So it looks like I'll become a poll watching voter this fall

[Walt Starr]

If the polls show that Kerry actually has a shot at defeating Bush, I'll vote for Kerry because I despise Bush.

If the last set of polls show Kerry is consistently 5% or more behind Bush, I'll vote for the third party candidate who is polling best regardless of the party. This gives another party a shot at legitimacy.

If polled, I will say, "Undecided."

Edited to add: Just call me a Kerry five percenter.

[liberalnurse]

1. Undecided is the best I will do......

I hold onto my grounds and Kerry has violated the democratic base voter.

[trotsky]

2. I beg you to reconsider.

Remember the 2002 midterms. Polls showed in several races that the Democrat was ahead, yet the Republican ended up winning, sometimes by a large margin.

Poll manipulation can be done. BBV is still a huge question mark. Democrats, Kerry included, don't please me 100%, but it's not worth the risk to vote 3rd party.

[Walt Starr]

3. Nope, my vote will be 100% driven by the polls

Give me a ham sandwich to vote for and I may just decide to try the tuna.

[WilliamPitt]

4. *insert 'Beg Walt Starr' post here*

or not.

[Walt Starr]

5. No need to

If Kerry has no chance, why should I throw away my vote on him? My vote would then be more powerful as an instrument to help legitimize a third party.

Seriously, Will, if the Kerry campaign demonstrates it's doomed any way, why should I throw away my vote?

If the folks who are behind Kerry are right about him, then they've got my vote all sewn up.

[trotsky]

9. Polls can be wrong.

The old trite expression is completely true - the only poll that matters is the one on election day. The examples of Republicans being down in the polls and winning big on election day in 2002 could work the other way, too. "Dewey Defeats Truman" and all that.

I fully understand where you're coming from, and have voted 3rd party myself in the past. But this is just simply not the year to do it. The danger of another 4 years of * is too great.

[Walt Starr]

11. That's why I threw in that "consistently" word

Heck, if all of the polls show Kerry trailing Bush 5 - 7% right before the election, the writing is on the wall. If the spread is 3 - 6%, well, that's not consistently 5% or more behind, now is it?

[trotsky]

21. All I'm saying is...

this year is NOT worth the risk. We need absolutely every Democratic vote we can get. I don't care if the polls have Kerry 50 points behind, I will get my ass to the polling location and cast my vote because no way in hell can this country, or this world, survive another * term.

[Walt Starr]

25. Nahhhh, the polls are good enough to decide this stuff

Look at how the nominee is being chosen. Polls show Kerry is the one most people think is electable, so more people vote for Kerry.

I'm just extrapolating the model to the GE.

[liberalnurse]

36. This is typical arrogance of Kerry's camp.

I expected much more.....but I've been disappointed before.

[Walt Starr]

38. Don't worry, we Kerry Five Percenters can cope with it

We're here if the nominee needs our vote. If the candidate underperforms or overperforms, they don't need us any more and we can be thrown away. Five percent is nearly infinity in politics, though.

45, 55, or flee!

[SadEagle]

6. One huggeeeee warning.

In 2000, most polls had Gore loosing the popular vote. Please keep that in mind

[Walt Starr]

13. One VERY HUGE POINT!

The polls did not show Gore consistently 5% or more behind Bush in 2000 just before the election either.

[goodhue]

7. this makes sense only if you look to your state polls specifically!

If your state is possibly in play vote for democratic nominee, otherwise third party vote is no problem.

[Walt Starr]

14. I guarantee you, my state will go to the Democrat regardless.

I live in Illinois. Even if Kerry is behind Bush 10% nationally, he'll still win Illinois.

[goodhue]

42. okay then forget the polls

and vote your conscience, third-party or otherwise

[Walt Starr]

43. But then I'm denegrated around here

No need for that. It's just that I'm being 100% open about how the DNC and DLC feels about most voters. They only want us when they need us but when they no longer need us, they just want us to go away.

So in short, 45, 55, or flee.

[goodhue]

45. But if your in IL

they don't really need you in any event! So chin up and do what you like. Why note vote for your favored candidate in primary and write in your favored candidate in GE if not otherwise on ballot? Or vote for 3rd party, although I'm not certain whom you have in mind.

[Walt Starr]

51. Thanks, I've redefined this stance fairly narrowly now

If the nominee is polling 5% or more above or below Bush in my state, I go third party. Any tighter race than that in my state, and I figure the nominee may actually need my vote.

or,...

45, 55, or flee.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

8. Kerry was 30 points down in NH and we stuck with him

Winning comes from never quitting.

[Walt Starr]

15. Not the day before the election

I'll be following them all the way up to the election. My final decision will be made in the voting booth.

[Eloriel]

37. Kerry winning NH also depended on a lot of dirty tricks

But you can imagine it was the sheer force of Kerry's charisma and charm (or whatever) if you like. Fantasies are good.

[sandnsea]

10. We need fighters

If you're just going to sit around and watch polls and bitch, may as well concede now and save everyone the money and just concede to Bush.

[Walt Starr]

17. Sounds like you don't think Kerry can stay within 5% of Bush

As long as he does that, he has my vote sewn up.

[janx]

12. Yes. That sounds like a good idear to me. Let's just all watch TV

and see what the polls tell us to do. ;-)

[Walt Starr]

20. If it's good enough for choosing a nominee

it's good enough for choosing a president.

;)

[janx]

24. And if a candidate happens to find Joementum, or something

like that, then that's the winner; that's the candidate we should all vote for! We all want a winner.

[Walt Starr]

28. But not too much of a winner

I mean, if Kerry is polling 6% above Bush, no need to make it a blowout. We can safely vote third party then and maybe help legitimize a third party.

[janx]

33. No doubt! If the polls show somebody just barely skirting

the margin of error, he really wouldn't be much of a winner type. You're right about that.

[JVS]

22. TV is good

[Walt Starr]

40. I like TV

:D

[janx]

48. I watch it all the time! I like to be informed.

;-)

[LiberalBushFan]

16. You do realize that this logic is partly why Kerry's ahead now, right?

and why the decent candidates are 3rd or below?

[Walt Starr]

18. Precisely why I'm adopting this strategy

If it's good enough for choosing a nominee, it's good enough for deciding how to vote in the GE.

And it's a win win for me. If Kerry looks like he can defeat Bush, I vote to help him do that. If not, maybe I can help legitimize a third party for 2008.

[JVS]

19. May I suggest that if Kerry leads Bush greatly you also vote 3rd party.

There is no sense in wasting your vote on making the election a blowout.

[Walt Starr]

23. Good point!

If KErry is defeating Bush by 5% or more, I'll go third party too!

Thanks! This has become win-win-win now!

[JVS]

27. Glad I could help

[NewYorkerfromMass]

26. so much for "mandate"

:shrug:

[JVS]

29. Exactly. I don't want to give him a false mandate.

If I had my druthers I wouldn't have to vote for him at all, but this being a 2 party system .... blah blah blah. I must be able to vote strategically

[Walt Starr]

31. So are you going to join me in the Kerry Five Percenters?

Sounds like worthwhile strtegy to me. So long as it looks like he needs our vote, we give it to him but as soon as he starts underperforming or overperforming, we jump ship!

[JVS]

32. Yeah, it sounds great. 45-55 or flee!

[Walt Starr]

34. I like it!

We're Kerry Five Percenters; 45, 55, or flee!

[JVS]

35. But we can shelf this until after the primaries.

Hopefully we won't need to employ this strategy.

[Walt Starr]

39. It's a tough road to hoe

We're in an uphill battle...both ways...with the wind in our faces.

Regardless, the good Doctor has my vote come MArch 16th.

[Walt Starr]

Clinton had a mandate

and he didn't have more than 5% over Bush I.

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[eileen_d]

41. WWWSD?

[Walt Starr]

44. He would 45, 55, or flee.

:evilgrin:

[Nederland]

46. Good Plan

That's what I've done for years. Unless you live in a swing state, there is absolutely no reason to do anything other than vote your conscience.

[Walt Starr]

47. My plan works in swing states even better!

Only if you pay attention to state specific polls, but it's even more applicable to a swing state than other states. Since I live in Illinois, I could probably vote third party no matter what and it would make no difference whatsoever to the outcome.

[janx]

49. Right. If it makes no difference,

then WHY NOT? :smoke:

[Walt Starr]

50. I may. I'll probably apply my five percent formula to statewide polls

in Illinois. Kerry will in all likelihood be polling more than 5% above Bush in Illinois, which means he doesn't need my vote any more.