2008 Presidential Election Poll

[Labrocca]

Please select from the following.

[Buck Laser]

Please select from the following.

Why did you enter that list of choices? My choice is Al Gore, The Once And Future President.

[Labrocca]

I don't believe Gore will be running. Has he announced otherwise?

[AlonzoMourning23]

There's always speculation, even if it's unlikely. A lot of people want him to run anyway.

[Labrocca]

I could have sworn Al said he wasn't interested in running.

[Churchel]

I could have sworn Al said he wasn't interested in running.


The rumors I get is that he needs a little more convincing. It all depends on the strength of the candidiates. I consider hillary an asshole, kerry a doushebag, and edwards a nancy-boy. I know I am not alone.

[Labrocca]

Cmon you people...vote!

[rodeojones903]

Rudy Giuliani FTW!

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But none of the above.
2. All losers.
3. I wouldn't vote for any of them to lead a worm race.
4. I hope Al Gore runs again thou, just to see him crack up on National TV.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[bobbylien]

Sorry bout that,

1. But none of the above.
2. All losers.
3. I wouldn't vote for any of them to lead a worm race.
4. I hope Al Gore runs again thou, just to see him crack up on National TV.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Who do you want then? Ann Coulter? Sean Hannity? Rush Limbaugh?

[Mayberry]

I gotta agree with Chess. They all suck. But I will say I'll vote against Kerry and former President Clinton (and her husband).

[PittsburghAfterDark]

They all suck.Â*Â*I can't vote on that group of losers.

Frist is the only one that doesn't churn my stomach but he doesn't have the fundraising machine to make it through Super Tuesday if he doesn't win Iowa or New Hampshire.

McCain may be a media "darling" but the primary voters, the Republican base, are disgusted by him. Rudy, while a great crisis leader, is too liberal to make a dent with the base. Respected, but not enough to vote for.

[BoogyMan]

Cmon you people...vote!



Vote early.......and often? LOLOL

[Labrocca]

They all suck.Â*Â*I can't vote on that group of losers.

Frist is the only one that doesn't churn my stomach but he doesn't have the fundraising machine to make it through Super Tuesday if he doesn't win Iowa or New Hampshire.

McCain may be a media "darling" but the primary voters, the Republican base, are disgusted by him.Â*Â*Rudy, while a great crisis leader, is too liberal to make a dent with the base.Â*Â*Respected, but not enough to vote for.


Ask New Yorkers if they think Giuliani is too liberal. He was basically accused of running a police state up till 9/11. I always will consider him the Mayor of NYC. He was excellent and cleaned the city up after the mess of Dinkins who was terrible. Dinkins allowed riots, poverty, crime...all to rise within the city.

Who would you like to see on the list PAD?

[Nathan Brazil]

Would it be possible to add a "None of the Above" to the poll so I could view the poll results? I don't want to casts a bogus ballot just for that, for any number of reasons.

[Nathan Brazil]

Ask New Yorkers if they think Giuliani is too liberal.Â*Â*He was basically accused of running a police state up till 9/11. I always will consider him the Mayor of NYC.

New Yorkers voted that carpetbagging elitist Arkansas pig into the Senate. You may as well ask Ted Let'em Drown Kennedy if Guilliani is too liberal.

I will say this, though. Guilliani is probably no more liberal the GW Bush. Which is too liberal by far.

Let's have B1 Bob Dornan run, at least he's not a boring speaker.

Oh, and I live in California, and it doesn't matter a bit who I'd vote for, the Democrat will get the electoral votes no matter who runs on the other side.

[Mayberry]

New Yorkers voted that carpetbagging elitist Arkansas pig into the Senate Actually he is a Scalawag (though not in the truest sense, since he went north), not a carpetbagger, who were northerners who migrated south after the War of Northern Aggression. :D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalawags

[Nathan Brazil]

New Yorkers voted that carpetbagging elitist Arkansas pig into the Senate Actually he is a Scalawag, not a carpetbagger, who were northerners who migrated south after the War of Northern Aggression. :D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalawags


I didn't know Hillary Clinton was a he, but it was clear that Bill has a serious problem keeping the pants in the family on, so maybe so. That could also help explain in part her attraction to Janet Reno.

I guess you missed that part about "Arkansas".

[Mayberry]

I guess you missed that part about "Arkansas". So I did. Oops!

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I keep saying it and no one listens to me but George Allen has great potential to be the nominee.

He talks the talk and more or less walks the walk of a Reagan Conservative. Of course he's a Senator and unless you have two Senators running against one another? We haven't elected one since Kennedy.

Governors are what do best and I'm not familiar enough with many Republican governors to say who might be well suited for the gig. No, I'm not one of those morons that thinks we should change the Constitution to run Swarzenegger.

[Labrocca]

Would it be possible to add a "None of the Above" to the poll so I could view the poll results?Â*Â*I don't want to casts a bogus ballot just for that, for any number of reasons.


Simply don't vote....just like a real election.

lol..as for george allen...I know nothing about him

But he sure does pose like Reagan.

http://static.flickr.com/6/183322920_49173db1cc.jpg

[Nathan Brazil]

Simply don't vote....just like a real election.

That's fine, as far as it goes, but it's sorta like having an election, then only letting the people that voted know who won.

[Labrocca]

You should be able to click view results near the poll on top.

http://www.democracyforums.com/polls.php?action=showresults&pid=9

[Nathan Brazil]

You should be able to click view results near the poll on top.

Oh, okay.

Hey! Look at that. Liberals have gotten 100% of the vote.

[ECW]

John Edwards has the right issues and the experience for the job. That's my choice.

[Nathan Brazil]

The US has a transcendant need for an ambulance chaser? What's he gonna, sue France?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

John Edwards has the right issues and the experience for the job. That's my choice.


:D one termed failed Senators that couldn't win re-election in their own state has the experience?

Wow, Democrats sure embrace failures as success stories.

[AnAmericanXX]

Pittsburg is the most right with George Allen. Unfortunately he is not widely known or covered well in the press. I would support him over virtually anyone running, but thing Mitt Romney is more electable simply because he does not have a congressional record to attack, and he is a republican governor elected to the most liberal state in the country, who has done well.

[Nathan Brazil]

That makes Mitt Romney a liberal Republican. I recall his debate with Ted Kennedy. Mitt was such a wuss he couldn't even refute a Massachussets "pony-tailed guy".

[AlonzoMourning23]

Romney has essentially stopped being governor of MA, and has even been opposed by his lieutenant governor on some issues. He also has backtracked on some of the platforms that were significant in his election. I saw a poll a while ago and he wasn't doing very well in the minds of most, though it's been a while and I can't find anything more up to date. He's not popular in eastern MA, but western MA is a little more conservative so I don't know.

There's also the issue of his religion, not significant in MA, but being a Mormon would likely hurt him in other areas.

[Nathan Brazil]

Not in Utah, nor Idaho.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Didn't realize the country only had 3 states.

But uneasiness about some religions persists. Thirty-seven percent of those questioned said they would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate, and 54% said no to the prospect of a Muslim in the White House.

In addition, 21% said they could not vote for an evangelical Christian.

Fifteen percent said they would not vote for a Jewish presidential candidate, and 10% were unwilling to cast ballots favoring a Catholic chief executive.


http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=706

[kanyon40]

I voted for Rudy because he is the strongest leader on the list. However, I agree that he isn't near conservative enough for the Evangelical Christians that are a strong wing of the republican party. He is a self-admitted social liberal (said so himself in interviews during the debates in 04 when asked if he would run for the 08 nomination).

In my opinion, Newt Gingrich is the most electable republican. He is brilliant, well thought of in the party, and his skeletons have been public enough that no surprises will come out during the inevitable smear campaigns of the presidential election.

Despite the spineless jellyfish that currently inhabit the republican party (at least the ones in office), I don't see there being a credible, electable democrat who has thrown his or her name into the ring. When Hillary Clinton is the "moderate democratic" choice, that tells you how far left the party is going with their presidential candidates at this point. While I certainly think there are democrats smart enough, capable enough, and even fit for the office (as a republican that isn't something I say often), the current liberal vs. conservative struggle that we see is ultimately leading to a republican by default government. While republicans aren't being very effective at the moment, they are generally viewed as more inept or spineless. Whereas the liberal democrats (the current power brokers of the democratic party) are seen as two-faced and untrustworthy. People will elect someone who can't govern over someone they don't trust any day.

[Labrocca]

Interesting post Kanyon. I agree that Newt might be a good candidate. If he was called upon to run I think he would in a heartbeat. As for the dems...they are basically just in trouble as a party imho. Some of what you stated is very true. I can't forsee a good nominee for the dems that can beat the GOP.

[Nathan Brazil]

The problem with Noot is that he's a known figure. He's known to have no balls, he couldn't even stand up to Clinton. If there's any figure out there that's totally unelectable, it's Noot.

[kanyon40]

We need to consider who is electable based mostly on who would get the most support across the board from their own party since we have such a polarized system at the moment. In that regard, Newt is at the top of many if not most conservative lists. Would dems vote for him? Not likely. Then again, I don't know a single republican that would vote for Hillary and she is the likely democrat frontrunner. This election will almost certainly be decided by which party gets more of its people out to vote, much like the last election was. The so-called swing voters aren't as significant as the media has us believing. The swing voters might be tough in a race between John McCain and Joe Lieberman who are both moderates within their parties. But if you get a true conservative vs. a true liberal, most people are going to decide who to support based on whether they are more in line with conservative or liberal values and issues.

[Nathan Brazil]

We need to consider who is electable based mostly on who would get the most support across the board from their own party since we have such a polarized system at the moment.Â*Â*In that regard, Newt is at the top of many if not most conservative lists.Â*Â*Would dems vote for him?Â*Â*Not likely.Â*Â*Then again, I don't know a single republican that would vote for Hillary and she is the likely democrat frontrunner.Â*Â*This election will almost certainly be decided by which party gets more of its people out to vote, much like the last election was.Â*Â*The so-called swing voters aren't as significant as the media has us believing.Â*Â*The swing voters might be tough in a race between John McCain and Joe Lieberman who are both moderates within their parties.Â*Â*But if you get a true conservative vs. a true liberal, most people are going to decide who to support based on whether they are more in line with conservative or liberal values and issues.


Right. Like I said, Noot isn't electable. He has no balls, and that would become obvious on the campaign trail, not to mention his total lack of executive experience.

McCain isn't a moderate, he's a traitor. Why do you think the Democrats like him so much? Because he's not electable.

There are no true conservatives, since the word "conservative" doesn't have any fixed definition. Loserman is a moderate, in that he occasionally has some concern for the country, as opposed to how true liberals behave. So what? He'd still suck as a president. The one interesting thing that would come from his candidacy would be his loss, and the resulting perpetual charges of anti-semitism that would be added to the Democrats repertoire of race baiting.

Frankly, there are NO good candidates for the presidency on the American political scene today, only people who are intent on doing less damage than others.

Watch the campaign in 2008. See how many fail to mention the Constitution. Those that do will not be in the Republican or Democrat parties.

[kanyon40]

While I agree in principle with you Nathan, there is one thing you overlook. There may be no good candidates in the 2008 election, but someone WILL be elected. I agree that it is a shame that the constitution will likely not be a big issue and that most of the founding beliefs of this country have been sold out very long ago. But the fact remains that even if the 2008 election is between Bert and Ernie, someone will be elected. So the argument that no one is good enough doesn't answer the question of who is electable. Sadly, in 2004 John Kerry was seen as electable (which is beyond mind boggling). If a party can put him forth in good faith when he can't even decide if he voted for the war before or after he voted against the war, then they can certainly put forth someone much stronger than him such as a Newt Gingrich, even if Newt isn't the ideal candidate for who we might want to represent us. I mean if Jimmy Carter can get elected president, then that tells you how low the standards of "electability" truly are.

All that said, I do agree with the basis that despite the fact that someone will get elected, that doesn't necessarily mean that it will be someone to celebrate or be happy about. Newt or George Allen or Rudy or whoever (and I agree that McCain is a total traitor sellout who would sell his children for a 20 minute interview on 60 Minutes) may not be great presidential material, but in the end, someone will be president; and this country seems to have much lower standards of electability than you or I.

[Nathan Brazil]

I'd consider voting for Bert and Ernie, can we draft 'em? We can get Barney to run for the other party.

[Mayberry]

I'd prefer Homer Simpson.