Voted a school board ballot only, in accordance with the law.
Me, too.
+1
Voted a school board ballot only, in accordance with the law.
Me, too.
So you are saying that in that 21% there were Democrats who helped swing the Republican race to Coats? Seriously? Also, wouldn't it be a non-issue if the Republicans got off their can and voted even if it was true?
This year, I'm just going to be voting 3rd party where available & non-incumbent where it's not...Including whoever is running against Dan Coats.
WTF?
All I was saying here is what my November strategy will be. In the senatorial race, I can't vote "non-incumbent" since Bayh is leaving, so I stated that whoever runs against Coats in November will get my vote. I said nothing about Democrats voting in the Republican Primary...I just slightly alluded to some fringe groups advocating such tactics...in both major parties.
D 'n' R: Two heads of the same trick coin.
It's just a shame that (statewide, anyway), almost 8 out of 10 of us that "could" have voted, apparently didn't care enough to get their butts down to the polls to do so.
I had to check no in this poll. I am stuck in Afghan though, with a Command that did not fulfill their obligations...
So what is the excuse for the rest who voted no?!
No, I wanted to intentionally keep it non-partisan. I wasn't trying to make it a "who-is-the-true-conservative-party" type thread or "who-did-what-to-who" type thread.
It was an expression and extension of my disappointment and frustration over the abysmally low turnout for such an important primary, even notwithstanding the fact that this is a "non-presidential" election year. As much of the buzz surrounding a conservative groundswell as there seemed to be (naively visualized in my mind as "waves" of conservatives flocking to their polling places in historically unprecedented numbers), I was hoping to see that reflected in the turnout. There was not, and thus my disappointment.
Regardless of ideology or party affiliation - Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent or any other label, I doubt that too many people would argue that non-participation in any election is an effective means of expressing our political desires and demands. It's just a shame that (statewide, anyway), almost 8 out of 10 of us that "could" have voted, apparently didn't care enough to get their butts down to the polls to do so. Regardless of the political climate, I think such a low turnout is pathetic, and as another poster said, downright "embarrassing."
Subsequently, I was interested to see how many of us here on INGO were vested enough in the goings-on of our country and culture to outshine the statewide turnout. So far, it's running about 85% in favor of those who voted (in some fashion), although admittedly, a self-selective survey and certainly not statistically valid.
So what is the excuse for the rest who voted no?!
I believe your options are Ellsworth (D) or Sink-Burris (L).In the senatorial race, I can't vote "non-incumbent" since Bayh is leaving, so I stated that whoever runs against Coats in November will get my vote..
No, I wanted to intentionally keep it non-partisan.
Regardless of ideology or party affiliation - Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent or any other label, I doubt that too many people would argue that non-participation in any election is an effective means of expressing our political desires and demands.
Unless I'm woefully wrong here...this "election" you speak of was merely the Republicrat/Demolican Primary. If you're not a member of either party, it was just an average, boring day. The election is the first Tuesday in November.
Anyone CAN vote in the primary, but if you're not an R or a D, which ballot is "appropriate?"Thanks, good to know. I guess I didn't know any better. I thought everyone could vote in the primary, you just had to ask for the appropriate ballot.