FINAL ROUND--Then after this round, an explanation.

[rateyes]

THANKS EVERYONE!! Please help get this final round to the greatest page. I will leave it up a little longer than the other rounds, and want to see an explanation of your vote in this final poll.

FIRST, AN UPDATE:

UPDATE: Round 1--Hillary was eliminated by a strong majority of 61%---Round 2--Dennis was eliminated with a plurality of 33%----Round 3--Mike was eliminated with a majority of 54%--Round 4 Results-- Barack was eliminated with a plurality of 44%----Round 5 Results: Joe was eliminated with a plurality of 40%----Round 6 Results: Christopher was eliminated with a plurality of 49%.

ROUND 7 RESULTS: Bill Richardson is eliminated with a majority of 73%.

MEANING: JOHN EDWARDS, according to these polls is the least objectionable candidate to those who participated in the polling.

Here's the final poll, and then after your explanations, I will make my case in another thread. Again, thanks to all for your help.

[Rhythm and Blue]

1. Aha! Clever, sir.

The question I have is this: are there people willing to switch their primary vote to Edwards to avoid a Clinton run who at the same time are unwilling to switch their vote to Clinton to avoid a Republican victory?

[againes654]

I am

Flame away.

[Rhythm and Blue]

23. That's strange, a bit, but not flame-worthy.

The gulf between Edwards ad Clinton is rather small compared to the gulf between Clinton and any of the Republicans. In fact, her voting record in the Senate was slightly to the left of his, IIRC.

[HERVEPA]

41. Do you care about a woman's right to choose?

Do you care about the environment?
Do you care about the separation of church and state?
Have you seen her whole voting record?
Do you know how she stacks up against the Thuglicans?

Check out http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=55463

TAKE A LOOK, DAMMIT! Tell me there's little difference between her and the Thuglicans!

Yes, I'm pissed at the attitude! And she's not my first choice, by the way!

My life and my children's lives and possible future grandchildren's lives are at stake.

Tell me your life (and those of racial minorities, the poor, gays, etc.) won't be worse with another Thuglican in office.

Check out
2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2006.

2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 100 percent in 2006.

2005-2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Assocation 93 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 0 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Fund for Animals 100+ percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 100 percent in 2005-2006.

[rateyes]

47. I'm just asking the questions.

Why are you assuming that I would not vote for her in the General Election? I'm talking about the primaries.

And, yes, I care about all those things. I also care about our civil liberties, and ending the war in Iraq.

[Rhythm and Blue]

50. Not to butt in, but that wasn't aimed at you. n/t

[HERVEPA]

54. Thanks Rhythm and Blue! (nt)

[rateyes]

62. Thanks, I could've sworn that the right hand side of the post

said it was to the Original Post. :hi:

[HERVEPA]

65. It did! But it was correct in the "tree" of responses. Strange?

[rateyes]

71. But, it doesn't say it now....I'm glad to know I haven't

lost my mind. Yet. :D :hi:

[HERVEPA]

53. Sorry. My response was to Againes654 ...

It shows that way in the list of responses, but not in the actual response, unless I'm really missing something.

[rateyes]

63. No, I guess I missed it...

sorry. :hi:

[JTFrog]

100. She also

co-sponsored of The Workplace Religious Freedom Act allowing pharmacists the legal right to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives.

[rateyes]

8. That would be a good poll question.

Post it. :hi:

[truedelphi]

25. If Hillary wins and becomes President - it will mean a republican

is in the WH.

That is why so many of us are so virulently opposed to her.

I would actually consider voting for her if she ran as a corporatist Repug.

But I WILL NOT CONCEDE THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS GONE AND LOST FOREVER, because of Big Media, because of Corporate Financing (Military/Indistrialist) and Sponsorship of Elections, etc.

And my vote for Hillary would be just that - a concession.

[Rhythm and Blue]

27. Incorrect. Thanks for playing. nt

[Phillycat]

30. Oh, for heaven's sake. I don't like her, but this is ridiculous.

Look at her voting record. She's not even CLOSE to a Republican.

[truedelphi]

34. She is not close to the NEW SATANICALLY CONTROLLED pedophile

And perverts from hell STYLA Republican now in control at RNC, BUT
she is really a Nixon era Republican.

If you think she is a Democrat, you probably think that Lieberman is a Democrat.

[Phillycat]

35. I think she is a centrist Democrat.

You know, because I'm sane. Lord!

[truedelphi]

44. No not because you are sane but because you own your house and have it securely financed and

Perhaps totally paid off.

Are not worried about health insurance - your executive status means no worries there.

Your job has not been outsourced yet and NAFTA etc is just a small dim worry in the back part of your brain.

You have no opinions about GMO's in the food supply or the poor regulations of the FDA over pharmaceuticals.

You want Iran eliminated because after all it threatens at least one country over there in the mid-East region.

The pro-abortion and pro-children's heatlh insurance situation means so much to you that being involved in a continual and eternal struggle of war in Iraq and Iran is worth the trade off.

See also -- http://tinyurl.com/28ec9k

[Rhythm and Blue]

49. So everyone who thinks Hillary is a centrist Democrat

is an executive of a corporation who wants to bomb Iran.

Doesn't your brain hurt when you write stuff like that?

[Phillycat]

69. Heh.

Thanks. :thumbsup:

[truedelphi]

75. No what makes my brain hurts is that just one generation after the

Murders of JFK, Bobby and Martin, we have a war mongering, corporate-approved
and sanctioned candidate who has been chosen for us by big money interests and by the corrupt media.

That is what makes my brain hurts.

[jgraz]

78. Excellent point, and it raises a question for me

Do you think that one of the issues on DU is that we have many posters who can't remember ever having a president and/or congress who wasn't conservative? That they don't understand what it was like to grow up in a world where the ideas of people like MLK and RFK were given equal time with the corporatist agenda?

I worry that we're seeing an entire generation who can't imagine a world where reasoned alternatives to the neo-liberal agenda are taken seriously.

[Rhythm and Blue]

86. Yes, that certainly addresses the point.

Everyone who supports Hillary is an executive who wants to bomb Iran, because even after JFK, MLK, and RFK were killed, we still have a corrupt media and there are moneyed interests.

Don't bother explaining, I understand.

[Phillycat]

72. Erm, no.

I rent my house. Actually, I'm really glad about that, because the housing market is a clusterfuck at the moment.

I stay at a job I don't like because of the health insurance. Yes, I have it, and I'm grateful for it every day. But that doesn't mean it's not a consideration. If it wasn't for the insurance, I'd be at a job I was a lot happier at.

My job has not been outsourced because I purposely chose to work in a field with job security (healthcare), not because I was lucky. A field I have no interest in, by the way. But we all make choices, and my choice was to work at something that was stable and secure.

I have strong opinions about GMO's in the food supply.

If we go to war with Iran, I think it will be an even bigger disaster than Iraq.

And yeah, pro-choice (only right-wingers call it PRO-ABORTION) and pro-children's health insurance is damned important to me, as it should be to ANY ETHICAL PERSON.

And damn, dude, save your ire! I don't even like her as a candidate! Stop making assumptions, because you don't know what you're talking about.

[blondeatlast]

88. Got assumptions?

Geez--get a grip. I'm no HRC fan but your argument well, what argument? All Isee is a ad hominem attack about someone you have no idea about.

Wow--jaw-dropping ignorance.

[jgraz]

37. Not a Republican. A conservative Democrat.

Which, I'm starting to realize, is even worse.

Why? Because it gives the impression that both parties -- and by extension the entire country -- are united behind the conservate ideology. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Rhythm and Blue]

42. She's not particularly conservative.

Her voting record simply doesn't back that claim up.

[jgraz]

58. See post 56

[HERVEPA]

48. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Please check her voting record. Nothing like Republican lite. (And she's not my first choice)

http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=55463

[jgraz]

56. I've covered this before: voting record is a poor metric of political leanings

Does her voting record reveal her vacillations on the MCA and the Gonzales AG confirmation? How about her cowardly delayed vote on the Iraq supplemental? Or the fact that she co-sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act? Or how about the fact that one of the few pieces of legislation she actually introduced was a bill to outlaw flag burning?

Hillary hides behind her voting record because the stats make her look far more palatable than she actually is. You have to dig a bit deeper to see where her loyalties really lie.

[Rhythm and Blue]

66. Ah, and you believe that

cherry-picking individual votes and placing emphasis on those issues on which she differs from you is a fairer method of analyzing her record than looking at the whole picture?

Looking at her votesmart and ontheissues pages, she's really not that bad at all. I'm seeing about nine or ten "goods" to every "bad."

Or, if you don't trust actually looking at every vote she's cast, you can look at interest-group ratings She's rated 100% by NARAL, 82% by NEA, 89% by LCV, 100% by APHA, 100% by SANE, 85% by AFL-CIO, versus 0% by the Christian Coalition, and 17% by CATO.

Not really seeing "total Republican" with those endorsements, but perhaps they're just not looking "deep enough" and finding the "true loyalties." :eyes:

[jgraz]

67. It's not cherry-picking, it's called research and analysis

Which I like to do for myself rather than leaving it to some random agglomerative web page.

Votes in Congress are the staged result of much behind-the-scenes horsetrading. Unless you understand the reasoning behind the votes, a statistical digest is meaningless.

[Rhythm and Blue]

70. That would be cherry-picking, yes.

I challenge you to name a candidate with a Congressional record who has not cast any votes that I could present in a similar fashion.

I also would like to hear an explanation as for why you believe that the votesmart page, which literally presents nothing but her votes and the wording of the bills she voted on, is not useful for doing research on how she voted.

The fact that you included her flag-burning amendment in your cherry-picked list is rather proof that you do not understand the reasoning behind her votes. That was not intended to pass; that was a ploy to distance herself from her image as a liberal so as to position herself as a centrist. Construing it as an actual desire on her part is so incredibly amateurish that your claims to some degree of behind-the-scenes knowledge are laughable.

[jgraz]

77. Again you're missing the point completely

"I challenge you to name a candidate with a Congressional record who has not cast any votes that I could present in a similar fashion."

Not the point. Hillary has cast several shameful votes and acted in a way that I find unacceptable for a Democratic candidate. That's not cherry-picking, that's reasoned analysis. Votes don't cancel each other out like some sort of political antimatter. They also don't capture the triangulation and acceptance of right-wing framing that Hillary constantly engages in.


"I also would like to hear an explanation as for why you believe that the votesmart page, which literally presents nothing but her votes and the wording of the bills she voted on, is not useful for doing research on how she voted."

Because it only represents the votes, not the rationale or tactics behind them. That's where Hillary's true leanings are demonstrated.


"The fact that you included her flag-burning amendment in your cherry-picked list is rather proof that you do not understand the reasoning behind her votes. That was not intended to pass; that was a ploy to distance herself from her image as a liberal so as to position herself as a centrist. Construing it as an actual desire on her part is so incredibly amateurish that your claims to some degree of behind-the-scenes knowledge are laughable."

Nope, you and I agree completely on the motivation behind that bill. You see it as the slick move of a professional politician. I see it as a sickening, cynical ploy to make the rednecks feel better about her candidacy.

It may seem silly to you, but I believe candidates should run on the actual merits of their actual principles. Of course, that's just "incredibly amateurish" to a seasoned political operative such as yourself. :eyes:

[Phillycat]

81. But that's not the way it is anymore!

It just isn't, and living in some idealized version of the past is not going to help fix what's wrong with this country. The fact is, if we've heard of a national political figure, they are ALREADY COMPLICIT to some degree. Railing against it doesn't do anything.

[jgraz]

83. In other words, just lie back and enjoy it?

You'll excuse me if I don't choose to go gentle into that good night.

[HERVEPA]

84. If you think you and the country won't be orders of magnitude

worse with Guliani or Romney, then I think you need to adjust your logic circuits.
And it's not just about you. I don't whether you're gay or a minority or poor or what, but people in those groups will be a hell of a lot worse off.

[jgraz]

85. There are different levels of disaster

Right now, the choice is not the lesser of two catastrophes. It's between several decent, worthwhile candidates and a charlatan. The poor, minorities, gays and women will just be fucked over a bit less with Hillary. She'll still provide cover for the worst of the conservative leanings: more war, more privatization, more free trade.

[truedelphi]

94. Maybe they won't be.

There are already more jobs in my area because of the crackdown on illegal aliens - a crackdown that may stay in effect longer if we have Giuliani.

One of the local employers was forced to print all the brochures about worker's rights and time off etc in English for the first time in a decade.

And WalMart, Longs Drugs and other firms may have to re-think their policy of working people at their whim (Longs Drugs tell people that they are not allowed to have a second job apart from Longs) Many of these companies no longer allow you to work the same hours every week - you never know when your "weekend" is.

With fewer warm bodies to put in the store, they may have to upgrade the hourly wage and the workers' dismal situation.

[rateyes]

2. kicking again, for exposure....will appreciate recs. Thanks.

:hi:

[Az]

3. What if you were already voting for Edwards in the first place?

Neither option seems appropriate for that condition.

[rateyes]

6. The reason for the parenthetical in the first choice is for

Edwards supporters. Sorry it came off as ambiguous. I would edit it if I could. You should vote for the first option.

[cascadiance]

9. I was thinking the same thing...

... and as you note, Al Gore is the wild card here. I think I'd rather bet my vote on him knocking out Hillary, even though I support Edwards now.

[rateyes]

17. Sorry for the ambiguity..

Vote #1 if you vote for Edwards and anybody but Clinton. Vote #2 if you are for Edwards, but can live with Clinton.

[Mythsaje]

4. Edwards IS the best candidate, in my opinion...

Nice to see these polls bear that out.

[On the Road]

13. I am an Edwards Supporter at This Point

but in all honesty, I don't even think he's the best candidate. However, he is the only candidate who really seems to be listening to the voters, taking the right positions, and indicating that he will fight for them. That is very important. All this triangulation is completely enervating.

[Blue-Jay]

28. Actually, today's info has him as "least worst".

Which is slightly different than "best".

[Blackhatjack]

32. Just be thankful you did not have to pick the 'least worst' Repub Candidate! LOL

[Mythsaje]

46. Six of one

half-dozen of another.

Glass half-full or half-empty.

Same difference.

;)

[againes654]

5. Very very clever

I am impressed!!!!!:yourock:

Yes, I would change my Kucinich vote in the primaries to Edwards if it would keep Hillary from getting the nomination!! As much as I love Kucinich, I dislike Hillary.

[rateyes]

10. I hope you'll post in the explanation thread....

even though you probably see where this is going...but, I do have some thoughts to add, based on the results of this poll, which will stay up for a while before I post my explanation later this evening.

[againes654]

16. Oh yes I will be waiting

I sent you a PM, but I am going to lunch now since you said this one will be up for a while. PM me any new threads you start so I don't miss them.

[rateyes]

19. Will do. nt

[lyonn]

33. I assume this is similar to the 04 primaries when Dean fans

voted for Clark when it became apparent that Dean was falling too far behind. That is how I voted in Okl. AND, Clark won Okla.

[robinlynne]

12. That is my feeling too.

[Cleita]

20. I would too, however, I would like to see Kucinich as

Edwards VP choice. I don't know if he would do it.

[againes654]

24. I know

that is sort of my wet dream so to speak

[AllyCat]

97. I might even vote for Edwards if Kucinich, Gravel, or Richardson

If there was an anti-war person on the ticket, maybe they could talk some sense into him. I'd have to see what happened in the lead-up to the GE.

[Phillycat]

7. This was an interesting diversion today.

Thanks. :)

[Truth2Tell]

11. At some point the

"Anybody But Clinton" forces will need to coalesce around a particular candidate if there's to be any chance of heading off the Hillary train wreck.

I've always kinda figured that Clinton cronies like Richardson and Biden were only in the race to make that more difficult. :tinfoilhat:

[skipos]

18. The tinfoil hatters (haters) already claimed Vilsack and Bayh dropped out

to make way for Clinton. So which is it?

[Blackhatjack]

14. "Are you willing to vote against your interests to make a philosophical statement?"

This is the kind of internal polling that is done all the time by campaigns.

First, voters have to UNDERSTAND and BELIEVE that their vote will actually count and have a role in selecting the final outcome.

Second, voters hold their beliefs closely, but when it comes to who they have to live with as President for the next 4 years, will they in fact stand on principal over the reality that voting against their interests will inflict even more damage on this country. WE already saw how well that worked when Nader entered the race.

[againes654]

21. Prove to me that my vote

IN TEXAS will actually count.

[rateyes]

26. That's the core question. nt

[robinlynne]

15. Unfortunately, this one looks closer than all the others so far.

[flyarm]

22. i voted the first choice and it said error..and then i tried it again

and it said i already voted..and my vote was never counted..then it gave me a link to write Elad..so i did so..

just want you to know in case anyone else has that problem

i voted in all your other threads..but this one did not take my vote!!

thanks ..fly

[rateyes]

29. If that gets to be aproblem, I might have to repost. Thanks.

[robinlynne]

40. Maybe you voted on the diebold version?

[againes654]

61. ROFLMAO

Priceless!!! :rofl:

[flyarm]

76. nahhh i am from fla..that would be the Sequoia DRE version!!

damn no matter what i do i can't get a vote to count!..or it switches on me!!

lol..fly:cry: :cry: :cry: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Virginia Dare]

31. I'll probably vote Edwards regardless...

but I'm still keeping all options on the table.

[rucky]

36. This was a fun exercise.

nothing more. Thanks for the game, though!

[berni_mccoy]

38. A point, expertly made. Well done rateyes.

[Blackhatjack]

39. The differences between Democats and Repubs could not be clearer this time....

Repubs and their policies have been exposed as not only corrupt but failed.

Just look at the number of incumbent Repubs standing in line to resign rather than run for reelection in Nov 2008.

The country will not embrace any of the present Repub candidates because they are all following the same Bush trail they supported for the last 7 years.

[The Doctor.]

60. Which is cause for concern.

The Republican party is facing semi-extinction. I wouldn't put it past the current crew to pull some ugly shit within the year.

[CTD]

43. We simply MUST defeat Hillary in the primaries

Or else we *deserve* to lose in the General.

[onehandle]

45. Edwards has the longest coattails and would expand our Congress.

Want to see more Progressive ideas pass in the House and Senate?

Elect a President that will sweep in more Democratic seats with them.

[defendandprotect]

51. We have thirteen months to go -- who knows what may happen before then -- ????

[robinlynne]

80. no. we have 3 months till the primary.

[defendandprotect]

96. THEY have three months to the primary -- YOU have 13 months to decide what you're going to do ---

No primary is binding on YOU ---

[robinlynne]

98. what are you talking about?

[defendandprotect]

104. I'm talking about the fact that you don't have to make up your mind who to vote for 13 months . . .

before an election --- !!!

[robinlynne]

105. The primaries are in january. That is 3 months away!

[cali]

52. I can't vote in this.

I don't have a candidate.

[Blue-Jay]

59. Just vote for Nader, in that case.

:rofl:

[The Doctor.]

55. Edwards would crush Guiliani.

Other than that, I'd like to see the right-wing machine systematically dismantled where it lies.

[Swamp Rat]

93. Easily

And I am working on doing my part to crush the yellow elephants. :D

[Flarney]

57. kick, for later n/t

[Blackhatjack]

64. We need some Recs for this thread!

[SaveAmerica]

68. I could kiss you, this exactly the message that needs to get out, if we

don't want more of the same and our top three nominees are neck in neck in the polls, we have to join together and get 2/3 against Hillary's 1/3. I spoke with a friend recently and said that if I had to, I would join forces with Obama's crew to pull this country out of the quagmire it's in and will continue to be in if Hillary wins the election. I'm very happy to see Edwards come out ahead here because I believe he will be the candidate most moderate republicans in the south will be able to hold their nose and vote for.

[slackmaster]

73. You just earned yourself a Recommedation, rateyes

:toast:

[Yael]

74. Someone is thinking strategically.

Good on you rateyes.

[MH1]

79. I'm in PA. My primary vote on April 22nd is irrelevant.

Therefore, I will cast my vote for the candidate that I would prefer.

Edwards will absolutely NOT get my primary vote.

[Phillycat]

82. Why?

I'm in PA too - is there something I don't know? Does Hillary already have a lock on this state or something?

[rateyes]

89. That's OK, but please read my upcoming explanation...

it would make your vote relevant, I believe.

[TheUniverse]

87. I dont see much difference between edwards and clinton

So Ill stick with Kucinich.

[Zodiak]

90. I knew what you were up to

I had the hypothesis that Edwards was the perfect "compromise" candidate between the two wings of the party. He is definitely the candidate I will be voting for if he is within striking distance of the two establishment candidates.

It also shows that populism is popular....who'dathunkit?

[Laurab]

91. I would switch my vote in the primary to Edwards

although he's not my candidate, if it would keep Hillary from winning the primary, and I'd do it happily. I honestly believe Hillary is the only one of the top three or four who could, and probably would, lose the general. I think even Biden and possibly Dodd could win the general. I don't think Hillary can.

I haven't voted in every one of your polls, so I'm not sure how well they represent DU I don't spend as much time here as I used to, because of all the flame wars and I don't think I'm the only one. I actually expected Obama to be the one left, but Edwards would be far more acceptable to me than Hillary, but I'm talking primary only. If the annointed one wins, I vote for her in the general, but I won't be happy about it.

[rateyes]

95. I thought Obama would be left, too....

[Swamp Rat]

92. Al Gore/John Edwards 2008

My dream ticket. :)

[mnhtnbb]

99. Edwards has been my choice from the start. No vote switching needed.

[skyblue]

101. NYC lawyer (Ghoul) vs Southern Lawyer. My guess is NYC lawyer wins.

[bklyncowgirl]

102. I would vote for Edwards if it came down to Clinton and Edwards.

Edwards at least believes that he made a mistake in voting for the Iraq war. If other, more experienced, candidates or candidates who have not made the same mistake are still in the running I will vote for one of them.

[bluetrain]

103. I think maybe you moved too quickly; Gravel was actually knocked out in Round 2.

Not that it likely makes much difference.