Update: By the way, I set this up so you can only vote once. So it should be pretty indicative of how the contributors to the blog feel.
Update II: Looks like an Edwards/Obama ticket for Balloon Juice readers so far.
This post is in: Politics, Site Maintenance
Update: By the way, I set this up so you can only vote once. So it should be pretty indicative of how the contributors to the blog feel.
Update II: Looks like an Edwards/Obama ticket for Balloon Juice readers so far.
Comments are closed.
As of 9:17 PM it looks like a blowout for the Obama/Dodd ticket! WHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOWEEEEE!
Thanks for including Dennis Kucinich in the poll. He tends to get cropped out…
I believe I included all Democrats, right? And Ron Paul, just because I find him interesting. I didn’t think there was enough interest in Republicans to include names.
Well, except for those of us who have a common IP address shared by multiple participants.
Interesting. Very interesting in fact. I could live with an Obama/Edwards ticket if they don’t cut each other up too badly in the next month. I could even live with an Obama/Dodd ticket, though that seems less likely as it brings absolutely nothing to the table in terms of the electoral math. Obama/Biden would be very interesting indeed, and not bad for the math either.
All right, who voted for Gravel?
Oh, come on! I’m sure there would have been a bunch of support for Duncan Hunter!
I just voted for Obama three times…I think there’s a glitch in your poll.
Jason in MO
Voted for Obama, I would like to be able to give more serious consideration to Edwards but since he accepted matching funds from the govt he has probably fatally weakened his position should he be the nominee.
My current choices in order:
#1 & #2 have shown their ability to raise huge sums, this is important
3. Edwards – I voted for Edwards in the primaries in 2004, thought he was a better candidate than Kerry. But I don’t think he has a chance because of the money situation.
you know, i waffled a second on this before voting for obama. i like edwards, and have since the last go-round, and i’m pleasantly surprised at the level of support for him, though it makes sense given the general vibe of the balloon-juice. i think the only thing that makes me pull the virtual lever for obama is the sort of meta-style mumbo-jumbo that surrounds his candidacy; that he’d be the first black president, that he could put a new face not only on the american administration but also the electorate. it would sure tell the world something if the same voting populace that gave us all two terms of george w. bush could follow him with such an opposite sort of fellow. i’m definitely pro-edwards, and in terms of actual concrete actualizable policy proposals he’s got them all beat to shit, but i’m a little tired of white guys with southern accents running the show. still, i’d vote for him over any of the others, except for obama.
I think I was able to vote for Edwards an additional two times (to counterweight The Pirate’s 3 votes for Obama plus just to see if the counter went up for me).
Sorry for freeping your poll.
I’d like to remind the 9% that voted for Hillary, about the irrational hatred Republicans hold towards Hillary. They will climb out of their death beds and crawl over broken glass just to vote against Hillary.
Nominating Hillary is the only shot Republicans have at winning the Presidency, and that’s the last thing this country needs right now.
I think there is a glitch in your ability to participate honestly in polls.
No, the Republicans won’t crawl out of their graves to do anything. Clinton, if she gets the nod, will win the presidency going away, just like Biden, Dodd, Edwards, or Obama would. (Omission of Dennis and Mike intentional.) They’ll all have coattails, and they’ll all do vast harm to the current republican alignment.
I vacillate between Edwards and Dodd. Obama lost me when he showed he isn’t at all serious about having a reasonable policy apparatus–i.e. his unmitigated nonsense on Social Security and national health insurance–and started talking as though he’s serious about bipartisanship in an era of batshit crazy Republicans. Clinton’s a conservative cheap shot artist who I’d be perfectly happy with as the nominee for the relatively right wing party in a two party system but who just can’t be reconciled with a center to center-left sensibility, much less actual liberalism. That leaves me voting for Edwards if he has a chance and Dodd, in recognition of the FISA fight, if it comes down to Obama v. Clinton, neither of whom I can vote for.
I’m not even worrying about the general election, of course, because as a New Yorker the electoral college effectively completely disenfranchises me in the general Presidential election.
So Ron Paul isn’t “Some Republican”? …Well I guess that is pretty much the gist of him. Go Obama!
You still should’ve put up the GOP candidates. It’ll be interesting to see the split along religious nut/man-crush/authoritarian lines.
I have one very serious reason for voting for Hillary, although I much prefer Edwards and Obama. The Republicans have made such a mess of the federal government — from the Justice Department to EPA to FEMA and god knows what else we’ll find out about in the months to come — that it will take someone with real experience in the highest levels of the government to make them functional again. Of all the candidates, only Clinton has that kind of day-to-day knowledge of the way the government functions. It’s broke and they gotta fix it.
Yeah, a smart and committed novice like Obama could, with a lot of help, do it too. But it would take him longer to learn the ropes than it would take Hillary, who has the master rope-puller at her side.
No, Ron Paul is an evolution-denying bigot with close associations to various fringe “militia” groups. He’s not just “some” Republican; if Huckabee is the Republican Frankenstein’s monster, then Paul is their Bride of Frankenstein.
The infamous Liberal Mirror of the much-maligned I’ll-vote-for-anyone-as-long-as-he’s-a-white-Xtian-male “Joe Sixpak” stereotype. I’d call troll, except I know too many actual Liberals who say stuff like this with no idea of the irony.
For what it’s worth, Peggy “St. Ronnie’s Orange Pompador Brought Down the Berlin Wall” Noonan just gummed Edwards’ ankles as the only *unserious* candidate, because “we” can’t make America a laughingstock by electing a guy caught combing his hair on a Repub attack video. This officially makes John Edwards the Democratic candidate the Republicans are most afraid of running against.
You vastly underestimate the hatred of the Right for the Clinton brand. At least as I see it. But I’m a spooftrool, what do I know?
For what it’s worth, HRC’s Progressive Punch Rating is 16th in the Senate, further left than Biden, Dodd, or, yes, even Obama. (Obama’s in second, at 24th in the Senate.)
Well, he’s sort of like the Republican party taken to it’s illogical extreme. He takes “states’ rights” to an extreme where people have no rights at all under the Bill of Rights, which exists only as a limitation on federal power. He takes libertopian piffle to a new level. He’s at least as theocratic as the Huckster, so long as it’s the states imposing theocracy. And the only reason he’s anti-war is because he’s wrapped around the far end of American exceptionalism to where an imperial drive turns into a drive to isolate the U.S. from lesser peoples.
For fucks sake! Go to the great orange satan if you want Dem Primary Flame Wars.
Take Ron Paul off the poll. He’s straight up and correct with his views on foreign policy. But he’s been drowning in Grandpa’s medicine when it comes to domestic policy and would do more damage to our present state than good.
Huhwah? I don’t get why the Republican choices are “Some Republican” and The Paulitic.
I didn’t say Hillary won’t win, I said it gives the Repubs their best shot at winning.
I’m just repeating what they’ve been saying all these years. They hate her and it will unite them like no other candidate. Pat Buchanan just said something to that effect the other day.
If Hillary becomes the nominee, and wins the Presidency, I don’t think she can get more than 52% of the popular vote.
I like your scenario, I just don’t see it happening with Hillary.
I’m for Edwards first, Dodd second. Hillary and Obama are both too right-wing for me, and Edwards with his economic populism speaks to my concerns. Dodd does the same on Constitutional issues.
I just voted for Obama. I’m not sure why. Usually I say I like Dodd because he gets the “stand up to Bush” thing, or Edwards because he’s the red-meat-tossing class warrior. But there I am, pulling the lever for Obama.
Not really sure why, but the gut says Obama.
Since New York State re-elected Hillary with 67%, does that mean New York has very few Republicans with “irrational hatred […] towards Hillary” or that they failed to ” climb out of their death beds” to vote against her?
Hillary and Obama too right wing? They’re the furthest *left* of the candidates on the stage with the exception of Kucinich.
The Other Steve
Edwards problem is he’s just spewing bullshit that he doesn’t believe. When a candidate doesn’t really know what they stand for, they’re easy targets for the opposition.
Clinton’s problem is she’ll unite the GOP. Now, I suspect they’ll unite with pitchforks and torches and really look stupid. I’m still concerned. On the other hand, it’d be a nice poke in the eye.
I’m most impressed with Obama, just from the standpoint that he seems to not generate really viscious opposition. Even the smears they use against him, just seem to fall to the ground like conspiracy theories. I might be wrong, but I’m inclined to have hope.
so I’m going with Obama.
Paul/Kucinich in ’08 — my other alien drives a UFO!
Just my opinion, of course, but Hillary: hawkish, and Obama: too overtly Christian.
But to be clear, I would willingly support either of them in the general election over any of the Republican candidates. In a primary though, I vote my values.
Eh, I don’t really buy it. Hillary Derangement Syndrome fatigue has to set in at some point, doesn’t it? I don’t like her any more than the next liberal likes her, but, whatever her faults, she isn’t an ogre, there’s no new dirt left to dig up on her, and the old dirt is particularly old and particularly silly even by modern political standards.
Hillary ended up looking quite good in the New York senatorial elections, and I think the same will happen in this election if she’s the Democratic nominee. She’ll come off looking far better than whoever the Republican candidate is, and the inevitable mindless HDS ads will just drive any undecideds her way when she doesn’t live down to expectations of being a baby eater.
I like Barack. People chide him for lack of experience, but what we need is a new perspective. We need someone can listen to and understand the elders, but someone who is familiar with the advantages and pitfalls of what we’ve got in the 21st century.
Maybe I’m being misled, or I’m an age bigot, but it seems to me that Barack is an icon of change in a land that desperately needs it.
Besides, he was a contrarian in 2003, which tells me he’s better than the pandering wife of an ex-president or an ambulance chaser.
I’m not convinced Obama is a better choice by this criteria He’s made a few mistakes that make me wonder what he’ll be like in the general election, once the Republicans start attacking the nominee in earnest. Whoever we Democrats nominate is going to be the most horrible liberal person we could ever have picked, once the nominating process is over. A policy wonk like Gore became a serial liar. A Vietnam veteran like Kerry became someone who’s wounds were self-inflicted. Whoever is nominated is going to be slimed, and they’d better know how to respond. I’m fairly confident Hillary Clinton does.
Uh, no. Really, really no. The Political Compass seems to have this about right to me, with Clinton and Obama distinctly more conservative than Edwards, and with Dodd about the same as Obama except for issues of constitutionalism and government structure that the Compass doesn’t really measure, on which Dodd is far better than Obama.
Hillary and Obama are both comfortably center-right candidates.
The Other Steve
I agree with Rick Taylor.
The Other Steve
Obviously this isn’t taking Edwards Senate record into account.
It’s a classic example of the “Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?” thing. The ratings I put up are on the basis of votes, which are a far better predictor of future positions than anything else.
Sorry. It sucks being a part of the reality based community sometimes, but…hey, them’s the breaks.
When Obama wins the nomination, I look forward to Hillary advising him on how to respond to the attacks. ;-)
Where do I put in my order for the T-shirt?
If I could actually pick the president, it’d be Kucinich, though I know he’d have no chance to win the election, as he’s an actual liberal. If I could only pick the Democratic candidate who’d be running against whoever the Repubs chose, it’d be Edwards (with Obama as his running mate). Hillary is way too conservative for my tastes, and it seems nearly as many liberals as conservatives distrust her.
It means she was running against a piece of S#!t.
And which plausible Republican presidential nominee isn’t a piece of shit? You can even expand that question to include implausible nominees if you’d like.
As faar as I can tell, McCain is the only one who has a chance of coming off as both genuine and not completely off his rocker, and that’s only because our complicit press has always had a major collective hard-on for McCain, who is, in fact, off his rocker.
Umm. Of course Hillary walked away with it in NY. have you forgotten this? Are you counting on McCain to self destruct?
I’m not saying any Republican presidential hopefully is not a piece of shit. It’s just that Clinton is not running against the Republicans right now. She’s up against some tough Democratic opposition. And as for McCain, he’s the only Republican candidate who has any character.
The Other Steve
You think he won’t?
The Other Steve replies to
Political Compass [has] Clinton and Obama distinctly more conservative than Edwards with Obviously this isn’t taking Edwards Senate record into account.
Yes, this is exactly it. Sometime after running an anemic and soporofic general election campaign in 2004 (he might as well have mailed in his performance in the veep debate), Edwards decided to claim he’d become what I’ve seen elsewhere described as ‘some sort of Progressive Superhero’. Edwards has never in his professional life actually worked for any of the causes he now claims to alone champion, and especially not in the Senate. His most fervent backers condemn the slightest signs of heterodoxy (even merely of tone) from candidates other than Edwards, and yet they don’t seem to notice that, when he had a chance to matter in the Senate and in 2004, Edwards was not interested.
It just means there weren’t that many republicans registered to vote against her. But I’m not from New York. So feel free to flame away.
No, he won’t.
I can’t imagine he will. He seems like a pretty stable guy. I sure hope one of the nutters gets the nomination. McCain’s the only one of the lot who worries me.
Yeah. He’s not going to be the nominee, so he’s not going to have a chance to self destruct.
Debatable. However I think it’s pretty clear that McCain is the Republican most likely to inspire a third party run by a candidate who will siphon off Republican votes. Large chunks of the Republican base really hate McCain, essentially as much and as irrationally as they hate Clinton.
He’ll be the nominee. What do you want to bet he’s everyone’s second choice?
Run down the reasons why so-and-so can’t get the nomination. The moneycons hate Huckabee’s guts. Romney’s a big fake and nobody believes he’s a real conservative. Giuliani’s self-destructing from his corruption issues and they’d never have nominated a thrice-married cross-dressing serial philanderer anyway, even though he tosses them all that tasty red meat they love so much.
And McCain can’t win because…of campaign finance reform? What’s the deal-breaker here, seriously? How does he NOT win it?
McCain won’t win because he’s *out of money*. Period. End of banana. He will never be competitive in the Feb 5 states because he won’t be able to muster enough dough to run there.
And remember, the Republican primaries are almost universally winner take all — the top candidate gets all the delegates. McCain will not win a single state, ever, and will not get the nomination.
Can I write in Tina Fey?
Update: By the way, I set this up so you can only vote once.
It’s still early and the poll hasn’t been link-jacked by RP supporters on Digg yet. By tomorrow he’ll have won this poll by a landslide.
Wasn’t aware that McCain was out of dough, but that’s good news. Any risk that he’ll win Iowa and then suddenly find himself swimming in cash from new donors? That’s the CW about what happens when you win an early primary.
I see a lot of support for Edwards, which always surprises me. He has always seemed the Dem version of Mitt Romney to me, a bit too much snake oil salesman about him. I think he would have little chance of beating any of the top 3 Republicans (well, maybe Huckabee). I don’t mean to insult his supporters, I’m just explaining my statement, as a fairly long-time observer of his campaigns.
I don’t think Hillary is nearly the Democratic albatross some do, but I’ll certainly agree her negatives are dangerously high, and it’s difficult to believe those who would “crawl out of their graves” (and they do seem to exist in large numbers) to oppose her will ever change their minds. But she’s proved to be an exceptionally competent politician, and also would probably manage to draw enough independent support to win. I think Hillary would be a good president from that POV – kind of getting back to the baseline performance I expect from any president – competency at the level the US must have and project at home and abroad. Still, she represents polarized politics, which we just don’t need, and may not survive much longer. I don’t blame her for that – Given the constant and stunningly nasty efforts (record breaking god-awfulness, really) of the dark side of the Republican Party hit machine from ’92 through ’99, she’s the poster child victim of it, not the reason for it, at least to me.
But if there’s one thing the JFK and Reagan presidencies taught me, and which I don’t believe Hillary or Edwards possess in great quantity (though Hillary, at her best approaches it) is that the job is best filled by someone who can inspire us as a nation. In the end I believe Obama is the only person running with that ability, and who can garner enough independant and disaffected Republican support to win, as well as the smarts to play day-to-day politics to win among those who won’t always agree once elected.
He’s toast in Iowa, which I expect will go for Huckabee, and he’s a blackened hulk in New Hampshire, which will go for Romney. (Remember, NH is a winner take all affair among the Repubs. McCain would have to win to get anything, and he’s solidly in second…where he’ll stay, unless Huckabee bumps him out.)
McCain is McHistory.
I despise McCain because he has assiduously worked to promote Dubya’s agenda while frequently getting credit in the media (which still adores him) for making noises against it – most famously when he ensured the passage of the torture bill by ‘fighting’ the bill and then, once the media had made him the effective lynchstone of the Senators opposing to the bill, McCain agreed to cosmetic alterations, giving Cheney the bill he wanted. And even then McCain got full credit from the media for his alleged stand against torture.
But the thing to note in that passage is all the invocations of ‘the media’ – no matter what he says or does, McCain is a ‘maverick’, and this would help him in November.
To the extent that the Republican base believe he’s a maverick, McCain is less likely to be the nominee. But the base don’t have many alternatives: the weakness of this field is really extraordinary. Everyone seems to have realized that Romney and Thompson are empty suits, and Kerik is killing 9ui11iani. So arguably it’s now McCain and Huckabee, and that means you can’t count McCain out.
Every poll I’ve seen on the matter suggests that Edwards has the best chance of beating the top Republicans, usually by a pretty good margin over Obama and Clinton. While these polls don’t account for financing issues, do you have any other reason to doubt them?
I’d modify that: If McCain *does* get handed a surprise jackpot & goes on to win the nomination, it’ll be the clearest possible sign that the Permanent Repub Party has given up any hope of winning the election, and has therefore anointed The Old Worn Guy as their sacrifical lamb/placeholder. Guiliani, Romney, and even the Arkansas Elmer Gantry are young enough & driven enough to come back in 2012 or 2016. Given his age & (some genuine) frailty, this is McCain’s last shot at the brass ring; in some ways it’s a pity that he destroyed his own best chances by sucking up to Commander Codpiece for the last 7 years.
Any Republican. Lets burn this mother down.
The Other Steve
Edwards has two problems. First he’s taken public funding. Second, he’s just so laughably bad at responding to negative campaigning. The haircut was bad enough, but the theme will be simply that he’s a hypocrite, and it’s going to stick.
As for polls. The ones I have seen show Obama doing the best, so not sure what you are talking about.
The Other Steve
You may be right. But Romney has been trending down in NH, and McCain has been going up. He’s 2nd now, but he was like 5th place only a month or so ago.
We’ll see, I guess. The GOP has a problem in that they have no good candidates, and of those, mcCain is the only one who doesn’t piss off quite as many people.
A few things piqued my interest that I feel inclined to share.
1) I found it amusing that Ron Paul is separated from the rest of the Republicans. I’m taking that as a compliment even if you meant it as an attack. Because I’m that weird.
2) I didn’t participate as this is definitely liberal bias focusing mainly on the Democratic candidates. Nothing wrong with that. At least it let’s me in on how the liberal thinkers here… um…. think.
3) For all the Ron Paul bashing that goes on here, at least one thing pleased my eyes. Hilary at 8%.
4) The most interesting thing I noticed in the poll was seeing Dodd at 12%. Never would’ve guess he’d have that much of a following here… heck, anywhere.
I pulled the lever for Edwards, I can’t stomach Hillary and her faux experience versus her votes, and Obama is a do business the same old way guy, that and bipartisanship with the Republicans is not only stupid, it’s not going to happen. The “middle” R’s are going to get slaughtered in Congressional races and that leaves the nut cases who are safe in their races, bipartisan with whom, exactly? Obama apparently can’t see the need to break the DC mold, Edwards appears to. Blaming him for the 04 K/E performance is silly, he was the VP nomination, Kerry’s guy. Edwards is also the only one of the top contenders with even a smattering of respect for the 2nd Amendment. That counts for something.
I think you may be forgetting the size of New York and it’s variety. Yes, the state is reliably blue in presidential elections, but there’s a lot of disdain north of Westchester for the so-called liberal elites.
Edwards is also the only one of the top contenders with even a smattering of respect for the 2nd Amendment
Umm, to what are you referring? Yes, the Dems, broadly speaking, want regulation of guns. But that’s stuff like background checks, maybe clip sizes or trigger locks. We’re not exactly talking about confiscation and house-to-house searches here. I’d be willing to believe Edwards might have more experience with guns than the rest, but I’d be surprised if he were miles away on gun policy.
I find it interesting that in virtually every on-line political junkie poll I have seen, Edwards does very good.
And so goes the power of the mainstream media.
Political junkies ought to get some respect. We’re the people who actually understand what’s at stake.
Edwards will, of course, get creamed sooner or later. But it ain’t because of his message, his passion, or his politics. It’s because Media Man is threatened by him, just like the rest of the DC establishment.
I can live with Obama or Clinton as the Dem nominee, but Edwards speaks to my poor-ass background the best.
One never forgets what it is like to worry about money in 21st Century America. Because worrying about money includes health care and retirement.
The 2nd Amendment is a waste of breath. We’ll never get rid of guns, and though I don’t own one, I’m thinking hard about it, and don’t care much about the 98% of Americans who own them and handle them responsibly.
With freedom comes responsibility. So it goes with drugs (the illegal ones: LOL), driving privileges, and so on.
Not everyone will handle it well. Welcome to an open, free society.
I’d like to say that this is one of the better primary flame wars that I’ve seen. You guys are fun to read.
Also, I voted Obama. I like Hillary, I like Johnny Boy, but a guy who can bravely say that he will meet with “evil” foreign leaders against the brilliant conventional wisdom of the Washington elites gets my vote.
One other thing: I grew up in blue collar America, and work in white collar America, and have deep roots in both.
Irrational and insane Clinton-hatred is far more deep and broad then the “experts” think.
I find it constantly amazing, in fact, among both groups.
She is the only Dem with a really good chance of losing the general, and I, for one, think she’d be fine, even as my 4th choice.
Now that’s interesting. There’s that sullen wingnut-with-his-panties-in-a-twist pout that we’ve all grown to love, but it’s seasoned with a bit of…cowardice, I guess.
Let’s unpack it. This’ll be fun.
First, there’s that allegation of “liberal bias,” which I can only assume is mapped to a function key on standard-issue republican keyboards. Let me skip past a bunch of mockery and just put a simple question to you, AbVag: Where, exactly, do you see “bias” here?
But the really sweet bit is the “I didn’t participate because…” Were you afraid that your keyboard would deliver a painful electric shock were you to vote for Ron Paul or the catch-all “some republican” option?
Did you feel like the purpose of the poll was to anoint a victor, and that you’d be somehow a “loser” if you voted for a candidate who didn’t win, and you sensed (quite correctly) that this was likely to happen?
Do you feel like you’re investing some of your self-worth when you vote in a poll, and you’re diminished if you fail to vote with the majority?
The poll says a bit, I suppose, about how the liberals here in the room think. Your response, my friend, says truckloads about how you think.
Thank you very much for that answer. I don’t smile and laugh as often as I’d like, and I’m grateful for each time it happens.
I’m voting for the Democrat, whoever that is. I wish Gore were running, but if he was, would he be limited to one term, considering that he was already elected once?
Some Presidents grow in office, some just grow old. Chimpy has grown tiresome.
Agreed. Hating Hillary is a sort of hobby for a lot of Republicans. I was helping my father with an email problem the other day, and I’d estimate that at least 10-15% of his inbox was forwarded Hillary jokes. I think there are a lot of disaffected Republicans who would otherwise stay home on election day but would come out to vote against her. You can’t overlook the politics as entertainment aspect here. I’m a Skins fan, but even when they suck balls I’ll watch them play the Cowboys, just for the fun of rooting against the hated Cowgirls. A lot of Repubs would vote just to try to deny Hillary a victory, or barring that a mandate.
More of an addiction than a hobby.
What it shows is that Republicans in New York are a lot different than they are in the South, Midwest, Northwest and Southwest.
The Grandest Panjandrum
Texas Democrat = New York Republican
Although, I don’t want Ron Paul as my President, he has been important to this election cycle. He is the lone voice on the Republican side talking about the Former Cheerleaders abrogation of the 4th Amendment (FISA Act, Patriot Act) and expansion of Presidential powers (Signing statements, DOJ). For that reason alone he deserves credit for contrasting himself against the Republican field of candidates on these important issues.
In my opinion Rudy is the most dangerous candidate on the right. He proudly supports current policy and promises to give us more of it. Glenn Greenwald has this excellent piece in American Conservative. Its a good summary of Rudy’s fascist instincts.
Whoa! Rudy to the Right of Scalia? Rudy as President is a very frightening and unsettling thought, and one that should be stopped at all cost.
On 9/10/01 his popularity was at a record low. Then on 9/11/01 American needed its Daddy to make it “feel” better. (Liberals and Democrats are often accused of relying on “feelings” to make decisions. The fawning over Rudy and the Former Cheerleader after 9/11 proved to me that so-called Conservatives are just as guilty.) Tragic as the events were that day, the last thing we needed was Rudy and the Former Cheerleader swaggering around like a couple of store-bought faux cowboys.
Most dangerous Republican who still has a shot at the nomination? Methinks it be Rudy.
It means that 33% of New Yawkers hate the Clagina.
Chris Dodd for me. I crashed a buffet and stole his chair so I feel like I owe it to him.
Some have found it to be a lucrative profession.
I clicked Obama. Aside from reasons already stated, I have a vague (and probably naïve) notion that his candidacy would motivate more young people – a voting segment for which Republican strategists traditionaly have had nothing but cynical contempt.
Not really. They’re remarkably alike–and common–once you get out of the City, and they’re more alike in the City than you’d imagine. Hillary ended up doing a lot better upstate, where our Republicans are just like everyone else’s and form a majority of the population, than people who’ve internalized the notion that HDS is incurable would be able to believe. True, she benefited in her first campaign from the opposition of Giuliani and Lazio, but I don’t see any reason to believe that more competent Republican opposition is now on its way.
Once she proves she’s not some sort of sci-fi monster, Clinton does as well among Republicans for whom abortion and homosexuality aren’t the be all and end all of politics as any Democrat can do. Which is, quite frankly, to be expected: she’s a conservative, after all, or at least plays one after triangulating between moderates and the batshit crazy.
Wow, you BJers are just like the rest of America.
You’re going to pick Edwards the safe white guy (SFW); the 33% who say they’re going to vote for Obama will drop to about 10% once they enter the booth. You’ve decided that Hillary is the Queen of evil (again I ask why?????) and the others aren’t worth the fight. So SFW will crack 50% and become the next president
Someone tell me I’m wrong.
Man, I wish I could vote in the U.S. It’d be so refreshing to actually want to vote FOR someone, instead of just picking the lesser of many evils.
We might have an election this spring, and looking at the leaders of the various parties inspires feelings ranging from disdain, to disgust, to “um…who?”
We’re going to be stuck with a minority government for a loooong time, methinks.
what planet do you live on? You assert that the left’s dislike of Hillary is irrational ignoring that most of the left sees Bill’s admin as a failure at best regarding many of their interests. Hillary wants to claim it. Bill and Hillary Clinton are well right of the “center” that existed before his election and you expect the left to give a free pass?
You back your assertions on Obama supporters with what? Your prejudices? Jrg’s support is ephemeral for what reason? I don’t support Obama because he’s do what we’ve alsways done and I don’t want to be there. His race has not squat to do with it, I’ll not vote for or against someone over race or gender, but their politics do count.
Kucinich waves around a pocket copy of the Constitution, well that thing contains the BOR which also contains the 2nd, not negotiable, so nope on Dennis who ought to be my 1st choice.
Chuck, it’s probably a good thing that we’re Democrats separated by a state line.
Then again, I expect that you’ll back whoever comes out of the convention, exactly as I will, so maybe it’s not so important. Realistically, any of the Dems is so much better than any of the Republicans that I will not sit this one out, even if my preferred candidate doesn’t make it out of Iowa, as I expect.
Unless there running in a heavily minority area the winning percentages for minority candidates are usually significantly lower than their polling percentages. Now you may not care about race and you may actually vote your word, however in this country we have a history of that not being true for most voters when it comes to minority candidates (David Dinkins, Jesse Jackson, Obama, Duval Patrick, etc.).
As far as Hillary is concerned, I can understand disagreeing with her policies, however I as stated in my comment and has asked previously on this blog; Why is she considered the Queen of Evil? What has she done to make some democrats revile her almost as much as republicans (and I do not consider DINOs such as John a true democrat).
I’ll ask you the same question I’ve asked John in the past, please list the reasons you hate the Clintons. Please, seperate the reasons between the two of them and also by policy vs. personal. Go on, give me the reasons, I bet most them are republican talking points about her personality; things like her “grating laughter” and her “over weening ambition”, etc., etc. etc. You’ll probably have a few policy differences, which as Demimondian said should not enough to keep me or you from voting for her or any other democrat, particularly when compared to the republicans, so why the hatred. This post by AnnArborBlue on Daily Kos sums up my feelings exactly.
Forgot the link.
You’re throwing sand in your own eyes by imagining that those of us who prefer other Democrats to Clinton must necessarily “hate” her. I doubt you’ll be able to do it, but if you were to throw that piece of mental baggage overboard you’d be better able to understand the situation.
Some Reasons Why I’d Prefer Obama, Edwards, or Dodd to Clinton:
– Famed union-buster Mark Penn is a trusted advisor. This all by itself is enough to push her to the back of the list.
– She was wrong on Iraq back in the day, and hasn’t yet come to grips with the fact that her mistake went beyond trusting a stupid president.
– She voted for Kyl-Lieberman. She’s wrong on Iran too.
– She called Barack Obama a drug dealer. Supremely scummy behavior, and IMO a bit of transparent race-baiting.
– I don’t sense much genuine outrage on her part about Bush’s executive-branch power grabs. My gut tells me that she’ll be less interested in rolling back these powers than in using them herself.
Please note the absence from this list of personal traits like her laugh or her “over weening[sic] ambition.” Overweening ambition is factory equipment on presidential candidate models, and I don’t have any opinions about her laugh. I find her to be generally likeable, and I loved President Clinton and find that some of the warmth of that affection still attaches to Hillary.
Should she win the nomination I’ll happily support her, and I’ll be delighted when she wins the general. I think she’ll be an outstanding president. She’s not my first choice among the Dems, but that’s only because we’re fielding an exceptionally strong bunch this year. It’s an embarassment of riches, really.
Hillary Clinton voted for the War. Call me a single-issue voter, but that’s enough to get me to vote for Obama.
If you’ve been following politics over the last few years then you will have surely noticed a sizable portion (maybe 25%) of the democratic base
hateshas a very, very strong dislike for Mrs. Clinton. And its funny because as with you they all still seem to like her husband whose policies are very similar to hers. However, as with you Laertes, I will gladly vote for any democrat who wins the nomination she just happens to be my first choice.
– She has a scummy adviser, boo hoo. After what she and her husband and the democratic party has put up with from the republicans since 1992, fuck scummy I want asshole advisers.
– I agree, she was wrong on Iraq, the most important decision of our generation. However, the next biggest decision is what do we do now about Iraq and who is most qualified to do it? I think she is the best person for the job.
– As with most of the democratic caucus she is way too cautious in standing up to the neo-cons. Her vote on Kyl-Liberman was her protecting herself from the push back from that wing of the party/country. And if you don’t believe me when I say party, see this from a democrat.
– 1st, she did not call Obama a drug dealer, one of her endorsers did. Don’t assign things to her that others have said leave that to the republicans.
2nd, This a classic republican talking point to divide the democrats. Hillary Clinton as a race baiter is a little bit of a stretch, I have seen nothing in her past to justify this remark.
3rd, Believe me, as an African American in this country, he has already been called worst and will be called much worst things by the republicans if he happens to be democratic nominee. I don’t think he is as offended as you seem to think he should be and if he is then he is way to sensitive for this race.
– It is the job of the people to be offended at anyones power grab on our Constitution, not Congress, not the President or the future hope to be President, the people. We allowed a two bit failed at everything frat boy to become the greatest menace to our Constitution since the civil war. And if I felt she could not “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” — Article II, Section 1, clause 8 I would not vote for her.
If the presidency comes down to a choice between Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton does that mean you’re going to vote for Ron Paul? Dude, don’t get caught up on a single issue, single issue voting has given us 8 yrs. of Buss II (abortion). The differences in Florida and then Ohio were small enough where single issue voters probably made the difference.
The war may be your most important issue but please don’t tell me its your only one.
I’m fine with advisers who know how to fight mean. I don’t blame her for being tight with James Carville, for instance.
But Mark Penn isn’t just a street-fighter. He’s a goddamn union-buster. I don’t know how else to put it, but that’s just absolutely unacceptable. They’re sufficiently tight that we can assume he’ll have a prominent place in her administration. A union-buster. Jesus Christ.
And yes, she called him a Drug Dealer. Maybe she had one of her people do it for her, ran up that evil trial balloon, and then dumped the guy when it didn’t go well, but let’s not pretend that she isn’t in charge. And I frankly don’t care how offended Obama is or isn’t. That Hillary Clinton sent one of her people out to call Obama a Drug Dealer counts against her. It’s not a deal-breaker. It doesn’t make her a Republican. But it’s bad, and if you want to know why she’s not my first choice, that kind of shit is one of the reasons.
Reagan wasn’t a bigot, but he wasn’t above appeals to bigotry. That counts against him, and Hillary doesn’t get a pass just because she’s a Democrat.
I said I’d vote for Obama, not that I’d vote for Paul, geez. If I could pick out of the Democratic candidates, I’d pick Obama- seeing how the poll that started this whole thread was primarily between Dem candidates, I assumed that was the question. There’s a world of difference between disagreeing with Hillary on the War and several other issues and so preferring that some other person gets the Democratic nomination, and being willing to vote in the general for Ron freedom-from-government-unless-you’re-female Paul. I think most Democrats who you think are rabidly anti-Hillary will still vote for her over the batshit crazy Republicans out there, in the general election. That doesn’t mean you can’t prefer another Democrat in the primaries, though.
If you think that everybody who thinks differently from you is motivated with bigotry then you’re a moron. Don’t thank me, I offer this kind of constructive criticism for free.
I didn’t vote. I couldn’t find a name on your personal list. I guess you are a convenient type of poller. What a shame, I find that I would have to just give one choice on my menu. You offer several variaties of shit, but forgot to mention they all taste the same.
Thank you for the constructive criticism, I will place the same value upon it that you have (free = ain’t worth shit).
Fascinating poll. I voted for Kucinich but Edwards would be an extremely strong second choice. As an ex trial lawyer, the guy seems like he’d have the balls to take on the thugs and socioapths and lunatics arrayed against the bottom 80% of the American people. Remember: these are the guys who dreamed up the Swift Boat smear. These people will try anything to retain power. Obama’s brand of bipartisanship won’t cut it. We’re going to need stun guns, chemical mace and grappling hooks to get these lunatics (like Wiliam Kristol) out of positions of power. They won’t go quietly.