.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Sundries
...a sweatshop of moxie

Sunday, February 11, 2007

US Presidential Straw Poll

(Welcome Stubbornfacts readers!)

This is interesting.

I just voted via The Anchoress' site, on a pop-up straw poll on US Presidential candidates, and these are the partial results so far (just her readership/my own votes starred):

DEMOCRATS


Barack Obama 122 49.0%
*Bill Richardson 88 35.3%
Hillary Clinton 8 3.2%
Joe Biden 8 3.2%
John Edwards 6 2.4%
Tom Vilsack 6 2.4%
Al Gore 5 2.0%
Dennis Kucinich 4 1.6%
Christopher Dodd 2 0.8%


TOTAL VOTES: 249


REPUBLICANS


Mitt Romney 100 38.6%
*Rudy Giuliani 96 37.1%
Newt Gingrich 27 10.4%
Sam Brownback 10 3.9%
Duncan Hunter 7 2.7%
John McCain 7 2.7%
Fred Thompson 6 2.3%
Tom Tancredo 3 1.2%
Mike Huckabee 2 0.8%
Ron Paul 1 0.4%
Chuck Hagel 0 0%
George Pataki 0 0%
Jim Gilmore 0 0%
Mark Sanford 0 0%


TOTAL VOTES: 259

The 10 vote discrepancy must've been 10 people who hadn't realised they could vote for BOTH parties' candidates.

Ex-Governor Bill Richardson is higher than I thought, and really, he to me is the perfect compromise choice between 4 more divisive years of "Billary", and the genial, but lightweight Senator from Illinois.

For me, Mr. Richardson has many qualities which might appeal, when all this talk of rockstar gets up to here, with the US public.





He has the all-important gubernatorial experience, since many foreigners do not realise that US Governors are mini-Presidents of the US in their states.

In fact, only a mere 2 US Presidents out of 43 have done what Senators Clinton and Obama are attempting (and indeed, Senator McCain), that is, to go directly from the Senate to the White House -- the two being Harding and Kennedy.

He is "Hispanic" and speaks Spanish, though his English is completely flawless.

He is dark complected, if you are the kind to go by that sort of criteria, and actually there are many white people who do...

He has the gravitas to be President, due to his personality formed in a variety of experiences in politics, such as a Cabinet position in the Clinton Administration, that of Secretary of Energy. He was also US Ambassador to the United Nations, before that.

Yes, there is much to recommend him as President if you're a Democrat, but he also is the kind that will much more likely be chosen as an excellent Veep candidate, instead.

So maybe "Billary" will come to mean something else, in 2008...

I rarely essay a blogpost on Sundries, about straight political opinion, so enjoy whilst you can, political-junkies!

Labels: ,

10 Comments:

  • I'd agree with you, but I have a difficult time forgiving Richardson for the hysterical prosecution of Wen-ho Lee. Otherwise, he is a fine candidate.

    BTW, I actually heard some pundits on some program last year saying he wasn't a viable candidate because he's overweight and that demonstrates a lack of necessary self-control! As one who is decidedly NOT overweight, all I can say is "Give me a break!"

    In other news, I posted a picture just for you on my otherwise neglected blog.

    By Blogger Internet Ronin, at Sun Feb 11, 05:39:00 pm GMT-5  

  • you opened the political pandora's box and so I ask, why Guliani? and do you think he will be palatable to the party's core once you get past the security issue?

    By Blogger Jorge, at Sun Feb 11, 08:12:00 pm GMT-5  

  • I'd agree with you, but I have a difficult time forgiving Richardson for the hysterical prosecution of Wen-ho Lee. Otherwise, he is a fine candidate.

    Ah yes? Forgive me, I don't know much about this case, and Wiki'ing right now (very briefly), I didn't see much on it. Care to say something about that, as per your viewpoint, Internet Ronin? :)


    BTW, I actually heard some pundits on some program last year saying he wasn't a viable candidate because he's overweight and that demonstrates a lack of necessary self-control! As one who is decidedly NOT overweight, all I can say is "Give me a break!"

    What! Oh give me a break with these five-and-dime pundits like Chris Matthews, or the Beltway Boys.

    They'd comment on a mole removal, if they thought they'd get mileage out of it.

    Interestingly, you know in Althouses' blog today, that photo of Einstein and Tagore (where a lot of us were stumped who the white long-haired guy next to Eini was), the point suddenly dawned on me that there are few (any?) famous men we could say, oh look, he has a full-white beard and longish white hair, a la Santa.

    I mean, since Jerry Garcia died.

    And speaking of which, why is it usually non-ascetic seeming men who look like that?

    It's always the roly-poly ones, who look they enjoy a good time.

    In other news, I posted a picture just for you on my otherwise neglected blog.

    Oh my, love! I know exactly to what you refer, I bet.

    Stay tuned, I'll be there!

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Mon Feb 12, 12:17:00 am GMT-5  

  • That's weird, I expected more people to support Hillary (I do, on the dubious grounds that some of Bill's magic has rubbed on to her - and yes, I think Clinton is the best president the USA has ever had). I instinctively don't trust Richardson - to me he's like Bilbo Baggins under the influence (of the ring, hehe). Frankly, I expected a close race between Barak and Hillary.

    On the Republican front, I agree with your preference for Guilianni - he's a straight shooter, and even though I disagree with most of his policies (as if I ever could agree with anything Republican, duh), he's not the kind of man that would do incredibly stupid or hypocritical things - unlike most of his Parteigenossen.

    Elko

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Mon Feb 12, 12:33:00 am GMT-5  

  • you opened the political pandora's box

    Oh, I bet you were just DYING to know this since RSS and now you have the chance to ask, Jorge! ;)

    Actually, on Sundries I don't mind so much.

    I know we don't have any trolls here, so it's not a problem with getting bogged down, volume-wise or antipathy-wise.

    and so I ask, why Guliani?

    He's a fiscal conservative, first and foremost.

    (Other than the tax cut, the first ever during a time of war, Bush 43 hasn't proven to me that he is WHATSOEVER a fiscal conservative)

    He also was a tough-on-crime mayor, unafraid to tackle that topic, if needed.

    And though social issues are important to me, where my religion plays a large role in my CULTURAL IMAGINATION, I have to admit that those issues are only at the forefront, when they are being mentioned specifically in a given conversation.

    What I mean is...

    ...I know people for whom abortion, women's rights or immigration or gay marriage is ALL they think about, politically, and what defines them -- on BOTH sides of the aisle, by the way.

    That's just not my way.

    If you were to ask me what I am, I would reply that I am a practical, free-market, anti-Statist traditionalist who wants a strong nation militarily.

    I don't get bogged down by ideology on specific issues, and so far, I have never voted a straight party ticket. I tend to vote for the most effective candidate, as I perceive them to be.

    In short, I think I'm very similar to most American voters.

    ...but also, he told Yasser Arafat to buzz off, whilst then first-lady Clinton was all but french-kissing Arafat's wife at another venue.

    Those cojones have gotta count for something, Jorge. :)

    and do you think he will be palatable to the party's core once you get past the security issue?

    Honestly? I think the media and political progressives have a virtual FETISH about "the base" in terms of Christian or religious issues for conservatives.

    I knew it was going to be bad, when I saw a documentary early on in Bush's first term, on Frontline called "The Jesus Factor".

    I remember recoiling in astonishment, then amusement, then back to astonishment, that such people would talk about this -- something they wouldn't have done about Jimmy Carter, who is even more of a born-again Christian, than Bush ever was, whilst President.

    Your question on the topic is couched in very similar terms, that the mainstream media would have asked, Jorge.

    Implicit, and therefore unchallenged a priori, is the notion that there is a party core which takes a hardline stance on religious-driven issues as their number 2 priority.

    I don't think that is true.

    Conservatives in American want a president who shares their ATTITUDES about life, and doesn't fall prey to ideology but rather unapologetically defends the US' interests, be they considered proper or not by the international community.

    The real core is made up of people whose positions on security, fiscal matters, and a general respect for traditional values, make them lean a certain way.

    This is what ultimately drives them to the polls when they perceive them challenged -- but not some doctrinaire, rabid group who are inflexible and unreasonable, as the media would have you believe.

    When in doubt, just ask your question couched in these terms,

    "Do Conservatives think this issue/person is good for America, and is not there to make an ideological statement, but is in synch with American values?"

    (Foremost amongst them, hard work, practicality and patriotism)

    If the answer is "yes", then a conservative will vote in its favour more often than not.

    That's the category where I see Giuliani falling into.

    Having said that, the Republican Party tends to nominate the most SOLID guy as presidential candidate.

    And Rudy is a rockstar, with all that implies.

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Mon Feb 12, 12:59:00 am GMT-5  

  • That's weird, I expected more people to support Hillary (I do, on the dubious grounds that some of Bill's magic has rubbed on to her - and yes, I think Clinton is the best president the USA has ever had).

    Nonono, Elko, that's just readers from the Anchoress' site.

    By definition, they are people who might share her Catholic tastes, and her New Conservative views (not neo-Conservative, which is a phrase which has been polluted beyond being able to be used).

    By that I mean, she used to be a liberal, but in time, like so many people who age, she became more conservative when she perceived the Democrats not to be representative of her values.

    I suppose she is part of these so-called "mugged-by-reality" ex-liberals.

    I instinctively don't trust Richardson - to me he's like Bilbo Baggins under the influence (of the ring, hehe).

    LOL! I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds fantastic. :)

    Frankly, I expected a close race between Barak and Hillary.

    Because of the money they can each raise, and media darlingness factor, I would agree.

    I consider Senator Clinton to be a much stronger candidate, overall, with savvier political instincts.

    But man, will she even carry the States Kerry did? I don't think so.

    On the Republican front, I agree with your preference for Guilianni - he's a straight shooter, and even though I disagree with most of his policies (as if I ever could agree with anything Republican, duh), he's not the kind of man that would do incredibly stupid or hypocritical things - unlike most of his Parteigenossen.

    Parteigenossen, oh those are fightin' words, mister!! ;)

    Just about the only guy I really really would dislike as my president, is Senator McCain.

    I can't explain it rationally, not even with a Lord of the Rings allusion, but for me, he is a blow-hard, stealth elitist with no core values.

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Mon Feb 12, 01:10:00 am GMT-5  

  • If you've ever wondered how your politics would be in another country, you might enjoy this.

    http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/

    My results, in April 2005:

    Labour -3
    Conservative 26
    Liberal Democrat -29
    UK Independence Party 21
    Green -13

    You should vote: Conservative

    (I clicked on "Strongly" only twice, says my post on the topic on Youksef)

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Mon Feb 12, 01:41:00 am GMT-5  

  • Drat, I'm sorry.

    That quiz is now down although it says it'll be back (it currently does link to similarly interesting site, where you input the name of a book you are reading, and it suggests "what you should be reading next").

    But as a clarification, I found three other quiz-takers and their results.

    The higher or lower your points, the more of an ideologue, or fanatic partisan you are.

    The first result from the Storm Front White Nationalist Group:

    Labour -30
    Conservative 10
    Liberal Democrat -12
    UK Independence Party 40
    Green 24

    [They then said]

    "We need a nationalist party represented on there."

    Yuck.

    Then two Liberal-Democrats' scores:

    [First]

    Labour 4
    Conservative -30
    Liberal Democrat 65
    UK Independence Party -13
    Green 55

    [And this]

    Labour 4
    Conservative -32
    Liberal Democrat 38
    UK Independence Party -12
    Green -9

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Mon Feb 12, 02:16:00 am GMT-5  

  • Nonono, Elko, that's just readers from the Anchoress' site.
    No, Vicky, I went to the main site - that hosts the quiz. There were many thousands of votes, but the results were similar.

    Parteigenossen, oh those are fightin' words, mister!! ;)
    Well, it's not me who named the department "Homeland security"! Jeez, even at commie times we had it named "state security", fer chrissakes! Made all the wrong echoes of "Vaterland" reverberate down my spine ;)

    Cheers,
    Elko

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Mon Feb 12, 04:11:00 am GMT-5  

  • No, Vicky, I went to the main site - that hosts the quiz.

    Ohhhhh. Tawee. :)

    There were many thousands of votes, but the results were similar.

    I see! Now I understand why when I went to Simon's blog, Stubbornfacts, he had a heck of a lot more votes, seemingly all of them to Ron Paul (!).

    Well, it's not me who named the department "Homeland security"!

    Aha?

    *reads below to see if she gets clarification*

    Jeez, even at commie times we had it named "state security", fer chrissakes! Made all the wrong echoes of "Vaterland" reverberate down my spine ;)

    LOL! That's a good one, actually.

    Vaterland Security. :)

    Of course, that the real reason is much less spine-tingly, because "State" in American English already has a full plate of meanings (from geographical to philosophical), and thus cannot be used, is beside the point. *g*

    Personally, it's a shame that Romania and France already had dibs on Securitate/Sûreté, since that would've been a non-PC sounding alternative. Homeland Security. Eh.

    Heartland Security, OTOH, nice!

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Mon Feb 12, 05:23:00 am GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Who linked Here:

Create a Link

<< Home


 




Advertise on blogs
British Expat Blog Directory.