DU this MSNBC poll RE: delaying elections

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

Let them know what you think...

MSNBC POLL

[nickinSTL]

1. 86% no

86% say elections should never be canceled.

Good, but should be better.

[shoelace414]

2. Even Lincoln held elections while fighting the south.

[porphyrian]

3. 85% No

I doubt that's all from DUers...

[jean]

4. As Bev Harris just pointed on on AAR, elections weren't delayed

during the Civil War - why would we even consider doing this for a terrorist attack?

[amber dog democrat]

5. I did, thanks

So far 80% are opposed.

Here is what I added in the commentary;

Our democratic institutions are strong enough to survive terrorist attacks. Who will we be be giving this authority to make that call? I am suspicious of this idea. What checks are in place to prevent abuse?
While scare tactics are being used by the Bush Administration daily to justify our foreign policy, we must be brave enough to have faith in our institutions, and not allow them to be infringed.

[fofer]

6. Done n/t

[Mandate My Ass]

7. 86% NO

*

[Bluzmann57]

8. Most certainly told them what I think

The poll is 85% to not delay the elections and I added a personal note that if the election were delayed, the terrorists will have won. And that it seems awful strange that this gets brought up now, when bush is down in the polls.

[lovedems]

9. Done.

[Catholic Sensation]

10. who can honestly call themselves an American and vote yes

voting "yes" on something like this is exactly the "treason" we on the left get slandered with when we point out that Bush is an incompetent and Cheney is a criminal.

[skooooo]

13. kick 86% no

[MetaTrope]

11. Wow, from 1600 votes at that

But then, we're only The People, who cares what we think?

[Maeve]

12. If we delay them, the terrorists win!

They hate us for our freedoms, so we give our greatest freedom up??? :grr:

[kayell]

14. 14% think it's ok?!

Even for an internet poll that can in no way be called scientific, that is just bizzare.

[readmylips]

15. Bush/cheney want to cancel Nov. Elections....

sounds good to me. I want the headline on every newstand across the nation. I want the soundbite to carry through November. I want the DNC, all democrat pundits to be out there telling the world about bush wanting to cancel our elections....little bush trying to further make the USA the laughting stock of the world....little bush again working on stealing the elections....inviting terrorists through his Homeland crap to attack the US...little bush playing politics with the emotions of US citizens...using warmongering and fear to steal the elections...

No, we the American people will not Backdown.

[SammyWinstonJack]

16. Can you imagine if Clinton had tried to pull this crap?

That is the question that should be asked! :grr:

[gauguin57]

19. if Clinton were in office, we wouldn't be talking of this ...

... because he (and Al Gore, with his airline safety panel report) would very likely have been able to prevent (or lessen the severity) of Sept. 11. Particularly if he'd had more time to work on an (equitable to Palestinians) peace in the Middle East (which is one of Osama/al-Qaeda's big beefs with us).

[Trajan]

17. 87 % NO !

[gauguin57]

18. I don't like how the question was worded.

Now, if they asked if the election should be "cancelled," that would be more clear. Or if they took out the word "ever."

I'm just going to throw this out there ... please don't flame (I did vote NO). ...

What if several major urban centers (and let's say they're Democrat-heavy) were hit ON THE MORNING OF NOV. 2? What if the Bank of America Bldg. (or Golden Gate Bridge), the Empire State Building, the Capitol Building, the Sears Tower and some big oil company bldg in Texas were all hit ON THE MORNING OF NOV. 2?

Could there really be a fair election that day? Those major cities themselves could never hold elections with entire cities shut down. Plus, the rest of the country would hole up in their homes as they did on Sept. 11. Remember, they postponed the mayoral election for a short time in New York City, since they were supposed to vote on Sept. 11 and really couldn't.

Now, if the attack took place a week before that, sure, you could get it together to have an election. That would be clearly a NO.

What does everyone else think about a Nov. 2 attack scenario? Don't you think a delay of NO MORE THAN A WEEK OR TWO could work in that case?

[nodictators]

20. If there were multiple attacks, the People would speak with one voice

If there were multiple attacks across the nation, the People would know who was responsible for failing to protect our country, and would vote accordingly. It would be Democracy's finest hour.

Local provisions could be made for people who lived in the vicinity of the attacks to vote, perhaps by special absentee ballots.

OTOH, if we had a postponment law, the incumbents who again failed to protect us would remain in power, probably for as long as they chose.

I, for one, DO NOT want Bush to decide if and when elections would be held!

[gauguin57]

22. I'm not saying open-ended delay OR bush deciding.

How about Congress (supposedly the branch representing the people) deciding, and a postponement plan that calls for a delay of ABSOLUTELY NO MORE THAN TWO WEEKS if the attack occurs within 3 days (or whatever) of Nov. 2.

If the attack were Nov. 2, no way would people's first priority be to vote. No matter what special provisions you'd make. They would be trying to get home, trying to find relatives and friends they couldn't reach because all phone communications were down, etc. It would be the smallest presidential electoral turnout in HISTORY. And the right-wingers in the rural areas that hadn't been hit would decide the election. And you know who would win. It would probably be to the Bush Admin's ADVANTAGE to HOLD the election if there were a Nov. 2 attack on URBAN areas.

[Hubert Flottz]

21. 87% no!

The other 13% got a good tax cut!

[indepat]

23. 87% no. Simply amazing to get such numbers on so many individual

issues, but many polls show the race neck-to-neck. How can by far most of the people oppose so many individual initiatives, but still support the man and his overall policies? Must be all the intangibles he brings to the table, or is it outright lies, distortions, mis truths, and smoke and mirrors. How many of these supposed intangible would stand close scrutiny and evaluation?

[TexasSissy]

24. Done.

[WillyT]

25. Done And Kicked !!!

:kick: