 |
| From the Internet |
We'll find out how close polls were, and possibly a few other theories. Looking back over the history of presidents who started their road to the White House by winning Iowa prior to winning their party's nomination, then onto win the general, were only President Obama and Presidents GW Bush. President Clinton lost in '92 before going on to win presidency, as did the first President Bush, and President Reagan. In 1976, while President Carter received more delegates than any other Democratic candidate, "Undecided" had the majority.
I have expressed in "Damn Exciting", "Who Da Thunk?", "Yep I'm For Hillary", "Email, Shmeemail"; and of course "Do We Have The Ovaries To Elect A Woman?" my reasons for voting for Hillary Clinton. Which to me, if I've expressed myself articulately, should convey that it has really nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman. Anything she has done that has impressed me enough to support her and to vote for her could have been done by a man. But it wasn't. Still, somehow, people have drawn the thought that the fact she's a woman, is what's led me to support her.
Which leads me to another thought, as sort of expressed in, "This Got Me Thinking." What if the person of interest, i.e. subject of the topic of topic at hand was the opposite gender? In other words, what if Hillary was a man? With the 40+ years of law, service, and global experience. Because I'm pretty sure anyone with that much under his belt, would be encouraged to run for president. I think it would be easy to understand why he was the establishment candidate. Why he was "the chosen one".
Just think of such a candidate.
Would another even run? Probably. Would the GOP break records in the number, of running against such a candidate? Despite, many having no political experience; some with legal trouble; much less nil experience in global affairs and experience in dealing with ending lives, should they be elected?
Just to clarify, that candidate would have my support. Even if an amazing female candidate, such as Elizabeth Warren, was running. Because I would know after doing research upon research, I would find there was good reason that the chosen one was chosen, and find the chosen one has more than Sen. Warren. Make sense? Has anyone, even considered that perhaps, the resume of the establishment fav, is what kept Senator Warren from running?
On a another note; if given the opportunity, would any of the former presidents run again? After aging as much as they do, from the stress of the position- a good bit from knowledge of the number of the lives they've taken, been responsible for? Do they still consider the position as one of "winning"?
Let's remember what we're voting for.
I have expressed in "Damn Exciting", "Who Da Thunk?", "Yep I'm For Hillary", "Email, Shmeemail"; and of course "Do We Have The Ovaries To Elect A Woman?" my reasons for voting for Hillary Clinton. Which to me, if I've expressed myself articulately, should convey that it has really nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman. Anything she has done that has impressed me enough to support her and to vote for her could have been done by a man. But it wasn't. Still, somehow, people have drawn the thought that the fact she's a woman, is what's led me to support her.
Which leads me to another thought, as sort of expressed in, "This Got Me Thinking." What if the person of interest, i.e. subject of the topic of topic at hand was the opposite gender? In other words, what if Hillary was a man? With the 40+ years of law, service, and global experience. Because I'm pretty sure anyone with that much under his belt, would be encouraged to run for president. I think it would be easy to understand why he was the establishment candidate. Why he was "the chosen one".
Just think of such a candidate.
Would another even run? Probably. Would the GOP break records in the number, of running against such a candidate? Despite, many having no political experience; some with legal trouble; much less nil experience in global affairs and experience in dealing with ending lives, should they be elected?
Just to clarify, that candidate would have my support. Even if an amazing female candidate, such as Elizabeth Warren, was running. Because I would know after doing research upon research, I would find there was good reason that the chosen one was chosen, and find the chosen one has more than Sen. Warren. Make sense? Has anyone, even considered that perhaps, the resume of the establishment fav, is what kept Senator Warren from running?
On a another note; if given the opportunity, would any of the former presidents run again? After aging as much as they do, from the stress of the position- a good bit from knowledge of the number of the lives they've taken, been responsible for? Do they still consider the position as one of "winning"?
Let's remember what we're voting for.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for taking the time to chat!