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?”
#90 – Joshua,
You missed post #38, not hard too do on a thread this long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population
If you look at the population per electoral vote, it is 662,865 for California and 171,668 for Wyoming. I must have had an old number in my head or did the math by eye. I apologize for the inaccuracy. The actual number is is that a Wyoming vote counts as 3.861319523732 California votes. I’m surprised no one called me on that.
What I don’t understand is why so many people who are actually empowered feel disenfranchised. We in the cities are the true disenfranchised. In the Seattle example you cite, why exactly do you cite this? Is it not true that everyone in Washington gets a vote in the state election? How is that disenfranchising?
Why are there so many ignorant and misinformed people on this site that think that all of us big city folk share one brain?
This is quite simply a silly and stupid myth.
Is it not true that rural areas are more homogeneous than cities? It is my experience that this is the case. If this is the case, is it not rural America that actually votes with one mind rather than urban America?
Is this not the exact reason we keep getting presidents that rural America likes?
Remember, all someone needs to do to get elected is to get rural America precisely because urban America will split their vote. In New York City, for example, nearly every single trader on Wall Street will vote for even an extreme right wing Republican to get the lower corporate taxes and severe deregulation of industry that makes Wall Street rich.
Has it escaped your attention that New York City has had a Republican mayor since 1993? Has it escaped your attention that the governor of California is a Republican? Do you still not see that the major population centers are precisely the places where there are diverse opinions? If there is any place in the U.S. where the vast majority really do vote with a single mind, it is rural America, not urban America.
Wing Nuts: Feel free to keep arguing for the electoral college. Just do so with the honest wording that you are doing so because you like to have a disproportionate share of the power in the mock-national elections.
We’ll see more about Hillary when they vote on another amnesty, this time an independent DREAM Act that Harry Reid is bringing up for a standalone vote.
That picture is uncalled for.
#91
There is a HUGE difference between representing the interests of the people and representing interests the States. Basically, you want to turn the States into the equivalent of counties.
> 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.
Might as well change the name while you are at it since “United States” has no meaning in your world. As for “outdated federation shit”, I have to say that when I read that I was speechless. That was the equivalent of saying “We need to get over this stupid Constitution shit.” There is a *reason* that the United States government was designed the way it was: to prevent abuse by the Federal government. It is clear that if we were transported back 200 years, I would be a Republican and you would be a Federalist: one arguing for protecting the rights of the States and one arguing for a massive central government.
> You like the electoral college
> because it got you the president
> you wanted even without a majority vote
Oh, you mean Clinton who only won 43% of the popular vote? ;->
I did not get the President I wanted. Instead I successfully did not get the President I did not want. When Clinton was elected, I did not call for the repeal of the Electoral College nor would I have if Gore had won in the same way that Bush did. I know something of history and know of many past and far uglier Presidential elections than the one in 2000.
The reason I bring up the Senate is that its design is based on the same fundamental principles as that of the Electoral College: that the States themselves have power and grant it to the Federal government.
> There is simply no way to claim
> that all individuals being equal is unfair.
The problem here is in our definition of “all”. To me, “all” should be confined to each State since they are supposed to independent. To you, “all” should apply to everyone everywhere. In essence, you want to do away with the republic and the very concept of a “State” in favor of a democracy. If I were a smaller country in the EU right now, I would be very afraid as this is where it could go for them. Ask people from smaller States how they would feel about NY and CA dictating policy or determining the President every year.
> Is it not true that rural areas
> are more homogeneous than cities? It is my
> experience that this is the case. If this is the case,
> is it not rural America that actually votes with one
> mind rather than urban America?
No because they are more geographical dispersed and the culture in smaller towns and cities is different than that of the cities. The only “vote with one mind” to people that live in cities and are unable to grasp that people think differently than them.
#94 – Thomas,
Basically, you want to turn the States into the equivalent of counties.
A bit more than counties, but essentially true. I’m OK with that statement. It would help to correct or nullify unconstitutional state constitutions.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm
As for “outdated federation shit”, I have to say that when I read that I was speechless. That was the equivalent of saying “We need to get over this stupid Constitution shit.”
No. I value the constitution highly and support the ACLU as one of a very short list of human charities. Most of what I support is environmental or wildlife based.
It is clear that if we were transported back 200 years, I would be a Republican and you would be a Federalist: one arguing for protecting the rights of the States and one arguing for a massive central government.
I’m OK with that.
I know something of history and know of many past and far uglier Presidential elections than the one in 2000.
I do too. Whose case are you arguing here?
The reason I bring up the Senate is that its design is based on the same fundamental principles as that of the Electoral College: that the States themselves have power and grant it to the Federal government.
Damn. Let this fucking argument slide already. You’re beating a dead horse. And, the horse did nothing wrong when alive. I said 15 times that I’m OK with the senate. But, the president is supposed to represent the people. States are a logical construct. The real idea is to have the people represented. When you look at Earth from space, there are no lines in the sand.
Ask people from smaller States how they would feel about NY and CA dictating policy or determining the President every year.
It’s about people, not land for the 15th time. Do you think this country would be worse off if we were all us instead of us versus them? If we have a national election, maybe we can stop short of a near war between red states and blue states. Maybe, we’ll all just become Americans.
No because they are more geographical dispersed and the culture in smaller towns and cities is different than that of the cities. The only “vote with one mind” to people that live in cities and are unable to grasp that people think differently than them.
Pot, meet kettle. This is the point I’ve been making about the larger states. They do not vote with one mind. Perhaps if we can get past the way we run our mock-elections at the national level, we can stop looking at red state/blue state maps and start talking about the ideals and ideas that can get this country out of its current quagmire.
As I said before, the Senate goes to the core of how the country was created. You have said you are ok with the Senate. That means you fundamentally agree with the idea that each State has some degree of equal representation regardless of population. The Electoral College is a natural extension of that same principle and protection.
> It’s about people, not land for the 15th time.
I agree. BUT, it is about the people across the entire country; not just the major population centers.
I can think of a handful of reasons to maintain the Electoral College.
First, it forces some degree of distribution of popular support. Candidates must appeal to clumps of States instead of just a few population centers. If based purely on popular vote, a President could take a majority of the NE and and a few cities like Chicago and Detroit and win the election. In fact, it would be in the candidate’s best interest to continue campaigning in an area they knew they would win to get as many votes from areas in which they were already ahead rather than try to go other parts of the country. As it is now, if a candidate is sure that they are going to win a State, there is no need to continue expending resources in that State and in fact they must move on to other States in order to win the election.
Second, a direct election would allow candidates to pander to extremists as long as they could get those extremists in sufficiently large numbers. Mind you, they do not need to be a majority of the country since a popular vote would encourage numerous other candidates. They would simply need a larger count than the other candidates. One possible solution to this would be for the House and/or Senate to decide the election if no candidate received more than half of the total votes. Analyzing that historically, it would mean that Congress would have decided the 1992 and the 2000 elections. However, it should be noted that with a popular election, this might happen far more frequently.
Another avenue to victory would be to pander to one particular group (Whites, Hispanics, Blacks etc) and simply get as many of that vote as possible. With enough parties splitting the vote, you could easily win the largest percentage of the popular vote by simply pandering to your base.
Lastly, let’s take a look at what would be entailed in ratifying an Amendment to eliminate the Electoral College. You need 2/3 of the House and Senate of which every State, rural or urban, gets at least three votes. Then you must get 3/4 of the State legislatures to approve it. Notice, there is no popular vote for Constitutional Amendments. The States vote on Amendments; not the people. Do you really think that States like Wyoming and Alaska are going to go along with that?
#92..MS….Ok…I see, your including the 2 Senate votes. While they have always been part of the EC calculation, originally they were the states vote for President….they were appointed, not elected. When that changed, we stopped having a 2 part election (1 part by people voting for a candidate on the ballot, and 1 part a vote by the state legislature for the candidate who won the majority of people votes in that state) but the EC wasn’t changed to show the reality of the new numbers and reasons. Instead, the number of Representatives per so many people stayed the same, with a bonus of 2 added on at the end.
This is never going to change. Those 2 votes by every state are the rural states way of staying relevant. If we went to direct popular vote, the scenario above by Thomas would be a true one. We would no longer have a President that had to garner support all across the country and political spectrum, instead we would have a series of Presidents of New York, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, The Bay area, King county, Philadelphia, Cleveland and Miami. And knowing our history with those out of power, how long before the rural area’s are on the short end of the stick when it comes to funding?
It wouldn’t be long before Chicago got new light rail, but Kansas got diddly for farming…..and it wouldn’t be long before all those cities starved to death. You mentioned that without the EU maybe we could become one nation……thats just not true……a popular vote system would foster even more resentment, only not so much between parties, but between geographical area’s. Those Wyoming voters and their 3 members of congress need to be protected against California and it’s 55 member votes.
I see nothing wrong with the system. Just because the last few elections haven’t been to your liking is no reason to change a system that has worked pretty well for a couple hundred years. I’m sure conservatives used to scream for a change to the EC back when the Democrats were winning several elections, so it usually comes down to whose duck is being plucked.
And it was the 1992, 1996 and 2000 elections with no one winning 50% of the vote.
#96 – Thomas,
As I said before, the Senate blah blah blah
The president and vice president represent the nation. That is the fundamental difference between the two. Drop the whip. The horse has fossilized now.
agree. BUT, it is about the people across the entire country; not just the major population centers.
That’s fine. But, each person is an individual. We are not brain clones, either in the cities or in sticks. I want to make sure every individual has equal representation. You do not.
First, it forces some degree of distribution of popular support. Candidates must appeal to clumps of States instead of just a few population centers.
This makes no sense. This translates quite literally to the fact that candidates need to appeal to fewer people overall. When everyone counts equally, candidates must appeal to the greatest number of people possible, from all walks of life.
If based purely on popular vote, a President could take a majority of the NE and and a few cities like Chicago and Detroit and win the election.
Yes, if those cities totaled 150,000,000 people. But, they don’t.
Second, a direct election would allow candidates to pander to extremists as long as they could get those extremists in sufficiently large numbers.
And this is not what W did?
Another avenue to victory would be to pander to one particular group (Whites, Hispanics, Blacks etc) and simply get as many of that vote as possible. With enough parties splitting the vote, you could easily win the largest percentage of the popular vote by simply pandering to your base.
I’m against parties. I would like to be able to vote for candidates that are not under pressure to legislate along some stupid party line.
Lastly, let’s take a look at what would be entailed in ratifying an Amendment to eliminate the Electoral College. You need 2/3 of the House and Senate of which every State, rural or urban, gets at least three votes. Then you must get 3/4 of the State legislatures to approve it. Notice, there is no popular vote for Constitutional Amendments. The States vote on Amendments; not the people. Do you really think that States like Wyoming and Alaska are going to go along with that?
Well, this is a different tack. Now you’re talking about the implementation. No. I think the states that have had overwhelmingly more power than they deserve for years are probably drunk on that power and will not support this.
Whether it gets the support of the small states or not has little to do with an argument over whether it is the right thing to do, however.
(Tangent)
I would also like to get rid of all lobbying and have publicly funded campaigns where candidates were allowed to spend only the particular amount allotted by the government (at whatever level) for their campaign. No personal funds. No campaign contributions. I can’t imagine the candidates voting themselves off of the legal bribes that make the bulk of their salary either. I still think it’s the right thing to do.
(/tangent)
#97 – Joshua,
(aside)
The farmers aren’t exactly voting for their own interests now anyway. They are instead voting to go out of business and be replaced by enormous agribusiness. I have no idea why this is. But, they keep voting republican. They keep voting to remove all of the farm bills that were put in place by their grandfathers. I don’t really understand this.
(/aside)
It’s not because the last two elections didn’t go my way. I have felt this way for many years now, right through Reagan, Papa Bush, and Clinton.
The president, unlike senators and congresspeople, is a representative of the entire country. As such, there is a fundamental difference. The president should be democratically elected. Anything less is a sham that allows the likes of Robert Mugabe to make statements to Bush like, ‘Who are you to question my legitimacy as president?’ And, I and much of the world duck my head in shame and have to agree with that freakin’ despot.
So, yeah, I see a lot wrong with a system by which your vote (probably) counts several times more than mine.
Here’s another problem with the electoral college. If Gore wins by a landslide in New York, getting a tremendous margin of victory, he gets all of New York’s electoral votes. If Bush
loseswins in Florida by a margin of a few hundred votes (despite the negative 19,000 that went to/from Gore from a single machine in Valusia), he gets all of Florida’s electoral votes.So, a candidate can win landslides in many states while the other candidate wins by slim margins and the winner of landslides will still lose the election. This has happened several times. This is so wrong it’s not even funny.
The time has long since come to abolish the electoral college. I doubt I’ll be fortunate enough to see it happen.
> That’s fine. But, each person is an individual. We are not
> brain clones, either in the cities or in sticks. I want to
> make sure every individual has equal representation. You do
> not.
If it were possible for a candidate to win by exclusively campaigning in one area of the country, do you not think this would be bad for the rest of the country? Urbanites are still pissed that Bush won and he had support of a large area of the country including the West (42% of CA voted for Bush). Can you imagine the anger if a hated NYer won the election without any support anywhere in the country other than the NE?
> This makes no sense. This translates quite literally to the
> fact that candidates need to appeal to fewer people
> overall. When everyone counts equally, candidates must
> appeal to the greatest number of people possible, from all
> walks of life.
It ensures that candidates appeal to people over a broader area. Yes it potentially means fewer people overall but it means people from a wider array of attitudes and opinions. People in AZ do not have the same opinions as people in NY. If elected by popular vote, that would not matter. *All* that would matter is to appeal to people in the larger cities and specifically the larger cities in the East.A candidate could continue to try to rack up votes in areas like NY and totally ignore people in AZ.
> Yes, if those cities totaled 150,000,000 people. But, they don’t.
That’s the point! They do not need to total 150 million. In 2000, Gore had 51 million votes and Bush 50 million. There are 18 million people in the greater NY area alone. If Gore takes a majority of the NE and continues to campaign in the NE and a few other large cities in the East, he could ignore the rest of the country and easily get 50 million votes. If there are more than two candidates, it is likely they would be way more than enough to win the election. Having a popular election dooms the country to having a President from New England every year.
> I’m against parties…
Then call them factions. Whatever you want to call them, candidates would naturally gravitate towards parties to help win elections.
> If Bush loses wins in Florida by a margin of a few hundred
> votes (despite the negative 19,000 that went to/from Gore
> from a single machine in Valusia), he gets all of Florida’s
> electoral votes.
So have Florida’s electoral votes apportioned by population. Even if that were the case, it will still require candidates to campaign in most of the country.
> So, a candidate can win landslides in many states while the
> other candidate wins by slim margins and the winner of
> landslides will still lose the election. This has happened
> several times. This is so wrong it’s not even funny.
No, that is exactly as it should be. If a candidate is winning handily in NY, then it is clear that they have won support for the people in that area. Letting them run up the score so that they do not have to appeal to anyone outside of their area would create even more animosity over the results.
#88, Phillep,
Scot – Hillary’s only religion is power. She will do anything, suck up to anyone, say anything, or pretend anything to get more.
And she is different and deserves special hatred for this because … ?
I guess you consider people like Ron Paul, Dennis Kusinich, Rudy Gulliani, Mitt Romney, John Edwards, John McCain, and Fred Thompson to all be models of human virtue. All of them have the courage of their convictions and never have veered from those convictions.
Oopps, my bad. I just picked up on your sarcasm. Sorry, I didn’t realize you were trying to be funny.
#100 – Thomas,
If it were possible for a candidate to win by exclusively campaigning in one area of the country, do you not think this would be bad for the rest of the country?
No. We’re all individuals. (Group: Yes. We’re all individuals. Dennis: I’m not.)
Urbanites are still pissed that Bush won and he had support of a large area of the country including the West (42% of CA voted for Bush).
Really? Which urbanites? Wall Street loves him.
It ensures that candidates appeal to people over a broader area.
I don’t care about area. I do not believe the areas are as polarized as you think they are. I know too many people with too many different beliefs. We get into heated discussions over religion, politics, the environment, and a host of other subjects all the time. And we all live in the NYC area.
That’s the point! They do not need to total 150 million. In 2000, Gore had 51 million votes and Bush 50 million.
OK, then just adjust for the number of registered and likely voters. You still won’t find that the cities’ likely voter count is high enough to do what you say.
So have Florida’s electoral votes apportioned by population.
Having the electoral votes of EVERY state split according to the percentages that voted for each candidate would be a decent bandaid on the current situation. First, multiply every states electoral votes by 100, then apportion the votes. That would help. I would still feel underrepresented. But, as it stands, I do not even feel like my vote counts at all. In a state with a landslide, one vote does not matter or count.
> Really? Which urbanites? Wall Street loves him.
Most of Gore’s support came from the metropolises on the coasts. Yes, Wall Street favored Bush but they represent a fraction of the overall population in NY. Gore doubled Bush’s vote in NY and I doubt Gore campaigned very hard in NY.
> I don’t care about area. I do not
> believe the areas are as polarized as you think they are.
This is exactly the problem. There are far more differences than you think. This is what I mean by NYers assume everyone thinks like them. Do you think that people in Georgia, Texas, and Arizona have the same attitudes and opinions as those in New York? If so, then you should trying living somewhere other than NYC. Area matters because area is way of balancing cultural differences and interests such as that between New England and the South or the Midwest.
Let’s think about this a different way. Do you think that having a President from CA provides any benefit to CA? Benefits might include, easier passage of bills, more prestige for Congressmen, more access by Congressmen to the President and thus more influence in dictating policy etc. If the answer is even slightly affirmative, then it would be a problem for the rest of the country to regularly have a President from only one area of the country. A govenor from Arkansas never gets elected if the President is elected by popular vote because the South would be completely irrelevant. Only someone from CA or New England would have a shot a winning the Presidency if elected by popular vote.
Thomas,
We’ll have to agree to disagree. This thread is getting old. I simply do not agree with your premise at all. I do not live in NYC because I find others of like mind here. I live in NYC for the museums, restaurants, theater, transportation, convenience, and frankly because I grew up in the area.
I do not think that people would be as polarized as you think about voting for candidates from other states. Clinton won in NY despite being from Arkansas. Giuliani is getting support from everywhere except New York. Hillary won as NY senator despite not being from New York. I think you have a very provincial mindset that I simply don’t share.
I agree that we’ll have to agree to disagree. I never said that people live in NYC *because* they are like minded. Rather, it is an *effect* of human nature and living in a densely populated city. I rather like NYC actually for all the reasons you mentioned (except growing up there) even though I have no desire to live there (I like space ;->).
At some point in your life, you should consider living in a State other than NY. There is a marked difference in attitude and opinion. It is far more provincial, if not downright arrogant, to think that cities such as NY provide a complete microcosm of attitudes and opinions that exist across the country and in equal proportion.