How do you vote on Presidential Survivor?

[MaC]

there's too much bickering inside the game.  I'd be fine if A18 didn't make a comment after every vote, not that he's the only one who throws mud or complains at people for voting.  I want to understand what motives people have for voting.  I'm starting this thread so hopefully people can talk and complain and not tie up the voting rounds with side comments.

[Citizen James]

Well, mostly it's a combination of which of the presidents I like least, coupled with which ones are snowballing, and a dash of partisanship thrown in for good measure.

3 of my 5 favorites are still on the island, and it will be interesting to see what happens when it starts comming down between them.

[ATFFL]

I usually vote late.  This lets me se ehow things have gone and vote accordingly.

Every now and then I push for a nice partisan fight, because they are fun.  Yes, FDR went off before he really should have, but that was a fun round. 

[dazzleman]

My initial strategy was to vote off the most inconsequential presidents first, and leave the more modern presidents alone.  My only early exception to this was Carter, who was singularly bad.

I hoped to have a battle of the titans near the end.  I also wanted first to vote off presidents for whom we had historical perspective, and save until the end those for whom we did not have historical perspective yet (Bush, Clinton).  That is why I had no inclination to go after Clinton despite my general distaste for him.

The only reason I changed my strategy, and started voting for some of the bigger fish like FDR (whom I like in many ways), LBJ and even Clinton was because certain Democrats started early on a myopic and blindly partisan quest to get rid of George W. Bush at all costs.  They did get him off, but paid a heavy price -- LBJ, FDR and ultimately Clinton, all of whom would have survived a lot longer, and one of whom may have won, had they not been so hellbent on removing Bush.  It's funny how much the game mirrors real life.

With the Democrats on the attack, my strategy shifted to figuring out a president around which to coalesce in order to defend the president they were attacking.  I know it would have come to that sooner or later, but I think it was a mistake to introduce ugly myopic partisanship over historical perspective so early in the game.

[Schmitz in 1972]

Usually my votes are a "save ____" vote. If it looks like a president I like might get voted out (which happens quite frequently ) I just wait a few hours and then vote for the president who has the best chance of winning other than the one I don't want voted out.

If one president is dominating the vote, or if the leaders are inconsequential to me, I usually vote for Lincoln or Clinton because I really don't like them

[DanimalBr]

My votes completly varied from round to round.  At the start of the game, I wanted to ax all the dead wood out.   But as the Democrats started to go after George W. Bush, my votes started to whatever I could to save Bush.   I'm still kicking myself about round 19.   I voted early and voted for Taft because I was trying to get a bandwagon going to get Taft voted off the island.  If I would have waited a little while and see how the round developed, I would have voted for Clinton.   Bush lost that round by one vote with Peter Bell casting the clincher with only a minute left, and if I would have just waited to see how it all played out, I might have been able to cast the vote that would have saved Bush.   But oh well.   

I agree that FDR did go out earlier than what he probably should have.  But my whole purpose in voting out FDR was because if he would have made it till the later rounds of the game, I do believe he would have won.   That's why I didn't target Clinton in the early rounds.   I didn't really think he was a threat to win the game, but FDR most certainly was.   

It's much like real Survivor.   In all the Survivor Series, the lazy, do nothings get voted off first, like how Fillmore, Tyler, Harrison, Buchanan, Grant and such went in the first 10 rounds.   But when you get toward the middle of the game, people who are thought to be threats to win are the ones that are targeted next, like FDR.   So basically the really terrible ones are taken out first, then the really good ones are taken out next which usually leaves you with a bunch of people in the middle at the end.    Which is kind of how this game has progressed.   

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

My initial strategy was to vote off the most inconsequential presidents first, and leave the more modern presidents alone.  My only early exception to this was Carter, who was singularly bad.

I hoped to have a battle of the titans near the end.  I also wanted first to vote off presidents for whom we had historical perspective, and save until the end those for whom we did not have historical perspective yet (Bush, Clinton).  That is why I had no inclination to go after Clinton despite my general distaste for him.

The only reason I changed my strategy, and started voting for some of the bigger fish like FDR (whom I like in many ways), LBJ and even Clinton was because certain Democrats started early on a myopic and blindly partisan quest to get rid of George W. Bush at all costs.  They did get him off, but paid a heavy price -- LBJ, FDR and ultimately Clinton, all of whom would have survived a lot longer, and one of whom may have won, had they not been so hellbent on removing Bush.  It's funny how much the game mirrors real life.

With the Democrats on the attack, my strategy shifted to figuring out a president around which to coalesce in order to defend the president they were attacking.  I know it would have come to that sooner or later, but I think it was a mistake to introduce ugly myopic partisanship over historical perspective so early in the game.

Typical Republicans, blame everything on the Democrats.

[dazzleman]

My initial strategy was to vote off the most inconsequential presidents first, and leave the more modern presidents alone.  My only early exception to this was Carter, who was singularly bad.

I hoped to have a battle of the titans near the end.  I also wanted first to vote off presidents for whom we had historical perspective, and save until the end those for whom we did not have historical perspective yet (Bush, Clinton).  That is why I had no inclination to go after Clinton despite my general distaste for him.

The only reason I changed my strategy, and started voting for some of the bigger fish like FDR (whom I like in many ways), LBJ and even Clinton was because certain Democrats started early on a myopic and blindly partisan quest to get rid of George W. Bush at all costs.  They did get him off, but paid a heavy price -- LBJ, FDR and ultimately Clinton, all of whom would have survived a lot longer, and one of whom may have won, had they not been so hellbent on removing Bush.  It's funny how much the game mirrors real life.

With the Democrats on the attack, my strategy shifted to figuring out a president around which to coalesce in order to defend the president they were attacking.  I know it would have come to that sooner or later, but I think it was a mistake to introduce ugly myopic partisanship over historical perspective so early in the game.

Typical Republicans, blame everything on the Democrats.

But the Democrats are to blame for everything that goes wrong in the world...