries is apples and oranges.
Oh...the OP: Obama. Though tbh, if McCain can't shake the "another four years of Bush" shit that Obama has put on him, he would lose to Tyrone Biggums.
Oh...the OP: Obama. Though tbh, if McCain can't shake the "another four years of Bush" shit that Obama has put on him, he would lose to Tyrone Biggums.
Last edited by FEOS (2008-06-03 18:05:57)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Are you?IRONCHEF wrote:
he's nothing...
I'm basing it on an excellent site that compiles polling info on a daily basis.FEOS wrote:
I hope you're not basing that on how she did in the Democratic primary races. Comparing the general to the primaries is apples and oranges.
Oh...the OP: Obama. Though tbh, if McCain can't shake the "another four years of Bush" shit that Obama has put on him, he would lose to Tyrone Biggums.
Compare Obama's chances: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/O … Jun03.html
...to Clinton's: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/C … Jun03.html
I got polled the other day for the first time
To your signature: No, we're not. They all genuinely suck.God Save the Queen wrote:
I got polled the other day for the first time
logitech487 wrote:
They all suck , We're in real trouble
c'mon Canin, you know you like Obama just a little bit.
Nope, tbh I think he could be the anti-christ
Obama is just another politician with nothing unique to offer.God Save the Queen wrote:
c'mon Canin, you know you like Obama just a little bit.
Clinton would get votes from millions of Republican women and she'd compete for the votes of lower-income white Republicans. She would crush McCain among women.
Obama won't get many Republican votes because there are no Republicans who are in the groups that support him most strongly: African-Americans, college students and rich white liberals.
Plus, Obama hasn't had to defend his pledge to withdraw from Iraq and he's going to look naive when he's challenged on the consequences of withdrawal.
McCain in a landslide.
Obama won't get many Republican votes because there are no Republicans who are in the groups that support him most strongly: African-Americans, college students and rich white liberals.
Plus, Obama hasn't had to defend his pledge to withdraw from Iraq and he's going to look naive when he's challenged on the consequences of withdrawal.
McCain in a landslide.
You know that you're not being entirely truthful.Stingray24 wrote:
The fact they've controlled the legislature for 2 years and never followed through on their campaign promise to pull the troops.IRONCHEF wrote:
You know this how?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Yea, but he isn't going to pull the troops out if he wins. Neither would Hellary
Their majority isn't big enough to do jack shit.