My Blog

My thoughts on it all

Actually, George Bush's victory had more to do with hope and growth

From The Economist:

...Democrats need to realise that the Republicans didn't just beat them on fear. They clobbered them on hope.


rnewhouse says:

Good article. Wish it had been said before the election -- I know lots of people who were trying to figure out which candidate was the least disastrous by evaluating their personalities and the tone rather than the content of their messages. Hope vs. fear is a good indicator, I think.

DataBind() says:

I was too busy trying to believe that either of the two major candidates had any slightest chance at being able to solve our problems.

Does it matter which you select, when your options are equally ineffective?

Aesopian says:

No, which is why I didn't vote.

Wirehead says:

If you accept that both were useless, then you might as well have not voted. I don't. I consider that no matter how mediocre two candidates are, you can find SOMETHING that is, at least to you, better about one of them. In my case, it was the relative honesty of the candidates and their campaigns.

DataBind() says:

I'm glad at least that they are finally fighting this war in Iraq. I mean, shit of get off the pot.

DataBind() says:

If you accept both are useless, you can still vote. There are more than two candidates...maybe the other guy has no change of getting elected, but giving your vote to him is more productive than not voting.

Wirehead says:

Yeah. But then you just give whoever loses (from the major parties) more excuses to whine.

lidge_34 says:

Hey, they'll whine whether they have excuses or not.

Post A Reply:

Sorry, but before you can reply you must either log in or sign up.