If You ARE Not Going to Vote...Make it a Movement

There will be plenty of voters and votes.

Look at Grayson, for example: even Republicans in his district like him, because he works for the other 99% of Americans who can't afford lobbyists and bribes.

You mean the guy who voted for and is campaigning on the health care bill, financial reform and the most recent bill that some people are distorting: the $26 billion state aid bill.

That Alan Grayson?

Please give an example of something specific that you're upset about.

Grayson is trying to get Medicare for all, and he helped get a Fed Audit put into the financial "reform" bill. Are these the things you're upset about?

"I am pleased that I voted for life"

but obviously feels that we can do much better; from your link:



So: what's your beef? That he wants Medicare for everyone?

Got a link?

he said this:



Reminds me of the President supporting a public option, but then accepting the best he could get Congress to pass.

Not in mine.

nothing. No disagreement there.

you will be saying OMG this is what we have - 20 years of Republican rule.

Guys we need to get our act together. THe public option was within grasp......

I don't think we can stand any more.

Wrong place.

He feels that it's better than nothing. How much better, I don't know.

He clearly feels that it's not as good as Medicare for all, and I suspect that he doesn't feel it's as good as the promised public option.

knows: "This is the greatest step toward accomplishing a good life for middle-class Americans that we’ve seen in a generation."

"The bill will provide virtually every American with universal, comprehensive, and affordable health coverage" is simply wrong. I guess that nobody's right all of the time (except perhaps Paul Krugman).

Krugman: "this is a major program to aid lower- and lower-middle-income families"

Healthcare: victory for America's soul

If Grayson and Krugman think the thing's good, then there's a good chance that it is.

speaks strongly about the good in the best bill we could pass. (There was little margin in either House and it is pretty clear that any major change improving it, would have killed it.)

The problem that I see - is not Grayson, nor is it Baucus, who actually came pretty close to identifying early on what could pass - but the people who refuse to do what Grayson did which is to claim credit for what they could do and to list the benefits.

The spirit of malaise here is because so many refuse to take any happiness in anything we have won - because the comparison seems to always be some ideal alternative, that in reality never came close to having the votes. That is complicated by obsessing on things like stupid and jerky, but not important Gibbs' comments. There was NO reason that had to be a 2 week story. So many things are more important.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But you have a point too.

Just not a very good one, because you get lost in the sea of people who are just apathetic.

Similar to protesting a bill by not paying it... you may be staging a great protest, but you look like a deadbeat.

Actually, in a strict game theory rational view, voting is irrational as the individual cost of voting far outweighs the individual benefit. In fact the costs are real and measurable, and their are no real measurable benefits in almost all elections.

You've made a great case for not voting.

Nobody's entitled to anything. It's that simple. Another person's take on it is irrelevant. I'm sure you and others will be pushing the fear, loyalty, shame, guilt buttons until November but you will be turning as many people off as on. I think it's a waste of your time and somebody else's money.

Politicians encourage all likely voters to vote, and sometimes those voters choose the other candidate.

You don't see how that's possible?

Not voting impacts nothing, which is the point of the OP.

The OP seems to be saying to voters who have decided to sit out this time, don't think your not voting amounts to a protest vote - nobody cares. It's going to be lost in the ocean of the normal vast non voting public.

get what you want, unless what you want is to reward the status quo. It's definitely not a blow to the status quo.

Compare the impact of a Democrat not voting in 2000 to one not voting in 2008.

Each vote, despite the negative impact in 2000, was simply lost in the ocean of the vast non-voting public.

But I think you're straying from the OP here. This message is: don't be deluded. Not voting won't have the impact you think it will - IOW it's an attempt to undermine a non voter's motivation to not vote.

"Not voting won't have the impact you think it will - IOW it's an attempt to undermine a non voter's motivation to not vote."

No argument there, that's fairly obvious by the title and the gist and tone of the OP.

This is before the fact, just as politicians go after votes. After the fact (of not voting), nothing is registered. A non-vote doesn't register as a protest.

the motivation of the person deciding whether to not vote due to dissatisfaction or disgust. With the attempted manipulation now exposed, one would be wise to take that message with a grain of salt.

If you define a protest vote only as someone who declares they won't vote on a message board, then I agree that that number won't be significant. I define the protest vote as people who normally vote but decide not to because they are dissatisfied with the system, their party, the choices on the ballot or another reason, whether or not they keep it to themselves. Now there's no place on the ballot that says "protest non vote" but make no mistake, pollsters will be tracking dissatisfaction and assessing its impact. I think the impact will be felt and people will get the message.

get another Mass debacle where Dems lost Ted Kennedy's seat to a Republican.

You eg, could start helping by saving your vitriol for Rightwingers, rather than going after the people who elected Democrats in the first place. You are part of the problem, or didn't you know that? I do think people have tried to tell you that for quite some time now.

Reading your relentless attacks on Democrats makes me wonder if you don't actually want a Palin presidency.

So, why don't you get on board with the rest of us who are struggling hard to get people to help keep the majority we all worked so hard for? But your kind of 'tactics', like Gibbs, makes that extremely difficult for the rest of us who know full well what a Republican majority will do to this country.

I keep hoping when I see you post that one day you will attack the Right instead of the Left. Do you really think your constant bashing of democrats is good strategy?

I think the point for most people who willfully plan not to vote is precisely that voting (or not) does not matter, not that it matters so much that someone will notice.

do you see posts, around the Internets, in which people declare that they will not vote?

Obviously they care how it's taken. It's like the person declaring they're no longer going to post on a blog. If it didn't matter how it's taken, one would just do it without the announcement.

The point is that people who declare they're not voting obviously think this declaration is a protest.

In fact, the OPPOSITE of that assertion is obvious. Those who no longer believe voting matters maydecide not to vote.

It's obvious when it's publicly stated in protest: If this does not happen, I will not vote.

who decide not to vote and don't announce their decision versus how many who do announce. You must feel the number is very low. I think a lot of people who read DU are making their decisions on whether to vote on some or all of the ballots will keep that decision to themselves. There are a lot of regular readers here who rarely post if at all. Then there's the enormous population that stays informed but doesn't visit any of the sites online and has no thought to posting their political views. Voting is a pretty private affair for a lot of people. I've heard that spouses often don't know for sure how the other one voted. In the whole scheme of things, I think the number of people who purposely voice a decision to not vote as a protest is very small and may be insignificant.

I'm not making any assumptions about the numbers. The fact is that there are those who decide to withhold there vote in protest.

and not make an announcement of such on this board or any other.

Hollywood insiders to put together a "Mock The Vote" rather than "Rock The Vote" campaign, and even the few iPod kids who might actually vote now won't show up.

Shhhh!

This whole "protect the banks at all cost while those same banks foreclose on Americans" act is not helping.

After seeing such a pathetic display, why would anyone be enticed to vote if they aren't already?

Recommended.

As it's a winning formula, the more they get folks to blame their own Democratic party the more they laugh up their sleeves.

:hi:

But we don't respond to that kind of thing that well in America as we see voting as a right and not following a responsibility. Our voter turnout sometimes borders on the pathetic but sometimes our politicians do too. I think we need to try it for one election as an experiment. It would be interesting.