Another interesting tidbit from this election...California...

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Pubs are now threatening the 3 pubs who actually voted for the stimulus package with not supporting them for re-election. So basically, they don't want these 3 senators to actually represent the wishes of the people in their states, they just want them to be obstructionists. It should be quite obvious to everyone at this point that the pub party is only out for itself, and does not give a rats butt about what happens to the economy or the people of this country. In fact if pub citizens were to actually get their heads out of their butts and look at the big picture for a change they would see that the only thing the pub party is trying to do is ensure that the democratic party fails (at any cost) so they can be in power again.

I just want all you pubs out there to remember this so that when we are in a full blown recession and you start yelling that it's Obama's fault because he didn't do anything, you can look back and see exactly who is stopping progress in this country and have ruined your lives and the lives of your children ---- with your support.

I would love to file early but my tax guy seems to put us on the end of the list. April 15, we get ours done with no chance to look it over before its sent because he does electronic filling.

No worries here, though. We always owe. No matter how hard or how much we pay in during the year, we still owe at the end. Haven't gotten a refund for 10 years.

Oh, wait!!!! I LIED!!!! We just got a check for $6.84 cause we overpaid what we owed. Wow! I'm gonna run right out and buy a six pack of beer.

Hubby wants to frame it and not cash it. Told him he better cash it. Might be the last one we ever recieve. I can always make a photocopy of it.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/21/MNPP130KA7.DTL&feed=rss.news

You may remember the incident when the war first started and a soldier threw a grenade into a tent killing several other soldiers, including, I believe an officer. This lovely show of support for the soldiers was on display at that convention.

we will be provided the usual substandard party-approved (both parties) candidates to choose from - if it is an actual contested election. How often does a rogue candidate even get past the primaries in this country? And how effective could this hypothetical nonpartisan candidate be if elected, when the other kids in the House and Senate won't let him play?

Most candidates don't stand much chance against any incumbent. Seems that we vote based on 'name recognition' and don't much care in what context we recognize the name. Has to be the explanation for how some of these guys (and gals) stay in office term after term despite the fact that we despise them. Nobody can unseat them without party approval. And if you spend enough advertising bucks in the several weeks before election we'd vote for Genghis Khan.

Same theory as they use in product advertising. Say the name and slogan enough times on TV and when we get to the stores we'll recognize it on the shelf and figure it must be okay. See? All the hard decision-making has been done for us!

Obama was anointed by the democrats; McCain was anointed by the republicans, and I did not see a whole lot of difference between them. Both promised to take us in the same direction at slightly different speeds. So I voted for the lesser of two evils (lot of good it did me). And when you do that, it's easy to forget you still voted for evil.

Sad to say, we seem to get the candidates and products we deserve. We vote for whoever the party runs, buy the products that spend most on advertising, and that's pretty much that.

I am at a complete loss as to how to change any of this because it all seems to be one big interconnected system. Throwing the bums out is a great idea, but replace them with what? More party clones? I don't think a true populist candidate stands much chance against the two party machines we have.

Here's a clue, no one really listens to hatred. You need to cozy it up a bit, put a little whipped cream on it, disguise it a little. All the personal attacks and name-calling, while typical of you libbies, isn't very palatable. KnowwhatImeanVern?

(CBS) If last year�s presidential election were being held today, the results might well be different than the results of a year ago. 41% of registered voters say that if the 2004 election were being held today, they would cast their ballot for Democratic candidate John Kerry, while 36% say they would vote for President George W. Bush. 13% say they would vote for someone else, and 6% wouldn�t vote at all.

IF 2004 ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY�
(Registered Voters)

John Kerry

41%
George W. Bush

36%
Someone else

13%
Not vote

6%

In this poll, 12% of registered voters said they didn�t vote in 2004. Among those who did vote, 45% said they voted for Kerry last year, and 46% said they voted for President Bush. 2% reported voting for Nader, and 7% won�t say for whom they voted.

If the election were held this year, both candidates would retain more than eight in ten of the voters who supported them last year, according to this poll. But President Bush would lose about 3% of those who said they voted for him last year to his Democratic opponent. And although none of those who supported Kerry last year would now vote for Bush, 13% say they would support another candidate. But among voters who either didn�t vote in 2004 or voted for another candidate, or refused to say for whom they voted, Kerry leads Bush by 34% to 11%.

IF 2004 ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY�
(Registered Voters)

In 2004, voted for: Kerry
John Kerry

81%
George W. Bush

-
Someone else

13%
Not vote

4%

In 2004, voted for: Bush
John Kerry

3%
George W. Bush

84%
Someone else

7%
Not vote

3%

In 2004, voted for: Other/didn't vote
John Kerry

34%
George W. Bush

11%
Someone else

23%
Not vote

16%

For detailed information on how CBS News conducts public opinion surveys, click here.

This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 936 adults, including 828 registered voters, interviewed by telephone October 30-November 1, 2005. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample and the sample of registered voters could be plus or minus three percentage points.

to migrate to alaska. Ms. Palin will be returning there in Nov permanently. They have been expecting a massive Rapture-induced influx of people, so they probably won't shoot you unless you are wearing a fur coat. You might as well go, coz you are gonna be totally miserable for the next 4 years as Barack begins the long journey of righting the sinking ship called U.S.

Do you think this will be a high voter turn-out year? Voter registrations are waaaay up this year. (Barring, of course, the fraudulent registrations which will hopefully have been resoved by election day.)

It's certainly been the most hotly contested campaign season I can recall - and I've been voting since the late 70s. There's so much bravado and blustering coming from both camps, and the media clearly chose their darling many moons ago, it seems like people will either be so sick of it, or apathetic about the outcome, that a lot of folks simply won't bother to show up.

I know there's been a massive push to register young voters. Our college campus has been crawling with people trying to stir up support for a certain candidate. My daughter and her friends are apporached every time they attend an event, from football games to local band open mic nights. But do you think everyone will actually turn up on election day?

And this may be totally UN-PC, but I'm not so sure everybody SHOULD vote. I mean, if you're too lazy to register, are you really going to be doing your due diligence and educating yourself about each candidate's policies and proposals?