Fool Poll: Which Candidate Did You Vote For?

• Report this Comment On November 04, 2008, at 12:59 PM, mhoemann wrote:

  Finally, a poll that LISTS the guy I'm voting for. (Bob Barr, for what it's worth)

• Report this Comment On November 04, 2008, at 2:28 PM, leaderbean wrote:

  I find it kind of insulting to lump Bob Barr in with that nutcase Nader.

• Report this Comment On November 04, 2008, at 2:31 PM, toddum wrote:

  It scares me that people can be undecided at this point.

• Report this Comment On November 04, 2008, at 4:54 PM, RHaganC wrote:

  I voted for the only person I would want to be the Commander in Chief; McCain.

  I am not really a huge fan of either. I believe they both said what they think stupid voters want to hear rather than actually wanting to do any lasting good for the country.

  I just believe that Obama would crap on the Military every chance he got just like Clinton, while McCain can't have gone through what he did and not give a damn about the troops.

  Financially, Which is what I'm here at the fool for - I am for McCain. Obama just emits the stench of socialism. McCain, however, I could see him get roped into doing what the masses want, rather than what they need. Republicans passed Sarbanes-Oxley, wow - - what a bunch of crap that is. I could see McCain supporting the same garbage regretfully.

• Report this Comment On November 04, 2008, at 4:58 PM, anewbieinvestor wrote:

  Voted for McCain. Not a fan of either but raising taxes isn't the answer, reducing spending is.

• Report this Comment On November 04, 2008, at 5:30 PM, maur911 wrote:

  the independent voters are giving the election to Obama!

  Get ready for the Socalist Democratic Party to tax you to death!

• Report this Comment On November 04, 2008, at 6:19 PM, dadyer wrote:

  I have perused the community boards for the past twelve or thirteen years here at The Motley Fool. I am always amazed at the number of "investors" here seeking to maximize their wealth who don't seem to grasp the most basic of economic and free market concepts that underlie true wealth creation.

  It is my opinion that this poll is just another striking example of that! At the time I am writing this Obama is leading McCain 732 to 684 votes.

  I believe a majority of voters in this poll claiming they support Obama and the socialist policies he is sure to implement is a testament to that ignorance of basic economic principles.

  Perhaps it is time the Gardners start featuring a lot more articles related to the basic concepts of economics and how they ultimately determine what happens in the markets.

• Report this Comment On November 04, 2008, at 6:41 PM, chali2na wrote:

  Bob Barr as Ron Paul was unavailable. Let's get back to the constitution and stop wasteful gov't spending.

• Report this Comment On November 04, 2008, at 7:52 PM, SailsFroya wrote:

  Personally, I've always leaned heavily towards the Republican Party. That hasn’t changed. I believe the Democratic Party generally puts more personal legislation in place and seeks too much control over individual’s daily lives. I am for smaller, less intrusive government. But, let’s put all that aside for the moment . . ..

  What is astounding to me, and I would hope the rest of the world takes notice, is that come tomorrow the citizens of our nation will have been heard, and they will have changed the governing powers of our entire country without having fired a single shot (I hope). In order for this to happen, our form of government doesn’t require a revolution. It is truly amazing to watch — those who have been elected will soon enter their offices and those who have not will withdraw — at least until the next election. Then life will go on. . ..

  I expect that all those running for office, regardless of party affiliation, truly believe they have the “better plan.” We are willing, as a nation, to give those elected opportunity to bring it to fruition.

  What’a Country!

• Report this Comment On November 04, 2008, at 7:58 PM, 1medfran wrote:

  Ron Paul told us what we had to do. Sadly, the ordained candidates are offering more free money so one of them will win. Um, excuse me, but isn't that how we got IN to this quagmire? Now we will all suffer for years, nee decades. We only have two choices now. Will it be "tax and spend" dems or "borrow and spend" repubs? To butcher Will Rogers... anyone who has what it takes to get elected should be immediately disqualified.

• Report this Comment On November 04, 2008, at 10:55 PM, dodadn6 wrote:

  There are so many more learned and intelligent individuals on this site than any of the other alleged "shows" that pass themselves off as the news.

  PLEASE, please....... I beg you...... please tell me how so many individuals have made the choice they have for our supposedly "representative" governing body when none of the elected apparently really represent the values we all stand for or the direction in which we desire to strive for financially?

• Report this Comment On November 04, 2008, at 11:45 PM, ToucanTom wrote:

  Because I'm a proponent of limited government, I usually vote Republican, and I've done it again this time. Admittedly, they often honor that principle in the breach, but the Democrats rarely honor it at all. There's hardly a human discontent but Democrats feel they can remedy it with another alphabet program.

  Interestingly, the United States has enjoyed some of its best political times under divided government -- Congress in the hands of one party, the White House in another. Could it be that divided government checks the excesses of each and forces them to focus on essentials?

  Third parties can nudge the major parties on some issues but I don't see any of them rising to dominance any time soon.

  It's important for voters, and for people generally, to understand basic economics, as dadyer mentions above. I would favor the Motley Fool including short essays and recommendations in that regard, but I would not favor the Fool politicizing the topic. One of my strongest feelings about the priniciple of limited government is that there is not a political solution to everything. Politics need not pervade every aspect of life. The greed for power that politicians and their acolytes exhibit can be much worse than the greed for money everyone seems so fond of denouncing.

• Report this Comment On November 04, 2008, at 11:51 PM, LeTourEiffel wrote:

  I wrote in Ron Paul

• Report this Comment On November 05, 2008, at 1:30 AM, asthmadr wrote:

  dodadn6,

  Many of those who voted for Obama are not people who understand economics, business, or objectivity. They are like the University of Texas professor who said that if Obama won, she was going to go the place in Austin where Obama spoke with a wooden bowl and spoon and some finger cymbals and dance and make music. I have always said that a person of wealth who was a Democrat is very likely to have a financial interest in Democrats being elected, via awarding of contracts, etc.

  There is youtube video that I just received where a woman at an Obama rally said, "Now I don't have to worry about making my car payment or paying my mortgage." Really? Did Obama promise her that he would pay her mortgage and car payment? Wouldn't surprise me a bit. And where is Obama going to get the money to do that? You and me. There are too many people, most of who voted for Obama, who think they are "owed" by working society. They now see that they can what they and Obama think they are owed. Do you know how to pronounce "reparations?"

• Report this Comment On November 05, 2008, at 2:25 AM, BTerry777 wrote:

  asthmadr,

  What about that "person of wealth who is a Democrat" - Warren Buffett? Do you really think his intrest lies in rewards of contracts?

  And regarding your other comment ---

  "There are too many people, most of who voted for Obama, who think they are "owed" by working society" ---

  Are you serious???? The 'working society' funded Obama's campaign.

• Report this Comment On November 05, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Broken196 wrote:

  For those who keep saying Dems put too much personal legislation in place to control our daily lives. Two words. Patriot Act. Reduced spending and higher taxes for the wealthy is the way to go. I'm not a socialist but I think there are far too many Americans with excess wealth. Too much of people's personal financial concerns are about creating their own legacy. Give it back. Think about the larger picture in life, not your personal greed.

• Report this Comment On November 05, 2008, at 9:48 AM, MrArbitrage wrote:

  For conservatives who may be around, here's some comic relief. This is a great video made by my friend Ted in Pittsburgh.

  He's a talented musician. He put together a heavy metal song called "Ridin' Dirty sung by his new lead singer, the "Reverend Jeremiah Wright"

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oROoivlCn8

  It really gets good at about 3 min and 30 seconds.

• Report this Comment On November 05, 2008, at 10:39 AM, cjb44 wrote:

  It was tough choice, we had two terrible choices but I had to go with McCain/Palin mainly because I felt gridlock is better than Obama/Reid/Pelosi having a blank check and dropping us into even a worse economy.

  Nobody talked about how great the economy was before Democrats took over Congress. Now with Democrats controlling everything, I'll need to double my efforts to avoid the massive tax increases and regulations. Or I can just raise my prices to my clients who will raise their prices. Tax increases will trickle down to the common man.

• Report this Comment On November 05, 2008, at 12:21 PM, allisonwil wrote:

  "...the Democratic Party generally puts more personal legislation in place and seeks too much control over individual’s daily lives." I find it hard to understand people who make statements like this -- under Bush the Republican Party has done plenty to control our daily lives -- the so-called Patriot Act, restrictive rules for plane travellers (if being told to take off my shoes in order to fly on a plane isn't controlling, then what is?), lying about the reasons we went to war in Iraq, and more. Republicans also want to legislate control over the most personal and intimate areas of individual rights -- who can or can't get married and whether a woman can make decisions about her own body. How is that being less intrusive into the private lives of Americans?

  People need to relax -- Obama is not a socialist any more than he is a secret radical Muslim. We will likely find that, like Bill Clinton, Obama will move more toward the center as he works with Democrats and Republicans to heal our country and solve the problems brought on by 8 years of Bush and Cheney.

• Report this Comment On November 05, 2008, at 12:46 PM, chrisjrogers wrote:

  Obama's wants to tax companies that make over $250k per year. Do you work for a company that makes more than $250k per year?

  When that happens, the employer will respond by letting a few employees go, who, ironically, probably pulled the lever for Obama.

• Report this Comment On November 05, 2008, at 4:22 PM, ease1 wrote:

  I love this comment from Broken196:

  "I'm not a socialist but I think there are far too many Americans with excess wealth. Too much of people's personal financial concerns are about creating their own legacy.

  - Humm, working hard, innovating, investing, you know the things that people do to pull themselves up from the boot straps and succeed is attributed to personal greed?

  "Give it back. Think about the larger picture in life, not your personal greed."

  Give it back - gee if that's not socialism then what is? Yea, that's it, I'll give it back so that those who don't innovate, who don't work, who care less of pulling themselves out of the slum with which they drift can receive their government support.

  Higher taxes for the wealthy hum? What happens when the non-wealthy become the wealthy after the redistribution? Do they then vote to not tax the wealthy?

• Report this Comment On November 05, 2008, at 5:25 PM, bighead89 wrote:

  "Obama's wants to tax companies that make over $250k per year. Do you work for a company that makes more than $250k per year?

  When that happens, the employer will respond by letting a few employees go, who, ironically, probably pulled the lever for Obama."

  Think that was for companies making a profit of $250k per year. In that case, its to get companies to hire more people or spend more. Any company with $250k sitting in the bank at the end of the year ought to be taxed.

• Report this Comment On November 06, 2008, at 6:38 AM, wwt17 wrote:

  blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah!

• Report this Comment On November 06, 2008, at 7:05 AM, BoSpelman wrote:

  I had to vote my conscience and voted for the Constitution Party. As a proud American I support my new president. I am so happy for my African-American friends and for what this victory represents but I just wish it came through someone more like Colin Powell (who I could have voted for). Did anyone stop to think about the fact that Obama has only spent about 25 years living in the continental US? That his growing up years were spent in Hawaii, arguably the most liberal state in America, and in Indonesia? That his father and step-father, formidable influences on any young boy, grew up without any American influences or the foundation of Judeo-Christian ethics? That concerns me. But I pray for my new president. I pray that partisan divide would shrink. I pray that racial divide would shrink. I pray that love for fellow man would expand. And, of course, I trust that our economy will grow and expand!

• Report this Comment On November 06, 2008, at 3:49 PM, temp2290 wrote:

  Limited government? Are you people kidding me? Republicans seem to want anything BUT limited government, if the last 8 years have been any indication. What about the wire tappings, torture, limited social mobility due to a "trickle down" system that just_doesn't_work, and limitations on what we can put in our bodies (granted, this has been put in place by both sides of the aisle, but is hammered down by conservatives)?? You have to understand that the current Republican party is VASTLY different than what it means to be a true conservative. The nation has spoken...

• Report this Comment On November 07, 2008, at 3:11 PM, jbarnes1217 wrote:

  Thank you mailinator!! Finally, after reading all of the above, your comments are to the point and make the most sense!

• Report this Comment On November 07, 2008, at 9:13 PM, EBJG wrote:

  I voted for John McCain, whom I have known since he was a naval aviator in training- bright, charming, engaging. Ignore that low class ranking in the Naval Academy - as a young man he rebelled at the expectations of a military career simply because his father and grandfather were admirals (he told me this personally), so he did not work too hard at the Academy. Obviously, years in a Viet Nam prison matured and changed him. The citizens of the US had a great opportunity to elect a mature, knowledgeable, dedicated public servant to lead us through these troubled times, and what do they do? 54% voted for a slick talking, silver-tongued snake oil salesman who has never done anything politically worthwhile, knows next to nothing about foreign affairs, and promises everyone the moon. Someone said (I forget who it was) that the US citizens deserve the government they get. Time will tell how this works out.-

• Report this Comment On November 07, 2008, at 9:43 PM, juanbaker wrote:

  The best man won.

• Report this Comment On November 08, 2008, at 12:55 PM, NoRebound wrote:

  The country is in the toilet. All of the deregulation foisted upon us by Reagan, Gingrich, et al has failed miserably and left the country and the economy in its worst shape in nearly a century. There is great cause for alarm because our way of life is more threatened than most believe.

  I voted for Obama because I didn't think McCain realized just how despirate the situation is. Further I believe that McCain had surrounded himself with people who either believed that the situation willl magically fix itself (it won't) or that a continuation of the present policies will enrich them in the short run. Neither is a viable soultion and thus neither was McCain.

  Time will tell if we just did the right thing or not.

• Report this Comment On November 08, 2008, at 2:53 PM, faithsloan wrote:

  hmmm. I am well-versed in economics. I am an independent direct investor. I hold multiple university degrees -- one in quantitative methods and an M.S. in Systems Management; I have worked in senior management; I have successfully founded one of the first corporate intranet companies; co-founded an internet startup in 1999 which is profitable; and working on a stealth start-up now; I am a mother and grandmother who just happen to be brown-skinned.

  In terms of the government staying out of our personal lives... There are those who are anti-social programs and anti-affirmative action programs. The truth is that they are against the same for the poor, impoverished, and disadvantaged. But they are either mis-informed that affirmative action is not only race or income based. There are affirmative action points applied to sons and daughters of veterans, university deans family members, etc. But of course, many of those are never taken into consideration when a ban is called for the same.

  A bigger drain on the funds we 'donate' to the government every year is corporate welfare, my friend. I wish someone would pay me to clean up a mess that I've made and also give me awesome tax write-offs for the same.

  Government butting into our personal lives? Here is one I find rather hilarious yet sad. Laws on the books against sodomy when are only applied to homosexual men when convenient. I'm not telling but there are many heterosexual couples indulging in the same. Do I care? Not one bit.

  I am so over laws affecting how parents can discipline their children. My mother spanked and whipped all of my siblings when we went astray and we are all okay. There is a difference between disciplining and gross negligence and sexual abuse but they have been lumped into the same category out of government laziness and/or inability to distinguish one from the other. Today a man cannot hold his daughter's hand and kiss her in public without some 'concerned' citizen contacting authorities for supposedly inappropriate conduct.

  Are the above intrusive govt intrusions restricted to the Democratic Party? Truly you jest!

  On the other hand, if a fellow American needs a hand up, if would be nirvana if we as the people would lend a hand or two. Of course, in these economic times, it is rather difficult. What the heck is wrong with social programs and charity? Oh, I forgot, taking the people's social security contributions, spending trillion dollars on so-called defense and supporting Haliburton and his cronies receive huge govt contracts overseas is where my tax dollars should go. Makes a lot of sense, eh?

  Finally, Barack's supporters are very varied. Hasty generalizations are just that -- hasty and unfounded.

  I voted for President-elect Barack Obama. What will he be successful at doing? Neither you nor I now the political pundits know 'jack'! Why not give him a chance. After all he is an American, right?

  Now that I am finished rambling ...

  God Bless

  Faith

  http://faithsloan.com

• Report this Comment On November 09, 2008, at 3:43 PM, jmsmcdaniel wrote:

  Why is it that the majority of the crap here is about how 'unthinking' Obama supporters are? There are examples of all sides' supporters making stupid, poorly thought out and irrational statements.

• Report this Comment On November 09, 2008, at 11:11 PM, sidizen wrote:

  After reading all of this bickering and finger pointing, most of it entrenched in political spin, I don't think I will be taking financial advice from any of you fools.

• Report this Comment On November 10, 2008, at 3:50 AM, j1v23t wrote:

  I voted for Obama - for redirection. We need values emphasizing worth over wealth, achievement over prestige and responsibility over riches. Those are key to middle-class survival.

  I fear a society of stratified centralized wealth closed to most citizens. I deplore welfare entitlement - corporate, agricultural and poverty welfare - and national and personal values created by advertising and a congress for bid. We must stop using assets to support failed, harmful and obsolete methods and structures.

  Fifty years ago Eisenhower warned an entrenched military-industrial complex was our government's greatest future threat. We need to prune - selectively - and remove it from policymaking.

  We need focus the future, not the past, and we need to redefine access to societal building blocks for that future like competition, education, health care and the healthy elderly.

  Obama is at best a voice, conciliator and tone-setter, but in a BRIC world he could be a first step to having a future.

• Report this Comment On November 10, 2008, at 6:55 PM, jrj90620 wrote:

  Pretty scary when the majority,over 90%,chose a big govt facist candidate.Avoid U.S. Dollar and buy real assets like gold and other commodites.

Add your comment.