PDA

View Full Version : 10% More Voters Nationally


KCWolfman
11-02-2004, 10:26 PM
The dems state it is due to their perseverance and pressure, but obviously there are a great many more Reps voting this year as well.

The Dems ascribe those previously "disenfranchised" and their "youth movement".

Who do you ascribe for the Reps?

Garcia Bronco
11-02-2004, 10:29 PM
NBC reported that the 18-29 age group was at 17%..the same in 2000

Raiderhader
11-02-2004, 10:31 PM
Who do you ascribe for the Reps?

Those who have come to realize post 9/11 that while he is not a true Conservative, he is willing to be an actual leader and do what is best for the country inspite of world and even American opinion.

And some Conservative principals are better than pure socialist principals.

jspchief
11-02-2004, 10:32 PM
I don't ascribe it to anything other than the war. The is the first election I've participated in that had something of this magnitude occurring. I know it's certainly gained the attention of my friends that could otherwise give two shats.

DaneMcCloud
11-02-2004, 10:33 PM
I'm really surprised that after all the hoopla about new voters that not only does it seem (at 8:30 PST) that it's not made a difference, but that the states are voting exactly as they did in 2000. That's very shocking to me.

Dane
~Closely watching

KCWolfman
11-02-2004, 10:40 PM
NBC reported that the 18-29 age group was at 17%..the same in 2000
That will be a shocker to those that have been telling us otherwise for quite some time.

RJ
11-02-2004, 10:54 PM
Regardless of the outcome or the reasons, greater voter turnout can't help but be a good thing. It bodes well for our future. Apathy sucks.

KCWolfman
11-02-2004, 10:56 PM
Regardless of the outcome or the reasons, greater voter turnout can't help but be a good thing. It bodes well for our future. Apathy sucks.
Amen

Raiderhader
11-02-2004, 10:59 PM
Regardless of the outcome or the reasons, greater voter turnout can't help but be a good thing. It bodes well for our future. Apathy sucks.


That depends on wether the voters actually take the time to educate themselves on the candidates and the issues.

Idiots voting is just as bad as apathy. And actually, it is a form of apathy.

RJ
11-02-2004, 11:13 PM
That depends on wether the voters actually take the time to educate themselves on the candidates and the issues.

Idiots voting is just as bad as apathy. And actually, it is a form of apathy.


That's pretty egotistical. While I consider myself informed, I'm sure there are plenty of folks more informed than me. I'd hate to think that might make my opinion less than valid.

KCWolfman
11-02-2004, 11:15 PM
That's pretty egotistical. While I consider myself informed, I'm sure there are plenty of folks more informed than me. I'd hate to think that might make my opinion less than valid.
I think the statement is legitimate. I have heard a great deal of people stating they are voting for someone because the other guy looks shady or because this guy hasn't "got me a good paying job". Some people do vote for illogical reasons.

Garcia Bronco
11-02-2004, 11:16 PM
I think the statement is legitimate. I have heard a great deal of people stating they are voting for someone because the other guy looks shady or because this guy hasn't "got me a good paying job". Some people do vote for illogical reasons.


LOL

Jenny Gump
11-02-2004, 11:19 PM
Regardless of the outcome or the reasons, greater voter turnout can't help but be a good thing. It bodes well for our future. Apathy sucks.

I don't really care about apathy.

Raiderhader
11-02-2004, 11:29 PM
That's pretty egotistical. While I consider myself informed, I'm sure there are plenty of folks more informed than me. I'd hate to think that might make my opinion less than valid.


I think Russ covered my response. There are a lot of pure idiots out there, I'd just as soon they didn't vote, even if it is for my guy.

If you don't care enough about what is going on in/with the country to form an actual opinion and cast an educated vote, do not waste any of your day going to the polls. That is a disaster just waiting to happen otherwise.

RJ
11-02-2004, 11:29 PM
I think the statement is legitimate. I have heard a great deal of people stating they are voting for someone because the other guy looks shady or because this guy hasn't "got me a good paying job". Some people do vote for illogical reasons.


Every citizen, if they choose, gets a vote. There's no IQ test. Dumb people vote, smart people vote, average folks vote. It works out. The important thing is that we vote. The participation makes us better as a whole.

RJ
11-02-2004, 11:31 PM
I don't really care about apathy.



Yeah, most people don't. It's boring.

Garcia Bronco
11-02-2004, 11:34 PM
I just feel helpless when I think about apathy

KCWolfman
11-02-2004, 11:46 PM
Every citizen, if they choose, gets a vote. There's no IQ test. Dumb people vote, smart people vote, average folks vote. It works out. The important thing is that we vote. The participation makes us better as a whole.
I don't think he said they should not have the right to vote. He said their votes are nothing but apathetic gestures, and I agree

RJ
11-02-2004, 11:55 PM
I don't think he said they should not have the right to vote. He said their votes are nothing but apathetic gestures, and I agree


I would really hate to be the guy who had to decide which votes were apathetic gestures and which votes mattered.

Raiderhader
11-02-2004, 11:56 PM
I would really hate to be the guy who had to decide which votes were apathetic gestures and which votes mattered.


You have a comprehension problem, don't you?

RJ
11-02-2004, 11:57 PM
I don't think he said they should not have the right to vote. He said their votes are nothing but apathetic gestures, and I agree

And no....he didn't say they shouldn't have the right to vote. If I implied that I didn't mean to.

RJ
11-02-2004, 11:59 PM
You have a comprehension problem, don't you?


Yeah, I must. Generally if one person disagrees with another it indicates a lack of comprehension.