It's interesting that virtually everyone these days plays the horse race game: pick a team, identify with the team, and debate how good your horse is compared to the other horses.

Not that the candidates don't matter, it's just that the way we speak about politics sounds more like a game every year.

An individual President's virtues and merits are less important then the power structures that support them. That's how I knew Bush was bad juju in 1999, and why I knew Clinton would have a hell of a bad time in Washington. He had no connections to the powers.

To bring back an appropriate phrase from the past, Bush at heart was nothing more than a two-bit punk who disrespected and demeaned the Whitehouse.

We voters follow his footsteps right off a cliff if we allow ourselves to lower our own standards by turning the election of the next leader of the free world into nothing more than a rigged game of Presidential Idol.

Ufortunately, there isn't one bright light among the current list of candidates on either side.

Just lots of dim bulbs.

Was selecting Joe Lieberman as his running mate. That was enough to turn me Green that year and would be enough for me to continue to questions his judgement.

I looked over the poll results and noticed that at the bottom, the percent of respondents that identified themselves as Evangelicals or Born Again Christians was 37%. Isn't that awfully high? I thought they only encompassed about 17% of the population.

Oops.

Sorry about that!

18 Months of Polls on the Walls

18 Months of Polls

Take One Down, Pass it Around

17 Months of Polls on the Wall.

Seriously: any of us armchair pundits (which I imagine likely describes most War Room readers) can tell you that the candidates have the following needs to accomplish between now and Nov '08 and their success in doing so will determine what the polls that matter say in Nov '08.

All: Raise bucks. Plus answer the "who?" factor.

Hillary: That she's likeable enough to be able to change people's minds about her.

Obama: That he's got the political acumen to back up his personal charisma.

Edwards: See Obama, only more so.

McCain: That he isn't 4 more years of W. Plus finding a way to harmonize with the right.

Guliani: That he is more than Mayor of 9/11 and keep people from discovering to what degree he's a jerk. Plus finding a way to harmonize with the right.

Ian

But you did get a couple of things wrong, Gore didn't run for president in 1992, Clinton picked him for veep off the strength of his 88 run, which Gore actually did pretty well in for someone that was so young, and wasn't very well known at the time.

Also, while there are people that run several times that become a joke, (Jerry Brown, Lamar Alexander)there are others that go on to win, (Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon).

I agree that Gore was an overly cautious politician in 2000, and blew the debates, at least as far as the likeability factor goes (all that sighing and weird orange makeup), but even with all the things he got wrong, he still won the popular vote, and I think, probably the electoral college as well, but Bush's daddy just had too many friends on the supreme court.

For now I'm supporting John Edwards, but if Gore announced, I would have to at least think about switching, hell, I'd like to see Gore win just for the image of him being sworn in with Bush standing behind him with that odd grimace of his.

Take for example Obama/Giuliani on page six. This week Obama received 44% and Giuliani received 45%. This week's percentages are based on 1264 adults. Only somebody who doesn't understand statistics would turn this into a "bad news for Democrats" story based on these numbers.

Giuliani and Obama in this poll are in a statistical dead-heat. At best this poll indicates a 95% probability that its results are within +/- ~3% of the 'true' opinion of the American people. Additionally, there is a 5% probability (5 out of a 100 polls, think about it) that this poll is completely wrong and is only serving to muddy up the forecasting waters.

Note that in the previous survey, 3/9/07-3/12/07, Obama received 44% and Giuliani received 43%. Mr. Grieve's understanding of statistics - or at least his portrayal of them in his news stories - leads me to believe that if he were to write about these two survey he would claim that "Obama is losing ground to Giuliani." He would have a dynamic story. But he would be wrong. Time's survey from last week shows the same result as this week.

We know less about who has a chance in November 4, 2008 than we know about the weather that day. I don't see the point in getting worked up about poll stats at this point.

I continue to be puzzled by the gap between people's general affinity for democratic policies, and their aversion to particular democrats. This is a gap that goes back a long way, not just a feature of the current slew of candidates. How is this gap manufactured? Clearly, the opposite phenomenon occurs for republicans (people dislike republican policies, but like the republican candidates). Is it the MSM? Are they just better politicians? Is it a psycological abnormality of the public (like people who are continually attracted to partners they know will abuse them)?

These polls are mostly name recognition... which is why Romney is trounced. Of course, Clinton's name should be quite recognizable so her numbers should be somewhat more worrisome. My guess is outside political junkies, not that many know much about Obama.

I would like to see Gore in the race. Memo to the other writer: Gore did not run in 1992. Also, it's worthing pointing out that he WON in 2000. By half a million votes. Did he run the greatest campaign? No. Would he have won in a walk if Clinton had managed to not fool around in the White House? Probably.

But, I wouldn't get too worked about a poll 20 months before the election. Besides, neither Giulliani nor McCain is going to get the nomation. McCain's whole appeal in 2000 was with moderates and democrats and he's lost all those due to the war. Conservatives still don't feel he's one of them. The GOP has a remarkable aptitude to believe that the country really wants some right wing purist. I'd not be shocked if they nominated Gingrich or some other wholly unelectable candidate.