Pricescope Presidential Poll

[chris-uk04]

Forget Zogby, the poll results that I want to see is the unscientific Pricescope Poll? How will people intelligent enough to research diamonds vote? All eyes will be on this key demographic.

With 3 weeks to go, arguments have been made, opinions formed. Now it''s time to cast your deciding vote.

Remember, vote early and vote often!

 

[fire&ice]

Well, I am in the process of researching the Libertarian candidate.

...in other words...still undecided.

 

[chris-uk04]

----------------
On 10/11/2004 11:40:14 AM fire&ice wrote:

Well, I am in the process of researching the Libertarian candidate.

...in other words...still undecided.

----------------

Well the poll ends on the 2nd of November, so you can vote when you are ready. I thought about listing the other third party candidates seperately but since combined they poll less than 0.5% and not on every state ballot, I just lumped them together.

 

[chris-uk04]

With 12 days to go.... who will you vote for?

 

[fire&ice]

I think there are more undecided voters than the polls indicate.

Also, the wild card which aren't being polled are the "rock the vote" type people. Voter registration is at an all time high. Lot's of young people.

If you can trust Scholatic Magazine, GW is ahead by about 5 points. Believe it or not, their track record is pretty good.

 

[jenwill]

----------------
On 10/21/2004 11:06:59 AM fire&ice wrote:

I think there are more undecided voters than the polls indicate.

Also, the wild card which aren't being polled are the 'rock the vote' type people. Voter registration is at an all time high. Lot's of young people.

If you can trust Scholatic Magazine, GW is ahead by about 5 points. Believe it or not, their track record is pretty good. ----------------

Except that Nickelodeon has a 'Kids Pick the President ' voting poll which has picked the winners of the last 4 elections, and they have Kerry by about a 13% margin. Who knows anymore.

 

[fire&ice]

Yeah, but Scholastic Magazine has a significant history compared to Nick.

Who the heck knows. I did hear several people talk about the fact that voter registration is so high & those people aren't being polled. Kerry's people have moved out of our State so I'm pretty sure who will get our electoral college votes.

Funny thing though, I see significantly more Kerry/Edwards stickers & signs than I do Bush/Cheny. Also, at our second home (different state), I have been visited by the Kerry campaign twice & two other times campaign stuff was left. Bush campaign has yet to reach us. And, this is just an observation as we are not registered to vote in this state; so, it's not like we are on some list.

It's gonna be close.

 

[jenwill]

Yep- gonna be close!

I am actually kind of disappointed that I will be in Barcelona tht day (fly on the 1st, land on the 2nd), and won't be back in the country until the 5th. I am going to miss all of the excitement!

 

[AGBF]

Well...I'm going to vote for Kerry. It won't be easy. I will be returning to my new home state from Connecticut by car that day, but I'll make it to the polls.

I am feeling sure Bush is going to win and I am resigned to it. Whenever I feel desperation at what he is doing to the country-and the world-I tell myself it won't affect me personally. That may not be true. Another dip in the economy and my husband could be unemployed again, but at least I'm not going to need an abortion so if that becomes illegal again it won't affect me *personally*. No stem cell research? OK...don't get sick. The Patriot Act? I am fair and blonde. Some dark skinned man is going to have *his* rights trampled, but I'll be OK.

I'm not in the top 1% tax bracket, so I won't make out like a bandit but basically he'll be harming other people, not me.

 

[Maria D]

>>I am feeling sure Bush is going to win and I am resigned to it.<<

Don't lose hope yet Deb! Everyone here was resigned to the fact that the Red Sox would lose to the Yankees, and look what happened.

Jenwill, I hope you'll still be voting even if you won't be in the country. I just got my absentee ballot today. I will be in town on election day but I figured it will be nice to not have to wait in line.

 

[Todd07]

I saw Farenheit 9/11 shortly after it came out. Personally, I didn't like the movie because it is political satire disguised as a documentary. I appreciated the satire but felt many people have been misled to believe real facts and conspiracy were presented.

To give the other side a chance, tonight I rented FarenHype 9/11 from BlockBuster.

If you watched Micheal's movie, I recommend renting the competing view. Then you can make up your own mind on which movie has the Hype.

 

[goldengirl]

I'm still undecided.

I'm in a bit of a pickle. I don't believe Kerry has what it takes to handle the situation in Iraq, and I think it would be a bad idea to swap out the President at such an unstable point in time, which would make me vote for Bush.

BUT, on the moral values front, Kerry's got my vote. I'm anti-Bush on the abortion, stem cell AND gay marraige fronts.

And I realize it will be pointless to vote outside the repub/demo parties, as the other parties are currently holding less than 3% favor and it would essentially waste my vote.

I don't know what to do. I'd hate to vote in Kerry and have him pull our troops and issue an apology to the middle east...I'd be terribly embarrassed and royally pissed off for my country. But then I'd hate to vote in Bush and lose my abortion rights and see the homosexual community be denied their marraige rights. That would piss me off, too.

I wish the citizen body could vote in the next Supreme Court Justices...if that were the case, I'd vote Bush in a heartbeat.

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 10/22/2004 4:26:58 PM goldengirl wrote:



I'm in a bit of a pickle. I don't believe Kerry has what it takes to handle the situation in Iraq, and I think it would be a bad idea to swap out the President at such an unstable point in time, which would make me vote for Bush.

I do not understand what people are afraid of when they say, as you did, that they don't believe Kerry has what it takes to handle the situation in Iraq.

Kerry has been a respected U.S.Senator for many years. George Bush had no political experience except as-briefly-Governor of Texas. It was Bush's dreadful judgment that led him to think that he could easily win a war in Iraq without American casualties. (His supporter, Pat Robertson, was recently quoted as saying that Mr. Bush told him not to worry, that there would be none!!!)

How anyone thinks Senator Kerry could have *worse* judgement than George Bush is what puzzles me! I mean, it would puzzle me even if Senator Kerry did NOT have a distinguished background academically, in the military, and in the US Senate. Since he DOES have that distinguished background, I am TRULY baffled!

 

[Todd07]

----------------
On 10/22/2004 4:26:58 PM goldengirl wrote:





I'm still undecided.

BUT, on the moral values front, Kerry's got my vote. I'm anti-Bush on the abortion, stem cell AND gay marraige fronts.
----------------

Here's my logic for deciding on Bush. I also had concerns about these issues.

- Stem cell: Bush gets an A- on a fine balancing act between strong conservatives and progress. The US Govt has given limited funding and research is going ahead at a significantly increased rate over the past. Private funding far outweighs federal funding which is not a bad thing. I felt Bush was comprimising for politics but but not turning back research. If R&D had been outlawed, etc. I would think differently about Bush on this one. Research in other countries will complete and help deliver needed breakthroghs. Bush did not stop progress

- Gay Marriage: Bush gets a C+ on his balancing act between religious conservatives and progress. What is wrong with initiating a national debate on gay marriage? Final outcome is not decided by president but by voters. I think the debate is healthy and will lead to increased (not decreased) rights for gays. Both equal rights for women and minorities/color required a national debate for progress to be made. The country will not restrict rights that are currently allowed to gays.

- Abortion: Bush ?. This is the one that scares me but I don't feel the country will turn back the clock on this issue. I'm hoping Bush was honest when he said it would not be a litmus test for nominating new judges.

 

[jenwill]

----------------
On 10/22/2004 9:10:42 PM Todd07 wrote:

----------------
On 10/22/2004 4:26:58 PM goldengirl wrote:



I'm still undecided.

BUT, on the moral values front, Kerry's got my vote. I'm anti-Bush on the abortion, stem cell AND gay marraige fronts.
----------------

Here's my logic for deciding on Bush. I also had concerns about these issues.

- Abortion: Bush ?. This is the one that scares me but I don't feel the country will turn back the clock on this issue. I'm hoping Bush was honest when he said it would not be a litmus test for nominating new judges.

----------------

I guess my biggest problem with his statement that abortion rights will not be a litmus for choosing new judges, is that there really is no reason for him to be held to that statement. He will no longer have the accountability of needing to run for office anymore, so if he angers a group of people by putting judges who have the propensity and ability to reverse Roe V. Wade, it doesn't really matter.

These judicial appointments are for life and/or length of time that the judge chooses, so we 'the people' really have no say if they want to 'turn back the clock'. There was an article recently, I believe on CNN news on-line, that stated that there were 30 states already set to ban abortions if Roe v. Wade is overturned. I am lucky enough to live in one of the states that doesn't have pending lawsuits, and is probably not at risk for banning abortions, but I think of all of the women who live in states where it could happen and I feel sad. Those of us who have the means to travel to get one, or are well off enough to 'know' someone will probably be OK- but what about everyone else?

On gay marriages, I really have not understood how someone expressing their love for each other and having it legally recognized hurts other people's marriages. I would think a Britney Spears 55 hour marriage is more damaging to the 'idea' of marriage. The act of marriage gives certain legal rights to people- conservatorship in case of massive disability, inheritance rights, even to the point of just being allowed in your loved ones room in the hospital. I know that you can get a lawyer to draft papers for some of these rights, but it means that my gay and lesbian friends have to spend 100's or 1000's of dollars- and then spend more if they sell property to amend the original documents. When any 18 year old heterosexual can just run off and get married on a whim- pay for marriage license and all those rights are yours!

So, it would be nice if we could trust all politicians do hold to their statements- but in reality, we have all been burned a time or two by that not happening (read my lips- no new taxes). Without the accountability of having to run for office again, I think the chances are less likely.

 

[Rank Amateur]

PS is running true to real life.

The self-riteous Bush bashers get all the print and yet the Prez easily leads the vote. And I have yet to cast mine.

Go Nader!

 

[jenwill]

----------------
On 10/22/2004 11:07:19 PM Rank Amateur wrote:

PS is running true to real life.

The self-riteous Bush bashers get all the print and yet the Prez easily leads the vote. And I have yet to cast mine.

Go Nader!----------------

I don't quite get the 'self-righteous Bush bashers get all the print'.....It isn't as if the pro-Bush contingent isn't just as self-righteous, and there is no blocker that prevents anyone from posting....

 

[goldengirl]

I don't consider myself a self-righteous Bush-basher, nor would I consider anyone who posted here as one. I think we all have legitimate concerns and there's nothing wrong with debating or just thinking aloud.

AGBF, I do not think Kerry has what it takes to step in the middle of such a sticky situation because he has not had to lead in such manner before. You claim a distinguished military and political background, but I've seen speedy medical discharge and his inability to take an actual position on many things. Watching the debates, I see Bush saying "If re-elected, I'll do x, x, x," and Kerry saying, "If re-elected, he's not going to do x, x, x," and I'm left wondering, well, Mr. Kerry, that's fantastic, but what are YOU going to do?

HOW, exactly, do you think he plans to lower taxes, increase the child tax credit, and lower healthcare costs while raising the quality? How does he propose to DO that? He will not say. All he says is, "I have a plan." Well, "I have a plan" doesn't make me comfortable that he's making claims he will be able to come through on.

And all this lousyness about outsourcing...when Heinz employs HOW MANY people overseas? I dislike hypocrisy very, very much.

I think Mr. Kerry has his heart in the right place, but I'm afraid he's got his head in the clouds... while he's proposing changes I'd like to see, I do not have a reasonable expectation that he will be able to accomplish any of it. I need more convincing.

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 10/23/2004 7:59:33 PM goldengirl wrote:



AGBF, I do not think Kerry has what it takes to step in the middle of such a sticky situation because he has not had to lead in such manner before.

In all fairness, no one who has not been President has had that experience, yet Mr. Bush was elected with far LESS experience than Mr. Kerry has now.

Also: it was Mr. Bush who CREATED the "sticky situation". Trusting him to clean it up is like trusting my Lab to clean the carpet after he does a poo poo on it .

 

[AGBF]

On 10/23/2004 7:59:33 PM goldengirl wrote:


You claim a distinguished military and political background, but I've seen speedy medical discharge and his inability to take an actual position on many things.

Perhaps you need to explain this "hasty medical discharge". I know that Mr. Bush was suspended from flying after disobeying a direct order to have a physical. We also *KNOW* that Mr. Bush has a severe problem with alcohol until recently. There may certainly be a correlation between his unwillingness to have that physical and his alcoholism. What are you alleging about Mr. Kerry, exactly?

On what positions has Mr. Kerry failed to take a stand? He has ALWAYS been for a balanced budget, even when it was unfashionable to be. He is for a woman's right to choose. On what issues has he failed to satisfy you?

 

[Rank Amateur]

Remember that Kerry sought and was granted a shortened tour in Vietnam (three months) by receiving three purple hearts. One of which required no stitches and was covered by a BandAid. Very honorable indeed. That's why our military loves him so.

Maybe if Kerry were willing to release all his military records maybe know what went happened. I'm holding my breath waiting for CBS or the NYT to do some digging.

NOT!

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 10/22/2004 4:26:58 PM goldengirl wrote:

I'm still undecided.

I'm in a bit of a pickle. I don't believe Kerry has what it takes to handle the situation in Iraq, and I think it would be a bad idea to swap out the President at such an unstable point in time, which would make me vote for Bush.

---

AGBF, I'm with Goldengirl on being in a pickle & fully believe her sentiment. We know you can argue the skin off of a cat; but, I think many people (including me) feel this way & are too meek (or don't have the innocence that they will be challenge w/ good argument

)to admit it.

And, I think their are many silent Bush supporters. Hubby included - though I always knew he was a closet Republican.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 10/22/2004 4:26:58 PM goldengirl wrote:

I'm still undecided.

I'm in a bit of a pickle. I don't believe Kerry has what it takes to handle the situation in Iraq, and I think it would be a bad idea to swap out the President at such an unstable point in time, which would make me vote for Bush.

---

AGBF, I'm with Goldengirl on being in a pickle & fully believe her sentiment. We know you can argue the skin off of a cat; but, I think many people (including me) feel this way & are too meek (or don't have the innocence that they will be challenge w/ good argument

)to admit it.

And, I think their are many silent Bush supporters. Hubby included - though I always knew he was a closet Republican.

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 10/23/2004 11:49:33 PM Rank Amateur wrote:

Remember that Kerry sought and was granted a shortened tour in Vietnam (three months) by receiving three purple hearts.

Impeccable logic as always, R/A. We should support Bush and Cheney who never served rather than a veteran who was wounded three times, two wounds of which, apparently, met with your satisfaction.

Bush would have received a dishonorable discharge from the (then totally safe) National Guard for failure to comply with orders had his father not been rich and powerful. Cheney just used deferments so as not to serve at all. Yet these men sure are hot to send young men into battle now, men who are not of their class.

 

[windowshopper]

GOLDENGIRL--------I LOVE YOUR HONEST AND ARTICULATE POET--KUDOS!
WS

 

[Nicrez]

Has anyone ever noticed that the best presidents are the ones who are on TV and on movies?

My suggestion is that we vote for Dennis Haysbert (aka: President David Palmer from Fox's show 24) or for Harrison Ford as President. Heck, our own politician are like actors anyway, saying and doing things they don't believe in, just to be liked, so why can't an actor do the same, except this time, they may ACT better than the politicians?

I put my dollar on Dennis Haysbert...

F&I, head out to Pennsylvania, like I did recently. I drove down to Manheim PA, and for every Kerry sign I saw, I saw 9 more Bush signs... Coming from a Liberal area like the tristate area, it was a bit odd...

"Sportsmen for Bush" seemed to be a popular bumper sticker....

 

[Rank Amateur]

AGBF

You asked for an explanation of the hasty medical discharge. I gave it to you. You claim hororable service. Most reasonable people have their doubts. Of course you probably think Jane Fonda's actions were honorable.

Both candidates' military records are in play, but the media has barely given Kerry's a sniff while persuing W's records like bulldogs. They even MADE STUFF UP when they couldn't find anything.

In the end, I don't find either man's service particularly honorable.

 

[jenwill]

RA-

I wouldn't call the swift boat ads as hardly in play on the part of uestioning Kerry's serving the country.

And the fact that we all know about his purple hearts being questioned, leads me to believe that he has been questioned as much as Bush...for actually setting foot in Vietnam.

 

[goldengirl]

ADBF-- the others have said what I would have, so I will not repeat.

I agree that it's a little strange Bush's military records are public knowledge while we know little more than that Kerry won three purple hearts. (I can't even think of that phrase without thinking of the cartoon on jibjab.com...lol!!!) I also agree that it's Bush's "fault" we are currently at war...but I would add that had the President not stepped up to correct the issues behind 9/11 (directly or indirectly related), I'd've been standing outside the White House with everyone else that was pissed off we just rolled over and took it.

Furthermore, I ALSO agree with you that nobody has experience being the President until elected such...but my preference, in this sticky time, is to have an experienced President in office than one just learning the ropes. Don't get me wrong.. again, I'll be the first one with a picket sign if they overturn Roe v. Wade!

It's not an easy decision, and I do think it will be a pivotal one.

PS--thanks, WS.

Edited to add: I'm with Nicrez--if Ah-nold can be the Governor of California, I want Harrison Ford in the White House!!

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 10/25/2004 8:28:42 PM goldengirl wrote:


I also agree that it's Bush's "fault" we are currently at war...but I would add that had the President not stepped up to correct the issues behind 9/11 (directly or indirectly related), I'd've been standing outside the White House with everyone else that was pissed off we just rolled over and took it.
...
Furthermore, I ALSO agree with you that nobody has experience being the President until elected such...but my preference, in this sticky time, is to have an experienced President in office than one just learning the ropes.

goldengirl,

I always enjoy reading your contributions to this thread. You are clearly thoughtful as well as intelligent. Moreover, you have a very open and generous attitude toward the points of view of others.

I hope you don't mind that I still disagree with you and want to explain why.

I, also, would be very angry if the United States had taken no action to against the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11.

Please keep in mind that it was Osama bin Laden, a Saudi Arabian national, aided by other Saudi Arabian nationals who carried out those attacks.

Yes, the terrorists had trained in Afghanistan, where the Taliban, extremist Muslims, were in control. But the country that spawned them was Saudi Arabia, another extremist Muslim country.

President Bush ordered an attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan. Somehow, however, President Bush let Osama bin Laden escape!!!! How is that protecting the people of the US? I want bin Laden taken DOWN!!!

Meanwhile, back in the States, President Bush had allowed the family of Osama bin Laden to leave the United States when others were unable to fly! Remember that all planes were grounded after the attacks? Shortly after that the family of bin Laden was helped to leave the US.

The Mr. Bush entertained a Saudi Prince at his ranch. He cavorted with the fundamentalist Muslims who run Saudi Arabia and force all women to be veiled in public (including western visitors).

I see president Bush as slapping one hand of the enemy in Afghanistan while clutching the other one in friendship in Saudi Arabia!!!

How is he protecting us and WHAT THE HECK IS HE DOING IN IRAQ!!!?????

Iraq had NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks!!!! NOTHING!

Osama bin Laden-who attacked us-hated and despised Saddam Hussein who was one of only TWO secular leaders in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein did not allow religious fanatics to make law. He did require women to be veiled. He did not allow Islamic courts to dispense "justice" of the version practiced in Pakistan (ordering a group rape of a woman whose brother was accused of an affair)or Nigeria (ordering the death by stoning of a woman who had committed adultery).

Was Saddam a bad guy? Of course!!!! But toppling him didn't help us one iota. And on top of not helping us it made life into a living hell for the people of Iraq who had ALREADY suffered under Saddam Hussein! This war has claimed the lives of 10,000 Iraqis!!! First they had Saddam's torture chambers and then they had our bombs falling. And what did they do to deserve it? Nothing!

If Mr. Bush had to bomb somebody couldn't he have picked Saudi Arabia? (No, no, I don't really want him killing innocent people there, either, but at least they support the same ideas as bin laden! Saddam Hussein was his opposite!)

No, goldengirl, I don't feel safe with Mr. Bush at the helm. He may have been captain before but while he was captain what happened to his ship? First it was attacked although he had been warned it would be; then he let the attacker escape; and, finally, he boarded another, neutral, vessel and decided it should be the one to go.

I want a new captain.