All Hail President Kerry?

With John Kerry seeming to pick up steam every day, it appears more and more likely that he will be the Democratic nominee for President. Just because I'm curious, I wanted to know what people's feelings were on a few issues:

1. Do you think Kerry has a chance to defeat Bush?

2. Do you think someone other than Kerry has a better chance?

3. Would you rather have Bush re-elected?

4. How closely are you following all the primaries, nominations, and the like?

Take care all.

1. No

2. No

3. Yes

4. I read the news each morning - but I don't listen to any of the opinions or analyses of each candidate - only what comes from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

1.) Nope
2.) Nope
3.) Yep
4.) I wouldn't say I'm following it closely as much as casually.

All of this Kerry attention is very reminiscent of Dean's time in the spotlight not that long ago. I wouldn't be surprised if Kerry's appeal will also start to slip.

1) A chance. Maybe.
2) No.
3) No.
4) Pretty closely. My C-SPAN watching is up about 300%. (Although that's a little skewed since it wasn't that high to begin with.)

1. slim, but maybe
2. yes
3. no
4. very closely

vote Dean.

1. He has about as much chance as the next person. Except for Sharpton or Kucinich, because no one'll give them a chance at all.

2. I'd feel more comfortable with Dean out in front, but there's a lot of campaigning left to do.

3. No.

4. Probably not as much as I should, but that'll change over time.

1. Do you think Kerry has a chance to defeat Bush?

Maybe. I like Bush more though...

2. Do you think someone other than Kerry has a better chance?

No. I like Joe Lieberman though, he seems to have more of a backbone.

3. Would you rather have Bush re-elected?

Yes.

4. How closely are you following all the primaries, nominations, and the like?


Close, Im watching Fox News channel.

Where have you been, The Captain?:(

And I don't know about your Yankie business.;-) Other than:

3. No. Even Bert would do better than him.

1. Let's hope so.

2. Maybe. Won't know until the elections begin, really.

3. NO.

4. I've been watching both CNN and an International news channel that Bright House provides, and I've been looking through the New York Times here and there. Dean and Kerry both look good, as I said in another thread.

1. Do you think Kerry has a chance to defeat Bush?
Possibly, but not much of one.
2. Do you think someone other than Kerry has a better chance?
Yes, DEAN.
3. Would you rather have Bush re-elected?
Nope.

4. How closely are you following all the primaries, nominations, and the like?
I wasn't at first, but now I am, and I've gotten interested in this subject.
Take care all.

1. Do you think Kerry has a chance to defeat Bush?
- A slim one, maybe.

2. Do you think someone other than Kerry has a better chance?
- I don't think so anymore, not with the momentum Kerry has got over the past couple of weeks.

3. Would you rather have Bush re-elected?
- Depends on his policy on immigration, and the policies of his potential successor.

4. How closely are you following all the primaries, nominations, and the like?
- Not hugely, but the BBC was providing a fair whack of coverage until the Hutton business came up. I suspect it'll continue with the rather intensive coverage within the next few days, however. I think we'll be getting an awful lot of coverage over here though, people are extremely interested, given the close ties between the two nations, the Florida 2000 business and the fact that many people disagree with Bush's policies and ergo our involvement in the Coalition.

Is Noname the guy who used to have a name that started with a K or something? Cuz I'm sensing a pattern here.

1. Yes

2. No

3. No

4. Closely

The election of a Democratic president now would interfere with Hilary's ascension to the presidency in 2008. Since she cannot be stopped, Bush will probably be re-elected. :p

We have no chance to survive. Make our time. :mad:

(On a side note, I heard the above comment about Hilary on CNN. I don't really know if Kerry would beat Bush, but I'm betting not. Incumbents are usually re-elected...)

1. Yes. There's an underground "Anybody but Bush" movement growing, and it's going to appeal to a lot of groups that Bush has pissed off. Also keep in mind that Bush was never a popular president. Even though he won the election, he did not win the popular vote.

2. No, although either Edwards or Dean has probably about the same shot. Dean isn't looking so hot at the primaries right now... he has quite a bit of liberal support (even though supposedly he's fiscally moderate). He seems like just another Gore to me really, and we all know how successful Gore was...

3. Please NO

4. I am an addict for Democratic primary news. I'm not a Democrat myself (I have mixed feelings about both of our two-party system), but I'm sticking to news about the road to nomination like white on rice.

1. Anything's possible.

2. No clue.

3. No idea.

4. I watch the news every day, that's about it.

<i>Also keep in mind that Bush was never a popular president. Even though he won the election, he did not win the popular vote.</i> --KingAlces

And considering how many people even vote in this country, even Presidents who do win the popular vote could possibly have a majority of people in this country disapprove of them. How many people eligible to vote actually do, 30%, 40%? Such is our country. No one's fault but our own.

That's a great point raised by the good Doctor. If we could somehow muster a way to get more like 80% of the general registered population to vote, then I think we'd have a more democratic way of government. Of course, to jump from 40% to 80% would take some sort of system that either hasn't been successful or hasn't been invented yet, so the odds that this election will see more voter turnout is highly unlikely. Yet, maybe it's up to our generation, and those younger who are just turning the voting age to set the trend and actually vote, which will in turn finally make amends to some of the problems our country faces with voter turnout.

Take care all.

The problem with getting more people to vote is the various requirements for registering to vote. If registering to vote were made easier, there would be higher turnout. Generally registration restrictions (like having a one month prior to election deadline, having to mail in forms) discourages poorer and less educated people from voting. This causes the voting public to be more skewed towards upper incomes and societal levels.

Registration is actually not that difficult. The restrictions that exist now are there to prevent voter fraud, and as our country has had a history of voter fraud, those restrictions probably ought to remain in place.

People are apathetic about voting. It's sad. But voting is more a privelege than a responsibility, and if they don't want to vote, I say good riddance.

Not all states have same day or even same week registration though. Each state is allowed to decide it's own voting registration rules.

The people that vote should be the people that keep informed and care about the outcome. I wouldn't want people that are completely ignorant about politics to have the same say as the educated. Every stupid vote cancels out an intelligent one, and I think the dumb people hold the majority. Education should be a voting requirement.

As for the topic:
Yes, because Bush is losing support every day that he continues the occupation of Iraq.

Yes, Lieberman and Dean aren't out of the picture yet. Sharpton was never in the picture, but it's nice to see minorities trying - maybe one will win - some day.

Get Bush out of office before he starts another war.

I watch the news and read about it on the internet.

1. Do you think Kerry has a chance to defeat Bush?
Sure...why not?

2. Do you think someone other than Kerry has a better chance?
Yeah. I think Edwards or Dean will win it. Edwards is more of a Southern guy and for some reason people from the north just can't win anything in the south.

3. Would you rather have Bush re-elected?
DEAR GOD NO!

4. How closely are you following all the primaries, nominations, and the like?
As much as humanly possible. Its like watching tennis. After about game 14 of the possible 60+ you just stop caring because it all starts to be the same.

<i>The people that vote should be the people that keep informed and care about the outcome. I wouldn't want people that are completely ignorant about politics to have the same say as the educated. Every stupid vote cancels out an intelligent one, and I think the dumb people hold the majority. Education should be a voting requirement.</i> --Garland

This is a good point too. I forget where I read it, but imagine the case where there was a little control panel in every house in the country, and on every issue you just voted yes or no by pressing a button and a huge computer would count the millions of votes, and that's how our government was run. That would be a true democracy, and it would fail horribly, as most people would probably agree; most people aren't nearly informed or intelligent enough to be able to make important decisions.

What we have, a representative democracy, is supposedly better because we pick the most able among us to vote on issues for us, and to tell us what to do. The problem, as Garland said, is still there though; the stupid people are still voting to pick the smart people, and if people are too stupid to directly vote on the issues, why do we consider them smart enough to vote on who gets to vote on the issues? Beats me.

That's definitely a matter that never gets talked about enough, voter education. How do you think we could go about educating those who have less able resources of knowledge to take from?

Take care all.

If people don't want to learn, you can't force then. A newspaper costs a few cents. There's nothing stopping anyone from being informed.

Fair enough. Then, should restrictions be placed upon citizens who are less informed? Should some form of current events test be administered before they are allowed to vote? There must be some way to fix such an obvious flaw in the system.

Take care all.

It seems to me that only 39% of the population votes in the presidential election and like half of that votes at any other election type thing...senate, house, mayor and so on.

I would say that is is most probably that 1% or less of those who vote in most elections are stupid. I would say the system works pretty well because most of the time you would have to be informed enough to know WHERE to vote and so on. Being able to take the time to figure that out seems to make me think that the person would be smart enough to be informed about who they are voting for also.

The system may not be perfect but to me it seems to do a fairly good job of weeding out the morons inadvertanly.

There are plenty of informed people who don't vote, though, mostly because they feel disenfranchised by the whole and don't feel either party really represents them or their group.

1. Do you think Kerry has a chance to defeat Bush?

Better than anyone thus far into the race.

2. Do you think someone other than Kerry has a better chance?

Maybe Edwards, since he seems to care more for the people, rather than Kerry who is primarily for the economy. Though if either Edwards or Dean doesn't win a state soon, there will be no chance to surpass Kerry.

3. Would you rather have Bush re-elected?

... no.

4. How closely are you following all the primaries, nominations, and the like?

I'm not spending every waking moment worrying over the primaries, though I do follow them somewhat.