Who do you think is the next president....i think....
 

i think its going to be hilary clinton......i've been saying it since before bush got re-elected. i think in 4 years hilary is going to run and she will win because 90% of females will vote for her...

I don't think Hillary will make it to president, at least not in the next two elections. :2 cents:

i think she will, she has already been talking about her "presidential plan"

I think it'll John McCain vs. Hillary and McCain will beat her in one of the biggest landslides ever. The only chance Hillary has is that she is a Clinton and everyone loved Slick Willy; but to be honest no one wants to see a women in there.

I don't think women in general are emotionally ready to be president. I can't imagine a woman giving the go-ahead to start a land or air campaign against a third-world country, especially not someone like Hillary who wrote books like "It takes a village to raise a child." :2 cents:

Except, ofcourse, for women - who happen to make up roughly 50% of the population.

Still, Hillary Clinton wouldn't stand a chance, mainly because the democrats already get most of the female vote.

i heard for every man you could get 5 women each to equal it evenly

I think it's way too early to predict.

its not too early.....check this out if you dont think so..... i am telling you, SHE WILL WIN.... and then one of two things will happen..... she will do very good or fuck this world up....

So you think women will vote for her just because she is a woman? Get real.

Many will, just like many men (and some women) will vote against her because she's a woman.

um....she can talk all she wants, she has to get elected

as much as I would like to see a woman in office, i doubt the christian coalition or the religious right would ever let that happen....women are meant to stay 1 foot behind the man and/or in the ktichen according to them....they won't say it quite that way, but it is MORE than obvious

Many women might, but for L0rdJuni0r to say that 90% of women will vote for her is just crazy.

I think John McCain has a very good chance.

I would vote for McCain...:winkwink:

I WOULD NEVER EVER VOTE for Hilary Clinton....EVER!! :warning

ok, i might of exagerated a bit but i think more than 50% would vote for her. And i never said i would vote for her or that i liked the idea of her being a president...... is simply what i think is going to happen...:321GFY :winkwink:

I agree with you there, 90% is ridiculous. Even 5-10% more votes than could otherwise be expected among women would be huge.
I do think, though, that it would cause at the very least 10%+ less votes among men than a male candidate with similar credentials would get. More than enough to offset the extra female votes.


Why not?

What about barefoot?

Theres no way Hillary would win.

1. Shes a woman and America isn't ready for a woman president yet.
2. Shes in NY and not from the south
3. She has too much baggage from her Clinton/Gore days
4. She's not conservative
5. She hasn't actually done anything that would warrant her to deserve the presidency. Her record doesnt have many stellar accomplishments.

I say its either Jeb Bush or John McCain

Remember a big chunk of the women voters that voted this time were evangelical and they would never vote for her due to her liberal background so she wouldn't get 90% of the female vote plus she would lose a large chuck of male voters, just because she is female. But hey I would vote for her, but I'm pretty left of center when it comes to this type of shit.

More than 50%?

Kerry got 51% among female voters, so "more than 50%" wouldn't exactly be a huge difference.

Now that would be funny :1orglaugh

She will win if she runs. She is have the backing of most major media.

Do did Kerry.

If I have said it once, I have said it 100 times, you will not have a female president until you have had a black male president.

If the Democrats nominate her in '08, we will have a Republican president until 2016

I am already talking about my "King plan." I think I have as good a shot as she does at becoming President . . . perhaps better.

Female: ~50% of the potential voters.
Black: ~13% of the potential voters.


A strong republican female presidential candidate would have a very good chance of winning :2 cents:

Everything you said was pretty much balls on, up until that comment

78% of all stats on GFY are pulled out of someone's ass.

FACT: The Republicans are not going to be the first one to put up a female (or black) candidate for president. That is like the KKK starting up a West Hollywood chapter. The first "serious" contender will be Democratic.

FACT: The black male had the right to vote before the white woman did. History repeats itself.

arnold shwarzmyniggah is trying to change the rules so that he can run for president next time.

if that happens, i start drinking again:glugglug

My ass.
I assumed that the percentage of the population certain groups make up are a rough indication of the percentage of potential votes they hold in society.
Although obviously not accurate, it illustrates the main point pretty well: female voters make up a much larger percentage of the total than black voters.

I agree with you saying that the reps probably won't be the first to nominate a female candidate (never say never though... in the UK, Thatcher was a conservative).
That wasn't the point, though. The point was that a strong republican female presidential candidate would have a very good chance of winning - as opposed to a democratic female presidential candidate, who wouldn't have a very good chance of winning.
The fact that a republican female presidential candidate would have very little chance of getting the nomination is a completely different point.


The fact that black males had the right to vote before women is completely irrelevant to this issue.

Black democratic presidential candidates have even less chance of winning the election than female democratic presidential candidates :2 cents:

No he isn't. A constitutional amendment proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, would make that possible. He just supports the idea.

An amendment can't be passed and enacted by '08

I am not the one who posted that.:winkwink:

Forgot to change the name in the thingy, apologies for the misquote... I was asking her, not you :)

and that is where your problem began.

Those that fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it. So whether you feel it is relevant or not does not mean much IMHO.

There were more women around and a lot lower percentage of male blacks when they gave the black man the right to vote.

Comparing England to the US for political discussions shows how clueless you really are. :2 cents: :2 cents: :2 cents: They have a fucking queen, of course they are going to be more ready to accept a female PM. They are used to being told what to do by a chick.

Whatever happened to Geraldine A. Ferraro?

Comparing England to the US for political discussions shows how clueless you really are. :2 cents: :2 cents: :2 cents: They have a fucking queen, of course they are going to be more ready to accept a female PM. They are used to being told what to do by a chick. [/B][/QUOTE]

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :evil-laug

There was no problem with my assumption, in fact, it was a very generous one. I'd bet the female vote is >50%, while the black vote is <13%, which only strengthens my point.


If you don't understand the difference between "giving the right to vote" and "voting for", I am honestly starting to wonder why I am even arguing with you.
There is no repeating of history here, since this is a fundamentally different issue. Honestly, how can you not see that? The mere fact that both issues deal with "black/women" and "voting" does not at all suggest that they are comparable.

A smaller group getting democratic rights before a larger group has nothing to do with a larger group that already has democratic rights having more influence in the democratic process.



As for your comments about comparing the UK to the US, it seems you completely misunderstood what I wrote and followed that up with a completely nonsensical statement.

First of all, as I said in the very same line containing the "never say never though... in the UK, Thatcher was a conservative", I do not expect the same thing to happen in the US. Saying I'm comparing the two thus makes no sense.

Secondly, in the UK women are actually severely under-represented in the government even when compared to other European countries, and the Conservatives tend to have a relatively lower representation of women than Labour.
And yes, I know that your comment about the queen was most likely a joke, but I have no sense of humour.

Barring that I could see a McCain / Giuliani ticket (either/or as the main candidate). It would be the ultimate weapon to energize the last available conservative vote to give "immorals" the slam home message. Prior to this year I might have seen Hillary having a chance someday, but really the country wants shit kickers and fear mongers in the White House. Blame it on video games and homosexuals or something.:glugglug

It will be interesting to see if she runs or not. If she does not win, we may see how close the next female will be.

a lot of people are saying hilary hasa high probability of winnig next election.

As long as a staunch republican makes most of the voting machines their won't be a democrat in office...

Once it's not an oddity to happen the oddity might happen:winkwink::thumbsup

Yeah, the same people that said Kerry did

The problem isn't that it would be "an oddity", it's that many people wouldn't vote for a woman simply because she's a woman.

There are as many misogynist women as there are men. No woman in my lifetime will ever be President of the US - it just isn't going to happen. Half the country seems to have these weird Freudian fixations about the Presidency. Geraldine Ferraro was only running as VP on the ticket and the press practically burned her as a witch.

Two words - Golda Meir

Two more words - Margaret Thatcher

Puhlease, "emotionally ready"?? I wish you'd known my ex-business-partner. Lots of women can be savage as hell when they want to be. Oh, and OJ and Scott are proof that men get plenty "emotional", too (anger and hate are emotions).

This has nothing to do with whether or not there are any qualified or emotionally ready women . . . it is the country that is not ready.