[OT] Who should you vote for this November?

[Eleven]

One 'nice' thing about living in NYS is that a 3rd party vote can be made w/ clear conscience that it won't end up costing a voters' 2nd (or 3rd or whatever rank the D or R falls to) choice the election because if a single vote ends up costing either the President or Mr. Romney the election in NYS then the President is in a world of hurting in the rest of the country. (And yes for the slower among our bretheren/sisteren (I know that's not a real word. What the heck is the female equivalent of the word bretheren?) 'nice' was put in quotes for a reason.)

 

NYS is a lock for the D's and if somehow it isn't, welcome back to 1984 w/ either Illinois or California playing the role of Minnesota.

 

Brethren, not bretheren (only because you seem interested and not out of pedantry), and I think the female equivalent is van Susteren or something.

 

Also, your whole post reminded me of the ridiculous vote trading that was going on in 2000 and, to a lesser extent, 2004. I didn't live in NYS then; was it rampant here?

 

True. Third parties rise to power in House elections at best, not Executive, however a third party will only become viable when they're viable at the local and state level. Otherwise, the platforms and sentiments are typically absorbed by the major parties in an effort to pool votes.

 

If only GHWB had done so, he might have won a second term. His failure to absorb Perot in 1992 cost him that one. EDIT: Also, that party was viable and actually took the gubernatorial in Minnesota (Jesse "the Body" Ventura) before dissembling through squabbles.

[TrueBlueGED]

True. Third parties rise to power in House elections at best, not Executive, however a third party will only become viable when they're viable at the local and state level. Otherwise, the platforms and sentiments are typically absorbed by the major parties in an effort to pool votes.

 

I'd say that covers it. And even then, it takes a pretty special set of circumstances to 3rd parties to really be viable, and it's difficult to sustain it when those circumstances dissipate. At the end of the day unless there's a radical overhaul of the system (I'm talking multi-member districts with proportional representation.....which will never happen), 3rd parties will remain pretty much where they are in American politics.

[Taro T]

Brethren, not bretheren (only because you seem interested and not out of pedantry), and I think the female equivalent is van Susteren or something.

 

Also, your whole post reminded me of the ridiculous vote trading that was going on in 2000 and, to a lesser extent, 2004. I didn't live in NYS then; was it rampant here?

 

 

 

If only GHWB had done so, he might have won a second term. His failure to absorb Perot in 1992 cost him that one. EDIT: Also, that party was viable and actually took the gubernatorial in Minnesota (Jesse "the Body" Ventura) before dissembling through squabbles.

:doh: Should have known I was spelling brethren incorrectly. :doh: :doh:

 

Didn't hear much about vote trading around here back in the day, though there were probably a handful of people that tried to find someone out of state to swap with.

 

 

I don't see any way that GHWB could have brought Perot into the fold. Perot had a serious hard on for him and I can't envision a scenario where he aligned w/ him. That said, I agree that H. Ross handed the election to William J. Clinton. Imagine how much different the political landscape is today had he not run his 3rd party campaign. The House doesn't go Republican in '94 and likely a Democrat (perhaps Clinton on a second kick at the can pulls it off) wins in '96. GWB likely doesn't beat an incumbent in '00, especially one that campaigns as smoothly as 'Slick Willy.'

 

Don't know if the House would have gone R yet today had Perot not shown up in '92. The D's had a firmer grasp on the House prior to '94 than PRI had had in Mexico prior to Fox coming on the scene.

[Eleven]

:doh: Should have known I was spelling brethren incorrectly. :doh: :doh:

 

Didn't hear much about vote trading around here back in the day, though there were probably a handful of people that tried to find someone out of state to swap with.

 

 

I don't see any way that GHWB could have brought Perot into the fold. Perot had a serious hard on for him and I can't envision a scenario where he aligned w/ him. That said, I agree that H. Ross handed the election to William J. Clinton. Imagine how much different the political landscape is today had he not run his 3rd party campaign. The House doesn't go Republican in '94 and likely a Democrat (perhaps Clinton on a second kick at the can pulls it off) wins in '96. GWB likely doesn't beat an incumbent in '00, especially one that campaigns as smoothly as 'Slick Willy.'

 

Don't know if the House would have gone R yet today had Perot not shown up in '92. The D's had a firmer grasp on the House prior to '94 than PRI had had in Mexico prior to Fox coming on the scene.

 

I should have written that better. He wasn't going to bring Perot himself into the fold, but he should have heeded his fiscally conservative, socially moderate views instead of allowing himself to be pushed far right on social issues by Buchanan. (I can't think of another incumbent that was so beat up by his own party, ever.)

 

In other words, he could have neutralized Perot by adopting part of his platform. I think his movement in the wrong direction cost him states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. as Perot picked up fiscal conservatives with socially moderate, or even socially liberal, views.

[wjag]

I cast a vote for Stockdale... After that debate performance I just had to... In retrospect, that was a wasted vote for President...

[Weave]

I should have written that better. He wasn't going to bring Perot himself into the fold, but he should have heeded his fiscally conservative, socially moderate views instead of allowing himself to be pushed far right on social issues by Buchanan. (I can't think of another incumbent that was so beat up by his own party, ever.)

 

In other words, he could have neutralized Perot by adopting part of his platform. I think his movement in the wrong direction cost him states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. as Perot picked up fiscal conservatives with socially moderate, or even socially liberal, views.

 

And to this day folks with those leanings still have to look to a 3rd party candidate.

[Eleven]

I cast a vote for Stockdale... After that debate performance I just had to... In retrospect, that was a wasted vote for President...

 

The basis for one of the best SNL performances of all time! http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7ms7k_saturday-night-live-joyride-with-pe_fun

 

And to this day folks with those leanings still have to look to a 3rd party candidate.

 

Yep.

[Taro T]

I should have written that better. He wasn't going to bring Perot himself into the fold, but he should have heeded his fiscally conservative, socially moderate views instead of allowing himself to be pushed far right on social issues by Buchanan. (I can't think of another incumbent that was so beat up by his own party, ever.)

 

In other words, he could have neutralized Perot by adopting part of his platform. I think his movement in the wrong direction cost him states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. as Perot picked up fiscal conservatives with socially moderate, or even socially liberal, views.

Carter was pretty banged up in '80 himself - remember Teddy K giving it a run for the money and not dropping out even when it was futile until the convention.

 

GHWB ran one of the worst campaigns that I can recall as he no longer had Lee Atwater to direct the campaign, it was Mondale level bad. That stated, I don't believe that he could have co-opted Perot's positions successfully. What MIGHT have been a winner, even in the 3 horse race was stating - look, w/ world events where they were, I necessarily focused on international events more than domestic the last 4 years; now that Eastern Europe is getting it's ###### together and Saddam is back in his sandbox I will focus on domestic events and if the Dems EVER back me into another corner on keeping my word, I will shut down the government before I will let them make me go back on a promise to you the American people ever again. I know people here are hurting, here's what I'm going to do to 'ease their pain.' I would also have liked to see him make a pledge to make his 2nd priority (after domestic events) to be to pay more attention to S America and help them keep from losing the gains they'd made in the previous decade. Maybe we don't end up w/ Chavez in Venezuela down the road if our country is paying attention to events in our own Hemisphere. (That wouldn't have effected the election, but having ANYONE pay attention to what's going on down there in the last 20 or so years would have been helpful today.)

 

I don't know that he could have pulled that off, but it HAD to work better than what he chose. The budget deal where he raised taxes significantly shot his favorability rating into the dumper. 'Read my lips, no new taxes.' It's pretty clear and unambiguous. If you aren't prepared to do what you say, then don't say it.

 

And, though I believe that Congress influences (or at least should influence) domestic events far more than the President should / does, that bit about focusing on domestic issues and getting people out of the minor recession is what people wanted to hear.

[Eleven]

Carter was pretty banged up in '80 himself - remember Teddy K giving it a run for the money and not dropping out even when it was futile until the convention.

 

GHWB ran one of the worst campaigns that I can recall as he no longer had Lee Atwater to direct the campaign, it was Mondale level bad. That stated, I don't believe that he could have co-opted Perot's positions successfully. What MIGHT have been a winner, even in the 3 horse race was stating - look, w/ world events where they were, I necessarily focused on international events more than domestic the last 4 years; now that Eastern Europe is getting it's ###### together and Saddam is back in his sandbox I will focus on domestic events and if the Dems EVER back me into another corner on keeping my word, I will shut down the government before I will let them make me go back on a promise to you the American people ever again. I know people here are hurting, here's what I'm going to do to 'ease their pain.' I would also have liked to see him make a pledge to make his 2nd priority (after domestic events) to be to pay more attention to S America and help them keep from losing the gains they'd made in the previous decade. Maybe we don't end up w/ Chavez in Venezuela down the road if our country is paying attention to events in our own Hemisphere. (That wouldn't have effected the election, but having ANYONE pay attention to what's going on down there in the last 20 or so years would have been helpful today.)

 

I don't know that he could have pulled that off, but it HAD to work better than what he chose. The budget deal where he raised taxes significantly shot his favorability rating into the dumper. 'Read my lips, no new taxes.' It's pretty clear and unambiguous. If you aren't prepared to do what you say, then don't say it.

 

And, though I believe that Congress influences (or at least should influence) domestic events far more than the President should / does, that bit about focusing on domestic issues and getting people out of the minor recession is what people wanted to hear.

 

Neither of us is old enough to remember the details of the 1980 campaign, so I trust you've resorted to fancy book-learnin'. Wouldn't Reagan against Kennedy have been a show!

 

As for 1992, yes; completely out of touch. Statements like "Americans need to be more like the Waltons and less like the Simpsons" (that's paraphrased, I'm not bothering to look it up) didn't help, either; they reinforced the out-of-touch perception and highlighted elitism. (Funny to think that The Simpsons were once so controversial!)

[5th line wingnutt]

As for 1992, yes; completely out of touch. Statements like "Americans need to be more like the Waltons and less like the Simpsons" (that's paraphrased, I'm not bothering to look it up) didn't help, either; they reinforced the out-of-touch perception and highlighted elitism. (Funny to think that The Simpsons were once so controversial!)

 

What I remember about 1992 is that Bush the elder went back on his "no new taxes" pledge and that Clinton asked us to believe that he "smoked ma-ridge-a-juan-a but did not inhale". I voted for Perot who at least seemed a bit more honest.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I am a libertarian at heart. Also, a rare combination ... social liberal, but a fiscal (small c) conservative.

 

I voted for Perot in '92. I liked him, but for me it was more of a protest vote that seemed to have some steam. I didn't think he could win, but thought that if he had enough support he may have influenced policy ... yes, I did live in a dream world then.

 

In '96 I voted for Dole. I blamed the whole Balkan mess on Clinton. He could have stopped it, but didn't.

 

In 2000 I held my nose and voted Gore. Still pissed at the Clinton / Gore administration concerning the Balkans, but hated GWB even more.

 

The last US election I was eligable to vote in was 2004. Didn't even bother.

 

As for third parties. In canada a third party is now official opposition and if the Liberals don't get their act together, or / and merge with the NDP, the NDP is our only real hope of unseating our version of GWB (Harper). If they don't no one will recognize Canada in a few years.

 

I have been voting Green in Canadian elections for some time now and if there ever was a referendum on proportional representation and a revamping of our Parlimentary system I would vote in favour of it.

[deluca67]

% Libertarian?

36%.

[Drunkard]

I consider myself an independent and tend to agree with the libertarian (non Tea Party) party more than others but got sided with Jill Stein (whoever that is) at 81%. My other breakdowns were:

 

81% Green

80% Democratic

67% Libertarian

43% Republican

 

In a choice between Obama and Romney I'd hold my nose and vote Obama but I'll probably either not vote or do a write in for George Carlin's corpse. Romney reminds me of every other empty suited rich guy who was born on 3rd base but still takes a victory lap after scoring a run as if he did much of anything to deserve it. That and I couldn't vote for some Masshole who believes in magic underwear and that God is a 6'2" physical man that lives on the planet Xenu.

 

On social issues I lean Libertarian, I fully support scientific research and evolution, legalizing or decriminalizing all drugs, and support gay marriage and a woman's right to choose. I'm also not in favor or increasing gun control. I'm for a balanced budget but think a good chunk of it needs to come from raising taxes on the wealthy and not just from cutting spending. I believe we should only provide tax cuts to businesses who do more to bring good paying jobs back on to US soil and we should raise taxes on the business who outsource jobs to other countries just so their stocks can go up a quarter of a point. I don't care for the health care bill but would have supported it if there had been a public option. The bill as it stands just seems like a giant stroke job to the money grubbing insurance companies just as Medicare Part D seemed like a stroke job to the pharmaceutical industry. I have a strong disliking of the war on science by religious zealots and believe intelligent design is just a ploy to try to teach kids religion in a science classroom. I also hate the idea of farm subsidies.

 

To me the Republicans have become the party of bad ideas but unfortunately they have the fortitude to stick to their guns and pass the legislation they believe in. The Democrats seems to have better ideas but they don't have the guts to stick to their guns and they cave to the other side way too often.

 

In short, maybe we could blow it all up and start over, but there's too many crooked politicians on both sides that have bowed down to their corporate masters by depending on their campaign contributions because they care more about getting re-elected than doing what's best to fix the country.

[Robviously]

As long as it's not to the Porcelain God I'm OK with it.

 

 

I'll be voting for Obama even though I feel he has not lived up to the billing of when he was first elected. I would never consider Romney because he represents, IMO, the biggest evil in the world, big business.

It'd be pretty hilarious to compare the historical body count of "big business" to "big government."

[Supersabre]

No surprises for me. It told me what I already knew.

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

79% Libertarian

76% Republican

27% Democratic

20% Green

 

I'd have to agree with this assessment, pretty damn close to where i fall. Real interesting stuff. Romney must be my man

[26CornerBlitz]

85% Green

 

70% Democratic

 

60% Republican

 

58% Libertarian

[Taro T]

Neither of us is old enough to remember the details of the 1980 campaign, so I trust you've resorted to fancy book-learnin'. Wouldn't Reagan against Kennedy have been a show!

 

As for 1992, yes; completely out of touch. Statements like "Americans need to be more like the Waltons and less like the Simpsons" (that's paraphrased, I'm not bothering to look it up) didn't help, either; they reinforced the out-of-touch perception and highlighted elitism. (Funny to think that The Simpsons were once so controversial!)

Well, considering I was in high school when Reagan was elected, I'd like to think I remember a LEEETLE bit about that election.

 

Reagan Kennedy would have been a very interesting contest. Too bad for Teddy that he couldn't beat the 'misery index' incumbent.

[TrueBlueGED]

It'd be pretty hilarious to compare the historical body count of "big business" to "big government."

 

I think part of that depends on which category involves "big religion" :P

 

 

(and for you super-sensitive types, relax, I'm not suggesting religion is inherently evil)

[wjag]

Well, considering I was in high school when Reagan was elected, I'd like to think I remember a LEEETLE bit about that election.

 

Reagan Kennedy would have been a very interesting contest. Too bad for Teddy that he couldn't beat the 'misery index' incumbent.

 

As I reflect back on my voting history, one thing kind of comes through. I usually am willing to give a smo a second term as evidenced by this bizzaro voting pattern:

 

1980: Carter

1984: Reagan (Not Mondale)

1988: Bush 1 (Not Willie Horton)

1992: Perot (Not Bush 1)

1996: Dole (Not Clinton)

2000: Bush 2 (Not Clinton)

2004: Bush 2 (this was really a protest vote. I didn't want anyone else to inherit his war mess and I couldn't take the thought of Kerry)

2008: Obama (Not McCain)

2012: Not Romney

 

How's that for all over the map?

[TrueBlueGED]

As I reflect back on my voting history, one thing kind of comes through. I usually am willing to give a smo a second term as evidenced by this bizzaro voting pattern:

 

1980: Carter

1984: Reagan

1988: Bush 1

1992: Perot

1996: Dole

2000: Bush 2

2004: Bush 2

2008: Obama

2012: Not Romney

 

How's that for all over the map?

 

Incumbency is powerful. Your only real outlier in that respect is voting for Dole in 96 (I suppose you could argue the Perot vote, but that election was a very special case). It could also be an artifact that weaker candidates have tended to face the incumbents during your voting period (Mondale and Kerry were not good candidates, and Romney isn't exactly Mr. wonderful).

[Eleven]

Incumbency is powerful. Your only real outlier in that respect is voting for Dole in 96 (I suppose you could argue the Perot vote, but that election was a very special case). It could also be an artifact that weaker candidates have tended to face the incumbents during your voting period (Mondale and Kerry were not good candidates, and Romney isn't exactly Mr. wonderful).

 

Bush 1 was not an incumbent in 1988, nor was Perot in 92 or Bush II in 2000. Redo the analysis; Dole was not the outlier.

[TrueBlueGED]

Bush 1 was not an incumbent in 1988, nor was Perot in 92 or Bush II in 2000. Redo the analysis; Dole was not the outlier.

 

Perot doesn't count really, that was such an outlier of an election it's hard to really use that to judge somebody's voting pattern. Correct, however, on Bush 1.

[Eleven]

Perot doesn't count really, that was such an outlier of an election it's hard to really use that to judge somebody's voting pattern. Correct, however, on Bush 1.

 

Correct on all three; none were incumbents. Don't know what else to say.

[TrueBlueGED]

Correct on all three; none were incumbents. Don't know what else to say.

 

It's impossible to have an incumbent in an open-seat election, so the first Bush 1 and Bush 2 elections are irrelevant when discussing the importance of candidate incumbency.