New Tradesports rankings

[WalterMitty]

Thompson up, Rice down


Clinton 48.0
Obama 29.4
Gore 9.5
Edwards 8.2
Richardson 2.6
Clark 0.5
Biden 0.3
Dodd 0.2
Warner 0.2
Kerry 0.2


Republicans
Giuliani 33.1
McCain 19.0
Thompson 18.5
Romney 17.8
Gingrich 3.0
Hagel 2.7
Huckabee 2.0
Rice 1.1
Bloomberg 1.0
Brownback 1.0
T. Thompson 0.8
Sanford 0.6
Cheney 0.5
J. Bush 0.4
Tancredo 0.4
Paul 0.2
Powell 0.2
Graham 0.2
Hunter 0.1
Santorum 0.1

dodd was at 0.3, 'fern.  please correct your post.

[Reignman]

McCain seems to be making a modest comeback.

I feel sorry for people who have Wes Clark stock.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Dodd corrected for Mitty
Edwards, Richardson up a bit
Thompson and McCain are tied
Sanford totally drops

Clinton 47.9
Obama 30.0
Gore 9.2
Edwards 8.7
Richardson 2.9
Clark 0.5
Biden 0.4
Dodd 0.3
Warner 0.2
Kerry 0.2


Republicans
Giuliani 33.0
McCain 18.9
Thompson 18.9
Romney 17.8
Gingrich 3.2
Hagel 2.7
Huckabee 2.0
Rice 1.4
Bloomberg 1.0
Brownback 1.0
T. Thompson 0.8
Cheney 0.5
J. Bush 0.3
Tancredo 0.3
Paul 0.3
Powell 0.2
Hunter 0.1
Santorum 0.1

[Mr. Morden]

McCain and Romney are getting pretty close.  So far, McCain has always been ahead of Romney, but the gap is narrowing.  As I type this, McCain is only 0.6 ahead of Romney.  F. Thompson, on the other hand, tends to oscillate quite a bit more.  Sometimes he's in second place, ahead of both McCain and Romney.  Other times he's in fourth place, behind both of them.

Oh, and on the Dem. side, Edwards has recovered completely from where he was before the Elizabeth cancer announcement.  Before the rumors of that broke, he was at 8.8, and that's where he is right now as well.

[Mr. Morden]

Not sure if this will last, but Romney has now tied McCain for the first time ever.  They're both tied for 3rd place at 17.4.  McCain is still well ahead of Romney in the "winning individual" odds though, so I guess the market still thinks that McCain would be a better general election candidate than Romney.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Edwards overtakes Gore
Giuliani falls. McCain falls to tie Romney for 3rd place.
Hagel, Bloomberg gain, Brownback falls

Democrats
Clinton 47.7
Obama 29.6
Edwards 9.1
Gore 9.0
Richardson 3.1
Clark 0.5
Biden 0.3
Dodd 0.2
Warner 0.2
Kerry 0.2


Republicans
Giuliani 31.0
Thompson 18.6
McCain 17.4
Romney 17.4
Gingrich 3.2
Hagel 3.1
Huckabee 2.0
Bloomberg 1.5
Rice 1.3
T. Thompson 0.9
Brownback 0.6
Cheney 0.4
J. Bush 0.4
Tancredo 0.3
Paul 0.2
Powell 0.1
Hunter 0.1
Santorum 0.1

[Verily]

Hillary is tanking!!!

She's down to 44.5. 

I guess the Rasmussen poll was scary to the Clinton backers. Obama's up, but Edwards is down back below Gore again.

Clinton 44.4
Obama 32.0
Gore 9.6
Edwards 9.0
Richardson 2.8
Biden 0.6
Clark 0.5
Dodd 0.3
Kerry 0.3
All others 0.2 or lower


Musical chairs continues for second place on the GOP side.

Giuliani 32.0
McCain 19.0
F. Thompson 18.0
Romney 16.5
Gingrich 3.2
Hagel 2.9
Huckabee 2.0
Rice 1.1
T. Thompson 0.9
Bloomberg 0.8
Brownback 0.6
Cheney 0.4
Tancredo 0.4
J. Bush 0.3
All others 0.2 or lower

[agcatter]

I wonder who in the hell is putting anything on Hagel.  Family members?

[7,052,770]

So "Hillary is far, far more right wing than Edwards and Obama"?

LOL.  Uh, I'm very familiar with her Senate voting record.  It's the same as Edwards (slightly more lefty in fact than his was) and no different than Obama since he entered the Senate. 

Look it up.

Hillary is pro-war, those two are not. Plus she served on the board of directors for WAL-MART. She is no liberal.

Incorrect.  Hillary Clinton is anti-war.

[Verily]

So "Hillary is far, far more right wing than Edwards and Obama"?

LOL.  Uh, I'm very familiar with her Senate voting record.  It's the same as Edwards (slightly more lefty in fact than his was) and no different than Obama since he entered the Senate. 

Look it up.

Hillary is pro-war, those two are not. Plus she served on the board of directors for WAL-MART. She is no liberal.

Incorrect.  Hillary Clinton is anti-war.

I've said this before. Listen to her soundbites again. She hasn't actively supported the war since it became massively unpopular to do so, but she hasn't made any move to oppose it, either.

[© tweed]

So "Hillary is far, far more right wing than Edwards and Obama"?

LOL.  Uh, I'm very familiar with her Senate voting record.  It's the same as Edwards (slightly more lefty in fact than his was) and no different than Obama since he entered the Senate. 

Look it up.

Hillary is pro-war, those two are not. Plus she served on the board of directors for WAL-MART. She is no liberal.

Incorrect.  Hillary Clinton is anti-war.

She's Nixonian.

[Eraserhead]

So "Hillary is far, far more right wing than Edwards and Obama"?

LOL.  Uh, I'm very familiar with her Senate voting record.  It's the same as Edwards (slightly more lefty in fact than his was) and no different than Obama since he entered the Senate. 

Look it up.

Hillary is pro-war, those two are not. Plus she served on the board of directors for WAL-MART. She is no liberal.

Incorrect.  Hillary Clinton is anti-war.

In what way?

[Boris]

So "Hillary is far, far more right wing than Edwards and Obama"?

LOL.  Uh, I'm very familiar with her Senate voting record.  It's the same as Edwards (slightly more lefty in fact than his was) and no different than Obama since he entered the Senate. 

Look it up.

Hillary is pro-war, those two are not. Plus she served on the board of directors for WAL-MART. She is no liberal.

Incorrect.  Hillary Clinton is anti-war.

In what way?

As in she'll withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq if elected President? I don't think Nixonian is an apt analogy either; she's not promising "peace with honor" or being intentionally vague. Hillary has made it quite clear that she'll initiate a rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq if elected President.

Honestly, how is her position on Iraq any different from any other Democratic candidate? They'll all do the same thing if elected. It's all about finding the most electable candidate at this point.

[Eraserhead]

So "Hillary is far, far more right wing than Edwards and Obama"?

LOL.  Uh, I'm very familiar with her Senate voting record.  It's the same as Edwards (slightly more lefty in fact than his was) and no different than Obama since he entered the Senate. 

Look it up.

Hillary is pro-war, those two are not. Plus she served on the board of directors for WAL-MART. She is no liberal.

Incorrect.  Hillary Clinton is anti-war.

In what way?

As in she'll withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq if elected President? I don't think Nixonian is an apt analogy either; she's not promising "peace with honor" or being intentionally vague. Hillary has made it quite clear that she'll initiate a rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq if elected President.

Honestly, how is her position on Iraq any different from any other Democratic candidate? They'll all do the same thing if elected. It's all about finding the most electable candidate at this point.

She still believes going to war was a good idea though. So she still gets a pro-war label and deserves nothing less.

[Boris]

So "Hillary is far, far more right wing than Edwards and Obama"?

LOL.  Uh, I'm very familiar with her Senate voting record.  It's the same as Edwards (slightly more lefty in fact than his was) and no different than Obama since he entered the Senate. 

Look it up.

Hillary is pro-war, those two are not. Plus she served on the board of directors for WAL-MART. She is no liberal.

Incorrect.  Hillary Clinton is anti-war.

In what way?

As in she'll withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq if elected President? I don't think Nixonian is an apt analogy either; she's not promising "peace with honor" or being intentionally vague. Hillary has made it quite clear that she'll initiate a rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq if elected President.

Honestly, how is her position on Iraq any different from any other Democratic candidate? They'll all do the same thing if elected. It's all about finding the most electable candidate at this point.

She still believes going to war was a good idea though. So she still gets a pro-war label and deserves nothing less.

Uh, no she doesn't. Let's use some of those inference skills, shall we? If one supports rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, one has most likely concluded that the war effort is futile or has failed. Therefore, logically, one would not support going to war in the first place. Unless you are suggesting that she is a complete idiot, which is, of course, a different discussion.

Perhaps you are referring to her unwillingness to apologize for the Iraq War vote? Big deal. "Apologizing" in politics is an utterly meaningless gesture. It is nothing more than political posturing; its sole purpose is to gain political capital. Apparently, Hillary doesn't believe apologizing will gain her any such capitol, so she won't do it. If she thought it would gain her political capital, then you would have seen an apology several months ago.

[Mr. Morden]

She still believes going to war was a good idea though. So she still gets a pro-war label and deserves nothing less.

Uh, no she doesn't. Let's use some of those inference skills, shall we? If one supports rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, one has most likely concluded that the war effort is futile or has failed. Therefore, logically, one would not support going to war in the first place. Unless you are suggesting that she is a complete idiot, which is, of course, a different discussion.

What?  That doesn't make any sense.  Of course it's possible to think that the initial invasion was justifiable, but that it's now time to withdraw.  One could think, for example, that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous threat who had to be dealt with and it's a good thing to have gotten rid of him, but that there's now little that the US can do to help the Iraqis along from here.  (This is not *my* position.  I'm just saying, this would be a logically consistent position.)

In fact, I believe HRC's stated position on the war is that she thinks that, knowing what we know today, the decision to invade was a bad idea.  But given the information that was known at the time of the invasion, it was a good idea.  That's not good enough for some of the most ardent anti-war types, who say that preventive war is never justifiable.  From their perspective, HRC's position means that, in some future scenario where she's president, she could support military action in a circumstance where they're against it.

[Verily]

Gore charges forward for no apparent reason. Richardson's up a lot, too.

Clinton 44.2
Obama 32.9
Gore 11.3
Edwards 8.8
Richardson 3.8
Clark 0.5
Dodd 0.5

Thompson slips and McCain gains. Bloomberg is up despite his announcement (?!).

Giuliani 31.0
McCain 20.4
Romney 16.5
Thompson 15.0
Gingrich 3.0
Hagel 2.4
Huckabee 2.0
Bloomberg 1.4
Rice 1.1
Brownback 0.6

[Boris]

I was speaking from a tactical standpoint, operating under the assumption that the goal of military intervention in Iraq was to spread Democracy to the Middle East (which is how the President today justifies it). If one supports rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, one most likely believes that military intervention in Iraq has failed to achieve that objective, and thus, would not support the same strategy were they to do it over again. If HRC defines the goal of military intervention to strictly depose of Saddam Hussein and his Ba'athist loyalists (no subsequent nation-building), then the position you mentioned would be logically consistent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe Clinton once said that if she were President in 2002, we would not have gone to war. Of course, I don't quite see how that makes any sense. So she authorizes the war as the Junior Senator from New York, but would not have authorized it if she were President? I'll give you that her position on Iraq is "shady" at worst, but I still feel that the term "pro-war" is an egregious distortion.

[Mr. Morden]

I believe Clinton once said that if she were President in 2002, we would not have gone to war. Of course, I don't quite see how that makes any sense. So she authorizes the war as the Junior Senator from New York, but would not have authorized it if she were President?

I think I've heard her say that too, and it doesn't make any sense.  It's an "I want it both ways" answer.  It's like saying that the decision to invade was a mistake, but she didn't make a mistake by agreeing with it.  That seems a bit ridiculous.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Compared to 6 days ago
DOWN: Clinton, Edwards, Thompson, Romney, Hagel
UP: Obama, Gore, Richardson, Dodd, McCain

Thompson is down to 4th place.

Democrats
Clinton 45.6
Obama 32.9
Gore 11.0
Edwards 8.2
Richardson 3.8
Clark 0.5
Dodd 0.5
Biden 0.3
Kerry 0.3
Warner 0.2


Republicans
Giuliani 31.0
McCain 20.4
Romney 16.5
Thompson 16.0
Gingrich 3.3
Hagel 2.3
Huckabee 2.0
Bloomberg 1.4
Rice 1.1
T. Thompson 0.9
Brownback 0.6
Cheney 0.4
Tancredo 0.4
J. Bush 0.3
Paul 0.2
Hunter 0.2
Powell 0.1

[elcorazon]

I believe Clinton once said that if she were President in 2002, we would not have gone to war. Of course, I don't quite see how that makes any sense. So she authorizes the war as the Junior Senator from New York, but would not have authorized it if she were President?

I think I've heard her say that too, and it doesn't make any sense.  It's an "I want it both ways" answer.  It's like saying that the decision to invade was a mistake, but she didn't make a mistake by agreeing with it.  That seems a bit ridiculous.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I honestly think this might make some sort of sense.

Congress "authorization" was not really a declaration of war so much as it was a decision that we believe there is reason to suspect that war might become necessary and as such, we will give the authority to our president to make that decision based on the facts at the time, without having to deal with an emergency resolution that might not occur in a timely manner.

Now having said that, I still think Congress was dumb to go along with it, but I also think it's not crazy to say, that while one might have been willing to say that the resolution was worthy of passing, even with the resolution, a better commander in chief might have been able to avoid the war that of course we are still mired in.

I'm not fully buying it, but explain to me why that logic is nuts.

[Mr. Morden]

Well OK, I could buy it in that case.  But then the question becomes, did HRC think the war was a mistake at the time Bush launched it, several months after the Congressional authorization?  If not, then why didn't she complain about it at the time?  If I had voted for congressional authorization for war, but then didn't agree with the president when he decided to use that authorization to go to war, I think I'd be pretty vocal about it.  But since she didn't complain about it (and in fact, I believe she made several statements in 2003, when things looked much better in Iraq, trying to take credit for the war....at least, I think she made some kind of statements along those lines at the time Saddam Hussein was captured), I would think that she agreed with the decision at the time, and only later changed her mind.  If that's the case, then it's not true that we wouldn't have gone to war if she'd been president, and she needs to come up with some explanation for why she won't get it wrong next time.

Of course, the other possibility is that she was against the war from the begining, but only supported it for political purposes.  In which case, there's a good chance that there wouldn't have been a war if she were president.  But that scenario also doesn't speak well of her character.

This kind of reminds me of Kerry's convoluted Iraq War explanation in 2004.  He said that he didn't regret his vote for authorization, but that we could have avoided war if he'd been president, and at one point said something to the effect that he could have rallied international pressure to bring down Saddam's regime even without war(!).  Talk about having your cake and eating it too!

[Boris]

Congress "authorization" was not really a declaration of war so much as it was a decision that we believe there is reason to suspect that war might become necessary and as such, we will give the authority to our president to make that decision based on the facts at the time, without having to deal with an emergency resolution that might not occur in a timely manner.

In theory, that is true. However, I think that all the legislators knew prior to the vote, that, in practice, they were voting on whether to go to war with Iraq (unless they're all incredibly naive). I personally believe that Clinton's vote was politically motivated because the case for going to war was popular at the time.

[Mr. Morden]

Clinton and Biden had been drifting downward, but they seem to have regained some ground due to the debate (though Biden is of course still below 1%, so he shouldn't get too excited!).  On the flip side, it looks like Richardson lost some ground from the debate.

And Fred Thompson now seems to be tanking.  Any guesses as to why that is?  Are people starting to wonder if he'll actually get in the race?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Richardon's sh**tty debate performance has really hurt his chances. Biden gains.

The flavor of last month, Thompson, is getting stale.

Democrats
Clinton 47.2
Obama 31.4
Gore 10.6
Edwards 7.4
Richardson 2.6
Biden 0.8
Clark 0.5
Dodd 0.4
Warner 0.2
Kerry 0.1


Republicans
Giuliani 31.7
McCain 20.0
Romney 15.4
Thompson 14.8
Gingrich 3.3
Hagel 2.5
Huckabee 2.3
Bloomberg 1.2
Rice 1.2
T. Thompson 0.9
Brownback 0.6
Cheney 0.4
Tancredo 0.3
J. Bush 0.3
Paul 0.2
Powell 0.2
Hunter 0.1