rccar328 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 In a Gallup poll conducted Jan. 20-22, 48% of registered voters who were polled said they would consider voting for Hillary Clinton for president in '08 (16% said they would definitely vote for her, 32% said they 'might consider' voting for her). 51% of registered voters said they would definitely not vote for Hillary in '08. The results were somewhat similar for Condoleezza Rice, who has not expressed aspirations for the Presidency, but has been put forward by many on the right (I myself would vote for Condi if she decided to run). 52% of registered voters said they would consider voting for Condi (14% said they would definitely vote for her, 38% 'might consider'). 46% said they would definitely not vote for Condi. Frankly, I think this poll is an indictment of Hillary's political pandering. She's been out there trying to pander to everyone, and has shown herself to be nothing more than a shallow politician willing to say darn near anything for votes...but I'm sure there are all kinds of people around here who disagree with my opinion...so fire away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 It depends on who the republican candidate will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhuf Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 If Condi wore her 'Matrix' outfit (hot!) more often, Hillary's numbers would drop further. I am inclined to vote against Hillary given her intent to restrict the sale of videogames. Truly pandering on a pointless issue during very troubling times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I am inclined to vote against Hillary given her intent to restrict the sale of videogames. Truly pandering on a pointless issue during very troubling times. Indeed. Her siding with looney right-wing wackos like Jack Thompson really blew her image in my eyes. Then the "plantation" remark... *shudders* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Indeed. Her siding with looney right-wing wackos like Jack Thompson really blew her image in my eyes. Then the "plantation" remark... *shudders* Me too. We are so shallow. I suspect those numbers would change once the election stated, and it became a more pressing and partisan issue. People might end up voting for someone more because of their party, or the opponent, or press coverage... rather than their initial opinion of the person. That said, considering the incredible amount of hatred and venom that she had spewed at her when clinton was president... and at least some of that mud must have stuck... I've always thought she'd ahve a hard time getting elected. Mind you, the democrats need a candidate with some balls to kick start their party... though recently she seems to have lost those balls with all the pandering to top story issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president. Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges. The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long, long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It's about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief. Yeah. That's my view. She hasn't given me enough information to even let me consider her as a candidate, and what little she has given is not positive in my opinion. I'm pretty sure every major candidate is going to be a bad choice. Both Republicans and Democrats are too extreme in their own way. No worries about that though; we pick our presidents based on how nice they look or on party lines, not whether they actually are the best candidate. I'm sure we'll have a nice show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 A new study conducted by the Peter D. Hart Research Associates and released by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) shows that 35% of U.S. parents play videogames; of those, almost half (47%) are women. 80% of gaming parents say they play with their children. In what is surely meant to be a direct appeal to lawmakers, the study also reveals that 85% of voting parents, including those who don't play videogames, say parents should take responsibility for childrens' exposure the games. ESA president Doug Lowenstein commented in a statement, "[T]his research suggests that proposals to regulate video games may backfire with American voters who, unlike some elected officials, appear to fully understand that they should control the entertainment that comes into their homes." Other interesting data from the report, which surveyed 501 "nationally representative" households with children aged 2-17, include: # Average age of gaming parent: 37 # Average length gaming parent has been gaming: 13 years # Percentage of gaming parents who introduced their children to videogames: 36% # Percentage of gaming parents who were introduced to gaming by their children: 27% While these numbers aren't surprising as we expect the videogame consumer to mature and, increasingly, to continue gaming after childhood, it's wise to remember the old adage about statistics -- they are like a bikini: what they reveal is interesting, but what they hide is essential. Maybe she'll start pandering to people we like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I'm pretty sure every major candidate is going to be a bad choice. Both Republicans and Democrats are too extreme in their own way. As a matter of fact the current extreme division in the American political spectrum is entirely the fault of the Republican Party. No, that's not propaganda, that's a simple statement of fact. When you look at the voting records, you'll see that the Democrats haven't changed noticeably in their voting pattern on issues of government size and 'race issues', historically the two best measures of party lines in America. The GOP, however, has taken a marked step towards murdering the government and promoting racial discrimination over the past decade and a half. There is nothing remotely 'extreme' in the Democratic Party - indeed that is in no small part their problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 It almost seems as if the democrats have moved to the right as well, almost occupying the ground the old moderate republicans used to hold... either that or they just won't make up their mind. this is odd because it is the opposite of the Uk. In the uk the Extreme republicans (conservatives) got voted out and the democrats (labour) pretty much took over their ground... moving much more to the centre-right than they used to be. this left the republicans with the option of becoming more extreme, or fighting on the same ground... neither of which was that appealing. LEFT_________________MIDDLE___________________RIGHT UK:_______________Labour/Conservatives US:_________________________Democrats_________________Republicans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 As a matter of fact the current extreme division in the American political spectrum is entirely the fault of the Republican Party. No, that's not propaganda, that's a simple statement of fact. There is nothing remotely 'extreme' in the Democratic Party - indeed that is in no small part their problem. If I find something I don't like in either party, it will influence the way I think about them. I've found problems with both parties, which I'm not discussing here because I've done it elsewhere and am pretty tired of it. Your opinions, the values which you use to make your scale of extremes, are your own. I'm content to use the ones I've come up with through my own inquiry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I honestly don't believe America is truly ready for a female president, from either party. Or for that matter a black one. Or a jewish one. And certainly not an openly gay one. I just don't think we've really come all that far in those regards. I'd love to be proven wrong, though. I just don't see any candidate that meets one or more of those criteria getting very far in any of the primaries before getting ground up by the machine. So that means our next crop of selections will most likely be, (ready for this?): middle-aged white male political insiders, Christian (and most likely Protestant,) from affluent backgrounds. Surprise, surprise. So I think Hillary and Condi are just empty threats and/or wishful thinking (depending on where you stand on either one of them...) at the moment. A few more election cycles, maybe. A V.P. spot may not be totally out of the question for either one, however. I, for one, am hoping for a middle-of-the-road moderate candidate, from either party, (or even from outside the 2 major parties,) that can win with overwhelming support from members of both parties to bring some semblance of reason back into the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhuf Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 The GOP, however, has taken a marked step towards murdering the government ... How do you square this with the factual increase in Federal government hiring under the Bush II and III Presidencies? Maybe I don't follow the idiom of 'mudering the government.' Does that mean reducing government spending? Oh well until Hillary takes a stand on Iraq (specifically, what would she do to make it better), I don't really know what she represents. That was true for Kerry right up and through his lost election bout. Pity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 LEFT_________________MIDDLE___________________RIGHT UK:_______________Labour/Conservatives US:_________________________Democrats_________________Republicans It's not exactly weird. US politics has always leaned more to the right. Not a hard observation since both parties are truly different in only certain areas. On a side note, I always laugh at how some Americans claim the more centralist democrats are "extreme". It makes me wonder if there are actual left-wing extremists in America... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 On a side note, I always laugh at how some Americans claim the more centralist democrats are "extreme". It makes me wonder if there are actual left-wing extremists in America... I don't have much of a problem with centrists of either party. The only ones I dislike are ones that simply will not accept compromise on anything, just because that would mean they'd have to agree on something with the other party. The problems with this become especially apparent when you have the presidency change every four years. Many long-term projects begun by either party just go down the drain with nothing to show for it save for a bill. And does it really matter what left-wing extremists are to you? If there's not enough of them in the US to make a difference in the vote, they just don't matter and the scale of Left and Right shifts to accomodate that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 So extreme actually only means hard headed and resistent to cooperation. I always thought it actually meant extremists in the sense of...well extremists, being communist and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 So extreme actually only means hard headed and resistent to cooperation. I always thought it actually meant extremists in the sense of...well extremists, being communist and all that."I don't have much of a problem with centrists of either party." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 I honestly don't believe America is truly ready for a female president, from either party. That would be a shame... practically every western country has now had a female leader at some point, as well as a lot of other "less developed" countries in the world. It does seem to be tricky for women though.. and it always strikes me as odd that the ones who are usually the most vicious and go after them hardest are other women... who seem to hold them to much higher standards than they hold the men. Black... I wouldn't think there would be a problem these days. Gay or single... or non christian.. now that could be trickier... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Like I said: I'd love to be proven wrong on this point. But that's still my gut feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 ^^^^ "I think George Bush needs to go out there and find the best man, woman, or minority for the Supreme Court." --Trent Lott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 I'm not a big fan of Hillary Clinton, but anyone who answers a poll, Gallup or LF, that they would "definately not consider" her in a Presidential election is answering based on ideology and not with reason. I say this because it would depend upon who she ran against. If it were against Rice, I think Clinton would far quite well. If she were up against McCain, I think it would be a landslide in McCain's favor. I'm hoping to vote for McCain in the next Presidential Election. I'm tired of having to vote Democrat or Independent because Republicans can't seem to put a true conservative on the ticket. Instead, they give us corrupt liberals like Bush (W.) who lie to the public about being conservative. If that's conservative, what are they conserving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted January 30, 2006 Author Share Posted January 30, 2006 I'd be about as likely to vote McCain as Clinton. I'd vote for Rice in a heartbeat, but if she doesn't run, it'd take one heck of a candidate to get me to vote Republican (Newt Gingrich comes to mind). Barring that, I'll likely vote for the Constitution Party candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 This thread embodies one of the many reasons why I don't vote... ...there's no one worth voting for unless they bribe you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 How do you square this with the factual increase in Federal government hiring under the Bush II and III Presidencies? Is that with or without Operation Iraqi Screwup? Maybe I don't follow the idiom of 'mudering the government.' Does that mean reducing government spending? Yes and no. What the Bush Regime has been doing is systematically undercutting the financial base of the federal government. The fact that he's been spending like he's being paid for it (here's betting he is) while at the same time cutting taxes - in the face of a catastrophic deficit - really only worsens the problem. Instead, they give us corrupt liberals like Bush (W.) who lie to the public about being conservative. Heey, stop slandering Liberals! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathain Valtiel Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Templar: Skin is correct though. Neo-conservatives are actually based on the ideals of Democrat liberals who defected to the Republican Party during I think the Red Scare. They are actually liberals claiming to be conservatives. They cannot be truly called conservative because they advocate a drastic change in government. Mislabeling neocons as conservatives is one way to REALLY piss me off in a political debate, since it's just wrong. --- What's this deal with racial discrimination? Is there some statistic or not completely biased report I can look at that verifies this claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Templar: Skin is correct though. Neo-conservatives are actually based on the ideals of Democrat liberals who defected to the Republican Party during I think the Red Scare. They are actually liberals claiming to be conservatives. That might be where they're coming from, but they definitely ain't in Kansas no more. They may not be conservatives, but they are definitely not 'liberal' in any reasonable definition of the term (not even in the wierd American use of the word). I know what I'd call them, though. They cannot be truly called conservative because they advocate a drastic change in government. And they can't be called liberals, because the change they want doesn't have anything to do with liberalism in any shape I know of. What's this deal with racial discrimination? Is there some statistic or not completely biased report I can look at that verifies this claim? I would suppose so, although I must confess that I have not myself checked the primary source. EDIT: Nope. The race stuff seems a bit fuzzy and mainly there for show (my very much secondary source was appearently reading diagonally). Not that it was ever the main point. Still a very informative article. And it has some nice points on statistics in general as well. EDIT2: Another nice article on statistics. That one is going into my Bookmarks for future reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.