Presidential Poll

[NatakuTseng]

Alright, just putting this up to see how balanced out this forum is, and I'm interested to see if we are as divided as the rest of the country.

[Dapple2]

As stolen elsewhere, voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. I looked at the options and couldn't find one I could stand behind.

[slipknottin]

I vote other.

No, I mean Im actually going to do a write in and write 'other'.

:dance

[cgrabe]

I vote other.

No, I mean Im actually going to do a write in and write 'other'.

:dance
I would like to direct you all to my sig. Write-ins are your friend.

[slipknottin]

well, im actually going to vote for Badnarik.. But its pretty much the same thing as not voting at all.

[Ayrianth]

I'm not voting. Neither is worthy of running this country but I feel Bush is the lesser of the two evils so I hope that he wins since someone has to.

[tel0004]

Im voting for john kerry. Maybe bush will win the election by a legal battle like he did 4 years ago, then I can get one of those sweet bumper stickers that says "dont blame me, my vote didnt count"

According to this poll, I think john kerry is the winner. He has a 30 percent lead or so, and the margin of error is only 20%. Sorry, the election is closed.

[slipknottin]

Maybe bush will win the election by a legal battle like he did 4 years ago


still upset over Bush winning? haha.

[PumaWard]

If my memory hasn't failed me... Gore brought about the "legal battle."

[125gJoe]

Excellent poll!

Let's try and keep it to the "votes" and not political banter/arguments....

[chunksofpoooo]

hasnt nader been banned from the election in most states? I heard something about that.

[tel0004]

Hes been banned in some. I know ohio is one of them. I think its funny, because most people who would have voted for nader will probably vote for Kerry, (which is why george bush is one of the biggest supporters of the Nader campain), but some of Nader votters are so pissed off about him not being on the ballot, they are now voting for george bush out of spite.

[125gJoe]

I also heard that Nader was taken off the ballot. I heard some idiot sued over this to get him removed...

I think he should have been left on the ballots since now it will bring up other problems.... "Naders on --- Naders off" Someone, or group will cry 'foul' and sue over that too.

[FL Knifemaker]

I'm proud to say I'm voting for Bush!! :dance

Jeb in 2008!! :p

[125gJoe]

Only "40" in total answered the poll???

I expected more than that.....

[Lauren]

Nader should be on all of the ballots, as should the Libertarian candidate. Just because they won't win doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to vote for them.

I need a leader I can trust, and I can't trust Kerry. Kerry disagrees with himself more than he disagrees with Bush. That may be fine while you are a senator, or trying to get votes, but when in a leadership role, i want someone who can make a decision, not withdrawal it, or cover it up. Sorry Mr. Senator, you didn't vote for it before you voted against it, only one vote counted. That attitude is the wrong one for a leader to have.

I also completely disagree on his foreign policy (he's already alienated our allies by calling the coalition a joke, and made or soldiers' sacrifices out to being insignificant by belittling the war he supported). And from a fiscal point of view, his domestic plans don't add up. Bush was never good at math, but you dont' fix a deficit by drastically increasing spending, that is Econ 101.

No matter who wins come Nov. 3, there will be someone to disagree. Last I heard Bush was winning by a landslide in Florida, so good news there. Even if Kerry was carrying Florida I wouldn’t mind, as long as someone had a significant lead. The fact that the state turned so sharply to the right might suggest that they didn’t appreciate the 2000 hissy fit.

[chunksofpoooo]

either way, we're screwed. The country is so divided that regardless of who wins we're gonna have a hard time accomplishing much of anything. When Bush was elected into office last election, eggs were thrown as his limmo was driving to the white house. Whoever wins this election, well, they can expect the same (unless its nader....but common, like thats gonna happen).

where the hell is Abraham lincoln when you need him?

[Tom Griffin]

where the hell is Abraham lincoln when you need him?

Interesting comment.

When Lincoln was elected it was a crushing bow for National unity. He was elected because the Democratic party was divided along north/south lines and the Southern states absolutely HATED Lincoln. So much so that when his election was confirmed, 7 states seceded from the Union and that little scrap known commonly as the Civil War was initiated.

Never in our history was a man so reviled in how time, so much so that Lincoln fully expected to be defeated in his bid to be reelected in 1864. Had a couple things gone differently late in 1864 he likely woudl have been. He was not much of a Hero in the eyes of many in his day. History and at times creative legend have made him larger than life. A bullet also helped enhance his legend.

But history also shows us, right or wrong, Lincoln had what was needed in his time. It didnt win many popularity contests at the time, but it helped to define our nation as it remains even today. What will history tell us of these days in a century? We can help shape that tomorrow.

Vote.

[chunksofpoooo]

yeh, i realize that. But it doesnt change the fact that if he were running today id vote for him twice. Not to mention, my comment was directed at how he is seen today, not how he was seen in his era.

anyone with a stovetop hat and a funky beard is presidential material in my book.

Items:

stovetop hat:
Kerry--0--
Bush--o--

Funky beard:
Kerry--0--
Bush--0--

you can see that neither kerry or bush have the necessary materials.

[Tom Griffin]

true enough:)...although when Lincoln ran the first time he didnt have the beard until well into the campaign. And that beard may have been funky...but what it covered was far worse. Add to that what was reported to be a high pitched nasal voice and a physical appearance more closely resembling Jack Skellington from the Nightmare Before Christmas than someone we would look to as heroic and its a wonder he got elected at all....

Bush kinda reminds me of a keebler Elf...round little face and a propensity to make his cookies such that you either love em or hate em....while Kerry has a post Botox jay Lenno look to him that cant help but make me chuckle.Why do I see him as having had a tough time in gym class in school...

bottom line is that we either choose to keep a sometimes overly headstrong cowboy or take in his place a smooth talker who shows well but has a questionable preformance record. Neither is ideal. One of them is gonna win this....

[dwayne]

well, im actually going to vote for Badnarik.. But its pretty much the same thing as not voting at all.

Slip... you are SO WRONG!!!

I lost my bookmarks a few days ago, and I cannot put my finger on the link to the article I read this information in, so I'll paraphrase and preface it by saying it's not my information, but it came from a realiable (impartial) source...

A vote for anyone other than John Kerry favors President Bush. Since I cannot find the article, I cannot quote the numbers, but this reporter had in depth numbers comparing voting last election, the votes for Bush, Gore, Nader, and others... it was so amazing to me.

If you 100% believe in a candidate, no matter what party he/she belongs to, then by all means you should vote for that candidate. BUT if you are voting for someone just so you can say you voted but didn't vote for Kerry or Bush, then essentially you ARE voting for Bush.

If you simply want change in the White House - 100% cannot stand Bush and what he stands for and his policies, then you MUST vote for Kerry. That is the only vote that will make change happen.

~Tara

[750t]

" Alfred E. Newman" he's our man.....Well maybe someday.

[Lauren]

Kerry has that very ugly, long face thing going, which puts him into the Abe catagory.

[chunksofpoooo]

what are you, blind?!?

he clearly has no beard, and no stovetop hat
still a failure


and bush looks like an elf, so i dont think he could ever be an Abe

[Corax]

I'm not voting. Neither is worthy of running this country but I feel Bush is the lesser of the two evils so I hope that he wins since someone has to.


This pretty much sums up how I feel. :cool:

[tomm10]

Slip... you are SO WRONG!!!

I lost my bookmarks a few days ago, and I cannot put my finger on the link to the article I read this information in, so I'll paraphrase and preface it by saying it's not my information, but it came from a realiable (impartial) source...

A vote for anyone other than John Kerry favors President Bush. Since I cannot find the article, I cannot quote the numbers, but this reporter had in depth numbers comparing voting last election, the votes for Bush, Gore, Nader, and others... it was so amazing to me.

If you 100% believe in a candidate, no matter what party he/she belongs to, then by all means you should vote for that candidate. BUT if you are voting for someone just so you can say you voted but didn't vote for Kerry or Bush, then essentially you ARE voting for Bush.

If you simply want change in the White House - 100% cannot stand Bush and what he stands for and his policies, then you MUST vote for Kerry. That is the only vote that will make change happen.

~Tara

Sort of depends on where you're from, Tara. I voted Libertarian in the last election. I wanted Gore but only because I didn't want Bush (wow, deja vu). Being from Mass, I knew a vote for Gore was like spitting into Niagra Falls. I voted Libertarian because, at its base, I agree with party platform but think they're not yet ready for prime time.

My thinking is that voting for those third party candidates when your state is a runaway one way or the other is a way of using your vote for a message. At some point even winning parties pay some attention to what gets third party candidates the few votes they do. Next election some of the pieces of that third party platform may make it to the major parties. Sort of the one-grain-of-sand-at-a-time method but if the ridiculous electoral college is all wrapped up in your neck of the woods what could it hurt.

[geoffgarcia]

I'm not voting. Neither is worthy of running this country but I feel Bush is the lesser of the two evils so I hope that he wins since someone has to.

This pretty much sums up how I feel. :cool:
same here

[aquariumfishguy]

Perhaps nobody in this thread is voting tonight? And I thought I was spinning the wheels too much... :o

[PumaWard]

It's to bad so many aren't voting...

[Milton Friedman]

There seems to be a lot of decent about our 2 party system.. Here is my opinion on it.

To vehemently bash 2 party system is a sign of ignorance of our electoral system. Yes our system is set up for that but it is foolish to say a Democrat from San Francisco is the same type of democrat from the south. Let me explain.

The two parties are also know as "catch alls" (both in people and ideology), therefore having, in essence a party within a party (almost impossible in Brittan. If your labor, you must vote party lines! Party whips have more sway in parliamentary systems). For example, in the republican party, you have one small segment that wants to ban immigrants/ foreign trade (enter pat Buchanan to represent this demographic) and a larger segment that embrace trade/immigrants (enter john McCain that represents this demographic) So, if you don’t like the 2 candidates, decide which side you lean, join the party and participate in the primary election. You have 9 candidates to choose from in the primary election then 2 in the presidential election. The only people I see that are screwed with our two party system are Left/Right wing fanatics (i.e. Extreme nationalist, Socialist, communist, KKK etc) and those that are dead center (Libertarians are commonly identified as centrist, but traditionally lean republican).

If Nader is really serious about being the president, he would join the democratic party, represent the far left of the dems and participate in the primary election. Instead, he flouts his ego, runs around spouting "Corporate conspiracy theories" and bashes our electoral system using it as an excuse why no one votes for him.

[Lauren]

looks like the poll is showing what is happening. exit poll results showed kerry leading, but then bush pulled a head.



FOR MORE YEARS!!!

[Corax]

"To vehemently bash 2 party system is a sign of ignorance of our electoral system."

My problem with the 2 party system is that the attitude of "Well I'm a (insert party of choice here), and you aren't, so I will fight anything you think is a good idea, regardless of what it is." They disagree with each other, even when they would agree on the issues. We need a new way of doing things, and that means wiping away the old school career politicians; such as the Kennedy clan, for example..

[dwayne]

Sort of depends on where you're from, Tara. I voted Libertarian in the last election. I wanted Gore but only because I didn't want Bush (wow, deja vu). Being from Mass, I knew a vote for Gore was like spitting into Niagra Falls. I voted Libertarian because, at its base, I agree with party platform but think they're not yet ready for prime time.

My thinking is that voting for those third party candidates when your state is a runaway one way or the other is a way of using your vote for a message. At some point even winning parties pay some attention to what gets third party candidates the few votes they do. Next election some of the pieces of that third party platform may make it to the major parties. Sort of the one-grain-of-sand-at-a-time method but if the ridiculous electoral college is all wrapped up in your neck of the woods what could it hurt.

I agree 100% Tom! As I said, if you really really agree with, relate to, and like a third party candidate you should vote with your gut - no matter which way your state is expected to go. What I was trying to say is in a race this close, a vote for a third partier would essentially be a vote for Bush (it's no surprise that Bush/republicans helped Nader get on the ballot), and if you really want to see some change, any change, then vote for Kerry (again, unless you really are into a third partier.) Slip was saying that he was going to vote for Badnarik "But its pretty much the same thing as not voting at all." and I was trying to explain to him that THAT was wrong - the idea that voting for Badnarik was like not even voting.

Although it looks as though this conversation is a moot point .... :( Let's keep the faith though, until every last ballot is counted.

~Tara

[adblair]

Bush kinda reminds me of a keebler Elf...round little face and a propensity to make his cookies such that you either love em or hate em....

Yep, and the best part is he is going to keep making them the same way and insisting they are wonderful no matter how unpopular they are. I would rather have a president who sometimes makes questionable decisions, but then sticks by them and follows through, than someone who changes his mind depending on what is popular at the moment. So yes, he may be a headstrong cowboy, but I KNOW what he believes in and what I can expect from him. I have no idea what I would get if Kerry ends up winning. (Except I know I can expect to pay more in taxes - at least he has been clear on that. :( )

[Corax]

Looks like we don't have to worry any more.. Kerry has conceded the election. 4 more years =)

[greeneyedlady]

A girl at work said she couldn't vote for Kerry because he looked like Snow Miser

http://www.northpolesantaclaus.com/heat_miser.htm

[SimonWoodstock]

A girl at work said she couldn't vote for Kerry because he looked like Snow Miser

http://www.northpolesantaclaus.com/heat_miser.htm
lol

[Dangerdoll]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: He DOES look like Snow Miser!!!