Undecideds, the disgruntled, Libertarians and Independents...

This thread is for you! Who are we going to vote for and why? Who are we NOT going to vote for, for sure? What are your reasons pro and con for Obama and McCain?

Here's a sampling of what's going on out there, what category are you in?

A) Disgruntled: Are you Pro-Hillary therefore anti-Obama due to the dirty dealings in the Democratic primaries?

If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain:

PRINCETON, NJ -- A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

www.gallup.com...

B) Are you an Independent and still undecided?

Obama TANKING with Independents, Losing Moderate Voters:

In the last six weeks, Barack Obama has been losing support in virtually every key demographic category when matched against John McCain, while Hillary Clinton has gained support. Perhaps most disturbing is Obama’s decline among Independent voters: Between late February and mid-April, in 9 key states for Democrats

www.correntewire.com...

And 2 minutes ago, this breaking political news!

Poll finds electorate split between Obama, McCain:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The general election season opens with a neck-and-neck race between Barack Obama and John McCain, with more than one in five voters acknowledging that they might change their minds between now and November.
McCain and Obama aren't alone. Independent candidate Ralph Nader and Republican-turned-Libertarian Bob Barr are both vying with the two major-party candidates for independent voters.

But at this point, it looks unlikely either will play a spoiler role: When pollsters asked about a field of candidates that includes Nader and Barr, the margin between Obama and McCain was virtually unchanged, with the Illinois senator leading 47 percent to 43 percent. Nader pulls in 6 percent, and Barr 2.

www.cnn.com...

The one-on-one battle between McCain and Obama is shaping up, I think, to see who can win OUR swing votes....once again, as in the last election, the swing votes are going to be heavily courted and play a very important role in this election as well....

So sound off Undecideds, Independents, Libertarians, and disgruntled voters who wanted Hillary or Mitt Romney and who are now undecided!

[edit on 6-6-2008 by LateApexer313]

[edit on 6-6-2008 by LateApexer313]

The order that I went in since way back when was.
1) Hopeing Romney would run....(regretting it shortly there after)
2) Rooting for McCain............(regretted that)
3) thought Hillary would get Bill back into the house. (regretted that)
4) voted for Huckabee in the Florida Primary (hate the IRS)
5) always liked Ron Pauls message but knew he had no chance.
6) Would love to see Jesse Ventura pull off another Minnesota miracle type thing ( I voted for him back in the day)
7) Really liked Richardson but knew he had no chance.
8) never had an issue about Obama but knew he had no chance. (glad to be wrong about that)
..........
My voting history..... 1) Ronald Reagan 2) George Bush Sr. 3) Bill Clinton 4) Bill Clinton 5) Al Gore 6) John Kerry.
This year, if Ron is out, if Jesse aint' in it, if Huckabee isn't a VP, than I am going with Obama and I will just suffer with his racist big mouth wife.

LOL Ipsa you sound like me, thanks for sharing that!

I didn't like any Republicans this time around...or any Democrats...Romney was way too right of middle for me, Hillary was too far left, until Obama made himself known, then Hillary seemed like Romney LOL....

I am conservative when it comes to money, economy issues and the less government intervention as possible is how I sit on that fence...and the Republicans spent money like Nancy Pelosi during a hotflash the last 8 years...

I voted for Ronald Regan...(my first presidential election) I voted for Perot lol...then Clinton his 2nd term...hated Al Gore, so voted for George W...hated Geroge W. 2nd term, AND Kerry, equally...

I would have voted for Ventura if I'd lived in Minnesota.

There's just no good candidates for those of us who are conservative on some issues and liberal on others I never jumped on the Ron Paul bandwagon because like you I knew he couldn't win...Ross Perot stood a decent chance before he picked the VP he did and went all flakey with the "CIA is stalking my family" which, in retrospect, I wouldn't doubt they were now, knowing what I know now

I've done alot of thinking this year, and this is what I've deduced:


McCain = 4 more years of Bush

Obama = 4 years of...well we don't exactly know what


It may be my first time as a voter, but I think I can make a logical decision such as this . Though I don't like the fact that Obama wants to cut billions from military spending and end research into ballistic missile defense, he certainly does have a better plan for the enviornment and economy than McCain (considers himself an 'expert' on the enviornment crisis because it's a "national security risk" :lol, and to me he seems like a likeable, intelligent, and driven individual.

And for all you Obama haters: Just refer to my previous statement. Can you really deal with 4 more years of Bush? The thought sickens me.

Originally posted by LateApexer313
There's just no good candidates for those of us who are conservative on some issues and liberal on others

Congratulations, you are intelligent!
You see, it takes an intelligent and logical person to realize that our country needs both liberal and conservative policies. Only the ignorant are party loyalists.


[edit on 6-6-2008 by CaptainIraq]

reply to post by CaptainIraq


Thanks Captain for giving us your opinion and, so far, what you are planning to do, so this is your first time voting you said? Congrats, or my sympathies I don't know which one to say, so I will say both LMAO.

To me, McCain is more of an unknown then Obama in many ways. He's one of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate... and he's chapped all of their arses so far...he's way far left of any illegal immigration issues then I am, yet he has the guts to stand up for a few "un-conservative" issues as well...

Then we have Obama, who, some could claim the most liberal member of the Senate. As I said, I am economically conservative and I am for LESS government intervention on state matters, on EVERYTHING.

It's going to be a hard decision...muddied by the fact that they are both politicians and they are both lying when you see their mouths moving lol...so for me it will probably come down to who will do the LEAST amount of collateral damage on the finances, but that could change, although I highly doubt it at this point.

LOL edited to laugh and say yes...IMO anyone who votes strict party lines is not thinking!


[edit on 6-6-2008 by LateApexer313]

reply to post by LateApexer313


I realize that he is quite liberal for a conservative old white guy, but you must remember that there are a lot of things that you can generally expect from a military man like him.

I know all about Obama and his ideas and what he plans to do, but the majority of politics is not what you plan on doing, but how you go about getting it done. Being a (relatively) young member of the Senate, Obama doesn't have a very big track record. While that is not necessarily a bad thing, it is usually the track record of a politician which is best utilized for determining how they tend to push certain policies.

Unless things change a lot I will be voting for who I like the most this time around and that person is Bob Barr.

In an interview with Newsweek, Ron Paul said that Barr and he are friends and allies. He then said that when it comes to Mccain, their beliefs do not come together well.

Ron Paul is also a strong friend and Ally of Chuck Baldwin, who is running as the Constitution party Presidential candidate. He said he can't really endorse him or Barr over the other.

I started paying attention to Barr a few months ago, when I read an article where he was talking about the opportunistic use of fear by the Government to increase it's size and scope. Now it looks to me like he is going to make history, getting more votes than any Libertarian ever has for president.

Wayne Root is going to get some attention as well. He will probably hurt some people's feelings as he just says what he thinks, lol.. but he is a great communicator, amazing at times and some people are going to love him.

Barr's website is laid out just like Ron Paul's was. His issues section should be a good read for most any ATSer, whether you want to vote for him or not.

For anyone that was disenchanted and considering a write in of Ron Paul, I think he would appreciate a vote for Barr or Baldwin just as much, as Paul will not be on the ballot.

Hiyah Novise,

Thanks for posting your choice and why you arrived at it. For anyone who might want to vote for Bob Bar or just read what he's all about here's the link to the site and the link to where he spells out the "issues."

www.bobbarr2008.com...

www.bobbarr2008.com...

I would really like to see the Libertarian party get stronger or some sort of Independent party spring up myself that had enough power to win, and not just "decide" an election between the 2 parties by taking votes away from one candidate or the other.

Nice thread.

One category missing though: The people who dont believe that politics has anything to do with what happens or does not happen in ones personal life and therefore see it as almost irrelevant who is or is not in "power" (Not to mention those who dont believe a president has any real power!)

Count me into that category.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Nice thread.

One category missing though: The people who dont believe that politics has anything to do with what happens or does not happen in ones personal life and therefore see it as almost irrelevant who is or is not in "power" (Not to mention those who dont believe a president has any real power!)

Count me into that category.

It's not that nothing gets done...it's just that it happens so...slowly.
The truth is that this is the only system of politics they've come up with that is "fair" (take that one with a grain of salt ). If the president was a dictator, important stuff would get done every day that affects your life (usually in a bad way).

So, I say again, we have another example of one of the negative side effects of Democracy.

As for third parties, don't expect one to ever gain enough power to win. They are not so much a decider of who wins, but more of a source of new ideas for the two major parties and a way to make a point. The only time you get different kinds of viable presidential candidates is when the major parties change, as American history has always shown us.



[edit on 7-6-2008 by CaptainIraq]

reply to post by Skyfloating

I completely agree with your post. I will vote in this coming election but only for local positions. (for some crazy reason, I still believe my vote may have some weight there). I refuse to ever hold my nose and vote for a president again.

I may possibly write in Paul, or vote for the libertarian candidate, but there is no way I would vote for Mccain or Obama. I couldn't sink that low.

We certainly need to make people aware of the fact that politics also exists beyond the two-party system.

Thats why its not such a bad idea to support Libertarians.

I agree we really need to open up this 2 party system. One of the biggest issues is ballot access. The other of course as we know here is the mainstream media bias, and downright manipulation of elections through information and public relations/free advertising and face time.

It's hard for third parties and independents to get ballot access locally and nationally. Access to debates as well is a big deal. Also when Ross Perot got into the debates you only needed to poll at 10%. They changed it to 15% after that. Anytime you can support a ballot access bill that makes it easier for the parties outside of Republican and Democrat to get on the ballot is a big help to those parties. And supporting third parties in polls might help them get into a debate. The Digg.com website helped get Ron Paul exposure because the websites were getting people to Digg articles on him. Doing the same thing for any of these non mainstream parties will help their cause as well.

im not voting at all. this whole system is a sham. if you vote you are saying you still believe in the system. you are voting for the system and all the corperate whores who manipulate the results.

my vote dosnt count. the only people whos votes count are the lobbiests on k street and the a-holes on wall street.

on election day you will find me drawing hitler mustaches on obama posters and swastikas on mccain posters...maybe ill even through in a pirate eye patch or two...im not really sure yet, but i do know one thing

...ill be voting with my middle finger.

In my entire voting career I have never voted "for" anyone. I have voted against and in protest of those that usually proved to be charlatans and rogues even if they were elected.

I still maintain that if voting really made any difference, it would be illegal.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Hiyah Skyfloating! You're right, sorry, I forgot that category...forgive me...you're in a majority there too, as witnessed by so many people who choose not to vote, they know it won't make any difference etc, and look at how many aren't even registered?

Whaaaa: I hear you, I have done that a lot also...my vote for Perot was definitely a protest vote, even after he picked that nice old senile man as a VP, his name escapes me now!

TheRepublic: Another one in Skyfloating's category I don't blame you at all, and sometimes the middle finger vote is just more effective LOL....sorry but I have to laugh to make the whole situation not as dire.

Novice: I totally agree with you here...but what I don't understand is, there are sooo many of us out here, disgruntled, Independents, Swing Voters etc...Even the category like Skyfloating and TheRepublic here, I think they'd even vote if they thought they had a chance at changing anything, so my question is...why HASN'T a 3rd party popped up ...well funded, registering in time to get on ALL the state's ballots etc? I do not understand that.

there isnt a thrid party because it isnt neccessary for the true goals of politics. the true rulers dont need three partys they only need two so there are just two. just like a boxer uses both hands to pummel an adversary they use two party system to keep us from ever being in control of this country.

you didnt think it was about what we the people need do you?

they need two partys so they can spread the right and wrong out between them. that way as long as you are in one party or another you are under their control. thats why every year we vote and every year things get worse and at best they stay the same. our government is not here to serve us. it is here to serve the rockefellers and rothschilds. and we get to pay $4 a gallon for gas and say "yes sir may i have another"

i need a beer.

Another thing you notice is that too much time is wasted making the opposite candidate or the other party look bad.

If this were done on a corporate level or even in a relationship or family level it would be seen as unacceptable behaviour, yet on a nationwide level we´re supposed to put up with this childish crap.

But this is also the fault of an immature public who want excessive drama-entertainment and would prefer being lied to than studying the actual issues.

Lets try to keep this thread running to provide our unique third perspective.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by LateApexer313
...why HASN'T a 3rd party popped up ...well funded, registering in time to get on ALL the state's ballots etc? I do not understand that.

It´ll happen sooner or later. The mindset of the general populace isnt there yet. They´re still wearing psychological diapers and these also happen to be full of crap. Give it 20 more years and the need will become apparent.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Another thing you notice is that too much time is wasted making the opposite candidate or the other party look bad.

If this were done on a corporate level or even in a relationship or family level it would be seen as unacceptable behaviour, yet on a nationwide level we´re supposed to put up with this childish crap.

But this is also the fault of an immature public who want excessive drama-entertainment and would prefer being lied to than studying the actual issues.

True.
And you basically just summed up what gives the entire spectrum of people working in the media jobs .