Yahoo! Games Rates Prez Hopefuls on Video Game Issues

January 31, 2008 -

Where do the leading presidential candidates stand on video game issues?

Ben Silverman of Yahoo! Games summarizes the positions of the top three candidates from both parties. Included in the recap is Democrat John Edwards, who announced yesterday that he is dropping out.

Of the remaining candidates, Silverman writes:
 

Compared to his more conservative opponents, [John] McCain is a viable option for Republican gamers, although his ties to [frequent game critic Sen. Joe] Lieberman are worth noting.


 

Obscenity laws? Societal cesspools? Unless you're wracked with gamer guilt, [Mitt] Romney is one hard sell.


 

[Mike Huckabee is] no Mitt Romney. That's gotta count for something.


 

Despite her good intentions, Hillary's scary track record might be enough to dissuade gamers from putting another Clinton in office.


 

[Barack] Obama is more skeptical of how violent games affect behavior than his rivals, and in turn seems less inclined to legislate right off the bat. That should ring true with gamers.

Comments

Screw Huckabee.

He may not have said anything about Videogames, but I'm pretty sure he will if given the opportunity. Not to mention all the rest of his crap. As a moderate Republican, the only person I can vote for is Obama.

@ all American citizens

Please vote for Barack Obama! Please! Do it for us (i.e. the rest of the Western - ah, heck - the entireworld)!

It's great to see that in these dark and uncertain times that we really can focus our attention on the most important issue when picking a candidate, video games.

/sarcasm

Well if you liked Rudy then you should like Clinton. Do some research, they are pretty similar. I wouldn't vote for either though. But that is just me.

I'm voting Barack since he does not really hate games like the others do.

I care a lot about video games, but I won't be voting for the President based on their stance on video games!

Besides, any laws that they try to pass that regulate video games will be struck down by the courts as a 1st amendment violation. Like usual!

That pretty much tracks with my own assessment of the candidates based on everything about them I've read, seen and heard combined with my own gut instincts. Nice to know they're right.

I know there are more weightier issues involved in this election, but as a gamer I can't help but let those issues figure into my decision, and I look at it as a barometer of how they stand vis a vis other issues.

Combining her pro-game legislation stance along with everything else she's said on other matters, Hillary comes across to me as sounding like she wants to be everybody's mom. And I want a President, not a mom, running this country.

Obama's stance on games reflects his more progressive and pragmatic attitude. He know there's a bigger root cause to society's ills than video games just like he knows that there's bigger root causes to the problems within our own government and how we handle foreign policy. And it's because he offers such a refreshing viewpoint that is the reason why I'm backing him. And the way things are going, it's going to be a knock-down drag-out fight between the two of them all the way up to the convention.

Obama is more likely to be level-headed and listen to his constituents before pushing for any type of legislation, unlike specific, current, presidents.

obama and huckabee look like the two who would get the gamer vote
if either wins im...content if anyone other than these two wins im pissed

I've been saying that if the two main candidates are Clinton vs. Romney I'm moving to Canada. Not because of their stance on games, but because I think they're bad candidates. Although if that was the actual field, I wouldn't be surprised if Bloomberg runs and could probably get behind him.

I too have to go with Obama. While his stance on gaming is an influence, it's not my only reason for voting for and supporting him.

As for Mrs. Clinton, the least of my worries about her is her game legislation agenda. As an ex-union steward, her flip flop stance on union and labor issues, working for Wal-Mart, and not to mention one of her campaign heads representing large anti-labor companies, makes me more than skiddish about her real agendas concerning the middle class and labor issues.

For the Republicans, until they can admit they were the ones in power and made the mess to begin with, nothing will change.

I'm voting for Obama, but not just for his position on games. He's a very honest person compared to Hillary. The Clintons have a history of taking things out of context, bending the truth, and even outright lying once or twice. I want a President that can be trusted. Senator Obama seems like a more honest person, he seems like a person who cares much more for the well being of the country than for his own personal agendas, and he can take credit for voting against the war in Iraq.

I still begrudge McCain for shutting down the UFC. He used alarmist propoganda much like is often employed against video games. That part does worry me. He is now approving of it (now that it has become mainstream). Since gaming is already mainstream, I don't think he would have as much of a problem with it.

Frankly, on the issue of games and censorship in general, none of them impress me, and a couple downright worry me. With any luck, "protecting our culture from games" is only a campaign promise they will quickly forget about after the election.

I'm hoping for a Barack/McCain showdown. Every other candidate scares the hell out of me and not just because of their stance on videogames.

Huckabee is starting to scare me more, not because of his issues on video games, but with what he said in comparing the Bible to the Constitution. He states that "It is easier to change the Constitution than the word of God."

"Despite her good intentions..."

I lol'd

I still hold that having our first female president won't be worth it if it's Hillary, but certain groups will still fight to have her in.

I do like Obama because he seems to see right through the BS. I don't want my president wasting time trying to legislate what I can and can't do in my spare time. They'll just move on to whatever else they feel offends them.

I think Huckabee is misunderstood a lot, and some of his remarks are taken out of context, but oh well.

I actually don't think he'd support video game legistlation at all, though.

I died a little today when i learned that apparently Hillary took the polls here in Michigan, although at 51 Clinton to 49... no one, i laughed a little. Apparently wed like no pres rather than her.
On the news at hand, props to future pres Obama for not alienating the fastest growing community in the world. Ill be seeing you in the White House, :)

I definitely believe that Hillary is full of shit. For many other reasons besides her misguided "regulate games" soapbox sessions.

but if hit... hillary or mitt romney got the nomination, they could try to amend the constitution to say "No violent video games." I doubt they would succeed though.

Whilst i still like Clinton (Bill) i think that Hillary got entirely to where she is on her husbands coattails, not through real ability. That, combined with her opinions about Video Games makes her a no vote in my book (if i still lived in the US and could figure out how to vote, been out here in Australia since i was about 2).

That leaves Obama, since i am sick of republicans, who seems to be pretty moderate in his opinions about Video Games. Thus, Obama for the Presidency....

you really have to worry about Huckabee, since he wants to rewrite the constitution to read like the Bible.

a man is entitled to his beliefs, but he is not entitled to outlaw the beliefs of others.

Mccain's ties to Lieberman shouldn't be that big an issue. After all Lieberman has been relatively quiet on the gaming front and has been for a while.

Well, since Rudy dropped... Go Obama? Idk anymore...

Only person I trust and has proven themselves to be consistent and honest is Ron Paul. Everyone else is either not qualified, inconsistent or just strait up dishonest. But of course everyone is either going to vote for their party, for a single issue, or for whoever is apart of the OTHER major party in terms of the party they affiliate themselves with. Sadly, thats just how the system works and who is to blame? Well one is the crappy election process, and two the voters for not researching the candidates and for having poor voters ethics.

I gotta agree with what Vinzent said. Obama and McCain would be my top choices and I'd rather one of them become president, as every other candidate scares me... especially Clinton. No way in hell I'm voting for her...

@Father Time

Lieberman does seem happy with the ESERB's performance record, unlock some other bonehead politicians.

RON PAUL IS PRO VIDEOGAME!!!!!!!!!!!!
VOTE FOR RON PAUL AND VOTE FOR LEVELING UP!

Funny how some mention that video games are not enough a reason to pick a specific candidate, yet the simple excuse of 'President Bush went through the destruction and devastation of 9/11' and was a perfect reason to put him back in office; Given where we stand now...i bet maybe they should've thought twice about their reasons for voting....

don't vote? then don't complain when things are shitty.

The track record of politicians on video games is an excellent barometer for really telling how well the candidates can relate to a generation younger than them. It's amazing that some of these candidates got so passionate about making sure the writings of J.D. Salinger didn't get banned in schools, but now pull a total 180 when it comes to things they know almost nothing about. I doubt most of the candidates care about you if you're anywhere near the age of their own kids (and I'm Chelsea's age).

Right, because we all know that gaming ratings is right up there with national healthcare and the economy. And the war.

Ron Paul has all of them beat, So sad people are too blind to realize how great he would be.

I'm gonna be blunt, if it's Hillary versus Romney, well we're fucked.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Did Microsoft pay too much ($2.5 billion) for Minecraft developer Mojang?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Craig R.Not only that, I'm pretty sure that if actual studies were done, you'd still deny them, Sleaker. After all, it's not what you'd want to hear to support your rose-colored view of GamerGate.09/20/2014 - 1:18pm
Craig R.There IS an issue. Nor do we need a study to show that if you deny it then you're part of the problem.09/20/2014 - 1:17pm
Sleakersimply oust people that do harass others.09/20/2014 - 11:34am
Sleaker@Conster - I can say the same thing if you think there's been more than a handful. Until there's an actual study on rates no one can claim to know how widespread the incidence of harassment is. Thus the best we can do is 'there might be an issue' and...09/20/2014 - 11:33am
ConsterSleaker: if you think there's only been "a handful of" incidents, you have your head stuck *somewhere* - I'm assuming it's sand.09/20/2014 - 5:38am
prh99Most of it's agitprop clickbait anyway.09/20/2014 - 5:27am
prh99A good reason to stop reading reguardless of view pointhttp://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli.09/20/2014 - 5:22am
Andrew EisenWell this is unique! A musical critique of the Factual Feminist's "Are Video Games Sexist?" video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K4s7cV4Us409/20/2014 - 2:41am
Andrew EisenSome locked threads. Some let them be. So, no, I'm not seeing a problem here. No corruption. No collusion. No ethical problem with privately discussing ethics.09/20/2014 - 12:48am
Andrew EisenAnd still, in the end, Tito made up his own mind on how to handle his site. All 150 or so members went off to handle their own sites in their own ways. Some talked about it. Some didn't. Some changed disclosure policies. Some didn't.09/20/2014 - 12:40am
Andrew EisenThere were two comments other than Kochera and Tito's. One pointed out the Escapist Code of Conduct, another comment was in support of Tito.09/20/2014 - 12:40am
Andrew EisenKochera privately expressed his disagreement on how Tito decided to do something. No, I don't consider that crossing a line nor do I consider the exchange an example of the group pressuring him.09/20/2014 - 12:36am
Kronotechnical reasons. Anyways, I need to get to sleep as well.09/20/2014 - 12:29am
KronoAnd he wasn't the only one pushing Tito to censor the thread. If Tito had bowed to peer pressure, we likely wouldn't have gotten this http://goo.gl/vKiYtR which grew out of that thread. Said thread also lasted until a new one needed to be made for09/20/2014 - 12:28am
Krono@Andrew So it's an example of Kuchera crossing the line from reporter to advocate. And an example of the group pressuring for censorship.09/20/2014 - 12:21am
E. Zachary KnightAnyway, I am off to bed. I will probably wake up to all of this being knocked off the shout box.09/20/2014 - 12:20am
E. Zachary KnightKrono, that is the type of reading too much into things that bugs me. Ben did no such thing. Greg had the last word in that part of the exchange. The rest was about how to approach the story and Quinn.09/20/2014 - 12:19am
Andrew EisenSo?09/20/2014 - 12:13am
KronoExcept that the forum thread wasn't harassment, and Kuchera continued to push for the thread's removal after Tito made it clear he didn't consider it harassment.09/20/2014 - 12:12am
Andrew EisenPersonally, I see nothing wrong with someone offering their opinion or the other person making up their own mind on how to run their site.09/20/2014 - 12:06am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician