U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-26-2014, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
34,009 posts, read 32,544,758 times
Reputation: 50082

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
Christie is a better politician than Giuliani.
But he's a bubble boy, too. Doesn't relate to voters out of his state and is proud of it. Check his background. He's never lived anywhere else in his life except when he went to school in neighboring Delaware. That was Guiliani's problem, too. Couldn't relate to the rest of the country. People want someone who can relate to their problems. Do you really think either one of them can relate to border issues, for example? How about government overreach? High taxes?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-30-2014, 11:16 PM
 
Location: Old Town Alexandria
14,506 posts, read 23,262,320 times
Reputation: 8833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7 View Post
New York is only deeply blue around NYC, not upstate. And his popularity in NJ carries
over to NYC big time. Concerning CA, a Republican can win there also. If Christie
selects a black, hispanic, or female running mate, it only increases his appeal.
Hispanics will vote for Christie/Martinez just as much as Clinton.
selecting a female will garner no points for Christie in the south. He is hated in the south, same as Giuliani, simply bcs he is northerner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2014, 11:24 PM
 
Location: Old Town Alexandria
14,506 posts, read 23,262,320 times
Reputation: 8833
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrueRulz View Post
Yes. We are becoming a one-party nation, I'm not sure why you think that's so wonderful.

One party states...like the PRC, North Korea, and the former USSR? Count me out.
ALEC, Ted Cruz and the billionaire boys club, think it's wonderful. Corporate fascism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2014, 07:36 AM
 
Location: Plymouth Meeting, PA.
3,658 posts, read 1,880,566 times
Reputation: 1731
Hillary Rotten Clinton - “I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” –on visiting Bosnia in 1996, contradicting other accounts that said there was no threat of gunfire. Clinton later said she “misspoke”


Last edited by FKD19124; 05-02-2014 at 08:17 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2014, 07:27 PM
 
Location: Texas
23,941 posts, read 10,136,774 times
Reputation: 5363
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
Not true. They have a plan. Whenever a Democrat is in the White House, the plan is to do whatever they can to try to ensure his presidency is a failure. And they are so bold about this plan that they proclaim it out loud right from the start. That this plan also means the country suffers doesn't matter to the GOP.

Granted, it's a crappy plan, but it is a plan nonetheless.
Yet the dems who complained about Bush when he kept us in the Middle East, who were against the Patriot Act, who were against bailouts, who were against NSA are suddenly not so vocal.

Your mistake is thinking its governments job to run others lives. Hows that been working out? Purchasing price of the dollar strong? Median family income going up as prices drop? The progressives, from both parties, need to open their eyes and ears and start seeking the truth instead of trying to be right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2014, 12:48 PM
 
7,646 posts, read 4,106,439 times
Reputation: 2919
Lightbulb Is Hillary Too Old for the White House?

Interesting perspective. Minor mention of Hil's history of health issues. This article really focuses on American's proclivity to not vote for 'older' Presidential candidates. A couple of quotes from the article.

"Americans have not often reached back a generation to choose a president. They've chosen a president more than five years older than the previous one only four times, and Clinton is 14 years older than President Barack Obama. In the four elections with a significant age gap between the party nominees since the Cold War ended, the younger candidate has won every time."


"Average out the voters' views, though, and you get a pretty reasonable approach: Advanced age, especially when combined with known health issues, should be a mark against a candidate -- but it shouldn't overwhelm everything else."
Is Hillary Clinton Too Old for the White House? - Bloomberg View
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2014, 01:16 PM
 
Location: Emmaus, PA
3,032 posts, read 2,075,134 times
Reputation: 2169
She would be younger than Ronald Reagan was - and he served 2 terms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2014, 01:49 PM
 
49,251 posts, read 39,678,853 times
Reputation: 30886
Quote:
Originally Posted by John F S View Post
She would be younger than Ronald Reagan was - and he served 2 terms.
And she is only about 2 years younger than McCain was when he was widely derided as being "too old".

Let's face it.

Voters can be really stupid and fickle....which is why Obama beat her in the 2008 primaries despite an enormous gap in experience. However, he was more charming, younger and vibrant.

Hillary, as unfair as it really is, just doesn't have that "it factor" that Bill or Obama or Reagan had.

Now, she may still win, depends whom shows up for the dems and then the reps....but history teaches us that if a more youthful charismatic option shows up.....she is screwed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2014, 01:56 PM
 
2,541 posts, read 2,033,878 times
Reputation: 3814
It's pointless to mention Reagan because those were different times. We haven't had a president that old since then. The only reason people are even entertaining the idea of a Hillary presidency is because she's the only high-profile name out there for the Democratic party. But in truth, she's too old for the presidency. She would be the 2nd oldest president we've ever had. Quite a contrast from Obama who's one of the youngest presidents we've ever had. Face it, people allowed themselves to get suckered into campaign catchword hype (hope & change) during the 2008 primaries. A Hillary presidency should've happened then, not now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2014, 02:06 PM
 
7,646 posts, read 4,106,439 times
Reputation: 2919
You are falling into a partisan trap. Try reading the article, which is full of nuanced facts. Then respond.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John F S View Post
She would be younger than Ronald Reagan was - and he served 2 terms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top