Okay.... Someone got in an accident driving their car. Are you still not too scared to go anywhere? Or were you already too chicken to go out of the house because some attempts to go somewhere fail and you might get lost or something? No identification is needed to receive "unfunded" medical treatment in this country as it stands... so your so-called "illegals" can already get health care. It's not all inclusive, but then again neither is any health insurance plan that I know of in this country... and for your information some of us actually care about all decent human beings, including those willing to break our immigration laws in order to have a small percentages of the opportunities that we were born into... and a few even care about the people who are not so decent. For example, hardened criminals who are living behind bars get health care because someone looked out for their rights... even if the laws they broke are a little worse then failure to get through all the red tape involved in entering our country the way they were supposed to... and the huge population of United States citizens who are illegally renting homes in Mexico are treated quite good there, by the way... even though their presence makes life harder for Mexicans earning less than ten percent of their wages and trying to compete with the cost of living that those "illegals" can afford.

Not for me, because I'm not gay and already married, but nobody should have to marry based on another person's criteria for who is right for them, nor be restricted from marrying the person they love just because someone else finds the idea distasteful.

Because they have enough real issues and a slew of other made up stuff like that to deal with already.

I would like to thank everyone who answered this poll. Joe Biden got the position and I understand why, but it was fun exploring the possibilities in advance. :)

If only the puppeteers weren't so numerous or could at least agree with each other on what they want their puppet to do... but I guess poor John's just not that lucky.

If I get to vote at all in this election, it will count for something because I have someone to actually vote for, but when I or anyone else wants more to vote against someone than for someone, those votes can not be cast and are therefore the biggest cause of votes losing their value.... much more so than for example the cheating that put George W. Bush over the edge... because the resulting false-positive votes skew the election immensely.

I hate to put this so bluntly, but that meat scented idea sounds outright dangerous.

Isn't that what she was supposed to do? Wouldn't want people getting confused about which political party was sponsoring her, after all.

I don't generally care what age people are or what age people think I am. People tend to think I'm older than I really am when they meet me in a way that keeps them from actually seeing me, such as over the phone, but they tend to think I'm much younger than I really am when they meet me face to face... which is one reason why I usually leave some facial hair on me, because it reduces that tendency and avoids giving people unwelcome surprises... although other than that I tend not to worry about it. If my age really matters to someone, they can ask... and I'll give them an honest answer. To me, it's just a number.

This would explain McCain confusing "the Surg" with "counter-insurgence" as he has done many times. If the Surge really was meant to cover the fact that there was a counter-insurgence of this type underway, then I could see how he may have gotten them mixed up... but paying people not to fight us would be worse than "negociating with terrorists" as anti-Obama people including Geroge W. Bush have wrongfully accused Barack Obama of saying that he would do... because it would set a bad precedence. Of course, the last time I heard someone say "that would set a bad precedence" I turned around and said "I thought we already had one of those"... and then corrected myself with "Oh, wait... you said PRECEDENCE. Never mind." ;)

Yes, the smear campaigns work... and they work better against the Democrats than against the Republicans because the average Republican mind seems to be more geared toward base instincts like fear and hate rather than toward logic and reasoning. Not meant as an insult, nor as a prejudice. I realize that there are a wide range of people on both sides, but the Conservative platform tends to attract minds that are less flexible... so that's just how it turns out. This time, the Democratic party has an advantage in that they actually have re-learned to present something positive. The Republicans have figured it out too, but a little late as they have nothing positive to present.

What? No "None of the Above"? Were you unable to make it look like people agree with you any other way, or did you just choose to be deceptive because you can? I am NOT undecided, and the lies you are helping to spread about Barack Obama are NOT true!

My first poll on SodaHead was a remake of the 2004 election with the added option of an actual vote against someone... The 'Anybody but Bush' crowd had to choose between being misrepresented and not being represented at all. What if in the 2004 presidential election, you had been given the option of a negative vote? How would you have voted? George W. Bush earned a negative net vote count. I made a 2008 election poll the next day, split onto two pages so that I could give more options, and divided into a dual-vote to accomodate the fact that it was on two pages... and then two days later I made a dual-vote poll concerning the 2000 election, and again George W. Bush scored a negative net-vote count... [+] Imagine the 2000 presidential election allowing each of us a "for" vote and an "against" vote. How do you think you would have voted? Cast your vote FOR a candidate here, then cast your vote against a candidate on the other page. [-] Imagine the 2000 presidential election allowing each of us a "for" vote and an "against" vote. how do you think you would have voted? Cast your vote AGAINST a candidate here, then cast your vote for a candidate on the other page. So although I haven't done one with George Bush Sr.'s election, I have a strong feeling he would not score nearly that badly... and my personal opinion of George H. W. Bush as a president was also much higher than my personal opinion of George W. Bush as a president.

I don't know WHY but I do have a possible compromize that could be suggested. Perhaps they could make it so that with or without downraving, the owner of a blog could cause a comment or reply to be rolled up out of the way "as if it had been marked bad content by several people" without changing it's actual good or bad content status. That way, it would be there for people to look at if they choose to, so nothing could be censored without people being able to see WHAT was censored... so I think it would be a reasonable solution to the problem of people spamming or flooding blogs with rude or unrelated comments and such.

Look at the change in the middle of September and how the polls have went since then for Michigan, and you can see why. http://www.realclearpolitics....

Of course it's not fair, but it's common. That's how elections are generally done. The votes in favor are counted and the votes against are not. In fact, it's been done that way so universally and for so long that those who want to express opposition often try to do so by falsely expressing support for an alternative.

The old idea that only men could initiate such things was just a way of those in control abusing their control. Well, gender doesn't deside who's in control anymore and it hasn't for quite some time now. There are those who still try to let gender decide who's in control, but I think they are about evenly divided as far as WHICH gender they try to put in control, and the rest of us outnumber them by far.

I see good and bad in all the political parties, and in all the politicians, and in all people. Of the major parties, the Democratic party tends to be more innovative and less rigid, while the Republican party tends to be more stable and predictable. The Democratic party tends to lean more toward being willing to hurt their own chances to do what's right while the Republican party seems to be better at taking advantage of the power of voting as a group and has mastered more complex strategies for gaining votes. The smaller parties of course all share the admirable trait that they are willing to hang in there against impossible odds. Of course these are just my opinions about my observations, not meant to insult nor compliment anyone... and I know there will be those who strongly disagree. That's okay with me. :)

Having gotten the same thing wrong many times does not make one an expert.

In case you are wondering, NO I HAVE NOT joined a political party, nor do I have any intention of doing so, but I understand the math and the flaw in our system that I have been fighting to correct for over two decades ensures an unfair advantage for two political parties over all the others, and right now thanks to Barack Obama, one of those two parties is on our side!!! So, please... help them to win, and strongly encourage them to do what's right and make the system fair for ALL political parties to compete in based on their merits rather than on mud-slinging and false-positive votes! THIS TIME many people actually have a presidential candidate to vote FOR, but the more support he has in other political positions once elected, the more progress we will be able to make.... so THIS TIME it is worth casting a vote FOR the Democratic party candidates in all those other positions even if you have not found any reason to suppor those particular candidates other than to help MAKE THIS POSITIVE CHANGE HAPPEN!