Assuming that you vote more conservative than liberal, which of these candidates would you absolutely not vote for for president if they won the Republican nomination?
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Well, I think there may be something skewed in the voting here... before I voted (with 33 votes in place), it said 9.1% for Ron Paul and a couple of other candidates. I voted my selection for whom I would never vote for, and he shot up to 11.8%... but it also appeared the other two candidates who were at 9.1%. So, with 34 votes in place, and 10 candidates / potential candidates (did Keyes officially join or something) listed, 11.8% equals 4.018 votes cast.
Or maybe I just saw it wrong and those that were 9.1% before went down to 8.8%
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
I don't think I could vote for someone like Rudi, who left his wife for another woman. Those poor choices in personal life mean similarly poor choices for the USA and the world. I fear if he is elected.
I couldn't vote for Rudi, Thompson or McCain. I vote 3rd party or not vote if any of them won the nominaton.
__________________
no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing... the truth of God will go forth till it has penetrated every website, sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the great Jehovah shall say the work is done
Right now it appears that the man who is not even a candidate is the least likely to not be voted for.
I don't know if that means no one really cares enough about his comments to even consider not voting for him, or that in some sort of sick, twisted reverse psychologic scientific poll it means he is the most likely candidate to win the Republican nomination...
This may require a trip to the Kwik-E-Mart home office for clarification...
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
Right now it appears that the man who is not even a candidate is the least likely to not be voted for.
I don't know if that means no one really cares enough about his comments to even consider not voting for him, or that in some sort of sick, twisted reverse psychologic scientific poll it means he is the most likely candidate to win the Republican nomination...
This may require a trip to the Kwik-E-Mart home office for clarification...
Cat, I took this list of candidates from the Wikipedia list of candidates who have filed papers with the federal elections commission and who are running national campaigns. It is entirely possible that they got their facts wrong, but I did try to make the list up of only official candidates.
BTW, from the comments in this thread it seems that some people are unaware that you can vote for multiple candidates in this poll. You don't have to choose just one candidate that you won't vote for.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
"The promptings of the Holy Ghost will always be sufficient for our needs if we keep to the covenant path. Our path is uphill most days, but the help we receive for the climb is literally divine." --Elaine S. Dalton
BTW, from the comments in this thread it seems that some people are unaware that you can vote for multiple candidates in this poll. You don't have to choose just one candidate that you won't vote for.
Well, that would explain the odd fractional percentages... some one person (who knew that one could vote for more than one selection) {pointing finger at an unknown phantom } must have voted for more than one person while the rest of us defaulted to the best matching answer to the question.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
BTW, from the comments in this thread it seems that some people are unaware that you can vote for multiple candidates in this poll. You don't have to choose just one candidate that you won't vote for.
Well, that would explain the odd fractional percentages... some one person (who knew that one could vote for more than one selection) {pointing finger at an unknown phantom } must have voted for more than one person while the rest of us defaulted to the best matching answer to the question.
It's not that hard to tell. This poll uses checkboxes, which aren't exclusive. That means that you can select multiple selections. Radio buttons, which most polls on this board use, are exclusive. You can only select one. Since it's a very common way of doing things, I didn't feel the need to elaborate.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
If the poll is to be realistic, it needs different phrasing.
"Assuming the Democrats run Hillary, which of these would you not vote for if they won the Republican nomination?"
Anyone wanna change their answer?
LM
Actually, since that was not what I was asking, it would be innacurate to change the question that way. That would be an interesting question for you to ask in your own poll, though.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
arbilad wrote: It's not that hard to tell. This poll uses checkboxes, which aren't exclusive. That means that you can select multiple selections. Radio buttons, which most polls on this board use, are exclusive. You can only select one. Since it's a very common way of doing things, I didn't feel the need to elaborate.
Drat. Another real life IQ test failed. I'm going to have to work on that.
__________________
"The promptings of the Holy Ghost will always be sufficient for our needs if we keep to the covenant path. Our path is uphill most days, but the help we receive for the climb is literally divine." --Elaine S. Dalton
This is clearly a hanging chat (or is it chad? wouldn't want to proposing hanging him if it is the other word... ) issue, as the ballot was unclear and was written in an unclear fashion.
I think there must have been some nefarious plot afoot to disenfranchise us of the right to vote the way we would have had there been clear instructions at the polling place...
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
Michigan politics = function{union power (centered in Detroit + Pontiac + Flint) + Democrat power base (centered in Detroit + Pontiac + Flint) * (liberal/socialist leaning*foreign born governor )}
Translated, this means that unfortunately, Republicans and conservatives have accomplished very little in the state due to the current administration and the long term entrenched democrat / union power structure, despite the bulk of the state being conservative.
The only similarity to Michigan voting and this thread is that Arbi didn't word the ballot in this vote with the proper instructions that we could choose more than one, hence we wuz disenfranchise-ified by only choosing ONE candidate we would never vote for...
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
I probably do not have to tell how I voted. I would never vote for Ron Paul.
Well I would never vote for Ron Paul for president, but I'd certainly vote for him if the question were "Which Republican candidate would you not vote for?"