• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Poll on woman president

working woman

New member
Site Supporter
In our local paper they run polls on different topics. So now I am proposing it to you. The question was,
Is the United States Ready for a woman president?

(my first thought was, It depends on how bad she PMS's)
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I think the US may be ready for a conservative woman but not a liberal. So that said, I'm not quite sure that we are ready to actually elect a woman.

100% of the population knows Hillary Clinton, but about 60% of the people do not like her and would not vote for her, based on current and past polls. A large percentage of the population would vote for 'whoever opposes her' so people would actually vote against her. She is unelectable at this time in history. She knows it. It is very likely why she has been 'hawkish' on the Iraq war, and why she has moved farther to the center over the past 6 to 9 months as she is trying to shape what people beleive (or can be led to believe).

Condi Rice, on the othe hand has very low name recognition, however of the people who know who she is, something like 80% of them would vote for her if she was a presidential candidate. That is not to say they would choose her in a primary, it is to say if she was on a national ticket they would vote for her.

I think the time will come very quickly, possibly in this election cycle when one or both major parties will place a woman on the vice-presidential ticket with the serious intent to set her up for a future run at the presidential slot.
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
No, I don't think so. I would vote for a candidate, no matter their sex or color; it all depends on their platform. But I do not believe we'll have 51% of our population vote for any woman at this point in time. I would guess in the next 50 years we'll have a woman president. But, I do not see that happening in the near future.
 

LarryRB

Member
Bob S posted to a "T', how I view this exact question. Funny thing is, I always voted for Steve Forbes in the primaries and he never made it past that.. Of any republican, he was always my first choice..
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
LarryRB said:
Bob S posted to a "T', how I view this exact question. Funny thing is, I always voted for Steve Forbes in the primaries and he never made it past that.. Of any republican, he was always my first choice..


I thought we were talking about women! ;) I don't remember Steve Forbes wearing a skirt? Does he secretly hang around with Johnday & Mith? :eek:

On a serious note, a woman would have to get past our 'primary' process and I think that is a brutal process that is very unforgiving. Any sign of oddity, weakness or uncertainty is grasped upon by dozens of opponents in the early stages of the process and thrust under a microscope that has a distorted output lense. I don't think we have a woman in politics today (at least not one of national stature) who can get past the primary process.

I believe it is far more likely that a woman would be thrust into the V.P. position, if that ticket were to win, and if that woman were a strong woman who proved herself with important tasks (unlike many VP tasks) and proved herself to be non-divisive yet capable, then I think that woman could run for president and that woman would effectively bypass the primary process when it was time for her to run.

Of course, many would vote for her if she had nice boobs. :boobies::5boobs: Not that I would be one of those. :whistle:
 

LarryRB

Member
As ironic as it seems, what would a Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton as VP do? I would think by their radical opposite political stance, they would cancel each other out and maybe get something done, (of significance) (ie) Eisenhower;s highway system... I would much rather see something for us for a change, such as the interstate highway system, then all the wasted monies in Iraq and other places where our foreign aid makes a few more millionaires by theft..
Yes, we were talking women. I just threw in, who my all time favorite was and still is..
 

OkeeDon

New member
B_Skurka said:
100% of the population knows Hillary Clinton, but about 60% of the people do not like her and would not vote for her, based on current and past polls. A large percentage of the population would vote for 'whoever opposes her' so people would actually vote against her. She is unelectable at this time in history. She knows it. It is very likely why she has been 'hawkish' on the Iraq war, and why she has moved farther to the center over the past 6 to 9 months as she is trying to shape what people beleive (or can be led to believe).
Conventional wisdom. Your "60%" figure was roughly about the same prediction for her success in New York before her election. The majority of people in New York now like her; her approval ratings are off the chart. Unelectable? They said that, in New York, also.

But, where you really get it wrong is on her "move to the center". She has always held very conservative values. She was raised by a right-wing father. She moved to the left primarily during the social unheaval days of the 60's, but she never abandoned her faith, her belief in personal responsibility. Far from being a godless liberal and radical feminist, Hillary is a deeply religious, socially conservative, modern pragmatist. The image of her that is vilified by right-wingers is a work of pure projection.

After hundreds of millions of dollars and nearly a decade of investigation of she and Bill, no wrong-doing has ever been traced to her. If you believe otherwise, check the record.

Sorry, guys, what you see is what you get. What you see is the real Hillary, It's in her speeches and lectures, her Sunday School teachings, her sessions with ministers and theologians, it has shown up in Bangladesh and Baijing amd Belfast, and it's rooted in her certain idea of herself as a pulic servant. Further, while her image has been harsh at times in her past, the pecadillos of Bill actually helped her -- she is now seen by many other women as a "member of the club" who nevertheless stood by her husband.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Don, re: Hillary, I'm simply stating national polls I've read to come up with the 60% figure. As for her electibility in NY, I would suggest that she was elected because of the votes she recieved in Albany, Buffalo and NYC and not because of what she received in the rural areas. Those cities dominate the NY vote.

As for her history, I am well aware of where she came from, I do tend to agree with you. However, her position has moved from left of center to center on many issues. I have never suggested she did anything wrong, nor have I vilified her. I did lay out an objective assessment. I don't believe the Hillary we are seeing today is the 'real' Hillary, I believe it is an orchestrated Hillary that is looking to her future and realizing she must move center if she will have hopes of a National future in politics.
 

Cityboy

Banned
Yes, I think we are ready for a woman president. The right woman can get elected, but of course I don't think that woman is Hillary Clinton.

I think Hillary is viscous and dangerous in that she will portray any image necessary in the meantime until she reaches the position she seeks in order to implement her ultimate agenda. She is not stupid. But she is not a deeply religious, socially conservative, modern pragmatist either. I think she is a hardcore socialist. I know that she was once a member of the Young Republicans, however that may have been parental influence and is not indicative of who she really is and what she truly believes.
 
Last edited:

dzalphakilo

Banned
B_Skurka said:
Don, re: Hillary, I'm simply stating national polls I've read to come up with the 60% figure. As for her electibility in NY, I would suggest that she was elected because of the votes she recieved in Albany, Buffalo and NYC and not because of what she received in the rural areas. Those cities dominate the NY vote

When I transfered to "upstate" N.Y it was required of myself to send (via ups at the time) all of my guns (privatly owned) to a registered FFL dealer, and then the "State" after reviewing my "record" would notify me "when" I would be able to pick them up. This while I worked for the goverment!

This was before Hillary was elected.

This is only my opinion (sp?) and we know what they are like:D

N.Y State has been "ruined" by Albany and N.Y.C.

In civilian life the company I now work for asked me to transfer to Albany. I ran a "check" on local gun laws, and low and behold, some firearms I owned were not allowed in the Albany city limits. I told my company, thanks but no thanks.

I called all of my firends up in N.Y after Hillary was elected and "busted" on them how they could elect her (EVERYONE told me THEY didn't vote for her).

Talking to my cousin who lives in N.Y.C, she mentioned to me that Hillary didn't win the election, that the opposition lost it.

While living in N.Y, my thoughts were (for what it matters) was that N.Y.C controls the "state" of New York.

Democrats in the "urban" setting, Republicans in the "rural" areas.

If you get caught with a handgun "lose" in your vehicle in N.Y State, beware, your looking at a mandatory jail sentence. Gun laws are as bad as some New England States.

Point being is that I'm glad no longer live in N.Y State (and I don't miss the snow!).

Don't get me started on Vermont and what's going on up there! (I can't be all that wrong, my father in law has lived in Vermont all his life and we agree on almost everything, so I don't feel that I'm that "out of it").

Seems like a "role reversal".

More "liberals" up "North" and more conservatives (sp?) down "south".

New Hampshire, live free or die? Right!

Just seems funny at times (to me) where our country is going demographically (sp?) realted to "politics".

Ok, I'm getting off on the topic, apologies:eek:

As far as a woman as President? Miss Rice might actually have my vote:tiphat:
 
Last edited:

JimR

Charter Member
Ms Rice gets my Vote also. Hillary gets bitch slapped.

Vermont is being taken over by weathly New Yorkers, and people from Ct, Ma and a few other states. They are screwing that state all to hell.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
What I find interesting about this thread, is that we are mostly white rural dwelling men and yet it seems like we would gladly vote for a black urban dwelling woman as our president. That seems to defy a lot of conventional wisdom.

Now I will grant you that this thread is a very small sample of people, or even forum members so the numbers may not play out in a larger scope, but it sure is interesting to consider.
 

ddrane2115

Charter Member
SUPER Site Supporter
Rice in a second. Hillary is just not with it, she should have told Billy boy to get lost when he was "not having sex" with whats her name.
 

Big Dog

Large Member
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Doc said:
No, I don't think so. I would vote for a candidate, no matter their sex or color; it all depends on their platform. But I do not believe we'll have 51% of our population vote for any woman at this point in time. I would guess in the next 50 years we'll have a woman president. But, I do not see that happening in the near future.

Ditto for me! Well said Doc............:a1:
 

OkeeDon

New member
Odd; I haven't seen any of the conservatives mention NC Senator Elizabeth Dole. If there are going to be women running, you can bet she'll be in the thick of it. Of course, if both she and Rice are going for the same spot, it will fracture the vote and neither will get it. Personally, as much as I think Rice is a lightweight piano-playing so-called politician who has never even run for an office let alone won the election, I'd rather have her than know-it-all Dole.
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
OkeeDon said:
Odd; I haven't seen any of the conservatives mention NC Senator Elizabeth Dole. If there are going to be women running, you can bet she'll be in the thick of it. Of course, if both she and Rice are going for the same spot, it will fracture the vote and neither will get it. Personally, as much as I think Rice is a lightweight piano-playing so-called politician who has never even run for an office let alone won the election, I'd rather have her than know-it-all Dole.

Don, just curious who you would vote for in an election between Rice and Hillary?

I would vote for Hillary in that circumstance, but like most national elections i see it more as choosing the lessor of two evils. But thats just me.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I think there are lots of ladies who 'could' run for president, but I think that only a handful might be 'likely' to run. Elizabeth Dole is not-likely to run, simply because of age. Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton both fall into an age range that could run anytime in the next decade or even a bit farther out. That means they could establish themselves.

It is a shame that Ms Rice is being insulted simply because she is a great talent at playing the piano. The fact of the matter is she is a brilliant woman and far less divisive than Mrs Clinton.

As for the recounts, the record is fairly clear. The Dems INITIALLY opposed a state-wide recount but conceeded to it. The counts all came back with Bush as the winner, even if by the slimmest margin. No arguement that it was a total cluster and never should have happened but the fact is he won. Twice. Legitimately. Even if the 1st time if was questionable, it was still legitimate.
 

Viking

New member
Site Supporter
No, this country is not ready for a woman president.

Yesterday on Meet The Press one of the talking heads mentioned that Hillary Clinton has been rather quiet of late regarding a troop pullout from Iraq. She has disagreed with Rep. Murtha regarding the immediate pullout. Hillary Clinton would like nothing more than to keep all the troops in Iraq until she is elected President so she can take credit for the troop pullout and come off looking like the great savior. She could care less how many troops get blown up between now and then as long as she gets to bring them home in her attempt to create a legacy for herself of which her slimebag husband was not able to do.

Have you guys been watching that new ABC show, Commander and Chief? It was developed by some of the Clintons' Hollywood buddies to get the country comfy with the idea of a female president (Hillary).
 

humor_me

New member
working woman said:
Is the United States Ready for a woman president?

(my first thought was, It depends on how bad she PMS's)


She needs to be a grandmother, conservative, a real bitch, and preferably either a veteran herself or the wife of a veteran (husband needs to support her, keep his mouth shut and not Homer-it-up) to make it as president. And, she absolutely has to be Christian, and a member of the NRA.

Oh yeah, she'd better be tall, stacked, great legs, and a butt that'll bring you to tears.:moon:

But, she cannot be too "perfect", and she can't be too attractive (Washington is full of successful women who aren't, and the less attractive, the better).

Meet those requirements, and I'd have a serious look at the vote.
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
humor_me said:
She needs to be a grandmother, conservative, a real bitch, and preferably either a veteran herself or the wife of a veteran (husband needs to support her, keep his mouth shut and not Homer-it-up) to make it as president. And, she absolutely has to be Christian, and a member of the NRA.

Oh yeah, she'd better be tall, stacked, great legs, and a butt that'll bring you to tears.:moon:

But, she cannot be too "perfect", and she can't be too attractive (Washington is full of successful women who aren't, and the less attractive, the better).

Meet those requirements, and I'd have a serious look at the vote.

I did read your whole post, but when I got to the 'not to attractive' it hit me:

Janet Reno!!!!

her butt might bring you to tears ...but not in the same way you were thinking. :D
 

humor_me

New member
Janet Reno!!!!


NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(the only way that could bring me to tears is if we have to see her in the pulic eye again!)

Nothing from the Clinton era.


The reason for "not too attractive" is for the female vote. I doubt the majority of the less attractive types who wear comfortable shoes would vote for a pretty. She has to look & be sort of grand-motherly, but able to kick some butt.
 

humor_me

New member
Besides, I doubt a female leader could do any worse than a male leader could. So to me, it's not a sexism thing. There are some very crafty female politicians out there.
 

OregonAlex

New member
B_Skurka said:
I think the US may be ready for a conservative woman but not a liberal.

sorry.. I am a bit late on this subject. I somehow find this a very ironic and entertaining statement. Conservatives would vote in a women but not the liberals? Seems backwards to me. Isn't that the definition of liberalism? To be open minded?

Frankly, I think the type of woman that would be voted in by conservatives would have to act and behave like a man who just happens to have female parts by freak accident. Physically, a woman but not pychologically. Anyone know what I mean and agree?
 

bczoom

Super Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
OregonAlex said:
act and behave like a man who just happens to have female parts by freak accident. Physically, a woman but not pychologically. Anyone know what I mean and agree?
Ahhhh, yea but it's in true in both parties. Can someone name a (prominent) female politician that doesn't act/behave like a man?
 

OregonAlex

New member
bczoom said:
Ahhhh, yea but it's in true in both parties. Can someone name a (prominent) female politician that doesn't act/behave like a man?

you got a valid point there.. I am drawing a blank.

However, I do think it is possible for one day to have a women president that actually thinks like a woman but has enough guts to take on the system.

Oprah Winfrey and Venesa Williams come to mind. Dont laugh.
 
Last edited:

Kubota King

New member
working woman said:
In our local paper they run polls on different topics. So now I am proposing it to you. The question was,
Is the United States Ready for a woman president?

(my first thought was, It depends on how bad she PMS's)

I agree.....the PMS is a large factor! Not to mention how emotial women are. ever watch the show "sex in the city?" Those women pretty much explain it in a few episodes.
 

Himself

New member
To have a woman win the Presidency requires a fundamental change in how voters actually elect a candidate.
This fundamental change would require voters to elect two final women candidates. The winner of the mud wrestling contest would gain office.
If this happens I promise the biggest viewer share in history to the network carrying the "election". I've never actually seen a mud wrestling contest so I am looking forward with great glee.

A woman President?
There are undoubtedly many womem far better qualified than the boobster in there now. Ain't America great, no goons have broken my door down yet.
Just what could a woman offer that would garner the vote of the electoral college? How would America be better off? She would still be a politician. Likely a lawyer also. The only difference is going to boil down to gender. Gender has very little influence on how I personally weigh a persons abilities. I'm glad women exist, in fact I'm quite fond of them, once in a while, in my own way. A woman President sits just fine with me. Of course, I can speak only for myself, America may differ.
I have to go see who's banging on the front door. Bye.

Best wishes for the new year.
Martin
 
Top