Vote Now: 06880’s Wholly Unscientific But Very Interesting Poll

Tuesday is Connecticut presidential primary day. Our votes will not be as closely watched nationally as last week’s contest in New York (or even next Tuesday’s in Pennsylvania).

But they’re ours. And (unlike Florida) they do count.

ivotedstickerSince politics is such a fun game*, let’s really enjoy ourselves. Make your choice in the poll below. Let’s see how close — or far apart — “06880” readers are (p0litically speaking) from the rest of the state.

To make this as accurate as possible, please vote in our poll only if you are a registered Democrat or Republican in Connecticut — in other words, only those eligible to vote here on Tuesday. (Anyone can view the results, as often as you’d like.)

And of course, everyone is welcome to click on the “Comments” section below. It’s a free country — still. 🙂


33 responses to “Vote Now: 06880’s Wholly Unscientific But Very Interesting Poll

  1. Heather Anne Wilson

    Bernie Sanders

  2. Jeb, Marco, and Ben are still on the ballot…..just sayin!

  3. Susan Iseman

    Pat Paulsen!

  4. Mary (Cookman) Schmerker Staples 1958

    I’m no longer in Connecticut so this isn’t a vote for your poll. I did vote in the primary in Texas. In Texas our vote does count , we are not a winner take all state. Also, you do not need to be registered for a party to vote, although you can’t vote for more than one party. I voted as republican to vote against Trump! I chose Kasich. That will also tell you what, as a transplant to Texas, I think of Cruz! I’m counting on Connecticut to be sensible. Those who think Trump is a fiscal conservative are wrong. On top of that you can’t count on Trump to not change his mind. No lone really knows what his positions really are.

  5. Assume the 16% who voted for Trump in your poll are the stars in the majority of your LOOK HOW ENTITLED WE ARE PARKING PICS we so love to view…seriously, the man has no sensors — not even his 3 Wharton kids can make him shut up. Can you image what crap he will spew as President and what international chaos he will get us into? Isn’t everyone scared?

  6. I am sick of people calling Hillary Clinton a felon–and anonymously, too! I have yet to learn what is actually “great” about Trump–or how he will make America “great.”

  7. Edward Bloch

    On this blog we use our real names.

  8. As an Independent I get to vote for whomever the two parties in their great wisdom choose. Debates that talk about “no energy” and penis size are plain stupid as are debates that who has better judgement- US Senator vs Secretary of State.

    I want a debate that tells me clearly where each candidate stands on the issues that are important to me.

    1- on women’s rights versus right to life- for example- is abortion okay if your daughter was raped and is going to commit suicide if she can’t get rid of the pregnancy- a tough one to start with!!

    2- Where does each candidate stand on gun issues- for example- does a person on the no fly or terrorist list get to buy a gun and how big a gun and how big a magazine clip do you need to protect your home or go hunting? And is the NRA good or bad for America and why.

    3- What will you do about education to make it more affordable?

    4 What will you do to guarantee health benefits to all americans, to get drug costs under control, and to make it affordable to get sick and die without bankrupting a family?

    5- What will you do to make sure that even the superrich pay at least as much taxes ( absolute amount and percentage) as the regular working class.

    6- And where do you stand on immigration reform. Should we have a police force dedicated to rounding up illegals who have chldren here and have worked here for decades earning a living and being good neighbors. Should we close our borders to “bad immigrants” or do we give them a chance at the American dream?

    These are simple questions that should be answered simply. No Anger. No sidestepping. Just fill in the bubble test so we can grade where we think you stand.

    I am tired of hearing that Hilary is a crook, that Bernie is a socialist, that Donald is a businessman who will make America great again, that Ted is the only true conservative- that is all just baloney –

    All candidates are flawed- they want to be in charge of everyone else- but what are you proposing to do about the issues that I care about!?

    • jack whittle

      As an independent you do not get to vote in the primaries – and that is clearly what this particular post of Dan’s, and this vote, is about. Voting in primaries is one of the biggest reasons people register with a party. As an independent you get to proclaim your allegiance to neither party, but aside from that it removes you from part of the process.

      • Nancy Hunter Wilson

        He’s not referring to the primaries, rather the general election.

      • Susan Iseman

        You can affiliate right beforehand in order to vote in the primary if you wish. Then you can change back to Independent.

    • Ilene Mirkine

      Can we get a televised debate set up with these being the questions of the candidates? And cut them off if they avoid answering the questions? It would certainly help a lot of us, and the network might just get some good ratings as well!

    • Jerry MacDaid

      Steve – Interestingly enough, there are a large number of things you and I agree on, however, from the phrasing of your questions, it seems you are less interested in a debate on the merits of any given issue but more on the candidates confirming (or not) that they agree with your position.

      For example, on the abortion question, it would seem to me the right question is “What are your views on abortion? If in favor, what are the limits, if any? If not, are there any exceptions you might consider reasonable and why?” As phrased, it’s a “gotcha” question that could be flipped the other way (e.g. So why do you support unfettered access to abortion including being able to abort a child in the middle of labor when it would be homicide 15 minutes later after the child is through the birth canal?) rather than something that would elicit thoughtful discussion.

      As for the NRA half of your second question, perhaps the better question is “How do you feel about advocacy groups that don’t happen to share the views of the entire population? For example, groups like NRA, Greenpeace, ACLU, ADL, Sierra Club, NOW, NAACP, AARP, UAW, NRL, BLM? What are your views on any limits to the First Amendment and why?”

      On the education and healthcare questions, you might add quality and how they would actually intend to pay for whatever it is they are proposing as well as how would they prioritize increased spending on those activities versus, say, social security, national defense, science, the arts, the environment, etc. You might couple that with your question on immigration to include how they would propose to pay for all of the above in the context of unrestricted immigration and the resultant cost for providing these services and support to potentially tens of millions of new immigrants, most of whom will face limited near term employment opportunity?

      On the taxation question, perhaps you should ask “Why are you telling me that ‘the rich’ pay lower absolute taxes and have lower tax rates when the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of the actual data shows otherwise?”

      And maybe “Why does, relatively speaking, the US tax system encourage foreign companies to acquire US companies while discouraging US companies from acquiring foreign companies? For example, BP could buy Exxon and only pay US taxes on their earnings from the US but if Exxon bought BP, they would be subject to US taxation on the global earnings of the combined companies? Doesn’t that put US companies at a relative disadvantage, particularly with respect to competitiveness of exports, further putting pressure on US manufacturing jobs?”

      Oops, on the taxation thing, Imdid the same thing you did. The better question from both of us is, “What are your views on taxation and why?” or “How much should we ask everyone to pay for whatever society we chose to try to support and is that really possible?”

      My despair for this country is that we have dumbed down the political discourse to sound bites and clever one liners and shifted to politics of divisiveness rather than having thoughtful discussions on the society we would like to have, how we would pay for what we would like, and, if we can’t afford it, what trade-offs do we want or need to make.

      • Jerry- I agree with you that open non judgemental questions are great. But the candidates avoid giving straight answers to general questions and we get stuff that are soundbites.

        Most candidates can’t avoid giving out their position when confronted with a question they must agree or disagree with! You can always get more specific once you get an answer that means something.

        Just my thought-

        • Jerry MacDaid

          Maybe, but I would think the point is to actually try to get them beyond sound bites that pander to their base to discussion of what, as a practical matter, they intend to do and how they will deliver it.

  9. Dan, you need to offer “None of the above” as a choice. It’s the most likely winner, and my be in November. If the nominees boil down to a felon against an ignoramus, plenty of folks will stay home.

    • In a general election I would and could vote for half of the candidates based on their positions! But as an independent I can’t honestly vote in Dan’s primary.

      So- Could you clarify your statement- “a felon against an ignoramus!”

      None of the four are stupid or a felon as far as most of us know- some on both sides may hope that but so far just conjecture.

      Ted is just not a nice person- his Republican Senate colleagues are testimony to that. But his positions are his positions.

      Donald has gotten away with some pretty shady stuff in his business dealings and a con artist at heart but I think he is mostly an opportunist who will say anything to get what he wants- I guess just a shady businessman at heart. But his positions and demeanor change with the season and the state.

      Hilary so far hasn’t done anything either in Benghazi or on her private email server that was illegal, immoral or indictable- and I wouldn’t hold my breath of that. She yells a lot but her positions are her position and have been for a long time.

      Bernie has a good heart and good plans for most Americans but it is going to come at the expense of higher taxes on the richest among us. A job killer??

      Personalities aside for just a second- it still boils done to where do they stand on the issues and what does that mean to me, my family and our country. If you include personality in the equation this is an easy decision for most Americans who just look at the issues.

      Dan it is all your fault- next time let the Independents vote!!

      • Sure. Trump and Clinton have very high negatives for very good reasons. They have in common a rank opportunism, a lack of any philosophical grounding beyond their own gargantuan self-esteem, a tendency to authoritarianism, and a tenuous relationship with the truth. Clinton, at least, seems willing to work a full day.

        The felon I refer to is Hillary. I’m afraid I disagree with some of your conclusions. Benghazi was a series of horrible decisions followed by a politically motivated coverup. Not criminal, just bad decision-making and low character, thus immoral (the coverup, not the poor decision-making), if not indictable or illegal. But the private e-mail server is felonious. The law requires State Department employees to use the Department’s e-mail, and prohibits the use of private or public e-mail for Department business. Hillary willfully and knowingly violated this law. Further, the law prohibits the communication of classified information by non-secure methods, and she knowingly and willfully violated this as well. Aside from the felonious conduct, there is no plausible reason for this behaviour other than a desire to escape scrutiny, which has to lead any thinking person to wonder what she wanted to hide.

        The ignoramus I speak of is Trump. He has no commitment to any philosophy other than his own centrality, and his views, to the extent they are discernible, are somewhere between intellectually inconsistent and intellectually incoherent. His behaviour is crass, condescending, and egotistical even by the standards of politicians. He punctuates his speeches with gratuitous insults and may use the first person more than even Barack Obama. He is incapable of thinking about himself without superlative adjectives. He can’t think beyond the next sound bite, shifts with the tide, and has no understanding of the Constitution or our history. The thing he does quite well is the primary thing that has propelled his career: he takes advantage of free media, and beats them at their own game. That’s shrewd and not stupid, but very limited, and he’s still an ignorant boor.

        I didn’t refer to any of the others, but since you did: Sanders at least has a consistent philosophy, but it evinces the economic understanding of a toddler. His popularity is evidence of Hillary’s flaws and bad odor with the electorate, and of the frustration on the left with the offerings of their party and the current state of the economy. Cruz is the smartest of the bunch, the only one with an intellectually consistent philosophy that’s also coherent. His lack of an appealing personality is not per se disqualifying, but the ease with which he veers to insult and the evidence of low political tricks, while not uncommon, is offputting at best,and raises character questions. Kasich, whom you did not mention, is a windsock, an opportunist trying to convince conservatives that he is one of them while trying to convince the media and others that he is a moderate. He apparently is unaware of the ability of the internet to undercut the 19th/20th century practice of being one thing in in front of one audience and something else in front of another in the hopes that neither will find out.

        Neither party is acquitting itself very well this year. Both ought to be able to do better.

        • In an ideal world, Iain, who would be your top candidates, from both the Democratic and Republican parties?

        • Nancy Hunter Wilson

          One can only guess that your ideal meal, in an ideal world, would have to include a Cruzite platter followed by a well done Trump steak, with a side of noodle Kasich, asparagus Bernieaise, and finished off with a Hillary flambe. Yum!

          • Jerry MacDaid

            Did you actually read what Iain wrote? What is it with your pathological need to make inane comments in the middle of serious discussion?

            • Nancy Hunter Wilson

              Yes. I read every word. Have some fun during these trying times.
              Isn’t that the reason for this post?

        • Nancy Hunter Wilson

          Today’s NYT Magazine has an interesting article: ‘H is for Hawk’.
          Interpret it as you will.

  10. Nancy Hunter Wilson

    What? No Marijuana Party?

  11. Bobbie Herman


  12. Peter Gambaccini

    We need a sane sober electoral system like the UK has

    • Nancy Hunter Wilson

      Spot on!! Reminds us of CNN’s pundits and, of course, “The Magic Wall”!