I've complained about this before, but it continues, and it continues to irritate.

I think the president's doing a lousy job. I think the country's on the "wrong track." So according to conventional wisdom, I should be voting for Kerry, right?

Wrong, because I think that he'd be even worse on most issues of concern to me. Am I weird, or are all these so-called analysts misinterpreting poll internals, mistakenly assuming that unhappiness with Bush automatically translates to a Kerry vote?

Am I weird, or are all these so-called analysts misinterpreting poll internals, mistakenly assuming that unhappiness with Bush automatically translates to a Kerry vote?

They're definitely misinterpreting, as you say.

As for the "am I weird" part... ;-)

Well, I meant weird in the sense that I disapprove of the president's performance, but will vote for him anyway. We all know that I'm pretty weird in general...

The best poll numbers are at best poor providers of the overall voters ideas. It seems to me the older I get the worse the polsters get. No one gets useful information when the quesions asked are the old "no good answer" kind, "Mr Voter are you still beating your wife YES or NO"

If I answer yes, I'm obviuosly a Republican, No means I've felt her pain, stopped beating her, and will vote Democrat. At least thats the way the polls look to me.

This is the first election period where I have not been polled in 10 or 12 years. We have an IP phone now, maybe that takes us off the radar.

My favorite poll from after the last debate, Kerry Losing Democrat Voters At Slower Rate. (I looked for this just now and can't find the link.) If this poll shows the GOOD side of Kerry's campaign, I'd say we are going to win.

Well, for some people, being dissatisfied with Bush means they will being staying home. It doesn't give a +1 to Kerry, but it does give a -1 to Bush.

I'm not happy with Bush's record in many respects. But I dislike Kerry more. So, for the first time since I started voting in 1977, I'm voting Republican.

The lesser of two evils, plus, I'll vote for Bush's space initiative, if for nothing else!

Of course, this can be cleared up with more poll questions. Like:

Politically, who do you disagree with more? (Kerry)

Do you think Kerry would do better or worse than Bush (worse)

Do you like either Bush or Kerry? (No!)

Will you vote? (Yes)

I can't stand Bush and think that he is wrong on most issues. I consider him a rebublican in name only. Yet, there is no way I could vote for Kerry because he is even more wrong on most issues than Bush.

If many people are like me Bush will win if and only if we actually bother to vote.

If you don't like Bush, don't vote FOR him.
If you don't like Kerry, don't vote FOR him.
If you can't find anyone to vote FOR, don't vote.

(I'm voting FOR Badnarik. As an extra added benefit, this is also a vote AGANIST both Bush and Kerry.)

Terry, I don't like Kerry so much that I'm going to vote for Bush, because that's the only realistic alternative. Sorry.

Same here. Now, if there was a candidate that had a basically libertarian position, but understood that you couldn't turn the U.S. into a libertarian utopia in a day (that is, give up on immediate drug legalization, even if I agree with the goal, understand that you can't just fire most of the Federal government, etc.) then I might rethink my position. But, not only is there no third party candidate that has a ghost of a chance, but there is none I would prefer over Bush. Again, that DOESN'T MEAN I LIKE BUSH.

I think the president's doing a lousy job. I think the country's on the "wrong track." So according to conventional wisdom, I should be voting for Kerry, right?

Rand, if this is true, then shouldn't we look for divided government? If one party controls the White House, Senate, House of Representatives and the Supreme Court they can run us off a cliff and there is no checks and balances.

Frankly, Kerry is far from ideal AND if I thought a Democratic Senate was a sure thing, I might be more willing to vote for Bush.

PS - Going in circles is better than off a cliff.

And, if the Dems ever regain power, all those Patriot Act tools Bush & Ashcroft say they need will be in the hands of Hillary Clinton.

You're in the minority, Rand. Poll internals say most people who are voting for Bush are doing so because they like him, and not because they have something against his opponent. On the other side, it's different. There is a substantial chunk of Kerry's support that is ABB.

I'm not sure why you said what you did with what sounded like an electronic sigh, though. Isn't politics always the choice of the lesser evil?

More importantly , how could there realistically ever be a choice that would make 60 million Americans of incredibly varying attitudes and background happy? As voters we can't agree on taxes, gay marriage, school vouchers, universal health care, three-strikes laws (here in California), the environment. . .and so on and so forth. If you go to a town or school board meeting, you'll see that even those few people there, who all live and work in the same community, can't regularly agree with each other.

I think if Americans routinely expect to get a Presidential candidate with logically consistent beliefs who also makes 60 million or more of us as happy as the first date with the wife or husband, then we're fooling ourselves. I think we should be delighted to find someone who is simply bearable, and be grateful we do not live in the many places where there is a good chance an election will produce a ruler who is unbearable, if not downright evil.

"...they can run us off a cliff and there is no checks and balances."

Except that one party has internal checks when it gets outraged at it's own (Trent Lott.) You have to agree that the other party would rather circle the wagons (too many examples to pick from.)

"...Patriot Act tools ... in the hands of Hillary Clinton."

The horror! How will I ever get back to sleep?

I'm not sure why you said what you did with what sounded like an electronic sigh, though. Isn't politics always the choice of the lesser evil?

You miss the point of my post. I'm not bemoaning the fact that the choice is lousy. I'm bemoaning the fact that the people who analyze this stuff are such simpletons, or think that we are.

And as for divided government, I agree. My general preference would be a Democrat president and Republican Congress. And if the Democrats would nominate a candidate who realizes that we are at war (e.g., Lieberman), I might vote for him/her. But there's too much of an anti-war, loony left element in the party for them to be able to do that. So for now, the Democrat Party cannot be trusted with power in any branch of government, IMO.

But will the Weirdo-American vote outnumber the Demented-American vote?

I'm voting for Badnarik too.