I’m tempted to say TSIA, but the boards won’t let me :), so I’ll elaborate.
I voted for Nader in 2000. Throw all the 'maters you want, but I stand by my reasons at the time; for what it’s worth, voting for Gore in North Carolina had the same effect as voting for Urugbulu the chimpanzee clown. Wasn’t gonna win, no way, no how.
I know a fair number of people that voted Green in 2000 who won’t be voting Green in 2004. Heck, a lot of former Greens would give Lieberman their vote this go-round if that’s what it took to get Bush out of office. I haven’t talked to a former Naderite who’s gonna vote Green this time around, though.
And on these boards I’ve heard some tentative talk amongst some folks who voted Bush in 2000 who are seriously considering voting for a Democrat in 2004.
What I have NOT heard is from someone who voted for Gore or for Nader in 2000 who might vote for Bush in 2004. The only changes in voting that I’ve heard of this campaign season are toward, not away from, the Democratic party.
Given how close the last election was, I’m thinking that even a tiny overall shift toward Democrats would mean that the country’s majority would retake the White House.
What have other folks heard? Have you talked with any former Democrats/Greens who will be casting their vote for Bush this time around? Or am I missing something here?
As people get wealthy, I think they have a higher tendency to vote Republican. Some who have actually managed to become wealthier in the last few years might switch over. Probably a pretty small group, I’d guess.
I don’t know about that. It’s obviously going to come down to what the swing voters do. I know people who will readily vote across party lines, and the threshold is pretty low as for which way they will go. IMO, Gore was a pretty good candidate; you can’t assume that whoever wins the Democratic nomination this time is automatically going to get all the votes that Gore got. Also, world events might have a huge impact. For example, what’s gonna happen if Bush manages to pull Osama out of his ass right before the election? Or conversely, if Osama manages to hit the U.S. again right before the election?
I hope you’re right, though. I’m dancing a jig as soon as that clown’s out of office.
I’m going to close my eyes, hold my hands over my ears, and vote not-Bush in 2004. I’m at the point where I don’t care as much who does get elected as I do that it not be Bush.
I don’t hate him, I dislike him. And I dislike him more every time I see him or hear (of) him.
Train for the jobs that are there, my dyin’ ass.
Peace,
mangeorge
I am. Remember that just because “everyone you know” is of a particular opinion, that only means that you tend to associate with people you agree with. I shudder to think what would have happened if A.G. had been president.
Although I’m souring on him for a number of reasons, I’m currently leaning toward Bush. Should he be the nominee, I will give Kerry a more-than-fair chance to win me over.
If Dean is nominated, I will take it as an admission that the Democratic Party is utterly unserious about running the executive branch of the U.S. government. Thankfully, that’s looking less and less likely every day.
I didn’t vote Green but I did vote Libertarian…can I play?
The fine state of Ohio will be receiving my vote for the democratic candidate in November.
I don’t even hate the guy. I just think he’s bad at what he does. I’m all about being againt tax-and-spend, sure. But I’m even MORE opposed to NO-tax-and-spend.
MLS, do you mind if I ask why you’ll be voting for Bush?
Your point is a fair one. Left Hand and I tend to associate with a relatively left-wing bunch in real life. The Straight Dope is a good way to get in touch with intelligent folks of all political stripes, and I’m fairly certain that’s why he posted this here.
Simplest answer is 9/11/01. After that I wanted to go myself and obliterate the #%^()#$s who had anything to do with the people who did that. Have you seen the “Mommy Liberty” picture? Shows the Statue of Liberty holding a flag-wrapped infant in one arm and a substantial-looking gun in the other. Caption: The most dangerous place is between a mother and her children. It was drawn by a teenager who said she knew that her own mother, who hated guns and violence, would nevertheless stop at nothing – and I mean nothing – to protect her children. There just comes a time when you have to hit back. GWB did that.
I also realized that we’d had a number of attacks on us prior to that (Cole, the first WTC attack, to name just two) and those in power did almost zip. I think that had Gore been pres, the response would have been too namby-pamby. Too cerebral. Too cautious.
I don’t agree with everything Bush does, but I agree with enough of it.
I know that is not a popular opinion here on these boards, so I’m sure I’ll get lots of negative responses, which I will probably ignore. I basically don’t like conflict myself, and I am pretty sure I would not change any minds, so it is not useful to argue the points. I won’t get into a debate on the wars and politics. But I answered you because you asked, and asked politely.
There are a lot more reasons I could go into, but that’s the main one.
I dont think anyone who voted for gore will vote for bush, why should they?
Lots of people(conservatives) who voted for bush, wont vote again for him , since bush is spending like a drunken sailor, he doesnt want to deport the ten million illegals, and he promised to sign gun control bills if they reached his desk. Bush hasnt given the conservatives any reason to re-elect him, and even bush cant out liberal a democrat regardless of how hard bush tries.
Bush got a lot of "anti-clinton " votes the first time, he even won Tennesee because gore was as anti-gun as clinton, but there wont be any anti-clinton votes this time. The democrat should win in a landslide unless bush can somehow balance the budget, end the iraqi war, and bring back all the lost jobs and lost factories from asia by September.
As far as 9-11, iraq had nothing to do with it, it was mostly saudi arabians who were the terrorists, and none of them were from Iraq.
Gore would not have attacked Iraq just because a group of saudis bombed our world trade center and our pentagon. President Gore might have retalliated against saudi arabia, maybe even tit for tat, but Gore wouldnt have bombed Iraq for what saudi arabia did.
Vote for Bush? Oh, hell no. I’ve been voting in every presidential election since 1988, and in all of them except one, there’s been a Bush running for president. I haven’t voted for a Bush ever before, and the performance of this current jackass has given me no reason to change that pattern. Ballooing deficits, unfair tax cuts, threats to civil liberties, unjustifiable and capricious wars based on forged evidence… there’s nothing that could make me vote for Bush. Unless maybe the Democrats nominate Satan himself. Then I’d have to think about it.
I have to say that I’m sick to death of people saying, “I shudder to think what would have happened if Al Gore had been president on September 11, 2001.” Honestly, as someone who was actually in the World Trade Center half an hour before the first plane hit, and who was evacuated from lower Manhattan that day, who spent two days wondering if people I knew had been killed in the towers, and who spent the next several months breathing the smoldering debris from the site, I can tell you that any kind of revenge that Bush worked toward didn’t make a spit of difference. Lionizing this idiot because of an attack he did nothing to prevent is ridiculous. But saying that the slaughter of 3000 people scared you into voting Republican is preposterous. Republican presidents may have a reputation for hotheaded, bellicose foreign policy, but that’s hardly any reason to run to their arms any time something goes even slightly wrong.
I want a president who will control spending, work to control the deficit, and keep unnecessary government intrusion out of my life. I’m voting Democratic in 2004.
I’m sorry that you want to ignore people who don’t agree with you, but I would beseech you to actually consider what I’m going to say. There seems to be a popular conception that Clinton did nothing about terrorism, and that Bush did a lot, when the truth is, it’s the other way around. This has come up in several threads now, so I’m going to post some of the evidence that has been shown in the other threads.
First to borrow from rjung:
I also implore you to read this Time Magazine article: Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented?
Since you mentioned the USS Cole attack (Oct. 12, 2000), perhaps you weren’t aware that after that incident, President Clinton had Richard Clarke, his antiterrorism coordinator, develop a plan to take out al Qaeda. The plan was ready on December 20, 2000, right before George W. Bush took office. Clarke stayed on in the Bush administration, and pushed hard for them to take action. The Bush administration did nothing until September 11. It’s all detailed in the article.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. There’s a lot more; we’re hashing it out right now in this thread:
It’s not that I want to ignore dissenting opinions, quite the contrary. It’s just that I don’t enjoy engaging in the kind of “debate” that often ensues in discussions like this. I’ve read and seen your issues a number of times, and remain unconvinced. Make you a deal: You are entitled to your interpretation, same as I am. I just decline to discuss the issue further. The OP was factual and I really don’t care to go beyond that.