A.B.B. (anybody but bush)...do you see alot of this??

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
the repubs here say there is a lot of support across the country for bush...but are we seeing even more support for ABB?? i know that new hampshire had a record turn out for the democratic primary...i know that i waited for over an hour to vote in the new mexico caucus when they thought that only about 40,000 people would vote and over 100,000 did...and when i was in line everyone was discussing who they were voting for and why, but they were also saying that no matter who was running that it was important to vote bush out...now yes this was a democratic caucus, but still i heard a heck of a lot of ABB comments...



should the repubs be more worried?? are the primaries getting more voters out than expected in most states?? are the democrats finally focused and more organized??



i mean bush lost the popular vote last time by 500,000, and that was when nadar also got 2 million plus votes of likely gore voters...has bush added any to his pool for this election??

when he was elected he said he was a uniter not a divider, but has he reached out to even the independents, let alone the democrats?? i really see no people who voted for gore last time voting for bush, i see none of the nader people voting for bush and i don't see how the last four years will convince the independents to vote for bush...so it comes down to repubs vs democrats, with the independents likely going democrat this time (defecit is too big, too many jobs lost, government growning not shrinking, bush's truthfullness in question, etc)...



so for the people saying bush will be hard to beat, tell me why...i see it coming down just like 4 years ago, with the people wanting change to be more energized...the difference is that the people wanting change this time are the democrats (last time it was the repubs as they were tired of 8 years of clinton rule), probably the independents and even some repubs who don't care for both bush's inability to maintain a budget and government size, but also bush's gruff and arogant behavior





g
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 26
    drewpropsdrewprops Posts: 2,321member
    Hey Gelding, what you're seeing are Democrats who are being outspoken during an election year in a time when they control no branch of government. Their frustration is visible, especially in big cities where liberalism (in its most technical definition) is widespread. What you AREN'T seeing are the "silent majority" in the "red states" who are biding their time and becoming more and more polarized against the "liberals" who are bringing "gay marriage" and "hanoi jane fonda" forward like champions. The media is covering the Democratic primaries as a referendum on President Bush, which it admittedly very much is. Some would suggest that they are playing it very much as if there is an ongoing head-to-head vote already occurring between Bush and Kerry. This is premature.



    I think that the Democrats should be worried that they are preaching to the choir and cementing the polarization between them and their "opponents". Have no idea how else they would approach this election though.
  • Reply 2 of 26
    i'm in the abb category. but really, i'd prefer a some real change. the kind that can only be brought with a bloody coup (ok, maybe a bloodless coup, if there were strangulations, but i'd have to see a lot of strangulations).
  • Reply 3 of 26
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Yeah, but Bush shouldn't be worried about polarizing anyone- or his record of polarization over the past 4 years.
  • Reply 4 of 26
    Reminds me of this cartoon

  • Reply 5 of 26
    Quote:

    Originally posted by drewprops

    Their frustration is visible, especially in big cities where liberalism (in its most technical definition) is widespread. What you AREN'T seeing are the "silent majority" in the "red states" who are biding their time and becoming more and more polarized against the "liberals" who are bringing "gay marriage" and "hanoi jane fonda" forward like champions.



    i am from new mexico...we have no big cities...as for the jane fonda comments...just silly and will bite bush in the ass when they are shown over and over to be lies...like bush has done through out his 4 years...

    even the "red" states don't like to be lied to and played...they teach their children better than that





    g



    bush has "sold" himself as honest and a straight shooter...yet over and over he has shown himself to be, at best, horribly underinformed or, at worst, outright lying...it is probably somewhere inbetween (not to mention the "pass the buck" syndrome that hits this administration rather hard and often)...either way either his government has been incompetent or has been lying (about WMD and imminent threats, about job growth, etc)...neither is very good to base a platform speech around...
  • Reply 6 of 26
    drewpropsdrewprops Posts: 2,321member
    See Gelding, you're talking from your point of view...from what you're seeing. Perhaps what you are seeing constitutes a majority, we'll certainly find out. The biggest sin of AO is to argue our positions without stepping completely out of the ring and looking at all sides of politicians, to see the pros and the cons. The biggest sin of politics is to assume that everybody believes everything you believe, especially when they're all standing in the same room waving flags and banners.



    It's really interesting.
  • Reply 7 of 26
    Quote:

    Originally posted by drewprops

    See Gelding, you're talking from your point of view...from what you're seeing. Perhaps what you are seeing constitutes a majority, we'll certainly find out. The biggest sin of AO is to argue our positions without stepping completely out of the ring and looking at all sides of politicians, to see the pros and the cons. The biggest sin of politics is to assume that everybody believes everything you believe, especially when they're all standing in the same room waving flags and banners.



    It's really interesting.




    true drew...that is why i was asking if anyone had figures on if this year we see an increase in primary voting...are more people getting out?? i'm not saying i am right, nor that the election will be an easy democratic win...but i see quite a few people on the repub side saying "bush can't lose"...what i am slowing seeing is people on the democratic side saying, "maybe bush can lose"...it should be interesting...if it doesn't get too nasty...



    too bad i see it getting nasty very early...but i may be wrong...both sides have "baggage" hidden in their closets...and both are wealthy white men born in new england with ivy league education and long political pasts...so i don't see how they will attack each other, but that hasn't stopped that from happening before....



    g
  • Reply 8 of 26
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    I have to admit it, I really don't get the "Anybody But <Insert Name Here>!" attitude. I really don't.



    "No one could be worse than <Insert Name Here>!"



    Well, actually, they could. There's always someone worse to step in at a moment's notice.



    I saw this in 1996 with my right-wing family and Clinton, then again in 2000 and Gore. They didn't care *WHO* was on the Republican ticket, it was a rubber stamp for them.



    And now I see it with most of my friends and the Dem ticket. It doesn't matter *WHO* is on the ballot, they're going to rubber stamp them in. Sad.



    And, this boys and girls, is why a two party system SUCKS BALLS. Nobody votes *FOR* anyone, they just vote *AGAINST* 'the other team'. Christ. It's inane, and it's geared directly at the McDonald's swilling SUV driving American Idol worshipping masses - don't *think*, just vote *against the other guy*.



    So... could anyone on here please, please PLEASE explain this attitude in such a way that doesn't just fall along ideological lines and spew back pablum soundbites?



    Because I really don't get it.
  • Reply 9 of 26
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    I have seen plenty of that here in SoCal. But then again, the state is "pinko liberal" right?

    I have been invited by 2 "neighbors" whom I had never even talked to before, to a house screening of "Uncovered :the Whole truth about the Iraq war".



    I will be attending one this Friday even though

    I've seen the movie already. I recommend it. Some of the lies, err the "misrepresentations" told by Bush, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc for posterity on DVD. Including the footage of Rummie meeting w/ Saddam etc.



    I'm a registered Rep who is almost at A.B.B. It's not just my dislike for the job Bush has done the reason I want him out. It's got plenty to do with the right wing hardliners around him like Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz , Abrams, Rove, Cheney et al that have me scared.
  • Reply 10 of 26
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    And, this boys and girls, is why a two party system SUCKS BALLS. Nobody votes *FOR* anyone, they just vote *AGAINST* 'the other team'. Christ. It's inane, and it's geared directly at the McDonald's swilling SUV driving American Idol worshipping masses - don't *think*, just vote *against the other guy*.





    Amen. A multi-party system would be great. It's up to us, the voters, to change the system. It would be fun to watch both parties join together to fight the will of the voters*.



    *Assuming a majority of us wanted a true multi-party system.
  • Reply 11 of 26
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    IMO, i think Bush probably got a good chunk of votes from people who are actually libertarians. (conservative spending)



    there's a good chance Bush is going to be losing those votes.
  • Reply 12 of 26
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    ISo... could anyone on here please, please PLEASE explain this attitude in such a way that doesn't just fall along ideological lines and spew back pablum soundbites?



    Because I really don't get it.




    Parties roughly represent political philosophies and ideologies. Not perfectly, but roughly. Arguably, one should vote on political ideology and philosophy rather than more transient issues involving politicians' personalities.



    I admit I've done it before - I've voted for a couple of Republicans because I liked them better than the Democrat. In each case, it was probably a mistake, because the Repubs I voted for furthered an agenda that, in the end, I don't agree with as much as the Dems.



    But, in my defense, I also voted Green for a senate candidate in my state because the Dem candidate was such a conservative (Max Baucus). He actually ran ads with himself and Bush, and NRA ads, and ads touting his involvement in the tax cuts. I didn't particularly agree with the Green, but I probably agreed with him more than Baucus.



    One reason I disagree so strongly with your characterization of voting party line is that I think the evidence shows that the "independent" swing voters are the ones that base their votes on silly shite. I'm sure there are some true independent-minded voters who are serious thinkers about the issues, and truly cross party lines on some principled basis. But I think the vast, vast majority of swing voters are not political thinkers. That's why campaigns are such crud, going after silly issues - because they're directed squarely at the non-political swing voters who are swayed by just those silly issues.
  • Reply 13 of 26
    i agree with everythink kick says...so many voting against, few voting for...but i am not too sure about a multi-party system...i like it in theory, but currently we have a system where one side wins and basically ignores the other side for 4 years...so about 50% of the people are being represented and 50% aren't...now we add a party or two and suddenly somebody wins with 30% of the vote...and now 30% are being represented and 70% aren't...sure there would be some overlap, but the potential of unhappy people is greater and the platforms get narrower...i would like a no party system where the person elected actually represents all the people but that could never happen...we are too varied in our wishes and thoughts...just look at this forum...we are all mac heads yet we can't agree on nearly any issue



    g
  • Reply 14 of 26
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    living in a small town but commuting often to Detroit/Chicago/Pittsburgh I get a feel for a lot of points of view. Pittsburgh and Detroit are decidedly anti-bush because they are in poor economic conditions right now. I see less of this in Chicago, but i still see it as being more anti-bush than not. Of course in the small town in which I reside there is much more bush support.



    I guess from what I have observed, the typical boundaries are still in place and I don't think the anti-bush thing is any stronger than what I'd expect opponents of the right to feel in other elections, I just think it's getting more exposure due to the early success of the Dean movement.
  • Reply 15 of 26
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by thegelding

    i agree with everythink kick says...so many voting against, few voting for...but i am not too sure about a multi-party system...i like it in theory, but currently we have a system where one side wins and basically ignores the other side for 4 years...so about 50% of the people are being represented and 50% aren't...now we add a party or two and suddenly somebody wins with 30% of the vote...and now 30% are being represented and 70% aren't...sure there would be some overlap, but the potential of unhappy people is greater and the platforms get narrower...i would like a no party system where the person elected actually represents all the people but that could never happen...we are too varied in our wishes and thoughts...just look at this forum...we are all mac heads yet we can't agree on nearly any issue



    g




    I disagree completely. See, you're assuming ONE party would control everything which wouldn't be the case. There would be more parties represented in all levels of government, plus more choices for President for example. So if someone from the "Blue" party got elected for Prez, it wouldn't mean that his party would also controll Congress or the Senate or both.



    Edit: I meant for my post to address your first couple of points. I clicked the button on accident. We don't differ that much re: the last part of your post. However I'd rather see different parties take different positions, sometimes working with other parties which whom they had conflicting views in other areas, towards a common interest or vote for example. Rather have that than 2 parties just voting partisan on most issues.
  • Reply 16 of 26
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Gilsch has the right idea.
  • Reply 17 of 26
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Indeed. Actually, a good article in this month's Scientific American on voting systems, and how majority vote is actually a *REALLY CRAPPY* way of voting... and how a two party system is one of the worst possible. It's amazing how badly run our system is.
  • Reply 18 of 26
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    for those who got on dean's case for so long, i am glad for one thing: he got a hell of a lot of democrats to show some backbone, something they have lacked for far too long. pity kerry won't continue that, but he's taking the safe route.
  • Reply 19 of 26
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Kicks got it.



    In a two party system everyone goes for the marginal and everything becomes tactics.
  • Reply 20 of 26
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Indeed. Actually, a good article in this month's Scientific American on voting systems, and how majority vote is actually a *REALLY CRAPPY* way of voting... and how a two party system is one of the worst possible. It's amazing how badly run our system is.



    Drat. Scientific American only has an excerpt of the article online. Can we find it elsewhere?



    EDIT: Found it. Gotta love EBSCOhost.



    I'm right with you on this one.
Sign In or Register to comment.