Which candidates running for office would make you stay at home on election Day?

Media | 1/13/2008 | self

[ODDITHER]

Which Republican candidate running would make you stay at Home on election day?

Which Republican candidate would make you cross over and vote for a third party?

Which Republican candidate would make you cross over and vote for Hilary or Obama?

[ShasheMac]

Well said. Not voting in order to teach the Republicans a lesson would be fine if Clinton or Obama became President for a day or two. But, to allow them to have their way in our country for four or eight years would be a disaster.

[Swordfished]

If Huckabee or McCain get the nomination, I'm voting Third Party.

Please reconsider and remember those of us who voted for Perot, and elected Clinton.

I've made up my mind. And besides, changing one's mind is now evil, it's 'flip-flopping'.

[donnalee]

Anyone who stays home on Election Day deserves state, county, and local governments made up entirely of Democrats.

That's what we got here in AR after Huckabee got elected, he even campaigned for some of them over good solid conservative Republicans.

[larryjohnson]

R

[marsh2]

I will actively support Thompson.
I am ambivalent about Mitt, but would probably accept him as the Republican candidate with disappointment.
I will not vote for Gulliani, Huckabee or McCain. As a small government conservative, they are the same as Democrats to me. Their candidacy would seriously have me questioning my long term identification as a Republican.
Ron Paul’s positions are no where in the ballpark for me.

I would look to a third party candidate or not vote in the Presidential portion of the election if other than Thompson or Romney runs.

[MichiganWoodsman]

NOTHING WOULD MAKE ME MUTE MY VOICE ON ELECTION DAY! Even if that means holding my nose and voting for Flip Romney, McKennedy, or Abortiani.

[Tax-chick]

That’s discouraging.

[Cobra64]

If either Thompson or Hunter isn't on the Republican ticket, I'll vote for this guy:

[Myrddin]

I would never stay home. Generally, the Democrat candidate is a flaming socialist. I'm going to vote for the most conservative candidate likely to defeat the socialist Democrat. Throwing away my vote on a non-viable competitor is as bad as staying home. The primary is the time to press for the best conservative candidate to oppose the Democrat. Once that decision is made, I'll be supporting the candidate likely to defeat the socialist opposition.

[NoobRep]

I consider it a civic duty to vote. So if Fred isn’t in the race, I’ll go to the ballot box and write in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny.

[adopt4Christ]

i will vote for anyone but Osama and Hill. But I am praying I can vote for Fred. I would not vote for
Romney, however.

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

I would not stay home regardless of who is running for President. There are always at least a few candidates for local and state offices who are worthy of consideration.

However, depending on who is running, I might leave the choice for presidential electors blank.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Broken Glass Republican, here. Just TRY to keep me away from the polls to vote for whichever candidate my party elects, no matter HOW misguided and no matter how much I disagree with him on some issues.

Don’t forget: It’s your DUTY and an HONOR to vote.

[William Tell]

Swordfished said: "If Huckabee or McCain get the nomination, I'm voting Third Party."

There really is no such thing as a "third party" in our system.

In a parliamentary system, various factions can align, call for an election and choose a leader who represents the interests of that coalition. If the coalition collapses, a vote of "no confidence" can trigger elections, causing a new leader to be selected, representing some new coalition.

In our system, the President is elected for four years and once elected is not going anywhere, short of impeachment and conviction or death. Even then, the successor will be the Vice-President who presumably represents the same interests. Basically our system is a "winner-takes_all" system and the loser gets nothing.

As a result, there will NEVER really be a third party in the US. The third party can never win. If a third party ever did win, it would immediately become the first party.

As a result of this reality, voting for a "third party" is simply the same as staying home and denying one's vote to one or the other of the two actual contending parties.

[EDINVA]

Back in ‘92, I couldn’t believe this ocuntry would elect someone like Bill Clinton as POTUS. When he was elected I assumed we could survive four years. When he was re-elected, I gave up! Truth is, this country did not survive his eight years without dire consequences we will live with for generations. It would only get worse if that crowd got back into the White House.

Let’s not forget, Clinton won thanks to the COYNTSYF Republicans going for Perot. Hate to see history repeat itself. In ‘92 the Iron Curtain had just come down and we’d defeated Communism in Eastern Europe. People thought we could let down our guard. We (should) know better now.

[E. Cartman]

Will never cast a vote for Huckabubba. Two born-again lunatics in the White House, Carter and Bush, have been more than enough for me, and I just can’t stomach the thought of yet another president who thinks Jesus is speaking to him from his morning breakfast burrito.

[WOSG]

What a tough question. I always vote GOP, but I hate voting the RINO party....

[fr_freak]

Having learned my lesson when George H Bush and Perot were running against Clinton, I would never again vote for a third party or vote for a democratic candidate.

On the contrary, the lesson I learned from the Bush/Perot thing was that we (meaning conservatives) do not impose discipline on the Republican Party enough. Bush Sr. spit on all Americans when he got himself elected by making a solid pledge which he then broke. He did not deserve to win. Then, the only reason that the scumbag Clinton got re-elected was because the idiot Republicans ran a lackluster candidate (Bob Dole is an honorable man, but he was not the conservative that people wanted to see).

Had we simply put Bush Sr. back in office, we would have been telling all of our politicians and the major parties that they can lie, cheat, and steal all they want and we, the idiot electorate, will put them right back into office. That may be fine for the amoral Democrats, but that is no way to promote a conservative agenda.

Every time a Republican loses, the idiot Republican Party and its backers take that as a sign that they should run an even more liberal candidate. EVERY TIME. Why don't they ever learn the lesson that they should promote an even more conservative candidate? I don't know the answer to that question, but what I do know is that if we put liberals into office as Republicans, we are surrendering to liberalism, plain and simple. I refuse to do that.

By the way, I hope people are using the "stay home" pledge metaphorically. There are always more issues and more offices on the ballot than just the presidential election, so get your asses out there and vote - I don't care WHO is running for president.

[fr_freak]

Actually, Arnold tried to pass spending limitations. The voters rejected them, and then he went into full Liberal RINO mode to get reelected. The voters of California are responsible for Arnold’s bad character; they drove him to it.

Bah. Arnold shirked his duty. There is a reason the Founding Fathers set up a Republic rather than a direct democracy. In California, we have a mixture of both - elected representatives and a referendum system. If Arnold had any huevos, he would have wheeled and dealed with the legislature to get his budget items passed. He has the power of veto, and he would have had the support of some real conservatives in the state legislature (McClintock, for instance). Instead, he wussed out and sent the initiatives to referendum, so that the voters at large could implement the changes HE said HE would implement. When they predictably failed, Arnold then had an excuse to act like the liberal he always was. Why do we even need elected representatives if all major issues are to be settled by direct popular vote? Let's just disband the legislature all together then.

[SoConPubbie]

Actually, Arnold tried to pass spending limitations. The voters rejected them, and then he went into full Liberal RINO mode to get reelected. The voters of California are responsible for Arnold’s bad character; they drove him to it.

While the historical context of your post is correct, your analysis is way off.

Arnold IS the GIRLY-MAN of California politics.

No Spine and a Democrat in a cheap Republican suit!