POLL: Decision 2004

Remove all ads!

1) assumes that you can vote, regardless of who you are.

2) assumes a fair election (not that I'm suggesting the last one wasn't fair).

[ August 02, 2004, 18:15: Message edited by: Oaz ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 2 question(s). 38 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Decision 2004 (38 votes.)

If the election were held today, who would you vote for? (Choose 1)
* Bush - 8% (3)
* Kerry - 84% (32)
* Other / I don't wish to vote - 8% (3)

Who do you believe will win the election? (Choose 1)
* Bush - 29% (11)
* Kerry - 66% (25)
* Other / I don't wish to vote - 5% (2)

 

I watched Kerry's speech last night, and I must say...I was impressed. He does seem to have a vision for leadership, and a plan for America's future. I was also impressed with Theresa Heinze Kerry as well. I think she'll make a fine first lady.

After watching most of the convention, I can finally say I've moved from the "Anyone but Bush" camp, to actually believing Kerry might be a good change for the country. I'm registered republican, but for this election, I think I am going to give the ass a chance!!

Amazingly, other than watching the convention on PBS, I only watch analysis from Jon Stewart on the Daily Show...He is great, insightful, and hilarious all at the same time. It's important to mix politics with satire.

 

Tal, registering your affiliation shows that you care enough to be politically aware. It also controls which side sends you the most junk mail.

Seriously, tho', the only REAL impact of party affiliation is in the primary elections. Registered Democrats can't vote for who the Republican party puts up against their man in the Big Show, and vice versa. You're limited to helping your chosen party select the candidate most likely to win the seat. Some states allow people with no party affilifation to vote for any candidate in primaries, others don't.

This is the reason I registered as Republican in the first place. Usually my heart is with the Democrat, but it's been my observation that the REPUBLICANS draw the most extremist nutjobs out of the woodwork in the primaries. I wanted to have a voice in telling these loonies to go back into their holes and stop trying to tell me how to live.

 

For this poll: I voted Kerry, but I think Bush is going to win. =(

 

Kerry on both. I would've voted on Ralph Nader but as I wants to see Bush out of the white house I would vote Kerry. However, I must say, the 'put Bush before war trial' campaign of Ralph Nader really appeases me.

 

After last night, I have no doubt Kerry will win. He didn't get much bounce in the polls, because the networks barely covered it - so no surprise there. But he addressed his detractors at every angle without stooping to their level, and made it pretty clear that the same old lame smears against him (flip-flopper, you're no war hero, Democrats don't like him, etc.) won't stick anymore without flat-out lying. This was evidenced in his refusal to adopt simple slogans as a solution to complex problems, a crew of men supporting him who actually served in missions along side him (as opposed to these liars who didn't), and a nation of Democrats more united than ever.

Sure, Bush will probably do just as well in 5 weeks when their convention takes place, and I'll gladly watch their convention too. But once the debates come around, I think it will be a pretty clear choice for any remaining swing voter.

The next 3 months will be very interesting indeed.

ps - Was anyone else watching CNN last night and caught the stage producer's mike going live and cursing up a storm at his crew when the baloons and confetti didn't fall right on time? Ouch.

edit - Here's a great article that very closely mirrors my sentiments on the effectiveness of last night's speech. Don't worry - it's short!

[ July 30, 2004, 17:57: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

DR, I hope to high heaven that you're right but I fear the presence of Nader in the race will once again send Bushie into DC. The convention, tho', has served to get me out of the "What's the name of the perpetual Libertarian candidate? I voted for him last time" camp and into Kerryland.

 

True, Nader still may yet be a factor. But nearly every forcast of the electoral college outcome I've seen has Kerry winning pretty handily. Nader won't win a single electoral vote, and as we learned in the last election, that's what really counts.

Plus, I don't think Nader will get near the attention he got last time. First off, he's an independant. Even the Greens realize he's a nutbar. Second, anyone seriously considering voting for him should be disgusted that he's getting on the ballot almost entirely by Republicans supplying petition signatures to get him on the ballot to spoil the outcome, again, to which Ralph seems all to happy to accept. For someone like Nader, with positions so far to the left, to allow himself to be such a willing tool of the party he claims to despise by accepting their help and ignoring the intention behind it, should prove what complete fool he is to anyone who takes him even remotely seriously.

Operative word there being "should."

No offense, Chandos - I know you are/have been a fan of his, but I can't stand the self-important, naive putz.

 

DR.... I definitely concur. I was slightly iffy on Kerry before I saw last night's speech. I thought that Edwards was the powerhouse of that team -- in charisma, presence, etc. But after this speech, well...to say the least I was pleasantly surprised....it was not only powerfully delivered, but it was WHAT he said that really made a difference. Whatever reservations I had about him are gone. The team of Kerry/Edwards make such a powerful combination -- something we have not seen since the Kennedy era. In fact, the similarities, in that vein are astounding. For the first time in many years, I'm finally excited about placing my vote!

 

DR - I'm not offended. It's just that I'm not a Democrat. Some of us are still hoping for some kind of an alternative party, or system of ballots that can give a fuller expression to our representation in government. For many of us, Nader is saying things and raising issues that both parties don't like. Just as Libertarians are searching for their own way to have some form of expression at the ballot box also, the Green Party seemed like it could be the foundation for some type of alternative for progressives. Now, I'm not so sure. But this time I will certainly vote for Kerry.

One of the main reasons I like Howard Dean is that he moved the democrats away from the "me too" attitude they adpoted after Bush declared his phony "war on terror." He reminded Democrats that they are supposed to be an opposition party, not a "me too" party. I think they are the better for it.

[ July 31, 2004, 05:21: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I used to admire the causes Nader has championed in the past, and for that I respect him. But taking Nader seriously now is like nominating J-Lo for an Oscar today based on Selina or Out of Sight, while ignoring Gigli and her obnoxious new phony "Jenny from the Block" persona. The greatness of her past can't overshadow the joke she's become.

Coincidentally, the most common thing anyone ever says about either of them is "Man, what an ass."

I'm sure you'll all forgive me for invoking the J-Lo.

 

Well I hope Kerry wins but I very much doubt it, that would be too easy for the world.

Am I the only one who thinks that Kerry is doing a mistake when he brings up a lot his veteran background and uses war veterans for his supports and then afterwards rants for peace? Well I guess the veterans might help him gather a few republican voters who don't like Bush but considered Kerry to be too soft, but at the same time it might scare those anti-war supporters all the way to the Nader camp.

I find that registering thing to be stupid. It kind of binds you with a party and ensures that America will probably be stuck with the two party hell for quite some time. Oh well I guess that's a lot better than a one party system though.

 

Morgoroth, not when the two parties have VERY alike opinions.

Also, after 24 hours, only 1 have voted for Bush, 18 to Kerry.

Hacken, who did YOU vote for?

 

I agree Caleb. The Democratic party seems like Republican-lite this election. I am of the opinion that we will not have a true liberal party here in America until the baby boomers pass away. The elderly just have so much political sway here and their demographic is substantially oversized in comparison to the younger and more progressive minds of this country (go Death Rabbit). Does anyone have a rough date when that generation will start to pass the reigns?

 

@Caleb...I haven't voted yet, Caleb...find the Bushist bastard and lynch him, eh?

@LNT...would some VX nerve gas assist you in your scheme to do away with all senior Americans and baby boomers? How's your German...erm...Japanese...erm...Russian. Sheesh.

I better hurry and vote before the biased plurality here denies that privilege to anyone over 30.

What is the margin of error on this poll?

 

1 vote.

 

The poll will be skewed because of the heavy intentional population of SP. I think the real election will be much closer. This is the first time in my voting memory that the nation has been so polarized. There really is a lot at stake this election. One of the more important, but rarely televised issues is the Supreme Court. There may be as many as 4 openings on the High Court in the next 4 years!!!

Anyway, going back to Tal's question above about registering with a particular party...Rally hit it right on the nose! On most issues, I tend to be middle of the road or independent in mindset. I only registered Republican so I can vote in the primary elections and influence who gets on national ballots. I've never voted a straight ticket, and doubt I ever will. But it's nice to be able to have a say in who is among the choices.