Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

If Hillary Got The Dem Nomination, Would You Vote For Her

Elections Pre-2008 Primaries Hillary Clinton

  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

Poll: Would You Vote For Hillary Clinton For President (40 member(s) have cast votes)

Apparently There Is Speculation That Hillary Clinton Could Be The Dem Nominee

  1. I'm A Dem And I'd Vote For Her (6 votes [15.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.38%

  2. I'm A Dem and I Don't Know If I'd Vote For Her (6 votes [15.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.38%

  3. I'm A Dem and Wouldn't Vote For Her (3 votes [7.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.69%

  4. I'm An Independent And I'd Vote For Her (4 votes [10.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.26%

  5. I'm An Independent But I'm Undecided About Voting For Her (5 votes [12.82%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.82%

  6. I'm An Independent And Wouldn't Vote For Her (9 votes [23.08%])

    Percentage of vote: 23.08%

  7. I'm A Republican And I'd Vote For Her (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  8. I'm A Republican And I'm Undecided If I'd Vote For Her (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  9. I'm A Republican And I Wouldn't Vote For Her (4 votes [10.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.26%

  10. It Depends On Who The GOP Nominee Is (2 votes [5.13%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.13%

If You vote NO, why not?- OR if voted Yes pleases mark #9

  1. I Don't Like Her, She's Too Pushy (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. I Beleive Her Opinions Change With The Political Wind (8 votes [20.51%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.51%

  3. I Don't Like Her Policies (3 votes [7.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.69%

  4. She's Bill Clinton's Wife (2 votes [5.13%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.13%

  5. Too Conservative (1 votes [2.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.56%

  6. Too Liberal (4 votes [10.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.26%

  7. She's Unelectable Because She Polarises People Along Party Lines. (4 votes [10.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.26%

  8. She's A Woman (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  9. I voted for her in the first half- so no entry here (17 votes [43.59%])

    Percentage of vote: 43.59%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 04:03 PM

:rolleyes:

View PostMuseZack, on May 10 2006, 07:11 PM, said:

Hillary's odious triangulation and seeming lack of core principles aside, by 2008 we will have had 28 years (!) with a Bush or a Clinton in either the presidency or vice-presidency.  Enough already!  The United States is in danger of becoming a latin American or south Asian oligarchy where power periodically switches between two famous families and their parties.  Are we a democracy or not?

Big ol' WORD.  I'm actually hoping Jeb Bush throws his hat in the ring in 2008.  By that time, Bush fatigue will be in full force and nobody will want him.   :lol:

I personally don't want La Hill to run.  In addition to the triangulating, there's the simple fact that she hasn't given anyone any reason to vote for her.  She has created and sponsored no new laws.  She has no accomplishments as a senator.  She does not stand for anything.  Let her stay in the Senate.  I'd be more interested in a Dem governor like, say, Mark Warner, Janet Napolitano, Bill Richardson, or Kathleen Sebelius.  I'd also be open to Wesley Clark or Russ Feingold (though the latter seems more of a dark horse candidate).

Quote

This is comedy gold. The cited article is former majority leader Daschle saying in 2002 that the war on terrorism would be in danger if we didn't find Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. Four years later, those two still haven't been found, in large part because in early 2002 resources were already being pulled away from Afghanistan to plan for the Iraq invasion. And as a result, Al Qaeda's leadership is safe and sound in Pakistan's tribal regions and the Taliban is regrouping and threatening to destabilize Afghanistan. Not only does it completely fail to back up Ogami's assertion (big surprise there), Daschle looks like a prophet in that article.

You mean Daschle was proven right?  And the Iraq war critics were right as well?  Will wonders never cease?   :lol:

Edited by Call Me Robin, 10 May 2006 - 04:05 PM.

Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#62 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 04:51 PM

Hmm, I guess that apology on the lack of bipartisan support over Afghanistan isn't forthcoming. If the Democrats have supported Bush continuously over Afghanistan, I'd like to see where.

(Hillary's Thankgiving visit to the troops doesn't count.)

-Ogami

#63 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 07:56 PM

View PostOgami, on May 10 2006, 02:51 PM, said:

Hmm, I guess that apology on the lack of bipartisan support over Afghanistan isn't forthcoming. If the Democrats have supported Bush continuously over Afghanistan, I'd like to see where.

(Hillary's Thankgiving visit to the troops doesn't count.)

-Ogami

You are kidding right?  :eek4:

I think while we (the US) were after the real bad guy, the real people that were responsible for 9/11 most Americans of all party affiliations were behind President Bush.  It was after he "decided" to pull out most of the troops and take on Saddam Hussein and not finish the work in Afghanistan that folks didn't support him anymore.  But I think that you know that all ready because it's pretty much common knowledge.

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#64 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 08:59 PM

View PostBalderdash, on May 11 2006, 12:56 AM, said:

View PostOgami, on May 10 2006, 02:51 PM, said:

Hmm, I guess that apology on the lack of bipartisan support over Afghanistan isn't forthcoming. If the Democrats have supported Bush continuously over Afghanistan, I'd like to see where.

(Hillary's Thankgiving visit to the troops doesn't count.)

-Ogami

You are kidding right?  :eek4:

I think while we (the US) were after the real bad guy, the real people that were responsible for 9/11 most Americans of all party affiliations were behind President Bush.  It was after he "decided" to pull out most of the troops and take on Saddam Hussein and not finish the work in Afghanistan that folks didn't support him anymore.  But I think that you know that all ready because it's pretty much common knowledge.

BINGO!

As a New Yorker who remembers 9/11, I'm still wondering why Bush hasn't caught bin Laden.  If he could catch Saddam Hussein, he can surely track down bin Laden if he wants to.   :wacko:
Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#65 Batrochides

Batrochides
  • Islander
  • 669 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 09:54 PM

Anyone advocating invading Pakistan, and facing more of what's going on in Iraq as a consequence? Did anyone do so in 2002 or 2003, before the attack on Iraq?

Because that's the only way to get Bin Laden, and probably will require a conscripted army, FDR-style war legislation and like crackdown on dissent, and the likelihood of general war against the people of the Middle East, a clear majority of whom either support or find sympathy with Bin Laden.

Hillary Clinton couldn't beat Bin Laden, Iran OR North Korea...but she may well beat a mushy pol like McCain (who couldn't beat GWB).

#66 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 10:30 AM

Independent, undecided, but leaning against.
Can't Touch This!!

#67 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 10:47 AM

So as of now we have 20 either for or open to voting for Hillary and 13 against or leaning toward no.  And she hasn't even started trying to sell herself to the American People.  

I'm OK with these numbers.  Lin, are they not better than what you expected?  

Certainly, this result does nothing to shake my conviction that she will at least be the nominee of her party.  I also think she can win.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#68 veganmom

veganmom
  • Islander
  • 1,408 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 10:58 AM

But here's a question: Will people (and I mean all people, not just targeting white middle-aged men here) be able to put aside the image that there has to be a white guy running this country?
Really?
In the quiet and anonymity of a polling booth?

Do we trust that enough to have a real woman candidate for President?

Is there a list of countries who do have or have had women as their main leader (president, PM, queen, etc.)??

Golda Meir was forever ago, and so was Indira Ghandi. Now Germany. England has had both the Queen and Margaret Thatcher.  Anyone got a complete list?

Edited by veganmom, 11 May 2006 - 10:58 AM.


#69 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 11:24 AM

Quote

I'm OK with these numbers. Lin, are they not better than what you expected?

Certainly, this result does nothing to shake my conviction that she will at least be the nominee of her party. I also think she can win.

No, they're not better than I expected, there pretty close to what I figured given a couple of key points. Independents (often the swing and deciding voters).

Quote

I'm An Independent And I'd Vote For Her [ 4 ]   [12.12%]
I'm An Independent But I'm Undecided About Voting For Her [ 5 ]   [15.15%]
I'm An Independent And Wouldn't Vote For Her [ 8 ]  

You have twice as many "I wouldn't vote for her" as those who would, as well as another 5 that are undecided but some have said are leaning towards NO.

Now look at the numbers for Dems.

Quote

I'm A Dem And I'd Vote For Her [ 5 ]   [15.15%]
I'm A Dem and I Don't Know If I'd Vote For Her [ 6 ]   [18.18%]
I'm A Dem and Wouldn't Vote For Her [ 2 ]

Here you have Dems who aren't sure they'd vote for her. How comforting is that? If you can't get good backing out of the gate from those in your OWN party, that doesn't give me any warm, fuzzies.

The real X factor in all this may be the GOP voters. Not one of those that responded said they would vote for her or were even open to considering voting for her. With Republicans disgruntled with their own party, a Hillary nomination (IMO) will insure a LACK of party cross over votes that another Dem might otherwise garner.

So overall, it's pretty close to what I figured and I why I think she's a bad choice. Members of her own party aren't sure they'd vote for her. Many independents right out of the gate wouldn't vote for her, some of the undecideds are leaning toward no as well and no GOP crossover votes.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#70 veganmom

veganmom
  • Islander
  • 1,408 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 11:41 AM

I'm taking heart from the fact that it's still early on, and people outside NY haven't really heard her speak ALL that much. She's been laying lower than when they were in the White House (obviously), establishing a reputation on her own as a Senator, and apparently a well-regarded one at that. I'm hoping that once her positions and her thought process are more in the public eye (OMG she actually is INTELLIGENT), more people will get their heads around it.

I mean, how often does the nomination go to someone that no one's even heard of till the primaries????

#71 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 12:09 PM

Quote

I mean, how often does the nomination go to someone that no one's even heard of till the primaries????

Twice that I know of, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton  :D  Both govenors of southern states, both guys the public didn't know much about beforehand. The only two Dems to attain the White House since Kennedy. How many Presidents in the last 30 years came out of the House/Senate? NONE. How many come in via the governers ranks or from the VP position in the last 30 years. ALL OF THEM.

Let's look at it for a second, doing back to Carter

Carter...Gov.

Reagan...Gov.

Bush...VP

Clinton...Gov

Bush...Gov

Yet the Dem party keeps throwing Senaters or Liberal Govs up for the nomination. With this country as messed up as it is, I'd be trying to hedge my bet. I'd look for a smart, personable, centrist Gov who has some charisma and presense. Someone with moderate views and the ability to articulate a clear, positive message without getting so mired in details his theme is lost. Just my opinion, I realise that. Only time will tell (if Hillary does run and get the party nod). I'm predicting right now though that if she get's the nomination, the party will lose yet again.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#72 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 12:28 PM

Just for the record, my votes for "It Depends on Who the GOP Nominee Is" and "I Believe Her Opinions Change with the Political Wind" appear to still be missing, and I can't revote.

The former vote has more to do with my fear of who the GOP nominee might be than any faith in Hillary. Indeed, the fact that I'm even considering voting for a Republican candidate is a good indication of how much I dislike her.

I would certainly prefer to vote for a genuine liberal, who's passionate about civil rights and social responsibility, and able to mount a meaningful opposition to Bush and his neocons. But I'd vote for an honest, libertarian-leaning Republican before I'd support a Democrat who plays boths sides of the aisle and pretends to care about protecting us from evil flag-burners and Grand Theft Auto. :suspect:

Edited by Dev F, 11 May 2006 - 12:29 PM.


#73 veganmom

veganmom
  • Islander
  • 1,408 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 12:30 PM

What if they got a gov as candidate for VP?
What if they put her up for VP (and how many years ago was the Mondale/Ferraro ticket, and women haven't made any progress since then *sigh*) -- who would you pick for pres?

Remember, too, that our last two guys (Gore and Kerry) didn't have TV-land stellar outgoing personalities, and that hurt them. That's probably in people's minds, too.

#74 veganmom

veganmom
  • Islander
  • 1,408 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 12:36 PM

Hey, and re. opinions changing----meh. What politician doesn't?

Oh. I know. W.
(insert that brilliant Colbert comment here if desired).
Look where that got us.

*sigh*

Not wanting to start, "HE's GREAT!" "HE SUCKS!" wars. Just, you know, sighing...

#75 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 01:12 PM

View PostLin731, on May 11 2006, 05:09 PM, said:

Quote

I mean, how often does the nomination go to someone that no one's even heard of till the primaries????

Twice that I know of, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton  :D  Both govenors of southern states, both guys the public didn't know much about beforehand. The only two Dems to attain the White House since Kennedy. How many Presidents in the last 30 years came out of the House/Senate? NONE. How many come in via the governers ranks or from the VP position in the last 30 years. ALL OF THEM.



I didn't know much about Carter beforehand but then I was not of voting age ....in fact I was in Jr. High  :D

But Clinton I knew of because he was a speaker at the Democratic convention form the previous Presidential election....and the comics and news ragged on him because he was soooooo boring as a speaker.  

edited to add --it was the 1988 Democratic Convention and he was introducing Dukakis

But somehwere between then and his own candidacy he picked up some charisma or something because he was like a whole different person in that aspect.

Edited by trikay, 11 May 2006 - 01:17 PM.

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#76 Enmar

Enmar

    a Sabra

  • Islander
  • 2,021 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 01:12 PM

I think that a woman leading the US will have a huge impact on women worldwide. Honestly, it's not like she's running against others that are huge leaders that offer us a better world. Correct if I'm wrong, but she's just more of the same, so if I get the same I prefer it in a woman.

Oh, and the polls lacks "can't vote" option :hehe:
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.

#77 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 07:42 PM

View PostEnmar, on May 11 2006, 11:12 AM, said:

I think that a woman leading the US will have a huge impact on women worldwide. Honestly, it's not like she's running against others that are huge leaders that offer us a better world. Correct if I'm wrong, but she's just more of the same, so if I get the same I prefer it in a woman.

Oh, and the polls lacks "can't vote" option :hehe:


She's not more of the same. She's smart, articulate, well-educated and classy.

And it'll never happen, thanks to the idiots who won't vote for a woman - ANY woman - as President.

Some of those might vote for Rice, though, which is a scary thought, given the fact that she helped craft the foreign policy mess and the war in Iraq.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#78 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 08:25 PM

And Condi is the one I would never vote for......

not because she is a woman but because she is a full on Bush crony and she is too deeply enmeshed in the mess that now exists.  

Plus...and I know it sounds silly but...she has always given off a bad vibe ---at least to me.

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#79 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 09:17 PM

Hillary is a senator with no noticeable achievements in that role--at least not thus far.  If we're going to have a female candidate, I'd prefer a governor like Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas) or Janet Napolitano (Arizona).  Both are very popular and both made Time magazine's list of America's best governors.  Sebelius has managed the incredible feat of being a Democratic woman governor in a bright-red state--with a huge approval rating, no less.
Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#80 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 10:12 PM

View PostLin731, on May 11 2006, 01:09 PM, said:

Yet the Dem party keeps throwing Senaters or Liberal Govs up for the nomination. With this country as messed up as it is, I'd be trying to hedge my bet. I'd look for a smart, personable, centrist Gov who has some charisma and presense.
My bet is still on George Pataki from New York.  If the Neocons keep sliding like they aren’t going to be able to bully their way through the primary process like the past couple of elections.  You may very well see moderate Republicans and traditional conservatives come out to oppose the Neocons in the primaries.  He is a moderate who is politically savvy, is personable, and can deal a pretty descent speech.  He also has the brains to stand up to the type of candidates the Democrats or the Neocons tend to push forward.  Most importantly he has built himself a major fund raising base consisting of wealthy Republicans from New York and around the country.

I wouldn’t call him a likely winner but then stranger things have happened.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Elections, Pre-2008 Primaries, Hillary Clinton

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users