Democratic Presidential Candidate Poll

[Glassfan]

It's got to be Hillary. Women Dems were incensed when BHO got the nod in 2008 and they'll be out in force to give Clinton the nomination in 2016.

I'll probably be voting Republican, but it certainly does seems like it's time for a woman President. I just wish there was a better choice than HRC.

And be prepared for someone to miscalculate and declare war on the US. That seems to be the historical pattern (Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher).

 

[Cutlass]

Government intervention is the state. Is it not? So, would a large amount of intervention not be statist?

Yes, majorities in both parties hold views similar to one another but not to my views.

"Statism" implies that that the goal is to have the state in control of all, or as much of possible, of society and the economy. You won't find a person in the Democratic party that believes that.

 

[Zarn]

I don't believe the sex of someone should matter, just like ethnicity should not have mattered in 2008. We took a step backwards, because the vote in 2008 was partially based on ethnicity. That was not the case in 2004.

Edit: Cutlass, that sounds like the majority of both parties.

 

[DinoDoc]

"Statism" implies that that the goal is to have the state in control of all, or as much of possible, of society and the economy. You won't find a person in the Democratic party that believes that.

 

[Cutlass]

I

Edit: Cutlass, that sounds like the majority of both parties.

Then you have not at all paid attention to what is going on.

 

[Glassfan]

I don't believe the sex of someone should matter, just like ethnicity should not have mattered in 2008...

It does matter. The Barrier must be broken at some point. Then it won't matter any more.

 

[downtown]

I don't believe the sex of someone should matter, just like ethnicity should not have mattered in 2008. We took a step backwards, because the vote in 2008 was partially based on ethnicity. That was not the case in 2004.

Edit: Cutlass, that sounds like the majority of both parties.

If it was based on ethnicity, it isn't what you probably think:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=493337

There have been similar papers published using different methodologies leading to the same conclusion.

 

[Antilogic]

Government intervention is the state. Is it not? So, would a large amount of intervention not be statist?

Because it's used as a slur? I don't know what your first point is here.

I can understand and appreciate your second point.

It's got to be Hillary. Women Dems were incensed when BHO got the nod in 2008 and they'll be out in force to give Clinton the nomination in 2016.

I'll probably be voting Republican, but it certainly does seems like it's time for a woman President. I just wish there was a better choice than HRC.

And be prepared for someone to miscalculate and declare war on the US. That seems to be the historical pattern (Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher).

Hillary Clinton would have to break a long tradition of the next-in-line Democrat losing the nomination. Although she is in a far better position than anyone else to do it, so she has good chances of receiving the nomination.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I don't believe the sex of someone should matter, just like ethnicity should not have mattered in 2008. We took a step backwards, because the vote in 2008 was partially based on ethnicity. That was not the case in 2004.

Ethnicity has always mattered.

Why do you think there wasn't a black president before Obama? Why there has never been a Jewish or Muslim president? Why there wasn't a Catholic president until Kennedy, and there hasn't been one since? Why the vast majority have been WASPs and all of them have been Christians?

The only time that ethnicity isn't an issue is when they are both the very same ethnicity.

But you are right. It shouldn't matter one bit even though it clearly does.

 

[downtown]

Ethnicity has always mattered.

Why do you think there wasn't a black president before Obama? Why there has never been a Jewish or Muslim president? Why there wasn't a Catholic president until Kennedy, and there hasn't been one since? Why the vast majority have been WASPs and all of them have been Christians?

The only time that ethnicity isn't an issue is when they are both the very same ethnicity.

But you are right. It shouldn't matter one bit even though it clearly does.

I agree with this general idea, but to be fair, we've had multiple Catholic candidates since Kennedy. I have a hard time believing they all lost primarily because of anti-Catholic feelings.

While I don't doubt that we'd get a lot of backlash from a Muslim presidential candidate today, there are also *not very many Muslims* in the US. We could potentially go another 150 years without a Muslim president and that wouldn't necessarily mean we're bigots.

 

[Gucumatz]

Edit: I misread the post, my post is silly then

 

[Formaldehyde]

I agree with this general idea, but to be fair, we've had multiple Catholic candidates since Kennedy. I have a hard time believing they all lost primarily because of anti-Catholic feelings.

That wasn't what I was intended to point out. But I'm sure it did have a factor. Some Americans still think any Catholic president is under the control of the Pope.

While I don't doubt that we'd get a lot of backlash from a Muslim presidential candidate today, there are also *not very many Muslims* in the US. We could potentially go another 150 years without a Muslim president and that wouldn't necessarily mean we're bigots.

What else could it possibly mean other than that many Americans are indeed quite bigoted in that regard?

 

[LamaGT]

Atheists worse than muslims, this world is seriously weird, to not say the f-word (not to imply muslims are bad or anything, but I would have expected the public opinion of them would be worse, with 9/11, Israel and everything)

 

[DinoDoc]

It does matter. The Barrier must be broken at some point. Then it won't matter any more.

I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the leader of the USA being determined by Affirmative Action. That seems like a sure way to get a crap leader.

 

[Zarn]

Because it's used as a slur? I don't know what your first point is here.

I do not see it as a slur. I simply see it as the opposition.

 

[Gucumatz]

Atheists worse than muslims, this world is seriously weird, to not say the f-word (not to imply muslims are bad or anything, but I would have expected the public opinion of them would be worse, with 9/11, Israel and everything)

Well more than 50% of voters no longer think you all suck entirely.

 

[Winston Hughes]

What else could it possibly mean other than that many Americans are indeed quite bigoted in that regard?

It's not that there aren't a whole lot of bigots out there, but rather that a Muslim president still wouldn't be all that likely even if there were none. Statistics of the type you've posted are compelling evidence of bigotry affecting the political process; the same cannot be said about the US never having had a Muslim president.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the leader of the USA being determined by Affirmative Action. That seems like a sure way to get a crap leader.

You should ask Herman Cain about that.

 

[DinoDoc]

You should ask Herman Cain about that.

I could ask President Obama. He seems like he'd have the more relevant experience.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It's not that there aren't a whole lot of bigots out there, but rather that a Muslim president still wouldn't be all that likely even if there were none. Statistics of the type you've posted are compelling evidence of bigotry affecting the political process; the same cannot be said about the US never having had a Muslim president.

The statement was that even in 150 years that a Muslim president would be unlikely.

I could ask President Obama. He seems like he'd have the more relevant experience.

That shows how little you apparently know about the qualifications and background of both of them while continuing to engage in the usual partisan nonsense.