Children, Improperly Raised by Village, Reject Hillary
Ryan Sager at the New York Sun goes politico-analyst wild with a single anecdote and declares Hillary, having lost the kids, will lose the nation--a personally conducted straw poll of 15 young Dems of the journalistic persuasion reveals not a single Clinton Youth.
Comments to "Children, Improperly Raised by Village, Reject Hillary":
More likely because she treats adults like they're children and children like they're a retarded subspecies, both completely incapable of independent thinking. She wrote in her book that, because "Children are not rugged individualists...", they require constant attention and guidance from massive amounts of people. And media censorship. So it's not that surprising that no kid would ever get behind that. I just wonder if she would ever listen to them.
Rex Rhino | April 12, 2007, 11:50pm | #
Sage:The trouble is, when we look at Hugo Chavez, we can laugh that he is destoying his own country, so he isn't much of a threat.
It isn't as laughable with Hillary.
Mike Laursen | April 13, 2007, 12:03am | #
Gee, I hope Chelsea wasn't one of the fifteen.Jon Isaac | April 13, 2007, 2:20am | #
Just another reason to get Ron Paul into the White House.Support the 100 for 100 pledge!
http://www.pledgebank.com/SupportRonPaul
NotThatDavid | April 13, 2007, 2:35am | #
Let's see...15 people, normal sample size for a politcal poll in the United States is somewhere around 1,000 for a 95% confidence level, so, for one with 15 respondents...Dammit, I was going to go farther with that, but like hell I'm solving the confidence interval equation at 2:30 AM.
In conclusion, Ryan Sager is stupid. Thank you and good night.
DADIODADDY | April 13, 2007, 2:50am | #
sagehugo looks so much better in the pants suit than hillary, don't you think...now about those housecoats...
Guy Montag | April 13, 2007, 4:21am | #
I bet I can get the same result during a Sabers game at the sports bar across the street from my condo!crimethink | April 13, 2007, 8:46am | #
Reading the intro, I thought you were talking about grade-school kids, which would probably just be a reflection of their parents' preferences.Reading the article, the "kids" being polled are "college age and above". This is like all those studies that fret about children getting pregnant and such, and then you read the fine print and discover that they defined "child" as anyone under 21!
In any case, I would pretty much expect most college-age Dems to be anti-Hillary, given that she is the least anti-Iraq-war of the Dem nominees.
The sickening part is that all 15 "kids" in the journalism class were Democrats. Where is the Institute for Humane Studies when we need them?
Was Sager going for some type of joke with this article? If so, I didn't get it.
Cesar | April 13, 2007, 11:37am | #
I find very, very few people between the ages of 18 and 25 (regardless of political affiliation) that are enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton.Republicans hate her because shes Hillary Clinton, Democrats hate her because she supported the Iraq war before she was against it, and I don't think I have to explain why libertarians like myself can't stand the woman.
Isaac Bartram | April 13, 2007, 11:38am | #
I don't know, but to me, the fact that not one of fifteen students who identified themselves as Democrats supports Hillary is a pretty decent indicator of her support in that age group.Of course it is not proof nor even a sufficient sample size to draw any firm conclusions. And furthermore it is not necessarily important since it is not youg voters you need to win.
No, the person who will win both the primaries and the general will be the person who best paints his/her opponent[s] as the person who will steal all the benjamins out of the Social Security Trust Fund thus forcing senior citizens (who vote in droves) to eat cat food.
I remember when Eugene McCarthy polled well with the Democratic college aged yutes, but Hubert Humphrey, the party insider with all the connections, got the nomination.
The Wine Commonsewer | April 13, 2007, 12:31pm | #
Best headline in a dang long time. :-)Man, I am tired.
Rex Rhino | April 13, 2007, 1:25pm | #
NoStar is correct,The Democratic party is a political machine. The Democrat drones will vote Democrat, and the Republican drones will vote Republican. It doesn't really matter what the young people think, they will vote Democrat no matter what. The person who can bring in the most money and has the most back door connects will win.
Paul | April 13, 2007, 2:04pm | #
The Democratic party is a political machine. The Democrat drones will vote Democrat, and the Republican drones will vote Republican. It doesn't really matter what the young people think,Yeah, young, hip, enthusiasitic kids don't drive elections. Ask Howard Dean.
Dwight Shroot | April 13, 2007, 3:41pm | #
Michael Scott is the only man who looks good in a pantsuitjoshua corning | April 13, 2007, 4:34pm | #
I don't know anyone who voted for Nixon. How did he get elected?i think the point being that you want people to hide the fact that they voted for you to occur after they voted for you.
joshua corning | April 13, 2007, 4:37pm | #
It doesn't really matter what the young people think, they will vote Democrat no matter what.no no no NO!
it goes
"It doesn't really matter what the young people think, they don't vote."
Gaia | April 13, 2007, 7:18pm | #
It doesn't really matter what the young people think, they will vote libertarian no matter what.Because they are robots and I told them to.
Corey Mondello | April 13, 2007, 8:49pm | #
I hope no one mentions that drug addict George W. Bush and how he and his wife did such a great job with their two slutty druggie daughters...Isaac Bartram | April 13, 2007, 9:11pm | #
i think the point being that you want people to hide the fact that they voted for you to occur after they voted for you.Not entirely apropos of that I recall an interview with Barry Goldwater right before the '68 election where he said something to the effect of "You know 26 million people voted for me in 1964 and you know what, I've met every goddamned one of them".
Further explanation: Every person Barry met (including cab drivers and waiters) in 1967-68 swore that he had voted for him and not LBJ.
crimethink | April 13, 2007, 9:27pm | #
Wasn't there some poll done shortly after the JFK assassination, where ~70% of those polled claimed to have voted for him in 1960 (when in fact he barely won the election)?