Fifty percent of adults would not vote for Clinton

[7960]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Nice prediction I guess Seems kinda silly though, I don't know why anyone would say something outlandish unless they had a venue in which they could explain themselves.

because they're politicians, and they're stupid.

politicians are like hollywood people......... too many surround themselves with people who say what they want to hear and then make decisions like they know what's going on in the real world.

sean penn can get in as many boats and save as many dogs as he wants, but he's going back to his $8.4M mansion when he's done. angelina can spend weeks in africa doing <whatever she does> but she's going to come back to CA and sleep in her 800 thread count egyptian cotton sheets when she's done. gore can scream at much as he wants about global warming but he's still using $20k worth of electricity every month. clinton can talk all he wants about "feeling my pain" but tell me when he's worked an honest day in his life. bushv2 grew up with his dad running the CIA or being an ambassador......... when you have the option to leave you don't know what real people go through.

why the rant? because *most* career politicians have no fucking clue. They're doctors or lawyers or some other version of millionaires who've long since forgotten the price of a gallon of milk. So why will someone get up and say "we got 10% so people MUST agree it's time to legalize heroin!"? Becuase they're stupid and out of touch, that's why.


(wow, I'm pissy today )

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by 7960

because they're politicians, and they're stupid.

politicians are like hollywood people......... too many surround themselves with people who say what they want to hear and then make decisions like they know what's going on in the real world.

sean penn can get in as many boats and save as many dogs as he wants, but he's going back to his $8.4M mansion when he's done. angelina can spend weeks in africa doing <whatever she does> but she's going to come back to CA and sleep in her 800 thread count egyptian cotton sheets when she's done. gore can scream at much as he wants about global warming but he's still using $20k worth of electricity every month. clinton can talk all he wants about "feeling my pain" but tell me when he's worked an honest day in his life. bushv2 grew up with his dad running the CIA or being an ambassador......... when you have the option to leave you don't know what real people go through.

why the rant? because *most* career politicians have no fucking clue. They're doctors or lawyers or some other version of millionaires who've long since forgotten the price of a gallon of milk. So why will someone get up and say "we got 10% so people MUST agree it's time to legalize heroin!"? Becuase they're stupid and out of touch, that's why.


(wow, I'm pissy today )

lol, pms?

I agree that most are out of touch, but that doesn't mean all are out of touch. I think newer politicians tend to be a lot more in touch than older ones, and some actually do spend time trying to not be removed from their constituents.

Libertarians have no long-term politicians (just using libertarians as an example here) because so few can actually be elected, and the ones that are elected are at low levels of government.

I certainly agree that the higher the position, the more removed they become though. You know GW has people all around him telling him good things about how they do things... PNAC alone probably confuses him more than anything else. Look at him when he goes out to a press conference and gets a question that he hasn't thought about: he gets flustered and just spurts sentence fragments (stuff like "I'm the decider, I decide things" and repeating over and over how we need to stay in Iraq). The people around him have him so convinced that what "he" (and by he, I mean they) is doing is right, that he can barely handle an opposing position. Not that I don't think he's to blame for going along with it, it's just that he isn't the only one at the top making unpopular decisions.

That's kinda off topic from this thread though.

[Thorgrim]

Who liked Richard Nixon...who thought he was charismatic? Yet he won two terms

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Who liked Richard Nixon...who thought he was charismatic? Yet he won two terms

Dude, so was GW. Shit amazes me

But I think both of those cases is due to wars going on at the time. Nixon had Vietnam and GW has this Iraq bullshit. Both of those are/were even unpopular wars, and they were reelected.

So the trick to getting reelected is to start a long, unpopular war on the other side of the world.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Dude, so was GW. Shit amazes me

But I think both of those cases is due to wars going on at the time. Nixon had Vietnam and GW has this Iraq bullshit. Both of those are/were even unpopular wars, and they were reelected.

So the trick to getting reelected is to start a long, unpopular war on the other side of the world.

Nixon inherited the war from the opposing party, from a formerly hugely popular president who wasn't running again, and planned to end the war...despite his reputation as being a political machine, he won in a landslide

Sound like any situation?

[grembert]

The Democrats need a candidate that appeals to more than just the two coasts. Hillary and Obama don't look like national candidates to me. That's why Gore might be an option if the others ( Edwards, etc. ) don't get any traction.

Most Independents are indicating that they will vote Democratic right now, but the Democratic party might end up throwing that advantage away.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by grembert

The Democrats need a candidate that appeals to more than just the two coasts. Hillary and Obama don't look like national candidates to me. That's why Gore might be an option if the others ( Edwards, etc. ) don't get any traction.

Most Independents are indicating that they will vote Democratic right now, but the Democratic party might end up throwing that advantage away.

As an Independent, I would say Democratic might be the way to go after 8 years of Republican rule, but now that Congress is mostly Democratic, I think going for a Democratic president wouldn't be the best option. Then again, depending who ran, and if they were so heavily conservative vs. someone more middle-road......

it all comes down to the candidates.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

As an Independent, I would say Democratic might be the way to go after 8 years of Republican rule, but now that Congress is mostly Democratic, I think going for a Democratic president wouldn't be the best option. Then again, depending who ran, and if they were so heavily conservative vs. someone more middle-road......

it all comes down to the candidates.

Very true. But one thing I keep bringing up in these "Hillary Can't Win" threads is that she enjoys the same advantage GW had going into 2000. Namely, her last name. Who was Bush before 2000? Some undistinguished Governor somewhere. But his last name made him into the guy to beat. It's brand identity, and it's a hugely powerful factor even if she wasn't already poised to take advantage of it.

And she clearly is poised for it. A sitting Senator from a big state with name recognition and already been through two winning Presidental campaigns, plus the number of young women who will come out and vote for the first time, and how much cash she already has and her ability to raise more. How many candidates can you name that had a spouse that was their equal in fundraising attractability?

There's no denying that she's still got some high negatives, even from liberals like me. There are good reasons to oppose her. But, in election analysis, she's still the one to beat.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Who liked Richard Nixon...who thought he was charismatic? Yet he won two terms

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Very true. But one thing I keep bringing up in these "Hillary Can't Win" threads is that she enjoys the same advantage GW had going into 2000. Namely, her last name.

I think you misrepresent the post. If anybody posted she can't win I would say they are dead wrong! Don't let this woman be underestimated by anyone!

Here that Obama?

But she does have a major personality problem and trust problem (well earned) and it will be an uphill battle to overcome that! Obama is the opposite. He is well liked and seems honest enough. But how will he govern? Can he even win? He is a crowd pleaser as young John Kennedy was, but he must define himself more clearly.