[QUOTE=Keweenaw]
The results from the 55 were based on undecided votes so they probably wouldn’t even all be for Obama. At least a few people who initially were voting undecided (Edwards) would have made Clinton their second choice.
[/QUOTE]
of course many who voted for HIllary may have voted for Obama as well. One thing to keep in mind is at the time of these primaries Hillary had far better name recognition than Obama. The inability to campaing in either Florida or Michigan clearly hurt Obama, still a somewhat unknown quantity, much more than the already established HRC.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
Every presidential candidate had something to dodge in recent memory. Clinton dodged Ms.Flowers and every other president who has made it to the White House has had to dodge something.
[/quote]
You do know what a “false analogy” is, I trust? Judging from your screen name, that is. There is a *huge * difference between problems of leadership of a nation (“uniting” leadership, at that), and personal matters that are nobody else’s business and have nothing to do with leadership.
If you really must find ways to rationalize Obama’s ducking, the level to which you must go to do so says everything it needs to.
Tell us about the poll trends, which you have been so quick to tout whenever they’ve favored your guy. Or just look at the poll actuals - RTFirefly, for one, seems quite happy to discuss them at length, without prejudice of any sort.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Or just look at the poll actuals - RTFirefly, for one, seems quite happy to discuss them at length, without prejudice of any sort.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the compliment - but what happened to “the cherry-picked individual poll data” that I “so lavishly festoon the Forkfest threads with”?
