NationStates Jolt Archive

"Don't nominate anybody because you have nobody to nominate." -Lewis Black on Republican and Democratic nominees for President in 08.

Is Lewis Black right? Is there anybody from either party likely to run in 2008 that is worth voting for?

In a recent poll by CNN on whether you would definitely vote for, none of the following people:

Hillary Clinton
John Kerry
Al Gore
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Jeb Bush

scored higher than 22% for 'Definitely would vote for.

The numbers were as follows:

Hillary Clinton
47% Defnitely would not vote for
28% Would consider voting for
22% Would definitely vote for

Al Gore
48% Definitely would not vote for
32% Would consider voting for
17% Would definitely vote for

John Kerry
47% Definitely would not vote for
35% Would consider voting for
14% Would definitely vote for

Rudy Giuliani
30% Definitely would not vote for
45% Would consider voting for
19% Would definitely vote for

John McCain
34% Definitely would not vote for
48% Would consider voting for
12% Would definitely vote for

Jeb Bush
63% Definitely would not vote for
26% Would consider voting for
9% Would definitely vote for

So from this: Hillary has the highest percentage in the 'Definitely would vote for' column. Rudy Giuliani has the lowest 'Definitely would not vote for' percentage. He also has the highest combination of Definites and Considers. Jeb Bush is the only one of the six with a majoriy of voters in the 'Definitely would not vote for' column.

I think it's safe to say that all six suck. So who should run? Should the Democratic and Republican parties even bother?

"Don't nominate anybody because you have nobody to nominate." -Lewis Black on Republican and Democratic nominees for President in 08.

Is Lewis Black right? Is there anybody from either party likely to run in 2008 that is worth voting for?

In a recent poll by CNN on whether you would definitely vote for, none of the following people:

Hillary Clinton
John Kerry
Al Gore
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Jeb Bush

scored higher than 22% for 'Definitely would vote for.

The numbers were as follows:

Hillary Clinton
47% Defnitely would not vote for
28% Would consider voting for
22% Would definitely vote for

Al Gore
48% Definitely would not vote for
32% Would consider voting for
17% Would definitely vote for

John Kerry
47% Definitely would not vote for
35% Would consider voting for
14% Would definitely vote for

Rudy Giuliani
30% Definitely would not vote for
45% Would consider voting for
19% Would definitely vote for

John McCain
34% Definitely would not vote for
48% Would consider voting for
12% Would definitely vote for

Jeb Bush
63% Definitely would not vote for
26% Would consider voting for
9% Would definitely vote for

So from this: Hillary has the highest percentage in the 'Definitely would vote for' column. Rudy Giuliani has the lowest 'Definitely would not vote for' percentage. He also has the highest combination of Definites and Considers. Jeb Bush is the only one of the six with a majoriy of voters in the 'Definitely would not vote for' column.

I think it's safe to say that all six suck. So who should run? Should the Democratic and Republican parties even bother?


But if we don't elect a new President, then.....Bush will still be in office!!!

*screams*

But if we don't elect a new President, then.....Bush will still be in office!!!

*screams*

That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that we have an all minor party presidential race. Sounds fun? :)

Damn it...

...this would be a GREAT year for a third-party candidate to stir things up a little. He doesn't even have to win, just come in second place and maybe the Republicans and Democrats will get their act together a little.

Sadly, I doubt anyone charismatic enough will be running for any third parties. Perot might have been nuts, but he had style! :p

Regardless, my write-in vote is going to Jon Stewart.

That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that we have an all minor party presidential race. Sounds fun? :)

Yep. I'll vote third party at every chance I get to in '06, and '08.

Is killing them all and starting from scratch a fair idea?

You could do what Canada does and not vote for a person but vote for the party in your riding. The PM just happens to be the majority party leader.

Looks like a McCain/ Giuliani race so far

You could do what Canada does and not vote for a person but vote for the party in your riding. The PM just happens to be the majority party leader.

Yea but both parties suck, and it's a two party system. Very hard for a third party to come in.

If you took on Hillary as a vice presidential running mate, and won, would you trust her not to kill you?

If you took on Hillary as a vice presidential running mate, and won, would you trust her not to kill you?

Short answer...no, I wouldn't

Yea but both parties suck, and it's a two party system. Very hard for a third party to come in.

Something that may need to change in the future then? A 3rd or 4th party may better reflect voter opinion thus resulting in a gov't chosen not because it is the lesser of two evils but because it actually represents the people.

If you took on Hillary as a vice presidential running mate, and won, would you trust her not to kill you?

If I had Hillary as a running mate, I would be armed to the teeth everytime I go to sleep. I would also have a personal food and drink tester.

You could do what Canada does and not vote for a person but vote for the party in your riding. The PM just happens to be the majority party leader.

That's an even worse idea. Voting along party lines is what got us George W. Bush :p

That's an even worse idea. Voting along party lines is what got us George W. Bush :p

Nah, what got us him was just flipping a quater before you entered into the booth. We should abolished quater flipping!

That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that we have an all minor party presidential race. Sounds fun? :)
Sounds ... welll ... lunatic! :D

For demographic and geographical reasons, Gulianni/Rice could be an unstoppable ticket. Primary would be tough - General would be a cakewalk.

If you took on Hillary as a vice presidential running mate, and won, would you trust her not to kill you?
NO!

That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that we have an all minor party presidential race. Sounds fun? :)

Yes, actually, it does.

But I don't know if I'd like the guy who would win.

For demographic and geographical reasons, Gulianni/Rice could be an unstoppable ticket. Primary would be tough - General would be a cakewalk.
Nothing in politics is a "cakewalk." :p

Nothing in politics is a "cakewalk." :p

Eh I dunno in 1996, Clinton pretty much had the election handed to him. Of course I didn't really pay attention to politics back then so what do I know.

Nothing in politics is a "cakewalk." :p

Tell that to George McGovern.

Tell that to George McGovern.
Huh? George McGovern lost in a landslide. The only state he took was Massachusetts. :confused:

Huh? George McGovern lost in a landslide. The only state he took was Massachusetts. :confused:

Zactly.

Is killing them all and starting from scratch a fair idea?
That's probably the best idea anyone will ever post in this thread.

Zactly.
Care to explain that, please? :confused:

I will run for President, vote for me in 2008! Of course, that is if, you want the antidote.

Care to explain that, please? :confused:

Maybe he's saying that McGovern thought that he was going to win, so he thought the General Election was going to be Cake walk?

Care to explain that, please? :confused:

Did you just wake up from a nap?

McGovern was on the losing side of a cakewalk. You stated that "nothing in politics is a cakewalk" I responded "Ask McGovern".

Go back to sleep. It's the middle of the night there.

Maybe he's saying that McGovern thought that he was going to win, so he thought the General Election was going to be Cake walk?
Heh! The original statement had to do with something in politics being a cakewalk, not what someone in politics thinking something was going to be a cakewalk.

Heh! The original statement had to do with something in politics being a cakewalk, not what someone in politics thinking something was going to be a cakewalk.

Hey I don't speak Bizzaro Worldish either, so that was the best I could come up with.

BTW: Vote for me in 2008 if you want the antidote! :D

Did you just wake up from a nap?

McGovern was on the losing side of a cakewalk. You stated that "nothing in politics is a cakewalk" I responded "Ask McGovern".

Go back to sleep. It's the middle of the night there.
Ah! I would have understood more quickly if you had said "Ask Richard Nixon." :D

Ah! I would have understood more quickly if you had said "Ask Richard Nixon." :D

He's dead.

Care to explain that, please? :confused:
Ken Adelman, former U.N. ambassador, in an Op-Ed for the Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2002:

"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps."

He's dead.

He COULD use a Ouija Board! duh! :p

"Don't nominate anybody because you have nobody to nominate." -Lewis Black on Republican and Democratic nominees for President in 08.

Is Lewis Black right? Is there anybody from either party likely to run in 2008 that is worth voting for?

In a recent poll by CNN on whether you would definitely vote for, none of the following people:

Hillary Clinton
John Kerry
Al Gore
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Jeb Bush

scored higher than 22% for 'Definitely would vote for.

The numbers were as follows:

Hillary Clinton
47% Defnitely would not vote for
28% Would consider voting for
22% Would definitely vote for

Al Gore
48% Definitely would not vote for
32% Would consider voting for
17% Would definitely vote for

John Kerry
47% Definitely would not vote for
35% Would consider voting for
14% Would definitely vote for

Rudy Giuliani
30% Definitely would not vote for
45% Would consider voting for
19% Would definitely vote for

John McCain
34% Definitely would not vote for
48% Would consider voting for
12% Would definitely vote for

Jeb Bush
63% Definitely would not vote for
26% Would consider voting for
9% Would definitely vote for

So from this: Hillary has the highest percentage in the 'Definitely would vote for' column. Rudy Giuliani has the lowest 'Definitely would not vote for' percentage. He also has the highest combination of Definites and Considers. Jeb Bush is the only one of the six with a majoriy of voters in the 'Definitely would not vote for' column.

I think it's safe to say that all six suck. So who should run? Should the Democratic and Republican parties even bother?
You know what we need? We need a nineteen year old president. That's right, today, I am officially announcing my candidacy for the Presidency for the Libertarian party.

Bring back Howard.

Bring back Howard.
As in ... John?
As in ... the Duck?
As in ... Ron?
Or as in .... Dean?
:confused:

As in ... John?
As in ... the Duck?
As in ... Ron?
Or as in .... Dean?
:confused:
quack.

But if we don't elect a new President, then.....Bush will still be in office!!!

*screams*
Actually, I think the speaker of the House gets the spot.

Do you know what Mit Romney's numbers are? I can't imagine that they are much better but still it would be interesting.

You know what we need? We need a nineteen year old president. That's right, today, I am officially announcing my candidacy for the Presidency for the Libertarian party.

Sorry, there's this little thing called the Constitution that would get in the way. You have to be 35 to be president, 30 to be a senator, and 25 to be in the HR.

And I would rather Carla Howell get the LP nod.

Come back, Ross Perot. All is forgiven. :p

quack.
Underrated.
So did that one get on your flick thread? ;)