In a Gallup poll (
http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=21103) 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.
It depends on who the republican candidate will be.
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.
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*
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.
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. :)
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 ;)
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.
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___________________RIGH T
UK:_______________Labour/Conservatives
US:_________________________Democrats_____________ ____Republicans
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.
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.
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.
LEFT_________________MIDDLE___________________RIGH T
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...
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.
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.
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."
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...
Like I said: I'd love to be proven wrong on this point. But that's still my gut feeling.
^^^^
"I think George Bush needs to go out there and find the best man, woman, or minority for the Supreme Court."
--Trent Lott
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?
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.
This thread embodies one of the many reasons why I don't vote...
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-9/396532/smalldouche.jpghttp://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-9/396532/smallturd.jpg)
...there's no one worth voting for unless they bribe you.
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!
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?
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 (
http://www.slate.com/id/2060047/), 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 (
http://www.slate.com/id/2122093/?nav=navoa). That one is going into my Bookmarks for future reference.
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.
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.
Yes, they are liberals, in the economical sense of the word, which prones a smaller government who leaves more room for the industries to do what they want.
They are liberals and not in the wicked american sense (referring to leftists).
On the economic front, I'm inclined to agree with you - but their social policies are anything but.
But on the social front it's not possible to call them conservatives either, since by definition conservatives attempt to maintain a status quo, which they REALLY aren't doing. You can't put them on the far right, since you can't say they are advocating some changeback to a previously existing form of government (what they're proposing is unheard of... I kind of think of it like Warhammer 40k's Imperium).
Therefore, the only place you can put them is somewhere on the left, since they fail all checks for being on the right unless you arbitrarily assign religious tendency to the right. Their economic policies are distinctly liberal, and you can make an argument that they're attempting to institute an extreme form of liberalism's mandate that government should protect property and the ability to gain property.
---
I know it wasn't the main point, but since the report is apparently skewed I'll say no more. I know about the fallacies of stats, but they're still useful if read correctly. There's a reason I said 'or a not completely biased report'.
In American politics:
The way I see it, neo-cons like Bush and his cronies who have hijacked the republican party are liberal on government, and conservative socially. Considered neither conservative nor liberal... so you get neo-conservatism.
And it's the worst philosophy IMO. The complete opposite to libertarianism (conservative on government, liberal socially).
TK, I think you hit the nail right on the head there.
TK, I think you hit the nail right on the head there.
Well, I'm sure you've misread my post somehow then. If you mean by the "worst philosophy" I was referring to neo-conservatism...
Well, I'm sure you've misread my post somehow then. If you mean by the "worst philosophy" I was referring to neo-conservatism...
I wasn't agreeing with you that neo-conservatism is the 'worst philosophy.' I don't agree with neo-cons (in some areas), but I don't think it's the worst philosophy out there. I was agreeing with your definition.
I was agreeing with your definition.
Oh... well, my mistake then!
Also, I'm gonna have to back off my comment about neo-conservatism being the worst... communism clearly is worse...
Also, I'm gonna have to back off my comment about neo-conservatism being the worst... communism clearly is worse...
Meh, we can argue about that for a long time. Let's just say there's a lot of bad philosophies out there :)
Most of the philosophies are reasonable... its when people implement them in a fanatical way... and allow their beliefs to override their logic and humanity that things go wrong.
Another big problem often associated with neo-cons is the jingoistic tendancy... ;P
Most of the philosophies are reasonable... its when people implement them in a fanatical way... and allow their beliefs to override their logic and humanity that things go wrong.
Something may sound good, but hey, so did "spreading democracy." We all see how good that turned out eh? :p
Something that doesn't suck. :xp:
Are people saying that because neo-cons want smaller government they are liberal and not conservative? Or am i misreading that? I thought one of the defining points of right wing conservatives was their insistance on business and slashing government size?
The thing that has always bugged me about the political parties is that neither is consistent:
Right/Conservatives want: less government regulation and interference for businesses - more for people's private lives.
Left/Liberals want: more regulation and interference for business, but less for people's private lives.
When you get people who are idealogically extreme then they will pursue those ideologies in the face of all common sense.
Eg:In the 80s in the UK the conservatives decided that privatising a lot of national industries was a great way to increase competition and therefore reduce prices. Sounds reasonable. So they did it for a few industries and it worked ok.
But then, because they were pursuing the policy based on ideology rather than common sense, they decided to privatise a whole load of other industries (like the trains) which made no sense whatsoever. These were a total disaster.
And because the labour government had opposed ALL privatisations on idealogical grounds (even the ones that made sense) they had no weight when they attacked the ones that didn't make sense.
Unfortunately in politics, with a public that votes based on minor soundbites, its seen as better to be consistent and wrong than to be flexible, adaptive and right.
Are people saying that because neo-cons want smaller government they are liberal and not conservative? Or am i misreading that? I thought one of the defining points of right wing conservatives was their insistance on business and slashing government size?
The difference between conservatives and neo-cons is that while neo-cons are conservative on social issues (such as abortion & gay marriage), they are liberal when it comes to government expansion (I believe President Bush has yet to veto a spending bill coming out of Congress). Real conservatives, on the other hand, want smaller government and are conservative on social issues.
They also differ a bit in their attitude towards foreign policy:
Neo-Cons tend to have a very aggressive outward-looking foreign policy stance, quite action oriented; while "classic" conservatives seem to tend towards a bit more isolationist.
It seems sometimes that foreign policy IS the driving factor behind much of the neo-con platform. That's really their strength.
They seem weaker and less focused on domestic issues.
They also differ a bit in their attitude towards foreign policy:
Neo-Cons tend to have a very aggressive outward-looking foreign policy stance, quite action oriented; while "classic" conservatives seem to tend towards a bit more isolationist.
It seems sometimes that foreign policy IS the driving factor behind much of the neo-con platform. That's really their strength.
They seem weaker and less focused on domestic issues.
For a lot of people, it is. I honestly believe that if it wasn't for his stance on foreign policy, President Bush wouldn't have been re-elected - too many conservatives disagree with his stances on issues like illegal immigration & government spending.
The problem is that a popular enough [acceptable] alternative has yet to be found.
It seems sometimes that foreign policy IS the driving factor behind much of the neo-con platform. That's really their strength.
The Iraquagmire is a strength?
"Strength" insofar as that's the one position in their common ideology that really holds them together and drives them forward. And it gets the electorate's attention,.. for better or worse.
Take away the neo-con's national security and foreign policy, and exactly what to they have left? Nothing really capable of getting them elected, that's for sure...
The Wiki entry on American NeoConservatisim seems pretty well done, and is actually pretty informative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)
One idea parties are a lot easier to promote and gain support for, but a lot harder to sustain over the long term.
I'm not clear on whether bush WANTS to be spending all that money, or if its just easier to call for cutting costs than it is to actually do it when faced with the stark choices of exactly what essential services to cut. Bush certainly never struck me as in any way liberal... though the whole second term / lame duck factor has to be taken into account, as he is certainly behaving in a different manner to his first term.
Interesting commentary:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4807446.stm)
For those against hillary's stand on video games may i quote ctrl-alt-del:Video Game Voter's Network
08:13 PM - Monday, March 13, 2006 - by Tim
As I regard this to be a very important issue for gamers, I urge everyone to take a look at this website.
I am going to be behind this 110%. I've signed up, and I hope you'll do the same.
They've got a great backend system that will assist you in contacting your local senators once you've signed up. Also, they have a solid collection of facts regarding games and video game violence that you should take a look at to educate yourself on our side of the argument.