Because we know the best place to hold the Democratic NatCon is in the city just noth of one of the most conservatie places on the planet? *coughcoloradospringscough*
When the mostly likely Democratic gains other than Arkansas if Clark is on the ticket are Colorado, New Mexico, and Montana? Yes, it makes boatloads of sense.
Much as it pains me to say, we're not ready for a black or woman president. Alas, maybe as VP, but not pres.
What exactly does that mean? If you mean some parts of the country aren't ready to elect one, ok, but are you honestly suggesting that "we" as a nation aren't "ready" to see a woman or a black guy with that much power?
I think Edwards has the non-political cred to get himself into the people's hearts, much like Bush did(he played the, "i'm an idiot like you and not a Gore-NERD!" card.).
...It was more that Gore had no personality in 2000 and people tacitly connected him to Clinton... But ok...
That and it's my opinion that alost of the established people, ESPECIALLY hillary, are more of the problem than the solution. *Points to her attacks on Rockstar Games.*
Uh, we're talking about the next leader of the free world, and you're pointing out she doesn't like violent video games?
Anyway, I certianly hope Hillary doesn't get the front runner spot because of opinionated women who'd rather see a woman as president than a candidate who can win.
Right. Because women vote for vaginas, black guys vote for melanin levels, and Hispanics vote for who's name ends in Z?
Please. Yes there are always going to be people that vote that way, but the suggestion that Clinton is the frontrunner because she's a woman is rediculous. She's the frontrunner DESPITE being a woman, it hurts her loads more than it helps. If it wasn't for that she'd merely be considered a powerful politician, but because she's a woman every late night talk show host and conservative with a microphone labels her a *****.
She's the frontrunner DESPITE being a woman, it hurts her loads more than it helps. If it wasn't for that she'd merely be considered a powerful politician, but because she's a woman every late night talk show host and conservative with a microphone labels her a *****.
I think Hillary is the frontrunner DESPITE being a Clinton. Her association with Slick Willy hurts her more politically than anything else she says or does. I also think that's the reason she will fail in her Presidential bid in 2008. People still connect her with the antics of Bill Clinton (shady investment deals, selling secrets to the Chinese), and I don't think that the majority of the voters will trust that she not revert to these types of actions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Truth is my mission, and Logic and Reason are my weapons. - Rush Limbaugh
I think Hillary is the frontrunner DESPITE being a Clinton. Her association with Slick Willy hurts her more politically than anything else she says or does.
Are you kidding? He's one of the most popular former presidents in history. Beyond that, he's a campaigning machine, even after that bypass surgery right out of office.
I also think that's the reason she will fail in her Presidential bid in 2008. People still connect her with the antics of Bill Clinton (shady investment deals, selling secrets to the Chinese), and I don't think that the majority of the voters will trust that she not revert to these types of actions.
Recall he didn't sell anything to the Chinese, but nice try trying to make Chinagate a story again.
I have polling data on my side that shows she's currently the closest of anyone in the Democratic field to beating McCain and amongst the top of basically all Democratic polling. I have polling data that shows Clinton as one of the most popular presidents in recent history and one of the most popular former presidents ever. I have 8 years of people making jokes about Hillary being the woman really running the policy shop and helping bring around the prosperity of the Clinton era while her husband was "partying it up". You have, apparently, a need to make Bill Clinton the center of all that ails ya'.
Are you kidding? He's one of the most popular former presidents in history. Beyond that, he's a campaigning machine, even after that bypass surgery right out of office.
No, I'm not kidding. If you want most popular former Presidents in history, try Reagan. He won his election by the largest landslide in history - Clinton can't even hold a candle to that.
I have polling data on my side that shows she's currently the closest of anyone in the Democratic field to beating McCain and amongst the top of basically all Democratic polling.
I have 8 years of people making jokes about Hillary being the woman really running the policy shop and helping bring around the prosperity of the Clinton era while her husband was "partying it up".
Sour grapes, methinks? You've had 8 years of Clinton jokes, we've had 8 years of GW monkey jokes. BFD. Presidents get made fun of, good or bad. Deal with it, some of the joke are actually quite funny.
You have, apparently, a need to make Bill Clinton the center of all that ails ya'.
Nope, I don't. I'm just here to point out the white elephant in the room that you conveniently ignore. You have, apparently, a need to make Bill Clinton the golden child of Democratic politicians. I'll concede that he was (and still is) an outstanding politician, but that does not make him a good President. He sullied the honor of that office when he took the oath. It shows in all he did, and didn't do, when he was in office. At least Reagan (and for that matter, GW) had the cajones to take some action, whether right or wrong, ultimately. The only cajones Clinton had was which intern he intended to screw in the Oval Office.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Truth is my mission, and Logic and Reason are my weapons. - Rush Limbaugh
Sour grapes, methinks? You've had 8 years of Clinton jokes, we've had 8 years of GW monkey jokes. BFD. Presidents get made fun of, good or bad. Deal with it, some of the joke are actually quite funny.
Jokes are one thing, failed policy is another. Clinton had peace and properity, Bush has had unilateral international war and a collapsing economy with a wage gap he's widening. Don't even try and compare em.
No, I'm not kidding. If you want most popular former Presidents in history, try Reagan. He won his election by the largest landslide in history - Clinton can't even hold a candle to that.
Quote from Stax »
Are you kidding? He's one of the most popular former presidents in history. Beyond that, he's a campaigning machine, even after that bypass surgery right out of office.
At least Reagan (and for that matter, GW) had the cajones to take some action, whether right or wrong, ultimately. The only cajones Clinton had was which intern he intended to screw in the Oval Office.
Very funny. Ignoring all those successful policies Clinton enacted. And ignoring that you just suggested that "taking some action, no matter if it's right or wrong" is good coming from Reagan and Bush.
Jokes are one thing, failed policy is another. Clinton had peace and properity, Bush has had unilateral international war and a collapsing economy with a wage gap he's widening. Don't even try and compare em.
Puh-lease. Under Clinton, we had constant scandal, terrorists becoming more bold, and more:
Under George Bush we have a strong economy, responding to terrorists' declaring war (instead of rolling over), and the removal of a dictator that had the capability to provide terrorists weapons that could have killed thousands of Americans.
Granted, neither administration is perfect, but I can say that I'm better off (and safer) than I was when Clinton was in office!
Fine, you can use approval rating polls as your benchmark, but those types of polls are fickle, and dependent on what the major media is reporting at the time. I'll stick to electoral college results that actually matter, thank you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Truth is my mission, and Logic and Reason are my weapons. - Rush Limbaugh
I'll stick to electoral college results that actually matter, thank you.
Errr... So because he wasn't Reagan versus Mondale he's not as popular? That... Makes a lot of sense...
Puh-lease. Under Clinton, we had constant scandal,
Whitewater, Chinagate (which your average American didn't give a damn about), and Monica Lewinsky. Three things. What the heck else are you including?
terrorists becoming more bold,
Excuse me while I laugh.
and more:
Excuse me while I laugh some MORE, for citing the Free Republic as your source. Especially where they cite only stats about the first 3 years of each presidency. Wow, so a Clinton presidency that came off of a Reagan/Bush I recession and with Gulf War costs fell a few tenths of a percent short of keep ing up with a guy who came into:
A. Balanced budgets
B. A surplus
C. An incredibly strong boom economy
? Yeah, that's proof of tons.
Under George Bush we have a strong economy
Excuse me while I laugh even more.
responding to terrorists' declaring war (instead of rolling over),
And then before we catch the leader of those terrorists we pull out large bodies of troops and reassign them to an unrelated mission that we fail to properly plan, letting both fail.
and the removal of a dictator that had the capability to provide terrorists weapons that could have killed thousands of Americans.
Weapons the president himself admits weren't there and a dictator his own inspector said wasn't seeking said weapons and could be controlled through inspections.
OH, and:
Fine, you can use approval rating polls as your benchmark, but those types of polls are fickle, and dependent on what the major media is reporting at the time.
Are you physically capable of discussing politics without "citing" liberal media bias as an example of why you are right? Not to mention that the "liberal media" had just spent a year roasting Clinton 24/7 on international television, so I don't see how that lessens his approval ratings.
When the mostly likely Democratic gains other than Arkansas if Clark is on the ticket are Colorado, New Mexico, and Montana? Yes, it makes boatloads of sense.
according to colorado legislation, we already have half of colorado, beside it was a joke. I used to live in CO, I make fun of it constantl
What exactly does that mean? If you mean some parts of the country aren't ready to elect one, ok, but are you honestly suggesting that "we" as a nation aren't "ready" to see a woman or a black guy with that much power?
yes, and this is from California with love, when there are entire cities, like Bakersfield, who are massivly biased, in the most left-leaning states in the nation, I think it's pretty safe to say that NO, we "as a nation" are NOT ready to elect a black or female president. And frankly, neither Obama or Hillary are good picks even if we did want to.(but that last line is my opinion, which is ll politics is about anyway.)
...It was more that Gore had no personality in 2000 and people tacitly connected him to Clinton... But ok...
A poor personality and a connection to Clinton means very little(seeing as even after the scandal your own statistscs show he was STILL well liked).. And if you say I'm wrong, then you admit I'm right that Bush's "i'm a guy like you" tactics worked.
Uh, we're talking about the next leader of the free world, and you're pointing out she doesn't like violent video games?
Exactly, emphasis on FREE world. You can't lead the free world if your out trying to limit our freedoms. And yes, being able to make video games with raunchy content is one of them. Maybe they did need to up the rating, but you don't need congress to investigate it. Much as I don't care for many big-business coporations, why does Rockstar get the 90million investigation while BP goes relativly unpunished for not taking care of the alaskan pipelines? In short, congress has better things to do, and with a large portion of the voting age, newly voting age, or soon-to-be voting age population being gamers, the governments actions regarding video games will quickly become very important. In addition, I also feel Hillary pander's to both sides far too much, with such lines as "the democrats need to adopt more christian values" in order to win the election. The democrats should win by being different than the republicans, not by copying them.(their stratiges yes, their stance, no.)
Right. Because women vote for vaginas, black guys vote for melanin levels, and Hispanics vote for who's name ends in Z?
I don't exaclty know what numbers you're looking at, but last time I checked Clintons numbers he won a large part of the women's vote because he was physically attractive. And as my mother, and many other women I know proove, women stick together, regardless if it's good or bad for everyone else. EVERYONE with no exceptions, likes a candidate who has something in common with them, be it their upbringing, their religion, their race or their sex. A candidate with none of those things will fail horribly because they don't connect with the people. Going back to Bush, Bush connected with the people, and it helped him win. He wsant the smartest guy, the brightest bulb or the richest man, and because that constitutes a large portion of America, those few-watts-short people and the not-so-rich ate it up.
Please. Yes there are always going to be people that vote that way, but the suggestion that Clinton is the frontrunner because she's a woman is rediculous. She's the frontrunner DESPITE being a woman, it hurts her loads more than it helps. If it wasn't for that she'd merely be considered a powerful politician, but because she's a woman every late night talk show host and conservative with a microphone labels her a *****.
I didn't say Clinton was the frontrunner because she's a woman, I said "i hope she wont get the spot because she's a woman" meaning: if she gets the top spot, I want it to be because she's right for america, espoused the right things, and connects with the people, not because she's female. We dont need a whole lot of hating on her for not being that great of a pick(which I don't think she is, and that's the opinion I'm entitled to), and getting the spot anyway because the DNC wants to cater to women who still feel subjugated, and not women an men who want a good candidate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The difference between MTG and science is that one has people dressed up in silly clothes, using words you can't understand and doing potentially quite dangerous stuff while the other has people dressed up in silly clothes, using words you can't understand and doing potentially quite dangerous stuff while playing cards."
My Decks: WAnglesW WUBRGThe BroodGRBUW WUGAllymillGUW
omg. why are we discussing this already? it's kinda obvious that hilary clinton has got this won. omg, a woman for president. well, maybe public opinion could still sway. condi is very popular too. it will be funny to watch them battle it out. no man in washington can hope to win this time around.
according to colorado legislation, we already have half of colorado, beside it was a joke. I used to live in CO, I make fun of it constantl
...So why don't you get that it's a better idea to actually use the convention to help you, rather than just stick in NY and play to your old, coastal strength?
yes, and this is from California with love, when there are entire cities, like Bakersfield, who are massivly biased, in the most left-leaning states in the nation, I think it's pretty safe to say that NO, we "as a nation" are NOT ready to elect a black or female president. And frankly, neither Obama or Hillary are good picks even if we did want to.(but that last line is my opinion, which is ll politics is about anyway.)
*shrug* Ok. I continue to hold that the places where that will be a big issue aren't places Democrats are gonna win in a presidential race anyways, but whatever.
A poor personality and a connection to Clinton means very little(seeing as even after the scandal your own statistscs show he was STILL well liked).. And if you say I'm wrong, then you admit I'm right that Bush's "i'm a guy like you" tactics worked.
Clinton was popular. But they were happy to see him go. That's not a good thing for Gore whose only connection was political, not personality wise.
And who cares that it "worked", look what it got us. There's a reason the "talking folksy" and "I'm the guy you want to have a beer with" are not supposed to be the reasons you elect a president.
Exactly, emphasis on FREE world. You can't lead the free world if your out trying to limit our freedoms. And yes, being able to make video games with raunchy content is one of them. Maybe they did need to up the rating, but you don't need congress to investigate it. Much as I don't care for many big-business coporations, why does Rockstar get the 90million investigation while BP goes relativly unpunished for not taking care of the alaskan pipelines? In short, congress has better things to do, and with a large portion of the voting age, newly voting age, or soon-to-be voting age population being gamers, the governments actions regarding video games will quickly become very important. In addition, I also feel Hillary pander's to both sides far too much, with such lines as "the democrats need to adopt more christian values" in order to win the election. The democrats should win by being different than the republicans, not by copying them.(their stratiges yes, their stance, no.)
Ahahaha. You really are. You're judging who should get the nuclear launch codes on video games.
I don't exaclty know what numbers you're looking at, but last time I checked Clintons numbers he won a large part of the women's vote because he was physically attractive. And as my mother, and many other women I know proove, women stick together, regardless if it's good or bad for everyone else. EVERYONE with no exceptions, likes a candidate who has something in common with them, be it their upbringing, their religion, their race or their sex. A candidate with none of those things will fail horribly because they don't connect with the people. Going back to Bush, Bush connected with the people, and it helped him win. He wsant the smartest guy, the brightest bulb or the richest man, and because that constitutes a large portion of America, those few-watts-short people and the not-so-rich ate it up.
None of this makes any sense. Bill Clinton winning women voters over (when the Democratic party has always won women in recent years) is a sign Hillary will, and Hillary will because she's a woman? And somehow that has to do with Bush being folksy? What??
I didn't say Clinton was the frontrunner because she's a woman, I said "i hope she wont get the spot because she's a woman" meaning: if she gets the top spot, I want it to be because she's right for america, espoused the right things, and connects with the people, not because she's female.
No, you said:
Anyway, I certianly hope Hillary doesn't get the front runner spot because of opinionated women who'd rather see a woman as president than a candidate who can win.
Which is the rediculous suggestion that "opinionated women":
A. Vote for the woman candidate, no matter what.
B. Have a magic power to control 51% of the electorate.
omg. why are we discussing this already? it's kinda obvious that hilary clinton has got this won. omg, a woman for president. well, maybe public opinion could still sway. condi is very popular too. it will be funny to watch them battle it out. no man in washington can hope to win this time around.
Yeah... Condi has made it clear she isn't running, so that year-old shock value book thrown out there to make some quick money really isn't gonna' happen... And the leader this far back has not done well in the nomination traditionally, so I dunno WTF you're talking about "hilary clinton has got this won"...
*shrug* Ok. I continue to hold that the places where that will be a big issue aren't places Democrats are gonna win in a presidential race anyways, but whatever.
yeah, but the democrats can't afford to take the attitude of "we wont win them anyway, so lets not try. Trying is always better than just giving up, they're not going to win anybody if they take that attitude.
Clinton was popular. But they were happy to see him go. That's not a good thing for Gore whose only connection was political, not personality wise.
Gore had no personality, we all know it. "they" being the democrats or the people I dont now who your talking to, but Clinton is still largely regarded as a good and popular president. Maybe we're looking in different places.
And who cares that it "worked", look what it got us. There's a reason the "talking folksy" and "I'm the guy you want to have a beer with" are not supposed to be the reasons you elect a president.
I didnt say to play folksy, I said make a connection with the people. A good president is more than just an egg-head politician, if that's what we wanted, Gore would have been elected.
Ahahaha. You really are. You're judging who should get the nuclear launch codes on video games.
No, I'm judging who should get this magical nuclear codes off of wasing taxpayer dollars on a personal vendetta.
None of this makes any sense. Bill Clinton winning women voters over (when the Democratic party has always won women in recent years) is a sign Hillary will, and Hillary will because she's a woman? And somehow that has to do with Bush being folksy? What??
read it again, maybe your ability to twist words is getting the better of you.
No, you said:
Which is the rediculous suggestion that "opinionated women":
A. Vote for the woman candidate, no matter what.
B. Have a magic power to control 51% of the electorate.
which is the same thing in different words.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The difference between MTG and science is that one has people dressed up in silly clothes, using words you can't understand and doing potentially quite dangerous stuff while the other has people dressed up in silly clothes, using words you can't understand and doing potentially quite dangerous stuff while playing cards."
My Decks: WAnglesW WUBRGThe BroodGRBUW WUGAllymillGUW
Gore had no personality, we all know it. "they" being the democrats or the people I dont now who your talking to, but Clinton is still largely regarded as a good and popular president. Maybe we're looking in different places.
They being the people. Gore had no personality in 2000, and politically Clinton was a big negative, giving Gore the worst of both worlds. Yes Gore has gained personality since his lost and Clinton has become more popular once people realize sensible policy outweighs a sex scandal given our current boy in the chair's policy.
I didnt say to play folksy, I said make a connection with the people. A good president is more than just an egg-head politician, if that's what we wanted, Gore would have been elected.
And no one said egg-head politician... The point is the choice between a good, smart candidate and someone who "makes a connection with the people" should not be a hard contest. You aren't electing a best buddy.
No, I'm judging who should get this magical nuclear codes off of wasing taxpayer dollars on a personal vendetta.
And that's better how?
read it again, maybe your ability to twist words is getting the better of you.
I did. You started talking about Clinton's numbers with women, which will have little to do with his wife's success since he'll be 7-8 years out of office, with a sex scandal as the "womens issue" people will discuss with him, and he'll just be an appearance guy not the candidate himself.
Then you get into the "people stick with their own" in candidates, which is rather silly again. Yes they like people being of their own, but the suggestion that Hillary is amongst the leading candidates because she's a woman is offensive. It is, quite literally, saying she's a ****** on a podium. "Screw her policy making abilities and intelligence, SHE'S A WOMAN!" It's crazy.
And then you get back to Bush and "making a connection with the people" which isn't even the same subject you were originally discussing, which is people sticking with their own. If Bush only won "his own" (white, male, Christian) he'd win the Republican base and nearly nothing else.
which is the same thing in different words.
...Right, which is what's so offensive and strange about it. Most women do not just see a female candidate and vote for her, and those that do do not control 51% of the electorate or anything close to it.
on the contrary, my mother is pulling for Hillary because she's dead set on having a woman as president, even if it costs the democrats the election. Of course mom compeltely hates Arnold because he groped women way back when. Yeah, mom watches Oprah and the View alot, how'd you guess?
Wait... WHAT? I'm not going to debate this with you, as I feel Stax has more desire to do so, but in the (frankly, unlikely) event that your statement here is correct, I don't know if I've been more dissapointed in our country. Women vote for women because they are women. That is just inspired tomfoolery. Women, like men, largely vote for the people whose policies they at least believe they support. People vote on more than sex, or at least I really hope they do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from releasethedogs »
also listen to yodafan he knows whats hes talking about
Quote from Penumbra Leprechaun »
Yeah, Yodafan's pretty much a EDH pro.
Yodafan: Official pro of one of Magic’s most casual formats.
Mainly, I'm OK if someone includes sex in their decision, but basing their decision on sex alone, or mostly sex, which False God seems to imply, is something that I don't think very many people do, and which I certainly hope they don't.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from releasethedogs »
also listen to yodafan he knows whats hes talking about
Quote from Penumbra Leprechaun »
Yeah, Yodafan's pretty much a EDH pro.
Yodafan: Official pro of one of Magic’s most casual formats.
Wait... WHAT? I'm not going to debate this with you, as I feel Stax has more desire to do so, but in the (frankly, unlikely) event that your statement here is correct, I don't know if I've been more dissapointed in our country. Women vote for women because they are women. That is just inspired tomfoolery. Women, like men, largely vote for the people whose policies they at least believe they support. People vote on more than sex, or at least I really hope they do.
I didnt want to debate it with you, I wanted to provide an itneresting fact that some people, my mother being my prime exaple, uses poor reasons for picking a president.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The difference between MTG and science is that one has people dressed up in silly clothes, using words you can't understand and doing potentially quite dangerous stuff while the other has people dressed up in silly clothes, using words you can't understand and doing potentially quite dangerous stuff while playing cards."
My Decks: WAnglesW WUBRGThe BroodGRBUW WUGAllymillGUW
I didnt want to debate it with you, I wanted to provide an itneresting fact that some people, my mother being my prime exaple, uses poor reasons for picking a president.
Ah, OK. Well than, on that, we more than agree.:cool:
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from releasethedogs »
also listen to yodafan he knows whats hes talking about
Quote from Penumbra Leprechaun »
Yeah, Yodafan's pretty much a EDH pro.
Yodafan: Official pro of one of Magic’s most casual formats.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has announced his intentions to run for President, presumably as a Republican. If he manages to win the GoP nomination, I will be voting for him.
If he doesn't, I hope Doug Stanhope (from the manshow and the girls gone wild videos) wins the Libertarian nomination so I can vote for him. Perhaps Penn from Penn & Teller will finish off that ticket. Wouldn't that rock?
edit:
It's funny that Ron is in the Republican party (well, he sorta is) seeing as he has a nearly opposite ideology. I think the difference between Dr. Paul and the GoP mainstream is like the difference between cocaine and orange juice.
I dunno the guy, but I have to say poor Ron Paul. In the words of Josh Lyman, "There's only room for one scrappy insurgency" and in the 2008 Republican field I think that would have to go to Duncan Hunter. Paul will be lucky to get in the debates, barring some really odd movement.
i don't know why anyone is still arguing why hilary clinton won't win. i mean honestly, look at ourselves. hilary clinton is one of the only topics in this thread! this thread could very well be named 'all hail hilary.' and look at the other candidates, their discusion doesn't even come close. this proves clinton's prominence, especially in the controversy sector. how can anyone honestly win? and have an other candidate cause this much debate when we are a long 2 years away from the next election?
i don't know why anyone is still arguing why hilary clinton won't win. i mean honestly, look at ourselves. hilary clinton is one of the only topics in this thread! this thread could very well be named 'all hail hilary.' and look at the other candidates, their discusion doesn't even come close. this proves clinton's prominence, especially in the controversy sector. how can anyone honestly win? and have an other candidate cause this much debate when we are a long 2 years away from the next election?
...It doesn't prove a damn thing. Once again, leaders of the Democratic pack this far out have historically done badly. Add to that Hillary's a "first" candidate (first woman, first First Lady, etc). Add to that that's she's demonized by the other side BEFORE she's even a candidate. All that together and you've got anything but a lock.
Plus she's not even really fully leading these early polls. It's basically a rough two way race between Obama and Clinton in some places, Edwards leading in SC, and IIRC a near three way race in other states. Very few polls show heavy Clinton or Obama leads (there was an Iowa caucus poll before Obama announced that showed Hillary with a strong lead, that's all I can think of)
i don't know why anyone is still arguing why hilary clinton won't win. i mean honestly, look at ourselves. hilary clinton is one of the only topics in this thread! this thread could very well be named 'all hail hilary.' and look at the other candidates, their discusion doesn't even come close. this proves clinton's prominence, especially in the controversy sector. how can anyone honestly win? and have an other candidate cause this much debate when we are a long 2 years away from the next election?
I think it's far more likely that Colin Powell will run, either as a Democrat or independent, than it is that the DNC will allow Hilary to run with anything resembling their blessing. She's not ready, they know it, and the country knows it.
You're right, though... two years out, there's little to no point in predicting anything that'll happen. This kind of prediction is the job of oddsmakers, not debaters.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hey all... I'm retired, not dead. Check out what I'm doing these days (and beg me to come back if you want):
You're right, though... two years out, there's little to no point in predicting anything that'll happen. This kind of prediction is the job of oddsmakers, not debaters.
...though historically, Vegas odds have proved a very accurate predictor of electoral success.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
When the mostly likely Democratic gains other than Arkansas if Clark is on the ticket are Colorado, New Mexico, and Montana? Yes, it makes boatloads of sense.
What exactly does that mean? If you mean some parts of the country aren't ready to elect one, ok, but are you honestly suggesting that "we" as a nation aren't "ready" to see a woman or a black guy with that much power?
...It was more that Gore had no personality in 2000 and people tacitly connected him to Clinton... But ok...
Uh, we're talking about the next leader of the free world, and you're pointing out she doesn't like violent video games?
Right. Because women vote for vaginas, black guys vote for melanin levels, and Hispanics vote for who's name ends in Z?
Please. Yes there are always going to be people that vote that way, but the suggestion that Clinton is the frontrunner because she's a woman is rediculous. She's the frontrunner DESPITE being a woman, it hurts her loads more than it helps. If it wasn't for that she'd merely be considered a powerful politician, but because she's a woman every late night talk show host and conservative with a microphone labels her a *****.
Trade with me - over 130 refs!!
Are you kidding? He's one of the most popular former presidents in history. Beyond that, he's a campaigning machine, even after that bypass surgery right out of office.
Recall he didn't sell anything to the Chinese, but nice try trying to make Chinagate a story again.
I have polling data on my side that shows she's currently the closest of anyone in the Democratic field to beating McCain and amongst the top of basically all Democratic polling. I have polling data that shows Clinton as one of the most popular presidents in recent history and one of the most popular former presidents ever. I have 8 years of people making jokes about Hillary being the woman really running the policy shop and helping bring around the prosperity of the Clinton era while her husband was "partying it up". You have, apparently, a need to make Bill Clinton the center of all that ails ya'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1984
I'm not disputing this.
Serve 'em up.
Sour grapes, methinks? You've had 8 years of Clinton jokes, we've had 8 years of GW monkey jokes. BFD. Presidents get made fun of, good or bad. Deal with it, some of the joke are actually quite funny.
Nope, I don't. I'm just here to point out the white elephant in the room that you conveniently ignore. You have, apparently, a need to make Bill Clinton the golden child of Democratic politicians. I'll concede that he was (and still is) an outstanding politician, but that does not make him a good President. He sullied the honor of that office when he took the oath. It shows in all he did, and didn't do, when he was in office. At least Reagan (and for that matter, GW) had the cajones to take some action, whether right or wrong, ultimately. The only cajones Clinton had was which intern he intended to screw in the Oval Office.
Trade with me - over 130 refs!!
Jokes are one thing, failed policy is another. Clinton had peace and properity, Bush has had unilateral international war and a collapsing economy with a wage gap he's widening. Don't even try and compare em.
Very funny. Ignoring all those successful policies Clinton enacted. And ignoring that you just suggested that "taking some action, no matter if it's right or wrong" is good coming from Reagan and Bush.
73% following impeachment and, while they were happy to see him go thanks to controversy, the highest approval rating of any outgoing president.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092602/posts
Under George Bush we have a strong economy, responding to terrorists' declaring war (instead of rolling over), and the removal of a dictator that had the capability to provide terrorists weapons that could have killed thousands of Americans.
Granted, neither administration is perfect, but I can say that I'm better off (and safer) than I was when Clinton was in office!
Fine, you can use approval rating polls as your benchmark, but those types of polls are fickle, and dependent on what the major media is reporting at the time. I'll stick to electoral college results that actually matter, thank you.
Trade with me - over 130 refs!!
Errr... So because he wasn't Reagan versus Mondale he's not as popular? That... Makes a lot of sense...
Whitewater, Chinagate (which your average American didn't give a damn about), and Monica Lewinsky. Three things. What the heck else are you including?
Excuse me while I laugh.
Excuse me while I laugh some MORE, for citing the Free Republic as your source. Especially where they cite only stats about the first 3 years of each presidency. Wow, so a Clinton presidency that came off of a Reagan/Bush I recession and with Gulf War costs fell a few tenths of a percent short of keep ing up with a guy who came into:
A. Balanced budgets
B. A surplus
C. An incredibly strong boom economy
? Yeah, that's proof of tons.
Excuse me while I laugh even more.
And then before we catch the leader of those terrorists we pull out large bodies of troops and reassign them to an unrelated mission that we fail to properly plan, letting both fail.
Weapons the president himself admits weren't there and a dictator his own inspector said wasn't seeking said weapons and could be controlled through inspections.
OH, and:
Are you physically capable of discussing politics without "citing" liberal media bias as an example of why you are right? Not to mention that the "liberal media" had just spent a year roasting Clinton 24/7 on international television, so I don't see how that lessens his approval ratings.
yes, and this is from California with love, when there are entire cities, like Bakersfield, who are massivly biased, in the most left-leaning states in the nation, I think it's pretty safe to say that NO, we "as a nation" are NOT ready to elect a black or female president. And frankly, neither Obama or Hillary are good picks even if we did want to.(but that last line is my opinion, which is ll politics is about anyway.)
A poor personality and a connection to Clinton means very little(seeing as even after the scandal your own statistscs show he was STILL well liked).. And if you say I'm wrong, then you admit I'm right that Bush's "i'm a guy like you" tactics worked.
Exactly, emphasis on FREE world. You can't lead the free world if your out trying to limit our freedoms. And yes, being able to make video games with raunchy content is one of them. Maybe they did need to up the rating, but you don't need congress to investigate it. Much as I don't care for many big-business coporations, why does Rockstar get the 90million investigation while BP goes relativly unpunished for not taking care of the alaskan pipelines? In short, congress has better things to do, and with a large portion of the voting age, newly voting age, or soon-to-be voting age population being gamers, the governments actions regarding video games will quickly become very important. In addition, I also feel Hillary pander's to both sides far too much, with such lines as "the democrats need to adopt more christian values" in order to win the election. The democrats should win by being different than the republicans, not by copying them.(their stratiges yes, their stance, no.)
I don't exaclty know what numbers you're looking at, but last time I checked Clintons numbers he won a large part of the women's vote because he was physically attractive. And as my mother, and many other women I know proove, women stick together, regardless if it's good or bad for everyone else. EVERYONE with no exceptions, likes a candidate who has something in common with them, be it their upbringing, their religion, their race or their sex. A candidate with none of those things will fail horribly because they don't connect with the people. Going back to Bush, Bush connected with the people, and it helped him win. He wsant the smartest guy, the brightest bulb or the richest man, and because that constitutes a large portion of America, those few-watts-short people and the not-so-rich ate it up.
I didn't say Clinton was the frontrunner because she's a woman, I said "i hope she wont get the spot because she's a woman" meaning: if she gets the top spot, I want it to be because she's right for america, espoused the right things, and connects with the people, not because she's female. We dont need a whole lot of hating on her for not being that great of a pick(which I don't think she is, and that's the opinion I'm entitled to), and getting the spot anyway because the DNC wants to cater to women who still feel subjugated, and not women an men who want a good candidate.
WAnglesW
WUBRGThe BroodGRBUW
WUGAllymillGUW
...So why don't you get that it's a better idea to actually use the convention to help you, rather than just stick in NY and play to your old, coastal strength?
*shrug* Ok. I continue to hold that the places where that will be a big issue aren't places Democrats are gonna win in a presidential race anyways, but whatever.
Clinton was popular. But they were happy to see him go. That's not a good thing for Gore whose only connection was political, not personality wise.
And who cares that it "worked", look what it got us. There's a reason the "talking folksy" and "I'm the guy you want to have a beer with" are not supposed to be the reasons you elect a president.
Ahahaha. You really are. You're judging who should get the nuclear launch codes on video games.
None of this makes any sense. Bill Clinton winning women voters over (when the Democratic party has always won women in recent years) is a sign Hillary will, and Hillary will because she's a woman? And somehow that has to do with Bush being folksy? What??
No, you said:
Which is the rediculous suggestion that "opinionated women":
A. Vote for the woman candidate, no matter what.
B. Have a magic power to control 51% of the electorate.
Yeah... Condi has made it clear she isn't running, so that year-old shock value book thrown out there to make some quick money really isn't gonna' happen... And the leader this far back has not done well in the nomination traditionally, so I dunno WTF you're talking about "hilary clinton has got this won"...
yeah, but the democrats can't afford to take the attitude of "we wont win them anyway, so lets not try. Trying is always better than just giving up, they're not going to win anybody if they take that attitude.
Gore had no personality, we all know it. "they" being the democrats or the people I dont now who your talking to, but Clinton is still largely regarded as a good and popular president. Maybe we're looking in different places.
I didnt say to play folksy, I said make a connection with the people. A good president is more than just an egg-head politician, if that's what we wanted, Gore would have been elected.
No, I'm judging who should get this magical nuclear codes off of wasing taxpayer dollars on a personal vendetta.
read it again, maybe your ability to twist words is getting the better of you.
which is the same thing in different words.
WAnglesW
WUBRGThe BroodGRBUW
WUGAllymillGUW
They being the people. Gore had no personality in 2000, and politically Clinton was a big negative, giving Gore the worst of both worlds. Yes Gore has gained personality since his lost and Clinton has become more popular once people realize sensible policy outweighs a sex scandal given our current boy in the chair's policy.
And no one said egg-head politician... The point is the choice between a good, smart candidate and someone who "makes a connection with the people" should not be a hard contest. You aren't electing a best buddy.
And that's better how?
I did. You started talking about Clinton's numbers with women, which will have little to do with his wife's success since he'll be 7-8 years out of office, with a sex scandal as the "womens issue" people will discuss with him, and he'll just be an appearance guy not the candidate himself.
Then you get into the "people stick with their own" in candidates, which is rather silly again. Yes they like people being of their own, but the suggestion that Hillary is amongst the leading candidates because she's a woman is offensive. It is, quite literally, saying she's a ****** on a podium. "Screw her policy making abilities and intelligence, SHE'S A WOMAN!" It's crazy.
And then you get back to Bush and "making a connection with the people" which isn't even the same subject you were originally discussing, which is people sticking with their own. If Bush only won "his own" (white, male, Christian) he'd win the Republican base and nearly nothing else.
...Right, which is what's so offensive and strange about it. Most women do not just see a female candidate and vote for her, and those that do do not control 51% of the electorate or anything close to it.
Wait... WHAT? I'm not going to debate this with you, as I feel Stax has more desire to do so, but in the (frankly, unlikely) event that your statement here is correct, I don't know if I've been more dissapointed in our country. Women vote for women because they are women. That is just inspired tomfoolery. Women, like men, largely vote for the people whose policies they at least believe they support. People vote on more than sex, or at least I really hope they do.
Yodafan: Official pro of one of Magic’s most casual formats.
On the surface, probably. But much of thinking takes place subconsciously, and biases do subtly affect decisions.
Yodafan: Official pro of one of Magic’s most casual formats.
I didnt want to debate it with you, I wanted to provide an itneresting fact that some people, my mother being my prime exaple, uses poor reasons for picking a president.
WAnglesW
WUBRGThe BroodGRBUW
WUGAllymillGUW
Ah, OK. Well than, on that, we more than agree.:cool:
Yodafan: Official pro of one of Magic’s most casual formats.
If he doesn't, I hope Doug Stanhope (from the manshow and the girls gone wild videos) wins the Libertarian nomination so I can vote for him.
edit:
It's funny that Ron is in the Republican party (well, he sorta is) seeing as he has a nearly opposite ideology. I think the difference between Dr. Paul and the GoP mainstream is like the difference between cocaine and orange juice.
...It doesn't prove a damn thing. Once again, leaders of the Democratic pack this far out have historically done badly. Add to that Hillary's a "first" candidate (first woman, first First Lady, etc). Add to that that's she's demonized by the other side BEFORE she's even a candidate. All that together and you've got anything but a lock.
Plus she's not even really fully leading these early polls. It's basically a rough two way race between Obama and Clinton in some places, Edwards leading in SC, and IIRC a near three way race in other states. Very few polls show heavy Clinton or Obama leads (there was an Iowa caucus poll before Obama announced that showed Hillary with a strong lead, that's all I can think of)
I think it's far more likely that Colin Powell will run, either as a Democrat or independent, than it is that the DNC will allow Hilary to run with anything resembling their blessing. She's not ready, they know it, and the country knows it.
You're right, though... two years out, there's little to no point in predicting anything that'll happen. This kind of prediction is the job of oddsmakers, not debaters.
https://twitch.tv/annorax10 (classic retro speedruns & occasional MTGO/MTGA screwaround streams)
https://twitch.tv/SwiftorCasino (yes, my team and I run live dealer games for the baldman using his channel points as chips)
...though historically, Vegas odds have proved a very accurate predictor of electoral success.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Vegas odds close to the election, and that's the general, yes. A year back from the earliest primaries? No.
It will be interesting to see how his campaign develops.
By kingcobweb and Goblinboy.
Official Elitist of [thread=40859][RBS][/thread]