What will sway them to Romney instead of just staying home?
At least some of them might go to Ron Paul thanks to his shenanigans, which is better than voting for Obama at least.
Not to mention, of the 14% of voters who turned out to the Kentucky election, 40% of Democrats voted uncommitted. That's statistically significant. He's losing his base as well, I feel.
That's not counting the ~40% of registered voters (mostly not pulling that number out of my ass) who are going to go to the poles in November that didn't turn out for this one.
Ron Paul withdrew. You're not really making a good case for yourself, I feel.
I don't ever explain anything well, so what do you expect? And I bet he's gonna get write-in's anyway.
He will, but so do people's cats, houseplants and celebrities. And unlike Ron Paul, there are houseplants that have won elections.
Also, Paul hasn't withdrawn, he's just suspended campaigning. He's still going to stick it out till the RNC, I'd think. But even he knows he's lost at this point, and I think he and everyone else knows he's not going to be president.
And a vote for Ron Paul is never, ever better than a vote for Obama. Sure, he has some bad policies, and so does paul, but there is a big difference between, say, Signing the NDAA and wanting to repeal the civil rights act.
He knows that he's not going to be president, but I'm not so sure about everyone else. They've been known to be kind of stubborn about this.
Oh yeah, if there is anyone crazier than paul, it's the hard-core part of his base. But even his entire fan-base isn't enough to give him the republican candidacy, let alone the presidency.
He knows that he's not going to be president, but I'm not so sure about everyone else. They've been known to be kind of stubborn about this.
Oh yeah, if there is anyone crazier than paul, it's the hard-core part of his base. But even his entire fan-base isn't enough to give him the republican candidacy, let alone the presidency.
If nothing else it takes votes away from both sides.
Mandy Connell actually mentioned today that maybe to combat voter apathy we needed to actually take the right to vote away from people. Its a little extreme in my opinion, I think we need to get Pavlovian on this shit. Reward good behavior (I.E. voting) and punish bad (not voting). maybe a tax write off?
He knows that he's not going to be president, but I'm not so sure about everyone else. They've been known to be kind of stubborn about this.
Oh yeah, if there is anyone crazier than paul, it's the hard-core part of his base. But even his entire fan-base isn't enough to give him the republican candidacy, let alone the presidency.
If nothing else it takes votes away from both sides.
Mandy Connell actually mentioned today that maybe to combat voter apathy we needed to actually take the right to vote away from people. Its a little extreme in my opinion, I think we need to get Pavlovian on this shit. Reward good behavior (I.E. voting) and punish bad (not voting). maybe a tax write off?
Annnnnd flamewar!
That's not the solution. The solution is to make voting a week long and a national holiday. Everything in the goddamn country needs to shut down, and we need to have plenty of time to vote. Maybe not a whole week, but at least three days. Most people who don't vote aren't necessarily apathetic, it's just that they're too busy.
Or just make it mandatory, like it is here. Not everyone votes, but the percentage of non-voters is very small, even though the punishment is a joke.
One positive side-effect of that policy, or so I hear, is that the politicians actually have to worry about campaigning to everyone and not just the subset of people (i.e. old folks in this country) who typically vote. Issues like Social Security and such always come up during elections. Issues like college affordability, rarely so (although it has been cropping up recently).
You guys assume that we WANT everyone to vote. I would rather someone not vote at all than go into the voting booth and fill out a ballot randomly or vote without actually doing a modicum of research on the candidates. Uninformed voting is the reason a bunch of people voted for Obama + Straight Party ticket, putting some democrats into place who really shouldn't be. I know plenty of people who voted for Gov. Perdue who had no idea she was anti-abortion, even though it was right there on her own campaign website. An uninformed vote is more dangerous than an abstention. (Not that Perdue has brought disaster and hellfire to the state or anything; it's just an example.)
I take my voting seriously and only vote for candidates I've actually checked out. If I haven't, I leave that box blank and move on. I don't think anybody should be forced to vote, but they should have a legal right to time off to go do it (which they have here already).
You guys assume that we WANT everyone to vote. I would rather someone not vote at all than go into the voting booth and fill out a ballot randomly or vote without actually doing a modicum of research on the candidates. Uninformed voting is the reason a bunch of people voted for Obama + Straight Party ticket, putting some democrats into place who really shouldn't be. I know plenty of people who voted for Gov. Perdue who had no idea she was anti-abortion, even though it was right there on her own campaign website. An uninformed vote is more dangerous than an abstention. (Not that Perdue has brought disaster and hellfire to the state or anything; it's just an example.)
I take my voting seriously and only vote for candidates I've actually checked out. If I haven't, I leave that box blank and move on. I don't think anybody should be forced to vote, but they should have a legal right to time off to go do it (which they have here already).
That's actually one of my pet peeves about smaller, local elections for less high-profile offices like town comptroller or whatever. It's nearly impossible to find out anything about any of these candidates.
Nuri, are you really talking about misinformed voters or voters who care about different issues then you? Your Example Perdue is a pro-life Democrat, I've voted for pro-life democrats in the past because my options were a pro-life democrat or Rick Santorum.
While I am pro-choice there are MANY other issues that I need to worry about that are on the same level. The democrats lose CONSTANTLY at the local level here in the Philly suburbs because the R's vote straight party and the D's vote all over the place. It's actually pretty sad. The D's behave the way you'd want and suffer on a local and state level because of it.
If you are uniformed and a regular voter there is a nearly 0% chance you won't be pushed information from one or more campaigns. You will be at least a misinformed voter by the time you get to the polls. I assume very few voters who never vote just show up on election day on a whim without having some other reason that makes them a misinformed or a informed voter to suddenly come out and vote.
Scott, There were other things on the website that made me choose to vote against her, and I just picked one for the example. I don't care that people voted for her. I care that people voted for her without knowing what her political stands were. That's irresponsible. They voted for her because (a) she was a democrat, and (b) she was a woman. And I have that explanation from those people; I'm not just assuming it.
My biochem professor is an atrocious cocksucker who writes questions on material not stated in the learning aims given in our syllabus. I don't know if anything I wrote about how peptide bonds influence and restrict protein folding is right. I think the rotational axis defined by the peptide bond allows for the rotation of the R group and thus creates steric hindrances while allowing for the organization of R groups into secondary structure, but I dunno. I just need around a 63% on this exam to get an A. That it.
Dude was a condescending, vitriolic, unhelpful twat all fucking year, and then he uses the exam as a coup-de-grace of douchebaggery. I want to shit in this guy's fucking heart.
They voted for her because (a) she was a democrat, and (b) she was a woman. And I have that explanation from those people; I'm not just assuming it.
This is pretty much how I've voted for people I didn't know, I admit I'm one of those irresponsible folk. I have been caring a lot more lately though (how can anyone ignore the anti-gay, anti-women crap going on?) so I'll do what research I can for this next one. :P
Yeah, my mom has expressed to me that she votes this way. I look at Sarah Palin and go OMG, just because someone has ovaries does not make them qualified for the office!
Thing is, I couldn't in good conscience vote for anyone who willfully called themselves a Republican regardless of their personal stances. The party is too tight, and the majority of its positions are, in my opinion, ranging from ludicrous to outright dangerous. I can't really respect anyone who is willing to tie their flag to that (surprisingly not sinking) ship.
Not that I'll vote for a Democrat in their stead. Like Nuri, I abstain from most positions and only vote for real candidates I agree with. Not that it matters. I live in New York: my votes had might as well go into a black hole for all they matter to anything.
Comments
Not to mention, of the 14% of voters who turned out to the Kentucky election, 40% of Democrats voted uncommitted. That's statistically significant. He's losing his base as well, I feel.
Also, Paul hasn't withdrawn, he's just suspended campaigning. He's still going to stick it out till the RNC, I'd think. But even he knows he's lost at this point, and I think he and everyone else knows he's not going to be president.
And a vote for Ron Paul is never, ever better than a vote for Obama. Sure, he has some bad policies, and so does paul, but there is a big difference between, say, Signing the NDAA and wanting to repeal the civil rights act.
Mandy Connell actually mentioned today that maybe to combat voter apathy we needed to actually take the right to vote away from people. Its a little extreme in my opinion, I think we need to get Pavlovian on this shit. Reward good behavior (I.E. voting) and punish bad (not voting). maybe a tax write off?
Annnnnd flamewar!
I take my voting seriously and only vote for candidates I've actually checked out. If I haven't, I leave that box blank and move on. I don't think anybody should be forced to vote, but they should have a legal right to time off to go do it (which they have here already).
While I am pro-choice there are MANY other issues that I need to worry about that are on the same level. The democrats lose CONSTANTLY at the local level here in the Philly suburbs because the R's vote straight party and the D's vote all over the place. It's actually pretty sad. The D's behave the way you'd want and suffer on a local and state level because of it.
If you are uniformed and a regular voter there is a nearly 0% chance you won't be pushed information from one or more campaigns. You will be at least a misinformed voter by the time you get to the polls. I assume very few voters who never vote just show up on election day on a whim without having some other reason that makes them a misinformed or a informed voter to suddenly come out and vote.
Dude was a condescending, vitriolic, unhelpful twat all fucking year, and then he uses the exam as a coup-de-grace of douchebaggery. I want to shit in this guy's fucking heart.
Not that I'll vote for a Democrat in their stead. Like Nuri, I abstain from most positions and only vote for real candidates I agree with. Not that it matters. I live in New York: my votes had might as well go into a black hole for all they matter to anything.