There goes Obama's lead in the polls....

[pBills]

I wouldn't say "we all" believed that it would be Guliani.

[Kelly the Dog]

Buddy, apparently you aren't getting what I am saying. Polls from a year ago when we all were thinking Hillary/Guliani are hardly relevant. I will try again.

Premises from a year ago:

1. Bush is so terrible that there is no way a Republican can win the White House.

2. The Democrats have won Congress and now that they are settled in, will change/fix a whole lot of stuff.

3. Whoever the Democratic nominee is, all the party as a whole has to do is walk it in, and they win.

 

But now we are tied, all of those premises have been proven false, and the only thing that matters now is what happens next. Again, if you told me that any of 1-3 was complete BS, I would not of believed you. Is that so hard to understand?

YOUR OWN LINK SAYS YOUR ENTIRE PREMISE AND THOSE THREE THINGS WERE THE SAME THEN AS NOW.

 

(Sorry for the caps, folks, I think OC is drunk)

 

Those three things, according to you, existed last year, and according to you, they exist now. Barack was slightly ahead then, he is slightly ahead now. No one cares that you think the whole world went crazy over the last year and ended up in a completely different dynamic when they didn't, they are in the same place. Apparently, people DIDNT think #3 was true according to your link.

[OCinBuffalo]

Dare all you want... I could really care less. A mentally affected person would not pay attention to what caused the problems with our country.

 

And since you are mentally affected, I'll let you slide on the fact that I have said many times over that McCain has been able to place all of his campaign energy on one person. Obama. Where as Obama has not, hence lead in the polls dwindle down. Now that the nominating process is almost over, that will change.

 

Did you follow along that time?

How does any of that refute, or even hope to address, my simple, straightforward point? I'm not talking about individuals, I am talking about the Democrats as a whole. The whole team. Face it, your team is like the Oilers. You have just gotten done blowing an enormous lead, and all that matters is what happens during the rest of the game. And, apparently you have a Kevin Gilbride-type calling your plays.

 

Definition of insanity: doing the same thing(blaming Bush/me) over and over expecting a different result. All of the Democrats activity combined has resulted in: tied with McCain at the end of the primary season. I don't see how blaming other people is going to get you anywhere other than where you are right now.

 

It's obvious to me that you work in politics, because only retarded politician type wouldn't be able to see my simple point. Instead of taking stock of reality by putting all the facts on the table and then drawing a conclusion, you first choose ideology, and then try to find facts that make you "right". Yeah, real shocking that a political type won't deal with reality first, ideology second. Isn't that the reason we are in Iraq? or why you think government run health care is such a great plan(even though you have no idea why you think that)?

[OCinBuffalo]

YOUR OWN LINK SAYS YOUR ENTIRE PREMISE AND THOSE THREE THINGS WERE THE SAME THEN AS NOW.

 

(Sorry for the caps, folks, I think OC is drunk)

 

Those three things, according to you, existed last year, and according to you, they exist now. Barack was slightly ahead then, he is slightly ahead now. No one cares that you think the whole world went crazy over the last year and ended up in a completely different dynamic when they didn't, they are in the same place. Apparently, people DIDNT think #3 was true according to your link.

Are you seriously telling me that you did not think it was a foregone conclusion that the Democrats would the white house? Even as little as 6 months ago? I'm not drunk, but even if I was wasted, I doubt I would believe somebody telling me that the Dems haven't blown a huge lead, no matter how well they said it.

 

Your whole 'expectations management' plan hinges on a poll regarding Obama v McCain from a year ago, before any debates, when you probably barely even knew who Obama was, and I am supposedly wrong for saying that the Dems have blown a huge lead? Is that what you are saying? '

 

What happened to your lead? your Congress? your moral superiority on Iraq? your absolute certainty that a recession was on the way? do you understand that you have basically blown the biggest lead in politics I have been alive for? Why are you yelling at me instead of yelling at the people who lost it for you? I had nothing to do with this.

 

How is any of this my fault? Why am I being accused of being stupid/drunk for simply stating something that every pundit, Republican or Democrat agrees with? If you look at that site, you will find clear evidence that Hillary is the better candidate to go up against McCain. I don't like Hillary, because she hasn't helped upstate anywhere near the level she promised, but that doesn't mean I lose my ability to read.

 

Edit: I forgot to close with: Obama was coddled by the media until Russer/Stephanopolous?(too lazy to look it up), and he got spanked in that debate. Having blown the huge lead, things aren't looking very good, and, like I said last time, both candidates have a long way to go. But I wanna see that first debate, because it looks like a blow out on paper, right now. Of course, that's why they play the games. Who knows? Obama might actually surprise us with something substantive to say this time around, instead of the "change" thing again. Change to what? Madeline Albright foreign policy? So far that's the only substantive thing I have heard.

[Kelly the Dog]

Are you seriously telling me that you did not think it was a foregone conclusion that the Democrats would the white house? Even as little as 6 months ago? I'm not drunk, but even if I was wasted, I doubt I would believe somebody telling me that the Dems haven't blown a huge lead, no matter how well they said it.

 

Your whole 'expectations management' plan hinges on a poll regarding Obama v McCain from a year ago, before any debates, when you probably barely even knew who Obama was, and I am supposedly wrong for saying that the Dems have blown a huge lead? Is that what you are saying? '

 

What happened to your lead? your Congress? your moral superiority on Iraq? your absolute certainty that a recession was on the way? do you understand that you have basically blown the biggest lead in politics I have ever alive for? Why are you yelling at me instead of yelling at the people who lost it for you? I had nothing to do with this.

 

How is any of this my fault? Why am I being accused of being stupid/drunk for simply stating something that every pundit, Republican or Democrat agrees with? If you look at that site, you will find clear evidence that Hillary is the better candidate to go up against McCain. I don't like Hillary, because she hasn't helped upstate anywhere near the level she promised, but that doesn't mean I lose my ability to read.

I, personally, thought it was a done deal a year ago, and I think the same way now. I think there is very little chance that Obama loses, unless something unforeseen comes up. I have already offered to bet you as such I am so confident about it, and you turned me down. I think there are numerous reasons why the snapshot in the polls right now is flawed, which makes the race seem closer than it is. That's just an opinion but I will gladly back it up. You just made up a set of suppositions and tried to prove with a link that proved otherwise.

[pBills]

How does any of that refute, or even hope to address, my simple, straightforward point? I'm not talking about individuals, I am talking about the Democrats as a whole. The whole team. Face it, your team is like the Oilers. You have just gotten done blowing an enormous lead, and all that matters is what happens during the rest of the game. And, apparently you have a Kevin Gilbride-type calling your plays.

 

Definition of insanity: doing the same thing(blaming Bush/me) over and over expecting a different result. All of the Democrats activity combined has resulted in: tied with McCain at the end of the primary season. I don't see how blaming other people is going to get you anywhere other than where you are right now.

 

It's obvious to me that you work in politics, because only retarded politician type wouldn't be able to see my simple point. Instead of taking stock of reality by putting all the facts on the table and then drawing a conclusion, you first choose ideology, and then try to find facts that make you "right". Yeah, real shocking that a political type won't deal with reality first, ideology second. Isn't that the reason we are in Iraq? or why you think government run health care is such a great plan(even though you have no idea why you think that)?

 

 

Dude, I got your ridiculous point a while ago. However, you are missing mine. Again, again, again, again. You find it funny that the Dems had a lead before by using George Bush's name and now that lead is gone and according to you that plan has got us no where and it's funny how people still want to establish a link between Bush and McCain.

 

Again, How can anyone move forward if you don't know/understand what caused the problem? How can anyone move forward if you want to follow the same path that got us in trouble in the first place?

 

I believe in the fact that polls change and this far out mean absolutely nothing. That is what you call reality.

[OCinBuffalo]

I, personally, thought it was a done deal a year ago, and I think the same way now. I think there is very little chance that Obama loses, unless something unforeseen comes up. I have already offered to bet you as such I am so confident about it, and you turned me down. I think there are numerous reasons why the snapshot in the polls right now is flawed, which makes the race seem closer than it is. That's just an opinion but I will gladly back it up. You just made up a set of suppositions and tried to prove with a link that proved otherwise.

Link that proved a point I wasn't making. You are talking Obama vs. McCain, a year ago v today. I am talking Dems vs. Reps a year ago v today. And I am basically counting Obama = the Dems right now, where that wasn't true a year ago, because that's reality. He wasn't = the Dems a year ago because the primaries weren't even started. He is = the Dems right now and that much should be obvious, especially after this weekend. Well, that is if we are talking about the establishment Dems. Older white women Dems are a big problem for you now.

 

Re "The Bet": I told you then and I am telling you now that I want to see the two teams play before I bet. Which is entirely reasonable. You can tell me I "chickened out" all you like but we both know what I said, why I said it, and that it makes sense. As I have told you this bet is = 49ers vs Seahawks to me, because I don't really feel like I have a horse in the race, and I want to see them in action in a debate so I can see apples to apples.

 

Also, I win either way no matter who gets elected. Why? Because if it's McCain, we don't a crazy health care system and I can do what I do now. If Obama wins, then it's a windfall for me because now the government becomes my biggest customer, creating demand that we can ride forever. So, like I said, personally I win either way, regardless of who wins, which is why personally I don't really care. In terms of the country, although I highly doubt Obama will actually deliver on his promise regarding Iraq-->that may not even be his fault, I do have serious concerns about leaving a mess there, just like we did after the Afghan/Soviet war.

[Kelly the Dog]

Link that proved a point I wasn't making. You are talking Obama vs. McCain, a year ago v today. I am talking Dems vs. Reps a year ago v today.

That's the link you provided. The only one, and you put it up top to prove your point. And it disproved your point.

 

About the bet: I don't care whether you bet or not. The point of bringing it up is that you are screaming that the Dems were so far ahead before and so sure of a win before and now they're not because the lead evaporated. And I am saying I thought the same thing then as now and you're wrong and I will back it up. If you had confidence that the lead HAD evaporated and now they will lose, you, perhaps, should probably back it up yourself. I think the vast majority of Dems thought the Democrat candidate would win before and a vast majority think the same now, Hillary or Obama.

[Wacka]

Sufferers of Bush Derrangemnet Syndrome (BDS) don't realize they have it. To them it is just a given fact that Bush is the Antichrist.

 

You spell it out for them point by point, and they just can't see it.

[OCinBuffalo]

Dude, I got your ridiculous point a while ago. However, you are missing mine. Again, again, again, again. You find it funny that the Dems had a lead before by using George Bush's name and now that lead is gone and according to you that plan has got us no where and it's funny how people still want to establish a link between Bush and McCain.

 

Again, How can anyone move forward if you don't know/understand what caused the problem? How can anyone move forward if you want to follow the same path that got us in trouble in the first place?

 

I believe in the fact that polls change and this far out mean absolutely nothing. That is what you call reality.

It's not ridiculous, its a fact. Deny, deny, deny, and then blame others, blame others, blame others, and don't forget to tell us we need more government and therefore higher taxes for everyone. Basic Democrat plan the last 20 years.

 

Read this slowly: You lost to Bush twice. Yes, you could not find a way to beat Bush....TWICE! Who's fault is that? Mine? What caused that problem? How can you move forward and actually get something positive accomplished if you follow the same path that lost you the last 2 Presidential elections, against, according to you, an idiot, and now has you tied, once again, with the Reps? If you can't beat an idiot, what does that make you? Hint: A bigger idiot!

 

This is like 2000 all over again, and you didn't even learn the lesson Carter/Dukakis/Gore/Kerry should have taught you negatively, and Clinton positively. Now it's 50/50 split. Before Blowgate, it was Gore's to lose, and he could've screwed up moderately and still won. Your party has found a way to lose more times than the Dolphins did last year, and instead of fixing what is broken, you blame everybody else/call the American people idiots when you lose.

[Bishop Hedd]

Yeah, I thought that it would be Hillary v Guliani. Same as the vast majority of this country. Yeah that's real shocking. I thought that Hillary would most likely win unless Guliani could use 9/11/Blowgate to great effect. Same as the vast majority of the pundits/rest of the country. Again, amazingly shocking! Obama in the lead, with a grand total of .7! And if you look at it, there's only one poll causing that. Everything else is tied, and everything is well within the generally accepted 3% margin of error = tie any way you look at it, unless you are an idiot. BAAAAAH! Too shocking to handle! We have a straight up tie, which means that the only thing that matters right now is what Obama and McCain do from this point going forward. It's 0/0 on the scoreboard. So yeah, the debates are now going to be the single largest factor in the rest of the game. OMG! Too shocking to handle!B word at me all you want but the fact that things are where they are isn't my fault. It's your fault, along with every other dumbass Democrat partisan that thought it was a good idea to blow all the political capital Bush gave them on stupid ideas/doing nothing once you got Congress/saying things like "The War is Lost". Once again, we see Democrats getting pissed at/blaming other people, when they should be accepting the blame for their own blatant failures, figuring out what they need to do to improve and executing that. Go ahead and blame me some more, B word about Bush, that strategy has worked so well that you are now tied with McCain. Great Job! Democrats blaming Bush/me in response to this in 5...4...3...2...

Coo*coo coo*coo. Some here r acting like they came from the same bin as DC Tom.

[OCinBuffalo]

That's the link you provided. The only one, and you put it up top to prove your point. And it disproved your point.

 

About the bet: I don't care whether you bet or not. The point of bringing it up is that you are screaming that the Dems were so far ahead before and so sure of a win before and now they're not because the lead evaporated. And I am saying I thought the same thing then as now and you're wrong and I will back it up. If you had confidence that the lead HAD evaporated and now they will lose, you, perhaps, should probably back it up yourself. I think the vast majority of Dems thought the Democrat candidate would win before and a vast majority think the same now, Hillary or Obama.

How many more times do I have to say it? My point is simple: the Dems have blown a big lead, it's 0/0 on the scoreboard, all that matters is what happens next. Nothing more, nothing less, and certainly not "McCain is going to win". Please stop putting words in my mouth. You know darn well what I am saying and now you are trying to duck it. The fact is that I used the link to talk about Dems v Reps today, as an indication of where things stand in reality, compared to where any reasonable person would expect them to stand a year ago. My post has nothing to do with Obama vs McCain a year ago, it does have to do with Reps vs. Dems and where that, ONLY, stood a year ago compared with today. Stop wasting our time arguing a point I didn't make.

 

I don't care what the vast Majority of Dems think: they are still blaming everybody else but themselves for losing to Bush The Idiot, twice. Why would anyone take somebody who can't beat an idiot, twice, seriously, never mind what they think? I am sure many Dems still think that Carter was a good President or that raising taxes in an economic slowdown is a good idea, but that doesn't mean either of them true.

 

Look I'm just telling it like it is and if you are too affected to accept that reality, and wanna attack me for telling the truth, that's your choice. Keep it up, and see what happens to you in November. What are the odds you will blame the media if McCain smokes Obama in the first debate?

[OCinBuffalo]

Coo*coo coo*coo. Some here r acting like they came from the same bin as DC Tom.

Wow not only an insightful post, but an excellent job of refuting the content at the same time. Bravo Is their a finer example of Democratic intellectual leadership? We have name calling, taking shots at others who have nothing to do with this, and acting like a jackass all in the same sentence.

 

And you wonder why I complain about Democrats having a severe substance deficit, bitching too much, offering little in the way of a solution to the problems they insist on defining over and over. This post goes a long way to disproving that point.

[Kelly the Dog]

How many more times do I have to say it? My point is simple: the Dems have blown a big lead, it's 0/0 on the scoreboard, all that matters is what happens next. Nothing more, nothing less, and certainly not "McCain is going to win". Please stop putting words in my mouth. You know darn well what I am saying and now you are trying to duck it. The fact is that I used the link to talk about Dems v Reps today, as an indication of where things stand in reality, compared to where any reasonable person would expect them to stand a year ago. My post has nothing to do with Obama vs McCain a year ago, it does have to do with Reps vs. Dems and where that, ONLY, stood a year ago compared with today. Stop wasting our time arguing a point I didn't make.

 

I don't care what the vast Majority of Dems think: they are still blaming everybody else but themselves for losing to Bush The Idiot, twice. Why would anyone take somebody who can't beat an idiot, twice, seriously, never mind what they think? I am sure many Dems still think that Carter was a good President or that raising taxes in an economic slowdown is a good idea, but that doesn't mean either of them true.

 

Look I'm just telling it like it is and if you are too affected to accept that reality, and wanna attack me for telling the truth, that's your choice. Keep it up, and see what happens to you in November. What are the odds you will blame the media if McCain smokes Obama in the first debate?

I'm trying to help you, OC. Put down the MD2020 and just think about what you just posted. You don't care what the Democrats think? That's the entire premise of your blather, that they used to think they were way ahead (that's how polls work, you know, pollsters ask questions and pollees answer what they think) and now they don't think so. I said they havent changed their thoughts, they used think they will win and still do. And now you say that doesn't matter to you, what they think, even though that's what this thread is about. Including the title, "There goes Obama's lead in the polls" (which of course, showed that his lead was the same a year ago, and he has gained about 8-9 points in the last 14 months since the poll started)

[DC Tom]

Coo*coo coo*coo. Some here r acting like they came from the same bin as DC Tom.

 

That resembled exactly nothing like I've ever posted.

[OCinBuffalo]

Erm, its been flipflopping. There was a period back in March when McCain had a decided advantage in the national poll, not that the national poll matters much.

Fine. Should it be? Given Bush's situation? How does this account for the fact that Obama is tied with a guy who isn't even fully supported by his party's traditional base(yet?)? Should it even be close?

Not quite. Pew publishes the best analysis of their polls online, with this one being the one RCP is using.

 

I suggest giving it a read - it has more to do with his declining image than his policy issues.

Ok, that's not surprising since he took a beating from McCain today on foreign policy, and instead of responding, started talking about the economy and how Bush/McCain has been too distracted by foreign issues to pay attention to it. The worst is: that might even be true, but that's not a response to the points McCain made. That's lamely trying to change the subject. Is that what we can expect from him in dealing with China? I gained a lot of respect for Obama this weekend with the press conference he had re his old church, but then I lost it all today with his lame tactic.

 

He's not helping himself by talking about the failures of the existing federal government, of which he is a part, that his party controls a majority of. So yeah, small wonder he has an image problem developing. Notice I haven't said anything about these religious nuts "helping" Obama out. Another strange thing: who would've thought that we'd be talking about wingnut religious people on the Democratic side of the ball?

Really? Then why did they have McGovern head the redesign committee, and why did he win it the very next time after it was instituted?

It's generally accepted knowledge that the Super Delegates structure was put in place to keep the wingnuts from winning the nomination, and thereby getting the Democrats crushed in the general. People mainly use the McGovern example as a real world example. Don't ask me about it, because I have no idea what McGovern does, did, etc. All I know is: right now the candidate who has a better shot to win the general election, who is clearly more centrist - Hell the word Clinton is synonymous with political expediency and taking the other side's issues away, is not going to get the chance to run. Instead, the far-left favorite is going to go. The super delegates were supposed to be able to stop this from happening, and are there to make sure the Dems win.

 

Btw, why do you think so many are still on the fence? Answer: They are career politicians who are reading the same polls we are.

 

It is highly ironic that the very system that is supposed to stop the Obama's is the thing that is getting him the nod. If the Dems had the same rules as the Reps, this would be over, with Hillary the nominee, 2 months ago.

[blzrul]

I saw a different poll that has Obama leading by 10% and also that the preponderance of Americans agree with him (against McCain) on his stance to talk with nutjob Iran PRIOR to attacking.

 

It's June. See me in October.

[OCinBuffalo]

I'm trying to help you, OC. Put down the MD2020 and just think about what you just posted. You don't care what the Democrats think? That's the entire premise of your blather, that they used to think they were way ahead (that's how polls work, you know, pollsters ask questions and pollees answer what they think) and now they don't think so. I said they havent changed their thoughts, they used think they will win and still do. And now you say that doesn't matter to you, what they think, even though that's what this thread is about. Including the title, "There goes Obama's lead in the polls" (which of course, showed that his lead was the same a year ago, and he has gained about 8-9 points in the last 14 months since the poll started)

Yes, I don't care whatever the "politically inspired" thoughts Democrats had were/are, and am talking about what people, all of them, thought for real.

 

Maybe that's the problem here: you completely missed my premise. This isn't about what people "thought" in terms of political speak/affiliation. I am talking in terms of reasonable analysis. You are talking in terms of "wishing" or rooting. Of course all committed Democrats "think"(read: wish) that the Democrats will win the White House every day, all the time. I am not arguing that. Hell, I "think" the Bills are going to beat the Patriots 56-10 the last game of the season. Does that make it so? Is that a reasonable analysis?

 

I am saying that all wishful thinking aside, reasonable people in general, Dems, Reps, Inds, thought that there was no way a Republican could win a year ago. Also, there is a huge difference between the polls = who people are going to vote for and who they "think" is going to win vs. who they reasonably think is going to win. Are you telling me you don't know the difference?

 

So no, I don't care what Democrats wish, oh sorry, think is going to happen. I know that in the back of their minds they know damn well they have blown a huge lead, lost momentum, now have to start the general election even up, and most importantly that there's no way this should have happened = major screw up. Now, whether they "think" it's their fault or not? Who knows? But somehow I am guessing they "think"(wish) it really was Bush's/the media's/OCinPhilly's fault. Why would they change their "thinking" this time around? They already "thought" themselves into 2 losses against Bush and I am sure that nothing is going to change their "thinking" that somehow it's not their fault that they couldn't beat an, as defined by them, idiot...TWICE!!!

[OCinBuffalo]

I saw a different poll that has Obama leading by 10% and also that the preponderance of Americans agree with him (against McCain) on his stance to talk with nutjob Iran PRIOR to attacking.

 

It's June. See me in October.

RCP is an average of a bunch of generally accepted polls, but I'm sure your one poll is a better indicator of the truth.

 

Nice attempt at rewriting what Obama said into what he should have said. I would have no problem with him saying we should talk first before we attack, with the UN, our allies and other countries in the region, and especially if we can get 6 or 7 countries to sit down with us and Iran and have an "intervention".

 

But that's not what he said. He said we should conduct open discussions 1 v1 with foreign wingnut dictators, with no pre-conditions, thereby legitimizing these turds, treating them as though they deserve to be taken seriously, directly contradicting American foreign policy of the last 40 years-->Democrat and Republican, revisiting the utter failure of Madeline Albright's approach, and most importantly defying reason and common sense.

 

North Korea's dictator wears f'ing high heels, but you want to take him seriously? I bet you thought Qadafi's "line of death" was a reasonable position and his "perspective" was something to take seriously as well, huh? After all, it's important to listen to what people have to say, especially our enemies, because it's all just a matter of perspective. Right? Sure, everybody's opinion is "important". There's no such thing as evil people, or idiots, whose "opinion" is retarded.

 

Once again, I am not saying McCain will win. I am saying that there's no way this should even be a contest, especially when you consider all that McCain has had to overcome to get here. McCain's campaign is every bit as "historic" as Obama's is, if not more. And, you have already lost in terms of where you were in 2006 to where you are now. Unfortunately we as a country bought your BS line that you were capable, willing and interested in fixing things, and the country has suffered for it, which means we lost too. But go ahead and blame Bush again for two years of talk and no action, what else should I expect?

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Maybe that's the problem here: you completely missed my premise. This isn't about what people "thought" in terms of political speak/affiliation. I am talking in terms of reasonable analysis. You are talking in terms of "wishing" or rooting. Of course all committed Democrats "think"(read: wish) that the Democrats will win the White House every day, all the time. I am not arguing that. Hell, I "think" the Bills are going to beat the Patriots 56-10 the last game of the season. Does that make it so? Is that a reasonable analysis?

1st off, everyone is entitled to their opinion, however outrageous it may seem, and clearly one of the best parts of TBD result from the lively debates from these unique and subjective opinions. You seem to be a pretty smart person, who has the ability to really think things through and develop strong convictions. It's all good...

 

But, you have this delivery that comes across like sulfuric acid and 40 grit sandpaper mixed together. Why is it necessary to attack the opposite point of view like a pit bull? Chill out a bit and you'll get alot more mindshare and interaction with people who might be willing to consider your point of view if you didn't come at them with an Uzi in each hand. Just a thought...

 

I'd offer a slightly different answer on "chances of winning"...

 

Pretty much anyone who is a proud, card carrying member of their party (regardless of affiliation) believes/wishes/wants/roots for their party to win; every election, every year. Some more than others. Like you say with the Bills, you think they can and will win. And I'll be the first to admit that the dems haven't fielded a strong enough candidate in recent years, besides Bill Clinton, and arguably Gore. So while they could have won several recent presidential elections, all things considered, they didn't put a strong enough team on the field and/or didn't play to win.

 

This one is different. They have a sitting president with a record low public opinion, an unpopular war (forgive me, but let's compare it with, let's say Afghanistan...), economy that's in the tank, less than great opinion of the GOP, blah blah blah. And while there are clearly people who disagree, if the dems put together a pretty good platform and a really good candidate, the chances of them winning are much better than, let's say 2000 or 2004. And with the exception of the conservative media, most of MSM and the blogosphere thinks the same thing: not that they will absolutely win, but they have a great chance if they execute and field a serious team. Lastly, while it has gone up and down in the past year, most democrats and the MSM still believe it is their election to lose.

 

I am saying that all wishful thinking aside, reasonable people in general, Dems, Reps, Inds, thought that there was no way a Republican could win a year ago.

I'm not sure if I agree with this. I believe it's more true now than a year ago, not sure if the polls will show that though. In 2007, there was a better economy, lower gas prices, less anger towards the war, better GOP image, and Bush was stronger then. So shoot me, but the GOP has greased the skids a year later.

 

So no, I don't care what Democrats wish, oh sorry, think is going to happen. I know that in the back of their minds they know damn well they have blown a huge lead, lost momentum, now have to start the general election even up, and most importantly that there's no way this should have happened = major screw up. Now, whether they "think" it's their fault or not? Who knows? But somehow I am guessing they "think"(wish) it really was Bush's/the media's/OCinPhilly's fault. Why would they change their "thinking" this time around? They already "thought" themselves into 2 losses against Bush and I am sure that nothing is going to change their "thinking" that somehow it's not their fault that they couldn't beat an, as defined by them, idiot...TWICE!!!

Again, this is subjective, but I don't think most democrats think they blew a huge lead. They have record new voter registrations. They've brought huge numbers of people out to vote and they had not one, but two strong candidates. Could the eventual nominee used this time to focus on McCain? Sure, but in this case the likely democratic candidate has an extremely well-oiled campaign machine that can raise cash by the truckload, so not much is lost. It's also pretty clear that while there's some amount of hindsight 20/20 about things like MI and WI, wishing it hadn't taken so long, etc., most people think it's been a fantastic primary for the democrats. No one is complacent, but there's tons of confidence right here and right now.

 

If there was any fault, of course they blame the Bush administration and the congressional republicans. But therein lies their opportunity to take control of the WH, and possibly both houses of congress for a term or two. There's very little blame because they see a great momentum for the party in the short term.

 

To use your words, reasonable people in general, Dems, Reps, Inds, as well as pundits, analysts, talking heads, and pols, don't pay a lot of attention to GE polls in May 2008. Maybe in other elections, but not this year. The 2008 GE campaign is embryonic. The real polling starts in about 2 months, when the two nominees have a chance to flex their muscles.