Are Bush's Negative Attacks Not Working

[mrbowler]

Kerry Opens Leads in Several Key States

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

Poll Gives Kerry 6-Point Lead Over Bush in Florida

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/389613|top|08-12-2004::16:09|reuters.html

How much of a bounce can a Incumbent(Bush) after convention expect?

[ShainaT]

Who is still undecided around here? Anyone?

Negative ads aren't working because everyone knows what horse they are backing in this race.

[mayor]

I can't understand people who are "undecided". They shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Polls don't mean squat at this point. It all depends on who gets out and votes. Are democrats excited about John Kerry? No more so than Republicans were excited about Bob Dole. That will cost the Democrats some.

On the other hand, many have allowed themselves to be manipulated into being "angry" over Gore's lost in the 2000 election. This manufactured anger may lead some to the polls who would not make the trip just to vote for Kerry.

It will be interesting to watch. Either way. If Bush wins, we'll stay on the right track for another four years. If Kerry wins, maybe the Dems will crash and burn once and for all... unfortunately taking American with them. But it will make for one huge "I told you so"

Mayor

[crazytimes]

Well I am still sort of undecided. Every time I hear the candidates say one thing that I really like, then I hear the other candidate say something. I just can't decide.

But I live in NE so it really doesn't matter who I vote for because Bush will get the electoral most likely.

[ShainaT]

Crazytimes- your vote DOES matter!! If I thought like you did then it would make no sense for me to get out and vote because MD is a throughly Democratic state. Still, I always vote because I think if you don't vote you don't have the right to complain.

So, vote for Kerry or vote for Bush. Just don't vote for Nadar!

[mrbowler]

I can understand how moderates/independents can be undecided. Some folks that don't like either candidate might decide to actually vote for a third party candidate.

[luvmetender]

Originally Posted by crazytimes

But I live in NE so it really doesn't matter who I vote for because Bush will get the electoral most likely.

Crazytimes, the entire NE electoral votes are going to be for KERRY!! Take a look...

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[luvmetender]

Originally Posted by ShainaT

So, vote for Kerry or vote for Bush. Just don't vote for Nadar!

Yeah, a vote for Nader is like not voting at all!

[Twinplets]

Candidates should have to run elections based on showing how good they are, not how bad the other guy is.

The electoral college voting system should be changed so that people won't feel their votes are useless (either the state always votes for one party, or the state only has 2 votes, etc). And so that the candidate with the highest popular vote wins the election. I've had a "pet theory" about giving the candidates a proportional number of the states vote's, plus a "bonus" to the "winning candidate" (just like each state has X congressmen, plus 2 senators). But that will never happen, just like we'll probably never see a third party candidate elected.

I wouldn't mind seeing something about states with a margin of less than 0.1% difference between the two candidates holding another election, but that would never work, because if the results were different they'd need to hold a third election to see whether the first or second election was the "correct" one, and there's no way to organize 3 state-wide elections in a reasonable amount of time. Also, because I think it's pretty rare that we have a situation like Florida in 2000, where the margin was so close and that state's electoral votes made a difference. If Mondale, for example, had carried 2 or 3 more states, he'd still have lost by a landslide.

[mayfly]

Originally Posted by luvmetender

Yeah, a vote for Nader is like not voting at all!

I am so surprised to read you two telling others who to vote for. Thats what makes this country great, you can vote for whomever you want. Thats like saying their vote doesn't count.

[crazytimes]

Oh wow, I had no idea about NE! I have just always thought of this as a thouroughly Republican state.

I agree with Mayfly though, I may very well vote for Nader! As far as I'm concered, even if he doesn't win it's not a wasted vote.

If I vote for Bush and he doesn't win, is that a wasted vote? If I vote for Kerry and he doesn't win, is that a wasted vote?

I don't care if who I vote for wins, of course it would be nice, as long as I make an informed decision and vote for whoever I feel would be best to lead this country. As of now, I haven't made that decision.

Question, what is campaign finance reform? Does that deal with how much PERSONAL money someone can spend? They DO use personal money, right? I think it would be a riot to set limits. Say, you cannot use more than $20 million or something...then it would be interesting to see how they would campaign, plus I'm sure it would give us more options.

But I guess the "democratic" way is to let people spend as much money as they want.