Within America’s two-party system:
- Fact: Democrats represent the economic interests of the middle and lower classes.
- Fact: Republicans represent the economic interests of the upper classes.
- Fact: The number of people comprising the middle and lower classes far out number those in the upper class.
Opinion: People should vote for the party that best represents their economic interests.
- Fact: We are in a financial crisis.
- Fact: A Republican currently holds office.
- Fact: People tend to vote against the party holding office during a financial crisis.
Opinion: This November 4th, because people will all but be forced to vote for the party that best represents their economic interests due to the economy, a Democrat will win the presidential election.
Theory: If every voter, in every election voted for the candidate that best represented their economic interests, Democrats would continuously maintain office.
Theory: Republicans, aware that they do not represent the economic interests of the large majority of the population, persuade voters with cultural issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, or with promises to downsize government.
- Fact: Republicans, if elected, can do nothing that would ban abortion,
- Fact: Republicans, if elected, can do nothing that would ban same-sex marriage.
- Fact: Republicans holding office over past two decades have actually increased the size of government.
Question: Which party are you voting for on November 4th?
Tags: Election 2008, Obama, Politics
14 Comments
Fact: The two-party system reinforces the interests of the ruling elite
“Fact: Republicans, if elected, can do nothing that would ban abortion,
Fact: Republicans, if elected, can do nothing that would ban same-sex marriage.”
Both wrong. Two, at minimum, more conservative SC justices could overturn Roe v Wade. Fact.
#2 Heard of Oklahoma, Mississippi, Georgia, etc….???? all made same sex marriage illegal as voted on by a republican electorate. Fact.
Opinion : The two party system needs changing. Agreed.
Opinion 2: Give me a worthwhile 3rd party pres candidate, not one just worth voting for because he is not Republican or Democrat. R Paul, Mckinney, Nader…. not up to it. Opinion.
Who is the “ruling elite”???? Is it Barack Obama? Look at where he has come from. Success and ambition does not make someone “elite”, and Obama is certainly not a “ruler”. How do Obama’s proposed policies reinforce those of the “ruling elite” (more a tag phrase than anything tangible) any more than those proposed by a third party candidate. Voting against the two parties on principle seems equally as unreasoned as voting for one of the major parties blindly. Barack Obama is not Hillary Clinton or the legacy inhereting politician, and if he is elite, it is only because he has achieved that on his own merit and intelligence. If Obama were a green party candidate and Mccain a libertarian candidate, are they all of a sudden validated? because their policies aren’t far from either of those 3rd party platforms.
Personally I vote based on a few issues…economic policy, foreign policy and environmental policy. Almost everything else should be a personal choice allowed by the government. It is too bad all the real issues get ignored. Oh well.
the other fact ignored here is that people do not always vote with their current economic interests. the reason so many people vote republican is due to the American dream. it allows anyone, no matter their current financial status, to feel they will some day be rich.
Because of that, many people view themselves as future rich now, so they vote to protect the money that they might have some day. That is where the republicans get their real power from. Convincing the poor that not only could they be rich, but that they can become rich while supporting policies that are likely to make their road there far more difficult.
That being said, in this economy more and more people are seeming themselves as poor, even the middle class, as they are seeing themselves as future poor. for that reason I think Obama is taking the white house.
In response to Todd’s comment:
Appointing two conservative justices which must be approved by the current Democratically controlled Senate, having a case appealed to the Supreme Court, the court granting cert, the court disrupting the common law doctrine of stare decisis and overturning Roe v. Wade is not Republicans banning abortion. To be fair, the issue is at best barely even indirectly within the control of any branch other than the judiciary, which is bound by the constitution. The point is that people vote Republican based on the abortion issue without understanding its full legal implications. Many are shocked that after 8 years of Bush, it is still legal. Meanwhile, they are out of a job, house, and their retirement is dwindling. But hey, let’s keeping voting for the pro-life candidate because my pastor is illegally telling me that if i don’t, i’m going to hell!
Regarding banning same-sex marriage, forgive the ambiguity. I am referring to the movement to amend the U.S. Constitution. This article is referring to the two parties in terms of the Presidency.
I like some of the points…
In my opinion neither of these candidates has spoken truthfully about how we got into this financial mess (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) and neither has spoken truthfully about how we will get out of this mess and the sacrifices we all will have to make.
John McCain’s is lost. He doesn’t know who he is and I think he is just ready to lose. In fact, I would argue that no republican can even tell you his plan to change the economy… I think his answer was energy independence?!?!?
Obama will get into office and blame his lack of not being productive on “the mess he came into” and blame everything on Bush and republicans.
As a person I do believe you need to vote for what is best for you and the goodness of others. As a business owner, Obama’s health care initiative is great in theory but practically will not work. Too many business owners (not me) need to see margins or they cut jobs or cut wages.
Regardless of any of this, accountability is lost in this system. I am much more likely to vote for someone that gives me the truth and is willing to admit that their party has failed the public just as much as the other.
In response to Frank-
I agree…
I think their are a number of policies that Obama supports that would reinforce the interests of the ruling elite vesus that the 3rd Party candiates are not for.
One is that he is not in favor of universal health care coverage. This policy only benefits those with a lot of money. Nader and Mckinney are for universal health care
Another is that he supports our imperialist foreign policy which wastes billions of dollars a year on maintaining hundreds of bases, invading countries, nation building and buying weapons. He has proposed increasing our military budget. This policy props up foreign leaders and forces them to follow are economic model which benefits the elite. Nader, Mckinney and Bob Barr are all for reducing are military budget, all that money could benefit non-elite people.
Try backing up a “FACT” with a legitimate source, these are all opinions. Everyone needs to wake up and realize that ALL PARTIES are responsible for the financial crisis that we are in..its not solely because of “de-regulation” or “threat of tax increases”, its a combination of everything.
You can make opinions about who will be the next president, and most of these contributors are probably right, but check in 2 years from now and comment on whether Obama is truly looking out for the middle class. Obama’s health care plan does not benefit the middle class…if mid-size businesses would step up and provide the health care that is available to their employees already the middle class would be fine. His plan solely supports the lower class. If someone would step in and regulate the funding of the lower class to make sure that people are not taking advantage of the systems that are available, we would be in a much better state all around.
Oh and cutting military spending to benefit the “non-elite”…that is laughable….that worked wonders during Clinton’s administration.
First of all, not all Parties are responsible for the financial crisis, The Democrats and Republicans are. The Greens, Libertarians and Independents are not. Ralph Nader even predicted the banking crisis two months before. http://nader.org/index.php?/archives/1427-Letter-to-Senator-Dodd-and-Congressman-Frank.html
Secondly, the military budget did go down slightly through Bush I and Clinton’s first term; but in Clinton’s 2nd term he raised it dramatically back to its record height during the Cold war.
“The surplus which was to have been targeted for education, Social Security, Medicare, and for the poor will be used to fight U.S. provoked “terrorism.”
Would these have benefited the non-elite?
http://www.twf.org/News/Y1999/0118-RobPoor.html
I applaud your efforts to promote “alternative” parties but let’s be honest, there are only two parties that make decisions in this country. And a prediction 2 months ahead of time for a crisis this large? To me, that is not much of a prediction, people had seen this coming for years, not months.
As for military spending, I am shocked that you would reference a site like this for yoru statistics, that is unbelievable. I would recommend that you attain your stats/references from an actual record, not a left wing propaganda site. Clinton’s spending was down $60 + Billion from 92 – 2000….adding inflation, that is a huge decrease over 8 years.
You can’t ridicule my source without leaving one of your own!
Anywho, the question this article posed was who are you going to vote for. Who are you V?
I will be voting for Barack Steve Obama.
One Trackback
[...] Presedential Election Prediction [...]