If the 2004 US election were held today, who would you vote for?

[Gokul43201]

If there were an election tomorrow, and you had to choose between Bush and Kerry (running on the same platforms they did last year, or any of the other players), who would you vote for (if you could vote) ? Also tell us who did/wanted to vote for in 2004.

I'm wondering if there are any swings in here, one way or the other.

 

[pattylou]

I've come to adore Barbara Boxer. She'd be my "other." But she has no interest, which only increases her appeal.

 

[cronxeh]

If those are the only and best candidates the United States could come up with, then I say its a pretty retarded shame.

 

[Smurf]

Why is there an "other; other" and a "none of the above"?

 

[Gokul43201]

"None of the above" covers possibilities like "I wouldn't vote" or whatever else someone might think of that I might have missed. Doesn't hurt to have it there as a safety net, methinks.

 

[Smurf]

I've come to adore Barbara Boxer. She'd be my "other." But she has no interest, which only increases her appeal.

Heh... the only Barbara in Canadian politics (that I know) is a founding member of the Marxist-Leninist party and was the running MP for the People's Front party last provincial election.

(she's one of my favourite)

 

[Locrian]

Why is there an "other; other" and a "none of the above"?

It doesn't make much sense with the OP text exactly, but it certainly makes the options more complete.

 

[honestrosewater]

Nader, baby. Voted for him in 2000 and 2004; will vote for him in 2008 if he runs and is still healthy. The guy is a saint.
I did manage to get through to my mother. She said she would have switched to Nader in 2004, but she ended up "not having time" to vote. She was a (bazillionth-generation) Republican.

 

[Astronuc]

I'd write myself in as President.

But then again, Arnold has a better chance than me.

On the other, I am running for Leader of the World.

First Rule - Everyone has to be nice.

 

[Anttech]

First Rule - Everyone has to be nice.

Or else (?)

 

[Townsend]

Just to be clear, I didn't want Bush in 04' but I voted for him cause I especially didn't want Kerry! I wanted a libertarian but I don't see it happening...

 

[pattylou]

Or else (?)

You go in time out.

 

[SOS2008]

I voted for Kerry in 2004 because anything was WAY better than Bush. Since then I actually feel Kerry would have been a great asset in improving our foreign affairs, but I remain less confident about how he would handle domestic issues and gaining congressional support. So I would like to see a stronger candidate from the Dems to go up against McCain, because I definitely will not vote for him.

 

[BobG]

I voted Kerry in 2004. I chose other for who I would vote for given a fantasy election - in a fantasy election, the Republican candidate would be someone other than Bush, Rice, Cheney, Barbour, Brownback, or Tancredo (and the Democratic candidate would be someone other than Dean, Kucinich, Biden, or Clinton - actually, the fact that the first group raise more negative feelings in me than Biden or Clinton worries me a little).

 

[Burnsys]

I voted none of the above becouse i think bush and kerry are the same and they defend the same interests.

If in a democracy you are only left to select between 2 candidates.. then it's not a democracy, it's a covert dictatorship.

 

[loseyourname]

Nader, baby. Voted for him in 2000 and 2004; will vote for him in 2008 if he runs and is still healthy. The guy is a saint.

So you were one of those Floridian Nader voters that gave Florida to Bush in 2000, eh?

I haven't even worried about the presidential vote the last two elections (the only two in which I've been old enough to vote, coincidentally). I voted for Nader in 2000 and Bush in 2004, which looks strange prima facie (both men are probably in the lowest 10th percentile of men I would actually want as president) until you consider that I meant both to be protest votes of a sort, against an electoral college system in which my vote made absolutely no difference because California was going to whoever the democrats nominated two years before there was a nomination. In return, I'll vote for anyone who isn't a democrat. That only holds for the presidential election, though. My vote actually matters in all others and I vote in a regular manner in those.

Ideally, I'd still like to see Giuliani. I probably would have voted for Wesley Clark had he received the democratic nomination last time around. I'll give strong consideration to Mike Huckabee if he runs. DeWine, Durbin, and Byrd are the senators I wouldn't mind seeing off the top of my head.

 

[Smurf]

So you were one of those Floridian Nader voters that gave Florida to Bush in 2000, eh?

I thought Bush-voters gave him Florida... what are you on about?

 

[loseyourname]

I thought Bush-voters gave him Florida... what are you on about?

He won by what? Less then 1%? Had the 5% that went to Nader, undoubtedly liberal people, voted for Gore (heck, had 20% of them voted for Gore), Bush never takes office and his political career is probably over.

I'm a little taken back by the fact that I had to explain this to you when it's been covered from about every angle possible for the last five years.

 

[honestrosewater]

So you were one of those Floridian Nader voters that gave Florida to Bush in 2000, eh?

My county went to Gore, so I don't think my vote made a difference anyway. That is how it works, right? Eh, whatever.
Why don't you like Nader?

 

[loseyourname]

My county went to Gore, so I don't think my vote made a difference anyway. That is how it works, right? Eh, whatever.

Electoral votes aren't alloted by county. Whoever wins the state popular vote gets every electoral vote. Actually, I think there are one or two states that actually apportion their electoral vote, but Florida is not one of them.

Why don't you like Nader?

It's not that I don't like Nader. It's just that I don't like him as a president. He's done fine as a consumer advocate, but what exactly do you think he would accomplish as a president? He would have no support whatsoever in Congress and there is no national initiative/referendum process, so he can't go Arnold either.

 

[honestrosewater]

He would have no support whatsoever in Congress

But if he actually had a chance of winning, wouldn't that be different? And if he did win, most of the people who voted for him would have voted for people who supported him, yes?

 

[Astronuc]

Alfred P. Newman for President?

How about Afred P. Newman.

He was a great editor.


OK - How about John McCain and Bill Bradley?

 

[Informal Logic]

The splitting of votes away from either of the main two parties is only a problem because there are only two parties. Voters are made to feel their votes are wasted if they support a candidate outside those two parities. If there were multiple parties, as there are in other countries, the candidate with majority votes would truly be elected by the majority. This is a point that Nader tried to make, and why he refused to withdraw. The reasoning being we will never move to multiple parties if people retain this mentality. I wouldn't vote for Nader, but I praise him for his efforts.

For those of you who were against the preemptive attack on Iraq, against privatization of social security, or against big business and lax trade agreements, McCain would be more of the same on these issues. I am not sure if he is a neocon, or how much he would cater to the religious right. With Frist and others washing out on a daily basis, it is hard to predict other candidates for the GOP.

I will probably vote Democrat if for no other reason than the bad experience of the GOP controlling too many of the branches of government, which will now likely include the judicial branch. So far none of the possible candidates for the Dems appear objectionable to me.

 

[Moonbear]

The splitting of votes away from either of the main two parties is only a problem because there are only two parties. Voters are made to feel their votes are wasted if they support a candidate outside those two parities. If there were multiple parties, as there are in other countries, the candidate with majority votes would truly be elected by the majority.

Yep, even if that majority vote is only 12% of the population because there are 10 parties. It doesn't really improve things much to have more parties.

 

[loseyourname]

Yep, even if that majority vote is only 12% of the population because there are 10 parties. It doesn't really improve things much to have more parties.

That was a concern during the recall election in California a few years back. Since there were no primaries, everyone was listed on the ballot. I don't remember the margin that Arnold ended up winning by, but in theory, a candidate could have won with as little as 10% of the vote.

To Informal Logic:

My vote feels wasted not because I support a third party candidate, but because of the electoral college system. The candidate that wins the popular vote in the state of California gets every electoral vote for that state. In every election since Bush I, it has been preordained that the Democratic candidate would win California, usually by a very large margin. Whether or not I even cast a vote ends up making no difference. We may as well not even hold a presidential election in California and just spot the Democrat all those electoral votes to begin with.

 

[mattmns]

The only reason I voted for Kerry was because he was not Bush. Wooops, I think I chose the wrong poll option.