I don’t trust polls either. On October 4, Gore was ahead by 11 points, according to CNN/USA Today/Gallup. On October 8, Bush was ahead by 8 points according to the same polling group. A 19-point swing in four days? Gore has probably lost some support since the debate, but I find that very hard to believe. I’m probably voting for Harry Browne anyway, so I’ll just be content to sit back and watch the carnage.
I think there are some definate underestimations of Dick Cheney vs Lieberman. If you watched the Independents, the vast majority thought Cheney was the victor in that contest. My wife (democrat) and I (republican) both agreed we would rather vote for Dick Cheney than Al Gore or George Bush or even Clinton or Reagan for that matter. Unfortunately that is not an option.
He came across very smooth and down to earth. He conveyed that he knew his facts. He didn’t have to try to humanize his image with stories about his family. He answered the question asked rather than to divert back or forward into a completely different category or question. He was likable because he was believable. He was quick witted and pleasant.
I hope that Al Gore and George Bush were taking notes, I want to hear both of them address the questions asked and stop reverting to ‘the big tax cut for the top 1%’ and the ‘fuzzy numbers’. I can’t speak for everyone, but I know I have heard enough of that unprovable rhetoric.
My wife did make one interesting comment concerning the Bush-Gore decision. She said she would probably support Al Gore, even though she doesn’t like him, because three or four supreme court justices are going to retire during the next term and she is afraid for the future of legal abortions. I have read that it is news to the current supreme court justices that they will be retiring and I have heard the flip side.
As a political strategist, if I were one for the Democrats I would concentrate on that issue. If I were one for the Republicans I would steer as clear as possible. I think Cheney handled the situation very well, remarking how they would work on areas that both sides of the issue could agree on… i.e. partial birth abortions. I wish the Republicans would drop their position on abortion, possibly alienating their Christian Coalition backing, but gaining significant support from female voters. I may be totally wrong and am basing this upon my own pro-choice view, but I believe the Republican Party alienates more voters through their anti-abortion agenda than they gain.
OOOPS, did I just change this to a Gore-Bush debate?
JustAnotherGuy:
But doesn’t it say something when a party sticks to its principles even when it very likely costs them votes?
What, on the other hand, would it say about the Republican Party if, for the sake of gaining votes (and probably not very many), it told the unborn, who they had long considered (according to their platform) to be living human beings worthy of protection, “screw you”?
Originally posted by JustAnotherGuy
Oh act like the killing of innocent life is ok because it is politically correct. :rolleyes: . Besides if they acted like that then they wouldn’t be republicans they would be democrats.
We are headed for perhaps the closest presidential race in terms of electoral votes in well over a century, if not the closest ever.
This will occur despite various major media falling all over themselves in the days before the election to show that their polls have one candidate or another having it all wrapped up.
cmkeller… “But doesn’t it say something when a party sticks to its principles even when it very likely costs them votes?”
I agree, very good point.
But, to play the devil’s advocate, isn’t the government supposed to represent the people? Not to the extent of creating law based on polls or majority votes of course, but don’t we elect politicians to represent us? Or at least shouldn’t the Party conform to the majority of it’s members? It is quite possible that this is currently the case, but just on the off chance that it is not… what are your thoughts?
Wildest Bill wrote “Oh act like the killing of innocent life is ok because it is politically correct. Besides if they acted like that then they wouldn’t be republicans they would be democrats.”
-
The abortion issue goes alot deeper than political correctness.
-
Republicans and Democrats disagree on alot more than the abortion issue. I figure that was tongue in cheek, but still.
In regards, then, to your suggestion that the Republican Party drop its pro-life stance, you’re contradicting yourself; I’d be willing to bet that at least a plurality, if not an outright majority, of Republicans are pro-life.
As for government’s job to represent the people- you say that, then turn around and say, “Not to the extent of creating law based on polls or majority votes of course”. If government represents the people absolutely, then laws on polls and majority votes is what you have. Once again, you’re contradicting yourself by saying, “Shouldn’t we be in situation A? Not to the extent of situation A, of course.”
I’m willing to debate the issue (I’m a small-r republican as well, who feels that there is such a thing as too much small-d democracy), but define the boundaries a little better. What do you think is too extreme, and what do you think is being done wrong?
JustAnotherGuy:
Sure. So people vote for the individual who they think most closely matches their interest, or whose party most closely matches their interest. Part of this involves having parties with divergent views. If both major parties were pro-abortion-rights, to whom would those who are against abortion turn?
I would expect that is the case. It’s party members who vote on party platforms, after all.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Agreed then that the logical conclusion is that the majority of the Republican Party are anti-abortion or Pro-life as some prefer to call it.
Or, on a broader base, that the Parties have a number of platforms to represent the key issues of differing groups of constituents. So, while I may disagree on one of the issues, there are other issues that more closely fit my preferences for government. Neither Party is likely to satisfy all the positions of any individual constituent. It is more like alot of circles of positions on issues, and the Party that conforms to more of your positions is the Party you select to represent you.
If I interpreted properly, then I would reason that the Party represents it’s blocks of constituents, not necessarily the individual constituents. Which one might quickly jump to saying that if the biggest blocks are for something, then by default the majority of the voters are for it. My position is that a single voice for 200 voters carries more weight than 200 separate voter voices.
And I am not saying anything about this being right or wrong, and leave it to debate whether it is true or false, but a voice with a $100,000 check to support the Party probably makes more of an impact than 1,000 voices with $100 checks.
I am not saying this is necessarily what happens in the development of Party positions, but it would stand to reason that it could happen. Thoughts?
Originally posted by JustAnotherGuy
I have no problem at all with you calling my stance “anti abortion”. Do you have any problem with me calling your stance “pro kill”?
**
[/QUOTE]
sniffs own armpits
Did I offend you somehow Bill?
If I hit a nerve it wasn’t intentional.
It certainly is a less emotional issue for me than it is for you, and understandably so, but perhaps we can review the pro-choice/pro-life debate or anti-abortion/anit-life debate on another thread as it was not my intent to change the subject matter of this one.
Justanotherguy.
Naw, you didn’t hit a nerve I was just being snidee(a word I just made up what do you think add it to Websters 
).
You are right on two counts. It is a very emotional issue and it should be discussed on a different thread.
But back to the OP I hope Bush not only stays ahead in the polls I hope he wins or this country is going head further down the crapper.
“But back to the OP I hope Bush not only stays ahead in the polls I hope he wins or this country is going head further down the crapper.”
Unfortunately, I think this country is going to head further down the crapper no matter which of these two are elected. But on the pro-Bush, I like my gas-guzzling SUV. Gore would probably take my toy away.
tongue in cheek
Pristine national reserve in Alaska I will never see
vs.
more gas for my four wheel drive SUV
…decisions, decisions, decisions
Justanotherguy,
LOL,
I agree. I have a gas guzzling suv and polluting 2 cycle dirt bike that gore would hate. For those reasons alone I am voting for Bush maybe you should to. Because I think Gore likes trees more than he does tipper and I just don’t want to imagine gore kissing a tree like he did her. :rolleyes:
The “Talking Heads” (pollsters, media-types, etc.)I have heard recently on more than one occasion have made the comment that the country, as a whole and particularly the independants, have a centerist point of view. That is, they don’t necessarily lean to the liberal or conservative side but have beliefs that line up with different planks from any number of party platforms.
IMHO, I believe point by point that Gore won the debate but came across presenting a less than honest, showboaty attitude…and a fairly liberal agenda. I believe Bush came across as much more “centerist” than Gore hence the huge swing in the polls. Keep in mind though that it’s only the poll taken in November that counts for anything.
BTW, Dick trounced Joe in the VP debate!
Actually, more often than not, I’ve heard the Talking Heads saying that the country as a whole has an overly-materialistic, dangerously nihilistic point of view.
But maybe I’ve been listening to “Little Creatures” too much.
Okay, seriously, I think that most “independent” voters are socially liberal and economically conservative, and their votes in November are determined by which party strikes fear into their hearts more; in the '80’s, they were willing to ignore abortion rights because they were afraid of taxes, and in the '90’s they were willing to take a tax hike because they were afraid of anti-abortion, anti-environmentalists.
John,
I probably should have carried the ball a little further and said that I think that Dick explained the Bush tax position (et al) somewhat better than Dubya did. The median family income in the US today if I remember correctly is about $50,000. If you don’t fit into one of the “targeted slots” that Gore is touting, you (if you have done well in these posperous times) get nothing back in Gore’s proposals. This would fit the scenerio of your economic conservative/social liberal and my comment re centerist if you consider that with the social spending that Bush supports, he is clearly the more centerist of the two.
I think I would have put this first and then stopped. 
Spooje
Well, you don’t really know me, but I got polled this year. There was a lady asking the questions, and there were a TON of questions. I have always wanted to represent a couple of million Americans so I stuck around and answered questions for 15 minutes.
I lied to her the entire time. I told her I was a lifetime liberal and that I supported Buchanan. Ever since I have never trusted polls.
cmkeller
ahhhhh… a breath of fresh air:)
Milossarian
Prediction: Bush by a landslide. Maaaaybe Clinton slips by in NY.
You can’t win if you can’t even carry your home state. I just want to make my prediction clear:
LANDSLIDE
You know what’s really sad? The people’s votes don’t matter, and all polls, whether accurate or not, don’t matter either.
The president’s chosen by the state electors. That’s what really matters.
It’s kind of sad.
This is going to be an exciting election!
If you will go check out the major news sources, you will find lots of articles that are negative about Gore. It used to be mostly negative about Bush. I think the tide might be turning. It’s really kind of unbelievable. I thought Bush was toast. Just click on their election or politics links.