[Common Tator]

Here is my take on how many non involved voters (mostly centrists) arrive at voting decisions. When I started looking at this 30 years ago it blew my mind.

Click here

[Darnright]

>Here is my take on how many non involved voters (mostly centrists) arrive at voting decisions. When I started >looking at this 30 years ago it blew my mind.

I think you'll find that many, many non-involved Democrats have the impression that they should not like Bush. They can't give you specifics, but they know he's baaaad.

Fortunately, at this point in time, they are still in the minority.

[Radix]

Nice to see you here Sir.

[lepton]

Here is my take on how many non involved voters (mostly centrists) arrive at voting decisions. When I started looking at this 30 years ago it blew my mind.

In 1992, I went around asking my co-worker what the ten most important issues in the election were. I then asked them which candidate supported their side of the issue best. Only a couple had Clinton at more than 3 in 10. Yet when asked who they would vote for, overwhelmingly, the answer was for Clinton. When asked why, I'd often get some form of "he's for the people". "You?" "No." "What people?" -blank stare-

Women tend to be drastically less informed than men. Democrats less than Republicans...and Independents even less.

[kitkat]

Tator, I read your link, and you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! And that's the reason I tell people to drop words such as, "Vote for Bush, he really cares about the people in this country.'" Or, "He's protecting us from the terrorists."

As you said on your link, so many people don't really know the details about what's going on in politics and they vote on IMPRESSIONS! The liberals are very clever with their impression-type sound bites against Bush. But a word from someone they know and trust can change a vote in two seconds flat.

Another thing: Some people actually go to the polls undecided. Just one little voice resonating in their ear from your words can help them decide to vote for Bush.