The U.S. Election - Page 2 - Clubhouse

Dodge

14/10/2004 at 16:45

I don't think I'd want to exchange letters with someone too stupid to know not to vote for Bush and I wouldn't feel comfortable endorsing someone like Kerry either. Isn't there a Raving Lonny Party in the US*?

*apart from the Republicans

lucrece

14/10/2004 at 16:51

Oh go on Dodge, I bet you could write a very persuasive--if colorful--letter. Did you see, they'll publish the 3 best ones in the Guardian? "DODGE" in bright neon letters, like "Elvis". I can see it now...

TwoDogs

14/10/2004 at 16:59

Oh..its a Guardian thing...that explains why its such a dumb idea!!
Sorry, Lucrece, but we can't really have a big impact can we....I wouldn't listen if I got something from say Australia telling me who to vote for!

lucrece

14/10/2004 at 17:03

Well look at it this way: they're registered to vote which means that they are more likely to, especially in this election.

They have one of two choices. They are stuck on whom to pick. They are LOOKING for reasons to ditch one. You never know. Bottom line is it certainly can't hurt and can possibly help.

TwoDogs

14/10/2004 at 17:09

How do you know they're looking for reasons to ditch one? Most people just vote they way they've always voted...just cos a region is marginal doesn't mean that everyone there is swapping who they vote for, it just means there's equal numbers of people who've always voted that way.

Gavo

14/10/2004 at 17:26

Can I lobby the NRA to shoot all Bush supporters? I'm sure it's their constitutional right.

lucrece

14/10/2004 at 17:28

You are right TD, but this election in particular is making many people vote against their party, myself included.

Muttley

14/10/2004 at 17:33

There's enough spam email in the world without us adding to it. It's their election, they can decide for themselves how to vote. I don't need a Yank to tell me how to vote in our elections.

Sorry lucrece, but this is one crap idea!

Dodge

14/10/2004 at 17:43

I do like the idea of flooding unsuspecting Americans mail boxes but by the time the letters get over there the election will be over. Writing random rubbish to random Americans has it's appeal though, far better than mob flashin..............or flash mobbing.................or whatever the **** it's called.

Tmap

18/10/2004 at 17:45

Why do you think you are better placed to judge who to vote for than Americans themselves?

If I was American, I'd probably be offended in being lectured to about democracy by someone whose head of state is a hereditary monarch.

Dodge

18/10/2004 at 18:52

lu is an American, assuming your post was aimed at her.

Tmap

18/10/2004 at 19:25

That article is in a British newspaper and is specifically aimed at non-Americans.

It is based on the assertion that Americans only vote for Bush because they are stupid or ill-educated.

I think that's a bit rich coming from a country with a House of Lords, a Queen, poor participation rates in local elections, low rates of participation in college education, and high secondary education failure rates.

AndyPandy.

18/10/2004 at 19:57

They published some reaction to this campaign in the Guardian today under the headline "Dear Limey Assholes". It seems some Americans were extremely offended by the idea of us telling them how to vote and many referred to the fact that everyone in Britain has yellow teeth!

Gavo

18/10/2004 at 20:04

Although the one who thinks that we need to wait 18 months to get a tooth capped could do with a few slaps.

I'd rather have yellow teeth than obesity, if we're generalising here.

FishAreBest

18/10/2004 at 20:16

I thought some of the replies in the Guardian were rather entertaining. Where does this yellow teeth thing come from anyhow?

One of my claims to fame is having had a letter published in the Guardian. An anti-war, anti-Bush one at that. I have it proudly framed in my office.

BTW - has there ever been a US election where the candidate with the most money *didn't* win?

Dodge

18/10/2004 at 20:45

For all our faults we didn't elect someone like Bush as our Premier. The man can not string together a coherent sentence together and has to be one of the worst ever public speakers in history*.

*not that that is necessarily a great recommendation, Hitler was a fantastic, rabble-rousing orator

Dodge

18/10/2004 at 20:45

...where'd that other "together" come from?

Muttley

18/10/2004 at 21:37

I realise I may be in a minority of one here, but I don't think that George W Bush is stoopid. He's no Einstein, granted, and I'm no admirer of him, but you don't get to be president of the US of A by being thick.

Call it the Boris Johnson factor. He's no buffoon either - you don't get to be editor of a national mag and given the safest parliamentary seat in the country by being an idiot.

George W has got all of you fooled.

Dodge

18/10/2004 at 21:47

I didn't say he was thick, just a carp public speaker. As the voters would judge him on his presentations you have to wonder what they were thinking of by voting for someone who comes across the way he does.

Gavo

18/10/2004 at 22:25

He's not stupid but thick for someone with that level of education. But then not everyone can use Daddy as head of the CIA to get them an Ivy League education.

I see him as a puppet leader allowing his dad's friends & Texas business peeps unlimited influence. Rove is the real power behind the presidency. Now if Bush would have paired up with Quayle - that would have been worth seeing in action.