Why vote? GOP doesn't see the need

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

By John Nichols
July 22, 2004

<snip>

That is true of every state. So why did the cancellations really occur?Because Republican Party bosses did not want Bush to be embarrassed by evidence of Republican opposition.

As it turns out, the concern was well founded. In several states that held Republican primaries this year, significant numbers of GOP voters rejected Bush.

In New Hampshire, for instance, 22 percent of citizens who selected Republican presidential primary ballots voted for someone other than Bush. (More than 3,000 New Hampshire Republican primary voters wrote in the name of Democrat John Kerry.) In Rhode Island, more than 15 percent of Republican primary voters rejected Bush. In Idaho and Oklahoma, more than 10 percent of Republicans cast Anyone-But-Bush votes, while almost 10 percent did so in Massachusetts. Even in the president's home state of Texas, more than 50,000 Republican primary voters refused to back Bush.

Despite the convention show that Republican leaders will put on in New York next month, Bush has inspired a good deal of grumbling among the faithful. The results from a number of the states that actually held Republican primaries reflect that embarrassing fact. There are no embarrassing results from states that canceled Republican primaries - which, of course, was the point of the cancellations.

No wonder so many Americans got scared when Bush appointees started talking about plans to cancel the November elections. Perhaps they have come to the conclusion, based on all those canceled primaries, that this administration and its minions believe democracy is a tidier enterprise when the voters are excluded.

For More

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,861 • Replies: 34

No top replies

Interesting article, Redheat. The thing is, when it comes to the actual election, do you feel that Republicans will be so swayed to vote for Kerry? Or, will they back him in the belief of 'it's better to vote a Republican dolt than to vote for Kerry?' They may want anyone but Bush, but that does not essentially mean that that 'anyone' could be a Democrat.

0 Replies

drÃ²m_et_rÃªve wrote:

Interesting article, Redheat. The thing is, when it comes to the actual election, do you feel that Republicans will be so swayed to vote for Kerry? Or, will they back him in the belief of 'it's better to vote a Republican dolt than to vote for Kerry?' They may want anyone but Bush, but that does not essentially mean that that 'anyone' could be a Democrat.

True but I think the point being made is more about the preventing of voting rather then who they want to vote for. Could be republicans would have written McCain. Who knows but they didn't get the chance to choose.

0 Replies

Ohio republicans today got a slap in the face when the secretary of state halted the plan to use Diebold elction machines this November. This thwarts the promise of Diebold Chairman whose name I forget to "deliver Ohio's electoral votes for Bush."

Ohio republicans are now going back to the drawing boards facing the specter of an honest election this year.
Why the hell should we have to work under these conditions." a right wing poll taker was heard to say. "Aren't we under enough of a disadvantage having a modern day Simple Simon as our nominee? Now they tell us we can't cheat."

More info: http://www.mydd.com/

0 Replies

The article is crap, it takes a very low number of non incumbant votes in the primaries, which is fairly common, then runs off the deep end with conjecture.

Bush won the primaries where held, primaries that are pointless are a waste of money that many states don't want to spend right now.

Nothing to see here but desperate liberals trying to spin anything and everything to help their state of denial.

0 Replies

John Nichols is full of crap. First of all, why did he neglect to mention that several states haven't had primaries for years? What were the Democrats hiding in Iowa and Washington when they held their cacuses?

He also neglected to mention that the shift to dropping primaries is a result of states going to an open primary system where anyone can vote in either party's primary (which 29 states now have) and that there were efforts in the states he listed to have Democrats vote in the Republican primaries in those states and vote against Bush??????

USA today ran a story right after the NH Primaries mentioning that almost 8,000 people that had voted for McCain in the 2000 primaries found that they were registered as Republicans when they showed up at the polls even though they were in fact, Democrats.

0 Replies

Inconvenient to your proposition, Redheat, at least from my point of view, is that overall primary voter turnout this cycle is among the lowest on record. Interesting to note is that Democratic primary turnout has lagged behind Republican turnout in several states, even the likes of touted Democratic stronghold New Jersey. In states holding primaries for both parties, The FEC shows overall Democratic turnout, as percentage-of-registered-voters-by-party-affiliation almost uniformly has been tracking behind Republican turnout as compared to previous primaries. A number of Mainstream news articles have noted this. Given that it is not unusual for a state party, as an economic consideration, to not hold a primary when that party's candidate is an incumbent without inter-party challenge ... why undertake the expense to present a contest in which the outcome is a foregone conclusion ... it is clear the reason for cancelled Republican primaries is simply lack of reason to hold a primary.

0 Replies

Timberlandko-the democratic nomination was won by Kerry in early March after a string of primary wins, often with record breaking turnout. The righties enjoy pointing out, as you did, the low voter turnout in NJ and other states. You conveniently fail to point out that in many cases, the primaries took place well after Kerry became the presumptive nominee, so, what is the point.

Democrats have rallied to Kerry as evidenced by his recent fundraising which has outstripped even Bush's. Kerry was not my first or second choice. But, I support him enthusiastically as do millions of other democrats, independents and even a few republicans. He is currently ahead in enough states to go over the 270 EV threshhold needed to win. So, despite your theory to the contrary, low voter turnout in some states is a non-issue. You will see record turnout in November and that is bad news for the repubs and good news for John Kerry, the likely next president.

0 Replies

Howdy, Sagamore, don't think I've seen you around here before. Welcome to A2K, hope to see more of you.

I'll submit I "conveniently fail to point out" the spin. Claiming low turnout has been a function of Kerry's dominance ignores the facts. Perhaps you missed this, from before Kerry's lock on the nomination:

Quote:

Posted 3/9/2004 11:11 PM

Voter turnout low for presidential primaries[/b][/i][/u]

By Erin Kelly, Gannett News Service

While its yet a long while to November, I see little so far from which Democrats can draw encouragement, and note ongoing developments, domestic and international, continually trend to their disadvantage. Others of course choose to see what they wish.

0 Replies

Timberland-here are just a few things that bring dems encouragement:

Kerry leads in elctoral votes by 137:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/index.html

Kerry leads 48-45 nationally:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

Kerry leading by 116 Electoral votes:

http://www.electionprojection.com/

Bush job approval at or near record lows:

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Kerry leading in the 13 most recent national polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_hth.html

Bush support on the war fading badly:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Less than 2 out of 5 now say country is heading in the right direction:

http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

That all seems to be good news for the dems-moreover, these numbers are generally running away from Bush. It is he that has the mountain to climb. This election is Kerry's to lose.

By the way, thanks for the article which essentially confirms my point: Dems showed up in force when the nomination was on the line, then faded once it was over.

0 Replies

2004 Republican Primary Election Results:

Voter Registration in Texas: 12,264,663

Vote Total: 686,066

634,439 or 92.47% for Bush

51,627 or 7.53% Uncommitted

0 Replies

Well, you see it one way, Sagamore,others see it another. That's what makes a campaign season. We'll all see in November.

0 Replies

timberland-looking forward to November though I don't see how you can look at the data i provided and be happy. Still, we're a long way from voting and anything can happen.

0 Replies

Yup, Sagamore, anything can happen. BTW, dunno if you're aware of This Thread, if not, you might find it interesting.

0 Replies

all i can say is, i hope bush wins, and i think the security of our country rest's on bush in office.

0 Replies

mrcool011 wrote:

all i can say is, i hope bush wins, and i think the security of our country rest's on bush in office.

So you contend that not allowing Republicans to vote for who they want to run is OK, because you want Bush to win and if he has to cheat or prevent voters from voting it's all worth it?

0 Replies

Redheat wrote:

So you contend that not allowing Republicans to vote for who they want to run is OK, because you want Bush to win and if he has to cheat or prevent voters from voting it's all worth it?

Just like the Democrats did? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Redheat wrote:
So you contend that not allowing Republicans to vote for who they want to run is OK, because you want Bush to win and if he has to cheat or prevent voters from voting it's all worth it?

Just like the Democrats did?

No, the Democrats didn't. Sorry that is one of those urban legends that is not based in actual fact. There is actual fact that Republicans weren't allowed to vote in primaries. Fact is in FL (which is what I'm sure you think you are referring to) Military ballots over 1,000 I believe WERE COUNTED even though they were illegal.

Once again you guys try to pull the "well you did it" line to excuse the party who claims to be "above it" I just wish you would decide which side your on. If the Democrats supposdly do it then its ok for you to do it? Is that what you're saying? So then if you are going with this don't pretend to be better because it makes you just the same now doesn't it?

See I believe not allowing Americans to vote be they (R) or (D) is WRONG. period. No excuses, no " but they did it first" just plain old WRONG. I guess some Republicans don't think that way even when it's their own. Which goes to show that Republicans support Bush FIRST and Democracy second.

pathetic

0 Replies

Redheat wrote:

No, the Democrats didn't. Sorry that is one of those urban legends that is not based in actual fact. There is actual fact that Republicans weren't allowed to vote in primaries. Fact is in FL (which is what I'm sure you think you are referring to) Military ballots over 1,000 I believe WERE COUNTED even though they were illegal.

Once again you are full of crap. Tell me, how many Democrats voted in the Iowa, Michigan, Idaho, Maine, Deleware, New Mexico, Hawaii, Minnesota, DC and Washington Primaries? The fact is the grand total of votes cast in the Democratic primaries for all of those states combined is a big fat ZERO!

0 Replies

Fishin' is attempting to muddy the waters of discussion with a trick question. His intent, no doubt, was to point out that no democrats voted in the primaries of the states listed. Fishin' knows that he has listed the caucus states, who do not have a primary election per se. They opt to selct their delegates through the caucus process and not through direct election as one would do in a primary state. Nice try but as transparent as glass. I don't even see your point, though.

The list Fishin gave us is incorrect in part. Delaware did have a primary on 2.3.04 which kerry won with 50.4% of the vote. DC also had a primary.

0 Replies

Why vote? GOP doesn't see the need

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know