A lot of talk about who votes or voted for what and why. Mostly partial or biased rhetoric, which is not unexpected. And of course the usual smattering of the radicals left or right.

Here is a site that has some interesting "statistics" for voters:

Voting Statistics | Statistic Brain

Toward the bottom there are other choices of different statistical groupings all to do with voters.

For those who know this stuff cold it may be old hat. But for some I suspect it could be a revelation. It all depends how well read on the subject a person is or is not.

What is perfectly clear is the potential to create a new influence in the voting pattern is within the almost 50% who choose not to vote.

If we want to make a difference in 2016 we must all push family and friends to get out and vote. There has to be a way to inspire some of the indifferent folks to get out and vote.

Originally Posted by Guest

A lot of talk about who votes or voted for what and why. Mostly partial or biased rhetoric, which is not unexpected. And of course the usual smattering of the radicals left or right.

Here is a site that has some interesting "statistics" for voters:

Voting Statistics | Statistic Brain

Toward the bottom there are other choices of different statistical groupings all to do with voters.

For those who know this stuff cold it may be old hat. But for some I suspect it could be a revelation. It all depends how well read on the subject a person is or is not.

What is perfectly clear is the potential to create a new influence in the voting pattern is within the almost 50% who choose not to vote.

If we want to make a difference in 2016 we must all push family and friends to get out and vote. There has to be a way to inspire some of the indifferent folks to get out and vote.

My only concern is if you have "push" someone to vote, will their vote be a intelligent, well-informed vote? If not, maybe it is best that they just don't vote.

Originally Posted by Guest

A lot of talk about who votes or voted for what and why. Mostly partial or biased rhetoric, which is not unexpected. And of course the usual smattering of the radicals left or right.

Here is a site that has some interesting "statistics" for voters:

Voting Statistics | Statistic Brain

Toward the bottom there are other choices of different statistical groupings all to do with voters.

For those who know this stuff cold it may be old hat. But for some I suspect it could be a revelation. It all depends how well read on the subject a person is or is not.

What is perfectly clear is the potential to create a new influence in the voting pattern is within the almost 50% who choose not to vote.

If we want to make a difference in 2016 we must all push family and friends to get out and vote. There has to be a way to inspire some of the indifferent folks to get out and vote.

IMO There will be such enthusiasm for voting for the first woman for President of the United States that there will be a record turn-out in 2016.

This enthusiasm is not only coming from younger women, but also from older women who want to see a woman elected before they die.

Women are the largest voting block in the country, and President Obama carried the women's vote by 20 points over Mitt Romney. The margin should be even larger with Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket.

That is one of the problems with this country; people make voting decisions based on an idea and not on qualifications. They liked the idea of a black (actually half black) president despite the fact that he possessed poor qualifications. The folly of the decision has been partially manifested by overwhelming Republican victories in the mid-terms. So now the new "idea" is a woman president at all costs? Clinton is anything but honest and also has poor qualifications. If your overriding mission is to vote for a woman, at least choose one who has some leadership skills and has actually managed a business- Carly Fiorina.

Sadly, you are probably right. I suggest hunkering down for the duration as I see nothing but continued incompetence coming down the pike.

Originally Posted by Guest

IMO There will be such enthusiasm for voting for the first woman for President of the United States that there will be a record turn-out in 2016.

This enthusiasm is not only coming from younger women, but also from older women who want to see a woman elected before they die.

Women are the largest voting block in the country, and President Obama carried the women's vote by 20 points over Mitt Romney. The margin should be even larger with Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket.

Originally Posted by Guest

IMO There will be such enthusiasm for voting for the first woman for President of the United States that there will be a record turn-out in 2016.

This enthusiasm is not only coming from younger women, but also from older women who want to see a woman elected before they die.

Women are the largest voting block in the country, and President Obama carried the women's vote by 20 points over Mitt Romney. The margin should be even larger with Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket.

Forgive me, but my first thoughts in reading this post is how stupid - not meant toward you, guest, but to the idea. I am an "older" woman and that is by no means a dying wish of mine. What I would like to see is the election of an honorable, qualified person. I don't care whether they are male, female, black, white, red or purple. Regarding Hillary, I may be proven wrong, but I don't think as many people, including women, are as fond of her as you may think. And I surely hope that not that many would be so foolish as to vote for here JUST because she is a woman. I guess only time will tell however.

The mention of Carly Fiorina as a presidential candidate is so laughable. She was a disaster at HP. She was a disaster as a political contender in California.

Carly will not make the president or VP ticket because even the Republican leadership knows Carly is not electable.

So one of the posts would suggest the voter turn out will be swung by a female candidate. Really?
Are you suggesting the female voting population would let gender make their choice?
Does that mean qualified or not? Honest or not? For the people or not?
All of which would disqualify Clinton.

I know too many very active, let a woman do it types, and I know they would not choose by gender alone.

I guess Fiorina is a welcome candidate by the intention of the pro female votes.....right?

I accept there will be any number of Clinton loyalists that will pump her up to be the right candidate at the right time. The skeletons in her closet suggest not. Her lack of performance in every job she has ever had is also testimony to her inadequacies.

How about we all agree that the best thing to do for our country is to elect the very best candidate. Setting aside gender, race and religion. I know! A snowball in hell has a better chance than that!

Please do not let friends and family vote by gender or race or religion. Please try.

Originally Posted by Guest

The mention of Carly Fiorina as a presidential candidate is so laughable. She was a disaster at HP. She was a disaster as a political contender in California.

Carly will not make the president or VP ticket because even the Republican leadership knows Carly is not electable.

I knew it would not take long for the hypocracy to come out.
It is time for a woman POTUS, as long as it is Clinton? Really?

Must be as the snipes and darts and dissing of another woman are front and center.

So Clinton being a disaster at the jobs she has had in the past doesn't matter?

BS.......Just be honest and say party first no matter what and cut the rest of the BS.

Originally Posted by Guest

IMO There will be such enthusiasm for voting for the first woman for President of the United States that there will be a record turn-out in 2016.

This enthusiasm is not only coming from younger women, but also from older women who want to see a woman elected before they die.

Women are the largest voting block in the country, and President Obama carried the women's vote by 20 points over Mitt Romney. The margin should be even larger with Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket.

Do you realize how idiotic it is to advocate voting for a candidate simply because "she's a woman?"

Ovaries or testicles ... I would prefer a genuine, people-focused leader who is also blessed with smarts coupled with honesty and character.

Originally Posted by Guest

The mention of Carly Fiorina as a presidential candidate is so laughable. She was a disaster at HP. She was a disaster as a political contender in California.

Carly will not make the president or VP ticket because even the Republican leadership knows Carly is not electable.

You sound like a textbook sexist to me. The reason I say that is, for any woman who was able to rise on her merits from secretary to CEO, any objective person will readily concede she has her s*** together.

Let me also suggest you reexamine your inner biases.

Originally Posted by Guest

Forgive me, but my first thoughts in reading this post is how stupid - not meant toward you, guest, but to the idea. I am an "older" woman and that is by no means a dying wish of mine. What I would like to see is the election of an honorable, qualified person. I don't care whether they are male, female, black, white, red or purple. Regarding Hillary, I may be proven wrong, but I don't think as many people, including women, are as fond of her as you may think. And I surely hope that not that many would be so foolish as to vote for here JUST because she is a woman. I guess only time will tell however.

Being a woman I agree with you 100%. I wouldn't vote for her to walk my dog, let alone run this country.

Originally Posted by Guest

The mention of Carly Fiorina as a presidential candidate is so laughable. She was a disaster at HP. She was a disaster as a political contender in California.

Carly will not make the president or VP ticket because even the Republican leadership knows Carly is not electable.

Carly won't even make the first GOP presidential debate on Fox in Cleveland on August 6 because they are only allowing those candidates in the top 10% in the polls.

Originally Posted by Guest

Do you realize how idiotic it is to advocate voting for a candidate simply because "she's a woman?"

Ovaries or testicles ... I would prefer a genuine, people-focused leader who is also blessed with smarts coupled with honesty and character.

You are correct. The 2016 election will be all about issues, not about gender or political party.

You clearly have no idea what is involved in running a multinational company. To say she was a disaster does nothing but reinforce that you have no idea what you are talking about. If you bother to do some research you will find that she was within 10% of Boxer in the CA election. That is an unbelievably good showing for a Republican against an incumbent democrat in a very left-wing state. You are clearly clueless.

Originally Posted by Guest

The mention of Carly Fiorina as a presidential candidate is so laughable. She was a disaster at HP. She was a disaster as a political contender in California.

Carly will not make the president or VP ticket because even the Republican leadership knows Carly is not electable.

Originally Posted by Guest

You clearly have no idea what is involved in running a multinational company. To say she was a disaster does nothing but reinforce that you have no idea what you are talking about. If you bother to do some research you will find that she was within 10% of Boxer in the CA election. That is an unbelievably good showing for a Republican against an incumbent democrat in a very left-wing state. You are clearly clueless.

Carly Fiorina IS NOT electable! Get over it!