The JP.net Presidential Poll

[Cam]

He's (R)? Wow, with the way he's talking and being portrayed by the media over here I would have believed him to be an independant candidate.

There are some good republicans Dal. He was, in the past, a Libertarian.

Democrats on the other hand are zombies.

[Crunk415balla]

I'm all for Hillary. I loved her husband, and I'm confident with her, we'd discover and repair many social problems that we aren't even aware of yet.

[DAL767-400ER]

I loved her husband,

And yet you never got as much publicity for it as Monica Lewinsky did .

[Crunk415balla]

And yet you never got as much publicity for it as Monica Lewinsky did .

I laughed out loud, Colin.

[Brad1711]

I'm all for Hillary. I loved her husband, and I'm confident with her, we'd discover and repair many social problems that we aren't even aware of yet.

Are you drunk? How can you be confident in someone you don't even know? Her record is all over the board. She is such a whacko. Says and does anything to get a vote.

Ron Paul on the other hand... Consistent, principles, integrity, supports the Constitution...

[tds]

But of course, as soon as the others realize that he has good points and they can't really discredit him, or come up with a decent argument against his point, because he is right, all they can do is call him a racist, which is exactly what has been done. Typical

Actually there is plenty of substantive policy with which to go after Ron Paul. If the other candidates felt he was a serious threat, you'd see more of it.

They could certainly go after discrediting Paul's economic policy (which, for all the talk, is what most people vote on). As I understand it, his views are pretty 'controversial'.

They could also go after ideas such as withdrawal from the UN. A more unilateral approach is the last thing the US needs to repair the ghastly mistakes of the last eight years.

BTW, DAL764... Hillary never cried or came anywhere close to it. Pure mainstream media BS, creating a story where there was none.

[Airbus_A320]

Actually there is plenty of substantive policy with which to go after Ron Paul. If the other candidates felt he was a serious threat, you'd see more of it.

They could certainly go after discrediting Paul's economic policy (which, for all the talk, is what most people vote on). As I understand it, his views are pretty 'controversial'.

They could also go after ideas such as withdrawal from the UN. A more unilateral approach is the last thing the US needs to repair the ghastly mistakes of the last eight years.

BTW, DAL764... Hillary never cried or came anywhere close to it. Pure mainstream media BS, creating a story where there was none.

Ron Paul's economic view for one challenges the fact that when we need more money, we just make more, therefore devaluing what's already out there. He would be against government/tax payer funded social programs, which is what may be considered controversial, but such things do create dependency on the government and promote more big government in people's lives which IMO is a bad thing. He's basically against taxing people out the ass, and spending money we don't have.

He's not against the UN because he wants the US to go out there and start fighting wars without even talking to the UN. He's against it because he doesn't want the US going out there taking on other people's problems period. He's against being in Iraq, and against having our forces spread so thin all over the place.

And yes, Hillary did cry, maybe not bawwwing with tears all over the place messing up her makeup. But she cried. And it appered to get her votes. And her record is all over the place, she goes whever ever the wind blows, and will get her votes.

As I said before, I think 3rd party/independant candidates will pull many votes this time around. Maybe not enough to win, but probably enough to hurt one of the two major party nominees. People voted for the current congress and got empty promises and a lot of BS and talk (like bringing cots into the Capital ). Congress has lower approval ratings than the president right now, which aren't that high to begin with, and it's Democrat controlled. Whichever of the big candidates wins, I think we can expect more of the same non-sense.

Also, to the maker of this poll, why did you put Giuliani, as a choice and group everyone else as other. Giuliani is the biggest joke ever, he doesn't even bother campaigning anywhere other than Florida (probably because he doesn't have enough money) and every other word that comes out of his mouth is 9/11.

[~InsertNameHere~]

I was all for Obama for a long time, but now I think I'm favouring Hillary. I think she's got the experience and sense to run the country well and I think she'll take a firmly libral stance of social policy without being swayed by pressure from the right. Plus I'd like to see a woman in the white house

ultimately though, who cares as long as it's a democrat

[B757300]

Romney

Same here.

I couldn't stomach any of the Democrats or the Huckster and Ron Paul.

Problem with this poll is we have way too many non-U.S. citizens voting in it and 99% of them will vote for Hillary or Obama.

[Bok269]

Hoping for an Obama-Richardson ticket.

[Half Bottle]

Hoping for an Obama-Richardson ticket.

Should Obama secure the nomination, Richardson would make a very attractive VP choice demographically since carrying a couple of states in the desert southwest could swing the election. In addition, Richardson has the kind of administrative experience that could nicely complement Obama's chief weaknesses.

On the other hand, Richardson was a Cabinet official in the Clinton administration. Would that disqualify him in Obama's eyes? I don't think it would, but maybe.

[Crism]

I'm all for Hillary. I loved her husband, and I'm confident with her, we'd discover and repair many social problems that we aren't even aware of yet.

Amen

[Brad1711]

I was all for Obama for a long time, but now I think I'm favouring Hillary. I think she's got the experience and sense to run the country well and I think she'll take a firmly libral stance of social policy without being swayed by pressure from the right. Plus I'd like to see a woman in the white house

ultimately though, who cares as long as it's a democrat

Can't you see that Hillary just says whatever she can to get another vote? And it's scary when people vote by party (aka Straight Ticket). You should vote for the person YOU believe in... Not for the person some distant faceless political party says you should vote for. And why does gender, ethnicity, religion, orientation, background, etc. matter? Your body doesn't define you; your thoughts and actions do. The most important characterists of a politician are the person's beliefs, principles, and historical activity (voting/officiating record, job/military experience, whatever). And these three things should be in agreement with each other. You definitely do NOT want a politician who will be easily influenced by the Party. My problem with Hillary is it's impossible to know her beliefs (she is a woman of 20 faces), her principles are undefined, and her voting record is all over the place.


Obama's just way too young and inexperienced to be running the country.

[tds]

Ron Paul's economic view for one challenges the fact that when we need more money, we just make more, therefore devaluing what's already out there. He would be against government/tax payer funded social programs, which is what may be considered controversial, but such things do create dependency on the government and promote more big government in people's lives which IMO is a bad thing. He's basically against taxing people out the ass, and spending money we don't have.

He's not against the UN because he wants the US to go out there and start fighting wars without even talking to the UN. He's against it because he doesn't want the US going out there taking on other people's problems period. He's against being in Iraq, and against having our forces spread so thin all over the place.

Sure - you like Ron Paul's policy proposals. I happen not to, in the main. Incidentally, it is his views on the Fed and the Gold Standard that I was referring to, not his general low-tax/low-spend attitude (which is also controversial but shared by many Republicans).

In any case, what I was objecting to was not specific policies per se (there are a few I like) but the suggestion that he is so obviously right that there are no decent arguments against him. He's just another candidate - albeit an unusual and principled one - with arguable policy positions, not the infallible political Messiah, as some of his fans seem to think.

On Hillary's show of emotion in NH, we'll have to disagree... you must have a different definition of 'cry' to me.

[Joey]

Hillary's trump card is she's a woman. Watch for her to play this card very close to the general election - every woman breathing in this country will vote for her.

Obama, however, has become a huge "spanner in the works." The deep frustration Hillary is experiencing due to Obama being on the scene shows in every image I see of her - she's literally dripping with it.

Ron Paul has my support, and he's the only candidate actully daring to speak about issues. I know he has no chance - the corporate/media complex won't allow it. I'm watching Huckabee for the Republican side. For the Democrats I actually like Obama, and I believe he could do all right.

BTW before anybody says it, I'm not opposed to a woman being President - just not Hillary!