• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll says we want change

gdgyva

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
13,001
Reaction score
6,973
Location
Near Atlanta Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Americans are tired of the political establishment and want change, according to an AOL News poll.

When given the choice of Democrat Hillary Clinton, Republican Mitt Romney or "I hope someone else runs," an overwhelming majority of people opted for the devil they don't know.

More than 51,000 people voted as of Tuesday morning, and 61 percent of them are against either of the presumptive frontrunners in the 2016 presidential election.

A meager 26 percent said "Hillary all the way" and only 13 percent think "Mitt Romney is the man with the plan."

The AOL News poll ran from Monday afternoon until Tuesday morning.


It came on the heels of the former first lady and secretary of state appearing in Iowa over the weekend and only hours after a major Romney donor told Fox Business that he expects the former Massachusetts governor to take one more shot at the White House.

Readers also voiced their opinions in over 2,600 comments: opinions were sharply divided.

"I think anyone would be better than Hillary Clinton, one who can not be trusted, believed or depended upon to do the right thing for the country instead of what's good for Hillary," wrote Betty Hensley.

Rick Pollock, responding to Hensley's anti-Clinton comments, wrote: "Hillary's agenda is very pro women. Shame on you."

Hensley's comment was most "liked" on Facebook by AOL readers.

"I would not vote for Romney as dog catcher," said Robert Perez. "He's out touch [sic]."

That comment was echoed by many who griped that the former Bain Capital chairman's excessive wealth is a reason why he would not be a good leader. Others saw his personal success as the exact attribute one looks for in a leader.

AOL.com Article - Anyone but Hillary or Romney: Americans want real change in 2016 presidential election

fairly large poll

51k respondents

not good news for Clinton or Romney followers
 
Internet polls are some of the most unscientific, and unreliable polls out there...
 
" Poll says we want change"

Elections say "we like things just as they are"
 
" Poll says we want change"

Elections say "we like things just as they are"

The question is why? As disillusioned as voters are, they keep going back to the same old one or the other.
 
The question is why? As disillusioned as voters are, they keep going back to the same old one or the other.

Because feelings and emotions have as much influence (or more) on our decisions as logic and reason do.
 
Americans are tired of the political establishment and want change, according to an AOL News poll.

When given the choice of Democrat Hillary Clinton, Republican Mitt Romney or "I hope someone else runs," an overwhelming majority of people opted for the devil they don't know.

More than 51,000 people voted as of Tuesday morning, and 61 percent of them are against either of the presumptive frontrunners in the 2016 presidential election.

A meager 26 percent said "Hillary all the way" and only 13 percent think "Mitt Romney is the man with the plan."

The AOL News poll ran from Monday afternoon until Tuesday morning.


It came on the heels of the former first lady and secretary of state appearing in Iowa over the weekend and only hours after a major Romney donor told Fox Business that he expects the former Massachusetts governor to take one more shot at the White House.

Readers also voiced their opinions in over 2,600 comments: opinions were sharply divided.

"I think anyone would be better than Hillary Clinton, one who can not be trusted, believed or depended upon to do the right thing for the country instead of what's good for Hillary," wrote Betty Hensley.

Rick Pollock, responding to Hensley's anti-Clinton comments, wrote: "Hillary's agenda is very pro women. Shame on you."

Hensley's comment was most "liked" on Facebook by AOL readers.

"I would not vote for Romney as dog catcher," said Robert Perez. "He's out touch [sic]."

That comment was echoed by many who griped that the former Bain Capital chairman's excessive wealth is a reason why he would not be a good leader. Others saw his personal success as the exact attribute one looks for in a leader.

AOL.com Article - Anyone but Hillary or Romney: Americans want real change in 2016 presidential election

fairly large poll

51k respondents

not good news for Clinton or Romney followers

The problem is the majority of us have no to little say in who runs. The Republican and Democratic party will decide whom they will run. Since when has either party ever listened to the people? Then too, who does either party have that the people would want? According to Gallup, 26% of the electorate identify with the Democratic Party and a smaller percentage are registered Democrats who vote in their primaries and chose their nominee. The Republican party has 25% of the electorate and the same applies to them. Less then 10% of eligible voters will vote in the presidential primaries, those 10% will narrow the field down to two which you and I will have to choose from.
 
Americans are tired of the political establishment and want change, according to an AOL News poll.

When given the choice of Democrat Hillary Clinton, Republican Mitt Romney or "I hope someone else runs," an overwhelming majority of people opted for the devil they don't know.

More than 51,000 people voted as of Tuesday morning, and 61 percent of them are against either of the presumptive frontrunners in the 2016 presidential election.

A meager 26 percent said "Hillary all the way" and only 13 percent think "Mitt Romney is the man with the plan."

The AOL News poll ran from Monday afternoon until Tuesday morning.


It came on the heels of the former first lady and secretary of state appearing in Iowa over the weekend and only hours after a major Romney donor told Fox Business that he expects the former Massachusetts governor to take one more shot at the White House.

Readers also voiced their opinions in over 2,600 comments: opinions were sharply divided.

"I think anyone would be better than Hillary Clinton, one who can not be trusted, believed or depended upon to do the right thing for the country instead of what's good for Hillary," wrote Betty Hensley.

Rick Pollock, responding to Hensley's anti-Clinton comments, wrote: "Hillary's agenda is very pro women. Shame on you."

Hensley's comment was most "liked" on Facebook by AOL readers.

"I would not vote for Romney as dog catcher," said Robert Perez. "He's out touch [sic]."

That comment was echoed by many who griped that the former Bain Capital chairman's excessive wealth is a reason why he would not be a good leader. Others saw his personal success as the exact attribute one looks for in a leader.

AOL.com Article - Anyone but Hillary or Romney: Americans want real change in 2016 presidential election

fairly large poll

51k respondents

not good news for Clinton or Romney followers

When Americans start voting for change during elections rather than AOL polls we may get it. I can predict right now that Romney and Hilary (or whoever gets the D and R nominations) will combine for 95% of the popular vote.
 
When I first read the thread title, I thought this had been bumped from 2007 :lol:
 
The problem is the majority of us have no to little say in who runs. The Republican and Democratic party will decide whom they will run. Since when has either party ever listened to the people? Then too, who does either party have that the people would want? According to Gallup, 26% of the electorate identify with the Democratic Party and a smaller percentage are registered Democrats who vote in their primaries and chose their nominee. The Republican party has 25% of the electorate and the same applies to them. Less then 10% of eligible voters will vote in the presidential primaries, those 10% will narrow the field down to two which you and I will have to choose from.

That's the problem in a nutshell. Even here in NH where we actually have a chance to vote for all of the people who run (not just whatever is left over by the time the primaries get to your state) and it seems we still end up with whoever the "machine" is pushing.

People love to say we need to replace all the politicians and so on, but come general election day, you know 1 of the 2 will win, so even if you don't care for either one, you often times end up picking the lesser of 2 evils (as I did in 2008 when I voted for McCain).

Nothing is going to change. Am I bad for saying that?
 
That's the problem in a nutshell. Even here in NH where we actually have a chance to vote for all of the people who run (not just whatever is left over by the time the primaries get to your state) and it seems we still end up with whoever the "machine" is pushing.

People love to say we need to replace all the politicians and so on, but come general election day, you know 1 of the 2 will win, so even if you don't care for either one, you often times end up picking the lesser of 2 evils (as I did in 2008 when I voted for McCain).

Nothing is going to change. Am I bad for saying that?

No you're not bad. You may be cynical, but you're not bad. You may be brutally honest and in touch with political reality in the US, but you're not bad. :cool:
 
" Poll says we want change"

Elections say "we like things just as they are"

Ain't that the truth! :( Except for Obama sort of.
 
As long as this country remains "romantically" tied to the two-party system we currently have, nothing will change.
 
As long as this country remains "romantically" tied to the two-party system we currently have, nothing will change.

The two party system has nothing to do with romance. It's the inevitable result of a winner takes all electoral system.
 
That's the problem in a nutshell. Even here in NH where we actually have a chance to vote for all of the people who run (not just whatever is left over by the time the primaries get to your state) and it seems we still end up with whoever the "machine" is pushing.

People love to say we need to replace all the politicians and so on, but come general election day, you know 1 of the 2 will win, so even if you don't care for either one, you often times end up picking the lesser of 2 evils (as I did in 2008 when I voted for McCain).

Nothing is going to change. Am I bad for saying that?

No you are not. I have taken a different route, although it really means nothing. When I do not like the choices in November, I vote third party. The lesser of two evils is still evil, the least worst candidate is still a bad candidate. So in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections it has been third party.

I think until more people stop voting for the lesser of two evils we will continue to have that choice. But most independents and undecideds buy into the propaganda from both parties that a vote for a third party or independent candidate is a wasted vote, they can't win. I firmly believe the only wasted vote is one cast for the lesser of two evils. You are not doing yourself or the country any favors by voting for evil regardless of the degree.

Then there is the money aspect of it. Third Parties are overwhelmed by the money spent by the major parties. A billion dollars each in the last presidential election, Gary Johnson was in third place as far as money spent with 3 million. Quite long odds when one is outspent 2 billion to 3 million. Third party candidates will not get any of the lobbyist, corporate, wall street, special interests money. Their millions, tens of millions will go to buy or at least make the Republican and Democratic candidates owe them. So business as usual continues.
 
The two party system has nothing to do with romance. It's the inevitable result of a winner takes all electoral system.

Dems & Reps seem to have an almost "romantic" view of their own party. They wish and believe it to be something it's not, yet they refuse to see exactly what it is.

They can't see the truth due to their blind "love" of what they think the party should stand for.
 
Dems & Reps seem to have an almost "romantic" view of their own party. They wish and believe it to be something it's not, yet they refuse to see exactly what it is.

They can't see the truth due to their blind "love" of what they think the party should stand for.

Thanks for the more clear description of what you meant by "romance" but the poll (if it's to be believed) suggests that many are not as "romanced" as you portray. While there are definitely party loyalists, there are a variety of measures which suggest that is declining such as Congress' low approval rating and the increasing # of independents.
 
That's the problem in a nutshell. Even here in NH where we actually have a chance to vote for all of the people who run (not just whatever is left over by the time the primaries get to your state) and it seems we still end up with whoever the "machine" is pushing.

People love to say we need to replace all the politicians and so on, but come general election day, you know 1 of the 2 will win, so even if you don't care for either one, you often times end up picking the lesser of 2 evils (as I did in 2008 when I voted for McCain).

Nothing is going to change. Am I bad for saying that?

This is what I've seen as well. People talk and talk and talk, but every election we see the same old type of people get elected.

I've stopped voting for the lesser of two evils because in the end you're still getting evil. (You as in general you, not you personally).
 
Thanks for the more clear description of what you meant by "romance" but the poll (if it's to be believed) suggests that many are not as "romanced" as you portray. While there are definitely party loyalists, there are a variety of measures which suggest that is declining such as Congress' low approval rating and the increasing # of independents.

Many studies have shown that the discontent usually reflects peoples opinions on the "other guys".

As in, everyone else is corrupt, but the guy/party I vote for and support is trustworthy.

This is reflected your post about poll answers showing one thing, who gets elected showing quite another.
 
This is what I've seen as well. People talk and talk and talk, but every election we see the same old type of people get elected.

I've stopped voting for the lesser of two evils because in the end you're still getting evil. (You as in general you, not you personally).

Sometimes the lesser of 2 evils to me isn't really that evil. It may not be my ideal candidate, but he/she isn't disasterous, where I often think the alternative is or could be disasterous.
 
Back
Top Bottom