Topic: OT POLL -- Bush, Kerry, or ? (Read 11779 times)

JimH · « **on:** July 08, 2004, 03:01:04 pm »

This raised a few eyebrows the last time, but what the heck....

The old poll we did in February is here:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=19461;start=0

Omni · « **Reply #1 on:** July 08, 2004, 03:19:50 pm »

Bah... why does the Libertarian Party always get left out.

JimH · « **Reply #2 on:** July 11, 2004, 08:59:42 am »

The numbers are still low, but I'm wondering why the poll is so different from the recent polls of the general public. Most of them show Bush and Kerry in a virtual tie, within the margin of error of the polls.

Are digital music lovers left leaning?

I haven't voted, BTW.

KingSparta · « **Reply #3 on:** July 11, 2004, 09:54:37 am »

I Voted For Ray Charles

AoXoMoXoA · « **Reply #4 on:** July 11, 2004, 10:11:52 am »

Quote from: JimH on July 11, 2004, 08:59:42 am

Are digital music lovers left leaning?

or just more intelligent?

hit_ny · « **Reply #5 on:** July 11, 2004, 12:22:35 pm »

Quote

Are digital music lovers left leaning?

i think given the beating left leaning media has got in the last cpl of yrs, the only place they get to vent is on the web.

xen-uno · « **Reply #6 on:** July 11, 2004, 12:30:13 pm »

You forgot an option...

Against the incumbent

I always vote that way...throw the rascals out!

10^-27

kaiynne · « **Reply #7 on:** July 11, 2004, 12:52:14 pm »

Quote from: hit_ny on July 11, 2004, 12:22:35 pm

Quote
Are digital music lovers left leaning?

i think given the beating left leaning media has got in the last cpl of yrs, the only place they get to vent is on the web.

Left leaning media? Is that a Joke. The actual people in the media 'may' have a slight socially liberal bias, but fiscally they are as conservative as they come. The media organizations they work for, however, are decidedly not liberal especially on fiscal matters. You might take a look at what liberal media by eric alterman.
It is a very well documented study of bias in the media. Don't let the title fool you either it draws some conclusions that are not exactly what I would call liberal.

Mastiff · « **Reply #8 on:** July 11, 2004, 01:38:11 pm »

You may not believe this, but in Norway Kerry would fit right into the now co-ruling conservative party. Bush would be in a party called Progress Party (Fremskrittspartiet) without any chances at all at even smelling the air in the prime minister's office (we have a king for the ceremonies, not a president).

TimB · « **Reply #9 on:** July 11, 2004, 03:51:27 pm »

I'm surprised too as I've found that generally online folks tend to be more conservative than liberal. A guitar-oriented forum I'm a member of is definitely this way. If I was a non-resident and used that forum as a microcosm of the US I would be very scared.

Maybe there's hope for November!

-=Tim=-

Charlemagne 8 · « **Reply #10 on:** July 11, 2004, 08:21:48 pm »

I hear the "Liberal Media" refrain and it really confuses me. I have yet to view any "Liberal Media" except in some small circulation newspapers.

We can't be talking about NBC (Meet The Press) or CBS in general. Both are about as conservative as you can get without seriously offending half of their viewers (thus half their financial base).

And that's really what it's all about -- money. Any sort of media has to play to their financial base regardless of their personal beliefs. If conservative pays better, they're Conservative. If the consensus seems to be liberal, then Liberal it is.

This country is and has been split right down the middle for four years. No financially viable media would dare take a firm stand on either side in that climate.

This forum, however, while not taking a "position", seems to be composed of mostly liberal-leaning moderators and members. Just ask Scronch.

CVIII

JimH · « **Reply #11 on:** July 11, 2004, 09:48:43 pm »

You're going to offend King Sparta, C8.

KingSparta · « **Reply #12 on:** July 12, 2004, 07:52:45 am »

Quote from: JimH on July 11, 2004, 09:48:43 pm

You're going to offend King Sparta, C8.

No, But I Am Also Not Liberal (Sort Of)

I am more Libertarian, and agreed with Omni BTW

The problem is Nader is only going to hurt the Dems and the Libertarian Party hurts the Republicans, and nether is going to win.

I Prefer Bush Over Kerry

But I Have problems with the republican party on some major issues (Abortion, Gay Rights, Research On Fetal Tissue, Etc....)

Even If John Edwards Does Come From My State (He Is A Nice Guy However) I would rather have some one firm on defense and not go to IHOP for waffles.

I am just wondering if an Attack will happen on Bush Before Nov By Raticals who every they may be.

They are already talking about postponing the election if threats come up.

Jaguu · « **Reply #13 on:** July 12, 2004, 09:34:36 am »

Oh yes, we had some very nice examples in history, when governments started to bend the laws and rules of their country. I remember one happening about 70 years ago, just across the boarder of Switzerland, and how their blind citizen gladly drank their freely distributed venom beer!

One would expect from a civilized country to be able to deal with their biggest threads in an equally civilized way.

As long as some people of this world get all the gold chips and hardly leave any bread crumbs to the rest, do not expect to see the sun shine brightly on this planet.

JimH · « **Reply #14 on:** July 12, 2004, 01:11:18 pm »

Quote from: Jaguu on July 12, 2004, 09:34:36 am

Oh yes, we had some very nice examples in history, when governments started to bend the laws and rules of their country. I remember one happening about 70 years ago, just across the boarder of Switzerland, and how their blind citizen gladly drank their freely distributed venom beer!

I don't think I would describe the current reaction in the U.S. as "blind". Beer is good, though.

Mysticeti · « **Reply #15 on:** July 12, 2004, 02:01:55 pm »

It's been an interesting campaign so far. Bush has been spending millions to define Kerry as a flip-flopping-soft-on-defense ultra-liberal. Kerry's been playing "rope-a-dope" watching Bush's approval rating drop on it's own accord. Personally I think Kerry has to start doing a better job promoting his own vision soon. I wonder if he's waiting until the election gets closer and the undecided people start paying more attention? Are those people who are paying close attention already entrenched in their decision?

It looks like this may come down to the 18 or so "swing states" (aka battleground states, aka purple states). How many people here live in one of these states? http://www.ndol.org/blueprint/2004_number_2/09_new_battleground.html

P.S. I was hoping Clark would get the nomination. Strong on defense, knows how hold together a coalition, progressive, from a very modest background, speaks four languages, former economics professor, amazingly intelligent (1st in his class at West Point). Just not a particularly good politician apparently.

Edit: Add swing state query.

TAFKAFEX · « **Reply #16 on:** July 12, 2004, 02:02:50 pm »

Never heard about 'venom beer'? Any sources?

TimB · « **Reply #17 on:** July 12, 2004, 02:22:04 pm »

Well if Bush loses he can just suspend the process due to the terrorist threat. Doesn't have to be real, remember the WMDs in Iraq.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...

-=Tim=-

KingSparta · « **Reply #18 on:** July 12, 2004, 02:25:38 pm »

Quote from: TimB on July 12, 2004, 02:22:04 pm

Well if Bush loses he can just suspend the process due to the terrorist threat. Doesn't have to be real, remember the WMDs in Iraq.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...

-=Tim=-

I don't think that would work, the Dems would be in Court Counting Chads Again.

TimB · « **Reply #19 on:** July 12, 2004, 02:39:40 pm »

Quote from: KingSparta on July 12, 2004, 02:25:38 pm

Quote from: TimB on July 12, 2004, 02:22:04 pm
Well if Bush loses he can just suspend the process due to the terrorist threat. Doesn't have to be real, remember the WMDs in Iraq.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...

-=Tim=-

I don't think that would work, the Dems would be in Court Counting Chads Again.

Wouldn't (even

) you hope so?

-=Tim=-

KingSparta · « **Reply #20 on:** July 12, 2004, 03:31:44 pm »

Personaly i just hope the get it all over with and get off the TV

I don't like none of them running there mouths

Most of them lie anyway

Both Rep And Dems

xen-uno · « **Reply #21 on:** July 12, 2004, 03:55:30 pm »

My sister (a fervant republican) made a snide comment about Clinton in regards to the Waco/Davidians incident (the documentary is now playing on one of the premium channels). I've seen bits & pieces of it and it is excellent (warning: very graphic). She inferred that he was directly involved in the handling of and subsequent coverup. Maybe he was but I think not. I (who is politically agnostic) didn't think to remind her at the time that a similar situation may occur (or is occurring) over the WMD in Iraq claims. With politics being so eminently corruptable, I just can't fathom how anyone can get excited about it...but that's just me.

10^-27

Mysticeti · « **Reply #22 on:** July 12, 2004, 04:19:55 pm »

Quote from: xen-uno on July 12, 2004, 03:55:30 pm

My sister (a fervant republican) made a snide comment about Clinton in regards to the Waco/Davidians incident (the documentary is now playing on one of the premium channels). I've seen bits & pieces of it and it is excellent (warning: very graphic). She inferred that he was directly involved in the handling of and subsequent coverup. Maybe he was but I think not. I (who is politically agnostic) didn't think to remind her at the time that a similar situation may occur (or is occurring) over the WMD in Iraq claims. With politics being so eminently corruptable, I just can't fathom how anyone can get excited about it...but that's just me.

10^-27

Does anyone else think it's strange how even now, nearly four years later, some (many?) Republicans still can't let go of the Clinton bashing mallet?

Why is that?

Are they going to smear the Clinton name in perpetuity? Or only until Hillary is no longer a threat? Are they attempting to stain the name and all Democrats by association?

How badly did Nixon's follies hurt the Republican party in general? Are the two even comparable?

Omni · « **Reply #23 on:** July 12, 2004, 04:31:52 pm »

Quote from: TimB on July 12, 2004, 02:22:04 pm

Well if Bush loses he can just suspend the process due to the terrorist threat.

I heard about that this weekend. They (I don't recall who "they" are exactly--some committee set up by Bush or Homeland Security or something) are preparing proposals to suspend the election if need be due to terrorist activities.

The thing is, the constitution dictates that the term of office for the President is four years, so I don't care how they word it, wouldn't it be unconstitutional (by definition) to suspend the election? I just can't see it happening no matter how much Bush or Cheney may want it.

Back on topic.... ideally, like I implied in my first post, I would consider myself more Libertarian than Republican or Democrat, but sadly, the realist in me thinks their platform is just too utopian and would never work in the "real world." (To Michael Badnarik: No more taxes, you say? Cool. Good luck with that.)

I'd vote for Bush, I suppose, if only he would ditch Dick Cheney. With Cheney, he'll never get my vote. About Kerry, I don't know. There is just something about him I don't like. I just get a bad feeling about him.

Frankly, what I would like to see is the Republicans (minus Cheney) win the Oval Office and the Democrats win back the House and Senate. (Is that possible this election? I haven't checked the numbers.) As crazy as it sounds, I think a bipartisan governement works best: neither branch can do anything too crazy without the other getting in their way.

JimH · « **Reply #24 on:** July 12, 2004, 04:35:24 pm »

Quote from: Omni on July 12, 2004, 04:31:52 pm

About Kerry, I don't know. There is just something about him I don't like. I just get a bad feeling about him.

I've never trusted guys who were handsome and intelligent. They must be deeply flawed somehow.

Omni · « **Reply #25 on:** July 12, 2004, 04:43:11 pm »

Quote from: Mysticeti on July 12, 2004, 04:19:55 pm

Does anyone else think it's strange how even now, nearly four years later, some (many?) Republicans still can't let go of the Clinton bashing mallet?

Specifically who are you referring to? Cite names and quotes, please.

Seriously, Clinton has been a non-issue since 9/11 and Bush's "war on terror." The only reason Clinton's name comes up now is because 1.) he was the most recent Democrat to hold the office, and 2.) he just released his book and is now currently making the rounds.

Republicans point the finger at Democrats, and Democrats point the finger at Republicans. Sadly, that is just the way it is. And again, since Clinton was the last Democrat to hold office, who do you propose the Republicans point their finger at instead? Hmmmmmm?

Omni · « **Reply #26 on:** July 12, 2004, 04:48:44 pm »

Quote from: JimH on July 12, 2004, 04:35:24 pm

Quote from: Omni on July 12, 2004, 04:31:52 pm
About Kerry, I don't know. There is just something about him I don't like. I just get a bad feeling about him.
I've never trusted guys who were handsome and intelligent. They must be deeply flawed somehow.

Yeah, I knew when I typed that I would get (and deserve) a response like this. I freely admit my opinion is very subjective, but in the various (brief) interviews and sound bites I have heard of him, he just rubs me the wrong way. I can't put my finger on it. Maybe when I see him in an actual debate my opinion will change. <shrug>

EDIT: For what it is worth, Bush actually rubs me the wrong way, too.

(And yes, I was already used to him being that he was my governor.

) But that is just it. At least with Bush, I know what to expect and subsequently set my expectations low so not to be disappointed. With Kerry, he's a mystery to me in that I really don't know what to expect from him regardless of his rhetoric (campaign promises mean diddly-squat).

KingSparta · « **Reply #27 on:** July 12, 2004, 05:04:31 pm »

Quote from: JimH on July 12, 2004, 04:35:24 pm

Quote from: Omni on July 12, 2004, 04:31:52 pm
About Kerry, I don't know. There is just something about him I don't like. I just get a bad feeling about him.
I've never trusted guys who were handsome and intelligent. They must be deeply flawed somehow.

Funny

Me And You Must Be Perfect Then.

Charlemagne 8 · « **Reply #28 on:** July 12, 2004, 07:34:51 pm »

Quote

Are they attempting to stain the name and all Democrats by association?

Bingo. It does work both ways, though. There's been way too much partisanship on all levels of government.

It seems that by the time a politician achieves the level of "politicianism" needed to run for President, He/She has already lost touch and is unfit for the office.

CVIII

crowfan · « **Reply #29 on:** July 12, 2004, 08:39:14 pm »

Quote from: TimB on July 12, 2004, 02:22:04 pm

Well if Bush loses he can just suspend the process due to the terrorist threat. Doesn't have to be real, remember the WMDs in Iraq.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...

-=Tim=-

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/bush_-_fool_me_once.ram

The good part's about 0:52 in. It was done to death at the time but I couldn't resist.

crow

TimB · « **Reply #30 on:** July 13, 2004, 05:58:59 am »

Quote from: JimH on July 12, 2004, 04:35:24 pm

Quote from: Omni on July 12, 2004, 04:31:52 pm
About Kerry, I don't know. There is just something about him I don't like. I just get a bad feeling about him.
I've never trusted guys who were handsome and intelligent. They must be deeply flawed somehow.

We'd get along well then.

-=Tim=-

JustinChase · « **Reply #31 on:** July 13, 2004, 08:28:14 am »

Anyone but Bush!

Seriously, anyone.

bjsolem · « **Reply #32 on:** July 13, 2004, 08:53:15 am »

Quote from: Omni on July 12, 2004, 04:31:52 pm

Frankly, what I would like to see is the Republicans (minus Cheney) win the Oval Office and the Democrats win back the House and Senate. (Is that possible this election? I haven't checked the numbers.) As crazy as it sounds, I think a bipartisan governement works best: neither branch can do anything too crazy without the other getting in their way.

Democracies work best when they are slow and inefficient. You could argue that the framers of the constitution intentionally made the government slow and cumbersome so that no decisions could be made too quickly or could include too few people. A government that is supposed to represent all the people has to have the time to be able to hear all the voices of those people.

(notice that I said DEMOCRACY works best when they are slow and inefficient, I did not say BUREAUCRACY. It would be nice to see a little more efficiency in that area

)

There is also not a word in the constitution about how there should only be two parties. Imagine if we had three or more strong and distinct parties that had to figure out how to work together and build some coalitions every now and then.

Mysticeti · « **Reply #33 on:** July 14, 2004, 09:06:54 pm »

I'm rather impressed with John Edwards so far. He seems to be an excellent speaker (as one might expect).

Omni · « **Reply #34 on:** July 15, 2004, 11:51:19 am »

Yeah, it is sort of disappointing (for me). I really liked him, and this coming from a moderate-conservative-Republican-Libertarian-wannabe.

I thought it was a shame when he bowed out of the race. If the ticket were reversed, i.e., Edwards for Pres. and Kerry for Vice-Pres., then most likely they would be getting my vote this year. Too bad that isn't the case.

JimH · « **Reply #35 on:** July 15, 2004, 12:03:24 pm »

Being Vice President has been a stepping stone to the Presidency several times in the last fifty years.

From memory, so don't flog me for mistakes.

1952-1960 Eisenhower - Nixon > Nixon ran and lost, ran and won
1960-1964 Kennedy - Johnson > Johnson became president, ran and won
1964-1968 Johnson - Humphrey > Humphrey ran and lost
1968-1976 Nixon - Agnew - Ford > Ford ran and lost
1976-1980 Carter - Mondale > Mondale ran and lost
1980-1988 Reagan - Bush > Bush ran and won
1988-1992 Bush - Quayle > Quayle tried
1992-2000 Clinton - Gore > Gore ran and won but the Supreme Court said otherwise

Magicland · « **Reply #36 on:** July 15, 2004, 11:57:00 pm »

I'm still holding out for Kerry/McCain... I think that would have been a nicely balanced ticket. Personally I feel that both the Republicans AND the Democrats lean too far to the extremes (right and left) for the majority of Americans who end up picking the lesser of two evils instead of a candidate they really agree with.

Mysticeti · « **Reply #37 on:** July 16, 2004, 03:45:27 pm »

Quote from: Omni on July 15, 2004, 11:51:19 am

Yeah, it is sort of disappointing (for me). I really liked him, and this coming from a moderate-conservative-Republican-Libertarian-wannabe. I thought it was a shame when he bowed out of the race. If the ticket were reversed, i.e., Edwards for Pres. and Kerry for Vice-Pres., then most likely they would be getting my vote this year. Too bad that isn't the case.

Having Edwards on top of the ticket may have been too risky for the Dems. The Bush campaign would paint him as too inexperienced w/r/t national defense and foreign policy. Think about how little G.W.Bush knew about foreign policy when he took office. Thank goodness W's such a quick study.

Quote from: Magicland on July 15, 2004, 11:57:00 pm

I'm still holding out for Kerry/McCain... I think that would have been a nicely balanced ticket. Personally I feel that both the Republicans AND the Democrats lean too far to the extremes (right and left) for the majority of Americans who end up picking the lesser of two evils instead of a candidate they really agree with.

I know a lot of people who would agree with you. Some say that this is due in large part to the nominating process. You have to appeal to "the base" in order to get nominated and "centrists" can have a difficult time doing this.

If your appeal too much to your base you risk looking "extreme".

Apropos Bush v Kerry:

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17231

TimB · « **Reply #38 on:** July 16, 2004, 06:08:56 pm »

Quote from: JimH on July 15, 2004, 12:03:24 pm

1988-1992 Bush - Quayle > Quayle tried
1992-2000 Clinton - Gore > Gore ran and won but the Supreme Court said otherwise

LOL!

-=Tim=-

deerhunter · « **Reply #39 on:** July 17, 2004, 06:46:31 am »

A site I spend a lot of time on for hunters, fisherman and other outdoor types had a poll and out of over 300 votes, there were only 3 for Kerry. The rest were for Bush. My only comment is we are in the beginning stages of WWIII. Unless we go after these people with all we got and end this thing now, we will be facing a terrible war that will kill thousands if not millions of Americans. So choose your next president carefully.

Tyler Campbell · « **Reply #40 on:** July 17, 2004, 10:55:47 am »

Quote from: Omni on July 08, 2004, 03:19:50 pm

Bah... why does the Libertarian Party always get left out.

I'm a Libertarian!

GHammer · « **Reply #41 on:** July 17, 2004, 12:41:53 pm »

How smart can either candidate be? They are spending US$200 million on a job that pays what, US$400 thousand a year.

And people wonder why the budget is never balanced.

Whoever wins isn't going to make wholesale changes in the goverment or U.S. policy.

You have 4 guys (no women) who are:

Rich
Politicians
Beholden to large donators and special interests

One was lucky enough to marry a wealthy woman.
One was lucky enough to be born to a connected father.
One was a beloved lawsuit lawyer
One has been using public service jobs to get private jobs for 30 years.

Yeah, no matter how you pair these up you have the makings of a real dream team.

GHammer · « **Reply #42 on:** July 17, 2004, 12:53:05 pm »

I think the system needs to go back to the old 'smoke filled room' nominating process. When politicians haggled over who was going to be the candidate you got better material. They know the real info on the players. They know what it takes to do the job. You got F.D.R., Kennedy, L.B.J., etc.

The public decides who to vote for in primaries on looks, TV spots, slick ad campaigns, "Anybody but Bush", etc. And you get Gore, Carter, Bush, Ford.

Do you think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would ever be passed today? I think not, the 'leaders' would check the polling data and either water it down or refuse to bring it to a vote at all.

Since the nominations have been done via the primaries, what landmark laws have been enacted?

JimH · « **Reply #43 on:** July 18, 2004, 08:39:12 am »

Here's a site I found when I was looking for other polls:

http://www.swingstateproject.com

It has a lot of polls, especially from swing states (close enough they can go to Democrats or Republicans) and it projects the final popular and electoral votes. This is probably a better way to look at the data than just looking at a national poll of popular votes.

JorgeGVB · « **Reply #44 on:** July 18, 2004, 11:39:49 am »

There was an interesting article on CNN recently that talked about polling results. Both political parties have found that 87% of both party voters are strongly behind their candidate and will not change their vote between now and November. Therefore, both parties are really only focusing on the remaining 13% of undecided voters in a handful of states. Now that is a scary thought, think about it!!!

Charlemagne 8 · « **Reply #45 on:** July 18, 2004, 06:43:26 pm »

Whatever happened to the way it was originally done -- back in 17something -- the top vote getter was President and the second was Vice-President? That would do away with a lot of partisanship but might leave room for more "accidents".

CVIII

Magicland · « **Reply #46 on:** July 19, 2004, 02:22:44 am »

Quote from: Charlemagne 8 on July 18, 2004, 06:43:26 pm

Whatever happened to the way it was originally done -- back in 17something -- the top vote getter was President and the second was Vice-President? That would do away with a lot of partisanship but might leave room for more "accidents".

CVIII

Then instead of challenging Bush in court, Gore could have challenged him to a duel. Of course, with all that national guard training that nobody seems to remember, George might still have an edge (or would that be Cheney standing in as his second?).

Mysticeti · « **Reply #47 on:** July 19, 2004, 01:09:11 pm »

Quote from: deerhunter on July 17, 2004, 06:46:31 am

A site I spend a lot of time on for hunters, fisherman and other outdoor types had a poll and out of over 300 votes, there were only 3 for Kerry. The rest were for Bush. My only comment is we are in the beginning stages of WWIII. Unless we go after these people with all we got and end this thing now, we will be facing a terrible war that will kill thousands if not millions of Americans. So choose your next president carefully.

My knee jerk reaction to comments like "we're approaching WWIII... millions could die" is that it's blatant fear mongering.

My second reaction is to say "if we're heading for a world war then I want as many countries on my side as possible". Ergo I want leadership that can operate on the world stage with tact and diplomacy not name calling and arrogance.

Something tells me that a few decades from now when you do a Google search for "Early 21st Century Terrorism" the search agent will display 'Red Scare' under Related Topics.

How we "go after" the terrorists will have a major impact on how this scenario plays out. You can't bomb an idea and the threat of retaliation doesn't mean much to someone willing to carry out a suicide attack.

JimH · « **Reply #48 on:** July 19, 2004, 01:11:43 pm »

Quote from: Mysticeti on July 19, 2004, 01:09:11 pm

You can't bomb an idea

Good one. Well said.

Matt · « **Reply #49 on:** July 19, 2004, 01:37:01 pm »

Quote from: deerhunter on July 17, 2004, 06:46:31 am

Unless we go after these people with all we got and end this thing now, we will be facing a terrible war that will kill thousands if not millions of Americans.

There are over 40 million Americans without health insurance, and over 25 million Africans infected with HIV. Is a $300 (or more) billion war in Iraq the best way to "save lives"?

And by these people I assume you mean the administration responsible for starting the war

INTERACT FORUM

Poll

If you're a US citizen, who will you vote for?

Author Topic: OT POLL -- Bush, Kerry, or ? (Read 11779 times)

TAFKAFEX