If the presidential election were tomorrow, who would you vote for?

[USMC the Almighty]

Just for a second assume that every viable candidate from both parties was running in some general election for the President of the United States. Who would you vote for?

[JavaBlack]

Joe Biden. From the start he's been my candidate.
IMO he's the only one with a realistic Iraq policy and he's not afraid to tell the other Democrats off when they're in lalaland.
He did the best in every debate, but since the media only cover the sacred Top Three, it hasn't taken him anywhere. That and his general non-PC behavior and amazing ability to stick his foot in his mouth.

[ilikeboobs]

Pat Buchanan. He's my hero.

[Segep]

If I voted my conscience, it would be Kucinich. However he's got about as much chance of winning as that snowman on the YouTube debates has of being taken seriously. So I voted for Obama.

[USMC the Almighty]

Joe Biden. From the start he's been my candidate.
IMO he's the only one with a realistic Iraq policy and he's not afraid to tell the other Democrats off when they're in lalaland.
He did the best in every debate, but since the media only cover the sacred Top Three, it hasn't taken him anywhere. That and his general non-PC behavior and amazing ability to stick his foot in his mouth.

I obviously don't agree with many of his policies, but I like the man himself. Right now, out of all the Dems, I like Gravel the best. I really get a kick out of him.

However, the candidate I have the most respect for is Kucinich because he is lobbying to defund the war. He has a spine. He's standing up for what he believes in, unlike everyone else on that stage. He's not playing politics with it, and I can respect that. I think he's wrong, but I can still respect that.

[Segep]

However, the candidate I have the most respect for is Kucinich because he is lobbying to defund the war. He has a spine. He's standing up for what he believes in, unlike everyone else on that stage. He's not playing politics with it, and I can respect that. I think he's wrong, but I can still respect that.

....Elizabeth! I'm coming! This is the big one! Do you hear me, Elizabeth? :D

[Burning Giraffe]

Ron Paul.

[TVoffBrainOn]

I obviously don't agree with many of his policies, but I like the man himself. Right now, out of all the Dems, I like Gravel the best. I really get a kick out of him.

However, the candidate I have the most respect for is Kucinich because he is lobbying to defund the war. He has a spine. He's standing up for what he believes in, unlike everyone else on that stage. He's not playing politics with it, and I can respect that. I think he's wrong, but I can still respect that.

interesting.

I respect Kucinich and Paul for the same reasons. i would support Paul if he won the republican nomination by some miracle. But as of now, im in Biden's corner slightly over Obama.

[Rokerijdude11]

there isnt going to be an 08 election ,or if there is the president will not take office until 2010

[heyjude]

there isnt going to be an 08 election ,or if there is the president will not take office until 2010

No, I agree. There will be an emergency, and the election will be canceled. So that Cheney and Bush can continue doing what they do best. Destroying the US.

[vyo476]

No, I agree. There will be an emergency, and the election will be canceled. So that Cheney and Bush can continue doing what they do best. Destroying the US.

They don't just "cancel" elections. To the best of my knowledge, that's never happened. Up until now there isn't a single thing that's transpired under Bush that hasn't happened at some point in our history, but canceling an election would be a first. They'd never get away with something like that.

[vyo476]

Out of the Republican candidates, I could probably deal with Rudy best. I like McCain's leadership style but I just can't get behind many of his stances. And Mitt Romney would make a terrible President. Take it from me, I live in Massachusetts - he did a lousy job here and none of us would care to think about what he'd do to Washington.

If by some miracle Ron Paul won...hmm. It'd be a curious experiment and it'd either work brilliantly and a new age in American government would begin or it'd fail miserably and everyone would spend the next forty years trying to forget it happened (except Truth-Bringer, of course).

I think I could deal with Hillary. Obama's not a strong enough leader to deal with everything he'd have to deal with as Prez during the War on Terror. Same goes for Edwards.

In the end, I voted for Biden. I think he's probably the Democrat with the most universal appeal - he can more easily attract the people who are looking at Iraq as the biggest, but not only, issue of the election. He just really needs to find a decent speech writer because he's stepped in it oratorically almost as many times as GW has at this point.

[TVoffBrainOn]

Out of the Republican candidates, I could probably deal with Rudy best. I like McCain's leadership style but I just can't get behind many of his stances. And Mitt Romney would make a terrible President. Take it from me, I live in Massachusetts - he did a lousy job here and none of us would care to think about what he'd do to Washington.

If by some miracle Ron Paul won...hmm. It'd be a curious experiment and it'd either work brilliantly and a new age in American government would begin or it'd fail miserably and everyone would spend the next forty years trying to forget it happened (except Truth-Bringer, of course).

I think I could deal with Hillary. Obama's not a strong enough leader to deal with everything he'd have to deal with as Prez during the War on Terror. Same goes for Edwards.

In the end, I voted for Biden. I think he's probably the Democrat with the most universal appeal - he can more easily attract the people who are looking at Iraq as the biggest, but not only, issue of the election. He just really needs to find a decent speech writer because he's stepped in it oratorically almost as many times as GW has at this point.

Biden has slowly been winning me over as well. I agree that Paul would make for an interesting change in the american political system, although highly unlikely.

Unfortunately the nightmare scenario of Hillary vs Giulliani is most likely. I'd hate for the election to be a choice between what is worst for America.

[vyo476]

Unfortunately the nightmare scenario of Hillary vs Giulliani is most likely. I'd hate for the election to be a choice between what is worst for America.

Kind of like the last election?

How do we wind up with these buffoons running for office?

[TVoffBrainOn]

Kind of like the last election?

How do we wind up with these buffoons running for office?

i wasnt a huge fan of Kerry. but it could've been Dean vs Bush and that would've been worse. Kerry would've made a much better commander in chief in the war on terror imo.

they are really starting to attack Biden in the media. that shows me that he's generating some buzz. he messed up in the debates when he turned a widows question about labor into a chance to call out hillary and dodd. but im glad he called them out. biden is kind of "media dumb", but to me thats a good thing. im glad he's no thinking about what's "politically correct" all the time.

he has some baggage (bankruptcy bills, credit card state), but not nearly as much as Hillary and Giulliani. to me Hillary and Guilliani represent the continuation of the executive power grab.

i'd like a Biden/Obama ticket

[gtanner79]

I actually think that anyone who runs for president represents a continuation of "power lust" so to speak. Call me jaded, but it seems like people in office have but one goal: re-election. Now, I honestly can't say that a future candidate would display the level of "power lust" that Bush seems to have, but I'm sure they all have some of it. After all, why are they running for office? Are we really to believe that they genuinely have the best interests of a majority of the country in heart?

There are a few things I would do if I were running the country to ensure that people who ran for office did so out of a want to serve the public - not for glory.

1. Massive campaign finance reform - why should these people get enormous amounts of money? I say control all the money - divide it up equally amongst the qualified candidates (first big stumbling block I admit) and let them actually "campaign" with ideas - not just dollars.
2. No more lobbies.
3. Term limits for everyone - senators, the House, and especially S.C. Justices.
4. Politicians at federal and state level would not be able to "campaign" at all until a specified amount of time before the next election. That way they'd spend most of their time in office actually being a politician and not campaigning. In Al Gore's latest book he laments the senators and representatives of today - so rarely are they actually "at work" - they're always out campaigning.

Just ideas - nothing solid - but if I ruled the country - you can believe those would be on the table.

Of course - I'll never rule the country - I'm not party affiliated and don't have enough money.

[Bunz]

[QUOTE=USMC the Almighty;18611]I obviously don't agree with many of his policies, but I like the man himself. Right now, out of all the Dems, I like Gravel the best. I really get a kick out of him.[QUOTE]
Boy you can have him. I love how he claims to be the former Senator from Alaska, which is true, but he hasnt held office in 30+ years. He was cooky then from what I have been told(I wasnt alive) but he has gotten worse. If he wants to claim have anything to do with Alaska he should support some things that are good for Alaska. His notion of a national referendum would be horrible for my state. Also I believe he is against ANWR(I am pretty sure, not %100 positive) So when he doesnt win, hopefully he will stay in Virginia, about as far away from AK as possible. As for me, I will be voting for Kucinich in the primaries and let the chips fall where they may. I will re-evaluate after that.

[vyo476]

[QUOTE=USMC the Almighty;18611]I obviously don't agree with many of his policies, but I like the man himself. Right now, out of all the Dems, I like Gravel the best. I really get a kick out of him.[QUOTE]
Boy you can have him. I love how he claims to be the former Senator from Alaska, which is true, but he hasnt held office in 30+ years. He was cooky then from what I have been told(I wasnt alive) but he has gotten worse. If he wants to claim have anything to do with Alaska he should support some things that are good for Alaska. His notion of a national referendum would be horrible for my state. Also I believe he is against ANWR(I am pretty sure, not %100 positive) So when he doesnt win, hopefully he will stay in Virginia, about as far away from AK as possible. As for me, I will be voting for Kucinich in the primaries and let the chips fall where they may. I will re-evaluate after that.

Dennis Kucinich is a ****ing menace.

Gravel's mellowed a lot from the days when he was talking about a "citizen's wage" and progressive income taxes without exemptions or deductions. Today he's a supporter of FairTax and a national health-care voucher system that would allow people to pick their own doctors. He's a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and he isn't one of the nuts who thinks that we need to impeach President Bush immediately.

Your friend, Mr. Kucinich, on the other hand...

...is a supporter of HR676, a universal health care bill that would limit all US citizens to receiving their state-sponsored health care from a listo of state-approved providers.

...has had his name attached to just about every wild "Let's Impeach Bush!" piece of legislation to get laughed out of Congress.

...has a decidedly anti-business voting record (he's earned himself a 15% rating from the US COC) and a decidedly mixed voting record in regards to trade (39% from CATO). None of that really matters though. The economy is not one of his top priorities.

He's a jerk who turned our Congress into a circus. I dislike him. I dislike him greatly.

[ArmChair General]

Rudy makes me puke.

[ArmChair General]

[QUOTE=Bunz;23886][QUOTE=USMC the Almighty;18611]I obviously don't agree with many of his policies, but I like the man himself. Right now, out of all the Dems, I like Gravel the best. I really get a kick out of him.

Dennis Kucinich is a ****ing menace.

Gravel's mellowed a lot from the days when he was talking about a "citizen's wage" and progressive income taxes without exemptions or deductions. Today he's a supporter of FairTax and a national health-care voucher system that would allow people to pick their own doctors. He's a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and he isn't one of the nuts who thinks that we need to impeach President Bush immediately.

Your friend, Mr. Kucinich, on the other hand...

...is a supporter of HR676, a universal health care bill that would limit all US citizens to receiving their state-sponsored health care from a listo of state-approved providers.

...has had his name attached to just about every wild "Let's Impeach Bush!" piece of legislation to get laughed out of Congress.

...has a decidedly anti-business voting record (he's earned himself a 15% rating from the US COC) and a decidedly mixed voting record in regards to trade (39% from CATO). None of that really matters though. The economy is not one of his top priorities.

He's a jerk who turned our Congress into a circus. I dislike him. I dislike him greatly.

all of those are good positive things. whats wrong with you?

[Bunz]

Fair enough YVO, again, Gravel claims Alaska, but has turned his back on us. The single notion that you would have the ability for a national referendum is a really bad thing for Alaska. Alaska already has its problems with outside influence. We have some jackass Californian wanting to pass bills about our aerial wolf hunting program. The "Bridges to nowhere" are dead now, and this is largely due to the media picking up a certain hot button issue. But it is total BS. Do you know what the bridges to nowhere actually incur? What it basically would allow is a total infringement on state rights to control thier resources. This is already bad enough in this state. Alaskans are smart enough to make our own decisions and DC needs to play thier role and but out of the rest.
I like Kucinich because he actually believes what he is saying. He has taken the time to campaign in all 50 states. None of the rest of those idiots have bothered. The primary system is so broken it is shameless. It is all about raising millions of dollars, that I am only going to really bother spending in Iowa and NH. Lets have all the primaries on the same day nation wide.

[Mr. Shaman]

Whatever it takes....to get Bill Clinton back into The Whitehouse (http://www.icasinc.org/lectures/clinton3/c3_02.html)!

:cool:

[Mr. Shaman]

http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/webpics/Miss_Cleo.jpg

there isnt going to be an 08 election ,or if there is the president will not take office until 2010

:rolleyes:

[Mr. Shaman]

In the end, I voted for Biden. I think he's probably the Democrat with the most universal appeal - he can more easily attract the people who are looking at Iraq as the biggest, but not only, issue of the election. He just really needs to find a decent speech writer because he's stepped in it oratorically almost as many times as GW has at this point.
Please!! The only problem Joe Biden has, is his honesty...and, saying what he thinks (caustic for most-politicians).

I'm a long-time fan of Joe Biden....and, anyone else who'd heard his interviews, on Imus In The Morning, would say the same. Don Imus was exactly right when he'd suggested (to Biden) that Biden offered too-many details (when stating his opinions); that Imus felt (a bulk of) Americans were too-damned-stupid to appreciate Biden's intelligence.

Joe Biden doesn't need a decent speech writer. He needs an educated/politically-savy U.S. population.

I'm thinkin'....Biden knows he's a prime-candidate for a Cabinet-position.....and, putting-on a better-performance (for public-consumption) would be counter-productive.

I say.....let Joe Biden be Joe Biden. He'll be proven right, in the end, anyhow.

[Mr. Shaman]

i wasnt a huge fan of Kerry. but it could've been Dean vs Bush and that would've been worse. Kerry would've made a much better commander in chief in the war on terror imo.
....No doubt the result of (actually) participating in a War (http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/02/02_400.html).

[Mr. Shaman]

Rudy makes me puke.
.....And, any "conservative", who'd pushed for Bill Clinton's Impeachment, would agree.....once they (finally) understood the concept of Consistancy (http://www.alternet.org/story/38015/).

[Mr. Shaman]

The "Bridges to nowhere" are dead now, and this is largely due to the media picking up a certain hot button issue. But it is total BS. Do you know what the bridges to nowhere actually incur? What it basically would allow is a total infringement on state rights to control thier resources. This is already bad enough in this state. Alaskans are smart enough to make our own decisions and DC needs to play thier role and but out of the rest.
So.....you agree that Alaska didn't need federal-subsidies, for that bridge, right? ('Cause that was the real-Issue.)

[heyjude]

I don't like any of the canidates. Some I dislike less than others. In my sixty-five years I've had to vote for two choices every time. The ass, or the assh**e. Why should this time be any different?

[vyo476]

I don't like any of the canidates. Some I dislike less than others. In my sixty-five years I've had to vote for two choices every time. The ass, or the assh**e. Why should this time be any different?

You have more than two choices. The only problem is that only a bare minimum of people see any validity in those other choices, which is why you see all of them getting extremely low returns.

This happens every four years. The election rolls around and everyone says, "I don't like either of these guys. Why do our elections have to be about the lesser of two evils?" but when someone says, "Vote for a third-party candidate!" the answer is always, "But they don't have any chance of winning and I don't want to throw away my vote."

Personally, I think that so long as one is actually voting for someone they believe would fill the office well, they aren't "throwing away (their) vote."

[heyjude]

Part of the problem, is that the other parties want to start at the presidency. They need to elect people in cities and counties, build a base, go to the states, and when they have a 'real' party, run someone for president. No one wants to do the hard work.

[Truth-Bringer]

More info on Mike Huckabee. Apparently he doesn't meet many taxes that he doesn't like:

http://www.taxhikemike.org

[heyjude]

Repubs are not especially anti-tax if you take the rich out of the picture. That is the problem that they have with Huckabee. He believes Jesus didn't like rich people.

[Chip]

As a registered independent, I'll vote for none of the above ... though, if I could, I'd vote for Ron Paul, primarily because my sons like him, but also to shake up the status quo and send a message that I prefer consistent principles over personalities.

One day, maybe we can have the philosophers and psychologists combine to set long, medium and short term policy that incorporates both a respect for the traditional and the life-sustaining necessity of progress.

Fundamental differences between groups of philosophers and psychologists will create separate political parties.

Then each party will conduct a job search, collecting leadership resumes of those who will support the party philosophy unwaveringly, and the party brain trust will choose three candidates per position from those resumes to present to the voters.

The voters will then conduct the primary voting to choose one candidate for each party, and the national election will decide the President, Senator and Representative to go to Washington.

Sure, there may initially be a number of political parties.

But the value of making elections more about principles than personalities far outweighs the larger ballot.

[pocketfullofshells]

Joe Biden was my guy, I hope Obama makes me VP. he has the only real plan for Iraq I think, and by far the best on National Security overall. Youth and new ideas is nice, but Experience with smart choices is better.

[NO Obamanation]

there isnt going to be an 08 election ,or if there is the president will not take office until 2010

Can you please explain futher? I read the quote below yours and if its in the same thinking as yours, bush and co. will stop elections to keep power and control, but why 2010 for the new president to take office?

[NO Obamanation]

Mitt Romney would make a terrible President. Take it from me, I live in Massachusetts - he did a lousy job here and none of us would care to think about what he'd do to Washington.

Mitt Romeny won Massachusetts, there must have been a number of people who liked him enough to vote for him over the others running.

[Meistro]

Yah, that's right, with my vote Ron Paul takes the lead.

If only the elections were held on the internets.

[Spikey2]

Hillary Clinton should give up her goal of the Democratic nomination because the party has stacked the cards against her.

Hillary Clinton need to run as an independent candidate , free from the constraints of an old party out of step with a modern America. She has my vote!

[eclipse]

Hillary Clinton. She will forever remain my candidate of choice.