Poll

[senseamp]

For me the issue is checks and balances. The other problems are simply the symptoms of ineffective checks and balances in Washington.
But between the options, I chose the Iraq war, because it has weakened the US as a whole. The other ones are internal debates that will go on and on, but with Iraq all of us lose. This is the one easily avoidable debacle that a lot of people saw coming long before we went in, including Bush's own father.

 

[AutumnRayne]

I'm torn between the war in Iraq and poor congressional performance.
Middle of the road.
Unaffiliated, however for the first time ever this year I will almost be voting a fully democratic ticket. I hate voting like that, since I've always thought it was silly to vote purely on party affiliation and not on the issues, but I agree we do need to restore some checks and balances.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: ntdz
I hate it when liberals on this forum vote that they are "independent" when in fact they vote for Democrats 100% of the time.

Depends on the state you live in.
In Virginia, everyone gets to vote for a party's nomination regardless of party affiliation.

So, yes Democrats can vote for the nominee they'll prefer on the republican side, and Republicans can vote for democrats they'll prefer.

 

[dmw16]

no option for "protecting the constitution"?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: ntdz
I hate it when liberals on this forum vote that they are "independent" when in fact they vote for Democrats 100% of the time.

Could be conservatives trying to make it look like the forum is more liberal than it is...

I doubt that, most of us on the right are very open about what we are. Meanwhile, we have people like "Sudheer Anne" claiming "assumptions assuming the Democratic party is MY party" as if she isn't a Democrat.

What I found more interesting is the 53% who claim to be 'in the middle' on a board where it SEEMS like 50%+ are to the left. And only a quarter of the people on here admit to being liberal? A lot of people need to learn the meaning of liberal. Either there are a lot of lurkers out there, or else a lot of the people who think they are in the middle are really liberal and either won't admit it, or just don't know it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: AutumnRayne
I'm torn between the war in Iraq and poor congressional performance.
Middle of the road.
Unaffiliated, however for the first time ever this year I will almost be voting a fully democratic ticket. I hate voting like that, since I've always thought it was silly to vote purely on party affiliation and not on the issues, but I agree we do need to restore some checks and balances.

Autumn, there is nothing wrong with voting a straight party line, despite what many on here will say after I make this statement.

Since the Republican party and I agree one WAY more things than the Democratic party by voting a straight Republican ticket I am helping to put more people into power who will agree with me, in some form. Also, the more Republicans in power the easier it is for them to get more Republicans elected. You are in essence increasing the power of the party.

Things may be a little different in local races, but on the national level you would be foolish to vote for the party that does not agree with your beliefs.
Which is why I will be voting for Katherine Harris (who has no chance of winning) Even though Bill Nelson maybe a good Senator, he will still vote for Harry Reid as majority leader, and that would be a disaster to me and my beliefs.
Same thing with voting for one of the conservative Democrats that are out there running for congress. Yes, candidate X may be more pro-life and pro-defense than the typical Democrat, but when he casts a vote for Pelosi to be speaker of the house he will be putting into place the most liberal members of congress as the chairs of every major committee.
If the Democrats take over there will be a lot of voters looking at congress six months from now and wondering what they were thinking by voting for them.

Go a head and disagree with me, but I will point out that since 1968 we have only have 2 Democrats elected President, one after the Watergate mess in which any Democrat would have won, and one who ran as a centrist Democrat. During the same time we've had 4 Republican President, Reagan who ran as a conservative and Bush 43 who also claimed to be a conservative.
How many openly liberal Democrats have been elected in that time? ZERO.

 

[AutumnRayne]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: AutumnRayne
I'm torn between the war in Iraq and poor congressional performance.
Middle of the road.
Unaffiliated, however for the first time ever this year I will almost be voting a fully democratic ticket. I hate voting like that, since I've always thought it was silly to vote purely on party affiliation and not on the issues, but I agree we do need to restore some checks and balances.

Autumn, there is nothing wrong with voting a straight party line, despite what many on here will say after I make this statement.

Since the Republican party and I agree one WAY more things than the Democratic party by voting a straight Republican ticket I am helping to put more people into power who will agree with me, in some form. Also, the more Republicans in power the easier it is for them to get more Republicans elected. You are in essence increasing the power of the party.

Things may be a little different in local races, but on the national level you would be foolish to vote for the party that does not agree with your beliefs.
Which is why I will be voting for Katherine Harris (who has no chance of winning) Even though Bill Nelson maybe a good Senator, he will still vote for Harry Reid as majority leader, and that would be a disaster to me and my beliefs.
Same thing with voting for one of the conservative Democrats that are out there running for congress. Yes, candidate X may be more pro-life and pro-defense than the typical Democrat, but when he casts a vote for Pelosi to be speaker of the house he will be putting into place the most liberal members of congress as the chairs of every major committee.
If the Democrats take over there will be a lot of voters looking at congress six months from now and wondering what they were thinking by voting for them.

Go a head and disagree with me, but I will point out that since 1968 we have only have 2 Democrats elected President, one after the Watergate mess in which any Democrat would have won, and one who ran as a centrist Democrat. During the same time we've had 4 Republican President, Reagan who ran as a conservative and Bush 43 who also claimed to be a conservative.
How many openly liberal Democrats have been elected in that time? ZERO.

I can see where you are coming from and why you would vote that way. I suppose the real issue is that no single party seems to share all my beliefs. So for me it comes down to the individual, and what stance they take on the issues most important to me.

The only thing I'll outright disagree with you on is that everyone who voted for democrats will be kicking themselves in six months. Unless you've found some way of looking into the future I doubt you know that for sure.

I guess only time will tell.

 

[ProfJohn]

Autumn, us Republicans are all knowing, vote for us because we know the future.
The six month comment is based on the idea that what the Democrats will do is so far off from the mainstream of America that many will wonder what they were doing voting for them.
There is also a lot of people on the right who think that Democrats in congress for two years could actually help the Republicans heading into 2008, for the same reasons above.

Really, the people who will be kicking themselves are the Republicans who sit at home to "punish" the Republicans for what ever reason. Especially any of the religious right who sit at home because of the Foley thing.

BTW: I talked to John Edwards, the TV guy, and he told me about what happens in 6 months.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There is also a lot of people on the right who think that Democrats in congress for two years could actually help the Republicans heading into 2008, for the same reasons above.

A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down?

 

[broon]

Stem Cell research
Limiting terms is also a good one but I doubt anyone will move to offer that one up.

 

[CellarDoor]

The biggest issue IMO, is the lack of checks and balances in Congress. Most of the other issues wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for one party running the whole show. This has also led to a more divisive America, which is probably even more tragic. We can do great things if we work together.

There are no Democrats I agree with on every issue and no Republicans I agree with on every issue. Not all Republicans and Democrats believe the same things so this can't be true for anyone. Therefore, straight party-line voting is a joke. What I mean by this is, going to the ballot and selecting every "R" or "D" without additional thought is a joke. However, If you go through each candidate and feel that way, then there's nothing wrong with that.

The problem is that the abundance of negative ads and disinformation in an election season makes it hard for the average working-class family (who doesn't follow politics every day) to decipher the information. Hence, lots of people choose a party that they generally agree with, and make the assumption that every other candidate of that same party is the same way. In reality this isn't always the case. In addition, the inability to weed through the information could lead to a poor choice in party to follow, because the distinction between what a politician says and does can be hard to make.

Negative ad campaigning needs to stop. Any ad not directly related to the persons record should have no place in American politics.

 

[piasabird]

Stem Cell Research may be a waste of money. A lot of what has been produced so far is just a bunch of tumors. This brings to mind horror stories of the Nazi Doctors doing exprimentation on humans during the war.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: ntdz
I hate it when liberals on this forum vote that they are "independent" when in fact they vote for Democrats 100% of the time.

QFT

Why is it that us on the right are proud to be conservative, yet those on the left always claim that they are in the middle?

Anyways, I was

Border security
conservative
independant

 

[Schadenfroh]

what is the most important issue in the upcoming mid-term elections?

Poor Congressional Performance is the most important to me out of those options, as having poor leadership can affect all the others listed. The Economy, healthcare, and education (more of a state issue, no?) seem to be doing well enough. I could care less about Congressional Scandals, they only prove that the people are idiots, gay marriage is again a state issue, National Security = The War on Terror = Border Security. Party affiliation? I am a conservative Democrat, hard to find many anymore to vote for, so I mainly support Republicans (unless the Democrats have a solid moderate/conservative candidate) on a national level and Democrats on state/local level.

Would you consider yourself to be a?

Here in Mississippi, I am a moderate, but nationally I would probably be an ultra rightwing conservative.

are you a?

Democrat

 

[z57nick]

Yes and I am always surprised to see the leap from what was first written:

("If the Democrats take over there will be a lot of voters looking at congress six months from now and wondering what they were thinking by voting for them")

and what was understood:
("The only thing I'll outright disagree with you on is that everyone who voted for democrats will be kicking themselves in six months")

Kind of a leap? Perhaps hot, but this seems to occur frequently. No, I do not think they will be kicking themselves in 6 month, just starting to wonder as ProfJohn said. Now, in a bout a year to 18 months, the kicking may start! : )



FO rme the main topic is Iraq. I was over in that region in the early 90s. I wish we had finished things then, but now that we are back into it, let us please finish or someone's kids will have to go in another 10 years. On and on. The problem is the Iraqis don;t seem to take to much responsibility for their own country. While I understand the fears many of them have, they still need to step up.


Just a thought. THanks for the crystal ball ProJohn.