Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know. People get tired of the same party being president for 8 years. The next election should go to republicans. The problem is they don't have a viable candidate. I still think Christie is their guy but he's not conservative enough to win the primary. And here lies the problem.
I somewhat disagree. I think the problem is that people continue to vote D or R, regardless of the complete disregard that both parties show for the well-being of this country.
Voting for a President shouldnt come down to a popularity contest it should come down to voting for the party that represents your political ideology,who ever is leading that party is the one you vote for.
I don't know. People get tired of the same party being president for 8 years. The next election should go to republicans. The problem is they don't have a viable candidate. I still think Christie is their guy but he's not conservative enough to win the primary. And here lies the problem.
oh my, I totally disagree about the Republicans having a viable candidate. I think they have many, they have a lot more good, quality, young possible candidates than the Democrats for that matter. Yes, Chirsie will be a player I think, but there are about 3 or 4 more that could surprise everyone.
Voting for a President shouldnt come down to a popularity contest it should come down to voting for the party that represents your political ideology,who ever is leading that party is the one you vote for.
I do not totally agree with you. I think you should vote for the candidate, not the party. Yes, normally the candidate running on the ticket of the party you feel closer to would be the best choice, but it is still the man or the woman and not the party. As for a popularity contest, you are right about that. Too bad we are all human and yes, charisma makes a difference. I think the 2008 election showed that. You had an old, has been, not a great speaker, but experienced candidate going against, a young, family man, charismatic with not much experienced. The young voters got out for the first time in years. They really though he would make a difference and they had visions of another Kennedy in the minds. Though they were not even alive when Kennedy was President they imagined what he must have been like. Obama lit a fire under them, plus the fact he was black and more blacks voted than ever, we had a new President. I am not saying this was bad, but I am saying that had a lot to do with how he got elected.
Using the word "great" and Obama in the same sentence is an oxymoron, unless you include failure in the same sentence.
Our country is in such a sad state that an unqualified, devious, obfuscating, corrupt hack like the repulsive Hillary can be considered a candidate for president.
Sadly, there are plenty of low information, clueless, drooling fools that would vote for her.
Agreed there are too many fools, uninformed idiots that would vote for this old age sphincter of a woman..
Will we foot the bill for her cosmetic surgery to run! To even think she will run for the presidency is
disturbing..
Time to retire Hillary, and beat Bill for all the cheating he did!!
I do not totally agree with you. I think you should vote for the candidate, not the party. Yes, normally the candidate running on the ticket of the party you feel closer to would be the best choice, but it is still the man or the woman and not the party. As for a popularity contest, you are right about that. Too bad we are all human and yes, charisma makes a difference. I think the 2008 election showed that. You had an old, has been, not a great speaker, but experienced candidate going against, a young, family man, charismatic with not much experienced. The young voters got out for the first time in years. They really though he would make a difference and they had visions of another Kennedy in the minds. Though they were not even alive when Kennedy was President they imagined what he must have been like. Obama lit a fire under them, plus the fact he was black and more blacks voted than ever, we had a new President. I am not saying this was bad, but I am saying that had a lot to do with how he got elected.
We can agree to disagree but IMO the party represents ones core political ideology, the leader of that party is the catalyst that brings together the wishes of the voters who voted for that party.
Theres no way i could change my political ideology just because the opposing party has a more charismatic leader.
We can agree to disagree but IMO the party represents ones core political ideology, the leader of that party is the catalyst that brings together the wishes of the voters who voted for that party.
Theres no way i could change my political ideology just because the opposing party has a more charismatic leader.
I didn't say or even indicate I personally would vote based on charisma. I absolutely would not. I am talking about a majority of voters, especially the ones who are not politically savvy. I will cross over party lines and have in the past. I will always vote for a candidate that represents my views or my ideals, regardless of party. Yes, for me, that is usually a Republican, but not always.
I didn't say or even indicate I personally would vote based on charisma. I absolutely would not. I am talking about a majority of voters, especially the ones who are not politically savvy. I will cross over party lines and have in the past. I will always vote for a candidate that represents my views or my ideals, regardless of party. Yes, for me, that is usually a Republican, but not always.
I'm in the same boat, problem is to date i've never found a Republican that represented my political views therefore the default vote for party rather than individual,
I'm not so sure about it, Hillary doesn't exactly have the "Messiah" or hypnotic effect that Obama had in 08', and even that has wained considerably for him in the past few years as demonstrated by his approval numbers.
I think that the Democrats are getting far too head of themselves...many are simply still "drunk" from the koolaid during the last election night. The "American People" get tired of the same party running the show any longer than 8 years...it doesn't matter how successful and/or popular a candidate is...and that has proven to be pretty consistent dating back until FDR (exception being Reagan and Bush). Even when Clinton still had some pep in his step, Bush was elected twice immediately after him.
People wanted a change then, and people will want a change now. And Clinton came off with atleast a few positives after his departure...I'm not so sure what positives the Dems or Obama will be walking away with when his time is up. Right now, as it stands Hillary may have to distance herself from the previous administration.
The excitement and thunder about Hillary Clinton died on or around the primaries back in 07', people really aren't as amped up about her in this day and age. Her age is showing, her health is showing, she has accumulated quite a bit of political baggage over the past 8 years, and I'm not so sure she even wants to do it herself.
That being said, the Republicans have to put forth a viable candidate that is both 'likeable' 'witty', young and fresh with new ideas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
