i have found it interesting in the last 3 decades that voting has become more of a 'business' than a priviledge...thus the question.
2007-08-24 06:16:07 · 17 answers · asked by Mark N 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Depends on how polarizing the candidate is.
If Hillary wins the Democrat nomination, its pretty well known that GOP voters (who decided to sit at home in 2006) will turn out in droves in Nov. 08 to vote against her, even if it is for Mr. (pro-choice) Guiliani.
Bush almost lost the 2004 election because a lot of people like me, held our noses and voted for John Kerry in an effort to get Bush out.
2007-08-24 06:23:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Some of both, In the primary I will vote for Obama, but it's really against Hillary. In the general election I will vote for Fred Thompson
2007-08-24 07:00:11 · answer #2 · answered by SteveA8 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, people do usually vote -against- rather than -for-. I think this is because our electoral process is so corrupt and campaigning is so negative, people vote for the lesser of two evils. Most of us realize how useless it is to put our trust in a candidate because no matter what they promise, when they get elected we get mostly the same old thing. So they vote for the candidate they think will at least do the least harm.
The Republicans realized years ago that as the minority party, the fewer people who vote the better they do. So they have done all they could to just turn people off to politics, to discourage them from participating or voting at all.
2007-08-24 06:24:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
To be honest I have voted both ways.In '96 I voted for Perot because I wanted to make the politicians know that I was part of the disillusioned minority.....I voted for Gore in 2000 because I liked him more then Bush.In '04 I voted for Kerry because I was against Bush!
2007-08-24 06:46:37 · answer #4 · answered by honestamerican 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
well honestly the last 2 elections I voted against Gore and Kerry. Didn't want Bush but against those two it was not even a choice.
2007-08-24 06:58:05 · answer #5 · answered by archkarat 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I vote to keep out Democrats who seem to constantly threaten the Bill of Rights.
2007-08-24 08:46:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's never been a "privilege". It's a right.
(Uhh...the lack of spelling or forethought these days...)
Just remember kiddos:
Vote what you know!
All politicians are bogus!
Do you reeeeeeaaaaally believe that either the "left" or the "right" are either one going to save your ***?
Save yourselves dam*it!!
Let's get rid of ALL of them!
We con't need another lawyer. We need the Doctor!
http://www.RonPaul2008.com
Dr. Ron Paul may be the last chance we have to keep from completely selling out the future of our country.
Look into him. Yes, he's technically a (R), but he's no lawyer!
I'm not extending a fist or a finger your way. I'm offering you my hand in true unity.
blogcharmdawtcawm/nostate
2007-08-24 10:06:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Good question. It seems like a contest between parties; not what's best for America. I am hoping Thompson breaks from the new 'spending Republican' and offers a real traditionalist that believes in limited government and lower taxes..we'll see.
2007-08-24 06:26:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You know in the last presidential election that many voted against Kerry than for Bush. I voted for Bush, but lots thought Kerry was.....well, you know.
2007-08-24 06:24:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Depends on the circumstances.
In 80 I voted for Reagan, in 88 I voted against bush, in 92 I voted for Clinton, in 96 I voted for Clinton, in 2000 and 2004 I voted against a moron.
But the moron won.
2007-08-24 06:22:37 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋