Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The numbers are there, it just takes determination. And some luck.

Posted 1 year ago on April 30, 2012, 5:36 p.m. EST by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The following figures are based on numbers from the USA Today article and US Census figures.

According to USA Today, there are 42 million registered Democrats, 30 million registered Republicans, and 24 million registered Independents. That's a total of 96 million registered voters.

According to the latest census numbers, there are 229.7 million people of voting age in the US, meaning there are 133 million unregistered people of voting age.

The USA Today figures work out to 43.75% registered Dem's, 31.25% registered Rep's, and 25% registered Ind's.

If you apply those percentages to the unregistered voters (this assumes if they were to register, the same percentages would probably apply), this works out to 58.2 million unregistered potential Dem's, 41.5 million unregistered potential Rep's, and 33.3 million unregistered potential Ind's.

Let's assume the Republicans were a lost cause in this scenario, due to their conservative views. The number of unregistered potential Dem's plus the unregistered potential Ind's is 91.4 million unregistered. At the 1/3rd, 1/3rd. 1/3rd split you mention below, that leaves 60 million unregistered that might be persuaded to vote. Forget the last 1/3rd, those are the one's that simply don't care, so they probably won't be voting no matter what.

If half the registered Ind's got behind a single candidate = 12 million voting for Independent candidate 'A.' If one out of ten registered Dem's (those most disgusted with Obama) could get on board = 4.2 million "converts." That's 16.2 million voting for Independent candidate'A.'

Now we have 37.8 million Dem's voting for Obama (42 mil - 4.2 mil.) And . . . . . . . . 16.2 million voting for Ind' candidate 'A.' And . . . . . . . . 60.0 million unregistered potential voters.

Just half the Ind's and one out of ten Dem converts voting for Ind candidate 'A' leaves a 21.6 million voter deficit for Candidate 'A' to tie Obama.

If one out of five disgusted Dem's converted, it leaves a deficit of 17.4 million voters.

There's still 12 million registered Independents up for grabs. There's still 60 million unregistered potential votes up for grabs.

The Ind's would need 17.4 million votes out of a potential pool of 72 million people of voting age.

This scenario completely ignores any potential Republican converts.

The numbers are there. They're to be found in the 66 million registered Dem's and Ind's and the 60 million unregistered potential voters.

If the 42 million registered Dem's all voted for Obama, that represents only 18.3% of all Americans of voting age and above. In other words, Obama will be elected although only 18.3% of all voters want him.

Edit: some figures from the 2008 election: Out of the 212.7 million Americans of voting age (only 132.6 million actually voted) 69.45 million voted for Obama, meaning Obama was elected with 32.7% of the total voting age population.

One could argue that the President is elected by the non-voters. Assuming, of course, that the whole game isn't one giant smokescreen. The jury's still out.

123 Comments

123 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

About 132 million voted in last election:

http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html

[-] -3 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

What a coincidence. I was just checking those figure just before logging on fifteen minutes ago. See my edit at the end of my post.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Read the edit, in the same way one could say that Bush was elected by the Nader voters which is something I do say, so i see your point, not taking effective action is also taking action.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

About 120 million voted in last election I think I'll check on that though.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

what is the horse race?

the republicans threaten and the dems make sure nothing happens

and both pass money to private corporations

and support aggressive military action

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

and they want us to split a support a "third" party so they stay in power, if we get rid of one, we get a new that scares them both I would think

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

Has it ever crossed your mind that Ron Paul Is nothing more than a Trojan Horse. As long as that man caucuses with the right, he is a righty in my book. If he is really sick of the status quo, he would have manned up and dropped his party like a bad habit. No, I have more respect for Gary Johnson than I do for the leperCon. Paul talks a good game, but he don't do what he is supposed to do. He is nothing more than a mop, mopping up all the disillusioned right wingers.

As to the numbers this post is hinting to, those numbers are like communism they look good on paper, but when the rubber hits the road, they are a farce. And here is why: I'd say that a third of the voters on each side are happy with the qou; therefore, the third party has to get all of the independents. The fact that they are independents, shows that they are easily persuaded so the chance that they all go for one third party candidate is astronomical. Don't you know independents are independent because it is cool to be non-affiliated in the current political environment. And anyone who has lived life knows you can't trust a hanger-on, they are the most fickle. In my opinion, Independents are only independent until the winning horse breaks the pack.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

some are independent because they lost faith in either party

and ya, I'll probably vote green

[-] -2 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Sorry Jesse, but there's not one bit of logic in your statement. You say that a third of the voters on each side are happy with the status quo. That means two thirds in each party are unhappy with the quo, assuming your percentage is correct. These are voters that, given a REAL option, may decide to vote differently. That's literally millions of votes. And your statement that Independents are only Independent because it's "cool" or "easily persuaded" is ridiculous and insulting. Most of them are fed up with the R's and D's. My hypothetical situation is just that, a hypothetical possibility.

There are two points in my putting this thread up. One, the numbers are there but they are spread out among a wide variety of places, the Independents, the non-registered voter, the disaffected voter. It wasn't meant to sway someone already committed to the R's or D's. And second, the last paragraph. That if Obama wins, he wins with only 18.3% of the voting age population. Show me anywhere my math doesn't add up. Otherwise, your comment is just hot air with absolutely no factual basis.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

No, I said that the base of both parties, being Corporate stockholders and gov't union members, are not going to change their allegiance. That just leaves the rest of the electorate able to be persuaded. Now, you may be right that the bases don't make up two-thirds of the electorate, but you'll have to show me some data.

Remember it only takes fifty percent plus one to win. if both sides secure at least twenty percent a piece, that means you have to get a little over half of the electorate on the side of one third party candidate. And as far as making an independent feel inferior, well that was the point.

I don't buy the malarkey that both parties are the same. Congress is a conglomerate of divided interests and is working just like it was devised. Putting third party candidates in Congress just whittles away the power of the two parties. And if we put a third party candidate in the white House, Well, you think Obama was a disappointment, prepared to see what real disappointment is. Unless the third party takes all the Senate seats and at least a third of the house seats, prepare to have the third party President's ideas filibustered like never before. No, if a third party block made it to congress, it would either be incorporated with the right of the left, or the left and the right would gang up on the third.

You don't think two thirds of voters have jobs in either the corporate world or the union world? That could be so.

If you want the change Obama promised you, Why don't you work to get him some allies in Congress? Just because Bush said he is the decider don't make it so. Congress decides, the President goes along for the ride.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

prepare to broadcast all actions of congress

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

It is indeed a complicated issue. I made a comment somewhere in this thread about what you say in regards to a third-party President being thwarted at every move. That is an undeniable fact. And yes, Congress is the kicker. My thread was an attempt to show those that say the numbers don't exist, that the numbers are there. Whether or not it has a real chance right now, or would effect change if successful, are another matter. Just trying to get people to think outside the R-D box.

[-] -2 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Yeah, manufactured gridlock in DC, made public, while behind closed doors the R's and D's, along with their corporate buddies, pat each other on the back and pocket millions in ill-gotten gains.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

thanks

I'm scared to speak at occupy

[-] -2 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

How come?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

support for the dems

[-] -2 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Well, you've got support here, as you probably know.

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 1 year ago

I’m pretty sure the Dems will come on top this election. Most minorities will vote democratic; and due to the crisis the Repubs caused last winter most White people are concerned about what will happen if repubs gain more power.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

The GOP stand a real good chance of winning the Senate, If they do all hell breaks out.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Oh yeah, I'm completely convinced Obama will win the election, there's not enough time to convert enough voters. My scenario is meant merely as food for thought. Numbers don't lie, though. My point being, the numbers are there if we could harness them. It's not the impossibility some people think.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 1 year ago

There's always 2016:)

[-] -2 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

That's what I'm thinking. Maybe at least begin to lay the groundwork now with an eye toward 2016. Too late this year. Now, if OWS had started two years earlier . . .

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 1 year ago

Let's not focus on the past, but look to the future.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Absolutely.

[-] 0 points by jbgramps (159) 1 year ago

I not only think Obama will win, but Dems will also take control of the house. At least I hope that happens.

However, at little off topic, and much more dramatic, is I don’t think any politicians can fix our problems. It’s too late for political solutions. I think some type economic or social collapse is inevitable. I see the Great Depression tripled. There will strong potential for violence. Cold, hungry, scared people are dangerous and will do what it takes survive.

No, I’m not an anarchist or anything close; and I don’t wish for this to happen. But for me, the writing is on the wall.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

My son always says he’s a liberal because he doesn’t want to see the rich get murdered, I hope we can fix it before it comes to that, I really think the GOP is so out of touch it can be killed, once it is gone, a new party will spring forth, because two is how things are set up, can’t be three, can’t be one.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

I don't think this has to happen, but it will, if we all don't get off our couches and reclaim our democracy and take back all the funds that have been stolen. They didn't go anywhere. The money's still there. We need to get it back and use it for the urgent betterment of the world.

We must wake people up: our families, our neighbors, our communities. We must be the new Paul Reveres.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

A whole ton of people think the same thing. It's past political options and a coming crisis of epic proportions is right around the corner. And personally, I think we're in a Depression, but that word is verboten, so they're calling it a "Recession."

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 1 year ago

The accepted term for this is “shit hits the fan (SHTF)” There’s a couple of strange reality shows on how people are gearing up for it. Also a number of web sites dedicated to SHTF. Even a strong topic on a number of conservative web sites.

I personally think stocking a year’s worth of food, buying lots of guns and ammo and making bug out plans is over the top; at least right now. It may come to that, but at the very least it’s premature. I still want to think society will maintain some level of civil obedience or law. So that’s what I’m counting on.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Yeah, I've watched 'Doomsday Preppers' a couple times and have been to the SHTFplan website. Bug-out plans and underground bunkers may be a little extreme but it's always a good idea to have a three to six months supply of food and water. There might not be a major catastrophe, but in the event your cash flow was halted or delayed, it'd keep you going. You never know.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The biggest difference between then and now, then they people were able to take care of themselves. Now its all corporate controlled, elaborate systems.

People will be shocked when the isles at Walmart dont automatically fill up with food, and the nearest farms are 100 miles away.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

You touch upon an important point. 80 years ago, people were far more self-sufficient, today, totally dependent on the systems you mention. It will be far worse. Getting us totally dependent on the corporate monster was all part of the Grand Plan, in my opinion. It's also why they're so dead-set against communities becoming more self-sufficient.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 1 year ago

80 years ago, people by the tens of thousands starved or froze to death in the streets. Prior to the Great Depression, 80% of the elderly lived in abject poverty. The New Deal, combined with the War on Poverty reduced poverty by an estimated 50% and virtually eliminated starvation. the self sufficiency of the past is largely a myth, mostly promulgated by the right wing in order to roll back the current social safety net.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

Yes, those who hark back to the (pre-FDR) good old days are just living in a fog of self-dillusion. Those were the days when life was still "nasty, brutish and short."

[-] -2 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

By self-sufficient, I meant we were less dependent on a lot of the luxuries we now take for granted, like air conditioning and cell phones. I didn't mean they could always fend for themselves. Self-sufficient was probably the wrong word. During a part of the Depression, my dad lived in a shack on the Mississippi riverfront (St. Louis) in one of the hundreds of 'Hoovervilles' that popped up around the country. Wrong choice of words on my part.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 1 year ago

I'm sorry your dad had to go through that. It was caused by the same forces of greed and corruption we see today.

But you are wring about people being able to fend for themselves. For all your dad went through, millions had it even worse. Tens of thousands of people died, especially the elderly. all the programs we see today, Social Security pensions and disability, Unemployment insurance, Aid the Families with Dependent Children (Welfare) - the bulk of the current social safety net - were created because there was such pressing need. The need was there precisely because so many people could not fend for themselves at all.

We have luxuries today largely because of the policies started in the New Deal, begun as a response to dire need. And we are in the mess we're in largely because the people and its leaders, staring with Reagan, ignored or forgot the lessons of that history.

[-] -2 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Uh, did you miss my statement, "I didn't mean they could always fend for themselves?" Let me give you an example of what I meant. When I was first living on my own in the early '80's I didn't have air conditioning. Not sure if you're familiar with St. Louis weather (Mark Twain even commented on it), but in the dead of summer it can be brutal (high temps, high humidity). Sure, many nights it was impossible to sleep on a sweat-soaked mattress, but I made it, not a big problem. Fast forward to 2006 or 2007. A bad storm in August knocked out the power over a large portion of the city (we've had central A/C since 1990), and we were out of power for over a week. Three days in, I thought I was going to die. Literally. And I had days to go. My point, I guess, is the luxury of A/C has made me far less capable of enduring a potential crisis. It's spoiled me.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 1 year ago

Oops, I must have misread. My apologies.

I have gotten used to a/c as well. In some parts of the country, it is not a luxury, but a life saver. People used to die in droves during heat waves, especially the very young and very old or ill.

We are fortunate to have these luxuries. I certainly grew up without any of them. Air conditioning was for the rich where I was raised. (Hell, I never had a new shirt of pair of pants until I earned the money for it myself. Clothing my older brother grew out of was altered by my mother and became mine. Sticks, broom handles, cardboard boxes were most of my toys. We simply couldn't afford much in that department.) I didn't have a/c in my bedroom until well after college, when I was in my twenties.

But now that I have A/C, if I had to do without, I would survive as well as the next guy. (Tough I'd much rather have it.) I'm sure you would,too.

[-] -2 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

That power outage was an eye-opener. The first night I thought it was pretty fun. That didn't last long. It gave me a bit of insight into what it would be like if the grid went down, like many are predicting. I thought I'd be able to weather it, no problem. If the power grid did go down, I now know, it'll be ugly.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 1 year ago

Sounds like the same power outage we got in New York. 5 days and nights in the middle of a steam bath. everyone knew all the food would be spoiled, so there were spontaneous block parties for the first couple of days. Everyone was out on the streets, barbecuing, dancing getting to know more neighbors. The whole city came together. Ice Cream parlors gave everything away to whoever wanted it. So, as nasty (and for some, dangerous with the heat) as it was physically, the first couple of days it was really wonderful in terms of community. And after that, it was often funny. No city can bitch about things as colorfully as New York!

[-] -2 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

What a contrast to my experience. I live in a residential neighborhood and the street was dark and deserted. Definitely no street celebrations. I think I like your story better. ;-)

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

There is much truth in what you are saying, but the subject is so vast that it would be impossible to deal with here.

We need independence from the corporate machine, and government of the people, by the people, and for the people, is the only answer. What has been missing up to now is the people.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Absolutely. We've grown lazy and complacent in this country. I've admitted numerous times over the last eight months that I'm one of the guilty ones. I haven't had an easy life, but I think collectively Americans have had it too easy in a lot of ways.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

Agreed.

[-] -1 points by extroll (47) 1 year ago

We are ALL the 1%ers of the world. The poorest people here have many many times better lives than even rich people in other countries.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Except, . . . . you gotta remember, the 1% we talk about are the corrupt super-wealthy. Not all rich people. You guys need to get over this "we're all 1%ers compared to the rest of the world." That's not the damn point.

[-] 1 points by extroll (47) 1 year ago

No, I'm with you. I suggest a different label for them though, because most people think it means the top 1% of income earners. It doesn't make any sense otherwise.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

True. That's been something of a minor problem from day one. Many have pointed that out. But, we're pretty much stuck with it, I think. I mean, you can't have the 99% without the 1%.

But maybe, seeing how MoveOn seems to be co-opting the 99% meme, maybe Occupy will have to come up with something new in the future.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I like calling them what they are - Greedy corrupt white collar criminals.

[-] 1 points by extroll (47) 1 year ago

That works. Can't get more descriptive than that.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Yeah, I think that will fit on a sign. But, . . . you're being far too kind. ;-)

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I'm trying to watch my language. {:-O

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 1 year ago

No, the numbers are not there.

Unless and until there is a single, unified third party, the independent vote will still be split among so many other candidates that the largest unified blocks, the current parties, will still win. So such a strategy will get you nowhere.

Obama and Romney are running neck and neck 49* to 49% of those who say they will vote in the upcoming election. And the big corporate money is now backing Romney, with Obama currently taking in mostly contributions of $200.00 or less. Romney is expected to raise over one BILLION dollars for he race. Obama is not likely to.

Oh, and by the way: Statistically, the overwhelming number of people claiming to be independent consistently vote republican. They tend to not be independent at all, but simply like calling themselves by that label. That's why republicans have been in office 20 years to the democrat's 12 years. (It's the mythology of the sovereign individual at play among mostly right wingers, most likely.)

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Yes, the numbers are there. My scenario is hypothetical, I don't expect it to happen any time soon. But, with the huge numbers of disaffected voters and the bigger number that aren't registered, to say the numbers don't exist is ridiculous. It would be more accurate to say the numbers are too split.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Obama vs Romney 49 vs 49%.... Obama taking in contributions of 200 or less.....

You're a fuckin hack and I wish dumb fucks like you would stay out of voting all together.

You only fuck it up for those that want change

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 1 year ago

Those are the numbers. You can ignore them if you want, but they are a matter of record.

And, as I have shown, YOUR way will NOT create the change we ALL want.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

YOUR way has already RUINED the fuckin country, you dumb old shit!!!!

You arent related to Boehner and Pelosi are you? Because Im pretty sure thats the advice your are following, flippin idiot.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 1 year ago

You really don't get numbers, do you?

Your fantasies do not make reality, no matter how loud you scream or how much you insult.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

You are falling to understand how election work at a fundemental level, and clearly dont think we are capable of change, so this conversation is going no where with you....

Go find someone to pat on the back for stating Republicans are a shit party. Thats what a real revolution is made of....

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 1 year ago

You won't change one single thing with your plan. Having 5 or more independent candidates garner, at best a little over 5% of the vote each does nothing. It does not send shivers down the spines of either party. They know they don;t have to pander to anyone but those in their base, since any and all opposition will be split so badly that their hold on power is not threatened i the least.

But, since it is mostly the left wing of the country votes truly independently, the majority of the split will favor the republicans, and strengthen them. That is an exact repeat of what happened in 1969, and is responsible for BOTH the republicans AND democrats moving to the right. That's why we are in such a mess today. The very thing you oppose is is made into an even greater reality.

I understand that you believe I oppose change, that I oppose a sharp move to the left. That could not be farther from the truth. I oppose your STRATEGY, precisely because it will STRENGTHEN the ability of the corporate stranglehold on politics. Your strategy was what got us here in the first place.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Dems and Reps have been in charge for 100 yrs.

I rest my case.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 1 year ago

You have no case. When FDR was president and had a democratic congress behind him, he saved this county. When Johnson was president, he signed two civil rights laws that were going nowhere. But when Reagan was president he destroyed the unions and initiated the course toward the vast economic inequity we have today. your "knowledge" of history is sorely wanting.

But it's all the same to you. Idiot.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

Great summation, epa1nter. those ARE the facts, the plain and simple FACTS. This is not a matter of opinion.

The only way to save this country in through political engagement, not through disengagement. hchc is all about convincing us to disengage, although he conceals it fairly cleverly through advocating some vague utopian rhetoric, that always comes down to the same point - "Don't Vote."

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Let's not forget some facts about Obama.

  1. Signed NDAA which contains"indefinite detention" provision
  2. Assassinated U.S. citizen Awlaki in Yemen
  3. Won Nobel Peace Prize yet will not end war in Afghanistan
  4. "Citizens United" ruling benefits his presidential campaign
  5. No prosecution of torture that occurred during the Bush administration
  6. Drone strikes in Pakistan: Bush 52 Obama 267
  7. Signed anti-protest Trespass Bill
  8. Will not consider legalizing drugs

Just a few things to think about before you pull the lever.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 1 year ago

Do the same with the republican bills in the House. Then tell me if you're willing to have THEM in charge.

If you're going to look at one party, you should do so with both.

BTW, Romney just announced that he would appoint Robert Bork to lead his constitutional and judicial advisory team. Even the republicans rejected him as too extreme when he was up for the Supreme court. And that'sonly a fraction of what you'd be in for.

Want to see food stamps go away in order to fund the military? Social Security privatized? Medicaid and Medicare privatized? The EPA dismantled? How about the FDA? How the repeal of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts? A roll-back of Cafe gas mileage requirements for cars and trucks? Would you enjoy a NEW war, this time with Iran? Want to criminalize gay marriage? What to criminalize abortion rights and see the evisceration of Planned Parenthood? Slashing unemployment benefits? Eliminate more regulations on banks and Wall Street? Re-start torture of prisoners? These are only some of the goodies that await us if the Proto fascist Republicans get in. How do I know? They SAID SO.

So keep bashing Obama. A far greater and malignant evil is happy about that.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Love (of party) is blind

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

my friend now collects her unemployment with a bank of america card

the government is placing that money into a Bank of America account

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

moved unemployment into Bank of America accounts

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Not sure what you mean.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

And let's not forget that if we don't vote, we are casting a vote for the 1%, who's constituency ALWAYS votes.


Reply to jrhirsch below:

Who gives a shit?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

I will be voting for neither of the 1%'s candidates.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 1 year ago

If you start organizing now, you have a chance of nabbing some seats in Congress in 2014.

The trick will be finding a platform that has enough common ground to reach out to all of these Independents. Keep in mind that "Independent" political views range from Green to Constitution and every shade of radical that you can think of. I think the Reform Party has a shot at getting some real support, but no matter what you're going to need to be willing to compromise if you want to get all of these diverse groups on board.

[-] -3 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Finding that common platform you mention is probably the single biggest hurdle to an Independent party getting anywhere. Someone else pointed out that it's actually more important than finding the man to lead it. Definitely an uphill battle, to put it mildly. I figure it's too late in this election cycle to expect a third-party candidate to do anything, but i did want to show, by this post, that the numbers exist although they're spread across the entire political spectrum, the non-voters included. A lot of people say the numbers simply aren't there. It's a hypothetical, best-case scenario; if half the Independents, and if one in ten disaffected Dem's, plus a slew of non-voters, . . . an impossibility right now. But, if enough people start doing real work now, maybe in 2016? Getting some of ours in Congress this election cycle would be invaluable if an Independent could get in next time. Thanks for mentioning that.

I'm learning as I go. ;-)

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 1 year ago

I've been pushing for a strong third party for a while now as well. Its not going to be easy at all. I look forward to working out a plan of action to really get voters registered and active in politics if you have some time after May Day.

[-] -3 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I'm going to start doing some research on the Independent party and their candidates so I can get a better grasp of the situation. I'm not going anywhere soon, I'm kind of hooked on this website. A lot of people have been bailing from the R's and D's lately according to the USA Today article, so it looks like the Independents are going to get a lot more notice. I didn't jot down the R's, but the D's have lost 3.9% of their voters since 2008. If the next administration does as shitty job as the last few (how far back?), I would guess by 2016, an Independent is going to look quite attractive.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 1 year ago

I agree. There are things about both parties that I don't like. NDAA from the Democrats, and the intrusions on civil rights, tax breaks for the wealthy, and plenty of other things from the Republicans. I want to work for a party that is lobbyist-free, anti-defense spending (at least at these ridiculous rates,) anti police-state/surveillance, and pro-rights.

So far there was the 99% Declaration that sprung directly from this movement, although it is not directly affiliated with Occupy at this time. It is a good attempt at getting people to think about politics outside of right vs. left, but there hasn't been enough support so far, and I'm afraid that it will fall on deaf ears. Americans Elect is another avenue that is better organized and has its ducks in a row on the technology side, but I have doubts about its legitimacy due to some Koch connections in the leadership of that organization.

[-] -3 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I was reading something on Americans Elect at a link from shooz. The lack of transparency could be an issue, but I need to do some more checking. That brings up an good point, though. Are any of the existing organizations untainted, or will we have to form our own? What better way to ensure no skeletons crawl out of the proverbial closet down the road than to start from scratch? I also want to check out the Occupy candidate to see what he's about. I think his name is Matt. Know anything about his ideas?

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 1 year ago

I don't know much about Matt, sorry.

Americans Elect actually opened up about their board of directors after they received a lot of flak about that very issue. It does bring to question the validity of that process.

Nobody is perfect, however. It is entirely possible that the Koch-affiliated persons on the Americans Elect board are contributing to the project out of an individual desire, and they may even be putting their jobs in jeopardy over their involvement. If we are going to start a new party, will we vet everyone that tries to join? Could we trust someone if, say, a former Democratic Senator decided to become an ex-Dem and join with us?

The 99% Declaration's delegates are apathetic from what I can tell. Full disclosure: I am a delegate candidate. None of the other delegates in my state have posted anything or tried to communicate with anyone, and the private delegates' only forum is dead. This applies to all states. Nothing is being done to promote the delegate candidate election most likely because the handful of people that wanted to be involved in this just signed up to be delegates.

This group really needed a bit more planning before taking off. I understand the desire to have this done before the 2012 election, but it would have been a much better run if the 99% Declaration aimed to get things rolling for 2014 instead.

The web interface has been overhauled multiple times, is buggy, and is difficult to use. The URLs have changed too many times, and many of the site's features are listed in different places depending on which page that you are visiting. Its also just not a slick design. Americans Elect looks and feels like a legitimate website. The 99% Declaration website looks like it needed a few more months of dedicated development before being pushed out the door.

[-] -2 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Yeah, they did rush things too fast in an attempt to beat the November election. We should learn from that. In fact, that's a perfect example to use when people tell us we're not moving fast enough. Something as screwed up as our political system is going to take a long time and a lot of effort to even begin to straighten out.

[-] -3 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

So, what would be the best option, in your opinion, go with an existing third-party or start a new one? I'm sure there are pros and cons to either but I figure if we were to start fresh with a new party, there would be far less chance of a skeleton or two coming out of the closet down the road.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Problem with a new party is you have to use existing people. These new party people will come with prior affiliations. It will take some generations before any can say the are new party with no prior affiliations.

[-] -3 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

True. But, affiliations wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, although can I see that, depending on the circumstances, it could come back to haunt. But that would be an "individual skeleton" as opposed to a "party skeleton" and it should be easier to do damage control. You can kick a person out of a party, but you can't very well kick the party out of the party. I do agree though, it won't be quick or easy.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It all relies on the same principal. Oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution that defines what government is and who it is for = Of The People By The People For The People.

[-] -3 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

You know, the fact that they swear that oath, then turn right around and break it, should be reason enough to throw them out of office. In any other case it would be. It's breaking the terms of the contract, which, everywhere else in reality, nullifies the contract.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

This is the truth not yet seized upon. This is what Wisconsin is showing us. We do not have to accept representation that is not representing us, that is not upholding the constitution.

[-] -2 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Looking forward to June 5th. I'm not in Wisconsin, but if he does get thrown out, I will get a little more confident in our ability to do this elsewhere. It will also be a lesson for millions of others as well. Those that are paying attention anyway.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Absolutely. It will be a testament that the democratic process does work when used and that petitioning is a powerful voice of the people.

[-] -2 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Yes, and I hope people are waking up to these facts. I know many on this forum are. That's a good sign.

Is Walker out the door yet, or is it still an ongoing thing?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

June 5th with any luck. That is when the election is scheduled.

And this forum is a communications hub. Things do not remain here they are circulated. This is our hope for educating the public as we go forward. This communications hub and all others.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 1 year ago

I agree, and I think an entirely new party would be a breath of fresh air for many who have been campaigning for third parties in the past. There is a lot of in-fighting and political bullshit in the third parties, so it would be a wise choice to just go ahead and start with a clean slate.

I might be meeting some people next week in Charlotte about this. I don't have anything set in stone yet, but I know that I would like to help out with a party that:

  • is completely grassroots funded (no corporate $ accepted EVER, I mean enshrined in the party charter if need be)

  • lobbyist free (Americans are our lobbyists, not corporations)

  • pro-freedom for all

  • pro fair taxation ("no representation without fair taxation")

  • anti loopholes, unnecessary tax breaks, and unnecessary subsidies

  • pro social and fiscal policy that benefits the most people, not policy that only benefits corporate interests

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

JusticeParty.com is brand new, might want to check that out.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 1 year ago

http://www.justiceparty.com/ returned a GoDaddy placeholder page. Did you mean http://www.justicepartyusa.net/ ?

Rocky has a great platform, and him & Buddy Roemer (sp?) are worth looking into. I will need to do more research on both of these candidates.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

sorry, its a .org

Ya, Rocky is a good dude. I think Buddy was a Republican for too long, too many old connections if he gets elected.

I would prefer a Rocky/Kucinich platform myself. I would prefer anything besides all the idiot masses lurching towards to corporate behemouths.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 1 year ago

I'm surprised that they didn't register the .com as well, and use redirection to point to the .org site. If I had a vendetta against this website, registering the .com domain and hosting an attack site would be a great way to get back at them.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I thought about that too, but these political types arent usually the best when it comes to marketing and tech stuff :)

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Get back to me on what you guys come up with after that meeting. I'm definitely interested in the results.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 1 year ago

Will do!

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The numbers are there. The desire of the people is there. So why no serious solutions?

Go read "Grand Illusion" by Theresa Amato, Nader's campaign manager. You get a good glimpse into the corrupted and evil, totally anti-democratic shit the two parties do to subvert anyone who wants a shot.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 1 year ago

You really need to understand statistics better. If your have, say, 5 independent candidates who take all of the independent vote, (They won't since some independent voters will still vote for one or the other major party, which means a 7 way split) they will not effect the election in any way. The two parties who garner the votes of their base still have an impossible advantage. It becomes something like 30% Republican, 30% Democrat, and about 5.7% each for the independent candidates. Only with a single, viable UNIFIED third party does your idea become a real threat to the other parties. Do the math. I did.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I know your post was directed at hc, but i just wanted to point out, I know what your saying about the Independent votes. That's why in my hypothetical scenario I state "if half the registered Independents got behind a single candidate . . ." You must've glossed over that line. My numbers are just a baseline so people could get their heads around how the numbers are divided. It's nothing more than a starting point, not some final perfect equation.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 1 year ago

Sorry, I did indeed miss than line.

If we can create a real, viable third party with a solid base, I think your idea has a real shot. But whenever the vote is split between several independent candidates, it always favors the established parties, and mostly that of the right wing.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Brand name loyalty. It is a habit that the unaware fall into. This may in fact change as awareness grows.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

That's one of the frustrating things. I heard the country as a whole still leans to the right, and that probably makes the changes the US needs all the more difficult. What's really needed is a kick-ass Independent candidate to emerge, if such a thing even exists. Without that, chances are nil at best. But, like I've been telling the forum members, I won't vote for Obama or Romney and am pretty convinced Obama's got it anyway. Besides, it's going to take some of us to try to build this viable third-party base you mention. Those of us that don't want to vote R or D this November might as well be the ones.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 1 year ago

It's not simply a kick ass candidate. It is the organizational strength behind such a candidate.

Getting that organizational strength means starting at the local level, getting people into office from dog catcher and zoning boards to boards of education to mayor; to state legislators to governors; and eventually to congressmen and Senators. It is out of the ranks of congress, the Senate, and governors, that presidents are elected. It is out of mayors and state legislators that governors are elected. And so on. The machinery needed to get to the national level starts locally. And it will take years of sustained work to get there.

And yes, it will take a LOT of people to build a new party. But while it is in the process of being built, one cannot simply hand power to the republicans by splitting the vote now. It would mean too much suffering in the interim.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Good points about the local level. I agree, of course, I think i said something to that effect last year. When I first came to this site, I didn't plan on voting for anyone, so you guys aren't losing a Dem vote in me. And, I'm not going to try to convince anyone to NOT vote for Obama, you guys do everything you can to make sure he gets in. I already figure he's the one, and I've called most elections right since Reagan, plus smaller shit like Clinton not getting thrown out, so I feel pretty confident. But, I can't vote for Obama.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 1 year ago

That's certainly your choice. And I hope you're calling this one correctly, too, but unfortunately I can't take your psychic abilities for granted! (Just teasing.)

What I get steamed about is idiots like hchc DEMANDING (!) that others don't vote for Obama, and spewing vitriol at those who, in good conscience, believe that only by doing so can we prevent a far greater evil from winning power and causing unimaginable harm. Or that those of us who follow this strategy are not also seeking, and working for, real change for the future.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Yeah, I know you guys are doing what you think is right. And some of them threads did get too heated. Politics does have that effect. Personally, I don't even like politics, but feel it's time more people get involved (or re-involved, like me) while there's still time, assuming there is. Bad times ahead.

Now I'm just shamelessly bumping my own thread. ;-)

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I dont appreciate people who vote for war criminals. What an ass I am.

PS- you would have to be very bad at studying politics in this country to think that theres a chance Obama might not win.

Go ask the innocent people in Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan about what "unimaginable harm" is, you selfish ass.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 1 year ago

You're a myopic troll, and it's really past time for you to shut the fuck up/

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

So anti-war people are now trolls. Your true colors are showing epa

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 1 year ago

One more time, your strategy would put into power people who make Obama look like a peace activist.

You are a tantrum throwing infantile imbecile who has no idea about the consequences of his actions. You are too stupid to tie your own shoes before you go off running, and demands that others do the same. And when someone points out to you that your shoes are untied and that you'll trip, you believe they are telling you not to run when in fact they are showing you how to run without getting yourself, and everyone else, hurt in the process.

You don't have the brains of a fruit fly.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Have fun supporting war criminals in the D/R scheme, moron.

Thousands of innocent people are depending on people here to pull their heads out of their asses. You refuse. Either you dont think its worth it, or you are too ingrained in decades of media nonsense.

Either way, you are part of the problem.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 1 year ago

Have fun being fucked up the ass by Paul Ryan, your buddy.

Because that's what you'll get with your strategy.

Blind ideologue zealots like you are the ENTIRE problem. NO amount of practicality comes into play in your puny little brains, comforted that your limited view of the world is safe for you ego. No reality ever gets in. Only your nicely ordered fact-free concept of world.

It gave us Reagan. It gave us destructive libertarian economics. It gave us Nixon and the rightward turn of all politics since him. Hell, it gave us Hitler. But no, ideological zealotry is what you want, and are too stupid to see how dangerous that is. And anyone who points it out is the enemy. Tell me, when your mommy told you to wipe your nose, did you throw a tantrum then, too? (Or can you not remember to last week?)

Now, would you kindly shut the fuck up.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The dumbest thing you could have possibly said. Everything that spews out of your mouth just further proves you cannot think outside of a R/D paradigm, and are just another pawn in the media's games.

You just cant help but to react like a preprogrammed fool whenever someone challenges you, can you?

Sucks being on the other side of the anti-war crowd, doesnt it? Bet you never thought you'd be there, eh? Well you are. Now go look yourself in the face in the mirror and see if you are doing your part in this country to affect change?

I bet you think you really have to campaign hard this time around to get Obama re-elected, too, dont ya?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

I'm curious. Are you as tenacious when you disparage the right for their blind allegiance to party politics? If not, I have to give it to you. You are employing a good tactic. Guilt the left out of voting for their candidate by showing them how imperfect he is. Wow, your PR firm is going to go big time with tactics like that. Unless, you truly believe there is a perfect candidate out there. If that be the case, you, my little friend, epitomize naïveté. If your campaign is directed at both parties, then I somewhat commend you. I just wish you'd fallow up your disparaging remarks with a plan B. Instead, you come off as a provocateur. What better way to get Mittens in the White House than to delusion his competitor's voters.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

vote ron paul

stop excessive military spending

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 1 year ago

His "campaigning" is to split the vote on the left. His audience does not include the right, so he can be disparaging about both parties, but it is only the left his is saying it to. I hope Ryan (whom he has said he likes), Cantor, Boehner and Romney are paying him well enough so he can afford not to have a conscience.

Oh, by the way, he has also come out against the Affordable Care Act, stating that the mandate is unconstitutional, (parroting the right wing talking points) so we can pretty much peg where he's coming from.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the dems and repubs are holding medicare hostage

so they can force the people to give their money to private corporations

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Its always directed at both parties. A vote for Mittens is as big of a waste as a vote for Obama. The only reason no one gets to see that here, there isnt anyone really on here saying to vote for Republicans.

You get a few people that rip the Dems, but not too many on the hard right. I shred them just as hard, especially when I get around some rallies and what not.

There isnt a perfect candidate out there, or a perfect party. But, it goes without saying, that we have to switch things up from time to time. You cant hire the same groups of people, and have ZERO accountablity. Its a recipe for disaster, which is what we have coming.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Sounds like a good read, I'll hunt it down. The R's and D's have controlled this country for so long, they'll do anything they can to keep it. I'm shooting for 2016 but plan on starting now.

Shooz pointed something out a couple days ago. He said even if an Independent got elected he would be stopped from doing anything substantial by the R's and D's already in. Although this is true, isn't this what's going on now? Obama being thwarted by the R's in power? If Obama gets in, that will probably be the same scenario; deadlock.

If an Independent got in, he would also be deadlocked, BUT . . . consider. OWS slowly gains credibility over the following months. Our voice is already being heard. With an Independent in the WH, trying to get OWS reforms, and OWS preaching the same from the streets, the deadlocks caused by the R's and D's in power will be clear as glass. Even the MSM at that point would have to start pointing this out. Nothing would get done those first four years, but by 2016, completely different picture. After 2016, real change could begin.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The biggest benefit of outsiders in there isnt that they can vote for change, because they will be outnumbered.

The big advantage is they will be able to rat out the cozy D/R relationship that the MSM wont report on. Fuck up their whole world. No more secret deals that a bought out media wont report on.

Get in, make some noise, watch the people rally around alternative and real options. It has to start with someone, somewhere.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I have to agree. Four years down the road, after a successful term of raising hell and awareness, the R's and D's will essentially be done, their bullshit exposed. I say run an Independent now, he'll lose, and we then spend the next four years getting the numbers needed for a win in 2016. No reason to wait, especially since Obama's a shoe-in anyway. Get this thing off the ground now. Show where we stand. In my opinion, any OWS vote that goes for Obama or Romney, hurts the credibility of OWS. Votes for Obama make us appear to be a Democratic, pro-Obama movement, playing into the hands of those who are accusing us of this already.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Very true all the way. Run and lose now, is a better experience than simply showing up to the polls and pulling a lever, knowing damn well its a shitty choice.

Its an uphill battle, but one worth fighting. The only one worth anytime in my opinion.