Vote Americans, Vote!

Started by Anarcho, Tue 07/11/2006 17:30:36

Previous topic - Next topic

DGMacphee

#40
Quote from: jet on Thu 09/11/2006 17:35:35
Erm, what is your obsession with Hillary? What has she done that makes her such a great leader?
People call her a carpet begger!
You mock Jack Thompson, but she supports him (or visa versa, whatever).

Don't want to come over cross, but I don't see her as THE politicion to kick start the progression. I don't know somebody who is, but is't not her.

Maybe if you opened your eyes and actually read my posts, you'll see I never said I supported her. I said I supported Feingold (and it doesn't matter anyway because I'm not from the US, so I can't vote on either of them).

What I am saying is that she's the best chance the Dems have at having a presidential candidate. And most opinion polls reflect this position.

I'm just thinking realistically. Realistically, she's the best chance the Dems have.

Quote from: Anarcho on Thu 09/11/2006 18:00:26Yes, I'm fully aware that people called her a carpetbagger in New York and that people got over it.  But that's because it's fucking New York.  If she had tried running, oh let's say in Tennessee, she'd have gotten her ass handed to her.  She's appreciated in one of the most liberal areas of the country.  Big whoop.

Other states she's lived in?  She's from Illinois, right?  Ok.  She's got Illinois locked up.  Another liberal stronghold.  Hooray.  Then you've got Arkansas.  Not exactly friendly territory.  They elected her slick southern husband, not her.  Notice she didn't run for Senate in Arkansas...she never would have won.

Maybe she didn't run in Arkansas because Arkansas didn't have an open seat in 2000 (you idiot) and tried out in New York because the incumbent retired. You know, cause people seem to prefer incumbents over new challengers and with the incumbent gone Hillary had a better chance.

Speaking of incumbents, what if she campaigned in your other example, Tennessee (which WAS up for grabs in the 2000 Senate elections), against Bill Frist. Firstly, that's a dumb example cause we're talking Frist here. How are you going to unseat someone as high up as the Senate majority leader from a state he's held since 1995? That's just crazy talk!

But since Frist retired, you do realise this year the Tennessee races were pretty close with Republican candidate Bob Corker winning by 3% against his Democrat opponent (51% vs 48%)?

I think Hillary had as much chance if she was the opponent. Look at McCaskill's victory in Missouri against an incumbent low-level Republican. Missouri has been pretty Republican influenced over the last few years with candidates like John Danforth, Jim Talent and John Ashcroft. (Only variation was when Ashcroft lost to a dead man in 2000).

but hay in tennisee they're all right-wing repubs there, am i rite?

Also, perhaps you should stop the wild speculation and do your damn research BEFORE giving your opinion.

Quote from: Anarcho on Thu 09/11/2006 18:00:26
And people are not ok with Nancy Pelosi.  I don't know if you're American or not, and listen to American radio or TV, but during  the election Pelosi was held up as this SAN FRANCISCO LIBERAL!!!! image in order to create fear in teh conservative base.  There was quite a tinge of anti-feminism in the language used by the ads and media personalities.

By American TV and radio, do you mean Fox News and Rush Limbaugh?

Seriously, if people were that worried about Pelosi being a femo-commie-babyeater, why the hell did the majority of American districts vote for a Democrat-controlled congress? Surely they think she can facilitate better policy decisions regarding Iraq than Dennis Hastert. Otherwise, why'd they vote for her?

Maybe the majority of the American public voted while drunk that day. Y'know, since FHM and RALPH say all women look hotter after a couple of cold ones, did the voters decide "damn pelosi's pretty hot i'd hit that" and vote for their Democrat congressman?

Seriously, a recent CNN poll shows most people like her - 35 per cent favourable, 24 per cent unfavourable, 23 per cent have never heard of her, and 19 per cent are unsure.

QuoteI think it really comes down to people's reaction to strong-willed women...they're viewed as "bitches" be it in the boardroom or workplace or the White House.  Hillary got lambasted during her husbands presidency for doing things and saying things that, if a man had said them, wouldn't have caused such a raucous.  Honestly it's reprehensible, but I think it's the real reason America won't elect a woman President any time soon.

So that's why Elizabeth Dole and Jean Schmidt didn't get elected into office! Because they're women!

Oh wait, they DID get into office! But they were Republicans. I guess you have to be a Republican if you also want to be a strong-willed woman.

Hello, Condi!

On the other hand, you have Katherine Harris. And I don't think she lost because she was a woman. I think she lost because her campaign was poorly run and most of her staff deserted her.

Seriously, I think you have some wacky logic that just doesn't make sense here.

Sure, there's some perception of "women leaders=uh oh", but I do think that times have changed to the point where enough states realise that maybe a woman in power isn't such a bad thing.

In a Time poll, 19 per cent of sampled voters said they'd prefer a male president, 11 per cent prefered a female president and 69 per cent said it doesn't matter whether the president has a vagina or not.

1 per cent said they were unsure.

Likewise, a recent poll by Gallup shows 61 per cent of Americans (selected randomly throughout the country) feel ready for a female president.

In the same poll, 55 per cent ready for a Jewish president.

According to those figures, I'm supposed to be crazier for supporting Feingold ahead of Hillary as opposed to saying Hillary has a good chance. But you seem to be lambasting my speculation on Hillary in 2008 but not Feingold.

In response, I only have one question: Whaaaaaaaaa???

QuoteFinally, I still think Edwards was a fine candidate, it's just that Kerry was a terrible.  Talk about how public speaking is critical---Kerry could not communicate a single cogent message to the American people.  He just would ramble on and on about miscellanea while referencing arcane policy info.  Bush used accessible language and repeatedly stressed clear ideas.  Cheney didn't have jack to do with Bush getting relected.

Both Kerry and Edwards weren't great. It was like the Dems were running a zombie and Gomer Pyle for Pres and VP. But the Dems picked 'em so they must be worth something, right?

As for Cheney, I think he's evil, but as for whether he's an effective VP -- who knows? Various polls showed different winners in the 2004 VP debates. I do think Cheney sucker-punched Edwards in that debate and, trust me, I say that with a great pain in my voice.

I do think having a good VP helps. After all, people have to consider a replacement if something happens to the president. Case in point, look what happened to Kennedy or Nixon and their respective VPs Johnson and Ford.
ABRACADABRA YOUR SPELLS ARE OKAY

DGMacphee Designs - http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/
AGS Awards - http://www.sylpher.com/AGSAwards/

Instagame - http://www.sylpher.com/ig/
"Ah, look! I've just shat a rainbow." - Yakspit

TheYak

Quote from: DGMacphee on Fri 10/11/2006 09:01:36
In a Time poll, 19 per cent of sampled voters said they'd prefer a male president, 11 per cent prefered a female president and 69 per cent said it doesn't matter whether the president has a vagina or not.

1 per cent said they were unsure.

Likewise, a recent poll by Gallup shows 61 per cent of Americans (selected randomly throughout the country) feel ready for a female president.

In the same poll, 55 per cent ready for a Jewish president.
Some encouraging figures..  not so much the Jewish one.  I'm curious (not being antagonistic here) what percentage of the randomly selected were female.  I'd be genuinely surprised if more than 50% of male voters surveyed felt ready for a woman in charge.  There's been a lot of progress in this arena, but good ol' fashioned USA values tend to put the female squarely in the kitchen where she can mass-produce apple pies when she's in-between flag sewings.

Vince Twelve

I worked for nine months at Gallup.  I wasn't immediately involved with the polling, but I designed a lot of the e-learning modules that the pollers and management-types had to go through, so I know a lot of secret stuff about their polling proceedures.  I can assure you that their sampling is very accurate.  The real question is not whether females are accurately portrayed in that number, but how many men are lying about their preference because they don't want to sound sexist even on an anonymous poll.

Nacho

Presidentials are weird, people focus between two personalities... If the Republican is a real ass, Hilary (if she is the choosen) will win, this figures have no real meaning.
Are you guys ready? Let' s roll!

TheYak

Quote from: Vince Twelve on Fri 10/11/2006 13:00:57
I can assure you that their sampling is very accurate.  The real question is not whether females are accurately portrayed in that number, but how many men are lying about their preference because they don't want to sound sexist even on an anonymous poll.

Like I said - curious, not arguing the validity.  Regardless, given an accurate sampling, roughly 51% of those polled would be female and likely have less resistance to a female president.  Since this leaves the remaining 49% making up only 18% more of the pro-woman tally (in theory), it's not as surprising.  I would be interested in learning what percentage of females surveyed were pro, and what percentage of males were. 

Also, given 51% of those polled having a greater inclination towards supporting their own, it's not as disheartening knowing that the support for a Jewish president is much higher than the estimated 2-3% Jewish population. 

Still, my hope would be for numbers in both surveys nearing 100% of not caring with respect to race, gender or creed.  Getting closer versus a couple decades ago, I would imagine.

Vince Twelve

Quote from: TheYak on Fri 10/11/2006 13:35:19
I would be interested in learning what percentage of females surveyed were pro, and what percentage of males were. 

And you can find out if you pay gallup for the full report!

TheYak

I don't believe they'd appreciate you revealing their insidious master plan. Mwa ha ha.

Sorry, I'm a bit daft since someone crashed VLC player and it keeps repeating "Pitagora Suichi" or some other such Japanese-sounding phrase (looped for an hour now).

Tuomas

I sincerely hope they choose Hillary. If not for the fact that I do respect her husband more than most American presidents, then because she is a woman and that'd really make a big difference in everything.

SSH

It would be great if both the Republicans and Democrats had women candidates in 2008... Or both had black candidates... it would force the bigots into a dilemma.
12

MrColossal

SSH, they'd start debating HOW black the candidates are. Like people did with Tiger Woods.
"This must be a good time to live in, since Eric bothers to stay here at all"-CJ also: ACHTUNG FRANZ!

DGMacphee

Speaking of which, same Gallup report said (from memory) 58 per cent of voters were ready for a black presidenial candidate.

Which makes my support for Feingold even more ludicrous!
ABRACADABRA YOUR SPELLS ARE OKAY

DGMacphee Designs - http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/
AGS Awards - http://www.sylpher.com/AGSAwards/

Instagame - http://www.sylpher.com/ig/
"Ah, look! I've just shat a rainbow." - Yakspit

SSH

Would they debate how female the candidates are if both were women? 'Cause I always thought that Hillary was a bit manly...
12

Tuomas

Quote from: DGMacphee on Fri 10/11/2006 15:35:48
Speaking of which, same Gallup report said (from memory) 58 per cent of voters were ready for a black presidenial candidate.

Which only means 58% doesn't care which party to vote for, so should the other be black, then the other one would win.

EagerMind

Quote from: TheYak on Fri 10/11/2006 12:38:19... but good ol' fashioned USA values tend to put the female squarely in the kitchen where she can mass-produce apple pies when she's in-between flag sewings.

I can't help but think TheYak is right. I find it particularly damning that despite being the oldest(?) democracy around we've yet to have either a woman or a minority as our president. Meanwhile numerous other countries, including those with little tradition of democracy, seem to have accomplished this feat rather effortlessly. Despite being the "land of the free," our cultural values keep us very much behind the curve in some ways.

evenwolf

There's a pretty interesting statistic that no one born since 1962 has voted in a presidential election without either a Bush or a Clinton in the running.


If Hilary runs in 2008,  the Bush/Clinton families will have covered a good 26 years of presidential elections.   
"I drink a thousand shipwrecks.'"

Anarcho

#55
DGMacphee, why are you being such a jerk?  There's no need to call me an idiot.  I was talking hypothetically, at least about Tennessee.  But you know what, you're right.  I should do my research before giving my opinions!  I'll go crack the books right now!  Thanks for teaching me this valuable lesson. 

Really. 

Thanks a lot.

But I should say that Harold Ford Jr. came from very far behind and ran a fantastic campaign.  I doubt Hillary would have fared as well, but hey, I guess if I actually did my research as you'd suggest I would in fact be able to gain multi-dimensional clairvoyance and decisively see all  possible electoral outcomes.

Claire McCaskill is a born and raised Missourian who's been a politician there for decades.  Just because MO voters barely elected a local democrat with high name recognition, doesn't mean they'd elect Hillary.  But again, I don't have the power to do research / see through time.

I like how you didn't answer my question.   Do you live in the states?  Have you seen any of the TV commercials that were on during the election?  I mean, turn on Meet the Press or This Week and you'd have seen all the right wing talking heads using Pelosi to scare up Republican voters.  I'm sure plenty of people saw through that kind of thing, but I think it's a clear indicator of how a women, specifically liberal women, can be vilified here.

For the record, I would love to see a female president but having traveled all over this country, especially in really rural areas, I can honestly say that I don't think it'll happen any time soon.  At least not Hillary, there's too much baggage there.  It could more likely be a conservative woman, like your Libby Dole.  But I hope I'm proven wrong!  That would be great. 

Also, I think Russ would be a great candidate.  I've thought about going to work his campaign if he ran.  I don't know that he'd have a chance to win, but I think he's got a pretty good shot.  He's principled and stands by his opinions.  That will get you far in this country.

But seriously, just relax.  We're just having a debate here, you don't need to throw around insults.  You dickhead.


DGMacphee

Quote from: Tuomas on Fri 10/11/2006 16:08:08
Quote from: DGMacphee on Fri 10/11/2006 15:35:48
Speaking of which, same Gallup report said (from memory) 58 per cent of voters were ready for a black presidenial candidate.

Which only means 58% doesn't care which party to vote for, so should the other be black, then the other one would win.

Eh? How'd you get to that conclusion.
ABRACADABRA YOUR SPELLS ARE OKAY

DGMacphee Designs - http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/
AGS Awards - http://www.sylpher.com/AGSAwards/

Instagame - http://www.sylpher.com/ig/
"Ah, look! I've just shat a rainbow." - Yakspit

DGMacphee

#57
Quote from: Anarcho on Fri 10/11/2006 19:25:13
DGMacphee, why are you being such a jerk?  There's no need to call me an idiot.  I was talking hypothetically, at least about Tennessee.  But you know what, you're right.  I should do my research before giving my opinions!  I'll go crack the books right now!  Thanks for teaching me this valuable lesson. 

Really. 

Thanks a lot.

Oh, please. If you're going to say to me, "Notice Hillary didn't run for Senate in Arkansas" as one of your main points without actually checking if Arkansas had their seat open that year, hmm, yes, that constitutes idiocy.

If you're going to engage in some political discussion, make sure your facts are right. Otherwise you could say things like, "Ned Lamont lost the Connecticut to a llama".

Seriously, you want to talk, fine, then talk. But at least make sure you've got your facts straight. Otherwise people, like me, are just going to think you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

QuoteBut I should say that Harold Ford Jr. came from very far behind and ran a fantastic campaign.  I doubt Hillary would have fared as well, but hey, I guess if I actually did my research as you'd suggest I would in fact be able to gain multi-dimensional clairvoyance and decisively see all  possible electoral outcomes.

But clairvoyance isn't really an accepted research metho... OH YOU WERE BEING SARCASTIC! ZING! How stupid of me for not seeing that. Ha ha, you got me!

QuoteClaire McCaskill is a born and raised Missourian who's been a politician there for decades.  Just because MO voters barely elected a local democrat with high name recognition, doesn't mean they'd elect Hillary.  But again, I don't have the power to do research / see through time.

But that wasn't your point. Your point was that she's a woman and being woman=no chance of being elected. You even said so: "I think it really comes down to people's reaction to strong-willed women". Now you're saying, "Hey Claire McCaskill can get elected to a non-New York state, but not Hillary."

Seriously, are you making this up as you go along?

QuoteI like how you didn't answer my question.   Do you live in the states?  Have you seen any of the TV commercials that were on during the election?  I mean, turn on Meet the Press or This Week and you'd have seen all the right wing talking heads using Pelosi to scare up Republican voters.  I'm sure plenty of people saw through that kind of thing, but I think it's a clear indicator of how a women, specifically liberal women, can be vilified here.

Maybe if you read my response to jet in the same post, you'll see that I don't live in the US.

However, thanks to miracles known as "The Internet" and "YouTube" and "online polls", I can gain as much insight into the American political system as any American can. I probably know more about US politics and politicians than my own country's politics (Mainly cause I find US politics more interesting). Even American friends of mine say I seem to more about their own political climate than they do.

Yes, I've seen the right-wing talking heads using Pelosi to scare Republican voters. So what? What about uncommitted voters? They're the ones who get swayed. As the polls I mentoned said, most people like Pelosi. If the majority of voters didn't, why are the Dems now controlling congress?

By the way, I think it's odd how you want to condemn my knowledge of US Politics just because I don't live here even though you didn't even know Arkansas didn't have an open seat in 2000.

QuoteFor the record, I would love to see a female president but having traveled all over this country, especially in really rural areas, I can honestly say that I don't think it'll happen any time soon.  At least not Hillary, there's too much baggage there.  It could more likely be a conservative woman, like your Libby Dole.  But I hope I'm proven wrong!  That would be great.

Maybe not a woman anytime soon. But it won't happen anytime soon unless people try.

QuoteAlso, I think Russ would be a great candidate.  I've thought about going to work his campaign if he ran.  I don't know that he'd have a chance to win, but I think he's got a pretty good shot.  He's principled and stands by his opinions.  That will get you far in this country.

Aye, that's why I like him. I particularly liked his speech on the censure motion he put forth. That's what made me say, "Wow, this guy is great!"

QuoteBut seriously, just relax.  We're just having a debate here, you don't need to throw around insults.  You dickhead.

You tell me not to throw insults around before calling me a dickhead. Way to take the moral high ground!

Seriously, pal. I'm all for debate. But one thing I cannot stand is people who come to a debate with no substance. It's all just empty talk, talk and more empty talk. You want to make a good point, fine, come armed with facts. Something to back up your point. Not rhetoric.

As for being a dickhead, you're not the first one to call me that on this forum. In fact, I think the first person to say I'm a dickhead was me.

But I prefer professional dickhead.
ABRACADABRA YOUR SPELLS ARE OKAY

DGMacphee Designs - http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/
AGS Awards - http://www.sylpher.com/AGSAwards/

Instagame - http://www.sylpher.com/ig/
"Ah, look! I've just shat a rainbow." - Yakspit

Anarcho

#58
QuoteYou tell me not to throw insults around before calling me a dickhead. Way to take the moral high ground!

It was meant to be a joke, you know, I take the moral high ground and tell you not to throw around insults, then i use one.  Ha ha.  Guess you didn't get it.

QuoteOh, please. If you're going to say to me, "Notice Hillary didn't run for Senate in Arkansas" as one of your main points without actually checking if Arkansas had their seat open that year, hmm, yes, that constitutes idiocy.

Dude, Hillary could have run for senate in Arkansas in 2002, if you want to be so literal about it.  Bu I wasn't being literal.  I was simply making a point that it was probably no accident that she chose to run in a ridiculously liberal state as opposed to an extremely conservative one.  I could have easily said "you didn't see her running in Texas, did you?"  It doesn't matter if there's an open seat or not!  Even if you wanted to be literal about it, she could have waited around until 2006 and ran for Frist's open seat!  You're nit-picking.

So I'm not exactly sure what "facts" I've gotten wrong.  I was sharing my "opinions" and didn't intend to write a thesis for the adventure game development community.  If you want to call my "opinions" rhetoric, then go ahead.  But I'll keep sharing them.

And before you pull out your textbooks, yes, Arkansas elected a woman!  Blanche Lincoln is in fact a woman.  But she's also a centrist and from the state.  I don't think I ever said a woman had no chance of getting elected to office.  I'm pretty sure that all I said was that HILLARY had no chance of getting elected President, and a lot of that has to do with her being a woman.  And with the fact that people around here react to "strong-willed women" negatively, as we all witnessed during the Clinton administration.  People vilified Hillary for being outspoken, and doing more than hold tea parties.  Sure, there are a number of women being elected to public office, we're definitely making progress.  But I think that some people here have a lot of holdover resentment and anger towards Hillary, and it has to do with gender roles and misogyny.

I'm basing that opinion on my experiences talking to people in various parts of the country.  Not on polls.  I hope that's factual enough for you.

QuoteBy the way, I think it's odd how you want to condemn my knowledge of US Politics just because I don't live here even though you didn't even know Arkansas didn't have an open seat in 2000.

No, I don't plan on condemning your knowledge of US politics just because you're not from here, but when you say things like:

QuoteSure, there's some perception of "women leaders=uh oh", but I do think that times have changed to the point where enough states realise that maybe a woman in power isn't such a bad thing.

it's clear that you haven't driven around places like Arkansas, or Texas, or Iowa, or Missouri.  I mean, there are SOOOO many people who still think a woman's place is in the kitchen, and it's ok to slap a woman's ass, or that some liberal woman from chicago who tries to be President when her husbands the one who's elected is one serious f'in bitch!  People are not as enlightened as you might think from watching you tube.  or reading online polls.

But for the record, last time let's get this straight, I will make my opinion clear.  I think women in general have more of an up hill battle when running for office, especially in more rural "red state" areas.  I think lots of people, especially in rural "red state" areas, have very negative reactions towards Hillary, and those reactions have everything to do with her history as First lady and the fact that she was an independent, strong-willed woman.  For that reason, I don't think she'd fare well as a candidate for the Presidency.


Snarky

Hillary would be a terrible candidate for the Dems. Just the people who already hate her are probably numerous enough that she's lost the election, years before the campaign has even started.

Ideological left wingers hate her because they think she's sold out their principles.
Partisan Democrats hate her because they don't think she can win, and that her candidacy will lead to another Republican administration.
Conservatives hate her because they still think Bill is the anti-Christ.
Men hate her because they think she's a bitch.
Conservative women hate her because they think her marriage is a politically expedient sham.

She does have high positives among women in general, but it's just not good enough. A Clinton candidacy would galvanize the Republican base and leave much of the Democratic base cold.

Worst possible Democratic ticket '08: Kerry/Clinton (Oh please God no!)

There has been some loose talk about Al Gore running again. That might be an interesting proposition. His last campaign was lackluster, but most Democrats seem to have forgiven him for "losing" to Bush, and a green platform (as in environmental, not as in Nader) might actually be a winner come 2008. I personally think he has the charisma of an especially bland herring, but there's no denying that he has the credentials and would probably make a good president.

Best possible Democratic ticket '08: Gore/Obama

Incidentally, I'm no fan of Edwards, especially after the populist, economically ill-advised protectionist rhetoric he ran on in the 2004 campaign. Obama is a much more attractive proposition.

As for the Republicans, I think being out of power in Congress will knock some sense/beat the fear of God into them, and they will nominate someone they deem electable. Probably McCain, if his health doesn't seem too shaky. McCain, in turn, will choose a running mate depending on what the likely Democratic ticket looks like.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk