Who would you vote for today? (Follow-up poll)
 

In late July, I posted a poll asking who people would vote for if the election were held that day. Just to see if things have shifted, I will run the same poll now. Enjoy. :)

For my part, I'm selecting the "Kerry under less of two evils" option again, although I have gained some degree of confidence in Kerry over time.

Bumped to accompany SkyDog's thread. :)

Wow, the left is out in force today. :)

Everyone in this thread must post with smilies. :)

Well more votes for Kerry. Unfortunately, Bush doesn't seem to need the popular vote in order to win.


Edit: :)

NOTE: neither does kerry

:)

If he did, he would be spending all of his time in Texas, New York and California and never, ever go to a state that's not in the top 10 in population. :)

No smiley. Unless the quote counts. :)

Woops :)

Thank you, come again. :)

Where's the "Im a foreigner and I don't get a vote but I should because I know/care more than 50% of Americans " option ? :D :D :D

I don't know how anyone can think either of these canidates can be very good to great Presidents. I've mentioned before that they are both extremely flawed and its sad that we have to pick between these two. The irony of the situation is that I'm voting for Kerry because I'm optomistic. See, I already saw how Bush screwed up the country, so I'm just HOPING that Kerry will be slightly better. One reason you know Bush did a bad job (beside opening your eyes and listening to whats going on) is because he isn't touting his record as much as previous canidates, all I hear is what he WILL do as President, but apparently he doesn't want to play up what he has done...excuse me, hasn't done in the last four years.

NONCONFORMIST!!!!:D :D :D

I see things differently. I don't see a world that "Bush screwed up." I see a world that was already screwed up.

Bush was handed the Dot Com bust and did some things that only the executive office can accomplish in mass tax cuts and refunds that boosted our economy out of recession.

Bush was handed a situation in the middle east where the Al Qaeda was the biggest policy maker in the region and Iraq was a big eye sore that was on the verge of internal genocide (the second the US and the UN left) and were desperately seeking ways to put WMD's into Tel Aviv or the USA.

The biggest concern I have with Kerry is he blames everything on Bush. That may seem romantic (politically speaking) but it's not very realistic.

I think you may have contradicted yourself. You based your choice on optimism and what Candidate A will do. Shouldn't Candidate B say the same thing?

Besides, I saw how a Democratic administration was run for 8 years (and the incredible, mind-boggling incompentcies of most of those in the administration) and that will likely forever prevent me from ever voting for having another Democratic administration. With politicians, one should ever not be optimistic.

It's much better that the candidates NEVER spend a moment currently in NY and the other 20+ states that aren't swing states, right?

Yes, because 1) swing states change over time while the populous states will likely remain so for a long time and 2) all states have equal representation (in the population they represent) in Congress and given the variety of "needs" Congress has legislated, no one state in more important than another - just different. I recommend The People's President

Do tell me when the last time NY was a swing state. All people have equal representation in a vote by popular vote, everyone has one. The whole argument of "well some states will get ignored if they got of the electoral college" is completely ignores that currently, as I've pointed out, some states get ignored as well.

New York was a swing state in 1988 and in every election from 1980 on back (with the exception of the FDR elections). New York, esp. with its large number of electors, has always been important in national politics. That, esp. the number of times it had been a swing state, is more than what some other states can claim. Just because you are not old enough to know much history or care to remember anything except the last 3 elections doesn't mean it has always been that way. I actually predict NY will be a contested state in 2008 but I could be wrong.

At one point in time New Hampshire and Vermont told New York to take their "United States" and stick it where the sun don't shine. Then the compromise came along and everybody was happy. Should all state's be given a chance to reconsider being in the union if we remove our promise (the great compromise) to them?

No, we should keep an antiquated form of electing our president than actually change anything. Are we going to "give the state's a chance to reconsider being in the union" everything we change anything now? It's funny how for say, county elected officials, they still campaign in the boonies instead of just focusing on the cities...

Bucc - And just because you voted in the 1st presidential election doesn't mean we must keep things the way they were back then. Funny, NY is irrelevant in politics this year. It has nothing to do with the number of electors the state has, it only has to do with whether focusing attention on the state will change the outcome. Oh it won't? Well it'll get ignored then.

Well, the reason that I didn't do have the same optimism for Canidate B is because we already saw what he did. We are NOT better off than we were 4 years ago. Medicare, Social Security, education and the budget all need serious reforms. President Bush hasn't done a good job in this area.

Also, if you don't like the way that the Clinton administration was run, you shouldn't hold that against John Kerry (HE ISNT BILL CLINTON). No admin is faced with the same problems and no admin deals with issues the same. They are all different.

1. The reforms needs in those areas will never, ever pass with Congress and the media. Don't fool yourself into thinking any reforms will take place with those sacred cows and to think that any President can enable such reforms. All one can do is to keep adding money to them for little or no gain.

2. Yes, I most certainly will think it applies directly to Kerry. As his campaign is bringing in more and more former Clinton advisors, his administration will consist of many Clintonites and worse, favor Kerry holds to Kennedy and his socialistic minions. If you think we are worse off (which half of the country will either flat out disagree or agree that we could be have been worse off - so don't puff it up like it's a fact), the only thing that we can hope for under a Kerry administration is that 1) militarily we don't become a satellite country under the UN and 2) a Rep-majority Congress will cause utter deadlock.

Well, your certainly entitled to your opinions. And if you think your better off than you were 4 years ago (maybe your a millionare, I don't know) then your certainly going to feel like Bush is a good solid President. Personally, I think Bush will win the election, but I'm happy to see that in the Senate the Dems seem like they might pick up a seat or two. I usually like to see that if one party holds the executive branch, the other will hold the Congress (I don't like to see one party take over every decision). I don't know, with so much emphasis on terrorism, it seems like Bush will win because he's stronger in that area. Although Domestically we've been going down hill ever since he took office (the extreme attack on the environment, no net gain in jobs, the No Child Left Behind Act is just ridiculously flawed and has actually hurt education, the tax cut for the rich has increased the national debt by extreme proportions even though this President talks about fisical conservatism). Although we haven't been attacked by any terrorist domestically since 9/11, this country is in a need of a serious overhaul. I don't think Kerry or Bush (of course) are capable of putting things back together domestically. Hopefully in 08' there will be a President who can UNITE the Congress somewhat and implement some serious and effective reforms. Sadly, this President has done the exact opposite.

It amazes me how you personally blame Bush for all of these things. I am not saying you are wrong but to blame Bush is silly IMO.

Not a partisan comment, but:

How do you think you get elected around here anyway?

Just like I was better off in 2000 than I was in 1996, and then better in 96 in 92, etc. I am far from a millionaire (and I despise your feeble attempt at class warfare) but WTF would any president do that would allow me to better or worse off? I'm sure there are things some can point but I would then direct the blame on Congress and on the authoritarian philosophy of the federal govt.

Here's a clue. How about taking personal responsibilities instead of blame? People's lives will be screwed up, businesses will go under, etc. regardless if you give the federal govt trillions of dollars or not. Don't you understand any tenets of libertarianism and how that could apply in reducing govt problems...or are you one of those that think the federal govt can, should and have the power to control your lives? Rhetorical.

Hmm... you seem to be forgetting that one candidate's party held their entire convention in your state.

:) (for GrantDawg)

As Chubby will likely say, NYC is a separate and alien world from the rest of New York State. That doesn't count when one is or was an Upstater.

RE: The Electoral College should NOT be changed. What would happen is more power would be taken away from the states. We must remember that we the people have more power at the state and local level than we do at the federal level. A popular vote electoral system would give MUCH less power to any one person, and would make politics much more dependant upon the whims of the east and west coast. Suddenly, the Midwest and Central Plains states would have VERY little political power, and anything other states do not want would get dumped there. Why? Because they have very little say in the government.

With the current Electoral College system they have a say equal to the amount of power they wield in Congress. So while it may seem odd to look at at first, it actually makes a lot of sense.

Also, what extreme attack has taken place on the environment? Are we talking about the non-ratification of the Kyoto Accords which most countries have either not signed or abandoned? Do we realize that signing this would just result in more factory jobs locating overseas?

It's bad enough we have to watch the overexposure of your state the rest fo the time, we can give it up for a couple of months every four years (granted, I undestand it's NYC and not upstate NY but that's very similar to the Chicago/Illinois syndrome).

Seriously, tho, it's not as if NY doesn't have a ton of members in the House to get things done. It is good to see these candidates have to wrestle with issues in parts of the country where they only have one or two representatives so their needs are rarely met. The other 3 years and 10 months, these places get screwed. So why not let the candidates at least pay some lip service before screwing these states the rest of the time?


I'm pretty sure the disaster that is NCLB can be blamed on Bush since he campaigned on it in 2000 and implemented it.

SI

That libertarian guy, Bednarik is cool. Not because we totally agree on policy, but because he was a dark horse in their party race - he won - and now he's basically traveling the country on a shoestring budget. He said during the Libertarian primaries, he was traveling and would get stranded somewhere and have to send out emails saying "We're broke and stranded in..."

I dunno, something humbling about that makes me believe that if the guy didn't believe in what he was doing - he'd be doing something else.

I like that in a presidential candidate.

As oppose to having every single actions and words dictated by a huge political party machine?

By lying, I guess.

But President Bush isn't blaming Kerry or Clinton for the problems of the world. Just trying to solve some of the ones that directly affect the USA.

Just saying, "It's Bush's fault" doesn't change the fact that Al Qaeda would detonate a nuclear bomb in the US the instant they get a hold of one and it doesn't change the fact that Hussein wanted nuclear weapons and it doesn't change the fact that Al Qaeda had a network of complicated indirect connections to Hussein (verified by the 9/11 commission) through Answar El Islam and the Hamas and probably more that we simply don't know about. They aren't exactly the kind of people that advertise their every move and link.