US Presidential Straw Poll (3)

[Puppycow]

With primary season approaching, how about one final JREF Straw Poll? Last time (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90075) Obama, Clinton, Giuliani, Paul and Kucinich were the top vote getters in that order. This time I'm going to drop Gore and other non-candidates or candidates I consider to have too little support (if you insist on a fringe candidate, vote for Other/Planet X, but please consider voting for one of the 'viable' candidates you would accept as a second or third choice.

Also, if you can articulate why you think your candidate is the best choice for America, please do so.

[In My Spare Time]

Edwards. Not as woo as Dennis, not as republican in disguise as Clinton, way better health plan than Obama, not an actual republican, good on class issues. Also: too religious and HORRID on gay issues, but I don't see anyone there that doesn't have at least one of those traits. Go least worst!

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm bloody desperate for Obama to beat the Ice-Queen (IMO) H.Clinton.

Looking at it from a purely foreign position, and being an obsessive in the issues of terrorism, I see the world as desperatly needing a David, rather than a Goliath. I highly doubt Hillary can ever be anything other than the latter.

His transparency bill that was signed in by Bush, and which was created jointly with a republican, is the very evidence of the non-polarisation he provides against a Hillary 'I've been fighting against these people all my life' Clinton.

[corplinx]

JREF forum readers by and large have voted for the 2 candidates with the least amount of work to form opinions on. They'd rather have an unknown quantity than any of that which can be measured. This either speaks volumes about how well the known quantities measure up or volumes about the gullibility of persons when it comes to political matters.

[Rob Lister]

I, along with one other, selected Thompson. Why? Well, basically, he isn't any of the others. I rather have BILL Clinton but the best I can hope for is him getting another chance entertain us from a more public position back inside the Whitehouse gates.. Not good enough to vote for Hillary.

[corplinx]

Fred Thompson is really another unknown quantity as well.

[The Mysterian]

Richardson. BTW, he is starting to come up in the polls.

[rtalman]

I voted Ron Paul to see if I can help spam this poll.

ETA: Using PaulBotMath, all votes for Planet X will be awarded to Ron Paul. As of this post, that puts him in second overall with 6 votes, and awards him the Republican nomination.

[Pope130]

John McCain, one of the very few candidates who I feel means what he says. In his case I find that reassuring.

I think Ron Paul means what he says, and I find that frightening.

[NeoRicen]

Edwards, probably the only decent left wing candidate, Clinton and to a lesser degree Obama are closer to the right wing. And Clinton's Health Plan is s***.

He's also the only one who talks about poverty and class issues, and I also think he probably has a better chance of winning against a Republican than Clinton or Obama. Clinton appears to be too polarizing (apparently, I don't know why really) and even if people say they'll vote for Obama, they probably won't (it always happens with black candidates.)

[Matteo Martini]

Ron Paul

[Puppycow]

Edwards, probably the only decent left wing candidate, Clinton and to a lesser degree Obama are closer to the right wing. And Clinton's Health Plan is s***.

He's also the only one who talks about poverty and class issues, and I also think he probably has a better chance of winning against a Republican than Clinton or Obama. Clinton appears to be too polarizing (apparently, I don't know why really) and even if people say they'll vote for Obama, they probably won't (it always happens with black candidates.)

Conversely, that's why Edwards is not my cup of tea. (I'm sure he would immediately stop talking about "poverty and class issues" the instant he secured the nomination, but I happen to think free trade is good for the economy and most corporations are actually not so bad. I don't think things are as bad as Edwards claims they are, and many trial lawyers actually don't fight for justice so much as fight for money.)

Here is a column that should make you think (http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2007/Nov/18/george-will-john-edwards-and-the-trial-lawyers/)

[NeoRicen]

Conversely, that's why Edwards is not my cup of tea. (I'm sure he would immediately stop talking about "poverty and class issues" the instant he secured the nomination, but I happen to think free trade is good for the economy and most corporations are actually not so bad. I don't think things are as bad as Edwards claims they are, and many trial lawyers actually don't fight for justice so much as fight for money.)

Here is a column that should make you think (http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2007/Nov/18/george-will-john-edwards-and-the-trial-lawyers/)
It seems to me that you (and the author of that article) are just saying that John Edwards = Trial Lawyer, Trial Lawyers have done x in the past, therfore John Edwards has done x or supports x.

I could say (and I'd be exaggerating I'll admit) following that logic that Person X = German, Germans have exterminated Jews in the past, therefore Person X has exterminated Jews or supports the extermination of Jews.

You have to actually connect all those things to John Edwards. I'll change my position, I'm perfectly happy to, but that article completely fails to give me a reason to do so.

Really, you'll have to give me more than that.

[Puppycow]

It seems to me that you (and the author of that article) are just saying that John Edwards = Trial Lawyer, Trial Lawyers have done x in the past, therfore John Edwards has done x or supports x.

I could say (and I'd be exaggerating I'll admit) following that logic that Person X = German, Germans have exterminated Jews in the past, therefore Person X has exterminated Jews or supports the extermination of Jews.

You have to actually connect all those things to John Edwards. I'll change my position, I'm perfectly happy to, but that article completely fails to give me a reason to do so.

Really, you'll have to give me more than that.

I'm not saying he's as bad as the worst trial lawyers, but I just don't like his general attitude of blaming the people who create wealth for the plight of everyone else. Basically, wealth (which allows for high standards of living) comes from creativity and innovation. Lawyers don't create anything, they just blame people or defend people to take money from one person and give it to another. I realize that lawyers are necessary, but I think there are too many in the US. According to what I found by googling, "the U.S. has seventy percent of the world's lawyers but only five percent of the world's population."

[Puppycow]

BTW, one more thing: not supporting Obama because you think other people won't vote for him because he's black, IMO, doesn't give people enough credit, and is not fair to Obama. Attitudes really do change over time. The electorate is not the same as it was 20 years ago.

[NeoRicen]

BTW, one more thing: not supporting Obama because you think other people won't vote for him because he's black, IMO, doesn't give people enough credit, and is not fair to Obama. Attitudes really do change over time. The electorate is not the same as it was 20 years ago.
Well you have to realise that the primaries are voting for your parties candidate, so you should pick a good balance of policies and electoral appeal (in contrast to the actual election where it's all policy).

I realise the electorate has changed, but people tend not to, and a lot of people still hold outdated views. Just look at the 'Bradley effect'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

I should point out that I'm not American, and even though my interest in the US election is probably unhealthy given I don't even live there, I haven't investigated the candidates quite as thoroughly as I would if I did live there.

[leftysergeant]

I'm not saying he's as bad as the worst trial lawyers, but I just don't like his general attitude of blaming the people who create wealth for the plight of everyone else. Basically, wealth (which allows for high standards of living) comes from creativity and innovation. Lawyers don't create anything, they just blame people or defend people to take money from one person and give it to another.

Yeah, that company that made swimming pool drains that sucked the innards out of a little girl were sure creating a lot of wealth before Edwards got massive amounts of their money taken away and awarded to the victims of the company's "creativity."

It is not "creativity" that is making corporations rich now, it is thievery. They whine like little babies about having to pay a decent day's provisions for a decent day's labor, then take their tax breaks and relocate to some third-world country where they can make deals with corrupt governments to steal the labor of foreigners by not payting them what their labor is worth.

Got news for you people who think that a rising tide lifts all boats. It only lifts those boats under which it is rising. Right now, that is just the investor class.

Capital does not, by itself, create wealth. Labor creates wealth out of resources. Capital is just a token of exchange for labor.

"the U.S. has seventy percent of the world's lawyers but only five percent of the world's population."

We also do, for now, a far higher percentage of the world's commercial transactions. That takes a lot of lawyers. We also have, as citizens, greater access to the courts for redress of grievances.

The problem with this country is not that there are too many lawyers, but that too many lawyers work as corporate lackeys to prevent the working class' getting justice when they are harmed.

[Puppycow]

Yeah, that company that made swimming pool drains that sucked the innards out of a little girl were sure creating a lot of wealth before Edwards got massive amounts of their money taken away and awarded to the victims of the company's "creativity."

It is not "creativity" that is making corporations rich now, it is thievery. They whine like little babies about having to pay a decent day's provisions for a decent day's labor, then take their tax breaks and relocate to some third-world country where they can make deals with corrupt governments to steal the labor of foreigners by not payting them what their labor is worth.

Got news for you people who think that a rising tide lifts all boats. It only lifts those boats under which it is rising. Right now, that is just the investor class.

Capital does not, by itself, create wealth. Labor creates wealth out of resources. Capital is just a token of exchange for labor.



We also do, for now, a far higher percentage of the world's commercial transactions. That takes a lot of lawyers. We also have, as citizens, greater access to the courts for redress of grievances.

The problem with this country is not that there are too many lawyers, but that too many lawyers work as corporate lackeys to prevent the working class' getting justice when they are harmed.

:rolleyes:

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I will vote for whoever my gay overlords tell me to vote for. So far it looks like I'm going to be voting against the other guy.

I use gay rights as a sort of litmus test because it is one of the few issues I have a solid opinion on, on all the economic issues I really could go either way :p .

[Puppycow]

This article articulates how I feel about Edwards (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/in_iowa_will_edwards_divide_an.html)
While the Democratic race has often, and quite accurately, been described as a choice between change (Barack Obama and John Edwards) and experience (Hillary Rodham Clinton), it has, in the final days before Iowa, become another kind of choice as well.

Democrats must decide whether they want a candidate who is angry and confrontational, and who sees those favoring compromise as traitors (Edwards), or a candidate who presents himself as a uniter (Obama), or a candidate who presents herself as someone who understands the ways of Washington and can get things done (Clinton).

While Clinton and Obama both acknowledge the importance of working with various interests, including Capitol Hill Republicans and the business community, to come up with solutions to key problems, Edwards sounds more and more like the neighborhood bully who plans to dictate what is to be done.

The former North Carolina senator is running a classic populist campaign that would have made William Jennings Bryan (or Ralph Nader) proud. Everything is Corporate America's fault. But he's also portraying himself as fighting for the middle class and able to appeal to swing voters and even Republicans in a general election.

Edwards certainly would dispute that there is an inherent contradiction between his populist rhetoric and his alleged middle class appeal. But his approach to problems is likely to frighten many voters, including most middle class Americans and virtually all Republicans.

[MaGZ]

Edwards, probably the only decent left wing candidate, Clinton and to a lesser degree Obama are closer to the right wing. And Clinton's Health Plan is s***.

He's also the only one who talks about poverty and class issues, and I also think he probably has a better chance of winning against a Republican than Clinton or Obama. Clinton appears to be too polarizing (apparently, I don't know why really) and even if people say they'll vote for Obama, they probably won't (it always happens with black candidates.)

Care to explain the right wing qualities of Obama?

[MaGZ]

I'm not saying he's as bad as the worst trial lawyers, but I just don't like his general attitude of blaming the people who create wealth for the plight of everyone else. Basically, wealth (which allows for high standards of living) comes from creativity and innovation. Lawyers don't create anything, they just blame people or defend people to take money from one person and give it to another. I realize that lawyers are necessary, but I think there are too many in the US. According to what I found by googling, "the U.S. has seventy percent of the world's lawyers but only five percent of the world's population."

Edwards is pushing this anti-corporation working man theme only because it is the only card he has to play. Hillary and Obama have the minority vote in the party and Edwards gets the leftovers. Edwards doesn’t give a care about the working class. It is just a political tactic.

[danielk]

So, I just took the Glassbooth (http://glassbooth.org/) test and it tells me to vote for John McCain (http://glassbooth.org/Result/index/522085/e22b8383df3517122d7fc63709f891a4). Apparently he shares a 72 % similarity with my beliefs.

1|John McCain|72 %
2|Rudy Giuliani|66 %
3|Mike Huckabee|66 %

Urgh, Huckabee. Probably wouldn't be on the list if separation of church and state were featured in the test. My results are somewhat schizophrenic anyway. I'd probably have been pointed to a Democratic candidate if it weren't for my strong conviction that the US should stay put in Iraq until the mess is sorted out.

But hey, I'm not American anyway. :cool: