Who here is still undecided?

[clamum]

PAULBOT

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Could you tell us why you haven't picked a candidate to support yet? If you haven't. Is their a particular issue you're waiting for to be discussed? Are you watching the debates? Do you have any questions about the candidates and or their views?

Illegal Immigration (border enforcement) is my #1 issue so the only candidates for me are Paul, Thompson & Romney.

I don't get to vote in our primary until May, it'll prolly already be decided by then anyway.

My vote in the general election won't count either because we're one those states where winner takes all (no pro-rationing of NC delegates in the gen elect. Not sure how they are alocated in the primary but, again, prolly won't matter anyway).

While I can cheer for a candidate, it's kinda of hard to excited about my own personal vote since it won't matter in either case.

Fern

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern
My vote in the general election won't count either because we're one those states where winner takes all (no pro-rationing of NC delegates in the gen elect. Not sure how they are alocated in the primary but, again, prolly won't matter anyway). Fern

what state does that?

Ed: Ah, Maine and Nebraska...not exactly population centers, nor does it seem to really matter much: In the 18 state contests in which this method has been used, only once has it achieved a result different from winner-take-all: in Maine, in 1828

 

[BoomerD]

I'm still undecided. I KNOW I'll vote Democrat, but WHICH Democrat? At this time, I really don't like any of the choices, and it appears that once again, I'll have to choose which one I dislike less than the other one...
We Democrats have been given worse and worse candidates for several election cycles...and it seems to be getting worse every time.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'm still undecided. I KNOW I'll vote Democrat, but WHICH Democrat? At this time, I really don't like any of the choices, and it appears that once again, I'll have to choose which one I dislike less than the other one...
We Democrats have been given worse and worse candidates for several election cycles...and it seems to be getting worse every time.

Obama is really not that bad. Sure he's inexperienced, but if they team him up with the right person it could be a good ticket. Obama has the potential to unite; Hillary will further divide and polarize.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Fern
My vote in the general election won't count either because we're one those states where winner takes all (no pro-rationing of NC delegates in the gen elect. Not sure how they are alocated in the primary but, again, prolly won't matter anyway). Fern

what state does that?

Ed: Ah, Maine and Nebraska...not exactly population centers, nor does it seem to really matter much: In the 18 state contests in which this method has been used, only once has it achieved a result different from winner-take-all: in Maine, in 1828

If you're talkin about winner-take-all in the gen election, a number of states do it - California for example. I'm in NC (btw, my profile is enabled, you couldv'e clicked on it to see where I live).

Fern

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Fern
My vote in the general election won't count either because we're one those states where winner takes all (no pro-rationing of NC delegates in the gen elect. Not sure how they are alocated in the primary but, again, prolly won't matter anyway). Fern

what state does that?

Ed: Ah, Maine and Nebraska...not exactly population centers, nor does it seem to really matter much: In the 18 state contests in which this method has been used, only once has it achieved a result different from winner-take-all: in Maine, in 1828

If you're talkin about winner-take-all in the gen election, a number of states do it - California for example. I'm in NC (btw, my profile is enabled, you couldv'e clicked on it to see where I live).

Fern

It's my understanding EVERY state does all-or-nothing except Maine and Nebraska. That incorrect?

 

[Vic]

I am decided. Obama or bust. I changed my voter registration from Independent back to Democratic so I can vote in the primary. If Obama doesn't get the Democratic nomination, then I will vote for some 3rd party candidate.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
It's my understanding EVERY state does all-or-nothing except Maine and Nebraska. That incorrect?

I misunderstood you.

IDK if that's correct or not.

I know my state (NC) does, but is controlled in the state legislators by Dems. They have a proposal in the works to change to pro-rate the delegates since NC has voted Repub in recent Pres elections. I.e., they wanna make sure the Dem candidate is guaranteed to receive at least some votes in the electoral college.

But then a movement was threatened in CA (which regularly votes Dem in the Pres election) and CA Dems contacted the NC Dems and asked them to put the bill on hold.

That's how I know about NC & CA. But I haven't checked out states.

Fern

 

[piasabird]

It is up to each state how they vote in the presidential election. I dont have a clue how the party rules work or if they are different. I think the Party makes up the rules for the primary candidates. It is all rather archaic.

I think each voting district should get to vote for their individual candidate. Primary Delegates, and the national election delegates should not be controlled by the the state.

This is not democracy.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: sirjonk
It's my understanding EVERY state does all-or-nothing except Maine and Nebraska. That incorrect?

I misunderstood you.

IDK if that's correct or not.

I know my state (NC) does, but is controlled in the state legislators by Dems. They have a proposal in the works to change to pro-rate the delegates since NC has voted Repub in recent Pres elections. I.e., they wanna make sure the Dem candidate is guaranteed to receive at least some votes in the electoral college.

But then a movement was threatened in CA (which regularly votes Dem in the Pres election) and CA Dems contacted the NC Dems and asked them to put the bill on hold.

That's how I know about NC & CA. But I haven't checked out states.

Fern

The Republicans, tired of seeing ALL of Kahleeforneeya's electoral votes go Democrat, have been trying to force pro-rated electoral votes down our throats, even though most of the state doesn't want it.
I'm good with the concept of "Winner Take ALL" in this area. Personally, I'd like to see the entire electoral college done away with, and go with straight Majority Wins," but the smaller states would never hold still for such a thing. While the electoral college MAY have made sense originally, as an expedient way to deal with the elections, in today's age of instant communications, what it really does is give the states with lesser populations a proportionally larger vote in the elections. It SHOULD be one man/one vote. (yes, the term "man includes the females of the species as well)

 

[kage69]

It's my understanding EVERY state does all-or-nothing except Maine and Nebraska. That incorrect?

Nope, you are correct. Maine and Nebraska are the only two states that can split electoral votes.

I wish we could do away with the electoral system completely, but keeping it I feel it's a pity that the rest of the country can't emulate Maine and Nebraska in this regard. Makes sense in a "purple state" kind of way.

 

[ScottMac]

I haven't picked anyone yet. Certainly there are a couple I wouldn't vote for with a gun to my head, but I'm still doing some reading on the ones I'm most likely to support.

Plus: The really good mud doesn't begin to fly until later in the campaigns. It's easier to wait to see what pops up then follow-up on the juicy accusations ... the the opponents do the heavy lifting. It's still early.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Scott by your signature your choice won't be Ron Paul because of his supporters. Funny I think the same thing about many of them online, luckily in person they are pretty normal/nice people, and pretty intelligent as well.

 

[LilGator]

 

[maverick44]

I guess you've missed the fact that this thread has mostly turned into YARPCJ... Yet Another Ron Paul Circle Jerk. The OP has responded several times with "well maybe you should check out Ron Paul..." Then, at least four other bots, and you, showed up to throw their love into the cup. YAY!

:thumbsup:

Its pretty much obama v clinton..... I dont think the GOP will get more than a third of the votes this time even if they put up McCain......

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Scott by your signature your choice won't be Ron Paul because of his supporters. Funny I think the same thing about many of them online, luckily in person they are pretty normal/nice people, and pretty intelligent as well.

Aside from the time or two I visited an RP campaign office (there's one or two near where I work and live), I can't say for a fact I've met any RP supporters "live" ... they're all ranting on Internet forums and busy flooding online polls or something.

The whole campaign, candidate, supporters, and platform remind me of Lyndon LaRouche and his gang of tinfoiled believers. I friend of my mom's is a LL follower ... waaaaaaaaaayy out there ... calling him/them a loon would be an insult to people who are merely looney.

But they (LL & RP et al) seem share the same eye twinkle and (in many cases) fanatical devotion. Swap names and many of the messages are close enough to be identical.

Maybe a death-cage match between the two, winner take all & a year's supply of tinfoil or something

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Yes Farang it would seem the world would rather us elect Ron Paul or Barack Obama pretty much overwhelmingly.

http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/

Ha ha, the paulbots are at it in full force with this one....

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Yes Farang it would seem the world would rather us elect Ron Paul or Barack Obama pretty much overwhelmingly.

http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/

Ha ha, the paulbots are at it in full force with this one....

Yea, apparently they travel all over the world and make sure they get on the internet to vote....:beer:

 

[CanOWorms]

I'm looking for a candidate that thinks long-term in addition to short-term. We need a leader that recognizes that our current alliances with the pseudo-democracies of Europe is a folly as they continue to decline into mayhem with their far-right supremacist policies. The US needs to build new alliances and relationships with nations that are quickly advancing. The US will likely still be here 50 years from now. Europe most likely will not.

I do think that Obama has the best chance with this as there is no doubt that the European authorities view him as a threat to their domestic control of their populations.

 

[clamum]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Yes Farang it would seem the world would rather us elect Ron Paul or Barack Obama pretty much overwhelmingly.

http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/

Ha ha, the paulbots are at it in full force with this one....

PAULBOTS

 

[BrownTown]

I haven't picked a candidate or even a party to vote for yet, its really going to come down to which primary I think I can actually have some effect on. Right now I would want to vote for Thompson, but he has no prayer, so maybe McCain, but really any of the Republicans are better than Hillary, so I might be voting for Obama if he still has a chance verse Hillary.