Third Party & Independents Archives

October 13, 2006

2006 Politics: Election Strategies

Strategies are flying around this country like a locust storm. Different strategies for different politicians in different districts makes them so numerous as to require a book to cover even half of them. However, there are some core strategies underpinning campaigns for different parties, which I will call Distance, Record, and Coalition.

Distance strategy.

Of course, with the polls as they are, Republicans have the most defensive strategies in general. Their key strategy is to distance themselves from Pres. Bush, many of his policies, and their own voting records on Bush's policies. In addition, Republican candidates are focusing on issues that will resonate locally with their constituents like pro-life or pro-choice positions. This can be a shrewd strategy if their challengers allow them to fly with it - most won't, of course.

One example of this distancing is reported by CBS:

Consider Rep. Deborah Pryce, the fourth-ranking House Republican struggling to hold onto her seat in an evenly split district in central Ohio, near Columbus.

In 2004, her campaign Web site featured a banner of her and Bush sitting together, smiling. But in her latest television ad, Pryce is described as "independent."

In districts where GOP candidates are running in predominantly Republican districts, this strategy could be quite effective against Democratic candidates, especially, where the GOP candidate coops the Democrat's stronger platform issues. Some Republicans are touting more oversight by Congress, and resolving to look for the earliest possible strategy to bring our troops home from Iraq while insuring a stable Iraq. In strong GOP districts, even a 10% crossover vote to Democrats is not going to cost the Republican incumbent a win, though the margin of victory may be smaller than once hoped.

Record Strategy

Democrats and Republicans are trying to paint each other negative based on their voting records. Some Democrats are attacking Republicans as joined at the hip to Pres. Bush and his failed policies on the basis of their 'rubber stamping' his policies in the Congress. In a debate in the last week, one Democrat touted GOP incumbent's record as having voted with Bush's policies 97% of the time. The Washington Times reports: "Mr. Webb [D], a decorated Vietnam veteran whose own son is serving in Iraq, has portrayed Mr. Allen [R] as a rubber stamp for President Bush who failed to prevent the country from going to war." With Pres. Bush's numbers dropping like a rock again, it seems like a logical strategy.

This strategy of attacking the voter record though, was adopted by Republicans toward Democrats at least as early as the first week of September as the Washington Post reports: "Republicans plan to attack Democratic candidates over their voting records, business dealings, and legal tussles, the GOP officials said."

In districts where Republican incumbents won by less than a 10% margin in 2004, big trouble is ahead. In addition, many more such previously close races came onto the radar screen as toss-ups since the Foley scandal broke. These GOP incumbents may have squeaked out a win in their districts 3 weeks ago. But, with the Foley scandal threatening 1 to 3 percent of disgusted Republicans finding something better to do on election day than to vote for their Republican, and independent voters moving in large numbers toward Democrats, the balance is suddenly tipping in Democrats favor. The big question no one can answer, is whether the Foley scandal has the legs to remain a focus issue on Nov. 7? I personally have my doubts, but we shall have to wait and see.

The general Democrat strategy until very recently has been to give the Republicans rope to hang themselves on Iraq and the wage earner's economic picture. The more Republican candidates backed Bush on Iraq, the less appealing they became to voters. The more they talked up how great the economy is, the more divided the electorate became based on whether the economy has touched them positively or negatively. Though Democrats have yet to find a unified voice on a platform of issues, I have to suspect this is 100% intentional and not entirely a result of diversity opinion.

Democrats risk alienating groups of voters by adopting a centralized issue platform. Not having a record, is how Democrats hope to foil Republicans trying to attack them on one. In part, this too may be shrewd due to its disarming effect on Republicans attempt to paint all Democrats with a single brush. Some Democrats are running on changing the course in Iraq but NOT withdrawal. Others are calling for timetables for withdrawal. Still others are calling for Rumsfeld's investigation and, or resignation for failing to accurately portray the severity of the situation in Iraq. This makes it difficult for Republicans to oppose Democrats based on their being Democrats, since the term Democrat does not represent a solid set of policy stances.

Coalition Strategy

This is the oddman out strategy beginning to take hold in places like Texas, Florida, and N. Carolina. It is a strategy in which independents and third party voters are agreeing to vote for each other's candidates where there own party has no candidate running, in order to defeat a Republocrat. What binds them is the combination of a general anti-incumbent sentiment aimed at both Democrats and Republicans, as well as a hope of electing local candidates who can lower the ballot access barriers to independent and 3rd party candidates in future elections.

One odd coalition that has independents, Democrats, Republicans, Latino and black groups alike leaning toward Democrats is the minimum wage issue. The Century Foundation reports: "Moreover, support for raising the minimum wage is remarkably high across partisan affiliations. In the November poll mentioned above, not only did 93 percent of Democrats favor a boost in the minimum wage, so did 80 percent of independents and even 73 percent of Republicans."

This may partially explain why Republicans are having a devil of a time promoting the positive economic statistics. Despite their best efforts, voters remain less than optimistic on their future pocketbook issues with Republicans in the majority.

There are many other strategies be played out there in America's election districts, not the least of which is the old favorite, smear, smear, smear your opponent. But, American voters, I suspect, are less susceptible to such tactics; accepting them largely as distorted, and tricks of the trade to divert attention away from the issues voters care about. But, it is not easy to overlook the dominant strategies of distancing, using opponent's voting records, and loose coalitions gathering around the strategy to defeat incumbent obstacles to voter's issues and solutions.


Posted by David R. Remer at October 13, 2006 02:35 PM
Comments
Comment #187996

David, I’m not sure what you mean with the diversified vs. unified Democratic party. Are you saying that the centralized strategy is a bad one? I’m sorry, I just didn’t want to misinterpret your position on the issue.

Posted by: Zeek at October 13, 2006 04:53 PM
Comment #187998

The “Coalition” strategy is a no-brainer for third parties and independents. Who else can benefit from the growing anti-incumbent sentiment, or the many disillusioned Republicans looking for someone else to vote for?

All third parties and independents … are you listening? Please get on the ballots and give us some choices. Yes, it’s not easy with the two main parties trying hard to block access for third parties and independents to the ballot and debates.

So, please get on the ballots and start asking voters WHY do they keep voting to re-elect irresponsible incubment politicians? Because things are going so well ?

There’s no good logic as to why so many people keep RE-electing THEIR incumbents.
The myriad of reasons just don’t make sense. Apathy, complacency, blind partisan loyalty, the way our parents voted, laziness, ignorance, misconceptions, and far too few people that do their own thinking for themselves (always the minority).

If we start a list of PROs and CONs, which one will be the most convincing?

LIST1: Why to re-elect incumbents:

  • (1) Vote Party, Not Candidate.

  • (2) Our choices suck, so until something better comes along, lets continue re-electing incumbents.

  • (3) The other party is more corrupt than ours (yes, some one said that).

  • (4) Independents can’t think independently? (yes, some one said that too).

  • (5) Because that’s the way we’ve always done it?

  • (6) … please add your reasons

LIST2: Why to NOT re-elect irresponsible incumbents:

  • (1) Most (if not all) incumbents are irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, and look-the-other-way.

  • (2) It sends a clear, unmistakable message to Congress.

  • (3) It provides the peaceful force no other method can.

  • (4) It is simple; the one simple thing we were supposed to be doing all along.

  • (5) It creates peer pressure among their own ranks in Congress

  • (6) It creates immediate term-limits; why wait for Congress; they’ll never pass is.

  • (7) It balances power between the people and government, instead of Republicans and Democrats

  • (8) It reduces the stranglehold the two party system has on government.

  • (9) It’s a non-partisan approach; it reduces the excesses of the “IN PARTY”

  • (10) It can reduce corruption and waste (or face being voted out and a short career). It may finally be possible to pass many badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms that Congress has refused to pass for decades (e.g. campaign finance, tax reform, election reform, balanced budget, One-Purpose-Per-BILL, immigration reform, etc.)

  • (11) it’s inexpensive; no need to even send money to any politicians; besides, most of us can not compete with the wealthy, a mere 0.15% of all eligible voters who made 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 more more ($2 billion of $2.4 billion in 2004).

  • (12) It is quick.

  • (13) It eliminates the truly bad career politicians immediately.

  • (14) It cures the “jelly-brain” disease that some pandering politicians are almost immediately stricken with shortly after being elected to office, which makes them forget many (or all) of their campaign promises (i.e. “read my lips”, “no nation building”, etc.).

  • (15) It reduces the cu$hy pensions that each congress person will receive after only a few terms in Congress.

  • (16) It will encourage more people to get on the ballots.

  • (17) It reduces the effect of Gerrymandering.

  • (18) It is better than doing what we are doing which is not working.

  • (19) It levels the playing field; incumbents have vastly unfair advantages (time, visibility, perk$ of office, big-money-donors, etc).

  • (20) It increases the number of newcomers, who are always vastly out-numbered by incumbents that won’t allow any reforms that may reduce their power, opportunities for self-gain, or the security of the cu$hy, coveted seats.

  • (21) It increases accountability. Incompetent and/or poor performers should be fired. Know any in Congress now? It’s actually almost laughable.

  • (22) It creates unpredictability, which reduces the big-money-influence on a government that is already too FOR SALE.

  • (23) It doesn’t require that many people. Only 5% (4 million) of all eligible voters (121 million) voting for challengers could change the political landscape significantly. There is power in small nubers after all. It’s not herding cats, expecting bi-partisan cooperation, or expecting the most brain-washed to become un-brainwashed. Only a few percent of the population is needed to kick things off.

  • (24) It is the only thing we haven’t yet tried that we were supposed to be doing all along, always. We were never supposed to keep re-electing irresponsible incumbents due to blind party loyalty, partisan brainwashing, laziness, complacency, apathy, or ignorance, or distracting petty partisan warfare.

  • (25) It might be fun to see some truly bad, career politicians finally get the boot?

  • (26) It may eventually enable someone to name 10, 20, 50, 100, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible, accountable, not bought-and-paid-for, and don’t look the other way.

  • (27) … please add your reasons

Which list will be longer?
Feel free to add your own reasons?
Not that it will necessarily make any difference.
The blind party loyalty/brainwashing is very difficult to overcome. I know, since I used to be one of them for 30 years.

First of all, we should establish which politicians are irresponsible?
Hhhmmmmmm … that could take a while.
Perhaps it would be easier to establish which are responsible?
I can see it now.
MY congresspersons are GOOD.
Many think THEIR congresspersosn are GOOD.
But, most also think Congress, as a whole is irresponsible.
So, which is it?

Posted by: d.a.n at October 13, 2006 05:00 PM
Comment #188000

Zeek, in the article, I was highlighting the fact that the lack of a centralized platform has had its positives in their campaigning. Republicans of course, have tried to exploit it by accusing Dem’s of not having a plan about anything, because none of them agree on anything. But, as I point out, that is making it tougher for Republicans in some ways, because they can’t point to a contract with America by Democrats to pick apart.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 13, 2006 05:22 PM
Comment #188001

D.a.n., last poll I saw said only 50% of voters will support their own incumbent’s record in Congress.

That is a staggering figure. Worse than in 1994.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 13, 2006 05:25 PM
Comment #188007

David,

That’s good.
50% is almost too good to believe.

I used to be a fairly well brainwashed Republican (for 30 years). There are some very good reasons why so many voters are unhappy (not just with Republicans only or just with Democrats only). There are some good reasons (above) why people should never re-elect irresponsible incumbent politicians. Let’s just hope it translates into fewer incumbents. Any percentage that is larger than usual will help send a clear message to Congress. Still, I suspect 2008 will see even more anti-incumbent sentiment, because little (if anything) will get much better, because neither party will still refuse to pass any of the badly-needed, common-sense reforms. FOR SALE government is one of the most serious issues, but it’s doubtful Congress will pass any meaningful campaign finance reform before 2008 (if ever).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 13, 2006 06:06 PM
Comment #188008

D.a.n., it is important to note that the poll cited was directed at whether they support their incumbents record. That will not translate directly to voting out their incumbent. There is a huge percentage who will not like their incumbent’s record but, still vote for what they perceive to be the lesser of two evils.

It just occured to me, the lesser of two evils is still evil. How apropos’. Voting for challengers however, does open the door for hope of better performance, while voting for bad governance improves nothing.

Bad Politicians = Bad Government. Bad Government = Bad Politicians.

Great government cannot begin until we begin voting out bad politicians.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 13, 2006 06:13 PM
Comment #188017
David wrote: while voting for bad governance improves nothing
Exactly. You’d think people would arrive at that conclusion sooner, but then … it took me 30 years. The brainwashing and blind party loyalty is VERY difficult to overcome. But, if only a few million can be convinced that voting for bad politicians = bad government, then maybe there’s a chance for these 2006 or 2008 elections.

I’m still fairly confident, even if voters don’t do it this year or in 2008, they will eventually, some day, because voters create their own motivation. The only problem/danger is that it often comes too late, making recovery more difficult (possibly, worst case, even improbable).

I suspect the trigger will be an economic meltdown, if we stay on the current path of massive borrowing, debt, spending, and money-printing. The current total of $21.85 trillion of federal debt could reach the snowball stage. Then we will see things similar to the Great Depression of 1929. Of course, that’s doomsdayish talk. Haven’t you heard? Things are “good”, “very gooo”, “just fine”, “not to hot; not too warm”. Nevermind it is an illusion finanaced with massive debt, borrowing, spending, and money-printing. Just since 2000, National Debt has grown from $5.7 trillion to $8.6 trillion (about $500 billion per year). GDP didn’t grow that much. We’ve been over this many times. It’s not just the debt. It’s all the factors combined that could (as you say) create a “perfect storm”. The way we’re going, how easy will it be to recover from?

Posted by: d.a.n at October 13, 2006 06:48 PM
Comment #188038

Right, I assumed you meant that but I wanted to be sure.

It seems to me that there are more disadvantages than advantages to an unfocused campaign. Sweeping generalizations, while inaccurate, are still easy to make. It is also much harder for Democrats to effectively mount a widespread attack that has poignancy and effectiveness.

I believe it is the primary reason the Democrats lost the campaign battle in the elections since 2000.

Posted by: Zeek at October 13, 2006 09:46 PM
Comment #188043

Zeek, I offer the polls as evidence that in this case, it has more advantages than disadvantages. The people seem to be saying the unknown is more hopeful than the known. That aren’t sure what they will get with a Democrat, but, they know they have had it with the Republicans. Well, 55% of them, anyway.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 13, 2006 10:16 PM
Comment #188050

Zeek,

Easy to make?
Sweeping, inaccurate generalizations?
Lacking poignancy and effectiveness?
More disadvantages than advantages to an unfocused campaign?

What disadvantages?
Add them to LIST1 .


Posted by: d.a.n at October 13, 2006 11:38 PM
Comment #188051

I have a feeling that most incumbents are running scared this time around. I my Congressional district there are three candidate for Congress. The incumbent Democrat, the Republicans challenger, and a so called independent.
Both the Republican and the ‘Independent’ are picking the incumbents record apart with a lot of success. It’s funny seeing the incumbent trying to defend her record while at the same time trying to pick the Republicans record apart and sling mud at the Independent who doesn’t has a record to run against. By her commercials I can tell she’s running scared. Even though she’s leading it’s by a small margin.


In my own race for the School Board my opponent has a slight lead at this point. This is because he’s making hay over the fact that his son-in-law who’s a county deputy arrested 2 of my grandsons (ages 13 and 11) for operating unlicensed vehicles without a drivers license on a public road.
The boys were riding ATVs 50 feet from the public road on a private field road on my property. They don’t need a license on private property and the ATVs don’t need a license as long as they aren’t on a public road. The deputy had to drive 50 feet off the public road to get to where the boys were.
The charges were thrown out but my opponent is claiming that I condone lawlessness.
I’ve noticed that his grandsons ages 11, 12, 14, and 15 ride their ATVs on the public roads and nothings licensed.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 14, 2006 12:22 AM
Comment #188053

After the layers upon layers of corruption we’ve seen, and after they’ve spent this country into ruin for years to come, and after everything our troops have been through, and are still going through, right now, this very minute — anyone who votes for the Republicans is…

Well, I guess you’ll have to fill in the blank there.
I can’t allow myself to say what I truly think without breaking the WB rules.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 14, 2006 12:55 AM
Comment #188094
Adrienne wrote: After the layers upon layers of corruption we’ve seen, and after they’ve spent this country into ruin for years to come …
That’s why (after 30 years), I’m no longer Republican. I’d like to fill in the blank, but they’d surely ban me. Still, there aren’t any compelling reasons to become a Democrat either. They’ve gone along to get along, and/or dragged their feet, and also refused to ever pass any common-sense reforms.

Wait until this illusion of a good economy takes a down-turn, which is guaranteed if the massive borrowing, debt, spending, and money-printing continues. That’s likely to create some more anti-incumbent sentiment between now and 2008.

By the way, when you say “they’ve spent this country into ruin for years to come”, it may be more accurate to say “for centuries to come”.

Look how long it would take, and how much interest on debt ($47 trillion in 2006 dollars) it would require to pay off just the current $8.6 trillion debt (alone, not even including $12.8 trillion of Social Security debt) could take over 143 years …

That would also require that the government stop borrowing over $1.6 billion per day.
There will be some painful consequences.
Yet, some people (mostly from the Rose-colored “IN PARTY”) try to spin things as “good”, “very good”, and “just fine”.
That’s not math.
That’s just spin.
It’s unlikely we can grow, tax, spend, or money-print, or immigrate our way out of this.
But, what is government doing about it?
Spending, borrowing, printing-money, and voting on massive pork-barrel, graft, waste, and massive new Medicare Prescription Drug programs.
But we keep re-electing them, so we only have ourselves to thank for it.
NOTE: The pay-off-time has increased in one year from 139 years to 143 years.

Ron Brown,
Sounds like dirty politics (as usual).
Sorry to hear that.
Is your opponent an incumbent?

Posted by: d.a.n at October 14, 2006 10:05 AM
Comment #188099

Have you ever wondered why no one in Congress has ever presented a plan that shows how it is possible to pay down the federal debt?

Of course not.
They know it’s out-of-control.
What will be their plan?
The options are shrinking fast (or gone).
What will happen is:

  • (1) tax increases (but no fair tax reform; the wealthy will still be getting lots of tax loop holes);

  • (2) large cuts in benefits due to shortfalls and $12.8 trillion Social Security debt and massive shortfalls in Medicare and Medicaid;

  • (3) spending cuts in social programs;

  • (4) elimination of COLAs for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid;

  • (5) even more money-printing; it will get harder and harder to keep from defaulting on the daily $1 billion in interest alone;

  • (6) more attempts to use massive immigration to solve economic problems; unfortunately, importing millions of impoverished and uneducated will not help;

  • (7) more inflation to shrink the debt (unfortunately, that erodes people’s savings too; this is what creates bubbles, as people flee from stocks to real-estate to bonds, etc., trying to stay ahead of the insidious, ever-present inflation);

  • (8) median incomes will continue to fall;

  • (9) recessions will last longer and longer;

  • (10) government incompetence will increase;

  • (11) Nation-wide debt (currently over $42 trillion) will increase sharply;

  • (12) foreclosures will continue to climb; foreclosures have already been rising for over a year (nation-wide);

  • (13) poverty will increase (but it may slow down illegal immigration?);

  • (14) crime and societal disorder will increase, as governments, strapped for money, are forced to reduce law enforcement spending;

Think it can’t happen? It can. And it will, if we keep re-electing irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way incumbent politicians that can’t stop the massive borrowing, debt, spending, and money-printing.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 14, 2006 10:36 AM
Comment #188107

d.a.n
Yeah, he’s been in office for 16 years. He’s never been opposed before and isn’t liking it any at all.
The only thing I’ve doing is keeping his record for those 16 years in front of the voters. He can’t argue with it so he’s been trying to sling mud at me every chance he gets.
These shot at me are just part of politics. But when he starts going after my Grandyougins he’s gone way to far. It’s a good thing my campaign manager has a cool head on her shoulders. And also was able to talk her Daddy out of going over and shooting the guy.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 14, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #188151

Progressive disobedience? See what you think:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_joel_s___061014_progressive_civil_di.htm

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 14, 2006 01:36 PM
Comment #188154

Ron Brown,

Some people just ain’t got no scruple no more.
Especially irresponsible, wasteful, do-nothing, bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way, incumbent politicians. : )

Yep, likewise with our current Congress … displaying their voting records and malfeasance should be sufficient.

But the funny thing about voters is the brainwashing. It’s very difficult to un-program voters.

You can ask most voters to name 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, or 268 (halof of 535) in Congress that are responsible, and they can’t.

In fact, they’ll tell you (based on polls) most in Congress are irrespnonsible.

But, when you ask them if they are voting for THEIR congress persons, they say YES ! ? ! ?

And there lies the problem.

Brainwashing.

There’s nothing logical about it?

All of the 25 reasons above fall on deaf ears.

All any good little blind party loyalist needs is one or two reasons. Vote Party. Your Party Cares For You. Don’t let the OTHER party win any seats. Make sure incumbents in YOUR party retain their seats.

It’s a simple plan.
It’s very effective.
And, it is reinforced with petty partisan warfare, in which some voters are all too fond of wallowing in.

Now, the reason I understand this is because I (sorry to say) used to be one of them (for 30 years), and might still be if it were not for the increasingly irresponsible, arrogant, and incompetent government, growing and growing and growing ever worse and larger to truly nightmare proporations. I might still be one of those partisan hacks running around trying to twist myself all out of shape trying to twist and spin everything as Rosy, “good”, “very good”, and “just fine”, thanks to MY party, and demonizing the OTHER party, despite their obstructionism, still oblivious to the fact that both suck, BIG time.

So, you are right.
The best thing to do is keep showing the facts and the truth, because there are always some independent voters (or some on the fence) that will see through it, because they are natural independent thinkers, or their brainwashing didn’t take completely.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 14, 2006 02:02 PM
Comment #188169

“I offer the polls as evidence that in this case”

I am not exactly sure what polls you are referring to, but as far as I have seen the Democrats have been getting stomped in the elections. Of course, the upcoming election appears to be going in a new direction but that is only because, as you said, people are fed up with Republicans. I do not see how we can chalk one up for the Democrats’ strategizing.


Posted by: Zeek at October 14, 2006 03:01 PM
Comment #188244

d.a.n
I’m still confident I can get elected. There’s a whole heap of folks around here telling me that they feel that my opponent has stepped over the line and has lost their vote. But they also tell me that when they’re asked by a pollster who they’re going to vote for they just say they’re undecided.
I’m trailing by only 1% according to the polls. With about 13% undecided it can swing either way. But if what these folks are telling me is true I most likely have a good chunk of that 13%.
I promised that I would run a clean campaign and I’m trying to do just that.
I reckon we’ll see on 7 November who the voters really prefer.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 15, 2006 12:20 AM
Comment #188251

David et al

The Dems do not have a centralized platform because as a party they do not stand for anything. They have a anti-Bush platform.

Their hope is that nobody notices. It is easier to attack than come up with anything postitive.

I don’t think we should call the Dem strategy a lack of centralized platform.

A better name for the Dem strategy is obfiscation

Posted by: Jack at October 15, 2006 12:47 AM
Comment #188291

Tim Crow, Thanks for the link.

Joel S. Hirschhorn wisely wrote: My first proposed act of progressive civil disobedience is for all Americans to NOT vote in any election for either Democraps or Republicrooks. You are likely among the many who vehemently hate the Bush regime. And so proposing that you NOT vote for Democraps this November will at first seem ludicrous. But with deeper reflection, you just may come to see that for obtaining major political change it would help to NOT vote for Democraps.

The 1st part makes perfect sense.

Joel S. Hirschhorn wrote: The 2nd part of the strategy is on the economic front … This can be accomplished by motivating millions of Americans to suspend their discretionary spending for critical times to achieve specific political and economic concessions from the plutocratic Ruling Class. Many millions of successful Americans are incredibly discontent with our political and economic system and every week they collectively spend enormous sums of money on big and little things and activities that truly are unnecessary. Such discretionary spending has become habitual and addictive… . Some 70 percent of the American economy is driven by consumer spending that now works against the interests of non-wealthy Americans. We need national “buycotts” that require no formal membership in organizations, but merely voluntary spending reductions.

The 2nd part is good for another important reason too. People need to stop acting like D.C. (massive borrowing, debt, and spending). Especially when MOST have no retirement and are very unprepared for old age. Social Security and Medicare are facing problems, and it won’t be enough to get by on (and never was intended to be).

So, I think the 1st part is a great idea, and there are 26 reasons (near the top of the thread). We can do it now, or wait until we have more motivation (pain and misery).

Joel S. Hirschhorn wisely wrote: 69% of people think that members of congress consider themselves above the law; 70% believe that most members of congress do not understand the needs and problems of people like them; 36% believe that Republicrooks in congress are more corrupt than Democraps, 17% believe the reverse, and 27% think both are equally corrupt – adding up to 80% seeing a corrupt congress.

Yes, amazing as that is, voters keep re-electing those very same irresponsible incumbent politicians than keep stickin’ it to the voters.

Also, I’d like to add a 3rd item.

Don’t send can campaign donations to the Repblicrooks or Democraps or any incumbents.
Why?
Three reasons:

  • (1) Unless you are rich, and making a vast campaign donation, you are wasting your money, because you can not compete with the tiny 0.15% (the wealthy) of all 200 million eligible voters that donate 83% of all federal campaign money ($2 billion of $2.4 billion in 2004 for all donations of $200 more more).

  • (2) They get plenty of money already. That’s part of the problem. Money in elections makes them rotten, and government rotten.

  • (3) You are empowering the very same irresponsible incumbent politicians that are using and abusing the voters. You are programming them to be bad by rewarding them for being bad. Bad politicians = Bad government

So, like Zeb Pike wisely wrote it the previous thread …

So while you’re frustrated, angry and ready to kick the “bad guys” out by voting against the Republicans, realize that you’re only doing half the job, therefore really not accomplishing anything, if you don’t include the Democrats in your anti-incumbent passion. You’ll simply be rewarding them for not being as bad, when in fact they are just as bad, just not in a position to take as much advantage of their power as Republicans.

Don’t do a half-assed job unless you want half-assed results. Congress has a 90% re-election rate. Why? How bad do things have to get before slumbering voters feel the need to reject the blind party loyalty and the circular, distracting petty partisan warfare?

Posted by: d.a.n at October 15, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #188292

Ron,
Well, maybe the negative campaigning will back-fire on him.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 15, 2006 12:26 PM
Post a comment