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?”
For those that want to get rid of the electoral college. Would yo also like to get rid of the Senate as well?
> 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. ”
Not really. The effect States with huge populations like CA and NY are still diminished as compared to what would happen if the election was done by direct popular vote. It’s just that it is a uniform ratio as opposed to one skewed because half of a given State’s population was ignored. It makes sense for big states with large numbers of Electoral votes to split their votes but it would silly for small States to do that.
Btw, it should also be mentioned that had CA broken its electoral votes by popular vote, Bush would have won handily in 2000 even without Florida.
Political considerations aside, she’s simply one scary witch bitch.
#62 – GigG,
As I said, I’m OK with the senate. I think that already gives a huge benefit to the smaller states. I simply do not see a reason to ALSO give the smaller states a greater per capita vote in what should be a national election.
#61 – Chris,
I think you’re trying to put a bandaid on a severed artery.
#63 – Thomas,
it should also be mentioned that had CA broken its electoral votes by popular vote, Bush would have won handily in 2000 even without Florida.
Why should this be mentioned?
If every state did that, Gore would have (and did) win handily. The bottom line is that even with corrupt Diebold machines in place as evidenced by a machine with negative 19,000 votes for Gore in Valusia county Florida (that’s negative folks as in what part of corruption are you having trouble understanding??!!?) Gore still had the popular vote. Therefore, he won. Again, what part of democracy is giving the neocon wing nuts difficulty. And, yeah, Thomas, even though you sound quite reasonable on a lot of subjects, if you think getting more votes isn’t winning, you’re a wing nut. If you think that getting negative 19,000 votes in one voting machine in the state that tipped the tides does not indicate a stolen election, you are a wing nut. Sorry, but you really need to think about this and do some soul searching. You sound otherwise quite intelligent.
Oh yeah, not just the state that tipped the election, but the state that tipped the election even though it was won by far fewer than the negative 19,000 votes on that one voting machine that we know about.
> If every state did that, Gore would have (and did) win handily.
Again, not true. If you analyze by State the raw number of electoral votes that each candidate would have gotten in each State based purely on the raw percentage of popular vote in that State, Bush wins 259.37274 to 257.620099. This of course ignores rounding rules which might make it worse. Gore won many densely populated States but did not win nearly as many rural States. In densely populated States, a candidate has to take more votes to achieve the same differential in Electoral votes that he does in rural State.
> Again, what part of democracy is giving
> the neocon wing nuts difficulty.
It is people that believe in the same ideal as the people that founded the country; namely that democracies are evil which is why they created a republic.
Frankly, Florida was a mess all around and they reaffirmed our belief in their incompetence in the following election when they had yet another scandal.
Basic law of mathematics: The outcome of an election is in how you count the votes. The flaw in 2000 is that Florida failed to have laws in place before the election took place on how to count questionable ballots. This created a margin of error in the Florida election which for all intents and purposes meant the election was a tie! The Florida Supreme Court attempted to establish the rules after the fact which is mathematically invalid. The Florida Legislature met to determine the winner themselves, which was correctly upheld bu scotus.
Arguing over who would have been President given certain circumstances is an illogical exercise, because both candidates conducted their campaign based on the rules established before the election was held.
If for example, we had a true national election where popular vote decides it all, then all the candidates would focus on a national campaign, putting most of their dollars in the big population centers, and disregarding “state” boundaries. Bush might have won the popular vote had we decided ahead of time that was the way the election was to be counted.
From a pure fairness point of view, it should be one person, one vote. Mathematically, it is more valid than electoral college. I think there should be national presidential primaries as well, held on the same date for every state (screw Iowa and New Hampshire) preferrably in early April when everyone is doing their taxes.
Ariane, you are way off on your facts. The Florida Legislature hasn’t selected a president in over a hundred years. The Electoral College votes for Florida in 2000 were based on the election day results.
Not only that, Florida had excellent rules for handling recounts, which is what kept Gore from becoming President, as the Democrats couldn’t use their standard recount playbook. The reason Florida had these rules is because of a close election in the 1990s, and they rewrote everything.
#68
I disagree that it should be “one person one vote” extending beyond the State. That breaks down the structure of the republic even further. Frankly, we should return to Senators being appointed by the State governments and we should reduce the size of the States so that people get more involved in their State politics. “One person one vote” gives an advantage to the population centers and encourages the sheep effect. Another reason for the Electoral College was to protect the interests of the rural States from the heavy urban States.
#70 – Thomas,
When do we get to start protecting the rights of the people in the population centers? Why do you care only about the rural folk? Why do you think that a resident of Wyoming is more than 5 times as valuable as a resident of California? Perhaps no one should be tried for murder in California until they kill their fifth California resident.
A nerd argument about the 2000 election in the year 2007— cute!
I wish Gore were running for president. I really don’t like any of the other candidates, but Romney and Obama are ok.
Hillary would be one of the worst presidents in modern history but it would be entertaining and she’d have to clean up Bush’s mess. I’d find it funny and entertaining.
I hate Hillary, her people skills are terrible and she has no qualifications for office, but I’d also hate seeing 4 more years of a Republican administration.
So … I’d vote for Hillary for entertainment’s sake. I’d love to see the anti-war nutballs and the “we attacked ourselves on 9/11” be bitterly disappointed as she keeps none of her campaign promises.
Face it, there is nothing good on TV and the news is boring.
Hillary 2008 – Because it’d be funny to watch on TV!!!!
#72 – Hmeyers,
Hillary is a bit religious for my taste, being likely to legislate from her religiosity, I mean. She has formed bonds with the likes of Brownback and Santorum through her secret prayer meetings. See Mother Jones
That said, if she gets the nomination from the Democraps, I think she is far better than anyone in the Repugnican field. What makes you say she has no qualifications? She’s been doing a pretty good job as a Senator since 2000. I think she’s at least as qualified as most of the rest of the field.
As for being one of the worst presidents in modern history, she’d have a hard time beating out Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Bush. In fact, I just realized, that makes Bill the best president since before Nixon. We could only hope her policies would be similar.
What makes anyone think that Clinton is a good Senator? She hasn’t run a business, a state or anything else for that matter. She is just a power hungry lying bitch much like her husband was an asshole. (Albeit a smooth talking one but you could still his sphincter moving when he lied.)
I agree we need a new direction but certainly not with her leading the charge. I want us out of Iraq and the war ended but I also want lower taxes and all of our civil rights back.
I want a conservative (read NOT RINO or Neocon) who will end the war and give us our rights back.
Don’t forget Clinton for damage to society and facilitating 9/11.
I suppose you think Reagan causing the downfall of the Soviet Union is a bad thing too.
There are many who would be as bad as Hillary but none worse.
#71 – Urban folks already have far too much influence. Their rights are protected by the House of Representatives. The President should never be elected by the people. Only the states. It really should be 1 state one vote. The Federal Gov’t itself is not supposed to represent the people directly, only the union of States.
51. Sure, if the other 49 states somehow don’t count.
52. So basically you propose having a handful of states dictate national policy much like how Chicago dictates state policy? No thank you. I do not see the votes coming from Mexifornia or any other place being representative of our entire nation. I think a popular-only approach will yield to unfair power much like what you have in places like Chicago. The current system appeases both gripes. Each state gets equal voting power and each state also gets voting power based on population.
57. LOL. The rest of the world loses respect for us due to the electoral college?
67 / 70. Yup.
71. The lesser populated areas in this country are arguably the backbone of our country. What exactly do the big cities do for this country?
73. I disagree with Reagan being a bad president and if Nixon is on your list, clearly Bill should be. Nixon got in trouble for far less than Bill did.
74. Hold your senators accountable to their campaign promises. They promised to end the war. They do not need to pass any laws requiring the President’s signature. They only need to kill the funding.
Just ran into this today. Worth watching if you have 13 minutes to burn: http://tinyurl.com/283ypa
#75 – HMS Grand Poobah (or whatever you’re calling yourself this week),
Thanks for the reminder of exactly why all of the blue states should secede and merge with Canada. The fact that you live in the sticks does not make you better than me. You don’t need disproportionately high representation. All that has caused is for ignoramuses to deny crises that will cause our death, cause wars that cause our death, give us inferior health care, and an education system that will leave us all a bunch of undereducated morans barely capable of saying ‘Would you like fries with that?’
78. So have your congressperson propose an amendment doing away with the electoral college and see how far it goes. Surely your representative / senator will hear your pleas.
#70
Why do you think that every President should come from CA or NY? That is what would happen without the Electoral College. Why do you think it is fair that the vote of a farmer out in Iowa who is required to live in a rural setting to do his job is less meaningful than five people that decided to live on top of each other in NYC? With the exception of New Mexico, every State that Gore won was densely populated whereas Bush won the remainder. The Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that a few densely populated States could not impose their will on all the other States in the Union. If you think that the President should not be elected by the States (as opposed to the people) then you must also think that it is unfair that Rhode Island and Wyoming get two Senators, right?
#76
Q – “What exactly do the big cities do for this country?”
A – Mostly, suck up welfare money.
One way to fix: Get rid of the disproportionately high representation of overpopulated of urban areas.
#80 – Thomas,
Sorry, you’ve got it backwards. You said:
Why do you think it is fair that the vote of a farmer out in Iowa who is required to live in a rural setting to do his job is less meaningful than five people that decided to live on top of each other in NYC?
In actual fact, the farmer in a rural area has a vote that counts five times as much as the vote of a person living in an urban area. If you would not find it fair the other way around, why do you find it fair this way? There is nothing unfair about one person one vote. There is a lot unfair about one person five votes. The latter is what is caused by the electoral college. So, it is not the rural farmer that is under-represented. It is the urban dweller.
The founding fathers were essentially caving in to the less populated states to get them to join the union. If they want to secede, let them. Personally, I want New York to secede. We’re not getting fair treatment in the current federation. Perhaps we in the underrepresented states should form a true nation of our own … or join Canada if they’ll have us.
Duhhh,
Because rural people like to smell cow poop. Cow poop is good. City folk don’t like to smell cow poop. Not smelling cow poop is bad. Because cow poop is good, rural people should have more votes than city people who don’t know a good smell when they smell one.
#80
Actually, I phrased my question about the farmer accurately. Without the Electoral College, you are saying that five schmos that live on top of each other mean more than the farmer that must live away from the cities. People that live in large urban areas gravitate towards like-mindedness. The Founding Fathers were keenly aware that people will gravitate towards factions which will want to dominate politics and this occurs most often in urban areas. The Electoral College was design to help manage that problem by having the people vote for voters rather than directly. That concept has gotten diluted over the years with States requiring that the Electoral votes be cast precisely based on popular vote but it still helps mitigate the problem of large urban States dominating the rest of the States.
What you are saying is that States like Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Oklahoma should not matter in terms of policy and electing the President. One man-one vote is only fair if you like democracies. The Founding Fathers despised democracies and built as many mechanisms as possible to ensure the security of a republic. In other words, the Federal government was expressly designed without direct elections with the sole exception being the House of Representatives. It was designed as a federation of States where the States give power to the Federal government not the other way around. Like I said, if you believe in one man one vote, then the concept of the Senate is an anathema to you.
Regarding secession, I would agree that the Federal government has gotten too big. Just as people in NY do not want policy directed by people in Wyoming, so too is the reverse true. I suspect many would agree that they would prefer returning back to individual States. Remember, the original idea was that the States *were* independent and the Federal government was only there to act as a referee and to deal with foreign policy. The original idea for the government was closer to the EU than it is to what we have today. If you think of it those terms, it is easy to see why Switzerland would want as much representation as the UK or why Rhode Island would want as much representation as New York.
#84 – Thomas,
People that live in large urban areas gravitate towards like-mindedness.
Have you ever actually been to a city??!!?
What you are saying is that States like Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Oklahoma should not matter in terms of policy and electing the President.
Don’t put words in my mouth!! I am not saying that at all. I am saying that people should matter, not land. In the national presidential election that we so desperately NEED, all people would have equal influence. What we have now is a sham where people that don’t even know that people in cities each have their own brain get 5 times the power of the people in the cities.
Like I said, if you believe in one man one vote, then the concept of the Senate is an anathema to you.
Actually, I’m not thrilled about the senate, but am willing to let it stand. The problem I have with the electoral college is that the person being elected by it is intended to represent the nation, not individual states. In the senate, each senator is representing a state. The president is supposed to represent all of us, but in reality ends up representing rural hicks that don’t even know how to pronounce nuclear.
Re: The EU, I thought they are having exactly that problem right now. That the people in small nations are complaining that they are underrepresented. This is a falsehood there, just as it is here. People count. Land does not.
@73: “What makes you say she has no qualifications?”
Being a Senator does not have any responsibilities or any accountability. You, me or anyone commenting on this site could be a Senator or a congressmen easily. Hillary is basically a bureaucrat.
Being a governor or a mayor or the head of a large corporation does have responsibilities and accountability.
I think Bill Clinton was one of the best presidents in modern history. I also believe Bush is one of the best presidents in modern history (although I cannot stand him and hate his administration and cannot wait to see him leave).
A president’s performance can be measured, the Senate could close down for 10 months and no one would notice.
#86 – “Senate could close down for 10 months and no one would notice.”
Yeah you would, we’d all have more money because they wouldn’t be wasting it or lining their own pockets.
Scot – Hillary’s only religion is power. She will do anything, suck up to anyone, say anything, or pretend anything to get more.
Check that book by Aldrich, “Unlimited power”, and his description of how everyone had to get out of the hallway when Hillary was walking down it. She did not want to have to acknowledge anyone’s existance. That’s some serious trouble there, if she gets back in the Whitehouse. (Old Bill better watch out, she might decide she would get more sympathy as a widow. CHOP!!!)
Consider how vocal she was in favor of going into Iraq back before the Democrats realized a win there would make Bush look good. Then she started sucking up to the Kos types, until she realized they don’t really have enough power to be useful, then she dumped them.
Napoleon Bonapart had less ego than she does, and he was more loyal to his followers (he abandoned them at least 3 times).
#85
Actually, I grew up in Los Angeles. By most accounts that would count as a city. That experience made me very aware that people in cities have a tendency towards like-mindedness. NY is the worst offender. Most everyone in NY thinks everyone else thinks like them. The Founding Fathers were very cognizant of “mob rule” created by democracies which is why they went out of their way to prevent it.
We agree that people matter. Where we differ is in how to make them matter. If the President is elected by popular vote, you will effectively be saying that people in rural areas do not matter.
> The problem I have with the electoral college is that
> the person being elected by it is intended to represent
> the nation, not individual states.
Not true and this goes to the core of why you are having a difficult time understanding the necessity of the Electoral College. The President does not represent the people; he/she represents the States which represent the people. A subtle but crucial difference which is fundamental to understanding the intended role of the President.
> In the senate, each senator is representing a state.
Yes, but worse than the Electoral College, the Senate is not apportioned by population at all! It gives RI 36 times as much representation as CA based on population! (end sarcasm)
Only when you understand that Senate is made up of representatives of the States does it make sense. Thus, originally Senators were appointed by the State governors to represent the interests of the States as different from the interests of the people in the States. RI has as much power as CA in the Senate because RI is a separate political entity with its own government just as each of the countries in the EU.
Regarding the EU, I suspect that the smaller countries of the EU will learn from the erosion of States rights in the US and demand better representation or pull out of the EU. There is a far greater potential for loss of cultural uniqueness should they be “homogenized” by an over powerful central EU government than there was for the original 13 colonies. If I live in Lithuania, the last thing I want is for policy to be dictated by France. If that is how it is going to be, then I would pull out.
#85…MS….did I miss something (always a possibility)…where are you getting this 5 to 1 vote reference for rural versus urban?
At the present time the ratio of representatives to population is 1:645,000 approx.. So, California at 33, 930,000 has 53 members of congress and 2 Senators….North Dakota has 640,000 people and 1 member of congress and 2 Senators. Alaska has 1 member of congress with 2 Senators and so on.
States like Washington state are controlled by 1 city, Seattle, basically disenfranchising everyone who lives everywhere else in the state, that is what would happen if we had a popular vote. A candidate would only need to appeal to the city vote and not even capture a single state to win the Presidency. Under the present system they have to appeal to more than just the basically liberal urban vote to win.
A good example would be California, a state where the Democrats have a 2:1 margin. A person could take the Democratic vote of Ca., approx. 7 million, then deduct the Republican vote, approx. 3 million and have a margin of 4 million…..bigger than the TOTAL vote in about 14 states. Then they take New York Democratic vote, approx. 3 million, deduct the Republican vote, approx. 1.5 million and have another 2 million surplus, equaling another 6 states. So by popular vote, 2 states, dominated by 4 cities nullifies 20 states vote. Where do you get off saying it would be fair?
In 2004 Kerry took 19 states, giving him approx. 58 million votes or 49%….Bush took 31 states for approx. 62 million and 51% (the first election since 1988 where the winner got more than 50% of the vote)….this shows why the EC is important…..it forces all of the candidates to fashion a more broad program to appeal to a more varied voter field, something that wouldn’t happen if the EC weren’t there to cause it……and it’s a good thing…to be a successful President you have to be able to gather a broader section of the electorate. Congress is there to narrow the issues by districts….but a President has to be national in outlook 90% of the time, and the EC makes that more likely.
#89 – Thomas,
Apparently, L.A. is not as diverse as New York, from the sound of your experience. New York elections get quite divisive, just like the mock-national ones.
The President does not represent the people; he/she represents the States which represent the people. A subtle but crucial difference which is fundamental to understanding the intended role of the President.
That is a total heaping steaming mound of dung. Which states does the president represent??!!? If your answer is all of them, then my answer is that that is exactly what the nation means. I think you are having a problem with the fact that we all carry the same passport in this country regardless of what state we live in. This means we are a nation. Let’s get over this stupid outdated federation shit. It is a load of crap in this day and age.
Thomas, just freakin’ admit it. You like the electoral college because it got you the president you wanted even without a majority vote. You like the electoral college because it allows rural hicks to lord it supreme over the big cities. If the shoe were on the other foot, it would take you about 10 seconds to change your tune.
And, if you keep bringing up the senate, which is not part of my discussion in this, the only thing you’ll manage to do is convince me that the senate must be disbanded or reorganized to give equal representation to everyone as well.
There is simply no way to claim that all individuals being equal is unfair.