2008 Election Poll

[Governor PiT]

Chesney Friedman! or Chesney wooldridge!

[Governor PiT]

[Wyatt Chesney]

It would be an honor to run with Kinky Friedman. I have seriously considered registering in Texas to vote for the man.

[Clay]

Jean-Luc Picard

[© Tweed the Younger]

Clinton

[adam]

Wow, that's actually hard. It would break my heart to vote against a ticket with Kinky on it...but it would break my bank account if Hillary got elected. Honestly, if that election scenario was to become reality (presumming that Kinky would side with a virtual nobody) - I highly doubt Clinton would be able to compete meaning that I could vote for Kinky and not worry about spoilers.

[kashifsakhan]

clinton

[Max]

clinton

[MasterJedi]

Giuliani/Allen

[Governor PiT]

Clinton is in the lead. Do you think she would win with this match-up? I think Rudy would still beat her. At least its good to see Wyatt getting so many votes, for an unknown candidate.

[adam]

Rudy would beat Clinton quite soundly. In the polls Giuliani lead her by 5 points in and in California trails by only a few in California. You can rest assured that Rudy would sweep the midwest with the exception of Illinois (which would be abnormally close). He would pick up New Hamshire, Pennslyvania, and Conneticuit. Unless Hillary was to be some miracle gain A LOT of ground in the south (her worst polling spots) than she will flutter out. Think 1988 for a visual of the map.

[Yates]

Wyatt Chesney.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Chesney

[Republican Michigander]

Badnarik - although I would support an Allen/Rudy ticket, just not in the reverse.

[Know Your Rights!]

I went with Chesney, but Daniel Imperato and Webster Brooks definitely deserve a look as well.

[adam]

I went with Chesney, but Daniel Imperato and Webster Brooks definitely deserve a look as well.

Something about Imperato just doesn't seem right to me. Why is it that he is always stiff in all of his webcasts? And why is that a multi-millonaire businessman can't latch a more well known VP. Something about him just seems to slick (other than his hair that is).

[Governor PiT]

Could Wyatt act as a spoiler, or could he appeal evenly to both sides? In this poll it looks like he takes away from Rudy, but after speaking with him on the forum( http://www.reformparty.org/phpbb) hr said he knows alot of moderate democrats, who would consider votting for him if Hillary runs.

[adam]

Could Wyatt act as a spoiler, or could he appeal evenly to both sides? In this poll it looks like he takes away from Rudy, but after speaking with him on the forum( http://www.reformparty.org/phpbb) hr said he knows alot of moderate democrats, who would consider votting for him if Hillary runs.

It really depends on how he balances his issues. I personally do not believe in the spoiler. If Nader hadn't run in 2000 polls show Bush winning by larger margins in Florida. In 2004, Bennet took more votes from Rossi than she did from Gergoire in the Washington governors race. Finally, in the 90s - many people like to blame Perot for Clinton be elected. Ross took evenly from both sides by balancing fiscal conservation as well as environmental conservation. If Chesney does the same (which it looks like he is) than his demographics like look similar to that of Perot's.

[Know Your Rights!]

I went with Chesney, but Daniel Imperato and Webster Brooks definitely deserve a look as well.

Something about Imperato just doesn't seem right to me. Why is it that he is always stiff in all of his webcasts? And why is that a multi-millonaire businessman can't latch a more well known VP. Something about him just seems to slick (other than his hair that is).

We could start with him not being a famous multi millionaire. I think Brooks has great potential as a vp, and would have been a great presidential candidate had he continued his campaign. He seems to have better campaign structure than Chesney and would probably be viewed as a more credible and qualified candidate. I do agree, though, his speeches need work.

I like Wyatt Chesney, but his campaign needs a lot of work. All we have is a  picture and a freewebs website. No news articles available online, no campaign photos, no campaign structure. And I'll be frank, it leaves one to wonder what the deal is with it, it's kind of sketchy.

Also, I think George Phillies is a decent candidate and probably the Libertarians' best shot to expand their voter base, even if he is a little "nerdy". I would consider voting for him.

[Nym90]

Clinton.

[adam]

I went with Chesney, but Daniel Imperato and Webster Brooks definitely deserve a look as well.

Something about Imperato just doesn't seem right to me. Why is it that he is always stiff in all of his webcasts? And why is that a multi-millonaire businessman can't latch a more well known VP. Something about him just seems to slick (other than his hair that is).

We could start with him not being a famous multi millionaire. I think Brooks has great potential as a vp, and would have been a great presidential candidate had he continued his campaign. He seems to have better campaign structure than Chesney and would probably be viewed as a more credible and qualified candidate. I do agree, though, his speeches need work.

I like Wyatt Chesney, but his campaign needs a lot of work. All we have is a  picture and a freewebs website. No news articles available online, no campaign photos, no campaign structure. And I'll be frank, it leaves one to wonder what the deal is with it, it's kind of sketchy.

Also, I think George Phillies is a decent candidate and probably the Libertarians' best shot to expand their voter base, even if he is a little "nerdy". I would consider voting for him.

I guess you just have to keep in mind that it's early. If Chesney's campaign is still this limp come late 2007 - then I would be concerned. I think everyone who is starting this early is trying to put a base together. I always wait until right before election year befire I start seriously critiquing candidates.

Also, have you see this Chesney site http://www.freewebs.com/ivotedcobb it at least has news articles on the guy.

[Pictor Ignotus]

Clinton

[Know Your Rights!]

I went with Chesney, but Daniel Imperato and Webster Brooks definitely deserve a look as well.

Something about Imperato just doesn't seem right to me. Why is it that he is always stiff in all of his webcasts? And why is that a multi-millonaire businessman can't latch a more well known VP. Something about him just seems to slick (other than his hair that is).

We could start with him not being a famous multi millionaire. I think Brooks has great potential as a vp, and would have been a great presidential candidate had he continued his campaign. He seems to have better campaign structure than Chesney and would probably be viewed as a more credible and qualified candidate. I do agree, though, his speeches need work.

I like Wyatt Chesney, but his campaign needs a lot of work. All we have is a  picture and a freewebs website. No news articles available online, no campaign photos, no campaign structure. And I'll be frank, it leaves one to wonder what the deal is with it, it's kind of sketchy.

Also, I think George Phillies is a decent candidate and probably the Libertarians' best shot to expand their voter base, even if he is a little "nerdy". I would consider voting for him.

I guess you just have to keep in mind that it's early. If Chesney's campaign is still this limp come late 2007 - then I would be concerned. I think everyone who is starting this early is trying to put a base together. I always wait until right before election year befire I start seriously critiquing candidates.

Also, have you see this Chesney site http://www.freewebs.com/ivotedcobb it at least has news articles on the guy.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have seen his site. I am very familiar with the campaign as a Reform Party message board poster. But it stands out that he hasn't been covered in any local press. Or rather, any press coverage that is available online. It's like he's not even there. On the other hand, Imperato has been very vocal in his campaign. I'll give you that he uses a lot of free PR sites, and they get the job done, but I have also seen articles about him in other Florida newspapers. At least he makes it obvious that he's there.

Also, I'll bring it up again. He has a freewebs website. He promised to get up a new website on a real domain and hasn't come through. And what's up with "ivotedcobb"? According to wikipedia, Wyatt Chesney voted for Nader. Who's running the website? There's a few people trying to get the word out, but they aren't getting much back IMO. It's a very empty campaign.

I disagree about waiting a year or whatever as well, if a candidate is going to declare their campaign and start running in 2006, they should be expected to be scrutinized in 2006.

[adam]

I went with Chesney, but Daniel Imperato and Webster Brooks definitely deserve a look as well.

Something about Imperato just doesn't seem right to me. Why is it that he is always stiff in all of his webcasts? And why is that a multi-millonaire businessman can't latch a more well known VP. Something about him just seems to slick (other than his hair that is).

We could start with him not being a famous multi millionaire. I think Brooks has great potential as a vp, and would have been a great presidential candidate had he continued his campaign. He seems to have better campaign structure than Chesney and would probably be viewed as a more credible and qualified candidate. I do agree, though, his speeches need work.

I like Wyatt Chesney, but his campaign needs a lot of work. All we have is a  picture and a freewebs website. No news articles available online, no campaign photos, no campaign structure. And I'll be frank, it leaves one to wonder what the deal is with it, it's kind of sketchy.

Also, I think George Phillies is a decent candidate and probably the Libertarians' best shot to expand their voter base, even if he is a little "nerdy". I would consider voting for him.

I guess you just have to keep in mind that it's early. If Chesney's campaign is still this limp come late 2007 - then I would be concerned. I think everyone who is starting this early is trying to put a base together. I always wait until right before election year befire I start seriously critiquing candidates.

Also, have you see this Chesney site http://www.freewebs.com/ivotedcobb it at least has news articles on the guy.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have seen his site. I am very familiar with the campaign as a Reform Party message board poster. But it stands out that he hasn't been covered in any local press. Or rather, any press coverage that is available online. It's like he's not even there. On the other hand, Imperato has been very vocal in his campaign. I'll give you that he uses a lot of free PR sites, and they get the job done, but I have also seen articles about him in other Florida newspapers. At least he makes it obvious that he's there.

Also, I'll bring it up again. He has a freewebs website. He promised to get up a new website on a real domain and hasn't come through. And what's up with "ivotedcobb"? According to wikipedia, Wyatt Chesney voted for Nader. Who's running the website? There's a few people trying to get the word out, but they aren't getting much back IMO. It's a very empty campaign.

I disagree about waiting a year or whatever as well, if a candidate is going to declare their campaign and start running in 2006, they should be expected to be scrutinized in 2006.

I don't know what to tell you. I'm not a huge follower...I usually only follow third parties/independents if I really really like a candidate (Kinky Friedman) or if they have a legitiment chance of winning the election. I don't know a lot about Chesney outside of the fact that he is like a more libertarian Perot.

[Governor PiT]

What is it with Hillary being in the lead? Maybe the demographics of this forum are fairly liberal, but I would still asume Guliani would win in a real election. It's great Wyatt has gotten so many votes for an unknown candidate. Maybe the campaign will really gain some monentum?