# Politics <what are you?>



## pm5kbebop (Oct 22, 2005)

American Politics ..names anyway.. (not sure what the parties are called in other countries so ,if ya feellike it,chime in as well)

:banana *REPUBLICAN!!* :banana


----------



## Equisgurl (Nov 22, 2004)

Don't care :cig


----------



## itsmemaggi (Sep 26, 2005)

I'm a registered Republican, but I don't limit myself to one party. That'd be almost as ignorant as not voting at all. :um 

xoxo
Maggi


----------



## pm5kbebop (Oct 22, 2005)

itsmemaggi said:


> I'm a registered Republican, but I don't limit myself to one party. That'd be almost as ignorant as not voting at all. :um
> 
> xoxo
> Maggi


while i do like the registered republican part,the rest is just pretty much
:blah


----------



## odun (Nov 9, 2003)

im a registered republican.


----------



## ghostgurl (Sep 20, 2004)

I politically align myself with no one. That just sounds evil.


----------



## Paul (Sep 26, 2005)

Economic centrist (perhaps a little toward the conservative side), social liberal, registered democrat (though I've voted for the occasional republican for some offices). Unfortunately the only way to get the policies I really want is a coup which installs me as dictator (sadly I can't discuss details of any plans I may be implementing at this time).


----------



## itsmemaggi (Sep 26, 2005)

pm5kbebop said:


> itsmemaggi said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a registered Republican, but I don't limit myself to one party. That'd be almost as ignorant as not voting at all. :um
> ...


Why am I not surprised you're saying that? :b

xoxo
Maggi


----------



## Scrub-Zero (Feb 9, 2004)

Equisgurl said:


> Don't care :cig


same here


----------



## Molten Universe (Feb 17, 2005)

It's f**ked up either way, so I choose not to take sides.


----------



## pm5kbebop (Oct 22, 2005)

Paul said:


> Economic centrist (perhaps a little toward the conservative side), social liberal, registered democrat (though I've voted for the occasional republican for some offices). Unfortunately the only way to get the policies I really want is a coup which installs me as dictator (sadly I can't discuss details of any plans I may be implementing at this time).


i'll join your coup!but watch it,i cant be trusted,i'll train monkeys to join my army and take you out once we seize power....muahahaha..oh wait,i shouldnt have said that... :banana



> Why am I not surprised you're saying that?
> 
> xoxo
> Maggi


 cause im a republican?is that why you arent suprised?REPUBLICANS RULE! (literally) and registered republicans are super duper cool!youre super duper cool! :yay 
opcorn


----------



## OneIsALonelyNumber (Mar 28, 2005)

I picked independant, but I regard myself as a liberal Republican. I don't often vote for Republicans however, for reasons better discussed on the politics board.


----------



## Roberto (Aug 16, 2004)

I said independent, but really, I don't understand politics. ~ :stu


----------



## itsmemaggi (Sep 26, 2005)

pm5kbebop said:


> cause im a republican?is that why you arent suprised?REPUBLICANS RULE! (literally) and registered republicans are super duper cool!youre super duper cool! :yay
> opcorn


I think that *maybe* (don't quote me on this) our geographical location plays a major role in how "Republican" pr "Democrat" we are. Well, that and family life and friends and everything else.

xoxo
Maggi


----------



## Kardax (Dec 29, 2004)

I'm independant. People I vote for always lose, but it's the principle that counts 

-Ryan


----------



## pm5kbebop (Oct 22, 2005)

itsmemaggi said:


> pm5kbebop said:
> 
> 
> > cause im a republican?is that why you arent suprised?REPUBLICANS RULE! (literally) and registered republicans are super duper cool!youre super duper cool! :yay
> ...


well,miss maggi,i happen to have lived in L.A. california for 15 years of my life ...the LAND of democrats....and i was raised to be a democrat ...but 9-11 happened and i turned into a republican like the wolfman changing at the full moon....ha..i even foam at the mouth when i see howard dean (like a true republican).But yes,i suppose where youre located does play a role.I believe family,friends and 'everything else' plays a larger role though.


----------



## mserychic (Oct 2, 2004)

Registered democrat.


----------



## Mellah (Nov 10, 2003)

none,dont care for politics


----------



## Lonelyguy (Nov 8, 2003)

I'm registered as independent but I have very little interest in politics. I would say my views lean more toward the conservative side if anything, but I've been so repulsed by our goverment lately I have little interest in it anymore.


----------



## rb27 (Jul 17, 2005)

Democrat, although politicians from both sides of the spectrum tend to annoy me.


----------



## cube (Jul 8, 2004)

I don't align myself with any political party. They're all equally repulsive to me.


----------



## Argo (May 1, 2005)

Registered Republican, though the evangelical stuff just annoys me. I'm not as interested in politics as I was a few years ago.


----------



## Argo (May 1, 2005)

itsmemaggi said:


> I think that *maybe* (don't quote me on this) our geographical location plays a major role in how "Republican" pr "Democrat" we are. Well, that and family life and friends and everything else.


Yeah. It's almost inevitable that the social mileiu you live in will rub onto you to one degree or another.


----------



## Argo (May 1, 2005)

rb27 said:


> Democrat, although politicians from both sides of the spectrum tend to annoy me.


You can't keep your sanity if you don't despise the cant so many of them rip out like morning stool.


----------



## cakesniffer (Nov 11, 2003)

Independent.


----------



## WinterDave (Dec 5, 2003)

I am a Republican in the mode of my heroes, Teddy Roosevelt and John McCain...A Republican from the Northeast is a lot different than a Republican from the South...Just as a Democrat from the South is a lot different than a Democrat from the Northeast...I don't think that many people adhere strictly to the "Party Line" on all their beliefs anymore...I usually settle for a politician that has integrity, honor, courage, and core beliefs...And that is hard to find! :lol I still think that we should have Bill Gates as President..He knows how to run a business, gives lots of money to charity, and is adept at crushing his enemies...Do you think that Bin Laden or Steve Jobs would still be alive if Bill Gates was President? :lol


----------



## moviefreak13 (Oct 22, 2005)

Becky said:


> none


^ Me too


----------



## clenched_fist (Jan 4, 2004)

Mellah said:


> none,dont care for politics


:dito


----------



## pm5kbebop (Oct 22, 2005)

lots of people dont care for politics ive noticed...tsk tsk tsk...young kids today,all they care about is their Ping pong video games,jumping jacks and loud beatles music. :b 

ive also noticed a few 'registered' republicans who dont seem to vote..republican on this poll.....traitors! :mum


----------



## living in darkness (Apr 17, 2005)

Where is Socialist on this list?


----------



## CodeWeasel (Aug 11, 2005)

I'm usally way out in left field.


----------



## pm5kbebop (Oct 22, 2005)

living in darkness said:


> Where is Socialist on this list?


if i added socialist party,i would have had to add communist party....So..atleast we know where you stand.

:twak


----------



## anonymid (Oct 16, 2005)

I'm a registered Democrat, but I prefer to vote for third-party candidates whenever possible.


----------



## Urkidding (Oct 12, 2005)

I'm a registered nothing. I'm not sure if that's like the Know-nothing Party.


----------



## itsmemaggi (Sep 26, 2005)

anonymid said:


> I'm a registered Democrat, but I prefer to vote for third-party candidates whenever possible.


Some people believe that a vote for the third party candidates is a vote lost toward the Democrats... And that it helps the Republican candidates win. I can't say I disagree. As much as it sucks, American politics is a two-party system.

xoxo
Maggi


----------



## ott (Aug 2, 2005)

Slightly left of centre, I voted Labour in the election this year.

Both the republicans and democrats would be right-wing parties around here though, so on the american scale I'd probably be rated as a pinko commie.


----------



## pm5kbebop (Oct 22, 2005)

pinko commie?alrighty.to think youre left of Looney liberals though,wow...only 4 republicans here?or atleast who voted republican....meh.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

I am Republican - I can't stand all the "special" stuff. The Democratic Party is just bickering too much.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

Republican - too much bickering on the other side.


----------



## Sesshomaru (Sep 28, 2005)

100% liberal/democrat


----------



## Reeses (Jan 12, 2005)

Used to be a democrat... then i grew up :b 

Registered republican here.


----------



## el omen (Dec 16, 2005)

registered independent

voted for that ****-head kerry in 04. voted for green in this poll, as they are closest align to my views.


----------



## odun (Nov 9, 2003)

Sesshomaru said:


> 100% liberal/democrat


if you are 100% liberal, you really shouldnt be a democrat.

the democrats give liberalism a bad name.


----------



## raalka (Nov 14, 2004)

I considered myself a democrat until not too long ago. I grew up surrounded by them. I don't think I ever even met a republican until I entered the workforce. Seriously. 

I think following 9/11 I slowly began to feel more and more fed up with liberals in general. I don't agree with the way they attack people on the other side. I know both sides are guilty of nastiness sometimes, but it seems to me that most of it gets flung from the blue side. At least that is what I see. 

I am not a republican, though. Even if I secretly thought I was, I could never come out and admit such or all my blood relatives would conspire to have me killed.

I will call myself an independent because I value my life and depending on the issue I can go either way or no way at all. 

At this point in my life, I just can't understand people who fervently claim to belong to one party or another. Surely people can't ALWAYS agree with one particular party on every issue. 

My mom took her best friend of 40 years off her will when she (the friend) recently became a republican. That's just petty and ridiculous.


----------



## odun (Nov 9, 2003)

> I considered myself a democrat until not too long ago. I grew up surrounded by them. I don't think I ever even met a republican until I entered the workforce. Seriously.


ironically, the republican party was formed in wisconsin.


----------



## BeNice (Jan 2, 2004)

I always have associated with anarchism. I don't like the idea of a state, and therefore couldn't support state socialism. Of course, my ideals are kind of utopian. I care more about figuring things out for myself and surviving in this mess. I don't want to be an activist or do underground stuff. Pretty much, I don't care, yet I care. Ironically, or maybe not so, I tend to despise a lot of the typical liberal attitudes... a lot of people in the anarchist community do, too.


----------



## odun (Nov 9, 2003)

BeNice said:


> I always have associated with anarchism. I don't like the idea of a state, and therefore couldn't support state socialism. Of course, my ideals are kind of utopian. I care more about figuring things out for myself and surviving in this mess. I don't want to be an activist or do underground stuff. Pretty much, I don't care, yet I care. Ironically, or maybe not so, I tend to despise a lot of the typical liberal attitudes... a lot of people in the anarchist community do, too.


good points!

american liberals certainly arent real liberals anyway. they are just as authoritarian, moralizing, and intolerant as religious conservatives (just over different issues)

i just read int he paper that the 'liberals' in the massachusetts legislature want to place further limits on the rights of pro-life protesters in front of abortion clinics.

that is typical american liberalism. they are in favor of free speech and expression as long as they agree with the speaker. fortunatly, civil liberties groups (most of which are pro abortion) have spoken out against this tyranical nonsense proposed by the inepts in the legislature.


----------



## kikachuck (Nov 10, 2003)

I'm a republican, but I consider myself conservative before republican. I have considered (although not terribly seriously) changing parties and becoming a libertarian. I'm more of a classic liberal than anything (which for some reason is called 'conservative' in this country), and I feel more and more that we don't have much of a place in the republican party which is turning into a democrat light.

My family is full of democrats, and it wouldn't suprise me if I was the only actual republican in the bunch. I can't really say this in my family, but the democrat party and leftism disgust me.


----------



## pixiedust (Aug 11, 2005)

I'm a bleeding heart liberal. I have a tendency to feel bad for conservatives.

I once had a professor when I studied in Australia that said "I used to be a Conservative, and then I grew up". I took that with me, it describes me to a T. I'd rather have compassion and empathy than a gun rack.


----------



## odun (Nov 9, 2003)

> I once had a professor when I studied in Australia that said "I used to be a Conservative, and then I grew up"


unfortunately, too many professors actually think we pay major $$$ to go to school to hear them talk about their personal political views.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

BeNice said:


> I always have associated with anarchism. I don't like the idea of a state, and therefore couldn't support state socialism.


I'm not sure how anarchy would work in the real world. People often think libertarians like me are pretty nutty for just wanting a minimal state. I think some state is needed to protect and enforce the rights of individuals. And some things like national defense simply can't be done without a state.


----------



## odun (Nov 9, 2003)

> I think some state is needed to protect and enforce the rights of individuals.


you know that now the (police) state usurps more rights than it protects.

the people who need the most protection (the poor, homeless, minorities, etc) are the people most often victimized by the gestapo.


----------



## BeNice (Jan 2, 2004)

Like I said, it's more of a utopian fantasy. Anyway, anarchism is a weird term. They all believe in some kind of organization, "policing", and looking out for one another, just not in the ways we are used to, ie an intrusive police state. Most people that I talk to who are on a discussion list, etc., don't want to be called that. A lot of the talk is semantics and "post anarchism", stuff I get lost on. I do believe, though, that something big will hit this country eventually, and there will be drastic change. I actually look forward to seeing the panic ahead. If there is some kind of peak oil crisis or something along those lines, I'm all for it and hope I'm alive when it happens. When that happens, I'd like to live in a "tribe" and have small local communities. I kind of fantasize about what our society would be like after all of our infrastructure that revolves around cars and oil is altered.


----------



## odun (Nov 9, 2003)

> I kind of fantasize about what our society would be like after all of our infrastructure that revolves around cars and oil is altered.


 :agree

but, sadly, most americans wont give up their car until the earth is totally f'ed up or the oil runs out.

weve pretty much arrived at the former, the latter is still a ways off.


----------



## FailureGene (Nov 12, 2005)

I'm vote apathy. We're pretty popular, or you know... whatever. :cig


----------



## FreeSoul (Jan 1, 2006)

I'm an indepedent thinker... free from idealogy.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

one dumb user name said:


> > I think some state is needed to protect and enforce the rights of individuals.
> 
> 
> you know that now the (police) state usurps more rights than it protects.
> ...


ODUN, you will note that I said *minimal state* in the sentence before that, the polar opposite of the maximum police state you're talking about. I want a state that protects my rights, rather than taking them away. I want a state that has a military to protect our nation from foreign attack -- a military that acts defensively, rather than one that invades nations that are questionable threats at best. I don't want a military that acts as world cop.

I want a court system to enforce contracts, as this forms the basis for capitalism. I want a police force to protect me from criminals who wish to steal my property or kill me. Contracts are pretty meaningless if you live in a world of anarchy where the biggest thug wins. Property rights mean nothing if some thug can just kick you off your land.

With no police force & no judicial system one could go up to somebody like ODUN and put a .45 to his head and demand that he hand over all his money. If they were not satisfied with the modest amount of cash I assume he carries, they could then blow his head off. Before being shot to death, ODUN might start to reconsider the need for a minimal state that provides some basic law & order. Of course, this minimal state would allow ODUN to carry a gun of his own for self-defense in such a situation instead of demanding that he rely solely on the government for protection that no government, no matter how large, can guarantee.

When I say "minimal" that's exactly what I mean. I know that if you allow it to grow, government will become oppressive as it is today.

Libertarians believe less is more wrt government. Instead of most folks who think too much is never enough.


----------



## Bon1 (Jan 17, 2005)

What do you mean by "Registered" Dem/Rep? In some states, when you register to vote, you have to declare your party?


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Bon said:


> In some states, when you register to vote, you have to declare your party?


Apparently, so. In Wisconsin you just register to vote and they ask nothing about your political affiliation.

I'm not sure the point of this. Is this so you can't cross party lines to be a trouble maker? So, say a Registered Democrat couldn't vote for the absolute dumbest Republican in a primary in the hope that this boob would win the nomination and thus Democrats could crush him as he's totally incompetent? There does seem some incentive to vote for the opposing party's least electible candidate in a primary.


----------



## odun (Nov 9, 2003)

UltraShy said:


> Bon said:
> 
> 
> > In some states, when you register to vote, you have to declare your party?
> ...


many states have an 'open primary' where it doesnt matter what party you are registered in.

even in most 'closed primary' states theyll allow registered independents to vote in either primary,

in wisconsin they have same day registration, which is basically the same thing as voter fraud. i absolutely believe bush won in wisconsin in 2004. but kerry can think same day registration and some really 'strange' results coming out of milwaukee for his 'victory'


----------



## Bon1 (Jan 17, 2005)

I have no idea what I am anymore. In my 20s I was as conservative as they came........Then had a change in life (read, lost money).........I thought I would be considered Democrat..(Because of my social beliefs). The political test I take, keep saying I'm too the Right, I don't know how that is possible!

These days........It would have to be......Independent.


----------



## Argo (May 1, 2005)

one dumb user name said:


> many states have an 'open primary' where it doesnt matter what party you are registered in.


I think those are awful. If you won't join a party you shouldn't be able to help pick that party's nominee.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Argo said:


> one dumb user name said:
> 
> 
> > many states have an 'open primary' where it doesnt matter what party you are registered in.
> ...


What does "join a party" mean? Just saying I'm a [fill in blank] when asked for your party affiliation when registering to vote hardly qualifies as joining anything.

Also, what about the vast number of independent voters out there? Many people swap between Dem & Rep depending on the issue at hand and the condidates. Not everyone is a diehard Dem, Rep, or Libertarian who'd vote for their party even if their party nominated a dog for political offfice.


----------



## Argo (May 1, 2005)

UltraShy said:


> What does "join a party" mean? Just saying I'm a [fill in blank] when asked for your party affiliation when registering to vote hardly qualifies as joining anything.


It certainly does from a matter of public record.



> Also, what about the vast number of independent voters out there?


Well, what about them? They can vote for whomever they please in the general election; it's what everyone else does. But if you're not a Republican or Democrat, you really have no business picking those parties' nominees. There's only one reason the primaries exist, and that is to give the parties' members a chance to agree on a guy to stand behind for the main election. You don't like being uninvolved in that, take the very minimal step of joining one.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Argo said:


> But if you're not a Republican or Democrat, you really have no business picking those parties' nominees. There's only one reason the primaries exist, and that is to give the parties' members a chance to agree on a guy to stand behind for the main election. You don't like being uninvolved in that, take the very minimal step of joining one.


I disagree. I'm a Libertarian (for your public record) and I know the LP isn't at all likely to win anything higher than some low level public office. (I think state legislature -- in Alaska-- is as far as any LP candidate has ever gotten).

Now if as a Libertarian I dislike all the Dem & Rep choices, why shouldn't I be free to select in a primary the Dem or Rep I dislike the least, as these are the two choices that have any realistic chance of getting elected?


----------



## odun (Nov 9, 2003)

> But if you're not a Republican or Democrat, you really have no business picking those parties' nominees.


the vast majority of the population isnt very partisan.

a plurality of voters in most states are registered indys. among partisan registration, most people are 'soft'.

hardcore partisans are in the minority.

dont underestimate the power familal brainwashing has in the process of partisan identification.

it is no different than religion, actually.

how many people *choose* to be a methodist?

how many hard core methodists are there?


----------



## Argo (May 1, 2005)

UltraShy said:


> Now if as a Libertarian I dislike all the Dem & Rep choices, why shouldn't I be free to select in a primary the Dem or Rep I dislike the least, as these are the two choices that have any realistic chance of getting elected?


The primaries only exist for the party members to agree on a candidate. That's the only reason they're there. It certainly can't keep another guy off the ballot if he gets enough signatures. If you want a voice in the party's selection, then just JOIN the party. Frankly, knowing that there are only two realistic chances for election and not joining one of those parties strikes me as pretty damned foolish. If you want to chalk it up as idealism, that's fine, but take what you bought.


----------



## Argo (May 1, 2005)

one dumb user name said:


> a plurality of voters in most states are registered indys.


Self-defeating, if you ask me. It's the rise in independent registration that has contributed to the increasing partisanship of the two parties. If you're a registered independent and don't like what's happening you're probably part of the problem.


----------



## odun (Nov 9, 2003)

Argo said:


> one dumb user name said:
> 
> 
> > a plurality of voters in most states are registered indys.
> ...


i ignore party registration stats. they tell us almost nothing.

west va has a 2 to 1 democrat registration advantage...bush won by 13 points.

granted that is an extreme example.

but the better question for the political pollster to ask is, 'regardless of your registration, what do you consider yourself?'

many places in the south, and to a lesser extent, new england, people consider themselves to be of the opposite party than the one they are registered in (for several different reasons)


----------



## Argo (May 1, 2005)

one dumb user name said:


> i ignore party registration stats. they tell us almost nothing.


Actually, they generally tell us a lot, absent a few freak examples like West Virginia (a swing state whose Democratic party is not yet dominated by left-wingers.) West Virginia, for example, has a Democratic governor, so apparently the WV Democratic party is under the control of that party's conservative wing who can pick candidates that'll win in that state. But they reject the guys chosen by the national Democratic party.

More to the norm is my state, California. The California Republican party is under the control of a bunch of right wing ideologues who apparently can't figure out that California is a liberal state and that no such ideologue has a chance of winning state-wide. They nominated Bill Simon for governor in 2002, who crashed and burned against a deeply unpopular Democratic governor named Gray Davis who was so bad he was recalled the next year. Arnold Schwarzenegger only became governor because of the fluky open recall process. Once Schwarzenegger swung right though (under their influence) with a flurry of ballot initiatives, his popularity dove and his sponsored items were defeated at the polls.

Parties have become more brayingly partisan in recent years due in part to a bunch of moderates abandoning them to register independent, leaving them occupied by the ideologues.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 24, 2005)

Independent. Economically I lean towards the right and socially I think that people can do whatever they want.


----------



## odun (Nov 9, 2003)

> West Virginia, for example, has a Democratic governor, so apparently the WV Democratic party is under the control of that party's conservative wing who can pick candidates that'll win in that state. But they reject the guys chosen by the national Democratic party.


more correctly, west va is unde rthe control of labor unions which control its state's politics from the governor's office right down to local sheriff.

people generally register to vote as a young adult, when familal brainwashing is still fresh. people change as they age. very few people take the time to change their registration.

and in a state like west va, one must remain a registered democrat to have an active participation in local and state elections. the republican party in wv is almost non-existent.



> The California Republican party is under the control of a bunch of right wing ideologues who apparently can't figure out that California is a liberal state and that no such ideologue has a chance of winning state-wide.


conservatives, particularly religious, are more devoted to their cause than more centrist types. so, they are more active int he primary process which leads to the nomination of righties like simon.

a similar situation may happen in the us senate race in rhode island. incumbent liberal republican lincoln chafee is facing a primary challenge from a more conservative guy. if chafee loses the primary, the gop has absolutely no shot int he general election.

and i disagree that california is a liberal state. it is slightly to the left of the natrion as a whole, but i wouldnt call it liberal.

if you take the alameda, marin and san francisco county results out of the 2004 election, you have a much closer race in california. the democrat support is centered heavily in those 3 counties.

vermont is a liberal state. there are no orange or san diego-type counties in vermont


----------



## Argo (May 1, 2005)

one dumb user name said:


> and i disagree that california is a liberal state. it is slightly to the left of the natrion as a whole, but i wouldnt call it liberal.


It's a liberal state, ODUN. By virtue of its size it has lots of just about everything, so it's possible to cut and gerrymander smaller divergent enclaves, but if you want to talk about the state as a whole, it's liberal.

So far as party registration, yeah people can change, though I think it's a stretch to claim that enough change so that it doesn't mean much. Last election only about 10% from each party voted for the other guy. Registration does pretty much tally with political leanings. Where divergent results come from is not party members too lazy to change their registration voting for the other guy, but from the fact that only about 75% of people are registered with one of the two major parties to begin with.


----------



## odun (Nov 9, 2003)

> It's a liberal state, ODUN


fromt he 2004 exit poll in california:

party breakdown:

democrat: 37%
republican: 37%
independent: 36%

ideology:
liberal: 21%
moderate: 45%
conservative: *34%*

so 79% of californian voters identified themselves as either moderate or conservative.

off the top of my head, im pretty sure bush won a majority of counties in california and im also pretty sure he won a majority of congressional districts in the state.



> Last election only about 10% from each party voted for the other guy.


exit polls are done by self identification, rather than registration, which is far more accurate.


----------



## Argo (May 1, 2005)

one dumb user name said:


> fromt he 2004 exit poll in california:


I don't know where you got that, but it's garbage. It goes against presidential voting, gubernatorial voting, cabinet voting, congressional voting, legislative voting, and basically the common sense of every person living here. The Republican party in CA is hubristic, but it's not that bad --- if it had parity rate with the Democratic party in terms of identification it would have done a lot better in this state than it actually has. The actual voter registration rates give a far better reflection of reality: 43% Democrat, 35% Republican, 4 % third parties, 18% decline to state.



> off the top of my head, im pretty sure bush won a majority of counties in california and im also pretty sure he won a majority of congressional districts in the state.


Counties really don't mean anything here in California. LA County, a 3 million voter region, went for Kerry; Sierra County, with less than 2,000 voters, voted for Bush. That is far from atypical. If Bush won a majority of them (and I don't know that he did) it says more about our amusing county disparities than it does about our politics. As for congressional districts, Kerry cleaned house, winning 60% of them.

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/sov/2004 ... sional.pdf



> exit polls are done by self identification, rather than registration, which is far more accurate.


Exit polls are only as good as the people doing them, but you were claiming party registration did not really tell us anything about a person's politics and I think that's far from accurate.


----------



## odun (Nov 9, 2003)

> I don't know where you got that, but it's garbage


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/ ... lls.0.html

exit polls are risky business, particularly when you get into cross tabs, because of the small samples.

however, it tells us a lot about party id and ideology.

in some ways exit polls can be more accurate than pre-election polls.

1. the people in exit poll have already voted
2. it is done by filling out a form (in most cases), which encourages more people to be honest.



> The actual voter registration rates give a far better reflection of reality: 43% Democrat, 35% Republican, 4 % third parties, 18% decline to state.


a lot of registered democrats stay home on election day. democrats have a hard time getting out the vote, because of various socio-economic reasons.

in pre-election polls the republican candidate will *always* do a few points better among 'likely voters' than he/she will do among just *registered voters*

pre-election polls always have 'screens' in them to determine 'likely voters'. sometimes it will be a simple question as 'did you vote in the last election'. the onlky problem with that is that many people will lie on that one. so there are more creative screen questions, like, 'do you know who your congressman is?' or they can simply ask who do oyu plan on voting for in a particular race, without naming the options.

ill stop now before i get carried away.


----------



## Argo (May 1, 2005)

one dumb user name said:


> in some ways exit polls can be more accurate than pre-election polls.


Not when they're simply junk. Look, exit polling is just asking a few people as they go out of the booths how they voted. To get it right you need to sample thoroughly to get a good cross-section and also be sure to account for possible time-disparities in voting (remember when everybody thought Kerry was winning at first because the morning exit-polling was tilted Democratic?). Because the sample is so small compared to the total vote, the possibility of statistical blurps from getting one thing wrong is huge.

This exit poll is junk because the results it provides are nonsensical in the light of all recent California elections.


----------



## RX2000 (Jan 25, 2004)

I'm a conservative republican.

However, I dont do straight party votes on the ballot or anything like that. I can vote Democrat easily if I feel its the right candidate.

I was a very big supporter of Wesley Clark back in the primaries. I met him twice around here at campaign stops.


----------



## pm5kbebop (Oct 22, 2005)

im amazed anyone picked the green party.any reasons as to WHY?besides ' i hate democrats and republicans and i wanna be different' please.


----------



## Andre (Feb 27, 2004)

It depends on the candidates running, but I usually favor the Democrat. You have to pick one or the other to make your vote worth something in this country. Which I don't think is a bad thing like a lot of people do, because politics really is just about liberal vs. conservative ideals.


----------



## rdf8585 (Nov 19, 2004)

Usually Democrat even if I like a third party more... wasted vote if I pick 3rd party people.


----------



## living in darkness (Apr 17, 2005)

pm5kbebop said:


> im amazed anyone picked the green party.any reasons as to WHY?besides ' i hate democrats and republicans and i wanna be different' please.


Maybe because someone actually has a conscious, and is intelligent enough to realize that if we destroy the enviornment it won't matter what Middle-Eastern country Republicans want to invade next for oil if the Earth is a dead, lifeless wasteland?

You're asking the wrong person. I hate Republicans and Conservatives. I have a lot more respect for the Green Party, Anarchist groups, and other people who are actually fighting for freedom and for life.


----------

