2004 Voting Strategy

[Brown]

If Bush gets another four years, it's very likely he's going to get to appoint one or two Supreme Court justices.

Actually, its more like three, quite possibly four.

Justice O'Connor has indicated she'd like to retire. (She made the tactical error of saying publicly that she did not want to retire if Bush was not elected ... and then she went on to support the stay order and the eventual decision that awarded the election to Bush.) Justice O'Connor was appointed to the bench by President Reagan, a Republican.

Justice Rehnquist has had many health problems. For a while, he was (according to some sources) not quite up to his job because of all the painkillers he'd been taking. Rehnquist was appointed to the bench by President Nixon, a Republican.

Justice Stevens was appointed to the bench by Nixon's successor, President Ford, also a Republican. He seems to be hanging in there, but he would be expected to retire within the next few years.

 

[hgc]

Actually, its more like three, quite possibly four.

...

Justice Stevens was appointed to the bench by Nixon's successor, President Ford, also a Republican. He seems to be hanging in there, but he would be expected to retire within the next few years.

Stevens is one of the most consistently "liberal" members. Ford's Souter. If he goes while a Republican is president, it'll be a real bummer.

 

[LostAngeles]

Stevens is one of the most consistently "liberal" members. Ford's Souter. If he goes while a Republican is president, it'll be a real bummer.

I hate to be a one-issue pony and play the slippery slope, but my biggest fear, with regards to the Supreme Court is going to be the effect on Roe v. Wade and the resulting repercussions.

Mainly because my current method of birth control is considered an abortifcant, and while I may be able to keep it for strict medical reasons, many others might not be so lucky.

Plus, this state isn't a guarenteed Democrat state, like MA is. Kerry may be a boring putz, but he's not Bush.

...I think I hate that I had to say that.

 

[American]

What are you guys going to do?

Still trying to figure out who is the most evil so I can vote for that person. Probably Nader.

 

[shanek]

When was that last time there was a "debate"?

1992, the last one before the rules were rigged to keep out competing candidates.

 

[gnome]

I sympathize with the idea of voting FOR something, instead of against. But sometimes the "devil you know" crosses the line so far, that one must vote even for a less-than-ideal alternative.

An example of what I'm talking about:

DISCLAIMER: I am not saying that Bush is a racist. There are many things I dislike about him, but I have never suspected him of harboring overtly racist opinions.

When David Duke ran for governor of Louisiana, he was running against someone widely regarded as corrupt. A friend of mine who lived their said she was seeing pro-Edwards bumper stickers that said, "Vote for the crook--it's important!"

Sometimes voting is damage control, face it.

 

[shanek]

Here's a strategy if you want to take votes from Bush:

Go up to every conservative you can find and show how Bush isn't fiscally conservative at all (which is very easy to do). Then point out that the Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik, is the ONLY truly fiscal conservative on the ticket. If you don't want to "waste your vote" on Badnarik, why not make the other guys do so?

Just a thought...

 

[Brown]

Stevens is one of the most consistently "liberal" members. Ford's Souter.

I have a hard time calling Justice Stevens a "liberal." He seems distinctly different from more recent "liberals" such as the late Justices Brennan and Marshall. Justice Stevens is one of the most pragmatic, common sense justices on the court, and if he seems liberal, its because the rest of the court has swung closer to the extreme of the political spectrum.

 

[wjousts]

Here's a strategy if you want to take votes from Bush:

Go up to every conservative you can find and show how Bush isn't fiscally conservative at all (which is very easy to do). Then point out that the Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik, is the ONLY truly fiscal conservative on the ticket. If you don't want to "waste your vote" on Badnarik, why not make the other guys do so?

Just a thought...

As much as I think Libertarians and there principles are misguided I think this is actually a great idea.

 

[Rocky]

What are you guys going to do?

Vote the Meadow Party in '04!
Bill and Opus, Two for America.

(you could do much worse)

 

[shanek]

As much as I think Libertarians and there principles are misguided I think this is actually a great idea.

And you know, it might work for the left, too! Point out how Kerry voted for the war and the Patriot Act and is against gay marriage, and point out that Michael Badnarik is anti-war, anti-interventionism, and for completely getting the government out of your bedroom.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I'll vote for Kerry as a positive step. You, apparently, will avoid making a real choice about the future of our country, and choose instead to fart in the wind.

And you, apparently, consider anyone who makes a choice different from yours to be not making a "real" choice.

I sense, conservative though you are, that we agree that Bush's presidency is an affront to decency, religious plurality, economic sanity and common sense.

And Kerry's wouldn't be? (10 million jobs just by wishing hard? Religious bigotry is OK?)

I don't think we should vote for Kerry for the same reason we shouldn't give in to terrorists: it just encourages that sort of behavior. As long as the Democratic Party can count on people voting for the Democrat, no matter who it is, they will continue to give us people like Kerry. This is blackmail.

 

[Kodiak]

Unfortunately for Kerry, voting against a candidate has never historically been a strong impetus to get undecideds and independents to the polls on election day.

If Bush wins, I predict that it'll be due to a combination of Nader and a lower than average voter turnout.

IMO, its Kerry's election to lose, and if he doesn't give the country specific reasons to vote for him, instead of against Bush, that is exactly what he'll do...

On the other hand, Bush could lock up this election easily (by >20%) simply by dropping Cheney and having McCain run as his VP instead.

 

[a_unique_person]

Just out of curiosity which part of Kerry's campaign issues are you and things he plans to do if elected are you impressed with the most and which the least?

There is a common saying in Australia, I don't know if you have it there, Oppositions aren't voted in, Governments are voted out. Since Presidents are limited to two terms, this is perhaps not so clear over there, but it will apply in this case.

 

[Kodiak]

There is a common saying in Australia, I don't know if you have it there, Oppositions aren't voted in, Governments are voted out. Since Presidents are limited to two terms, this is perhaps not so clear over there, but it will apply in this case.

You hope and pray...

 

[RichardR]

You hope and pray...

Not pray. I do hope, though.

 

[hgc]

And you, apparently, consider anyone who makes a choice different from yours to be not making a "real" choice.

How does "makes a choice different from [mine]" necessarily equal "vote for some third party candidate?" Are there no other choices? Come on now, think about it.

And Kerry's wouldn't be? (10 million jobs just by wishing hard? Religious bigotry is OK?)

Where do you come up with this stuff? Did I say religious bigotry is OK? It must have been my evil twin, Skippy.

I don't think we should vote for Kerry for the same reason we shouldn't give in to terrorists: it just encourages that sort of behavior. As long as the Democratic Party can count on people voting for the Democrat, no matter who it is, they will continue to give us people like Kerry. This is blackmail.

Most political parties have voters they can count on. It's called "the base" or "the party faithful." The rest of your ramble is incomprehensible. Please rephrase.

 

[Kodiak]

Not pray. I do hope, though.

Well if you're not praying, then Bush can't be that bad...

 

[Art Vandelay]

How does "makes a choice different from [mine]" necessarily equal "vote for some third party candidate?"

I never claimed that it does. I just said that you are giving the appearence of considering your choice to be the only "real" one.

Are there no other choices?

You are the one claiming that there are only two choices. Nice little bit of projection there.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Did I say religious bigotry is OK? It must have been my evil twin, Skippy.

No, Kerry said that religious bigotry is OK. Perhaps your evil twin can remind you that Kerry is the subject of discussion, not you.

Most political parties have voters they can count on. It's called "the base" or "the party faithful."

And most cities have people who kill other people. They're called "murderers". What's your point? That once we have a name for something, it's OK?