You still don't get it... We have at least 40% of the voting-eligible population in this country that doesn't bother to vote. In every poll of their behavior, their number one reason (by far) is that they don't see it making a bit of difference... politicians are politicians.
The current trend of Democrat and Democrat-lite is growing those numbers. Rather than courting American voters looking for real action on real issues, both parties take their bases for granted (and the mind-numb, CNN-watching Dems can do it more easily) and pander to minority groups.
I'm sorry but saying that it's just as effective to push someone to vote for your candidate as it is to court their support doesn't make it true. You can use that method on those that plan to vote because they just think they have to out of civic duty. You can't draw the disaffected and disenfrancised voter that way.
Guess what: the ranks of the disenfranchised are full of conservatives who see nothing but socialism in our two main political parties. If the GOP would get back on message and say it loudly, we could actually do something in this next election. If instead they give us a Rudy McRomney, you will see a low voter turnout and a Democrat president.
You may be right.
But, I am afraid the heads of the Republican Party are democrat-lite, not conservative and they are pushing their agenda. Now, this is not President Bush - these are the string pullers of the GOP.
We need to look at that. That may be where the trouble is coming from. Promise conservatives what they want, but push into office the democrat-lite candidates. When you have those candidates in office, just tell the conservatives, well, we need funds to fight a Hillary in office. We agree with your complaints but can you allow a Hillary into office?
What happens? They get funds to again further their agenda of democrat lite and they get to use our money for it.
I'm sorry, but I am relooking at what is actually happening with our politicians.
We should have stood firm and supported President Bush while we had the power - not continually join the democrats in pulling him down. We should have gone to the congress members who are the ones really selling us down the river for their own gain. But, no, it was far more fun to just sit and complain that Bush was responsible.
The congress people are the legislators and they have been allowed to sap our dollars, pad their own pockets and seek all manner of political manueverings for their personal careers. No where do I see them working for the country or to solve the problems of the nation.
pgyanke says that the 40% of voting-eligible population that does not bother to vote is " full of conservatives who see nothing but socialism in our two main political parties."
Perhaps? Is that what strategists think? I would think that most of that 40% is what you'd see in NOLA sitting in a FEMA trailer saying, "gimme my check." I think the large majority of remaining conservatives in America are either engaged, or are intentionally sitting out, and/or otherwise permanently disenchanted with politics.
Thus, the most expedient way for congresscritters to gain votes is to pander toward the left.
True. A predictable outcome of our electoral system. If you want to couch your entire strategy on getting the apathetic 40% to vote for your side... geez, good luck. But I'm not holding my breath.
I'm sorry but saying that it's just as effective to push someone to vote for your candidate as it is to court their support doesn't make it true.
That's not what I said. I said that courting people to vote for your guy, and scaring people into voting against the other guy, are equivalent and equally-effective (when there are 2 major party candidates & winner-take-all elections).
You can't draw the disaffected and disenfrancised voter that way.
Like I said, I'm not holding my breath re: the prospect of grabbing a lot of votes from the "disaffected" either way. Indeed, I believe any political strategy which relies on this... hope?... to be doomed.
Guess what: the ranks of the disenfranchised are full of conservatives who see nothing but socialism in our two main political parties.
If that is true such people should have the maturity and brains enough to recognize that (D)s are generally worse than (R)s on that score (even if (R)s are quite bad!), and vote accordingly. If they don't, I have to wonder about the rationality and sincerity of the motivations they supposedly have.
If the GOP would get back on message and say it loudly, we could actually do something in this next election. If instead they give us a Rudy McRomney, you will see a low voter turnout and a Democrat president.
I don't think you are right, I think that Rudy Giuliani could very well win (if he's nominated). We'll see who's right, though, right?