What's the state you're voting in?

[QueenAdrock]

Just curious to see the breakdown. I'm voting in North Carolina, which is a dead heat right now, so I'm considering it a 'swing state.' CNN has it as leaning McCain, but Rasmussen polling says it's 49% Obama, 47% McCain. It'd be interesting to see if NC goes blue for the first time since Carter....

[Bob]

massachusetts. we voted for hillary, but i have a hunch that obama will win here

[DroppinScience]

I suspect this poll needs more creative color options. What happened to teel? Electric blue? Crimson? C'mon people!

[100% ILL]

North Carolina has generally voted Republican in the Presidential campaign, and Democrat in the Governor's race. Why I don't know. I have a feeling that this year will be a Republican sweep.


http://www.ncgop.org/

Go Pat McCrory!!

[QueenAdrock]

I'm for Bev Perdue and Kay Hagan. Kay Hagan's gonna kick Dole's ass.

Also, Alice Underhill rocks too. My mom's friends with her, she's a real swell lady. She's running for the state legislature and was a law librarian.

Either way, this is the closest it's been in NC for a loooong time. Plus, there's a huge black population there that's voting for the first time (my mom's friend signed up 700 new voters who support Obama in a weekend). And you have to take into account the research triangle around Raleigh-Durham, they're voting Obama very highly, too. It'll be interesting.

[GreenEarthAl]

New York is pretty solidly Democrat. I can vote for McKinney without it being likely to affect too terribly much.

[travesty]

I'm voting in a vegetative state. Just kidding. If Barr can grab about 2% in NC like I think he will, it will likely go to Obama.

[jennyb]

I'm voting in California. Gee I wonder who our whopping 55 electoral votes are going to... :rolleyes:

[RobMoney$]

If Barr can grab about 2% in NC like I think he will, it will likely go to Obama.

...and it's this type of thinking that got Bush elected.

I'm sorry, but the presidental elections are not a place where alternatives are a good idea.

[DroppinScience]

...and it's this type of thinking that got Bush elected.

I'm sorry, but the presidental elections are not a place where alternatives are a good idea.

Care to elaborate on where alternatives are actually a good idea? I would have thought democracy and elections are about choices.

[travesty]

I'm sorry, but the presidental elections are not a place where alternatives are a good idea.

I don't think that in my entire life I have ever heard a less intelligent statement. Rob, c'mon bro...have someone read what you just wrote out loud to you, listen to it and tell me that sentence makes sense, really. Infact, it's so ridiculous that I am using it as my new tag line. Thanks.

Also, too bad for you that there ARE alternatives to Obama and McCain in at least 47 of the 50 states.

[Documad]

I agree with Rob on this one. While everyone has a right to vote for the candidate of his or her choice, when you vote you have to accept the consequences of your decision. It's my belief that the increasing number of third party candidates have been harmful to the issues I care about. Nader gave us 8 years of Bush (hurting the environment and consumer issues and basically everything Nader cared about). In my state, it's interfered with governors' races. This year, a third party candidate may be responsible for re-electing a senator who I want desperately to unseat. Sometimes the third party candidates think they're raising the profile of issues they care about. But more often, I think they're just getting off on the attention.

[RobMoney$]

I don't think that in my entire life I have ever heard a less intelligent statement. Rob, c'mon bro...have someone read what you just wrote out loud to you, listen to it and tell me that sentence makes sense, really. Infact, it's so ridiculous that I am using it as my new tag line. Thanks.

Also, too bad for you that there ARE alternatives to Obama and McCain in at least 47 of the 50 states.


I'm glad you got a kick out of my quote, even if it's completely out of context.


Third parties have no realistic chance of winning, why should they be allowed to skew an entire election? Especially one as close as this.

I'd support an election where all parties are represented, with the top two moving foward to run for the final election for President.


Just suppose for a minute that by some unknown act of God, a third party guy did win the seat of POTUS.
He'd be virtually powerless anyway. What allies would he have in Washington to help support his platform?
How many times does Nader have to run before he gets it in his head that he can't win?
What's that saying about the true definition of insanity,...doing something over and over again and expecting a different outcome?

...and don't even tell me Nader and the other third parties recieve public funding to mount these pointless campaigns?

[DroppinScience]

I agree with Rob on this one. While everyone has a right to vote for the candidate of his or her choice, when you vote you have to accept the consequences of your decision. It's my belief that the increasing number of third party candidates have been harmful to the issues I care about. Nader gave us 8 years of Bush (hurting the environment and consumer issues and basically everything Nader cared about). In my state, it's interfered with governors' races. This year, a third party candidate may be responsible for re-electing a senator who I want desperately to unseat. Sometimes the third party candidates think they're raising the profile of issues they care about. But more often, I think they're just getting off on the attention.

Who's the third-party candidate in Minnesota? I know Ventura decided not to run.

[travesty]

DocuMad and Rob I understand both of your arguments, I just disagree.

Nader may have helped out with the first four years of Bush but really had nothing to do with the last four. I think it is simply more of the fact that the Democratic Party does a very poor job of reaching the American voter during Presidential elections, and also of picking their candidate(s). They pander to the "somewhat" liberal. Not too far left, just enough to not be Republican and that leaves a large majority of more left people without their voices being heard. Same goes for the Republicans, look how much support Ron Paul got, the 'Publican faithful think he is fucking crazy.

The fact that McCain is even in this race shows what a poor job the Democrats are doing with their campaign. They should be able to get a badger elected easily. As both major parties take more and more centrist platforms there is less and lesss differences between them. This means that more and more people have significantly different ideologies from those being espoused by both. So unless both parties get back to their roots look for more and more third party candidates in the future. Sorry, but it's not going to get any better for those who only want a chaoice A or a choice B. At least if I can help it.

As far as a third party candidate being effective in the oval office I think it would be nice to see the executive branch NOT have big backing on the Hill. They would HAVE to work with both Dems and 'Pubs to get things done. They wouldn't be able to push things through just because of a favorable head count. It's called checks and balances, and we still have some left, for now.