# Which person on the other side of the aisle would you vote for? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 13, 2014, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-person-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-would-you-vote-for/688313 "2014-05-13T00:34:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Rachellelogram](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rachellelogram/32/8689_2.png) [@Rachellelogram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachellelogram)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-person-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-would-you-vote-for/688313/41 "2014-05-14T18:13:40Z")
> [@Typo\_Negative](#): > > Christie. I would totally vote for Christie. > > I find myself unable to articulate the reasons why. > > Maybe it’s just that he has been the only GOP guy who has said _anything_ positive about Obama in any way. He seems to be strong. Mean too, yes, but strong. I find this strangely tempting/attractive too, if only because I wish there were more fat people in politics. If obesity wasn’t a barrier to success for one guy, then maybe people would take us fatties more seriously in general. ---
**Author:** ![racepug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@racepug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/racepug)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-person-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-would-you-vote-for/688313/42 "2014-05-14T18:18:33Z")
> [@Askthepizzaguy](#): > > **Which person on the other side of the aisle would you vote for?** > > Liberal / Leans Democratic here. > If Jeb Bush (R) runs for President against a weak (D) candidate, I’d end up voting for Jeb Bush. Pretend I’m not allowed to vote for Hillary Clinton, who I honestly wasn’t that enthusiastic about in 2012 and greatly preferred Obama over her. I hated her style and campaign tactics. > > 1. His father, elder Bush, was a good president. Ran a war properly, got us out, minimal casualties, and went back on a campaign pledge to not raise taxes because we needed to raise taxes. That demonstrated both intelligence and pragmatism, even though voters punished him for it. Of elder Bush or Dubya, Jeb seems to be a \*lot \*more like his father than his brother. > > 2. He governed my state of Florida quite well. No complaints over here. I felt Charlie Christ did an even better job. He has the experience and track record to be an executive branch leader. > > 3. Not an ideologue, not a lunatic. His political positions are conservative/moderate, not Michelle Bachmann crazy or Sarah Palin stupid. > I also thought John Huntsman was your best candidate from 2012, but you guys hated him because he doesn’t wear his shoes on his hands like the other nutjobs. > > I \*promise \*you I’d vote for John Huntsman over Hillary Clinton. > If you Republicans end up nominating Santorum or Rubio or Scott Walker or the likeable-but-still-batshit Mike Huckabee, I’m going to puke. On you. Then go eat something, and do it again. I will become bulemic just to projectile vomit on you for weakening your party so much that you’re unelectable to the highest office. > > If you choose Rick Perry, or GOD FORBID, my current governor Rick Scott, I’m going to move to Australia and become a surfer bum and marry a dingo, because it’s legal over there. > > Letting the Democrats be the only choice means we liberals have to put up with complete unwashed buttholes like Nancy Pelosi. > > I promise you I want her gone, gone, gone. But you give folks like me zero options whatsoever at the ballot box with your cloud cuckoolander candidates. > > Put down your guns and your bibles, and your guns that shoot bibles, and your bibles that shoot guns for **two minutes** and pick someone that \*might \*have appeal outside of the Westboro Baptist Church and the NRA. > > Thank you for your time. Wow. Well put. Surprisingly I’m with you on pretty much everything you wrote, here. At first blush I was TOTALLY against the idea of voting for Jeb Bush after the experience we had with his blissfully ignorant brother, but I think I could be open to voting for him for Prez, and yes, I’m with you on Hillary - I don’t care for her tactics (it was HER campaign, after all, that was the first one to question Barack Obama’s citizenship) and at least as important for me is the fact that I don’t like dynasties, or anything resembling them, in U.S. politics. (Which _should_ preclude me from wanting to vote for another BUSH any time soon, as well, but I think your points about Jeb are well-taken) If there is ever to be a female POTUS I’d much rather see Elizabeth Warren run than Hillary. But back to the question at hand - there is so much CRAZY going on with the Repubs these days that it really is hard for me to come up with anybody claiming to be from that side of the aisle that I’d be willing to vote for. Chris Christie, maybe? (Not that I’m a HUGE fan but I liked how he comported himself when that huge storm hit N.J. a little while back and the President came by to offer aid). Other than those two I really can’t think of anybody else with and (R) next to his or her name that I’d seriously consider. Not right now. ---
**Author:** ![racepug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@racepug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/racepug)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-person-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-would-you-vote-for/688313/43 "2014-05-14T18:25:04Z")
> [@Askthepizzaguy](#): > > There needs to be a viable 2nd party or else the Democrats will become even more corrupt and incompetent and unprincipled than they already are. > > I like my Democratic party nice and desperate, forced to stand up for things I believe in or lose instantly and become the minority party. > > Which, frankly, given their inability to completely crush the party of no ideas with better ideas, they deserve to be. Sadly, I think you make some sound points, here. As much as I’d like to TOTALLY believe in the Democrats it’s not like they’re without flaws. But the Repubs are so thoroughly repugnant to me that it will take something pretty extraordinary for me to vote for any of them any time soon. But I think you’re absolutely right - it’s not good to have only one viable political party - then you risk becoming like China or North Korea in that regard. Definitely not a good thing. But the Repubs, as you or somebody else stated, need to transition into something positive from their current “Party of No!” stance otherwise I really think they might go the way of the Whig Party. ---
**Author:** ![racepug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@racepug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/racepug)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-person-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-would-you-vote-for/688313/44 "2014-05-14T18:29:10Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > There isn’t one. The republican party maintains as fundamental components of its platform several concepts and principles I find repugnant. A republican candidate I could in good conscience vote for is ipso facto not a republican as determined by their party planks. Well put!! ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-person-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-would-you-vote-for/688313/45 "2014-05-14T18:41:47Z")
> [@racepug](#): > > it was HER campaign, after all, that was the first one to question Barack Obama’s citizenship Some idiot supporters, every campaign has them, yes - but to blame \*her or her campaign \*is beyond what the facts can support. > [@](#): > > I don’t like dynasties, or anything resembling them, in U.S. politics. That assertion is often made on this board, but is never explained. How about you being the first to tell us what constitutes a “dynasty” in a democratic republic with regular elections, and why we voters should be restricted from supporting an experienced and qualified candidate solely on the basis of who their relatives are? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-person-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-would-you-vote-for/688313/46 "2014-05-14T18:47:33Z")
> [@racepug](#): > > Sadly, I think you make some sound points, here. As much as I’d like to TOTALLY believe in the Democrats it’s not like they’re without flaws. But the Repubs are so thoroughly repugnant to me that it will take something pretty extraordinary for me to vote for any of them any time soon. But I think you’re absolutely right - it’s not good to have only one viable political party - then you risk becoming like China or North Korea in that regard. Definitely not a good thing. But the Repubs, as you or somebody else stated, need to transition into something positive from their current “Party of No!” stance otherwise I really think they might go the way of the Whig Party. We DON’T have one viable party between the Democrats and the Republicans. The oligarchs own them BOTH. We, speaking of the Great Unwashed, the American People, etc. have ZERO viable parties. ---
**Author:** ![racepug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@racepug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/racepug)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-person-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-would-you-vote-for/688313/47 "2014-05-14T19:04:09Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Some idiot supporters, every campaign has them, yes - but to blame \*her or her campaign \*is beyond what the facts can support. > > That assertion is often made on this board, but is never explained. How about you being the first to tell us what constitutes a “dynasty” in a democratic republic with regular elections, and why we voters should be restricted from supporting an experienced and qualified candidate solely on the basis of who their relatives are? Well, I can’t speak (or type) for anybody else on this but having members of the same family serve as president (or whatever) in closely-served terms smacks too much of something like royalty, to me. And the people who left England all those decades ago were, I think, trying to get away from all that (and all of what it entailed). I find it a little difficult to believe that in this country of, what - over 300 million citizens, now? - that we can’t find candidates for president from more than just a small handful of “clans.” For me it’s mostly just a “gut reaction” type of thing but I’m not interested. More to the point - Hillary’s polarizing in her own way. If she WERE to become president I’m not sure the current crop of GOP’ers would be any more willing to work with her than they are the current POTUS and, to me, that says a LOT. ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-person-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-would-you-vote-for/688313/48 "2014-05-14T19:05:59Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Eisenhower did no such thing. He was notorious even at the time for his fecklessness. Off topic, but can you expand on this a bit or provide a reference? Admittedly I wasn’t around at the time and my source material is mostly a biography that may have been a little too admiring of the man. ---
**Author:** ![racepug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@racepug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/racepug)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-person-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-would-you-vote-for/688313/49 "2014-05-14T19:07:32Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > We DON’T have one viable party between the Democrats and the Republicans. The oligarchs own them BOTH. We, speaking of the Great Unwashed, the American People, etc. have ZERO viable parties. I’m not sure I agree with that. Yeah, there’s too much $$$ in U.S. politics and it serves both sides, I won’t dispute that. As to the viability of each party - I guess that’s up to the electorate of this country to decide. But if you’re suggesting to me (and to everyone else) that the two parties are the “same” just because they both benefit from various cash cows, well, I’m afraid I have to disagree with you on that count. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-person-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-would-you-vote-for/688313/50 "2014-05-14T19:11:05Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > Why is it unreasonable to think that the right leader might be able to pull the party back from the brink? I’m thinking of Eisenhower keeping in check the McCarthyist / John Birch Society strands of the Republican party for example. Maybe electing a Republican is just what it will take to break the Tea Party fever. > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Eisenhower did no such thing. He was notorious even at the time for his fecklessness. > > Pretend that what you say is true for a second. Who is there in the Republican Party that fits this description? I’m not aware of anyone being put forward even by party pundits that they claim could manage this. Furthermore, the Republican Party was far more ideologically diverse at the time. The term RINO didn’t even exist then: it was coined during the 1990s. To place all your hopes on a single great man is crushingly naive. During the 1950s, 1960s and even 1970s not only was there a moderate wing of the Republican Party, _there was a liberal wing_. To govern you need a base of support. Huntsman never got his bump in the polls because while he was a staunch conservative he was far too neuro-typical for the Republican primary base. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-person-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-would-you-vote-for/688313/51 "2014-05-14T19:19:27Z")
> [@racepug](#): > > I’m not sure I agree with that. Yeah, there’s too much $$$ in U.S. politics and it serves both sides, I won’t dispute that. As to the viability of each party - I guess that’s up to the electorate of this country to decide. But if you’re suggesting to me (and to everyone else) that the two parties are the “same” just because they both benefit from various cash cows, well, I’m afraid I have to disagree with you on that count. I’m saying they are the same because they both benefit from the SAME cash cows, those on Wall Street. Of course they will differ on social issues that Wall Street types don’t care much about, like abortion and gay marriage. But on economic issues, the Democrats and Republicans are as one. Seen any real action on wealth inequality from the Democrats? You won’t. Jobs for the middle class? You won’t. Hell, I doubt they will make any serious efforts on raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour … and that’s a MARGINAL issue to the Wall Street boys. (They’d really rather not, but it’s no big deal to them.) ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-person-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-would-you-vote-for/688313/52 "2014-05-14T19:55:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **ElvisL1ves** : > > That assertion is often made on this board, but is never explained. How about you being the first to tell us what constitutes a “dynasty” in a democratic republic with regular elections, and why we voters should be restricted from supporting an experienced and qualified candidate solely on the basis of who their relatives are? While I’ll grant that Hillary Clinton, for instance, is a highly competent person, do you really think that she’s one of the 100 most competent people in the nation? That would be quite a remarkable coincidence, wouldn’t it, if one of the most competent women in the country just happened to be married to one of the most competent men? She might not have gotten her Senate seat just because she was married to Bill Clinton, but that was a very large part of it, large enough that she wouldn’t have stood a chance without that connection. Likewise for all the other political families, like the Bushes or the Kennedys or the Romneys. They made it in politics not just by their own achievements, but by who they were related to. If we truly voted for the best people for the job, without any regard at all for family, we’d never see anywhere near as many politicians related to other politicians. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-person-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-would-you-vote-for/688313/53 "2014-05-14T20:06:01Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > While I’ll grant that Hillary Clinton, for instance, is a highly competent person, do you really think that she’s one of the 100 most competent people in the nation? Irrelevant. Why would you think she should not be considered solely on the basis that her husband used to have the job? In fact, you go on to say that she is probably \*not \*qualified even without that consideration. You’re on very thin ice with that one. You go on to claim that Bill’s political career was all his own doing, that she just rode along. Isn’t the opposite just as likely, and isn’t it even more likely that they’ve always been partners in the endeavor? You do not seem to acknowledge that ambitious women, up through her generation and to a large degree even later, have always had to pursue more indirect means to power and influence as public servants than men have, and that one such indirect means is marriage. > [@](#): > > She might not have gotten her Senate seat just because she was married to Bill Clinton, but that was a very large part of it, large enough that she wouldn’t have stood a chance without that connection. Debatable. Yes, her experience as a key member of a highly successful Presidential administration, experience she might not have had otherwise, was generally seen as an excellent credential for the Senate and, later, for the State Department. No shit. But you discount that solely because she happened to be \*married \*to Bill too. > [@](#): > > If we truly voted for the best people for the job, without any regard at all for family, we’d never see anywhere near as many politicians related to other politicians. Do you not think it possible that the exposure and experience and connections and sets of favors owed/owing etc. that come from living that life are actually _assets_? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-person-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-would-you-vote-for/688313/54 "2014-05-14T20:34:29Z")
For me to even consider a Republican, it would take a lot of things which, if fulfilled, may as well make them a Democrat. They cannot be willfully ignorant of facts. I can accept a disagreement in opinion, as much as it annoys me, because many things still have sides that are difficult to prove one way or another through cold, hard facts. But given the science we have now, and the ease it is to verify that science, anyone who willingly disregards it is completely out of consideration for me. Therefore, for me to even consider a Republican, he would have to agree to the following: 1. Gays are that way biologically and its not a lifestyle choice 2. Global warming is real and being caused by humans 3. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old 4. Evolution is real and humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor 5. Tax cuts on the rich should take much less of a priority than tax cuts for the poor and middle class Find me a Republican that believes all of those things WITHOUT caveats and I might vote for him ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-person-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-would-you-vote-for/688313/55 "2014-05-14T22:58:46Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > That said, on economic issues, the Democrats are no different than the Republicans because they both have the same owner: Wall Street. As economic issues are paramount in the long term, the responsible voter will vote for neither party in 2016: Go Green in 2016! Serious question. Let’s say that the Republicans implode and that the Greens or any other party rise to fill the gap. How long before the oligarchs control that new party? Less than ten minutes or less than five minutes? > [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > Off topic, but can you expand on this a bit or provide a reference? Admittedly I wasn’t around at the time and my source material is mostly a biography that may have been a little too admiring of the man. I’ll try to pull a few books off the shelves that I can cite for better authority when I get some time. > [@Chronos](#): > > While I’ll grant that Hillary Clinton, for instance, is a highly competent person, do you really think that she’s one of the 100 most competent people in the nation? That would be quite a remarkable coincidence, wouldn’t it, if one of the most competent women in the country just happened to be married to one of the most competent men? She might not have gotten her Senate seat just because she was married to Bill Clinton, but that was a very large part of it, large enough that she wouldn’t have stood a chance without that connection. > > Likewise for all the other political families, like the Bushes or the Kennedys or the Romneys. They made it in politics not just by their own achievements, but by who they were related to. If we truly voted for the best people for the job, without any regard at all for family, we’d never see anywhere near as many politicians related to other politicians. I have no idea who the 100 most competent people in the country in terms of being President are and neither do you or anybody else. All we can work with are the facts at hand. She does have more high level experience in fields that a President must be competent in than almost anyone else. And she wants to be President. Which is a very, very, very big deal. There aren’t 100 people in the country with any kind of serious qualifications who are willing to put themselves through the ordeal that is running for President in this day and age. Finding anybody with any competence who wants to do so is becoming harder every year. People hate politics and politicians. I believe strongly that the reason we’re seeing so many families with multiple candidates (besides sheer observation bias) is that politicians’ families are disproportionately inclined to view politics as a good thing and an honorable profession and a public service. Which, by the by, it is. You can’t scream loudly and hatefully at politicians and at the same time expect every one of the best people to subject themselves to the ignominy, not to mention the ridiculously low wages. It would be exceptionally weird if politicians’ children didn’t go into the family profession, just as it would be weird for any other profession. This talk of dynasties is utter absurdity. Even the Bushes aren’t very close as a family. And they don’t really get much of a boost from the family name because of gossip fatigue. The public gets tired of the name Bush, or Clinton, or Kennedy after a while and it becomes harder, not easier for one to get elected. I have never been a huge Hillary supporter. I’ve even predicted that she won’t wind up being the candidate. I’m fatigued too; I don’t want to hear another word about the Clintons’ past. But is she personally and individually qualified to be President? Hell yeah. ---
**Author:** ![Octarine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/22d042/32.png) [@Octarine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Octarine)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-person-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-would-you-vote-for/688313/56 "2014-05-14T23:55:10Z")
After some thought, Michael Bloomberg is all I came up with - but he technically left the party in 2007 and was an Independent running on a Republican ticket. There are still many, many things he does I disagree with, and his wealth gives him one seriously screwed up worldview, but I also think that his policies have helped NYC to an enormous degree. As for the rest of them, pardon me while I gag . . . ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-person-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-would-you-vote-for/688313/57 "2014-05-15T03:05:52Z")
On Eisenhower/McCarthy relations, a quick and undoubtedly oversimplified summary. Eisenhower held off from any attacks on McCarthy throughout his first year as President. In fact, during the campaign he stated that “I’m not going in any manner or means to indulge in personalities,” meaning specifically that he wouldn’t attack McCarthy. After a speech in June 1953 in which he seemed to attack him without mentioning his name when McCarthy made remarks that Communist books in libraries should be burned, he quickly retreated and not only stated that “I never talk personalities” but also implied that those books shouldn’t be in libraries. He knocked down aides who wanted him to attack McCarthy but listened to Nixon - that’s an amazingly rare thing in itself - who argued otherwise. For Pete’s sake, J. Edgar Hoover stopped feeding McCarthy secret FBI information before Eisenhower did anything. It wasn’t until McCarthy attacked Eisenhower’s beloved Army that he thought he went too far. Eisenhower still did not make a direct attack until May 1954, a month after the famed Army/McCarthy hearings started. Of course, it was the hearings and the Army’s counsel Joseph Welch that brought McCarthy down. Although people like to say that Eisenhower somehow silently maneuvered McCarthy’s destruction, I see no evidence of that. Eisenhower did next to nothing to stop McCarthy or even mitigate his damage. At most he did one interesting thing that at the time stunned even his supporters: he invented what we now call “executive privilege” to prevent top aides from giving testimony to Congress when subpoenaed. Again, this was in May 1954. I’m just supplying this to back up my earlier assertion. I really don’t want to have to parse the McCarthy era in continued off-topic argument. I feel dirty just to dig up this much. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-person-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-would-you-vote-for/688313/58 "2014-05-15T03:22:14Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > To paraphrase Adlai Stevenson: _That’s wonderful, but I need a majority._ > > Can’t go Green until one of the two biggies has stopped existing. And that one really needs to be the GOP. > > Who’s holding the GOP Ring of Power these days? Maybe we can line up a short guy who’s always wanted to visit a volcano on his vacation… > [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > A difference that makes no difference is no difference. While your statement is accurate to the degree that it is a tautology, it has zero relevance to the post that you quoted as its preamble. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-person-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-would-you-vote-for/688313/59 "2014-05-15T05:27:14Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > While I’ll grant that Hillary Clinton, for instance, is a highly competent person, do you really think that she’s one of the 100 most competent people in the nation? I don’t think a whole lot of the 100 most competent people in the nation are serving in the Senate. (For the record, I think HRC was a carpetbagger and I voted for her primary opponent.) ---
**Author:** ![Askthepizzaguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askthepizzaguy/32/9405_2.png) [@Askthepizzaguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askthepizzaguy)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-person-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-would-you-vote-for/688313/60 "2014-05-15T05:40:38Z")
To respond to some well argued posts regarding “its an administration” not a person that I’m voting for, firstly, a solid point. Secondly, okay… I might be speaking more hypothetically than I let on. Pretend the Democrats have a majority in both houses, which won’t happen again for a while. **Now, which Republican would actually lead the country properly?** [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-person-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-would-you-vote-for/688313.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-person-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-would-you-vote-for/688313.md?page=4)