Check out the article for a chart on how all D’s and R’s fare in this poll.
Zogby Poll: Half Say They Would Never Vote for Hillary Clinton for President
While she is winning wide support in nationwide samples among Democrats in the race for their party’s presidential nomination, half of likely voters nationwide said they would never vote for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.
The online survey of 9,718 likely voters nationwide showed that 50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote. This is up from 46% who said they could never vote for Clinton in a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in early March. Older voters are most resistant to Clinton – 59% of those age 65 and older said they would never vote for the New York senator, but she is much more acceptable to younger voters: 42% of those age 18–29 said they would never vote for Clinton for President.
“Isn’t the election season over yet?”
#1
Clinton only took 43% of the popular vote in 1992 and Bush only 47% in 2000. Given how contensious the country is right now, I suspect that getting elected without the majority of the popular vote will be norm rather than the exception.
#2
Bullshit. Get over it. Bush did not “steal” anything.
#31
> using all the different ways of of counting votes,
Therein lies your problem. You can’t change how you count votes during the election! The Gore bozos wanted to keep changing the rules until they won. #29 said it right. Had Gore won Tennessee and Arkansas, Florida would not have mattered.
Oh and the recount?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2000
“In the aftermath of the election, independent recounts were conducted by The Miami Herald and USA Today, concluding that Bush would have won in all legally requested recount scenarios, and in all other scenarios except for “a fresh recount in all counties using the most generous standards,” which would have gone to Gore [5].
Additionally, The Media Consortium hired the National Opinion Research Center to examine 175,010 ballots that were never counted in Florida. [6] The investigation took 8 months and cost $900,000.[citation needed] Their results showed that the winning candidate varied based on the method used to include or interpret ballots.[10] For cases where all of their examiners agreed, the nine different recount scenarios resulted in Bush prevailing four times, and Gore prevailing in the other five. Ironically enough, under the recount rules initially requested by Gore, Bush would have won, and under the rules requested by Bush, Gore would have won.“
#32,
So really all you have is the republican snivling spin version of how Bush stole it and why it was ok that he stole it because it was all “legal” after all.
Thank you for proving my point for me.
So I still don’t understand the Republican hatred towards Hillary. Why are they so afraid of such an intelligent woman?
#34
“Why are they so afraid of intelligent women?”
There I fixed it for you.
And I have no idea. Perhaps they are all homos?
#33
How could I not guess that Wikipedia is a bastion of conservative spin? What I have is the fact that even with various recounts done after the fact, Bush won. Regardless of whether you think Gore should have won, Gore conceded the election and thus officially proclaimed he lost. As I have said before, the nut jobs that think that “Bush” stole the election sound exactly like the nut jobs that say that Kennedy stole the 1960 election.
33. Bottom line, people were inventing new standards on what counted as a vote as per established Florida laws. The Florida State Supreme Court didn’t help matters because they fostered this liberal reinterpretation of the voting laws and found themselves at odds with the Florida Secretary of State which ultimately led to the Federal Supreme Court getting involved.
Whatever the case, let’s not forget Gore tried to invalidate absentee votes from Florida Military Veterans serving overseas while also utterly failing to carry his own home state or Clinton’s. THAT should speak volumes, but since Florida was the last to get their act together mostly due to their activist Supreme Court, they seem to be the ones responsible for the election results.
Suck it up. Move on. Learn to carry your own home states before laying blame on others.
#2 – qsabe – Yes. Some of us are.
#6 – GW (or should we just call you W now?)
I can imagine a lot worse than Hillary. Oh yeah. We’ve already got it.
#7 – ergo,
But we have to vote or the wrong lizard will get in.
#8 – gquaglia,
You’ve never heard of Diebold, have you? And, yes there was much better, both times.
#29 – Phillep ,
It didn’t matter, the supremes, appointed by his daddy and reagan, simply appointed a pres long before the counting was done and long before anyone explained how a voting machine recorded -19,000 votes. The negative votes have still not been explained.
————————————————————————————-
Lastly, a general statement to everyone, it is definitely time to get rid of the electoral college and hold a democratic election. You know the kind, right? Where one person gets one vote. Right now, every citizen of Wyoming gets 5 votes per California vote.
Here’s a link for the population per electoral vote in each state. Divide the number in California by the number in Wyoming and look at how much more a Wyoming vote is worth. This is not democracy. Besides, even in the pledge of allegiance we call ourselves a nation. Let’s actually become one and hold a first ever national election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population
EVERY Republican candidate aiming for the next presidential election is a joke; it’s as if they know whoever is going to win will spend the next 4 years cleaning up the mess Bush Jr. has done.
Let Hillary win, the presidential maid costume will suit her well. Plus there’s bound to be plenty of juicy gossip about Bill Clinton’s chasing the interns again.
#38
Eliminating the Electoral College only makes sense if you think that the people should elect the President which they do not. The States elect Presidents. What you are really saying is that we should do away with the very concept of independent but united States.
#39
Let me add that your comparison of CA to WY is an indication that CA is too big. Frankly, I think we should shrink CA so that it is the size of Wyoming rather than do away with the Electoral College.
38/39: Why not do away with the whole Constitution while you’re at it? Or remove the Senate for that matter?
40: I wouldn’t mind Hillary so much if she was honest about her stance on the Iraq war and what she had for Intel. She’s been walking a fine line and Kucinich has been the only one to really rat her out. I think it’s a gross partisan simplification to just lay the whole thing on Bush’s shoulders.
#39 – That’s exactly why we need to keep the electoral college. We are not a republic of individuals. We are a republic of states. Actually, I kind of like the idea of 1 vote per state.
#38 – I have an excellent imagination. A 100% fatal plague killing the entire human race in the space of a week via endless diarrhea would be preferable to Hillary as Pres.
Someone started using HMHetc, etc. I kinda liked that. 😉
“Let me add that your comparison of CA to WY is an indication that CA is too big. Frankly, I think we should shrink CA so that it is the size of Wyoming rather than do away with the Electoral College.”
So your solution is to break up California, 7th largest economy in the world? Instead, why don’t we just rebalance the system so that the people who are actually paying for this democracy get an equal vote.
#41 – Thomas,
No. I think states have the right to enact state laws. I think that states already have their balance of power asserted to far too great a degree by the fact that low population states get the same number of senators as high population states. What I really believe is that the national office of president should be elected by the nation. This must be done by one person one vote if we are to become a democracy.
#42 – Thomas,
And how do you propose to keep changing state borders so that all states retain equal population as people move around? I think abolishing the electoral college is far more practical and attacks the root of the problem, disproportionally high electoral power by states with low population. In essence, what we are saying today is that land has the right to vote! If land is going to vote, I think it can do a lot better than it has been doing over the years. Land has voted for strip mining, moutaintop removal, oil spills, and deforestation. I think if we’re going to acknowledge a vote by land, each acre should be voting for environmental causes.
Had Gore won Tennessee and Arkansas, Florida would not have mattered.
Yup. And if clouds were cars, we could drive in the sky. So the fuck what?
That’s the dopiest logic imaginable; it’s totally irrelevant to the argument.
A 100% fatal plague killing the entire human race in the space of a week via endless diarrhea would be preferable to Hillary as Pres.
For that, you’d need an expert in global catastrophe. I’d recommend George W. Bush.
#46 – This country was never intended to be a democracy. It is an always was supposed to be a union of independent states. The federal gov’t already has far more power than the Founders ever intended. This is one area where I agree with those critical of Bush. The EC was specifically created to help minimize the amount of weight a single state could throw around.
If someone thinks they’re underrepresented because of where they live, they should move to a less populous state so their vote counts more.
46. ??? You do realize the reason why we have a Senate? And the Senate is balanced out with the House to address your gripe.
47. LOL. And I suppose Bush “stealing” the Florida electorate is more logical? The obvious fact is if Gore had carried Tennesse or Arkansas, the liberals wouldn’t be crying over a “stolen” election chanting that Florida is somehow at fault for Gore’s losing. They only got the airtime they did because they were last to tally their votes. PERIOD. No one would have cared about Florida if Gore won his home turf.
48. Don’t forget to include all Congress members too while you’re at it if you want to be fair about the whole matter.
50 – I got blamed for “losing the game” back when I was a kid. The other kid got a funny look on his face when I pointed out that me striking out would not have mattered had /he/ not struck out just before me.
But, “Florida” it is, LOL.
#43 – Guyver,
Why not do away with the whole Constitution while you’re at it? Or remove the Senate for that matter?
Actually, our constitution makes provisions for just such an occasion. The vast majority of what is currently in the constitution, given the amendments that make native Americans and African Americans human beings, something that the original version failed to do, is really wonderful. It’s just time to get rid of this little inequality in the constitution. We have national offices of President and Vice President. These two should be elected by national elections.
Not Lauren – Hillary is an exaggeration of the “untrustworthy politician” stereotype. The only political position she has ever taken that I agree with was that Sadaam and OBL had to go.
#46 (RE: #41)
It is only logical to think that the States have too much power if you think the Federal government is the one that gives power to the States. In the original design of the country, the opposite was designed to be the case: that the States have power and grant portions of that power to the Federal government. However, what has happened is that the Federal government has had too much power for so long that people have completely forgotten why that was never meant to be the case and now assume it is as it should be.
The people were never meant to elect the President (or Senators for that matter). The States elect Presidents; not the people. It was a mistake to require Senators to be directly elected and it would be a mistake to eliminate the Electoral College.
(RE: #42)
There is a way of narrowing CA’s power without changing borders: Simply put a cap on Electoral votes at 25. If the people of CA did not like that idea, they could move or go the direction I wish they would which is to break-up the State into smaller ones.
Regarding CA’s economy, you are assuming that CA’s economy is the 7th largest specifically because it is a single behemoth State. Who is to say whether splitting CA into three distinct States would not make the three combined into something larger than 7th? CA loses a lot business because of its idiotic bureaucracy that tries to apply the same laws and rules to all parts of a vast State with differing needs. I cannot count how many times I have heard people from San Francisco complain that Los Angeles dominates State politics to their detriment much less the people of Kern county, San Bernardino county…
The Founding Fathers introduced the Electoral College for the express reason to prevent states with very high populations from dominating the elections. They did not want New York determining every President. If the President were elected by popular vote, they would only need campaign in about a dozen or two cities.
#44 – HMH…,
Anything 100% fatal to the human species that does not harm the rest of the biosphere is better than any presidential candidate. I’m with you there.
#49 – HMH…
I did say I was OK with the senate. I think it does enough to give power to the small states. No need for a similarly unbalanced election for President.
#55 – OK, to be more clear: The Sun going nova and destroying ALL life would be better than Hillary. No reason for a biosphere if no humans. Heck, no reason for a Universe at all without us.
#54 – Thomas,
The people were never meant to elect the President (or Senators for that matter). The States elect Presidents; not the people.
And therein lies the problem in a nutshell. The electoral college is an embarrassment that causes us not to have a democracy. And, the rest of the world knows this about us and loses respect for us. We absolutely MUST get rid of the electoral college for exactly the reasons you say we should not.
#57
> The electoral college is an embarrassment
> that causes us not to have a democracy.
Well, I agree with half of that: we are not a democracy. We were never meant to be a democracy. The US is a federated republic of States where the States are supposed to have the ultimate power which is granted to them by the people.
Howard Dean raised about $50 million. It’s not as much as HIllary, but only because the total amounts are much higher in this cycle, just as Dean’s numbers were higher than the 2000 tace, and those numbers were higher than the race before that, etc.
59 – Gee, I wonder how the totals would look if all of Hillary’s illegal contributions were removed?
“There is a way of narrowing CA’s power without changing borders: Simply put a cap on Electoral votes at 25. If the people of CA did not like that idea, they could move or go the direction I wish they would which is to break-up the State into smaller ones.”
You’re right. We should all move to fix the electoral vote distribution. Meanwhile in the real world…
The Campaign for the National Popular Vote’s solution is for the states to individually enact a law that their electoral votes go to the winner of the popular vote once they have enough states sign onto said plan. “States, under the Constitution, can allocate their electoral votes any way they see fit. The campaign proposes to secure legislation–state by state–to allocate votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote. As soon as you’ve signed up enough states to get 270 electoral votes, you have a de facto popular vote system in place. It’s an end run around the small-state veto. ”
No constitutional change required.