If the 100 million voters who didn’t vote in 2000 are all to the right of the Democrats, how come they didn’t vote for Bush?
A lot of the 100 million who didn’t vote are idiots who are apathetic. They don’t know or care enough about the issues to make an informed decision. If you talk to them, some of them will express opinions to the left and some to the right.
My point is that given the political realities of who votes regularly and where they live, the Republicans have the advantage now. Given the level of apathy that non-voters have, Kerry would have to break too much from the status quo to get thier attention. He would then alienate the center-left. Kerry has a problem that Bush does not. Nobody is siphoning off votes from the right like Nadar or the Green and Libertarian parties are on the left.
Yes, but even the Green Party Vice President is thinking of voting for (presumably) Kerry.
And for even stranger news, Pat Buchanan is interviewing Ralph Nader to find out if conservatives should vote for him.
Excerpt:
Back in 1996, I told my Dad that I was voting Libertarian. He told me that it was a wasted vote. :rolleyes: His reasoning was that my candidate didn’t have a chance of winning.
He was going to vote for Dole over Clinton. I asked him if Dole had a chance of winning any of Califonia’s electoral votes. He admitted that he didn’t. Well then isn’t that a wasted vote? Why vote for someone who has no chance of winning? He explained that he wanted to show that Dole had some support here.
I thanked him for articulating my reasoning so well.
Haj
Nice one, minty.
Just to further point out the OP’s ignorance regarding Edwards’ voting record, according to Project Vote Smart, which takes its figures from the Congressional Quarterly (i.e., the official source for this stuff), Edwards’ voting participation for his first five years as a senator was as follows:
2003 61%
2002 100%
2001 99%
2000 100%
1999 99%
Not only is Edwards’ voting record overall far better than suggested by your myopic OP, but it’s also better than most of other Democratic Presidential candidates who are also members of Congress.
It’s better than Joe Lieberman’s:
2003 46%
2002 98%
2001 98%
2000 79%
1999 99%
It’s better than Dick Gephardt’s:
2003 9%
2002 93%
2001 91%
2000 91%
1999 90%
No, that 9% for 2003 is not a typo.
In fact, the only one who beats Edwards is Dennis Kucinich, who even managed 91% in 2003 while trying to get his presidential campaign started:
2003 91%
2002 99%
2001 98%
2000 98%
1999 99%
1998 99%
1997 99%
Maybe, instead of railing against Edwards with a bunch of dubious and unsubstantiated claims, the OP could tell us who Kerry should have chosen as a running mate. Maybe then we can get an idea of what you’re for, not just what you’re against.
Well, what you’re talking about here is a very prevalent, but very odd mindset.
People always say, “why go vote for the guy who has no chance of winning?”
No one ever says, “why go vote for the guy who has no chance of losing?” but it makes just as much sense.
If you ask yourself the question “what did my vote for the libertarian candidate really accomplish at all,” then without going much further, you’ll find yourself in the “why go vote at all?” argument – something I don’t care about getting into today, but a fight I like around election time. 
In 2000, Donna Brazile had Gore abandon his campaign in Ohio because the outcome was apparently a foregone conclusion in favor of W.
So I voted for Nader, thinking it might help secure a Green position on the ballot the next time around.
Turns out Gore lost Ohio, natch, and we Nader voters didn’t get the ballot position.
How was my vote any more wasted than those autopilot Democrats who threw theirs away on a self-professed losing candidate.
The key to making sure your vote counts is to do it where you figure it’ll have the most impact. A Texas Democrat voting for Kerry is just as wasteful as a Florida Green voiting for Nader.
Would you accept the argument if it was changed to “voting for a 3rd party candidate in a battleground state is a wasted vote”?
If anyone out there in Ohio/Florida/Oregon/etc. is dead set on chalking one up for Nader instead of Kerry, please e-mail me (it’s in my profile). I live in Indiana, and my Democratic vote counts much, much less. Writing in “Nader” would probably boost his support more, for the added effort of writing him in.
Futility is a shabby excuse for shirking your duty. I’ve pretty much always been on the conservative wing of the extreme left, and I have never, ever been entirely happy about the candidates I get to choose from. But compromise is the essential function of democracy, when political power is spread out over all the people, its almost a sure bet that nobody gets everything they want. Sure, I would like to see my political viewpoint dominant. But not at the cost of sacrificing the fundamental ideals that lie at the bottom of those viewpoints.
The duty of deciding and choosing between two not exactly thrilling candidates may not be emotionally rewarding or intellectually satisfying. (Just about never, come to think of it). My opinion is my contribution, my vote is my communion with democracy. If my only choice is between GeeDubya and Pat Robertson, I’m still going to pull that goddam lever! And then I can go behind the tree to blow chunks.
Voting is comedable because it is a privilege that should not be squandered, but don’t fool yourself into thinking any single vote, whether for Dempublican, Republicrat, Green, Libertarian, Communist, Socialist or other will make a difference.
minty took a cut at this one already, but let me add this:
Edwards ran for Senate in 1998, in North Carolina. Not only were there no coattails to be ridden, but for most of that year, it looked as if 1998 was going to be an exceptionally bad year for Democrats, especially in the South. Rather than riding coattails, Edwards had every reason to believe the larger political winds were blowing against him.
So I was at The Dead concert this weekend, and a woman in the row ahead of me was wearing a T-shirt that read: “Vote, F*cker.”
I coulda kissed her.
I’ll be voting for Kerry/Edwards. And the only reason I’ll feel like ralphing behind a tree is out of shear nervousness over the outcome. I don’t think it’s hyperbole to fear that another four years of the Bush administration will mean continued and unrepairable losses to our civil liberties and our standing among what friends we have left in the world, even greater degradation of our environment and a poor economic outlook for any family making less than $50,000 a year.
Can you really say your vote won’t make a difference? That it doesn’t matter who sits in the White House?
I say this with the greatest respect for my fellow Dopers: Vote, Fuckers!
If you live in an area where a vast majority of people do not share your political philosophy, voting might seem like a waste of time. Especially if you are politically aware enough to consider the impact of your vote in a national context. Your vote does have more impact on a local level, however. A recent school levy issue just passed here by two votes. If you feel so strongly for a losing cause that you would feel guilty if you didn’t vote, then by all means do so. But if you are pragmatic enough to analyze the particular race, then you should cast your vote where it will do the most strategic good.
For example, I can vote for the person I think would be the weakest opponent for someone I support in a party primary instead of just throwing up my hands. Remember, not everyone is interested enough to vote. If you are, that gives you a greater share in the power to change things (or keep them the way the are, if you prefer).
I can only agree with everyone here who says that voting must be taken seriously and carried out by all of us who would like to see a change in party/administration in 2004. And unfortunately, that means voting for the Democrats and Democrats alone. Not Green, not Independent, but Democrat. It’s unfortunate, but true.
Jon, unfortunately, I didn’t see Democrats standing up for our civil liberties or standing against the Republican war-mongers when it was most important. I realize that they were playing to their constituents, but I’m pretty disappointed with the lack of spine my party has had for the last 4 years.
Only now, after the fact,have several stood in opposition to the PATRIOT act and the wars we’ve involved ourselves in.
Sam
Because he’s an articulate, intelligent man who worked his ass off to get from a humble beginning to where he is today. He understands the problems facing normal Americans in a much more tangible way than John Kerry or George W. Bush, and can effectively communicate those experiences thanks to his talents.
I’d call you an idiot for this, but that’s already apparent from your intention to vote for Bush.
Gore also may have won if Bush hadn’t run, is there some sort of point? I don’t care if he lost by 1 vote or 1 million votes, he could and should have run a better campaign. His inability to do so is what cost him the presidency, not Nader.
As for Edwards, I personally don’t like a guy who made millions from chasing ambulances, but I suppose there isn’t much I can do.
Knowed Out, you’re an ass. Not just because you were so wrong about Edwards, but because you picked such a stupid way to deal with the situation.
What are you smoking? When has this centrist slide helped the Democrats? The party moves further and further into the indefinite center, and just makes itself look like really wussy Republicans. How’s that help them? If the Democrats managed to shore up some support among their own, they’d be doing a hell of a lot better. I mean, look how mobilized the Fundamentalists are - and Christian attitudes and the Republican party hardly walk hand in hard. If the Democrats would stand up, stop acting like jackasses, and say something that would inspire the progressives and liberals out there, they might have a half a chance.
Oh, and to the OP: If you wanna throw your vote away, that makes you a moron. Have fun with that.
I’ve said this countless times, but it bears repeating: It ain’t the man or even his running mate, it’s the baggage and affiliations they bring with them to government.
George Bush is a bumbler. This is what he brought with him:
Dick Cheney
Carl Rove
John Ashcroft
and a host of other equally slimy megalomaniacs. Together they have made healthy progress towards dismantling the economy, the constitution, and the protective measures put into place over many decades of hard work.
A few questions:
Are you better off than you were four years ago? Are you happy with the staus quo? Is our international reputation better or worse? Does the constant barrage of information designed to keep you cowering in fear bother you? Does trillion-dollar debt make you feel better or worse? Does this administration best represent what you consider to be the best America can offer?