Convince me to vote, someone.....
 

I've been bombarded with flyers, phone calls, even stuff left under my wiper at Church (which appalled me).

Convince me that any vote that I could cast would make any difference, and that any elected official that I could possibly vote for on Tuesday will put more gas on my tank, more bread on my table, or benefit me, Joe Public, in any way shape or form.

Have at it :cool:

Interesting, I also have received more flyers and stuff than I ever had for an other election. The cost has to be incredible.

Actually I have had less calls, but I'm sure thats going to ramp up tomorrow. Now printed lit I am being buried under here.

Not really sure whose up for re-election in your neck of the woods but I would guess its time for a new goobernator. If so, what do you think of your local libertarian or green party candidates ?

I understand exactly how you feel, Man. I've found a few flyers on my porch when I get home from work, but that's about all. And it's all BS. Absolutely no substance at all anymore. Just the same old dried up promises and sickening negativity. I saw Goldens people campaigning in my sisters hood. He's an Independent that doesn't stand a snowballs chance. The other two are just the same old s**t---one (D) and one (R), both worthless, IMO.

My sister said something I though was profound tonight;

"I'm so tired of all of these people who still believe that when their party wins, it's a victory, as if any of this is final.
Every election is just a small battle in a war that never ends."

So true,
Dave

National elections are the one time every couple of years where people acting together make a choice. The more people who vote, the less likely it is that candidates on the fringe can be elected. You might not like any of the choices that you have on the ballot, but there are likely to differences between candidates you don't like. Just determine whether one of the options has a greater chance of screwing things up.

To me, party labels mean something. Very generally speaking the GOP is more in line with businesses and investors, while the dems are more in line with the working folks.

Even it the only choices I have are bad, I still want to own the choice, and not leave it for someone else to make.

Regards,

D-Ray

What do I think of them? Easy, a waste of a vote. In America, if you're not on a major party line, you're not going to get elected, plain and simple. The major party lines are the ones that have the cash flow and the exposure.

I came out of Church yesterday and there were 3 political flyers on my windshield. I found that totally appalling. One said, "which one shares our values?", and my first thought was, neither.....I don't recall bumping into either one of them at any of the services. I've got letters from the UAW telling me which candidates "we" support. I haven't been a member of the UAW since 2004.

And television ads? Here's how they all go. Open the ad with a black and white shot of the opponent and some music stolen from a dramatic scene in a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Say something bad about the opponent. Next shot is a spinning newspaper zeroing in on a headline or two about the corruption and bad voting practices of the other guy. Short statement of something about change.

Switch to color shot of the "good guy" reviewing construction plans with a crew while wearing a hard hat. Next shot is same good guy sitting on a porch swing with a couple of geezers pretending to care about what they're saying. Another shot of candidate in front of a podium or shaking hands in a crowd.

End with an arty shot of a slowly waving American flag, with a picture of the candidate and the office they're running for.

Crooks, all of them.....

Why do you call someone a crook who spends millions of dollars for a hundred thousand dollar job? :rolleyes:

I realize that I only have one vote, but I would be royally pissed if my candidate lost by one vote because I stayed home. The only time in my life that I failed to vote was when I first came down here on an H1B or when I had my Green Card. Once they sanforized me I have never missed and I won't this time.

As to how I will vote it is quite simple; I am not independently wealthy but am of a reasonably sound mind, so I will go with the Democrats. Had the GOP had their way under George W. half of SS would be in the hands of the Wall Street barons and old people would be starving. Unfortunately they did get their way in other areas and so we are circling the bowl, come Wednesday we will likely be further down in the plumbing.

Few truisms as I see them:

1. The United States of America will always exist. We will always have good and bad times, we will always have corrupt government (in varying degrees), and anyone who isn't swayed by any special interest does not live in the flesh.

2. America will never rise to economic prosperity until we install trade embargoes against nations like China. We shot ourselves in the foot. We forgave war payments, we gave away the Panama Canal, then Gitmo, and we rebuild what we bomb. And people are so damned surprised that when we act like Gandhi, we end up dressing like him too....except our "single piece of homespun" was bought at Wal Mart and made in China.

3. The only drastic changes that will take place are when people are brought to the edge of poverty and starvation. Even the Tea Party movement is a lot of hot air IMO. Why? Because there's so much good and bad press floating around that NOBODY CARES. We've been as a people shocked into numbness by everything. We have no idea what to believe, so we believe none of it, and don't give a damn. Americans vote for the candidate that looks stronger, and has a touch of Morton Downey Jr feistyness in them......as long as they don't smoke like he did, heaven forbid.

4. People have been talking about troubled times for thousands of years. We're all going to get old and gray, and no matter what happens, we'll make it there. Broke and/or hungry, maybe, but we will.

5. True change and reform will only happen the same way that the founders of this country did it.....they got pissed off enough to take up arms and take the country back. Nobody's that mad right now.

Still ain't voting ;)

As long as you believe the first point and do not believe that there is no such thing as a "thinking free market" there will always be boom and bust for the very simple reason that despite how many people attend service of a Sunday greed will always be with us.

Then don't bitch about the results.

I never have, at least I won't with this election. I voted for McCain for President.

Hey Kam!

You have to vote, otherwise you'll end up with either folks who sold us out on Wall Street, or those who failed us with stimulous and health care, depending on who's running the ad :)

Pete

Except the stimulus didn't totally fail, that's bulls**t. And I have as yet to see what is so bad about the healthcare bill, other than the fact that it isn't what we were promised, perhaps.
I do see what is wrong with the current system though, now that my sister is forced to go to the VA for her surgery. If her employer had insurance, or at least paid her more than $9 an hour so she could afford her own, she wouldn't have to go to the VA. If she hadn't been in the military, she would get stuck with a bill that easily reaches over $100,000. The only hint I've seen of any GOP plan seems to suggest that she would be catagorized "High Risk", due to age, hereditary condition and past history. And what would that mean?

Think about that.

Dave

Not participating in elections is probably the best way to hit back at the political class. The less people vote, the less of a mandate these liars and crooks have to control your life.

All I know is that I've written myself in for at least one office ever since I got the "franchise" back in '69. Usually for ditch commissioner or something like that...once in a while I'll give district judge a shot. My way of preserving myself for posterity.

The fewer people vote, the smaller the subgroups, the easier to manipulate them.

Pete

Like I said, BOTH parties have become worthless.

Dave

I have to agree with you on this. The TP is an excellent example.:p

I've always believe that when average, sensible people don't bother to vote, they leave the voting up to the nutcases. Crazy people are always more politically motived, ever notice that?

Dave

For some reason, I'm totally okay with a crazy electorate. They're not impressed by cleft-chin Kennedy-type politicians, they tend to vote in their own, or at least the closest thing to it.

There's your reason. Folks are more engaged right now than they are angry, and as politics goes, the results can be the same, sans the firearms.

The electorate in this country has the opportunity, every 2 years, to stage a mini-revolution. Every so often, the electorate gets engaged enough to actually make it happen. This will be one of those years. Get on board and vote if you'd like to participate.

Yes, but are there any races that actually make a difference in this election?

Well said BTW.

Sounds like you've seen the light, Kam.

My Favorite is "We're taking America back!".
What is this "we" s**t? And what makes any group or individual think the entire country belongs to them, exclusively, in the first place?:confused:
Last I checked there are over 300,000,000 Americans and no two of them really seem to ever agree on everything.

I remember telling a guy, years ago; He says; "I'm doing this for you!" To which I replied, "If making it easier for me to get fired on a whim is your idea of a favor, then I'll thank you to stop doing me any favors."

Dave

Nope. TP candidates? Same old s**t in a different wrapper.
(Republicans in sheeps clothing, if you ask me.)

Dave

Strange. I've never heard of a revolution which did not affect a whole two thirds of the second chamber of the legislature and left out the executive altogether. :confused:

I live in a very red state. Accordingly, some offices do not even have a Democrat running. In those cases I will generally write myself in, or Mickey Mouse, or Babe Ruth.:D

Regards,

D-Ray

Elections mean things. Those who govern generally have contempt for the governed. However, when the electorate is sufficiently engaged, significant change will result.

The current administration and congress was, if one believes the polls, deemed by the electorate to be heading in the wrong direction. The voters will have the opportunity tomorrow to change the direction of their government significantly. Some revolutions fought with guns that have cost actual lives have produced far less in tangible results.

Now, it will be up to those newly elected to respond to their "mandate" and put forward an agenda that is aligned with what the voters want. If the occupant of the executive branch continues to defy the will of the electorate, the electorate may choose to "finish the job" in 2012.

I agree generally with your first 2 paragraphs, but you're way off the mark here. Charlie Cook, the most highly regarded election pollster, said today that if tomorrow's results look like they're looking now (GOP wins the House by a good margin, doesn't take back Senate), the GOP will be making a grave error to perceive this as a mandate.

He noted several things: first, the Republicans in Congress are held in the greatest disfavor of anybody in politics at the moment. The GOP won't be "winning" this election, the Dem's will be losing a vote of confidence by not addressing the economy first in favor of health care and cap and trade (in voters' eyes). He said the GOP will go down in flames very rapidly if they read tomorrow's results as a mandate, rather than just another vote for "change."

Maybe this will convince you to vote.:rolleyes:

Or maybe this.:p

Interesting that, when polled about many of the provisions of the health care bill, the public favors those provisions. The use of the pejorative "Obamacare" and the labels of socialism and fascism have created a negative opinion of the package. Many people do not know that the things they like are actually in the package. I doubt that the people would believe that they have given a mandate to eliminate protection for preexisting conditions, coverage for college age and slightly older offspring; alternative choices for people in small groups seeking health care, and making insurers actually use premiums to pay for medical care.

Moreover, the vagaries of the pledge don't create much of a mandate under which to operate.

Question - assuming the senate retains a majority of Democrats - is there a mandate there to move forward with the GOP agenda?

Regards,

D-Ray

The GOP has an agenda? Who knew.:p

I thought there was only Dr. No and Agent Orange.

It will be a practical impossibility to repeal Health Care Reform (i.e., to get cloture in the Senate and/or get a veto-proof majority). The only thing they can do is block appropriation bills that contain the funding for implementation of the health care bill. Where does this get them? A government shutdown and the same fate as that cutie, Newtie.

I agree with Cook. I think I very clearly wrote that it will be up to the newly elected to put forward an agenda that is aligned with what the voters want (i.e., not a rehash of the "change" mantra that we heard in 2008). I doubt that this resembles point for point the platform of the GOP. However, the newly elected will need to get this figured out and fast. If they don't, we'll be right back at this again in 2012.

I don't think that even blocking spending will get PPACA changed. It will take a veto - proof majority to repeal it. Many of the key mandates in PPACA will have already taken effect by January 2011. Many more will take effect, and will not be subject to funding changes, by 2014.

The trouble is that the voters are divided and don't know what they want (other than for everything to get better in a pain-free manner). The same concern that put Obama into office (disappointment with the current state of affairs) is going to put the new faces in office tomorrow. Obama misread his sweeping victory as a mandate for a Progressive agenda and he'll pay the price tomorrow. The new GOP bunch will likely do the same. Even Dubya called his 2004 reelection a mandate, the result of which was him trying to push stuff the public didn't want. This ultimately caused the Obama tidal wave.

The newly elected GOP'ers have already forsworn compromise with the Dem's on anything. Just what do they thing they're going to accomplish with the Dem's still having a majority in the Senate and the Presidency? Tomorrow's GOP victory, if it happens, may be just the thing to guarantee that Obama wins a second term. I see a redux of 1994.

What platform?

Dave

If politicians spend their time reading polling data and nothing else, sure, I can see where one might draw a conclusion that voters "don't know what they want." However, I think that most folks, on both sides of the aisle, reflexively believe that bigger government is not an answer, but a cause, of many of our economic challenges. Most voters believe that more of their income than they are comfortable with is exacted from their wallets, the the overall return on that "investment" seems to get smaller every year. They think that the crop of politicians that has been sent to Washington is out of touch with their concerns, and those same politicians seem distracted by special interests.

Specific to this current batch of politicos, the average voter cared far less about health care and global warming than they did about their own economic security. They drive though their town and they see the "for lease" signs that dot the landscape in storefronts, office buildings and industry, and they see their economic opportunities at risk. They wonder why so much time had to be spent to get such a crappy health care product, when health care was never at the top of their list of "must do's".

Clinton and Carville had it so right in 1992: "Its the economy, stupid!" Bush Senior forgot it, and paid the price for it. Clinton forgot it by the end of 1992, and ushered in mid-term defeat for the Dems. In 1995, he declared that "The Era of Big Government is Over!", moved to the political center, and fared far better. He would have fared even better, of course, if he'd have kept it zipped.

As bad a candidate as Gore was, Clinton did so well that Gore nearly won in 2000. Bush Jr. was an immensely popular president, but the war was more the agenda than the economy in 2004, and neither the war or the economy was popular in 2004, and the poll results showed.

2008 gave the Repubs a weak candidate who didn't have much of a message on anything, and a national euphoria about a candidate who promised "change" - though no one really bothered to ask him what he meant by "change". But Obama is also now paying the price for forgetting that "its the economy, stupid."

lol. no people on both sides of the isle do not believe such nonsense

...who actually said that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" as the friggin' economy was collapsing around him. And as clueless as this dolt was, his running mate was (and remains) even more clueless. BTW, 2008 didn't give us McCain/Palin, the GOP primaries/convention did. He was not foisted upon the party. They picked him and applauded his selection of the Wasilla Hillbilly.

As to the notion that everyone thinks that the government is too big, just what has the GOP done in the past or promised to do in the future that would change this? They've already said that they won't touch the DoD budget (other than to increase it) and won't touch entitlements either.

As for the assertion that "Bush Jr. was an immensely popular president," he left office as the single most unpopular President in American history. The only thing that helped his popularity was 9/11 and the Iraq War (pretty ironic in that they were both immense catastrophes that occurred on his watch).

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

FWIW, Obama's current ratings exceed those of Reagan at the same time in his presidency.

How was Gore a bad candidate?
(I had no clue he was)

Gore did win the election but the Supremes appointed GW. (how can you not recall?)

Baby Boy was an immensely popular president??????

It's like you and I are in opposite universes.

This stuff sounds like it's right out of Carl Rove's mouth.
Carl Rove the master of just lie and repeat and repeat and repeat until it is accepted fact.