If you previously Voted for Bush and now voted for the Democrats...?

Question

Would you have voted for the Rebublican if Bush had fired Rumsfeld before the election?

It would not have changed my vote. But I am confused as to why Bush didn't fire Rumsfeld before the election. I believe it would have given the Republicans a bounce. And, I believe the decision cost them several of the closer seats (such the Montana and Virginia Senate seats).

Answer 1

you are correct , it would have definately helped in the close races , i think republicans would definately have the senate if he would have made the announcement sooner . In my opinion he did this for 2 reasons , 1. he would have never let rumsfeld go if republicans would have won senate and the house . 2. he has always had the majority of the military behind him and he would have done this before elections many of the military would have seen it as a politicol move and he would have lost their respect which was his reason that he stated wed. morning

Answer 2

This election would probably have had a different outcome if people took the time to understand the ideals of each candidate rather than voting straight party lines. I vote for the person and not the party. By different, I mean you might have seen more independents winning their races. All too often I hear Democrats calling Republicans sheep for following blindly and voting Republican. I'd say the same goes for any political party. I voted for people in each of the parties based on the individual and not their party. If the majority of America did the same we would see a better mix.

The democrats have a huge opportunity to turn things around, the question is what direction will they turn. Politics as usual or seize the opportunity and do something amazing with the gift the American people have handed them.

While it appears to be a great victory by the democrats, I wonder if it has more to do with the failure of the republican party than what the voters think the democratic party can or will do. Time will tell.

Answer 3

I voted for Gore in 2000.

I voted for Bush in 2004

I would have voted Republican in two races and Democrat in three if Rumsfeld had been fired before the election. As it was I voted straight Democrat.

So it would have made a two vote swing. I agree if Bush had done it earlier they would have won both Montana and Virginia since they both only required a few votes to swing it.

Answer 4

Rumsfeld is one very small part of the equation. Rumsfeld executes policy. His job is to keep the military operating. Overall his record is pretty good - modernizations and reforms have been good. But the problems he faces in Iraq are way outside what the U.S. Military is prepared to deal with. Sectarian violence predates the United States, much less Rumsfeld.

My vote for Democrats was the same vote I cast for Bush in 2000 - I want somebody to do something. More substance, less soundbites. I voted for the man the Democratic Lieutenant Governor of Texas lauded for his bipartisanship and progress. Not sure what happened between then and now.

I'll keep voting incumbents out until I find someone who'll fix things rather than point fingers and blame the other party. Democrats - take warning. Do something or you'll get the same treatment in a few years. It might not take 12 years to exhaust our patience next time!

Answer 5

I did vote republican, I still believe the dems can't handle terrorism. It's true they have control, now lets see them govern.
I don't believe the country is more liberal, this election was more about folks sending a message to the Republicans than about the dems. They won by very slight margins in most races so, we'll be watching and 08 is coming soon enough.

Answer 6

I wouldn't have voted for Republicans in any case but it's a good question. I think it might have made the difference in some tight races. The dems would still have the house but the reps would have probably held on to the senate. Just my opinion.

BTW. If anyone believes that Rummy resigned on his own they are being very naive.

Answer 7

Rumsfeld is a convenient excuse for why the Je$u$ party disgusted Yuppy conservatives. The brain-dead, inbred, Bible-banging hillbilly bullies want to impose their Taliban Christianity on romantic relationships not because of any fetus fetish, but because they get off on condemning women to years of supporting an unwanted child just because of some harmles fun. More and more, the puritanical neo-Christians are demanding that the Libertarian Republicans start marching to boring Church music and force their voices to harmonize with a choir of superstitious escapists. The Jesus Nazis want absolute power, because God has absolute power. Their paranoiac and hypocritical creed demands that all Republicans toe their line for all the votes this screeching trailer-park trash cast for Born Again Bush.

Answer 8

If confused me as well. I think if Bush had fired Rumsfield weeks ago the Republicans would have a least held onto control of the Senate.

Bush is now giving at least half of Americans what they want (Yes, many people still support the effort in iraq) by signifying somewhat of a "different direction" in Iraq.

Answer 9

I agree it would have helped, so I am glad it played out as it did. Regardless of my party, I do not think it is a good idea for 1 party to control all branches of government-I believe the party loyalty has led to an erosion of the checks and balances our govt was set up to have.

Answer 10

i voted Dem's last time. this time it was republicans. rumsfeld had nothing to do with it. the war is what did the republicans in. when the dems pull the soldiers out of iraq. you watch, the tarrist will be here in america killing again. it may not happen right away. but it eventually will.