Quantcast

Public Opinion Rejects Colbert's Campaign [INFOGRAPHIC]

SodaHead Infographics 2012/01/23 16:41:18
After winning just 1 percent of the vote at the South Carolina primary on Saturday (using Herman Cain as his surrogate), Stephen Colbert's exploratory committee is going to have a lot to think about. But how does he fare with the rest of the country? The truthiness of the matter is, he's got the image to make headlines but it doesn't look like he'll be able to pull a real victory. We polled more than 1,000 SodaHeads on the comedian's pseudo-campaign to find out what they thought. Let's dive.

stephen colbert infographic
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Happy_Evil_Dude 2012/01/25 09:30:39
    Happy_Evil_Dude
    +6
    Jesus Christ does no one understand satire? He was never going to run for real, he was just trying to prove a point about the sorry state of electoral laws in the United States. He specifically said he was considering running as "President Of The United States Of South Carolina". How anyone can take that and say "Mmh, this clown wants to be my president eh?" is just mind-boggling.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • SK 2012/02/24 20:09:06
    SK
    Was this article a joke? No, I'm seriously asking...
  • Red_Horse 2012/02/05 07:20:01 (edited)
  • BUD LITE 2012/02/04 19:49:43
    BUD LITE
    At this point I would settle for anyone but Obama !!
  • Minarchist 2012/02/04 14:53:43
    Minarchist
    Lefty Liberal Loon
  • 7leads 2012/02/04 06:29:03
  • mr echo 2012/02/04 02:08:19
    mr echo
    yes he is awsome
  • S* 2012/02/02 15:32:24
    S*
    http://www.latimes.com/news/n...

    Super-rich individuals such as casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson and his family, not large corporations, are the main force powering the new "super PACs."

    Welcome to the conservative utopia, individual money is power. Screw society, let the Rich reign.
  • rebel.son2 2012/02/01 17:34:46
    rebel.son2
    no
  • BOOGIETHEBOOG 2012/01/31 23:23:02
    BOOGIETHEBOOG
    +2
    Sure why not. He could do a great job.
  • Thisismyname 2012/01/31 16:14:05
  • Jerry 2012/01/31 15:02:03
    Jerry
    +1
    He should run. It would give the deluded occupy crowd someone to rally behind instead of Obama. It's sad when the most coherent voice on the left is a comedian pretending to be a conservative.
  • Rebel [SHP] 2012/01/30 16:08:36 (edited)
    Rebel [SHP]


    PoliticalBuddies.com - Political Debate Community


    One word....Obama. Anyone is eligible now for that office, because it would be an improvement no matter how many times you slice it.
  • Jay Theyme 2012/01/30 00:57:31
    Jay Theyme
    It was a real attempt at getting real political pull thinly veiled as a satirical prank. Stewart, not just satisfied being a left-wing propaganda master wants to show real political power. No matter how slight.
    btw: I value the importance of 'protest candidates' and their right to be there. What bothers me is that I see something contemptuous and hardly noble in this.
  • Josh Jay Theyme 2012/01/30 17:08:52
    Josh
    +3
    He was mocking the Republicans who are actually running, sadly enough, they dont need help to be a joke.
  • Jay Theyme Josh 2012/01/30 21:49:06
    Jay Theyme
    You think he was mocking Republicans? But what do you mean they don't need help to be a joke?
  • Josh Jay Theyme 2012/01/30 22:01:19
    Josh
    +1
    Not Republicans, the Republicans running, they are a joke. All the attack adds on each other, ignoring real issues and don't get me started on the super pacs. They also shamelessly admit they allow religion to influence them in how they would govern.
  • Jay Theyme Josh 2012/01/30 22:12:01
    Jay Theyme
    They shamelessly admit they allow religion to influence them in how they would govern? Haha What?! Stoopid Repblicans!
  • Josh Jay Theyme 2012/01/30 22:16:12
    Josh
    +1
    That isn't how it is supposed to work, they are supposed to put aside personal beliefs and represent the people, that was the idea anyway, when the government was founded.
  • Jay Theyme Josh 2012/01/30 22:35:08
    Jay Theyme
    No, it wasn't and you have it backwards and really are promoting a horrifically anti-democratic view,

    however,

    how does Colbert 'mock' the Republican Candidates in this thing? I still haven't really heard the explanation on that?
  • Josh Jay Theyme 2012/01/30 22:49:32
    Josh
    +1
    You must be kidding me. Have you ever really watched his show?
  • Jay Theyme Josh 2012/01/30 23:13:49
    Jay Theyme
    Yes I have watched his show but I was hoping you will explain how it is mocking Republicans. How does that work? It mocks how they are on the ballots?

    Do you see what I'm asking? Is the 'mockery' showing up the idea that a Herman Cain or a Rush Limbaugh will run for Democratic nominations?

    What exactly is being mocked?
  • Josh Jay Theyme 2012/02/01 01:59:40
    Josh
    +1
    The whole thing! Like the super pacs, the attack adds, the not answering questions but instead changing the subject, I could go on. I am not saying democrats do not do these thing, they do and it is sad, but they are not the ones holding a primary right now.
  • Jay Theyme Josh 2012/02/01 04:02:15
    Jay Theyme
    In other words, you dislike the Republican candidates and think you could do better. Right. Well good for you!
  • Josh Jay Theyme 2012/02/01 04:26:55
    Josh
    +1
    No I did not say that I think that I could do better, did I? I am not running for office.
  • Josh Jay Theyme 2012/02/01 02:02:51
    Josh
    +1
    One- We are not a democracy, we are a democratic republic

    Two- they are supposed to set aside there personal beliefs and represent the people and not themselves, granted the average iq in the US is only 98 so I guess they do a good job of that.
  • Jay Theyme Josh 2012/02/01 04:04:18
    Jay Theyme
    Democratic Republic of not. You vote for your candidate. If he tells you he was raised a Satanist and this is, in part, why he will be pro-abortion then you get to vote for him. He most definitely does NOT go into his seat promising to 'remove his Satanic principles'. Or Atheistic or Mormon or etc etc.

    Then again you highlight a problem with democracy. You get to vote too. :(
  • Josh Jay Theyme 2012/02/01 04:28:39
    Josh
    +1
    You are ignorant, they represent the people not themselves or belief system, it is a simple concept you simply do not understand and they exploit you.
  • Jay Theyme Josh 2012/02/01 04:52:20
    Jay Theyme
    Yes, they represent the people. Let's try desperately to get this through to the total mess of an understanding you have:

    - Example: 77% of the people in this State voted a guy who, via his Catholic upbringing believes life begins at conception. He will try and write laws accordingly. HE REPRESENTS THE MAJORITY AS SEEN IN THE RESULTS.



    and wow.. now you bring up 'separation of church and state' and what a mess you are. I mean you are just a completely ignorant pretzel of half-witted missing puzzle pieces.

    Separation of Church and State IS WHAT PROTECTS US FROM PEOPLE LIKE YOU and the horrible anti-democratic wishes you would like to impose on people. Do you know how that works? It means the government CANNOT tell Churches or religious people what they can or cannot do, who they can elect or what religious views are NOT allowed.

    That is just plain scary that you get to vote. Yikes.
  • Josh Jay Theyme 2012/02/01 05:01:45 (edited)
    Josh
    +1
    Did I say to outlaw religion? No I did not, stop putting words in my mouth. They are supposed to be separate, and we are to have no official religion, yet all these people claim that this country is a nation, and while yes, 77% may be christian, but we do not have an official religion because that would violate separation of church and state. The non Christians should be respected and treated fairly. I don't care if you are gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, Jew, atheist, agnostic etc. you should not use public office to force your views on others. You are just going to continue to agree with me because I do not share the belief in your sky wizard.
  • Jay Theyme Josh 2012/02/01 05:06:30
    Jay Theyme
    Wow you don't get anything. You are a mess. A total mess. Yes, I absolutely have every right to vote in a hardcore Roman Catholic representative and he (or she?) will vote according to their beliefs and understandings of their religion (and other influences surely).

    You bet I can and they most definitely have the right to vote or write up laws accordingly. That is HOW OUR SYSTEM WORKS.

    You are a moron who thinks you get to tell democratically elected representatives they can vote or write laws but remove anything squaring with their fundamental understandings of life. Wow.

    I will say it again, the one thing bad about democracy? Anti-democratic idiots like you ALSO get 1 vote too. Which is just plain scary sometimes.
  • Josh Jay Theyme 2012/02/01 05:12:03
    Josh
    +1
    We are not a democracy, we are a republic. They are different things, Athens was a democracy, Rome was a republic.
  • Jay Theyme Josh 2012/02/01 05:22:16
    Jay Theyme
    Shhhhh... you don't know what you are talking about or 'why' you are talking about it. Just give it up.
  • Josh Jay Theyme 2012/02/01 05:25:04 (edited)
    Josh
    +1
    I have provided facts, you have not.
    -The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).

    -There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind(Federalist No. 63).
  • Jay Theyme Josh 2012/02/01 05:29:27
    Jay Theyme
    Why are you 'providing these facts' and what are you 'debating' or 'arguing' here? (you don't even know anymore yes?)
  • Josh Jay Theyme 2012/02/01 05:35:05 (edited)
    Josh
    +2
    To be honest I just like debate. Sometimes I take a side I do not completely agree with for the sake of argument. But to be clear we are a republic.Oh and don't worry about me voting, I will be in basic training during the elections, not like it would matter because I don't support any one running, If I had to choose someone to vote for it would be Rohn Paul, mainly for his honesty and consistency, but lets face it, he is not getting past the primaries.
  • Josh Jay Theyme 2012/02/01 05:04:15
  • Josh Jay Theyme 2012/02/01 05:06:12
    Josh
    +1
    The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).

    By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the p...







    The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).

    By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums. (Initiatives originate with, or are initiated by, the people while referendums originate with, or are referred to the people by, a state's legislative body.) That the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums is indicative of the Framers' opposition to such mechanisms. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election day.

    Writing of the merits of a republican or representative form of government, James Madison observed that one of the most important differences between a democracy and a republic is "the delegation of the government [in a republic] to a small number of citizens elected by the rest." The primary effect of such a scheme, Madison continued, was to:

    . . . refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the same purpose (Federalist No. 10).
    Later, Madison elaborated on the importance of "refining and enlarging the public views" through a scheme of representation:

    There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind(Federalist No. 63).
    In the strictest sense of the word, the system of government established by the Constitution was never intended to be a "democracy." This is evident not only in the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance but in the Constitution itself which declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4). Moreover, the scheme of representation and the various mechanisms for selecting representatives established by the Constitution were clearly intended to produce a republic, not a democracy.
    (more)
  • Jay Theyme Josh 2012/02/01 05:07:53
    Jay Theyme
    Shhhhhh... you don't even know what this means, how to think it through, why or 'how' to think about it. You don't even know 'why' you are posting it. So just shhhhhh. Please. stop talking now.
  • Josh Jay Theyme 2012/02/01 05:12:40
    Josh
    +1
    Did you read it? Do you understand the difference between a democracy and a republic?
  • Josh Jay Theyme 2012/02/01 04:35:04

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/30 21:22:03

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals