Jump to content


Polls, Polls, Polls


Shamrock
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.pollingreport.com/

 

 

 

I think its interesting that Kerry beats/ties Bush in every region except the South where Bush has a huge lead.

 

 

Seems to be a very close race at this point, but if Kerry can make a compromise with the Nader camp then he wins handily. I'm not sure I support Kerry because he was for this war among other things I'm against. So I have no idea who I'm voting for (except that its not Bush).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I don't get why people vote neither Bush or Kerry when they know that they are the only real candidates, what's the point?

Maybe these people feel unrepresented in government? When you look at certain important issues between Kerry and Bush its kinda hard to tell them apart. The parties are eerily similiar these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get why people vote neither Bush or Kerry when they know that they are the only real candidates, what's the point?

Maybe these people feel unrepresented in government? When you look at certain important issues between Kerry and Bush its kinda hard to tell them apart. The parties are eerily similiar these days. I wouldn't say Parties more so The Canidates...

 

Both Kerry and Bush are yale elite, who were both Bonesmen(Skull@Bones members), which is enough reason in my book, to trust neither.

 

I support Kerry because he's not Bush and he has a plan to help with college tuition that is actually clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get why people vote neither Bush or Kerry when they know that they are the only real candidates, what's the point?

Maybe these people feel unrepresented in government? When you look at certain important issues between Kerry and Bush its kinda hard to tell them apart. The parties are eerily similiar these days. Definitely both parties just borrow ideas from each other in order to please all the different voting blocks. I think a strong third party will develop in the next 20-30 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get why people vote neither Bush or Kerry when they know that they are the only real candidates, what's the point?

Maybe these people feel unrepresented in government? When you look at certain important issues between Kerry and Bush its kinda hard to tell them apart. The parties are eerily similiar these days. Definitely both parties just borrow ideas from each other in order to please all the different voting blocks. I think a strong third party will develop in the next 20-30 years. What side of the political spectrum do you think this party will spring from? I wonder which side of the spectrum has a larger contingent of voters. From experience I'd say the left has more people in 3rd parties already, but I know the right has the consitutional party and various militia type groups that are considered far right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get why people vote neither Bush or Kerry when they know that they are the only real candidates, what's the point?

Maybe these people feel unrepresented in government? When you look at certain important issues between Kerry and Bush its kinda hard to tell them apart. The parties are eerily similiar these days. Definitely both parties just borrow ideas from each other in order to please all the different voting blocks. I think a strong third party will develop in the next 20-30 years. What side of the political spectrum do you think this party will spring from? I wonder which side of the spectrum has a larger contingent of voters. From experience I'd say the left has more people in 3rd parties already, but I know the right has the consitutional party and various type groups that are considered far right. Honestly, I'm not sure. Right now, neither party is completely unified. Maybe there will be four parties, who knows? There's already 4 or 5 different general idealogic viewpoints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will never be a significant period of more than two parties without changing the US voting system.

 

"First past the post" voting contests inherently favor a dual-party system. The only change that will create multiple parties is voing-proportional systems, a'la the multi-party voting system in the UK, etc...

 

 

I don't get why people vote neither Bush or Kerry when they know that they are the only real candidates, what's the point?

 

AL Gore and Bush senior would tell you that there is a very significant point. One that they had to heed as they lost elections party becaude of votes lost to Mr. Perot and Mr. Nader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Juanky

There will never be a significant period of more than two parties without changing the US voting system.

 

"First past the post" voting contests inherently favor a dual-party system. The only change that will create multiple parties is voing-proportional systems, a'la the multi-party voting system in the UK, etc...

 

 

I don't get why people vote neither Bush or Kerry when they know that they are the only real candidates, what's the point??

 

AL Gore and Bush senior would tell you that there is a very significant point. One that they had to heed as they lost elections party becaude of votes lost to Mr. Perot and Mr. Nader. Just because a new party emerges doesn't mean that we leave from the two party system. We could see a repeat of the emergence of the Republican party in the mid 1800's, a party that emerges on one clear issue that the other two are too scared to touch and the public needs an answer to, they win in a close election, and one of the other two parties fades to black.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might figure a sort of libertarian party could emerge...

 

You know, the "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" folks.

 

But I guess these people always jump on the Dem or Rep ticket.

 

 

...and don't forget, in '92 Perot got a fair % of the popular vote. (electoral votes are another matter however...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because a new party emerges doesn't mean that we leave from the two party system. We could see a repeat of the emergence of the Republican party in the mid 1800's, a party that emerges on one clear issue that the other two are too scared to touch and the public needs an answer to, they win in a close election, and one of the other two parties fades to black.

 

Agreed that this scenario is remotely possible, but I have a hard time conjuring up some type of issue that creates a wide enough chasm in the American political consciousness to allow a third party to come into prominence and displace one of the current parties.

 

For that to happen, Kerry probably loses more of the middle than he gains on the far left fringe...

 

This has been the fundamental dilemma faced by dems for several decades now - how to have broad appeal, while not losing larger union constituencies solidly in the middle (UAW, Teamsters, etc). The union leadership may go along, but the rank and file doesn't necessarily vote as directed - and they've viewed Nader as an opponent for quite a while.

 

Trying to be all things to all people never works.

 

The smart move for Kerry is to abandon the extreme left and solidify the middle where his support is weak.

 

Great point. I don't know why the Dems feel so enamored with appeasing the far left of their party. They pay such a high toll for appeasing them, as all it does is alienate their base support and push away fringe Republicans who could of been persuaded to jump ship and vote for a moderate Dem.

 

Kerry is such a mistake. Bush is sooo ripe for the picking right now and the best the Dems can come up with is a liberal New Englander. They are really missing the boat, they could of created a stranglehold on the presidency for the next two decades by building on the Clinton moderate Dem ideology, but instead they throw this jag Kerry up there.

 

TO be perfectly honest, as a lifelong Republican I was considering not voting for Bush until I saw the nags and crackpots the Dems threw up for nomination. Too bad Edwards isn't a little older, less liberal and a republican.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that hard to believe Fillet. Mind sharing the reasons why you were honestly considering not voting for Bush?

 

Speaking of which, McCain's a guy I would consider voting for...

I admit, alot of the reasoning behind my disenchantment with Bush is subjective, but I'm sick and tired of the demystification of the Oval Office. If you remember, one of the main selling points that Bush had was that he wasn't Clinton and was going to restore some dignity to the office. With 9/11 and all that this pledge has been long forgotton, but he just hasn't grown into the office like I hoped he would of. I also would veture a guess that the some of your reasoning behind liking McCain is for the very same thing, statesmanship.

 

I also think this has a carryover effect. He does not manage his administration well at all, and the constant infighting, combined with his absolute inability to create, convey and subsequently maintain clear objectives leaves the impression that he's just slogging through issues.

 

I also have a big problem with his religion. Now, I don't have a problem with religion and presidents, mind you, but funding for quasi-religious programs and constant references to God, seeking God's help and all that garbage is insulting to my intelligence. It also diminishes his credibility internationally. If I wanted a Pres that looked to God for the answers I would of voted for Pat Robertson.

 

I do feel very lucky that it was Bush in office during 9/11, though. I cringe and shudder to think of how Gore would of handled the whole event and the immediate aftermath. There is no doubt in my mind that it would of been an absolute nightmare and possibly a major governmental crisis of Gore was in office then.

 

Like I said, if the Dems would run somebody that wasn't a flaming liberal, a space-cadet or a flaming carpet-bagging b***h (See 2008), and also could manage to not be more scummy than a used car salesman at the same time I'd be on board.

 

But there is no doubt that I'm voting for Bush this fall. The alternative scares me to death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What in the world do you think Gore would have done after 9/11 that scares you so much?

 

For the most part, popular opinion & congress would have pushed him into attacking Al Quaida & the Taliban, even if he didn't support it (which I'm certain he would have after 9/11, as would just about anyone to the right of Ghandi) What do you think Gore would have done?? Blamed 9/11 on deforestation or something? You're selling the other side pretty short dude.

 

And if this Iraq business is getting it right, the bar is sure set pretty low. I'd hate to see what happens when they get it wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will never be a significant period of more than two parties without changing the US voting system.

 

"First past the post" voting contests inherently favor a dual-party system. The only change that will create multiple parties is voing-proportional systems, a'la the multi-party voting system in the UK, etc...

 

 

You are right that the constitutional system we have (single-member district, winner-take-all) predetermines the existence of a 2 party system, but not necessarily these two parties. There have been, after all, party shifts in American history. The problem -- i.e., the reason why this-here Democratic party and this-here Republican party are entrenched -- has more to do with ballot access, which is so tightly controlled by the two parties that it is impossible to get a viable new party off the ground. Successful party-shifts have historically occurred at the local level. And while it is relatively doable to get a 3rd party candidate for a national election on the ballot, getting enough signatures to put a 3rd party candidate on the ballot for a less-visible election is difficult in the extreme.

 

p.s. UK's constitutional system is similar to ours (single-member district -> 2 party system).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmm, I'm learning a lot about our government through this forum. Seems like we are behind England and other countries who provide outlets for all gradations on the political spectrum. How could this be achieved? If people had options that more closely represented their interests then voter turnout would be greater and people would feel momre apart of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soriano who do you like in this election, b/c im a libretarian and i dont like kerry's economic policies or some of bush's social policies (entitlement cutting excluded) so who do you like?

I'm in NY, so I'm voting a third party, I'm going to vote for whoever the LP (libertarians) put up.

 

However, I assume you live in florida. That means you can vote for Castro (Kerry) or Lyndon Johnson the second (George W. Bush.) In my honest opinion the republicans will remain the majority in the senate and the house. Therefore, a demicrat president is fiscally neutralized, like Clinton (who wanted universal healthcare, but in the end Newt and the boys beat him down with fiscal conservatism and a balanced budget.)

 

So if you are in a close state, I would vote Kerry in order to further fiscal conservatism...though it is a backhanded route in achieving this goal. With bush, the republicans are simply democrats with tax cuts. I want the 90s republicans back and I'm sure you do too.

 

This is just my honest opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...