Well if you're right and she wins, then the populace has a short memory and are dumber than I perceived. However, most folks are tired of the current administration enough to probably look past his downfalls.
Link to article-there is a video of discussion but couldn't find the embed to post it directly. Noonan asserted "Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton" is a "sickness" that "is giving so many people pause" Summary: Discussing "dynasticism" on NBC's Meet the Press, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan asserted that "this Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton" is a "sickness" that "is giving so many people pause." But when asked how they felt about members of the Bush and Clinton families holding the presidency for nearly 20 years, 50 percent of respondents in a recent New York Times/CBS News poll said it "doesn't really make much difference." On the January 20 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, during a discussion on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and the question of political dynasties, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan asserted that "this Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton" is a "sickness" that "is giving so many people pause." Noonan further claimed: "as some people come forward and endorse, on the Democratic side, Mrs. Clinton, they must be thinking, stop the dynasty." According to a January 9-12 New York Times/CBS News poll, 50 percent of respondents said it "doesn't really make much difference" when asked how they "feel about members of these two families [the Bushes and Clintons] holding the presidency for nearly 20 years." Thirty-eight percent responded that it is a "bad thing," and 5 percent said it is a "good thing." The Times/CBS poll asked: Since 1989, a member of the Bush or Clinton family has been President of the United States. How do you feel about members of these two families holding the presidency for nearly 20 years -- it is a good thing for the country, because the individuals in these families have a lot of experience in government and politics, or it is a bad thing for the country, because it concentrates too much power among a small group of people, or it doesn't really make much difference, because each election is about individuals, not families? A January 20 write-up on the poll question in the Times' The Caucus blog reported: "According to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, most [voters] are indifferent, saying each election is about individuals and not families ... Democratic primary voters were divided on whether it is bad or makes no difference. But Democrats who support Mrs. Clinton's nomination are more likely to say it makes no difference." Additionally, a July 27-30, 2007, NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll asked: "If Hillary Clinton was elected president, some people say this would be a problem because it would mean at least twenty-four years of having a member of the Clinton family or the Bush family as president. Is this a serious consideration for you, not much of a consideration, or not a consideration for you at all?" The poll found that 54 percent of respondents said it would be "not a consideration at all," with another 20 percent responding that it would be "not much of a consideration." Polling also indicates that voters are comfortable with former President Bill Clinton being back in the White House. As Talking Points Memo reporter-blogger Greg Sargent noted on November 15, 2007, "[V]oters ... have told pollsters again and again and again that they are comfortable with" the prospect of Bill Clinton being back in the White House, and see it "as either a non-issue or a positive." Indeed, Media Matters for America has documented several 2007 polls in which a majority of respondents stated that Bill Clinton is an asset to Hillary Clinton's campaign and would have a positive effect on a Hillary Clinton administration: A September 27-30, 2007, Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 60 percent of respondents said they "personally feel comfortable ... with the idea of Bill Clinton back in the White House." A September 25-26, 2007, Fox News poll found that 53 percent of respondents thought that of the spouses of seven presidential candidates (including both Democrats and Republicans), Bill Clinton "would help [his] spouse the most to win the White House." An April 10-12, 2007, CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that 60 percent of respondents thought Bill Clinton would have a "positive effect" on a Hillary Clinton administration. A March 23-25, 2007, Gallup poll found that 70 percent of respondents thought Bill Clinton would do "more good than harm" for Hillary Clinton's campaign. A February 22-25, 2007, Gallup poll found that 70 percent of respondents thought Bill Clinton would be "mostly helpful ... to her [Hillary Clinton's] presidency." The January 9-12 Times/CBS poll found that, among Democratic primary voters, 39 percent of respondents said that "Bill Clinton's involvement in Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign" would make them more likely to support Hillary Clinton, 13 percent said it would make them less likely to support her, and 47 percent said it would make no difference. From the January 20 edition of NBC's Meet the Press: DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN (presidential historian): And Hillary, I think, is saying she understands the role of inspiration; she's talked about that and the role of somehow being able to mobilize the people. But she says you got to be able to manage on day one. And I don't think that he [Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)] was really saying by saying he had a disorderly desk that he was going to be a Bush-like CEO president, but she was able to move right in. I mean, that was very quick on her part to change that level of the topic to that conversation. TOM BROKAW (former NBC Nightly News anchor, to Meet the Press host Tim Russert): I think she's helped as well, Tim, by the perceived feeling in this country that President Bush has been a disaster in terms of managing the presidency. That's a lesson that everybody wakes up with every morning at this point. GOODWIN: Competence. BROKAW: Republicans and Democrats alike. I have never heard as many Republicans -- gold-star, born and bred Republicans -- so unhappy with the management of this country by a Republican president now. NOONAN: Totally true. BROKAW: And I think that when she plays the competence card and the experience card, it's measured against that. GOODWIN: Right. BROKAW: We don't want to go back into an unknown again. Here is somebody who does know what she's doing. That does pop up in the polls. But the counterweight to it, of course, is still not entirely comfortable with her. I have questions about her character and concern about whether she can win. NOONAN: May I say, dynasticism is part of this, too? GOODWIN: Oh, yes. NOONAN: We haven't mentioned it, but there is this Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton -- I've called it a sickness. It is an odd way for a great democracy to comport itself, in this strange -- we have dynasties now backed by lobbyists, backed by machines and machinery. The fact that America is doing this is giving so many people pause. It is unlike us. And I cannot help but think, as some people come forward and endorse, on the Democratic side, Mrs. Clinton, they must be thinking, stop the dynasty. I know Republicans are thinking, stop the dynasties. BROKAW: But on NBC, you'd be happy with Russert, Brokaw, Russert, Brokaw. That would be OK? NOONAN: Forever, Tom. Forever. The January 20 post on The Caucus in its entirety: Americans have lived with either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House since 1989. And that pattern will continue if Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York captures the Democratic nomination and goes on to win the presidency. How do voters feel about that? According to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, most are indifferent, saying each election is about individuals and not families. But the national survey found that about a third of all voters -- and similarly, a third of all Republican primary voters -- consider the pattern bad for the country, because it concentrates too much power among a small group of people. Democratic primary voters were divided on whether it is bad or makes no difference. But Democrats who support Mrs. Clinton's nomination are more likely to say it makes no difference. The telephone poll was conducted Jan. 9-12 with 1,061 registered voters.
I am still sticking to my guns and will not vote between the choice of evils. I intend to cast my vote for Ron Paul, period. I don't care for which devil actually gets elected; I stand my ground. As for stock-piling weapons....I have enough to last me my life time and many more than my life expectancy. Remember the adage "if it is time to bury them, it is time to dig them up!"
Im afraid your probably right but maybe the actual votes are at least known to 'them' and can serve to make them a little nervous.
Someone should make this their signature line. It is one of the best quotes I have read since the last one that became my signature line. I guess I can have two.
Obama, Romney lead in California on Super Tuesday Tue Feb 5, 2008 6:19am EST By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama surged to a big lead over Hillary Clinton in California hours before "Super Tuesday" voting began in 24 states, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Tuesday. In the Republican race, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney held a 7-point advantage on Arizona Sen. John McCain in California, while McCain added to commanding double-digit leads in New York and New Jersey. On a sprawling day of coast-to-coast voting, the biggest ever in a U.S. primary race, the U.S. presidential contenders in both parties were fighting to win a huge cache of delegates to this summer's nominating conventions. In California, which alone provides more than one-fifth of the Democratic delegates needed for the nomination, Obama led Clinton by 49 percent to 36 percent, the poll found. The margin of error was 3.3 percentage points. Clinton pulled into a 5-point lead in New Jersey, 46 percent to 41 percent, after being tied on Monday. Obama held a 45 percent to 42 percent edge on Clinton in Missouri. Both polls had a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points. Obama had a 20-point edge in Georgia, aided by a more than 3-to-1 lead among black voters. Obama, an Illinois senator, and Clinton, a New York senator, are in a hard-fought battle for the Democratic presidential nomination and split the first four significant contests. "There is clear Obama momentum in California," pollster John Zogby said. "But in New Jersey, things seemed to swing in favor of Clinton, and Missouri was very mixed." In the Republican race, Romney maintained a stable 40 percent to 33 percent lead on McCain in California, fueled by heavy support in the southern part of the state and among self-described conservatives. The margin of error was 3.4 percentage points. DASH TO CALIFORNIA Both Romney and McCain made last-minute changes to their campaign schedules to fly to California for late appearances. A Romney win there could be his last hope of blunting McCain's growing momentum in other states. McCain held a 26-point edge on Romney in New York and a 29-point advantage in New Jersey as he pushed for a convincing triumph that could knock Romney out of the race to be the Republican candidate in November's presidential election. McCain held a narrow 34 percent to 27 percent lead over former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in Missouri, with Romney running third at 25 percent. The margin of error was 3.4 percentage points. "It looks like a big day for McCain with Romney making a last stand in California," Zogby said. The two launched hard-hitting attack ads on Monday questioning each other's conservative credentials before the vote. McCain won the last two contests, in South Carolina and Florida, to seize the front-runner's slot in a hard-fought Republican race despite qualms among some conservatives about his views on taxes, immigration and campaign finance. More than half of the total Democratic delegates and about 40 percent of the Republican delegates are up for grabs on Tuesday. The Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby rolling tracking poll surveyed presidential races in both parties in California, New Jersey and Missouri. The polls also looked at the Republican race in New York and the Democratic race in Georgia. The rolling polls were taken Saturday through Monday, except for the California survey, which was a two-day poll on Sunday and Monday. In a rolling poll, the most recent day's results are added while the oldest day's results are dropped in order to track changing momentum.
So just thinkin here but since Huckabee and Paul are the only two who are pledging to do somthing about the IRS what about a Huckabee/ Paul ticket? Now that is assuming that Huckabee gets most of the remaining delegates but what do you think? Or do you think that Paul won't be a VP to anyone? Just looking and asking. Take care Be safe Poacher.
I do not think Ron would play second fiddle. But I've been wrong before. (The other way around makes a lot more sense to me.)
Well, looks even more likely now, just wasnt sure who would be on top. <table class="tborder" id="post69377" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="1" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="thead" id="currentPost"> 01-31-2008, 02:48 AM </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt2" style="padding: 0px;"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="6" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2"></td> <td nowrap="nowrap"> monkeyman <script type="text/javascript"> vbmenu_register("postmenu_69377", true); </script> Moderator </td> <td width="100%"> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" valign="top"> Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: west central MO Posts: 4,302 Blog Entries: 23 </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt1" id="td_post_69377"> <!-- message, attachments, sig --> Re: Vote: Who will be the next President <hr style="color: rgb(209, 209, 225);" size="1"> I figure we wil get a Dem in ofice and while I would figure PROBABLY Hilldabeast on top, I can see a Hitlery/Osama ticket in the final race possible reversed. Ive already decided that regardless of how the primaries are announced (I figure the counters rather than the voters will decide it even there) that I will be voteing RP in primaries and general regardless simply because Im tired of voteing FOR evil simply because I figure the other choice is worse and he is the only candidate I can vote FOR without haveing to justify him as 'less evil' to keep from pukeing. Even IF the votes were to actualy be counted honestly I figure Hillary would be most likely to get it (though RP SURE would not be showing the numbers claimed) simply because such a huge portion of people vote on election day just as this poll is set up 'who do you think WILL win' rather than 'who do you WANT in office'. For proof just look at what has been the number 1 reason people give why not to support RP 'I like him and he sounds great but he cant win'. People sem to think elections now days is to gues the winner rather than express your opinion or choice. __________________ </td></tr></tbody></table>
I do not understand are we voting for who will most likely be the next president or are we voting for who we would like to be the next president?
The thread is on who we THINK WILL be president but the election is supposed to be who you WANT to be president that may be what was confuseing from my post.
I voted for Ron Paul because he's the man and besides this board is the only election the Neocons will let him win. Freakin Neotards!
I hate to bring this thread back, BUT..... It's a given... Bought and paid for, it will be the ILLUSTRIOUS MC CAIN. I doubt that Barack Obama would ever make it to the swearing in, this country is still divided over race issues. However, "IF", by any chance Obama would for some "reason" drop out or be unable to continue, you know "Hilly", would be right there in less than a heart beat! And you know what that means! Hasta la vista Mc Cain. I hate politics and politicians...... Since we are all going to electronic voting machines, (rigged of course), "DID I SAY THAT OUT LOUD"? There is no way to write in a name, or I'd vote for the green party...... KERMIT the FROG!!! Bill
I still figure it will be Obama and currently the polls agree. I also am still not counting Hillary out as his running mate since she would sinch his win. I also tend to think that who ever his running mate is will most likely fill his post before the end of his term.
