Extremely Unofficial & Unscientific Exit Poll

Johnson - Warren
5% (55 votes)
Obama - Warren
63% (642 votes)
Romney - Warren
1% (14 votes)
Stein - Warren
6% (62 votes)
Johnson - Brown
3% (26 votes)
Obama - Brown
6% (64 votes)
Romney - Brown
13% (138 votes)
Stein - Brown
0% (4 votes)
Other (Please Elucidate)
2% (18 votes)
Total votes: 1023



Well, yeah. D's outnumber

By on

Well, yeah. D's outnumber R's in MA by a huge margin, so Brown needs most of the U's if it's going to be close.

Somebody Flunked Civics?

I suppose you "vote the slate", too?

No, please everyone show up at the polls - then nobody can complain that the President and Senator Warren were elected by only a small percentage of the populace. Nobody can claim that their extremist views are really the "majority view" that way.

Yes, show up at the polls not

Yes, show up at the polls not for the democratic value to put in one's voice regardless of what/who they vote for. Vote so can put them down as extremist losers because it's a reasonable assumption to be the minority force in this state.


By on

President - Gary Johnson
Senate - abstain

What ABOUT Ron Paul For President?

By on

He's not running.

I voted for him in the R primary. However, he is not on the ballot, nor is he currently campaigning. I think casting a vote for whoever you most believe in is admirable, but casting a vote for somebody who has suspended his campaign is... well, I'll never say that any vote is wasted, if it's from your heart, but this would come mighty close.


Gary Johnson >>>>>>>Ron Paul

Paul is a libertarian only when it is convenient for him, and advances some pretty scary and ridiculous and most unlibertarian views about controlling personal behavior that is none of the governments business.

Gary Johnson is at least consistent about staying out of bedrooms, sex lives, uteruses and wallets. He was also a successful governor, rather than a far-right wing idealogue Senator.

I can't let you bash Ron Paul

I can't let you bash Ron Paul versus Gary Johnson. Ron Paul is plenty consistent. If you look at his voting record, he been consistent towards a philosophy to limiting federal activity and roles with a shift of those roles to state control (which I view is more controllable to our lives than affecting things federal level). He consistently been the lone voice in multiple issues that the rest voted with their money - mostly recently internet neutrality.

Both of them have shown history to follow their ideals rather than wallets. Both have shown actions that go against corporate interests. Both have went against the general grain of their peers (multiple vetos under heavy pressure for Gary Johnson and lone vote and speeches of dissension for Ron Paul).

Also Ron Paul is a multi-term House Representative. Not a senator. If you're going to bash him, at least know his seat.

Consistently in the Dark Ages

Declaring state interest in how I use my uterus and make medical decisions is not Libertarian.

Sorry, but I don't see how "wanting to regulate personal lives" hiding behind "let the states say blah" is in any way consistent with libertarian philosophy.

He's a right wing idealogue with an economic twist.

Consistent support of draconian measures

Just look at his voting record on reproductive rights, and the usual hiding behind state's rights on issues of abortion, birth control access, and support for reproductive health care.

He's not interested in your uterus though

By on

He's interested in the child which is a distinct biological entity. Don't get me wrong -after struggling with this issue for years I have landed on a pro-choice position (too complicated for here). I believe there are many legal and social reasons for the state to permit a woman to have an abortion (and moral in the cases of rape, incest, health of the mother, consent) - but "it's my body", or "it's my uterus" isn't one of them. A child in utero is not part of a woman's body.

I find that particular argument as much in the dark ages as Ron Paul's stances on the issues you mention and has no part in a modern discussion of the issue.

Except Swirly said, "how I

Except Swirly said, "how I use my uterus." Since the child can't be born without the use of someone's uterus, it's pretty hard to separate the two. And as someone who is currently pregnant…it is truly a whole body experience, and I wouldn't wish this on anyone who doesn't really, really want a child.

Still not about the mother's uterus or any other body part

By on

It's about the child and his/her rights. The state grants the mother control over the right of the child to determine if he/she lives or dies within some guidelines - particularly the term of the pregnancy. Few would argue that the state can't limit "how Swrly uses her uterus" after 8.5 months but nowhere near that many at say 2 months. Has nothing to do with her uterus or any other body part and everything to do with the rights of the child, if any, who gets to make a determination about the child's rights and when. Abortion laws grant those rights to the mother earlier in the pregnancy and to the state later in the term which at some point takes on the responsibility of guaranteeing and protecting the in utero child's right to life just as it does for the rest of society. I believe this is typically in the third trimester or even earlier in cases where the child is harmed as a result of harming the pregnant mother.

Define Child

Child = person who can exist without borrowing the organs of another person.

That's why the law says VIABILITY not fertilization.

If I ever need to legally force another person to give me an organ to keep me alive, you'll be on the list. By your logic, I can do that.

Except you gave the child

By on

Except you gave the child rights to your organs by willingly having sex (rape, etc. being exceptions to this rule)


By on

Child = person who can exist without borrowing the organs of another person.

Your definition or some official or legal definition?

Based on your closing, I think you left off the final two words "by force" - and it's a bit hard to imagine an in utero child doing ANYTHING by force or even choice for that matter. If anything, the mother and father have "forced" the child to be reliant on another person's organs for survival, hardly the other way around.

Because to Swirly

Because to Swirly, if a candidate is not strongly for Federal Government involvement to abortion, then the candidate is an evil little right wing zealot regardless of his voting record and vocal stands of advocacy against regulation of speech, resistance against corporate-government collusion, dissension against international-military meddling, and demands for oversight to monetary policy.

Let us know if you need a prostate resection

I think we should all get to vote on that. Oh, and we should have laws that specify which procedure to use as well.

Sound like a good idea? No?

I think the government should have NOTHING to say about abortion PERIOD. It should be a personal decision and a medical decision, not an "obsessed with other people's use of their bodies" decision.

Medical development

I think it's important to develop medical technology to the point where an embryo can be implanted and taken to term in a male body.

Then men who wish to oppose abortion will have the opportunity to volunteer their bodies to the cause.

If not enough volunteers come forward, of course, it would be consistent with their beliefs for the government to assign them embryos which they must then bear to term at pain of imprisonment.

The experimentation (on anti-abortion men) should begin as soon as possible.

And it should be totally covered by Obamacare.

Your response does not

Your response does not directly attack my argument at all. I said that you seems to be putting him calling him the worst of right-wing ideologues. Whereas my rebuttal pointed that his advocacy and voting history did no such thing. Unless to you an advocacy and voting record that I listed above as a record of right-wing ideologues.

You language of "right wing ideologue" seems to suggest he ranks right up with the worst sins including pushing for bailouts, war hawking, and pushing legislature that arguable attacks rights. But the reality the very much the opposite. He the one of the lone voices for Net Neturality until the Internet did the blackout. He was one of the lone critics of the bank bailout. He was one of the lone dissenters to the NDAA (that Obama unbelievably signed and justified he won't use it that way!). And repeatedly spoke against military decisions of the past decade.

And you called him a right-wing ideologue. By what I just listed, does that sounds like a right-wing ideologue (or to be fair to many definitions of right wing conservatism, does that fit with the stereotypical description of recent Republican right-wing thinking)?

Your response address none of that above - now just expanded out again with specific listings of his history. Even more ironically, you proclaim that government should have no say at all. Ron Paul's stance IS no government involvement, the thing that also means no say in either direction at the Federal level.

You're forgetting

By on

that there are plenty of strict-pro-life women out there, too.

Actually, I'm not

I simply believe that they have the right to decide how they live their own lives, make their own medical decisions, and use their own bodies, too.

Just like I believe that I have a right to make my own medical decisions about my personal body.

Ron Paul is one of the

Ron Paul is one of the biggest hypocrites out there. Has a long history of leading the Texas delegation in earmarks, yet he always votes against the bill (knowing full well it will pass) so he can maintain his pure Dr. No reputation. He's been my congressman at various times over most of my adult life (I'm 54), so I've seen plenty of his ass-hattery. I just amazes me how he has pulled the wool over the eyes of most libertarian-leaning Americans.

See this for starters:


His explanation is perfectly

His explanation is perfectly reasonable. He stands against having the budget and advocates and votes against it. He also hedges, as part of the job of being a representative, to claim money for his area. If he does not, then his constituents would be paying taxes and getting nothing in return. You telling me that when he was your congressman, you rather not bring the money (or roughly more or less) back in some form? Would that action do any good at the cost of services for the district? Does disagreeing on spending means taking refusing to any money?

That article is one of the many, many articles that shows how much the media hates him. Any action he does, such as claiming funds for his district is spin to call it a contradiction or the media attacks of him taking money from the mandatory submission to Social Security (if you think that is a contradiction, keep in mind government pension is optional, and he refused his privilege to put money in it so he can take out later while SS is mandatory).

Any presidential vote you

By on

Any presidential vote you cast in Massachusetts is wasted.

But please go vote for the statewide and local races!

Vote today

By on

like the Supreme Court depends on it. Because it does.

A Political Poll

By on

Taken on UHub is like asking the NRA who they will/did vote for!

Yeah, I Understand

By on

But you still might gain a sense of the outcome so long as you keep in mind the general leanings of those you poll. For instance, if this poll were showing Brown with more votes than Warren then it would be obvious that Brown wins by a landslide. By the same token, on any internet poll you usually have to take into account that supporters of "minor" candidates, such as Johnson and Stein, whose supporters may be a bit more net-savvy than the general populace, may flood such a poll with votes disproportionate to the actual number cast.

In other words, if the poll results reflect your initial perceptions regarding the audience, you probably won't know much, so what you say is true in that sense. But if they vary wildly from your initial perceptions, then it becomes interesting.

So far, I'd say things are running about as I - and probably you - expected.


You mean

By on


Buh bye.

By on

To you and the barn coat.

Good riddance.

Gary Johnson.

By on

It looks like Gary Johnson is polling at about 5% on Universal Hub. I'd love to see him get over 5% nationally so that the Libertarian Party would get federal election matching funds.

Fun Scenario, But Doubtful

By on

I'll reiterate my cred on this for those unfamiliar with me. I was a one-time chair of the LP in MA; have run for office as a Libertarian; also managed a couple of campaigns. I've been involved in, or at least avidly following, Libertarian Party politics since the 1970's.

In a race such as the current one, wherein the two "major" candidates have been portrayed as being neck-and-neck in the horse race, the "minor" candidates, even one as credible as Johnson, will tend not to fare as well overall as initial projections might lead one to believe. The hardliners will vote for him, but the folks you might count on for additional votes, those thoroughly disgusted with both of the "major" candidates or "major" parties, will mostly still pull the trigger for either Obama or Romney.

Tthere are still an amazing number of people who don't understand the electoral process when it comes to our presidency. They think that their individual vote might make the difference. In fact, as most here know, an individual vote in Massachusetts has all the power of a fart in a windstorm. Obama will win this state, period. Many other states are in the same boat, with either Romney or Obama being an absolute lock. But even most folks who would prefer a different choice will still choose one or the other of the two because of a mistaken belief that they would be "wasting" their vote if cast for Johnson, Stein, whomever else.

The Libertarians have run some good candidates before; strong speakers, decently supported financially, with well-written platforms and well-defined goals and objectives. Harry Browne was one, in 1996 and 2000; a best-selling financial author, with quite a few guest appearances on highly-rated TV and Radio programs, among other optimism-raising factors. He didn't crack 1% either time. Ed Clark (to date, the highest vote-getter in LP history, garnering approximately 1.1% in 1980, with a couple of truly noteworthy returns in a state or two; I believe he received about 11% in Alaska) was spectacularly well-financed for a third-party candidate, having received a huge influx of cash from the Koch brothers, and ran 5-MINUTE spots on all of the major networks. Ron Paul was the candidate in 1988, and we all know him.

However, the great majority of voters are unwilling to accept even ONE idea they disagree with when that idea is presented by a candidate from outside of the D or R camp, while they will allow for a candidate seen as viable to differ from their own positions quite a bit. They are willing to settle when it comes to someone they perceive as having a chance to win, but want perfection when asked to cast a vote for someone they think will identify them as a loser. Rather than vote strictly for the person with whom they most agree, they will choose to vote for the person who mixes a comfortable amount of agreement with a higher visibility and acceptance. That's just the way mass psychology works.

Johnson is certainly credible. He is, as Libertarian candidates go, probably the one with the best public pedigree (it depends upon whether you think a governor of a smaller state outranks a congressman from Texas; I do.) But, aside from those factors above, he has received about as much publicity as your general run-of-the-mill Libertarian candidate (next to none), I've not seen any ads for him, and he has the additional disadvantage of only being on the ballot in 49 states rather than 50. Cracking 5% is, unfortunately, almost wholly unrealizable.

Just my opinion, of course, but I've been down this road before, a lot. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.



I always thought it would be in the best interests of the Libertarian platform (not "party") to simply run as a democrat or republican, and simply state your views without labeling them as "libertarian".

Could Be, Pete

By on

It all depends upon what the immediate goal might be, I think.

If a person or party wants immediate action or electoral success, you're spot on. Labeling something with a name mostly disrespected and usually misunderstood won't get the job done. Being a bit more stealth about it will lead to more success.

If the goal is to build an actual political movement for the future, I disagree. Unless you're willing to take the bumps and suffer the losses, you won't get to the point where folks may respect you and actually understand what the mission is overall.


Yea that's the game though.

I mean, look at Obama. Forget about being a socialist, is he even liberal? Nixon had more liberal policies than Obama could even dream of. Patrick is one of the most fiscally conservative governors I can recall. Romney actually worked with deomcrats to come up with a good starting plan for decent health care in Massachusetts and now he has to defend that type of politics?

There is something to be said with sticking with your guns when it comes to political theory, but I believe you have to play the game (electoral college, 2 party system, fund raising issues) if you really want your plan to work.

Follow-Up: Libertarian Vote Totals

By on

For the four or five of us who care...

Gary Johnson broke the record for a Libertarian presidential candidate. Preliminary totals have him at 1,140,804 votes nationwide. That's with 97% of precincts reporting, so the total will rise. He received 3.2% in New Mexico, 2.9% in Montana, and 2.5% in Alaska.

Here in MA, he did approximately 1%.