rickyp wrote:Wasn't it Eugene McCarthy? And if memory serves it really was started by Hubert Humphrey, in 68 after he won the nomination over McCarthy. The demonstrations of disaffected Democrats outside his convention had a telling effect... (sorry if I'm nitpicking)

Ray Jay wrote:I voted for Mitt earlier today ... (I'm a registered independent) .. my ballot already had Mitt's oval blacked in ... I'll presume that it was an honest mistake ... I would have said something, but I was afraid of a 30 minute conversation with one of the volunteers.

Here in Mass we have not had any candidates visit, although Romney will show up later today to vote. We haven't even had the windfall of any ad dollars the way some other states benefited. Well, at least we didn't have to listen to all that nonsense.

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:Virginia is one of the Super Tuesday states, so I'll be heading to the polls to vote today. I'll report back if I see much activity from Democrats in there to disrupt Romney, but with Gingrich and Santorum left off the ballot, I don't think that they'll bother. I remain torn in my decision. I usually mock people who cannot decide who to vote for in general elections, but I do so because I consider them to be ignorant and uniformed of the issues. Today is an open primary here (no party affiliation required) and the delicate balance of which candidate to carry the banner is a factor. I'm not sure that I like the open primaries, but it allows me to vote since I refuse to ever join a political party on principle.

My preference among the four theoretically left in the hunt is Gingrich, and I am tempted to give him a write-in, voting my conscience and heart. However, Newt is already all but done, and even if he were to become the nominee, I am concerned that he carries too much baggage to weather the general election. Santorum is the guy actually chasing Romney down, and I find myself in agreement with most of his platform. My gripe with Santorum is that he’s not polished enough to take the figurative and literal debate to Obama. He’s also a lightning rod for media criticism, and like Gingrich, all too easy to lampoon. The media hats this guy so much that they went out investigating his wife’s former boyfriends from 30 years ago to see if any were pro-choice... Disgusting, and unfair, but the reality it there that the media hates Santorum on Sarah Palin/Dan Quale levels. With this in mind I just cannot see throwing my backing to him. And like Gingrich, Santorum isn’t on the ballot, so all I can do is offer a write-in vote. Now I’ve teetered on the edge of Ron Paul, because while I’m a social conservative as much as I’m a fiscal conservative, I think that many of the disturbing social concerns of the day have been created by a federal government that is too powerful. Abortion is front and center and a prime example of this as the Supreme Court overstepped themselves and found rights to abort pregnancies in the 4th Amendment. I’m not as concerned with whether Paul is pro-choice or not as I am with what manner of judges he’d put on the court. Regardless of anyone’s feeling on the legality of abortion, it’s not a Constitutional right, and the Roe v Wade decision that say it is a travesty of power abuse. My concern with Libertarians is that they may become cowed by running from the social debate and lose sight of government power grabs. I’m also not a fan of anyone who thinks that we should ignore Israel. If I heard some things from Paul clarifying his positions on these things, I could be drawn into his camp. Ultimately I think that Romney is going to win the nomination regardless of my vote, and none of this really matters. He cannot possibly be worse than Obama, and he is smart enough (yes, I said it, smart) to tackle some of the severe economic catastrophe’s that we face. Furthermore he’s moderate enough to be able to compromise with whatever is left of the Democrats in Congress. Yes, Romney is going to see media bias against him too, but not to the level that Santorum and Gingrich or even Paul will if they took the nomination. So I’m leaning Romney with my vote just to help see the internal sniping end.

Jeff, or any other Paulistas, please tell me why I should reconsider.

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:Oh, and my take from Monte's desire to avoid the electoion vollunteers wasn't from a lack of interest in the ballot issue, but because the typical election volunteer is one of those people that will take 30 minutes, and hold of your arm, to tell you all about the color of the paint on the walls. It's even worse when you are they only person there... If they kept me any longer I was going to start eating their donuts!

To vote even if you have no identification with you at the polling place.

SLOTerp wrote:Anyway, I was amazed Ron Paul pulled 40% of the vote - I wouldn't expect him to do that well in a head-to-head with Romney.

To vote even if you have no identification with you at the polling place. You must sign the “Affirmation of Identity” statement before voting if you have no ID.
Exception: Voters who registered by mail for the first time in Virginia on or after January 1, 2003, and who did not mail in a copy of their ID at that time, and who fail to show one of the federally required forms of ID when voting for the first time in a federal election must vote by Provisional Ballot in that election. They may not use the “Affirmation of Identity” statement at that election.