Rasmussen: Biden trails Rudy by 16 points

Thorgrim · 08-16-2007, 01:09 PM

Rudy Giuliani (R) 50%
Joe Biden (D) 34%

Fred Thompson (R) 39%
Joe Biden (D) 39%

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a mid-term election.

One of the pressing reasons why I wouldn't back Biden...he's on every TV media constantly, yet he's losing by 16 points to Rudy, and just ties far-right Thompson

Anyone who wants to back Biden should consider those terrible numbers

DosEquis · 08-16-2007, 05:21 PM

Its early and I am not going to change my support because the poll number is not ideal. Despite his TV appearances, there are a lot of people who have no idea who he is or what his positions are. I like his positions on nearly everything, i like that he is plain spoken, and i like that he was one of the first to come up with a new plan for Iraq. He is the best candidate with arguably the most experience in my view.

Ardentfrost · 08-16-2007, 08:11 PM

Jesus Christ, some people support candidates because their ideals closely match their own, not because of poll numbers. I can understand wanting to back a winner, but it's that thinking that keeps us on the damn 2 party system.

Sorry to rant.

lew · 08-17-2007, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Jesus Christ, some people support candidates because their ideals closely match their own, not because of poll numbers. I can understand wanting to back a winner, but it's that thinking that keeps us on the damn 2 party system.

Sorry to rant.

.

We're deciding who's going to be the next President of the United States for christ's sake.

It's not a fucking popularity contest. Back whomever you think will be the best. Not who is "winnable." And not who has the highest poll numbers.

motivez · 08-17-2007, 12:54 PM

I think there's a lot of people who view this election as more important than most, and rallying support behind someone who has the best chance of winning in the general election early on makes sense for those people

I don't disagree with them really, I don't think we can afford another Republican President who'll carry on Bush's policies.. if it means I have to vote for someone less ideologically in line with where I am to prevent that, I don't really have a problem doing it.

The lesser of two evils is an acceptable compromise, although as someone said, if you always pick the lesser of two evils, you'll always have evil.. but again, I think this election is more important than most.

lew · 08-17-2007, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I think there's a lot of people who view this election as more important than most, and rallying support behind someone who has the best chance of winning in the general election early on makes sense for those people

I don't disagree with them really, I don't think we can afford another Republican President who'll carry on Bush's policies.. if it means I have to vote for someone less ideologically in line with where I am to prevent that, I don't really have a problem doing it.

The lesser of two evils is an acceptable compromise, although as someone said, if you always pick the lesser of two evils, you'll always have evil.. but again, I think this election is more important than most.

That position is literally argued at EVERY election. It's time for something that is not the lesser of two evils, but something that is truly good.

motivez · 08-17-2007, 12:59 PM

I dunno, the last one and this one are important, moreso than normal IMO.

Getting Bush and people like him out of power is more important than voting solely based on principle this election.. have to be practical about what the rest of the country is going to do.

Thorgrim · 08-17-2007, 01:03 PM

Does no one forget people going "vote green or libertarians in 2000, i mean, gore and bush are exactly the same people?"

Now look at all the horrible things Bush has done to this country, I can't think of one Gore would have done, and with a GOP Congress I can't think of any "radical" agenda he would have passed...his big idea was a lockbox...ooo scary

Rouger2 · 08-17-2007, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I dunno, the last one and this one are important, moreso than normal IMO.

Getting Bush and people like him out of power is more important than voting solely based on principle this election.. have to be practical about what the rest of the country is going to do.

It is to early to get that practical. Fight for who you think is best right now.

lew · 08-17-2007, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Does no one forget people going "vote green or libertarians in 2000, i mean, gore and bush are exactly the same people?"

Now look at all the horrible things Bush has done to this country, I can't think of one Gore would have done, and with a GOP Congress I can't think of any "radical" agenda he would have passed...his big idea was a lockbox...ooo scary

Gore and Bush were essentially the same.

Of course you can't think of anything bad Gore would have done, you love him.

Thorgrim · 08-17-2007, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Gore and Bush were essentially the same.

Of course you can't think of anything bad Gore would have done, you love him.

Fine, start naming all the horrible things President Gore would have done with a GOP Congress and Senate

Ardentfrost · 08-17-2007, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Fine, start naming all the horrible things President Gore would have done with a GOP Congress and Senate

He would have taxes the hell out of businesses so much they would have had no choice other than moving off shore, costing Americans millions of jobs, tossing us into the worst depression and level of unemployment any country has ever see.

You can disprove what I just said just as much as you can prove all the "good" you think he would have done. No one talks about how Stephen Douglas would have dealt with slavery even though he lost the 1860 election, bringing up that you THINK Gore would have done better is completely pointless.

I will say that I doubt anyone carrying Bush's views on how the country should be run and what our role in the world should be has a chance of winning the next election, be they republican or democrat. If Bush2 got the republican nomination, I think a chimpanzee could run against him and win. What democrats should be hoping for is Guilliani (or someone like him) winning the Republican nomination because then they could nominate anyone they want, and they'd be nearly guaranteed to win (just keep pushing the fact that Bush2 is just like Bush, and people will remember they don't like Bush).

Thorgrim · 08-17-2007, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

He would have taxes the hell out of businesses so much they would have had no choice other than moving off shore, costing Americans millions of jobs, tossing us into the worst depression and level of unemployment any country has ever see.

You can disprove what I just said just as much as you can prove all the "good" you think he would have done. No one talks about how Stephen Douglas would have dealt with slavery even though he lost the 1860 election, bringing up that you THINK Gore would have done better is completely pointless.

I will say that I doubt anyone carrying Bush's views on how the country should be run and what our role in the world should be has a chance of winning the next election, be they republican or democrat. If Bush2 got the republican nomination, I think a chimpanzee could run against him and win. What democrats should be hoping for is Guilliani (or someone like him) winning the Republican nomination because then they could nominate anyone they want, and they'd be nearly guaranteed to win (just keep pushing the fact that Bush2 is just like Bush, and people will remember they don't like Bush).

Gore had a plan to cut taxes for the middle class, and never once did he mention raising any taxes on businesses...

X that

Ardentfrost · 08-17-2007, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Gore had a plan to cut taxes for the middle class, and never once did he mention raising any taxes on businesses...

X that

Bush won on the platform of reducing the size of the federal government. What he *said* means little.

Thorgrim · 08-17-2007, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Bush won on the platform of reducing the size of the federal government. What he *said* means little.

That's general, we're talking specifics...Gore had a specific tax plan to deal with the surplus, Bush had vague statements about other issues...but a specific plan to cut taxes for the wealthy, which people gobbled up, he followed through on that

Ardentfrost · 08-17-2007, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

That's general, we're talking specifics...Gore had a specific tax plan to deal with the surplus, Bush had vague statements about other issues...but a specific plan to cut taxes for the wealthy, which people gobbled up, he followed through on that

You're still comparing Gore's ideals to Bush's actions. Bush has been a shit president, but no amount of ideals can prove that Gore would have been less shitty (or more).

Even talking about it is a waste of time. If Gore were running this time it would be different. But he's not.