I realize that there are a high percentage of people who are not U.S. citizens on this board. If you are one of these people, where ever I say, "I voted for this canidate" substitute "I would have voted for this canidate but I couldn't by dint of not being a U.S. citizen." Similarly if you are under 18, do the same thing except say, "by dint of not being of legal age to vote."

[ November 15, 2004, 22:24: Message edited by: Beren ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 2 question(s). 41 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: I Voted For Canidate X Because... (41 votes.)

I Voted For Kerry Because... (Choose 1)
* I agreed whole heartily with most/all his views and ideas. - 10% (4)
* I disliked Bush so much, I would have voted for anyone the Democrats nominated. - 61% (25)
* I did not/would not vote for Kerry. - 29% (12)

I Voted For Bush Because... (Choose 1)
* I agreed whole heartily with most/all his views and ideas. - 10% (4)
* I disliked Kerry so much, that Bush was the only option remaining with a chance to win. - 12% (5)
* I did not/would not vote for Bush. - 78% (32)

Put me squarely in the "anyone but Bush" camp.

This poll is missing an option for me to answer, namely:

"Despite the fun of the debates here and the excitement of the election day vote count itself, I didn't really mind which of the two won because I can't see how either of them will make much difference to my daily life. I would have voted for a minor candidate as part of chipping away at the two party system."

Put me in the camp of people who don't care who's in the white House, because it's all the same anyway.

I am not sure anymore, I think Bush is horribly bad for the US and may very well be both the first and second step towards an totalitarian America. Even not considering that I think the US is much worse off with Bush as president.

What I cant decide on is whether this is a good thing or not. I see the current world situation with supreme US hegemony as very dangerous. What if some true fascist loonie gets into power in the US, what then? Who will stand against the US then? Germany had many equals to stand against them when they went nazi, who will stand against the US if that would come to pass? During Bush's reign the US has weakened their own power, completely annihiliated their credibility which is a great source of power and alienated many traditional allies, not all but a few. Also the actions of the Bush regime has lead the governments in many other countries to look at their own house and consolidate their power. I think Bush's actions the last years have made for the EU than any amount of propaganda from Brussels. In Asia many of the smaller countries are now looking to China as main partner instead of the US.

My dilemma is thus, wanting to have Bush in the white house and erode US power and hope he or his heir dont turn the world into nuclear waste or wanting for the US to change their course which would strengthen their hegemony and leave the world naked for a future less benevolent USA.

I dont know really, but for all the Americans I know of all colours and all the Americans I dont know of which 48% didnt fall for the rhetorics of early 20th century I would probably want anyone but Bush.

Put me squarely in the "anyone but Bush" camp. Me too. I think you will find that most Canadians fall into that category.

Not that I think we really have anything to worry about but the "hey, we have a fair amount of oil, no military and a completely irrational war monger sitting right next to us" factor plays in there a little.

Basically, anybody but Bush. But the fact of the matter is, Kerry does indeed have a solid record(Much superior to Bush's when he entered office), including doggedly taking down the BCC bank and fiscal discipline. It's still pretty depressing that he lost.

Anybody But Bush.

That said, I have a limited knowledge of domestic policy, but I'd still have voted for Kerry if I wasn't half a world away. He at least seems willing to consider an alternative to the assumed path of Divine Providence (and came off as weak/a flip-flopper for it), and reasoned debate is the heart of democracy, as far as I'm concerned.

@ joacqin: I see some disturbing parallels between the current regime and others which are far more totalitarian (past and present). Hack or Darkwolf will probably jump on this, but powers granted are not easily ceded, nor are freedoms surrendered returned or even asked for so long as the state of emergency lasts. USA 2004 isn't 1984, but four years ago, such change would have been unthinkable. To some, it is inevitable; for others, it is unbelievable.

Anyone but Bush.

And when I say "anyone but Bush," I literally mean he is the absolute worst choice for President you could possibly pick. You must be saying to yourself, Ankiseth, but what about Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly or some other complete nut job? People like that could never get anything done, moderate and liberal republicans in Congress would not give them a free pass. George Bush is the perfect blend of incompetence and political clout. He has just enough pull and just enough stupidity to do serious damage to the country (such as wasting $120+ billion on a pointless war).

I voted for Kerry, and I think the Bush administration won the election by concealing their incompetence under the flag (and AV, I think the Iraq figures are currently $225+ billion), but I don't see Bush as so far out of line in terms of American history, nor do I see him as leading America to totalitarianism, etc. Consider this 1920 quote (lifted from Andrew Sullivan):

"[W]hen a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental--men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... [A]ll the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre--the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. BTW, it's not like other countries are immune to this sort of thing as well: when I lived in Toronto, they had an ex-matress salesman by the name of Mel Lastman who was a real piece of work...

You know, this is really sad. At the time I am writing this post, 24 people have voted on this poll, and of them only 1 said that they voted for a canidate because they agreed with him (and that's the two questions combined). Logically, that means that the other 23 people would have gone to the polls with the intent of voting AGAINST someone more than the idea of voting FOR someone.

It's a truly sorry state of affairs that it has got to this point. Why can we not find a single canidate to inspire us? I'm not talking about truly inspiring like Kennedy of the 60s. I'm talking even quasi-inspiring like Reagan was for the Republicans in the 80s or Clinton was for the Democrats in the 90s.

(You know, it's strange - for how different Reagan and Clinton were they both were popular because the nation witnessed never-before seen prosperity during their presidencies. Granted, the Bushies that followed each of them caught the recessions that some of their policies undoubtedly caused, but the Reagan years of the 80s and the Clinton years of the 90s will always be remembered as very prosperous times.)

We have this american journalist here in old Germany, a guest in many a political discussion about the US. If memory serves his name is Don Jordan. Quite the agitator. He never fails to enrage (and thereby entertain) the audience.

Although he voted for Kerry his sentiment concerning Bush is: A blessing for the foreign affairs of the US, the world at large respectively but an utter disaster for his nation in matters of internal policies. Pretty much like Reagan has been in his time.
A blessing in the longterm sense. His war on Iraq might indeed trigger a change for the better in the arabian nations - or so he thinks. A disaster because of an enormous budget deficit, as well as his affiliation to the newborn christians, who he calls the "Taliban of the US", a great threat in his opinion.

Anyhow, Jordan might be right in his assumption that Bush is good for the world... in a different way, however. Good in the sense that joacqin pointed out. The dominating ruthlessness of the current US administration may lead other nations to seek their own strength in order to counter the US and it's tendencies as a predatory hegemon in the future. Bush may very well help Europe unite, when he would rather see us divided.

As for the disaster: That is really not our business, as long as we are not affected by it economically, or even worse, confronted in a military conflict.

So, I should be all for Bush, but I am not. Too many variables, too many risks. I dont want to have the EU go against the US, acting once again as a superpower, sending european soldiers to die on other continents. I would prefer to see a benevolent US keeping the world at bay while Europe uses it's soft power to bring about change. And, perhaps, serve as a political corrective to the US - to balance it out here and there.
Sadly, things never turn out as I feel they should.
Because of that my vote would have gone to Kerry, or whoever opposed Bush.

In my opinion that is how a reasonable intelligent person have to vote. A person living in the real world ought to have understood that there isnt any politician who wants what is best for him but that there are plenty of politicians who really dont want what is best for him. Thus an intelligent realistic person doesnt vote for someone but against what is perceieved to be the greater evil. Seeing mindless fans of politicians makes me sick and reminds of the personal cults of the authoritarian states. All politicians are scumbags, they have to, otherwise they would never have reached that far and no decent person would be willing to do all the things nescessary to reach the top.

I tend to vote social democratic in both Swedish and EU elections not because I am a great fan of the party but because on the left wing the other parties are complete nutcases and even if there are some attractive parties on the right wing they ally themselves with the conservatives and conservatives in my opinion must never ever have any power whatsoever in any civilized country.

[ November 10, 2004, 16:05: Message edited by: joacqin ]

@Aldeth: I was thinking of running a similar poll, with a slightly more generic approach; basically, "I voted for Candidate and X and feel good about it" vs. "I voted for Candidate X but have many reservations." I shouldn't be surprised that you beat me to it. :) In any case, I'd love to see this kind of statistic collected on a national level. Sure, there SEEMS to be a wide polarization in voter opinion this year, but might we not find that the TRUE majority of Americans are equally disgusted with having to choose between two such horrendous choices?

Take THAT as your mandate, Mr. President.

@Harbourboy: :lol: I agree with you almost entirely, except for the fact that if Bush manages to push through his repressively conservative social policies, he will have a significant long-term impact on my daily life, and that of my sons. :(

On a brighter note, the likely Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is a moderate Republican (yes, there are a few, and yes he is a Pennsylvanian who won my support!) who's already warned the President to not try to overload the courts with a bunch of anti-choice extremists. There is some hope.

I think that in this election the majority of the llberal voters in the US (as well as the majority of foreigners) found themselves in the same position with the french left few years ago, when the french leftist had to vote for Chirac, a conservative politician, in order to prevent Lepen's victory.

...but might we not find that the TRUE majority of Americans are equally disgusted with having to choose between two such horrendous choices? in the pre-election episode of South Park, the kids had to vote between a "giant douche" and a "turd sandwich" for their next school mascot.

But I'm still convinced that Kerry wasn't just an ABB non-choice: I think he would have been sensible, and critically, would have taken on advisors that knew a thing or two about policy.

I didn't see very many differences between the two. Both men basically stood for the same things in the long run -- they just disagreed with how to get there. The president is only a third of the leadership equation in the United States -- not much would have changed either way the vote went. Americans want a strong leader as president and as vice president. Quail lost the election for the senior Bush, Edwards did not help the Kerry ticket.

As far as history:
Kennedy didn't win by a landslide, he was not THAT inspiring during his campaign.
Reagan was scary. Sure he brought the Soviet Union to its knees, but we never knew when a missile might be incoming.
Clinton was for whatever the current poll said to be for -- very little true leadership there. He had many opportunities to make a difference and instead decided to stain a dress....

Republican: McCain in 2008.
Democrat: ??? I would say Hilary, but she really messed up health care reform when she had the chance.....

Sorry Bruno, but I disagree with the last part of your post. McCain has 0 chance, and Hillary is in unless the Clintons have lost their stranglehold on the Democratic Party.

The funny thing is, by the time 2008 gets here, I bet you that most of the people on the board will not favor her in the primaries.

Kerry didn't really impress me much, from what I managed to see of the electoral campaign of both candidates.

However...after witnessing the global disaster that is George W Bush, I would vote for Homer Simpson if it meant Bush getting out of power. :roll:

I agree Darkwolk, McCain has been too honest and won't use a negative campaign (which is why Bush beat him in 2000). But Hilary's only positive point is she stood by a womanizing husband (for her own gain) -- I hope someone can point that out in the next few years.

Faraaz, I sympathize with many of the issues you have expresses, but Bush is not a disaster in the minds of most Americans. He fought back when we were attacked (it may not have been the exact correct move) and most Americans agreed with the attack on the Taliban and continue to support the extermination of al Qaeda. The fighting in Iraq has the country polarized, but few were against taking the war to Afganistan.

He fought back when we were attacked (it may not have been the exact correct move) and most Americans agreed with the attack on the Taliban and continue to support the extermination of al Qaeda. The fighting in Iraq has the country polarized, but few were against taking the war to Afganistan. This is completely true. And it is also the reason why Bush was able to expand the War on Terror to include attacking Iraq. If 9/11 hadn't occurred, Bush would have had a far more difficult time convincing anyone that war with Iraq was necessary. If you look at public opinion polls, Bush had the highest approval rating in U.S. history following the 9/11 attacks and his response to them.

Sorry to go :yot: a bit, but I agree that neither Hillary or McCain will be the nominees in 2008. McCain has already taken a shot in 2000 and lost. By 2008 he will be 72 and his political career will be all but over.

As for Hillary, given the very conservative mindset in the U.S., I think nominating a woman would be an invitation to disaster for the Democratic party. Of course, due to the closed-mindedness of many U.S. voters, I don't think we'll have to worry about that because I don't think she can even win the nomination.

@T2Bruno: Mate, I can see where you're coming from...but seriously, IMHO (and I do not want to argue about this all over again), firstly Bush used the excuse of 9/11 to invade Iraq, which he has been itching to do since Operation Desert Storm .(again, IMHO!!)

Also, his allegations against Syria and Iran are baseless, and these are again countries he has been itching to invade (IMHO!!)

So...the way I see it, he's a potential World War III waiting to happen.

@Faraaz: I've never been a fan of the term "Axis of Evil" (except in an RPG...), I didn't like it when Reagan used the phrase and I don't like it now. I do not recall Bush ever using 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq -- the US press insinuated it several times and Bush let it happen and let it build (which I think was wrong of him, but he never asked me).

I agree that Desert Storm was a factor (just as the attempted genocide of the Kurds was a factor). I did not agree with the decision to go into Iraq at the time it happened (once again, I wasn't asked my opinion), but I am happy that Hussein is out of power.

Syria and Iran are powderkegs. I was very glad that Bush did not directly pursue nuclear arms negotiations with Iran (it would have been counterproductive) and left to France and Germany (I think). That was good decision on his part, it appears the talks (without the US) are working. I don't think anyone wants to invade either country.

The operation in Afganistan is really a blueprint of what the US wanted in Iraq. Get in, take out the current government, get out. I don't think we were prepared for the extent of control Hussein had.

Every President is a potential WW3 -- I feel more comfortable with Bush than I did with Reagan.

By the way, your arguements are very good and very interesting -- I really like seeing other points of view. You can be very pursuasive when you hold back the emotion and present your views (although emotion does add an appropriate kick every now and then).

:p I told I didn't want to argue about this all over again.

Heh, didn't you see all the "IMHO"s mate? ;)

Ah well, thank you, I appreciate the sentiment. Its just that Bush seems to be a very bad thing for all the non-US people to me, personally, is all.

@ T2Bruno:
I do not recall Bush ever using 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq -- the US press insinuated it several times and Bush let it happen and let it build (which I think was wrong of him, but he never asked me).He said as much, on many occasions - that Hussein and Iraq had connections with Al-Qaeda. I agree, though, that the media has more than played its part in communicating this. When a significant minority of Americans believe that Iraqis, not Saudis, were flying the planes that hit the WTC, and the administration does nothing to correct it, it suggests to me that this administration wanted that perception to exist but didn't/couldn't say it directly, because this would strengthen their arguments for going to war.

Just my $0.02. IMHO, if they had been serious about toppling Hussein, they should have finished the job in Desert Storm (possibly with the direct aid of the Kurds). But that's another argument entirely and I'm :yot: ...

This quote from Dogbert (credit to Scott Adams) sums up my view on this whole discussion nicely:

Highly intelligent and well-informed people disagree on every political issue. Therefore, intelligence and knowledge are useless for making decisions, because if any of that stuff helped, then all the smart people would have the same opinions.

So use your "gut instinct" to make voting choices. That is exactly like being clueless, but with the added advantage that you’ll feel as if your random vote preserved democracy.

Every President is a potential WW3 -- I feel more comfortable with Bush than I did with Reagan. Well, then you've got an inside scoop that a lot of us have not seen yet. Shrub is nowhere near the class act that Reagan was. There was a lot that Reagan did that I did not agree with. Nevertheless, Reagan was a very cool character. Remember the Russians shooting down the Korean Airliner? How about the 200 marines that were killed in Lebanon? If Shrub had been prez we all may not be sitting here now.

Reagan may have "acted" the part of a cowboy but in the end he played it smart and safe. He must have been one hell of a poker player too.

Also, I think you are onto something, HB. I voted for Kerry and it was an honor to vote against Shrub. But, consider that Kerry cleaned-up the floor with Bush during the debates, and he still lost the election by a sizable margin of the popular vote. The whole election really cuts against the grain of what had been the "conventional wisdom" of American politics.

[ November 17, 2004, 07:03: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Well, it's clear which demographic the Republicans need to work on next time -- they need to capture votes from rpgamers and non-U.S. citizens!

Frankly, I think the poll should have been broader. The "anybody but" votes indicate that the candidates were both fairly extreme. Bush won not because most people agree with most or all of his views, but because he's more moderate than Kerry. Moderates almost always win because they are the only ones who can gain support from a wide spectrum of people. Bush is not a moderate -- he's very conservative. But Kerry was more liberal than Bush was conservative, so Kerry lost.

Ah, perceptions are such a nice thing. However, Bush is generally seen as a rather extreme republican leaning far far to the right which is evident with if you look at some of the infighting within the party and the various factions and with people such as Powell and McCain. Kerry on the other hand was seen as most people as a bit too much to the right in the democratic party, too much of a moderate.

Bush won because he is more extreme, that is a fact. Right wing extremism always appeals to the masses as it speaks to peoples lowest instincts and desires.

joacqin, your byline says it all.
Ah, perceptions are such a nice thing. ... Bush won because he is more extreme, that is a fact.Nice to know that everything you think is a fact, while everything you disagree with is a mere perception.

Bombur - I see no reason to attack Joacqin personally over his views. Depending upon where one is standing on the political spectrum others may appear more to the right than moderate. I don't see Bush II as especially that extreme to the right, but as an incompetent hack. He has successfully played to the fears of Americans, particularly those in the "Bible Belt" who believe they are under attack on all fronts: culturally, politically, as well as the phony "war on terror." Nevertheless, Kerry could have easily defeated Shrub if he were not viewed as a New England liberal and a Catholic. As a result, the South was solidly against any notion of such an individual as prez. The original strategy was that Edwards would help appeal to Southerners, but he was a non-factor, given his lack-luster performance. So, "it is what it is." Dems need a genuine "good ole boy" to have a chance to win in the South.

Chandos: We're pretty far off topic, so I sent you a PM.

I like Bush's stance on moral issues, and from what I heard, Kerry supported things he didn't personally balieve in because he felt he had to. If I was voting for a President, I'd want one that makes his own decisions, not a puppet for various lobby groups.

I Canada, I voted for a candidate from one of the "other parties" on the ballot (read, not Liberal, NDP or Conservative) because I don't like any of them.

As for the States, I think that the Democrats would be in the White House if they'd put forth someone other than Kerry...

If I was voting for a President, I'd want one that makes his own decisions, not a puppet for various lobby groups.Without a doubt, and I could not agree more. That is one of the main reasons I voted against Bush. My vote was, in part, against the big drug companies, oil companies, HMOs and defense contractors, such as Halliburton. I agree with Nader's charge that "Bush is corporate America dressed in a suit."