Freepers nervous about their own voting for Edwards

[mot78]

To: GulliverSwift
If true, I think this is really stupid. Edwards would be more a threat to Bush than New England liberal Kerry ever could be.

5 posted on 02/17/2004 8:24:36 PM PST by Jorge
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1080247/posts

Take this quote to heart Edwards supporters :-)

[lcordero]

1. the word of the day in Wisconsin was JOBS

[jpgpenn]

13. the words of the day in Wis. were...

opposing party manipulation!

[Padraig18]

2. See: Rule 7. n/t

[mot78]

3. Rule 7 has to do with news doesn't it?

[Padraig18]

5. I'd suggest reading it carefully. n/;t

[Maddy McCall]

4. Please no Free Republic posts here.

I don't go to the website--EVER--and I don't want DU poluted with freeper posts.

[dawgman]

6. Just what the Dems need: a candidate who appeals to fucking Repukes.

:eyes: :eyes:

[PROGRESSIVE1]

7. Agreed. Vote Kerry!

.

[Padraig18]

8. Yeah, why would we want their nasty old votes in the GE?

God knows they don't count 1:1 like ours do...:eyes:

[dawgman]

9. Why would we want a candidate that appeals to them?

We are the opposition party remember. If you nominate a repub to run against the repubs then wherein that choice is there real choice?

If you really want repub votes why not start a draft Zell Miller campaign?

[JohnLocke]

10. We don't need no stinkin' crossover appeal!

:eyes: :eyes:

------------



:yourock:

[Zynx]

11. Why should we write off 45% of the country?

That leaves us with a fairly small margin of error doesn't it?

[dawgman]

12. by 45% of the country you actually mean 22.5% of the country

only 50% of us vote. Why not start trying to appeal to the unwashed non-voting 50% masses? Why not ask them why they don't vote and try to figure out what would get them to the polls? I bet if you gave them a clear distinction between the parties you could get some people out. A post of mine from last night:

You know what? I have given "well-reasoned" arguments before,



feels like a million times before. Why do any of them deserve to have a spot in the debates? The answer is that the country needs the choice. Why should California or New York NOT have a chance to have these extraordinary men speak to them about their concerns? Because Iowa, Wisconsin and New Hampshire were told by the party and the media that they needed vote for someone that posessed the ever ethereal quality known as "electibility?" Who the Hell is CNN and FOX News to tell ME who is electible or not?

AS and DK are the only candidates that have any shot at motivating the disillusioned 50% of non-voting Americans to get out and vote. The R's and D's fight over 10% of "swing voters" while completely ignoring those that could permanently tip the balance.

Give people a choice for fuck's sake, make them excited to take part in the political process. Get them excited to vote for someone who will care about them, not big business. Give them something other than Homestyle OJ and Pulp Free OJ and maybe they will drink.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=351149&mesg_id=353008

[robsul82]

14. We kinda need SOME Republican votes to win, dude...

Candidates cannot survive of pure party voting alone...

Later.

RJS

[dawgman]

16. do you people even read the threads you respond to?

look at my responses to everyone else. Dude.

[bushwakker]

15. What's wrong with New England liberals?

I don't apologize for being a New England liberal - and neither will John Kerry.