smooth

I would rather have a pollster than someone who sticks "by his guns on everything he has preached" even when the evidence shows that his decision was the incorrect one. His is a dangerous attitude--I don't want a stubborn individual, who has bragged about not paying attention to what the public thinks, to be leading a nation that is supposed to pay attention to its people.

At least a pollster is willing to place his agenda on the back burner and do what the majority of the people desire. But he obviously has balls. That comment just demonstrates ignorance and vitriol. Also, the only reason he wouldn't have your best interest, and if he only listens to the majority of the people via polls and political winds, then the conclusion I am left to reach is that you are not in the majority of the population. You might want to think about that when you start blasting off at the mouth.

But the cool thing about this election is that I don't have to choose between ONLY the two of them. I actually like what the other candidates have said and their perspective earns my vote. And if anyone else wants my vote, then he or she needs to incorporate my interests into his or her platform. Voting against someone is the only way I know of that forces a candidate to care about you. When you are already voting for someone, your vote is mixed in with other people who may or may not agree with the candidate's position. But if I vote against someone, then he or she has to look at the issues I voted for instead of his or hers if my vote is wanted.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman