Bush/Clinton~ America and voting for just a brand name?

Question

I honestly dont get America these days. Too lazy enough to do research on a canididate and quick to cast a ballot based on a brandname. I know thats how the 2nd Bush got here cause he was dry on alot of areas. So now we have Clinton (revamped) who America when asks about her experience, you feel the white house was good enough -- WHEN IT WAS NOT. Although, what has she done when she was in the white house? The scandals, the real truth is blinded from many when it comes to 18 years ago to now.
Clinton a front runner,huh? Perhaps you dont look at the polls enough to see 49% WOULD NOT VOTE FOR HER, also that Obama has a much higher lead vs. the Rublicans than CLinton does. See for your self..

http://www.realclearpolitics.com

IF -- and big IF -- because its still 6 months away, she wins the nomination, the Dem's can kiss the election goodbye because she will be beatable.

Did anyone catch the " if the Republicans withdraw from Iraq, it will hurt the Democratic party vote'?

Answer 1

I agree with you completely. I've said on this forum many times that if Hillary Clinton wants a democrat in the White House in 2009, her best move would be to drop out and let someone without all her baggage lead the way. Obama and Edwards both have better numbers against the Republican candidates. The chairperson of the South Carolina GOP said that his voters aren't really excited about ANY of the current GOP candidates, and the only thing he can think of that might energize them is for Hillary to be the candidate for the Dems.

Not only will she lose, she'll take a lot of Democratic senators and Representatives in close races down with her by bringing more GOP voters to the polls.

Her problem is that there are more Republicans who hate her than there are Democrats who love her.

Answer 2

Please point out where in RealPolitics it shows a sampling that says 49% won't ever vote for her. I'm asking because I sifted through that website, which I do use quite often yet nothing about that particular statistic. But I can provide a major poll conducted by Newsweek, released in July of this year, that shows the famous 50% of Americans who would never vote for Hillary has gone down to 34%. Did you miss that one?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19623564/site/newsweek/

I have done my research. As an Independent I researched all of the candidates, not just Democrats or Republicans, and I do support Sen. Clinton for President. Her and Bill are not Siamese twins. There are differences in their methods and agendas - just as different as Bush Sr. and Jr. were, and they were very different Presidents.

And what do you mean by much higher? All of the differences in those polls are well within the margin of error. And don't you realize that most of those who now support Obama will indeed vote for Hillary if she takes the nomination instead. No one willing to vote for Obama is going to switch their vote to the Republican Party because Hillary is running.

Let's try to be realistic here. There's a long, long time to go in this race. Right now Hillary is up 20 points with Democrats over Obama. She's making inroads with many conservatives, our paper just last week had a political ad from a group called "Conservatives for Hillary." She just keeps gaining ground while all the others move around her. The Republicans count on the divisiveness of Hillary way too much. She is divisive, but they may be making an error on which way that division may run in '08. I can't count the number of people I know who are stumping for a different Democratic candidate, but also admit they will vote for her if she's the nominee. That very divisiveness the Republicans count on may be just what propels her to the win and works against them in the end. It's really too early to tell. So it's enough right now that she is the undisputed front runner for the Democrats. Before the Republicans can start counting their chickens they need to attend to their own problems with their own very flawed candidates. Right now when they talk about Sen. Clinton they sound more desperate than anything, and obvious desperation doesn't win elections.

Answer 3

People do vote by name recognition. How else do you explain Kennedy, Ted Stevens, and the rest of the geriatric squad still in Washington. With nearly 400 million people in this Country, the White House has been occupied by only two families for the past 19 years. It is crazy.
I personally don't get the connection between Hillary and experience. Bill was the President, not Hillary. They weren't mutually exclusive and Hillary did not make any decisions. Her White House experience consists of being able to find a bathroom in the dark, and that's not the kind I'm looking for.

Answer 4

It will definitelty hurt the vote -that is the only reason the dems got into congress in the first place -because there was no one on the repubs side willing to leave Iraq with the exception of ron paul -Bush has done more damage with his uncompromising views to the republican party- than any other republican president before him -and the party is paying for it big time - if he would have managed the aftermath of the war with a little more common sense maybe we wouldnt even be having this discussion

Answer 5

You talk about experience, but then you suggest Obama, who has none whatsoever, as a better candidate.
And if the "real truth" is blinded like you say it is, how do you know there IS a "real truth"? And really, the scandals have absolutely nothing to do with Hillary, and really in my mind did not at all diminish the sucesses of the Clinton administration.

And bush got in because he made wild promises, not flip-flopped as someone suggested he and hillary did. Well, actually, Bush got in because he stole the election, but that's a discussion for another day.

I honestly do not think voting for Hillary is voting for a brand name. Because as you say, almost half of the country wouldn't vote for her, so how are they voting for a brand name?

Really, I think your question, while it makes some valid points, is very convoluted and inconsistent.

Answer 6

It's so true.. the sad part is they both have the same agenda... Has anyone clearly looked at Hillary's stances on the issues.. oh wait thats right they seem to change from week to week... Bush was a disaster.. lets not let it happen again... Vote either Ron Paul or Dennis K... they actually know where they stand on the issues.. and have enough backbone to follow through with it..

Answer 7

I think your English grammar needs some work. I do not support Mrs. Clinton.
The Democrat Convention and nomination is about one year away. The next election is not until November of 2008.

Answer 8

Is Russell type even American? Can HE even vote? i think of he's ridiculous and everybody that bases their vote on the advice of a few stupid host ought to get their head examined. That being reported, Russell type has the wonderful to think of besides the fact that he needs and likewise to precise his opinion. i do no longer think of the VMAs is an perfect communicate board for that, however. He ought to shop that for communicate shows or different such interviews.

Answer 9

who cares about republicans and democrats anymore niether party has anyone on the agenda worth electing. its all more of the same

Answer 10

People stuff their faces, wheeze and say, "i guess i'll vote for bush/clinton. i heard of them".

that's your typical voter