The Poll

Upon each visit to HawaiiStories, my eyes will inevitably divert to the graph on the upper right-hand corner of the site. You know, where the poll question is asked, "Who will get your vote in November?"

Although I won't dispute the current numbers, I do find that these numbers are nowhere near the representation of what I've been finding in listening to others speak about their vote. In spending the last week listening to acquaintances, neighbors, and strangers discuss the election, there appears to be an overwhelming amount of support for the John Kerry/John Edwards ticket.

Granted my numbers are not scientific, but then again, neither is the HawaiiStories poll. Still, it is an interesting sampling. Now that we know the presidential tickets of both major parties - Kerry/Edwards & Bush/Cheney, as well as Ralph Nader's choice of Peter Camejo, perhaps it is time for a new poll. To get a more accurate measure to the poll question, perhaps the choices of answers can be limited to the candidates on the ticket - Bush/Cheney, Kerry/Edwards, Nader/Camejo, and forgo the listing of "Disgusted" and "Undecided".

Comments

KaneBlues, I think the results you see in your social circles reflects some unavoidable bias, as obviously I see the same "overwhelming" slant among those I regularly interact with.

However, I'd wager that it you're just as likely to stumble into a group in a bar or on a golf course and find things weighted heavily in the opposite direction. Conduct the same poll on the top floor of the State Capitol, or among Rick Hamada's listeners, and it'll be a landslide for Bush.

As for the HawaiiStories Survey, I was hoping the next question would be... well, something completely different. The election question has been up for ages. And it follows an earlier poll focused on the Democratic ticket.

One of our members proposed taking over the Survey feature entirely, dutifully submitting a new question every month... if not more frequently. But I haven't heard anything since.

I'm all for revitalizing the poll. What else do you want to know?

Perhaps, this year, in the month of Novermber, (i forget which day of the month it is), there will be a larger turnout at the polls, when we elect the next president of the United States. It'll be either "JFK" (Kerry), or "B2" (Bush). Bush is still riding on a lot of momentum for the swift victory of Operation Freedom in Iraq, whether you agree with the reasons for the US intervention, or whether you are leery that this action has not caused the US homeland to become more of a target for terrorism. Meanwhile, candidate Kerry has backtracked so much on various issues, that I don't know if he'll be a worthy replacement should he win the office. There's also a lot of Democrats that want Hilary to run for president in 2008, so their wishes will work against Kerry. At least, it'll be easier for Hilary if Kerry wasn't the incumbent in 2008. Many just want to un-elect Bush, for historical deliverance, that is, for Bush winning the presidency by a mere 5000 votes in a state where his brother was also the governor, despite losing the national popular vote to Gore. If, Osama bin-Laden is captured before November, then Bush is a shoe in. The bin-Laden family have always been good to the Bush's.

My question is: do you think that the Electorial College should be disolved? Every other election--below national level--is decided upon and by the popular vote. The Electorial College system makes the popular vote, in context, to the entire country, meaningless. The way the presidential election currently works, someone could win the presidency by a margin of 6 votes from pardoned prisoners, plus a dozen hanging chads in a swing state. At the least, in a close state race, where the margin of victory is 1 or 2 percentage, the state's electorial votes should be divided equally between the candidates, with any odd electorial vote going to the state's winner.

The 2000 election definitely put the Electoral College in the limelight, and a cursory glance at it would easily make you think there's something nefarious afoot. It was the 2000 election that also, for me, prompted me to seek out information on the Electoral College system... and in the end it did indeed make more sense to me than a simple popular vote.

One from the Cato Institute: In Defense of the Electoral College. A Google search for the title will turn up similar essays from various groups.

"Bush is still riding on a lot of momentum for the swift victory of Operation Freedom in Iraq"

You're joking right? What momentum? What swift victory? Just because Bush declares "mission accomplished", doesn't make it so.

Hi there
I'm a swiss citizien and just like to bring in some european thoughts. The current US goverment has lost a lot of image the last two years. We don't understand a lot of things which doesn't mean that we're too stupid. How can someone lie to his people and don't have to fear critical questions? Why do the yankees have a vice president who is involved in several, let's say not accurate bussines's?
The world nowadays needs negotiations and not warfields in Irak and Israel. The terrorism is not only against the US, it is against all people and colours.
If you don't like the other candidates just have in mind: It can't get worse!

I read the Cato Institute's article in defense of the Electorial College, but i don't know, Ryan, if it sway me enough to shake my coconut. The analogy of the Senate having two votes for each state.....there's some flaws in that. Sounding the alarm that presidential candidates might bypass less populated states, if we had a one person, one vote system.....between TV and all the electronic media we have today, I'm not sure personal appearences are that essential. Bush and Kerry will probably bypass Hawaii anyway as the election nears. And remember, the reason for the candidates to show up anywhere during the election year is so people can pay $5oo to be photographed with them, so candidates aren't expected to pass up the money.

"You're joking right? What momentum? What swift victory?"

But KANE.....you know that, and I know that....."victory" does not become one just because someone decides to land on a aircraft carrier, take off his helmet, and smile to the crowd. I should have clarified my statement by saying that the 20-day Iraqi War gave to Bush a "political" victory. It would seem, on this side of the Tigres-Euphrates Rivers, Bush would be veiwed as an emperor without clothes, when WMDs failed to materialize. But, this is not so. Even today, with the polls showing a lower approval rating for the President, there are no spiderholes being dug around the White House.

Incrediblely, many people still believe the Iraqi intervention was just. I'm grudgingly in favor of staying in Iraq, since, the US is obligated to remain there because of the very decision to invade the country. However, "how" we got, ourselves, into Iraq, is never going to make sense, no matter how many experts try to retrace our steps.....or were we playing follow the leader? If this is so, then, either, Americans are a patriotic but gullible bunch, or Bush is the biggest bull from the Crawford ranch. Despite all of this, my guess is that Bush is still going to win the election.

Hi. I've been lurking here for quite a few days now. It's an interesting site and you got some great articles.

With that said. The elections are being so unpredictable at the moment.
Have any of you seen jibjab's cartoon on Bush and Kerry? It's hilarious.

I won't be surprised if Bush has something up his sleeves for him to boost his ratings towards the elections.

Though Kerry's got so many supporters mainly because I think people are tired of the whole Iraq thing. It's really draining I suppose.

How bout in your local areas? Who will you be voting? there's a whole change in congressmen, governors, senators right?

A, "who will you be voting (for)," question should always be accompanied by a "will you be voting at all," non-sequinter. Whether you're willing to exercise your privilege to vote on election day depends on a whole lot of issues. Like are you really willing to spend the $3.00/gal for gasoline to drive to your poll's location? If, you eventually get to the polling booth, and who to vote for becomes monemtarily unclear, it is best to expediate the voting process by quickly writing in your own name, coincidentally insuring yourself against buyer's remorse in the near future, should the need arise.

Currently, with $87 billion on the table, Daddy Warbucks has sat in on the game. As a consequence, Bush has a coalition of supporters---not virtual ones, but real ones---with more of a incentive to show up at the ballot box in order to keep their paychecks, and that includes anyone selling plywood all the way to manufacturers of ceramic vests. Of course, in reality, this is pure hysteria for anyone directly or indirectly financially connected to the defense contractor industry, since its inconceivable that Kerry could get us out of Iraq in less than 10 years. The only president that could accomplish such a feat would have been Richard Nixon (in my opinion, one of the most effective presidents we ever had), but then a helicopter has already taken Nixon away from his two fans, me and checkers. The only way Kerry could offset Bush's horde is that Kerry's supporters actually show up to vote for him, so he wouldn't be politically reincarnated, into the John that went to church one Sunday with Jimmy Carter, but this motivation teeters on a citizen's philosophical duty to hop in the aerobics of democracy, rather than on bets on human nature that are of more certainty, like buying something from a store that is on sale or showing up for happy hour.

Kerry's platform is that a vote for him is not so much a vote "for" him, per se, but a vote "against" President Bush, primarily for the sake of accountability. Take for instance, the members and family members of the National Guard.....they do not want to be a parcel of re-deployments back to Iraq every 2 years or so, even though their hopes that Kerry could prevent this, is as secure, as the White Buffalo once was as a prospectus for world peace. So, to me, whatever, "Kerry has going for him," must be something esoteric, since I personally can't put a finger on something so stealth. Mind you, I do not believe for a nano-second, that the US should be in Iraq. We should have remained in Afghanistan, where we could continue to smell the opium poppies of our victory over the Taliban, instead of shipping off our troops to Iraq and have to step into quicksand on the daily basis. Quite recently, it's been said that a policy of unilateralism gets to be viewed as a hallmark of leadership once the sky stops falling, and these kinds of assessments are sure to please the Republican camp. For the sake of fairness, I'm not sure this works completely that way in Bush's case, since the Iraqi War continues to have its own ragged ending. Overall, I'm not sure if the presidential election will hinge on the Iraqi War issue, as much as people make it out to be. It may be only me, but it seems that our two candidates are sounding more and more like America's version of "Baghdad Bob" everyday.

Anyone see the interview with Bill Clinton on NewsHour with Jim Lehrer a couple weeks ago? Clinton's take on the difference between his adminstration and the current one is pretty interesting. Check this out:

"I saw my job as to try to move the world from an unstable condition of interdependence toward more integrated cooperative world community. Therefore, my approach was to cooperate wherever possible and to build institutions of cooperation, an expanded NATO, the World Trade Organization, the Summit of the Americas, the Asian Pacific Leaders, all those, the coalition to fight in Bosnia and Kosovo, to cooperate wherever possible but to act alone if we had to.

I think what the Bush administration saw was a world they thought was full of dangers and problems, the worst of which in their mind was Saddam Hussein, and that they should act alone whenever they could, and then cooperate when they needed to, and there's a big difference."

"to cooperate wherever possible but to act alone if we had to"

or

"act alone whenever they could, and then cooperate when they needed to."

He's not bashing the Bush administration mind you, but I believe he's hit the nail on the head. Of course some people would argue that the word is different now and that America needs to act alone if we are to be at peace...I don't buy it but I can see why some people would.

Just some food for thought gang.

Sin

Post a Comment