I've been somewhat amiss this season in not paying too much attention to the debates. I'm trying to rectify that by reading some transcripts. It seems that most of the candidates are again fairly politicianly. It really bothers me the way they will take five seconds to avoid a question in order to then talk about what they feel like. There seem to be exceptions, but not many.

Those of you who are registered Democrats, who are you planning to vote for and why?

Carol Moseley Braun
Wesley Clark
Howard Dean
John Edwards
Dick Gephardt
John Kerry
Dennis Kucinich
Joe Lieberman
Al Sharpton
other/writein

(Note that Bob Graham officially dropped out.)

Oh, and please vote only if your are a registered Democrat. I want to get a feeling for the real election (not that, I imagine, we're a great statistical sample). The rest of you, please feel free to join in the discussion, if you wish.

As far as me, right now, I'm leaning towards Dean because of his outspoken denouncement of GWB, but most of the others are on that bandwagon now, too. Clark intrigues me, but I'm not sure if he has the experience to do the job. In some ways, he might have more than the rest. I also have this paranoid fear that if he got elected, he'll tell us he was lying all along and go back(?) to being a Republican.

But I have problems with Dean, too. I don't like his fiscal platform, for one. He also might be a little hotheaded to be good in the diplomatic arena, which I feel will be very important for our next president.

Edwards is possibly in the running for me, as is Kerry, I suppose. Lieberman is a Republican, as far as I can figure. Braun is a black woman and will simply not win a national election, so, as much as I hate to say it, she's not worth my time to really investigate. Kucinich is in the same boat for different reasons, but I do like his ideas in general. He's the truly different candidate, which I like. Gephardt has run too many times already and gotten shot down. I didn't really like him then, either. And, come on, Sharpton's just a joke. Regardless, I wouldn't want a minister in office, even moreso these days. (And Bob Graham is just a freak.)

So I haven't voted because I don't yet know.

I have also not paid enough attention and read up enough but for the moment (and likely in the end), I pick Clark. Based on what I've seen in the past, I now tend to vote, well, I guess you'd say I vote for character. But it's more than that. I can't really explain it.

I watched some of a recent debate and I just couldn't watch the whole thing. This is because "it seems that most of the candidates are again fairly politicianly" is an understatement. You are correct, and if you had watched live you would have thought even more so. There were no responses, only "I was the first to say 'blah blah', and I charge all my colleagues to do the same." I swear that was the exact type of response they all had, and nobody had anything else to say. I can't remember if Clark was in this one I was watching, though. I didn't see his response to any of the questions, if he was. I just got more and more disgusted with all of them.

So that's about it. I'm sick of the politicians, Republican and Democrat. I look for the people who aren't behaving that way, and in watching a CNN interview with Clark, his repsonses just seemed different from all the rest. That's why I'm not going to go into policies here and what-not. From what I've seen in this Democrat mess it doesn't seem to matter, particularly when there are 10 candidates vying for the nomination.


ps-come on, people. respect Bitt's wishes. I'm willing to believe that there's someone out there who would actually vote for Sharpton, but you've got to respond and say why if you're going to do something so crazy!

So is it worth reregistering as a Democrat or should I not bother? I'm still registered Republican for the "I'm lazy; it made more sense where I lived before" reason. By the time PA has its primary I assume things will be over.

I will probably do the avoid-the-polls-in-disgust thing this year. I have voted in every presidential election (and almost all the congressional elections) since I turned 18, but what is the point this time? Dean is going to win the primaries, and lose to Bush because people are blind to the wool being pulled over their eyes and too stupid to realize what they are losing. And it will only get worse in a Bush second term.

I have completely lost faith in my country and its people in the last year. That is a hard thing to lose, and it has helped make 2003 one of the worst years of my life. I really don't see 2004 being any better, and I have no hope anymore that this country will come to its senses anytime soon. I hope when we do it is not too late.

Will one of the people who voted for Al Sharpton please stand up and explain?

I will probably do the avoid-the-polls-in-disgust thing this year

Ditto, and for pretty much the same reasons. From what I have heard of the candidates I would probably lean towards Dean, but I am really not well informed enough at the moment to make any sort of intelligent decision

-Mike

I'm not a registered voter, but I really like Wesley Clark's potential. The economic plan he unveiled today makes fiscal sense to me. Although I don't purport to understand the macroeconomics of the US Government to KNOW that it will work, I think the principles of his plan are certainly better than Dubya's pseudo-trickle-down crap that gives tax breaks to corporations and the top 1% in the hopes that they'll pass that money on to those below them on the corporate and economic ladders (here's a shocker: they won't!) The other democrats (from what I've seen, anyway) haven't been nearly as specific about what they plan to do, probably because they don't want to make campaign promises they can't back up.

Dean, on the other hand, really scares me. Every politician makes a boneheaded statement or three during a long campaign, but he seems to make several each day, and then the worst part is he backpedals on them when cornered. Furthermore, I just think the guy lacks any semblence of charisma, which is an incredibly important part of a President's job, both domestically (to get budgets through Congress, convince the American people, etc.) and abroad (to convince other world leaders, earn back the trust lost during the last several years, etc.) Clark seems to have been much better at avoiding foot-in-mouth disease, and seems to have balanced domestic and foreign affairs agendas that seem like they might get us back in the right direction.

As for the other retreads on the list (Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt) I really haven't seen anything from them that differentiates them enough from the crowd. I think they're a symbol of the Democratic status quo, and are just trying to take advantage of the anti-Bush movement in the country to steal an election. The rest of them are already also-rans, and not really worth mentioning.

I'm still adopting a "wait and see" posture right now, but as of right now, my vote (which will be my first ever for a Presidential election, BTW) will be with Clark. I think the White House really needs a moderate (but not wishy-washy) Democrat, and I think Clark might be the guy.

I wish Clarke had declared earlier - I think that he's the best of the large field, but I don't think that he really stands a chance of overhauling Dean's advantage. Clarke appears to be liked on the international stage too, which could go a long way to repair the trust and goodwill that the incumbent has managed to squander.

Of course, this is about as much say as I get in the matter.

Of course, this is about as much say as I get in the matter.

Don't feel too bad. Due to the way the nomination process is run (all power to Iowa and New Hampshire) and the Electoral College, many (most?) of us here in the states don't really have a say either.

FWIW, if Clark is still in the race come March 2nd, I'll choose the Democrat ballot and vote for him. I don't really like him, and wouldn't even choose him over Bush, but he seems like the least of the nine evils. But I'm betting that Dean will have the race sewn up by then.

--John

Greetings!

I am registered as a Democrat, so I guess I should answer this thread. (Note: both of my parents used to work in civil service in NJ - having the entire family registered as a Democrat was basically an unwritten job requirement... )

I am more of an independent, and in this case I will cross over to the republican thread and vote for the inanimate carbon rod. Those candidates on this list that I am familiar with (less than half) ... well ... I think the rod would be better qualified ...

Can someone explain for us non-USians what a "registered voter" is ?

The term "registered" refers to the fact that you have "pre-qualified" that you are eligable to vote within your local government. It means that you have filled out a form with your name, date of birth, social security number and political party. This goes into your local town's records, so that you can just go up to the polling place with ID, sign in and vote. Much quicker that way.

Oh, I see. In the UK you have to be registered with the local government to be able to vote in any election. You can't just turn up on the day and vote.

Pretty much the same thing, I think.

Yeah, but in the UK, you don't have to (and can't) register your affiliation. That's a matter between you and the ballot box.

There doesn't seem to be a concept in the UK of "registered voter". You're either on the electoral roll or you're not. It's the same thing, but there's (AFAIK) no term for it.

The electoral roll is also used by credit companies and insurance companies, to check that you live where you claim (or something). There's a box on the registration form that you can tick (check) to prevent wider access to your information.

AFAICT, you can be registered on more than one roll, but you're still only allowed to vote in a single ward.

Personally, I'm on the electoral roll, but I've never voted. Until we get a compelling opposition party, I'm unlikely to.

so that you can just go up to the polling place with ID, sign in and vote. Much quicker that way

Implies that in the US you can turn up without being registered and vote. In the UK you can't do that, you have to be registered ahead of time to be able to vote.

Implies that in the US you can turn up without being registered and vote. In the UK you can't do that, you have to be registered ahead of time to be able to vote.

Well, basically you have to sign in on the registry. If you are not registered, you are allowed to vote "provisionally", where you cast your ballot, but they put it in for special handling. After they verify that you are qualified, they then count your vote.

Some good information on US voting registration can be found on MTV's "Rock The Vote" web site. MTV has been running campaigns to get young people registered and voting for a number of years now, and they have some good information on their site.

The electoral roll is also used by credit companies and insurance companies, to check that you live where you claim (or something).

Also the Church of England uses it as a local population estimate when they divvy out their cash to the parishes.

Gareth

and confusingly each parish has it's own church electoral roll, not that I have been on one for a long time since I lost my faith.

ugh...

I hate them all, I don't know what I'm going to do.

Yeah, but in the UK, you don't have to (and can't) register your affiliation. That's a matter between you and the ballot box.

You don't have to in the US, either, but doing so is the only way you get to vote in primaries. And, since I don't know that you know, primaries are the votes that occur for the major parties (I think it's just the Republican and Democratic parties, though it's possible that the Libertarians have one) to nominate their candidate. The voting process is done exactly the same way as voting for president, et al. That is, the primary ballots are not privately organized.

Let's say Hillary decides to run at the last minute, and the guys that don't have a chance in hell of winning have dropped out of the race:

Democrat nomination
Hillary
Dean
Clark
Kerry

I really like Wesley Clark's potential.

I do, too. I also like the way the military establishment seems to have hated him and promoted him anyway. There are a lot of the elements of his tax plan I like, and some I don't. For one, it encourages people to have more children. I'm not sure that I like the concept of so many people not having to pay taxes at all. Also, this line is concerning: ``The government will withhold the correct amount of taxes from the families paycheck or provide them with the correct tax credit.''

Dean, on the other hand, really scares me.

Those are very good points, and, I think, are caused by some of the reasons I do like him. That he doesn't always have a prepared answer that he tries to fit into whatever question is asked of him. He seems to speak honestly. Some of that honesty is not what you (or I, much of the time) want to hear, but I appreciate that effort, or, maybe, lack of effort. But I agree that much of what he says is disconcerting.

I hate them all, I don't know what I'm going to do.

Assuming that you want to get rid of GWB, vote for the one you think is most likely to win a general election.

Ugh. I still want the inanimate carbon rod!

No need to worry, all our problems are solved. GWB and the Rod are already working together!



In Rod We Trust!

(I just love Google image search.)

Also, this line is concerning: ``The government will withhold the correct amount of taxes from the families paycheck or provide them with the correct tax credit.''

Sounds like PAYE to me. What's so bad about it?

Sorry. The full text implied (or I inferred) that the government would withhold the taxes and you got to say ``okay'' as opposed to following the rules at the end of the year to find out how much you actually owed. This bothers me because the government regularly withholds absurdly incorrect taxes from my paycheck.

the government would withhold the taxes and you got to say ``okay'' as opposed to following the rules at the end of the year to find out how much you actually owed.

Still sounds like PAYE. Except that, in the UK, your employer is responsible for working it out and sending the money to the taxman (usually monthly), rather than the government arbitrarily taking the money.

This bothers me because the government regularly withholds absurdly incorrect taxes from my paycheck.

Now that I can understand being a concern. In the UK, if the taxman screws up, he'll give the money back at the end of the year, or adjust your tax code so that you pay more next year.