you guys decide who you are voting for yet? (Dayton: tax, to live in)

[nick is rulz]

Originally Posted by moving123456

That might be true, or it could turn out like your Oberstar predictions.

I was basing that off polls. They were wrong. So be it.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by Civic

"Voting is a civic responsibility" trying to rub it in? haha

If i'm voting with out conviction, then 1. i'm being dishonest with myself and 2. I'm doing disservice to the defeated candidate as well as constituency. How can a house of representative members (congressman/woman) be a true representative of me, if I selected them with not convictions? If one doesn't care about any of the candidates what's the selection merit chosen? The lesser of two evils? lol choose by looks? choose by age? choose by gender? flip coins? in any case that with that vote the candidate selected is not truly representative of yours because you selected him/her not because of idealogical but simply to satisfy a quota/ego.

you right It's ....without representation..... although thought it was bumper sticker and not targa plate. Haven't been to DC in about 7 years.

Ha -- didn't catch the pun initially. It works, though! You don't have to agree in a candidate 100% (no one does!) and you can choose a third party candidate: there are lots of them in MN. Lesser of two evils is perfectly valid. At least then when you have a complaint or a need then there will be political incentive for them to address it. And while individual voting records don't matter as much as the overall numbers, it's also easy for politicians to focus (whether for political reasons or even just because they make the most noise) on the demographic noise of people who DO vote, and who DO expect that their politicians -- whether they like them or not -- will respond to their questions or problems. Seniors, for example, get a lot of attention from politicians, which is perhaps no surprise since they vote in large numbers.

I would never expect a politician to agree with all of my opinions. I simply choose the candidate who I trust most to make informed decisions that fall somewhat in line with my beliefs. Not voting doesn't fix anything. It's not dishonest to vote for someone you think will do the best job, even if that's a choice between "evils." There's ALWAYS differences between candidates (substantial differences, not just looks), so with a little bit of information anyone should be able to come to a conclusion, even if that person isn't their dream candidate.

[Civic]

I agree with much of what you said, but in my opinion much of the politicians are out there for their won personal gains and ambitions rather than to truly serve the people. Paul Wellstone for instance epitomize servant hood, so for someone like him I would make sure I vote not because of party affiliation but because of the person he is. Sorry to say this but third party is a waste of vote. Sure Ventura won it but...that's just a fluke.
Was there referendum on the ballot? that is probably one thing I might have want to consider worth going to the poll for.

[uptown_urbanist]

Oh, I agree that third party is a waste of a vote, IF you have strong feelings about the other candidates; if you don't, though, then you might as well vote third party and make a statement that way. It's a much stronger statement than not voting at all.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

I think Emmer lost by about 9000 servers!

I suspect if Marty was running against Dayton, he would have one hands down. That being said, I like the fact that there is balance. Even though I'm a Republican, I like a balance of power.

So it seems Dayton cannot tax the "rich". So now it is going to get interesting.

Simply put, Emmer lost with an EXTREMELY small chance of it being overturned. If I was him, I'd take some time to make sure there wasn't any funny business. Both sides have the capability of being slimy. After all, they are politicians. BUt to bow out quickly is the right thing to do.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

Oh, I agree that third party is a waste of a vote, IF you have strong feelings about the other candidates; if you don't, though, then you might as well vote third party and make a statement that way. It's a much stronger statement than not voting at all.

Please refer to the 1998 Minnesota gubernatorial election.

[nick is rulz]

I'll be the first to admit i dont like Emmer. At all.

That being said, he doesnt strike me as a sore loser type like Coleman does. I also think hes smart enough to understand that his actions now will impact voters feelings for him in the future. I cant really see him wanting to drag this out...and I predict he will bow out with dignity after a recount assuming all seems legit.

[uptown_urbanist]

Emmer scares me because I think he would do an absolutely terrible job running the state, and because I don't agree with him on much of anything, but I agree that I don't think he's the "sore loser" type like Coleman; Coleman always seemed like the stereotypical slick politician type, while Emmer, while he scares me even more because I think he really DOES believe what he says, seems less of a "politician" in the negative sense of the word.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

Emmer scares me because I think he would do an absolutely terrible job running the state, .

How so?? How would you run the state better using your ideas?? I'm just curious...

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised

How so?? How would you run the state better using your ideas?? I'm just curious...

I'm not the one running the state, and I'm not running for political office. It's not my job to come up with ideas. I simply don't think he knows what he's talking about on many issues. Education, for one. But on the money front, I don't think it's responsible these days to think that slashing taxes is the solution to everything; I find tax cuts to be fiscally irresponsible in today's economy. And every time I saw a "don't send jobs to South Dakota" billboard the more I'm convinced that his arguments are all based on wishful thinking, not logic or actual data. Pawlenty has already done a great deal of damage to MN; I'd hate to see someone even MORE conservative do even more to the state. I vote for people I trust to make well-informed decisions , and who will put the state's needs above their own interests (or political ideologies); I don't see any reason to trust that Emmer has the interest or ability in doing that. I also think his extremely conservative social positions on things will get in the way of governing a state filled with people who hold very diverse opinions on such matters. And his idea of "social values," as put on his website, are totally alien to me -- he lists abortion and gay marriage. First of all, I'm pro-choice, and second, how can denying gay people civil rights be so important to him as a legislature? And where are his OTHER social values? Helping poor people? Whenever I see people list those two things I wonder what else is missing, and wonder about their priority list. (and while I don't vote based on family member goings-ons, since he markets himself as a such a family guy with family values, the values of some of his own family -- namely his son, Tripp -- seem to have gone horribly amiss. If you're going to trot your family around as shining proof of being a nice guy, then they'd better not be doing such disgusting things when not out on the campaign trail.)