The Tide May Be Turning

[ArtK78]

seems most times as though people don't vote FOR so much as they vote AGAINST. Obama won the first time on a platform of change, and for sure people were voting for him. However it seemed as though a significant number of people voted for him just because the vision of McCain and Palin was too much to contemplate. Much the same scenario this last time.

 

We have had much the same scenario but with multiple parties it makes it a bit harder. Voters split the votes against so Harper slid up through the middle with a majority like the weasel he is (imo).

 

We seem to be coming to the point of people trying to figure out who has the best chance of beating whoever we don't like, and voting for that person rather than voting for someone we feel will represent us. Something I hear over and over in random discussions, "they're all the same anyway".

 

That may be why Ron Paul resonated with so many people, maybe they felt finally someone actually did reflect and represent them. And why so many voted against his candidacy, they thought he might and couldn't face what that might mean either. :ph34r:

People voted against Ron Paul? I don't know that I would take it that far. Most people who don't agree and support Ron Paul tend to ignore him. And, for now at least, that is sufficient.

[Winstonm]

granted there seems to be strong evidence that republican party and much as democratic party want economic power in the same few, very few hands as political party.

 

fwiw unions such as afl/cio were famously against this.

 

it does appear that public unions want this so thay can be a strong influence. It does appear the same can be said as big/huge corporations.

 

Put the power of politics and economics in a few same hands..then influence them.

Of course only for the greater good.

 

Freedom for wolves means death to lambs.