Bush

[Joeiss]

I wouldn't vote for him, but I think he has a good chance to get re-elected.

[DimHalo]

I went with yes for a couple of reasons. But it was a really tough decision (which is one of the reasons I will not be voting in the real election). My main reason was because I think that all this mess can only be mended but the person that has been orchestrating it from the beginning (finish what you begin), but I don't know all the politics of it so I am choosing not to put up a real strong argument.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by jeepnut's slave

I went with yes for a couple of reasons. But it was a really tough decision (which is one of the reasons I will not be voting in the real election). My main reason was because I think that all this mess can only be mended but the person that has been orchestrating it from the beginning (finish what you begin), but I don't know all the politics of it so I am choosing not to put up a real strong argument.

If I was old enough to vote, I would always vote. I would never just "not do it" becuase it was "too hard a decision." One reason I would always vote is that its a right given to us that people fight and die for every single day. Since its that important, Im going to vote. Its what makes democracy go round.

The second reason I would always vote, is so that I can complain if the guy I dont vote for wins and he does a bad job. So lets say you dont vote, then you have no right what-so-ever to complain. I like complaining, so Im going to vote so that I can complain.

So if I were you, I would just go vote for some guy running independently, that you know is going to loose. This way your not throwing away your right earned through the life of others, and you'll be able to complain in the end.

[DimHalo]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

If I was old enough to vote, I would always vote. I would never just "not do it" becuase it was "too hard a decision." One reason I would always vote is that its a right given to us that people fight and die for every single day. Since its that important, Im going to vote. Its what makes democracy go round.

The second reason I would always vote, is so that I can complain if the guy I dont vote for wins and he does a bad job. So lets say you dont vote, then you have no right what-so-ever to complain. I like complaining, so Im going to vote so that I can complain.

So if I were you, I would just go vote for some guy running independently, that you know is going to loose. This way your not throwing away your right earned through the life of others, and you'll be able to complain in the end.

but if i go and vote for someone that i know absolutely nothing about i am jeopardizing the right given to me because i am expected to make good decisions with such things, if i make bad decisions it affects other people.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by jeepnut's slave

but if i go and vote for someone that i know absolutely nothing about i am jeopardizing the right given to me because i am expected to make good decisions with such things, if i make bad decisions it affects other people.

True. But if you pick the guy you know is going to loose, its not always a bad decision. You could truthfully believe that he is the best man (or woman) for the job.

[Kitana85]

Okay, here it goes...

For starters, I'm a Political Science major in college, so obviously, I pay a lot of attention to what is going on in the political arena.
I WOULD NOT EVER vote for Bush... however, I can't deal with Dean either. Dean is SUCH A FREAKING MODERATE!!!! I cannot understand why democrats would through their support behind someone so blatently moderate mascerading as a progressive. And indeed, that is what I would support, a truly proggresive candidate. My major fear about Dean is that, if elected, people would stop working toward progresssive goals, and afterwards, we would have to start again. If say, Clark was elected, as much as I'm not a fan of his, at least people acknoledge that he is a moderate, and would treat his administration as such.

If Bush is elected again, I will truly be scared for the less fortunate of America, those who cannot pull themselves up by their bootstraps because they are too poor to afford the bootstraps... and there is a growing number of those people...

The deficient is getting worse the percenteges not seen since Regean, and Bush's mean sof balenceing the budget simply don't make sense.

oh and PLEASE people, its LOSE, not LOOSE...

[gekko]

Originally Posted by Kitana85

oh and PLEASE people, its LOSE, not LOOSE...

What, you're an English major now too?

J/K. But really, political science? Ick.

[Hero2]

Im registered to vote but I dont think I will i havent seen ant good canidates. But I still dont want to vote for bush I dident like him to begin with. I hate politcs

[Professor S]

Dean is a moderate? Last time I checked he was a raving liberal. He might not be a socialist, but he's the LEAST moderate out of all the Democratic candidates. Also, the use of the word "progressive" is very relative in political terms.

As for me? I'll vote for Bush, but I'll be dreaming of "President McCain".

[Stonecutter]

I was going to leave this whole thing alone, but then I read this.

Originally Posted by Kitana85

Dean is SUCH A FREAKING MODERATE!!!!

Ok, if you believe that, you're a moron.

I don't mean that as a Flame. I mean that an actual fact.


Dean is the Anti-Bush, he's the most liberal candidate in almost half a century to have a legitimate shot at winning his party's nomination, which he will do.


He also has a legit shot at winning the presidency, despite what Fox News may be telling you.

And here's why.

Political Scientist *read: People not named Kitana* used to say that our country is 40/40/20. 40% of the population, if they were to vote, would always vote democratic, 40% always republican and 20% would be the swing. Most everyone agrees that the divide is now 45/45/10.

It is for this exact reason, that Dean has the only shot among the dems of knocking off Bush.

Al Gore tried to be Clinton politically. Technically (and politically, meaning platform wise) Gore = Clinton-Penis, but as a politician, and as a person, he did not appeal to the moderates as well as Clinton did (and as well as bush did/does) but Gore still went for the swing vote first. Gore did little or nothing about the democratic base. He didn't target the people that voted for Clinton, he just assumed that he would win their votes, but as republicans love to point out, 2000 was a great year for the republican party and minority voters/women (relatively.) The republicans beat the dems at their own game in 2000.

Dean isn't going to appeal to many moderates (of the 10% swing, he'll be lucky to get 3%) but he will (if he plays his cards right) appeal to the base. Dean needs people pissed at bush. He needs the fury that the democratic party displayed right after the decision in Florida. Democrats don't need moderates to vote for them to win the election, they just need democrats. Lots and lots of them. Because the republicans are the party in power, their political base is content right now with the way things are and will be more apathetic towards the process. If Dean can get enough of the base behind him, he can win.

I don't have illusions of grandeur. I know Dean's a huge underdog. But if he plays his cards perfectly, he can beat Bush in November, and he's the only democrat who can.


Edit: Oh yeah, one more thing. Before Bond does his George McGovern dance. Remember that the McGovern Vs Nixon election was the first election after the voting age was lowered to 18, and McGovern was the candidate of the Hippies....... who didn't vote. McGovern didn't win the base, which is exactly my point. Hippies=Lazy drug infested bums who make a bad political base. Dean needs people who are pissed off, not finding god in a field after an acid trip.

There are plenty of people pissed at bush in this country, dean needs all of their votes, and he needs to cultivate more of them.