I've read a few polls/sites recently where there appears to be a major motivation gap in 2010 - moderate & liberal Obama voters see little reason to show up, while the Obama haters are ready to go. One progressive analysis showed that statistically to replace a moderate/Blue Dog democrat with a progressive democrat - it is near impossible to do by unseating a moderate in a primary - but far easier to defeat an ideological opponent if the moderate loses. Cue jokes about dems loving to lose. But anyway - who's out next year? I'm out - but in NYC there's really nothing to vote for.
I'll be sticking to straight Dem. Not so much for the job they're doing in Congress or the White House, but because the Reeps just become even nuttier by the minute. I thought I would cross over to vote in the primary for governor to kill Perry's chances, but the more I read about Hutchison the more I wish both of them would spontaneously combust.
I've never voted Reep or Dem for a major office but I vote based on local issues. Things are screwed up in Vegas right now so I have to see what is on the ballot. Edit: I'll vote anyway. My local precinct has a bunch of old women volunteering and they always make homemade cookies. Walk across the street for a grandma cookie? Anytime.
What are you talking about? In 2010, there is a Gubernatorial and Senatorial race. Not to mention the state legislature -- and considering their gross incompetence and arrogance over the past year, there could be a real anti-incumbent bloodbath. New York State is going to have it's most interesting elections in quite some time. (I know you specifically said "NYC", but why would you opt out of voting in next year's state elections?)
With all due respect to you since I don't mean this personally, I no longer take this kind of sentiment seriously. I consider it nothing but a cop-out.
I'm registered independent and I've decided to return to my norm of skipping the primaries (it's open here so I could vote in it if I wanted). Maybe I'll vote on the initiatives on a "non-partisan" ballot in June, but that really depends what's on the ballot. As for November 2010 - I suspect I'll want to vote in the CA governors race (I have to vote for Governor Moonbeam!), and there might be some initiatives too. Beyond that? I don't vote GOP -- that party would need a lobotomy before I'd vote for them. But I'm not eager to vote for any of the Dems beyond Jerry Brown (and that's primarily just to amuse my whimsy). So if I bother to vote on anything beyond the governor and the initiatives, I'll probably just write in the name of various members of the Canine or Feline parties. That said, my district (from the state assembly to Congress) remains a GOP stronghold. The Dems had their best chance in 2008, but even then they lost. So it's not like my vote or not-voting is even going to make a bit of partisan difference.
So the biggest qualification in your view is having a (D) after their name? That's scary reasoning. And by the way, your heroes will interpret your vote in exactly the way you don't want. What if you believe that almost all Democrats and Republicans are evil? Should you still vote for evil just because those parties are so big? Even though you know that part of the reason for their bigness is because they write the rules to guarantee that? I'll vote for sure. My polling place is extremely convenient for me, so I'll take the 2 minutes out of my day.
I pretty much always vote. Civic duty, etc. etc. Also I only live about 300 yards from the polling place. All it takes is one non-douchebag on the ballot to get me in there to vote, but that threshold is not always met here in Manassas (borderline of the real and fake Virginias).
I still vote but it's the local issues that drive me to the polls. That and the cookies. Major offices are left blank or third party.
Why? I have often voted third-party in national elections. And many people live in states which are "safe" for one major party or the other. When I lived in South Carolina, I voted third-party simply because a vote for anyone other than Bush was "throwing your vote away." At the local level, there are often real differences which will NOT get "smoothed over" once the candidate faces the reality of governing over the whole country or dealing with a huge, entrenched federal bureaucracy. So, at the local level I'm much more likely to vote for one of the two major parties. At the state level, that's pretty much the same. EDIT: I currently live in Virginia, where we already got the opportunity to experience the "motivation gap" firsthand. Thank you, Creigh Deeds, for making Timothy Kaine look dynamic and inspired by comparison. But yes, I voted anyway--and every single person I voted for lost.
Party seems to mean less the more local you get, so I generally just vote for the challenger in that case, especially as it's rare to see a third-party candidate for a down-ballot race.
Please. Don't act like you know ******** all about my state and the local politics involved. 99% of the R's in this state are very very hard R's. When I look at my ballot there will be mostly moderate dems vs very conservative Republicans. I'm a moderate Dem so it really makes it a no-brainer. Kenny Marchant is my house rep. Kenny ********ing Marchant. A guy that helped co-sponsor the whole "is Obama really a foreigner" bill. There might be some county seats that I could vote Republican in, but its doubtful. I'll enter with an open mind like I always do, but until the Republican party quits pushing out its moderates I don't see anyone who's worth voting for in that party.
I've voted in every single primary, city and national election since 1985. (Well I might have skipped two or three). [Sometimes I'll refuse to vote in a certain race though.] Go ahead don't vote, it just make mine count more.
LMAO your logic is that a vote is irrelevant unless it personally determines the outcome of an election?
I know you'll miss out on the occasional laugh, but to me this is preferable: "This message is hidden because NickyViola is on your ignore list." Plenty of other laughs available on bigsoccer, IMO.
I'm not terribly enthused about my options for NY State. Gov? I'm not keen on Paterson who appears unable to function effectively. I wouldn't mind seeing him replaced by a more effective (and presumed equally progressive) dem in the primary. Failing that, I can't really see how the eventual moderate republican candidate can screw things up worse. (Unless it's Mr 9/11). The state is basically controlled by the state senate (which is a mess) State Senate - I have a progressive state senator in a safe district. He wasn't part of the idiocy that went down this year. US Senate - Schumer is a lock. Gillibrand may or may not get my vote. A bunch of other more progressive state leaders may jump into the primary, but unless she faces Mr 9/11, I'm not sure she's earned my vote.