When it comes to presidential vote, I vote for the man and not the party. Who agrees with me?

Answer 1

Yeah, I vote for the best person. I do not care what party. I really hope we have some good people for 08. I do not care what party they are in I just want a good president. How about an old style Republican who is fiscally responsible like Regan? I am a libral, but I would really go for an old style republican that would just be not for too much govermental power and fiscally responsible and work on that deficit. How about someone that respects the bill or rights and the constitution? I am almost thinking an old style Reblican or Libertarian would be fine. I just want something not too threatening like now.

Answer 2

Sorry LP but you should vote for the party. If your mayor are governer was from one party and the assembly was from another party nothing would get done. There would be constant in fighting along party lines. The reason DUBBYA has things so screwed up is because he has his party in both houses' and they do his bidding for party unity. All though some of them are starting to wake up and distance them self's', the damage is done. You sound like a young person. I hope you think of your future and the future of you children. When Bill Clinton left office this country was purring along. People had decent jobs and the country had TRILLIONS of dollars in reserve. Now the country is TRILLIONS of dollars in debt. A debt you children will have to pay off. So if you think of choosing political party, just remember the Democrats are for the people. The Republicans are for the board members of big business. When I go into the voting boothe it only takes me a few seconds. I vote straight Democrat I allways have and allways will. I am a working man trying to support a family. The Republicans are letting big bussiness send all the jobs over seas so the board room can add to there millions and the working man is fired.

Answer 3

I completely disagree with your voting strategy. The Presidential nominee is the standard bearer of the party and responsible to make certain that the party's platform is put into effect. You must consider the party first. The members of the party have culled all their available nominees to put a candidate on the ballot that the majority of the party members think can get elected and can get their agenda enacted into law and policy.

It is just like selecting a football team on the basis that the quarterback is smart. He may be, but if he has a bad coach sending in bad plays, he will not play a very good game.

Answer 4

Yeah, well what if it is a woman? Or a catfish (oh never mind that). But the party is so loosely defined by so many interest goups who are fighting to get along. If you consider W's stance on marriage that it be defined by a joining of a man and woman BUT then he doesn't go on to define what a man is then we are all left scratching out heads. In this culture of language we don't define terms with undefined language. Seriously, there are several ways to define "man" all of which are satisfactory to the multitudes and the legal courts, but taken together they create contradictions. An easy example of trouble here is with the chromosome typing. We have found over the years that the sex chromosomes XX and XY don't always follow expectations. There are some people with XXY sex chromosomes, so what(sic) are they? Many people have had sex changes, not always by choice, some are dictated by parents and physicians at birth depending upon the genital options available.
So if Mr. Bush doesn't even know what a "man" is, then he is in no postion to dictate that a marriage is to be constituted of a man and a woman, let alone sending a "man" into a war zone with a HIStory of skipping out on Vietnam because, well, he himself couldn't measure up.

Answer 5

I agree with you. Some people will vote one way or the other just because their family has voted that way for generations. People need to wake up and realize that all Republicans and/or Democrats are not the same, nor share the same values. It's really hard these days to cut through the crap and truely see what's what. Usually, the first man to start mud-slinging is crossed off of my list. Someone ought not need to degrade his opponent to win a race. I want to hear what he thinks about issues, not whether of not his opponent got a DUI while he was in college.

Answer 6

Unfortunately, the man always goes with the party, so you have to look at his party's platform before voting for him, especially in a presidential election.

Answer 7

What I wish is that people voted for the policies, not the party or the man.

They've done surveys where they flashed pictures of actual congressional candidates to people who didn't know them, and in almost 70% of the cases people were able to pick the person who won the race simply by picking the person who "looked more like a leader."

Has television ruined our representative democracy?

Answer 8

Problem there is they are all crooks, I'd like to see an underclassman get funding and run on the true princibles of the people and not there own pockets, no politician has proved that to me, run under the condition of cutting your own salary in half and give it to the people, then maybe I 'd vote for that person....they say vote for the least of two evils well, I am not voting for a pedophile or a murderer, so I d rather not vote(those were examples of the extremes but trying to make my point

Answer 9

At the primaries I vote for the man, but it's usually the party once the election arrives.

Answer 10

Generally, I agree. For instance, I did not vote for Bill Clinton. But I am registered as a Democrat, which is his party identification. That was because I just never liked him as governor. It was not that he was a bad governor-there were some good things that he did for the state. I just did not like him as a person and I never voted for him.