I have included the most popular third-parties, but by all means feel free to vote other. And yes I'm aware that Obama, Barr, and McKinney have not technically won their parties' nomination yet, but they're the most likely.
Not sure. I haven't done enough research yet to make an educated vote. I know it will be either a Democrat or Republican though...even if someone in another political party is a better choice for president, the votes won't be going there way so it's not worth it to vote for them unfortunately.
Ron Paul (yes, he's still running), unless Gravel, Baldwin, Barr, Ruart, or Root can somehow accumulate more support than he has
Obama. He's the best choice out of all the candidates we have that actually has a realistic shot at winning the presidency. John McCain freaks me the fuck out with his foreign policy mainly..100 years in iraq.. fuck you, no thanks. Been there, done that and I can tell you firsthand we're not winning some mystical "global war on terrorism"
Wow, I'm surprised that 5 people on GC are actually voting for John McCain. I'm also surprised that none of the third party candidates have gotten a lot of votes, considering how anti-CFR so many people on GC claim to be. It's funny that people are actually voting Ron Paul. He's still in the race, but McCain is for sure the Republican nominee. Paul has vowed not to run as an independent or third party candidate, so I'm not sure what voting for him would accomplish. If anything, Ron Paul supporters should be voting for whoever the Libertarian nominee is (at this point it's looking like Barr)... that would be ideologically the closest to Ron Paul's positions.
After the last 8 years is this really a question? Haha na I'm just kidding, I have to go with Obama all the way. I use to have a lot of respect for McCain back in the nineties but he's seemed to have lost his marbles for the most part. Nader is a good consumer activist but if I voted for him it's just taking votes away from the Dems.
True, but if people started voting using their brains and not because of their partisan issues and one issue beliefs, then third party candidates would actually stand a fucking chance. There are so many people out there who would vote for Nader but don't because of that whole "It's taking votes away from the Dems." Vote with your fucking mind and heart, not with the popular choice.
My mind and heart tell me that Nader can't win... so I vote for the second best choice. I think the highest an independent has gotten in a recent(maybe past 50 years maybe even past 100 who knows, I didn't check) was when that weird guy in 1992 scored 18% of the vote. Which means, even when everyone decided a lunatic was better than the two choices at hand and even went out and voted for him, they were still doubled by the popular vote >_<
I don't know what world you're living in but nowadays we can't dream and think that if we all just voted with our hearts then the candidate of our dreams would be president. Just look at Ron Paul. I actually thought he had a chance, I was never planning on voting for him, with all the nationwide support he had but where did he end up? Lacking. So I understand your theory however when put into practice it fails. So am I not voting with brains? I think we need a democrat in office due to the last 8 years of this shit admin, so am I being partisan? Honestly I don't consider myself Dem, Rep, or Ind. I would vote for all of them if the time was right. In fact if I voted for Nader I would not be using my brain because I am realistic enough to recognize that no matter what the US is essentially a two party system so I really am "throwing away" my vote with Nader. And who are these "so many people out there who would vote for Nader"? He ain't that popular, Paul was far more popular and look where he ended up.
Paul does have a chance, if we can manage to get enough delegates to understand that McCain is not a real conservative. That could lead to a brokered convention, which would, hopefully, force his message to be spread to more people than the MSM has thus far allowed. Even then, we're in this for the long haul, and not necessarily the immediate election. It took Reagan 16 years to build up a large enough following for a right-wing libertarian message, and we can do it again.
It doesn't matter what the delegates think. Do you understand how the nomination process works? They are pledged (bound by the rules of the party) to vote for McCain based on the vote of the people. It has nothing to do with whether or not they like McCain. If they were to override the popular vote, and vote for someone else, they would immediately be stripped of their delegate status and most likely ruin any future political career. Not to mention that their vote wouldn't even count. I don't think you quite understand how it works. The only delegates in the Republican party who aren't bound to vote for a certain candidate are the few hundred unpledged delegates. So far McCain has 85 of them out of his total 1500. So even if you "get them to understand that McCain is not a real conservative", that still leaves him with 1415 pledged delegates, way more than the 1191 required. In fact, every single unpledged delegate could vote for Ron Paul and it wouldn't make a difference. There will not be a brokered convention unless McCain dies or something. Brokered conventions happen when no candidate has the required number of delegates to win the nomination. McCain won the required amount a while back, based on the popular vote. So tell me again, how exactly does Ron Paul have a chance in this election? That's a much better response than what you said above. I agree that the libertarian following is growing rapidly, and it's even possible that someone like Ron Paul could win a future election. But for 2008, count him out.