Are you just going to vote party in 2008? (global warming, voters, illegal aliens)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is a link to the popular vote by state for 2000. Note the "hanging chad" state. If that 2% that voted for Nader, voted for either Bush or Gore, we wouldn't have had the issue in the first place. Considering which party is closest to the objectives of the "Green Party", I can say without a doubt that if Mr. Nader decided to be responsible and stay out of the election, we would not have the Master of Disaster in office right now...
Granted, sadly the independent vote would not have helped in 2004, but then again we would not have been re-electing the walking disaster in 2004 if Gore had won.
Do you all know WHY George Bush is running the country?
Folks like Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, etc.
These folks had no, and have no shot at getting elected. I know this is a defeatist attitude, but it's also realistic. Please DO NOT vote for Ron Paul, or any other third wheel that has no real hope of actually winning the election. Avoid the temptation of making a "political statement" with your vote.
This is why GWB has been in the White House for almost 7 years now. If those few folks that voted independent voted for Gore or Kerry, we wouldn't be experiencing this utter disaster of a presidency.
I say again, Ron Paul has absolutely no shot at actually winning the 2008 election. Do the responsible thing. Pick a party and vote. I say this because in the absence of choice, MOST folks who "vote the best candidate" would vote democrat. Sometimes I wonder if the Republicans don't fund these independents through the back door in order to take votes away from the Democrats.
Think about it, that's not such a far-fetched idea.
Do whatever you think is best for the United States, but remember, there are consequences. George Bush is one of them.
Try that again in 2008 and we might wake up on Wed morning to President Thompson.
~T
Hi Yap - great thinking. But I have a serious question for you because I don't know the criteria. Why does Ron Paul have no chance? If you would start another thread on this "3rd party issue" - I for one would love to see it. I remember everyone said Ross Perot had no chance as well. It proved accurate - but consider it a lack of knowledge on my part - how can someone objectively tell if someone has no chance at all?
Here is a link to the popular vote by state for 2000. Note the "hanging chad" state. If that 2% that voted for Nader, voted for either Bush or Gore, we wouldn't have had the issue in the first place. Considering which party is closest to the objectives of the "Green Party", I can say without a doubt that if Mr. Nader decided to be responsible and stay out of the election, we would not have the Master of Disaster in office right now...
Granted, sadly the independent vote would not have helped in 2004, but then again we would not have been re-electing the walking disaster in 2004 if Gore had won.
Hi Yap - great thinking. But I have a serious question for you because I don't know the criteria. Why does Ron Paul have no chance? If you would start another thread on this "3rd party issue" - I for one would love to see it. I remember everyone said Ross Perot had no chance as well. It proved accurate - but consider it a lack of knowledge on my part - how can someone objectively tell if someone has no chance at all?
Agreed. Ron Paul would be a great alternative to the so-called mainstream candidates. Unfortunately the big wigs in both parties and the media don't want to give Paul any traction because of his idea of far less government in people's lives and his opposition to the war in Iraq. Those in favor of the Bush/Clinton Inc presidency, and there are many just turn on any news or cable news channel, will not allow Paul to get any spotlight. Like I said a major grassroots effort is the only way to have Paul get any real attention. I think that may be happening now.
Besides people have to remember that Ron Paul is a Republican, an out of the mainstream Republican, but a Republican nonetheless. Although he was a Libertarian for years and still very much holds those views.
I will support the best man for the job. I am not sure we are ready for a woman. I do know that I will vote on the issues, and one of my main issues is illegal immigration and secure borders.
Just curious - why do you think "we" are not ready for a woman? Are we more backwards than India, Canada, the UK, etc? What do these countries have that we don't? Other than former female leaders...
Hi Yap - great thinking. But I have a serious question for you because I don't know the criteria. Why does Ron Paul have no chance? If you would start another thread on this "3rd party issue" - I for one would love to see it. I remember everyone said Ross Perot had no chance as well. It proved accurate - but consider it a lack of knowledge on my part - how can someone objectively tell if someone has no chance at all?
Why? Of course there is no concrete proof, but look at the polls.
30% of folks still approve of Bush!!
More than that approve of the Iraq war.
These are not Ron Paul votes, but they are Giuliani/Thompson votes.
Aside from that, an independent has never won, and will not win any time in the foreseeable future. That is just the way things are. Granted, RP might actually win as much as 10% of the popular vote, but there is no way in the world he'll actually win a state, much less the election.
Look at it this way, a vote for Ron Paul is a Republican vote. Why? Because Republicans are traditionally conservative, and generally do not welcome "change" with open arms. These are the folks who will continue to vote for their party, right or wrong, because they've been conditioned to believe that Democrats are a threat to their way of life. They also don't generally entertain "rabble-rouser independents" as serious candidates.
On the other hand, a larger percentage of folks who lean to the left WILL entertain 3rd party candidates. WHY they don't consider the repercussions of giving their vote to a 3rd party I'll never know. What they end up doing is helping the Republican party, indirectly. I wish more of these folks would realize this.
Ron Paul is not a bad candidate, he's just a bad vote.
The jury is out on that one. I was no fan of Gore either, but Bush is reprehensible.
I will concede that there hasn't been much choice in the past two elections. I would however rather have a president that does nothing, than have a president who does too much, and has basically fubar'd the world.
The worst I think we'd have to worry about with Gore is more PC nonsense.
I'll take Gore over Bush, Thompson, or McCain, any day of the week. If you voted for Bush in either election(00 or 04), then you need to reconsider your definition of a good president.
Who do you think CAN beat the Dem nomination? I guess this means you are voting "party"? An Ind probably can't beat the Dems, but could certainly split the Rep vote.
Who do you think CAN beat the Dem nomination? I guess this means you are voting "party"? An Ind probably can't beat the Dems, but could certainly split the Rep vote.
I don't know about that. There are more centrists than lefties these days, and more righties than lefties. The independents split the left, not the right.
~T
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
