• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

how would you vote?

who would you vote for if this was the primary

  • Hillary/Bill Democratic ticket

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Guilani/running mate of your choice Rep. ticket

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Coburn/Keys Third party ticket

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Red Robin

Well-known member
Just curious

Well it won't let me edit my poll. I should have said if this was the general election instead of the primary.
 

Ben H

Well-known member
I'd vote for Rudy only so that the Socialist Party doesn't get into office...Democrat my a$$. "Progressive" is the same thing as Socialist.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hillary at 66% :shock: Scarey-- but about what Newt is predicting- he says shes a 4 to 1 odds on winner.......

None of the above. If my choices are Hillary or Rudy, I won't even bother.

I have to agree with Sandhusker--But I think I'll vote for the Libertarian (whoever he is- can't be worse than GW)...Yesterday after Bush vetoed the health care for kids- my wife- who doesn't talk politics much- said Bush is an idiot and she thinks shes voting for Hillary...I told her that I agreed with her on Bush being an idiot--but if I ever go so far as thinking of voting for Hillary, to please shoot me first....

I was going to ask her where the picture of GW and Laura we had on the mantle up until a couple years ago was-- but didn't have the courage- and really don't care anymore....
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
What I find fascinating, is that the current leader for the GOP is at 11%. 22% is for a ticket that is not only not probably, but neither "candidate" has declared.

One thing that should be borne in mind. Newt wants to be President. He does not want to run now. Why?

My feeling is that whoever gets the office in the next term is going to have such a tough job, that there will be no 2nd term. Bush is leaving us in a civil war that cannot be won, an overwhelming national debt that is going to have to be dealt with and requiring tough decisions and massive sacrifices on the publics part, a health care situation that has become a crisis, an immigration problem that is a crisis, and a balance of trade deficit that may not be cured in our lifetime.

The next President is going to have a pretty tough job. Newt wants to come back in 2012 as the guy with the answers.....not 2008 as the guy that inherits Bush's mess.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
One thing that should be borne in mind. Newt wants to be President. He does not want to run now. Why?

My feeling is that whoever gets the office in the next term is going to have such a tough job, that there will be no 2nd term. Bush is leaving us in a civil war that cannot be won, an overwhelming national debt that is going to have to be dealt with and requiring tough decisions and massive sacrifices on the publics part, a health care situation that has become a crisis, an immigration problem that is a crisis, and a balance of trade deficit that may not be cured in our lifetime.

The next President is going to have a pretty tough job. Newt wants to come back in 2012 as the guy with the answers.....not 2008 as the guy that inherits Bush's mess.

I agree 100%-- Newt knows the problems and knows that the Repub chances for the White House are slim to none...No matter what you think of him, his momma didn't raise no dummy...

I never thought of it that way tho--Vote for Hillary so that she has to suffer through Bush's leftover mess's :???: Nope- not even that is tempting enough :wink: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Red Robin-- It appears that there are several others out there thinking the way you do about a 3rd party candidate-- altho it doesn't appear any would stand much of a chance....
----------------------------------------------

27% of Republicans Would Vote for Pro-Life Third Party Instead of GiulianiThursday, October 04, 2007

If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination and a third party campaign is backed by Christian conservative leaders, 27% of Republican voters say they’d vote for the third party option rather than Giuliani. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that a three-way race with Hillary Clinton would end up with the former First Lady getting 46% of the vote, Giuliani with 30% and the third-party option picking up 14%. In head-to-head match-ups with Clinton, Giuliani is much more competitive.

Over this past weekend, several Christian conservative leaders indicated they might back a pro-life, third-party, candidate if Giuliani wins the nomination.

Election 2008: Clinton vs. Giuliani & Thompson
Surging Clinton Outpaces Giuliani and Thompson
Thursday, September 27, 2007

Senator Hillary Clinton now enjoys a five-point lead over Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. It’s Clinton 48% and Giuliani 43%. The former First Lady also leads former Senator Fred Thompson 49% to 41%.

Both match-ups represent gains for the Democratic frontrunner. But the more modest lead, over Giuliani, is also the more dramatic news.

Two weeks ago, Clinton held a statistically insignificant one-point lead over Giuliani. Prior to that, Clinton had held an advantage over Giuliani only once in fourteen consecutive Rasmussen Reports polls.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Well-- I'd say this puts the White House keys in Hillary's hands-- all she has left to do is to turn the doorknob.... :shock: :shock: :shock:

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

In an editorial published in the New York Times on Thursday, Dobson – who on Saturday attended a meeting of pro-family leaders in Salt Lake City – wrote:
“The secular news media has been reporting in recent months that the conservative Christian movement is hopelessly fractured and internally antagonistic. The Los Angeles Times reported on Monday, for example, that supporters of traditional family values are rapidly ‘splintering.’ That is not true. The near unanimity in Salt Lake City is evidence of much greater harmony than supposed.”


The politically influential evangelical Christian said the purpose of the gathering in Salt Lake City was to discuss the response of Christian conservatives if both the Democrats and Republicans nominate candidates who support abortion.


He wrote in the Times: “After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.”

Dobson concluded: “Admittedly, differences of opinion exist among us about our choices for president. That divergence is entirely reasonable, now just over a year before the national election. It is hardly indicative of a ‘splintering’ of old alliances.

“If the major political parties decide to abandon conservative principles, the cohesion of pro-family advocates will be all too apparent in 2008.”

full story
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Dobson_Christian_Movement/2007/10/05/38437.html
 

TSR

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Well-- I'd say this puts the White House keys in Hillary's hands-- all she has left to do is to turn the doorknob.... :shock: :shock: :shock:

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

In an editorial published in the New York Times on Thursday, Dobson – who on Saturday attended a meeting of pro-family leaders in Salt Lake City – wrote:
“The secular news media has been reporting in recent months that the conservative Christian movement is hopelessly fractured and internally antagonistic. The Los Angeles Times reported on Monday, for example, that supporters of traditional family values are rapidly ‘splintering.’ That is not true. The near unanimity in Salt Lake City is evidence of much greater harmony than supposed.”


The politically influential evangelical Christian said the purpose of the gathering in Salt Lake City was to discuss the response of Christian conservatives if both the Democrats and Republicans nominate candidates who support abortion.


He wrote in the Times: “After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.”

Dobson concluded: “Admittedly, differences of opinion exist among us about our choices for president. That divergence is entirely reasonable, now just over a year before the national election. It is hardly indicative of a ‘splintering’ of old alliances.

“If the major political parties decide to abandon conservative principles, the cohesion of pro-family advocates will be all too apparent in 2008.”

full story
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Dobson_Christian_Movement/2007/10/05/38437.html

I really wonder though if there's time for a strong third party to not only garner the conservative right but when you throw in a do nothing Congress in terms of immigration, trade policies, and the Corporate rule of Congress--It would SEEM that a third party would stand a chance. Being the independent voter that I am I would vote for a third party as a way of voting AGAINST the status quo, if they were any good at all. Somehow we've got to send a message to both parties. IMHO
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'd like to see someone run as a straight Independent...I voted for old Ross twice because I was afraid the other two would sell out our country- and I wasn't far off, as they got the ball rolling with the NAFTA's, CRAPPA's, etal and GW just is continuing the sell out....

But I can't think of any true conservative out there-- excepting Ron Paul that might break away from the party and run...Last I saw he was still drawing in the bucks-even leading the contributions from the military folks....

The only other 3rd party I've even heard mentioned was Bloomberg- and he's worse than Gagliani or Hitlery....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Paul could make a good third party candidate-especially with the recognition he's gotten now with the Repub primaries....

Political positions



Paul gained his reputation as "Dr. No" with his contrarian insistence on "never vot[ing] for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution", along with his medical degree.Paul's foreign policy of non-intervention made him the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. He voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force in response to the World Trade Center terror attacks, but suggested war alternatives such as authorizing the president to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal targeting specific terrorists. He advocates withdrawal from the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty. Civil liberties concerns have led him to oppose the Patriot Act, a national ID card, federal government use of torture, domestic surveillance, and presidential autonomy; he supports free trade but rejects membership in NAFTA and the World Trade Organization as "managed trade". He supports tighter border security and ending welfare benefits for illegal aliens, and opposes birthright citizenship and amnesty; he voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

Paul regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes. He has pledged never to raise taxes, and states he has never voted to approve an unbalanced budget. He would totally abolish the individual income tax while achieving revenue neutrality, by scaling back the federal budget seven years. He would substantially reduce the government's role in individual lives and in the functions of foreign and domestic states; he says Republicans have lost their commitment to limited government and have become the party of big government. Paul supports elimination of most federal government agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, and the Interstate Commerce Commission, calling them unnecessary bureacracies. He argues for hard money such as the silver or gold standard, and advocates gradual elimination of the Federal Reserve central bank for many reasons, believing that economic volatility is decreased when the free market determines interest rates and money supply.

Paul supports states' rights, gun ownership, habeas corpus for political detainees, jury nullification rights, and a Constitutional amendment allowing voluntary and unofficial school prayer; he also favors allowing workers to opt out of Social Security, expanding the free market in health care, recognizing private property rights for pollution prevention, and increasing ballot access. Paul opposes the draft, the federal War on Drugs, socialized health care, the welfare state, foreign aid, judicial activism, federal death penalties, and federal regulation of marriage, education, and the Internet. He supports revising enforcement of the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which he calls "decent", to focus on disruptive behavior and include members with heterosexual as well as homosexual behavior issues. He has voted against federal funding of joint adoption by unmarried couples, including same-sex adoption. Paul calls himself "an unshakable foe of abortion", and believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level".

Campaign finances

By May 2007, Paul had come in second in fundraising in Montana and at the head of the pack of then–second-tier candidates in 14 other states. As of July 6, Ron Paul had the third most cash on hand of the Republican candidates with $2.4 million, putting him ahead of John McCain. Over 99% of Paul's funds had come from individuals, with almost half (47%) raised from small contributions ($200 or less).

Federal Election Commission finance reports for second quarter 2007 indicate that Ron Paul had topped all other presidential candidates in campaign contributions from employees of the armed services, receiving 26.2% of military donations. Among Republican contenders Paul had 49.5% of military support, or nearly as much as all others combined.

Fundraising strengthened again in third quarter 2007, with an August competition among Paul's over 700 local volunteer meetup groups and a fundraising drive the last week of September with a goal of raising $500,000 online by September 30. When the initial goal was well-surpassed after only three days, Paul raised the goal to $1 million, telling supporters, "Frankly, I'm floored. And very, very grateful." This new goal of $1 million was met during the evening of September 29. The amount raised by midnight on September 30 was about $1.2 million. On October 3, the Paul campaign released their fundraising figures for this third quarter. The results were nearly $5.1 million raised, a 114% fundraising increase over last quarter, giving him $5.3 million on hand.
Wikpedia
 

Latest posts

Top