John Kerry vs. George W. Bush

[MrPresident]

I don't think there is much real difference between the two so probably would vote for a third candidate and waste my vote.

 

[LouLong]

Since many users (such as me ) are non US, a poll with I am not US citizen - Bush / I am not US citizen - Kerry could have been interesting.

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by MrPresident
I don't think there is much real difference between the two so probably would vote for a third candidate and waste my vote.

A vote is only wasted if it's cast for someone other than your top choice.

 

[cgannon64]

Can't vote, and if I could I would probably vote Kerry by a hair.

If there is any man that reflects the establishment and 'corporate liberalism' (love 60s phrases in Nixon biographies) it is Kerry.

 

[Syterion]

Kerry should take Edwards just because Kerry himself is too liberal. He needs a more moderate running mate to appeal to more voters. Not to mention the fact that Edwards ia actually a good speaker.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by sysyphus


A vote is only wasted if it's cast for someone other than your top choice.

Casting a vote for someone who has already lost is wasteful, in my opinion.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Syterion
Kerry should take Edwards just because Kerry himself is too liberal. He needs a more moderate running mate to appeal to more voters. Not to mention the fact that Edwards ia actually a good speaker.

Not to mention that he's a Southerner.

 

[amadeus]

Bush. Kerry is as dangerous as Chamberlain in terms of foreign policy, the economy, and national defense.

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by Archer 007
Casting a vote for someone who has already lost is wasteful, in my opinion.

Why? Unless the election was decided by only one vote, your vote going to someone with less appeal but a greater chance of winning has gone to waste. If the candidate would have won with or without your vote, then you'd have been better off spending it on the candidate with greater appeal, at least then it woul dhave given your real views greater strength.

 

[HighlandWarrior]

I choose dumb instead of dumber, i will vote for bush.

 

[andrewgprv]

Nader, Kerry and Bush arn't that much different Nader stands closer to my views and I am sick of the politicall dualopoly in this country.

 

[Speedo]

His poll numbers were so bad in North Carolina that he stepped down and won't run for re-election to his Senate seat.

No. He stepped down way back when he was still strong in the Primary race, to concentrate on it.

In Nov I might throw a write-in vote for Edwards just out of protest. No way I'm going to support Bush, Kerry or Nader.

 

[crystal]

Bush is absolutely terrible, and unfortenately Kerry doesn't seem to be very much different either. Ralph Nader would probably get one more vote from me -- if I only had the chance to vote.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

One look at Kerry and you can tell there's no way he can win over swing voters and centrists [like our resident Speedo ]. What was the DNC thinking?

Imagine if political primaries were held FIRST in states that the party lost by the smallest margins, then states won by small margins, then states won or lost by very large margins. In other words, concentrate on the states that we can win, and then the states we're at risk to lose. Who would our nominee be then? Surely not Kerry. IMHO it would be a tossup between Edwards, Clark, and Gephardt. All three were building momentum as the primaries went into the first large round, but Kerry's two wins - both in states that don't really matter - propelled him to victory.

Well, at least we can repair the situation by nominating a strong Midwestern or Southern veep.

 

[brandonbowler]

Kerry does have some good ideas. But i he is voted for president we'll just see if he can come through with them. (US)

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

If only Kerry weren't such protectionnist..

 

[Eivind IV]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78867&pagenumber=1