doing my democratic duty
- Thread starter CU_Tyson
- Start date
That's easy to find out. Just count the number of people at the beach.i agree with you, although the problem is that you cannot separate/know the quantity of those who have abstained after consideration and those who were too lazy.
On a more positive front, the Dems took back Congress
8) 8) 8) 8)
I'm very pleased
Let's hold these people accountable for once. Can't wait until the dems start having tonnes of inquests and so on to dig out the corruption and lies the bush administration was based on
Morbyd
Moderator
Exactly... but they've got to be careful with it. They have to have enough hearings to expose the Republican's corruption, lies and malfeasance, but not enough that it seems like a witch hunt that drags on forever.
Now that they've won, the Dems should probably come up with a program too
Not like the Republicans really had one, but simple opposition to Bush and the war, while an effective campaign platform, is not much to govern on...Exactly... but they've got to be careful with it. They have to have enough hearings to expose the Republican's corruption, lies and malfeasance, but not enough that it seems like a witch hunt that drags on forever.
Now that they've won, the Dems should probably come up with a program too
i'm pleased that the democrats won control of congress.
what worries me most tho and the reason which cemented my distrust and bemusement and anger with about 50% of those yanks that voted this way, is that not only after everything that became obvious in his first term, did they re-elect Bush (
:x) but then the subsequent 2 years worth of rubbish has done little to dissuade the majority of them this time around.in context the dems only just have the balance of power in congress with still that megalomaniac as executive.
morbs, help me out here. tbh the above emotions that were cemented due to bush's re-election were then supported by flying buttresses when you made arnie gov of california. he's fcukin hercules for funks sake!!
i'm pleased that the democrats won control of congress.
what worries me most tho and the reason which cemented my distrust and bemusement and anger with about 50% of those yanks that voted this way, is that not only after everything that became obvious in his first term, did they re-elect Bush (
in context the dems only just have the balance of power in congress with still that megalomaniac as executive.
morbs, help me out here. tbh the above emotions that were cemented due to bush's re-election were then supported by flying buttresses when you made arnie gov of california. he's fcukin hercules for funks sake!!
a lot of republicans though probably would never vote dem ever ever - a bit like a lot of us would never vote conservative in a million years
Morbyd
Moderator
Zarb's got a point. There's a certain amount of electorate that will always vote along party lines. In general, candidates are battling for the independents and the less committed Dems/Reps.what worries me most tho and the reason which cemented my distrust and bemusement and anger with about 50% of those yanks that voted this way, is that not only after everything that became obvious in his first term, did they re-elect Bush (
in context the dems only just have the balance of power in congress with still that megalomaniac as executive.
morbs, help me out here. tbh the above emotions that were cemented due to bush's re-election were then supported by flying buttresses when you made arnie gov of california. he's fcukin hercules for funks sake!!
Arnie got elected because a) he's a moderate Republican (in a left-leading Democratic state) and b) he initially ran during a recall election for an extreeeeeemely incompetent Democratic govenor. He picked an easy time to run. He just got re-elected because his Democratic opponent was entirely inept and uncharasmatic, and things in California seem to be going better now.
As for Bush's re-election, I think you've got two main reasons that 50% voted for him: a) Republicans positioned themselves as better for national security (big issue at the time) and b) Democrat John Kerry was inept (as a campaigner) and uncharasmatic.
I think the majority is now, finally, disillusioned with Bush & co... most polls put support for the Dems at 55-60% and for the Reps at 40-45%. That straight polling doesn't necessarily translate into seats - only 1/3 of the Senate was up for vote... looks like a 51D-49R split, but it appears the Dems have a large majority in the House now... and our first woman Speaker
Zarb's got a point. There's a certain amount of electorate that will always vote along party lines. In general, candidates are battling for the independents and the less committed Dems/Reps.
Arnie got elected because a) he's a moderate Republican (in a left-leading Democratic state) and b) he initially ran during a recall election for an extreeeeeemely incompetent Democratic govenor. He picked an easy time to run. He just got re-elected because his Democratic opponent was entirely inept and uncharasmatic, and things in California seem to be going better now.
As for Bush's re-election, I think you've got two main reasons that 50% voted for him: a) Republicans positioned themselves as better for national security (big issue at the time) and b) Democrat John Kerry was inept (as a campaigner) and uncharasmatic.
I think the majority is now, finally, disillusioned with Bush & co... most polls put support for the Dems at 55-60% and for the Reps at 40-45%. That straight polling doesn't necessarily translate into seats - only 1/3 of the Senate was up for vote... looks like a 51D-49R split, but it appears the Dems have a large majority in the House now... and our first woman Speaker
i hear all your points and they make sense. although i slightly disagree/am confused by the way some of the electorate would always rep or always dem. surely in a system like the US', where the executive power is vested in one person, there is more scope/possibility that voters will be less party centric and more inclined to swing based on who the president is and what his/her policies are.
i dunno, i'm not a citizen of a presidential form of govt (well, not officially anyway!
)
Morbyd
Moderator
There are probably more people who'd vote across party for specific individuals than I think... and probably even party faithful could potentially do so for specific reasons (or else you'd never have landslides).
There's another important issue too and that's turnout. One of the main reasons the Republicans did so well in '04 is they had a really good voter turnout program in place. Likely voter lists, polling data, etc... really well targeted to make sure that people leaning Republican actually went out and voted.
This year, the Dems tried to emulate that system, with some success. Turnout of over 50% (I think it was 65%) in a mid-term election like this year is unusual.
There's another important issue too and that's turnout. One of the main reasons the Republicans did so well in '04 is they had a really good voter turnout program in place. Likely voter lists, polling data, etc... really well targeted to make sure that people leaning Republican actually went out and voted.
This year, the Dems tried to emulate that system, with some success. Turnout of over 50% (I think it was 65%) in a mid-term election like this year is unusual.
ya ****in looney liberal.
like theres loads of people i know who would never vote for the coonts in red!
Now there's a suggestion. Does a party in "yr" [sic] pants count?
u would defo get the swing vote.
I don't understand what does it mean.
In Spain we know for sure that the most loyal voters are the right ones. The left ones are the most critic. THe ones in the center are the ones who goes from right to left depending in the situation or the individual.
Three years ago that was evident with Zapatero winning the elections three days after the Madrid bombings. The right party didn't loose too many votes considering the massive disaster just after the bombs, but the socialists got all the votes of those who usually don't vote
Morbyd
Moderator
In the States you've got loyal voters on both sides.... The Republicans, over the past 6 years, have just been better at getting more of their other voters to the polls. This year, I think the Dems matched them.
I think anywhere in the world you'll get more voters after traumatic events or major upheavals. For you, the bombings. For us, this stupid war.
I think anywhere in the world you'll get more voters after traumatic events or major upheavals. For you, the bombings. For us, this stupid war.
in 2004 did the republicans use all those tricks like in 2000 (of making sure many black afr/americans couldn't vote and of there being lees voting machines in democrat areas than republican areas so as to dissuade people due to the large queues.
i love a conspiracy btw!
ya ****in looney liberal.
like theres loads of people i know who would never vote for the coonts in red!
Who ruffled your feathers tory boy - remember what happened last time?
Can you please translate into teletubbie english for me please?
basically about how good each side is at getting their "known" voters to actually vote. the republicans were better at this, hence their victory in the last 2 elections.
Morbyd
Moderator
Everybody loves 'emin 2004 did the republicans use all those tricks like in 2000 (of making sure many black afr/americans couldn't vote and of there being lees voting machines in democrat areas than republican areas so as to dissuade people due to the large queues.
i love a conspiracy btw!
There were some questions in Ohio... which happened to be the state upon which the whole electoral vote hinged (ala Florida in '00). The Republicans are at fault, of course
As a footnote, the Ohio Republican offical who was in charge of voting in '04 just lost his campaign for a different post... I think for the House of Reps. Most analysts blamed his poor performance in his previous job...
Morbyd
Moderator
Exactly. Lets say there's 10 people - 4 Dems, 4 Reps and 2 independents.
2 Dems and 2 Reps are hardcore. There're going to vote. The independents may or may not note based on various factors. That's 5 or 6 people. 50-60% turnout.
The difference for either party will be in getting those other 2 Dems or 2 Reps to go to the polls.
In '04, the Republicans were really effective getting their other 2 people to go vote, encouraging them through calls, mail, email, home visits, whatever... the Dems didn't even have good lists of likely voters back then.