Californians ready for female president, undecided about Clinton
Who are these liberals kidding; they'd vote for her sorry @$$ as long as she was running against a republican.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
6:34 a.m. March 10, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO – A majority of Californians say they're ready for a woman president, although New York Sen. Hillary Clinton may not necessarily be the one they would vote for, according to a new statewide poll released Friday.
The Field Poll showed that 69 percent of registered voters in the state believe the country is ready for a female president, while 24 percent disagreed. There was little difference in opinion between men and women, although Democrats (77 percent) and nonpartisan (74 percent) voters were more likely to favor a female president compared to Republicans (56 percent), and younger people were more receptive to the idea than those 65 and older.
When asked about whether they would be inclined to vote for Clinton in 2008, Californians were more evenly split, with 47 percent saying they would and 42 percent saying they would not, according to the poll.
The survey said those supportive of Clinton tend to be young, ethnic, liberal and either non-Christian or nonreligious.
If Clinton did run, 51 percent of California voters believe she would be treated more harshly than other candidates, the poll showed. Eighteen percent said she would be treated better, and 22 percent said she'd be treated equally.
Researchers interviewed 507 registered voters by telephone from Feb. 12-26 in English and Spanish. The poll has a sampling error rate of 4.5 percentage points.
__________________ Commen Sense and Critical Thinking are an absolute joke in today's society. Yes I am talking to you!
It was much better during say Reagan and Clinton because for the majority of their terms, the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch were opposed to each other. This one party rule is too scary.
__________________
"Would it make you feel better, little girl, if they was thrown outta windows?"-Archie Bunker
It was much better during say Reagan and Clinton because for the majority of their terms, the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch were opposed to each other. This one party rule is too scary.
It's hard to believe Congress has been such a tame mutt of the White House that Bush hasn't vetoed a single bill.
And it's totally absurd that the only two cases I can remember where he
even threatened one were the anti-torture bill and the Ports deal.
I agree. what a disappointment bush has been. I'm still amazed, never would I have thought he would be this bad.
Well the issue is somewhat moot - Bush isn't going to be up for reelection and the other republicans have shown their opposition to his positions on such issues as the port deal. Bush can pass in his proper time and what the repubs need to do is be objectively critical of his presidency and make it clear what they would do in the future.
__________________
Trust is earned, not... GIVEN away. - Worf
You never know,they have three more years to make it possible for him to have a third term,stay the course,emergency war time,can't change in mid stream,etc.
His war will never end if he had his way,make the whole world like you want it to be,sounds like some others from the past.
Everything old is new again,if at first you don't suceed with one world power,try,try again.
Maybe when we are bankrupt we can start over again?
__________________
USAF 62-66 E-4
Resident Curmudgeon
We have been and still are being sold out.
Location: West, Central Florida, Third World America
Posts: 6,342
God! What a horrible thought.......more of bush than we were already sentenced too? What other parts of America do you suppose he could sell? What other rights do you suppose he'll decide we need to sacrifice for his arab buds? the thought is just too scarry.
__________________
"They cannot be trusted.....The Romulans (our politicos) are without honor." Worf
