It's your state primary. If out-of-state Democratic and independent commentators were strongly backing a particular candidate in the election, would you still vote for that candidate? Or would you be very suspicious of that candidate, and run screaming the other way?
Yes, I am thinking of the Lieberman thing, but in reverse. I've been wondering.
2006-08-10 04:25:03 · 9 answers · asked by GreenEyedLilo 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I am NOT asking about the Lieberman thing. This is a hypothetical about the situation in reverse.
2006-08-10 04:30:57 · update #1
I would have to see the motives behind their backing and look at the candidates platform. Ultimately, I would vote for whomever I agreed with the most. But I would be rather suspicious of someone out-of-state.
2006-08-10 04:29:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I evaluate candidates myself. I am not sure what you are asking.
I am not fond of Lieberman at all.
I would vote for a Democratic candidate if I thought it was good for the country but Democrates buy votes for their own personal gain by definition. I have not been happy with Republicans either and wish that America could just have some party that managed our country without all of the special interest stuff. We need a better system and I would be happy to just get rid of all of our politicians and just START OVER.
2006-08-10 11:31:21 · answer #2 · answered by Texas Cowboy 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Republicans always have one strong candidate that they back up early in the game to avoid that from happening. The Republicans are highly organized unlike the Democrats.
This business-like efficiency prevents other parties from using the "reverse-Lieberman" tactic.
2006-08-10 11:29:51 · answer #3 · answered by Tones 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Endorsements have little to do with my decision to vote for someone. That's why I think its ridiculous for Hollywood celebrities to jump on a political bandwagon. Unfortunately there are those pathetically misguided idiots whose vote is based on who Tom Cruise supports or who is the cutest, but endorsements are bought and paid for. Ideally, a candidate is elected based on his/her history, participation, performance and promises. But rarely in our political climate does ideal become reality. Although a republican, I thought Lieberman was a very good man, personally and politically.
2006-08-10 11:31:00 · answer #4 · answered by Emm 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Lieberman got screwed by his own party. Some bunch he chums around with. I guess he'll win as an independent because some Republicans will vote for him.
2006-08-10 11:29:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I vote depending not on political affiliation but on a candidates views.
I have voted for a Democrat before (it wasn't a President). Even if Democrats were backing a Republican I wanted to vote for I wouldn't change my mind.
2006-08-10 11:29:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would really like to ask the 48% that did vote for Lieberman.
Democrats that support Lieb, so they must support war, and Bush, or did I get this wrong as to why the Libs say Lieb got voted out.
CT a Blue state????????
2006-08-10 12:10:13 · answer #7 · answered by jasonzbtzl 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
As a social conservative, I'm wondering if a third alternative should be developed for conservatives who wish to be more conscious and truly conserving of our earth's resources. Why must the Right continue to ignore the signs and symptoms of global warming, the damage to ocean life of toxic blooms, dead water, black water, sewage releases to the wild, gridlock, and so forth?
Can a conservative develop a truly consistant "right to life" plank, one which not only promotes the sanctity of life regarding the unborn, but one which also forbids capital punishment? I would like if you could consider reformulating your question, so as to draw out this segment of the Conservatives, maybe "moderates," or what will we call ourselves, in the political spectrum? Labels are so very limiting.
I am for winning the war against Islamic extremism, but I'm against the traditional policy of taxing the poor and middle class while letting the wealthy escape their proper share of taxes. However I'm against abortion, against laxity in laws concerning addictions of alchohol and drugs, yet I'm against simply throwing away money by committin a war on drugs. I'd like to see a policy more in line with Amsterdam's, with much more money invested in drug rehab than in enforcement and draconian laws which do nothing but crowd our prisons and give criminals a stronger criminal education. But I do not regard myself as a "traditional Democrat" or even Liberal in many senses of the word. I'm thinking there are many Republicans out there who might like to re-align theirselves with a more centrist stand.
2006-08-10 11:37:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would have voted for Liberman. Lemont is a 'bleeding heart' limousine liberal. His heart bleeds catchup!
2006-08-10 11:29:05 · answer #9 · answered by dude 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋