NationStates Jolt Archive

I've just finished reviewing the various candidates for elections '06, and my decisions are a bit mottled. Basically speaking, on a local and state level I will be voting for Libertarian candidates (fiscally conservative, pro-free market), and on the Federal level (foreign policy and abortion are the main issues) I will be voting for Republicans (a bit reluctantly, seeing how disappointing their economics and the non-stop babbling about Mexicans is to me, but still voting for them). For judges, I will be voting for Republicans, because they are opposed to the current direct election of judges that we have in our state, like me, and the Libertarians are for direct election.

Will anyone else be splitting their ticket in the coming election, in any way?

I've just finished reviewing the various candidates for elections '06, and my decisions are a bit mottled. Basically speaking, on a local and state level I will be voting for Libertarian candidates (fiscally conservative, pro-free market), and on the Federal level (foreign policy and abortion are the main issues) I will be voting for Republicans (a bit reluctantly, seeing how disappointing their economics and the non-stop babbling about Mexicans is to me, but still voting for them). For judges, I will be voting for Republicans, because they are opposed to the current direct election of judges that we have in our state, like me, and the Libertarians are for direct election.

Will anyone else be splitting their ticket in the coming election, in any way?
...

So, you're voting for Republicans, and the Republicans that smoke pot. Wow. What a really huge ticket split.

If you can't tell by my sarcasm, the Libertarian party in the U.S. is an extreme form of right wing Libertarianism, not a decent party whatsoever. Similarly, the Republican party is equally pathetic.

Since I also dislike Democrats, I'm going to just be voting for whomever strikes my fancy as the best candidate, which is how people should vote anyway.

I'm voting for the Democrats on the national level. I don't really like them but Bush needs a foil, the Republicans need a trip to the woodshed, and I'm always interested in a vote for gridlock. On the local level I'm voting Republican for governor(I'll probably only throw up in my mouth a little bit), but thats really a lesser-of-two-evils situation, splitting on a case-by-case basis for most of the other candidates, and voting against retention for every judge on the ballot.

...

So, you're voting for Republicans, and the Republicans that smoke pot. Wow. What a really huge ticket split.

If you can't tell by my sarcasm, the Libertarian party in the U.S. is an extreme form of right wing Libertarianism, not a decent party whatsoever. Similarly, the Republican party is equally pathetic.

Since I also dislike Democrats, I'm going to just be voting for whomever strikes my fancy as the best candidate, which is how people should vote anyway.

Hey, I'm an extreme right-libertarian. That's why I'm voting for them. And they don't "smoke pot"- they just allow the opportunity to do so. :D Also, I'm still voting based on candidate, but that's the general stream of how I'm voting. And yes, the Republicans have been rather pathetic recently, since all they seem to have done is complain about illegal immigration and not really pay any attention to economics.

Hey, I'm an extreme right-libertarian. That's why I'm voting for them. And they don't "smoke pot"- they just allow the opportunity to do so. :D Also, I'm still voting based on candidate, but that's the general stream of how I'm voting. And yes, the Republicans have been rather pathetic recently, since all they seem to have done is complain about illegal immigration and not really pay any attention to economics.

Oh they're paying attention to economics, just so happens that they're spending like Paris Hilton with Daddy's credit card.

Yes I just compared the Republican party to a drunken spoiled whore living it up on her family money.

Hey, I'm an extreme right-libertarian. That's why I'm voting for them. And they don't "smoke pot"- they just allow the opportunity to do so. :D Also, I'm still voting based on candidate, but that's the general stream of how I'm voting. And yes, the Republicans have been rather pathetic recently, since all they seem to have done is complain about illegal immigration and not really pay any attention to economics.

Ah, alright then. Fair enough.

I'm voting for a Democratic governor, a Republican senator, and I'm still up in the air about my local representatives. I strongly support Ted Strickland but I can't stand Sherrod Brown's positions on economic issues...our state does not need that by any stretch.

I'm voting for a Democratic governor, a Republican senator, and I'm still up in the air about my local representatives. I strongly support Ted Strickland but I can't stand Sherrod Brown's positions on economic issues...our state does not need that by any stretch.

Why do you think DeWine will do any better with the economy? He's been our senator for twelve years, and we're still losing jobs.

I just finished my absentee ballot, and I definitely have a split ticket, but leaning slightly to the left. 3° from Top Dead Center, I make it. :)

Oh they're paying attention to economics, just so happens that they're spending like Paris Hilton with Daddy's credit card.

Yes I just compared the Republican party to a drunken spoiled whore living it up on her family money.

It's too true, and so disappointing for me... :(

For judges, I will be voting for Republicans, because they are opposed to the current direct election of judges that we have in our state, like me, and the Libertarians are for direct election.
Heh... I love irony...

lets see...we got Destefano for gov (D), Lieberman for senate (CT for Lieberman), John Larson (D) for the house, Susan Bysiewicz (D) for secretary of state, Joe Aresimowicz (D/Concerned Citizen Party) for state representative, Denise L. Nappier (don't remember her party, but I think R) for treasurer


mostly dems, but for a reason.

The current governor was perfect to take over after our scandals, but has no direction for the state. Destefano is the only decent challenger.
Secretary of State and Treasurer really don't matter tons to me, and both of these were the incumbents. I agree with them enough not to kick them out, and they have done a good job.

Larson is a great rep.

Aresimowicz is being challenged by an idiot.

The ballot is already sealed, or else I would include the rest of my choices (I think I'm missing some...)

I've voted in every election since 1970 and have never voted straight ticket. I campaigned for both Bobby Kennedy and Richard Nixon. I don't know how a thinking person could vote straight ticket.

Lieberman for senate (CT for Lieberman)

*Sigh*

Why? I mean, hell, he's becoming more conservative by the day! If he's elected, he will owe his election to the Republicans, and vote that way.

I will be voting for Libertarian candidates...and...Republicans

you cannot possibly justify that

*Sigh*

Why? I mean, hell, he's becoming more conservative by the day! If he's elected, he will owe his election to the Republicans, and vote that way.

because I can :)

actually, because the only significant difference between him and Lamont is that Lamont wants to pull out of Iraq right now. The war is hardly my biggest issue.

Lamont has accused Lieberman of turning his back on the democrats. I couldn't care less about the democrats. I would care if he turned his back on the state in favor of the democrats, however.

Additionally, Lieberman has served as a state rep, attorney gen, and senator. Lamont has no experience. Lieberman has done great things for CT, and is hugely influential, respected, and powerful. He is not only a top democrat, but a top senator overall.

He also will not "owe" the election to the republicans of CT. CT is about 40% democrat, 40% independent, and 20% republican. 35% of the democrats still support lieberman, a majority of independents support him, and a good number of republicans.

Lamont failed to give me a single reason to vote for him. Every issue I have heard him speak about or that is posted on his website is either Iraq, Iraq in disguise, an attack on lieberman and how he turned his back on democrats (not a good way to win in a strongly independent state), or is the same as lieberman (or, even one where he agrees with BUSH :eek: ). He had his shot. I talked to him personally, and he STILL couldn't do it. My time is limited, as my ballot must be postmarked soon, and frankly, if he couldn't convince me in the last 6 months, I don't see him doing so any time soon.

Lamont has accused Lieberman of turning his back on the democrats. I couldn't care less about the democrats. I would care if he turned his back on the state in favor of the democrats, however.

What do you call running against the man that the state democrats decided was no longer fit to lead them? I call that turning your back on your party and on your state.

Additionally, Lieberman has served as a state rep, attorney gen, and senator. Lamont has no experience. Lieberman has done great things for CT, and is hugely influential, respected, and powerful. He is not only a top democrat, but a top senator overall.

Lieberman also promised that he would only serve three terms. They are up now, and yet he still is running for office. Do you really trust him to keep his word about anything?

He also will not "owe" the election to the republicans of CT. CT is about 40% democrat, 40% independent, and 20% republican. 35% of the democrats still support lieberman, a majority of independents support him, and a good number of republicans.

As may be, but it has been the Rethuglicans, and not the Democrats, who have helped to fund him, and stood by him because they knew their candidate could never win.

Lamont failed to give me a single reason to vote for him. Every issue I have heard him speak about or that is posted on his website is either Iraq, Iraq in disguise, an attack on lieberman and how he turned his back on democrats (not a good way to win in a storngly independent state), or is the same as lieberman. He had his shot. I talked to him personally, and he STILL couldn't do it. My time is limited, as my ballot must be postmarked soon, and frankly, if he couldn't convince me in the last 6 months, I don't see him doing so any time soon.

I think that you didn't want to have your mind changed, TBH. Lieberman has consistently shown hi

Lamont has accused Lieberman of turning his back on the democrats. I couldn't care less about the democrats. I would care if he turned his back on the state in favor of the democrats, however.

What do you call running against the man that the state democrats decided was no longer fit to lead them? I call that turning your back on your party and on your state.

Additionally, Lieberman has served as a state rep, attorney gen, and senator. Lamont has no experience. Lieberman has done great things for CT, and is hugely influential, respected, and powerful. He is not only a top democrat, but a top senator overall.

Lieberman also promised that he would only serve three terms. They are up now, and yet he still is running for office. Do you really trust him to keep his word about anything?

He also will not "owe" the election to the republicans of CT. CT is about 40% democrat, 40% independent, and 20% republican. 35% of the democrats still support lieberman, a majority of independents support him, and a good number of republicans.

As may be, but it has been the Rethuglicans, and not the Democrats, who have helped to fund him, and stood by him because they knew their candidate could never win.

Lamont failed to give me a single reason to vote for him. Every issue I have heard him speak about or that is posted on his website is either Iraq, Iraq in disguise, an attack on lieberman and how he turned his back on democrats (not a good way to win in a storngly independent state), or is the same as lieberman. He had his shot. I talked to him personally, and he STILL couldn't do it. My time is limited, as my ballot must be postmarked soon, and frankly, if he couldn't convince me in the last 6 months, I don't see him doing so any time soon.

I think that you didn't want to have your mind changed, TBH. Lieberman has consistently shown himself to be a very conservative man. His stance on Schaivo, Medicare reform, and Iraq ought to tell you that. His declaration that he wasn't sure a democrat should win the governorship, or that the dems should win control of congress said that as well.

What do you call running against the man that the state democrats decided was no longer fit to lead them? I call that turning your back on your party and on your state.
No, that would just be turning your back on your party, considering only 40% of the state is democrat, and 48% voted for him, it is actually just turning his back on the democrats.



Lieberman also promised that he would only serve three terms. They are up now, and yet he still is running for office. Do you really trust him to keep his word about anything?Yes. That is hardly an issue.

As may be, but it has been the Rethuglicans, and not the Democrats, who have helped to fund him, and stood by him because they knew their candidate could never win.And it will be the voters, not the parties, that place him in power.



I think that you didn't want to have your mind changed, TBH.To be honest, I couldn't really care less what you think. But I will state this: Does someone who does not want to be convinced not only talk to Lamonts workers (many of which are close personal friends), call Lamont, and go so far as to physically sit down with him for a discussion? Yeah, I kinda doubt it. I've talked to Lieberman four times in the last 18 years he has worked as Senator. I have never once called him, and I have never once spoken to one of his interns. In the last six months, I have talked to Lamont twice, and his interns countless times. And somehow, everything came back to Iraq. Needless to say, I was excessively underwhelmed.

Lieberman has consistently shown himself to be a very conservative man. Yes, I know.
His stance on Schaivo,Not an issue for congress
Medicare reform,I disagree with him on medicare.
and Iraq ought to tell you that.And I disagree with him on Iraq.
However, I support him on many other things. Such as him keeping the sub base in Groton open. And him bringing military contracts to UTC and GE...you know, the companies that currently employ the vast majority of my family. Or him getting more than 1 million for housing projects in Stamford.
His declaration that he wasn't sure a democrat should win the governorship,iirc, he stated that he wasn't going to back a specific gubenatorial candidate. And honestly, I wouldn't expect him to at this point. either way, it would damn him.
or that the dems should win control of congress said that as well.I've heard worse from actual democrats.

I'm not saying I support him on every issue. But Lamont has failed to do anything but talk about Iraq. He has zero experience, and consistantly attacks lieberman instead of talking about something worth the soundbites.

As I stated, Lamont and Lieberman differ on very few things. You'd be amazed.