I didn't. I voted for 41 once, because he wasn't as bad as Dukakis.
Sometimes I suspect that America has become like Tsarist Russia; the least competent gets chosen to rule. Just as there were far more competent families than the Romanovs, I find myself more and more voting for the least objectionable candidate. Since 1976, I have only been strongly in favor of two candidates. I voted for both Reagan and Clinton because they projected an air of optimism in a time when optimism was much needed.
I don't think 43 would have been in the position to run for national elected office if he hadn't been named Bush. By the way, the Bushes are the comparatively poor side of that family. Just like the Romanovs were.
2006-09-11 18:40:17
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
All that his name brought for him was name recognition in the primary election by the time the general election came around people were either voting along party lines or on the issues. Perhaps some were, were voting againest the out-going clinton administration by casting a vote for him.
2006-09-12 01:46:11
·
answer #2
·
answered by quarterton2001 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
Names do play a factor in peoples voting habits. Look at Ted Kennedy, the lamest fat bastard on the planet, but he still manages to get elected. Yes, I would have voted for Bush, even if he had a different last name.
2006-09-12 01:35:58
·
answer #3
·
answered by Huevos Rancheros 6
·
2⤊
2⤋
Yes I did vote for him because their was nobody else out their that I felt comfortable with when it came to protecting my friends , family and United States Citizens against future terrorist attacks in the United States , and unfortunately until the Democrats get off their a-ss and come up with a plan I will vote Republican again because then I know we will be safe !
2006-09-12 01:38:41
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I was one of the ones who did vote for him. I agreed with some of his views on things and I guess the 9-11 thing helped sway my opinion toward him. It wasn't because of his relation to the former pres. I do feel, however, that I could have made a better decision. The competition wasn't favorable over him even given most recent events.
2006-09-12 01:29:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by dreamangel263 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
Last name doesn't mean a thing to me. First time he was elected president, he was voted by the Supreme Court. Second time, he used fearmongering to win the election.
I vote for competent candidates and not just for their famous name.
2006-09-12 03:27:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by tyrone b 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
I voted Gore the first time and Kerry the second! Names don't mean much. I watched the debates and saw that Bush couldn't think on his feet. I did not feel much in the way of confidence in him that he would be able to handle any major decisions of critical importance. The man just makes me nervous.
2006-09-12 01:26:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
Yes I would have voted for him no matter his name. He has resolve. He believes Americans should govern American not the UN or the opinions of the EU. He's not a wimp like Clinton or Kerry.
2006-09-12 01:33:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by sam 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
Although it seems irrational and people don't want to admit it, I think that things like last names Do influencepeople's voting behaviior. You'd be surprised.
When I was younger, one of my friend's moms voted for Clinton simply because she "likes the way he talks."
As an example, I think that Sen Barrack Obama, a democrat, is unelectable to the office of the presidency simply becamse is last name sounds like Osama.
I did vote for George Bush in 2004, but now I very much regret that decision
2006-09-12 01:28:42
·
answer #9
·
answered by Matt 3
·
2⤊
4⤋
The political party is more important to me than the candidate's relatives.
2006-09-12 01:27:54
·
answer #10
·
answered by lepninja 5
·
3⤊
1⤋