Are you just going to vote party in 2008? (NAFTA, house of representatives, enemies)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look at it this way, a vote for Ron Paul is a Republican vote. Why? Because Republicans are traditionally conservative, and generally do not welcome "change" with open arms. These are the folks who will continue to vote for their party, right or wrong, because they've been conditioned to believe that Democrats are a threat to their way of life. They also don't generally entertain "rabble-rouser independents" as serious candidates.
On the other hand, a larger percentage of folks who lean to the left WILL entertain 3rd party candidates. WHY they don't consider the repercussions of giving their vote to a 3rd party I'll never know. What they end up doing is helping the Republican party, indirectly. I wish more of these folks would realize this.
Just out of curiousity, what leads you to believe this? Are you referencing some specific data that suggests this, or are you just going with your intuition?
Where I'm from, the local AME preacher tells his congregation to meet at the church on voting day, and they all load up on a bus to their local voting station, where they vote straight-ticket Democrat. I agree that Republicans are hard-headed and too often vote straight ticket, but my experiences suggest that both sides are equally guilty of this.
Why? Of course there is no concrete proof, but look at the polls.
30% of folks still approve of Bush!!
More than that approve of the Iraq war.
These are not Ron Paul votes, but they are Giuliani/Thompson votes.
Aside from that, an independent has never won, and will not win any time in the foreseeable future. That is just the way things are. Granted, RP might actually win as much as 10% of the popular vote, but there is no way in the world he'll actually win a state, much less the election.
Look at it this way, a vote for Ron Paul is a Republican vote. Why? Because Republicans are traditionally conservative, and generally do not welcome "change" with open arms. These are the folks who will continue to vote for their party, right or wrong, because they've been conditioned to believe that Democrats are a threat to their way of life. They also don't generally entertain "rabble-rouser independents" as serious candidates.
On the other hand, a larger percentage of folks who lean to the left WILL entertain 3rd party candidates. WHY they don't consider the repercussions of giving their vote to a 3rd party I'll never know. What they end up doing is helping the Republican party, indirectly. I wish more of these folks would realize this.
Ron Paul is not a bad candidate, he's just a bad vote.
~T
Once again, Ron Paul is a Republican. His views are independent of the mainstream Republican party, that's true. But if he wins the nomination his name on the ballot will appear with the words :"Republican Party" next to it. I think there's a general line of ignorance from many that grassroots and even many longtime Republicans aren't dissatisfied with Bush and the current leadership of the GOP. They are dissatisfied, greatly dissatisifed and candidates like Paul offer that alternative "more traditional conservative voters" have been seeking.
So you're right that in a way Paul is viewed as an "independent" but only because his views are so far removed from the current GOP. But I sense that its changing. Thanks.
The jury is out on that one. I was no fan of Gore either, but Bush is reprehensible.
I will concede that there hasn't been much choice in the past two elections. I would however rather have a president that does nothing, than have a president who does too much, and has basically fubar'd the world.
The worst I think we'd have to worry about with Gore is more PC nonsense.
I'll take Gore over Bush, Thompson, or McCain, any day of the week. If you voted for Bush in either election(00 or 04), then you need to reconsider your definition of a good president.
~T
Valid points YapCity. I did vote for Bush in '04, my first presidential election since I became a citizen in '01. However I have since had serious misgivings about that vote, especially in the wake of Bush's push for amnesty for illegal aliens (an obviously sensitive issue with me since my wife and I went through all the proper and LEGAL channels to become citizens). I could never have voted for Kerry, however. But you do bring up a good point that the choices for president over the last, certainly two presidential election cycles, have been anything but inspiring.
Once again, Ron Paul is a Republican. His views are independent of the mainstream Republican party, that's true. But if he wins the nomination his name on the ballot will appear with the words :"Republican Party" next to it. I think there's a general line of ignorance from many that grassroots and even many longtime Republicans aren't dissatisfied with Bush and the current leadership of the GOP. They are dissatisfied, greatly dissatisifed and candidates like Paul offer that alternative "more traditional conservative voters" have been seeking.
So you're right that in a way Paul is viewed as an "independent" but only because his views are so far removed from the current GOP. But I sense that its changing. Thanks.
Ron Paul would never win the Republican nomination.
If he ends up on the ballot, which he will, it will be as an independent.
Yes, RP is/was a Republican. However, he's not taking votes away from the Republican party. Any votes he wins will come from centrists, i.e. "the swing vote". This is what makes the man a bad choice.
Many folks are confused as to what a centrist is. If you say things like "I'm a Republican, but I believe a woman should have the right to choose, and who cares if a couple of guys want to get married", guess what, you're a centrist. (if not a closet lefty).
The only democrat I would vote for would be Gore. If everything goes to hell I just might not vote at all. Either way the dems will more than likely NOT get my vote. BTW I voted democrat in the last pres. election.
I am not pleased with the Dems that are being shoved down our throats. I will vote for the candidate that will secure the border and all the front running democrats are open border morons. I will probably vote for a Republican even though the one we have in office is a disaster. I am not voting for another Bush in my lifetime.
[quote=YapCity;1078070]Here is a link to the popular vote by state for 2000. Note the "hanging chad" state. If that 2% that voted for Nader, voted for either Bush or Gore, we wouldn't have had the issue in the first place. Considering which party is closest to the objectives of the "Green Party", I can say without a doubt that if Mr. Nader decided to be responsible and stay out of the election, we would not have the Master of Disaster in office right now...
Granted, sadly the independent vote would not have helped in 2004, but then again we would not have been re-electing the walking disaster in 2004 if Gore had won.
Pick a party (pick your poison), and vote please.
well if gore won he couldent have invented global warming, as he invented the internet. He would have messed up the world much worse than bush none of this would be an issue if him an slick willy would have taken care of the problem to start with rather than play wait and see.
Here is a link to the popular vote by state for 2000. Note the "hanging chad" state. If that 2% that voted for Nader, voted for either Bush or Gore, we wouldn't have had the issue in the first place. Considering which party is closest to the objectives of the "Green Party", I can say without a doubt that if Mr. Nader decided to be responsible and stay out of the election, we would not have the Master of Disaster in office right now...
Granted, sadly the independent vote would not have helped in 2004, but then again we would not have been re-electing the walking disaster in 2004 if Gore had won.
Pick a party (pick your poison), and vote please.
well if gore won he couldent have invented global warming, as he invented the internet. He would have messed up the world much worse than bush none of this would be an issue if him an slick willy would have taken care of the problem to start with rather than play wait and see.
On the one hand we have a guy who "invented" global warming. Of course we fix "global warming" by using alternative energy, and restricting emissions, among other things. If he's wrong, oh well, I guess we'll have to suffer through cleaner air, and a better environment.
On the other hand we have a guy who invented "weapons of mass destruction". These weapons were never there when he said they were there, and have never been found. Oh well, he was wrong. I guess we'll have to suffer through thousands of American lives being lost, and an increased threat of terrorism as a result of his actions.
Tough choice, I can see your dilemma.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
