03-10-2004, 05:11 PM
My own voting preferences since 1980:
Against Carter
Against Mondale
For Bush (sr)
For Bush (sr)
Against Clinton
Against Gore
In state and local voting, I have trended about 50-60% Republican, about 30% Democrat, a few Libertarians when I feel a protest vote is appropriate, and some votes, with only one person on the ballot, really don't count.
The only guy with a resume that made him close to qualified for the Presidency since Richard Nixon ran for the office was . . . George Bush. (Sr) I do not count incumbents in that. Anyone who has already served for 4 years has all the experience he needs to do it for 4 more years, regardless of party, if he has the heart to do it and the organization to win the election. Winning an election is no guarantee of excellence in office. U.S. Grant comes to mind . . . :P
My motivations in Presidential elections were more often against someone than for someone. "Who do I distrust less? Who are the folks behind the candidate who I distrust least?" In American politics, you have to look at "the man behind the curtain." There are many in this country who are leary of the "folks behind" the current President.
Gov. Jesse Ventura won based on a whole lot of votes against Dems and Reps. Ross Perot disrupted an election with a whole bunch of "votes against." It has been argued that Mr Nader's run last time was also relying on votes "against."
The same factor is what makes Mr Nader's current attempt so Quixotic. Behind him may be many Americans of good heart with a core set of principles, but that set of principles has no real parallel in Washington, nor in most state capitals. So, an activist president would likely be a lame duck, in that his requirement to compromise would leave his agenda at considerable risk, make his vetoes powerless, and leave his budgets in shambles, more so than a President with a party behind him.
So, why voting against?
It is a case of "lesser of two evils" which is what politics is, a necessary evil.
When there is someone out there to really vote for, I find it easy to vote "for" them.
My mom worked in John Anderson's Third Party campaign in 1980. She had someone that time around she could vote FOR. (He got, IIRC, about 5% of the vote, it may have been a bit more.)
Against Carter
Against Mondale
For Bush (sr)
For Bush (sr)
Against Clinton
Against Gore
In state and local voting, I have trended about 50-60% Republican, about 30% Democrat, a few Libertarians when I feel a protest vote is appropriate, and some votes, with only one person on the ballot, really don't count.
The only guy with a resume that made him close to qualified for the Presidency since Richard Nixon ran for the office was . . . George Bush. (Sr) I do not count incumbents in that. Anyone who has already served for 4 years has all the experience he needs to do it for 4 more years, regardless of party, if he has the heart to do it and the organization to win the election. Winning an election is no guarantee of excellence in office. U.S. Grant comes to mind . . . :P
My motivations in Presidential elections were more often against someone than for someone. "Who do I distrust less? Who are the folks behind the candidate who I distrust least?" In American politics, you have to look at "the man behind the curtain." There are many in this country who are leary of the "folks behind" the current President.
Gov. Jesse Ventura won based on a whole lot of votes against Dems and Reps. Ross Perot disrupted an election with a whole bunch of "votes against." It has been argued that Mr Nader's run last time was also relying on votes "against."
The same factor is what makes Mr Nader's current attempt so Quixotic. Behind him may be many Americans of good heart with a core set of principles, but that set of principles has no real parallel in Washington, nor in most state capitals. So, an activist president would likely be a lame duck, in that his requirement to compromise would leave his agenda at considerable risk, make his vetoes powerless, and leave his budgets in shambles, more so than a President with a party behind him.
So, why voting against?
It is a case of "lesser of two evils" which is what politics is, a necessary evil.
When there is someone out there to really vote for, I find it easy to vote "for" them.
My mom worked in John Anderson's Third Party campaign in 1980. She had someone that time around she could vote FOR. (He got, IIRC, about 5% of the vote, it may have been a bit more.)
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete