If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Clinton leads the polls in New Hampshire. Stupid tag because election is over a year away   (foxnews.com) divider line 174
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

1348 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Apr 2007 at 8:58 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



174 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-04-03 09:33:49 PM
Given the new democratic majority in the house in the Senate, it will just be a matter of how many people want to continue supporting F*ckups and decide to vote for another party.

/Ron Paul in '08
 
2007-04-03 09:35:01 PM
Greenlights like this are why fark has become so retarded.

So, its stupid because Hillary is leading? Would it be stupid if it were a poll showing McCain were in the lead? No? So, on fark.com, its only stupid if Democrats are involved.

Mmmmmmmk.
 
2007-04-03 09:35:25 PM
How 'bout this:

4 years of Bush Sr, 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Bush Jr, 8 years of Hillary Clinton, 8 years of Jeb Bush, 8 years of Chelsea Clinton, followed by 16 years of the Bush twins. That'll take us up to 2048! 56 years with two families in power!! America, FARK YEAH!!!!!
 
2007-04-03 09:36:03 PM
"Greenlights like this are why fark has become so retarded.

So, its stupid because Hillary is leading? Would it be stupid if it were a poll showing McCain were in the lead? No? So, on fark.com, its only stupid if Democrats are involved.

Mmmmmmmk."

How Ironic
 
2007-04-03 09:37:21 PM
I'm supporting Bill Richardson. Clearly the strongest candidate in the Democratic field right now.
 
2007-04-03 09:37:38 PM
kilgorn

Na, shui neng ming bai ni shuo shenme?

.
 
2007-04-03 09:37:45 PM
Gore/Richardson/2008
 
2007-04-03 09:38:52 PM
Charmaniac


So, its stupid because Hillary is leading? Would it be stupid if it were a poll showing McCain were in the lead? No? So, on fark.com, its only stupid if Democrats are involved.


You've discovered the newest republican conspiricy!!! quick, make a video with spooky music and put it on Youtube!
 
2007-04-03 09:39:15 PM
Charmaniac


Greenlights like this are why fark has become so retarded


Go away then.
 
2007-04-03 09:39:20 PM
Which clinton? DRTFA
 
2007-04-03 09:40:51 PM
Dems should run Richardson.
Reps should run Pual.

It would finally be an election worth thinking about.
 
2007-04-03 09:41:04 PM
remnant

Gaaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!11!!!1!11eleventyone

/diggin a hole to stick head in for next 20 months
 
2007-04-03 09:41:23 PM
NeverDrunk23: Can it be safely assumed that a Republican won't win this term? I mean, given the past 8 years, people aren't too happy with the party.

/This election will be like 'Choose your favorite Democrat!'


That would be true if people voted how they feel. Instead, over 60% of those who actually vote will cast their ballot by a predetermined opinion, uninfluenced by any outside factors. Since those people largely split 50/50 along party lines in national elections, they basically cancel each other out, leaving the actual decision to so-called "swing voters". Oh, and since pollsters know where those people live, they can draw election districts to create a maximum number of basically undefeatable candidates for state and federal congressional and senate seats. For example, the only way a Republican would ever win my congressional district is... well, I can't think of a plausible way it could happen. My district is well over 90% black Democrats.
 
2007-04-03 09:41:47 PM
Thomson/Romney '08

/ducks
 
2007-04-03 09:42:06 PM

Never mind the fact that Hillary truly sucks. I mean, seriously. She's embarassing.

Obama seems alright, and I'd vote for him if I thought he could possibly win. But he can't.



Obama lacks experience, sure he seems like a good guy and intelligent, but I don't believe he is ready for a presidency...and Hilary, well, does truly suck

They are risky candidates for the Democrats.
 
2007-04-03 09:42:14 PM
My God...the photo caption opportunities...
 
2007-04-03 09:43:48 PM
I think Hillary would make a fine administrator. She certainly has the instincts to run a large organization. She's smart enough. Hillary hate is like Bill Clinton hate--it's manufactured.

.
 
2007-04-03 09:43:50 PM

well, I can't think of a plausible way it could happen. My district is well over 90% black Democrats


Maybe if it rained.

/read a study once talking about how democrat-voters are less likely to vote then republicans in bad weather.
//discuss
 
2007-04-03 09:44:28 PM
Soooooome kind of shenanigans have to be afoot here. (Cue the Super Troopers pic.) Even among liberals, Hillary is no darling. She has the adoration and devotion of a niche within the liberal left, and she might be the most media-savvy candidate in history, but that's it. Even liberal (or just trendy) WOMEN, in general, don't like her because "she's a biatch." Men generally don't dig on her unless they're already in her fanclub. Since superficial stuff like that takes precedence over the issues and the whole election is just a popularity contest anyway, one would think Hillary would not be polling for much.

Though poll methodology and the usual precautions one takes against the misanalysis or misapplication of the data are probably scrubbing this poll of overt corrupting elements, when one considers WHAT KIND OF RESPONDENT a Presidential poll might get this early in the process, one has to consider that there's an "accidental sampling" effect taking place that can't really be truly corrected. To wit: The likely "cooperative" respondents to such a poll these days are those who are VERY interested in the election. Well, that's mostly Hillary's campaign people and hardcore devotees at this point. Mainstream America really does not care that much yet. They just don't.

We need not wait for data from the eleventh hour; a poll like this from July, or May, or even March 2008 would probably be much more valid and reliable.

For my part, I won't vote for any Democrat unless it's Bill Richardson, and I won't vote for any Republican unless it's Ron Paul, so fat chance I'll get my dog into this hunt... I guess it'll be sideline time (yawn) once again.
 
2007-04-03 09:46:08 PM
maybe..
paul/richardson or vice versa..

that would be fun.
 
2007-04-03 09:49:25 PM
I never hear a lot of reasons offered for all of the Hillary hate.
 
2007-04-03 09:50:06 PM
2007-04-03 09:14:36 PM nesler

Leonid: I still believe Obama will overtake Clinton. No reason to panic.

Sigh...I don't think so. People are still scared of the black man.

As unpopular as Clinton is in some areas, I don't think the Demos will give up their shot at the southern and mid-western states that would be outright lost if Obama ran.

I think they'd go with Edwards before they'd go with Obama.

Clinton, then Edwards, then Gore, then a brick, then a dead horse, and then, maybe, Obama.

/Likes Obama.


nesler,

I'd really like to know what your definition of the midwest is, and whether you've ever ventured off of whichever elitist coast you live on.
 
2007-04-03 09:51:21 PM
Does anybody seriously think that a woman or a black man has a chance in hell to be president? It will happen one day, just not in the next 50 years.
 
2007-04-03 09:51:24 PM
just gotta give Hillary a hand...
img405.imageshack.us
 
2007-04-03 09:54:01 PM
Giuliani leads the polls in New Hampshire. Stupid tag because election is over a year away

/does it really matter who's name it is?
//if not, why clinton?
 
2007-04-03 09:54:32 PM
Thinking subby linked a dumb article in order to use dumbass tag. Plus everyone knows fox is pure GOP propaganda.
 
2007-04-03 09:55:30 PM
Get used to the tatse of sour grapes, republofascists.

All the damage your party and people have done over the last eight years will be undone.

/hopefully by Obama and not Hillary. But still. Suck it.
 
2007-04-03 09:58:11 PM
How is it that I can't seem to find anyone who actually LIKES clinton, yet she still leads in all of these polls?
 
2007-04-03 09:58:19 PM
. Hillary hate is like Bill Clinton hate--it's manufactured.

Please see the following:
- Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
- Voted NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005)
- Voted NO on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
- Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
- License and register all handgun sales. (Jun 2000, intent)
- Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
- Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
- Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
- Soc.Sec. one of greatest inventions in American democracy. (Oct 2006, quote)

just a quick summary of why i do not like Hilary Clinton.
 
2007-04-03 10:00:14 PM
wydok: Oh goody, 8 years of Bush, followed by 8 years of Clinton, followed by 8 years of Bush, followed by 8 years of Clinton, again?

When will it end?



No more Bushes, No more Clintons, that's the deal.
 
2007-04-03 10:01:03 PM
Sorry, Weedwagon, polls say otherwise. Doesn't make me particularly happy, as I'm no Hillary fan, but there it is.

The truth is, the Democrats could run a ham sandwich against any Republican running and win, the way things look right now.
 
2007-04-03 10:01:52 PM
img403.imageshack.us

Excellent.
 
2007-04-03 10:05:36 PM
the_gospel_of_thomas: No more Bushes

Deal.
 
2007-04-03 10:06:02 PM
bahr wins.

2007-04-03 09:44:28 PM bahr

Soooooome kind of shenanigans have to be afoot here. (Cue the Super Troopers pic.) Even among liberals, Hillary is no darling. She has the adoration and devotion of a niche within the liberal left, and she might be the most media-savvy candidate in history, but that's it. Even liberal (or just trendy) WOMEN, in general, don't like her because "she's a biatch."


Exactly. Her electability is basically nill unless a Ross Perot enters the race. The idea that women vote in a block, like the NRA or PETA is completely false. Women vote en mass for John Kennedy's and BILL Clinton's, but not so much for the simple fact of putting another woman in office.


Men generally don't dig on her unless they're already in her fanclub. Since superficial stuff like that takes precedence over the issues and the whole election is just a popularity contest anyway, one would think Hillary would not be polling for much.

The previous paragraph is explained by the next, and again you are right on.


Though poll methodology and the usual precautions one takes against the misanalysis or misapplication of the data are probably scrubbing this poll of overt corrupting elements, when one considers WHAT KIND OF RESPONDENT a Presidential poll might get this early in the process, one has to consider that there's an "accidental sampling" effect taking place that can't really be truly corrected. To wit: The likely "cooperative" respondents to such a poll these days are those who are VERY interested in the election. Well, that's mostly Hillary's campaign people and hardcore devotees at this point. Mainstream America really does not care that much yet. They just don't.

We need not wait for data from the eleventh hour; a poll like this from July, or May, or even March 2008 would probably be much more valid and reliable.

For my part, I won't vote for any Democrat unless it's Bill Richardson, and I won't vote for any Republican unless it's Ron Paul, so fat chance I'll get my dog into this hunt... I guess it'll be sideline time (yawn) once again.



Nice work summing up your observations.
 
2007-04-03 10:06:08 PM
2008 is going to suck all the way until November.

I don't want Hillary to run. It would be an easy win for the Republicans if she did. I remember during the Clinton adminstration and her trying to install a nanny state then (remember that farking V-chip? Hillary saying "Now we can put the remote control back into the hands of the parents.", to which I answered "When was it not?"), and given the powers of a Democrat congress, if she won, I fear we might end up in a Britian style of Nanny state that would be almost impossible to end.

I have heard some of what Obama has said, and I agree with some of it, but now is not the time. For him to pull it off he's going to need some more time in congress and establish himself.

I think that of everyone mentioned, Rudy Gulliani might have the best chance of winning, even though he is a Republican.

Personally, I am hoping for a third party win. I'm tired of the two main parties.
 
2007-04-03 10:06:43 PM
Speaking as a fairly liberal man who often votes Democrat (but has voted Republican and other parties in the past), Hillary will not get my vote. No way, no how. I'm voting some third party instead.

Heck, I might even vote Republican if only to see how the Republican party can spin themselves out of the blame for the fiscal, legal, and diplomatic messes they've driven this country into.
 
2007-04-03 10:06:54 PM
Another Obama supporter here. He seems to be the least filled with bullshiat to me.
 
2007-04-03 10:09:01 PM
Thank you ChadManMn and cheers to your health! :)
 
2007-04-03 10:11:31 PM
I just realized, the thought of Hillary winning makes my blood curl but I don't know why.
 
2007-04-03 10:12:52 PM
Oh, third party, thirdpartythirdpartythirdparty, I'm too chicken to risk being labeled a liberal or a conservative, thirdpartythirdparty
 
2007-04-03 10:15:17 PM
BingoBob

Wouldn't some random WASP be a better choice?


We ran a Southern random WASP, then we ran a New England random WASP. I think it's time for a change in strategy.
 
2007-04-03 10:18:52 PM
Abbie_Hoffman: the_gospel_of_thomas: No more Bushes

Deal.



and no more clintons.

that's the deal.
 
2007-04-03 10:19:03 PM
BingoBob
Is it just me or the democrats have the door wide open after the Bush disaster and they are closing it by having either a woman or a black man run for presidency ?

I'm not American and just asking... not passing any judgements. What are the chances a woman could become president ? Wouldn't some random WASP be a better choice?


Many people claim this, but I think it is far too simplistic, enough to be practically meaningless. Would Dennis Kucinich benefit much from the racist vote if he ran against Colin Powell? Would Jesse Jackson win against Condi Rice because of the sexist vote?

I think the real answer is that candidates that divide the electorate into "us" and "them" tend not to get many votes from "them." This works if you have a majority on the "us" side, not so well when it is a minority. When a candidate is seen as targeting white men for either scorn or blame, he or she tends not to get many of their votes or much of their money.

IMO, Obama has been careful, and doesn't have the baggage of crying racism that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton has. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has been painted as some radical feminist by the right (she doesn't help her cause by whining about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" whenever she gets unfavorable press, but I think she is more power-hungry than radical, and if elected will govern more from poll numbers than ideology).

Anyway, along the lines of "Only Nixon could go to China," I think a Black or a woman would probably have an easier time getting elected as a moderately conservative Republican than as a liberal Democrat, because they would get a majority of the conservative vote and a good portion of the centrist vote. A Black or woman can win on the Democratic side as well, they just have to convince voters they are more centrist than their Republican opponents.

/or since Bush is a moron, convince voters that the Republican challengers are also morons who agree with Bush.
 
2007-04-03 10:19:08 PM
2007-04-03 10:06:08 PM Great Janitor [TotalFark]

2008 is going to suck all the way until November.

I don't want Hillary to run. It would be an easy win for the Republicans if she did. I remember during the Clinton adminstration and her trying to install a nanny state then (remember that farking V-chip? Hillary saying "Now we can put the remote control back into the hands of the parents.", to which I answered "When was it not?"), and given the powers of a Democrat congress, if she won, I fear we might end up in a Britian style of Nanny state that would be almost impossible to end.

I have heard some of what Obama has said, and I agree with some of it, but now is not the time. For him to pull it off he's going to need some more time in congress and establish himself.

I think that of everyone mentioned, Rudy Gulliani might have the best chance of winning, even though he is a Republican.

Personally, I am hoping for a third party win. I'm tired of the two main parties.


I'm with you. A third party Presidency would be a good thing.

As you may remember, MN elected a third party Governor a few years back. Jesse Ventura was kind of a flake in some ways, and he's not all that popular anymore, but I thought he did a pretty good job. He governed as a fiscal conservative and social moderate and it worked well. He didnt call for any sweeping changes, pretty much stayed the course, but put a halt to fringe activities on both sides in the State House.

I would hope that it would pan out in a similar way at the Federal level if a moderate third party candidate were elected.
 
2007-04-03 10:19:24 PM
wydok writes: Oh goody, 8 years of Bush, followed by 8 years of Clinton, followed by 8 years of Bush, followed by 8 years of Clinton, again?

Why is that any more absurd than 12 years of Republicans, followed by 8 years of Democrats, followed by 8 years of Republicans, followed by 8 years of Democrats again?
 
2007-04-03 10:21:53 PM
2007-04-03 10:19:24 PM eraser8 [TotalFark]

wydok writes: Oh goody, 8 years of Bush, followed by 8 years of Clinton, followed by 8 years of Bush, followed by 8 years of Clinton, again?

Why is that any more absurd than 12 years of Republicans, followed by 8 years of Democrats, followed by 8 years of Republicans, followed by 8 years of Democrats again?


Not to mention decades of a Democrat congress.
 
2007-04-03 10:24:48 PM
bg10117

Wow, you showed 9 weak examples of bill votes, describing them each with one sentence. Also, half of those actually look like the right votes.

How many bills do you think she has actually voted on since 2000? Seriously, this is what got John Kerry in trouble. They went through his voting record and picked and chose things that would make him look like a "flip-flopper", and the American public being the dumbasses that they are, failed to realize that a handful of Y/N votes on entire bills described in single sentences is not a sound way of determining if someone is a good presidential candidate.
 
2007-04-03 10:24:49 PM
I feel bad for Obama, mostly because I don't think he can win.

It may be that he is killed by our own perceptions. If Democrats believe he can't win, they won't vote for him. Therby giving him no shot to win the nomination.

The biggest concern must be that in a society where the swing voters make the choice. You can't afford to lose twenty percent of them based on color. It is too easy to lose them, and that kind of swing could kill you. Maybe I have a negative image of our countries racial situation, but I know too many racist people. On all sides of the spectrum.
 
2007-04-03 10:26:17 PM
wydok: Oh goody, 8 years of Bush, followed by 8 years of Clinton, followed by 8 years of Bush, followed by 8 years of Clinton, again?

Actually, the first Bush was in the White House for 12 years (8 years as vice president). So in the last 28 years we'll have had 20 years of a Bush in the White House! That's 5/7, more than two-thirds!
 
2007-04-03 10:29:27 PM
Alas, with the super-duper-Tuesday in 2008 coming in... gadzooks... TEN MONTHS...

...this really is significant. Like an Iowa caucus poll in any normal year in, say, August.

Who's up for a Romney-Clinton race taking up almost the entire year of 2008? YAY!
 
Displayed 50 of 174 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report