It seems most who debate here are pretty strongly for one guy (or strongly against the other guy).
Anybody here not sure who they prefer yet, and actually care about politics? (If you have zero interest in the subject, just lay your head down quietly on your desk)
Heck no. If I were an American voter (I am not) I’d vote for an inanimate carbon rod if it was bush’s rival.
Depends on what you mean by undecided. I’m not going to vote for either motherf******.
Methinks the folks who truly care about politics have already decided. We’ve had four years to see Bush in office, after all…
I’m with Ponder - they both suck, so I won’t vote for either one.
I thought the same thing, but there was recent thread regarding the AOL Presidential Canditate Chooser page (or whatever it was called), and I was surprised to see that some people actually had Kerry and Bush rated at close to the same percentage.
I looked at how that page judged what the candidates are for, and I got a good feeling for its accuracy. So I think it’s possible that some people who have political opinions might be undecided.
I am, and I would too. I saw a bumper sticker a few weeks ago which pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter – “Anybody But Bush.”
Oh see, I’m TOTALLY voting for NADAR!
Ok don’t kill me, please! I’m kidding, but man- if I was being truthful- I’d ask you guys to shoot me.
Kerry may surprise me and prove worthy of my vote. I’m giving him the opportunty to do so. If he fails, I’ll vote for Bush.
In general, I’ve been more satisfied with my government when Republicans are in office than when Democrats are in. (Yes: I’ve been more satisfied with the current Bush administration than I was with Clinton’s.)
Gore would have been a total disaster, IMHO. While Bush isn’t the greatest, he’s not been a disaster of the magnitude that I believe Gore would have been.
YMMV.
Your viewpoint intrigues me. What exactly has satisfied you about the Bush administration that you think Kerry stands an uncertain chance of doing better?
Since I don’t think you are interested in reading an Epic Volume[sup]TM[/sup], I’ll give you a short answer, limited to one subject. Sort of an example, so to speak.
I do a lot of business with government officials who are political appointees. Speaking of those I have had dealings with, Clinton’s appointees were clueless about what they were trying to do. The Bush administration at least made an effort to identify and appoint people who are informed professionals in the appropriate field.
There’s more, but I’d put that near the top of my list.
No, seriously, I am quite interested in as much as you’d care to type. I and most people I know are quite partisan in one way or another. I have always wondered about the logic behind people who could go either way.
Your first argument is that Bush did a better job at staffing positions because the appointees are more knowledgable. That’s an interesting point. I have always been more interested in ideology than in the mechanisms of government, plus I have no direct contact with political appointees so have no way to judge.
So for this point, Kerry would have to convince you that he would appoint credible people? Not sure how he would do that, but it makes sense.
What else? (I am purposely trying to not give away my viewpoint so as not to bias your answers. No idea how well I am doing that.)
Good call! I have plenty of political opinions, but I’m still undecided on these 2. This country is very split, Congress shows that very well. This will create a very very close election again in November and it will be those of us on the fence that will decide the outcome.
I think that’s why Bush has started his ad campaign so early. The big money is out and working it’s ass off right now – Voters beware.
To me the ads and speeches are essentially pointless, but that’s all we’ve got from Kerry thusfar. You can’t learn anything worthwhile from canned ads and speeches that are set to make the candidate look good – it’s just a smoke screen with no depth.
I’d love to see more election money spent to set-up more debates and to have the debates without canned questions/answers. The candidates know what the main subjects are, so they should be plenty prepared for many topics. But not knowing the exact questions means they need to formulate appropriate answers instead of read a cue-card.
Anyway, there are good and bad points about Kerry and Bush. Soon the country will try to figure out which is the lesser of 2 evils.
Would it be too soon to have a poll about this. Just to see. Maybe take the first 100 entries and see what we come up with.
No “in-between”, just either Bush or Kerry.
Has this been done yet?
I took that poll and was quite shocked to find out that I had Bush and Kerry rated close to the same percentage.
I am undecided at this point.
I agree. So tell me why Bush has refused Kerry’s offer to engage in debate.
I can see this headed for Great Debates before too long.
I voted for Bush, but have been less than pleased with his administration.
Kerry doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell at getting my vote (few Democrats would, as long as they are the Party of More And More Gun Control), so I am shopping for a 3rd party candidate or a serious traditional Republican challenger against Bush to get these corporate raider NeoCons out of office.
In essence I am looking for another Bob Dole-type candidate.
'Nother things: When Edwards was on a “Meet the Press” type show, he stated that he favored tax increases. He suggested moving the top tax brackets up to 70 or 80%, with other brackets going up accordingly. Kerry will have to show me that he’s against such a thing.
I probably won’t like Kerry’s position on gun control either, but I think he can’t win that fight with congress, so that isn’t a deal breaker for me.
I hope it doesn’t go to Great Debates. While I love a good argument about politics, this time I’m just hoping to get some insight (as perhaps the OP was?)
See, I can understand your viewpoint. While you are undecided about who you are going to vote for, you are not undecided between Bush and Kerry. At least one of the standard Dem vs Repub issues is importnat enough to you to sway your vote.
But those like John Carter who actually are debating between those two, that’s what makes me insanely curious! Pro-choice vs pro-life, the choice is clear. Gun control vs 2nd Amendment rights, choice is clear. Etc etc for all the hot button issues. What exactly are they looking for?
As it is already known how my state will go, I doubt that I will vote for either one.