Le sondage de la paille.

[pauraque_bk]

Just curious about something.

No one but me can see who answered how, and I won't tell.

US voters only. Please refrain from answering the questions that don't apply to you. If you're doing it right, you should be submitting the poll with some answers left blank.

[EDIT: No, seriously. READ THE QUESTIONS. Only answer them if they apply to you. I don't want to see two people saying they're voting for neither, and three people answering the question directed at those voters.]

[EDITAGAIN: Maybe the more interesting result is how many people can't seem to figure out how to fill out the poll properly, by reading the questions and not filling out every answer. You guys are lucky you're anonymous, and can therefore avoid the mockery of your peers. I hope you plan to be more careful when you vote for real.]

[Poll #367825]

[EDIT: Within minutes of making this post, I was called by a pollster asking how I felt about Kerry, Bush, and my local Senate candidates. Hee.]

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I get very frustrated with the two-party system in the US, because it usually leaves me feeling like I'm choosing the lesser of two evils. The candidates I like rarely make it to party nomination, and I think for the most part that democrats and republicans are two sides of the same coin, working to maintain the status quo. I have yet to see a candidate that represents my beliefs, which tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

However, with Bush, I don't think we have a 'business-as-usual' republican--he's a man who has publicly said that he never doubts his decisions, does not think he has ever made a mistake, and governs according to his fundamentalist religious principles. He and his administration seem to have little or no respect for the constitution, which in my opinion is the *bedrock* of the USA, and that scares me. Finally, based on the post-9/11 information that's been made public, I believe Bush is either stupid or a liar, and I want him and all members of his administration out of power. In fact, I think he should have been impeached long ago, and maybe would have been were it not for his blatant use of the 9/11 tragedy.

[pauraque]

I also prefer the socially liberal/fiscally conservative combo.

I agree, too, that Bush isn't a typical Republican. I don't have a problem with the Republican party as a whole, and I can certainly think of Republicans I'd vote for. Bush just isn't one of them. Too socially conservative, too fiscally liberal.

[maidenjedi]

Who are the Senate candidates where you are?

[pauraque]

Barbara Boxer and Bill Jones. It took me a second to remember who Bill Jones was, which doesn't bode well for him.

[maidenjedi]

LOL...yeah, against a heavyweight like Boxer (oh, that was a BAD pun....and I didn't even mean to make it...), I can imagine it WOULD be difficult to recall the opposition.

My congressman, Michael Burgess, came to speak at last week's College Republican meeting. He asked if anyone knew who his opposition is (a Democrat by the name of Lico Reyes). I answered, and apparently was one of maybe two people who knew that. And the only reason *I* know is because YCT releases a list of candidate endorsements, and I thought it best to be educated about both candidates. Reyes, incidentally, is good on paper, but word from the Democrat HQ in my county is that he's not a very good campaigner and hasn't listened to advice from seasoned colleagues in the party. Plus, he's not even living in the congressional district - I'm not sure how that works.

[pauraque]

Oh, a carpetbagger... that always goes over well. :)

[jheaton.livejournal.com]

Well, it's not helping Alan Keyes any in Illinois (though that's really least of his problems), but it didn't seem to hurt Hilary Clinton.

[pauraque]

Were I to make a list of Alan Keyes's problems, that would be pretty far down!

[maidenjedi]

So true!

Obama's got it in his back pocket, and I'm very okay with that.

[jheaton.livejournal.com]

The Constitution doesn't require that a US Representative live in the district from which he or she is elected, only that he or she live in the state. See Article I, section 2 for details.

[maidenjedi]

Thank you...I was really confused by that.

I can't see how it can do anything but hurt a candidate choosing to live outside the district lines, though. It's way too easy for the opposition to use it, very effectively, against you.

[jheaton.livejournal.com]

Sometimes when Congressional district lines are redrawn, an incumbent will find himself living in a new district while the majority of his constituents are in the old one. In such cases, the imcumbent may to choose to run in the district where his constituents are but keep his ome address in the new district. But it's fairly rare.

[maidenjedi]

That makes sense. Thanks again!

[eponis.livejournal.com]

I'm still debating my presidential vote. I'd vote for Kerry over Bush, certainly, but since I live in Texas, it won't affect the electoral college. So I'm debating whether I want to do Kerry for the sake the popular vote, or do a third-party candidate whom I love, just to give them that extra boost.

[pauraque]

I voted third-party in the last election, because it wouldn't have made a difference in California, and I was damn angry at Gore for squandering the opportunity he had for what could have been a big win.

I guess you could say I'm in a similar position this year, since Kerry is taking CA. But Kerry has run a better campaign than Gore did, and come much further. And to be honest, there are no candidates I *love*. I'm not liberal enough for many of the third-party choices. Kerry's actually about where I'm at.

[malograntum.livejournal.com]

You don't love this gorgeous preppie even a little bit?

[pauraque]

Well, I can't say he's my *ideal* candidate, there are certainly issues where I disagree with him... and... there are... fiscal...

*is distracted by gazing upon young!passionate!Kerry*

Er... what was I saying?

[malograntum.livejournal.com]

You were talking about young, passionate Kerry... *swings pretty pictures back and forth slowly in front of your eyes*

[pauraque]

Hee. Actually, I was considering posting a little something about how I came to be voting for *Kerry* instead of just against Bush/for whoever the Dems picked.

[malograntum.livejournal.com]

Oh, do. I'd be interested to hear what did it for you besides it being the sexier ticket by a factor of 17,000.

[pauraque]

Then perhaps I shall. Based on my little poll, there aren't many around here who need convincing, but it might be fun. :)

[i-smile.livejournal.com]

You definitely should. I'm only voting Kerry out of fear that enough Californians will think "California's definitely going Kerry; I'll vote third party!" and accidentally get us a renewed Bush. :D I'm in no way excited about Kerry, except that I have hope that he might not do anything, while Bush undoubtedly will.

[pauraque]

My friend and I were just discussing this. I think Northern Californians forget that the whole state is not as liberal as San Francisco. There are a lot of Republicans in SoCal, and don't forget we have a Republican governor (albeit a fairly moderate one who isn't afraid to disagree with Bush).

[i-smile.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. I'm registered in Orange County, so I'm sure that affects my views on the conservatism of Californians in general. Even my fairly moderate dad has said he'd support Bush over Kerry if he were a citizen.

[millefiori.livejournal.com]

I'd be interested in reading that, too!

I'm in the same position, I think. I didn't particularly like Kerry, but in the U.S., particularly the presidency, Republican or Democrat is the only viable choice and I planned to vote from the anyone-but-Bush perspective.

What changed it for me was watching a Frontline episode on PBS called the choice 2004. It was an excellent, in-depth, evenhanded look at both men. After watching it I found myself respecting Kerry's intelligence and principles. It seems to me that he's actually in politics to serve whereas most politicians (including Bush) are in it for power. As for Bush, I would've thought it was impossible for me to think any less of him than I already did, but after watching that program my opinion of him was lowered considerably--particularly in direct comparison to Kerry.

[isiscolo.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I was a big Dean supporter, and a lukewarm Kerry supporter, until I learned more about Kerry through my involvement in the local Dem party and Kerry PAC. That's what made the difference and got me actively FOR Kerry, not just AGAINST Bush.

[gmth.livejournal.com]

I honestly don't see any other choice in this election. Frankly, it boggles my mind that anyone would vote for Bush after what he's done to this country over the past four years. The fact that the election is so close blows me the fuck away.

[pauraque]

I don't entirely get it either, but my impression is that both sides are voting a lot out of fear -- Kerry supporters are afraid of the direction Bush is taking us and that he's stirring up terrorism more than quelling it, and Bush supporters are afraid Kerry can't protect us from an attack (because he's supposedly an equivocator? not sure). Fear is a powerful motivator!

[maidenjedi]

Eh...it isn't that he couldn't *protect* us from an attack, but how he would react if we were. A lot of us are still bitter about the way terror attacks were taken in the 90s, and Kerry's proposed policies sound a lot like appeasement. I want someone in office that I know, without a doubt, will go after the perpetrators - and I do not trust John Kerry to do that.

And you're right - that's a fear-based reaction. But that was also my rationale in voting for Bush in 2000. Clinton's wishy-washy reaction to the Cole bombing was the solidifying moment in that decision process for me (though there was no way in heck I was ever voting for Gore).

[pauraque]

I understand the danger in not responding adequately to a threat, but I'm afraid Bush has taken it too far and, as I suggested, is actually creating circumstances in the middle east that will *cause* terrorist attacks. Do you worry about that? I mean, that's not a rhetorical question.

[maidenjedi]

I think the possibility and reality of terror was always there. I think that what's going on in Iraq has created a situation in which the terrorists see a place to concentrate their efforts without worrying about the logistics of pulling off large-scale attacks on American soil.

I honestly believe that what al-Zarqawi and other leaders have done since the beginning of the war in Iraq was inevitable - it was going to happen either way. I also think that we haven't done what needs to be done to take them out - if we know where al-Zawahiri is, for example, why is he still alive to issue orders?

Terrorist attacks have been happening for a long time, and with the exception of the Oklahoma City bombing, they've been committed by the same people. I think the attacks are reaching a frenzy because they know we're not going to take it anymore, and they're desperately trying to swing opinion in their favor.

The way Bush is handling it is not ideal, but Kerry's appeasement ideas, his let's-get-permission plan, does not sit well with me because I think in the end, the terrorists will have succeeded. They don't want us acting aggressively, they want us pacifist and dull. They also want us going after the wrong people - so I do agree that the timing for the war in Iraq was wrong, even though I believe one hundred percent in having taken out Saddam Hussein and his cronies.

[pauraque]

I wasn't suggesting that the threat of terror hasn't always been present, merely that the situation that's been created in Iraq may exacerbate it.

They don't want us acting aggressively, they want us pacifist and dull.

I'd like to think there's a happy medium... I also think there's something wrong in the idea of rejecting a plan of action "because that's what the terrorists want us to do" -- using that as the test also grants them power over our decisions, which I think should be reached in a more... hm. Incorporating more than that.

I also think the administration has used the "then the terrorists will already have won" line too many times as a means of attempting to silence dissent for me to feel comfortable with it.

But, you know, you and I are coming at this from very different perspectives. I *am* a pacifist (though I hope I'm not dull!). I also don't have a gut-level negative reaction to working according to the UN's wishes, if at all possible. (If I had my way, there would be UN observation of the upcoming election, given what happened last time.)

[lolaraincoat.livejournal.com]

If I had my way, there would be UN observation of the upcoming election, given what happened last time.

Dear lord, please send us all the help we need to have a clean election!There's been a lot of joking in Mexico about offering to send election observers, given that Mexico's 2000 presidential election was quite clean. And Fidel Castro offered in 2000, after the Florida debacle had happened, to provide Cuban election observers to Dade County ... heh. But aside from providing great joke material for our neighbors, the dirty tricks that have already happened that tend to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters have terrified me.

btw I really appreciate the calm and respectful way in which you are addressing everyone here (which everyone else here seems to have adopted, too.) It's been the ugliest election season I can remember, and I'm old. So you're swimming against a strong tide. Go you!

[pauraque]

I find it pretty easy to be respectful towards MJ, because she's a buddy, and is always respectful towards me. And she's very patient with my prodding her for answers about her positions. :) I hope that no matter how ugly things get, there's still *some* room for civility!

But yeah, my view of American democracy was considerably dimmed in 2000. I find it upsetting that we would presume to supervise the elections of other nations, when we have such evident difficulties in conducting our own.

[gmth.livejournal.com]

I want someone in office that I know, without a doubt, will go after the perpetrators - and I do not trust John Kerry to do that.

Can I ask why you trust Bush to do that? Considering the war in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism?

[wootsauce.livejournal.com]

Fear IS a powerful motivator, but I'm going Kerry because I don't trust ANYONE in politics. Ideally one should be able to vote for a third party if one wanted to, but I think this election is too important for me to 'waste' my vote on ideals (especially when my ideas are far too liberal and impossible to actually work in the real world.) Honestly, my priorities right now are for the US to stop being stupid first, and then later more finicky details can come in. First and foremost I want us to NOT be having wars on places for no good reason, although we've been meddling in things behind the scenes for far too long anyway...

I'm too cynical for this election, I think.

[vvvexation.livejournal.com]

To elaborate on my poll responses: I'd suck it up and vote for Kerry if I were in a swing state. My opinion of him hasn't changed substantially.

[pauraque]

Hey, neighbor! :) Keep in mind California is (for some reason) polling closer than the final result in 2000. http://www.electoral-vote.com

[arclevel.livejournal.com]

When I hit 18, I was solidly an independent. The first couple elections I voted in (state and local, mostly), I voted for slightly more Republicans than Democrats, and quite a lot of third-party candidates. Over the last few years, the leadership of the Republican party (along with a couple modified opinions, true) have made me a fairly solid Democrat. As far as my vote was concerned, the election was held in March.

I live in a highly political town, yet I haven't heard anything about any race but president. I only realized a few days ago that there *is* a mayoral election here this year. The lack of activity is helped by the fact that there isn't a Senate or Gubernatorial race in MI this year, and I can't say I *mind*, but still. It's hard to make an informed decision when you've never heard of any of the candidates. There are 5 proposals on our ballot, including at least two that I'd expect to be big issues in this area (gay marriage and medical marijuana); I've heard about a couple from other places, but nothing from local signs, etc.

[maidenjedi]

the election was held in March.

Good point.

I wonder how many Democrats are thinking along those lines right now.

[(Anonymous)]

I live in a state that isn't considered important in the election, which perhaps makes me feel even more disillusioned about the state of the election in general. I tried to listen to some of the debates, but both of them sounded like they were doing about the same thing: trying to get the most applause. But on the disgust level, Bush disgusts me much, much more. While Iraq is obviously an important issue, no one really seems to be laying much more than a little finger on issues such as education, where states like Oregon have classrooms with over 20 children in the *elementary* schools.

But I will vote for Kerry because, somehow, I do feel it's important to vote Bush out of office. I hate to say it's an issue of the lesser of two evils, but I don't see near as much excitement and drive on the Democrat side of things since Dean dropped out of the race. The most popular bumper sticker around here appears to be "Anybody But Bush."

(Although a close second favorite is the one that simply says: "In an arranged marriage with Kerry, but my heart belongs to Dean")

[pauraque]

I've seen the same lack of excitement among the Dems, which is partly why I wanted to do this poll -- I wanted to see how much the people around me like Kerry, and how much they merely hate Bush. I would have been shocked if anyone had said they were voting for Kerry just because they like him... I don't think there's anyone who feels neutrally about Bush (though it seems there are at least some Bush supporters who don't care one way or the other about Kerry).

There have been more "I like Kerry and dislike Bush as equal factors" answers than I anticipated. Given how many people said their view of Kerry has improved, I think if we'd polled this same group right after the primaries, we'd have had a lot more "I just hate Bush" answers. And I definitely think it had a lot to do with the bitterness of losing Dean, who I agree would have been more likely to win.

[(Anonymous)]

A quick comment regarding gmth's question above, on why there are people voting for Bush: I agree that security fears play a large role (as per the comments by pauraque and maidenjedi--thanks for the insightful discussion, by the way!), but I wouldn't underestimate the power of social and "moral" issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) either, and not only in classically conservative regions like the South and the Rocky Mountain states.

Up here in northeast Ohio--yes, we're a swing state, and sick of it--such issues still play a major role in people's voting preferences in either direction. (Actually, abortion has all but vanished as a topic of discussion this time, but gay marriage has replaced it as a hot-button issue; Ohio also has an amendment banning gay marriage on the ballot, and it's expected to pass, albeit by a narrower margin than elsewhere.) I have a socially conservative coworker who is tired of both campaigns and dubious about Bush's handling of Iraq and terrorism, but she still plans to vote for Bush because, as she puts it, his ideas on morality are closer to hers. Ironically, it's those exact same stands that all but guarantee that I would never vote for Bush myself...

I myself am a registered independent, with Democratic leanings; like Eo, I tend to be somewhat fiscally conservative and socially liberal. In fact, I belong to a common but rather problematic category that seems to be pushed aside in the increasing polarization between "Christian right" and so-called "pagan left": I'm a lifelong churchgoer who also happens to be quite liberal politically. :-) For most of my life, I've been quite comfortable with this position, but this year, there seems to be more and more emphasis on "choosing sides", which I do not like at all.

In terms of my family, my father is a lifelong Republican, my mother is a Democrat, and my brother in Illinois is a (pro-Democratic) independent, but all four of us are voting for Kerry and firmly against Bush (on grounds ranging from foreign policy to economics, the environment, social issues, etc.), and the three of us in Ohio are all voting against the gay marriage amendment. Other voting patterns will vary--for example, while my parents plan to vote for Kerry, they're also both voting to re-elect our incumbent Republican U.S. Congressman, since they feel he's done OK so far, and is better qualified than his challenger.

Sorry about the long commentary--especially for someone who is usually a visiter, not a poster--but thanks for listening. :-)

p@,
Glenn

[pauraque]

No need to apologize, Glenn! I'm always happy to see you chiming in. Thanks for your observations.

[rikibeth.livejournal.com]

When I said my opinion of Kerry hasn't changed... bear in mind that I grew up in Massachusetts, and have been following his voting record since before I was old enough to vote myself. He spoke at my high school when I was sixteen.

So I've thought well of him for a long time, and it'd take more than the induced insanity of a presidential election campaign to change my opinion of him.