She has it wrong. If you don’t like the candidates, then you should get off you posterior and actively support someone you do like. Do some research. Look for someone who understands the issues. Or by God run for office yourself, unless you think the very act of running for office corrupts you. Of course, there’s the money issue, which is what trips up most well-meaning candidates. But that’s not so much the individual candidates as the system under which they labor. So, yeah, it says more about the people than the candidates.
It’s going to be a long time before a candidate other than a Republican or Democrat wins, and until then it doesn’t make any difference who you vote for or who wins, since there’s no practical difference at all between Republicans and Democrats.
On the other hand, you can make a difference in local elections. In my home town, people were so disgusted with the horrible things the local governments was doing to our home town, the incumbent mayor was voted out and 3 write-in candidates for Borough Council beat the current council members being voted on. Local elections matter. But national? I vote for a candidate I like and then don’t even bother watching the news to see who’s winning because it doesn’t make any difference whether the Republicans or Democrats win.
“I vote but it doesn’t seem to matter lately, I didn’t vote for obama, twice. And I feel sorry for the people that did, they have got to be suffering from severe voter’s remorse.”~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Yeah — In his first term, he was so much worse than Bush that we decided to vote for him again.
Been saying this for years! For decades there has been no ‘lesser’ evil to choose. All “choices” onoffer are as bad as the others. What is needed is thepossibility of a negative vote. You vote FOR a goodcandidate [if you can find one], or AGAINST the one you think is the worst, but not both. Whoeverhas the most net positive votes or the fewest netnegative votes “wins”.
I’ve decided to vote AGAINST all incumbents this fall regardless of party affiliation (as if one major party is really an improvement over the other). Voting FOR people hasn’t done a thing.
The problem is that all candidates are VIEWED as crooks?Why?Because each party spends millions digging up dirt on the opponents instead of what their candidte will do.That’s why it looks like the choice of the lesser evil.
Not even a tiny bit. I shudder when I think of Sarah Palin in the VP’s office. Romney would have been a smaller disaster, but if you think Boehner has a hard time riding herd on the Tea Party, imagine what it would be like with a vaporous personality like Romney in the Oval Office. Nope, our remorse STILL comes from having just a few instances of voter fraud in Florida in 2000 resulting in the Supreme Court appointing the worst. president. ever. Not an iota of a shred of a scintilla of doubt in my mind that the country would be far, far, far better off had Bush/Cheney never gone to Washington.
I won’t disagree with your assessment about either — but the country was still better off after both Nixon and Carter than it was after Baby Bush and his Puppeteer….
Rod Gonzalez about 10 years ago
Yeah.
It says: “The candidates are FINKS!”
watmiwori about 10 years ago
She’s got THAT right!
Chithing Premium Member about 10 years ago
I’d probably vote for the fink. At least he’s honest about his personality.
cdward about 10 years ago
She has it wrong. If you don’t like the candidates, then you should get off you posterior and actively support someone you do like. Do some research. Look for someone who understands the issues. Or by God run for office yourself, unless you think the very act of running for office corrupts you. Of course, there’s the money issue, which is what trips up most well-meaning candidates. But that’s not so much the individual candidates as the system under which they labor. So, yeah, it says more about the people than the candidates.
Aaberon about 10 years ago
(chuckling!!)
David Huie Green LosersBlameOthers&It'sYOURfault about 10 years ago
If all candidates were goodLittle reason to voteEither one wouldBe able to run the boat
Cminuscomics&stories Premium Member about 10 years ago
Let’s all vote against our own self interest. Oh, wait… How can we tell…?
RickMK about 10 years ago
It’s going to be a long time before a candidate other than a Republican or Democrat wins, and until then it doesn’t make any difference who you vote for or who wins, since there’s no practical difference at all between Republicans and Democrats.
On the other hand, you can make a difference in local elections. In my home town, people were so disgusted with the horrible things the local governments was doing to our home town, the incumbent mayor was voted out and 3 write-in candidates for Borough Council beat the current council members being voted on. Local elections matter. But national? I vote for a candidate I like and then don’t even bother watching the news to see who’s winning because it doesn’t make any difference whether the Republicans or Democrats win.
rshive about 10 years ago
58% is a bit high, isn’t it?
Tuner38 about 10 years ago
If all candidates are badlittle reason to voteWhoever gets in office will get the voter’s goat.
goweeder about 10 years ago
“I vote but it doesn’t seem to matter lately, I didn’t vote for obama, twice. And I feel sorry for the people that did, they have got to be suffering from severe voter’s remorse.”~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Yeah — In his first term, he was so much worse than Bush that we decided to vote for him again.
watmiwori about 10 years ago
Been saying this for years! For decades there has been no ‘lesser’ evil to choose. All “choices” onoffer are as bad as the others. What is needed is thepossibility of a negative vote. You vote FOR a goodcandidate [if you can find one], or AGAINST the one you think is the worst, but not both. Whoeverhas the most net positive votes or the fewest netnegative votes “wins”.
Guilty Bystander about 10 years ago
I’ve decided to vote AGAINST all incumbents this fall regardless of party affiliation (as if one major party is really an improvement over the other). Voting FOR people hasn’t done a thing.
RobinHood2013 about 10 years ago
If only we could employ the Monty Brewster approach and vote for “None of the Above”!
loner34 about 10 years ago
AND he warned them (open mic.) I will have more flexibility after the election.
tuslog64 about 10 years ago
The problem is that all candidates are VIEWED as crooks?Why?Because each party spends millions digging up dirt on the opponents instead of what their candidte will do.That’s why it looks like the choice of the lesser evil.
ambassadorstt about 10 years ago
A resounding….. AMEN!
Chris Sherlock about 10 years ago
Totally agree with you!
gaslightguy about 10 years ago
If they had a box on the ballot marked “None of the above”. I bet participation would skyrocket.
ratlum about 10 years ago
Vote for your favourite lobbyist ?
Burnout70s about 10 years ago
Yes. He has not done enough because he gives in to much.
Doublejake Premium Member about 10 years ago
Not even a tiny bit. I shudder when I think of Sarah Palin in the VP’s office. Romney would have been a smaller disaster, but if you think Boehner has a hard time riding herd on the Tea Party, imagine what it would be like with a vaporous personality like Romney in the Oval Office. Nope, our remorse STILL comes from having just a few instances of voter fraud in Florida in 2000 resulting in the Supreme Court appointing the worst. president. ever. Not an iota of a shred of a scintilla of doubt in my mind that the country would be far, far, far better off had Bush/Cheney never gone to Washington.
Kim0158 Premium Member about 10 years ago
Republic. . . . If it were a democracy, there’d be no leaders. . . .
Doublejake Premium Member about 10 years ago
I won’t disagree with your assessment about either — but the country was still better off after both Nixon and Carter than it was after Baby Bush and his Puppeteer….