Senatorial Polling

[Apollo]

Surprised Drecq has gotten very good polling. I'd like Drecq's hardwork to payoff as mine was, but I feel like he doesnt have the policy knowledge that Noto and Bryan have. My vote is still undecided though.

 

[Skizzy Grey]

People have strong feelings about Noto. He'll be a lot of people's first choice, a lot of people's third choice, and almost no one's second choice. I think you'll see late voters break for whichever of Bryan/Drecq is leading the other. Whether that's enough to overcome Noto's experience advantage is unclear -- less active citizens generally don't vote in these polls, and they'll break heavily for the guy they know (Noto).

 

[Notolecta]

I can't vote for Notolecta because I heavily disagree with him on policy, and there are things that the region needs to get done within the next two weeks that don't need the brakes put on them because of one rogue Senators. Both Drecq and Bryan are bright, able, and just the kind of newer member that traditionally grace the halls of the Senate, but Drecq's superior platform earned him my endorsement.

The idea that I would be a rogue Senator is ridiculous. I wouldn't agree with you on every single thing, but that would in no way make me a rogue, having multiple viewpoints in a Senate is a good thing, not a bad one.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus Rex]

I can't vote for Notolecta because I heavily disagree with him on policy, and there are things that the region needs to get done within the next two weeks that don't need the brakes put on them because of one rogue Senators. Both Drecq and Bryan are bright, able, and just the kind of newer member that traditionally grace the halls of the Senate, but Drecq's superior platform earned him my endorsement.

The idea that I would be a rouge Senator is ridiculous. I wouldn't agree with you on every single thing, but that would in no way make me a rouge, having multiple viewpoints in a Senate is a good thing, not a bad one.

This is rouge:



I think you meant rogue. I can't vote for a Senator who can't spell! :troll:

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

Very cute, NES.

And holy Drecq!

 

[Oliver]

Seems to be a three-way race, which is good! ^_^

 

[Drecq]

Very cute, NES.

And holy Drecq!

Thank you, I think?

 

[McEntire]

I can't vote for Notolecta because I heavily disagree with him on policy, and there are things that the region needs to get done within the next two weeks that don't need the brakes put on them because of one rogue Senators. Both Drecq and Bryan are bright, able, and just the kind of newer member that traditionally grace the halls of the Senate, but Drecq's superior platform earned him my endorsement.

The idea that I would be a rogue Senator is ridiculous. I wouldn't agree with you on every single thing, but that would in no way make me a rogue, having multiple viewpoints in a Senate is a good thing, not a bad one.

I disagree with both a lot of your policy viewpoints and how you choose to go about pushing for them, therefore I will not be voting for you. It's that simple.

 

[Oliver]

I can't vote for Notolecta because I heavily disagree with him on policy, and there are things that the region needs to get done within the next two weeks that don't need the brakes put on them because of one rogue Senators. Both Drecq and Bryan are bright, able, and just the kind of newer member that traditionally grace the halls of the Senate, but Drecq's superior platform earned him my endorsement.

The idea that I would be a rogue Senator is ridiculous. I wouldn't agree with you on every single thing, but that would in no way make me a rogue, having multiple viewpoints in a Senate is a good thing, not a bad one.

I disagree with both a lot of your policy viewpoints and how you choose to go about pushing for them, therefore I will not be voting for you. It's that simple.

I don't expect he was planning to win your vote with his statement; rather I expect he was hoping to suggest that disagreeing with you doesn't make him a rogue.

 

[Fitzgerald]

Yayyy irrelevant arguments. Honestly, who votes for who and why someone doesn't vote for someone else shouldn't matter. They vote for their reason and we, as a separate person, shouldn't be concerned with their vote.

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

Yayyy irrelevant arguments. Honestly, who votes for who and why someone doesn't vote for someone else shouldn't matter. They vote for their reason and we, as a separate person, shouldn't be concerned with their vote.

What? :huh:

 

[Drecq]

Yayyy irrelevant arguments. Honestly, who votes for who and why someone doesn't vote for someone else shouldn't matter. They vote for their reason and we, as a separate person, shouldn't be concerned with their vote.

What? :huh:

He is saying the reasons people vote for whom they vote for are irrelevant because they have the right to vote however they please. Nice sentiment, however, uniquely unsuited for politics.

 

[Notolecta]

Yayyy irrelevant arguments. Honestly, who votes for who and why someone doesn't vote for someone else shouldn't matter. They vote for their reason and we, as a separate person, shouldn't be concerned with their vote.

What? :huh:

He like McEntire misinterpreted my post as an attack on his reasoning for not voting for me, when it was instead a response to his misuse of a word and incorrect characterization of me, much as Oliver stated.

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

Yayyy irrelevant arguments. Honestly, who votes for who and why someone doesn't vote for someone else shouldn't matter. They vote for their reason and we, as a separate person, shouldn't be concerned with their vote.

What? :huh:

He is saying the reasons people vote for whom they vote for are irrelevant because they have the right to vote however they please. Nice sentiment, however, uniquely unsuited for politics.

I know what he's saying, Drecq. I was remarking at what a silly stance it was to take. Why people do or don't vote for whom is all that matters.

 

[Drecq]

Yayyy irrelevant arguments. Honestly, who votes for who and why someone doesn't vote for someone else shouldn't matter. They vote for their reason and we, as a separate person, shouldn't be concerned with their vote.

What? :huh:

He is saying the reasons people vote for whom they vote for are irrelevant because they have the right to vote however they please. Nice sentiment, however, uniquely unsuited for politics.

I know what he's saying, Drecq. I was remarking at what a silly stance it was to take. Why people do or don't vote for whom is all that matters.

My bad. I frequently misinterpret things.

 

[Fitzgerald]

Yayyy irrelevant arguments. Honestly, who votes for who and why someone doesn't vote for someone else shouldn't matter. They vote for their reason and we, as a separate person, shouldn't be concerned with their vote.

What? :huh:

He like McEntire misinterpreted my post as an attack on his reasoning for not voting for me, when it was instead a response to his misuse of a word and incorrect characterization of me, much as Oliver stated.

Actually, I wasn't directing my comment towards you, sir, but rather towards the general assembly. Perhaps you shouldn't assume what others mean without knowing. It proves effective in many cases.

 

[Fitzgerald]

Yayyy irrelevant arguments. Honestly, who votes for who and why someone doesn't vote for someone else shouldn't matter. They vote for their reason and we, as a separate person, shouldn't be concerned with their vote.

What? :huh:

He is saying the reasons people vote for whom they vote for are irrelevant because they have the right to vote however they please. Nice sentiment, however, uniquely unsuited for politics.

I know what he's saying, Drecq. I was remarking at what a silly stance it was to take. Why people do or don't vote for whom is all that matters.

Not really. The only thing that matters is the end result. You won't gain anything by knowing who voted for who.

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

 

[PhDre]

Yayyy irrelevant arguments. Honestly, who votes for who and why someone doesn't vote for someone else shouldn't matter. They vote for their reason and we, as a separate person, shouldn't be concerned with their vote.

What? :huh:

He is saying the reasons people vote for whom they vote for are irrelevant because they have the right to vote however they please. Nice sentiment, however, uniquely unsuited for politics.

I know what he's saying, Drecq. I was remarking at what a silly stance it was to take. Why people do or don't vote for whom is all that matters.

Not really. The only thing that matters is the end result. You won't gain anything by knowing who voted for who.

If you know why someone votes for candidates, you're halfway to winning any election.

 

[Fitzgerald]

You don't need to know why, you need to know how to get them to vote for you. Which are different things.