As an addendum to yesterday's post on the matter, let me note that we now have new data from SurveyUSA indicating that Barack Obama would, indeed, beat Giuliani in Massachusetts, just as common sense indicates.
« Iraq's Refugees | Main | Going Meta »
Mass Update
02 Oct 2007 08:45 pm
Comments (5)
Romney is widely hated in the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts -- God save it! -- for trying to use the state as a laugh-line in various fundraising speeches in places like Alabama.
Mitt(en) can go fuck himself.
Pursuant to the Green Lantern Theory of Presidential Politics: Obama will be the next President. Romney's irrelevant and his treatment of the voting public in Massachusetts is truly disgraceful. What a dick.
Actually, that Survey poll showed Obama (and Edwards) beating Giuliani by amazingly small margins (5 and 8 points) vs. 25 for Hillary. These same huge differences between the supposed strengths of the three candidates also show up in most of Survey's latest batch of statewide polls ( http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.aspx ), which is why -- as I said on an earlier thread -- I'm very suspicious of them. Hillary may have a bit more Northeast support than Obama and Edwards because she's (at the moment, anyway) a New Yorker -- but a 17-point difference (and comparably weird disparities between the three in other states)? Pfaw.
Giuliani doesn't even think Giuliani can win Mass. In fact, according to a leaked Giuliani campaign document, the only two states that the Giuliani campaign believe he has no shot at are Vermont and Massachusetts.
Comments closed October 16, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
One of the amazing features of the polling data is the aweful relative performance of Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. Romney consistently performs worse among Republican candidates in national polls and his campaign says this reflects a lack of name recognition. Would the campaign really make that claim about a state where he was Governor?
Posted by HoyaChris | October 2, 2007 9:57 PM