This frightens me.Follow

Even the haters of the stations still watch it just as much as the audience it targets. Ask Fox news.

/nod

Not to mention other ways online polls are abused.

McCain can't win anyway, so it's not terribly relevant.

Sure, regular polling has its flaws and embarassing mistakes. It's still better than "Invite your friends to click this button!"

To restate my usual: Traditional polling is flawed but remains the best method we have of guessing.

I was joking.

Let's try it again:

Not like dem dere crazy poling results!!! You know they built that upside down air craft carrier!! Ah ha cha cha cha. :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

Unsubtle enough?

There is only one way to settle this:

Internet polls are silly... but forum polls are science!

Vote or i'll karma camp you!

Frightens you, Nexa, because you want so badly for Hillary to win and the predictions showed she was supposed to lose, or frightens you because John McCain appeals to independents for not adhereing strictly to the party line and could allow Republicans to take the Oval Office again?

In all seriousness, it amazes me that people are willing to consider Hillary as a viable candidate considering her prediliction for secrecy and exclusiveness. Everything about her suggests she would operate a presidential administration as furtively as she possibly could-- something that should be anathema to freedom loving open-to-the-media cherishing Lefties. Can you say Nixonian? Can you say virtual Patriot Act when discussing her policy decisions?

The woman practically exudes loathing of the press and hates to compromise in any way. Gridlock coupled with paranoia is a recipe for disaster, but hey, if the commonality of having ovaries are the prerequisite for earning your vote, more power to ya. Just let it never be said women's sufferage was a good idea if gender is the basis for the female lovefest with Mrs. Clinton. That, after all, would just confirm what many men secretly believe anyhow-- that the weaker sex is entirely too emotional to be trusted with power.

/quickly holds his hands up in front of himself in defense

Not that I think that way!

/glances over at Mrs. Totem

Totem

Hate to say it, but I'm with Totem on this......

If a Republican had to win, let it be McCain.

He's for immigration reform and, despite his "I learned my lesson" statements, I think that if he was in office with a Democratic controlled Congress, he'd push to do it.

He supports federal funding for stem cell research.

He's the only one from that side willing to speak against torture. Wants to close Guantanamo Bay and move prisoners to Fort Leavenworth, eliminating the "Not really American soil" loophole.

He's taken a more critical approach to the war rather than following the Bush line. I'm not saying that I agree with his current plans for the war but he seems to have a more thoughtful approach to it than Bush did or, by association, those who continue to say "Yay Bush! Boo Terrorists!" whenever it comes up.

He's outspokenly against drilling in ANWR.

Voted against the gay marriage prohibition amendment.

There's a lot that I don't like about him as well (abortion, education, etc) and even some of the above he's not perfect on, but he's a hell of a lot closer to someone I'd vote for than any of the other possible Republican candidates.

I think that Ms. Clinton over-states her experience in regards to her stint as First Lady.

That said, no Democrats have ever accused Laura Bush of being the one "really" in charge of the White House or made snide jokes about "President Bush and her husband". It was all well and good to jump up and down and rant about Hillary over-stepping her First Lady "duties" during the 90's and now it's a bunch of "Well, she was only First Lady! She never had any experience!"

Edited, Jan 10th 2008 12:16am by Jophiel

What, so it's okay to vote for a man who's a misleading, uncompromising ignoramus but not a woman who may share those traits? That's just sexist.


Honestly after Dubya, even Romney would be an upgrade.

Edited, Jan 10th 2008 6:18am by Atomicflea

No, I am pointing out that if she has so much experience then why is she afraid to let the public see what she did in getting it? It's one thing to say you have earned the right to be up there on the campaign stump due to her proximity to the Oval Office, but if we can't actually examine what it is that she did beyond assuming she served tea and cookies, then for all practical purposes she doesn't actually have any more time under her belt than Obama does as a senator.

Thanks, but scrutiny, by both the media and John Q. Public is the acid test for such claims.

Totem