C'mon, really, I understand the gripes of the people that are saying Hillary's refusal to stay in the race is in one way or another bad. It may be. It may not. Personally I don't like Obama's health plan and I think Hillary's is better. I'm sure that Hillary has more experience than Obama. I'm positive that Obama is much more charismatic and is better at inspiring people. I question what either is going to do when the recession really hits.
The polls showing who will do better against McCain might suggest something but I remember that Dukakis led Bush after the convention in '88. I think it was a 10 point margin. The polls don't start meaning a lot (somebody prove me wrong here) until about 6-7 weeks before the election, then the numbers start hardening.
And I'm getting sick of the nominee being decided by "Super Tuesday". It used to be fun watching the conventions. I remember the '76 Republican Convention and that was some drama! Reagan's concession speech, at the convention, set him up for '80 in much the same way that Obama's 2004 speech set him up for a run.
I have not seem anyone do a historical analysis that shows tight nominee races on one side are more likely to produce a loser than a winner. If there's some numbers out there please point me to them. And seriously, give me a break, the attacks that Hillary are making are more likely to help Obama. He and his team have to get much better at handling attacks because Obama will be "Swift Boated" and it could be just as effective as it was against Kerry.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
