(POL) Official Super Tuesday Thread

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

There's a lot fewer of them now than 4 years ago. You can track the number by following Bush's approval rating. That equals the core republican base +/- a few percentage points.

Um... there is PLENTY of core Republican base which doesn't like Bush. I personally know a few.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

There's a lot fewer of them now than 4 years ago. You can track the number by following Bush's approval rating. That equals the core republican base +/- a few percentage points.

I don't know where this logic comes from. I voted for Bush both times and am extremely disappointed in his performance for the past two years. I guess that I am no longer a republican, right?

Just because you don't approve of a sitting republican president doesn't mean you won't vote for Romney or McCain.

[Fighter of Foo]

I'm not making this stuff up.

http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=312

"Even more striking than the changes in some core political and social values is the dramatic shift in party identification that has occurred during the past five years. In 2002, the country was equally divided along partisan lines: 43% identified with the Republican Party or leaned to the GOP, while an identical proportion said they were Democrats. Today, half of the public (50%) either identifies as a Democrat or says they lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 35% who align with the GOP.

Yet the Democrats' growing advantage in party identification is tempered by the fact that the Democratic Party's overall standing with the public is no better than it was when President Bush was first inaugurated in 2001. Instead, it is the Republican Party that has rapidly lost public support, particularly among political independents. Faced with an unpopular president who is waging an increasingly unpopular war, the proportion of Americans who hold a favorable view of the Republican Party stands at 41%, down 15 points since January 2001. But during that same period, the proportion expressing a positive view of Democrats has declined by six points, to 54%."

[ISiddiqui]

Instead, it is the Republican Party that has rapidly lost public support, particularly among political independents. Faced with an unpopular president who is waging an increasingly unpopular war, the proportion of Americans who hold a favorable view of the Republican Party stands at 41%, down 15 points since January 2001.

And, of course, a McCain nomination wouldn't bring back in the indeps? Like McCain always has? I know, a lot of Republicans have started to call themselves Libertarians (an annoying habit) because of this President. But there is no doubt that they'll run back in a flash when McCain or Romney is the nominee.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Arles

I guess that I am no longer a republican, right?

Just because you don't approve of a sitting republican president doesn't mean you won't vote for Romney or McCain.

Where did I write that? How did you get there? This is why I hate talking politics.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

I'm not making this stuff up.

http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=312

I'll grant you this. You're really good at linking a lot of articles that support your bias leanings. Quote all the polls you want. Just because there's a lot of Republicans who don't like what Dubya was as a president doesn't mean that they are any more happy with what the Democrats are as a party or as a congressional governing body.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And, of course, a McCain nomination wouldn't bring back in the indeps? Like McCain always has? I know, a lot of Republicans have started to call themselves Libertarians (an annoying habit) because of this President. But there is no doubt that they'll run back in a flash when McCain or Romney is the nominee.

Oh I agree. It's just that this year anyone with an R next to their name is starting on average 7-8 points behind anyone with a D. That's a big disadvantage.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Oh I agree. It's just that this year anyone with an R next to their name is starting on average 7-8 points behind anyone with a D. That's a big disadvantage.

Like I said, not if you read the head to head polls. And this time you can't use the "It's February" thing, because you said "STARTING on average".

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'll grant you this. You're really good at linking a lot of articles that support your bias leanings. Quote all the polls you want. Just because there's a lot of Republicans who don't like what Dubya was as a president doesn't mean that they are any more happy with what the Democrats are as a party or as a congressional governing body.

Because I only gamble on what will happen and I don't vote, I'm probably the least biased person here. If I am biased, I lose $$$.

If you'd like to add something else to the discussion please do, but take your bias bullshit someplace else.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Because I only gamble on what will happen and I don't vote, I'm probably the least biased person here. If I am biased, I lose $$$.

If you'd like to add something else to the discussion please do, but take your bias bullshit someplace else.

Congrats on being a gambler.

[Arles]

All that means is that 7-8% of the "rank and file" GOP from 2002 now wish to be considered "independents" because of their frustration with Bush. I don't see how that relates to them voting for Hillary or Obama. The best case would be that they just sit out, but I'm guessing all the hub-ub leading up to November will have them voting (even if it's just to keep Hillary/Obama from office). If Bush were on the ticket, I think that analysis may have some merit - but he's not.

Another point is that data you list was from 2002, which was probably the high point in republican unity. If you look at 2004, the advantage was 47 Dem - 41 Rep and Bush still won. So, if Bush (who helped create the negative trend) can win with a mid-level deficit, I'd guess a new candidate could also win with a slightly larger deficit.

Also, t for those of you valueing head-to-head, check out this poll by CNN back in Feb, 2004:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...oll/index.html

In a head-to-head contest, 55 percent said they would choose Kerry for president over Bush, who drew the support of 43 percent. Edwards led the president 54 percent to 44 percent.

According to Polls, either Edwards or Kerry would have walked over Bush back in early 2004. Once the candidates are chosen and the real campaign begins, these polls have a tendency to do some pretty big shifting. Right now, no one knows much about the policies of these guys (esp Romney and Obama) and we are in the "platitude courting phase" in each party.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Like I said, not if you read the head to head polls. And this time you can't use the "It's February" thing, because you said "STARTING on average".

I'm confused. You start with whoever self-identifies with your party (i.e. registered republicans). That's your base. As a candidate, you then try to do 2 things:

1) get your base to turnout
2) win over indys

If your base is high enough, 2) doesn't matter. We already know what the base numbers are nationally for each party. I posted it above. That's the start. The head to head polls at this point are essentially only measuring indy support, which can't accurately be measured until a week or two after both conventions finish.

[Galaxy]

You gamble on elections?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Arles

All that means is that 7-8% of the "rank and file" GOP from 2002 now wish to be considered "independents" because of their frustration with Bush. I don't see how that relates to them voting for Hillary or Obama. The best case would be that they just sit out, but I'm guessing all the hub-ub leading up to November will have them voting (even if it's just to keep Hillary/Obama from office). If Bush were on the ticket, I think that analysis may have some merit - but he's not.

I know more than a few of these people and consider myself among them. I don't think that the GOP nominee is going to get many of them to convert in November. I think people will sit on their hands come election day, vote third party or not bother at all.

Where I live now and where I'm moving are both places where my vote won't have a demonstrable impact on the final results, making me more likely to vote as I would normally (for the third party candidate that best represents my viewpoints) since neither of the presumptive major party candidates will come close.

I do know that younger people who have tended towards the GOP either because of family commitments, legacy or other such reasons are more and more considering Obama. Which is just downright strange on paper, but one good example of a difference between Hillary and Obama are their healthcare plans.

Obama is smart enough to realize that independents and fence-sitters who would vote for him are not going to want mandatory health care plans enacted, where Hillary's plan has mandates. Doubtful they'd get passed to begin with, but it does leave her progressive base happy with her for that reason.

But that's just one clear example where he's already angling for people in the centre and on the right of centre to vote for him and the fact that he's positioning himself that way in the primaries signals that he'll either live or die by the whole "unity" candidacy deal.

So while in the past, I doubt it'd do much for him. I think this year that the unique turn of events of the past eight years have really made a guy like him palatable to a voting populace that would normally dismiss him on face.

But we'll have evidence to weigh whether any of it means anything later tonight and beyond.

[Fighter of Foo]

Start here:
http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/

This is for larger amounts of $$$:
https://www.intrade.com


Bodog always puts up really soft lines for all Presidential and Senate races. In 2006 they had a line up for someone running unopposed. Max $50 though

Pinnacle often has lines up too, but you need to be "Canadian" or non-US to bet there.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Arles

All that means is that 7-8% of the "rank and file" GOP from 2002 now wish to be considered "independents" because of their frustration with Bush. I don't see how that relates to them voting for Hillary or Obama. The best case would be that they just sit out, but I'm guessing all the hub-ub leading up to November will have them voting (even if it's just to keep Hillary/Obama from office). If Bush were on the ticket, I think that analysis may have some merit - but he's not.

I'd actually vote for Bush over Hillary if that were the current election. It has little to do with whether I like Bush and a whole lot to do with how much I don't like Hillary. I'm willing to consider Obama once I hear what his actual policies are. I don't know much of anything about him at this point. I like McCain as a moderate change for the Republicans.

[DaddyTorgo]

nothing better than cnn.com for exit-polling, is there?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

The head to head polls at this point are essentially only measuring indy support, which can't accurately be measured until a week or two after both conventions finish.

That's not true and you realize that. They don't just ask indeps, but people across the board, which include the Rep and Dem core voters as well. It's a good starting point as any, especially when the Rep we are talking about has more appeal to moderates and indeps than he does to hard core conservatives.

[path12]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

As Bucc said, follow the head to head polls.

McCain knows how to play the game (look at how he ran Romney around ragged about the timetable issue). I fear Obama won't be able to keep up with the political tricks McCain has (who, btw, also has a tendancy to attract independants).

I'm not buying the McCain=independents thing this time around. I think he burnt a lot of bridges with independents with his flat out courting of the right wingers over the past year or so. If Obama can grab the nomination, I think the independents break his way much more so than towards McCain.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Just curious. Does anyone else have a state that has a lot of 'sabotage' votes cast? I live in Missouri and you can request a ballot for either party, regardless of any party affiliation. I know quite a few republicans who requested Democratic ballots simply to vote for Clinton in the hopes that she can secure the nomination, which would seem to favor the Republicans in a general election.

I know some states don't allow this kind of voting. Does anyone know how many states do allow it?

[Jas_lov]

Head to head polls show McCain as the Republicans best show to win in November. Romney would lose in a landslide. But other than that, those polls are meaningless until we get down to two. Arles posted a poll that had Kerry up by 10% in February and look what happened. I'm one of the people Foo is talking about and I won't be voting for John McCain. It's obvious there's a shift from Republican to Democrat. Republicans were wiped out in 2006. There seems to be a lot more turnout for Democrats in the primaries. McCain will get independents, but so will Obama. Who do you think those guys will side with, the guy who wants to leave Iraq or the guy who wants to stay there for 100 years?

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by path12

I'm not buying the McCain=independents thing this time around. I think he burnt a lot of bridges with independents with his flat out courting of the right wingers over the past year or so. If Obama can grab the nomination, I think the independents break his way much more so than towards McCain.

I am an independant/moderate voter, and I can not participate in today's primary because Massachusetts has closed primaries. For me, I'm not as fond of Mccain as I was a few years ago, but he is the only Republican candidate that i would consider voting for. It is more of a statement of how much I don't want Clinton in the White House than what I think of Mccain.

Right now, I am leaning heavily towards Obama if he gets the nomination. I'm also trying to convince my in-laws who live in California to vote Obama today, but I think they're leaning towards Clinton for who knows what reason!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Who do you think those guys will side with, the guy who wants to leave Iraq or the guy who wants to stay there for 100 years?

This is what I was discussing earlier when I said I'd be willing to consider Obama once I know some of the specifics behind his policies. It's easy to say that he'll just take the troops out of Iraq and be done with it. It's another thing to present his foreign policy and let everyone know how he will deal with terrorists in foreign lands once we have pulled all of those troops out of those countries. I'm not saying that there isn't an alternative solution.......it's just that he hasn't presented it yet in any specific form.

[Warhammer]

I'll sum this up for everyone:

Clinton wins the Dem. nomination = Republican win in November
Obama wins the Dem. nomination = Democrat landslide in November

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by path12

I'm not buying the McCain=independents thing this time around. I think he burnt a lot of bridges with independents with his flat out courting of the right wingers over the past year or so. If Obama can grab the nomination, I think the independents break his way much more so than towards McCain.

The primaries so far have shown that McCain is doing very well with independant voters. They've given him victories in the open primaries that have been held. When it is a closed primary, he does much worse.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I'll sum this up for everyone:

Clinton wins the Dem. nomination = Republican win in November
Obama wins the Dem. nomination = Democrat landslide in November

And I'll sum up my response: Bullshit

[path12]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The primaries so far have shown that McCain is doing very well with independant voters. They've given him victories in the open primaries that have been held. When it is a closed primary, he does much worse.

But the turnout for open primaries has been 2-1 Democratic vs Republican. I don't doubt that McCain is getting the lions share of independent votes in the Republican primaries. But Obama is getting the lions share of indep votes in the Democratic primaries, and I believe that he would get a far larger share than McCain if the general came down to the two of them.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

1. The approval rating of Dubya has little to do with whether the Republican core voters will support the next Republican candidate.
2. Show me a correlation with turnout in primaries vs. turnout in the general election. It simply isn't there.
3. The economy is in its current state with a Republican president with low ratings and a Democratic Congress with even lower ratings. As Barack says, we did it together.
4. McCain is a much different candidate than Dubya. Whether he wins or not is up in the air, but it's certainly not a Democratic steamroll in the general election as you are trying to imply.

I see Obama and has superior debating/speaking skills crushing McCain in debates.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Just curious. Does anyone else have a state that has a lot of 'sabotage' votes cast? I live in Missouri and you can request a ballot for either party, regardless of any party affiliation. I know quite a few republicans who requested Democratic ballots simply to vote for Clinton in the hopes that she can secure the nomination, which would seem to favor the Republicans in a general election.

I know some states don't allow this kind of voting. Does anyone know how many states do allow it?

So, I guess lying and cheating isn't just a republican value and not just isolated to your presidents, huh?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Galaril

I see Obama and has superior debating/speaking skills crushing McCain in debates.

And that may very well be the case. I think McCain/Obama debates would actually be very entertaining. As I said, I'm willing to consider Obama, but I want to hear him actually talk about specific policies. Also, I could see McCain pulling a Bob Dole (i.e. trying to look so presidential that he doesn't let his personality come through). IMO, it does seem as though McCain is a bit looser this time than in his previous presidential runs. Obama does a great job of keeping an even keel, even under attack from Hillary.

[Arles]

If I had to guess, I would start out with all matchups being close. With the 24-hour news cycle and cable TV, politics is much more of a "team sport" than it was when Reagan won back in the 80s. Both side will pretty much start out with 40% of the popular vote regardless of the candidate. If you discount the 1-3% of the 3rd party (maybe Bloomberg?), that leaves a 20% window up for grabs. Here's how I see that 20% going:

Hillary-McCain = 9-11
Hillary-Romney= 8-12
Obama-McCain=12-8
Obama-Romney=11-9

From an electoral standpoint, I'd say the republican wins all the red states that Bush won in 04 but AZ, CO, NM, FL, IA and OH regardess. For the Dems, they win all but PA, WI, MI, NH and maybe MN. So, it comes down to which democrat has a better shot at the West and which republican can hold OH, FL and make a run at PA. IMO, the democrat is Obama and the republican is Romney. Still, if Romney ran against Obama, I think it would be extremely close and one of those 278-260 type finishes. Even if Hillary ran against McCain or Romney, it still would be close as there just isn't much wiggle room in likely voters. In February, everyone's excited about the new blood (heck, Dole was favored over Clinton in 96). But things tend to get back to an equilibrium point by October and that's where the final margin is usually decided.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by path12

But the turnout for open primaries has been 2-1 Democratic vs Republican. I don't doubt that McCain is getting the lions share of independent votes in the Republican primaries. But Obama is getting the lions share of indep votes in the Democratic primaries, and I believe that he would get a far larger share than McCain if the general came down to the two of them.

Maybe, maybe not. I think a lot of people voting for Obama don't necessarily know his views on things, just bold pronouncements for unity and change. I think if it comes down to McCain and Obama, McCain may start pulling up stuff like Obama being the most liberal Senator based on his votes, even more liberal than Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, and some independants may say, wait a sec...

Obama hasn't really had to face someone hammering him for being too liberal, because, well... Clinton isn't going to do that and get on the good side of Dem voters. McCain, OTOH, will... and we'll have to see which way the indeps go, left or right (and somehow McCain has a perception of being a moderate).

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And I'll sum up my response: Bullshit

My whole premise is that the one person that can save the Republican party is Hillary Clinton. That said, I think a Republican loss in 2008 is going to be healthy for the country. The Republican Party needs to do some soul searching right now. If they win, there won't be any soul searching.

Mc Cain will win the vote of the independents in a race against Clinton. Look at how Hillary has looked against Obama. She should crush him easily, but the more that people look at the two of them, the more they prefer Obama to her.

That said, I don't think a Hillary or McCain presidency is going to be any different. I would see more scandals with Hillary in office than McCain.

Obama crushes McCain because he has a rosy vision for the future. He really is a throwback to Reagan in that regard. Reagan was in turn a throwback to Kennedy. Sure, their policies are different, but they all believed that the USA was the greatest nation on this Earth and that we have the ability to improve the world.

[Coffee Warlord]

If Steve from the Dupage County Ron Paul Office calls me one more time and tells me to make sure I vote for the right delegates, I'm going to stab him.

[path12]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Maybe, maybe not. I think a lot of people voting for Obama don't necessarily know his views on things, just bold pronouncements for unity and change. I think if it comes down to McCain and Obama, McCain may start pulling up stuff like Obama being the most liberal Senator based on his votes, even more liberal than Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, and some independants may say, wait a sec...

I found it quite interesting that in 2004 Kerry just happened to have the most liberal record and in 2008 Obama just happens to also. Makes me wonder about the group putting that list together -- after all, who decides which positions/votes are "liberal"? I also think that Obama's campaign premise of coming together is far more centrist than the campaign that Hillary is running for example.

I see where you're coming from and you could well be right that an Obama/McCain matchup would be closer than I see it from the deep blue Northwest, but I just can't help but feel that a) voters are taking this election very seriously very early, b) there is a deep distrust generated by the past eight years of this administration and c) an unwillingness to just go along with media pronouncements and generalizations. All of those factors point to a big shift election this time around. I think it's close if Hillary is the Dem nominee, I don't think it's nearly as close if Obama is.......and I don't think it really matters who the Republican nominee is.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Obama crushes McCain because he has a rosy vision for the future. He really is a throwback to Reagan in that regard. Reagan was in turn a throwback to Kennedy. Sure, their policies are different, but they all believed that the USA was the greatest nation on this Earth and that we have the ability to improve the world.

I think that's an incredibly rose glasses view of things. McCain is optimistic about America's future as well and he's also a savvy politician. He'll find ways to point to the fact that Obama is liberal on X, Y, Z position and some indeps may realize that while Obama was talking about unity and change, they didn't realize he meant that much change.

There are few folks running today who don't look at the country with optimism. I think the problem is, is that folks that just run on optimism are going to have a difficult time when their policies are become center stage instead.

Reagan was lucky in that Carter was running for re-election. But McCain is seen as been a bit more distant from this administration while being in the same party. I do think that Democrats who back either Clinton or Obama are underestimating the appeal of John McCain to moderates and independants.

[Jas_lov]

West Virginia convention is going on now. The winner gets all of the 18/30 WV delegates.

1st round results...

MIKE HUCKABEE - 375 votes (33%)
JOHN McCAIN - 176 votes (16%)
RON PAUL - 118 votes (10%)
MITT ROMNEY - 464 votes (41%)

Ron Paul is now eliminated and his and the rest of the delegates will re-vote in the 2nd round for the other 3. I wonder if Paul's votes will go to Huckabee.

[Jas_lov]

Yep, Mike Huckabee is the winner of WV and 18/30 delegates there. What happened was McCain voters saw voting for him as a lost cause and went for Huckabee over Romney.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by path12

I see where you're coming from and you could well be right that an Obama/McCain matchup would be closer than I see it from the deep blue Northwest, but I just can't help but feel that a) voters are taking this election very seriously very early, b) there is a deep distrust generated by the past eight years of this administration and c) an unwillingness to just go along with media pronouncements and generalizations. All of those factors point to a big shift election this time around. I think it's close if Hillary is the Dem nominee, I don't think it's nearly as close if Obama is.......and I don't think it really matters who the Republican nominee is.

This is astoundingly accurate.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

This is astoundingly accurate.

Aw, shucks.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'll grant you this. You're really good at linking a lot of articles that support your bias leanings. Quote all the polls you want. Just because there's a lot of Republicans who don't like what Dubya was as a president doesn't mean that they are any more happy with what the Democrats are as a party or as a congressional governing body.

Et Tu, Brutus? you're lecturing someone on bias?

The Pew Research center notes that party identification has given Dems their biggest advantage in a long, long time. McCain is perhaps the only GOP candidate who may be able to bite into that and win this election for them.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Et Tu, Brutus? you're lecturing someone on bias?

I've crosseed party lines a few times. I'm certainly not a straight ticket voter. Not sure where you see my opinion as being bias. I've already stated that I'd consider Obama as long as I understood his policies.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Arles

I don't know where this logic comes from. I voted for Bush both times and am extremely disappointed in his performance for the past two years. I guess that I am no longer a republican, right?

Just because you don't approve of a sitting republican president doesn't mean you won't vote for Romney or McCain.

I don't want either of those guys.

Just one reason why:

I'm really kind of horrified at the idea that both of them want a national sexual predator registry. Either lock sexual predators up for life, or treat them as you would any other criminal who's paid their debt to society. The idea that we have this special class that needs to be tracked for the rest of their lives and impeded from living a normal life is, to me, in direct contradiction with the 14th Amendment.

If recidivism is so high in that group that they cannot be considered to be rehabilitated, why are we releasing them?

I just don't get how you can have two guys claim that they want judicial strict constructionists on the bench, and then support something like this.

[Fighter of Foo]

Can't format poll

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I've crosseed party lines a few times. I'm certainly not a straight ticket voter. Not sure where you see my opinion as being bias. I've already stated that I'd consider Obama as long as I understood his policies.

I think that he's been out there speaking on the issues. But because he's a good speaker, the media only covers the speaking events where he "inspires" or whatever by making good sound bytes.

Andrew Sullivan had to say this last year about him (he's a supporter of Obama, though, I'm not sure he was at that time of this story)

Earlier this fall, I attended an Obama speech in Washington on tax policy that underwhelmed on delivery; his address was wooden, stilted, even tedious. It was only after I left the hotel that it occurred to me that I’d just been bored on tax policy by a national black leader. That I should have been struck by this was born in my own racial stereotypes, of course. But it won me over.

...And the persistence of race as a divisive, even explosive factor in American life was unmissable the week of Obama’s tax speech. While he was detailing middle-class tax breaks, thousands of activists were preparing to march in Jena, Louisiana, after a series of crude racial incidents had blown up into a polarizing conflict.

I think the myth of him not being strong on policy just isn't true. I just think it's a matter of way he's covered and the natural of the beast at this time of year.

[DanGarion]

It sucks being a registered Lib. since I don't get to participate in the top battles. Heck I don't even know who these guys are on my ballot!

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by dangarion

It sucks being a registered Lib. since I don't get to participate in the top battles. Heck I don't even know who these guys are on my ballot!

That's why I am a registered democrat. The only way I can participate in meaningful elections (those would be the democratic primary) is to register as a democrat. It will be a cold day in hell the next time a Republic is chosen by the District of Columbia.

I vote Statehood-Green.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I've crosseed party lines a few times. I'm certainly not a straight ticket voter. Not sure where you see my opinion as being bias. I've already stated that I'd consider Obama as long as I understood his policies.

Let me try to clarify: Obama voted for the PS3 before he voted against it.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by dangarion

It sucks being a registered Lib. since I don't get to participate in the top battles. Heck I don't even know who these guys are on my ballot!

Then why would you be a registered libertarion?

And why would anyone be a registered independent?

Wouldn't it make sense to register as one of the two major parties so that you could vote in the primary? And then once the general election comes around, you can vote for whomever you want?

What am I missing?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Then why would you be a registered libertarion?

And why would anyone be a registered independent?

Wouldn't it make sense to register as one of the two major parties so that you could vote in the primary? And then once the general election comes around, you can vote for whomever you want?

What am I missing?

Avoid election spam in the mailboxes would be my guess.