The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Kucinich 80
No Child Left Behind

Gravel 64
(you have no disagreements with this candidate)

Obama 39
Patriot Act, Border Fence, Same-Sex Marriage

Edwards 39
Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

Dodd 36
Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran - Military Action

Clinton 36
Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

Biden 34
Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Same-Sex Marriage

Richardson 27
Death Penalty, Assault Weapons Ban, Patriot Act, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage



kucinich is nice enough, but i'll probably be voting for bloomberg if he runs or carefully considering third party candidates (particularly green and libertarian) or a write-in... probably for bloomberg

sheesh, this just reinforces my belief that there is no candidate that represents me... the best agreeement i got was 36 or something like that, when you folks have "80".
-bill

Hoblit wrote:Don't forget that there is a smarter *COUGH* more deserving Bush that can be planted after the second round of Clintons.

A jab for Jeb. I'd rather jab Jeb. There's only one place any Bush should be planted...and it ain't above the sea level.

WQAD:
Hillary Clinton
Score: 37

DEHP:
Kucinich 22

And those were the top scorers. Right there with you, Bill

The conclusion I come to from these polls is that I don't really care which one passes the democratic primary, 'coz I'm going to vote for them no matter what.

I voted yesterday, but not for president. Bronconnier won the Calgary election (thanks to my faithful vote). It was either him, or Alnoor Kassam (the nearest competitor - he embezzled 2 million dollars from his home country before escaping to Canada. No way would he get my vote)

On a mostly unrelated note, when I was around 10 I made this series of fake radio shows and recorded them on tape. My radio station's call sign? WQAD "Quad". Don't remember why, but I was amused today when I saw that poll.
M's results were even lower numbers than mine.
-bill

What, no Steven Colbert?

Puce wrote:What, no Steven Colbert?

good call, and apparently it's official - er, well, you know... made the frontpage of yahoo! news anyway:

http://tv.yahoo.com/show/38498/news/urn ... __ER:42717

i would not be the least bit surprised if he actually posed a challenge, even if only as a write-in candidate.

Kucinich 80
(you have no disagreements with this candidate)

Gravel 66
(you have no disagreements with this candidate)

Obama 47
Patriot Act, Iran Sanctions, Same-Sex Marriage

Clinton 42
Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

Edwards 37
Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

Dodd 37
Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action

Biden 35
Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Iran Sanctions, Same-Sex Marriage

Richardson 25
Death Penalty, Assault Weapons Ban, Patriot Act, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

Paul 20
Abortion Rights, Embryonic Stem Cells, ANWR Drilling, Kyoto, Assault Weapons Ban, Guns - Background Checks, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Same-Sex Marriage, Universal Healthcare

Brownback -18
McCain -22
Cox -24
Thompson -29
Giuliani -35
Huckabee -48
Tancredo -65
Romney -68
Hunter -73


Both polls had same general result - Kucinich first, Hunter last.

This Kucinich sounds like a decent bloke - shame I've never heard of him before. Who is he?

And who is Hunter? He sounds like a complete dick.

Is Al Gore going to run?

Caravan Ray wrote:This Kucinich sounds like a decent bloke - shame I've never heard of him before. Who is he?

He's a Representative from Ohio, I think he used to be mayor of Cincinatti (maybe Columbus, beats me). He's as far left as a main party candidate can be and a pacifist and environmentalist and all those great -ists and seems genuine enough, but is completely unelectable (probably for those very reasons). He ran in '04 and didn't come close to getting the nomination.

In 2004 I threw my vote away. I voted Democrat.

I was gonna vote Green party. I wish I had. I think a third party doesn't stand much of a chance at this point, but my vote says far more about what I believe when it goes to a third-party candidate. But I gave in to loud insistence from many people whose opinions I hold in high regard that my vote needed to go to the Democrats, in order to oust George W. Bush. Fat lot of good it did.

To vote for someone because the one other likely option is worse is the sort of idea that probably keeps a lot of people from bothering with the polls altogether. Fuck 'Survivor: Washington'. I will not make the same mistake again.

jimtyrrell wrote:In 2004 I threw my vote away. I voted Democrat.

I was gonna vote Green party. I wish I had. I think a third party doesn't stand much of a chance at this point, but my vote says far more about what I believe when it goes to a third-party candidate. But I gave in to loud insistence from many people whose opinions I hold in high regard that my vote needed to go to the Democrats, in order to oust George W. Bush. Fat lot of good it did.

To vote for someone because the one other likely option is worse is the sort of idea that probably keeps a lot of people from bothering with the polls altogether. Fuck 'Survivor: Washington'. I will not make the same mistake again.

No, you'll just make a different mistake.

If I can't determine what's NOT a mistake, the best I can do is to at least make MY OWN. *shrug*

jimtyrrell wrote:But I gave in to loud insistence from many people whose opinions I hold in high regard that my vote needed to go to the Democrats, in order to oust George W. Bush. Fat lot of good it did.

It's a vote, not a wish on a magic lamp.

What I mean is, I believe my vote would have had more overall value if given to a third party candidate. Certainly a lot more personal satisfaction. And it would have been a more accurate representation of what I believe needs to happen to the system.

jimtyrrell wrote:What I mean is, I believe my vote would have had more overall value if given to a third party candidate. Certainly a lot more personal satisfaction. And it would have been a more accurate representation of what I believe needs to happen to the system.

Do you have a preferential voting system?

Caravan Ray wrote:Kucinich 80
(you have no disagreements with this candidate)

Gravel 66
(you have no disagreements with this candidate)

Obama 47
Patriot Act, Iran Sanctions, Same-Sex Marriage

So, Caravan Ray and I DO have a lot in common.

A preferential voting system? I guess not. Not that I can lay out in detail, anyway. But the two-party system we've got going here has never done a good job of producing an elected official that represents me well. The two dominant parties are quite similar in a lot of ways, really. The answer to that is most likely 'I'm an oddball voter, and not worthy of demographic targeting'. I can believe that. If I accept that and actually VOTE like one, maybe there will be enough of us to be heard, I guess.

jimtyrrell wrote:A preferential voting system? I guess not. Not that I can lay out in detail, anyway. But the two-party system we've got going here has never done a good job of producing an elected official that represents me well. The two dominant parties are quite similar in a lot of ways, really. The answer to that is most likely 'I'm an oddball voter, and not worthy of demographic targeting'. I can believe that. If I accept that and actually VOTE like one, maybe there will be enough of us to be heard, I guess.

In our system we number all candidates according to preference (1, 2, 3, 4...etc). That way you can vote for the Green Party or the local loony with the teapot on his head (often the same candidate) or anyone you want - just so long your final preference is directed to the major party you deem to be the lesser evil. In theory, this allows you to send a message to the major parties by decreasing their primary vote and means that good Green or independant candidates can have a real chance against the major parties.

Caravan Ray wrote:

jimtyrrell wrote:A preferential voting system? I guess not. Not that I can lay out in detail, anyway. But the two-party system we've got going here has never done a good job of producing an elected official that represents me well. The two dominant parties are quite similar in a lot of ways, really. The answer to that is most likely 'I'm an oddball voter, and not worthy of demographic targeting'. I can believe that. If I accept that and actually VOTE like one, maybe there will be enough of us to be heard, I guess.

In our system we number all candidates according to preference (1, 2, 3, 4...etc). That way you can vote for the Green Party or the local loony with the teapot on his head (often the same candidate) or anyone you want - just so long your final preference is directed to the major party you deem to be the lesser evil. In theory, this allows you to send a message to the major parties by decreasing their primary vote and means that good Green or independant candidates can have a real chance against the major parties.

Yes, your method is much more civilized than what we have here. There are, however, advocates for instituting instantaneous run-off style elections here... so perhaps there's some hope for our distant future.

Now if we could just ditch the stupid electoral college...

I would like that sort of election scheme here, at least for the most major positions.... Are you required to place all ranks, or can you stop and say "the other people get nothing" ?
-bill