I just got polled for the presidential election

October 22, 2000 7:02 PM

I just got polled for the presidential election. . .and they didn't even mention Nader's name as a choice for president! I had to tell them 'I am voting for Ralph Nader." Ralph is pulling 6% in recent national polls. This really gets me steamed that they don't include his name in the %#@*!! polls.
posted by snakey (13 comments total)

Well maybe there's a reason they didn't include his name. Who did the polling? What was the specific question you were asked? Were you asked anything else? For example, a recent poll asked young adults "If the presidential election were only between George W. Bush and Ralph Nader, for whom would you vote?" Gore wasn't an option for them.
posted by gluechunk at 7:18 PM on October 22, 2000

I got polled today, too. At the movie theater.

Seems General Cinema is doing a "straw poll" (yuk, yuk) - you get to pick a Democratic or Republican straw. Both were emblazoned with the party's name on the wrapper, and votes (I guess) were being tallied.

My girlfriend was asked first... she wisely said, "I'll take independent!" :) We got plain white straw wrappers. Thankyouverymuch.
posted by hijinx at 7:35 PM on October 22, 2000

Snakey, could you do me a favor? Would you try and remember everything they asked you and how they worded it? No specific reason, I’m just interested.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 8:23 PM on October 22, 2000

First they asked about the candidates in the U.S. senate race, then they asked about the presidential election. In each case they asked, ' in this race do you plan to vote for [republican candidate's name] or [democratic candidate's name]?

I live in New Mexico -- a state with a relatively strong green party, and incidentally, a key battleground state in the election for president. Nader should have been included in that poll, man.
posted by snakey at 11:10 PM on October 22, 2000

Snakey, I sympathize, but you haven't told us who was doing the polling. Many polls are done for purely partisan purposes ("internal polls"). Others are done for local newspapers or TV stations. Then there are the "push polls" which are really campaigning: "Are you going to vote for war veteran and heart surgeon Smurf, or notorious gambler and womanizer Smeef?"

Most of the NATIONAL polling organizations like Gallup, Battleground, Zogby, do ask about the range of candidates. Local polls may have just been done by a local telemarketing company.
posted by dhartung at 9:30 AM on October 23, 2000

Have fun electing George Bush president. Think he will represent your views? How will you feel about your vote on November 8? What about Nader? Will he go back into hiding right after the election like he did last time? Will you see him helping to elect Greens in the mid-year elections for Congress? I doubt it.
posted by terrapin at 12:54 PM on October 23, 2000

I agree, skallas, and let's not forget that an Al Gore presidency will only serve to pull the wool over the electorate's eyes while the corporate handouts at the expense of the environment and consumer rights continue.

If you're cowardly enough to vote for Gore, look what you have to look forward to in this Lieberman guy! Do you really want him to be the 'liberal' choice 8 years from now on the Democratic ticket? Vote for a candidate who has consistently taken a stand against corporate power, not the one who has spent his entire political career grovelling at the feet of it.
posted by snakey at 2:02 PM on October 23, 2000

Sounds like that lasted about five minutes, Snake. (Are you the son of Pliskin?)

These polls set the media’s mood toward the candidates, in effect setting the nation’s mood. All in five minutes.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 2:54 PM on October 23, 2000

Actually Nader lives in my neighborhood, and I work down the street from Public Citizen. The 2 times I have spoken with him he looked like a deer in the headlights, and I am not that scary ;)

My point is that if any third party wants to make a difference then they should be working from the local level to get candidates elected and stop shooting for the presidency every 4 years. Nader should have been out trying to help the party get more recognition and to drum up votes for congressional candidates (state and federal).

Or maybe trying to help convince people to actually vote.

He is not being heroic by helping an idiot like Bush become president. And anyone who considers themself a liberal is not helping this country by getting Bush elected.

It will not serve as a wake up call to have Bush elected. because more is at stake here than 4 years of Bush. The Supreme Court appointments are far more important that how either candidate plans to spend or not spend the surplus.
posted by terrapin at 3:06 PM on October 23, 2000

Lest we forget that Bush and Gore agreed on every issue for the first 45 minutes of the second 'debate.'

I'm sorry if the well meaning progressives in here swallowed Mr. Gore's rhetoric about 'fighting for the people, not the powerful.' If Mr. Gore is for the people, why isn't he listening to us? When there are protests all over the country (and the world) Why does Mr. Gore still support our involvement in WTO, NAFTA and GATT? These trade agreements sacrifice our labor and environmental regulations for corporate profits!

Where are the progressives to defend Mr. Gore's dismal record on these issues? What are your excuses?
posted by snakey at 4:08 PM on October 23, 2000

Why did he push back the Kyoto treaty another eight years? Why did logging legislation pass without any safeties for national forests? He is not an environmental leader. He certainly understands the issues, and can talk intelligently about them, but he doesn’t care to actually protect the environment.

As has been repeated here, time and again terrapin, if Gore can’t trounce Bush in this election he has no business being President.

I’ve been thinking Nader is trying to torpedo Gore’s campaign. The Greens would look like true spoilers and get the attention they need.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 4:31 PM on October 23, 2000

I'm undecided in the sense that I'm trying to choose between Gore, who has been essentially co-opted, and Nader, who has high ideals but may not make the best president (remember Jimmy Carter?). I'm torn between wanting to "send a message" and remembering the long cold winter of "Reagan-Reagan-Bush". Twelve freaking years. Twelve Years man! If the race is close I'll probably cave and vote for Gore. Never before has it become so painfully obvious that there is essentially no difference between parties.
posted by mecran01 at 5:49 AM on October 24, 2000

And why wouldn't Nader make a great president? Look at all the great things he's done for this country already: Auto safety, clean air, clean water, and a million other things, t'boot. As president, Ralph Nader would wield considerably more power in Washington, and could do even more for the country.
posted by snakey at 9:02 AM on October 24, 2000