Hillary v. McCain: Don't be shy, take the poll

Thorgrim · 01-31-2008, 12:59 PM

Maybe this will get moved to 2008 later, but for now I wanted it to get front page exposure, and get as many people to vote as possible

If the elections were held today, and the two candidates on the ballot were Hillary Clinton and John McCain, who would you vote for?

*This is based on Ohio law, in which Ron Paul would be excluded because of "sore-loser" laws...you lose your primary, you can't be on the ballot for another party

Grouch · 01-31-2008, 01:00 PM

Lesser of 2 evils. Though not by much.

McCain.

Grouch · 01-31-2008, 01:01 PM

ibpoll

Thorgrim · 01-31-2008, 01:03 PM

yeah the polls up now, u can vote for mccain

bheld · 01-31-2008, 01:06 PM

I can't vote for the least of the evils in the primary and in the general election. I did my duty for the Democrats 4 weeks ago, if it's HRC I'm going Green.

Grouch · 01-31-2008, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

I can't vote for the least of the evils in the primary and in the general election. I did my duty for the Democrats 4 weeks ago, if it's HRC I'm going Green.

nevermind. please get all your obama supporter friends to also go green.

JaJae · 01-31-2008, 01:11 PM

I would begrudgingly have to vote for McCain. The Democrats would be wise to not throw away another election.

bheld · 01-31-2008, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Grouch

I'd save the gas. You're just wasting your time.

My vote means that I was there and I care enough to register my opinion. If I stay home nobody gets the message I want to send.

Nader lost in 2000 but the people that voted for him sent the message that they were not going to put up with a campaign running to the corporate middle. The Democrats had to take notice even though they bitched a lot about it. They know there's a part of the base that will not turn out for them if they keep throwing up moderate shills for the pro-choice wing of the Demopublican party.

Thorgrim · 01-31-2008, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

My vote means that I was there and I care enough to register my opinion. If I stay home nobody gets the message I want to send.

Nader lost in 2000 but the people that voted for him sent the message that they were not going to put up with a campaign running to the corporate middle. The Democrats had to take notice even though they bitched a lot about it. They know there's a part of the base that will not turn out for them if they keep throwing up moderate shills for the pro-choice wing of the Demopublican party.

Every serious Democrat (or Congressmen) I met thinks Nader and his supporters were a bunch of assholes, and want nothing to do with him or his politics...

8 years of George Bush, almost 4000 dead americans in Iraq, i guess they want a cookie for that

bheld · 01-31-2008, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Every serious Democrat (or Congressmen) I met thinks Nader and his supporters were a bunch of assholes, and want nothing to do with him or his politics...

8 years of George Bush, almost 4000 dead americans in Iraq, i guess they want a cookie for that

You don't get change if your vote gets taken for granted. I'm not surprised members of the current establishment were pissed off. They thought they had a free ride and discovered that they can't ignore some of their supporters while they run off trying to appeal to the wealthy and special interests.

The Democrats ran a terrible campaign in 2000, just like they did in 2004. They pussyfooted around, looked ambivalent, and lost to the worst president we've ever had TWICE. You can't blame the voters any more than an ugly girl can blame the judges for losing the beauty contest.

Linzyhop · 01-31-2008, 01:25 PM

mccain

Publius · 01-31-2008, 01:31 PM

I'm voting for the LP candidate regardless of who wins the primaries unless Paul comes out of nowhere to steal it (yea right). And even then I have a few reservations.

motivez · 01-31-2008, 01:32 PM

Clinton, we can't afford another 4 years of a Republican in office, certainly not a huge phony who has no core principles he's willing to stick with even if it means losing an election like McCain..

And it's not just that he's changed his mind on a few issues, I expect people to do that over time, it's that he's completely reversed himself on everything he considered important in 2000.. and it's obvious why, he wants the conservative base vote

Even if he wasn't a phony (he is), he's too old, you can already tell he's not as sharp as he used to be listening to him at the debates.. how much older can he really get while still having the physical and mental capacity to carry out the duties of the office?

Looking at Bush II or Bill Clinton or anyone else age over their first term, it's dramatic.. as old as he is now, I just have to worry

Clinton isn't my top choice though, she's almost as bad as McCain when it comes to pandering.. basing her opinions on polls, etc, but she'd still be better than McCain by far

motivez · 01-31-2008, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

My vote means that I was there and I care enough to register my opinion. If I stay home nobody gets the message I want to send.

Nader lost in 2000 but the people that voted for him sent the message that they were not going to put up with a campaign running to the corporate middle. The Democrats had to take notice even though they bitched a lot about it. They know there's a part of the base that will not turn out for them if they keep throwing up moderate shills for the pro-choice wing of the Demopublican party.

That's not a very pragmatic approach

Reality is, Nader cost Gore the election in Florida (along with the Supreme Court, but that's a separate issue), and as a result, we've had to put up with 8 years of incompetence and an unnecessary war

Why risk repeating that with so much at stake by helping a Republican who'll continue Bush's policies get elected again?

bheld · 01-31-2008, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

That's not a very pragmatic approach

Reality is, Nader cost Gore the election in Florida (along with the Supreme Court, but that's a separate issue), and as a result, we've had to put up with 8 years of incompetence and an unnecessary war

Why risk repeating that with so much at stake by helping a Republican who'll continue Bush's policies get elected again?

It's the most pragmatic approach. Voting for the least detestable candidate will not get me what I want. What it will get me is the assurance that I will continue to get more of the same and that in 4 years I can look forward to yet again voting for the least detestable candidate. Voting for a person because there's a D next to their name is not pragmatic, it's the complete opposite.

I don't bear the burden of the possibility of repeating the past, the Democratic Party as a whole does. They should have learned their lesson by now. If not, it's not my fault.

lew · 01-31-2008, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Every serious Democrat (or Congressmen) I met thinks Nader and his supporters were a bunch of assholes, and want nothing to do with him or his politics...

8 years of George Bush, almost 4000 dead americans in Iraq, i guess they want a cookie for that

Yes, because Bush's failed policies all are Nader's fault.

Just like when the Republicans say that all of Clinton's failed policies are Perot's fault.

lew · 01-31-2008, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Clinton, we can't afford another 4 years of a Republican in office, certainly not a huge phony who has no core principles he's willing to stick with even if it means losing an election like McCain..

And it's not just that he's changed his mind on a few issues, I expect people to do that over time, it's that he's completely reversed himself on everything he considered important in 2000.. and it's obvious why, he wants the conservative base vote

Even if he wasn't a phony (he is), he's too old, you can already tell he's not as sharp as he used to be listening to him at the debates.. how much older can he really get while still having the physical and mental capacity to carry out the duties of the office?

Looking at Bush II or Bill Clinton or anyone else age over their first term, it's dramatic.. as old as he is now, I just have to worry

Clinton isn't my top choice though, she's almost as bad as McCain when it comes to pandering.. basing her opinions on polls, etc, but she'd still be better than McCain by far

Which is really funny, since the conservatives still are not voting for McCain. So, it's a complete waste.

lew · 01-31-2008, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

That's not a very pragmatic approach

Reality is, Nader cost Gore the election in Florida (along with the Supreme Court, but that's a separate issue), and as a result, we've had to put up with 8 years of incompetence and an unnecessary war

Why risk repeating that with so much at stake by helping a Republican who'll continue Bush's policies get elected again?

No, Nader did not cost Gore the election. Gore cost Gore the election.

Scrum · 01-31-2008, 02:03 PM

I voted Hilary, but she just barely wins over 3rd party/write in. I would at least feel better about her if she brings someone like Clark in as VP.

McCain is just more of the same crap we have had for the past 8 years. I can't see myself voting for him under any circumstances.

If it weren't for the SC positions that could come up, I would rather vote Nader.

motivez · 01-31-2008, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

It's the most pragmatic approach. Voting for the least detestable candidate will not get me what I want. What it will get me is the assurance that I will continue to get more of the same and that in 4 years I can look forward to yet again voting for the least detestable candidate. Voting for a person because there's a D next to their name is not pragmatic, it's the complete opposite.

I don't bear the burden of the possibility of repeating the past, the Democratic Party as a whole does. They should have learned their lesson by now. If not, it's not my fault.

Voting for someone who has 0 chance of winning when you have two candidates that do and want to take the country in very different directions (and you're closer politically to one of them) isn't pragmatic, it's idealistic. Maybe you're an idealist instead of a pragmatist.

On the one hand, you have a Democratic candidate that wants to take the country in a direction far more similar to that of the green party than the Republican candidate.. and on the other, you have someone like Nader who'll essentially be leeching votes from the candidate closest to his agenda, potentially assuring someone who'll take the country further away from his ideals will be elected.

It's not a practical solution to the ills of the country to vote for someone with no chance of winning this cycle.

I don't give the Democrats a free pass, but anyone who'd vote for the Green Party would have to believe the Democrats are a better choice than the Republicans, because they're far closer to them on the issues.

View Poll Results: Election TODAY: Hillary Clinton or John McCain
Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton	14	37.84%
John Sidney McCain III	12	32.43%
I would vote for a 3rd party/Write in Candidate	9	24.32%
I wouldn't bother to vote in 2008	2	5.41%
Voters: 37. You may not vote on this poll