Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Left Masthead
July 30, 2016
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

American Amnesia

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Ear to the Ground
Print this item

McCain Leads and Nader Surprises in Poll

Posted on Mar 16, 2008
AP photo / Gerald Herbert

All alone: McCain is most likely benefiting from the fact that his opponent—whoever that turns out to be—has to fight a political war on two fronts.

A new Zogby poll suggests that John McCain has capitalized on his rivals’ ongoing combat, beating both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in a hypothetical matchup. But Ralph Nader also did better than expected, with 5 to 6 percent of the vote, mostly from progressives and independents. Those are two groups that will be crucial to any chance of a Democratic victory over McCain, whose success in the poll comes despite mounting national concern over the economy.

Update: A new Gallup poll shows both Democrats beating McCain.


UTICA, New York—Riding high after locking up his party’s presidential nomination, Republican John McCain of Arizona has moved ahead of both of his potential Democratic Party rivals in a national general election test, the latest Zogby telephone survey shows.

Perhaps profiting from the continuing political battle across the aisle, McCain would defeat Hillary Clinton of New York by six points and Barack Obama of Illinois by 5 points, the survey shows.  Clinton and Obama are locked in a tight battle to win the Democratic Party nomination, a fight that has grown nasty at times recently and threatens to continue on all summer long until the party’s national convention in Denver this August.

The telephone survey of 1,001 likely voters nationwide was conducted by live operators calling from Zogby’s call center in Upstate New York on March 13-14, 2008. It carries a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percentage points.

The introduction of long-time activist Ralph Nader into the mix is having an effect on the race, as he wins enough support to make a difference, the poll shows. Nader entered the race recently, charging that there is little difference between the Republican and Democratic parties and their presidential candidates. Using the same argument eight years ago, his presence on the ballot in Florida may well have tipped the presidential election away from Democrat Al Gore and in favor of George W. Bush. His run four years ago yielded less dramatic results, but the political atmosphere has changed since 2004, and may be more favorable for him again, the Zogby survey shows.

Read more

More Below the Ad


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Aaron, March 23, 2008 at 8:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This poll should act as a renewed call for instant runoff voting. The plurality voting system we have now breaks down when there are more than two candidates. Instant Runoff voting has effectively halted the spoiler effect in San Fransisco, Ireland, London, and across Australia.

Matt Gonzalez does a great job explaining this here:

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, March 18, 2008 at 6:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

BTW how are we paying for that war with coupons?

...BUT frankly, I don’t think you have much to worry about Marshall as I doubt that who ever wins the White House will REALLY end the war… I think that a situation like Korea will be the final outcome… least till the oil drys up!

Report this

By kevin99999, March 18, 2008 at 12:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

” he is unwilling to open the floodgates of the vast treasure trove of Clinton dirt…”

Is this the result of your personal meeting with Obama? Please enlighten us…or just gabbing.

Report this

By Marshall, March 17, 2008 at 11:28 pm Link to this comment

...the latest Pew polls showing that:

a) Percentage of Americans who think Iraq war is going well has increased significantly.
b) Number of Americans who think we should withdraw vs. those that think we should stay longer is now almost even.
c) Percentage of Iraqis who feel their lives are now better, and that the Iraq’s future is bright is now significantly higher.  It’s interesting that the Iraqi people’s opinions on the war are now generally in line with those of the American people.

The Iraq war may be slipping away as a solid issue to campaign against, so Dems had better focus on the economy now.

Report this

By jackpine savage, March 17, 2008 at 6:06 pm Link to this comment

Now, Maani…you know (or you should) that “all of Hillary’s ‘dirt’ is ‘old news’ isn’t true”.

There are something like 128 redacted pages of the Barrett Report (available to any sitting Congressperson)...who knows what they say, but there’s damned sure a reason that Kerry/Leahy redacted them before publication.

There’s the matter of the FALN “terrorists” that Bill pardoned before he left office.

There’s those tax returns (you know, the ones that she won’t give to the Senate ethics committee).

There’s Bill’s flings with Central Asian despots for cash.

There’s the donors to the library.

There is plenty of “new” dirt on Hillary; moreover, most people under 35 don’t even know the details of the old dirt…but they’ll find out, and they’ll draw their own conclusions.

You do a great job at tearing Obama down, and you’re often spot on in your critiques.  But you consistently refuse to see/admit that there is anything wrong with Clinton…or that she has a weakness.  You spin so much, you’re making me dizzy.

Report this

By kath cantarella, March 17, 2008 at 4:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

thanks for replying, Cyrena. I don’t think HRC is that bad, although i’ve read some horrible things about her. i feel that similar horrible things could be said of any one of the candidates. It just depends where your sympathy lies. it’s subjective.

There’s something in my original post i need to clarify:  when i say our society worships the warrior, i mean it ‘worships’ in a very shallow and callous way. All the gung-ho hype, all the speeches, all the monuments and memorial days, and still our young men and women get blown to pieces for slight rationales like imaginary Iraqi WMD, come home maimed physically and mentally and are not properly cared for. That is the disgusting hypocrisy of war.

Report this

By Dave in Big Pine, March 17, 2008 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment

all your points are valid. but the one constant that makes even a third party untenable is your non-reliance on human nature. it’s not the party affiliation that matters, it’s the rules of the game that matter. no matter who is charge, if the game rules allow one to benefit himself, he will. self-interest will always rule the day, no matter how “progressive”, “liberal” or “forward thinking” someone is. we are in the mess we are in because it benefits the politians to put us here. they are benefiting from another source, not us, and that is why our interests do no not interest them, and never will.
why don’t we enjoy the same kind of “civil” society that most of Europe enjoys ( employment laws, universal health care, etc.)? we don’t because here the government serves business. there, the government serves its citizens. and they do so because it is in their self interest (ie, holding on to their jobs) to do so. as i read in an article somwewhere, here in America, the citizens fear their government; in Europe, the government fears its citizens. that makes all the difference.
a third party doesn’t mean crap.

Report this

By WriterOnTheStorm, March 17, 2008 at 12:09 pm Link to this comment

Enough with the Nader bashing already. In your heart-of-hearts, you know the democrats are not the answer. If this generation, and even the next, have to suffer through the likes of ReaganBushMcCain etc., to get a legitimate and truly progressive third party, it will be a small price to pay.

Such a party is the last hope of long term American economic stability. What have the democrats done for you lately? Will they get us out of Iraq? No. Will they get you better health insurance? No. Will they stop our dependence on oil? No. Will they stop bailing out corporations? No. Will they promise to do all of this? Yes.

Your belief that Nader is not electable is a self fulfilling prophesy. I will vote for Nader. But I will not see it as spoiling it for the democrats. It will be the democrats spoiling it for me.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, March 17, 2008 at 11:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What good is “freedom” without individuality? You’ve slipped out of my radar system.

Is “piece” a Freudian slip?

Report this
amunaor's avatar

By amunaor, March 17, 2008 at 11:10 am Link to this comment

By Conservative Yankee <Disunity, another word for individualism.

The ideas that one should stand their ground, fight for their beliefs, and not follow the crowd have all taken hits recently.

Folks on this oh-so-PC leftwing(nut) blog seem to be saying “If you’re not in my line, you are obviously WRONG!!!”>

Individualism is an illusion; in life we are all fractured pieces of a whole, in death, to be realized, that we are all, chips off the same block.

Piece, Best Wishes and Hope

Report this

By Marshall, March 17, 2008 at 10:45 am Link to this comment

I think if you re-read my post, you’ll notice that I was discussing his consistency on the topic of the war itself.  This has been in support from day 1.

Report this

By cyrena, March 17, 2008 at 9:39 am Link to this comment


Thanks for the posts. I enjoyed them. Quite to the point…

On this though, and it’s just something to consider, because in what seems like a decade instead of just about a year, it’s hard to remember back.

•  I hear a lot of blaming of Clinton for the divided Dems, but i tend to blame Obama too. If i’m remembering correctly HRC was polling around 50% before Obama decided to run.

I think you DO remember correctly. (about how the polls were looking back then.) BUT, I think that’s exactly WHY Obama was convinced to join the race!!

Hillary probably WAS polling at about that, and there were many folks, (non-politicians…just Americans with some measure of influence and an eye for what goes on below the surface) who knew that HRC would be another republican administration. And, I suspect that scared the pants off of a whole bunch of people, who know that we simply cannot survive a continuation of these policies and politics that have already brought the US to it’s knees.

And, after all is said and done, and all of the ‘dirt’ is dredged up from the past, and present, and created for the future, the reality of the thing is simple enough. Hillary and Bill Clinton are Republicans, and they represent the same ideology of the corporate capitalism that has so destroyed us.

Americans unfortunately have short attention spans, and so a year ago, (or more) things were bad, but not even as bad as they are now. A year ago, (or before Obama joined the race) Hillary was still very much in favor of the war on Iraq, and Americans may not have been so aware of that. Americans remember HRC from slightly better times, (or at least in hindsight they appear that way).

But, lots more people have died in Iraq since then, and more and more, folks with their eye on the ball all along, have KNOWN what another Clinton presidency would do. More than anything, the major concern for Americans has been this war. The statistics prove that out.

And, people who’ve been paying attention, (more than the rest of us probably) have known from the beginning, that Hillary was NOT likely to change anything about the US contribution to that disaster, including the US budget directed to the military industrial complex. The US at this point, spends more on its military alone, than many economically stable governments spend on their entire national economy.

We’ve KNOWN that Hillary would do NOTHING to change that, and it was doubtful whether or not any other democrat could beat her out. (and…as you can see, even the better of them, like Kucinich, failed to get the support he needed from a fickle population). Or, maybe he just couldn’t stand up to the attack machine.

Be that as it may, the handwriting was on the wall, and a Clinton nomination would have guaranteed more of the same, EVEN IF SHE DID WIN the general election over whomever the Repug nominee would become.

And, it was THEN, that Nader said that IF Hillary won the democratic nomination, that he would run on an Independent ticket. So, while the Obama inclusion in the race may certainly seem to be creating a division for the party, (which is really bad, but probably unavoidable in the US socio-political practices and mentality) the alternative, would have been for him to NOT run, at which point we would have been stuck with Hillary, which is the same as what the Repugs offer, and HAVE been dishing out for the past 7 years.

I was surprised when Nader decided to run, since his original threat to do so, had been predicated on Hillary winning the nomination. She hasn’t, and she’s actually still too far behind to catch up, at least as far as the delegate math goes.

So, I’m not sure that I follow the logic on Nader here, but the reason for Obama’s candidacy was to save us from a Hillary nomination and possible presidency.

Maybe we’re finally wising up..slowly. wink

Report this

By RdV, March 17, 2008 at 9:28 am Link to this comment

Yeah, the good judgement to know he was wrong and the decency and integrity to admit it—which, in essence, innoculates him from attack in terms of strategy.

  Refreshing, isn’t it? Because surely you clutch at straws in suggesting that Clinton and McCain aren’t ripe to be ripped apart for their real estate scams and insider connections up the wazoo.

  The thing that truly repels me about Clinton, and as someone who leans progressive, I have to admit that McCain is more tolerable by comparison when it comes to this trait—Clinton projects onto others what she, herself is guilty of. There is one other politician that shares that characteristic trait to the extent except Bush and I find it nauseating. I am going to tell you this straight, I despise her. I am here in PA and should one of her clueless cheerleaders come to my door—I am looking forward to telling them: Not if you put a gun to my head would I vote for Hillary Clinton—and I don’t know why any clear-thinking, well-informed citizen would. Should she “win” the nomination (through assuredly foul means)she will not have the backing and support of the base—and they will rip her to shreds. I can’t imagine it happening to a more deserving person. There, I said it—and if you look around, you will notice I am not alone.

Report this

By Maani, March 17, 2008 at 8:58 am Link to this comment


“But the only problem with this dynamic is the Republicans will NOT hesitate to dredge up Clinton dirt in the General.”

Obama and McCain stand at their podiums at the first presidential debate.  Iraq is the issue, and Obama makes his oft-made claim about his “better judgment.” McCain replies:

“You mean like the better judgment you showed in the Terry Schiavo case, where you admit voting wrongly despite knowing better as a professor of Constitutional law?  You mean like the better judgment you showed in accepting over $200,000 from the Exelon energy company, after allowing them to rewrite legislation that betrayed your promise to your constituents?  You mean like the better judgment you showed in aligning yourself for almost two decades with Tony Rezko, a convicted felon, from whom you took over $200,000 in campaign contributions?  You mean like the better judgment you showed in allowing a church leader who spews anti-American sentiments to be your spiritual advisor for over 20 years?”

Tell me, RdV, how do you think Obama is going to respond to this?  And more importantly, do you think his response will have a meaningful effect after this?

The difference here is that all of Hillary’s “dirt” is “old news”: it was flogged to death by the media long ago.  However, Obama’s “dirt” is fresh and new, and is far more likely to have legs.


Report this

By Dave in Big Pine, March 17, 2008 at 5:22 am Link to this comment

this has nothing to do with issues, policies, personalities, the will of the voters, nadar, or anything else except for one thing: vote fraud and the stealing of another election.

this poll is just preperation for that occurance. 70% of people oppose the war and want us out, something like 80% dissaprove of Bush and his crime syndicate, and yet the one candidate who is running on the war and the continuance of Bush policies is the one the voters want? the calculus just doesn’t add up.

voters are turning out 2 to 1 in democratic primaries and caucuses to republican one’s, but yet the republican wins the general election? to believe that one must suspend the rules of arithmatic.

no, this is just the beginning of the preperation for the republicans to steal yet another election and sweep their boy into office.

say goodbye to America.

Report this

By Harry H. Snyder, March 17, 2008 at 5:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

My vote went to Nader, as opposed to No vote.  I wouldn’t have voted Democratic (after eight years of Dem in Rep clothing)if they had been on the ballot alone.

You folks out there who believe Nader hurts the D party overlook the “draw” factor.” State and local Democrats benefit when people voting for Nader are attracted to the polls.

Report this

By jackpine savage, March 17, 2008 at 4:38 am Link to this comment

Well, 1,001 people nationwide must certainly be representative of a nation of 300+ million people.

The infighting has got to stop, but it won’t because the “leaders” of the Democratic Party are spineless.

I’ll go on record right now: if Clinton is the nominee, McCain will trounce her.  She’ll win women over 50 and that’s it…even her base of uneducated, poor whites will abandon her in droves.  And that’s regardless of how well she stands up to the kitchen sink attacks she so favors.

She won’t be able to draw a distinction between herself and McCain (what’s she going to say, we’re both against flag burning, but my femininity brings a softer, gentler side).  She’ll be left with that stupid health care plan, and McCain will simply remind the American people what happened the last time she was given control of reforming America’s health care.  She’ll be out experienced and out whited…and out war-mongered.  She’ll be left with her genitalia and a fear of the Republicans…and that won’t be enough.

Report this

By RdV, March 17, 2008 at 4:35 am Link to this comment

Obama’s high-minded promise of a new politics at first seemed empty rhetoric, but now resonates with an increasing relevance. The problem is the political landscape is a minefield of corruption and dirty shots and the rallying cry of change seems weak and naive. Clinton is crude and she will stoop to racism and fear-mongering-essentially echoing the tactics of the Right to frame and attack the Democratic chances just to get her pig foot in the door. I heard a pundit remark that this was great fuel for the Republicans against Obama. Clinton’s tactics puts Obama on the defense and he is unwilling to open the floodgates of the vast treasure trove of Clinton dirt. So, Clinton’s attacks benefits the Republicans at the expense of Obama—BUT the only problem with this dynamic is the Republicans will NOT hesitate to dredge up Clinton dirt in the General. Clinton is sabotaging the Democrats—keeping them mired in the primary struggle—although she doesn’t have a chance—unless she steals it and the evidence points to her willingness to do just that. That will tear up the Democratic party and unite the forces of the Right, that can now focus on the General and vote in the continuing, but pointless Democratic primaries to stack the deck for their preference to run against: Clinton. In the meantime, Clinton continues to weaken Obama who is adverse to stooping to her level to use the tremendous amount of ammo to expose Clinton in the public perception. At a time when the odds are drastically against the Right, their advantages couldn’t be more fortunate.

Report this

By troublesum, March 17, 2008 at 3:32 am Link to this comment

McCain hasn’t been consistant in anything except in hoodwinking the press and as a result a large part of the public.  He condemned torture throughout the campaign and then after he locked up the nomination he voted in favor of allowing the CIA to use waterboarding in their interrogations in order to shore up his support with the extreme right wing of the party.  This is just one glaring example of his many inconsistencies.

Report this

By kath cantarella, March 17, 2008 at 2:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

i shouldn’t be criticising Mr Obama at this late stage so here are a few reasons to vote for BO:

1. He’s smart.
2. He’s really smart.
3. He’s really REALLY smart. Smarter than HRC, much much much smarter than Mac.
4. He’s versatile, with wide, top-level experience outside politics. This is a major advantage in a politician, believe it or not.
5. He’s the least hawkish.
6. He’s really really really smart.

Report this

By kath cantarella, March 17, 2008 at 12:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

you guys will need to continue to organize at the grass roots level and buck. They may take even less notice if an election isn’t looming, but you’ll need to do it for yourselves anyway.

I hear a lot of blaming of Clinton for the divided Dems, but i tend to blame Obama too. If i’m remembering correctly HRC was polling around 50% before Obama decided to run.

Obama will need to use the same tactics against McCain: bring him down without being seen to be involved. Because criticism of a war vet is likely to backfire in a big way. Even though McCain deserves it for helping create more war vets, the warrior-worshipping mass-mind does not often think this way. Unfortunately for the human race generally.

Yeah, i think this long bitter primary race has been a big disadvantage for the Dems. They’ve done the Repubs dirty work for them. And they’ve done it better.

If i was a US citizen i would be strongly tempted to vote Nader, if i wasn’t certain that it was a vote for Mac.

Report this

By Marshall, March 17, 2008 at 12:28 am Link to this comment

Though someone here cited 70% of Americans wanting out of the war, I think McCain’s popularity is despite his stand on Iraq.

I disagree with those here who think most Americans aren’t aware of McCain’s position on the war.  What this pole tells me is that they respect his consistent, decisive stance more than they object to his actual position.  And I believe that many of those 70% do indeed “want out”, but not necessarily at the price they suspect may be paid in the process.  In other words, they have mixed feelings - and are happy enough with a candidate that has a strong opinion on the topic one way or the other; something the Dems aren’t offering.

Report this

By A, March 16, 2008 at 11:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We obviously realize that the mainstream media is a carefully concocted outlet of effective disinformation; when should we begin to consider that polls like this one provide a similar opaque medium for public manipulation?

Report this

By Frank Cajon, March 16, 2008 at 11:24 pm Link to this comment

Gee, thanks, Ralph. Making the talk show rounds, pushing another book. Good for you, bad for us. All this talk about how bad the two party system is and how the ‘big’ parties have locked out the little guy. Well, it wasn’t a big enough issue for you to do anything about for the last three years, while Cynthia McKinney has been active in the Green Party since before the Obama/HillBillary mess trying to build a real, anti-war, save the planet option for voters while you have been sitting on your egotistical ass. So, again, you show up late for the dance and just in time to screw up the numbers; In 2000 you delivered New Hampshire and Florida (even if they had counted the votes correctly) to Chancellor Bush, and America with them. Now you are poised to do it again. What damage that Bubba and his surrogate candidate haven’t already done by running a race card campaign, you will do to deliver the goods to your GOP pals. The paradox, Ralph, is that these suits have delivered America to the rape-the-earth conglomerates that you ‘say’ you oppose, and have hijacked consumer rights by NAFTA and anti-labor agendas. The Democrats may not be a much better alternative, especially the Clinton tag team, but who are you trying to kid? You are a Republican con artist, Ralph. I voted for Cynthia McKinney in the primary over you (you ran no campaign) and I will in the general election if Clinton or McCain is the choice. When McCain drafts my sons for his war in Iran, it will likely be another thing I have to thank you for, Ralph. Like Chancellor George Bush’s rise in 2000.

Report this

By rangertommy, March 16, 2008 at 10:44 pm Link to this comment

...McCain’s taking full advantage of the playground squabbles the Democrats are currently engaged in.  While Hillary (especially) and Obama are doing their best to tear each other apart, McCain is doing photo op after photo op standing in front of large flags, visiting Iraq, etc., looking as “presidential” as possible.  Enough people are duped by this kind of posturing, and McCain’s advisors have wisely taken advantage of our “dupability,” that it’s looking bleaker and bleaker for 2008’s vote.  The only blame we can lay for a loss in 2008 will be at the feet of the Democrats.  What a crying shame.  Then again, what—of substance—has happened with the Democrats since they took over the House?  Lots of huffing and puffing, but Bush and Cheney are still at the head table.  Maybe in the end it doesn’t really even matter.  Man…this whole thing just makes me sad and mad.

Report this

By tyler, March 16, 2008 at 9:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

hillary is sabotaging the democrat’s run at the whitehouse just like nader did in 2000.  i wish they would both go away.

Report this

By Millennian, March 16, 2008 at 9:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If Americans could find it in themselves to make wrongful use of personal wealth illegal, such as providing money to start an unjust war, we could address the real issues of life, rather than having to battle over who should be allowed to live and die, considering that most of us get less than 80 years, anyway.

Report this

By P. T., March 16, 2008 at 7:39 pm Link to this comment

They don’t want to get fooled by the Democrats again like they did in the 2006 congressional election.

Report this

By samosamo, March 16, 2008 at 7:22 pm Link to this comment

This is the quandray. I cannot allow my vote to go to another goddamn republican, at least mccain. I would hope that the numbers are what they are because there are 2 contenders left on the democratic side and old johnny has the republican side sewed up. Being in the east I will have to carefully watch the election results to see if it will become a neck and neck thing to see where I will place my vote.
Not only will I not vote for old johnny but I cannot make myself vote the another clinton again. That would be the insane thing to do. You know, repeating the same thing over and over hoping for different results and again I say it: what part of bush,clinton,clinton,bush,bush and then the prospects of another clinton does anyone not understand?
Other than that, it appears my vote will go to Nader. And it would have not mattered in 2000 with nader on the ballot, the florida recount was stopped by the complicit republican supreme court criminals when it was obvious that Gore was about to pick up more votes that little w.

Report this

By trevoralan, March 16, 2008 at 7:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I doubt that Nader percentage will be anywhere near that high on the actual election day.  As much as I understnad why people want something other than the two parties, why people would want something left of the Democrats, I do not understand why they think Nader is the guy to lead that charge, he hasn’t done anything in a decade, he’s old news!

But Obama and Clinton should note that the time to be cowardly about their progressivism (if Clinton has any left) is over.

Report this

By bachubhai, March 16, 2008 at 6:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The analysis is right on the money.

Any how it is Hillary 2012. Obama is still unelectable in today’s america. McCain is good for one term.

Report this

By Millennian, March 16, 2008 at 5:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It may only be understood by a true military man or woman, but I have always felt that things are the way they are because people usually get what they deserve, based on what they believe in their hearts and consciences that they should get, bad and good.

When people point the finger at the military and its participation in various social and governmental functions, I get the feeling that our better military minds understand the problem without holding it against the principles of truth and justice, in any land. People, being what they are, are just people, with and without opinions and theories and ideas and inventions and fantasies and concepts of reality, all being a part of the abstarction known as society.

I hold that conspiracy theorists are never correct, even when they identify certain conspirators, because they, like everybody else, have to get lucky once in while.

I liked some of what Ralph Nader said, and I truly like what he stands for, as well as his track record and accomplishments for the United States, but I didn’t like everything he said, though, like bringing out the problems of secret society, which are at best, meaningless to anyone who isn’t involved with their efforts and attempted good deeds.

I think that McCain-Nader would be interesting for the nation, but the truth concerning our dwindling American population base, combined with an American youth that shows little or no repsect for self evident truths around us, these things make for totally unpredictable times for the USA, no matter who is in office. The old addage, “Well made plans of mice and men,” that I have been reminded of on more than one occasion by people in politics, more than applies in this and most cases relating to election speeches since the 1950s and Ike Eisenhower.

Will it be more young Americans who have good policy to share with the free world, or will it be more young American jackboots overlording a dominated world for sordid reasons?

No believes that we always get what we deserve, for the most part. So, saying it may have little or no consequence when it comes to elections or the future.

Report this

By dave, March 16, 2008 at 5:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

anyone who thinks this poll is legit is delusional. this is merely the beginning of another fix. they are preparing you for the vote fraud that will sweep McCain into office. when 70% of the country wants out of the war, 80% dissaprove of Bush, how in the world does the one candidate who will be a continuation of the war and be a mimick of Bush top the polls? what kind of calculus makes that possible? when democrates receive twice the number of votes in all the primaries and caucuses, and they come out and tell us the war-mongering, bush sychophant candidate is the one who will win, what would make you give such an astounding result any legitamacy? there are no reasons for this result except that the fix is in again, and the preperation has begun.

Say goodbye to America.

Report this

By Hammo, March 16, 2008 at 5:21 pm Link to this comment

If McCain is elected, a few different scenarios could occur. These include an attack on Iran, continued war profiteering, more death and destruction and a military draft in the U.S.

Food for thought in the articles:

“Will Bush, Cheney attack Iran? When and why?”
Populist Party of America

“Military Draft Needed for War With Iran and Syria?”
Populist Party of America

Report this

By dasm, March 16, 2008 at 5:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Can Americans be this stupid?  McCain lives for war, flip-flops on a daily basis depending on his audience, embraces endorsers who are anti-Catholic, anti-Israel, homophobic, racist, etc., admits he is totally ignorant about economy as the economay goes down the toilet, and people want to vote for him?  He doesn’t even know his own principles! Not to mention cheating on his first wife! If ignorants really vote for this loser & Bush clone, then there’s nothing left to say except—you deserve him!

Report this

By cyrena, March 16, 2008 at 4:57 pm Link to this comment


I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing!!

Why in the world would the majority of American’s wanting OUT of the war, show a preference for a war mongering candidate?

My ‘assumption’ is that there are still many Americans who aren’t entirely aware of the Senators’ stance on the war.

In other words, in the larger picture, there aren’t necessarily that many Americans following any substantive issues on these candidates, and ESPECIALLY when they can be so easily distracted..not only by the MULTITUDE of socio-economic disasters plaguing so much of the population, but by the swiftboating that has become a staple of the Clinton campaign.

Once the attacks were initiated, they demanded a defense, (something Kerry failed to do when he was whacked by the same) and the ensuing result is that it becomes the most vivid picture in the minds of the public who…with multiple other concerns, don’t have much inclination to delve beyond whatever the media is putting out there.

It wouldn’t surprise me, (if there was a way to actually research the specifics behind each person’s response) to find that even people who DO want out of the war, are possibly likely to interpret or otherwise have the ‘impression’ that John McCain, as a former war hero, would be the one to do it.

Yeah, I know that sounds crazy to anyone who’s taken even a minimal amount of time to research these candidates and their positions.

But for many, many, Americans, (and these polls never do more than 1001 at a time of ‘likely voters’) there is no clue to the different positions of these candidates respective to the war or anything else.

Overall, American’s just know or otherwise instinctively understand that their own lives are really jacked-up. Not everyone understands WHY? In a vague sort of a rational, and for the less informed, many can or do look at McCain, (and maybe even Nadar) as some old dudes who’ve been around a long time, (which is true) and possibly get the psychological impression that well..maybe one of them can get things ‘right’ again.

We know that isn’t possible, because things haven’t been ‘right’ or even semi-ok for a really long time. But again, not everybody recognizes the reasons for that, nor do they understand that so much damage has already been done, that we’ll never be able to ‘go back’ to better times.

Still, when a society has been terrorized for as long as we have been, it’s not all that unusual to wish for, or look to what are, (at least in the social psychology of the larger group) people or other symbols of stability.

It’s so very hard to judge how a society will respond to elections, even under what have been ‘normal’ sorts of conditions. It’s even more unpredictable for a society in shock. Especially if most of them don’t even know that we’re in shock.

Fascism takes a huge toll on societies, and they don’t always realize it until long after the fact.

Report this

By Millennian, March 16, 2008 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Department of Defense manipulated wrongfully? Okay.

Point the finger, while the departments of Education, Transportation, Agriculture and all the rest of government maintain this un-American stance of sordid, round-about pollutions, wasted money, and dictatorships all over the world.

But don’t forget to ask yourselves, “WHY DID THIS HAPPEN HERE?”


Report this

By TheRealFish, March 16, 2008 at 3:15 pm Link to this comment


Yes, the dreaded and dreadful Florida vote. Bush won the Florida vote from Gore by 1,725 votes. Nader received 96,837 votes. It can safely be argued that no single “progressive” “green” voter would vote for W. even under threat of waterboarding. If Nader were not on that ticket, it also might be argued, at least 10% of the Nader green voters might vote for Mr. Green, Gore. That 9,000 votes would have dumped Bush, the Florida Electoral College tally would have been in Gore’s column, and we would not now be in Iraq.

Welcome back, Ralph.

Report this

By DennisD, March 16, 2008 at 2:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I guess this is what we’ve got to look forward to for the next 7+ months, an endless supply of worthless polls, each pointing the middle finger somewhere else other than at their candidates of choice.

More meaningless bullsh*t blog fodder. If people really wanted “change” in this country Nader would have 96% of the vote instead of 5%-6%.

No one can play “spoiler” in a system that’s already rotten.

Report this

By libhomo, March 16, 2008 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The March 19 Blogswarm Against the Iraq War is especially important in this political context. Unless the Democratic nominee supports immediate and total withdrawal from Iraq, Nader will get quite a few votes.

That’s why it is so important to join the over 240 blogs participating in the blogswarm.  We have to push the Democrats to do the right thing which also is the most electable thing.

Report this

By Langx, March 16, 2008 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Vote for McCain or Nader and your kids are going to need to learn Arabic for there future tours in Iraq.

I’m can see McCain now adding Arabic language classes to the No Child Left Behind fiasco.

There won’t be a child left behind when the draft starts.

Report this

By Gregorio, March 16, 2008 at 2:05 pm Link to this comment

McCain wouldn’t have won the poll if Nader had not been included!  He’s done it again!  He’s going to ruin it again for Wall Street’s candidate of choice, Obama this time.  But wait, there’s more…  How about those Republicans who would have voted for Ron Paul or Mitt Romney?  They too probably voted for Nader who is therefore potentially ruining it for McCain who otherwise is the clar leader!  Holy cow, batman, Nader ruins it for everyone, and allows us to blame him rather than the other candidates in every case.  If this guy runs again what will we do?  I’ll vote for him as I did in 2000 and 2004 as the ‘none of the above’ candidate.  A vote for the Dem or the Repub is a wasted vote since it has no more influence then a vote resulting from computer hacking - and those votes are always for either the Dems or the Repubs.  No, Nader don’t cheat.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, March 16, 2008 at 1:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By Douglas Chalmers, March 16 at 10:16 am #

Out of the war, huh?


Disunity, another word for individualism.

The ideas that one should stand their ground, fight for their beliefs, and not follow the crowd have all taken hits recently.

Folks on this oh-so-PC leftwing(nut) blog seem to be saying “If you’re not in my line, you are obviously WRONG!!!”

Guess I’m not sure about that. I believe in checking the lay-of-the-land. the direction of the wind, and the possibility of damage and error before using a rifle.  My vote is almost like a bullet (round if-you-will) discharged with caution it may bring home supper. fired carelessly it is libel to cause damage, grief, and possible death.

I’m absolutely sure of only one thing…. someday I will die.  Everything else needs serious consideration.

Report this

By Bubba, March 16, 2008 at 11:33 am Link to this comment

Curious. I wonder if Ralph’s numbers, assuming they’re correct, will hold up? I wouldn’t bet on it.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 16, 2008 at 11:16 am Link to this comment


Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 16, 2008 at 11:14 am Link to this comment

Ralph Nader: Saint or spoiler? with 2x video links.

Report this

By adamjohn12, March 16, 2008 at 10:32 am Link to this comment

“Using the same argument eight years ago, his presence on the ballot in Florida may well have tipped the presidential election away from Democrat Al Gore and in favor of George W. Bush.”

What kind of BS is that? Ralph never tipped the election to Bush…

Report this

By troublesum, March 16, 2008 at 10:27 am Link to this comment

Incredible!  70% want out of the war and the candidate with a war psycosis is ahead in the polls.

Report this
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Like Truthdig on Facebook