There is a Light at the End of the Tunnel...

[tobedawg]

*From CNN.com ..



Poll: Majority of voters would not re-elect Bush


(CNN) -- A poll released Saturday finds that more registered voters want to see President Bush voted out than kept in office in the next election, but his job approval rating has remained constant.

In the Newsweek poll, 50 percent of registered voters who were queried said they do not want to see Bush re-elected, while 44 percent said they do.

The survey of 1,002 adults interviewed Thursday and Friday has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.

The president's overall approval rating in the survey was 52 percent -- the same it has been in previous polls by the magazine during the past two months.

But in the wake of more deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and the rising price tag for occupation and reconstruction, 51 percent of the respondents said they disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq -- the highest Newsweek's polls have ever shown -- while 42 percent said they approve.

The survey suggests mixed feelings on the president's economic policies, following positive news this week. Forty-four percent said they approve of the way Bush is handling the economy -- up six points from the magazine's previous poll a month ago. Forty-eight percent said they disapprove.

Among contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean edges out Gen. Wesley Clark in the poll. Sixteen percent of Democratic voters and those who lean Democratic said Dean would be their first choice, while 15 percent said Clark would be.

Rep. Dick Gephardt was third with 9 percent; followed by Sen. Joseph Lieberman at 8 percent; Sen. John Kerry and former Senator and Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun at 7 percent; Sen. John Edwards at 6 percent; the Rev. Al Sharpton at 4 percent; and Rep. Dennis Kucinich at 2 percent.

Asked about possible matchups between Bush and Clark, Dean, Kerry, Lieberman, and Gephardt, respondents gave Bush a 4 or 5 percent lead in each case.

[Sovrana]

I really don't believe most people will vote for Bush. (perhaps I just hope not).

The problem I see so far is that few people are willing to commit to an alternative. When asked, very few say they see a strong alternative. I still think that is the conservative (;) ) media talking.

Once a candidate is named to go against Bush, I believe he will go down.

There is a cover story on Salon posted right now that asks the question "why are people not embracing the Democratic party?" I haven't read it yet, but I still think it has to do with people refusing to take a stand, make a choice.

Much of the mainstream public wants to be told how to vote, how to think. You guys know this though, right? :)

Also, for some, it's still too early to think about it. (as much as this attitude drives me crazy!!)

[dcXhc]

And according to several other polls, the favorite Democrat for the 2004 election is...........not even running.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14359-2003Nov7.html

[Sovrana]

I don't even have to open that link to the washington post to make a pretty good guess that they name Hillary Clinton.

Again, this is a strategy that achieves 2 goals of the right: to pull Clinton into the discussion in order to criticize her and Bill (a new favorite American pasttime) while simultaneously giving bad press to the current candidates.


If these conservative publications and news programs would give at least half of the airtime they give to Clinton haters to the Democrats who are running, American democracy may have a chance.

But as the Salon article notes (I've read it), with the terrible week in Iraq, the media focuses on Dean's confederate flag comment to discredit Dean of course. And with the stories about the Bush Admin possibly stonewalling on the 9/11 investigation, the media grabs the story of a memo that forces Democrats on the offensive about intelligence.


You can close your ears and eyes all you want, Bush lied, manipulated intelligence and now is helping to hide what happened on 9/11.

I've always felt that Bush and Intelligence was a frightening oxymoron. But his return to the White House will show us to be the morons.

[eyeball]

I just don't understand why people thought Bush would be good the 1st time. ugh. if they stick us with him again...let them all be damned.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Sovrana
I don't even have to open that link to the washington post to make a pretty good guess that they name Hillary Clinton.

Again, this is a strategy that achieves 2 goals of the right: to pull Clinton into the discussion in order to criticize her and Bill (a new favorite American pasttime) while simultaneously giving bad press to the current candidates.

If these conservative publications and news programs would give at least half of the airtime they give to Clinton haters to the Democrats who are running, American democracy may have a chance.


Wow. That was a response from left field.

Originally posted by Sovrana
But as the Salon article notes (I've read it), with the terrible week in Iraq, the media focuses on Dean's confederate flag comment to discredit Dean of course. And with the stories about the Bush Admin possibly stonewalling on the 9/11 investigation, the media grabs the story of a memo that forces Democrats on the offensive about intelligence.

It hasn't been "the media" focusing on Dean's comments, it's been the other Democratic candidates relentlessly pounding Dean over his innocuous comment.

As much as Bush's popularity keeps sinking, the fact that the nine stooges (is it eight now?) just keep poking each other in the eye is the biggest liability for the Democratic party.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by dcXhc
just keep poking each other in the eye is the biggest liability for the Democratic party.

this and Hillary Clinton being ahead in the polls....yeah yeah yeah....you keep repeating what the media tells you.

As far as the other candidates "poking each other in the eye" that's fine! This is an election, these candidates are trying to win the nomination. Your job as a voter is to pay attention to what they say. But you seem to swim happily in the pundit pool!

Do you ever stop and ask yourself "Why the hell are they polling Hillary's popularity? She's not running!" Instead you just repeat it...feed into it and seem to enjoy feeding all this crap to us.

My critique that seemed to come from left field was against this f*cking mantra that the Democratic candidates are not strong enough. Yet I see very few news programs really engage what any of these candidates are saying.

The election is now less than a year away...I think it is about time we engage in what these candidates are saying. Be smart!!

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Sovrana
Do you ever stop and ask yourself "Why the hell are they polling Hillary's popularity? She's not running!"


Yes, I've asked myself and I've come to the conclusion that it is clearly due to a very clever secret plot worked out at a Skull and Bones reunion between the Bush tribe and the chieftans of the multinational media cabal who are determined to rule the world while orbiting around earth in their invisible spaceship, maliciously cackling while they stroke a white cat on their lap.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by dcXhc

Yes, I've asked myself and I've come to the conclusion that it is clearly due to a very clever secret plot worked out at a Skull and Bones reunion between the Bush tribe and the chieftans of the multinational media cabal who are determined to rule the world while orbiting around earth in their invisible spaceship, maliciously cackling while they stroke a white cat on their lap.

okay, you win! You are not interested in having an intelligent discussion.

[tobedawg]

I will be one of the first to admit that I despise The Bush Administration more than any other Presidential Administration in my lifetime (I've lived through Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton), however, none of the Democratic candidates seems to be taking the driver's seat in the form of showing leadership... Bush and the Republicans are strong leaders, unfortunately, they are leading this country down the wrong path.. BUT, with the Democrats too busy pointing fingers at one another than to offer a solution, this almost guarantees a Bush Victory in 2004.. And this time he will actually be Elected!

The bright side though is that Ralph Nader might be running in 2004.. Which, if all else fails, Nader could possibly receive 5 % of the vote in 2004... If he does and is considered a legit candidate in 2008, chances for A President Nader are actually pretty good.. Think about it.. Bush gets another term and continues to lead this country down the road to ruin and giving his corporate buddies all the perks and government welfare that they want.. by 2008, the American public will desperately be seeking an Alternative..
The Republicans will probably run Jeb Bush and the Democrats will probably run.. i dunno.. some moderate Republicrat.. The Democratic Party is as good as toast if they don't wise up and start winning some elections!!


"NADER IN 2008!!!"

[onest2.0]

Since when did majority matter in a presidential election? The key question is which candidate has the most brothers that are governors.

[yvette7ica]

I thought that you were supposed to disagree and point out your opponents' weaknesses in a debate. Isn't the goal of the democratic candidates to be the nominee? If they all sat at their podiums agreeing with each other and Bush, why have the debate? I think that the media has been partisan towards Bush. More and more mainstream media is covering the opposition to Bush, but a lot of it goes ignored. When the Democratic debates started The Daily Show had more information than Fox and CNN.

The Democratic Party is being perceived as a joke, because that is what the media is telling you. "They can't be taken serious because of this, that, and the other. So you might as well vote for Bush." is the message I receive when watching election coverage on the news.

Also, how are people to make informed decisions in the primaries if they do not have access to the debates. Not everyone has cable television. If the Democratic Party wants to bring more people in, they need to start televising their debates through local affiliates in prime time, but that may take away quality programing time from Fear Factor or The Bachelor.

[BigSugar]

Kerry fires his campaign manager today, and names Ted Kennedy's cheif of staff as new manager. i think we can safely eliminate Kerry from competition in this Dem brouhaha, with a move like this, this late in the game....clear desperation on his part.

Dean just declined public funding and the spending limits that come with it, so he likely has a big donation(s) on the cusp of coming in, esp. with the two new union endorsements he got recently.

is Lieberman still alive?

Hillary won't run in '04. period. she's going to save her presidential cherry for '08 when the Republicans will have to put up a newbie (ie: cheney will be dead, and Bush can't run again). however, they poll her now (heh heh, he said "poll her":) b/c it's easy news fodder in a hotly contested race. they do it for the same reason that kids poke sticks into hornets nests...b/c it's fun.

quite frankly, the Dem's have their nominee...it's Dean. if they take the next few months to rally around him, it could spell trouble for Bush. But i have faith in the Dem's to cut their own throats, just like the Republicans did in '96 by giving Dole his last hurrah.

Not everyone has cable television.

yup. some have DISH, and yet others have DirectTV. but very few have TIVO. TIVO rules.

[Docta]

i too think dean is in the driver's seat at the moment, and will get my vote. however, i would not count out gephart or even edwards at this point. edwards is a very strong moderate who, if he can get past iowa and nh could be a MAJOR player in this race.

in my mind it's just so early to tell. most americans don't know these candidates yet which is a problem. things have dragged like this because the man with the early surge (dean) is not handpicked by the dems holding the purse strings. it's very much like mccain's early rise during the last election. the difference here is that in that election the right wing boys all pushed bush alone into the nomination. the democratic brass is still split between gephart, kerry, leiberman, and edwards. dean has stuck and hopefully will not be pushed down by the democratic backers.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by BigSugar
[b/c it's easy news fodder in a hotly contested race. they do it for the same reason that kids poke sticks into hornets nests...b/c it's fun.



And of course, the rest of us get stung. :(

Cheap shot, I know but I couldn't resist....you left that metaphor open. ;)

[RichmondVA]

And what exactly does Quinnipiac University stand to gain by issuing an inaccurate poll and slanting it towards Bush?

I think people like Hillary to some degree because she isn't running and therefore hasn't come under the harsh scrutiny of some of the other candidates. If you don't like Bush, and don't feel strongly about the running Dems, you pick Clinton because she's most easily associated as being anti-Bush. And there's something to be said for the Clinton mystique. The guy won two terms so he's obviously popular and some of that rubs off.

When it gets down to two, I can't see anyone beating Bush. If Gephardt wins the primary I will Bronzetree the elections.

[Sovrana]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RichmondVA
And what exactly does Quinnipiac University stand to gain by issuing an inaccurate poll and slanting it towards Bush?
QUOTE]

Nothing. In fact no one gains. That's my point. Those who poll candidates and include Hillary seem to simply pose it for entertainment purposes. It offers nothing to the discussion that needs to be engaged....this type of polling is a mere distraction. I still think it is intended to be this.

It's discouraging that there are some groups of people who insist on presenting this campaign as if it was An American Idol (or whatever the hell it is called) prime time "reality" show.

"If Gephart wins the primary?" So that is how you are thinking about this? What about NOW...what do you think now about any of the candidates? These are the questions you should begin to ask yourself, now.

But if you have already decided to wait to see who gets the primary before you start thinking about what is happening or what may happen to this country if Bush succeeds, then continuing enjoying the Hillary polls. :rolleyes:

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by Sovrana
But if you have already decided to wait to see who gets the primary before you start thinking about what is happening or what may happen to this country if Bush succeeds, then continuing enjoying the Hillary polls. :rolleyes:

I haven't decided to wait. I already know I will not vote for Gephardt under any realistic circumstances. Not in the primary, not in the general election.

Why is it so wrong for me to have decided against Gephardt? You've apparently already decided against Bush. I'll venture to guess that at this point in the last election, you'd already written off Bush. Well, Gephardt's been around a lot longer than Bush. What do I think about Gephardt right now? I hate him. 2 months from now? Hate him. 3, 5, 7, 10 years ago? hate him.

You want specifics, fine? He supported Bush in Iraq which is one of my main points of contention with Bush. His big proposal is a government healthcare system-- a healthcare system that could have been in place years ago had he supported Clinton's plan, instead of choosing to float his own. And I firmly believe he did that to get his name out there because he's always been hungry for the Presidency.

The Democrats are in a worse position now than they've been in quite sometime. During this downfall Gephardt has been the most visible and influential Democrat except Clinton. Do you not think he bears some responsibility for this? I feel Gephardt has no beliefs of his own and could care less about the Democrat platform. He cares only about himself and it's evidenced in his many flip-flops on various issues.

I know way more about Gephardt than I care too. In fact, I'll venture to say I might just know more about him than anyone on this messageboard. I've met Gephardt personally. I've worked with his staff on projects, and on many projects and committees where he had major influence. He's never struck me as anything other than a complete ass. It's a feeling shared by a lot of the people I worked with when I was in Washington.

[Docta]

Originally posted by RichmondVA


During this downfall Gephardt has been the most visible and influential Democrat except Clinton.

off topic, but daschel has been pretty visible/influential. he's pretty decent, but doesn't seem to have the drive for a presidential run.

[yvette7ica]

Originally posted by Docta
edwards is a very strong moderate who, if he can get past iowa and nh could be a MAJOR player in this race.

I got hooked on the debates after seeing Edwards (Handsome Larry) on C-Span in Iowa. I think Dean and other candidates perceived as front runners have over shadowed him. He's remained pretty consistent in what he has said since I started following the debates. I like his platform on education and health care. I also respected him for not making his campaign revolve around how horrible Bush is. Unfortunately, I believe there is a fault with his campaign. Kucinich has more of a internet following than Edwards. If Edwards utilized the internet in the ways that Dean and Kucinich have he would have a better shot at winning the primaries. I think Edward's moderate stance will be more easily embraced by people if they knew who he was than some of the candidates who lean farther to the left. If Edwards won the primaries he'd have a good chance of winning in 2004, due to so many people planning to vote against Bush.

[Sovrana]

RVA, I am not pro-Gephardt. I think if you re-read my posts you will see that my point was to engage the candidates now, which you have done with Gephardt.

(Oh...and yes, I have been against Bush from the beginning but know that I can honestly claim that my postition is based on my watching him, listening or reading his speeches since well before he gained the nomination in the last campaign....before Franken and Conason and Dean, Sharpton, and Kucinich)

Again, Hillary Clinton should not be an issue and my only concern is that the media is trying to place all these obstacles in the way of the candidates.

For instance, no one speaks of Mosely-Brawn and yet everytime she speaks at a debate, I am so impressed with her. Of course, I don't see her as a strong candidate, but what she contributes to the discussion is important....certainly more important than what most of the media repeat ad nauseum (are they still talking about Lacey Peterson?!!)

My plea is for clarity....don't let the mainstream media blur your vision.

I really expect that those posting on WOXY would see the importance of striving for honesty in the media and intelligent discourse.

[DudeMan]

How right you all are! There IS light at the end of the tunnel, but unfortunately for you, that light is an oncoming train!

The more extreme and negative democrats become, the more likely it becomes that President Bush wins a second term. Although they may not necessarily agree with him on everything, most Americans like President Bush personally and believe that he's a good guy with good intentions. It's very similar to 1996 when Clinton-haters over-reached in their anti-Clintonism and caused a backlash. So go ahead... bully for you if it gives you a warm feeling inside to nominate a Bush-baiting, True Believin' lefty like Dean, but it's going to result in your party remaining in the wilderness.

[Docta]

iginally posted by DudeMan [/i]
True Believin' lefty like Dean, but it's going to result in your party remaining in the wilderness. [/QUOTE]

ya, big lefty dean is with his balanced and fairly conservative state budget and stance on gun control.........

more bs the right winged media spews forth about dean.

[yvette7ica]

Originally posted by DudeMan
The more extreme and negative democrats become, the more likely it becomes that President Bush wins a second term.

I can't disagree with this statement. The undecided voters who have nothing against Bush will be pushed towards him because they will view him as the victim of left-wing mud slinging. Already the media are warming their violins to play for him.

[Docta]

Originally posted by yvette7ica


I can't disagree with this statement. The undecided voters who have nothing against Bush will be pushed towards him because they will view him as the victim of left-wing mud slinging. Already the media are warming their violins to play for him.

difference in what is going on here though is that democrats are not throwing mud. they are pointing out the truth that bush has evaded over these past 4 years. now if the dems started to say that laura is a slut or bush had an affair, that is mudslinging.

more and more i am sensing those independants/moderates leaning against bush. my family particularly, they supported bush last election and now they are sickened by his administration's cronyism and lies about the initiation of the war.

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by Sovrana
RVA, I am not pro-Gephardt. I think if you re-read my posts you will see that my point was to engage the candidates now, which you have done with Gephardt.

For instance, no one speaks of Mosely-Brawn and yet everytime she speaks at a debate, I am so impressed with her. Of course, I don't see her as a strong candidate, but what she contributes to the discussion is important....certainly more important than what most of the media repeat ad nauseum (are they still talking about Lacey Peterson?!!)


I never said you were pro-Gephardt, or that you were wrong not to like Bush. I said I wouldn't vote Gephardt and you gave me the rolleyes like I hadn't thought it out. I have. I dislike Gephardt just that much.

As for the debates, it's true that I care very little what the candidates say in the debate. You want to talk about an American Idol-style dog and pony show, just watch a debate. It's just empty talk. I wish people would stop caring about the debates and look at histories and voting records, because that's what matters.

Yes, Carol Mosely-Braun is an extremely engaging speaker. Yes she is extremely smart. And yes, I think she believes what she is saying. Too bad she's also liar who steals tax payer money. Mosely-Braun should be thanking her STARS that no one is really considering her. It lets her speak about the issues without anyone questioning her integrity. I don't give two $hits what comes out of her mouth. The Democrats want her to run so she can speak the party line and offset Sharpton. She's completely a sham candidate and its by design that she has a low profile. She might as well be Hillary Clinton.

You wanna know why Bush is in office despite his character? Because people think like you do. As long as the party wins, it doesn't matter who the candidate is or who the party associates itself with. Just give us some fake party debates to lend an air of legitimacy to the whole thing.

[tobedawg]

The more extreme and negative democrats become, the more likely it becomes that President Bush wins a second term. Although they may not necessarily agree with him on everything, most Americans like President Bush personally and believe that he's a good guy with good intentions. It's very similar to 1996 when Clinton-haters over-reached in their anti-Clintonism and caused a backlash. So go ahead... bully for you if it gives you a warm feeling inside to nominate a Bush-baiting, True Believin' lefty like Dean, but it's going to result in your party remaining in the wilderness.

I agree with this statement also.. One of the candidates needs to step up to the plate with something called A PLAN!!! A PLAN for the Economy.. A PLAN to make the War on Terror work, A PLAN for the Health Care Crisis.. Just talking about all the horrible things that Bush has done is okay if you CAN DO BETTER and HAVE A PLAN to do better.. But to base your campaign on what your opponent is doing wrong is going to end up being self-destructive in the end..

I said it once and I'll say it again.. "GO NADER!!"

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by tobedawg

I said it once and I'll say it again.. "GO NADER!!"
Nader Calls Democrats 'Chronic Whiners' (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102667,00.html)

Looks like he may be gunning up the engines for another run?

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by tobedawg
One of the candidates needs to step up to the plate with something called A PLAN!!!

Apparently you have not been inundated with the radio ads for the Democrat's secret weapon -- Lyndon Larouche.

He has received more individual contributions than any candidate except Dean.

He's got a plan for health care -- reopen the VA hospitals and repeal the HMO exemption against lawsuits.

He's got a plan for the economy -- abandon this silly floating exchange rate system and crack down on Lazard Bros. and the "synarchist" banking crowd that is seeking to destroy the world financial system.

He's got a great tag-line: "Larouche. Democratic candidate for President. The economy you save may be your own."

http://larouchein2004.net/

I should probably mention that in the past he has claimed that Kissinger was a Soviet spy and that Queen Elizabeth is a drug dealer and was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing. He advocated quarantines of AIDS patients and the colonization of Mars. He ran his 1992 campaign from prison.

[slow-dog]

Originally posted by dcXhc

He ran his 1992 campaign from prison.


Ah, yes.....I remember the campaign poster: "Vote Larouche....the only candidate George Bush feared enough to jail."

[tobedawg]

Apparently you have not been inundated with the radio ads for the Democrat's secret weapon -- Lyndon Larouche.

I just heard about him the other day in Berkeley, CA.. I was getting off of BART and 2 dudes had a table set up that said "Impeach Cheney".. I went over there to check it out and then suddenly was being yelled at by one of the dudes at the table talking about "how fascism will happen soon".. I talked with one of the guys for a few minutes and it seemed like talking to a brick wall..

He was very insistent on getting my name and phone number to give me information and also very persistent about trying to get me to go to a meeting they were having.. I walked away slowly, and blew him off.. I got a kinda religious cult-y vibe from them.

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by rightstarter
HEY, NO FAIR, MOMMY!! I SAID THE OVERUSED CLICHE FIRST!!!

*cries*

(look at the first response in this thread)
My dear Frost, I am chastened. I'm so poor, I can't even pay attention! ;)

[yvette7ica]

Originally posted by Docta
difference in what is going on here though is that democrats are not throwing mud. they are pointing out the truth that bush has evaded over these past 4 years. now if the dems started to say that laura is a slut or bush had an affair, that is mudslinging.


True, but for the uninformed viewer it looks like mud-slinging. Especially, with how the media covers it. A good example is Gore's recent remarks. I think more people are realizing the mess the Bush administration has made. He's got another year to redeem himself. I think the only way Bush has a sure fire chance of winning is when he pulls Osama Bin Laden and/or Saddam Hussein out of his ass 2-4 months before the election. I'm willing to put money on the time frame.

[tobedawg]

I think the only way Bush has a sure fire chance of winning is when he pulls Osama Bin Laden and/or Saddam Hussein out of his ass 2-4 months before the election. I'm willing to put money on the time frame.

Either that or finding the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq a month or two before the election.. Don't put anything past this Administration...

They play the game of politics alot harder and alot better than the Democrats which is one of the reasons that the Republicans are dominating the government.. It is no accident that the Republican National Convention will be held in New York City on the first week on September in 2004 (1 week before the anniversary of 9/11 and 2 months before the Presidential Election)

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
You wanna know why Bush is in office despite his character? Because people think like you do. As long as the party wins, it doesn't matter who the candidate is or who the party associates itself with. Just give us some fake party debates to lend an air of legitimacy to the whole thing.


I'm not sure exactly how you managed to tease this notion that people who think like me put Bush in the White House out of what I have been saying. I have been advocating that we learn about the candidates, listen to what they say (and how they say it) instead of listening to the media.


Oh wait...I re-read what you said and it sounds awfully familiar. I think it goes something like this: All those Bush haters developing a negative campaign will push people away from the Democratic Party and hand him the election.

Something like that, right RVA?


I will not believe for a second that continuous criticism of the Bush Admin will hand him the presidency. This argument is simply baseless and again just a way to silence the truth.

[RichmondVA]

No, I don't care that you bash Bush. By all means, fire away. What I mean is that your primary voting objective seems to be to defeat Bush at any cost. So you are pulling for the Democratic party and will vote in such a way that maximizes their advantage.
And I didn't mean to be so accusatory-- I've voted according to this strategy in the past. I think we all have.

Let's face it-- by the time the primaries roll through Virginia and definitely Ohio, the candidate will have already been decided by the media and party. You and I will likely be put in the position of either voting for the candidate we want vs. gaming the system and showing solidarity behind some other candidate to make them look stronger.

So we can learn about the candidates and issues all we want. However if our analysis is more about what will beat Bush rather than what we want, we are essentially letting others dictate our vote.

The result will be that all the Dems will vote Democratic, and all the Republicans will vote GOP and the Dems will lose because right now the GOP is the more organized, stronger, and popular party. And I think that's what happened with Bush-Gore. The party picked the candidates, but I have my doubts that's who the people would have chosen in a vacuum. But we (Dems and GOP alike) went along because it was more important that the party win than that we get a good candidate.

This crop of candidates is very uninspiring to me and I've finally had enough. My choice is simple now. I vote for who I like, and if I don't like anyone, I won't vote for anyone. I'd rather vote against the entire two (or three) party system since neither one is willing to put forth a candidate that I respect. And yes, I think this still gives me EVERY right to complain about the election results.

If Bush wins, it just means that when the country goes downhill it will be with a Republican at the helm rather than a Democrat. So it's good for the party that I generally agree with as well.

[Phreon]

I just hope we can elect a president who can stimulate the economy and implement a viable forign policy through large tax increases and a firm doctrine of appeasment.

Which candidate most closely fits the bill? He's got my rubber stamp!

Phreon

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
But we (Dems and GOP alike) went along because it was more important that the party win than that we get a good candidate.



I'm sincerely stunned by this comment. In 2000, I truly voted for who I thought was the good candidate, not because of party. I lost sleep over the re-count....really! It was like a sad Lifetime movie: I sat there watching my nearly 2 yr old girl sleep hoping everything would be alright for her. (my daughter is now a drama queen too :cool: )

So this practice of voting by party line as common? Well...I hope you are wrong.

psst! if RVA is right....please, no one tell me, okay?

[RichmondVA]

I think people are less party-loyal from election-to-election ie. there are fewer life-long Democrats or Republicans.

But yeah, for Presidential elections, most people pick a party platform then vote the candidate most likely to win from the platform they like. As I get older, this gets increasingly frustrating for me.

The good news is that Perot and Nader getting votes has changed the picture. Also the closeness of the last election and the amount of voter indifference means that both parties have to reach out more than ever.

The downside is that because the elections are more open candidates are more competitive and nasty to each other. We're kind of at the dark middle point right now-- we still have party loyalists, but it's close enough to bring out the worst in candidate and voters. Hopefully we will move out of this necessary transition phase. But that's why I don't like viewing the debates as an opportunity to forward the party platform.

[slow-dog]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
The downside is that because the elections are more open candidates are more competitive and nasty to each other. We're kind of at the dark middle point right now-- we still have party loyalists, but it's close enough to bring out the worst in candidate and voters. Hopefully we will move out of this necessary transition phase. But that's why I don't like viewing the debates as an opportunity to forward the party platform.

I guess I just don't see this evolving into anything less nasty. How's your thinking go on this?

[RichmondVA]

I don't have any stats to support my theory or anything, it's just a feeling I have. I'm thinking (hoping?) that what we are seeing now is a desperate bid by the two parties to hang on to power.

We have more technology and more access to politicians than ever before, but people are still kind of stuck in the old ways.
We still have the electoral college, we still use voting machines from the 1950's.

In the past, you really couldn't change party affiliations, so your only resort was mudslinging and propaganda. Now you can get on the web and easily find various NGO ratings, voting history, and other stuff. But we haven't moved out of the old voter-manipulation/sound-bite/mudslinging mentality. So we use modern technology to accelerate the amount of propaganda and mudslinging we use.

At some point someone will realize that rather than becoming more efficient at working the old paradigms, we can actually move to a whole new paradigm. This possibility is starting to become evident to voters but we're still not sure about making the change. So the tactic you see now is to intimidate and bully
voters into sticking with the two-party, outmoded system.

I guess it's similar to what a lot of people have been saying about the RIAA and their tactics.