I will vote for the Democratic Presidential nominee in November 2008, no matter who it is!!

[Pushed To The Left]

Even if he or she is not my first choice, this person will still be somebody who the majority of Democrats chose. I can't think of any Democrat running that isn't a better choice than McCain, Guliani, Brownback,or whoever the Repubicans select.

The reason I'm posting this is because it looks like the primary battles are already starting on DU. I remember when, during the 04 debates, Howard Dean pledged to support whoever won the primary in the general election. He asked the rest of the candidates to make the same pledge, and they did. It was a great moment!

I'll be voting Democratic in November of 2008 no matter what. Who's with me?

[jody]

1. Absolutely.

[wakeme2008]

2. I will not vote for a Repug that calls herself a Dem

:shrug:

Other than Hillary, I will vote straight Dem ticket...

[William769]

14. Well at least your consistent.

[AZBlue]

21. So you'll vote Republican? Why are you here on DU??

eom

[wakeme2008]

22. What part of I will not vote for a Repug did you not understand

[AZBlue]

26. If you don't vote for the Dem candidate, no matter who it is, you ARE voting Republican.

You say you want to be woken in 2008 but with that attitude you'll have to wait until 2012 or 2016 or 2020.....

[Clark2008]

57. That's not true in some states.

For example, there are a handful of Dem candidates who wouldn't win my state no matter who the Republican contender is. Two of them are candidates I could never vote for in good consciousness (even if they DO have a "D" by their name - I just find their earlier support of certain things abhorent); therefore, my vote, even if I vote third party, would not effect the outcome of the race in my state given that I believe either one of these candidates would lose my state by between 11 and 20 percent of the vote no matter WHAT I do. My ONE vote isn't going to change the outcome, period, so I can vote my beliefs without "voting for the Republican," as you say.

That said, there is a third candidate I don't think has a shot in hell of winning my state, but I would vote for him anyway because I think he's a good Democrat - not a snakeoil salesman or a traitor to the party.

Hope that's clear.

We have to understand that the Presidential race is still local - it's based on each state's Electoral College votes.

Not all Dems are what I consider good Dems and I wouldn't waste my vote on a Republican-lite who would never win my state in the first place, my vote withstanding.

[J Miles]

24. Reading comprehension problems?

Where did he say that?

[AZBlue]

27. Thought-process problems?

Read reply #21. Duh.

[J Miles]

28. Thought so

You still haven't shown where wakeme2008 said he was a Republican.

[AZBlue]

71. I never said he/she was a Republican.

Perhaps a reading class would be beneficial to you.

[J Miles]

75. You're right, you didn't say he was a Republican

What I meant to say is that you haven't shown where he said he would VOTE REPUBLICAN.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. I Will Not Vote For Liars

Yes, that's a litmus test. Deal with it.

Liars always get us into trouble. I'd far prefer an honest person that I disagree with, to a liar.

[On the Road]

35. Does That Mean You're Not Voting at All?

Every politican lies at times, even Jimmy Carter.

[LynneSin]

76. So you would enable someone who could be even a WORSE liar to get into office

in order to maintain your conscious.

That's just crazy

I hope to god in your lifetime you have never once lied. I mean god forbid we'd have people insisting on non-lying candidates who turn around and tell a few 'white lies' themselves. As Jesus once said (and you don't have to be a Christian to appreciate this one) 'He/She without sin, let them cast the first stone'

[LWolf]

86. Crazy is right, lol.

:crazy:

You don't get to blame others when you get your way and it doesn't work the way you wanted it to, or just when you don't get your way. Nobody OWES a vote to anyone. Except for politicians "owing" votes to those who pull their purse and committee strings, of course.

I mean, you can try, but it won't fly.

If the party walks away from a block of voters, and chooses to court voters with different criteria, then the party makes a conscious choice to lose those votes, and should accept responsibility for the outcome. There's no need for the blame game.

[LisaL]

4. If it's a candidate I don't like, I might not vote at all.

Unless I dislike the republican candidate even more. It's going to be the less of two evils then.

[Phredicles]

5. I'll vote Democratic no matter what beacuse it's the only realistic

way to move things even a tiny bit to the left. But in some possible cases (H. Clinton, Kerry, Biden, H. Clinton), I sure wouldn't be happy about it.

[ClassWarrior]

30. Amen. Couldn't have said it better myself.

NGU.

[Monty_]

6. Yes

We need a Democrat in the White House

[guidod]

84. No we don't

but I'll vote for them.

[MasonJar]

7. I agree with what my grandfather always said, "I always vote for

the best man, and the best man is always a democrat." The nation and the world must have a democratic president.

[rhett o rick]

52. And sometimes the best man is a woman. nm

[Sparkly]

56. I like that!

:hi:

[PADemD]

8. I will not be happy to vote for someone who supported the Iraq war and the Patriot Act.

[brazos121200]

9. I will vote for the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is,

because that is what so many Republican zealots do. My motto for the last 35 years has been the worst Democrat is still better than the best Republican, and I have seldom been wrong. Look at who I've voted AGAINST: Nixon (twice), Reagan (twice) Bush senior (twice) and Bush junior (twice). This is a record I can be proud of, I think.

[last1standing]

10. Not a chance in Hell.

Voting for a candidate, regardless of their stance on the issues, is not only lazy but dangerous as well. I'm willing to swallow a lot of bad policy to get the better person into office, but there are limits that everyone should have. Mine is the endorsement of torture. If the Dem nominee voted the the Military Commissions Act then I will not vote for them. These are people who have broken their pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States and should be tried as traitors regardless of party. There are 12 so-called Dems in the senate who did this and I will never support any of them. Unfortunately, one of them is my senator, debbie stabinow (or stabintheback as many in Michigan have liked to call her since her state senate days). I didn't vote for her in the election this year and won't in future. As far as I'm concerned she's a criminal and should be tried as such.

So I'd have to answer, no, I'm not with you. Sorry.

[Pithy Cherub]

11. no. an IWR vote or a torture vote makes it impossible.

I voted for Kerry because Wes asked and I swore it was the final vote for anybody who voted Aye on the IWR. The Torture vote just affirmed my hard line stance. In 2006, I voted Green for senator rather than voting for DiFi.

[mitchtv]

88. I prefer Peace and Freedom Party

for a protest vote. they have as much of a chance of winning as the Greens, plus the added attraction of not being treacherous as have been the Greens.

[Old and In the Way]

12. Sure.

I really hope he/she mirrors my every position on every issue, but I doubt anyone, except me, would be a perfect match. Seems to be a "no brainer" to me, but I see 25% will consider voting Republican or Other next election. The rest of us can go pound sand. Political purity is a beautiful thing. It got us Bush.

[last1standing]

13. And with your logic we could get him again.

Just under a different label. What does it matter if the president is Democratic or repub if they support the same things? Either we have principles and ethics or we don't. I prefer to have them.

[spooky3]

54. don't you see the difference between all or none vs. a continuum?

OAITW is pointing out that no one will agree with him/her (or you) on every issue but even those with whom you disagree on several issues will likely agree with you are far more than will all but a tiny minority of Republicans (none of whom will be nominated, I'm sure). According to the best political science research, there are HUGE (or is that HUGH!!!) differences in voting records between Democrats and Republicans. There are VERY few Democrats whose voting records would cause the researcher to misclassify him/her as a Republican and vice versa, though there are a few. The people named here (H. Clinton, Kerry, etc.) have progressive voting records. What possible principle or ethics supports action or inaction that will result in putting in a Republican who disagrees with you on MANY more issues than the Democrat who agrees with you on MANY more? Check out the facts on people's voting records and imagine what the reality of choices will be. I can't think of a recent election where the Democratic presidential candidate (or even any in the primaries, though memory may fail me here), had a more conservative voting record or a more right wing stance on any important issue than did the Republican presidential candidate. Even Lieberman, whom I can't stand, has a more progressive voting record than most Rethugs. But I would vote for him over McCain, Giuliani, etc., because his *overall* voting record is better than the stands they have taken on the same issues.

A perfect example (aside from Bush as OAITW pointed out) was Jim Webb's race this year. In the primaries a lot of Northern VA and other VA-ians had a tough choice. Support Harris Miller, who had been a good, active Dem for many years, but who had little chance of beating George Allen? Or support Webb, who seemed like a good guy, seemed to have changed positions on some key issues since he was a Republican, but also held some less than progressive views on some issues, AND who had a shot at beating Allen? It was tough, because we had been "burned" on the "electability" argument with Kerry, in some sense. But the "principles and ethics", if you will, compelled those voters to compare the realities of another six years of George Allen vs. someone far better. And it was the right thing to do. Even with the Macaca incident, Miller would likely not have won, given his lack of voting charisma and his views that were too progessive for many Virginians. And what if "principled" and "ethical" people had stayed home, miffed that Webb, not Miller, had been nominated, whining that s/he had to choose between "two Republicans", when clearly there was a huge difference between Webb and Allen? Allen would have easily won. There isn't a principle or ethical standard in the world that would justify that outcome.

[Old and In the Way]

59. What if those "principaled" Democrats in Va had stayed home and Allen had won?

We wouldn't have control of the Senate and a good chance to stop Bush's anti-democratic agenda while assuring that radical RW judges are kept off the Supreme Court.

When the Republican coalition fractures, everyone to the left of center can go back to promoting boutique politics....but until that day happens, we do that at significant risk to the greater progressive agenda.

You just know that there are going to be a lot of Republican operatives posting here and all around the internet in 2008, telling us how we need either vote 3rd Party or stay home because our candidate _____ won't be nearly Democratic enough. I wonder what Republican financed "progressive" alternative will be running in 2008?

[Old and In the Way]

61. My Logic?

I voted for Gore in '00. Who did you vote for? Nader told us "there wasn't a dime's worth of difference" between Democrats and Republicans....did you bite on that one, too?

[Milo_Bloom]

77. Mindless voting got us bush

There is a reason that the republican party is in trouble right now... because every GOPer did exactly what people want us to do here... vote for the (R) (D) no matter how much you disagree with a variety of their positions or think that person isn't worthy of the office.

I know many GOPers who voted for bush, who disagreed with him on almost every major point, BUT, "well, I can't vote for the other guy". Look where it landed them. In political obscurity and not digging their way out anytime soon.

There is a reason some of us don't like a particular candidate. If the dems put in a candidate who will sway which ever way the breeze blows, they will ultimately wind up hated by the country for being weak minded and it will, in the future, drag down the party, just like bush and his special brand of wackos have done to the republican party.

The GOP is WEAKER for having mindlessly voted for an (R) just because they were told they have to do so.

[Old and In the Way]

80. Mindless voters form a powerful voting coalition.

If that coalition reaches 51% of the voting population, they win. Or, at least close enough to steal. So those of us who understand how the electoral process works have a choice...we can hold our nose and vote for the lesser of 2 evils while working to get an educated majority voting block for future elections...or we can decide to vote for an independent, not vote, vote for Republican, or vote for the Democrat. Those are the 4 choices. The 1st 3 help the Republicans.

[Milo_Bloom]

82. MIndless voting by the GOP won us the Midterms

In the short term, maybe, in the long term no.

Putting a crappy democrat into office may be (short term) better than a republican, but ultimately has a significant backlash. (e.g. Lincoln Chafee in R.I). A crappy republican president caused an extremely moderate GOP senator to get voted out.

Putting in a candidate who you truly believe will only pander to corporate interests or mindlessly bend to the temporary whims of an uninformed electorate will ultimately lead the party into political obscurity (just ask the GOP).

In the end, the ONLY WAY to get an informed electorate, unfortunately, is to have things get so bad that their daily lives actually are impacted. That is when they wake up and vote. In retro-spect, the short term effect of a second term of the bush presidency is ugly, but the long term effects are good as more people seem to be taking an interest, voting is up, people are talking and that is only because bush is so bad.

[Old and In the Way]

83. A conservative Democrat is better than a liberal Republican in today's

political dynamic. If the Republican Party behaved like a real political party instead of an organized crime syndicate, I'd go along with your thinking. Until the sane people take back their party, suggesting options that waste one's vote or plays into the Republican electoral success hurts us and our progressive agenda. I prefer having the political power to push the agenda leftward over time than remain politically pure and lose ground.

[Milo_Bloom]

89. Yet, it worked...

By remaining politically pure, ground has actually been gained.

Al Gore in the 2000 election ran a centrist, follow the wind campaign. He learned his lesson and now really stands for things, stands up for his belief and is better for it. Had THIS Al Gore run in 2000, the election wouldn't have been close enough to steal.

Unfortunately, just eating the crap they give us and hope that by eating enough crap, we can convince them to put a chocoate chip in every now and then... well, it just doesn't work. Why put the good stuff in if you will eat the crap?

Voting for a DINO gives power to the DINO's and allows them to pop up again year after year. I would MUCH rather take the short term loss for the long term gain.

[LWolf]

15. Never again.

'04 was a paradigm shift for my political self. I will never again vote for a candidate that I don't really want. I will not put party before issues.

It has nothing to do with whether or not I "like" a candidate. I might "like" many people I won't vote for. I don't "dislike" any of the candidates on my "do not vote for" list so far; I just don't agree that they are the correct person for the job.

A candidate will earn my vote with a platform and record I "like." Or they won't. Or, a candidate may make my "do not vote for" list if I don't like their campaign, or if their supporters use bully tactics, dishonesty, or other less than admirable strategies to try to gain my vote.

[rdarmand]

16. Experience preferred

I'm planning to vote for Hillary. She'll be the first Democrat candidate for president I will ever have voted for.

It's not that I'm Republican; I'm not. I'm pretty much a small-l libertarian. But I think we're in for some rough years, and I prefer someone with experience at the helm. Obama is interesting, but he's awfully green and comes across as an ebullient party guest who's just happy he got invited.

I am so sick of Republicans I could just hurl. McCain is flaky. The one Republican I think I might be able to trust is Rudy Giuliani, but I don't think he'll be nominated. If he is, I'll give him a look.

[last1standing]

20. Welcome to DU.

And there are definitely worse choices than Hillary. She's not my first choice but I don't quite get all the hatred for her that you'll find here. I'll definitely vote for her if she's the nominee.

[Clark2008]

58. Can I ask why?

Do you approve of the war, the Patriot Act, and spending one's times on lesser important issues, like putting labels on video games?

I don't really have to worry about Hillary. If she's the nominee, I can vote my conscious (i.e. the person I think SHOULD have won the primary without the media cheerleading) because Hillary has no chance in hell of carrying my state.

[Bjorn Against]

63. You mean Democratic NOT Democrat

Not trying to be nitpicky here, but the Republicans always use the words Democrat Party with the emphasis on the letters "rat" at the end. So please use the proper word, Democratic. There has never been a "Democrat Party" it is a name the Republicans just made up.

And as far as Hillary goes, I do hope you realize she is not the only one running who has experience in fact some of the other candidates actually have far more experience than she does. Al Gore has a tremendous amount more experience than she does, and Kerry and Clark have also had tremendous experience.

I am personally a supporter of Kucinich, he does not have quite the experience as some of the others but he has the best ideas and the most passion.

[Evergreen Emerald]

70. "democrat candidate?"

It is democratic candidate.

[stonecoldsober]

17. I'm sorry, but all you purists are living in a separate reality

I will ALWAYS vote for the lesser of any two evils. I'd rather have a shitty president than an atrocious one.

[last1standing]

19. So you'd vote for Zell Miller?

After all he has a (D) after his name so he must be ok, right? So what if he supports everything bush* has done to destroy this country he's a Democrat.

You can call me a purist and I'll just call you ethically challenged, sound good?

[NoPasaran]

29. There is zero chance that Zell Miller will be the nominee

You're just being silly. You might as well ask, "So you'd vote for Lyndon LaRouche?"

[last1standing]

33. Yes, I might ask that and it would not be silly at all.

My point is that it is not difficult to imagine a scenario in which a "centrist" Democrat wins the nomination. If this centrist is a supporter of the Military Commissions Act then for many of us it would be highly unethical to vote for him/her regardless of the repub's positions. We would be forced to vote Green or not at all, much as I had to do with my vote for senator this election.

What's truly silly are these threads that come up trying to bully everyone into submission. I'm a card carrying Democrat and have been since 1986. During that time I've voted for Dukakis, Clinton (x2), Gore and Kerry. I've also voted for countless Democrats on both the national and local level. That doesn't make me unusual here, we've all been doing that. We don't need someone coming to the board trying to bully us into voting for the proverbial ham sandwich.

Now, of the current cycle of announced or possible presidential candidates, I'm willing vote for Clinton, Kucinich, Kerry, Gore, Clark, Edwards or Obama. I may not agree with everything they say, but so far none of them has voted to subvert the Constitution as far as I know. I'm not willing to vote for lieberman, who has. But each of us has to make our decisions based on what we feel is right and neither you nor the O/P can change that with these tactics. My line is that the candidate actually uphold the Constitution, the very foundation of this country and what it stands for. If you don't hold that line then that's entirely your choice, but don't try to force me to hold yours.

[stonecoldsober]

36. Zell Miller is NOT a centrist Democrat.

Thanks for saying that in the first sentence to save me reading the rest of your drivel.

[last1standing]

37. I tried to give a decent reply, you decided to use childish insults.

Feel better now?

[stonecoldsober]

38. Stick and stones, sonny boy.

[last1standing]

39. Wow! I feel beaten down now! How did you come up with that?

I'm truly amazed. :eyes:

[stonecoldsober]

40. I'm amazed by you too!

[last1standing]

41. LOL! Are you really an adult? Honestly.

[stonecoldsober]

42. Series???

[last1standing]

43. LOL! I'm having fun but we're starting to highjack this thread.

[stonecoldsober]

44. You're right, we'd better stop now... Good night!

[last1standing]

45. Have a good night and I'm sure we'll fight in the future. :)

[stonecoldsober]

46. I'm a lover, not a fighter! But sometimes I love fighting!!

[Bjorn Against]

64. Well Lieberman may have had a chance at one time...

There is no chance of him ever getting the nomination again, but he did get a lot of undeserved praise during his VP run. At one time he led in the polls for the 2004 race, of course we all know what happened there but the point is it is not completely unfathomable that a Republican who calls himself a Democrat could win the nomination at some future point. I don't think it will happen this election, but it is not outside the realm of possibility.

[stonecoldsober]

32. That's a straw man and you know it

Zell Miller is not running for president, and if he did, he'd never be the democratic nominee.

[last1standing]

34. See post #34 for an answer. n/t

[Lasher]

51. OK now you two have to kiss and make up.

That's what my dad used to do when my brother and I fought. I hated it, but it worked.

[last1standing]

67. You're way too late, man. We made up last night. :)

n/t

[IndianaGreen]

18. What if the candidate is Joe Lieberman?

What if Hillary runs with Lieberman?

What if the nominee wants to continue the war in Iraq for fear of being seen as weak?

What if Jesus tells us to vote for someone else? (I had to throw that one in!)

[treestar]

62. If they won they might not fear that

But at least they would not start new wars.

Once in office, they would probably not take the * line - it would be more pragmatic, and to get out of it.

The fear of being seen as weak, though, I grant you, is a biggie that we have to get over in this country. It's the one thing we have to conquer. It gets so ridiculous to let people die over the fear of the fact that anyone with a big mouth can call you a coward because you don't want to kill people where it's not absolutely necessary.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[J Miles]

25. Absolutely not

No blind party loyalty here.

Country before party.

[Vektor]

31. I'm sure as hell NOT voting for the Republican - and I WILL be voting...

So, yes, most definitely. I'll vote Democrat in '08.

[LSK]

47. Hell yeah!

[chieftain]

48. But I will not support any Democrat in the Primaries unless they

are from an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

[Comicstripper]

49. Not if it's LaRouche

Anyone else, sure!

[Larry Ogg]

50. I love this question. It really separates the lemmings from the free thinkers.

I can’t help but to think about the process in which candidates are chosen. America will never see another Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt or John Kennedy because they are weeded out of the process, cast aside and never heard long before any primary or election. Until there is campaign finance reform and clean elections the candidates we see, hear and choose in this two party system, will be the spawn of the corporate elite puppet masters. Until then any champion of the people will come from a third party, with little chance of winning because of exactly what this pole shows. We have lost faith in "We The People", and given it to a party.

[talk hard]

92. Lemmings for Nader

2000, 2004
2008?

[rhett o rick]

53. Not if that candidate yielded their Constitution duty to GWB and allowed

this horrible war. There is no excuse for that.

[talk hard]

93. right on!

[FreeStateDemocrat]

55. Depends on an open and fair nominating process, if it's a corp engineered Hillary coronation, I may

look at third party candidate or stay home and not vote Democratic for the first time in forty years. I am tired of our party selling out to corporate, big money interests like Harry Reid just did in the last spending bill. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, will not be accepted. You want party loyalty you have to earn it by actions not by all talk then whoring to big money control in political chicanery. The Democratic party can start by replacing Reid, a political hack, with someone like Russ Feingold that has some sense of basic ethics as leader.

[treestar]

60. Yep

You can't have everything, and I am bound to disagree with whoever it is, but once that person is decided upon, no other choice will be viable. I cannot even remotely imagine the Republic Party having a candidate who is more acceptable on any ground. A third party could, but without a realistic chance of winning, it would be no better than voting for the republic party's candidate.

If it is a person who supported the occupation of Iraq, I would still not hesitate, because they would be a more reasonable person about not starting new unnecessary wars.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

65. I voted No, but it would depend on the opponent

If the R's throw up some ultra-conservative shitbag like shrub again, I would probably vote for nearly any Dem candidate over them. If the R's field a good candidate, I wouldn't vote for them, but I also might not vote of the D's throw up a shitbag candidate.

I can't ever see myself voting for Lieberman.

[rep the dems]

66. I want my first time voting to be for a Democrat.

99.9% sure of that. :patriot:

[EndElectoral]

68. I could not vote for Hilary...would have to write-in a candidate

[sampsonblk]

69. I'll put country above party-every time

If I feel the candidate is a disaster, like John Kerry, I will write in someone I respect.

[Labors of Hercules]

72. oh ye of little faith.

tsk tsk :dunce:

[election_2004]

73. No rubber stamp from me....

I will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton.

Biden would have to do some MAJOR, MAJOR apologizing and retracting to get my vote, as well.

Obama, Clark, Richardson, Vilsack, Edwards, and Kucinich would all have my support in a General Election, as it stands right now (even though Kucinich has no chance).

The only Republicans in the prospective field, at this point, whom I'd even consider voting for (against Biden or Clinton) would be George Pataki or Rudy Giuliani...and I seriously doubt either of them will get the nomination.

[NastyRiffraff]

74. I will NOT vote for a Republican

Nor will I abdicate my duty to vote, and I will not throw away my vote "to make a statement" or to "protest."

So, that leaves the Dem nominee. I will work my ass off for whoever I like in the primaries, but once a nominee is chosen, I'll go with him or her. Will I like everything about the nominee? Of course not, no matter WHO it is. If we wait until someone emerges who agrees with everything we believe in, we're gonna be under the ground before that happens. (And who is "we" anyway? Anyone perusing the DU boards knows there's little or no blanket agreement on almost any issue).

There's too much at stake to play around. Yes, I know there are some decent Republicans. Think any of them will have a chance in hell from the RNC? Not so long ago George Allen was their golden boy; before that Bill "Cat Killer" Frist. Today, it's John McCain (bleccch!). Tomorrow? It won't be a Lincoln Chafee, that I can guarantee.

[mrgorth]

78. ISN'T IT A BIT EARLY FOR THIS?!?!?!?!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[election_2004]

79. Yes, about a year-and-a-half too early....

...but people enjoy using it as potential flamebait for future topic threads.

[NaturalHigh]

81. I'm not voting for anyone based solely on party affiliation.

I learned how to think for myself a long time ago. I don't need the Democratic Party to do it for me.

[guidod]

85. Name me a republican

you would vote for.

[NaturalHigh]

95. I'm not sure if there are any at this point.

That doesn't mean I have to vote for whomever the Democratic party selects, though. Since I'm in Oklahoma (land of the archaic nominating and voting laws), there's a good chance I won't be casting a vote for president in 2006 because it is unlikely a third party will even get on the ballot. It really won't make any difference because there is no way the Democratic nominee will win this state in the general election.

[Taverner]

87. Unless it's Lyndon LaRouche...yes

[lostnotforgotten]

90. I Do Not Support War Enablers And Bush Enablers Like Hillary

I will not vote for her!

[Clarkie1]

91. Absolutely not. I would be horrified to answer a question like that with an unconditional yes. nt

[Mark E. Smith]

94. The Heresy That Never Dies

Remember back in 2000 when certain folks among us used to say that there was no
difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush?

You'd think they'd have learned by now.

[KansDem]

96. WHAAAA? It only allowed me to vote once and it recorded my vote accurately!

What kind of electronic election poll is this?!?!?