Stockdale!!!
Best VP debate ever.
Whoever the Libertarian Party candidate is.
Definitely Bush again, especially if it’s against McCain/whoever.
John McCain in a heatbeat.
It doesn’t matter to me if he runs as a Dem, Rep, or Independent.
There isn’t a Dem alive who could garner my vote, particularly not Gore, Clinton, Bayh, or any of them.
I would vote Bush, again. If he somehow does not run, then my vote will go to just about any Republican candidate, save McCain. I’m vehemently opposed to a cadre of his notions (McCain-Feingold most especially) and I don’t particularly trust him. I’d especially love to see Powell or Rice elevated to the VP level in '04, but I’d welcome Chaney again, as well.
Pretty darn predictable.
Pat Paulson, dammit.
Yes, he’s dead. I don’t recall there being a specific prohibition against dead people serving as President, is there? Yes, yes, there are rules for the transfer of power to others for deaths whilst in office but what if he’s already kacked before day one?
Although, it might make the swearing-in difficult…
Another “anyone except Bush” here. Ashcroft has GOT to go.
So you didn’t recognize the legitimacy of the winners of the presidential elections of the last 32 years? Because the highest total voter turnout as a percentage of the eligible voting-age population for any of those elections has been 55.2%, in 1972. Even landslide election winners only end up with 30-33% of the eligible voter total. (Reagan, for example, received 58% of the votes cast in 1984, but only 53.1% of eligible voters voted. That’s 31.2% of eligible voters who voted for Reagan.) Sorry, but U.S. elections just don’t work that way.
And I find it hard to believe that the “anyone but Bush” crowd would vote for, say, Jesse Helms.
Me, I can’t think of anyone in the Senate or House who I would vote for for President right now. Especially after the spectacle of the Senate falling all over each other to cast a 99-0 resolution for state-recognized religion.
So you didn’t recognize the legitimacy of the winners of the presidential elections of the last 32 years? Because the highest total voter turnout as a percentage of the eligible voting-age population for any of those elections has been 55.2%, in 1972. Even landslide election winners only end up with 30-33% of the eligible voter total. (Reagan, for example, received 58% of the votes cast in 1984, but only 53.1% of eligible voters voted. That’s 31.2% of eligible voters who voted for Reagan.) Sorry, but U.S. elections just don’t work that way.
And I find it hard to believe that the “anyone but Bush” crowd would vote for, say, Jesse Helms.
Me, I can’t think of anyone in the Senate or House who I would vote for for President right now. Especially after the spectacle of the Senate falling all over each other to cast a 99-0 resolution for state-recognized religion.
Anyone that isn’t Bush, but ideally Gore. I suppose I’d have to give a thought to McCain if he were to go Democrat, too, but I doubt I’d vote for him.
I’d probably vote for Nader again. If Hilary ran I’d vote for her in a heartbeat. But that just isn’t going to happen. Besides all the individual opposition to Hilary that is out there, this backwards-ass nation is still not ready to elect a female head of state (why? If Pakistan can do it, why can’t we?) and no major party would risk their chance with a woman.
I cannot hide my seetheing hatred of Bush and his friends… Ashcroft is doing damage to some pretty fundamental liberties that is going to be really really hard to undo. Bush has dedicated all too much of his time flipping the middle finger at atheists. Now his administration foaming at the mouth at the chance to start a war in Iraq for no apparent reason. It makes me embarrased to be American.
I usually accuse the Dems of being almost as bad as the Republicans, but I guess now that I am seeing the amount of damage that Bush can wreak, I am beginning to change my mind. I’d give anything to have Clinton back at this point. But still, I’d have to go with Nader.
Cecil Adams
Joe Lieberman, I’m praying he runs because a) he can win b) most of our views are similar and c) I’m good friends with his former CoS, so a White House internship would not be out of the question. So Lieberman in 2004! Wooo!
Quick quiz, pldennison: who was the popular vote winner in 2000? I believe that that’s what woolly is talking about.
I’ll bet you $1,000 that if Condoleeza Rice were to run for President as a Republican, she would be nominated and she would win. What’s more, I question your assertion that we are “not ready” to elect a woman; it’s a bit hard to elect someone who has not run for the office in modern memory. When was the last time a woman launched a serious bid for the Presidency – the suffragette era?
Except, you know, Saddam Hussein being a fargin’ nutbag and trying desperately to get his hands on or create weapons of mass destruction. Know this: The day Hussein gets his hands on a nuclear weapon, Tel Aviv will disappear in a cloud of smoke that afternoon. I, for one, would prefer for that not to happen. It’s entirely possible that a war is not the best course of action, but allowing Hussein to continue his pursuit of such weapons is not even an option.
Like you love America so much otherwise. :rolleyes:
Tell me, what would Ralph Nader have done on 9/12? Held hearings on why Boeing couldn’t make a safer aircraft?
Diceman, if that’s what he meant, he’s free to clarify, but he specifically said “50% of eligible U.S. voters,” and recently in a GD thread he expressed over U.S. voter turnout vis a vis Australian voter turnout.
No animosity implied, BTW; I’ve shared beers with woolly and he’s a good guy.
I agree with you with the GEAUX NADAR mentality (I read up on him and saw him speak at my university and was extremely impressed). However, I want to get something straight: I wouldn’t vote for Hillary cause I hate her. I think she’s a horrible leader, she has crooked politics, and she would do a bad job. You don’t have to agree with me, but please understand that no one’s against her cause she’s a woman. If anything, more people would vote for her BECAUSE she’s a woman. Just like most African Americans vote for the democrats because they have some false hope in their system. Show me a woman who’s capable and I’ll vote for her!
I’d have to disagree with you on that one. First off, the Middle East is small geographically, and a nuke to Tel Aviv would cause problems for the West Bank and Jordan too, ostensibly full of people Iraqis wouldn’t want to harm. Second, it’s difficult to conceal a nuke, they generate a lot of heat and we can find them. If he comes close to making one it’s bombs over Baghdad, hopefully destroying the weapon before it’s functional. Rather, I’m more afraid of chemical/biological weapons, he already used them on the Kurds :eek:.
I like what you said about Nader though :).
Gore, again.
Nice, good looking man surrounded by conservative experts should not be enough. How bad does the economy have to get before this guy’s popularity rating drops below his percentage of the popular vote? What if the DOW hits 5,000? Would that be enough? We’re two years into his administration and not much economic improvement yet. Perhaps it’s all Clinton’s fault.
“We are voting for president of the U.S., not prom king.”
I voted for Gore in 2000 - I don’t think I could stomach voting for him again, so I’m hoping for some better candidates next time around.
Right now I’m keeping a close eye on John Edwards, Bob Kerrey, and John McCain. I freaking adore McCain and I sincerely hopes he runs again - I’d vote for him even if he is a Republican (as long as he maintains his ‘00 stance on womens’ reproductive rights).
I’d have to be heavily drugged, brainwashed, tortured, and deprived food and water for the next year and a half before I’d even consider voting for George W. Bush, and you’d probably have to check the ballot with my cold, dead finger anyway.