Latest US Election Poll: Who's Got Your Vote if the Election Were Held Tomorrow

[magerette]

Interesting, Z. This is one of the reasons I like to see non-US residents participate.

I don't think Obama's realization that Nafta has had some adverse affects on our job situation totally equates with what you're saying, though. In Audacity of Hope, he speaks about the need for global trade quite positively, merely saying it's a hard sell to some of his Illinois constituents in the Labor Unions. I think you'd find--should he happen to overcome the smear machine and get elected--that he has a more moderate and realistic policy toward the trade thing. He's really not nearly as "left" as he's perceived. And that's part of his problem now, as he seems to be shifting but in reality remains the conciliator and listener he's always been.

AFA McCain--he is indeed more Bush than Bush. Don't doubt that.

One of the things that's surprising me here is that no one has ticked off any of the undecided options. There's supposed to be a fairly large segment of voters who have not committedp; my question really was whether anyone is having their mind changed by the ungoing elections, or being persuaded one way or the other after not being able to pick. Apparently not, at least so far, and it seems people remain firm in their decision regardless of the tit-for tat BS that constitutes campaigning. That's reassuring in some ways and kind of scary in others(i.e., the "gut feeling" trumping any ability to show facts.)

 

[Zaleukos]

I would certainly be more informed if I were on the other side of the pond. Our media's coverage of the candidates is rather slanted towards the democratic side due to a combination of novelty and traditional preference.

I should clarify that my main practical beefs with Bush are the attitudes towards allies in foreign policy and the legacy of ignoring due procedure in the pursuit of security and terrorist chasing. While his domestic policies certainly arent my cup of tea the damage done by those policies are much more localised to the US itself, and I dont really care if McCain continues that part as long as it is what the electorate wants... I find it is best to reserve the moralising for actions that hurt others than the actor

EDIT: At any rate both candidates will be constrained by reality, and unless they combine native incompetence with tunnel visioned staff akin to the Bush administration they will adapt their policies accordingly. That's also why I dont give Obama many plus points for his foreign policy, as that in the end to some extent is guided by national interests/chauvinism no matter what your vision is.

EDIT2: Regarding the gut feeling of voters I think that is pretty normal. I'd say about 80% of our electorate are set in their party preferences (except for internal migrations within the center-right alliance, but the four alliance parties are very similar). The systems are of course not completely comparable since we vote for parties rather than people, but I dont think the voters work all that differently.

 

[dteowner]

I hate to burst your bubble sweetie, but Obama's voting record doesn't back up your "centrist" claim. I can't remember where I saw this, so I'm afraid I don't have a link right now (I'll try to remedy that after work if necessary), but the group Democrats for Action (or something like that) graded the voting records of various congressmen against proper lefty creed. Barack scored a perfect 100%. He made Teddy Kennedy's record (95%) look practically Republican.

 

[dteowner]

One of the things that's surprising me here is that no one has ticked off any of the undecided options. There's supposed to be a fairly large segment of voters who have not committedp; my question really was whether anyone is having their mind changed by the ungoing elections, or being persuaded one way or the other after not being able to pick. Apparently not, at least so far, and it seems people remain firm in their decision regardless of the tit-for tat BS that constitutes campaigning. That's reassuring in some ways and kind of scary in others(i.e., the "gut feeling" trumping any ability to show facts.)

I'm not sure you're getting a fair sample. I think you'd agree that it takes a certain "strength of ideology" to want to play in the P&R sandbox. The undecided/uncommitted would drown in the waves of liquid sulphur or be bludgeoned by the flying brimstone.

 

[Zaleukos]

This vote doesnt have much of a "cost" associated with it either in terms of effort to register or facing the consequences of a bad choice, so I'd assume even a marginal preference might be enough for the uncommitted to vote...

 

[magerette]

I hate to burst your bubble sweetie, but Obama's voting record doesn't back up your "centrist" claim. I can't remember where I saw this, so I'm afraid I don't have a link right now (I'll try to remedy that after work if necessary), but the group Democrats for Action (or something like that) graded the voting records of various congressmen against proper lefty creed. Barack scored a perfect 100%. He made Teddy Kennedy's record (95%) look practically Republican.

And that's bad?
Actually, he has about the same voting record as Ted Kennedy, I think. I don't dispute your facts--I've seen that at various sources. However, I've made the point before that both McCain the mavericky maverick and the crazed leftie liberal Obama have both voted their straight party line throughout their (recent for McCain, complete for Obama ) careers.

I think the deal is , the center for you is a lot further right than the center for me.

 

[magerette]

I'm not sure you're getting a fair sample. I think you'd agree that it takes a certain "strength of ideology" to want to play in the P&R sandbox. The undecided/uncommitted would drown in the waves of liquid sulphur or be bludgeoned by the flying brimstone.

True. This is no place for the faint of heart. Still. all you have to do is check a box, you don't have to get in between the firehoses.

This vote doesnt have much of a "cost" associated with it either in terms of effort to register or facing the consequences of a bad choice, so I'd assume even a marginal preference might be enough for the uncommitted to vote...

Possible--I also think it may be that people are actually less undecided than we're lead to believe. I find it pretty hard to believe that in this election climate, people don't have a clue on who is who. It's a much clearer choice than usual, I think.

 

[Prime Junta]

And I see either candidate as a break with arguably the worst US presidency during my lifetime (a lifetime that includes Carter), which I think is where we diverge the most. If I shared your assessment that McCain was a continuation of Bush I'd also share your sentiments towards the prospect of him getting a four year stay in the white house

Well, I do think he is a continuation of Bush. More to the point, I think he's utterly clueless about economics, and he's also disdainful of people who aren't. That means that he's less likely to get the US economy on its feet than his less utterly clueless opponent. Free trade with the US is only worth something if the economy is working.

(Points to consider: his economic plan is a continuation of Bush's utterly discredited supply-side economics, its basic arithmetic doesn't add up, and he's seriously advanced some utterly stupid ideas, such as the gas tax holiday, and when called out on it, declared that "economists don't understand the hardship of ordinary Americans.)

Besides which, getting out of all those trade agreements isn't as easy as simply suspending them -- there would be massive fallout, which I'm fairly certain neither of the two would like to deal with.

 

[Benedict]

(Points to consider: his economic plan is a continuation of Bush's utterly discredited supply-side economics, its basic arithmetic doesn't add up, and he's seriously advanced some utterly stupid ideas, such as the gas tax holiday, and when called out on it, declared that "economists don't understand the hardship of ordinary Americans.)
.

A telling quote IMO. Possibly the worst thing about the bush administration for me (and it's been a tough competition) is the anti-intellectual attitude he's shown, simple, unambiguous, plain speaking stupidity being more highly prized than well informed but inaccessible intelligence.

Even if I can't 100% pin down exactly what Obama stands for on a lot of issues he really does seem to stand for being frighteningly intelligent and trying his best to think about things properly. In that light I don't particularly mind if the outcome of his ongoing and exhaustive thinking is notable policy shifts, at least someone in the seat of power would actually be thinking.

 

[dteowner]

* insert obligatory apology here, because even a dedicated righty must admit that Dubya is a retard *

There's a need in Washington for plain speakin', but dumb is dumb.

 

[Corwin]

* insert obligatory apology here, because even a dedicated righty must admit that Dubya is a retard *

There's a need in Washington for plain speakin', but dumb is dumb.

They say that people get the leaders they deserve. What did the American people do to deserve him? Says great things about your political system, doesn't it!!

 

[dteowner]

After Slick Willie, America wanted a straight shooter, which they got. Unfortunately, Dubya speaks plainly because he's simply not capable of much beyond that.

 

[skavenhorde]

Lots of strong opinions on this, even in my own family we can't agree on this issue. Gotta love fights started over people who don't know you exist and don't really care.

For my mail in vote, it's going to Obama not for any of the reasons mentioned so far. I don't care about his inexperience. Could careless that he is black or who his preacher was. I decided to vote for him the day he made that speech on race. That speech moved me. Never in my 32 years of life have I seen any politician speak so bluntly about real problems in America. Not just black problems but white ones as well. He spoke of the real everyday problems that go on. Some caused by stupid laws that should never have been passed in the first place like affirmative action. Any politician that is willing to talk about real life problems in America instead of ducking behind the issue has my vote. Whether or not he backs up what he says in office remains to be seen. I sincerely hope he is able to change America. Our image isn't that good right now and it has everything to do with the business as usual type of mentality from the politicians. Not just republicans but democrats as well. It's time they shook up the foundation a bit and get our image back to the land of freedom instead of the land of intolerance and fear.

Possible--I also think it may be that people are actually less undecided than we're lead to believe. I find it pretty hard to believe that in this election climate, people don't have a clue on who is who. It's a much clearer choice than usual, I think.

You're definitly right. This has been the longest campaign ever. I was hanging on everyword from the politicians for months, but after so much you get a good idea of who is who and what they stand for. Like I said earlier I decided months ago who will get my vote and there is no changing it now, no matter what happens. Well, unless Obama turned out to be a secret Republican then I might change it to independant.

Even my mom who is a Republican but despises the Republican party right now, she has decided to vote independant because she hates Obama but won't vote Republican this year. So I told her to vote for the little guys, they never get any votes. Maybe if Reps and Dems took the third parties more seriously then that would also shake up the political foundation a bit. That day is a long way off though.

 

[Yeesh]

Yeesh votes Obama. As far as I'm concerned, the single most important thing the next president will do is control the nomination of (at least) a couple of supreme court justices. With nominees getting younger, and people living and working longer, each one wil likely be on the court for 30 years or more. Think about that.

McCain's a fine guy, seriously. But he'll nominate conservatives, and the court will go from this:
4 - 1 - 4
to this:
5 - doesn't matter
or:
6 - doesn't matter

And then things will start to suck. Bye bye reporoductive rights, bye bye privacy rights!

Hello prayer in school, heck prayer in Congress! Hello, the following definition of 'War': A condition that the president announces (though he doesn't 'declare' it, of course), which lasts as long as he says so.

Really, I don't think the election has any rampification nearly so important as the supreme court nominations. Both guys will get out of Iraq, because the people will make them. Both guys will try to help with oil, and neither will be successful (oddly, the global market for oil doesn't seek presidential advice). Both guys will try to help with the mortgage mess and the slowing economy, and again they will have little impact. But I know they'll try.

However, those justices are going to be on the bench for the rest of my meaningful life. That's huge. If McCain wins, this country will begin to see changes to what exactly a citizen can count on as his constitutional rights. That's huge. The stupid issues on which the election will actually be decided are small potatos and no potatos.

 

[skavenhorde]

And then things will start to suck. Bye bye reporoductive rights, bye bye privacy rights!

Privacy rights have already gone the way of the Do-do. I'm really surprised why the country didn't get more upset over the eavsdropping the phone companies did while under good ol' Bushie. Even now they can monitor all incoming calls from outside the United States without a warrant or even a reason. So that means everytime I call someone back in the states, I'm not just talking to that person but also have some guy listening in on the conversation. Spooky in a 1984 kind of way. The way I talk about politics with my friends and family, I'm sure I said some words that flagged my phone call for monitoring. I won't be surprised if one day I fly back to America and have to be held for questioning, lol.

The question I'm afraid to ask is how far are we willing to let the government control us for our own good? Why not just let the government control every aspect of our lives. That would definatly make us safe, but then we have made Orwell's 1984 a reality and who wants to live in that world?

 

[Benedict]

However, those justices are going to be on the bench for the rest of my meaningful life. That's huge. If McCain wins, this country will begin to see changes to what exactly a citizen can count on as his constitutional rights. That's huge. The stupid issues on which the election will actually be decided are small potatos and no potatos.

Interesting perspective there, not an aspect I'd been aware of at all

Nice to have such an international forum here, I learn a lot more from it.

 

[Prime Junta]

Good point, Yeesh. Still, I think there are some pretty substantive issues there, too. In particular:

(1) Managing the decline of American power abroad. McCain is a unilateralist. His idea of a "League of Democracies" to supplant/replace the UN is stillborn for two reasons: first, any international decision-making forum that doesn't include China just won't work, and second, there aren't any takers -- other than Israel and the USA, the democracies of the world would rather rely on and reform/improve institutions like the UN and the ICC. Obama, OTOH, is much more of a multilateralist and has a much more realistic idea about how the world actually works, despite his recent saber-rattling on Iran and sweet-talking to Likud. IOW, I think he's the better man for that job.

(2) Managing the American economic crisis. It ain't over, not by a long shot, and things will be looking grim until 2010 at least. McCain's economics are just plain crazy-talk -- basically, continuing Bush's supply-side idiocy, only more so: borrow and borrow and spend and spend (on stupid things that won't help the economy to make it worse). That would run the American economy into the ground; it could even conceivably lead to a complete collapse of the dollar and a default on the US national debt, which would turn the USA into a nuclear-armed Argentina. That's not good, not for the US, and not for the rest of us. Again, Obama's economics are at least somewhat more sane; his advisers are better, and he appears more willing to listen to them.

 

[dteowner]

It's amazing that, by some divine intervention, "crazy talk" supply-side "idiocy" led to a decade of significant growth and prosperity across the country and across the socio-economic strata, starting in the hole of a full-on recession. It's certainly not a perfect theory, but neither are the ones you espouse.

Sorry to confuse the issue with historical fact.

 

[Prime Junta]

It's amazing that, by some divine intervention, "crazy talk" supply-side "idiocy" led to a decade of significant growth and prosperity across the country and across the socio-economic strata, starting in the hole of a full-on recession. It's certainly not a perfect theory, but neither are the ones you espouse.

Ouch, I've rarely seen so many factual errors and fallacies crammed into such a short paragraph.

(1) "a decade of significant growth and prosperity across the country and across the socio-economic strata"

Fact: the American median family income, when corrected for purchasing power, has been stagnant over the last decade.
Fact: the poverty rate in the USA has grown over the last decade.
Fact: regional income disparities have grown over the last decade.
Fact: employment growth during the recent business cycle, peak to peak, was millions of jobs short of previous business cycles.

Curiously enough, employment growth rates during *every Democratic presidency* since the 1950's or so have been greater than growth rates during *any Republican presidency.* Go figure.

Annual rates of employment growth, by presidency:

In other words, your claim of "...across the country and across the socio-economic strata" has no basis in fact whatsoever. It's pure fantasy -- the exact opposite is true. In other words, *you've been lied to,* my friend.

(2) Now, about the "...significant growth and prosperity..." bit: growth rates during Clinton's presidency were far higher than during Bush's presidency, even when measured trough-to-peak (i.e., not counting the losses incurred during this year). Both presidents started near the bottom of a business cycle, and ended near the top, so it's actually a fairly valid comparison: Bill had the Internet bubble, Bush had the real-estate bubble.

(3) And finally, you're making a "post-hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, in stating that supply-side economics led to whatever economic growth we're seeing. If you want to demonstrate that, you have to provide more than bald assertion -- 'cuz I can assert that whatever growth the US economy experienced happened *despite* the idiotic fiscal behavior of your government, not because of it.

Sorry to confuse the issue with historical fact.

Yeah, indeed.

 

[dteowner]

Wrong decade, sweetie. I hate to invalidate all your hard work, but you need to go back to the 80's under Saint Ron. That is when supply-side did its wonders.

You should give me more credit than to think I'd hold up Dubya's (or Clinton's) models for any serious investigation.

edit- BTW, overall employment numbers are a bit misleading since they don't take into account population trends, nor the "quality" of employment.