47% per cent in US won't vote Hilary

Some extremely depressing poll data has just indicated that 47% of American's will NEVER vote for Hilary Clinton. And as such negative voting would only increasein a dirty campaign, which the next one has every likelihood of being should Hilary get the nomination, that negative figure can only rise (((

Worse than that, the heavyweight alternative from the left, Al Gore, has even worse data with 48% of Americans will never vote for him. Personally I think Gore is fantastic (never really liked Hilary) and I find this electoral antipathy bewildering.

Is the USA so divided now that a truly reform-minded Democrat cannot win?

A friend of mine from Maine is talking about the North Eastern states seceding from the Union as even the republicans there are out of kilter with the country as a whole. I'm not really sure whether there is demand for this but how long can the militantly neocon states and the leftist liberal states cohabit in a union where a gulf of bitterness is opening between them?

I fully admit that while I follow US politis, I am anything but an expert And I really would appreciate reading views from left and right on this issue without the usual headbanging slanging matches that seem to accompany these debates

All you need to do is find statistics on how many people would never vote for Bush, and you'll feel a lot better...

You can still win the presidency with just 47%. George did. Depends on how you count 'em.

Whats so depressing? Its called democracy.

Sounds like you see the electorate as an upside down bell curve with two strong diametrically opposed sides, and noone in the middle. The opposite is likely to be the case, with most people floating around the center and only smaller numbers featured at the extremes.
Any party can adjust its values and policies to try and capture more of the vote, whoever establishes the winning formula, and pleases more of the electorate than the others, wins, and rightfully so. If a lot of people dont like a candidate or a party they shouldnt win. Thats all there is to it.
A third party would help see the government reflect the electorate more accuratley unfortunatley the non-parliamentary nature of american politics doesnt make this workable.

sadly Bush isn't standing but his brother Jeb has the highest negative in the list. Here is an article with more details from the poll

McCain and Giuliani don't come out of this badly but I wonder what they'd be like as presidents. McCain seems to be a bipartisan moderate (am I right) who could heal some of the rift. Giuliani was impressive after 911 and did much good but also ripped the seedy heart out of New York when incumbent there but doesn't he have cancer - wouldn't it be a risk electing him to a five year term?

The USA really needs a third alternative away from the Rep-Dem options based on moving forwards to the greater benefit of the vast majority of Americans. I don't see a switch to the Democrats really making any great changes, but you never know. Polls have been known to be wrong. Maybe those individuals polled don't like the Hilary option because it is another example of political nepotism... and they are tired of that already.

Sounds like a negative reality inversion there Kza.

If I was a seppo I would be voting libertarian.

You really shouldn't find that depressing. It's not that she's a Democrat, it's that she's Hillary Clinton. She is one of those people who is incredibly divisive; people love her or hate her and there's very little in between. If anything I'm surprised she fared as well as she did in that poll.

In my book, she's a Clinton, and just like Bushes and Kennedys she'll never get my vote (dynastic political families are shit in my book; Roosevelts aside but they were merely 5th cousins). Besides, she simply used loose laws in my home state to get elected to the Senate despite being a non-New Yorker. Bullshit.

The divide in the US isn't mostly between North/South/East/West, it is fundamentally between urban and rural. The percentage of the population that is one vs. the other is a better judge of which direction a state will go vs. where it is in the greater United States.

The notion of secession of the Northeastern States is absurd.

Oh yeah, Bush isn't going to even run. Whoops.

Anyway, as you said, Republican candidates don't fair any better really, so there is some truth in what I said, and it doesn't really surprise me. Remember that Clinton was totally despised by conservatives, as much as Bush is by liberals and both were elected and especially re-elected relatively comfortably.


I like them both, but I don't think the "progessive" crowd is to keen on either of them.

That's pretty much the same in the UK then.

I noted yesterday how the (UK) Labour party's poll ratings have slipped to 32%. Labour slides to 20-year poll low.

This is why people are so sick of elections by the time they actually happen.

But I guess we'd all better start lining up behind our 2008 candidates. Only 865 shopping days before November 4!

Well yes, I do appreciate that. I guess I find it depressing because I like what Gore says about the envronment and I'm sad that so much of the US electorate sems to reject this position


I do appreciate this, and also a sizeable minority who either don't know or don't care. Polls like this haven't been conducted in the UK to the best of my knowledge but there is a lot of data to suggest that the core support for Labour and Conservatives rests a little above 20% for each party - that is the section of the population that will never vote any other way. The other 60% will vote for the minority parties, switch betwen the two or not vote at all.

I suppose what I was trying to address was first whether this 47-48% , are they people who would *never* vote Democrat?

Or is it just that they would never vote for a Democrat like these two?


Clinton has already done this though, adopting much of the neocon agenda. Surely it would be depressing if any democrat wishing to get office had to adopts a Bushist line on environment, defence and foreign policy just to get elected?

well, its not actually a big slip there. Anyway, it is also a midterm poll for a lameduck premier who will be out on his ear soon thank god.

This is true. A tad over 50% of Americans identify themselves as Independents despite some being registered with one of the major or minor parties. BTW, registering with a party allows you to vote in the primaries for that party i.e. you get to cast your vote for that party's candidate.


You were the man FDR.


You are right. Some more partisan Republicans call him a "RINO" - Republican In Name Only. That's hardly true. He by all accounts is a moderate who doesn't simply vote down party lines.

I like McCain a lot. Rather, I liked McCain a lot in 2000 and he's done a few small things since to tick me off (that Obama-McCain tiff was just stupid) but nothing that would make me not consider him.
I wish he had been elected in 2000.


That seedy heart that he ripped out of New York was a cancerous mass that most NYers are glad to have had excised. He did a fantastic job as mayor, before and after 9/11. BTW, the term is 4 years and one can only be elected to another term once.


It would seem to me that in most parliamentary systems the ministers vote exactly as you'd expect them to vote on nearly every issue with rare exception i.e. they tow the party line (I am open to being corrected here). You see that in certain controversial issues in US politics but not nearly as much. On most issues, both major partys in the US are represented by electees who's philosophies overlap heavily in the middle and then become more radical or reactionary in the fringes. My point is: in the US it has much, much more to do with the candidate than the party; each American voter can generally be well represented in their views by a candidate from one or the other of the major parties. Besides, since party affiliation in Congress has absolutely no bearing on who the head of state is (vs. say a Westminster Parliamentary system), Congressional majority and the executive branch can, and regaulrly do, have different political philosophies. This is a means of checks and balances system built in to the US government and it's a very, very good thing (presidential veto, congressional 2/3 majority required to overturn a veto, etc.).

BTW, I've come around on this issue (I used to be very pro-third party but the only people that would benefit from a third party today are the Republicans).

I'd happily vote for either a Democrat or a Republican, or a Green or a Libertarian for that matter, it just has to be the right individual.

It would be more depressing if politicians ignored what the electorate wanted and refused to adjust to changing values.

Shit, Kza. Now we have to get into the Electoral College and why, on the national level, politicians who adjust to "changing values" are only pandering to what is actually a minority of voters who live in states with an undue influence on election outcomes considering their populations.

Well, representative democracy isn't always about doing everything the electorate wants, all the time. If that were the case we could do away with representatives and simply have a public vote on every referendum - I doubt people would have the time or the patience to educate themselves on every issue and vote accordingly.

I'm not sure that the rural bits in New York and California are all that much more conservative than their major urban areas, though I could be wrong. Further, there are some predominantly rural states that skew more liberal than their population base would suggest. Iowa always seems to be less conservative than it ought to be. However, this is- in the main- absolutely correct. I once saw a map of the 2000 election with the same red/blue split, but by county rather than by state. The map looked about 95% red. Add up all the people who live in that massive red area and they just about balance out the blue urban areas.

Indeed, this guy:




Upstate NY and non-costal CA can be pretty conservative (see map). But you're right about IA. Weird. I'd too consider it a very conservative state but look at just how blue it is. Same goes for New Mexico - and southern Texas (though likely due to the Latino population, not by being urban by any means).

I’ve definitely concluded that the US can’t and shouldn’t continue to exist as a political union. It doesn’t work. I would love to see California independent, but the Pentagon would never allow it; they’d slag it to radioactive glass before they’d allow it.

@ UpQuark

Check out this site. It's an interesting read. Amongst the facts:


I'd hardly even consider Midland "urban."

Uh, he got less than that even. Think about it. Let's say 60% of eligible voters vote and George got half of them twice (2000 and 2004). That means that our president is elected with only 30% of the people in the US wanting him to be the king. Hows them apples?

One of the greatest things about the US is its diversity, political and otherwise. Fracturing the US would result in countries in which everyone agreed on everything; a "hive-mind" mentality if you will. Kind of like Mainland Europe*.

*kidding. But not really.

well he did rather throw the baby out with the bathwater and most of my NY friends (admittedly gay) are anything but sanguine about that. As a casual visitor to New York from the early nineties until nów I can remember the city when it was frightening dirty and covered in crime. But it also had a zing, a verve and a buzz. Cleaner, safer and more law-abiding it may be now but the zing has sadly dwindled away.


not sure what your point is here? Ministers are part of the executive in parliamentary demopcracies on the UK model - they ´*are* the administration. To speak or vote against themselves would probably indicate they are resigning as was the case with Clare Short, Robin Cook and others in recent years. In the rest of parliament there is broadly speaking freedom to operate for members as many bills are unwhipped and command broad cross-party support. However, in more controversial bills the main parties are usually 'whipped' - that is party discipline is required. one-line to three-line whips indicate the strength of the desire to have members voting with or against the government and over the requirement to attend. Notwithstanding that, there are always members that defy the whip -either on a one of basis or almost contiunually. Quite a sizeable minority of the parliamentary labour party has been doing that in the last year or so.


Yes, I do appreciate this and Conress and the Supreme Court are arguably two of the most impressive elements of US democracy. However, from a European perspective the power of the presidency, particularly over foreign and environmental policy seems to have increased somewhat do you not think? Bush got his onw way and has ploughed it evert since.


Would tend to agree with this. In two party systems a third party only splits the vote or makes the two polar opposites more extreme.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/06/..._would_win.html

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/5/prweb391395.htm

precisely


again, agree wholeheartedly. Sometimes we need our leaders to lead rather than follow surely?


I'm curious why you think that Greg - care to elaborate?

Uh, is there such a thing?


That was me. The one libertarian vote each election

Perhaps. The lack of a pulse has long been a complaint I've had about Munich. It's so fucking sterile here sometimes I want to... change that somehow.

Back to NY, I'm not sure it could be had both ways. It was either grimy and dangerous with zing or clean and safe with less pizazz. Maybe. That'd be an intersting topic for another thread.


My apologies - I meant MPs, not Ministers. I hope my post makes sense with that context.


In the public's eye and in the international PR sense yes - absolutely. I think this probably has to do more with media scrutiny and 24 hour cable news than anything else. But in legislative sense, no. The executive branch is still constrained by Congress and the Supreme Court. He can say all he want but he can't do much without a majority os Congress onboard.

I think the whole gay marriage ban bill is a good example. In Europe it was 1st page news that Bush wanted this bill to pass. When it failed to pass it I'm not sure it even made the paper.

hmm, then how did he managed to exert such massive Uturns on Kyoto and foreign policy on taking office? Neither issue required primary legislation that would have passed through Congress but the effects of both have been far reaching oin america and on the rest of the world.


it is a good example of primary legislation being poleaxed by Congress yes and an example of where US democracy is at its best. But do you take my pooint that much of the president's power and his effect on the world does not rest on legislative instruments that Congress can in any way influence?


That certainly was not true in the Guardian. If anything it was the other way round.

Actually the bit on Kyoto is completely untrue.

Clinton may have signed the Kyoto protocol, but the senate has to ratify it for it to be binding on the US. Clinton never asked them to, knowing it stood no chance of passing.

From dodgyfactspedia:

I didn't realise that and stand corrected. But, if you'll forgive me, that just depresses me even more about US politics if 100% of the senate are so opposed to even limited moves to protect the environment What hope is there for the world if the US is so hellbent on destroying it?

With Kyoto it's not quite that simple. Had Kyoto resulted US law Bush wouldn't have been able to oust it without congressional support. Bit it didn't become law. From Wiki:


Clinton didn't pass it along to Congress because it wouldn't have passed as is:


Bush is no more at fault for tossing out Kyoto than the Senate is for unanimously turning it down.

EDIT: Hippo beat me to it!

As for the Iraq war, Congress OKed it.


If that is the case with The Guardian then I'm happy to hear that. It didn't seem to be the same with the BBC however, nor mainland European news sources (In general, I'm of the opinion that British news sources are infinitely better than anything out of continental Europe).

I am not suprised. Loser women who don't even have guts to kick out a cheater husband... they will never rank high on popularity... cause people vote on incredibly stupid reasoning!!!
Simple-minded folks may be thinking: if she couldn't manage her own family life, how could she run a country???

Pity cause she must be a strong character still... ahh, no comment!

If we're calling her a loser based on her not kicking out Billy boy for his cigar shenanigans, then there must be a lot of loser women in global politics.

Well I missed the story anyway - it was just a made-up, right? Did he, or didn't he? Don't remember, was long time ago... I was young, read less news at the time...

But surely Billy times were less war-like - compared to nowadays.
He even came to Romania for a visit... was it 1995 or when???

{{ Thank God he didn't see me. Would be afraid to be seen by weak men who fancy pretty and intelligent secretaries of Eastern European origin, having a good English... (Lewinsky / Polish, right?) }}

for example Edith Cresson and Benazir Buhto for starters.

Does anyone think there is an element of 'anything-but-a-woman-for-president' in the negative vote?

there seems to be a lot of emotion behind your comments, julia. If so, then you are not alone in that (i.e. there is a very high level of emotion in current US politics in general).

But it may help to remember that people (human beings) are flawed - especially when measured against unrealistic or out-dated ideals. And yes, it does take a strong person to accept the flaws in their partner - it takes strength to move beyond those problems and to maintain a relationship, rather than just throw your hands up and quit / divorce / secede. Perhaps that is exactly what the country US needs right now.

I thbink Julia realises all this, she was commenting on the views of others and how depressing they are

Yes I do. But it is not only about that. Look, the Germans got over it quite fast - the trend will continue.

There was an article in Time last winter (can't seem to recall which month...) / it was analysing the chances of Democrat candidates-to-be, for the future, in comparison... pity they don't leave full articles online - it would be a good read for this thread! Keep on...

(if I find it, will add it later)

Maybe Condoleeza would have an easier time gaining the vote. Has she indicated whether she intends to be a candidate?

What about that black guy that everyone was hyping up a while back as the future of the democrats, made some speech at the convention, name started with O I think... Havent heard much about him lately.

Not that weird actually. A lot of farmers are actually notorious for voting democrat. Don't ask me exactly why- something about government agricultural programs, farm subsidies or some such whatever.

nice.

anyway, the junior senator from Illinois you are thinking of is named Barak Obama. His office's website is http://obama.senate.gov/ if you would like to read more.

as for what he has been "up to": one is to trim-down the expectations of him while he establishes his senatorial career and establishes himself as more that just 'that black guy who made a speach'. Political careers are rarely created overnight, you know. you can interpret this as: it is un-likely that he will jump into the presidential campaign of 2008 - perhaps in 2012 though.

in the West Wing they always seemed to talk about Ethanol when it came to Iowa and it was seen to be crucial for the Democrats to get ethanol tax credits and the like on the atute book to keep the farmers onside.

he is seriously cute - woof!

Obviously, the biggest obstacle to accurate predictions in the USA elections is the huge percentage of people who don't vote. They fall into three main categories:

Citizens who believe the game is totally fixed and that voting is a sham.

Citizens who simply don't care or don't know enough to care.

Citizens who would like to vote but are prevented from doing so either by their own bureaucratic errors or because the system is rigged to exclude them.

It has always been in the Democrats' interest to register as many voters as possible, especially from poorer districts. It has always been in the Republicans' interest to prevent poorer voters from registering. This is not a partisan perception; it is simple political fact. It allows the Dems to seem more noble than they are and reveals the Republicans to be anti-democratic in the strict sense of the term. Just today the Repubs blocked the renewal of the Voting Rights Bill. see Washington Post Article.

IMHO, if a large majority of eligible citizens registered, and a large majority of registered voters voted, the Republicans would never win another Presidential election unless they fundementally changed their philosophy.

Perot was a third party in the '92 elections and hurt the Republicans. Ironically, Clinton never would have become President were it not for Perot.

I too would like to vote for the right guy, but my conscience is tell me that the only real alternative next election is Ralph Nader...

Clinton won and no one knows how Perot voters would have voted if Perot wasn't in there. I think Clinton still would have won because of the electoral college, the actual number of popular votes and bunch of other statistical data.

Ralph Nader is a joke.

Why is Nadar a joke? Because he'd split the Democrat vote or are there other reasons?