Stephen Speicher

How would (will) you vote in the 2006 election?

How would (will) you vote in 2006?   79 votes

  1. 1. Assuming these are the only three choices for the 2006 election, pick one

    • Vote Democratic
      28
    • Vote Republican
      34
    • Abstain from voting
      17

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

65 posts in this topic

The Republicans in my state (MD governor and senator) are much better than the national republicans. Being from such a Democratically dominated state, the only way for Republicans to even have a voice is to not be very conservative. I definitely would not vote for any candidate who said he bases his politics on religious beliefs of motivations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I selected "vote Republican", but I don't think it matters a great deal with respect to the war or national politics. I live in California, in the San Francisco Bay Area. Neither of our senators are up for election this year, and my congressional representative is not in a competitive race. The only partisan race of significance is for governor, and whatever else one can say about Arnold Schwartzenegger, he isn't a member of or supporter of the religious right. And governors don't have any input on foreign policy, so I don't see that as a 'war-related' vote.

If I lived in an area where I could vote in a competitive race, my decision would be much more difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if I don't plan to vote a straight party line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if I don't plan to vote a straight party line?

I worded it: "This poll assumes you are given only the following three choices for the 2006 election." So, granted those as your only choices, which would you pick?

In fact I will not be voting a straight party line, but given the choices in the poll I chose Republican rather than abstain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the focus of the poll, I said "Vote Democratic." In fact, when I voted last week, I split between Democrat (one) and Republicans, all local and all running against entrenched Democratic power.

I also abstained from voting for some positions -- especially for absurd positions with titles such as "Soil and Water Management Board member." In one such "race," no one was running! There was only a blank for writing in a name. Jesus, what a system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the focus of the poll, I said "Vote Democratic." In fact, when I voted last week, I split between Democrat (one) and Republicans, all local and all running against entrenched Democratic power.

I also abstained from voting for some positions -- especially for absurd positions with titles such as "Soil and Water Management Board member." In one such "race," no one was running! There was only a blank for writing in a name. Jesus, what a system.

I had fun with it and wrote in "Donald Duck" in the "race" where no one was running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am voting reluctantly Republican, although the arguments for voting Democrats make some excellent points. Dr. Hurd's piece is the best thing I've read for voting Dem.

I have a post up on my sleepy blog about this:

myrhaf.blogspot.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This poll assumes you are given only the following three choices for the 2006 election.

I chose "abstain" although, in fact, I have voted in favor of a particular candidate where the difference was significant. In many races I did abstain, because I want to register disgust with the choice available. In those cases, I am also writing the Republican candidates who might have traditionally gotten my vote to let them know why they failed to do so this time. I do not want them to assume I favor the Democratic choice, which might entice them to try to appear more Democratic the next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I selected Democratic because that is the way I plan to vote in regard to major offices, State Senator, Governor (Florida), and Congress (no other choice in our district except abstaining--only 1 candidate, a Democrat). I do not, however, plan to vote a straight party ticket, and do not ever remember doing so. Thus I may well vote Republican for some other offices, such as State Attorney General (the Democratic candidate's ads emphasize his belief in God, family values, etc.). I am still undecided on some votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I selected Abstain because I sincerely am at a loss as to whom to vote for (is it to who or to whom?).

If it were the Kerry Bush election again, I'd vote Kerry, not because out of fear of Christianity, but because I thought Bush was absolutely dismal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peikoff's view is from a mountain top. I'll vote with him.
It looked more like an ivory tower than a mountain to me.

He shoots he scoooooores!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peikoff's view is from a mountain top. I'll vote with him.

Is that your only justification for voting democratic? The argument "some authority said so" is not a valid one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peikoff's view is from a mountain top. I'll vote with him.

A view from a mountain top can give you a broad, long-range perspective, but often the mountain is so far removed from sea level that the details get lost. What's lacking so far is a connection between what I see at ground level and his prediction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I indicated that I would vote Republican in this election. At the national level, that means deciding between the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter and Demoratic challenger John Rinaldi. Unsurprisingly, Rinaldi advocates a contradictory grab bag of stances on issues and bromides that is best described by his campaign slogan, "Fiscally Concervative, Socially Progressive, Morally Grounded". To me, the most obnoxious stance in on the war.

Our current president has unilaterally reversed over 200 years of American foreign policy with his rabid encouragement of “preemptive wars.” War is justified and necessary only to counter an aggressor nation or group with the goal of protecting our citizens and our allies. We must only use our military as the last of a series of options. We cannot attack a nation because we believe at some vague time in the future they might attack us. There was no clear and present danger in Iraq. The president lied about foreign intelligence, plain and simple. That must not be allowed to happen again.

Ugh! I wouldn't cry if the Republicans lost the House or even the whole Congress. I'd like to see how they react to their first defeat in six years. Will they distance themselves from the Evangelicals, or will they embrace them further?

But throwing out a man who would be an important counterweight to Democratic pacifists should they win the House in favor a man who advocates that position? I fail to see how that makes me safe from theocracy. Also, Hunter scored a 91% on the property rights grading system that was linked to in another thread. Despite his obnoxious stand on abortion, I plan on voting for him.

I was sure of that decision, until I read this. At least for me, this mid-term won't be boring. :) So I intend to do a lot more research on Hunter given his political ambitions.

As far as the Senate race in California is concerned, I consider the issue moot. The Republicans have written off California, so they send in token pipsqueaks to get plowed by the incumbent. It was so bad two years ago that many of my colleagues didn't know that Barbara Boxer was even up for re-election. It will be the same for Dianne Feinstein next week. I consider California to have a de-facto one party system regarding the U.S. Senate elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To begin with, a couple of months ago I changed my party registration from Republican to Independent. I hope it will send a message to those Republicans who have been bugging me for donations.

Nevertheless, together with many Democrats in Maryland, I will vote to keep the Republican governor in office. It's the first time since the 1960's that Maryland has a Republican governor and he's done a great job. I will also vote for the Republican running for Senate in Maryland. He is challenging a Democrat incumbent who's been in office for 10 consecutive years. In the context of Maryland, it's the Democrats who have to be kept out for a while and learn they cannot take their control of the state for granted. To quote Dr. Peikoff: Context matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is challenging a Democrat incumbent who's been in office for 10 consecutive years.

Correction: He is challenging a Democrat incumbent who's been in office for 10 consecutive terms, i.e. 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peikoff's view is from a mountain top. I'll vote with him.

When you stand on a mountaintop, your eyes can only resolve so much of what's on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you stand on a mountaintop, your eyes can only resolve so much of what's on the ground.

If you look at my Avatar picture, the mountain top I am standing on is Mt. Hood. I am at the top of the Timberline half-pipe and in the background is Mt. Jefferson. When standing on a mountain top, you do not have to look to the ground. I look to the other mountain tops (particularly Mt. Jefferson) and declare my independence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at my Avatar picture, the mountain top I am standing on is Mt. Hood. I am at the top of the Timberline half-pipe and in the background is Mt. Jefferson. When standing on a mountain top, you do not have to look to the ground. I look to the other mountain tops (particularly Mt. Jefferson) and declare my independence.

Go right ahead, but rationalism and emotionalism will not give you knowledge of what's happening on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go right ahead, but rationalism and emotionalism will not give you knowledge of what's happening on the ground.

A declaration of independence is rationalism and emotionalism? I'll stick to the mountain tops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peikoff's view is from a mountain top. I'll vote with him.

It looked more like an ivory tower than a mountain to me.

He shoots he scoooooores!

A view from a mountain top can give you a broad, long-range perspective, but often the mountain is so far removed from sea level that the details get lost. What's lacking so far is a connection between what I see at ground level and his prediction.

When you stand on a mountaintop, your eyes can only resolve so much of what's on the ground.

If you look at my Avatar picture, the mountain top I am standing on is Mt. Hood. I am at the top of the Timberline half-pipe and in the background is Mt. Jefferson. When standing on a mountain top, you do not have to look to the ground. I look to the other mountain tops (particularly Mt. Jefferson) and declare my independence.

This is geeting silly. Let's stop with the thinly-disguised analogies. In this thread vote in the poll and, if you like, explain your choice by reference to ideas. For more detailed debate, there are plenty of other threads related to the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for the Democrats because the essence of this election is the 'Honesty' of the Republican Party. I am well aware of the dishonesty within the Democratic Party but they are not in power. The Republicans are asking for our 'Loyalty' to their cause of bringing democracy to Iraq. I touched on this very point in another thread.

I know the focus is on theocracy coming to the shores of America. I am questioning this premise. What difference does it make? The Republicans are actively bringing theocracy to our enemies in the middle East. That is enough motivation for me to vote the Republicans out.

(*For the record, I am a registered Republican and this will be the first time I vote entirely Democratic.*)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that your only justification for voting democratic? The argument "some authority said so" is not a valid one.

I don’t consider Peikoff just “some authority”. I’ve studied many hours of his lectures, including his DIM course.

He has convinced me that:

Philosophy is the driving force of history;

Those with the most consistent principles have the greatest impact.

The Democrats are basically nihilistic (few or no principles).

The Republicans are basically religious with consistent evil principles.

This makes the Republicans our greater enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.