Which primary should I vote for in the Texas primary?

Post Reply New Topic

It's a tough decision to decide whether I vote for the democrat or the republican primary. I'm not registered for either party so I get to choose one of the primaries to vote in.

The democratic one is the only one with anything riding on it, and it's expected to be very close. However, I'm not excited about either one so I'm figuring maybe I don't want to vote in that one just so I can keep my conscience clean in case the one I vote for wins.

If I vote in the republican one, it'll just be a protest vote against McCain who I also do not like. Nothing's riding on it, but my conscience would be clean.

It's a tough decision. Vote for the one that matters that doesn't have a choice I like (although I prefer one slightly over the other), or vote for the one that doesn't matter just to express my displeasure with the choices.

If you have to ask, then maybe you shouldn't vote.

Or you could write in "none of the above."

Eh, I just wanted to start a political discussion and see how people voted that I should vote. It's not like I'd listen to them. *realizes that I just sounded like a more eloquent version of George W*



That would be voting in the Republican primary.

Nobody can tell you who to vote for. You just have to think about what issues are important to you.

Obama is a poet and says exactly what you think should happen, and isn't it cool, man.

Hillary is like your mom that you can't stand hearing b***h, but she has a point about keeping your room at least sanitary so the mice and roaches don't take over.

vote for McCain if you think it is 'his turn'
and hey, Huckabee is running, too.

you are really not resposible for any of them winning you are only responsible for america losing if you don't vote.


Merle

Do what I do: hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two (or more) evils.

I wouldn't vote for McCain, though. I'm wary of having a president who would turn 80 years old during his second term.

Yeah, but the Huckster is pretty much out of it.

Then again, there have been heads of state that ruled well into their 90s.

I'm not asking to be told who to vote for, I know my choices for each but I can only choose one. I'm just asking which primary I should choose based on the dilemma I described.

I'm asking everyone what they would do if asked to vote for one that is close but the choices are similar, or one where it isn't close but is lead by someone I don't like being trailed by 2 candidates I like better. I was careful not to mention which dem I slightly preferred so people wouldn't flat tell me who to vote for.



I don't vote based on TV personality. I vote based on where I think they stand on various issues, and I have issues with some of his issues.



It has nothing to do with not being able to stand listening to her. I have issues with some of her issues as well.



Ok, I'll make one exception to judging personality. McCain has no integrity, compounded by his official stances which I don't like.

It would be kind of funny to write in Strom Thurmond, but that would be a wasted vote.

Don't forget Ron Paul! I disagree on several accounts with that man, but overall, he has the right idea. And think of the realities of a Ron Paul presidency: he'd veto anything unconstitutional. ANYTHING. Quite frankly, nothing would get done --UNLESS the parties worked together and overrode the vetos. Bipartisanship is the first step towards removing party politics all together. These days, there is more concern for the "party" than for the actual issues at hand. No other candidate provides a clear solution to this problem, most likely because they do not think it is a problem. They are so convinced that they are "right," in spite of the fact they are expected to solve the most complex policy problems in existence. Yet you mean to tell me you've got a simple "right" and "wrong" eh? That's like saying there is only ONE solution to EVERY multi variable problem. It's BS, plain and simple.

In short, the whole "party system" is foolish. What do you mean I have to register for a party in order to vote? NEWSFLASH: that's not democratic. Candidates should not campaign under a party, but under their own philosophy.

Well, I can always vote independent in the main election. But these are primaries, for the parties to choose their candidates, and by state law, I can't vote in both primaries. Kind of a screwy system.

Vote for Obama if you want to vote for a potential democrat winner. The machine is behind him so there is good chance he will be in the White House in 09.

Vote for Hillary just too piss off all your democrat friends who bought into the Hillary can't win it speel all over the media the last month and a half.

Vote for McCain if you are fond of repubs shouting USA! USA! and are very fond of the idea of a 100 year war

Vote for Huckabee if you a Colbert fan or if you consider yourself a conservative Repub that wants to piss off your repub friends by voting way out in right field.

I too voted for Ron Paul. I'll gladly vote for either Hilary of Obama in the fall, but I live in Michigan, where the Democratic primary was so screwed up as to render it meaningless. Paul displayed a lot of common sense in the debates which only got him stares like he was crazy, and if he were nominated, it'd genuinely be a tough call as to who I'd vote for in the general election. Voting for him might not get him anywhere now, but he consistently beat Rudy and Thompson until they dropped out, and was even second in Nevada. Hopefully he's done well enough in this primary to pave the way for greater things down the road.

be thankful you have a choice. Our primary is in May...

or, you can write in our old friend, Ralph Nader


Nader, redux
07.15.07 -- 10:08PM By Steve Benen
Don’t look now, but a certain third party candidate is considering a fourth presidential campaign.

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader told the Green Party's national convention that he is considering a 2008 presidential run and accused Democrats of trying to shut smaller parties out of the political process. [...]

Nader said before jumping into the 2008 presidential race he would have to put together an organization of thousands of volunteers and pro bono lawyers to defend him against the "Democratic quadrennial assault."

"We're going to be ready for them. We will confront them on every level," Nader told a news conference.



What's unclear at this point is why Nader wants to run. He recently conceded that he doesn’t expect to win a presidential race, he doesn’t expect to change the Democratic agenda, he doesn’t expect to appear in the debates, and he doesn’t even expect to make the ballot in every state.

Asked what the point of a fourth unsuccessful campaign would be, Nader told the Politico, “What third parties can do is bring young people in, set standards on how to run a presidential election and keep the progressive agenda in front of the people. And maybe tweak a candidate here and there in the major parties.”

It's hardly a persuasive pitch. Major parties can and do bring young people into the process, Nader’s multiple efforts have never affected election standards, and his campaigns have generally done a poor job of promoting progressive ideas (preferring instead to focus on his disdain for the two major parties).

As for “tweaking” candidates, that’s a pretty shallow reason to launch a presidential bid.