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

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelanteNumber 3: Night Dive was brought to the attention of the public by a massive game recovery, and yet most of their released catalogue consists of games that other people did the hard work of getting re-released.04/17/2014 - 8:46pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 2: If Humongous Entertainment wanted their stuff on Steam, why didn't they talk to their parent company, which does have a number of games published on Steam?04/17/2014 - 8:45pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 1: When Night Dive spent the better part of a year teasing the return of true classics, having their big content dump be edutainment is kind of a kick in the stomach.04/17/2014 - 8:44pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.giantbomb.com/articles/jeff-gerstmann-heads-to-new-york-takes-questions/1100-4900/ He talks about the future games press and the games industry. It is worth your time even though it is a bit long, and stay for the QA. There are some good QA04/17/2014 - 5:28pm
IanCErm so they shouldn't sell edutainment at all? Why?04/17/2014 - 4:42pm
MaskedPixelanteNot that linkable, go onto Steam and there's stuff like Pajama Sam on the front-page, courtesy of Night Dive.04/17/2014 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenOkay, again, please, please, PLEASE get in a habit of linking to whatever you're talking about.04/17/2014 - 4:05pm
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician