Yeah, but if you’re going to state with a straight face that some meaningful percentage of women will cross party lines just to vote for a woman, by that same token, some meaningful percentage of women must have crossed lines in 1984 just to vote for a woman. Given how shellacked Mondale was by Reagan, I assert that the percentage of women willing to cross party lines just to vote for a woman is far too small to make the 3-5% difference you’d need to switch Florida.
As for your fantasies that the Republicans stole the election- I’d point out to you that all you have for cites are five “progressive” newspapers.
Cite #1 contains just as many explanations for why the numbers could be right as it does dubious allegations that the numbers were hacked.
Cite #2 claims a discrepancy, and lays it all at the feet of a Democrat in charge of the county.
Cite #3 firmly states “Those who say [that there was fraud]–at this point–are relying more on supposition than evidence.”
Cite #4 states “But suspicion needs reality checks” and debunks two claims of fraud.
Cite #5 calls Dick Morris, a major supporter and advisor to President Clinton “A Republican pollster”; then raises the same allegations that Cite #1 also provided reasonable explanations for.
Go ahead and claim that “you’re not entirely convinced”. It just means that you’re willing to hold desperately onto specious rumors and innuendo that bolsters what you want to believe it true.
I think you are living in a different age…the world (even the South!!) has moved on. I guess we’ll find out in '08 though IF Rice runs. Personally, depending on how well (or poorly) this next 4 years goes I think there is a good chance she will toss her hat in the ring. Not sure I’ll vote for her myself…but that has zero to do with her being either a woman or black.
Definitely agree. No idea what the dynamic is going to be for either party 4 years from now. We could all be whistling in the dark and the Dems could decide to run someone not even remotely on the radar atm…and the Pubs could be the same.
Hillary isn’t “hateful”; she’s hated, although not by me as I merely detest her. I reserve hate for the likes of Bin Laden, Zarqawi and Hussein, to name a few. However, whenever someone tells you why she is so widely disliked in this country, you merely argue with them rather than acknowledging what they are telling you. Perhaps you’d understand better if you were more interested in listening to the reasons why people don’t like her instead of arguing with those who try to explain it to you.
This is pure right-wing talking point nonsense. The facts on the ground point to systematic voter disenfranchisement, to the degree that the outcome in certain states is in question… Mainstream media cites or not. Unless you’re calling out those cites as liars or fabricators. Prepared to do that?
And this is pure left-wing Dem porn. I’ve seen no real hard evidence of systematic voter disenfranchisement…certainly nothing to indicate that hundreds of thousands of voters were disenfranchised in favor of Bush in Florida (note, I make no claims that SOME voters may have been disenfranchised…only that there is no evidence, that I’ve seen anyway, of MASSIVE AND SYSTEMATIC DISENFRANCHISMENT).
You want to make incredible claims, you need to back them up with good, solid evidence from non-biased sources…thats GOOD and SOLID evidence from UNBIASED sources. I’ve seen no such evidence from unbiased sources…only from left-wing foam sites. At least, thats all I’ve ever seen presented in the myriad threads dealing with this subject since the election. Feel free to present your evidence that massive and systematic voter disenfranchisement occured…but be prepared to have it ignored if you use the same old tired left-wing porn sites.
A few counties in Florida had very high percentages vote for Bush even though they are mostly registered Democrat. They voted for Bush in number analagous to numbers they voted for Bush in 2000. The person in charge of ensuring honest voting is a Democrat who has not made any claim that there was any fraud or error.
A machine in Ohio had a glitch that gave Bush 4000 extra votes. This glitch was discovered and corrected.
Exit polls taken early in the day did not match well with actual results.
From this, you are alledging that a national conspiracy, involving the hacking into of at least a dozen or more seperate computer systems; involving a large number of Republican Party officials, members of the Diebold corporation, and even Democratic Party officials; and acting within the short span of six hours, managed to steal the election without any mainstream newspaper like the Washington Post or New York Times catching a whiff of such fraud.
Please, give me more facts. Show me which counties are suspect, and give me reasons why fraud is more likely to be the answer than any actual voting trend.
Otherwise, let me interest you in confessions written by the true Kennedy assassin. I’ll sell 'em to ya realll cheap.
What you’ve seen and what exists are two different things. No fault of yours, since it hasn’t hit your beloved *mainstream as of yet…
*
I won’t do it here, but I am collecting the evidence, and will post a thread when the time is right (assuming someone else doesn’t beat me to it).
Until then, I just wonder at people who base reality on what hits MSM and when.
As my grandfather said to me, “Do you really trust only your eyes for everything that is true?”
Meanwhile, laugh if you want to. I’ve learned not to mind.
Understandable…I’m doing something similar with the Oil for Food scandal and the UN annaplurabelle. However, you might not want to bring it up until you are ready to pounce with your undeniable evidence…right NOW there simply isn’t anything solid to hang a massive systematic disenfranchisment on except left-wing porn sites. Same goes (mostly) for the Oil for Food scandal and the UN’s involvement in what could be a huge scandal. The time simply isn’t right. But I’ll await your thread with hopeful anticipation.
As one of the more leftish posters on this board, I too am nonplused by all these claims that Hillary is a far-left Communistic type. To me she seems to be very much a centrist, a Democratic Party political animal whose position will be based on what’s expedient, not any wild-eyed ideologue. Very much in keeping with the DLC.
From what I can see, it’s all purely a product of Pubbie political porn. Hillary is going to sit on our faces and make us eat … health care!!! She’s going to use her feminine wiles to force us to submit … to a centrally planned economy!!! AIIIIEEEEEEEEE!!!
Well, it would be funny if there wasn’t so much real vitriol behind it on some folks’ part.
Ask not for whom the spell-check applies. The spell-check applies to you.
I did say I learned not to mind. Perhaps reading comprehension is yet another problem that besets the residents of the USA? (So many threads, so little time…)
The second page and you still haven’t acknowledged what others have said. You don’t understand why people dislike Hillary so much, other than the reasons people told you?
I do not like Hillary. I would never vote for anyone whom I perceive as a socialist or to have socialist tendencies. You say she is not, others say she is. Whose opinion counts when discussing how others would vote?
Socialized health care, while you are a supporter of it, I am not. Her views on it are an immediate turn off. I would never support any person who supported socialized health care. Period. Do you understand why her views on that issue would be a polarizing one? Regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, surely you must admit that there are those that disagree with you for whatever reason. Those people will use her position as a reason to not support her.
“it takes a village…” That statement alone is damning. You may agree with its implications, but I do not and find them personally offensive. She represents what I believe to be antiethical to personal freedom.
I don’t generally even vote, but would make a point to just to vote against her.
If HRC gets the nomination, we’re looking at another 8 years of Republicans in the White House, at least. As mentioned above, these reasons should provide enough to squash all doubt:
She’s a Clinton, a name synonymous now with “polarizing lightning rod”.
She’s a NE’ern Senator (and a junior one at that). Senators in general aren’t faring well in Presidential bids, and to be tarred with “NE Liberal” is to be alienated from moderates in the S, Midwest, and SW.
Despite the assertions her sex will help her with women voters, I’ve seen plenty of evidence it will hurt her just as much, or more. Many women have expressed a great discomfort with her public persona, and her personal choices; so perhaps New York may be one of the few places where she can win an election of any kind. For the reasons cited in the BBC article, I don’t think she would play well to women in the Heartland at all; she might even have more male supporters, per capita.
Her staunchest detractorst don’t just dislike her; they hate her with a burning passion. Put Karl Rove opposite the best Dem. campaign manager you can conceive of; it won’t matter; you’ll see an insurmountable grass-roots upsurge of opposition against HRC that will redefine words like “ugly”, and “brutal”. Satan Himself may as well run for office; at least He would enjoy stirring up the “Silent Majority” of the conservative Christian right. Hillary may have the personal fortitude to withstand the psychological impact of the magnitude of demonization Presidential candidacy will draw, but I’m not sure her party does.
Oh, balderdash. OK, half balderdash. Whist you are correct that in many respects Senator Clinton’s voting record is more centrist than many on the right give her credit for (and in particular she is positioning herself as a foreign policy hawk, as Sam Stone mentioned), the Clinton health care plan did in fact exist. It was in fact a proposed massive socialization of a huge part of our economy and it was in fact a perfect example of the kind of central planning that drives most Americans nuts. And it’s this plan for which she’s best known, policywise. It’s not porn, it’s undisputed fact.
She also has some ideas which at the time she expressed them (or the manner in which she expressed them) were far left but which have since become centrist – for example she advocated a Palestinian state before the President could do so. Nothing wrong with that, of course – President Bush has since done exactly the same thing in even more explicit terms than she ever did. But Americans won’t soon forget her kissing Mrs. Arafat immdediately after the latter repeated some of the standard terrorist blood libel about Israel. Again, her later statements and votes indicate a more moderate position, but it’s not making it up to wonder which is the “real” Mrs. Clinton who would govern.
And there are some stylistic details. Look at her statement about raising taxes from above “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” Lots of people want to raise taxes, and has been pointed out all taxes are essentially taking things away from people for what the government alleges is the “common good.” But most people, even most people who want to raise taxes, are smart enough not to couch the debate in the terms she did, which sounds socialist even if it is not. Compare how her husband talked about the tax increases during his '92 campaign – he created a sense of ‘we really need the money’ for X and Y and Z and ‘it’ll only be a little bit.’ He did a better job talking about it. (Though he kind of poisoned the well for future Democrats a little bit when it turned out he was lying about only raising taxes on people making over $200,000.)
I think your analysis of who Senator Clinton is has a lot of merit to it, but the widespread perception that she’s far to the left of that is not some plot by the VRWC – she created it herself.
Only Republicans could label someone who grew up in Park Ridge, IL and lived most of her adult life in Little Rock, Arkansas as an “East Coast liberal”. :rolleyes:
Another perfect example of her inflicting some of her own political wounds, actually. You’re right – she’s from Illinois and lived most of her adult life in Arkansas. Her hoity-toity eastern liberal schooling is easily explained, as with the President.
But then she choose not to seek elective office in Illinois or Arkansas or Virginia. She chose New York. There were lots of good reasons to do so (a Senate seat was open, her predecessor wanted her in the job, there weren’t a ton of particularly attractive Democratic candidates at the time, she and the President had built a massive fundraising operation downstate, etc). But BANG! To some people she’s a carpetbagger, to other’s she’s suddenly “eastern.” It was probably worth the trade – being a Senator is a lot better than being a Representative. But again, it had some self-inflicted costs.
Nope. She took on that label herself by running for the Senate in NY. She owes her present position to the people of NY and their voting pracitices. She could have tried to run for governor of IL if she really wanted to position herself as a mid-western politician with executive branch experience.
But I’ll await your thread with hopeful anticipation.