Elections - October 2006

with high gas prices(they are going down. Who do we blame. Bush?)and No found weapons of mass destruction(and yes they were found) where does it leave us?

2006-10-22 18:02:54 · 24 answers · asked by brad 2

2006-10-22 17:46:29 · 20 answers · asked by Martin I 1

2006-10-22 17:37:43 · 18 answers · asked by Martin I 1

2006-10-22 17:01:12 · 18 answers · asked by John G 5

Do you vote based on party affiliation, no matter what, or the best candidate on the issues
so are you republican, democrat
Or an American first
Just wondering,
Thanks for the input

2006-10-22 16:44:10 · 22 answers · asked by jjayflash9 3

Say you were running for a political office and you wanted to create a name for your party, your platform is for same sex marriage. What would you call yourself?

2006-10-22 16:39:49 · 15 answers · asked by airheadblonde569 1

I am very tired to hear about a false democracy , Why there is no a path to American Comunist Party participate in American Elections?
Why arent there a real participation of them on elections?
Is that a democracy?

2006-10-22 16:28:44 · 6 answers · asked by Oscar Miguel 2

It's obvious that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen and the world is worse off for it. What can America do to prevent this from happening in the future?

2006-10-22 16:16:03 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous

Just for my own curiosity. I wanted to get an idea of which way the white house will swing and who will dominate to see if bush jr. gets his way twards ending troop involement in Iraq.

2006-10-22 15:32:32 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

prisoners have more morals than the gop, just look at the facts

2006-10-22 15:21:24 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

I usually don't really like politics too much, but when he ran for senator a couple of years ago, he was the only candidate that I felt I had ever agreed with totally.

2006-10-22 15:17:56 · 18 answers · asked by Paris 3

2006-10-22 13:40:30 · 4 answers · asked by ladyranger84 1

2006-10-22 13:11:25 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

Some people are talking about trying to remove everyone currently holding an office this election just to prove a point to the remaining ones that they had better start listening to the voting citizens. How do you feel?

2006-10-22 13:05:32 · 11 answers · asked by just a mom 4

Im pretty pumped because in 2008 i will be able to vote for the first time. As of right now I will be voting for either Condoleeza Rice or Mitt Romney. Who do you plan on voting for?

2006-10-22 12:11:14 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous

Baron's says yes.
http://online.barrons.com/public/article/SB116138396438799484-uMRQ4ejl3lonVnJ_TXy6k9fPXls_20061121.html?mod=9_0002_b_free_features

2006-10-22 12:03:51 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

Ok. so i know there are popular votes and electoral votes. but is it that the people vote for their electors and then the electors vote for the president?? someone please explain the process to me!!

2006-10-22 10:50:21 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-22 10:36:35 · 5 answers · asked by thelilgrlwhoneedshelp 1

a general election..or a primary election? & why?

2006-10-22 08:45:54 · 3 answers · asked by CC 3

NEW POLL: IMMIGRATION KEY ISSUE IN CONTESTED RACES
Center for Immigration Studies : October 16 , 2006 -- by Steven Camarota

Public Wants Illegals to Go Home, Enforcement, No Immigration Increase
A new poll, using neutral language, finds intense voter concern over immigration in 14 tight congressional races. The surveys were conducted by the polling company inc. for the Center for Immigration Studies.

In addition to a national survey, detailed polling on immigration was conducted in four contested Senate races: Missouri, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Montana; and in 10 contested House races: Arizona 5th, Connecticut 4th, Indiana 8th, Kentucky 4th, Pennsylvania 6th, Texas 17th, Louisiana 3rd, Georgia 8th, Colorado 7th, and Ohio 6th.

The complete results are online at www.cis.org. Among the findings:

* Immigration is a big issue throughout the country. Of likely voters nationally, 53 percent said immigration was either their most important issue or one of their top three issues, while just 8 percent said it was not at all important. With the exception of CT-4th, in races surveyed only about 10 percent of voters said it was not important at all.

* When told numbers, voters want less immigration. When told the actual number of immigrants here (legal and illegal) and the number coming (legal and illegal), and asked to put aside the question of legal status, 68 percent of voters nationally thought immigration was too high, 21 percent about right, and just 2 percent thought it was too low. In every congressional race surveyed, the share who said overall immigration was too low was in the single digits.

* Voters less likely to vote for immigration-increasing candidates. Experts agree that the bill passed by the Senate earlier this year would at least double future legal immigration, yet 70 percent of voters said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who wanted to double legal immigration. Overwhelming majorities in every battleground race feel the same way.

* Voters reject both extremes -- legalization or mass deportations. Some previous polls have shown support for legalizing illegal immigrants. But those polls have given the public only a choice between large-scale deportations or ''earned legalization,'' and not the third choice of across-the-board enforcement, causing illegals to go home. This third option, which is the basis of the bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, is voters' top choice.

* House immigration plan by far the favorite. Enforcement approaches with no increase in legal immigration were the most popular policy option -- 44 percent wanted enforcement that causes illegals to go home, the House approach, and another 20 percent wanted large-scale deportations. Just 31 percent supported legalization of illegal immigrants.

* Intensity greater among enforcement supporters. Nationally, 32 percent of voters said they would be much more likely to vote for a candidate who would enforce the law and cause illegals to go home, compared to just 15 percent who said they would be much more likely to vote for a candidate who supports legalization. This same pattern holds in battleground House contests.

* Voters skeptical of need for unskilled immigrant labor. More than 70 percent of voters nationally agreed that there were ''plenty of Americans to do low-wage jobs that require relatively little education, employers just need to pay higher wages and treat workers better to attract Americans,'' compared to 21 percent who said we need immigrants because there were not enough Americans to do all such jobs. The results were very similar in all the contested states and districts surveyed.

* Voters think lack of enforcement is reason for illegal immigration. Three out of four voters in the nation agreed that the reason we have illegal immigration is that past enforcement efforts have been ''grossly inadequate.'' Voters strongly reject the argument that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive legal immigration policies. Strong majorities in every battleground contest surveyed felt this way.

* Numbers make a difference. One key finding is that when told the scale of immigration (legal and illegal), voters overwhelmingly thought it was too high. Also, when told how much the Senate bill would increase legal immigration, voters tended to reject it. This would seem to undermine the argument that voters are only concerned about illegality and not the level of immigration. The levels of immigration used in the questions are those widely agreed upon by experts based on government data.

2006-10-22 08:41:09 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-22 07:50:18 · 12 answers · asked by Naomi A 1

2006-10-22 06:06:29 · 10 answers · asked by ? 2

2006-10-22 06:03:03 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

Ive tried the Liverpool Council website but this is of no use.

2006-10-22 05:12:30 · 8 answers · asked by Not T 1

2006-10-22 04:39:22 · 38 answers · asked by franklin 1

One of the loudest, oldest and apparently favorite yelling points of the Nonliberals is that the Media is biased.
Yet the Media has not played up the Foley debacle, the Bush tantrums and profanity that has driven many staffers to resign or the name calling, calling Evangelical Christians "Goofy", and calling his own supporters "sheep-dips". Can we really assume that the Media is biased? If it is, might it not be the other way? Here in California one network (NBC) has been so inept at slanting the news in favor of a Republican candidate for Governoe that they might just as well be running endorsements every hour.The media in general y goes along with administration statistics when the rest of the world calls them shams. Opinions please, not airhead rants.

2006-10-22 04:23:25 · 18 answers · asked by Gaspode 7

Because Diebold et al owns the voting apparatus, and they have pledged to deliver the vote to the Repulsicans, there is no way to determine how we actually voted. "Stealing Democracy: Vote by Vote" is a great documentary that shows how the voters in Ohio voted for Kerry, but upon review, the machine showed they had 'voted' for Bush and they were unable to change it. etc, etc, etc.
Democratic registrations in New MExico were thrown into the garbage, collected by Republicans and never delivered to voting HQ. So they go to vote and they're 'not registered'. PRecincts with predominantly Dem voters had only 3 voting machines when they used to have 10 BEFORE a tremendous uptick in the no. of voters. 3 Ohio precincts registered over 10,000 votes when they together didn't have but about 3000. But the bought media doesn't report it. Don't believe ABC, NBC, CBS: they lie by omission.

2006-10-22 03:49:05 · 13 answers · asked by Alice B 1

2006-10-22 03:48:31 · 6 answers · asked by ? 2

Who will win ?

2006-10-22 02:00:34 · 19 answers · asked by TheBedel 1

2006-10-22 01:47:54 · 2 answers · asked by JoAnn S 1