PDA

View Full Version : an early election poll of the WiredNY community



dbhstockton
January 26th, 2004, 12:04 AM
An early poll, just out of curiosity. Let me know if I need to add anyone or if I spelled anyone's name wrong.

LuPeRcALiO
January 26th, 2004, 12:41 AM
looks like the full roster of Snow W. and the seven dwarves. It'll get shorter fast but probably not as fast as everyone thought last week.

Gulcrapek
January 26th, 2004, 01:15 PM
I voted Kerry, for now. So far he seems much more down to earth and reasonable than any of the others, and I'm convinced he would do his best to reverse the damage Bush has done to the country.

I may change my mind in the future, as I don't know enough about Edwards or Clark.

Schadenfrau
January 26th, 2004, 01:52 PM
I voted for Kerry, as well. I've been rooting for him for about two years now. I was favoring Clark as a VP candidate, but now feel Edwards would be stronger. The biggest complaint against Kerry is his lack of warmth and the biggest complaint against Edwards is his lack of experience, so they really compliment each other.

BrooklynRider
January 26th, 2004, 02:07 PM
I'm a Dean supported, who would be equally comfortable with Edwards. Kerry is a party hack. Clark is not a democrat. Lieberman puts me to sleep.

TonyO
January 26th, 2004, 02:09 PM
I like Clark. Kerry is good but his past is too left-leaning, the exact same problem with Dean. Kerry's only saving grace is his military record, which is checkered with lefty contradictions as well. He is too stoic also...Bush, while an idealist mental-midget IMHO, is likable and has that "good buddy" feel to him. Kerry comes off as aloof.

That's why I like Clark. His military past puts any right-bias in national security to rest. He is also a charismatic guy, probably the most along with Edwards.

ZippyTheChimp
January 26th, 2004, 03:11 PM
I have put aside any consideration of particular issues. My expectation for this primary process is to find the candidate with the best chance of defeating Bush. The candidates stress particular programs and agendas, but this is just to accentuate differences among them. How many campaign promises actually get enacted?

Bush is taking the country in a direction I don't like, and the Democratic candidates want to take it in another direction. So who's electable?

Lieberman is fading out of the picture.

Clark is an intelligent person, but he is unbelievable as a Democrat. He has made too many inconsistent statements, and his "I was a general and Kerry a lieutenant" remark was just dumb.

Dean has his big antiwar from the beginning stance, and though it may be correct, is not going to play well in conservative parts of the country. And I can just see his Iowa Speech as a Republican ad.

I was watching a TV discussion a few days after the Iowa Caucus, and a political analyst (forget his name) said that Edwards is the perfect TV candidate, his Iowa speech was everything that Dean's wasn't.

Kerry has been wooden in the past, but that may have changed. He was interviewed on 60 Minutes yesterday, and I have never seen him better. His military background will blunt any patriotic posturing by Bush. Being a liberal from New England will make it tough in the south.

I voted for Kerry. A good scenario would be for Kerry to win this early, and ticket with Edwards, who could help in the south. But things are still tight.

NYatKNIGHT
January 26th, 2004, 03:14 PM
I voted Kerry. Whether he is labelled too far left or not, he can talk extensively and intelligently about almost any topic due to his enormous experience. He would bitch-slap George W. Bush in a debate, that I look forward to. His combination of Vietnam War hero and protestor speaks of higher moral virtues. Personally I don't buy the attempt to label him as "too far left", he's a Democrat, and as a Democrat I don't think he's too far anything. Certainly he's not the extremist that George Bush is. The more I see this guy, the more impressive he is.

I like Edwards too, and if he doesn't get the nomination I'm sure we'll hear from him again in the future. I wonder if he can put any of the southern states in the Democrat's column in November. If so, that alone could give him my vote since it's all about firing George Bush.

I appreciate Dean for having the balls to speak out against the current administration when everyone else had their heads up their ass. He also has encouraged a lot of young people to become engaged in politics and talk about important issues. But he is now in the Republican's crosshairs, and I'm pretty sure it will be relentless for him until the end. I'm not sure the general population can overcome such demonization.

Clark is sort of a wildcard - I like him, then don't, then do.....if the party rallies around him, so will I.

I like Lieberman, he's a decent guy who is highly regarded on both sides of the aisle, but the country won't elect him, so that settles it.

Schadenfrau
January 26th, 2004, 03:44 PM
I could not agree with you more, Zippy. And I appreciate NYatKnight's thoughtful perspective.

TonyO
January 26th, 2004, 07:06 PM
Its funny how quickly things swing in this primary. Well, we'll see once things really get rolling.

If you think Kerry is going to "kill" Bush in a debate, I would think again...its all about perception. Kerry has no credentials as an outsider or maverick like Clark or Dean and he doesn't have the venom and quick-wit necessary to take Bushie down.

Clark has been portrayed as a non-democrat truthfully...but if you listen to what he says on the issues, he is one. He is a moderate really, the only kind of democrat that will get elected in today's climate. Hell, if Michael Moore supports him, that should be enough lefty support for anyone.

ZippyTheChimp
January 27th, 2004, 12:16 AM
Using venom may not be a good approach against Bush, since he is still popular. You want to shine the flashlight at him, not hit him over the head with it - although the mental image is comically pleasing.

dbhstockton
January 27th, 2004, 01:19 PM
Still only 13 votes out of 1,029 members? What an apathetic group!

Schadenfrau
January 27th, 2004, 02:28 PM
No kidding. It's pretty sad that you can get more opinions about where to buy the best hot dog than who should be the next President.

ZippyTheChimp
January 27th, 2004, 06:53 PM
It's the forum basement. Very few visit here; most go upstairs. I should turn off the hot water.

JMGarcia
January 27th, 2004, 07:08 PM
Kerry is just as unelectable as Dean IMO. Do not underestimate the deep seated mistrust of Mass. democrats in other parts of this country. Only Clark or Edwards has a chance IMO.

dbhstockton
January 27th, 2004, 07:33 PM
It is possible for the Democrats to win without any of the deep south, Texas or the West. Florida is key, obviously, but if they win in Ohio or Missouri, it can make up for a loss in Florida.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/evcalc.php?year=2004

Thus, if they make any kind of headway in the south, it will be disastrous for Bush.

DominicanoNYC
January 27th, 2004, 07:44 PM
I voted Edwards. His positive campaining seems nice. He has a very energetic campaign going (yet not too exagerated). He can be a good opponent for Bush.

ube
January 28th, 2004, 04:25 AM
One more for Clark :)
Smart Guy.... I think he can pull in a lot of republicans, and he seems to be liberal enough for now.....

I like Deans policies the most (even though his tenure in vermont was not as good as he brags) but he seems unelectable.

Liberman? He supported capital gains tax cuts once.....

Edwards.... I dunno.

Kerry, is okay, but I'd much rather have the other senator from mass. (only if everyone could forget about that darn chappaquatic 'sp' thing)

Kucinich - does he even deserve a comment? same goes for Sharpton.

NYatKNIGHT
January 28th, 2004, 01:23 PM
It is possible for the Democrats to win without any of the deep south, Texas or the West. Florida is key, obviously, but if they win in Ohio or Missouri, it can make up for a loss in Florida.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/evcalc.php?year=2004

Thus, if they make any kind of headway in the south, it will be disastrous for Bush.

You're right. Even Arizona, which went for Clinton in '96, would change the results. Then again there were a lot of states that barely went into the Gore column: New Mexico, Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Florida. Florida was so close the Bush's actually claimed it. ;) No spoiler third party candidate so far - should be interesting.

ZippyTheChimp
January 28th, 2004, 04:38 PM
Gephardt can deliver Missouri to one of the candidates. If Kerry does reasonably well in the other states, a Gephardt endorsement would give Kerry a big edge the rest of the way, and arguably hand him the nomination.

What would be the payback? Running mate? Dems must win back Missouri, Ohio, or Indiana.

JMGarcia
January 28th, 2004, 05:37 PM
Forget about Indiana, its very solidly republican. Better chance with Florida IMO.

Kerry reminds me too much of Bob Dole.

Gulcrapek
January 28th, 2004, 05:53 PM
You've seen him naked?

TLOZ Link5
January 28th, 2004, 09:50 PM
You've seen him naked?

...Excuse me while I go get a gallon of holy water to purge my head of that image.

Schadenfrau
January 29th, 2004, 11:10 AM
How in the world does John Kerry remind you of Bob Dole?

dbhstockton
January 29th, 2004, 03:23 PM
Although they're from different ends of the political spectrum, they're both very intelligent, well-respected, and the very definition of "senatorial." The next time you see Kerry on TV, make note of how he calmly answers even the toughest question with a perfectly formed complete paragraph -- quite a contrast to our current president, who defensively sputters catch phrases and platitudes on the rare occasions that his handlers allow him to answer questions off-the-cuff.

Freedom Tower
January 29th, 2004, 05:30 PM
This points out that the forum probably has more democrats than republicans. It's hard to imagine Clark getting just as many votes as President Bush, or even the Democrats total to have so many more votes than Bush. Surely a polling of the country would be very different. If I did not vote, Bush would have only 2 votes on this forum. :(

Jasonik
January 29th, 2004, 05:46 PM
http://img.rushlimbaugh.com/home/folder/countymap.Par.0001.ImageFile.gif

http://www.howard.k12.md.us:16080/res/electoral/map.jpeg

ZippyTheChimp
January 29th, 2004, 08:26 PM
Maybe this forum isn't as easily duped as the rest of the country.

TonyO
January 29th, 2004, 09:12 PM
This points out that the forum probably has more democrats than republicans. It's hard to imagine Clark getting just as many votes as President Bush, or even the Democrats total to have so many more votes than Bush. Surely a polling of the country would be very different. If I did not vote, Bush would have only 2 votes on this forum. :(

And that is bad because?

Honestly, what do you expect in a forum in/about New York where the main subject is architecture. That's what right wingers call "common sense".

dbhstockton
January 29th, 2004, 10:59 PM
Why is New Mexico such a liberal stronghold? I never would have guessed until looking at these maps. I know there's artist's colonies, etc, but how is it the only democratic state in the west?

LuPeRcALiO
January 30th, 2004, 06:58 AM
Why is New Mexico such a liberal stronghold? I never would have guessed until looking at these maps. I know there's artist's colonies, etc, but how is it the only democratic state in the west?

just a guess but I know that NM has an awful lot of retirees and refugees from California which I guess you could call a "far west" democratic state :D

NYatKNIGHT
January 30th, 2004, 11:01 AM
Why is New Mexico such a liberal stronghold? I never would have guessed until looking at these maps. I know there's artist's colonies, etc, but how is it the only democratic state in the west?

It's really not a "stronghold", the vote there was almost as close as Florida's, but I know what you mean. From what I've heard the biggest factors there were the hispanic population, the Native American population, and the popularity of Gov. Bill Richardson.

On the election map by county, the blue areas in the southwest mostly are along the Mexican border or Indian reservations like in southern Texas, southern Colorado, and Arizona. New Mexico has a lot of both, and supposedly Bill Richardson campaigned hard there for Gore. Those Indian Reservations also show up sporadically in the northern plains as well. Not a lot of population obviously, but it explains the islands of blue in a sea of red.



http://img.rushlimbaugh.com/home/folder/countymap.Par.0001.ImageFile.gif

Freedom Tower
January 31st, 2004, 12:18 PM
Too bad counties, instead of states, don't have electoral votes. Bush would've won by a landslide.

The map looks like a healthy nation in red, while all of the problem areas are highlighted in blue. :lol: Many of the areas of more crime, like major cities, are highlighted in blue.

ZippyTheChimp
January 31st, 2004, 12:24 PM
Too bad it's not by popular vote. Bush would have lost.

TomAuch
January 31st, 2004, 05:06 PM
Too bad it's not by popular vote. Bush would have lost.

The Electoral College is the most irrelevant piece of crap our government has ever put out. It was conceived during a time where we thought of ourselves as the sons of our home states, instead of as sons of a nation-state. We're not a weak confederation of states, so why should we have the Electoral College? It's ideologically and regionally divisive. It also stymies turnout among people who don't think their vote counts (Northeastern conservatives, southern liberals...all regionally disenfranchised).

dbhstockton
January 31st, 2004, 05:29 PM
I always thought the electoral college was created because the framers of the constitution were wary of the concept of direct popular election for such a powerful executive position. They were worried about demagogues, and the idea that, without checks and balances, chaotic "mobocracy" would be the result. The current system was a compromise between those wanted direct election and those who wanted the president to be chosen solely by the Senate.

ZippyTheChimp
January 31st, 2004, 05:57 PM
The Electoral College (http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf)

Freedom Tower
January 31st, 2004, 06:55 PM
From what I've read, i think dbhstockton is right, probably one of the few times I agree on a political issue with him :wink:. The framers thought that direct elections would make a mob of people so powerful that minorities, or individuals who didn't agree with the mob would have their liberties taken away. But somehow, they still wanted people to have a say in electing the president, so the made the electoral college.

Kind of off topic: One of the states, i forget which though. Banned the phrase "Founding fathers" and instead insisted that schools can only use the word "Framers". It is more politically correct they said, becuase the word fathers excludes women. Only problem with this political correctness is that none of the framers were women anyway.

NYatKNIGHT
February 2nd, 2004, 11:13 AM
The map looks like a healthy nation in red, while all of the problem areas are highlighted in blue. :lol: Many of the areas of more crime, like major cities, are highlighted in blue.

The red counties are all the ones without culture, the least educated, where there are more pigs than people, and where it's apparently okay to have sex with your sister. :lol:

Kris
February 2nd, 2004, 12:07 PM
It isn't?

dbhstockton
February 2nd, 2004, 12:49 PM
Now now, be nice. Without those red counties, who would we watch on Jerry Springer?

TLOZ Link5
February 2nd, 2004, 01:46 PM
Now now, be nice. Without those red counties, who would we watch on Jerry Springer?

Zing!

NoyokA
February 2nd, 2004, 06:07 PM
Clark.

NoyokA
February 2nd, 2004, 06:10 PM
Kerry is one ugly dude.

Politics strictly set aside.

dbhstockton
February 2nd, 2004, 06:51 PM
You should see his daughters :shudder:

NoyokA
February 2nd, 2004, 06:55 PM
Yeah they too definetly have the "Kerry" family, ugly gene.

TLOZ Link5
February 2nd, 2004, 08:38 PM
He looked better after the Botox, though.

NYatKNIGHT
February 3rd, 2004, 11:16 AM
They may not be hot, but ugly? That's a little harsh.

http://www.tienmao.com/images/kerryfamily.jpg

Kris
February 3rd, 2004, 11:25 AM
Who cares?

NYatKNIGHT
February 3rd, 2004, 11:28 AM
Unfortunately, our People Magazine-loving public cares.

Schadenfrau
February 3rd, 2004, 12:30 PM
And apparently some people on these boards think it's important, too. Politicians aren't movie stars and shouldn't have to look like them.

dbhstockton
February 3rd, 2004, 12:33 PM
I certainly don't. It is a factor to consider, though. Al Gore won the popular vote in the last election, despite his awful campaign and annoying personality. His daughters are way hotter than Bush's daughters. Perhaps there is a correlation there that should be investigated.

NoyokA
February 3rd, 2004, 12:48 PM
Who cares?

I dont.


Unfortunately, our People Magazine-loving public cares.

With America being so image conscious, Im suprised that looks havent played into this. There are afterall a number of competant candidates. But then agan while Kerry isnt a particularly attractive man, unlike Bush, he positively doesnt look like an ape.

dbhstockton
February 3rd, 2004, 01:27 PM
He may not be conventionally handsome, but I think there's definitely something about his looks that is undeniably presidential. He's classicly gaunt and fugly along the lines of Abe Lincoln or Andrew Jackson.

ZippyTheChimp
February 3rd, 2004, 01:33 PM
Lincoln wouldn't stand a chance today.
Neither would FDR.

Sad but true.

Jasonik
February 3rd, 2004, 01:46 PM
The family next door.

http://portfolios.com/Pics/brownieharris/brownieharris_19_p.JPG

dbhstockton
February 3rd, 2004, 02:01 PM
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2004/02/03/kerry_heinz/story.jpg
(from Salon.com)

Sorry, couldn't resist.

NYatKNIGHT
February 3rd, 2004, 02:20 PM
:lol:

Well, at least he's "presidential".


How old is John Edwards? Those kids are babies!

NoyokA
February 3rd, 2004, 02:30 PM
The one on the far right sure is no baby.

ube
February 3rd, 2004, 05:34 PM
:lol:



How old is John Edwards? Those kids are babies!

He's 51 I think, he looks pretty young for his age.

SunsetWorks
February 6th, 2004, 01:16 AM
They decided to have more kids after a teenage son died in a car accident in 1996.

TLOZ Link5
February 6th, 2004, 12:38 PM
Poor guy.

Kris
February 10th, 2004, 09:00 AM
February 10, 2004

An Electoral College That Reflects the Voters

To the Editor:

Re "Can the North Rise Again?" and "One State, Two State, Red State, Blue State" (Week in Review, Feb. 8):

Red states and blue states would become moot if the Constitution were amended to abolish or change the Electoral College. Because each state's electoral votes equal the total number of senators and representatives in that state, states with low population have more clout.

Here in Vermont, each elector represents about 203,000 people; in California, 616,000. It's the counting of senators in the totals that skews the results.

A more fair way would be to amend the Constitution to assign electoral votes by the number of representatives only. Except for some anomalies like Delaware, Montana, South Dakota and Wyoming, each electoral vote would represent between 550,000 and 700,000 people.

If this system had been in place in the 2000 election, the electoral vote would have reflected the popular vote and Al Gore would have won.

CLAUDETTE SORTINO
South Ryegate, Vt., Feb. 8, 2004

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company